This morning I saw a nice headline on The Drudge Report that I borrowed, and a link to this article at The Wall Street Journal. Click here to read the article in its entirety. The article addresses yesterday's news that GM CEO Rick Wagoner will be stepping down effective immediately at President Obama's request.
This is sort of scary to me. President Obama didn't go to Congress to intercede, and didn't seek any other legal avenue, but instead, he just called Ricky up and let the axe drop. It's not a good precedent to set, that's for sure! I am still a little confused as to how what Obama did is legal, but I'm no expert so all I can do is just say that it makes me worry when the President of the United States can fire the CEO of a car company, whether they were "loaned" tax-payer's dollars or not. Does anyone else think that this is one step closer to Totalitarianism?
If you have a few minutes, feel free to watch a nice little video spoof of where we're headed.
March 30, 2009
March 28, 2009
An Observation
There are plenty of people out there that rail against the NRA and gun owners in general. It doesn't help any that every now and then there is some sort of shooting rampage in Middle America. I don't want to seem callous, I'm just making an observation. Here's another observation: I think we hear a lot more about the rampages that occur vs. the ones that don't.
For example, you may or may not have read about the shooting spree that occurred in Alabama some weeks ago, it was on every major news station and in all sorts of other forms of media. Heck, it even showed up in the UK! What didn't show up everywhere, however, was this story, or this one, or this one either...
I wonder why these stories of prevented criminal violence weren't nationally heralded like the shooter in Alabama was? Could it be that the stories of how guns save lives and discourage violent criminal activity could have an effect on the national public opinion of gun ownership and the Second Amendment?
It's pretty darn important for all of us that the Second Amendment, the right to bare arms, is protected. These are turbulent times we're living in, and the world is truly in commotion. Would it not be prudent to have some food storage and some sort of meaningful protection against invaders of both our homes and our country?
Critics will disagree with my observation and site the danger of owning guns in the home. Or, they'll bring up that there must be more regulations for buying guns.
Let me address the latter suggestion first - Cars kill more people than guns do each year, domestically. How easy is it to get a driver's license and a car registered? The car basically has to be in good mechanical shape and then you're good. Why do we make honest people that wish to own guns for their own protection/enjoyment go through crazy hoops? Does anyone think that the criminals intent on doing harm have the same hoops to jump through?
Concerning the danger of owning a gun, I've added a quote from "Freakonomics", which is a great book written by Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner:
May we all be vigilant in our freedom, for should we fail in this, we won't have it much longer.
For example, you may or may not have read about the shooting spree that occurred in Alabama some weeks ago, it was on every major news station and in all sorts of other forms of media. Heck, it even showed up in the UK! What didn't show up everywhere, however, was this story, or this one, or this one either...
I wonder why these stories of prevented criminal violence weren't nationally heralded like the shooter in Alabama was? Could it be that the stories of how guns save lives and discourage violent criminal activity could have an effect on the national public opinion of gun ownership and the Second Amendment?
It's pretty darn important for all of us that the Second Amendment, the right to bare arms, is protected. These are turbulent times we're living in, and the world is truly in commotion. Would it not be prudent to have some food storage and some sort of meaningful protection against invaders of both our homes and our country?
Critics will disagree with my observation and site the danger of owning guns in the home. Or, they'll bring up that there must be more regulations for buying guns.
Let me address the latter suggestion first - Cars kill more people than guns do each year, domestically. How easy is it to get a driver's license and a car registered? The car basically has to be in good mechanical shape and then you're good. Why do we make honest people that wish to own guns for their own protection/enjoyment go through crazy hoops? Does anyone think that the criminals intent on doing harm have the same hoops to jump through?
Concerning the danger of owning a gun, I've added a quote from "Freakonomics", which is a great book written by Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner:
"What's more dangerous: a swimming pool or a gun? When it comes to children, there is no comparison: a swimming pool is 100 times more deadly.
In 1997 alone (the last year for which data are available), 742 children under the age of 10 drowned in the United States last year alone. Approximately 550 of those drownings — about 75 percent of the total — occurred in residential swimming pools. According to the most recent statistics, there are about six million residential pools, meaning that one young child drowns annually for every 11,000 pools.
About 175 children under the age of 10 died in 1998 as a result of guns. About two-thirds of those deaths were homicides. There are an estimated 200 million guns in the United States. Doing the math, there is roughly one child killed by guns for every one million guns.
Thus, on average, if you both own a gun and have a swimming pool in the backyard, the swimming pool is about 100 times more likely to kill a child than the gun is."
Clearly we're fed a line from not only the liberal politicians in Washington, but the mainstream media. Both parties wish, for one reason or another, to slowly take away our right to bare arms, as provisioned in the Second Amendment. We can fight this in a few different ways, that I know of. We can buy a gun. We can support the NRA, which actively lobbies in Washington against the liberals. We can write to our congressmen/congresswomen. And, we can spread the word to everyone we can. Go and tell it on the mountain!May we all be vigilant in our freedom, for should we fail in this, we won't have it much longer.
March 21, 2009
To Regulate, or not to Regulate...
News Flash: "Administration Seeks Increase in Oversight of Executive Pay". This article describes B.O.'s new plan to regulate the Market. What it's saying is that the Administration is seeking to control the salaries of executives from Financial Service companies, Banks, and even other companies in general...whether they've received bail out money or not.
Let's let that last one sink in there...
That's right, Obama's now aiming at taking control of how much an executive can be paid, period. This is one step closer to nationalizing businesses, and taking away the freedom of the American worker, tying the hands of the productive in this country and killing the ambition of those that are seeking to make a better way in life.
Now, don't get me wrong, I don't make much money, but I'd like to some day. I don't think I'd be evil if I was getting paid a very handsome annual salary; not if I was good at what I did and being compensated according to what the Market dictates.
I've observed in my chosen vocation that there are different tiers of companies when it comes to pay scale, sort of like Baseball. There's the Little Leagues, the fellas that snack on "Big League Chew" because they don't quite have the stomach yet for the real stuff, then there's the Minors, the ones that are pretty big, but have a hard time attracting the top talent, and then there's the Majors, the ones that have no problem getting the best executives, and paying them what they need to.
Granted, sometimes you'll get idiots, like with a good amount of the banks that got in over their heads (Not all of them did, may I add). But I don't put all the blame on them, the legislative branch really did a lot contribute too. It's sort of like this cartoon here:
People are people, and when you pretty much give them an opening and turn a blind eye, some people will jump at the chance to get a quick buck, and some won't.
Now, here's some choice quotes from that article linked up top:
"Depending on the outcome of the discussions, the administration could seek to put the changes into effect through regulations rather than through legislation."
- Nice, so nobody will vote on it...I guess that's one if the things that we "voted" for in November.
"A central aspect of the plan, which has already been announced by the administration, would give the government greater authority to take over and resolve problems at large troubled companies not now regulated by Washington, like insurance companies and hedge funds."
"Officials say the rules could also be applied more broadly to publicly traded companies..."
So, overall, This is bad. I really don't know how far this new regulation stuff will go, but it is troubling nonetheless. When Government steps out of the way, we unleash the drive and ambition of the American people, and there's nothing that can stop us from there...except the Government...
Let's let that last one sink in there...
That's right, Obama's now aiming at taking control of how much an executive can be paid, period. This is one step closer to nationalizing businesses, and taking away the freedom of the American worker, tying the hands of the productive in this country and killing the ambition of those that are seeking to make a better way in life.
Now, don't get me wrong, I don't make much money, but I'd like to some day. I don't think I'd be evil if I was getting paid a very handsome annual salary; not if I was good at what I did and being compensated according to what the Market dictates.
I've observed in my chosen vocation that there are different tiers of companies when it comes to pay scale, sort of like Baseball. There's the Little Leagues, the fellas that snack on "Big League Chew" because they don't quite have the stomach yet for the real stuff, then there's the Minors, the ones that are pretty big, but have a hard time attracting the top talent, and then there's the Majors, the ones that have no problem getting the best executives, and paying them what they need to.
Granted, sometimes you'll get idiots, like with a good amount of the banks that got in over their heads (Not all of them did, may I add). But I don't put all the blame on them, the legislative branch really did a lot contribute too. It's sort of like this cartoon here:
People are people, and when you pretty much give them an opening and turn a blind eye, some people will jump at the chance to get a quick buck, and some won't.
Now, here's some choice quotes from that article linked up top:
"Depending on the outcome of the discussions, the administration could seek to put the changes into effect through regulations rather than through legislation."
- Nice, so nobody will vote on it...I guess that's one if the things that we "voted" for in November.
"A central aspect of the plan, which has already been announced by the administration, would give the government greater authority to take over and resolve problems at large troubled companies not now regulated by Washington, like insurance companies and hedge funds."
"Officials say the rules could also be applied more broadly to publicly traded companies..."
So, overall, This is bad. I really don't know how far this new regulation stuff will go, but it is troubling nonetheless. When Government steps out of the way, we unleash the drive and ambition of the American people, and there's nothing that can stop us from there...except the Government...
March 19, 2009
Welcome to the Circus!
This has been a pretty brutal couple of days for a few choice politicians, as well as the AIG team.
Earlier this week, news broke of the bonuses that AIG was paying to a handful of execs totaling $168M (final amount still in dispute). Now, AIG is the recipient of, to my best estimate, approximately $187B in stimulus money(so the bonuses are .09% of that), which is being funded by us taxpayers. Naturally, because of that last fact, not too many people are excited the aforementioned bonuses. A wave of public outcry ensued, which was followed by strong denunciations from The White House, as well as both branches of Congress.
This is all pretty standard. Whenever there's a public outcry, there's a political one as well. This is most commonly referred to as demagoguery, when a leader or group of leaders makes use of a popular position only to gain power.
I realize this is just a claim, but my reasoning for feeling this way is this: If people like Congressman Barney Frank, the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, or Senator Chris Dodd, the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, were sincere, they'd be stepping down first and offering up an audit trail of all of their indiscretions, but they're not. They're just calling for the firing squad to open up on AIG because it's politically expedient.
How dare they call on anyone to step down from leadership while they themselves enjoy their power, influence, and multitude of perks, all at the taxpayer's expense, while they also spend us into bondage at an unprecedented rate. It's not just those two, it's anyone calling AIG out. This includes almost every politician in Washington, including the President.
Now, I'm not a fan of AIG, I think that giving bonuses out to execs that ruin your company is not only ethically wrong, but really stupid. Add on top of that the fact that they received such a large amount of tax $$ and it's worse. But, strictly speaking, these bonuses were legal, and were made possible by an amendment which was added to the stimulus package that passed in February that not one of the congressmen or senators who voted for it read. It was added to the bill by Chris Dodd, and was approved to go in by a conference between a Senate sub-committee and the White House, according to Nancy Pelosi.
Yes, Nancy placed the blame on the Senate, and the White House, even though she rammed this bill down the throats of every member of her House, making them vote on a 1,000+ page bill within 7 hours of seeing for the first time.
The Dodd amendment gave a loophole to any institution that gave bonuses to its employees or executives as long as the bonuses were planned and contracted out prior to February 2009. So, when pressed on this amendment last week, Chris Dodd lied and said he didn't have anything to do with it, then recanted his lie two days later, but added that the White House told him to lie.
Hmm.
This is a disaster. It's situations like this that make it clear that the leadership in Washington is completely incompetent. These people that couldn't even get their story straight when the media lights are on, are the same people that would love to run our country's Health Care, and that would like to discourage charitable giving so that they, the Government, could take on a more "responsible" role there (see: "Strings attached").
When are we going to stand up to this group of underachievers?
Earlier this week, news broke of the bonuses that AIG was paying to a handful of execs totaling $168M (final amount still in dispute). Now, AIG is the recipient of, to my best estimate, approximately $187B in stimulus money(so the bonuses are .09% of that), which is being funded by us taxpayers. Naturally, because of that last fact, not too many people are excited the aforementioned bonuses. A wave of public outcry ensued, which was followed by strong denunciations from The White House, as well as both branches of Congress.
This is all pretty standard. Whenever there's a public outcry, there's a political one as well. This is most commonly referred to as demagoguery, when a leader or group of leaders makes use of a popular position only to gain power.
I realize this is just a claim, but my reasoning for feeling this way is this: If people like Congressman Barney Frank, the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, or Senator Chris Dodd, the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, were sincere, they'd be stepping down first and offering up an audit trail of all of their indiscretions, but they're not. They're just calling for the firing squad to open up on AIG because it's politically expedient.
How dare they call on anyone to step down from leadership while they themselves enjoy their power, influence, and multitude of perks, all at the taxpayer's expense, while they also spend us into bondage at an unprecedented rate. It's not just those two, it's anyone calling AIG out. This includes almost every politician in Washington, including the President.
Now, I'm not a fan of AIG, I think that giving bonuses out to execs that ruin your company is not only ethically wrong, but really stupid. Add on top of that the fact that they received such a large amount of tax $$ and it's worse. But, strictly speaking, these bonuses were legal, and were made possible by an amendment which was added to the stimulus package that passed in February that not one of the congressmen or senators who voted for it read. It was added to the bill by Chris Dodd, and was approved to go in by a conference between a Senate sub-committee and the White House, according to Nancy Pelosi.
Yes, Nancy placed the blame on the Senate, and the White House, even though she rammed this bill down the throats of every member of her House, making them vote on a 1,000+ page bill within 7 hours of seeing for the first time.
The Dodd amendment gave a loophole to any institution that gave bonuses to its employees or executives as long as the bonuses were planned and contracted out prior to February 2009. So, when pressed on this amendment last week, Chris Dodd lied and said he didn't have anything to do with it, then recanted his lie two days later, but added that the White House told him to lie.
Hmm.
This is a disaster. It's situations like this that make it clear that the leadership in Washington is completely incompetent. These people that couldn't even get their story straight when the media lights are on, are the same people that would love to run our country's Health Care, and that would like to discourage charitable giving so that they, the Government, could take on a more "responsible" role there (see: "Strings attached").
When are we going to stand up to this group of underachievers?
March 15, 2009
This is ridiculous
Here is an e-mail from "MoveOn.org" that was forwarded to me...thanks for the great material for the blog. I was trying to decide between blogging about the huge turn-out at the recent Tea Parties or how Obama et al. are using fear to ram "change/generational theft" down our throats. Instead, I will pick apart this truly ridiculous e-mail. Email text is red.
Dear MoveOn member, (I find that it is easier to understand the intentions of the original writer if you read the text in the same voice as the evil Emperor from Star Wars: "Oh, I'm afraid the deflector shield will be quite operational when your friends arrive." )
This is ridiculous.
The media has been obsessing about President Obama's plan to roll back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans—from 35% to 39.6%—even asking if that makes him a socialist.1
Umm (as I scratch my head), the article that is quoted does not state that the media is obsessing about Obama's plan, nor does it state that the media is calling him a socialist. It does state that a member of the media asked him to clarify whether or not he is a socialist because conservatives have called him a socialist in increasing numbers since he tipped his true intentions with his financial policies (call it like it is). This question was part of a telephone conversation between a NY Times reporter and the One...and the One couldn't answer clearly enough the first time (which no doubt was teleprompterless),...thus after analyzing his response and formulating a "blame Bush" stance, the One phoned the reporter a second time to "set the record straight." Which is that um he um was not a um socialist...because he was um just um following after Bush um who um was the real socialist. (Read the article, that is his argument...pretty weak if you ask me, unless you are the One who can do no wrong). That makes me think about what moms often tell their children: "Just because Billy did it doesn't mean you have to," or "two wrongs don't make a right." So if Bush was going all socialist on us...what does that have to do with Obama going all socialist on us? This is his presidency, and he will have to answer for his decisions, and the consequences they lead to in this country.
Oh, and I don't think Obama is a Socialist for raising the taxes on the wealthiest Americans from 35% to 39.6%. I think he is a socialist because he thinks it is morally correct to redistribute wealth through taxing the "wealthy." Setting himself up as the judge of who deserves a certain level of income, and the right to use that income is what makes him a socialist.
Additionally, paying taxes at a rate of 39.6% is pretty much the same as paying 40% of your income in taxes. That is an old tactic to lull individuals into thinking they aren't "forking-over" that much of their income. Pretty sneaky if you ask me.
But do you know what tax rate the wealthiest Americans paid on the top portion of their earnings at the end of Ronald Reagan's first term? 50%.
Under Richard Nixon? 70%. Under Dwight Eisenhower? 91%!
Shocking, right?
Yes, that is shocking. Who would want to pay those levels of taxes? Not me...and probably not the author of this propaganda-e-mail. What's the point? "Look how high these taxes were under republicans!" Why doesn't the author say, "Look at how high taxes were raised on the top earners in America during the New Deal?" Could it be that the author doesn't want to point out that the New Deal increased the length and depth of the Great Depression?
Also shocking is that the author of this e-mail "conveniently" forgot to mention that Reagan had lowered the top marginal tax rate from 70% to 50% during his first term...and that in 1986 (second term) Reagan lowered the top tax rate again to 28%. (Interestingly, tax revenues received from both groups increased after each tax-burden reduction).
And for all the whining about rolling back Bush's irresponsible tax cuts, the truth is that Obama's plan cuts taxes for 95% of working Americans. Further, it closes huge tax loopholes for oil companies, hedge funds and corporations that ship jobs overseas so that we can invest in the priorities that will get our economy back on track.2
There is nothing like pandering for support by creating "class-warfare" and helping the lower "classes" to stick it to the evil rich dude who blows his nose in $20 bills and goes running wearing a jogging suit made of 24k gold thread. Uhhh, aren't the 5% who are having to pay a higher burden of the taxes in America "working Americans" also? Oh, that's right, they are evil and obtained their fortunes through oppression and dishonesty...that's why it is just that the most righteous among us (Obama, Pelosi, et al.) tax the dirty rich and redistribute the wealth to the oppressed.
About those priorities that will get our economy back on track...are you talking about the Stimulus package that is really the Dems dream spending spree? Well, those aren't priorities...in real life we call those wishes...and in the real world those wishes that the Dems wrote into law are payed for by you, and me, and the next three generations. (Maybe the priorities spoken of are which level of our posterity will have the highest priority to pay off the debt we are incurring.)
We saw a great chart in The Washington Monthly3 that shows just how absurd Republican complaints about Obama's budget are. Check it out and pass it on:
They saw a great chart...so they reproduced a chart that looks somewhat like the original chart, but is doctored in such a way to fool the eye. Pay attention to how the MoveOn chart is "3D" and tilted so you are looking at it from a top-down angle. That vantage point makes the increase from the current tax level to the soon-to-be Obama tax level to be smaller than it actually is...and looks on the original chart. Who are these people trying to fool? Oh, wait, they are trying to fool their own supporters. Sounds like an organization I would want to join...NOT!!!
MoveOn Chart:
Original Chart:
Thanks for all you do.
–Daniel, Eli, Laura, Matt and the rest of the team
I'm surprised that the e-mail doesn't ask for MoveOn members to put sickle & hammer symbols on their cars and front doors.
Sources:
1. "A socialist? Obama calls back to insist no," The International Herald Tribune, March 8, 2009
http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/03/08/america/barack.php
2. "Tax Cuts," The New York Times, February 26, 2009
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/27/washington/27web-tax.html
3. "Soaking the Rich (Redux)," The Washington Monthly, March 8, 2009
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51234&id=15734-3783832-q1q6tQx&t=2
Want to support our work? We're entirely funded by our 5 million members—no corporate contributions, no big checks from CEOs. And our tiny staff ensures that small contributions go a long way. Chip in here. (This site brought to you by capitalism)
No corporate contributions, no big checks from CEOs...because they are the devil!! Possible reasons for this: You think they are evil and won't accept their financial assistance. Or, they see that your agenda is to demonize them and thus they wouldn't support the organization that attacks them.
March 12, 2009
Which way the wind will blow...
Sometimes it's hard to live up to your predecessor, but more often than not, in politics at least, it's even harder to live up to your own rhetoric.
A little history is in order.
All throughout President Obama's campaign, he and John McCain spoke and debated on the need to "curb" the excessive pork barrel spending (pet projects attached to a piece of legislation by any given lawmaker that will directly benefit his/her constituency and/or special interest) that was being added to good bills that was essentially adding billions of dollars each year to our deficit. After his election, and subsequent swearing-in, the President continued his rhetoric of fiscal responsibility, chastising both Washington and Wall Street for reckless spending and greed.
Here's where things get cool. During Obama's tenure in the senate, which was extremely brief, he was #2 in Pork spending. Furthermore, all of the rhetoric coming out against fiscal irresponsibility was spewing forth during his pitch to approve the most intensely huge spending bill in the history of the world - also laden with all sorts of crazy pork, courtesy of the democratic congress of the United States of America.
So, if you're the President, at this point, you're probably asking yourself, "how can I come across as more fiscally responsible here?" The light bulb would then come on and you could do what the President did starting last week, and announce that you will, indeed, curb pork spending.
On Wednesday, Barack Obama signed another spending bill brought before him by Congress to the amount of $410 Billion. This bill is laced with all sorts of crazy stuff - all Democrat pork.
So, what gives?
Oh, wait - in an explanation to reporters, Mr. Obama corrected skeptics by saying that he only said he would "curb" spending, not "eliminate" it. Read here for more.
Okay, that's actually awesome!
So, our President, the fearless and flawless Barack Obama, is actually disingenuous...now who would've known?
Wait, there's more. After criticizing the Bush administration for implementing hundreds of signing statements by declaring them to be unconstitutional, Barack Obama issued one of his own. FYI, a signing statement is basically a way for the President to veto certain line items on any given bill without having to flush the whole thing. It's sort of like me picking the raisins out of my trail mix. Go figure.
So, you can see that it's a tough job to be President. It's even tougher when you have to remember where you stand on certain things, or where you're supposed to stand as dictated by special interests, and what lies you've told.
For more on the nature of political rhetoric, please click here.
A little history is in order.
All throughout President Obama's campaign, he and John McCain spoke and debated on the need to "curb" the excessive pork barrel spending (pet projects attached to a piece of legislation by any given lawmaker that will directly benefit his/her constituency and/or special interest) that was being added to good bills that was essentially adding billions of dollars each year to our deficit. After his election, and subsequent swearing-in, the President continued his rhetoric of fiscal responsibility, chastising both Washington and Wall Street for reckless spending and greed.
Here's where things get cool. During Obama's tenure in the senate, which was extremely brief, he was #2 in Pork spending. Furthermore, all of the rhetoric coming out against fiscal irresponsibility was spewing forth during his pitch to approve the most intensely huge spending bill in the history of the world - also laden with all sorts of crazy pork, courtesy of the democratic congress of the United States of America.
So, if you're the President, at this point, you're probably asking yourself, "how can I come across as more fiscally responsible here?" The light bulb would then come on and you could do what the President did starting last week, and announce that you will, indeed, curb pork spending.
On Wednesday, Barack Obama signed another spending bill brought before him by Congress to the amount of $410 Billion. This bill is laced with all sorts of crazy stuff - all Democrat pork.
So, what gives?
Oh, wait - in an explanation to reporters, Mr. Obama corrected skeptics by saying that he only said he would "curb" spending, not "eliminate" it. Read here for more.
Okay, that's actually awesome!
So, our President, the fearless and flawless Barack Obama, is actually disingenuous...now who would've known?
Wait, there's more. After criticizing the Bush administration for implementing hundreds of signing statements by declaring them to be unconstitutional, Barack Obama issued one of his own. FYI, a signing statement is basically a way for the President to veto certain line items on any given bill without having to flush the whole thing. It's sort of like me picking the raisins out of my trail mix. Go figure.
So, you can see that it's a tough job to be President. It's even tougher when you have to remember where you stand on certain things, or where you're supposed to stand as dictated by special interests, and what lies you've told.
For more on the nature of political rhetoric, please click here.
March 11, 2009
The Great American Ponzi Scheme
Bernard Madoff is expected to plead guilty on Thursday to charges that he defrauded investors in one of the largest ponzi schemes in US history. This scheme is second only to our current Social Security system scheme (or shall we say Social InSecurity). By pleading guilty, Madoff is not required to tell prosecutors where all the money is. So, thousands of investors will both not receive the interest promised them...they won't receive the principle that they invested. Pretty sad...these unfortunate souls are in some cases out their retirement savings.
Luckily they can still count on the retirement promised by the greatest American Ponzi scheme ever: Social InSecurity!
Social InSecurity was part of FDR's New Deal and was implemented "supposedly" to eliminate the rising number of older adults living in
poverty. (It is worth noting that much of the New Deal was tossed out by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional, but that Social InSecurity was not because FDR stacked the courts with New Deal judges who would support his "policies.") The idea that Social InSecurity would pay for the retirement of all Americans is a farce, since the retirement age at conception of the program was greater than the average life expectancy for Americans.
This means that for every American who actually lived to the age of retirement and started collecting benefits, there were ample workers paying into the system. As we get closer to a 2:1
ratio of workers to retirees, we can expect to see Social InSecurity taxes increase and benefits cut-great fun for the whole family :) (I'd like to send a shout out to FDR for creating unconstitutional programs to treat a temporary ailment, while making that ailment last for over a decade while at the same time creating even worse problems in the future!)
But wait, that is my money that I paid into the system...shouldn't I be able to get the benefit of my investment? Well...no, you shouldn't according to the courts, no one has any legal right to Social InSecurity. This means that you can be denied benefits, or worse yet, if the system were to go belly up and Congress can say, "Oh well, thanks for the years you payed in, see you at your new greeter job at Walmart."
To put this in perspective, if you think that you are going to get a better retirement from investing in Social InSecurity you are like Phyllis Weaver from the greatest 80's movie ever made by Weird Al: UHF.
Phyllis Weaver has just won a Red Snapper on Wheel of Fish...and this is how the rest of the scene goes down:
Kuni (karate instructor and host of Wheel of Fish): Ahhh, a red snapper. Mmmmm, very tasty. Okay, Weaver, listen carefully. You can hold on to your red snapper...[Hiro-San emerges, carrying a table with a box]...or you can go for what's in the box that Hiro-San is bringing down the aisle right now! What's it gonna be?
[Phyllis Weaver has difficulty in choosing as the audience point to the box]
Phyllis Weaver: I'll take the box. The box!
Kuni: You took the box? Let's see what's in the box!
[Hiro-San opens the box; the audience gasps. There is silence]
Kuni: Nothing! Absolutely nothing! STUPID! You're so STU-PIIIIIIID!
We are all so STU-PIIIIIIID for thinking that Social InSecurity will provide a quality retirement for us. Chances are that it will be
defunct, and you will be living in a spare bedroom at your oldest daughter's house. That's because we are following the crowd in giving our very tasty red snapper to the Government for what is inside the box...you know the rest!
Also, we allowed ourselves to be lulled into the entitlement mentality that everyone has the right to idle away the golden years sitting on some beach somewhere...or in some rocking chair in a living room in Sun City, AZ.
So, it looks like we were all duped into believing in a system that's a sham...but wait, messiah was just elected president! He and only he can fix Social InSecurity, provide universal healthcare, magically create universal education from birth through college, and save the world from global warming! On second thought, he has the substance and experience that is found inside Hiro-San's box: NOTHING!!!! He represents the worst of the entitlement movement which would give each American the "right" to claim financial support from every other American.
How did we get to this point? The thought used to be that parents work hard to provide more for their children than they had growing up. Now, in the twisted Bizzaro World, parents are claiming the future earnings of their children so they can sustain their own standard of living. In Bizzaro World we recently passed the "American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009." In the real world, this is known as the "American Robbing from our Kids While Calling it a Reinvestment Act of 2009 Which is Soon to be Followed by a Similar Act of Stealing from our Kids Act of 2010." So, in honor of such acts, I propose that for the next few years at each child's birthday, we give little Johnny or Jane their own Hiro-San's box of nothing, and buy ourselves a new pair of leather shoes or something else "we deserve."
Oh yeah! Let's do something about Social InSecurity too before we get left out in the cold by the greatest ponzi scheme in American history.
Possible solutions: personal retirement savings (although this doesn't look too attractive right now with the way the markets are responding to Obama's financial moves), families taking care of their elders, charitable organizations which assist the elderly, or working till you die (FDR did).
March 4, 2009
Headlock on Healthcare...
Oh yeah!!! The Ric Flair of Finance, Cory, just posted the truth about Obama’s tax & tax plan…WOOOOO!!!! Now he has tagged me, the Hulk Hogan of Healthcare to illuminate the current situation in these United States of America! CAN YOU HEAR ME BROTHER?!
Let’s get started by looking at the numbers that are tossed around as the main argument for Universal Healthcare, then we will get into a little history lesson so we can look at where we are at with some contextual understanding.
Proponents of Universal Healthcare are using the argument that 47 Million Americans are currently uninsured. That is a fact, that when that survey was done 47 million people in America did not have health insurance. Now if I just hang onto that number, I can point out that the system is not functioning properly for 47 million people, and obviously that supports a huge change in the way we, as a nation provide health coverage.
On the other hand, if another fact is presented in clarification of the number above, the idea is very different...and obviously so is the conclusion and solution. (Please remember that this survey was a snapshot in history, and that these numbers are not static, just as the lives of those they represent.) Here are the FACTS (WOOOOO!!!):
Actually 45.7 million U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Report, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2007
12.1 million eligible for current programs (this means they just need to fill out the paperwork but for some reason have yet to do so) National Institutes of Health
20 million are not US Citizens U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Report, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2007
3.5 million have incomes over $75,000 (These could very well be healthy people who choose not to buy coverage but pay out of pocket, or are in between jobs-these are also the people who will pay more taxes under Obama’s tax & tax plan.) U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Report, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2007
10.1 million have incomes over $50,000 (Same as those making over 75,000) U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Report, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2007
Those are the facts. They lead one to have a different idea of the real problem.
History gives us some additional insight as well. Did you know that prior to WW II health care was a private matter, paid either out of pocket or at least purchased privately by families outside of the work place? During WWII there was a freeze placed on salaries. Companies that wanted to attract the best and brightest could not offer higher salaries for workers. They instead had to increase benefits packages. One of the main benefits that companies offered to attract new employees was health insurance coverage. This was a way for the company to give you an increase in salary by freeing up your net income for everything but health care.
Post WWII the tax law was changed to give tax credits to companies giving health benefits to employees. These tax credits were not available for individuals or families who wished to purchase health insurance on their own. This means that your company can purchase the same amount of health coverage that you could on your own for less money-since your take home money is not tax exempt.
What's so wrong with this situation? Well, during the time that these changes were solidified in tax law, people stayed with a job for the life of their career, or changed jobs very infrequently. Today it is much different-with an average of 10 different jobs for the average American from the ages of 18 to 38 (US Dept of Labor). When people change jobs they lose their health benefits unless they are willing to pay for cobra coverage-which is very expensive. Instead most opt to pass the brief time period between jobs uncovered by insurance. They are fee to weigh the costs/benefits and choose to be uninsured. So, this is a large portion of those we consider as the uninsured. They are in between jobs, and don't have portable health coverage because their coverage is married to their job. (Thanks Federal Government! Woooooooo!!!!)
Another issue here is called job-lock. This is when someone wants to get another job, but is afraid to change jobs for fear of losing health benefits. Both job-lock, and the loss of health benefits with the change of jobs are due to the government meddling with the market through tax law. Today we are reaping the results of the government meddling.
Just imagine if our car insurance was linked to our jobs in like manner. Then Walmart employees would all have to take the bus. (I just use Walmart as an example because it is singled out for not offering health benefits to most of its employees. In this case, if it is a benefit used to attract new employees-do they really need to offer that to get people to work for them? Obviously they do not. Wooooooo you Walmart-haters who shop there anyways because they are efficient and have lower prices and have done more to provide affordable food/products to Americans than any other store!!!!!!)
So, this is the main reason we are in the health insurance predicament now. My solution would be to allow individuals and families to either have the same tax credit that companies receive for purchasing their own coverage, or doing away with the job related tax credit altogether, or a combo of the two. I would also set up a health insurance exchange between the states so individuals and families could purchase insurance from states where the premiums are cheaper. And part of the reason one state is cheaper from the others is not because the residents are that much less likely to get sick. The main reason is because of fewer health care regulations in some states. Basic regulations are very good, as they protect providers, patients, and insurance carriers. But in some states, legislators have mandated what "basic" coverage is, and in some cases they add all of the bells and whistles of high-priced packages, the things people would want to choose on their own, so that the basic is too expensive. Thanks for pricing me out!!! Woooooo!!!
So what needs to happen is freeing up Healthcare from the cost increasing meddling of politicians who think they know what all Americans need. Because if we don’t, and Universal Healthcare is established, we will all get the same thing: Mediocre Healthcare!
March 3, 2009
To Tax, or not to Tax...
President Obama has proposed a tax increase to all couples, individuals, and small businesses earning $250,000 or more per year. This tax increase isn't just a rate hike on the top, but also lurking within is a reduction on the amount of deduction these folks can take on all of their charitable giving. So, let's just soak that in. One can only assume, from this, that the federal government is now trying to discourage the wealthy from giving to charities.
According to the speech that Obama gave to Congress last week, the tax hikes are to fund a plethora of long-standing Democratic goodies, but none more at the forefront than...UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE!!! I just heard that Psycho music playing in my head. Did you hear it? The cool thing is, the president is using this tax hike as a "Down Payment" on the health care plan. Guess what the plan is. Oops! There's no plan yet! President Obama is taking money from the top layer of American earners to pay for something that he's all but admitted doesn't exist! Is this reprehensible to anyone else?
So, if you're not one of the people making $250K per year, you're probably thinking...I'm good. Wrong. Something else that President Obama has planned on for some time now is letting the "Bush Tax Cuts" expire in 2010. This means, of course, that if you pay taxes, you'll be suddenly paying a lot more when they expire. Even though the president knows this, he chooses to not call this a tax increase because it's just a policy change, an expiration of old tax policies.
Don't you see the difference? I sure don't.
To make it clearer, here's a tax rate table I picked up, for a nice average salary of $50K/year. Before you read it, keep in mind, President Bush had two tax cuts, and both will expire this year.
So, looks like President Obama is being straight with the American people about wanting to tax the rich, but totally lying about not taxing anyone else.
I understand that Taxation is necessary, to a certain extent, but this is out of hand. The American people are good people, working hard to feed their families and make ends meet. $1,000 would feed a family of 6 for two months. It could fund a couple months of college tuition (undergrad of course) for someone seeking further education. For the President of the United States to so flippantly take this money to further liberal agendas is immoral.
According to the speech that Obama gave to Congress last week, the tax hikes are to fund a plethora of long-standing Democratic goodies, but none more at the forefront than...UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE!!! I just heard that Psycho music playing in my head. Did you hear it? The cool thing is, the president is using this tax hike as a "Down Payment" on the health care plan. Guess what the plan is. Oops! There's no plan yet! President Obama is taking money from the top layer of American earners to pay for something that he's all but admitted doesn't exist! Is this reprehensible to anyone else?
So, if you're not one of the people making $250K per year, you're probably thinking...I'm good. Wrong. Something else that President Obama has planned on for some time now is letting the "Bush Tax Cuts" expire in 2010. This means, of course, that if you pay taxes, you'll be suddenly paying a lot more when they expire. Even though the president knows this, he chooses to not call this a tax increase because it's just a policy change, an expiration of old tax policies.
Don't you see the difference? I sure don't.
To make it clearer, here's a tax rate table I picked up, for a nice average salary of $50K/year. Before you read it, keep in mind, President Bush had two tax cuts, and both will expire this year.
Tax Rates - and the Obama Increase - $50,000/year Taxable Income
2000 Tax Tables | 2003 Tax Tables | 2004 Tax Tables | 2010 Tax Tables - (Bush Tax Cuts have Expired) | Increase with Obama Tax Increase* | |
Taxable Income | $50,000 | $50,000 | $50,000 | $50,000 | $50,000 |
Tax: Single | $10,581 | $9,304 | $9,231 | $10,581 | $1,350 |
Tax: Married - Filing Joint | $8,293 | $6,796 | $6,781 | $8,293 | $1,512 |
Tax: Married - Filing Separate | $11,143 | $9,304 | $9,231 | $11,143 | $1,912 |
Tax: Head of Household | $9,424 | $8,189 | $8,094 | $9,424 | $1,330 |
I understand that Taxation is necessary, to a certain extent, but this is out of hand. The American people are good people, working hard to feed their families and make ends meet. $1,000 would feed a family of 6 for two months. It could fund a couple months of college tuition (undergrad of course) for someone seeking further education. For the President of the United States to so flippantly take this money to further liberal agendas is immoral.
March 1, 2009
We Are Conservatives!
What does being a conservative mean? This question is being kicked around a lot lately, particularly by those that would have all of America think that the conservative movement is a thing of the past. We defy those critics, and would like to use this forum to declare that, for us, conservative principles fall under the following general values:
Liberty is at the forefront of each and every new policy debate since January. What's being debated, what's being raised as outrageous, is the lack of liberty that we as a country afford to the prisoners we hold in various detentions centers. Prisoners that were taken captive as they were attacking US citizens. What is not outrageous to the Liberals, is their agenda to take our right to bare arms. Liberals don't mind taxing us, taking our money, our guns, our ability to live the American dream on fair terms, our freedom to choose which schools to send our children to, or which news outlet we'd like to listen to/read (yes, those last two are actual agendas that have been debated in Congress) but they wouldn't dream of offending terrorists.
The Preamble to the Constitution sums it up best. "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." It's all there, isn't it? Why try and change it? There has been a steady barrage of law suits, as well as prospective legislation, that have sought to overturn, distort, and otherwise deface the Constitution of the United States of America. Rather than support judges who seek to rewrite the Constitution, we support Legislators and Executives who will appoint judges who seek to uphold it, by the letter of the law.
We've chosen this topic as our first post in order to clearly state what we believe. We could probably go on and on, but that would spoil the surprise. Thank you for reading this, we hope that it got you thinking!
Sincerely,
Sons of Liberty
- Individual Responsibility - Less Government
- Liberty
- A deep respect for the Constitution
Liberty is at the forefront of each and every new policy debate since January. What's being debated, what's being raised as outrageous, is the lack of liberty that we as a country afford to the prisoners we hold in various detentions centers. Prisoners that were taken captive as they were attacking US citizens. What is not outrageous to the Liberals, is their agenda to take our right to bare arms. Liberals don't mind taxing us, taking our money, our guns, our ability to live the American dream on fair terms, our freedom to choose which schools to send our children to, or which news outlet we'd like to listen to/read (yes, those last two are actual agendas that have been debated in Congress) but they wouldn't dream of offending terrorists.
The Preamble to the Constitution sums it up best. "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." It's all there, isn't it? Why try and change it? There has been a steady barrage of law suits, as well as prospective legislation, that have sought to overturn, distort, and otherwise deface the Constitution of the United States of America. Rather than support judges who seek to rewrite the Constitution, we support Legislators and Executives who will appoint judges who seek to uphold it, by the letter of the law.
We've chosen this topic as our first post in order to clearly state what we believe. We could probably go on and on, but that would spoil the surprise. Thank you for reading this, we hope that it got you thinking!
Sincerely,
Sons of Liberty
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
