In the current "debt ceiling crisis", one good thing that evolved from it is that we can see what is most important to each of the players. Whether or not you bother to discover that is totally up to you. But here it is, in a nutshell:
Speaker Boehner has made it clear that he places the greatest importance on preparing a bill that gets the job done in a manner that allows him to get it passed. To that end he has made numerous concessions to both sides - to the Tea Party caucus, and to the Senate Democrats. If you believe he failed in that respect, you can place the true blame on the horribly partisan, toxic atmosphere of Washington. It is difficult to craft something that both sides can swallow.
The Tea Party has shown their strong desire to stick to their principles, regardless of who it pisses off. I say, that's great. Finding people of principle in government is so refreshing.
Harry Reid, as well as President Obama have clearly stated that the most important thing to them is having the budget taken care of through the next election. In other words, they place the greatest importance on their re-election. While they try to claim it is not political, but common sense not to have to do this again in 6 months, almost every such raising of the debt ceiling has been done every 6 months. Reagan raised it 18 times in 8 years - do the math.
So, on the one hand you have people who are political, but not necessarily focused on re-election (politics). On the other hand, you have some who are strictly working on principle. And on the third hand you have those who don't give a hoot about the people, so long as they manage to improve their chances for re-election.
Y'all can decide for yourselves which is most favorable to America.
/
Sunday, July 31, 2011
If You Wish To Comment, Please Stick To Facts And Not Smears
Someone posted a comment that included the following:
"The republicans do nothing accept whine about birth certificates and whine about crumbs in the form of aid to those in need. This,"They're out to get us we need weapons", scam is what is destroying us."
So to the anonymous poster I would simply say this: Yes, there were "birthers", but a) not all were Republicans, and b) everyone has a right to question anything about our leaders (like you on the left who kept whining about Bush and his military record). As for "aid to those in need", very little of the monstrous amount of aid actually goes to those in need. The vast majority goes to those in WANT. Big difference. Those in need consist of the disabled, the mentally impaired and, in some cases, TEMPORARY aid to those who suffer a temporary setback. It does NOT consist of drug addicts or drunks who CHOOSE not to participate in life, or to people who purposely keep having babies they don't want in order to beef up the amount of aid they get.
And as for your ,"They're out to get us we need weapons", scam is what is destroying us." --- well, the fact is that yes, we do have enemies, and yes, they are out to destroy us if they can. The PRIMARY function of our government, and clearly stated in the Constitution, is to protect us from those who would destroy us. If we had no weapons - or even inferior weapons - we would never have made it past the Spanish-American War.
So, if you really want to post comments, I encourage you to do so. But in doing so, please refrain from slurs, smears or unfounded assertions and accusations. Back up your comments with facts.
Thank you
/
"The republicans do nothing accept whine about birth certificates and whine about crumbs in the form of aid to those in need. This,"They're out to get us we need weapons", scam is what is destroying us."
So to the anonymous poster I would simply say this: Yes, there were "birthers", but a) not all were Republicans, and b) everyone has a right to question anything about our leaders (like you on the left who kept whining about Bush and his military record). As for "aid to those in need", very little of the monstrous amount of aid actually goes to those in need. The vast majority goes to those in WANT. Big difference. Those in need consist of the disabled, the mentally impaired and, in some cases, TEMPORARY aid to those who suffer a temporary setback. It does NOT consist of drug addicts or drunks who CHOOSE not to participate in life, or to people who purposely keep having babies they don't want in order to beef up the amount of aid they get.
And as for your ,"They're out to get us we need weapons", scam is what is destroying us." --- well, the fact is that yes, we do have enemies, and yes, they are out to destroy us if they can. The PRIMARY function of our government, and clearly stated in the Constitution, is to protect us from those who would destroy us. If we had no weapons - or even inferior weapons - we would never have made it past the Spanish-American War.
So, if you really want to post comments, I encourage you to do so. But in doing so, please refrain from slurs, smears or unfounded assertions and accusations. Back up your comments with facts.
Thank you
/
Thursday, July 28, 2011
HuffPost/AOL Has Become Blatantly Dishonest...
A title on one of today's "news stories" at AOL read, "GOP Lawmaker Blasts McCain". The story says how Sharron Angle blasted John McCain on certain issues. The problem - Angle is NOT a lawmaker. She does not hold any elected office whatever.
Seems HuffPost is so set on doing harm to the GOP members in Congress that they are now blatantly lying to the folks...
/
Seems HuffPost is so set on doing harm to the GOP members in Congress that they are now blatantly lying to the folks...
/
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Latest Political Joke - Invoking The 14th Amendment...
14th Amendment, Section 4: "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. "
In the news today, House Democrats are said to be imploring Obama to invoke the 14th amendment, whereby he would single-handedly raisde the debt ceiling without Congress.
Unfortunately for those Democrats, they apparently STILL do not have any understanding of the Constitution. The 14th Amendment says the United states must pay its debts. But there are reasons Obama cannot use it to raise the level of debt.
First, it only states we must pay our debts that are ALREADY "authorized by law." - it does not give authority to INCREASE our debt, which is what raising the debt ceiling does. Second, it does not give the President any authority other than to see that the debt gets paid. And here is the crux - the Treasury pulls in enough money every month ($200 billion) to keep paying the debt indefinitely, along with Social Security, Medicare and the military, with $40 billion left over for other less essential stuff. So, as long as the money to pay the debt is available, Obama has no authority to raise the debt ceiling via the 14th Amendment. What the 14th Amendment DOES do is compel Obama and the Treasury to pay the debt FIRST, from the monthly revenues. They cannot decide to default on the debt in order to pay for pet projects.
And here is another eye-opener: failure to raise the debt ceiling will NOT result in default, and the 14th Amendment states that it MUST NOT result in default - the debt must be paid. So, all this fear mongering about default is purse BS, and the Democrats know it. Every month we pull in $200 billion - more than enough to guarantee payment on our debts.
Democrats, wise up - if Obama were to even THINK about raising the ceiling on his own, he would be impeached. And I am certain you do not want that.
/
In the news today, House Democrats are said to be imploring Obama to invoke the 14th amendment, whereby he would single-handedly raisde the debt ceiling without Congress.
Unfortunately for those Democrats, they apparently STILL do not have any understanding of the Constitution. The 14th Amendment says the United states must pay its debts. But there are reasons Obama cannot use it to raise the level of debt.
First, it only states we must pay our debts that are ALREADY "authorized by law." - it does not give authority to INCREASE our debt, which is what raising the debt ceiling does. Second, it does not give the President any authority other than to see that the debt gets paid. And here is the crux - the Treasury pulls in enough money every month ($200 billion) to keep paying the debt indefinitely, along with Social Security, Medicare and the military, with $40 billion left over for other less essential stuff. So, as long as the money to pay the debt is available, Obama has no authority to raise the debt ceiling via the 14th Amendment. What the 14th Amendment DOES do is compel Obama and the Treasury to pay the debt FIRST, from the monthly revenues. They cannot decide to default on the debt in order to pay for pet projects.
And here is another eye-opener: failure to raise the debt ceiling will NOT result in default, and the 14th Amendment states that it MUST NOT result in default - the debt must be paid. So, all this fear mongering about default is purse BS, and the Democrats know it. Every month we pull in $200 billion - more than enough to guarantee payment on our debts.
Democrats, wise up - if Obama were to even THINK about raising the ceiling on his own, he would be impeached. And I am certain you do not want that.
/
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
America - Land Of the Free (not by a long shot)...
When the founders pieced this country into a nation, the idea was that America would be a land where people would be free of government interference. The government was granted eight specific powers, none of which would take away anyone's liberties.
Look around - do you really believe that is true today?
If you want to build an addition on your home, you need to get a permit. And if your home is zoned in certain ways, you simply will not be allowed to add that extra bedroom or sunroom.
The government took away our efficient toilets - we cannot buy a toilet in America that flushes very well, because the government decided any toilet that uses more than 6 drops of water to flush is just too wasteful.
The government is now taking away our right to adequate lighting - incandescent bulbs will be banned next year, in favor of dangerous mercury-filled bulbs designed to make General Electric richer, as well as China, where EVERY fluorescent squiggly bulb is made (note: G.E. paid no taxes on last year's earnings, either, because they exported jobs to China).
The government has now ordered all Americans to buy a product (health insurance) because it is necessary to "even out" medical costs. So what else can they now order us to buy for the good of the nation? GM cars, because we have so much bailout money at stake? Or maybe they will force us to all buy U.S. Savings Bonds, to help America pay its debt.
And Boeing was building a new plant in South Carolina, designed to hire thousands of people. But the government is suing them for doing that, trying to get them to build ONLY in a state that allows unions. You see, South Carolina is a "right to work" state, and the current government is so dependent upon union support that they will do anything to help unions - even if it means violatuing the Constitution and interfering in private concerns and states' rights.
Little girls had their lemonade stands shut down in several communities across the nation because they did not pay a $500 permit or some other dumb, unconstitutional excuse. And a man in Georgia was fined for GIVING AWAY produce that he grew - it seems the community commercial farmers objected and had unconstitutional laws passed to prevent others from cutting into their profits.
And then the man who was fined for hoisting a banner of American flags for his business, and the homeowner who was fined and ordered to take down his American flag because it was too big. And the homeowner who was told to remove the baby Jesus from his holiday creche.
And a CANADIAN oil company is illegally using "eminent domain" against American citizens. Worse yet, our illustrious Supreme Court decided, illegally, to change the Constitution to say government can use eminent domain for the public BENEFIT, rather than for public USE.
I can cite at least a thousand such instances where various levels of government have illegally stripped us of our God-given liberties. But you get the point, I hope.
So here is the point --- unless each of us grows a set and has the courage to stand up and say "STOP", it will continue, and soon we will have no freedoms left. We need to elect peiople in local, state and federal governments who pledge to roll back these illegal abuses against our liberties. For example, on the local level zoning board members should be forced to limit zoning requirements to things that actually, and substantially affect the general health and welfare of a community. If my planned sunroom is built to code, and will not substantially harm the community at large, then I should be able to build it.
Freedom is not free, folks. Never has been. It must be fought for, constantly. The only problem with America is that too many of us have been spoiled by the good life, and are not interested in fighting for anything. And government counts on such apathy to grow into a monster that will devour us.
/
Look around - do you really believe that is true today?
If you want to build an addition on your home, you need to get a permit. And if your home is zoned in certain ways, you simply will not be allowed to add that extra bedroom or sunroom.
The government took away our efficient toilets - we cannot buy a toilet in America that flushes very well, because the government decided any toilet that uses more than 6 drops of water to flush is just too wasteful.
The government is now taking away our right to adequate lighting - incandescent bulbs will be banned next year, in favor of dangerous mercury-filled bulbs designed to make General Electric richer, as well as China, where EVERY fluorescent squiggly bulb is made (note: G.E. paid no taxes on last year's earnings, either, because they exported jobs to China).
The government has now ordered all Americans to buy a product (health insurance) because it is necessary to "even out" medical costs. So what else can they now order us to buy for the good of the nation? GM cars, because we have so much bailout money at stake? Or maybe they will force us to all buy U.S. Savings Bonds, to help America pay its debt.
And Boeing was building a new plant in South Carolina, designed to hire thousands of people. But the government is suing them for doing that, trying to get them to build ONLY in a state that allows unions. You see, South Carolina is a "right to work" state, and the current government is so dependent upon union support that they will do anything to help unions - even if it means violatuing the Constitution and interfering in private concerns and states' rights.
Little girls had their lemonade stands shut down in several communities across the nation because they did not pay a $500 permit or some other dumb, unconstitutional excuse. And a man in Georgia was fined for GIVING AWAY produce that he grew - it seems the community commercial farmers objected and had unconstitutional laws passed to prevent others from cutting into their profits.
And then the man who was fined for hoisting a banner of American flags for his business, and the homeowner who was fined and ordered to take down his American flag because it was too big. And the homeowner who was told to remove the baby Jesus from his holiday creche.
And a CANADIAN oil company is illegally using "eminent domain" against American citizens. Worse yet, our illustrious Supreme Court decided, illegally, to change the Constitution to say government can use eminent domain for the public BENEFIT, rather than for public USE.
I can cite at least a thousand such instances where various levels of government have illegally stripped us of our God-given liberties. But you get the point, I hope.
So here is the point --- unless each of us grows a set and has the courage to stand up and say "STOP", it will continue, and soon we will have no freedoms left. We need to elect peiople in local, state and federal governments who pledge to roll back these illegal abuses against our liberties. For example, on the local level zoning board members should be forced to limit zoning requirements to things that actually, and substantially affect the general health and welfare of a community. If my planned sunroom is built to code, and will not substantially harm the community at large, then I should be able to build it.
Freedom is not free, folks. Never has been. It must be fought for, constantly. The only problem with America is that too many of us have been spoiled by the good life, and are not interested in fighting for anything. And government counts on such apathy to grow into a monster that will devour us.
/
More fear tactics from a dishonest President...
In the president's speech last evening he once again resorted to unfounded fear tactics. It seems he and other Democrats cannot tell the truth about "defaulting on our debt."
It will not happen, and Obama knows it. There is ZERO chance, even if no debt deal is struck. No matter what happens, our debts will be paid, and here is why...
Each month the Treasury takes in roughly $200+ billion. From that, we can pay the interest on our debt, the military, Social Security and Medicare - and still have $40 billion left over. Granted, $40 billion will not pay everything else. But the point is, the ONLY way we can default is to not pay the interest on the debt - and the funding for that is guaranteed. So, we will not default.
Yes, there are many government services that will grind to a halt. But the major items will get paid. Period.
So, Democrats, for the sake of honesty, stop crying "default." Stop scaring people into thinking the entire government will grind to a halt. Ain't gonna happen.
And Obama knows it. So, his use of the threat of default is not only groundless, but blatantly dishonest.
Also in his speech Obama stated "Some are not paying their fair share", referencing America's "wealthy" citizens. But the simple fact is that the wealthy already pay the lion's share. The people who are NOT paying a fair share are the 50% of Americans who pay NOTHING in taxes - or worse, get refunds in excess of what they paid in. I paid over $28,000 in taxes. My neighbor brags about getting back over $1,300 more than he paid in. How can any sane and honest person say that is fair? It is as unfair as anything gets. He gets all the same benefits of citizenship, but pays nothing for them while I pay through the nose. Just because he earns less, or has more children should not get him a free ride. I do not expect him to pay what I pay in dollars, but I do expect him to pay the same percentage, or at least SOME percentage. And I certainly do not believe anyone should ever get back more than they paid in - that is nothing more than sticking his hand in my pocket. And where I come from, that is called thievery.
Those "50% who pay nothing" have the same use of our highways, hospitals, schools. They end up collecting Social Security and Medicare. They have ALL the same benefits as those who pick up the tab, and regardless of the upside-down hype and fuzzy math of Democrats, that is NOT fair, in any sense of the word. EVERY American should have to contribute at least a minimal percentage of income, no exceptions.
I take exception to the fact that I am forced to pay the freight for some child-molesting drug dealer simply because his illegal drug income goes unreported, so he "qualifies" for all the government goodies at my expense. I find it more than just insulting that money is automatically taken away from the support of my family in order to pay for exhorbitant early pensions of government employees.
No, Mr. President, it is time for you to stop the fear-mongering. It is time for you to tell the truth. And it is time for you to hoist up your britches and be the president of ALL Americans, and not just the unions, the poor and the far-left.
/
It will not happen, and Obama knows it. There is ZERO chance, even if no debt deal is struck. No matter what happens, our debts will be paid, and here is why...
Each month the Treasury takes in roughly $200+ billion. From that, we can pay the interest on our debt, the military, Social Security and Medicare - and still have $40 billion left over. Granted, $40 billion will not pay everything else. But the point is, the ONLY way we can default is to not pay the interest on the debt - and the funding for that is guaranteed. So, we will not default.
Yes, there are many government services that will grind to a halt. But the major items will get paid. Period.
So, Democrats, for the sake of honesty, stop crying "default." Stop scaring people into thinking the entire government will grind to a halt. Ain't gonna happen.
And Obama knows it. So, his use of the threat of default is not only groundless, but blatantly dishonest.
Also in his speech Obama stated "Some are not paying their fair share", referencing America's "wealthy" citizens. But the simple fact is that the wealthy already pay the lion's share. The people who are NOT paying a fair share are the 50% of Americans who pay NOTHING in taxes - or worse, get refunds in excess of what they paid in. I paid over $28,000 in taxes. My neighbor brags about getting back over $1,300 more than he paid in. How can any sane and honest person say that is fair? It is as unfair as anything gets. He gets all the same benefits of citizenship, but pays nothing for them while I pay through the nose. Just because he earns less, or has more children should not get him a free ride. I do not expect him to pay what I pay in dollars, but I do expect him to pay the same percentage, or at least SOME percentage. And I certainly do not believe anyone should ever get back more than they paid in - that is nothing more than sticking his hand in my pocket. And where I come from, that is called thievery.
Those "50% who pay nothing" have the same use of our highways, hospitals, schools. They end up collecting Social Security and Medicare. They have ALL the same benefits as those who pick up the tab, and regardless of the upside-down hype and fuzzy math of Democrats, that is NOT fair, in any sense of the word. EVERY American should have to contribute at least a minimal percentage of income, no exceptions.
I take exception to the fact that I am forced to pay the freight for some child-molesting drug dealer simply because his illegal drug income goes unreported, so he "qualifies" for all the government goodies at my expense. I find it more than just insulting that money is automatically taken away from the support of my family in order to pay for exhorbitant early pensions of government employees.
No, Mr. President, it is time for you to stop the fear-mongering. It is time for you to tell the truth. And it is time for you to hoist up your britches and be the president of ALL Americans, and not just the unions, the poor and the far-left.
/
Monday, July 25, 2011
Here's An Example Of How The Left Skews Figures To Win Arguments...
A few moments ago on "The Five" on Fox News, Bob Beckel stated "In Norway, there were only 500 murders last year, while in America there were 10,543. Norway restricts guns - case closed". So, according to Mr Beckel, we should restrict guns because it reduces murders.
But what Mr Beckel failed to mention is the most important statistic - the population of Norway is 4.9 million, while the population of America is 320 million. Therefore, the murder rate in Norway is actually three times higher than in America. In Norway, 1 in 10,000 get murdered, while in America only 1 in 30,000 gets murdered.
Perhaps Norway should stop restricting guns...
The point is, liberals who want bigger, more intrusive government and want to restrict our liberties and rights will purposely deceive you with accurate, yet misleading data - misleading because the data is incomplete. Whenever someone tries to convince you using statistics, always look deeper to see if there may be important data he is leaving out.
In this case, I emailed this to FOX and Greg Gutfeld & Judge Napolitano brought it to Mr. Beckel's attention. He huffed and hawed, and then true to liberal form, he denied that it made any difference.
I guess that's because of the "fuzzy math" that liberals use.
/
But what Mr Beckel failed to mention is the most important statistic - the population of Norway is 4.9 million, while the population of America is 320 million. Therefore, the murder rate in Norway is actually three times higher than in America. In Norway, 1 in 10,000 get murdered, while in America only 1 in 30,000 gets murdered.
Perhaps Norway should stop restricting guns...
The point is, liberals who want bigger, more intrusive government and want to restrict our liberties and rights will purposely deceive you with accurate, yet misleading data - misleading because the data is incomplete. Whenever someone tries to convince you using statistics, always look deeper to see if there may be important data he is leaving out.
In this case, I emailed this to FOX and Greg Gutfeld & Judge Napolitano brought it to Mr. Beckel's attention. He huffed and hawed, and then true to liberal form, he denied that it made any difference.
I guess that's because of the "fuzzy math" that liberals use.
/
Friday, July 22, 2011
The REAL Reason The Debt Crisis Has Not Been Resolved (it's not what you think)...
I'll keep this simple - the ONLY reason we do not have a "debt deal" is as simple as this - the Democrats want the CREDIT for a deal, but they refuse to put a plan out there because of the risk if it fails. They are insisting the Republicans put out a plan, so if it goes awry, the Republicans get blamed, and if it works, the Democrats take the credit because they OK'd the deal.
Ask yourself - why have the Democrats in Congress not passed a budget in 800 days? Why have they not put forth a single plan? Why has Obama not put forth a plan?
There is only one reason - they are playing politics with the debt crisis, and want the Republicans to be left holding the bag.
/
Ask yourself - why have the Democrats in Congress not passed a budget in 800 days? Why have they not put forth a single plan? Why has Obama not put forth a plan?
There is only one reason - they are playing politics with the debt crisis, and want the Republicans to be left holding the bag.
/
Obama Did Not Act In Good Faith - Boehner Walks Out...
All the liberal media are telling the same half-truth this evening - that Boehner walked out of talks with Obama on the debt crisis. What they are NOT saying is the real story.
Obama had already agreed to limiting tax increases to $800 billion. At the last minute, the president intentionally sabotaged the talks by insisting on adding yet another $400 billion in tax increases. After he had already agreed to only $800 billion. The president knew Boehner would not accept that. He was right.
And Boehner decided it was fruitless to try negotiating with someone who was not acting in good faith, so he walked out.
Boehner will now carve out some sort of deal with the Senate. A bill will then hit Obama's desk, and whether Obama likes it or not, he will have to sign it, or take full responsibility for the default.
Mr. Obama, it would be wise to set aside your partisan politicking long enough to do what is best for the nation. If you refuse to act in good faith, don't expect others to eat at your table.
/
Obama had already agreed to limiting tax increases to $800 billion. At the last minute, the president intentionally sabotaged the talks by insisting on adding yet another $400 billion in tax increases. After he had already agreed to only $800 billion. The president knew Boehner would not accept that. He was right.
And Boehner decided it was fruitless to try negotiating with someone who was not acting in good faith, so he walked out.
Boehner will now carve out some sort of deal with the Senate. A bill will then hit Obama's desk, and whether Obama likes it or not, he will have to sign it, or take full responsibility for the default.
Mr. Obama, it would be wise to set aside your partisan politicking long enough to do what is best for the nation. If you refuse to act in good faith, don't expect others to eat at your table.
/
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
The Biggest Problem With The Gang Of 6 Plan...
OK, so the Senate's "Gang of 6" came up with a plan. Sounds pretty decent at first blush - until you take the time to realize some things.
For example, only 50% of American workers pay any taxes at all - the other 50% get a free ride. So, when the gang of 6 says they will eliminate deductions, that only hurts the 50% who are already paying taxes - they will now pay more. The other 50% of Americans STILL get a free ride.
Personally, I believe EVERY American should be required to have skin in the game. If they do not, then they have no problem when taxes are raised, and will vote for every conceivable entitlement. Why not? They aren't paying for them!
Everyone should pay something, even if it's only $2 per week for the poor, and at least 5% for everyone else who is currently getting a free ride. If we were to do that, it would be more fair to everyone, would insure more people will want fiscal responsibility from Washington, and would wipe out our debt in just a few years.
But Democrats want people who earn $250,000 to pay even more taxes, while allowing people who make $45,000 to go scott free, without any tax burden at all. Why should ANYONE who is capable of supporting themselves get a free ride?
But then, politicians are not concerned with the good of the nation as much as they are concerned with getting re-elected. If Congressmen were limited to one term, that would not happen, because re-election would not even be an issue. Maybe then we would have a government we could be proud of.
/
For example, only 50% of American workers pay any taxes at all - the other 50% get a free ride. So, when the gang of 6 says they will eliminate deductions, that only hurts the 50% who are already paying taxes - they will now pay more. The other 50% of Americans STILL get a free ride.
Personally, I believe EVERY American should be required to have skin in the game. If they do not, then they have no problem when taxes are raised, and will vote for every conceivable entitlement. Why not? They aren't paying for them!
Everyone should pay something, even if it's only $2 per week for the poor, and at least 5% for everyone else who is currently getting a free ride. If we were to do that, it would be more fair to everyone, would insure more people will want fiscal responsibility from Washington, and would wipe out our debt in just a few years.
But Democrats want people who earn $250,000 to pay even more taxes, while allowing people who make $45,000 to go scott free, without any tax burden at all. Why should ANYONE who is capable of supporting themselves get a free ride?
But then, politicians are not concerned with the good of the nation as much as they are concerned with getting re-elected. If Congressmen were limited to one term, that would not happen, because re-election would not even be an issue. Maybe then we would have a government we could be proud of.
/
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
When is "free" not free, but costly? Check it out...
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - "A U.S. medical advisory group (Institute of Medicine) recommended providing women free birth control and other preventive health services under the nation's healthcare overhaul."
I can only assume the advisory group is made up of morons, because NOTHING is ever "free". SOMEONE is going to pay for it.
Everything that Obama says will be "free" under ObamaCare is NOT free. In fact, it is actually more expensive, as insurers will charge more for the insurance that covers such things.
The companies that make birth control options are going to get paid. The doctors who prescribe them are going to be paid. And the pharmacist who dispenses them will get paid. They will be paid by the insurance companies, or Medicare - BUT WHO PAYS THE PREMIUMS? We do! And for every $10 of birth control, insurers will increase our premiums by $20. Far from "free".
They are not free. They are only free to those who know how to scam the system. And the rest of us have to pick up the tab.
In most circles, that is called socialism.
/
I can only assume the advisory group is made up of morons, because NOTHING is ever "free". SOMEONE is going to pay for it.
Everything that Obama says will be "free" under ObamaCare is NOT free. In fact, it is actually more expensive, as insurers will charge more for the insurance that covers such things.
The companies that make birth control options are going to get paid. The doctors who prescribe them are going to be paid. And the pharmacist who dispenses them will get paid. They will be paid by the insurance companies, or Medicare - BUT WHO PAYS THE PREMIUMS? We do! And for every $10 of birth control, insurers will increase our premiums by $20. Far from "free".
They are not free. They are only free to those who know how to scam the system. And the rest of us have to pick up the tab.
In most circles, that is called socialism.
/
Extortion by any other name is still criminal...(more)
A lot of Maine folks (being smarter than most) have rejected the "Smart Meters" proposed by Obama and as put forth by Central Maine Power.
So, CMP has taken a page from ObamaCare - penalize those who do not want to be subjugated or forced into submission.
We now are blessed with a "choice" - we can go with the Smart Meter, or a Smart Meter Lite, or we can go with the old standby "electro-mechanical" meter we already have. With one major change - if you want to go with the "electro-mechanical" meter, you will be charged $40 for installation (even thouh it's already installed) and an extra $12/month, every month for something you already have, and are already paying for - the cost of your meter and the meter reader is already built into your bill. So, this is actually double-billing.
Does anyone here recall the old "protection rackets?" You know, the old, "We won't hurt you as long as you pay us for protection." Well, that is what this (and ObamaCare) is - a government authorized extortion racket, brought to us courtesy of the Chicago mob-style of politics.
And they get away with it because they are a monopoly - where else will you get electricity?
Extortion - there is no other name for it.
So, CMP has taken a page from ObamaCare - penalize those who do not want to be subjugated or forced into submission.
We now are blessed with a "choice" - we can go with the Smart Meter, or a Smart Meter Lite, or we can go with the old standby "electro-mechanical" meter we already have. With one major change - if you want to go with the "electro-mechanical" meter, you will be charged $40 for installation (even thouh it's already installed) and an extra $12/month, every month for something you already have, and are already paying for - the cost of your meter and the meter reader is already built into your bill. So, this is actually double-billing.
Does anyone here recall the old "protection rackets?" You know, the old, "We won't hurt you as long as you pay us for protection." Well, that is what this (and ObamaCare) is - a government authorized extortion racket, brought to us courtesy of the Chicago mob-style of politics.
And they get away with it because they are a monopoly - where else will you get electricity?
Extortion - there is no other name for it.
Saturday, July 16, 2011
McCain vs Bachmann - a lesson in dieting...
"Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) took issue with Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann's unwavering opposition to raising the debt ceiling in an interview with National Review Online released on Thursday." (HuffPost)
Well, all I can say is, if McCain is against her, she must be right. McCain is a RiNO, not a conservative.
I, too, have legit questions as to why we need to raise the debt limit if we cut spending appropriately. Look at it from your own standpoint: Let's say you earn $500 per week, but are spending $800 per week. If your name is Obama, you would simply try to raise your income (taxes) to match your spending. If you are Michele Bachman, you would simply cut spending by $300 a week. Now I ask you - if you cut your spending by $300 week, WHY do you need to raise your income?
So here is the real story. Democrats love spending money to make themselves popular at home, and get re-elected. To do that, they need to increase taxes constantly. And the far-left Democrats (socialist/progressives) actually want the country to go bust so they can institute socialism in America. So, they insist that the debt ceiling be raised, over and over. It has nothing to do with what America needs, but rather what the politicians want.
Republican conservatives, however, are more concerned with keeping America a profitable, capitalist society, which progressives hate. To that end, they want fiscal responsibility, even if it hurts for awhile.
And then there are the "RiNO's" like McCain. So-called establishment Republicans who are not conservative (they are more like "Democrat-Lite"), and simply "go along to get along".
We do not need McCain or those like him. We do not need "more of the same", as proposed by the Democrats. We need a new direction, one that includes fiscal responsibility if we are to avoid the necessity of "austerity measures" like those that are tearing Europe apart.
And that means we must cut spending back to a level that coincides with revenues - WITHOUT raising taxes. Raising taxes only gives Congress more money to spend - and spend it they would.
After all, if you were to go on a diet, what good would it do to cut out ice cream, only to increase your intake of potato chips?
/
Well, all I can say is, if McCain is against her, she must be right. McCain is a RiNO, not a conservative.
I, too, have legit questions as to why we need to raise the debt limit if we cut spending appropriately. Look at it from your own standpoint: Let's say you earn $500 per week, but are spending $800 per week. If your name is Obama, you would simply try to raise your income (taxes) to match your spending. If you are Michele Bachman, you would simply cut spending by $300 a week. Now I ask you - if you cut your spending by $300 week, WHY do you need to raise your income?
So here is the real story. Democrats love spending money to make themselves popular at home, and get re-elected. To do that, they need to increase taxes constantly. And the far-left Democrats (socialist/progressives) actually want the country to go bust so they can institute socialism in America. So, they insist that the debt ceiling be raised, over and over. It has nothing to do with what America needs, but rather what the politicians want.
Republican conservatives, however, are more concerned with keeping America a profitable, capitalist society, which progressives hate. To that end, they want fiscal responsibility, even if it hurts for awhile.
And then there are the "RiNO's" like McCain. So-called establishment Republicans who are not conservative (they are more like "Democrat-Lite"), and simply "go along to get along".
We do not need McCain or those like him. We do not need "more of the same", as proposed by the Democrats. We need a new direction, one that includes fiscal responsibility if we are to avoid the necessity of "austerity measures" like those that are tearing Europe apart.
And that means we must cut spending back to a level that coincides with revenues - WITHOUT raising taxes. Raising taxes only gives Congress more money to spend - and spend it they would.
After all, if you were to go on a diet, what good would it do to cut out ice cream, only to increase your intake of potato chips?
/
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Now he is the Liar-In Chief...
Today, Obama said, "I cannot guarantee that those Social Security checks go out on Aug. 3rd if we haven't resolved this issue. Because there may simply not be the money ".
That is a bold-faced lie. He knows it, and so does every informed person. The U.S. Treasury continues to pull in 60% of all revenues, regardless. That is enough to pay ALL the essentials, including the debt payments, military, Social Security, Medicare, The Postal Service etc. The ONLY things that would not be funded are the "less than essential", like those treadmills for shrimp, USDA inspectors, EPA etc. But Social Security & Medicare are NOT threatened in the least little bit. And Obama knows it.
So, Obama is intentially lying, for the express purpose of frightening the elderly so they will pressure Republicans to let Obama raise taxes by a trillion bucks.
But what Obama has not mentioned is that there are already a half-trillion dollars of new taxes coming at us in ObamaCare. So, if he gets his way, over the next two years taxes will be increased by 1.5 trillion.
That means $1.5 trillion will be siphoned out of the economy, resulting in serious job losses.
It is a sorry state of affairs that we have to wait another 18 months to get rid of this disingenuous, lying moron.
/
That is a bold-faced lie. He knows it, and so does every informed person. The U.S. Treasury continues to pull in 60% of all revenues, regardless. That is enough to pay ALL the essentials, including the debt payments, military, Social Security, Medicare, The Postal Service etc. The ONLY things that would not be funded are the "less than essential", like those treadmills for shrimp, USDA inspectors, EPA etc. But Social Security & Medicare are NOT threatened in the least little bit. And Obama knows it.
So, Obama is intentially lying, for the express purpose of frightening the elderly so they will pressure Republicans to let Obama raise taxes by a trillion bucks.
But what Obama has not mentioned is that there are already a half-trillion dollars of new taxes coming at us in ObamaCare. So, if he gets his way, over the next two years taxes will be increased by 1.5 trillion.
That means $1.5 trillion will be siphoned out of the economy, resulting in serious job losses.
It is a sorry state of affairs that we have to wait another 18 months to get rid of this disingenuous, lying moron.
/
The Law Of Falling Dominoes - It Has Begun,,,(more)
"Eurozone finance ministers opened the door to using the currency union's bailout fund to buy up distressed Greek bonds, thereby cutting the country's overall debt load as they scrambled to stop the region's debt crisis from spreading to larger economies like Italy and Spain." (AP)
Anyone with an I.Q. of more than one digit could have seen this coming. When the economy of every nation is tied together with a single currency (Euro), when one nation fails, they all get hurt.
If history has taught us anything it is that centralization of ANYTHING is bad news. Centralize currency, you all go broke together. Centralize power, and one monkey wrench can put the entire nation in the dark. Centralize government, and one bomb can wipe out a nation's governing body.
I certainly hope that America is able to learn from history - and from the present situation in the Eurozone, and put a screeching halt to centralization. For the same reason that a monopoly is dangerous, so it centralization. Putting all your eggs in one basket only ensures the destruction of all your eggs if you drop the basket.
For this reason we should abandon the United Nations, decentralize the power grid instead of centralizing it more with the so-called "smart grid", and keep as many things on a local basis as is humanly possible. And communications should not rely on satellites - one good solar flare and we would be crippled.
Progressives and liberals, through the U.N. want us to "merge" with Europe, and centralize everything in a complete redistribution of wealth. The latest push is to pony up $76 TRILLION over the next 40 years to fight poverty in other nations (redistribute America's wealth) and to "eliminate the threat of climate change", which, in itself, is impossible - the climate has been changing every moment since the Earth was formed, and will continue to do so.
I am not suggesting isolationism. What I am suggesting is that we preserve America and what it stands for by remaining different - the very difference that made America Great. It's called "independence".
/
Anyone with an I.Q. of more than one digit could have seen this coming. When the economy of every nation is tied together with a single currency (Euro), when one nation fails, they all get hurt.
If history has taught us anything it is that centralization of ANYTHING is bad news. Centralize currency, you all go broke together. Centralize power, and one monkey wrench can put the entire nation in the dark. Centralize government, and one bomb can wipe out a nation's governing body.
I certainly hope that America is able to learn from history - and from the present situation in the Eurozone, and put a screeching halt to centralization. For the same reason that a monopoly is dangerous, so it centralization. Putting all your eggs in one basket only ensures the destruction of all your eggs if you drop the basket.
For this reason we should abandon the United Nations, decentralize the power grid instead of centralizing it more with the so-called "smart grid", and keep as many things on a local basis as is humanly possible. And communications should not rely on satellites - one good solar flare and we would be crippled.
Progressives and liberals, through the U.N. want us to "merge" with Europe, and centralize everything in a complete redistribution of wealth. The latest push is to pony up $76 TRILLION over the next 40 years to fight poverty in other nations (redistribute America's wealth) and to "eliminate the threat of climate change", which, in itself, is impossible - the climate has been changing every moment since the Earth was formed, and will continue to do so.
I am not suggesting isolationism. What I am suggesting is that we preserve America and what it stands for by remaining different - the very difference that made America Great. It's called "independence".
/
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Bill Clinton Gripes About Voter ID, but...(more)
Bill Clinton is complaining about the various voter ID laws that states are passing. It seems Mr. Clinton, like many liberals, want no accountability. If ID is not allowed for voting, virtually anyone can vote, including illegal immigrants and felons. And liberals understand that those people would vote Democrat about 4-1, because it is Democrats that vote them all the nice, cushy, free benefits.
Clinton specifically chastised Florida Gov. Rick Scott (R) for imposing a five-year waiting period on the restoration of voting rights for ex-prisoners. Clinton believes once a person is released from prison, they should immediately be permitted to vote. While that may sound good on the surface, thinking people understand a few important points. For example, the recitivism rate is very high, and the ex-con is likely to find himself in prison again within 5 years. So, if given the opportunity to vote, felons would likely vote for candidates that are most likely to go easy on criminals. Gov. Scott recognizes this, and believes it is in the best interest of our society that we not become more lenient with criminals. Therefore, only if an ex-con can stay clean for 5 years can he be afforded the opportunity to help elect our leaders.
Other states require photo ID - a good idea, in that it cuts down on minors, illegals and others not allowed to vote. If we allow illegals to vote, you darn well know they will vote for candidates who will give them amnesty. And besides that, since when was it ever a good idea to allow citizens of other countries to elect our leaders?
I'm sorry, Mr. Clinton, but here in America we take voting very seriously - serious enough to make sure it is kept honest.
/
Clinton specifically chastised Florida Gov. Rick Scott (R) for imposing a five-year waiting period on the restoration of voting rights for ex-prisoners. Clinton believes once a person is released from prison, they should immediately be permitted to vote. While that may sound good on the surface, thinking people understand a few important points. For example, the recitivism rate is very high, and the ex-con is likely to find himself in prison again within 5 years. So, if given the opportunity to vote, felons would likely vote for candidates that are most likely to go easy on criminals. Gov. Scott recognizes this, and believes it is in the best interest of our society that we not become more lenient with criminals. Therefore, only if an ex-con can stay clean for 5 years can he be afforded the opportunity to help elect our leaders.
Other states require photo ID - a good idea, in that it cuts down on minors, illegals and others not allowed to vote. If we allow illegals to vote, you darn well know they will vote for candidates who will give them amnesty. And besides that, since when was it ever a good idea to allow citizens of other countries to elect our leaders?
I'm sorry, Mr. Clinton, but here in America we take voting very seriously - serious enough to make sure it is kept honest.
/
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
Another Dishonest Headline From Huffington Post/AOL...
Today on HuffPost/AOL was the following dishonest headline:
"Tea Party Makes Surprise Endorsement"
The story goes on to say that one lone Congressman, Jason Chaffetz, who was backed by the Tea Party in the last election, was endorsing Mitt Romney for president.
Call me crazy, but just because one person who had the support of the Tea Party is now supporting Romney in no way constitutes the Tea Party as endorsing Romney.
So, according to the HuffPost/AOL bunch, if Joe Blow down at the coffee shop, a good Catholic, should endorse someone, that must mean that the Catholic Church endorses that person, right?
Once again, HuffPost/AOL, in their far-left fervor to spin every political story, has effectively lied to their readers.
The $64 question is, "When will their readers get sick of being lied to?"
/
"Tea Party Makes Surprise Endorsement"
The story goes on to say that one lone Congressman, Jason Chaffetz, who was backed by the Tea Party in the last election, was endorsing Mitt Romney for president.
Call me crazy, but just because one person who had the support of the Tea Party is now supporting Romney in no way constitutes the Tea Party as endorsing Romney.
So, according to the HuffPost/AOL bunch, if Joe Blow down at the coffee shop, a good Catholic, should endorse someone, that must mean that the Catholic Church endorses that person, right?
Once again, HuffPost/AOL, in their far-left fervor to spin every political story, has effectively lied to their readers.
The $64 question is, "When will their readers get sick of being lied to?"
/
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
Day After Disaster...an after-thought...(more)
I am watching DAY AFTER DISASTER, a documentary by Homeland Security. the scenario - terrorists manage to drop a nuclear warhead of Washington D.C.
Without getting into all the minutia, the real story is that our entire government could be wiped out - president, VP, the entire Congress. And, quite likely, the military officials at the Pentagon.
Where does that leave us?
So I say to myself, "Self, what would YOU do to prepare for such an event?" And myself says to me, "Self, if I were you I would back up my hard drive."
In other words, perhaps we should elect a backup government - president, VP, and Congress and keep their identities secret. They would have no power. They would receive no pay. They would be spread out throughout the nation in their hometowns. But they would be available to come together and take the place of any who were wiped out, and we, the People, would still have a working government.
With things as they are today, we, the People would be very wise to "back up our hard drive".
/
Without getting into all the minutia, the real story is that our entire government could be wiped out - president, VP, the entire Congress. And, quite likely, the military officials at the Pentagon.
Where does that leave us?
So I say to myself, "Self, what would YOU do to prepare for such an event?" And myself says to me, "Self, if I were you I would back up my hard drive."
In other words, perhaps we should elect a backup government - president, VP, and Congress and keep their identities secret. They would have no power. They would receive no pay. They would be spread out throughout the nation in their hometowns. But they would be available to come together and take the place of any who were wiped out, and we, the People, would still have a working government.
With things as they are today, we, the People would be very wise to "back up our hard drive".
/
Saturday, July 2, 2011
When Did Their Choices Become Our Responsibility?
I am getting SO sick of all those who keep wailing about their right to have an abortion, and even to have it paid for with taxpayer money. They cry that they have a Constitutional right, a civil right, to kill unwanted babies.
Well, just because a far-left liberal court of the '60's and '70's SAID it is a Constitutional right does not make it so. Does anyone REALLY believe the founding fathers thought it would be OK to abort babies? Not a chance.
But here is the real point - no one forced those women to get pregnant. They already HAD their choice. If a women does not want to get pregnant, she can either stop sleeping around or she can make sure adequate contraception is used. There's your CHOICE for you. Abortion is not a choice - it is an escape from the choices already made. It is an escape from responsibility.
As for taxpayers paying the tab - WRONG! Most taxpayers have fundamental religious beliefs that say abortion is a sin. By using tax money to fund abortions, you are forcing those people to act against their core beliefs, and that is always wrong. You are forcing them to participate in something that, in their view, is a sin. And it may very well be a sin, since no one knows for certain as to the existence of God.
No one has the right to force others to damn themselves. If you want an abortion, that is between you and you God, but YOU had damn well better pay for it. No one else has any obligation to support your children or to support killing them.
In the last post a woman in MN is wailing because the state has shut down and she may not get her $3600/month of taxpayer money to support the 8 kids she had even though she had no way to support them. WHY ARE WE SUPPORTING THAT BIMBO? Did we get her pregnant? Are those kids ours? What makes her responsibility OUR responsibility?
I'll say it one last time - whether a women has an abortion, or gives birth to the baby, if I am not the daddy then don't ask me to pay for it. Those were YOUR choices. Live with the consequences. I have to live with mine. I supported my children even when times were tough.
If you do not want to be pregnant, don't do the things that will get you pregnant. What is so difficult about that?
/
Well, just because a far-left liberal court of the '60's and '70's SAID it is a Constitutional right does not make it so. Does anyone REALLY believe the founding fathers thought it would be OK to abort babies? Not a chance.
But here is the real point - no one forced those women to get pregnant. They already HAD their choice. If a women does not want to get pregnant, she can either stop sleeping around or she can make sure adequate contraception is used. There's your CHOICE for you. Abortion is not a choice - it is an escape from the choices already made. It is an escape from responsibility.
As for taxpayers paying the tab - WRONG! Most taxpayers have fundamental religious beliefs that say abortion is a sin. By using tax money to fund abortions, you are forcing those people to act against their core beliefs, and that is always wrong. You are forcing them to participate in something that, in their view, is a sin. And it may very well be a sin, since no one knows for certain as to the existence of God.
No one has the right to force others to damn themselves. If you want an abortion, that is between you and you God, but YOU had damn well better pay for it. No one else has any obligation to support your children or to support killing them.
In the last post a woman in MN is wailing because the state has shut down and she may not get her $3600/month of taxpayer money to support the 8 kids she had even though she had no way to support them. WHY ARE WE SUPPORTING THAT BIMBO? Did we get her pregnant? Are those kids ours? What makes her responsibility OUR responsibility?
I'll say it one last time - whether a women has an abortion, or gives birth to the baby, if I am not the daddy then don't ask me to pay for it. Those were YOUR choices. Live with the consequences. I have to live with mine. I supported my children even when times were tough.
If you do not want to be pregnant, don't do the things that will get you pregnant. What is so difficult about that?
/
Friday, July 1, 2011
What's Wrong With This Picture?
Minnesota state government has shut down. Sonya Mills, a 39-year-old mother of eight faces the loss of about $3,600 a month in state child care subsidies.
Her six youngest range in age from 3 through 14.
So here is my question - why is a 39 year old woman, who has eight children and was still having kids at age 36 - why are taxpayers giving her $40,000 each year to support her kids? I know a lot of hard-working families that earn less, but manage to support their own.
An 18 year old who has a kid out of wedlock can be chalked up to a mistake of youth. But any woman who has 8 kids by age 36 - well, that is not a "mistake".
It appears taxpayers may be paying this woman to sleep around and have kids. It seems she gets pregnant just to collect more money from the "suckers' - the taxpayers.
Here's an idea - when a person has a child they cannot support, and they seek public assistance, they should be told they cannot have any more kids until they are able to support them. If they do have more, and cannot support them, they should have their children taken away. If we are going to have to support the children, we should not be required to support the person who stuck us with dependents and the bill for their needs. If the woman will not benefit, maybe she will keep her legs crossed.
Frankly, our penchant for giving undeserving people a free ride has got to stop. I believe in helping those who CANNOT help themselves. But I draw the line at helping those who WILL NOT help themselves.
/
Her six youngest range in age from 3 through 14.
So here is my question - why is a 39 year old woman, who has eight children and was still having kids at age 36 - why are taxpayers giving her $40,000 each year to support her kids? I know a lot of hard-working families that earn less, but manage to support their own.
An 18 year old who has a kid out of wedlock can be chalked up to a mistake of youth. But any woman who has 8 kids by age 36 - well, that is not a "mistake".
It appears taxpayers may be paying this woman to sleep around and have kids. It seems she gets pregnant just to collect more money from the "suckers' - the taxpayers.
Here's an idea - when a person has a child they cannot support, and they seek public assistance, they should be told they cannot have any more kids until they are able to support them. If they do have more, and cannot support them, they should have their children taken away. If we are going to have to support the children, we should not be required to support the person who stuck us with dependents and the bill for their needs. If the woman will not benefit, maybe she will keep her legs crossed.
Frankly, our penchant for giving undeserving people a free ride has got to stop. I believe in helping those who CANNOT help themselves. But I draw the line at helping those who WILL NOT help themselves.
/
Maybe NOW It's Time To Dump The U.N. ---
North Korea has assumed the rotating presidency of the world's top disarmament body for four weeks. The move was dictated by the U.N. rules of the Conference on Disarmament . The move provoked criticism from conservative groups who say the country's nuclear weapons ambitions undermine its credibility for the role.
Another insane case of asking the weasel to watch the chickens. Just like appointing Iran head of the Human Rights Commission (which was previously held by Libya).
The first time I said we should get rid of the U.N. was in 1964 - I was a Junior in high school, and I did a paper on the crooked antics of UNICEF, a function of the U.N. Years later it came to light that UNICEF was rife with corruption. Big surprise (yawn).
When will Americans realize the U.N. is detrimental to the interests of the United States, and kick them out? The vast majority of the nations holding seats are enemies of ours, or at the very least, not friends of ours.
Get rid of the U.N. It is a farce, and a dangerous (not to mention expensive) one at that.
/
Another insane case of asking the weasel to watch the chickens. Just like appointing Iran head of the Human Rights Commission (which was previously held by Libya).
The first time I said we should get rid of the U.N. was in 1964 - I was a Junior in high school, and I did a paper on the crooked antics of UNICEF, a function of the U.N. Years later it came to light that UNICEF was rife with corruption. Big surprise (yawn).
When will Americans realize the U.N. is detrimental to the interests of the United States, and kick them out? The vast majority of the nations holding seats are enemies of ours, or at the very least, not friends of ours.
Get rid of the U.N. It is a farce, and a dangerous (not to mention expensive) one at that.
/
The Biggest, Untold Reason NOT To Tax The Rich More...
Think about this the next time you hear "We need to tax the wealthy even more"...
Americans spend roughly $4.6 trillion dollars a year in consumer spending. Consumer spending is what keeps the economy rolling - as people buy, other people have to make and market the products and services, resulting in jobs. Simple so far, right?
But that is where liberals stop thinking. Here is the rest of the story...
A full 33% of all consumer spending is spent by the top 2% of income earners. After all, who else CAN spend that much? If you raise taxes on the wealthy by 3%, that is $138 billion dollars that will not be going into the economy. $138 billion dollars of products that won't need to be built, or services not needed. That's $138,000,000,000 that will NOT go into the pockets of Americans. Jobs that will no longer be needed.
Taxing the rich does two things:
1) It forces businesses to raise prices to cover the higher taxes (which costs YOU money at the store) and
2) It reduces the amount of money in the economy, and kills productivity (and jobs).
No matter how you cut it, taxing the rich more - or anyone - is counter-productive. Reducing taxes has historically proven that the subsequent uptick of discretionary income results in more spending, which results in the need for more products, ergo more jobs. More jobs and more profits results in much more revenue for the Treasury than if you had increased taxes.
/
Americans spend roughly $4.6 trillion dollars a year in consumer spending. Consumer spending is what keeps the economy rolling - as people buy, other people have to make and market the products and services, resulting in jobs. Simple so far, right?
But that is where liberals stop thinking. Here is the rest of the story...
A full 33% of all consumer spending is spent by the top 2% of income earners. After all, who else CAN spend that much? If you raise taxes on the wealthy by 3%, that is $138 billion dollars that will not be going into the economy. $138 billion dollars of products that won't need to be built, or services not needed. That's $138,000,000,000 that will NOT go into the pockets of Americans. Jobs that will no longer be needed.
Taxing the rich does two things:
1) It forces businesses to raise prices to cover the higher taxes (which costs YOU money at the store) and
2) It reduces the amount of money in the economy, and kills productivity (and jobs).
No matter how you cut it, taxing the rich more - or anyone - is counter-productive. Reducing taxes has historically proven that the subsequent uptick of discretionary income results in more spending, which results in the need for more products, ergo more jobs. More jobs and more profits results in much more revenue for the Treasury than if you had increased taxes.
/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)