The far-left loons never cease to amaze!
When someone says Global Warming is bogus because we have a colder than normal winter, the climate change bunch say you cannot judge the climate by isolated incidents like a hard winter, or a snowstorm in Florida.
But in the liberal media headlines today was this:
"Is climate change driving Hurricane Irene"
The story goes on to say that this hurricane is somehow proof positive that climate change is a fact.
What they fail to tell readers is that these hurricanes are not all that unusual - they have happened periodically for all of recorded history. Strange how they can cry that a snowfall in Florida or a cold winter is too "short term" to affect climate, but the minute a normal hurricane hits, or a tornado streaks through, suddenly it's "climate change."
Look, folks - one event, or one season does not constitute "climate" - it is simply "weather", and there is a vast difference. So, too, with the short span of the 150 years we have been recording weather - in a world 4.5 billion years old, 150 years is nothing more than a moment in time. To use it to make claims of global warming is absurd, and shows complete ignoorance of the subject.
Yes, there is "climate change" - and has been for over 4 billion years. Nothing stagnates in nature - even the dead decompose. All collective scientific knowledge concerning the earth's climate over 4 billion years indicates that the normal mean temperature of our planet is 2-4 degrees warmer than it is now. Until the Little Ice Age hit around 1300, wine was made in England. Since the LIA, it had to be produced in southern France because England is (still) too cold. LIA lasted until about 1850. We are still coming out of it - it takes a LONG time to exit an ice age - even a little one. So, the Earth probably is getting warmer - as it should. But it has little, if anything to do with our meager presence, and there is nothing we can do about it.
More important is the fact that the Earth's climate, throughout its history, has been cyclical. That means if it is not getting warmer, it is getting colder. And history has proven over and over that Mankind thrives in the warmest periods, and tends to die off in the colder periods. In other words, warm is good, cold is not good.
Frankly, we should stop all the nonsense of trying to stop global warming, and start making plans to survive the next cooling cycle which, in fact, will come our way sooner or later.
/
Monday, August 29, 2011
Saturday, August 27, 2011
Would YOU have laughed at Noah? See how Media Matters treats a similar situation...
OK, so most of you know who Glenn Beck is. And if you have paid any attention to him in the last 2 years, he has been (rightfully) warning people that food supplies will be in SHORT supply in the none-too-distant future. That is not simply a prediction - it is a fact of nature.
The Earth is capable of providing resources for a limited number of people. Period. Once the population exceeds the resources, we're in deep doo-doo. And with nearly 7 billion folks running around this granite planet, each one using up way more than they ever put back, that time is close at hand. Everyone, subconsciously, knows that, but most refuse to acknowledge it. And that is why, in America, only one person in 28 even has a 3 day supply of emergency stores on hand. And only 1 person in 340 have a year's supply for each member of their family.
And if history teaches us anything, it teaches two things:
1) Disaster will strike, usually without much warning and
2) When it does, it often lasts for 1-7 years
The funny thing is, the far-left lunatics at Media Matters and Huffington Post find Mr. Beck's warning to be "radical and absurd." - you can hear the audio from his show here - judge for yourself if he sounds more like a nutcase or a prophet...
If you do not have at least a one year supply of food, water access and other resources on hand for each member of your family, your family will likely be victims of the next big disaster - like the Dust Bowl of the '30's, or the Spanish Flu of 1917-18 - and those were still just "minor" disasters compared to some that came before - and those yet to come.
And don't count on your water supply - in a severe drought, it will not be there. And if power is disrupted long-term, an electric pump will not pump water. Plan accordingly. And learn things - how to filter water, canning veggies and meat, fishing, hunting - you know, basic survival stuff. Not that you will need it so much as it will give you greater peace of mind in the here and now.
Ask yourself - if a huge solar flare were to knock our all power and all communications for 6 months to a year - how would YOU fare? Or if another pandemic like the Spanish Flu of 1917 that killed up to 60 million people were to inflict itself upon us, what would you do? Could you protect your loved ones? With modern travel, a deadly virus can travel to every remote corner of the planet in less than 3 days. It takes at least 6 months to produce a vaccine.
Certainly, there are always those who will laugh when Noah builds his ark. As for me, I would rather be the one left standing AFTER the proverbial manure hits the proverbial fan.
/
The Earth is capable of providing resources for a limited number of people. Period. Once the population exceeds the resources, we're in deep doo-doo. And with nearly 7 billion folks running around this granite planet, each one using up way more than they ever put back, that time is close at hand. Everyone, subconsciously, knows that, but most refuse to acknowledge it. And that is why, in America, only one person in 28 even has a 3 day supply of emergency stores on hand. And only 1 person in 340 have a year's supply for each member of their family.
And if history teaches us anything, it teaches two things:
1) Disaster will strike, usually without much warning and
2) When it does, it often lasts for 1-7 years
The funny thing is, the far-left lunatics at Media Matters and Huffington Post find Mr. Beck's warning to be "radical and absurd." - you can hear the audio from his show here - judge for yourself if he sounds more like a nutcase or a prophet...
If you do not have at least a one year supply of food, water access and other resources on hand for each member of your family, your family will likely be victims of the next big disaster - like the Dust Bowl of the '30's, or the Spanish Flu of 1917-18 - and those were still just "minor" disasters compared to some that came before - and those yet to come.
And don't count on your water supply - in a severe drought, it will not be there. And if power is disrupted long-term, an electric pump will not pump water. Plan accordingly. And learn things - how to filter water, canning veggies and meat, fishing, hunting - you know, basic survival stuff. Not that you will need it so much as it will give you greater peace of mind in the here and now.
Ask yourself - if a huge solar flare were to knock our all power and all communications for 6 months to a year - how would YOU fare? Or if another pandemic like the Spanish Flu of 1917 that killed up to 60 million people were to inflict itself upon us, what would you do? Could you protect your loved ones? With modern travel, a deadly virus can travel to every remote corner of the planet in less than 3 days. It takes at least 6 months to produce a vaccine.
Certainly, there are always those who will laugh when Noah builds his ark. As for me, I would rather be the one left standing AFTER the proverbial manure hits the proverbial fan.
/
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
Florida & Kentucky Mandate Drug Tests For Welfare - Is It Legal? Here Are The Facts...
My wife posted a "WAY TO GO!" note on her Facebook wall, concerning Florida and Kentucky passing laws that mandate drug tests for those who want to collect welfare.
Someone else posted back that "it is unConstitutional", and violates the Fourth Amendment i.e. illegal search and seizure. He also said that it is illegal to "discriminate" against a class of people, and illegal to place restrictions on benefits.
And this guy is a lawyer (but not a Constitutional Attorney, obviously).
First, it is not an illegal search because they are not being forced into any search. They may choose not to be drug tested. If there is a drug test, they must actually consent to it. Yes, if they refuse, benefits are refused, which takes us to his other point...
Is it illegal to place restrictions on benefits? Not hardly. Benefits are not RIGHTS. They are priviledges. And privileges can have as many restrictions as the legislature wishes to place on them. For example, there are many restrictions on getting a driver's license, and not everyone can comply - when has a blind man ever passed the vision test? And don't welfare applicants have to pass an income verification test? Benefits may have restrictions, and may be revoked at any time. They are not "rights". Furthermore, the money for welfare belongs to the taxpayers, and therefore the taxpayers can mandate how and if it can be used. Like a donation to a charity, the donor reserves the right to decide how that money is to be used. A man donating $5000 to the local shelter may designate the money only be used for substance abuse counseling, for example.
As to his claim that we "can't discriminate against a class of people", that is pure bunk, for two reasons. The first is simple - no one is discriminating against a class of people (presumably he means the poor). It is not discrimination unless only SOME of the people applying are getting tested in a way that is not random, but based on a certain trait, such as sex, religion, etc. If he wants to call it discrimination, then the discrimination is against everyone not collecting welfare - the poor get free money, but the rest of us do not. Why? Because we cannot pass the income test. THAT is discrimination, according to his own logic.
More to the point is that it is so funny how liberals call it discrimination against the poor when we insist they do something not asked of everyone, but they do not see it as discrimination when they call for higher taxes on another class of people - the rich. Somehow they see discrimination in requiring drug tests on one class, but not discrimination to require higher taxes on another class. By his logic is it not discrimination to charge one person 39% tax while charging another person 15% - or even zero? Aren't the wealthy being targeted?
I always get a kick out of how liberals see everything through an "agenda filter" - as long as they are pursuing their agenda, all is fair - even their famous "double standard". High-powered liberals like Geithner and Dacshle can cheat on their taxes and get offered high-paying, cushy government positions, but a conservative actor (Snipes) cheats on his taxes and goes to prison.
Look, folks, it is time that liberals learn the differences between a RIGHT and a BENEFIT or PRIVILEDGE. Welfare is not a right - you have to qualify for it. All states and the federal government have already placed qualifiers for welfare, such as income level. And now two states have added another qualification. No more, no less. And that, my friends, is not discrimination - it is simply being responsible with taxpayer money.
/
Someone else posted back that "it is unConstitutional", and violates the Fourth Amendment i.e. illegal search and seizure. He also said that it is illegal to "discriminate" against a class of people, and illegal to place restrictions on benefits.
And this guy is a lawyer (but not a Constitutional Attorney, obviously).
First, it is not an illegal search because they are not being forced into any search. They may choose not to be drug tested. If there is a drug test, they must actually consent to it. Yes, if they refuse, benefits are refused, which takes us to his other point...
Is it illegal to place restrictions on benefits? Not hardly. Benefits are not RIGHTS. They are priviledges. And privileges can have as many restrictions as the legislature wishes to place on them. For example, there are many restrictions on getting a driver's license, and not everyone can comply - when has a blind man ever passed the vision test? And don't welfare applicants have to pass an income verification test? Benefits may have restrictions, and may be revoked at any time. They are not "rights". Furthermore, the money for welfare belongs to the taxpayers, and therefore the taxpayers can mandate how and if it can be used. Like a donation to a charity, the donor reserves the right to decide how that money is to be used. A man donating $5000 to the local shelter may designate the money only be used for substance abuse counseling, for example.
As to his claim that we "can't discriminate against a class of people", that is pure bunk, for two reasons. The first is simple - no one is discriminating against a class of people (presumably he means the poor). It is not discrimination unless only SOME of the people applying are getting tested in a way that is not random, but based on a certain trait, such as sex, religion, etc. If he wants to call it discrimination, then the discrimination is against everyone not collecting welfare - the poor get free money, but the rest of us do not. Why? Because we cannot pass the income test. THAT is discrimination, according to his own logic.
More to the point is that it is so funny how liberals call it discrimination against the poor when we insist they do something not asked of everyone, but they do not see it as discrimination when they call for higher taxes on another class of people - the rich. Somehow they see discrimination in requiring drug tests on one class, but not discrimination to require higher taxes on another class. By his logic is it not discrimination to charge one person 39% tax while charging another person 15% - or even zero? Aren't the wealthy being targeted?
I always get a kick out of how liberals see everything through an "agenda filter" - as long as they are pursuing their agenda, all is fair - even their famous "double standard". High-powered liberals like Geithner and Dacshle can cheat on their taxes and get offered high-paying, cushy government positions, but a conservative actor (Snipes) cheats on his taxes and goes to prison.
Look, folks, it is time that liberals learn the differences between a RIGHT and a BENEFIT or PRIVILEDGE. Welfare is not a right - you have to qualify for it. All states and the federal government have already placed qualifiers for welfare, such as income level. And now two states have added another qualification. No more, no less. And that, my friends, is not discrimination - it is simply being responsible with taxpayer money.
/
Monday, August 22, 2011
Economists Surveyed - Where Do They REALLY Stand On The Economy...
It appears that the majority of economists disgree with liberals about how best to improve the economy - Obama, take notes!
The majority of economists surveyed by the National Association for Business Economics believe that the federal deficit should be reduced only or primarily through spending cuts, which is exactly what Paul Ryan and the Tea Party Republicans fought so hard for, and were subsequently demonized by the Democrats.
The survey out Monday found that 56 percent of the NABE members surveyed felt that way
while only 37 percent said they favor equal parts spending cuts and tax increases (favored by Obama). The remaining 7 percent believe it should be done only or mostly through tax increases (favored by far left socialists).
As for how to reduce the deficit, the majority said the best way would be to contain Medicare and Medicaid costs (responsible for 40% of the deficit), which is what Paul Ryan and Tea Partiers suggested, but were again demonized by Democrats. Nearly a quarter recommended overhauling the tax system and simplifying tax rates and exemptions.
So it would seem that the administrations' constant bleating that "most economists" believe in tax increases, or a "balanced approach" is blatantly untrue.
No surprises here!
/
The majority of economists surveyed by the National Association for Business Economics believe that the federal deficit should be reduced only or primarily through spending cuts, which is exactly what Paul Ryan and the Tea Party Republicans fought so hard for, and were subsequently demonized by the Democrats.
The survey out Monday found that 56 percent of the NABE members surveyed felt that way
while only 37 percent said they favor equal parts spending cuts and tax increases (favored by Obama). The remaining 7 percent believe it should be done only or mostly through tax increases (favored by far left socialists).
As for how to reduce the deficit, the majority said the best way would be to contain Medicare and Medicaid costs (responsible for 40% of the deficit), which is what Paul Ryan and Tea Partiers suggested, but were again demonized by Democrats. Nearly a quarter recommended overhauling the tax system and simplifying tax rates and exemptions.
So it would seem that the administrations' constant bleating that "most economists" believe in tax increases, or a "balanced approach" is blatantly untrue.
No surprises here!
/
Saturday, August 20, 2011
If You Are Conservative, Pass This Around...
The presidential election is coming up in about a year. If you are a Republican/conservative, it would appear you have a lot of choices in the primary. But do you? Think about this...
There are four kinds of Republicans:
1) True conservative in both fiscal and social issues (Palin, Bachmann, Rubio, Christi, perhaps Gingrich types)
2) Fiscal conservative, but social liberal (Romney, Perry types)
3) Social conservative, but fiscal liberal ( none known at this time)
4) RiNO - Republican in name only (McCain types)
While the current problem facing America appears to be financial, and many Republicans will vote for someone strong in finance, that could be a huge mistake. Here's why...
Our financial problems stem largely from the exhorbitant costs of social programs gone wild, and out of control. Approximately 60% of the budget is for social programs. If we want to fix what is wrong financially, we also need to address the root of the problem and elect a true conservative - conservative in both fiscal and social issues. Someone who is willing to reform (not end) entitlements, and follow a path of fiscal responsibility - a two-pronged approach.
And here is where (and why) it gets crucial to America's regrowth --- a president affects the direction of the country for up to 8 years. But a Supreme Court Justice affects our direction for generations - 45 years after the liberal Warren Court we are still saddled with a society that kicks God to the curb.
Now think about this --- 4 of the justices are between 73 and 78 years old. The next president, if he/she serves 8 years is almost guaranteed to appoint at least one, and possibly up to three justices. Two of those elders are conservative - if either retires or dies while a Democrat president is in office with a Democrat Senate, you can kiss conservative values goodbye for generations to come.
On the other hand, if social conservatives are appointed, America has a hope of protecting the Constitution as written, and not as liberals would rewrite it to serve a "social justice" (socialist) agenda.
So, we do not simply need a Republican president. We need a true conservative, both fiscal and social. And we need enough like-minded Senators to confirm such appointments.
Anything less would spell disaster for the American way of life and the liberties we hold dear.
So, if you are a conservative who respects the Constitution, choose carefully in the primaries. This truly is the most important election in the last 150 years.
/
There are four kinds of Republicans:
1) True conservative in both fiscal and social issues (Palin, Bachmann, Rubio, Christi, perhaps Gingrich types)
2) Fiscal conservative, but social liberal (Romney, Perry types)
3) Social conservative, but fiscal liberal ( none known at this time)
4) RiNO - Republican in name only (McCain types)
While the current problem facing America appears to be financial, and many Republicans will vote for someone strong in finance, that could be a huge mistake. Here's why...
Our financial problems stem largely from the exhorbitant costs of social programs gone wild, and out of control. Approximately 60% of the budget is for social programs. If we want to fix what is wrong financially, we also need to address the root of the problem and elect a true conservative - conservative in both fiscal and social issues. Someone who is willing to reform (not end) entitlements, and follow a path of fiscal responsibility - a two-pronged approach.
And here is where (and why) it gets crucial to America's regrowth --- a president affects the direction of the country for up to 8 years. But a Supreme Court Justice affects our direction for generations - 45 years after the liberal Warren Court we are still saddled with a society that kicks God to the curb.
Now think about this --- 4 of the justices are between 73 and 78 years old. The next president, if he/she serves 8 years is almost guaranteed to appoint at least one, and possibly up to three justices. Two of those elders are conservative - if either retires or dies while a Democrat president is in office with a Democrat Senate, you can kiss conservative values goodbye for generations to come.
On the other hand, if social conservatives are appointed, America has a hope of protecting the Constitution as written, and not as liberals would rewrite it to serve a "social justice" (socialist) agenda.
So, we do not simply need a Republican president. We need a true conservative, both fiscal and social. And we need enough like-minded Senators to confirm such appointments.
Anything less would spell disaster for the American way of life and the liberties we hold dear.
So, if you are a conservative who respects the Constitution, choose carefully in the primaries. This truly is the most important election in the last 150 years.
/
"This Is A Recording..." (by our absent President)
Today's (pre-recorded) message by Mr Obama said exactly what I predicted he would say in one of my blogs earlier this week. "Extend payroll tax vacation; create construction jobs."
And once again I would remind liberals that he tried both, and neither resulted in either jobs or adding to the economy.
Take "construction" jobs for infrastructure, for example. Obama thinks that by paying those workers with tax money, that it infuses into the economy and creates a gain. But that is utterly impossible - and only an idiot could believe it because all he is doing is taking YOUR spending money (from taxing you) and giving it to someone else to spend. The money gets spent in either case, so there is ZERO gain to the economy. The only gain is for unions - most construction jobs are union jobs. In other words, he is using our tax money to fatten unions and buy their votes. That's it.
Here is a simple test for liberals - if you give a dollar to a homeless person, did you add to the economy? No, because you would still have spent it, anyway.
Worse still, construction jobs - even those not paid by tax money - do not add to the GDP - no products are created. Mr Obama, if you MUST take our money and give it to someone else under the pretense of jobs, at least give it to someone who will CREATE something worthwhile - something that adds to the GDP, which strengthens, not weakens the economy.
The government does not EARN any money. Every dime they spend has a zero gain effect on the economy, because they take from Peter to pay Paul. But liberals never seem to understand that.
/
And once again I would remind liberals that he tried both, and neither resulted in either jobs or adding to the economy.
Take "construction" jobs for infrastructure, for example. Obama thinks that by paying those workers with tax money, that it infuses into the economy and creates a gain. But that is utterly impossible - and only an idiot could believe it because all he is doing is taking YOUR spending money (from taxing you) and giving it to someone else to spend. The money gets spent in either case, so there is ZERO gain to the economy. The only gain is for unions - most construction jobs are union jobs. In other words, he is using our tax money to fatten unions and buy their votes. That's it.
Here is a simple test for liberals - if you give a dollar to a homeless person, did you add to the economy? No, because you would still have spent it, anyway.
Worse still, construction jobs - even those not paid by tax money - do not add to the GDP - no products are created. Mr Obama, if you MUST take our money and give it to someone else under the pretense of jobs, at least give it to someone who will CREATE something worthwhile - something that adds to the GDP, which strengthens, not weakens the economy.
The government does not EARN any money. Every dime they spend has a zero gain effect on the economy, because they take from Peter to pay Paul. But liberals never seem to understand that.
/
Thursday, August 18, 2011
I'm A New Follower of "Hill Buzz" Blog - Here's Why...
The blogger with the blog Hill Buzz is one Kevin DuJan, a gay, black male who, until 2008 was a diehard Democrat. In a recent blog, he posed the question, "What does black slavery and black Democrat voters have in common?" His answer was insightful, to say the least.
He says that plantation owners provided housing, food and basic medical care for their slaves, and all they asked for in return was their undying loyalty. And the Democratic party, via their welfare programs, provide housing, food and medical care for minorities, and all they ask for in return is their loyalty.
That is why 92% of all voting blacks always vote Democrat - no matter how ignorant or corrupt the Democrat candidate might be. They simply do not care - they are showing their loyalty for all the benefits provided by Democrats. They are slaves to the Democratic party.
DuJan also says Democrats do something similar with other minorities - by making it easy to not learn English (Dems oppose "English-only" laws), immigrants have almost no chance of being successful, and therefore become dependent upon the benefits provided by Democrats. And to insure the loyalty of women, they play the "free choice/abortion" card, convincing women that Republicans will take away their women's rights.
In short, DuJan makes the case that Democrats use "protection racket" strategies to get the loyalty of specific voting blocs. And it works, because more than half of all voters are not very well informed, and vote by party loyalty, regardless of conditions or facts. CASE IN POINT - Charlie Rangel, as corrupt as they come, keeps getting elected even after being found guilty of ethics violations.
So now the Democrats are doing the same thing to gays - which is why Mr DuJan finally opened his eyes, and left the Democrat party in 2008.
The Republicans are always the underdog because they do not resort to "bloc" tactics like that. For the most part, fear-mongering is the forte of Democrats - Repubs pushing granny over a cliff, driving us into a ditch, Repubs wanting to end Social Security, Repubs want to take us back to the 18th century, and Repubs want poor people to die...the list goes on. It is rare to see such graphic and dishonest tactics coming from the right.
In any case, Mr DuJan has managed to make a follower of his blog.
/
He says that plantation owners provided housing, food and basic medical care for their slaves, and all they asked for in return was their undying loyalty. And the Democratic party, via their welfare programs, provide housing, food and medical care for minorities, and all they ask for in return is their loyalty.
That is why 92% of all voting blacks always vote Democrat - no matter how ignorant or corrupt the Democrat candidate might be. They simply do not care - they are showing their loyalty for all the benefits provided by Democrats. They are slaves to the Democratic party.
DuJan also says Democrats do something similar with other minorities - by making it easy to not learn English (Dems oppose "English-only" laws), immigrants have almost no chance of being successful, and therefore become dependent upon the benefits provided by Democrats. And to insure the loyalty of women, they play the "free choice/abortion" card, convincing women that Republicans will take away their women's rights.
In short, DuJan makes the case that Democrats use "protection racket" strategies to get the loyalty of specific voting blocs. And it works, because more than half of all voters are not very well informed, and vote by party loyalty, regardless of conditions or facts. CASE IN POINT - Charlie Rangel, as corrupt as they come, keeps getting elected even after being found guilty of ethics violations.
So now the Democrats are doing the same thing to gays - which is why Mr DuJan finally opened his eyes, and left the Democrat party in 2008.
The Republicans are always the underdog because they do not resort to "bloc" tactics like that. For the most part, fear-mongering is the forte of Democrats - Repubs pushing granny over a cliff, driving us into a ditch, Repubs wanting to end Social Security, Repubs want to take us back to the 18th century, and Repubs want poor people to die...the list goes on. It is rare to see such graphic and dishonest tactics coming from the right.
In any case, Mr DuJan has managed to make a follower of his blog.
/
Obama's New (non) Deportation Policy...
The prez has announced that he is instituting a new (non) deportation policy. He will not deport illegals unless they have committed a crime (he forgets that coming here illegally is a crime).
At any rate, I found the following posts on AOL/HuffPost - my comments will be found between the [ ]...
“The additional economic activity and tax revenue that undocumented workers provide to state and local governments simply overwhelms the fiscal cost to provide services,” said Dan Griswald, an immigration policy expert with the libertarian think tank CATO Institute. [Editor: So, if an unemployed American had that job instead of an illegal, does he not add that same economic activity and tax revenue? Ergo, CATO's point is pointless - just because an illegal has the job does not add any revenues at all.]
"Listen, most of the illegals are aready working and they won't be taking away your cozy office jobs because they don't qualify.Also, they can start paying taxes now that they are registered." [Editor: Most Americans do not qualify for office jobs, either. 15 million Americans out of work, benefits run out - they would grab those jobs in a hot minute. As for paying taxes, that's a joke - people in their tax bracket pay ZERO taxes. 49% of ALL workers pay no taxes.]
"If anyone can find the clause "this bill of rights is for US citizens only" in our constitution then I accept that illegal residents have zero legal rights here. After all that is what was accorded to Mr. Strauss-Kahn who was accused of the serious crime of rape. Are you all arguing that an illegal resident has less rights than Mr. SK?" [Editor: First, the Constitution of The United States is for the United States, not Mexico or any other country. There are numerous places in the Constitution that state that it pertains to citizens. In fact, Article. IV Section. 2. states, "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." Nowhere does it gives such privileges to non-citizens. Further, the Constitution specifically states that the federal goverment GUARANTEES to protect the states from invasion. Pardon me for saying so, but 15 million Mexicans is an invasion. And as for Mr SK - he was here legally, as president of the IMF.]
Sometimes it is difficult to understand the liberal mentality. They want open borders, amnesty etc. If that ever became law, this country would be flooded with a million immigrahts each month. So tell me, Mr Obama - what jobs will THEY take? Where will they live? Go to school? Our schools are already overcrowded, as are our hospitals, parking lots, freeways. Imagine the commute when there are twice as many people. Imagine the lousy education, packing twice as many kids into the schools. Imagine how many American kids will not be able to get into a packed college. And if you think 9.2% unemployment is bad, wait until we have an extra 50 million people...
/
At any rate, I found the following posts on AOL/HuffPost - my comments will be found between the [ ]...
“The additional economic activity and tax revenue that undocumented workers provide to state and local governments simply overwhelms the fiscal cost to provide services,” said Dan Griswald, an immigration policy expert with the libertarian think tank CATO Institute. [Editor: So, if an unemployed American had that job instead of an illegal, does he not add that same economic activity and tax revenue? Ergo, CATO's point is pointless - just because an illegal has the job does not add any revenues at all.]
"Listen, most of the illegals are aready working and they won't be taking away your cozy office jobs because they don't qualify.Also, they can start paying taxes now that they are registered." [Editor: Most Americans do not qualify for office jobs, either. 15 million Americans out of work, benefits run out - they would grab those jobs in a hot minute. As for paying taxes, that's a joke - people in their tax bracket pay ZERO taxes. 49% of ALL workers pay no taxes.]
"If anyone can find the clause "this bill of rights is for US citizens only" in our constitution then I accept that illegal residents have zero legal rights here. After all that is what was accorded to Mr. Strauss-Kahn who was accused of the serious crime of rape. Are you all arguing that an illegal resident has less rights than Mr. SK?" [Editor: First, the Constitution of The United States is for the United States, not Mexico or any other country. There are numerous places in the Constitution that state that it pertains to citizens. In fact, Article. IV Section. 2. states, "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." Nowhere does it gives such privileges to non-citizens. Further, the Constitution specifically states that the federal goverment GUARANTEES to protect the states from invasion. Pardon me for saying so, but 15 million Mexicans is an invasion. And as for Mr SK - he was here legally, as president of the IMF.]
Sometimes it is difficult to understand the liberal mentality. They want open borders, amnesty etc. If that ever became law, this country would be flooded with a million immigrahts each month. So tell me, Mr Obama - what jobs will THEY take? Where will they live? Go to school? Our schools are already overcrowded, as are our hospitals, parking lots, freeways. Imagine the commute when there are twice as many people. Imagine the lousy education, packing twice as many kids into the schools. Imagine how many American kids will not be able to get into a packed college. And if you think 9.2% unemployment is bad, wait until we have an extra 50 million people...
/
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
I'm Going To Predict Obama's "Jobs Plan"...
For three years Mr Obama has been saying (over 26 times) that he will focus like a laser on jobs. During his campaign tour (while not focusing on jobs) he said he will present a "comprehensive jobs plan" - in a few weeks, after he takes his vacation hob-nobbing with other rich Democrats at Martha's Vineyard.
Gotta love all that "focus", and Mr Obama's understanding of the urgency for millions without jobs NOW!
The question is - what will his "jobs plan" consist of.
I can almost guarantee it will NOT consist of anything that will create real jobs, because he simply does not understand what it is that creates jobs - businesses, not government. He will not loosen debilitating regulations that strangle business. He will not lower the corporate tax rate to be competitive with those nations that are taking away our jobs. He will not provide "tax amnesty" on the $3 trillion in funds that American companies cannot bring back here because of the excessive tax rate. He will not eliminate capital gains taxes for 5 years, to encourage investing (providing businesses with working capital, for those who do not understand what investing really is)
What he WILL propose are the following:
1) Tax cuts - but only to those who already pay no taxes (49% of all workers) and other non-job-producers in the form of extending the "payroll tax vacation". This has been done before - and it created zero jobs
2) He will propose another stimulus (though he will call it something else, like investing in infrastructure), claiming it will create construction jobs. This, too, was tried earlier in his term, and did not create anything more than temporary jobs that added nothing to GDP because they were paid by tax money - rob Peter to pay Paul. And each job created cost Americans over $230,000 EACH.
3) He will propose extending welfare benefits and unemployment benefits, claiming the unemployed will use the money to buy stuff that others must produce, thereby creating jobs. But again, tax money cannot - CANNOT - create jobs that add to our GDP. And the Democrats' claim that $1 of welfare somehow magically puts $2 back into the economy is pure bunk. If that were true, then we should all become unemployed so we can double the money in the economy and everything would be hunky-dory. NOT!
So, why would Mr Obama present such a plan? One reason - and you can take this to the bank --- it is not his intention to create jobs. It is his intention to present a plan that he KNOWS the Republicans must reject. This allows him (as usual) to point the finger of blame at Republicans, claiming they are getting in the way of job creation.
Of course, that claim is bull, because his plan would not create any jobs, and he knows it. But that does not matter. All that matters to Mr Obama is that he can blame Republicans, and increase his chances of re-election.
And Republicans MUST reject such a plan, because we already know those things do not work - each has been tried, and all have failed to produce jobs. Republicans cannot vote to spend more taxpayer money and increase the debt just to prove Obama does not have a clue. That would be irresponsible.
But I almost wish they WOULD pass his plan - then perhaps even the duped idiots that keep supporting his insane policies will see them for what they are - useless, and a danger to our nation's future.
But then, we know that will not happen. No matter how much he fumbles; no matter how badly he damages the economy, his uninformed, blind followers will follow him right off the cliff, just like the rats that followed the Pied Piper.
And Republicans will refuse to PAY that piper. They will vote "no" on any plan that will not help REAL businesses to create REAL jobs.
/
Gotta love all that "focus", and Mr Obama's understanding of the urgency for millions without jobs NOW!
The question is - what will his "jobs plan" consist of.
I can almost guarantee it will NOT consist of anything that will create real jobs, because he simply does not understand what it is that creates jobs - businesses, not government. He will not loosen debilitating regulations that strangle business. He will not lower the corporate tax rate to be competitive with those nations that are taking away our jobs. He will not provide "tax amnesty" on the $3 trillion in funds that American companies cannot bring back here because of the excessive tax rate. He will not eliminate capital gains taxes for 5 years, to encourage investing (providing businesses with working capital, for those who do not understand what investing really is)
What he WILL propose are the following:
1) Tax cuts - but only to those who already pay no taxes (49% of all workers) and other non-job-producers in the form of extending the "payroll tax vacation". This has been done before - and it created zero jobs
2) He will propose another stimulus (though he will call it something else, like investing in infrastructure), claiming it will create construction jobs. This, too, was tried earlier in his term, and did not create anything more than temporary jobs that added nothing to GDP because they were paid by tax money - rob Peter to pay Paul. And each job created cost Americans over $230,000 EACH.
3) He will propose extending welfare benefits and unemployment benefits, claiming the unemployed will use the money to buy stuff that others must produce, thereby creating jobs. But again, tax money cannot - CANNOT - create jobs that add to our GDP. And the Democrats' claim that $1 of welfare somehow magically puts $2 back into the economy is pure bunk. If that were true, then we should all become unemployed so we can double the money in the economy and everything would be hunky-dory. NOT!
So, why would Mr Obama present such a plan? One reason - and you can take this to the bank --- it is not his intention to create jobs. It is his intention to present a plan that he KNOWS the Republicans must reject. This allows him (as usual) to point the finger of blame at Republicans, claiming they are getting in the way of job creation.
Of course, that claim is bull, because his plan would not create any jobs, and he knows it. But that does not matter. All that matters to Mr Obama is that he can blame Republicans, and increase his chances of re-election.
And Republicans MUST reject such a plan, because we already know those things do not work - each has been tried, and all have failed to produce jobs. Republicans cannot vote to spend more taxpayer money and increase the debt just to prove Obama does not have a clue. That would be irresponsible.
But I almost wish they WOULD pass his plan - then perhaps even the duped idiots that keep supporting his insane policies will see them for what they are - useless, and a danger to our nation's future.
But then, we know that will not happen. No matter how much he fumbles; no matter how badly he damages the economy, his uninformed, blind followers will follow him right off the cliff, just like the rats that followed the Pied Piper.
And Republicans will refuse to PAY that piper. They will vote "no" on any plan that will not help REAL businesses to create REAL jobs.
/
Pelosi's "Magic Money"...
Pelosi and other liberal Democrats have said the reason we need to keep extending unemployment benefits is because "every dollar paid in unemployment benefits comes back as $2 into the economy."
According to their "logic", that would mean EVERYONE should quit their jobs, collect unemployment, and that would double the money in the economy and everyone would be fat and happy.
Now I ask Ms Pelosi - does that STILL sound logical? If everyone collects, who would be paying in? Where would the benefits come from? And where would we spend the money - no one working means no products or services available?
It's long past time for Pelosi to retire - she's off the edge. First it was (under Bush) "We are losing 150 million jobs a month". (There are only 160 million jobs in the entire country). Then it was "We have to pass the bill to find out what's in it." (We have, and it's worse than anyone thought.) And then it was the magic uemployment benefits - a dollar magically becomes two, without creating any products or services, or adding to the GDP.
Either she is a blatant idiot, or a pathological liar. In either case, there is no place for it in our Congress. We need to retire her.
/
According to their "logic", that would mean EVERYONE should quit their jobs, collect unemployment, and that would double the money in the economy and everyone would be fat and happy.
Now I ask Ms Pelosi - does that STILL sound logical? If everyone collects, who would be paying in? Where would the benefits come from? And where would we spend the money - no one working means no products or services available?
It's long past time for Pelosi to retire - she's off the edge. First it was (under Bush) "We are losing 150 million jobs a month". (There are only 160 million jobs in the entire country). Then it was "We have to pass the bill to find out what's in it." (We have, and it's worse than anyone thought.) And then it was the magic uemployment benefits - a dollar magically becomes two, without creating any products or services, or adding to the GDP.
Either she is a blatant idiot, or a pathological liar. In either case, there is no place for it in our Congress. We need to retire her.
/
The Most Un-American Organization Is Suing A Missouri School...
The ACLU, perhaps the most unAmerican organization in the country, is suing a Missouri school because it blocks internet access to Lesbian/Gay websites. The ACLU says they are "censoring", and violating the first Amendment rights of free speech.
I think it is time someone reminded the ACLU and the liberal courts that support their warped view of the Constitution that while there is a right of free speech, there is NO right to FORCE others to LISTEN to your speech.
In other words, no one stops you from creating and posting your websites. But no one has the right to force others to push it where it is not wanted. We have rights, too.
You have the right to speak. And I have the right to not listen to whatever garbage you want to put out there. There is NOTHING to keep "gay and lesbian" oriented students from visiting those sites on their own time. School time is not the time or place.
/
I think it is time someone reminded the ACLU and the liberal courts that support their warped view of the Constitution that while there is a right of free speech, there is NO right to FORCE others to LISTEN to your speech.
In other words, no one stops you from creating and posting your websites. But no one has the right to force others to push it where it is not wanted. We have rights, too.
You have the right to speak. And I have the right to not listen to whatever garbage you want to put out there. There is NOTHING to keep "gay and lesbian" oriented students from visiting those sites on their own time. School time is not the time or place.
/
The Lib Media - TIME - Is Again Showing Its Bias And Dishonesty
In today's news, an article from TIME that indicates Rick Perry is a hypocrite because he now has a problem with the government sending so much pork money to the states, but until now has aggressively sought those federal funds.
Here's why their story is dishonest: a governor's first responsibility is to his state, so part of his job is to grab whatever federal funds he or she can get. That is the job at hand. But the President's job, which Perry now seeks, is different, and requires he attempt to cut that kind of spending.
As governor, Perry seeks fed funds, as he should. As someone wanting to become president, the job is to cut spending. So he is not being a hypocrite - he is simply willing and able to do whatever job he has.
If you are a plumber, and decide to apply for a job as a doctor, you will undoubtedly want to master a different set of tools for the job.
/
Here's why their story is dishonest: a governor's first responsibility is to his state, so part of his job is to grab whatever federal funds he or she can get. That is the job at hand. But the President's job, which Perry now seeks, is different, and requires he attempt to cut that kind of spending.
As governor, Perry seeks fed funds, as he should. As someone wanting to become president, the job is to cut spending. So he is not being a hypocrite - he is simply willing and able to do whatever job he has.
If you are a plumber, and decide to apply for a job as a doctor, you will undoubtedly want to master a different set of tools for the job.
/
Redistribution Of Wealth - The Great Injustice...
There are many people - not all are liberals (but all liberals believe this) - who feel that the rich should pay more taxes; to redistribute the wealth in an attempt for greater "equality" and justice.
The people who want this are not, themselves, rich (except for the wealthy politicians who will simply pass more loopholes for themselves). In other words, they believe in this transfer of wealth because a) they are not among those who will lose what they earned, and b) they will likely be the beneficiaries. How do I know this?
Simple - ask those same people if, upon passing a destitute homeless person who has nothing if THEY will feel obligated to give him half of what they have, so they will be "equal". If they are in school/college would they feel obligated to give some of their grade point average to those who have a lower GPA, making them more equal.
They will respond with a resounding, "Are you crazy? I WORKED for what I have. I EARNED them."
Well, the successful people who have money also worked for what they have. They earned it. The average wealthy person did not start out rich. Instead, they invested - put at risk - every dime they had in a dream. Then they worked 100 hours a week, for peanuts, for years to build their business. And then they took on the huge responsibility of employees, benefits, and all the worries and stresses that come from competing in a tough world.
And still the liberals scream that they should share their hard-earned wealth with people who spent all those same years NOT risking their money, NOT working 100 hours a week for peanuts, and NOT taking on the huge responsibilities, worries and stresses.
The liberal concept of "social justice" is actually injustice at its zenith. How is it "just" to take from someone who worked for something and give it to someone who did not? Even the Bible has several passages that say that is plain wrong (the parable of the Talents, for example). If you are a Christian, and need more proof that God does not advocate "social justice", just look around. In God's world, the weak are not given protection - they are either killed or abandoned to die. In His world, critters who work and are industrious will survive, while slackers perish. The squirrel that puts up lots of nuts for the winter lives. The one who does not, dies.
And that is how it should be, though it may sound cruel to some. But that is nature's way of insuring survival of the species - the strong survive.
But in the world of liberals and socialists, they turn that on its head. They want to try and "strengthen" the weak by weakening the strong. And the result, throughout history, has always been the same - chaos and disaster, as everyone becomes weaker, with no one strong enough to insure survival. Yes, you can weaken the strong, but you cannot strengthen the weak. If you give $1000 to a broke, welfare person, he will still be a broke welfare person a week from now. That's because he was broke because he does not have the intellect, or the desire to improve himself. He will blow that money on a flat-screen TV and some beer. And now you have TWO weak people - the welfare guy, and the guy you took the $1000 from.
"Social Justice" is an oxymoron of sorts. It's right up there with "the hero Benedict Arnold", or "the far-sighted liberal".
So the next time someone tells you the rich should pay more taxes, ask that person if, upon passing a homeless person, will he give him half his money, to make things "more equal". If he is unwilling to give HIS money for the cause, then he doesn't have a cause, and he should not be advocating for others to do what he will not.
/
The people who want this are not, themselves, rich (except for the wealthy politicians who will simply pass more loopholes for themselves). In other words, they believe in this transfer of wealth because a) they are not among those who will lose what they earned, and b) they will likely be the beneficiaries. How do I know this?
Simple - ask those same people if, upon passing a destitute homeless person who has nothing if THEY will feel obligated to give him half of what they have, so they will be "equal". If they are in school/college would they feel obligated to give some of their grade point average to those who have a lower GPA, making them more equal.
They will respond with a resounding, "Are you crazy? I WORKED for what I have. I EARNED them."
Well, the successful people who have money also worked for what they have. They earned it. The average wealthy person did not start out rich. Instead, they invested - put at risk - every dime they had in a dream. Then they worked 100 hours a week, for peanuts, for years to build their business. And then they took on the huge responsibility of employees, benefits, and all the worries and stresses that come from competing in a tough world.
And still the liberals scream that they should share their hard-earned wealth with people who spent all those same years NOT risking their money, NOT working 100 hours a week for peanuts, and NOT taking on the huge responsibilities, worries and stresses.
The liberal concept of "social justice" is actually injustice at its zenith. How is it "just" to take from someone who worked for something and give it to someone who did not? Even the Bible has several passages that say that is plain wrong (the parable of the Talents, for example). If you are a Christian, and need more proof that God does not advocate "social justice", just look around. In God's world, the weak are not given protection - they are either killed or abandoned to die. In His world, critters who work and are industrious will survive, while slackers perish. The squirrel that puts up lots of nuts for the winter lives. The one who does not, dies.
And that is how it should be, though it may sound cruel to some. But that is nature's way of insuring survival of the species - the strong survive.
But in the world of liberals and socialists, they turn that on its head. They want to try and "strengthen" the weak by weakening the strong. And the result, throughout history, has always been the same - chaos and disaster, as everyone becomes weaker, with no one strong enough to insure survival. Yes, you can weaken the strong, but you cannot strengthen the weak. If you give $1000 to a broke, welfare person, he will still be a broke welfare person a week from now. That's because he was broke because he does not have the intellect, or the desire to improve himself. He will blow that money on a flat-screen TV and some beer. And now you have TWO weak people - the welfare guy, and the guy you took the $1000 from.
"Social Justice" is an oxymoron of sorts. It's right up there with "the hero Benedict Arnold", or "the far-sighted liberal".
So the next time someone tells you the rich should pay more taxes, ask that person if, upon passing a homeless person, will he give him half his money, to make things "more equal". If he is unwilling to give HIS money for the cause, then he doesn't have a cause, and he should not be advocating for others to do what he will not.
/
Monday, August 15, 2011
Yet Another Example Of The Crude, Uncivil Left At HuffPost...
A news story today about a plane crash in Alaska that resulted in the death of a teacher - one of only three teachers in that small community. Decent human beings would feel sadness, and show some compassion. Some liberals, on the other hand, were posting things like"
Petpetdonna: One less teacher.
juanillegal: I thought it was the onlt [sic] literate teacher in Alaska who died?
servicemasterwv: Only 3 teachers in that town??? that explains the palins
No matter how often I see this sort of mob hatred from the left, and no matter how well I understand that they want to destroy normal, moral values, it still amazes me that GOOD people don't clamp down - hard - on this sort of thing. When did civilized society stop using collective shame and shunning to instill greater civility?
If we are not going to fight for what is right, then what is "wrong" will win out.
/
Petpetdonna: One less teacher.
juanillegal: I thought it was the onlt [sic] literate teacher in Alaska who died?
servicemasterwv: Only 3 teachers in that town??? that explains the palins
No matter how often I see this sort of mob hatred from the left, and no matter how well I understand that they want to destroy normal, moral values, it still amazes me that GOOD people don't clamp down - hard - on this sort of thing. When did civilized society stop using collective shame and shunning to instill greater civility?
If we are not going to fight for what is right, then what is "wrong" will win out.
/
Can You Tell Me The Difference Between These?...
Feel free to explain, if you can, the difference between the following:
From Here To Eternity - (Fred Zimmermann)
TORA! TORA! TORA! - (Richard Fleischer)
Pearl Harbor - (Michael Bay)
In Harm's Way - (Otto Preminger)
Winds of War - (Herman Wouk)
The Final Countdown - (Don Taylor)
Pearl - (Hy Averback)
9/11 educational video - (Governor Huckabee)
Let me lay it out for ya - the first seven titles were produced by the elites in Hollywood, and portrayed the Japanese sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, killing 2204 and wounding 1282 people. The last title is a short video by a conservative portraying the Jihadist attack on New York's World Trade Center killing nearly 3,000.
In all cases, the films were about a sneak attack on America by its enemies. But here is the difference: in the first seven, no liberal complained that the producers and directors were making a profit. But with the Huckabee video, the left is screaming bloody murder that someone (a conservative) is making a profit.
From Huffington Post, "(We) aren't happy that the former governor of Arkansas is trying to profit from the deadliest Stateside attack, nor are they pleased that the video associates terrorism to Islam." And the liberal media is rife with the loony left taking issue with the video making a profit for a conservative, and portrays the left's Islamic buddies as evil.
Yet, not a word about the many millions pocketed by Hollywood elites on their own films portaying the first attack on America by Japan. And not a peep from the left about the Obama administration actually assisting in the Hollywood production of a movie about the killing of bin Laden, scheduled for release just before the election - imagine that!
The liberals are hypocrites. And, as usual, on the wrong side of history.
/
From Here To Eternity - (Fred Zimmermann)
TORA! TORA! TORA! - (Richard Fleischer)
Pearl Harbor - (Michael Bay)
In Harm's Way - (Otto Preminger)
Winds of War - (Herman Wouk)
The Final Countdown - (Don Taylor)
Pearl - (Hy Averback)
9/11 educational video - (Governor Huckabee)
Let me lay it out for ya - the first seven titles were produced by the elites in Hollywood, and portrayed the Japanese sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, killing 2204 and wounding 1282 people. The last title is a short video by a conservative portraying the Jihadist attack on New York's World Trade Center killing nearly 3,000.
In all cases, the films were about a sneak attack on America by its enemies. But here is the difference: in the first seven, no liberal complained that the producers and directors were making a profit. But with the Huckabee video, the left is screaming bloody murder that someone (a conservative) is making a profit.
From Huffington Post, "(We) aren't happy that the former governor of Arkansas is trying to profit from the deadliest Stateside attack, nor are they pleased that the video associates terrorism to Islam." And the liberal media is rife with the loony left taking issue with the video making a profit for a conservative, and portrays the left's Islamic buddies as evil.
Yet, not a word about the many millions pocketed by Hollywood elites on their own films portaying the first attack on America by Japan. And not a peep from the left about the Obama administration actually assisting in the Hollywood production of a movie about the killing of bin Laden, scheduled for release just before the election - imagine that!
The liberals are hypocrites. And, as usual, on the wrong side of history.
/
Thursday, August 11, 2011
Flip-flopping? Or was it something else? Why McConnell's position on taxes/Medicare changed...
It isn't very surprising to find out how low Huffington Post/AOL will stoop to push the liberal agenda. Take this headline story from their site:
"McConnell Called For Taxes On Rich And No Cuts To Medicare In 1990 Ad"
At first blush, and to persons of lesser intelligence this sounds like McConnell was more liberal in 1990, and/or that he has "flip-flopped". Nothing could be further from the truth.
First, 1990 was a different time. We were in a boom period, courtesy of Reagan. the ONLY time to even THINK about raising taxes is during good times, as it is less likely to harm the economy. In addition, Medicare was not bankrupting us at the time, and the CBO (which is often wrong, big time) did not think it would get so out of hand. So, 20 years ago, considering higher taxes on the wealthy and no cuts to Medicare MADE SENSE. Today it does not. And therein lies the difference - a difference that ideologically blinded liberals will never see.
A lot of things change in 20 years. 20 years ago I was single - I now have a wife and children. 20 years ago I was broke. I now have financial independence. So, I will see things differently today than I did 20 years ago.
Flip-flopping is when you change your position quickly, and without change in the circumstances. But when you change your position because the facts on the ground have changed, that is leadership.
/
"McConnell Called For Taxes On Rich And No Cuts To Medicare In 1990 Ad"
At first blush, and to persons of lesser intelligence this sounds like McConnell was more liberal in 1990, and/or that he has "flip-flopped". Nothing could be further from the truth.
First, 1990 was a different time. We were in a boom period, courtesy of Reagan. the ONLY time to even THINK about raising taxes is during good times, as it is less likely to harm the economy. In addition, Medicare was not bankrupting us at the time, and the CBO (which is often wrong, big time) did not think it would get so out of hand. So, 20 years ago, considering higher taxes on the wealthy and no cuts to Medicare MADE SENSE. Today it does not. And therein lies the difference - a difference that ideologically blinded liberals will never see.
A lot of things change in 20 years. 20 years ago I was single - I now have a wife and children. 20 years ago I was broke. I now have financial independence. So, I will see things differently today than I did 20 years ago.
Flip-flopping is when you change your position quickly, and without change in the circumstances. But when you change your position because the facts on the ground have changed, that is leadership.
/
Monday, August 8, 2011
How To Fix This Economy In Three Easy Steps
The economic condition is very serious, and anyone serious about fixing it would need to take quick and drastic steps.
Step 1: I said it before - businesses have $3 trillion stashed overseaes because they do not want to pay 35% tax on it. Give them "tax amnesty" on that money provided they bring it home and escrow 25% to be used specifically for hiring and buying U.S. equipment. This would insure between 500,000 to 1,000,000 jobs quickly. Instead of losing 35%, they are allowed to expand, which benefits them and the economy.
Step 2: Place a 5 year moratorium on all regulations passed in the last 5 years. This would take pressure off businesses and give them breathing room, allowing them to plan their 5 year business plan and increase hiring
Step 3: Eliminate the capital gains tax for a minimum of 5 years, to induce investment to grow business and give "faith" to investors whose retirement 401K's have taken a beating
And for those who believe we need more taxes, I agree. But not RAISING taxes. Currently, 49% of all working people pay no taxes at all. I believe all citizens should be vested in America and have some skin in the game. I've been saying that for years. Maybe now is the time to make that happen. There is no excuse for any able-bodied person to be getting a free ride.
If Obama & Congress were to immediately do these three things, the economy would improve overnight just on the speculation, alone.
/
Step 1: I said it before - businesses have $3 trillion stashed overseaes because they do not want to pay 35% tax on it. Give them "tax amnesty" on that money provided they bring it home and escrow 25% to be used specifically for hiring and buying U.S. equipment. This would insure between 500,000 to 1,000,000 jobs quickly. Instead of losing 35%, they are allowed to expand, which benefits them and the economy.
Step 2: Place a 5 year moratorium on all regulations passed in the last 5 years. This would take pressure off businesses and give them breathing room, allowing them to plan their 5 year business plan and increase hiring
Step 3: Eliminate the capital gains tax for a minimum of 5 years, to induce investment to grow business and give "faith" to investors whose retirement 401K's have taken a beating
And for those who believe we need more taxes, I agree. But not RAISING taxes. Currently, 49% of all working people pay no taxes at all. I believe all citizens should be vested in America and have some skin in the game. I've been saying that for years. Maybe now is the time to make that happen. There is no excuse for any able-bodied person to be getting a free ride.
If Obama & Congress were to immediately do these three things, the economy would improve overnight just on the speculation, alone.
/
Watching the liberals today is very entertaining - but pathetic - as they try to blame the Tea Party...
From Obama to Dean to Kerry to Reid, Pelosi and Geithner, the liberals are all being clowns today - and they expect to be taken seriously.
Each of those, and most lib media, are screamin' about how this is the "Tea Party Downgrade", as S&P downgrades America's credit worthiness. And that would be comical if not so dastardly absurd and insidious.
Let's see if I have this right, according to the liberals. Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Geithner etc. spent over $4 trillion in less than 3 years. They want to spend more. They wanted the debt ceiling raised WITHOUT any debate or strings attached.
Meanwhile, the Tea Party was saying "Stop the spending. Don't spend more than you take in. Cut, cap & balance the budget. Cut $4 trillion from the spending"
And during this, the three rating agencies all stated unequivically that any downgrade would be a direct result of spending too much, increasing the debt ceiling without serious cuts of at least $4 trillion.
In short, the rating agencies agreed with ---- hold on, now --- the TEA PARTY.
Yet the libs, in their shallow, demented, spend-crazy mindsets are blaming the Tea Party for the downgrade.
Hey, libs, take a cue from the rating agencies - THEY are blaming YOU, not the Tea Party.
/
Each of those, and most lib media, are screamin' about how this is the "Tea Party Downgrade", as S&P downgrades America's credit worthiness. And that would be comical if not so dastardly absurd and insidious.
Let's see if I have this right, according to the liberals. Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Geithner etc. spent over $4 trillion in less than 3 years. They want to spend more. They wanted the debt ceiling raised WITHOUT any debate or strings attached.
Meanwhile, the Tea Party was saying "Stop the spending. Don't spend more than you take in. Cut, cap & balance the budget. Cut $4 trillion from the spending"
And during this, the three rating agencies all stated unequivically that any downgrade would be a direct result of spending too much, increasing the debt ceiling without serious cuts of at least $4 trillion.
In short, the rating agencies agreed with ---- hold on, now --- the TEA PARTY.
Yet the libs, in their shallow, demented, spend-crazy mindsets are blaming the Tea Party for the downgrade.
Hey, libs, take a cue from the rating agencies - THEY are blaming YOU, not the Tea Party.
/
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
In The Month Of June, Half The New Jobs Created In America Were Created In ...
Wisconsin. Under Republican governor Scott Walker, who took on powerful public unions, Wisconsin has added thousands of new jobs and has subdued their runaway deficit. All in just a few short months.
/
/
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
A Crash Course On Manufacturing Statistics?
Huffington Post writes that in certain polls (?), 60% of respondents feel the debt deal should have included tax increases on the wealthy.
I really don't know where or how these nuts get their figures - I suppose if you only poll in places like Manhattan or Los Angeles, you would get results like that. But not in "normal" America.
Since yesterday I have asked over 400 people if they think we should tax the rich more. Only 76 said "Yes'. That's less than 20%. And when you understand that roughly 20% of Americans are liberals, that pretty much tells the real story.
Most informed people understand these points:
1) It is ALWAYS a bad idea to raise ANY taxes in a fragile economy, because it removes money from the economy that, even if paid back out in welfare etc., results in a net loss, as nothing is created
2) Taxing the rich only taxes the poor. The rich pass their tax burden onto their customers etc. Taxes are a COB (Cost Of Business), and as such is figured into prices of products/services.
3) The "rich" already pay most of the taxes in this country, while nearly 50% of all other Americans pay ZERO. We do not need to RAISE taxes. We simply need to get the other 50% to pay a fair share.
In any case, I believe America lost in the debt bill that was lost. Without a balanced budget amendment, cutting spending will not result in smaller debt - the debt will continue to grow. The only different this debt deal makes is that it will grow a tad more slowly.
/
I really don't know where or how these nuts get their figures - I suppose if you only poll in places like Manhattan or Los Angeles, you would get results like that. But not in "normal" America.
Since yesterday I have asked over 400 people if they think we should tax the rich more. Only 76 said "Yes'. That's less than 20%. And when you understand that roughly 20% of Americans are liberals, that pretty much tells the real story.
Most informed people understand these points:
1) It is ALWAYS a bad idea to raise ANY taxes in a fragile economy, because it removes money from the economy that, even if paid back out in welfare etc., results in a net loss, as nothing is created
2) Taxing the rich only taxes the poor. The rich pass their tax burden onto their customers etc. Taxes are a COB (Cost Of Business), and as such is figured into prices of products/services.
3) The "rich" already pay most of the taxes in this country, while nearly 50% of all other Americans pay ZERO. We do not need to RAISE taxes. We simply need to get the other 50% to pay a fair share.
In any case, I believe America lost in the debt bill that was lost. Without a balanced budget amendment, cutting spending will not result in smaller debt - the debt will continue to grow. The only different this debt deal makes is that it will grow a tad more slowly.
/
Keith Olbermann Is A Bad Joke - When Will They Stop Giving Hime Air Time?
Keith Olbermann, the uber-liberal bigmouth said "Our government has now given up the concept of right and wrong,"
From AOL: "Olbermann said that the deal was founded on what he called four "Great Hypocrisies." The first was the so-called "Super Congress" that will have ultimate authority over further spending cuts. Olbermann said the committee seemed unconstitutional to him. He also blasted Republicans who called for a Balanced Budget Amendment, which he said contradicted their call for the new committee. And he lambasted the deal for containing no tax increases on the wealthy."
Let me get this straight - we have the most liberal president since FDR and the libs are whining that he is not liberal enough, which only goes to prove how far out in left field these crazy loons are.
He is right, however, that the "Super Congress" is unconstiottional - the Constitution states that ALL the elected Congress shall, combined, do the will of the people. It is also unconstitutional to prevent debate or amendments in such a fashion.
But I really find Olbermann to be a joke when he "blasted Republicans who called for a Balanced Budget Amendment, which he said contradicted their call for the new committee". Apparrently Olbermann is not on a first-name basis with the truth. It was the TEA PARTY, not the Republican GOP that called for a balanced budget amendment, and it was the Republican GOP, not the Tea Party that called for a "Super Congress".
Hey, Olbermann - I hope someone sends this to you, so you might actually comprehend that the Tea Party is not the republican party, or vice versa. The two are NOT interchangeable, as you SHOULD have noticed last year when Tea Party candidates ousted Republican incumbents.
It is truly sad when a so-called "journalist" doesn't even bother to search for - or even accept - facts.
/
From AOL: "Olbermann said that the deal was founded on what he called four "Great Hypocrisies." The first was the so-called "Super Congress" that will have ultimate authority over further spending cuts. Olbermann said the committee seemed unconstitutional to him. He also blasted Republicans who called for a Balanced Budget Amendment, which he said contradicted their call for the new committee. And he lambasted the deal for containing no tax increases on the wealthy."
Let me get this straight - we have the most liberal president since FDR and the libs are whining that he is not liberal enough, which only goes to prove how far out in left field these crazy loons are.
He is right, however, that the "Super Congress" is unconstiottional - the Constitution states that ALL the elected Congress shall, combined, do the will of the people. It is also unconstitutional to prevent debate or amendments in such a fashion.
But I really find Olbermann to be a joke when he "blasted Republicans who called for a Balanced Budget Amendment, which he said contradicted their call for the new committee". Apparrently Olbermann is not on a first-name basis with the truth. It was the TEA PARTY, not the Republican GOP that called for a balanced budget amendment, and it was the Republican GOP, not the Tea Party that called for a "Super Congress".
Hey, Olbermann - I hope someone sends this to you, so you might actually comprehend that the Tea Party is not the republican party, or vice versa. The two are NOT interchangeable, as you SHOULD have noticed last year when Tea Party candidates ousted Republican incumbents.
It is truly sad when a so-called "journalist" doesn't even bother to search for - or even accept - facts.
/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)