This has become the repeated meme by Unions and the Left in general: Right to Work legislation, which stops unions from forcing employees from joining the union and paying dues as a requirement of employment, takes away "Workers Rights."
Even a momentary examination of this claim will tell you this is completely bogus. What "rights" are being infringed upon? Can workers no longer join unions in Right to Work states? No, they're still perfectly welcome to join unions.What about the right of unions to collectively bargain for their members. Does Right to Work legislation stop that? Nope. Does Right to Work legislation repeal legal protections for workers like workplace safety laws, overtime pay requirements, minimum wage laws, or any other legitimate union victory? Not even a little bit.
The only thing being "infringed" upon is the ability of Big Labor to force people to join their ranks. As a matter of fact, as the label suggests, these laws gives a new right to the worker: the right to decide IF they want to join the union or not. Workers in these 24 states can now choose whether or not to pay union dues and thus receive union benefits. It's entirely up to them.
Claiming that Right to Work legislation takes away workers rights is like Netflix claiming "if there's no law requiring people to join Netflix, the government is taking away people's ability to have movies delivered to their home by mail!" Nobody is required to join Netflix, but it's available to any adult willing to pay the membership fee. If you agree to join Netflix and pay the monthly membership fee, you get the benefits of membership, namely movies mailed to your hours or streaming online. Not requiring that membership of all adults with televisions and DVD players does not stop anyone from joining Netflix and thus getting the benefits.
Any person in any state, whether Right to Work state or not, who works in auto manufacturing is still welcome to join United Auto Workers. Any teacher in any state, whether a Right to Work state or not, is welcome to join the Teacher's Union.
In a Right to Work states, workers who are eligible are still perfectly able to join the union. They are welcome to join the union, and thus get the benefits of union membership. They are also welcome to choose NOT to join the union and thus forgo the benefits of union membership. It's that simple. Nobody's rights are infringed upon. Period.
Monday, December 31, 2012
Thursday, December 27, 2012
Best of Biblical Conservatism - Reality Check: Liberal Tax Policy Has Not and Will Not Succeed
This
week, I'll be away on my annual Christmas Vacation. So today and
Thursday, our new publishing days, I'll be posting Best of Biblical
Conservatism articles that I feel are pertinent to our current moment in
time. Merry Christmas!
Liberals have been stepping it up recently their cries to fix our deficit problems in states and on the federal level with the same solution this bunch has been promoting for years, "tax the rich." Between cries at protests and dear old Michael Moore stating that the money owned by the wealthy is a "natural resource," (1) we've been bombarded by the same pie-in-the-sky easy solutions which require no sacrifice from those who cry for it. Just tax someone else more, because "they can afford it", then all our troubles will be solved.
I've gone into great detail on the immorality of simply soaking those in our society who produce and succeed for more tax revenue (2) as well as the fiscal failures of those policies and the fiscal successes of reduced tax rates as it pertains to both the economy and to actual net tax revenue (3). For now, however, I'm going to set these issues aside as I continue to present a preponderance of evidence against these policies over time to instead point a logical fallacy which continues amongst liberals. Buckle up, friends, because we're about to take a trip to a place I like to call The Real World!
Warning: Entrance into The Real World requires you to consider consequences of all actions. In The Real World, every action has a consequence. We cannot, and will not, pretend that by instituting a particular fiscal policy, nothing will happen save for the targeted goals of the policy. You've been warned.
Let's pretend that you are a business owner. You own the Acme Widget factory, a company that provides fine quality widgets, cogs and sprockets to 10% of all businesses in your state. Your business employs 500 individuals with an average salary of $45,000 per year (4), giving you a payroll $22.5 Million annually. That means your company's employees pay the federal government approximately $5.625 Million each year in taxes (5). Let's also pretend that your state has a 10% state income tax, meaning that your employees pay that state $2.25 Million in taxes to that state. This company's gross revenue is $40 Million each year (6). The company's building costs, operating costs, benefits costs, complying with federal regulations, etc comes to $12.5 Million. The company is making a reasonable net profit (7) on the widgets, cogs and sprockets of $5 Million each year, a 12.5% profit, while employing 500 people and paying those people a salary which pays $11.25 Million each year in aggregate tax revenue to the Federal and State government toward the things the government is currently funding (8).
Let us now pretend that the state government decides to place a 10% tax on the corporate value of all businesses within that state in an effort to close a state budget deficit. The Acme Widget Company is now assessed a $4 Million annual tax as a result. As the owner, you conclude that your company needs to continue making a 12.5% profit for it to be worth having a business. After all, you didn't open this company just to give people jobs and benefits. You took a risk that you could create widgets, cogs and sprockets for more money that it costs to produce. Each year you put up $40 Million and end up with $45 at the end of the year. But now your PROFITS are being cut not 10% but 80% as a result of this tax, because taxes are based not on profit but on the total worth of the company.
You now have some options. In order to maintain profitability, you can lay off some workers. Laying off 100 employees will close the gap. If you do that, however, you are now removing THEIR tax revenue from the state and federal government because they are no longer receiving a paycheck. Thus the loss to state government is $1,000,000 in tax revenue, meaning government's net gain in funding ISN'T $4 Million, it's now $3.6 Million due to the lack of tax revenue from your now unemployed workers.
You are also now making 20% less widgets, cogs and sprockets for the businesses who use them, but that's okay because those companies have also had to lay off workers to help keep THEIR company profitable due to this new tax, which leads to the unemployment of 10% of their employees and the loss of THEIR tax revenue.One of your clients, for example, the Johnson Air Conditioner Company, is now producing 10% fewer air conditioners and are now having to charge more per air conditioner to maintain THEIR profitability, causing the cost of a unit to go up. This in turn causes sales of air conditioners to drop 10% because people at a certain level decide to go without. This leads to Sears employing less air conditioner salesmen, and the subsequent loss of THEIR tax revenue. Oh, and don't forget, since your company now has 20% fewer workers, you're company is now producing 20% less and bringing in 20% less profits which reduces your company's total gross income which reduces the total tax receipts the state is receiving from you, because the tax is a percentage. If the gross revenue of your company drops, so does the amount you are paying in taxes.
All of a sudden, there is less money coming into the government than before. They intended to close a deficit, but instead ended up eliminating taxpayers and causing less revenue to come in. To deal with their mounting deficits, they decide to raise taxes on corporations again and the process begins anew.
See, here in the Real World, we don't pretend that all economic decisions have static consequences. We recognize that the person who is taxed will do something to compensate instead of just taking the loss. And, of course, there is one other thing this business can decide to do. They can decide to move their company all together! Perhaps they decide to move their company to a state like Florida where there is no corporate tax and no state income tax! So now your state isn't just losing 20% of the employees' tax revenue they receive but now they are losing 100% of revenue, $2.25 Million each year, in tax revenue from that company.
Or maybe, as the owner of the Acme Widget Company, you decide that the taxes on both the state and federal level are ridiculous, so you decide to pull the company out of America entirely and set up shop in Mexico. You are free to do that, government cannot stop you from it. Now, between the federal and state governments, there is a loss of $12.25 Million in tax revenue because every single employee of your company is no longer paying taxes because they don't have a job at the Acme Widget Company. Further, because Acme is no longer there to supply your widget, cog and sprocket needs, Johnson Air Conditioner has to find a new supplier which costs them 20% more in parts. In order to maintain their profit margins, Johnson has to lay off some employees, produce less air conditioners, raise their prices, and the cycle begins again.
You see, the problem with Liberal Economic policy is that it is based upon unrealistic expectations of the reactions of the business owners. The people who instituted this 10% corporate tax expected to simply receive $4 Million in additional tax revenue but instead caused a chain reaction which removed part or all of the tax revenue this company was creating through it's employees taxes. The owners of this business are free people. They are not serfs of the land required to remain in the state that they are currently located or the nation they are currently located. The numbers in my example may be arbitrary but the reactions of the business are not. This is what has happened and what does happen when business taxes are increased.
Those of us who live in the Real World don't have the luxury of pretending that these businesses will simply decide to eat the loss, make less profit and continue to provide the same products in the same quantities and continue to employ the same number of people. It's not really going to happen, and there's no way government can force them to do it.
Friends, the above example explains why Capitalism is the only financial system that works while still protecting the fundamental rights and freedom of individuals. Socialism and Communism require either people to act contrary to their nature and be 100% selfless without any consideration to consequences to themselves, or employing a command government which takes away rights. For Communism to NOT take away any person's rights, individuals have to willing take less in an effort for the greater good. This is inherently contrary to human nature.
People under most circumstances do not intentionally harm themselves in order to help others. There are certain, very noble exceptions like military service. To those of you who have served our country in this capacity, thank you for keeping us free. I appreciate you more than you could know. Yet we must note that that sacrifice is in order to protect those other individuals rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The vast majority of people do not intentionally harm themselves to ensure that government can continue spending and spending and spending. If they would, we wouldn't have deficits in government, and these Liberal economic policies would've worked previously when they have been tried. They haven't. Also, no amount of harping and scolding by Liberals has lead to these employers and producers to wanting to do themselves financial harm. Once again, since you can't force them to, we are at an impasse.
Furthermore, for these policies to be successful, one must also expect Government to behave responsibly. History has shown that an unchecked, irresponsible government that gets used to spending 50% more than they take in in revenue will continue to spend proportionally as they see an increase in revenue. I have given the example before of the Reagan years. Under Reagan, net tax receipts (that's the total amount money in dollars and cents received in taxes by the Federal Government for those of you from Palm Beach County, FL) doubled. Deficits, however, expanded. Since revenue doubled, plain old fashioned logic tells us that the problem wasn't insufficient revenue...we had twice what we had before! Had government simply MAINTAINED it's spending levels, we would have had a balanced budget. Yet government did not spend less. They spent $1.80 for every $1 that was brought in...the exact same proportional spending they had spent before the increased revenue.
At that time, government was used to spending 180% of tax revenue. Today, government is spending about 200% of what it takes in, requiring us to borrow the same amount that we take in in taxes. The problem is government is used to spending twice what they bring in as tax revenue. History has shown us that government, left unchecked, will not spend less with more money. They will simply increase spending on par with the increases and the problem continues. In fact, it becomes proportionally larger!
However, there is another side to this concept. What if Government decides to CUT taxes on these businesses. Let's say we keep the same basic numbers. Again, you own the Acme Widget factory, a company that provides fine quality widgets, cogs and sprockets to 10% of all businesses in your state. Your business employs 400 individuals with an average salary of $45,000 per year, giving you a payroll $18 Million annually. Your company's annual worth is now $39 Million. Your company is paying a 10% corporate tax to the state at $3.9 Million. You're making the same 12.5% profit on your investment, a net profit of $3.75 Million. Suddenly a Conservative state legislature and a Conservative Governor take office. They want to create a good climate for business in your state. They permanently repeal that 10% corporate tax.
Since you are a good businessman, you realize that your business now has $3.9 million in new capital for the next year. You could pocket that $3.9 Million and spend it on whatever you like, at which point everything you buy is going into the economy because someone has to make the product you buy or provide the service you buy. You could stick that money in the bank where your bank uses that money to give loans to other people to buy a home or a car or to start their own business. You could invest it in other companies via the stock market. Under any circumstances, that money is working in the economy. But perhaps instead you decide that you could invest that money into your own business. So you invest that money right into your business.
For starters, you hire 85 people in order to produce more widgets, cogs and sprockets. Because you have more people on the job you can make more widgets, cogs and sprockets every day. So you figure you can now sell those widgets, cogs and sprockets for less a piece so you can undercut your competition and gain market share.So now your price is lower than the widgets, cogs and sprockets company down the street. More businesses buy their widgets, cogs and sprockets from you because of your great prices. Business rises another 10%, so now you have 10% more revenue ($4 Million more). Since the last reinvestment into your business was so successful, you decide to invest that money into the company as well. You hire 85 more people at $45,000 per year which causes you to produce more, sell each widget, cog and sprocket at less, allowing you to lower your prices.
All of a sudden, more people are working. At this stage you've hired a total of 170 new people at $45,000 per year. Each of those new hires who you are now paying $45,000 per year are paying 10% in state income tax for a total of $7.65 Million in new tax revenue. That's more than you were paying in corporate tax...nearly twice! Let's not forget that these employees, who were previously unemployed, now have more disposable income. They're more likely to go out to eat, to buy a new car, to go on vacation. Someone has to make and serve that dinner, someone has to make that car and sell that car and service that car, someone has to book that vacation, someone has to fly the plane to the vacation, someone is a flight attendant, someone has to work the desk at the hotel.
I'm not making this stuff up. This is what historically happens when the producers in the world have new capital available to put into their business. The majority of large business owners with successful businesses see their business as a sound investment. If their business is steadily turning a 12.5% profit, they believe that they can, over time, increase whatever new money they now have by 12.5% over time. And remember, even if they do keep that money for themselves it still goes to work in the economy. The only place where money doesn't go to work for the health of the economy is in the hands of government, because government spends without producing anything.
Once you look at economic policies based upon the results and the reasonably expected consequences of those actions, it becomes crystal clear what the best plans. The good intentions of liberal polices cannot be logically expected to come to fruition. It's just not reasonable to expect. Economic policy consequences don't happen in Ideal World, where Liberals think up these policies. Economic policy consequences occur in The Real World.
So let me ask you something: In the Real World (where you do in fact reside), what set of economic policies are going to yield a robust, growing economy with low unemployment? Good. Now if you want a healthy, robust economy, I think we both know what way you should be voting. Vote for good results, not for good intentions. Because compassion of result is what really matters, not compassion of intent!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Michael Moore Thinks Wealthy People's Money Is A 'Natural Resource' And Should Be Shared
(2) It's Not the Government's Money: Why how much money a person has DOES NOT MATTER
by Christopher C. Bastedo
(3) Conservatives are the Center by Christopher C. Bastedo
(4) Average Salary. Some make less, some more.
(5) Based upon an average Federal tax rate of 15% on the average salary of $45,000 per year
(6) Gross Revenue = All Revenue Brought in Over One Year
(7) Net Profit = Gross Revenue - All Business Expenses
(8) Figure obtained by calculating 15% of payroll to Federal Tax and 10% of payroll to State Tax
Liberals have been stepping it up recently their cries to fix our deficit problems in states and on the federal level with the same solution this bunch has been promoting for years, "tax the rich." Between cries at protests and dear old Michael Moore stating that the money owned by the wealthy is a "natural resource," (1) we've been bombarded by the same pie-in-the-sky easy solutions which require no sacrifice from those who cry for it. Just tax someone else more, because "they can afford it", then all our troubles will be solved.
I've gone into great detail on the immorality of simply soaking those in our society who produce and succeed for more tax revenue (2) as well as the fiscal failures of those policies and the fiscal successes of reduced tax rates as it pertains to both the economy and to actual net tax revenue (3). For now, however, I'm going to set these issues aside as I continue to present a preponderance of evidence against these policies over time to instead point a logical fallacy which continues amongst liberals. Buckle up, friends, because we're about to take a trip to a place I like to call The Real World!
Warning: Entrance into The Real World requires you to consider consequences of all actions. In The Real World, every action has a consequence. We cannot, and will not, pretend that by instituting a particular fiscal policy, nothing will happen save for the targeted goals of the policy. You've been warned.
Let's pretend that you are a business owner. You own the Acme Widget factory, a company that provides fine quality widgets, cogs and sprockets to 10% of all businesses in your state. Your business employs 500 individuals with an average salary of $45,000 per year (4), giving you a payroll $22.5 Million annually. That means your company's employees pay the federal government approximately $5.625 Million each year in taxes (5). Let's also pretend that your state has a 10% state income tax, meaning that your employees pay that state $2.25 Million in taxes to that state. This company's gross revenue is $40 Million each year (6). The company's building costs, operating costs, benefits costs, complying with federal regulations, etc comes to $12.5 Million. The company is making a reasonable net profit (7) on the widgets, cogs and sprockets of $5 Million each year, a 12.5% profit, while employing 500 people and paying those people a salary which pays $11.25 Million each year in aggregate tax revenue to the Federal and State government toward the things the government is currently funding (8).
Let us now pretend that the state government decides to place a 10% tax on the corporate value of all businesses within that state in an effort to close a state budget deficit. The Acme Widget Company is now assessed a $4 Million annual tax as a result. As the owner, you conclude that your company needs to continue making a 12.5% profit for it to be worth having a business. After all, you didn't open this company just to give people jobs and benefits. You took a risk that you could create widgets, cogs and sprockets for more money that it costs to produce. Each year you put up $40 Million and end up with $45 at the end of the year. But now your PROFITS are being cut not 10% but 80% as a result of this tax, because taxes are based not on profit but on the total worth of the company.
You now have some options. In order to maintain profitability, you can lay off some workers. Laying off 100 employees will close the gap. If you do that, however, you are now removing THEIR tax revenue from the state and federal government because they are no longer receiving a paycheck. Thus the loss to state government is $1,000,000 in tax revenue, meaning government's net gain in funding ISN'T $4 Million, it's now $3.6 Million due to the lack of tax revenue from your now unemployed workers.
You are also now making 20% less widgets, cogs and sprockets for the businesses who use them, but that's okay because those companies have also had to lay off workers to help keep THEIR company profitable due to this new tax, which leads to the unemployment of 10% of their employees and the loss of THEIR tax revenue.One of your clients, for example, the Johnson Air Conditioner Company, is now producing 10% fewer air conditioners and are now having to charge more per air conditioner to maintain THEIR profitability, causing the cost of a unit to go up. This in turn causes sales of air conditioners to drop 10% because people at a certain level decide to go without. This leads to Sears employing less air conditioner salesmen, and the subsequent loss of THEIR tax revenue. Oh, and don't forget, since your company now has 20% fewer workers, you're company is now producing 20% less and bringing in 20% less profits which reduces your company's total gross income which reduces the total tax receipts the state is receiving from you, because the tax is a percentage. If the gross revenue of your company drops, so does the amount you are paying in taxes.
All of a sudden, there is less money coming into the government than before. They intended to close a deficit, but instead ended up eliminating taxpayers and causing less revenue to come in. To deal with their mounting deficits, they decide to raise taxes on corporations again and the process begins anew.
See, here in the Real World, we don't pretend that all economic decisions have static consequences. We recognize that the person who is taxed will do something to compensate instead of just taking the loss. And, of course, there is one other thing this business can decide to do. They can decide to move their company all together! Perhaps they decide to move their company to a state like Florida where there is no corporate tax and no state income tax! So now your state isn't just losing 20% of the employees' tax revenue they receive but now they are losing 100% of revenue, $2.25 Million each year, in tax revenue from that company.
Or maybe, as the owner of the Acme Widget Company, you decide that the taxes on both the state and federal level are ridiculous, so you decide to pull the company out of America entirely and set up shop in Mexico. You are free to do that, government cannot stop you from it. Now, between the federal and state governments, there is a loss of $12.25 Million in tax revenue because every single employee of your company is no longer paying taxes because they don't have a job at the Acme Widget Company. Further, because Acme is no longer there to supply your widget, cog and sprocket needs, Johnson Air Conditioner has to find a new supplier which costs them 20% more in parts. In order to maintain their profit margins, Johnson has to lay off some employees, produce less air conditioners, raise their prices, and the cycle begins again.
You see, the problem with Liberal Economic policy is that it is based upon unrealistic expectations of the reactions of the business owners. The people who instituted this 10% corporate tax expected to simply receive $4 Million in additional tax revenue but instead caused a chain reaction which removed part or all of the tax revenue this company was creating through it's employees taxes. The owners of this business are free people. They are not serfs of the land required to remain in the state that they are currently located or the nation they are currently located. The numbers in my example may be arbitrary but the reactions of the business are not. This is what has happened and what does happen when business taxes are increased.
Those of us who live in the Real World don't have the luxury of pretending that these businesses will simply decide to eat the loss, make less profit and continue to provide the same products in the same quantities and continue to employ the same number of people. It's not really going to happen, and there's no way government can force them to do it.
Friends, the above example explains why Capitalism is the only financial system that works while still protecting the fundamental rights and freedom of individuals. Socialism and Communism require either people to act contrary to their nature and be 100% selfless without any consideration to consequences to themselves, or employing a command government which takes away rights. For Communism to NOT take away any person's rights, individuals have to willing take less in an effort for the greater good. This is inherently contrary to human nature.
People under most circumstances do not intentionally harm themselves in order to help others. There are certain, very noble exceptions like military service. To those of you who have served our country in this capacity, thank you for keeping us free. I appreciate you more than you could know. Yet we must note that that sacrifice is in order to protect those other individuals rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The vast majority of people do not intentionally harm themselves to ensure that government can continue spending and spending and spending. If they would, we wouldn't have deficits in government, and these Liberal economic policies would've worked previously when they have been tried. They haven't. Also, no amount of harping and scolding by Liberals has lead to these employers and producers to wanting to do themselves financial harm. Once again, since you can't force them to, we are at an impasse.
Furthermore, for these policies to be successful, one must also expect Government to behave responsibly. History has shown that an unchecked, irresponsible government that gets used to spending 50% more than they take in in revenue will continue to spend proportionally as they see an increase in revenue. I have given the example before of the Reagan years. Under Reagan, net tax receipts (that's the total amount money in dollars and cents received in taxes by the Federal Government for those of you from Palm Beach County, FL) doubled. Deficits, however, expanded. Since revenue doubled, plain old fashioned logic tells us that the problem wasn't insufficient revenue...we had twice what we had before! Had government simply MAINTAINED it's spending levels, we would have had a balanced budget. Yet government did not spend less. They spent $1.80 for every $1 that was brought in...the exact same proportional spending they had spent before the increased revenue.
At that time, government was used to spending 180% of tax revenue. Today, government is spending about 200% of what it takes in, requiring us to borrow the same amount that we take in in taxes. The problem is government is used to spending twice what they bring in as tax revenue. History has shown us that government, left unchecked, will not spend less with more money. They will simply increase spending on par with the increases and the problem continues. In fact, it becomes proportionally larger!
However, there is another side to this concept. What if Government decides to CUT taxes on these businesses. Let's say we keep the same basic numbers. Again, you own the Acme Widget factory, a company that provides fine quality widgets, cogs and sprockets to 10% of all businesses in your state. Your business employs 400 individuals with an average salary of $45,000 per year, giving you a payroll $18 Million annually. Your company's annual worth is now $39 Million. Your company is paying a 10% corporate tax to the state at $3.9 Million. You're making the same 12.5% profit on your investment, a net profit of $3.75 Million. Suddenly a Conservative state legislature and a Conservative Governor take office. They want to create a good climate for business in your state. They permanently repeal that 10% corporate tax.
Since you are a good businessman, you realize that your business now has $3.9 million in new capital for the next year. You could pocket that $3.9 Million and spend it on whatever you like, at which point everything you buy is going into the economy because someone has to make the product you buy or provide the service you buy. You could stick that money in the bank where your bank uses that money to give loans to other people to buy a home or a car or to start their own business. You could invest it in other companies via the stock market. Under any circumstances, that money is working in the economy. But perhaps instead you decide that you could invest that money into your own business. So you invest that money right into your business.
For starters, you hire 85 people in order to produce more widgets, cogs and sprockets. Because you have more people on the job you can make more widgets, cogs and sprockets every day. So you figure you can now sell those widgets, cogs and sprockets for less a piece so you can undercut your competition and gain market share.So now your price is lower than the widgets, cogs and sprockets company down the street. More businesses buy their widgets, cogs and sprockets from you because of your great prices. Business rises another 10%, so now you have 10% more revenue ($4 Million more). Since the last reinvestment into your business was so successful, you decide to invest that money into the company as well. You hire 85 more people at $45,000 per year which causes you to produce more, sell each widget, cog and sprocket at less, allowing you to lower your prices.
All of a sudden, more people are working. At this stage you've hired a total of 170 new people at $45,000 per year. Each of those new hires who you are now paying $45,000 per year are paying 10% in state income tax for a total of $7.65 Million in new tax revenue. That's more than you were paying in corporate tax...nearly twice! Let's not forget that these employees, who were previously unemployed, now have more disposable income. They're more likely to go out to eat, to buy a new car, to go on vacation. Someone has to make and serve that dinner, someone has to make that car and sell that car and service that car, someone has to book that vacation, someone has to fly the plane to the vacation, someone is a flight attendant, someone has to work the desk at the hotel.
I'm not making this stuff up. This is what historically happens when the producers in the world have new capital available to put into their business. The majority of large business owners with successful businesses see their business as a sound investment. If their business is steadily turning a 12.5% profit, they believe that they can, over time, increase whatever new money they now have by 12.5% over time. And remember, even if they do keep that money for themselves it still goes to work in the economy. The only place where money doesn't go to work for the health of the economy is in the hands of government, because government spends without producing anything.
Once you look at economic policies based upon the results and the reasonably expected consequences of those actions, it becomes crystal clear what the best plans. The good intentions of liberal polices cannot be logically expected to come to fruition. It's just not reasonable to expect. Economic policy consequences don't happen in Ideal World, where Liberals think up these policies. Economic policy consequences occur in The Real World.
So let me ask you something: In the Real World (where you do in fact reside), what set of economic policies are going to yield a robust, growing economy with low unemployment? Good. Now if you want a healthy, robust economy, I think we both know what way you should be voting. Vote for good results, not for good intentions. Because compassion of result is what really matters, not compassion of intent!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Michael Moore Thinks Wealthy People's Money Is A 'Natural Resource' And Should Be Shared
(2) It's Not the Government's Money: Why how much money a person has DOES NOT MATTER
by Christopher C. Bastedo
(3) Conservatives are the Center by Christopher C. Bastedo
(4) Average Salary. Some make less, some more.
(5) Based upon an average Federal tax rate of 15% on the average salary of $45,000 per year
(6) Gross Revenue = All Revenue Brought in Over One Year
(7) Net Profit = Gross Revenue - All Business Expenses
(8) Figure obtained by calculating 15% of payroll to Federal Tax and 10% of payroll to State Tax
Monday, December 24, 2012
Best of Biblical Conservatism: It’s Merry Christmas…Get Over It
This week, I'll be away on my annual Christmas Vacation. So today and Thursday, our new publishing days, I'll be posting Best of Biblical Conservatism articles that I feel are pertinent to our current moment in time. Merry Christmas!
Earlier this week, I attended my company’s nondescript “Holiday Party” where we had a nondescript “Holiday Tree.” I’m officially done with it. I’m
tired of the political correctness, and I don’t just mean the fact that
I enjoy getting shocked looks when someone says someone is Indian and I
respond “dots or feathers?” Yes, I do enjoy poking the liberal politically correct machine. I also enjoy calling homeless people “hobos” but that’s really just because “hobo” is a fun word. All that aside, there is something I’ve got to say to the liberal politically correct machine, and please, listen carefully: It’s Merry Christmas. Get over it.
That’s right, Merry Christmas. You see, it used to be that “Happy Holidays” was a short way of saying “Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.” Now it’s become this way to not dare to offend someone. It
used to be that you said Merry Christmas to basically everybody, and
then if you had Jewish friends you wished them Happy Chanukah. I’ve got news for you liberals: 95% of Americans celebrate Christmas, according to Gallup. You got that? 95%...and the other 5% is not being injured in any way by being wished a Merry Christmas.
For the last few years, I’ve been intentional to wish people Merry Christmas. Do you know what they say? They thank me! They thank me for saying Merry Christmas…they’re tired of “Happy Holidays” too. That beautifully decorated tree in your living room? It’s a Christmas tree. It’s an old German Christian tradition that goes back about five centuries. Santa Claus? That tradition comes from Saint Nicholas, a Christian saint who would leave gifts in people’s shoes quietly and without being noticed.
Most importantly, and this cannot be minimized: Christmas is about Jesus. Christmas
is the day we celebrate God sending His son to Earth to walk amongst
us, to live the human condition for 33 years, then to go to the cross
and suffer the worst execution man ever devised…for you and me…and then
rise from the grave the victorious King! Christmas is the beginning of the greatest story ever told! Please hear me when I say this: Jesus is the reason for the season, and I’m not ashamed to say it! My savior was made incarnate man, and that’s why we celebrate Christmas.
I’m tired of hearing Happy Holidays. It’s Merry Christmas! (To my Jewish friends, Happy Chanukah!) Beyond that, this season is about Jesus! Jesus is the reason for the season! Now join me in saying it: MERRY CHRISTMAS!
Saturday, December 22, 2012
Biblical Conservatism Week in Review - 12/17/12
Guest Post: Why Are You Defending the Rich?
Today on Biblical Conservatism, we have our favorite (and here-to-date only) guest poster, my good buddy, the JC_Freak! This post dates back to before Election 2012, but I felt it was still worth having on Biblical Conservatism in the wake of the Fiscal Cliff debate.
"Why are you defending the rich?" Provocative question isn't it? There are so many little assumptions that are built into that one sentence.
As a conservative, I get asked this question occasionally. Ironically, it is not because I am saying the rich are great, and it is not because I am defending some of the immoral behavior of some CEOs and corporations. It is simply because I disagreeing with liberal economic policy. So why ask this particular question?
So, let us consider some of the assumptions lying behind this, and maybe then we can consider some appropriate answers.
A Matter of Motivation
The first assumption is that what I am doing is defending the rich. People have a very difficult time accepting that the thought process of someone else can be radically different from their own. As such, we often assume that someone's reasons for opposing our beliefs are along the same lines as our reasons for holding them. For instance, many Pro-life people believe that Pro-choice people actually don't mind killing children. Meanwhile many Pro-choice people assume that Pro-life people are sexist. Neither one of these assumptions are accurate, but both are based off of us having trouble separating out our motivations from the motivations of others.
In this case, I do not hold to conservative economic principles because I have any love for the rich. To be frank, I don't care about the rich one way or the other, at least not as a category. It is irrelevant to me. I don't see economic policy as a means of rewarding or punishing people for behavior. I see it as a means of maintaining economic stability for our civilization. That's all I care about.
The reason why someone would accuse me of defending the rich is because they view themselves as assaulting the rich. They may not use or like that terminology, but clearly that is the way they view things. Why else would my opposing their beliefs be considered to be defending a different group?
It's OK To Have A Little Class
Assumption two, of course, is that the rich need to be assaulted and shouldn't be defended. The poor are seen as victims of society, while the rich are seen as hoarders, preventing the poor from being delivered from their economic woes. I am speaking in hyperbole here, since I know no one that would express it this way. Every liberal I've ever met will acknowledge that there are good rich people in existence. But you can tell by the way that some of them talk, specifically the kind who would ask the titular question of this post, that they see these as exceptions.
So, do I disagree with this view? Yes, though not because I think the rich are great mind you. It is because I don't think the rich are monolithic. Some are good, and some are bad. Some of the poor are good, and some are bad. Economic status has nothing to do with moral integrity in my opinion, and I don't target a group simply because of their class. I believe this to be bigotry.
I think we can all agree that those who view the poor as universally lazy are bigoted. I think we can also agree that those who view the rich as the epitome of what it means to be an American to be equally bigoted. Where we disagree is that I believe the opposite to be bigoted as well. And I don't abide by bigotry.
Economic Justice
The last assumption is that the purpose of economic policy is to bring justice to the world by evening out the classes. I've hinted at this before of course, it is good to address it directly.
I believe in justice and fairness, but I don't think that fairness means everyone gets the same thing. I believe everyone should get the same chances. The law is to treat everyone equal. That is not the same thing as making everyone equal. Whether we like it or not, we are not all equal in this society. I believe we were created equal, but as we live our lives, we go in different directions. Some of us succeed, and some of us don't. While it is tragic to be unsuccessful, it is not unjust or unfair.
Directly controlling the economic flow simply won't work. People are too selfish, and those in charge of directing that flow will be a higher class than those who aren't. Those who desire to eradicate the classes will merely recast them, and will cause that upper class to have considerably more control over the lower class than the system we have now. Instead of it being the rich vs the poor, it would be the government vs. the people. It isn't an improvement.
Classes are OK. They're not perfect, and it would be better if we didn't need them, but it is a natural result of living in a fallen world. It is the kind of problem that if you try and fix it, you end up breaking the whole system. What is wrong is when we think that being of one class makes you a more valuable human than someone else. That is bigotry as I said before. To some degree there will always be bigotry, and even if we managed to create a society without economic classes, we will still find ways to categorize each other and prejudge one another. We are very creative.
As a Christian, I believe that we are a fallen race. Sin and wickedness are inevitable. I am not going to look to a human system to try and fix the problem because I know it will fail. Instead, I will fight for justice within my own context, proclaim the gospel, and look forward to the return of the Son. That is the lot of the Christian, wherever we find ourselves.
Today on Biblical Conservatism, we have our favorite (and here-to-date only) guest poster, my good buddy, the JC_Freak! This post dates back to before Election 2012, but I felt it was still worth having on Biblical Conservatism in the wake of the Fiscal Cliff debate.
"Why are you defending the rich?" Provocative question isn't it? There are so many little assumptions that are built into that one sentence.
As a conservative, I get asked this question occasionally. Ironically, it is not because I am saying the rich are great, and it is not because I am defending some of the immoral behavior of some CEOs and corporations. It is simply because I disagreeing with liberal economic policy. So why ask this particular question?
So, let us consider some of the assumptions lying behind this, and maybe then we can consider some appropriate answers.
A Matter of Motivation
The first assumption is that what I am doing is defending the rich. People have a very difficult time accepting that the thought process of someone else can be radically different from their own. As such, we often assume that someone's reasons for opposing our beliefs are along the same lines as our reasons for holding them. For instance, many Pro-life people believe that Pro-choice people actually don't mind killing children. Meanwhile many Pro-choice people assume that Pro-life people are sexist. Neither one of these assumptions are accurate, but both are based off of us having trouble separating out our motivations from the motivations of others.
In this case, I do not hold to conservative economic principles because I have any love for the rich. To be frank, I don't care about the rich one way or the other, at least not as a category. It is irrelevant to me. I don't see economic policy as a means of rewarding or punishing people for behavior. I see it as a means of maintaining economic stability for our civilization. That's all I care about.
The reason why someone would accuse me of defending the rich is because they view themselves as assaulting the rich. They may not use or like that terminology, but clearly that is the way they view things. Why else would my opposing their beliefs be considered to be defending a different group?
It's OK To Have A Little Class
Assumption two, of course, is that the rich need to be assaulted and shouldn't be defended. The poor are seen as victims of society, while the rich are seen as hoarders, preventing the poor from being delivered from their economic woes. I am speaking in hyperbole here, since I know no one that would express it this way. Every liberal I've ever met will acknowledge that there are good rich people in existence. But you can tell by the way that some of them talk, specifically the kind who would ask the titular question of this post, that they see these as exceptions.
So, do I disagree with this view? Yes, though not because I think the rich are great mind you. It is because I don't think the rich are monolithic. Some are good, and some are bad. Some of the poor are good, and some are bad. Economic status has nothing to do with moral integrity in my opinion, and I don't target a group simply because of their class. I believe this to be bigotry.
I think we can all agree that those who view the poor as universally lazy are bigoted. I think we can also agree that those who view the rich as the epitome of what it means to be an American to be equally bigoted. Where we disagree is that I believe the opposite to be bigoted as well. And I don't abide by bigotry.
Economic Justice
The last assumption is that the purpose of economic policy is to bring justice to the world by evening out the classes. I've hinted at this before of course, it is good to address it directly.
I believe in justice and fairness, but I don't think that fairness means everyone gets the same thing. I believe everyone should get the same chances. The law is to treat everyone equal. That is not the same thing as making everyone equal. Whether we like it or not, we are not all equal in this society. I believe we were created equal, but as we live our lives, we go in different directions. Some of us succeed, and some of us don't. While it is tragic to be unsuccessful, it is not unjust or unfair.
Directly controlling the economic flow simply won't work. People are too selfish, and those in charge of directing that flow will be a higher class than those who aren't. Those who desire to eradicate the classes will merely recast them, and will cause that upper class to have considerably more control over the lower class than the system we have now. Instead of it being the rich vs the poor, it would be the government vs. the people. It isn't an improvement.
Classes are OK. They're not perfect, and it would be better if we didn't need them, but it is a natural result of living in a fallen world. It is the kind of problem that if you try and fix it, you end up breaking the whole system. What is wrong is when we think that being of one class makes you a more valuable human than someone else. That is bigotry as I said before. To some degree there will always be bigotry, and even if we managed to create a society without economic classes, we will still find ways to categorize each other and prejudge one another. We are very creative.
As a Christian, I believe that we are a fallen race. Sin and wickedness are inevitable. I am not going to look to a human system to try and fix the problem because I know it will fail. Instead, I will fight for justice within my own context, proclaim the gospel, and look forward to the return of the Son. That is the lot of the Christian, wherever we find ourselves.
Yet the Left begins it's cry again for more gun control. The attitude repeated is "if we had just had Law X in place, this never would've happened!" It's a sad but true fact that the American Left will use any crisis to push their agenda, up to and including circumventing the Second Amendment.
Nobody has a better answer for this attitude than our old pal Condescending Wonka:
While a bit crass, this meme is 100% correct. Adam Lanza, the perpetrator of this horrific crime, clearly had no respect for laws. After all, murder has been illegal in the United States since before it was a nation. Actually, it's illegal in every Western country. Yet this man chose to commit this crime.
The fact is, while the exact statistics are hard to pin down, the vast majority of gun crimes are committed not with a legally purchased weapon but an ILLEGALLY purchased weapon or an unregistered gun. Take for example Aurora, CO, the site of this summer's shooting at a showing of "The Dark Knight Rises." This town had some of the most stringent gun control laws in the nation. It did not stop the criminal. What it did stop was the law abiding citizens in that theater from having their own weapons for defense.
Yet some on the Left want to use this event to once again press their agenda of making the 2nd Amendment weaker and weaker. As always, the Left is happy to find rights that are somehow written between the lines of the Constitution (see: "Right to Privacy") but if a right is actually written IN BLACK AND WHITE then clearly the founders didn't really mean it the way it's clearly written.
The bottom line is this tragic event should not ever be a political football. It should not be used by the Left to continually push their agenda. The reality is passing new gun laws will only take defense weapons out of the hands of law abiding citizens. The criminals will find ways to get their guns. Or, perhaps they'll just use another weapon to perpetrate their crimes. Either way, these new laws won't help stop any gun violence.
I conclude with this little ditty, courtesy of our founding fathers:
 |
| Emphasis Added |
Thursday, December 20, 2012
Newtown Shooting SHOULD NOT Be a Political Football
Yet the Left begins it's cry again for more gun control. The attitude repeated is "if we had just had Law X in place, this never would've happened!" It's a sad but true fact that the American Left will use any crisis to push their agenda, up to and including circumventing the Second Amendment.
Nobody has a better answer for this attitude than our old pal Condescending Wonka:
While a bit crass, this meme is 100% correct. Adam Lanza, the perpetrator of this horrific crime, clearly had no respect for laws. After all, murder has been illegal in the United States since before it was a nation. Actually, it's illegal in every Western country. Yet this man chose to commit this crime.
The fact is, while the exact statistics are hard to pin down, the vast majority of gun crimes are committed not with a legally purchased weapon but an ILLEGALLY purchased weapon or an unregistered gun. Take for example Aurora, CO, the site of this summer's shooting at a showing of "The Dark Knight Rises." This town had some of the most stringent gun control laws in the nation. It did not stop the criminal. What it did stop was the law abiding citizens in that theater from having their own weapons for defense.
Yet some on the Left want to use this event to once again press their agenda of making the 2nd Amendment weaker and weaker. As always, the Left is happy to find rights that are somehow written between the lines of the Constitution (see: "Right to Privacy") but if a right is actually written IN BLACK AND WHITE then clearly the founders didn't really mean it the way it's clearly written.
The bottom line is this tragic event should not ever be a political football. It should not be used by the Left to continually push their agenda. The reality is passing new gun laws will only take defense weapons out of the hands of law abiding citizens. The criminals will find ways to get their guns. Or, perhaps they'll just use another weapon to perpetrate their crimes. Either way, these new laws won't help stop any gun violence.
I conclude with this little ditty, courtesy of our founding fathers:
Nobody has a better answer for this attitude than our old pal Condescending Wonka:
While a bit crass, this meme is 100% correct. Adam Lanza, the perpetrator of this horrific crime, clearly had no respect for laws. After all, murder has been illegal in the United States since before it was a nation. Actually, it's illegal in every Western country. Yet this man chose to commit this crime.
The fact is, while the exact statistics are hard to pin down, the vast majority of gun crimes are committed not with a legally purchased weapon but an ILLEGALLY purchased weapon or an unregistered gun. Take for example Aurora, CO, the site of this summer's shooting at a showing of "The Dark Knight Rises." This town had some of the most stringent gun control laws in the nation. It did not stop the criminal. What it did stop was the law abiding citizens in that theater from having their own weapons for defense.
Yet some on the Left want to use this event to once again press their agenda of making the 2nd Amendment weaker and weaker. As always, the Left is happy to find rights that are somehow written between the lines of the Constitution (see: "Right to Privacy") but if a right is actually written IN BLACK AND WHITE then clearly the founders didn't really mean it the way it's clearly written.
The bottom line is this tragic event should not ever be a political football. It should not be used by the Left to continually push their agenda. The reality is passing new gun laws will only take defense weapons out of the hands of law abiding citizens. The criminals will find ways to get their guns. Or, perhaps they'll just use another weapon to perpetrate their crimes. Either way, these new laws won't help stop any gun violence.
I conclude with this little ditty, courtesy of our founding fathers:
|
| Emphasis Added |
Monday, December 17, 2012
Guest Post: Why Are You Defending the Rich?
Today on Biblical Conservatism, we have our favorite (and here-to-date only) guest poster, my good buddy, the JC_Freak!
This post dates back to before Election 2012, but I felt it was still
worth having on Biblical Conservatism in the wake of the Fiscal Cliff
debate.
"Why are you defending the rich?" Provocative question isn't it? There are so many little assumptions that are built into that one sentence.
As a conservative, I get asked this question occasionally. Ironically, it is not because I am saying the rich are great, and it is not because I am defending some of the immoral behavior of some CEOs and corporations. It is simply because I disagreeing with liberal economic policy. So why ask this particular question?
So, let us consider some of the assumptions lying behind this, and maybe then we can consider some appropriate answers.
A Matter of Motivation
The first assumption is that what I am doing is defending the rich. People have a very difficult time accepting that the thought process of someone else can be radically different from their own. As such, we often assume that someone's reasons for opposing our beliefs are along the same lines as our reasons for holding them. For instance, many Pro-life people believe that Pro-choice people actually don't mind killing children. Meanwhile many Pro-choice people assume that Pro-life people are sexist. Neither one of these assumptions are accurate, but both are based off of us having trouble separating out our motivations from the motivations of others.
In this case, I do not hold to conservative economic principles because I have any love for the rich. To be frank, I don't care about the rich one way or the other, at least not as a category. It is irrelevant to me. I don't see economic policy as a means of rewarding or punishing people for behavior. I see it as a means of maintaining economic stability for our civilization. That's all I care about.
The reason why someone would accuse me of defending the rich is because they view themselves as assaulting the rich. They may not use or like that terminology, but clearly that is the way they view things. Why else would my opposing their beliefs be considered to be defending a different group?
It's OK To Have A Little Class
Assumption two, of course, is that the rich need to be assaulted and shouldn't be defended. The poor are seen as victims of society, while the rich are seen as hoarders, preventing the poor from being delivered from their economic woes. I am speaking in hyperbole here, since I know no one that would express it this way. Every liberal I've ever met will acknowledge that there are good rich people in existence. But you can tell by the way that some of them talk, specifically the kind who would ask the titular question of this post, that they see these as exceptions.
So, do I disagree with this view? Yes, though not because I think the rich are great mind you. It is because I don't think the rich are monolithic. Some are good, and some are bad. Some of the poor are good, and some are bad. Economic status has nothing to do with moral integrity in my opinion, and I don't target a group simply because of their class. I believe this to be bigotry.
I think we can all agree that those who view the poor as universally lazy are bigoted. I think we can also agree that those who view the rich as the epitome of what it means to be an American to be equally bigoted. Where we disagree is that I believe the opposite to be bigoted as well. And I don't abide by bigotry.
Economic Justice
The last assumption is that the purpose of economic policy is to bring justice to the world by evening out the classes. I've hinted at this before of course, it is good to address it directly.
I believe in justice and fairness, but I don't think that fairness means everyone gets the same thing. I believe everyone should get the same chances. The law is to treat everyone equal. That is not the same thing as making everyone equal. Whether we like it or not, we are not all equal in this society. I believe we were created equal, but as we live our lives, we go in different directions. Some of us succeed, and some of us don't. While it is tragic to be unsuccessful, it is not unjust or unfair.
Directly controlling the economic flow simply won't work. People are too selfish, and those in charge of directing that flow will be a higher class than those who aren't. Those who desire to eradicate the classes will merely recast them, and will cause that upper class to have considerably more control over the lower class than the system we have now. Instead of it being the rich vs the poor, it would be the government vs. the people. It isn't an improvement.
Classes are OK. They're not perfect, and it would be better if we didn't need them, but it is a natural result of living in a fallen world. It is the kind of problem that if you try and fix it, you end up breaking the whole system. What is wrong is when we think that being of one class makes you a more valuable human than someone else. That is bigotry as I said before. To some degree there will always be bigotry, and even if we managed to create a society without economic classes, we will still find ways to categorize each other and prejudge one another. We are very creative.
As a Christian, I believe that we are a fallen race. Sin and wickedness are inevitable. I am not going to look to a human system to try and fix the problem because I know it will fail. Instead, I will fight for justice within my own context, proclaim the gospel, and look forward to the return of the Son. That is the lot of the Christian, wherever we find ourselves.
"Why are you defending the rich?" Provocative question isn't it? There are so many little assumptions that are built into that one sentence.
As a conservative, I get asked this question occasionally. Ironically, it is not because I am saying the rich are great, and it is not because I am defending some of the immoral behavior of some CEOs and corporations. It is simply because I disagreeing with liberal economic policy. So why ask this particular question?
So, let us consider some of the assumptions lying behind this, and maybe then we can consider some appropriate answers.
A Matter of Motivation
The first assumption is that what I am doing is defending the rich. People have a very difficult time accepting that the thought process of someone else can be radically different from their own. As such, we often assume that someone's reasons for opposing our beliefs are along the same lines as our reasons for holding them. For instance, many Pro-life people believe that Pro-choice people actually don't mind killing children. Meanwhile many Pro-choice people assume that Pro-life people are sexist. Neither one of these assumptions are accurate, but both are based off of us having trouble separating out our motivations from the motivations of others.
In this case, I do not hold to conservative economic principles because I have any love for the rich. To be frank, I don't care about the rich one way or the other, at least not as a category. It is irrelevant to me. I don't see economic policy as a means of rewarding or punishing people for behavior. I see it as a means of maintaining economic stability for our civilization. That's all I care about.
The reason why someone would accuse me of defending the rich is because they view themselves as assaulting the rich. They may not use or like that terminology, but clearly that is the way they view things. Why else would my opposing their beliefs be considered to be defending a different group?
It's OK To Have A Little Class
Assumption two, of course, is that the rich need to be assaulted and shouldn't be defended. The poor are seen as victims of society, while the rich are seen as hoarders, preventing the poor from being delivered from their economic woes. I am speaking in hyperbole here, since I know no one that would express it this way. Every liberal I've ever met will acknowledge that there are good rich people in existence. But you can tell by the way that some of them talk, specifically the kind who would ask the titular question of this post, that they see these as exceptions.
So, do I disagree with this view? Yes, though not because I think the rich are great mind you. It is because I don't think the rich are monolithic. Some are good, and some are bad. Some of the poor are good, and some are bad. Economic status has nothing to do with moral integrity in my opinion, and I don't target a group simply because of their class. I believe this to be bigotry.
I think we can all agree that those who view the poor as universally lazy are bigoted. I think we can also agree that those who view the rich as the epitome of what it means to be an American to be equally bigoted. Where we disagree is that I believe the opposite to be bigoted as well. And I don't abide by bigotry.
Economic Justice
The last assumption is that the purpose of economic policy is to bring justice to the world by evening out the classes. I've hinted at this before of course, it is good to address it directly.
I believe in justice and fairness, but I don't think that fairness means everyone gets the same thing. I believe everyone should get the same chances. The law is to treat everyone equal. That is not the same thing as making everyone equal. Whether we like it or not, we are not all equal in this society. I believe we were created equal, but as we live our lives, we go in different directions. Some of us succeed, and some of us don't. While it is tragic to be unsuccessful, it is not unjust or unfair.
Directly controlling the economic flow simply won't work. People are too selfish, and those in charge of directing that flow will be a higher class than those who aren't. Those who desire to eradicate the classes will merely recast them, and will cause that upper class to have considerably more control over the lower class than the system we have now. Instead of it being the rich vs the poor, it would be the government vs. the people. It isn't an improvement.
Classes are OK. They're not perfect, and it would be better if we didn't need them, but it is a natural result of living in a fallen world. It is the kind of problem that if you try and fix it, you end up breaking the whole system. What is wrong is when we think that being of one class makes you a more valuable human than someone else. That is bigotry as I said before. To some degree there will always be bigotry, and even if we managed to create a society without economic classes, we will still find ways to categorize each other and prejudge one another. We are very creative.
As a Christian, I believe that we are a fallen race. Sin and wickedness are inevitable. I am not going to look to a human system to try and fix the problem because I know it will fail. Instead, I will fight for justice within my own context, proclaim the gospel, and look forward to the return of the Son. That is the lot of the Christian, wherever we find ourselves.
Saturday, December 15, 2012
Biblical Conservatism Week in Review (Week of 12/10/12)
Monday, December 10, 2012 - Clinton Era Taxes? How About Clinton Era
The Democrat Party and President Obama keep pushing for Clinton Era taxes on the top 2% of tax earners as part of a Fiscal Cliff deal. They keep pretending this will help with our problem, as if our problem was insufficient revenue not surplus spending.
Let's set that aside for a moment. I have a different question: If they want Clinton era taxes, how about Clinton-era spending? Think about it, friends. How about we demand Clinton era spending if Obama wants Clinton era taxes.
For the record, Clinton era spending was forced by Newt Gingrich and the Republican Congress. Welfare reform, cuts to corporate taxes, etc, all was forced upon Clinton by Newt and the Republicans. That's what I've said for years was the real reason for the Clinton-Era boom, not, as has been falsely credited, the tax increases. (That is, and always has been, a Democrat red herring).
What would Clinton-Era spending look like, adjusted for inflation? In 2000, Clinton's final budget, spending was set at $1.8 Trillion. Adjusted for inflation, that would be $2.417 Trillion. In 2012, the incoming revenues were $2.469 Trillion. That would mean a $52 Trillion SURPLUS, and that is without raising taxes!
Of course, doing this means admitting the real problem, and Democrats are not at all willing to do this...it's all about raising taxes because...ummm...reasons? Oh, right. It's because they know this is indefensible. Their focus isn't on real problem solving. It's on expanding liberalism. And that's the truth the Left doesn't want you to hear.
Thursday, December 13, 2012 - Barack Obama and the Kindergarten Compromise
Compromise. It's a word we've all known since early childhood. When two people have a disagreement, it's important to compromise, find a middle ground, one where both parties get SOME of what they want.
It's the word we keep hearing repeated in the Fiscal Cliff discussions. The Left and their willing accomplices in the Drive-By Media keep demanding the Republican party compromise and let Barack Obama raise taxes (even though it won't help an ounce in solving the problem).
It sure sounds like the GOP is the unreasonable one, right? They just won't compromise!
Except there's one problem: The GOP is trying to solve the problem. The REAL problem. Our massive deficits. President Obama clearly isn't interested in solving this problem, because he hasn't put forward any real solutions. Just "raise taxes on the rich" in amounts that will pay for the government to run for a whopping eight days. (We borrow 35% of our budget annually, which means we have to borrow money to cover just over 127 days a year. Obama has no plan to cover the other 119 days of borrowing.) President Obama apparently is only interested in raising taxes to punish the wealthy. There is no other explanation.
This, of course, goes unreported in the Drive-By Media. They present it simply as two sides with reasonable deficit solving solutions that just need to meet in the middle to pass a compromise. It's a kindergarten mentality. Too many Neighborhood Liberals and Moderates buy into this presentation of the story. Two sides, equally valid options, one refuses to budge.
They present the problem this way:
What's REALLY happening is a completely different problem. We have a spending problem. The nation is spends 35% more than we have in the bank each year.
The Drive-By Media is presenting this as if it were a kindergarten class compromise. Let's pretend there are two boys in a class. One is named Buford. The other is named Baljeet. Here's how the Drive- By
So here's the problem and solution in brief form, as the Drive-By Media is currently presenting it:
The fact is 100% of the lunch money is Baljeet's and none if it belongs to Buford. Buford has no right to take it. (Read into that what you wish.) The teacher isn't solving the problem. One side in this problem is very wrong, and his name is Buford. One side is very right, and his name is Baljeet,. Baljeet shouldn't be asked to enter into such a foolish compromise. The teacher should be fired for suggesting it.
That is precisely what's happening in our Fiscal Cliff debate. Here is the problem and solution in brief form:
So what we have is a kindergarten view of compromise: Just have both sides give some. Forget what the two sides want. That doesn't matter. Just compromise. Even if one side's desires are beyond reason.
The Democrat Party and President Obama keep pushing for Clinton Era taxes on the top 2% of tax earners as part of a Fiscal Cliff deal. They keep pretending this will help with our problem, as if our problem was insufficient revenue not surplus spending.
Let's set that aside for a moment. I have a different question: If they want Clinton era taxes, how about Clinton-era spending? Think about it, friends. How about we demand Clinton era spending if Obama wants Clinton era taxes.
For the record, Clinton era spending was forced by Newt Gingrich and the Republican Congress. Welfare reform, cuts to corporate taxes, etc, all was forced upon Clinton by Newt and the Republicans. That's what I've said for years was the real reason for the Clinton-Era boom, not, as has been falsely credited, the tax increases. (That is, and always has been, a Democrat red herring).
What would Clinton-Era spending look like, adjusted for inflation? In 2000, Clinton's final budget, spending was set at $1.8 Trillion. Adjusted for inflation, that would be $2.417 Trillion. In 2012, the incoming revenues were $2.469 Trillion. That would mean a $52 Trillion SURPLUS, and that is without raising taxes!
Of course, doing this means admitting the real problem, and Democrats are not at all willing to do this...it's all about raising taxes because...ummm...reasons? Oh, right. It's because they know this is indefensible. Their focus isn't on real problem solving. It's on expanding liberalism. And that's the truth the Left doesn't want you to hear.
Thursday, December 13, 2012 - Barack Obama and the Kindergarten Compromise
Compromise. It's a word we've all known since early childhood. When two people have a disagreement, it's important to compromise, find a middle ground, one where both parties get SOME of what they want.
It's the word we keep hearing repeated in the Fiscal Cliff discussions. The Left and their willing accomplices in the Drive-By Media keep demanding the Republican party compromise and let Barack Obama raise taxes (even though it won't help an ounce in solving the problem).
It sure sounds like the GOP is the unreasonable one, right? They just won't compromise!
Except there's one problem: The GOP is trying to solve the problem. The REAL problem. Our massive deficits. President Obama clearly isn't interested in solving this problem, because he hasn't put forward any real solutions. Just "raise taxes on the rich" in amounts that will pay for the government to run for a whopping eight days. (We borrow 35% of our budget annually, which means we have to borrow money to cover just over 127 days a year. Obama has no plan to cover the other 119 days of borrowing.) President Obama apparently is only interested in raising taxes to punish the wealthy. There is no other explanation.
This, of course, goes unreported in the Drive-By Media. They present it simply as two sides with reasonable deficit solving solutions that just need to meet in the middle to pass a compromise. It's a kindergarten mentality. Too many Neighborhood Liberals and Moderates buy into this presentation of the story. Two sides, equally valid options, one refuses to budge.
They present the problem this way:
- The Bush Tax Rates (they've been in place twelve years, so calling them "cuts" is pure sophistry) are about to expire for everyone.
- The Republican Party wants to extend the rates for everyone.
- The Democrat Party wants to raise tax rates on the top 2% of wage earners.
- A reasonable compromise is raise taxes on the top 2% and extend the rates for everyone else.
What's REALLY happening is a completely different problem. We have a spending problem. The nation is spends 35% more than we have in the bank each year.
The Drive-By Media is presenting this as if it were a kindergarten class compromise. Let's pretend there are two boys in a class. One is named Buford. The other is named Baljeet. Here's how the Drive- By
So here's the problem and solution in brief form, as the Drive-By Media is currently presenting it:
- Baljeet is playing with a toy firetruck during the class' 30 minutes of recess.
- Buford would also like to play with the toy firetruck.
- The teacher suggests a compromise, wherein each boy gets to play with the toy firetruck for 15 minutes of recess.
- Baljeet has lunch money.
- Buford wants all Baljeet's lunch money.
- Baljeet does not want to give Buford any of his lunch money.
- The teacher suggests a compromise, wherein Baljeet gives half his lunch money to Buford.
The fact is 100% of the lunch money is Baljeet's and none if it belongs to Buford. Buford has no right to take it. (Read into that what you wish.) The teacher isn't solving the problem. One side in this problem is very wrong, and his name is Buford. One side is very right, and his name is Baljeet,. Baljeet shouldn't be asked to enter into such a foolish compromise. The teacher should be fired for suggesting it.
That is precisely what's happening in our Fiscal Cliff debate. Here is the problem and solution in brief form:
- The Bush Tax Rates (they've been in place twelve years, so calling them "cuts" is pure sophistry) are about to expire for everyone.
- The nation has to borrow money to run the government for 127 days. That equals borrowing $1.3 trillion each year.
- The Democrat Party wants to raise tax rates on the top 2% of wage earners, which will raise a mere $85 billion each year. (This covers only 8 days of deficit spending.)
- The Republican Party wants to extend the rates for everyone, because our problem isn't lack of revenue, but too much spending, and instead wants to cut spending.
- The Drive-By Media is saying "Just let the Democrats raise taxes on the top 2% and extend the rates on the other 98% of wage earners" as a fair compromise.
So what we have is a kindergarten view of compromise: Just have both sides give some. Forget what the two sides want. That doesn't matter. Just compromise. Even if one side's desires are beyond reason.
Thursday, December 13, 2012
Barack Obama and the Kindergarten Compromise
Compromise. It's a word we've all known since early childhood. When two people have a disagreement, it's important to compromise, find a middle ground, one where both parties get SOME of what they want.
It's the word we keep hearing repeated in the Fiscal Cliff discussions. The Left and their willing accomplices in the Drive-By Media keep demanding the Republican party compromise and let Barack Obama raise taxes (even though it won't help an ounce in solving the problem).
It sure sounds like the GOP is the unreasonable one, right? They just won't compromise!
Except there's one problem: The GOP is trying to solve the problem. The REAL problem. Our massive deficits. President Obama clearly isn't interested in solving this problem, because he hasn't put forward any real solutions. Just "raise taxes on the rich" in amounts that will pay for the government to run for a whopping eight days. (We borrow 35% of our budget annually, which means we have to borrow money to cover just over 127 days a year. Obama has no plan to cover the other 119 days of borrowing.) President Obama apparently is only interested in raising taxes to punish the wealthy. There is no other explanation.
This, of course, goes unreported in the Drive-By Media. They present it simply as two sides with reasonable deficit solving solutions that just need to meet in the middle to pass a compromise. It's a kindergarten mentality. Too many Neighborhood Liberals and Moderates buy into this presentation of the story. Two sides, equally valid options, one refuses to budge.
They present the problem this way:
What's REALLY happening is a completely different problem. We have a spending problem. The nation is spends 35% more than we have in the bank each year.
The Drive-By Media is presenting this as if it were a kindergarten class compromise. Let's pretend there are two boys in a class. One is named Buford. The other is named Baljeet. Here's how the Drive- By
So here's the problem and solution in brief form, as the Drive-By Media is currently presenting it:
The fact is 100% of the lunch money is Baljeet's and none if it belongs to Buford. Buford has no right to take it. (Read into that what you wish.) The teacher isn't solving the problem. One side in this problem is very wrong, and his name is Buford. One side is very right, and his name is Baljeet,. Baljeet shouldn't be asked to enter into such a foolish compromise. The teacher should be fired for suggesting it.
That is precisely what's happening in our Fiscal Cliff debate. Here is the problem and solution in brief form:
So what we have is a kindergarten view of compromise: Just have both sides give some. Forget what the two sides want. That doesn't matter. Just compromise. Even if one side's desires are beyond reason.
It's the word we keep hearing repeated in the Fiscal Cliff discussions. The Left and their willing accomplices in the Drive-By Media keep demanding the Republican party compromise and let Barack Obama raise taxes (even though it won't help an ounce in solving the problem).
It sure sounds like the GOP is the unreasonable one, right? They just won't compromise!
Except there's one problem: The GOP is trying to solve the problem. The REAL problem. Our massive deficits. President Obama clearly isn't interested in solving this problem, because he hasn't put forward any real solutions. Just "raise taxes on the rich" in amounts that will pay for the government to run for a whopping eight days. (We borrow 35% of our budget annually, which means we have to borrow money to cover just over 127 days a year. Obama has no plan to cover the other 119 days of borrowing.) President Obama apparently is only interested in raising taxes to punish the wealthy. There is no other explanation.
This, of course, goes unreported in the Drive-By Media. They present it simply as two sides with reasonable deficit solving solutions that just need to meet in the middle to pass a compromise. It's a kindergarten mentality. Too many Neighborhood Liberals and Moderates buy into this presentation of the story. Two sides, equally valid options, one refuses to budge.
They present the problem this way:
- The Bush Tax Rates (they've been in place twelve years, so calling them "cuts" is pure sophistry) are about to expire for everyone.
- The Republican Party wants to extend the rates for everyone.
- The Democrat Party wants to raise tax rates on the top 2% of wage earners.
- A reasonable compromise is raise taxes on the top 2% and extend the rates for everyone else.
What's REALLY happening is a completely different problem. We have a spending problem. The nation is spends 35% more than we have in the bank each year.
The Drive-By Media is presenting this as if it were a kindergarten class compromise. Let's pretend there are two boys in a class. One is named Buford. The other is named Baljeet. Here's how the Drive- By
So here's the problem and solution in brief form, as the Drive-By Media is currently presenting it:
- Baljeet is playing with a toy firetruck during the class' 30 minutes of recess.
- Buford would also like to play with the toy firetruck.
- The teacher suggests a compromise, wherein each boy gets to play with the toy firetruck for 15 minutes of recess.
- Baljeet has lunch money.
- Buford wants all Baljeet's lunch money.
- Baljeet does not want to give Buford any of his lunch money.
- The teacher suggests a compromise, wherein Baljeet gives half his lunch money to Buford.
The fact is 100% of the lunch money is Baljeet's and none if it belongs to Buford. Buford has no right to take it. (Read into that what you wish.) The teacher isn't solving the problem. One side in this problem is very wrong, and his name is Buford. One side is very right, and his name is Baljeet,. Baljeet shouldn't be asked to enter into such a foolish compromise. The teacher should be fired for suggesting it.
That is precisely what's happening in our Fiscal Cliff debate. Here is the problem and solution in brief form:
- The Bush Tax Rates (they've been in place twelve years, so calling them "cuts" is pure sophistry) are about to expire for everyone.
- The nation has to borrow money to run the government for 127 days. That equals borrowing $1.3 trillion each year.
- The Democrat Party wants to raise tax rates on the top 2% of wage earners, which will raise a mere $85 billion each year. (This covers only 8 days of deficit spending.)
- The Republican Party wants to extend the rates for everyone, because our problem isn't lack of revenue, but too much spending, and instead wants to cut spending.
- The Drive-By Media is saying "Just let the Democrats raise taxes on the top 2% and extend the rates on the other 98% of wage earners" as a fair compromise.
So what we have is a kindergarten view of compromise: Just have both sides give some. Forget what the two sides want. That doesn't matter. Just compromise. Even if one side's desires are beyond reason.
Monday, December 10, 2012
Clinton Era Taxes? How About Clinton Era Spending?
The Democrat Party and President Obama keep pushing for Clinton Era taxes on the top 2% of tax earners as part of a Fiscal Cliff deal. They keep pretending this will help with our problem, as if our problem was insufficient revenue not surplus spending.
Let's set that aside for a moment. I have a different question: If they want Clinton era taxes, how about Clinton-era spending? Think about it, friends. How about we demand Clinton era spending if Obama wants Clinton era taxes.
For the record, Clinton era spending was forced by Newt Gingrich and the Republican Congress. Welfare reform, cuts to corporate taxes, etc, all was forced upon Clinton by Newt and the Republicans. That's what I've said for years was the real reason for the Clinton-Era boom, not, as has been falsely credited, the tax increases. (That is, and always has been, a Democrat red herring).
What would Clinton-Era spending look like, adjusted for inflation? In 2000, Clinton's final budget, spending was set at $1.8 Trillion. Adjusted for inflation, that would be $2.417 Trillion. In 2012, the incoming revenues were $2.469 Trillion. That would mean a $52 Trillion SURPLUS, and that is without raising taxes!
Of course, doing this means admitting the real problem, and Democrats are not at all willing to do this...it's all about raising taxes because...ummm...reasons? Oh, right. It's because they know this is indefensible. Their focus isn't on real problem solving. It's on expanding liberalism. And that's the truth the Left doesn't want you to hear.
Let's set that aside for a moment. I have a different question: If they want Clinton era taxes, how about Clinton-era spending? Think about it, friends. How about we demand Clinton era spending if Obama wants Clinton era taxes.
For the record, Clinton era spending was forced by Newt Gingrich and the Republican Congress. Welfare reform, cuts to corporate taxes, etc, all was forced upon Clinton by Newt and the Republicans. That's what I've said for years was the real reason for the Clinton-Era boom, not, as has been falsely credited, the tax increases. (That is, and always has been, a Democrat red herring).
What would Clinton-Era spending look like, adjusted for inflation? In 2000, Clinton's final budget, spending was set at $1.8 Trillion. Adjusted for inflation, that would be $2.417 Trillion. In 2012, the incoming revenues were $2.469 Trillion. That would mean a $52 Trillion SURPLUS, and that is without raising taxes!
Of course, doing this means admitting the real problem, and Democrats are not at all willing to do this...it's all about raising taxes because...ummm...reasons? Oh, right. It's because they know this is indefensible. Their focus isn't on real problem solving. It's on expanding liberalism. And that's the truth the Left doesn't want you to hear.
Saturday, December 8, 2012
Biblical Conservatism Week in Review (Week of 12/3/12)
Biblical Conservatism returned from a month long break after Election 2012 and began our new biweekly format. In addition to this new format, Biblical Conservatism will be publishing a "Week in Review" post every Saturday, giving both posts together.
This week, our focus was the Fiscal Cliff debate.
Monday, December 3, 2012 - Obama Fiscal Cliff Plan: Ignore the Real Problem
Today, we're going to talk real math on the President's Fiscal Cliff solution...raise taxes on people making over $250,000 a year. Yep, that's basically the entire stated plan. Sure, he's used cliches like "balanced approach" but really the only stated thing he has said he would do was raise taxes.
So, how much would this plan really raise, exactly? I'm so glad you asked. The number being repeated is $850 Billion. That number does sound very serious, doesn't it? Sure, until someone tells you that's the TEN YEAR PROJECTION. So that means the annual increase in revenue is only $85 billion.
Let's compare that to the last federal budget, 2012, passed under President Obama's tenure, shall we? In 2012, the deficit was $1.327 TRILLION on a $3.796 Trillion budget. The math on that is this: about 35% of the budget was borrowed. Quick math tells us that this "increase in revenue" raises only 6.4% of the actual deficit.
Let me give you a real world example, shall we? Let's take an American family with a household income of $60,000 per year. That family spends above and beyond the money they have in line with what the Federal Government does, which means they spend $81,000 per year, every year. But hey, good news! The boss is giving you a small raise this year! That's right, a 2.24% raise (which is what the new taxes the President wants equals in tax receipts). So now, instead of having $60,000 per year incoming, this family has $61,334. Yahoo! That's totally going to make up for the fact that the family is spending $21,000 more than they have...oh wait, no it doesn't. It's a drop in the bucket.
Actually, to cover the deficit that family has, they would need a raise incoming. revenue 35% JUST TO COVER THEIR CURRENT EXPENSES.
Friends, in America there is no way to raise that much revenue without flat out confiscating every cent earned over $250,000. That will work precisely ONE TIME, because after that, nobody will work one second harder than it would take to earn $250,000 per year. It also would equal a massive depression because businesses would stop hiring people. It simply wouldn't be worth the risk.
As I've said for years now, our real problem isn't that we don't have enough revenue. The problem is we spend far, far too much money. We will not solve our problem without dealing with our spending. Period. However, I believe we can expect no such logical approach.
America, in it's infinite foolishness, saw fit to re-elect the petulant child President Barack Obama. He is now emboldened. Friends, I fear for America. I believe we are headed the way of Greece. The fact that Obama was re-elected means we are in trouble, fiscally speaking, America. Katy, bar the door. We're in trouble.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_United_States_federal_budget
What Does the Fiscal Cliff Show Us About the Democrat Party
Simply put, it shows us that they care only about their political agenda, and not solving problems.
Consider this, friends: Harry Reid signaled last week that Entitlements were "off the table" in these negotiations, and continue to press to be able to raise taxes on the top 2% of wage earners.
Earlier this week, we showed how little of a difference Obama's tax increases would make. Specifically, it would run the government for eight days. As of right now, we have to borrow money to cover 127 days worth of spending each year (35% of our budget is borrowed). If the Republican party gives in and gives the President his tax hikes, you know how many days we're borrowing for NOW? 119 days. A full 119 days of spending each year STILL has to be borrowed.
Translation: This tax increase doesn't make a mouse's fart worth of a difference in solving our REAL problem.
Yet the Democrats and the Drive-By Media keep pushing this idea that "if the Republicans would just agree to let taxes be raised on the rich, we could solve this Fiscal Cliff problem!" That's not what's happening. The Democrats are insisting on a foolish non-solution and if we don't give in to their tantrum, they're taking their ball and going home.
I'll give you a comparison. As some of you know, I love the New York Mets. The Mets recently signed their best player, David Wright, to a long term contract extension.
Now imagine during the negotiations there were two issues in the contract negotiations. Problem one is the fact that David Wright wanted his contract to be eight years long and worth about $140 million, and the Mets want the contract to be seven years long and $120 million. Problem two is that the Mets wanted to write into the contract that Wright has to wear a multicolored beanie with a propeller in the Mets clubhouse for five minutes, once a month, every month during the baseball season for the duration of his contract because, darn it all, Mets owner Fred Wilpon thinks it would be simply hilarious.
Now let's pretend Fred Wilpon was going to the New York sports media and saying "If David would JUST agree to wear this beanie for FIVE MEASLY MINUTES every month, WE COULD GET THIS DEAL SIGNED!" That'd be highly inaccurate, yes? My friends, this is exactly what Democrats are doing with their story about "just let us raise taxes on the rich." They are focusing on one tiny aspect of the issue, ignoring the big one, and blaming the multicolored beanie and not the $20 million gap in contract negotiations.
(Thankfully, all this is moot, and David Wright signed an eight year extension. To my knowledge, a beanie was not part of the discussion.)
It turns out, as has been shown so many times before, this tax increase will not solve the problem. At all. So one must ask why does the Democrat party have such a massive desire to raise taxes?
At best, it's all about their PR. At worst, it's an attempt by the Democrat Party to continue to pretend the problem is we don't tax enough. If they do that, they can continue the facade a little longer (until America is so bankrupt that we can't even afford to borrow more money). Not only is it the height of dishonesty to keep focusing on the multicolored beanie, it shows a complete disregard for solving the real problem. Further, they have stated they are willing to take us over the fiscal cliff just so they can make us wear that stupid beanie. Who isn't looking out for America, friends?
America, this is who you elected. I hope you're paying attention. Because this is EXACTLY what you wished for, whether or not you knew it. This is who the Democrat Party has been for decades and continues to be.
This week, our focus was the Fiscal Cliff debate.
Monday, December 3, 2012 - Obama Fiscal Cliff Plan: Ignore the Real Problem
Today, we're going to talk real math on the President's Fiscal Cliff solution...raise taxes on people making over $250,000 a year. Yep, that's basically the entire stated plan. Sure, he's used cliches like "balanced approach" but really the only stated thing he has said he would do was raise taxes.
So, how much would this plan really raise, exactly? I'm so glad you asked. The number being repeated is $850 Billion. That number does sound very serious, doesn't it? Sure, until someone tells you that's the TEN YEAR PROJECTION. So that means the annual increase in revenue is only $85 billion.
Let's compare that to the last federal budget, 2012, passed under President Obama's tenure, shall we? In 2012, the deficit was $1.327 TRILLION on a $3.796 Trillion budget. The math on that is this: about 35% of the budget was borrowed. Quick math tells us that this "increase in revenue" raises only 6.4% of the actual deficit.
Let me give you a real world example, shall we? Let's take an American family with a household income of $60,000 per year. That family spends above and beyond the money they have in line with what the Federal Government does, which means they spend $81,000 per year, every year. But hey, good news! The boss is giving you a small raise this year! That's right, a 2.24% raise (which is what the new taxes the President wants equals in tax receipts). So now, instead of having $60,000 per year incoming, this family has $61,334. Yahoo! That's totally going to make up for the fact that the family is spending $21,000 more than they have...oh wait, no it doesn't. It's a drop in the bucket.
Actually, to cover the deficit that family has, they would need a raise incoming. revenue 35% JUST TO COVER THEIR CURRENT EXPENSES.
Friends, in America there is no way to raise that much revenue without flat out confiscating every cent earned over $250,000. That will work precisely ONE TIME, because after that, nobody will work one second harder than it would take to earn $250,000 per year. It also would equal a massive depression because businesses would stop hiring people. It simply wouldn't be worth the risk.
As I've said for years now, our real problem isn't that we don't have enough revenue. The problem is we spend far, far too much money. We will not solve our problem without dealing with our spending. Period. However, I believe we can expect no such logical approach.
America, in it's infinite foolishness, saw fit to re-elect the petulant child President Barack Obama. He is now emboldened. Friends, I fear for America. I believe we are headed the way of Greece. The fact that Obama was re-elected means we are in trouble, fiscally speaking, America. Katy, bar the door. We're in trouble.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_United_States_federal_budget
What Does the Fiscal Cliff Show Us About the Democrat Party
Simply put, it shows us that they care only about their political agenda, and not solving problems.
Consider this, friends: Harry Reid signaled last week that Entitlements were "off the table" in these negotiations, and continue to press to be able to raise taxes on the top 2% of wage earners.
Earlier this week, we showed how little of a difference Obama's tax increases would make. Specifically, it would run the government for eight days. As of right now, we have to borrow money to cover 127 days worth of spending each year (35% of our budget is borrowed). If the Republican party gives in and gives the President his tax hikes, you know how many days we're borrowing for NOW? 119 days. A full 119 days of spending each year STILL has to be borrowed.
Translation: This tax increase doesn't make a mouse's fart worth of a difference in solving our REAL problem.
Yet the Democrats and the Drive-By Media keep pushing this idea that "if the Republicans would just agree to let taxes be raised on the rich, we could solve this Fiscal Cliff problem!" That's not what's happening. The Democrats are insisting on a foolish non-solution and if we don't give in to their tantrum, they're taking their ball and going home.
I'll give you a comparison. As some of you know, I love the New York Mets. The Mets recently signed their best player, David Wright, to a long term contract extension.
Now imagine during the negotiations there were two issues in the contract negotiations. Problem one is the fact that David Wright wanted his contract to be eight years long and worth about $140 million, and the Mets want the contract to be seven years long and $120 million. Problem two is that the Mets wanted to write into the contract that Wright has to wear a multicolored beanie with a propeller in the Mets clubhouse for five minutes, once a month, every month during the baseball season for the duration of his contract because, darn it all, Mets owner Fred Wilpon thinks it would be simply hilarious.
Now let's pretend Fred Wilpon was going to the New York sports media and saying "If David would JUST agree to wear this beanie for FIVE MEASLY MINUTES every month, WE COULD GET THIS DEAL SIGNED!" That'd be highly inaccurate, yes? My friends, this is exactly what Democrats are doing with their story about "just let us raise taxes on the rich." They are focusing on one tiny aspect of the issue, ignoring the big one, and blaming the multicolored beanie and not the $20 million gap in contract negotiations.
(Thankfully, all this is moot, and David Wright signed an eight year extension. To my knowledge, a beanie was not part of the discussion.)
It turns out, as has been shown so many times before, this tax increase will not solve the problem. At all. So one must ask why does the Democrat party have such a massive desire to raise taxes?
At best, it's all about their PR. At worst, it's an attempt by the Democrat Party to continue to pretend the problem is we don't tax enough. If they do that, they can continue the facade a little longer (until America is so bankrupt that we can't even afford to borrow more money). Not only is it the height of dishonesty to keep focusing on the multicolored beanie, it shows a complete disregard for solving the real problem. Further, they have stated they are willing to take us over the fiscal cliff just so they can make us wear that stupid beanie. Who isn't looking out for America, friends?
America, this is who you elected. I hope you're paying attention. Because this is EXACTLY what you wished for, whether or not you knew it. This is who the Democrat Party has been for decades and continues to be.
Thursday, December 6, 2012
What Does the Fiscal Cliff Show Us About the Democrat Party
Simply put, it shows us that they care only about their political agenda, and not solving problems.
Consider this, friends: Harry Reid signaled last week that Entitlements were "off the table" in these negotiations, and continue to press to be able to raise taxes on the top 2% of wage earners.
Earlier this week, we showed how little of a difference Obama's tax increases would make. Specifically, it would run the government for eight days. As of right now, we have to borrow money to cover 127 days worth of spending each year (35% of our budget is borrowed). If the Republican party gives in and gives the President his tax hikes, you know how many days we're borrowing for NOW? 119 days. A full 119 days of spending each year STILL has to be borrowed.
Translation: This tax increase doesn't make a mouse's fart worth of a difference in solving our REAL problem.
Yet the Democrats and the Drive-By Media keep pushing this idea that "if the Republicans would just agree to let taxes be raised on the rich, we could solve this Fiscal Cliff problem!" That's not what's happening. The Democrats are insisting on a foolish non-solution and if we don't give in to their tantrum, they're taking their ball and going home.
I'll give you a comparison. As some of you know, I love the New York Mets. The Mets recently signed their best player, David Wright, to a long term contract extension.
Now imagine during the negotiations there were two issues in the contract negotiations. Problem one is the fact that David Wright wanted his contract to be eight years long and worth about $140 million, and the Mets want the contract to be seven years long and $120 million. Problem two is that the Mets wanted to write into the contract that Wright has to wear a multicolored beanie with a propeller in the Mets clubhouse for five minutes, once a month, every month during the baseball season for the duration of his contract because, darn it all, Mets owner Fred Wilpon thinks it would be simply hilarious.
Now let's pretend Fred Wilpon was going to the New York sports media and saying "If David would JUST agree to wear this beanie for FIVE MEASLY MINUTES every month, WE COULD GET THIS DEAL SIGNED!" That'd be highly inaccurate, yes? My friends, this is exactly what Democrats are doing with their story about "just let us raise taxes on the rich." They are focusing on one tiny aspect of the issue, ignoring the big one, and blaming the multicolored beanie and not the $20 million gap in contract negotiations.
(Thankfully, all this is moot, and David Wright signed an eight year extension. To my knowledge, a beanie was not part of the discussion.)
It turns out, as has been shown so many times before, this tax increase will not solve the problem. At all. So one must ask why does the Democrat party have such a massive desire to raise taxes?
At best, it's all about their PR. At worst, it's an attempt by the Democrat Party to continue to pretend the problem is we don't tax enough. If they do that, they can continue the facade a little longer (until America is so bankrupt that we can't even afford to borrow more money). Not only is it the height of dishonesty to keep focusing on the multicolored beanie, it shows a complete disregard for solving the real problem. Further, they have stated they are willing to take us over the fiscal cliff just so they can make us wear that stupid beanie. Who isn't looking out for America, friends?
America, this is who you elected. I hope you're paying attention. Because this is EXACTLY what you wished for, whether or not you knew it. This is who the Democrat Party has been for decades and continues to be.
Consider this, friends: Harry Reid signaled last week that Entitlements were "off the table" in these negotiations, and continue to press to be able to raise taxes on the top 2% of wage earners.
Earlier this week, we showed how little of a difference Obama's tax increases would make. Specifically, it would run the government for eight days. As of right now, we have to borrow money to cover 127 days worth of spending each year (35% of our budget is borrowed). If the Republican party gives in and gives the President his tax hikes, you know how many days we're borrowing for NOW? 119 days. A full 119 days of spending each year STILL has to be borrowed.
Translation: This tax increase doesn't make a mouse's fart worth of a difference in solving our REAL problem.
Yet the Democrats and the Drive-By Media keep pushing this idea that "if the Republicans would just agree to let taxes be raised on the rich, we could solve this Fiscal Cliff problem!" That's not what's happening. The Democrats are insisting on a foolish non-solution and if we don't give in to their tantrum, they're taking their ball and going home.
I'll give you a comparison. As some of you know, I love the New York Mets. The Mets recently signed their best player, David Wright, to a long term contract extension.
Now imagine during the negotiations there were two issues in the contract negotiations. Problem one is the fact that David Wright wanted his contract to be eight years long and worth about $140 million, and the Mets want the contract to be seven years long and $120 million. Problem two is that the Mets wanted to write into the contract that Wright has to wear a multicolored beanie with a propeller in the Mets clubhouse for five minutes, once a month, every month during the baseball season for the duration of his contract because, darn it all, Mets owner Fred Wilpon thinks it would be simply hilarious.
Now let's pretend Fred Wilpon was going to the New York sports media and saying "If David would JUST agree to wear this beanie for FIVE MEASLY MINUTES every month, WE COULD GET THIS DEAL SIGNED!" That'd be highly inaccurate, yes? My friends, this is exactly what Democrats are doing with their story about "just let us raise taxes on the rich." They are focusing on one tiny aspect of the issue, ignoring the big one, and blaming the multicolored beanie and not the $20 million gap in contract negotiations.
(Thankfully, all this is moot, and David Wright signed an eight year extension. To my knowledge, a beanie was not part of the discussion.)
It turns out, as has been shown so many times before, this tax increase will not solve the problem. At all. So one must ask why does the Democrat party have such a massive desire to raise taxes?
At best, it's all about their PR. At worst, it's an attempt by the Democrat Party to continue to pretend the problem is we don't tax enough. If they do that, they can continue the facade a little longer (until America is so bankrupt that we can't even afford to borrow more money). Not only is it the height of dishonesty to keep focusing on the multicolored beanie, it shows a complete disregard for solving the real problem. Further, they have stated they are willing to take us over the fiscal cliff just so they can make us wear that stupid beanie. Who isn't looking out for America, friends?
America, this is who you elected. I hope you're paying attention. Because this is EXACTLY what you wished for, whether or not you knew it. This is who the Democrat Party has been for decades and continues to be.
Monday, December 3, 2012
Obama Fiscal Cliff Plan: Ignore the Real Problem
It's been a lovely four week hiatus from blogging, but Biblical Conservatism is back, albeit in a different way. As I stated long before the election, Biblical Conservatism will now become a twice a week blog, focusing not only on news but on more topical issues.
Today, we're going to talk real math on the President's Fiscal Cliff solution...raise taxes on people making over $250,000 a year. Yep, that's basically the entire stated plan. Sure, he's used cliches like "balanced approach" but really the only stated thing he has said he would do was raise taxes.
So, how much would this plan really raise, exactly? I'm so glad you asked. The number being repeated is $850 Billion. That number does sound very serious, doesn't it? Sure, until someone tells you that's the TEN YEAR PROJECTION. So that means the annual increase in revenue is only $85 billion.
Let's compare that to the last federal budget, 2012, passed under President Obama's tenure, shall we? In 2012, the deficit was $1.327 TRILLION on a $3.796 Trillion budget. The math on that is this: about 35% of the budget was borrowed. Quick math tells us that this "increase in revenue" raises only 6.4% of the actual deficit.
Let me give you a real world example, shall we? Let's take an American family with a household income of $60,000 per year. That family spends above and beyond the money they have in line with what the Federal Government does, which means they spend $81,000 per year, every year. But hey, good news! The boss is giving you a small raise this year! That's right, a 2.24% raise (which is what the new taxes the President wants equals in tax receipts). So now, instead of having $60,000 per year incoming, this family has $61,334. Yahoo! That's totally going to make up for the fact that the family is spending $21,000 more than they have...oh wait, no it doesn't. It's a drop in the bucket.
Actually, to cover the deficit that family has, they would need a raise incoming. revenue 35% JUST TO COVER THEIR CURRENT EXPENSES.
Friends, in America there is no way to raise that much revenue without flat out confiscating every cent earned over $250,000. That will work precisely ONE TIME, because after that, nobody will work one second harder than it would take to earn $250,000 per year. It also would equal a massive depression because businesses would stop hiring people. It simply wouldn't be worth the risk.
As I've said for years now, our real problem isn't that we don't have enough revenue. The problem is we spend far, far too much money. We will not solve our problem without dealing with our spending. Period. However, I believe we can expect no such logical approach.
America, in it's infinite foolishness, saw fit to re-elect the petulant child President Barack Obama. He is now emboldened. Friends, I fear for America. I believe we are headed the way of Greece. The fact that Obama was re-elected means we are in trouble, fiscally speaking, America. Katy, bar the door. We're in trouble.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_United_States_federal_budget
Today, we're going to talk real math on the President's Fiscal Cliff solution...raise taxes on people making over $250,000 a year. Yep, that's basically the entire stated plan. Sure, he's used cliches like "balanced approach" but really the only stated thing he has said he would do was raise taxes.
So, how much would this plan really raise, exactly? I'm so glad you asked. The number being repeated is $850 Billion. That number does sound very serious, doesn't it? Sure, until someone tells you that's the TEN YEAR PROJECTION. So that means the annual increase in revenue is only $85 billion.
Let's compare that to the last federal budget, 2012, passed under President Obama's tenure, shall we? In 2012, the deficit was $1.327 TRILLION on a $3.796 Trillion budget. The math on that is this: about 35% of the budget was borrowed. Quick math tells us that this "increase in revenue" raises only 6.4% of the actual deficit.
Let me give you a real world example, shall we? Let's take an American family with a household income of $60,000 per year. That family spends above and beyond the money they have in line with what the Federal Government does, which means they spend $81,000 per year, every year. But hey, good news! The boss is giving you a small raise this year! That's right, a 2.24% raise (which is what the new taxes the President wants equals in tax receipts). So now, instead of having $60,000 per year incoming, this family has $61,334. Yahoo! That's totally going to make up for the fact that the family is spending $21,000 more than they have...oh wait, no it doesn't. It's a drop in the bucket.
Actually, to cover the deficit that family has, they would need a raise incoming. revenue 35% JUST TO COVER THEIR CURRENT EXPENSES.
Friends, in America there is no way to raise that much revenue without flat out confiscating every cent earned over $250,000. That will work precisely ONE TIME, because after that, nobody will work one second harder than it would take to earn $250,000 per year. It also would equal a massive depression because businesses would stop hiring people. It simply wouldn't be worth the risk.
As I've said for years now, our real problem isn't that we don't have enough revenue. The problem is we spend far, far too much money. We will not solve our problem without dealing with our spending. Period. However, I believe we can expect no such logical approach.
America, in it's infinite foolishness, saw fit to re-elect the petulant child President Barack Obama. He is now emboldened. Friends, I fear for America. I believe we are headed the way of Greece. The fact that Obama was re-elected means we are in trouble, fiscally speaking, America. Katy, bar the door. We're in trouble.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_United_States_federal_budget
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)