Ok, so here is the challenge. I have proof through US tax collection and economic growth of the Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton, and mid-GW Bush years that lower taxes and decreased government spending increases both government revenue and the size of the economy.
I want to see proof from the other side. Proof that raising taxes on businesses, increasing "fairness" in regards to income, and massively increasing government spending actually helps the economy. I can look at the various recessions around the world, and The Great Depression in the US to prove that it doesn't, but I want to see where the heck people are getting the idea that it does. Nobody has yet given me anything but words.
True Blue
A blog for the civil discussion of political issues and personal beliefs. Keep the insults at the door, and cursing to a minimum. Unnecessary cursing and repetitive insults will result in post deletion.
Monday, December 3, 2012
Friday, November 16, 2012
License Plate Readers
Pretty cool device, but apparently there are some serious privacy concerns regarding the saving of information. In Maryland in particular they are showing up all over the place, and causing a debate in the process over whether the information should be stored, and if so for how long.
Personally I think the devices have a very specific use, so I have no issues with them. However, storing the information is another matter entirely. For the use they were designed for, law enforcement, there is absolutely no reason to store the information except in the case of tracking a vehicle that has been listed as stolen, or tagged as possibly involved in a crime. Store it long enough to find the vehicle, pull them over, arrest the suspect. Possibly keep it around long enough for the court case; though I can't see any use for doing so myself since the purpose is to find the individual responsible and at that point you no longer need the information in your system, they already have the number and vehicle on file and proof it was involved in a crime.
I'll say it again: There is absolutely no reason to store and track the information for the millions of cars that get scanned if the vehicle is not involved in a crime. Storing it is just another excuse for the government to track the movements of citizens, an act it has no reason to be involved in in the first place.
Personally I think the devices have a very specific use, so I have no issues with them. However, storing the information is another matter entirely. For the use they were designed for, law enforcement, there is absolutely no reason to store the information except in the case of tracking a vehicle that has been listed as stolen, or tagged as possibly involved in a crime. Store it long enough to find the vehicle, pull them over, arrest the suspect. Possibly keep it around long enough for the court case; though I can't see any use for doing so myself since the purpose is to find the individual responsible and at that point you no longer need the information in your system, they already have the number and vehicle on file and proof it was involved in a crime.
I'll say it again: There is absolutely no reason to store and track the information for the millions of cars that get scanned if the vehicle is not involved in a crime. Storing it is just another excuse for the government to track the movements of citizens, an act it has no reason to be involved in in the first place.
Wednesday, November 14, 2012
Unemployment Idea
So this idea came to me a few days ago, and it strikes me as odd that this hasn't been tried.
It's very simple, and I can't help but thinking that it will be very cheap AND increase employment in Temp Agencies, even ignoring the companies that contract with them. Here is the idea...
Every time someone applies for unemployment the unemployment office for that state takes down all of the person's work experience and refers that person's name and job experience straight to a list of approved Temp Agencies. By approved agencies I mean they do not have a significant number of negative charges such as harrassment, embezzlement etc. against them (yes I actually know of an agency with some of those problems).
The Temp Agencies then have an increased number of names going to them to fill with their contracted companies, and will most likely also need to hire more people themselves to deal with the massive increase in referrals. Since I know of quite a few companies that use temp personnel as a way of selecting qualified people for full-time positions this then helps unemployed people get a foot in the door.
Of course, if the person turns down a Temp job they are qualified for, and was within a reasonable travel distance, they would then no long qualify for unemployment. If the Temp job pays less than what they would be receiving in unemployment (for whatever reason) the state government could then make up the rest of the tab until that person finds a permanent position at the company (and/or until they would no longer qualify for unemployment due to time), or is referred to a higher paying Temp position.
Would have to come up with some way of tracking those who are abusers of the system currently, but I think the Temp Agencies would be a lot better at that than the government. I'm pretty sure they already keep track of that kind of information regarding reasons people quit or are fired anyway.
Curious what other people think, and how well you think it might work.
It's very simple, and I can't help but thinking that it will be very cheap AND increase employment in Temp Agencies, even ignoring the companies that contract with them. Here is the idea...
Every time someone applies for unemployment the unemployment office for that state takes down all of the person's work experience and refers that person's name and job experience straight to a list of approved Temp Agencies. By approved agencies I mean they do not have a significant number of negative charges such as harrassment, embezzlement etc. against them (yes I actually know of an agency with some of those problems).
The Temp Agencies then have an increased number of names going to them to fill with their contracted companies, and will most likely also need to hire more people themselves to deal with the massive increase in referrals. Since I know of quite a few companies that use temp personnel as a way of selecting qualified people for full-time positions this then helps unemployed people get a foot in the door.
Of course, if the person turns down a Temp job they are qualified for, and was within a reasonable travel distance, they would then no long qualify for unemployment. If the Temp job pays less than what they would be receiving in unemployment (for whatever reason) the state government could then make up the rest of the tab until that person finds a permanent position at the company (and/or until they would no longer qualify for unemployment due to time), or is referred to a higher paying Temp position.
Would have to come up with some way of tracking those who are abusers of the system currently, but I think the Temp Agencies would be a lot better at that than the government. I'm pretty sure they already keep track of that kind of information regarding reasons people quit or are fired anyway.
Curious what other people think, and how well you think it might work.
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
America, Going Forward
You would think that people would be smart enough to notice which countries in the world are actually recovering. Canada and Switzerland. What's their corporate tax rate again? Oh yea, 16%. Meanwhile our political "leaders" here keep wanting to raise ours to over 40%. Even China's corporate tax is only 25%.
We're not trying to survive 8 years of Obama, we're trying to survive 16 years of socialist policies (I'm looking at you GW, and the Republicans that supported that crud) destroying our national economy. A nation does not survive $1 trillion/year deficits for very long. Has nobody been paying attention to countries like Greece where they have all these same programs our politicians have been trying to implement for the last 20 years? CALIFORNIA ALONE has more debt than Greece does.
If Obama had the guts to return to the Clinton tax rates and budget I would be cheering for him myself, but he doesn't, and neither does the rest of the Democrat party. Everybody forgets that Clinton got lucky with the technology boom during his term, but they also forget that it was the Republicans that wrote "his" surplus budget. At least Clinton had the guts to work with the other side rather than demonizing them for disagreeing with him.
Obama will not work with Republicans, and neither will Harry Reid, who straight told the world that he would never work with Romney if Romney had won.
Tuesday, November 6, 2012
History's Relevance To Today's Election
"The media misconception today is that what we need to speed up economic recovery is to end gridlock in Washington and have bipartisan intervention in the economy. However plausible that may sound, it is contradicted repeatedly by history.
Unemployment was never in double digits in any of the 12 months following the stock market crash of 1929. Only after politicians started intervening did unemployment reach double digits -- and stay in double digits throughout the 1930s.
There is nothing mysterious about an economy recovering on its own. Employers usually have incentives to employ and workers have incentives to look for jobs. Lenders have incentives to lend and borrowers have incentives to borrow -- if politicians do not create needless complications and uncertainties."
Thomas Sowell
History, I've noticed, is an annoying thing to some people. It presents facts that cannot be argued against, when it's actually presented truthfully in the first place. People constantly attribute the post-Depression recovery to FDR, yet they always ignore the fact that it carried on even through a major World War because of his policies (and his constant fighting to ignore the Constitution by the way). What ended the Depression in reality was actually the massive number of people returning from war, combined with the influx of immigrants from wartorn Europe and one other major item... The fact that after WWII we were the only industrialized nation in the world to survive unscathed. We had all of our factories, nearly all of our international shipping, and everyone with real skills was coming to us because we allowed financial advancement for those who were not part of the European "in" crowd.
Our current president is claiming his policies have created 5+ million jobs, while ignoring the jobs destroyed because of his war on coal, or the ones not created because of his policies such as numerous small business owners (and even large corporations) who will not add jobs because nobody knows exactly what he will do in the future to tear away the wealth they have earned through hard work (nevermind the Keystone pipeline's 10,000 or so permanent jobs because he wanted to make his buddy Warren Buffet a bit more cash).
If President Obama's policies were so great with those millions of created jobs then we would not be seeing HIGHER unemployment today than when he went into office. If the increased oil production we see today (all from private lands, just so you know) were having such a huge effect then we would not be seeing gas at an average of $1.50 higher nationally than when he was sworn into office (national average at the time was $1.84/gallon). We would not be seeing national employment numbers down at 67% (this number includes people retired as well as those no longer looking for work) because so many people have stopped looking for work. We would not see 47 MILLION people on food stamps. We would not see 18.1 million people (~5.8% of the total population) applying for disability because they have no other way of getting income.
Amusingly we have former President Clinton reminding us we wouldn't want a liar in the Office of the President, mere weeks after the Bhengazi cover-up boondoggle where people all up and down the current administration have been lying over who knew what and when, slowly releasing information hoping people won't piece it together or ask any more questions (Sandy helped distract people from that). Heck, if President Obama is such a great leader then why is his direct intervention in the Sandy cleanup producing results similar to what Bush got blamed for during Sandy when he didn't get in the way? Nevermind his buddy Bloomberg turning the New York National Guard away from helping in NYC because he doesn't want anyone by NYPD to have guns in his city.
Unemployment was never in double digits in any of the 12 months following the stock market crash of 1929. Only after politicians started intervening did unemployment reach double digits -- and stay in double digits throughout the 1930s.
There is nothing mysterious about an economy recovering on its own. Employers usually have incentives to employ and workers have incentives to look for jobs. Lenders have incentives to lend and borrowers have incentives to borrow -- if politicians do not create needless complications and uncertainties."
Thomas Sowell
History, I've noticed, is an annoying thing to some people. It presents facts that cannot be argued against, when it's actually presented truthfully in the first place. People constantly attribute the post-Depression recovery to FDR, yet they always ignore the fact that it carried on even through a major World War because of his policies (and his constant fighting to ignore the Constitution by the way). What ended the Depression in reality was actually the massive number of people returning from war, combined with the influx of immigrants from wartorn Europe and one other major item... The fact that after WWII we were the only industrialized nation in the world to survive unscathed. We had all of our factories, nearly all of our international shipping, and everyone with real skills was coming to us because we allowed financial advancement for those who were not part of the European "in" crowd.
Our current president is claiming his policies have created 5+ million jobs, while ignoring the jobs destroyed because of his war on coal, or the ones not created because of his policies such as numerous small business owners (and even large corporations) who will not add jobs because nobody knows exactly what he will do in the future to tear away the wealth they have earned through hard work (nevermind the Keystone pipeline's 10,000 or so permanent jobs because he wanted to make his buddy Warren Buffet a bit more cash).
If President Obama's policies were so great with those millions of created jobs then we would not be seeing HIGHER unemployment today than when he went into office. If the increased oil production we see today (all from private lands, just so you know) were having such a huge effect then we would not be seeing gas at an average of $1.50 higher nationally than when he was sworn into office (national average at the time was $1.84/gallon). We would not be seeing national employment numbers down at 67% (this number includes people retired as well as those no longer looking for work) because so many people have stopped looking for work. We would not see 47 MILLION people on food stamps. We would not see 18.1 million people (~5.8% of the total population) applying for disability because they have no other way of getting income.
Amusingly we have former President Clinton reminding us we wouldn't want a liar in the Office of the President, mere weeks after the Bhengazi cover-up boondoggle where people all up and down the current administration have been lying over who knew what and when, slowly releasing information hoping people won't piece it together or ask any more questions (Sandy helped distract people from that). Heck, if President Obama is such a great leader then why is his direct intervention in the Sandy cleanup producing results similar to what Bush got blamed for during Sandy when he didn't get in the way? Nevermind his buddy Bloomberg turning the New York National Guard away from helping in NYC because he doesn't want anyone by NYPD to have guns in his city.
Monday, November 5, 2012
Military Support Versus Its Lack
I think this picture about says it all when it comes to military support.
Meanwhile in New York state we see how the local Democrat run government views National Guardsmen trying to help with disaster relief vs their dog and pony shows. They kicked them out of the armory to hold a bloody Victoria's Secret show...
Good job Governor Cuomo and Mayor Bloomberg, good job.
Meanwhile in New York state we see how the local Democrat run government views National Guardsmen trying to help with disaster relief vs their dog and pony shows. They kicked them out of the armory to hold a bloody Victoria's Secret show...
Good job Governor Cuomo and Mayor Bloomberg, good job.
Friday, November 2, 2012
Prediction Models
So, for my usual pre-election amusement I was perusing various prediction models and ran across this one after a friend pointed me to this article talking about having it updated with current data (rather than data from back in May/Jun). What surprises me about it is that after looking through the other models presented this year the two professors (Kenneth Bickers and Michael Berry of the University of Colorado) actually did what should have been done with every model. Instead of using polls (which are volatile and varied depending on how skewed they are toward one side or the other) they used a number of economic issues and looked at each state individually along with a number of historical data points.
I won't bother explaining the entire thing, they did an excellent job without me butchering their work. The end result after the recent updates however has Romney winning in a landslide 330 to 208 in the electoral college, and their model even predicted the Al Gore popular vote vs GW electoral vote win (well, showed the same results using data from that election). They've gone all the way back to 1980 and been correct, so I'd say even with their admitted +/- scale of 28 electoral votes that still puts Romney WAY ahead of President Obama.
It's a good read, and they explain how their system works, I recommend it.
Friday, September 21, 2012
Romney's Releasing TWENTY Years of Tax Info
The title says it all, along with this notice from the Romney campaign site. People can stop complaining that they haven't released the 10 years of tax information yet.
Go Taxmageddon!
For those who think Obamacare was a great success (and those who don't realize all of the tax increases coming down the pipe) here is some suggested reading for you. The article says it all.
IG Report Incomplete
This story says it all. The White House blocked the request for interview by the IG of one of the key players in the scandal. Also, if you read the report and then went back and looked at Eric Holder's statements while in front of the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee you'd see a serious problem between the two.
"We reviewed the wiretap affidavits in both Operation Wide Receiver and Operation Fast and Furious and concluded that the affidavits in both cases included information that would have caused a prosecutor who was focused on the question of investigative tactics, particularly one who was already sensitive to the issue of 'gun walking,' to have questions about ATF's conduct of the investigations," the report said.
Holder said at the time: "I've looked at these affidavits. I've looked at these summaries. There's nothing in those affidavits as I've reviewed them that indicates that gunwalking was allowed. Let's get to the bottom line -- so I didn't see anything in there that would put on notice a person who was reviewing either at the line level or at the deputy assistant attorney general level, that you would have knowledge of the fact that these inappropriate tactics were being used."
Whole article pointing this out is here.
Hmmm, nothing huh? Only with a Democrat in office does the MSM ignore things like this.
"We reviewed the wiretap affidavits in both Operation Wide Receiver and Operation Fast and Furious and concluded that the affidavits in both cases included information that would have caused a prosecutor who was focused on the question of investigative tactics, particularly one who was already sensitive to the issue of 'gun walking,' to have questions about ATF's conduct of the investigations," the report said.
Holder said at the time: "I've looked at these affidavits. I've looked at these summaries. There's nothing in those affidavits as I've reviewed them that indicates that gunwalking was allowed. Let's get to the bottom line -- so I didn't see anything in there that would put on notice a person who was reviewing either at the line level or at the deputy assistant attorney general level, that you would have knowledge of the fact that these inappropriate tactics were being used."
Whole article pointing this out is here.
Hmmm, nothing huh? Only with a Democrat in office does the MSM ignore things like this.
Thursday, September 20, 2012
Insurance and the Affordable Healthcare Act
I feel kind of bad pointing out the missing information to a 12-year old, but since his letter was printed on Huffington Post I felt that some things should be clarified.
First of all, I feel bad that his sister was born with serious medical conditions, it's not something anyone really has any control over. The thing is, when the letter starts pointing out why his family lost coverage it shows the lack of information he has, either because his parents never explained it to him, or his parents (and most people I know for that matter) don't even realize or think about. The thing about using company policies is that you run the risk of losing coverage if you lose your job, thus putting yourself in the situation of having to find another insurance carrier that doesn't want to be put under the additional financial burden of dealing with pre-existing conditions (or didn't before the AHCA, but more on that later).
Companies have been using insurance benefits for years as a way to lure in potential employees, and it has gotten to the point that many people just expect the company they work for to include healthcare benefits as part of their pay (many would actually let you opt out in return for a slightly higher paycheck btw). Most people never even thought of the risk inherent in such a system if they were to lose their job or go find a better one for themselves elsewhere, having to go to a new carrier. What they COULD have done was purchase a private insurance policy. That would have cost them more money true, but it would also have given them the freedom of not feeling chained to a single company in order to retain coverage. Of course, as more and more government regulation got involved it also forced those payments upward to make it harder for individuals to pay for their own plans.
Because of the AHCA requiring insurance companies to cover people even if they have pre-existing conditions people have been watching their insurance premiums go up because the insurance companies now have to cover people for conditions that they have never paid in to have covered. And it's only going to get worse as people opt to not pay for insurance coverage for years until a condition appears or accident occurs since most small businesses do not employ the 50+ people requiring them under the law to provide health insurance. Also, due to the ever increasing coverage costs you're unlikely to see those same small businesses offering coverage for their employees even with the tax breaks they are provided because it still won't cover the majority of the increased cost. The AHCA also includes such stupidity as requiring all females in a household have birth control coverage on the plan, regardless of age or medical condition (pre-pubescent, menopause, etc) which increase costs even more, and it does not make allowances for an individual's religious beliefs.
For anyone wondering why I actually go to a place like HuffPo, it's useful for seeing what false or incomplete information the other side is pushing.
First of all, I feel bad that his sister was born with serious medical conditions, it's not something anyone really has any control over. The thing is, when the letter starts pointing out why his family lost coverage it shows the lack of information he has, either because his parents never explained it to him, or his parents (and most people I know for that matter) don't even realize or think about. The thing about using company policies is that you run the risk of losing coverage if you lose your job, thus putting yourself in the situation of having to find another insurance carrier that doesn't want to be put under the additional financial burden of dealing with pre-existing conditions (or didn't before the AHCA, but more on that later).
Companies have been using insurance benefits for years as a way to lure in potential employees, and it has gotten to the point that many people just expect the company they work for to include healthcare benefits as part of their pay (many would actually let you opt out in return for a slightly higher paycheck btw). Most people never even thought of the risk inherent in such a system if they were to lose their job or go find a better one for themselves elsewhere, having to go to a new carrier. What they COULD have done was purchase a private insurance policy. That would have cost them more money true, but it would also have given them the freedom of not feeling chained to a single company in order to retain coverage. Of course, as more and more government regulation got involved it also forced those payments upward to make it harder for individuals to pay for their own plans.
Because of the AHCA requiring insurance companies to cover people even if they have pre-existing conditions people have been watching their insurance premiums go up because the insurance companies now have to cover people for conditions that they have never paid in to have covered. And it's only going to get worse as people opt to not pay for insurance coverage for years until a condition appears or accident occurs since most small businesses do not employ the 50+ people requiring them under the law to provide health insurance. Also, due to the ever increasing coverage costs you're unlikely to see those same small businesses offering coverage for their employees even with the tax breaks they are provided because it still won't cover the majority of the increased cost. The AHCA also includes such stupidity as requiring all females in a household have birth control coverage on the plan, regardless of age or medical condition (pre-pubescent, menopause, etc) which increase costs even more, and it does not make allowances for an individual's religious beliefs.
For anyone wondering why I actually go to a place like HuffPo, it's useful for seeing what false or incomplete information the other side is pushing.
Busy Busy
Dang it's been a busy month, and I'm not even done yet. Will get more updated posts after I clear the current set of engagements I already have on my plate.
Thursday, August 30, 2012
Paul Ryan's RNC Speech
Figured I'd do a quick review of Paul Ryan's excellent speech from last night. His speech included just the right amount of personal experiences, unabashed faith, and ideals. At the end he also made promises, promises that can be quoted and expected to be fulfilled to the best of his ability, one of the most important being the promise to take responsibility; something the current administration sorely lacks. How can the rest of the country be expected to take responsibility when those who are selected as our leaders are unable to do so themselves?
"When I was waiting tables, washing dishes, or mowing lawns for money, I never thought of myself as stuck in some station in life. I was on my own path, my own journey, an American journey where I could think for myself, decide for myself, define happiness for myself. That's what we do in this country. That's the American Dream. That's freedom, and I'll take it any day over the supervision and sanctimony of the central planners."
Ryan added just a bit of humor, without having to make jokes at the expense of someone else like so many other politicians tend to do.
Full script for the speech can be found here.
All in all an excellent speech, makes me look forward to hearing what Romney has to say for himself. I still have some doubts about Romney, but they are mostly opinion related on various business practices (and based on incomplete information to be honest), and as opinion I can accept that I will never agree completely with any politician. In the end what we have for the Republicans are the Policy-&-Math Geek and the Successful Businessman, both are excellent family men with an appreciation for hard work, and the people who do that work. The Democrats have the Man-Who-Still-Blames-The-Past while demonizing those who work the hardest (careful, we can't have success spread!), and the Man-Who-Sticks-Foot-In-Mouth.
"When I was waiting tables, washing dishes, or mowing lawns for money, I never thought of myself as stuck in some station in life. I was on my own path, my own journey, an American journey where I could think for myself, decide for myself, define happiness for myself. That's what we do in this country. That's the American Dream. That's freedom, and I'll take it any day over the supervision and sanctimony of the central planners."
Ryan added just a bit of humor, without having to make jokes at the expense of someone else like so many other politicians tend to do.
"We're a full generation apart, Governor Romney and I. And, in some ways, we're a little different. There are the songs on his iPod, which I've heard on the campaign bus and on many hotel elevators. He actually urged me to play some of these songs at campaign rallies. I said, I hope it's not a deal-breaker Mitt, but my playlist starts with AC/DC, and ends with Zeppelin."
He spoke of his faith without trying to hide it, and the responsibilities associated with those beliefs.
"Our different faiths come together in the same moral creed. We believe that in every life there is goodness; for every person, there is hope. Each one of us was made for a reason, bearing the image and likeness of the Lord of Life.
We have responsibilities, one to another- we do not each face the world alone. And the greatest of all responsibilities, is that of the strong to protect the weak. The truest measure of any society is how it treats those who cannot defend or care for themselves."
He also pointed out a fact that many of this nation's politicians seem to have forgotten, or just plain ignore, in their constant search for more control over our lives.
"Each of these great moral ideas is essential to democratic government- to the rule of law, to life in a humane and decent society. They are the moral creed of our country, as powerful in our time, as on the day of America's founding. They are self-evident and unchanging, and sometimes, even presidents need reminding, that our rights come from nature and God, not from government." *Emphasis added*
All in all an excellent speech, makes me look forward to hearing what Romney has to say for himself. I still have some doubts about Romney, but they are mostly opinion related on various business practices (and based on incomplete information to be honest), and as opinion I can accept that I will never agree completely with any politician. In the end what we have for the Republicans are the Policy-&-Math Geek and the Successful Businessman, both are excellent family men with an appreciation for hard work, and the people who do that work. The Democrats have the Man-Who-Still-Blames-The-Past while demonizing those who work the hardest (careful, we can't have success spread!), and the Man-Who-Sticks-Foot-In-Mouth.
Monday, August 27, 2012
Feds Pushing More Spending
Not that anyone is surprised, but the Fed is pushing for more people to take advantage of government programs, thus increasing their spending and the various departmental budgets. Why they seem to think that more people need to be on the government dime given how far in debt we are only the Liberals could tell you. Someone fire the idiot that made that statement...
Typical Obama Tastelessness
As I'm sure everyone knows by now Neil Armstrong died this weekend. It is a great loss to the world at large, and the space community specifically. He will be missed. *SALUTE*
Of course the President felt the need to try and take political advantage of the death of a great citizen. He posted a picture of himself from last April as a tribute... Great idea, let's post an already used photograph of yourself as a form of tribute at the death of someone else. Only in the great narcisist's mind does this make any sense, and it's completely tasteless.
Of course the President felt the need to try and take political advantage of the death of a great citizen. He posted a picture of himself from last April as a tribute... Great idea, let's post an already used photograph of yourself as a form of tribute at the death of someone else. Only in the great narcisist's mind does this make any sense, and it's completely tasteless.
Sunday, August 26, 2012
Contact Your Congressmen About the FCC
The newest push by the FCC to further control your lives and communications networks around the country, while raising your internet and phones bills in the process. Contact your congresscritters immediately and tell them not to support this bull.
I'm all for getting people internet and phone access, but if it was economically feasible a private company would have done it by now. Of COURSE AT&T and the like support this idea, it takes costs away from them and forces their customers to pay for it directly instead. Frankly, internet access at home and cell phones are not required for success in today's world. What is required is for people to actually be motivated to improve their own situation. Giving people this stuff for free only increases their dependence on government and their unwillingness to change their current standing in life. After all, why bother to work harder when you'll end up having to pay for all this stuff yourself? Especially when you can get it for free by doing nothing!
*****************************************************************
Spending money on projects like this is all well and good when the government is running a surplus, but not when we're running trillion dollar deficits every year for the last 4 years (and before you blame the various wars, their total cost per year is less than $300 billion). Continual deficit spending will not get us out of this. We need to control government spending, bring it down, and give people are reason to work hard to improve their lifestyle, thus indirectly improving the lifestyle of everyone around them.
If your neighbor gets a job he is now spending more money in the area, which increases the money there is to go around, which motivates more businesses to move to the area, thus providing more available jobs. If the government creates the jobs then that money is not really there, it's newly printed cash that only increases inflation. Governments do not create wealth, they take wealth from private industry and redistribute it, ineffectively mind you, to their various interest groups (which in most cases don't have a clue how to run an actual business; ex: Solyndra, etc).
When the government increases taxes on those with higher incomes it reduces the will of the people to advance their own condition. Why work harder when they're just going to take more of what you earn and it will just leave you in the same living condition, yet more worn out, for that extra effort? People who advocate higher taxes on the wealthy are either already wealthy themselves, thus have more than enough to not care (most of it is already accumulated wealth anyway, which isn't taxed), or they are people who have no intention of advancing themselves, instead living off the backs of others. Anyone that actually intends to change their current situation and move up on the ladder knows (or should know) that increasing taxes on the "wealthy" will only negatively effect them when they finally get to that position themselves. Instead of waging class warfare on those who become successful in their lives, we should be encouraging charitable donations by those who makes lots of money. Give them incentives to give and people will do so.
Mitt Romney is the perfect example of this, and yet the liberal media is trying to make people hate him for it. Sure, he paid only 14% on his taxes last year (I only paid 8.7%, though my unadjusted tax rate is 15% base) but he also gave away 16% to various charities, and that DOES NOT include the 10% yearly tithe Mormons are expected to contribute to their temples. Overall the man gave away 40% of his income last year. How much more do people expect someone to give? What number is considered enough? Who cares if he has plenty more, IT'S HIS MONEY. He earned it through hard work and good investments. What is the problem here?
If you start a business you are paying local, state, and federal taxes on the profit you make. You are paying the SS and Medicare taxes for every employee, in many cases as high as 30% of that person's salary. You took out a huge loan, or mortaged your house, or saved up tons of cash, etc. Most people pay taxes for years before starting a business. Is that not contributing to the construction of those roads and schools and businesses? Is the money you paid to go to the various schools and take classes, or to receive training, suddenly not counted as contributing to the building of those facilities that helped you succeed? Anyone saying that you didn't build that doesn't have a clue what they're talking about.
I'm all for getting people internet and phone access, but if it was economically feasible a private company would have done it by now. Of COURSE AT&T and the like support this idea, it takes costs away from them and forces their customers to pay for it directly instead. Frankly, internet access at home and cell phones are not required for success in today's world. What is required is for people to actually be motivated to improve their own situation. Giving people this stuff for free only increases their dependence on government and their unwillingness to change their current standing in life. After all, why bother to work harder when you'll end up having to pay for all this stuff yourself? Especially when you can get it for free by doing nothing!
*****************************************************************
Spending money on projects like this is all well and good when the government is running a surplus, but not when we're running trillion dollar deficits every year for the last 4 years (and before you blame the various wars, their total cost per year is less than $300 billion). Continual deficit spending will not get us out of this. We need to control government spending, bring it down, and give people are reason to work hard to improve their lifestyle, thus indirectly improving the lifestyle of everyone around them.
If your neighbor gets a job he is now spending more money in the area, which increases the money there is to go around, which motivates more businesses to move to the area, thus providing more available jobs. If the government creates the jobs then that money is not really there, it's newly printed cash that only increases inflation. Governments do not create wealth, they take wealth from private industry and redistribute it, ineffectively mind you, to their various interest groups (which in most cases don't have a clue how to run an actual business; ex: Solyndra, etc).
When the government increases taxes on those with higher incomes it reduces the will of the people to advance their own condition. Why work harder when they're just going to take more of what you earn and it will just leave you in the same living condition, yet more worn out, for that extra effort? People who advocate higher taxes on the wealthy are either already wealthy themselves, thus have more than enough to not care (most of it is already accumulated wealth anyway, which isn't taxed), or they are people who have no intention of advancing themselves, instead living off the backs of others. Anyone that actually intends to change their current situation and move up on the ladder knows (or should know) that increasing taxes on the "wealthy" will only negatively effect them when they finally get to that position themselves. Instead of waging class warfare on those who become successful in their lives, we should be encouraging charitable donations by those who makes lots of money. Give them incentives to give and people will do so.
Mitt Romney is the perfect example of this, and yet the liberal media is trying to make people hate him for it. Sure, he paid only 14% on his taxes last year (I only paid 8.7%, though my unadjusted tax rate is 15% base) but he also gave away 16% to various charities, and that DOES NOT include the 10% yearly tithe Mormons are expected to contribute to their temples. Overall the man gave away 40% of his income last year. How much more do people expect someone to give? What number is considered enough? Who cares if he has plenty more, IT'S HIS MONEY. He earned it through hard work and good investments. What is the problem here?
If you start a business you are paying local, state, and federal taxes on the profit you make. You are paying the SS and Medicare taxes for every employee, in many cases as high as 30% of that person's salary. You took out a huge loan, or mortaged your house, or saved up tons of cash, etc. Most people pay taxes for years before starting a business. Is that not contributing to the construction of those roads and schools and businesses? Is the money you paid to go to the various schools and take classes, or to receive training, suddenly not counted as contributing to the building of those facilities that helped you succeed? Anyone saying that you didn't build that doesn't have a clue what they're talking about.
Thursday, August 23, 2012
Amusing Article
So LL Cool J apparently stopped a home intruder a few nights ago, broke his nose and his jaw. I guess that NCIS: LA training paid off. Willing to bet that guy will never break into another house again too. If more people were willing and able to similarly defend themselves you'd see a massive lowering of home invasions.
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
Hilarity ensues
So if you were the opposition and somebody told you that one of the primary donors for your opponent had said your veep choice's "ideas offer 'a lot of the right long-term thinking for the country'" how would you spin it?
This is the situation that Romney's campaign managers are in, and I really hope they take advantage of it. Marc Benioff, a national campaign co-chair for President Obama not only said the above about Paul Ryan, but he donated $10,000 to his House Rep re-election campaign before Ryan was selected for the Romney ticket.
Almost makes you wonder if they knew that before they chose Ryan, doesn't it?
Sorry for all the short posts by the way, getting back into the swing of things and my mind isn't quite on for full on articles just yet.
This is the situation that Romney's campaign managers are in, and I really hope they take advantage of it. Marc Benioff, a national campaign co-chair for President Obama not only said the above about Paul Ryan, but he donated $10,000 to his House Rep re-election campaign before Ryan was selected for the Romney ticket.
Almost makes you wonder if they knew that before they chose Ryan, doesn't it?
Sorry for all the short posts by the way, getting back into the swing of things and my mind isn't quite on for full on articles just yet.
Germany Starts Jew Bashing Again?
I'm sorry, but given Germany's history against the Jewish community do they really think this is the best idea? Nevermind that circumcisions actually help prevent various medical conditions later in life, and the fact that they are widely performed for non-religious reasons.
It's probably the only time in modern day you'll see Muslims and Jews agree on something for that matter...
Remember people, governments always start small when it comes to removal of your rights. History and knowledge are the enemies of all dictators.
It's probably the only time in modern day you'll see Muslims and Jews agree on something for that matter...
Remember people, governments always start small when it comes to removal of your rights. History and knowledge are the enemies of all dictators.
I'm Back!
Queue the AC/DC... I'm back from my vacation, and trying to catch up on recent events. Tend to avoid politics, etc while I'm on vacation to help actually be able to relax. Can never get away from it completely, but it's nice to slow it down a bit.
That said, the following made my day. "I'm a big believer in: if they punch us, we put on the brass knuckles and punch back," said RNC Chairman Reince Priebus.
Now that's my kind of political philosophy, enough of this namby pamby friendly crud when dealing with the other side, they sure as heck don't show us that kind of respect, so no reason to treat them any differently than they want to be treated.
Now to find some real news to bi... blog about.
That said, the following made my day. "I'm a big believer in: if they punch us, we put on the brass knuckles and punch back," said RNC Chairman Reince Priebus.
Now that's my kind of political philosophy, enough of this namby pamby friendly crud when dealing with the other side, they sure as heck don't show us that kind of respect, so no reason to treat them any differently than they want to be treated.
Now to find some real news to bi... blog about.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)