There was a CNN blog post about Chip Saltzman and the Paul Shanklin parody song, 'Barack the Magic Negro'. For some reason this is now an issue when the song came out nearly two years ago. It came from an LA Times column which was questioning whether Barack Obama was 'black enough'. The song is sung by Shanklin, as Al Sharpton, and it is taking the angle of Sharpton claiming that Obama isn't 'black enough'. If we get off the PC train, and take all of these things into account, the song is pretty funny. Here is the contents of my CNN comment which will very likely not be posted there:
"The Democrats need to come off their high horse and realized that the Democrat party is the party with racism issues. The Republican Party was founded as an abolition party. The Republican Party had the the first delegate cast a ballot for a black man, Frederick Douglass. The Republican party got civil rights passed, since a majority of Dems voted against civil rights. The Dems are the party with a sitting Senator who is a former member (not likely reformed) of the KKK.
Conservatives believe all men (and women) are created equal and it is our actions that separate us. Liberals want to force equality on everyone.
The song "Barack the Magic Negro" was taken from an LA Times column and is clearly satirical. The libs need to come off of their high horse and get over themselves. It was not a diss aimed at Obama anyway, it was a diss aimed at the irreverent Al Sharpton and the other 'race hustlers'.
"There is another class of coloured people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs — partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do do not want to lose their jobs. "
Booker T. Washington"
Showing posts with label Barack Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Barack Obama. Show all posts
29 December 2008
08 November 2008
One More Reason to Homeschool
The election is over. Barack Obama won, and congratulations to him and his supporters. So long as his policies don't conflict with the constitution or my moral compass, I will support him. I will point it out when he is wrong, but he will very soon be MY President, and as such deserves every respect of the office to which he was elected. It is unfortunate that too many people did not give George Bush the same courtesy. I hope that all people on the right will do the same, and support their new president.
With that said, here is a video, which shows how tenure is a bad idea in schools. Spending in schools over the last 40 years has more than doubled, yet the results are the same. In 1970 we were spending an average of $4,060 per student in 2006-2007 dollars. In 2005, we were spending $9,266. (Heritage Foundation) While there have been slight improvements in performance by age 9, by age 13 and 17 those gains in performance drop off to at or below performance levels in 1970. Obviously throwing more money at schools is not working. But tenure and the teachers unions have made it nearly impossible to get rid of teachers that are not performing. Here is a video of a teacher who is an Obama supporter, who needs to be let go from her teaching job. What she does to the little girl who says she supports John McCain is embarrassing, and alone should be cause for administrative discipline at a minimum. But that's not how it usually works in American public schools nowadays. Most kids get stuck in liberalism factories and are taught WHAT to think, not HOW to think. I know this is not representative of all teachers, and I know not all schools are bad schools. But there are too many for the next generation to come out better than they were 40-50 years ago.
Hattip for the video to www.Glennbeck.com
With that said, here is a video, which shows how tenure is a bad idea in schools. Spending in schools over the last 40 years has more than doubled, yet the results are the same. In 1970 we were spending an average of $4,060 per student in 2006-2007 dollars. In 2005, we were spending $9,266. (Heritage Foundation) While there have been slight improvements in performance by age 9, by age 13 and 17 those gains in performance drop off to at or below performance levels in 1970. Obviously throwing more money at schools is not working. But tenure and the teachers unions have made it nearly impossible to get rid of teachers that are not performing. Here is a video of a teacher who is an Obama supporter, who needs to be let go from her teaching job. What she does to the little girl who says she supports John McCain is embarrassing, and alone should be cause for administrative discipline at a minimum. But that's not how it usually works in American public schools nowadays. Most kids get stuck in liberalism factories and are taught WHAT to think, not HOW to think. I know this is not representative of all teachers, and I know not all schools are bad schools. But there are too many for the next generation to come out better than they were 40-50 years ago.
Hattip for the video to www.Glennbeck.com
30 October 2008
Advertisements
If you are an avid reader of my blog, (all three of you) you might be wondering what happened to my advertising. Well I amassed a grand total of about $6.00 in advertising revenue, and they don't cut you a check unless you get at least $10.00. So the money wasn't really an issue, but even if my blog was bringing in significant revenue, I would have had to stop the ads after the ad that was up today. In the past, there had been ads that I didn't care for, but today, google crossed the line. Now I know that they just pick keywords, but there should be some sort of context assigned. There was an ad for a Pro-Death website, howmuchtime.org. I really don't know how they get a .org web address, but it is what it is. Anyway, here is a copy of my e-mail to the website, which asks how much prison time a woman should get who gets an abortion.
Your question is; "How much time?" I'd say life. Life in prison for the life she chose to destroy. Life in prison for the doctor who actually carried it out. A woman's right to privacy does not trump the child's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. No person's right to privacy trumps the health and welfare of another. Since you decided to advertise on my blog, you will get an earful from me. 45,000,000 murders in the United States alone, all sanctioned by the radical, left-wing agenda, and allowed to go on by the silent masses. I will be silent no longer! Roe v. Wade will be overturned, or this nation will be torn apart, either from within or by our enemies. Abortion has no place in a moral, civilized society, and every nation that permits it will eventually be torn apart. The question should be; "How much time before God passes His judgment on this nation?"
So maybe you can tell I was a little ticked off. But I feel that unless we overturn abortion, which has taken more lives than Hitler, Pol Pot and Mao Tse Tung combined, just in America, this nation will be torn apart. Now as the election approaches, there is a choice for those who are Pro-Life. While this issue is not the only reason for my McCain vote, it is one reason. Obama's record on abortion is monstrous. But I think it goes to a bigger issue of character. Obama seems to do whatever he wants to gain power. He said he would take public financing, and then he reneged. This may seem like a small thing, but it is just one more little bit of proof that his word means nothing. If his word means nothing, how can we believe him when he says he cares about the middle class. And if he is willing to let a child suffocate or starve to death, who's next? The elderly? The handicapped? If he won't stand up for the innocent, who will he stand up for? When analyzing his past, I foresee an Obama Presidency (I think McCain still has a shot, and stands a good chance of pulling this election out BTW) as leading us down the path to a socialist or fascist state.
I know the useful idiots on the left don't believe this, but Mussolini was a Communist. He used fascism as a means to gain and hold power, and the roots of fascism, in Italy at least, were a leftist brand of fascism. I previously thought that Obama reminded me more of Jimmy Carter and even entered this as my answer to the poll question I had up last week. But I'm starting to think that he is more like Mussolini, and will be the last nail in America's coffin if we don't wake up. The brand of liberalism Obama prescribes to is the type that nearly destroyed Europe. An Obama Government is not likely to be any different, unless he is stopped. Nevertheless, he could be the result of our nation's indifference to abortion. I hope this is not the case, and we wake up soon. It's not too late to end Obama's run. Vote McCain now! McCain is not perfect, or even a real conservative, but Obama is the most radical Presidential candidate in the history of the United States. He needs to be stopped, and so does abortion. Call or e-mail your congressman and tell them to put forward legislation to make abortion illegal. Even if it doesn't get out of committee, it needs to be put forward, before it's too late.
Your question is; "How much time?" I'd say life. Life in prison for the life she chose to destroy. Life in prison for the doctor who actually carried it out. A woman's right to privacy does not trump the child's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. No person's right to privacy trumps the health and welfare of another. Since you decided to advertise on my blog, you will get an earful from me. 45,000,000 murders in the United States alone, all sanctioned by the radical, left-wing agenda, and allowed to go on by the silent masses. I will be silent no longer! Roe v. Wade will be overturned, or this nation will be torn apart, either from within or by our enemies. Abortion has no place in a moral, civilized society, and every nation that permits it will eventually be torn apart. The question should be; "How much time before God passes His judgment on this nation?"
So maybe you can tell I was a little ticked off. But I feel that unless we overturn abortion, which has taken more lives than Hitler, Pol Pot and Mao Tse Tung combined, just in America, this nation will be torn apart. Now as the election approaches, there is a choice for those who are Pro-Life. While this issue is not the only reason for my McCain vote, it is one reason. Obama's record on abortion is monstrous. But I think it goes to a bigger issue of character. Obama seems to do whatever he wants to gain power. He said he would take public financing, and then he reneged. This may seem like a small thing, but it is just one more little bit of proof that his word means nothing. If his word means nothing, how can we believe him when he says he cares about the middle class. And if he is willing to let a child suffocate or starve to death, who's next? The elderly? The handicapped? If he won't stand up for the innocent, who will he stand up for? When analyzing his past, I foresee an Obama Presidency (I think McCain still has a shot, and stands a good chance of pulling this election out BTW) as leading us down the path to a socialist or fascist state.
I know the useful idiots on the left don't believe this, but Mussolini was a Communist. He used fascism as a means to gain and hold power, and the roots of fascism, in Italy at least, were a leftist brand of fascism. I previously thought that Obama reminded me more of Jimmy Carter and even entered this as my answer to the poll question I had up last week. But I'm starting to think that he is more like Mussolini, and will be the last nail in America's coffin if we don't wake up. The brand of liberalism Obama prescribes to is the type that nearly destroyed Europe. An Obama Government is not likely to be any different, unless he is stopped. Nevertheless, he could be the result of our nation's indifference to abortion. I hope this is not the case, and we wake up soon. It's not too late to end Obama's run. Vote McCain now! McCain is not perfect, or even a real conservative, but Obama is the most radical Presidential candidate in the history of the United States. He needs to be stopped, and so does abortion. Call or e-mail your congressman and tell them to put forward legislation to make abortion illegal. Even if it doesn't get out of committee, it needs to be put forward, before it's too late.
28 October 2008
Redistribution of Wealth
This is from an interview with a Chicago radio station in 2001. If you listen carefully (well maybe you won't have to be so careful) you'll notice that Obama thinks that the constitution is flawed. He says that the constitution says what the government and states can't do, but doesn't say what they have to do for the people.
"Ask not what uh, er, you can do for your uh, country. Uh, Ask what does my uh, government, owe ME?"
"Ask not what uh, er, you can do for your uh, country. Uh, Ask what does my uh, government, owe ME?"
Joe Biden puts his foot in his mouth...again.
I've heard this story from so many places I don't really know who to give credit to. Beck, Limbaugh, Boortz, Levin. I don't know, you pick.
Senator Obama, speaking to Joe (the plumber) Wurzelbacher:
OBAMA: It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they have got a chance at success, too. I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody.
Senator Biden, speaking to Barbara West at WFTV News:
WEST: You may recognize this famous quote: From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs. That's from Karl Marx. How is Senator Obama not being a Marxist if he intends to spread the wealth around?
Senator Obama, speaking to Joe (the plumber) Wurzelbacher:
OBAMA: It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they have got a chance at success, too. I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody.
Senator Biden, speaking to Barbara West at WFTV News:
WEST: You may recognize this famous quote: From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs. That's from Karl Marx. How is Senator Obama not being a Marxist if he intends to spread the wealth around?
BIDEN: Are you joking? Is this a joke?
WEST: No.
BIDEN: Or is that a real question?
WEST: That's a question.
BIDEN: He is not spreading the wealth around. He is talking about giving the middle class an opportunity to get back the tax breaks they used to have.
Eh? Senator Biden, anyone in the nation who is paying attention to this election heard Obama tell Joe the plumber that an Obama Administration would 'spread the wealth around'. Where have you been? I know your foot is almost permanently placed in your mouth, but, MY GOODNESS! You are either a liar, an idiot or ignorant. In the position you are running for, I don't know which is worse, but none of the above would be good for America.
Just a fact check for Joe Biden. The Bush Administration gave EVERY American a tax break. Senator Obama will allow the Bush tax cuts to expire, which will be a tax increase for every American family making over $25,000. But Obama's not going to raise taxes....riiiiggghtttt.
16 October 2008
Congratulations 'My Friend'
To Senator McCain:
Congratulations my friend. You did well in the debate, last night. I think you finally won outright. I think, substance wise you have been winning, but you have come across as robotic, cantankerous, and choppy and have said, 'my friends' far too often. Last night, you articulated your points better, taking Senator Obama to task on many occasions. Probably not enough for my liking, but probably as much as the debate format would allow. There are still people out there who do not yet understand that Senator Obama is the second coming of Jimmy Carter, or even worse, Benito Mussolini. His desire to socialize everything is plain wrong and un-American.
Senator McCain, you said last night that you are a Federalist. This was a profound statement. Stating the differences between Federalism and Socialism could win you the election. The federal government has grown too big for its britches, (much like many of the American People) and has exceeded its constitutional mandate. We need to get it in check. Please go back in the direction of true constitutional government, and draw the line between yourself and Senator Obama on these issues. As much as the American people should be shocked and appalled by Obama's connections with William Ayers, Tony Rezko, Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakhan and Raila Odinga, they, for some reason do not care. But I believe that Americans do believe in the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution, they just don't know what the documents say. These two documents along with the Magna Carta are probably the greatest documents in the history of the world with the only exception being the Holy Bible. People respect these documents, tell them what was written 225 years ago, how you will uphold these documents, and how Senator Obama will not.
Congratulations my friend. You did well in the debate, last night. I think you finally won outright. I think, substance wise you have been winning, but you have come across as robotic, cantankerous, and choppy and have said, 'my friends' far too often. Last night, you articulated your points better, taking Senator Obama to task on many occasions. Probably not enough for my liking, but probably as much as the debate format would allow. There are still people out there who do not yet understand that Senator Obama is the second coming of Jimmy Carter, or even worse, Benito Mussolini. His desire to socialize everything is plain wrong and un-American.
Senator McCain, you said last night that you are a Federalist. This was a profound statement. Stating the differences between Federalism and Socialism could win you the election. The federal government has grown too big for its britches, (much like many of the American People) and has exceeded its constitutional mandate. We need to get it in check. Please go back in the direction of true constitutional government, and draw the line between yourself and Senator Obama on these issues. As much as the American people should be shocked and appalled by Obama's connections with William Ayers, Tony Rezko, Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakhan and Raila Odinga, they, for some reason do not care. But I believe that Americans do believe in the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution, they just don't know what the documents say. These two documents along with the Magna Carta are probably the greatest documents in the history of the world with the only exception being the Holy Bible. People respect these documents, tell them what was written 225 years ago, how you will uphold these documents, and how Senator Obama will not.
19 September 2008
The Other "Fairness Doctrine"
Glenn Beck, in an interview with David Freddoso, author of "The Case Against Barack Obama" asked Freddosso about Obama's tax plans, which are constantly changing by the way. Here is a copy of the transcript of the interview.
GLENN: David, can we start with the economy with Barack Obama and the difference of what Barack Obama sees in the economy. How is he different than the politics of old as he calls them, the politics of failed policy?
FREDDOSO: Well, I would say and thanks for having me again, Glenn.
GLENN: Sure.
FREDDOSO: I would say that he, on economics he has rose from a typical populist anti free trade sort of position in a higher tax position that pretty much ignores the incentives involved in government tax policy. As you know, when you raise marginal tax rates, you are basically making it more difficult for small businesses. You are creating extra expenses for them and that means that wages tend to go up more slowly and perhaps even people get laid off if you have a major shift upward in the upper marginal rates. Because the people who hire other people are the ones making the large income. That is part of Obama's tax policy is to raise the top marginal rates.
GLENN: Okay, now wait a minute. Hang on just a second.
FREDDOSO: Yes.
GLENN: A lot of people don't understand, and I know you just explained. A lot of people don't understand that this is bad. Have you and I know this is past when your book came out but can you document here at all on how Barack Obama has changed his position?
FREDDOSO: Yes.
GLENN: on that top marginal rate.
FREDDOSO: Well, you know, he even he went on Stephanopoulos just a couple of weekends ago and when asked about if we go into a recession, would you raise taxes and his answer was, well, maybe not if we go into a recession. So he's already implying here that he understands raising taxes hurts people but he is willing to do it anyway as long as we're not in a recession already.
GLENN: And he's doing it for a reason of what he calls basic fairness.
FREDDOSO: Yes.
GLENN: Do you remember when he was go ahead.
FREDDOSO: Of course, you are referring to when he was asked by Charlie Gibson, I believe, about the capital gains tax, and he wants to raise the capital gains tax. He said he wants it to go up to maybe 28%. Right now it's 15%. When you raise the capital gains tax, historically revenues go down because people engage in fewer transactions when the marginal when the capital gains rate is high. So in fact, every time that rate has been cut, the government revenues have increased and so Charlie Gibson asked him, well, if raising this tax doesn't actually raise more money for the government, why are you going to do it. And Obama's answer was fairness. So now we have a government I mean, and this is you could say this is a great indicator of socialism. You have the government trying to make the economy more fair by hurting some people and not helping the others. It's a kind of laughable situation you could say.
END TRANSCRIPT
So essentially, Obama knows that raising taxes is bad for the economy. It doesn't bring more revenues, it doesn't create jobs. Raising taxes lowers revenues if anything. It also is a surefire way to lose jobs. If you raise taxes on small business, small business owners will lay people off, making more people dependent on the government, yet the government will have less money to take care of the additional people who need government assistance. So Obama wants to hurt the rich, (of which he is a member) without helping the poor all in the name of 'fairness'. I suppose it's fair if he screws everybody. (except the Marxists, I'm sure his plans include tax breaks for the Marxists) I thought Obama's supporters were the 'educated' class in America. I'm not sure what kind of education his supporters have, but it must not have included research.
GLENN: David, can we start with the economy with Barack Obama and the difference of what Barack Obama sees in the economy. How is he different than the politics of old as he calls them, the politics of failed policy?
FREDDOSO: Well, I would say and thanks for having me again, Glenn.
GLENN: Sure.
FREDDOSO: I would say that he, on economics he has rose from a typical populist anti free trade sort of position in a higher tax position that pretty much ignores the incentives involved in government tax policy. As you know, when you raise marginal tax rates, you are basically making it more difficult for small businesses. You are creating extra expenses for them and that means that wages tend to go up more slowly and perhaps even people get laid off if you have a major shift upward in the upper marginal rates. Because the people who hire other people are the ones making the large income. That is part of Obama's tax policy is to raise the top marginal rates.
GLENN: Okay, now wait a minute. Hang on just a second.
FREDDOSO: Yes.
GLENN: A lot of people don't understand, and I know you just explained. A lot of people don't understand that this is bad. Have you and I know this is past when your book came out but can you document here at all on how Barack Obama has changed his position?
FREDDOSO: Yes.
GLENN: on that top marginal rate.
FREDDOSO: Well, you know, he even he went on Stephanopoulos just a couple of weekends ago and when asked about if we go into a recession, would you raise taxes and his answer was, well, maybe not if we go into a recession. So he's already implying here that he understands raising taxes hurts people but he is willing to do it anyway as long as we're not in a recession already.
GLENN: And he's doing it for a reason of what he calls basic fairness.
FREDDOSO: Yes.
GLENN: Do you remember when he was go ahead.
FREDDOSO: Of course, you are referring to when he was asked by Charlie Gibson, I believe, about the capital gains tax, and he wants to raise the capital gains tax. He said he wants it to go up to maybe 28%. Right now it's 15%. When you raise the capital gains tax, historically revenues go down because people engage in fewer transactions when the marginal when the capital gains rate is high. So in fact, every time that rate has been cut, the government revenues have increased and so Charlie Gibson asked him, well, if raising this tax doesn't actually raise more money for the government, why are you going to do it. And Obama's answer was fairness. So now we have a government I mean, and this is you could say this is a great indicator of socialism. You have the government trying to make the economy more fair by hurting some people and not helping the others. It's a kind of laughable situation you could say.
END TRANSCRIPT
So essentially, Obama knows that raising taxes is bad for the economy. It doesn't bring more revenues, it doesn't create jobs. Raising taxes lowers revenues if anything. It also is a surefire way to lose jobs. If you raise taxes on small business, small business owners will lay people off, making more people dependent on the government, yet the government will have less money to take care of the additional people who need government assistance. So Obama wants to hurt the rich, (of which he is a member) without helping the poor all in the name of 'fairness'. I suppose it's fair if he screws everybody. (except the Marxists, I'm sure his plans include tax breaks for the Marxists) I thought Obama's supporters were the 'educated' class in America. I'm not sure what kind of education his supporters have, but it must not have included research.
15 September 2008
Born Alive Truth
I've heard about Obama's 'work' in the Illinois legislature where he stopped a bill from coming out of committee that would have ended the disgusting practice of infanticide. I believe all abortions are infanticide, however Obama opposed providing care even to children born ALIVE due to failed abortions. Even the Pro-Abortion group NARAL did not oppose this legislation, either the Illinois bill or the Federal Bill, which were virtually identical.
I've only just today found out about this website http://www.bornalivetruth.org/. There is a video on the website with ads that will be running. I also have posted a video here from the O'Reilly Factor in 2000 with Jill Stanek, who has spearheaded this fight to give rights to those who need it most, to those who can't fight for themselves; victims of failed abortions and subsequent suffocation due to indifference and political posturing from people like Barack Obama.
If you call yourself a Christian and you plan on voting for Obama, think again. He is not a Christian! No Christian could possibly allow children born alive to suffocate for hours until they die! If you vote for Obama, this is the tip of the iceberg. I'll leave his radical socialist and communist policies for other posts. This issue is too important and crucial to just leave alone. People need to know how far he is willing to go to gain, and keep power; even to abandoning infants, leaving the to die like an insect. If this were done to a dog or a cat, it would be a felony, but apparently a human life isn't as valuable to a certain Senator from Illinois.
This video was from before the bill was kept from a vote in Illinois, and before the Federal Law passed. Obama would not allow the Induced Infant Liability Act (the Illinois bill), which would protect children born due to failed abortions, out of his committee. When babies are born alive, (due to these failed late-term abortions) they are left to die. Senator Obama is lying about his record on this, and Christians who are considering voting for him better wake up! Obama does not answer tough questions directly. He stutters and stumbles around, talks for a few minutes and never answers the question. He has no convictions! You may disagree with John McCain. I do on many issues. But McCain knows what he believes, and he has convictions. Obama is not as forthcoming; hiding his motives behind empty rhetoric in his slick speeches and stuttering ramblings during face-to-face interviews. If he is willing to sit idly by and watch an infant die a death of suffocation, left alone like a piece of trash, what makes anyone think he really cares about the middle class and the poor? He doesn't. Here is one of MANY articles which show his disdain for human life, and gives more details of his despicable actions in the Illinois Legislature.
I've only just today found out about this website http://www.bornalivetruth.org/. There is a video on the website with ads that will be running. I also have posted a video here from the O'Reilly Factor in 2000 with Jill Stanek, who has spearheaded this fight to give rights to those who need it most, to those who can't fight for themselves; victims of failed abortions and subsequent suffocation due to indifference and political posturing from people like Barack Obama.
If you call yourself a Christian and you plan on voting for Obama, think again. He is not a Christian! No Christian could possibly allow children born alive to suffocate for hours until they die! If you vote for Obama, this is the tip of the iceberg. I'll leave his radical socialist and communist policies for other posts. This issue is too important and crucial to just leave alone. People need to know how far he is willing to go to gain, and keep power; even to abandoning infants, leaving the to die like an insect. If this were done to a dog or a cat, it would be a felony, but apparently a human life isn't as valuable to a certain Senator from Illinois.
This video was from before the bill was kept from a vote in Illinois, and before the Federal Law passed. Obama would not allow the Induced Infant Liability Act (the Illinois bill), which would protect children born due to failed abortions, out of his committee. When babies are born alive, (due to these failed late-term abortions) they are left to die. Senator Obama is lying about his record on this, and Christians who are considering voting for him better wake up! Obama does not answer tough questions directly. He stutters and stumbles around, talks for a few minutes and never answers the question. He has no convictions! You may disagree with John McCain. I do on many issues. But McCain knows what he believes, and he has convictions. Obama is not as forthcoming; hiding his motives behind empty rhetoric in his slick speeches and stuttering ramblings during face-to-face interviews. If he is willing to sit idly by and watch an infant die a death of suffocation, left alone like a piece of trash, what makes anyone think he really cares about the middle class and the poor? He doesn't. Here is one of MANY articles which show his disdain for human life, and gives more details of his despicable actions in the Illinois Legislature.
23 August 2008
Thank You Obama
On Thursday, August 21st Barack Obama gave us this little nugget of wisdom:
"Everybody's watching what's going on in Beijing right now with the Olympics , Think about the amount of money that China has spent on infrastructure. Their ports, their train systems, their airports are vastly the superior to us now, which means if you are a corporation deciding where to do business you're starting to think, "Beijing looks like a pretty good option."
I would like to say thank you to Barack Obama. Thank you for making it clear to us what you really want. You continue hinting at your push for socialism. This is just one more example. So you want the government to control healthcare, you want government control of energy, and you want a communist style government to work on infrastructure? Thank you Barack for not hiding who you really are.
I do have a question for you though Senator. Why does China look like a good option for business? Is it because wages and tax rates are lower? But you want to raise taxes Senator. Do you want to make China look like an even better option for business? Or will you deny that when you become Grand Exalted Premier? You have also said that you think we shouldn't even have elections, this one from a speech in (where else) San Francisco this past week:
“Now, you want to win. And saying it doesn’t make it so,” he said. “It would be nice to think that after eight years of economic disaster, after eight years of bungled foreign policy, of being engaged in a war that should never have been authorized and should never have been waged, that cost us a trillion dollars and thousands of lives, that people would say, ‘Let’s toss the bums out. Toss the bums out, we’re starting from scratch, we’re starting over. This is not working.’ ”
and “So I understand why a lot of folks are saying, ‘This should just happen. Why are we having to run all these television commercials? Why do we have to raise all this money? Just read the papers. These are the knuckleheads who have been in charge. Throw ’em out.’ But American politics aren’t that simple.”
No Senator, American politics aren't that simple. We have these things called elections. In elections, the American people get an opportunity to vote. What's funny is that unlike places you like to look up to, like China and the Soviet Union, there is usually more than one person running in the election. Yes, you do have to go through the primary process, because people have to make sure that whoever they vote for is the best person for the job. Sometimes we get it right, sometimes we don't, and sometimes there isn't a good choice, (like this year) but we always have a say, and an opportunity to vote for who we think is the best. That is unless you become President with a Democrat majority and then you'll just work on getting rid of those pesky elections won't you?
"Everybody's watching what's going on in Beijing right now with the Olympics , Think about the amount of money that China has spent on infrastructure. Their ports, their train systems, their airports are vastly the superior to us now, which means if you are a corporation deciding where to do business you're starting to think, "Beijing looks like a pretty good option."
I would like to say thank you to Barack Obama. Thank you for making it clear to us what you really want. You continue hinting at your push for socialism. This is just one more example. So you want the government to control healthcare, you want government control of energy, and you want a communist style government to work on infrastructure? Thank you Barack for not hiding who you really are.
I do have a question for you though Senator. Why does China look like a good option for business? Is it because wages and tax rates are lower? But you want to raise taxes Senator. Do you want to make China look like an even better option for business? Or will you deny that when you become Grand Exalted Premier? You have also said that you think we shouldn't even have elections, this one from a speech in (where else) San Francisco this past week:
“Now, you want to win. And saying it doesn’t make it so,” he said. “It would be nice to think that after eight years of economic disaster, after eight years of bungled foreign policy, of being engaged in a war that should never have been authorized and should never have been waged, that cost us a trillion dollars and thousands of lives, that people would say, ‘Let’s toss the bums out. Toss the bums out, we’re starting from scratch, we’re starting over. This is not working.’ ”
and “So I understand why a lot of folks are saying, ‘This should just happen. Why are we having to run all these television commercials? Why do we have to raise all this money? Just read the papers. These are the knuckleheads who have been in charge. Throw ’em out.’ But American politics aren’t that simple.”
No Senator, American politics aren't that simple. We have these things called elections. In elections, the American people get an opportunity to vote. What's funny is that unlike places you like to look up to, like China and the Soviet Union, there is usually more than one person running in the election. Yes, you do have to go through the primary process, because people have to make sure that whoever they vote for is the best person for the job. Sometimes we get it right, sometimes we don't, and sometimes there isn't a good choice, (like this year) but we always have a say, and an opportunity to vote for who we think is the best. That is unless you become President with a Democrat majority and then you'll just work on getting rid of those pesky elections won't you?
03 August 2008
Referendum on Obama?
I'm not sure who I've heard say this on talk radio, perhaps it's a number of hosts. I'm pretty sure Rush and Levin have both said that this election is not about McCain, but is a referendum on Obama. Surely the journalist who wrote this article picked up on this. Well, I do agree that this election is all about Obama. Obama is hailed as the messiah for the Democrats, but he isn't even cracking 50% in the polls. Perhaps Americans aren't as blind as the Mainstream Media thinks they are. On the outside, it would appear to be a two man race, but really it is just a "Referendum on Obama". Are Obama and his radical policies what America needs (no) or even want? (I hope not)
Even though McCain is the one who picked up the nomination for the Republicans, he was not the choice of conservatives or even of a majority of Republicans. However with no clear-cut conservative candidate, McCain emerged as the guy the largest segment of Republicans (and Democrats who decided to vote in the Republican Primary) chose to vote for. Conservatives were split trying to figure out who, between Romney, Thompson, Giuliani and Huckabee, fit the mold they were looking for. None of them were the star that conservatives hoped for, and McCain emerged as the winner almost by default. It was almost like a 'Battle Royale' and McCain hid in the corner as all the other guys were fighting it out. Once Romney had his back turned, McCain snuck up and pushed him out of the ring.
Coming back to Obama, as he is what this election is about anyway. He is not running away with this election, and the Democrats are stunned. He has received Rock Star treatment and has women swooning over him. Why isn't he running away with this election then? I believe that the more people find out about his policies, the more he scares the crap out of them. His policies sound a whole lot like a watered down version of Marxism. He is so set on raising taxes on the rich to make things "fair" he misses the point. The rich already pay WAY more than what is "fair", but Obama wants to increase it. If Obama wanted the tax structure to be "fair", he would be pushing for the Fair Tax, or some sort of flat tax. No, he wants wealth redistribution. The problem is, wealth redistribution ALWAYS FAILS. If we redistribute wealth, we will lose jobs. Big Business will be forced to move overseas, and small businesses will go out of business. The businesses that stay and survive will not be able to hire as many employees because their tax burden is too high. People will have to work more hours to make ends meet, (if they can find a job) cutting time with family which already is too low in America.
His energy policies are laughable. He (and his party) has done nothing to attempt to bring down oil prices. He says we just need to use less. Well here's the problem Barack, we ARE using less. But at $4.00 a gallon it crushes our wallet no matter how much we cut back. If we all lived in Chicago or New York, it wouldn't matter quite as much, but where regular Americans live, we sometimes have to drive to places like work. Increased fuel and food prices mean we have to cut back on spending, (which hurts the economy) saving and investing, (which hurts our future as well as the economy) or paying bills, which hurts quality of life. The average joe has had to cut back to make ends meet and Obama has offered nothing but this little nugget of wisdom; "put air in your tires". Brilliant, if that is the kind of leadership we can expect for four years of an Obama administration, there's no wonder he isn't cleaning McCain's clock.
I really hate the idea of voting against someone I don't like. I really would like to vote FOR someone I do like. But in order to do that, I'll have to write someone in. I just 'hope' Americans will come to their senses and pay attention to the 'change' that Obama wants to bring to America. It looks a whole lot like Marxism.
15 April 2008
Who's out of touch?
I saw this video on Stan Rosenthal's blog, http://tbsn.thesequencers.us/ and he got it from some other blog. Here is my initial feelings upon listening to Barack Obama's explanation of his statements.
Senator Obama,
YOU are out of touch. You talk about the politicization of your words...you're a politician, duh. Your words are going to be politicized. However your pastor, and spiritual mentor, politicizes the gospel. You defend his politicization of the Bible, yet you don't think it's right that your words as a United States Senator who is running for President of the United States ought to be scrutinized politically?
You bash the Bush tax cuts which helped ALL Americans, not just the wealthy. (of which you are a member Mr. Obama) You're against tax cuts, yet high taxes are destroying and have been destroying the industries in the Midwest sending manufacturing jobs overseas. This is where you are focusing your campaign, yet you are out of touch with the root causes of their job losses, and miserable economy. Either you are out of touch or you don't care. Those middle class, blue collar voters you insulted don't need you to patronize them with your half-hearted attempt at an apology. Give a REAL apology. Tell them that you're sorry that you said what you said. Say you didn't mean it the way it came out and that's it. Don't use it as a lead in to attack your political opponents.
You claim that your opponents are out of touch. But where President Bush, John McCain, Hillary Clinton and 98% of congress is out of touch is that most Americans DON'T want higher taxes. They don't want our borders wide open, they don't want a $60 billion trade deficit. They don't want to see a $400 billion budget deficit when the US treasury is taking in record revenues, and they don't want us to lose a war that was started by Radical Islam and that is of vital interest to US national security.
The American people want to see spending reduced. They want government out of our lives, they want borders protected, they want to stop seeing our jobs outsourced and they want to defeat the terrorists and see democracy flourish in the Middle East. They don't want the first amendment minimized to protect all religions except Christianity. They don't want to see freedom of speech impinged upon when it comes to Radical Islam and in our schools and universities.
The American people want real alternative fuels and they want us to use the oil we have in America. Maybe if we weren't importing so much oil from Mexico, we could close off our borders. Maybe then, Americans would get paid enough to do those jobs that 'Americans won't do'. But you and politicians like you don't actually want real solutions do you Senator? You claim to be the candidate of 'Hope', yet you tell young blacks that you attained your wealth and position due to luck. No, you got it by hard work. But you want power, and you want to take care of the people who helped you attain that power. Telling Democrats that they can make it without the government won't keep the votes coming in long term will it? No Senator, you are out of touch. Stop attacking hard working Americans and make a real effort to get in touch.
Senator Obama,
YOU are out of touch. You talk about the politicization of your words...you're a politician, duh. Your words are going to be politicized. However your pastor, and spiritual mentor, politicizes the gospel. You defend his politicization of the Bible, yet you don't think it's right that your words as a United States Senator who is running for President of the United States ought to be scrutinized politically?
You bash the Bush tax cuts which helped ALL Americans, not just the wealthy. (of which you are a member Mr. Obama) You're against tax cuts, yet high taxes are destroying and have been destroying the industries in the Midwest sending manufacturing jobs overseas. This is where you are focusing your campaign, yet you are out of touch with the root causes of their job losses, and miserable economy. Either you are out of touch or you don't care. Those middle class, blue collar voters you insulted don't need you to patronize them with your half-hearted attempt at an apology. Give a REAL apology. Tell them that you're sorry that you said what you said. Say you didn't mean it the way it came out and that's it. Don't use it as a lead in to attack your political opponents.
You claim that your opponents are out of touch. But where President Bush, John McCain, Hillary Clinton and 98% of congress is out of touch is that most Americans DON'T want higher taxes. They don't want our borders wide open, they don't want a $60 billion trade deficit. They don't want to see a $400 billion budget deficit when the US treasury is taking in record revenues, and they don't want us to lose a war that was started by Radical Islam and that is of vital interest to US national security.
The American people want to see spending reduced. They want government out of our lives, they want borders protected, they want to stop seeing our jobs outsourced and they want to defeat the terrorists and see democracy flourish in the Middle East. They don't want the first amendment minimized to protect all religions except Christianity. They don't want to see freedom of speech impinged upon when it comes to Radical Islam and in our schools and universities.
The American people want real alternative fuels and they want us to use the oil we have in America. Maybe if we weren't importing so much oil from Mexico, we could close off our borders. Maybe then, Americans would get paid enough to do those jobs that 'Americans won't do'. But you and politicians like you don't actually want real solutions do you Senator? You claim to be the candidate of 'Hope', yet you tell young blacks that you attained your wealth and position due to luck. No, you got it by hard work. But you want power, and you want to take care of the people who helped you attain that power. Telling Democrats that they can make it without the government won't keep the votes coming in long term will it? No Senator, you are out of touch. Stop attacking hard working Americans and make a real effort to get in touch.
30 March 2008
Let's talk...
To this guy? I don't think so Mr. Obama.
October 30 2005
Also see:Iran's Threat to Israel Was Ahmadinejad Misquoted? Iran's Leader Calls for Israel's Destruction World Leaders Condemn Iran's Threat to Israel Iran's President Wishes Sharon to Die Ahmadinejad Threatens Israel Again Eye on Iran: Why Israel? Why Now?
This is a translation, by Nazila Fathi in The New York Times Tehran bureau, of the October 26 speech by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to an Islamic Student Associations conference on "The World Without Zionism." The conference was held in Tehran, at the Interior Ministry.The text of the speech was posted online, in Persian, by the Iranian Student News Agency (www.isnagency.com). Bracketed explanatory material is from Ms. Fathi.
I thank God that I have had the opportunity to participate in the event today ….We need to examine the true origins of the issue of Palestine: is it a fight between a group of Muslims and non-Jews? Is it a fight between Judaism and other religions? Is it the fight of one country with another country? Is it the fight of one country with the Arab world? Is it a fight over the land of Palestine? I guess the answer to all these questions is ‘no.’The establishment of the occupying regime of Qods [Jerusalem]was a major move by the world oppressor [ the United States] against the Islamic world. The situation has changed in this historical struggle. Sometimes the Muslims have won and moved forward and the world oppressor was forced to withdraw.Unfortunately, the Islamic world has been withdrawing in the past 300 years. I do not want to examine the reasons for this, but only to review the history. The Islamic world lost its last defenses in the past 100 years and the world oppressor established the occupying regime. Therefore the struggle in Palestine today is the major front of the struggle of the Islamic world with the world oppressor and its fate will decide the destiny of the struggles of the past several hundred years.The Palestinian nation represents the Islamic nation [Umma] against a system of oppression, and thank God, the Palestinian nation adopted Islamic behavior in an Islamic environment in their struggle and so we have witnessed their progress and success.I need to thank you for choosing this valuable title for the conference.Many who are disappointed in the struggle between the Islamic world and the infidels have tried to spread the blame. They say it is not possible to have a world without the United States and Zionism. But you know that this is a possible goal and slogan.Let’s take a step back. We had a hostile regime in this country which was undemocratic, armed to the teeth and, with SAVAK, its security apparatus of SAVAK [the intelligence bureau of the Shah of Iran’s government] watched everyone. An environment of terror existed. When our dear Imam [Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the founder the Iranian revolution] said that the regime must be removed, many of those who claimed to be politically well-informed said it was not possible. All the corrupt governments were in support of the regime when Imam Khomeini started his movement. All the Western and Eastern countries supported the regime even after the massacre of September 7 [1978] and said the removal of the regime was not possible. But our people resisted and it is 27 years now that we have survived without a regime dependant on the United States. The tyranny of the East and the West over the world must should end, but weak people who can see only what lies in front of them cannot believe this.Who could believe that one day we could witness the collapse of the Eastern Empire? But we have seen its fall during our lives and it collapsed in such a way that we have to refer to libraries because no trace of it is left. Imam [Khomeini] said Saddam must go and he said he would grow weaker than anyone could imagine. Now you see the man who spoke with such arrogance ten years ago that one would have thought he was immortal, is being tried in his own country in handcuffs and shackles by those who he believed supported him and with whose backing he committed his crimes.Our dear Imam said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement. We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine. Is it possible to create a new front in the heart of an old front. This would be a defeat and whoever accepts the legitimacy of this regime [Israel] has in fact, signed the defeat of the Islamic world. Our dear Imam targeted the heart of the world oppressor in his struggle, meaning the occupying regime. I have no doubt that the new wave that has started in Palestine, and we witness it in the Islamic world too, will eliminate this disgraceful stain from the Islamic world. But we must be aware of tricks. For over 50 years the world oppressor tried to give legitimacy to the occupying regime and it has taken measures in this direction to stabilize it. About 27 or 28 years ago they took a major step and unfortunately one of the leading countries made a mistake which we hope will correct it.[an apparent reference to the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel].Recently they [the Israelis] tried a new trick. They want to show the evacuation from the Gaza strip, which was imposed on them by Palestinians, as a final victory for the Palestinians and end the issue of Palestine with the excuse of establishing a Palestinian government next to themselves. Today, they want to involve Palestinians with mischief and trick them into fighting with one another over political positions so that they would drop the issue of Palestine.They want to convince some of the Islamic countries that, since they evacuated the Gaza strip with good intentions, the legitimacy of their corrupt regime should be recognized. I hope Palestinian groups and people are aware of this trick.The issue of Palestine is not over at all. It will be over the day a Palestinian government, which belongs to the Palestinian people, comes to power; the day that all refugees return to their homes; a democratic government elected by the people comes to power. Of course those who have come from far away to plunder this land have no right to choose for this nation.I hope the Palestinian people will remain alert and aware in the same way that they have continued their struggle in the past ten years.If we get through this brief period successfully, the path of eliminating the occupying regime will be easy and down-hill.I warn all leaders of the Islamic world that they should be aware of this trick. Anyone who recognizes this regime because of the pressure of the World oppressor, or because of naiveté or selfishness, will be eternally disgraced and will burn in the fury of the Islamic nations.Those who are sitting in closed rooms cannot decide for the Islamic nation and cannot allow this historical enemy to exist in the heart of the Islamic world.
October 30 2005
Also see:Iran's Threat to Israel Was Ahmadinejad Misquoted? Iran's Leader Calls for Israel's Destruction World Leaders Condemn Iran's Threat to Israel Iran's President Wishes Sharon to Die Ahmadinejad Threatens Israel Again Eye on Iran: Why Israel? Why Now?
This is a translation, by Nazila Fathi in The New York Times Tehran bureau, of the October 26 speech by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to an Islamic Student Associations conference on "The World Without Zionism." The conference was held in Tehran, at the Interior Ministry.The text of the speech was posted online, in Persian, by the Iranian Student News Agency (www.isnagency.com). Bracketed explanatory material is from Ms. Fathi.
I thank God that I have had the opportunity to participate in the event today ….We need to examine the true origins of the issue of Palestine: is it a fight between a group of Muslims and non-Jews? Is it a fight between Judaism and other religions? Is it the fight of one country with another country? Is it the fight of one country with the Arab world? Is it a fight over the land of Palestine? I guess the answer to all these questions is ‘no.’The establishment of the occupying regime of Qods [Jerusalem]was a major move by the world oppressor [ the United States] against the Islamic world. The situation has changed in this historical struggle. Sometimes the Muslims have won and moved forward and the world oppressor was forced to withdraw.Unfortunately, the Islamic world has been withdrawing in the past 300 years. I do not want to examine the reasons for this, but only to review the history. The Islamic world lost its last defenses in the past 100 years and the world oppressor established the occupying regime. Therefore the struggle in Palestine today is the major front of the struggle of the Islamic world with the world oppressor and its fate will decide the destiny of the struggles of the past several hundred years.The Palestinian nation represents the Islamic nation [Umma] against a system of oppression, and thank God, the Palestinian nation adopted Islamic behavior in an Islamic environment in their struggle and so we have witnessed their progress and success.I need to thank you for choosing this valuable title for the conference.Many who are disappointed in the struggle between the Islamic world and the infidels have tried to spread the blame. They say it is not possible to have a world without the United States and Zionism. But you know that this is a possible goal and slogan.Let’s take a step back. We had a hostile regime in this country which was undemocratic, armed to the teeth and, with SAVAK, its security apparatus of SAVAK [the intelligence bureau of the Shah of Iran’s government] watched everyone. An environment of terror existed. When our dear Imam [Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the founder the Iranian revolution] said that the regime must be removed, many of those who claimed to be politically well-informed said it was not possible. All the corrupt governments were in support of the regime when Imam Khomeini started his movement. All the Western and Eastern countries supported the regime even after the massacre of September 7 [1978] and said the removal of the regime was not possible. But our people resisted and it is 27 years now that we have survived without a regime dependant on the United States. The tyranny of the East and the West over the world must should end, but weak people who can see only what lies in front of them cannot believe this.Who could believe that one day we could witness the collapse of the Eastern Empire? But we have seen its fall during our lives and it collapsed in such a way that we have to refer to libraries because no trace of it is left. Imam [Khomeini] said Saddam must go and he said he would grow weaker than anyone could imagine. Now you see the man who spoke with such arrogance ten years ago that one would have thought he was immortal, is being tried in his own country in handcuffs and shackles by those who he believed supported him and with whose backing he committed his crimes.Our dear Imam said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement. We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine. Is it possible to create a new front in the heart of an old front. This would be a defeat and whoever accepts the legitimacy of this regime [Israel] has in fact, signed the defeat of the Islamic world. Our dear Imam targeted the heart of the world oppressor in his struggle, meaning the occupying regime. I have no doubt that the new wave that has started in Palestine, and we witness it in the Islamic world too, will eliminate this disgraceful stain from the Islamic world. But we must be aware of tricks. For over 50 years the world oppressor tried to give legitimacy to the occupying regime and it has taken measures in this direction to stabilize it. About 27 or 28 years ago they took a major step and unfortunately one of the leading countries made a mistake which we hope will correct it.[an apparent reference to the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel].Recently they [the Israelis] tried a new trick. They want to show the evacuation from the Gaza strip, which was imposed on them by Palestinians, as a final victory for the Palestinians and end the issue of Palestine with the excuse of establishing a Palestinian government next to themselves. Today, they want to involve Palestinians with mischief and trick them into fighting with one another over political positions so that they would drop the issue of Palestine.They want to convince some of the Islamic countries that, since they evacuated the Gaza strip with good intentions, the legitimacy of their corrupt regime should be recognized. I hope Palestinian groups and people are aware of this trick.The issue of Palestine is not over at all. It will be over the day a Palestinian government, which belongs to the Palestinian people, comes to power; the day that all refugees return to their homes; a democratic government elected by the people comes to power. Of course those who have come from far away to plunder this land have no right to choose for this nation.I hope the Palestinian people will remain alert and aware in the same way that they have continued their struggle in the past ten years.If we get through this brief period successfully, the path of eliminating the occupying regime will be easy and down-hill.I warn all leaders of the Islamic world that they should be aware of this trick. Anyone who recognizes this regime because of the pressure of the World oppressor, or because of naiveté or selfishness, will be eternally disgraced and will burn in the fury of the Islamic nations.Those who are sitting in closed rooms cannot decide for the Islamic nation and cannot allow this historical enemy to exist in the heart of the Islamic world.
03 March 2008
What's Wrong with America Part II a : Liberalism
Continuing on my liberalism theme, I'll now talk about socialism. We have in our choices for president of three levels of socialists. The most dangerous I believe is Barack Obama. Hillary Clinton would be next and then John McCain.
Why is socialism bad? I'm glad you asked. It gives little to no incentive for people to work harder. The problem with socialism isn't poor work ethic, it's the fact that profits, ownership, wealth etc. are great incentives for people to work harder. When you take these incentives away, work ethic follows. Now maybe you're thinking, those things (profits, ownership and wealth) are BAD! Taken to excess, I would agree, however there is nothing inherently wrong about striving for success. It is what has made America great for centuries. People from all over the world have flocked here; why? Because of our wonderful social security benefits? No. How about our free health care? Nope. People have come here because if you work hard enough and make the right choices, you can be successful. It doesn't matter who you are, with hard work you can succeed in America.
What does socialism carried out to a more full extent do? It says, 'you are smart enough to work these types of jobs'. It says, 'do your job and you can get a place to live just like everyone else as 'good' as you'. You get so many rations for food (regardless of whether or not that food is available) and work this job for the rest of your life. You don't really own anything. You get the same things whether you work hard or not, so why work hard? Why strive to be better? If you run a store, you will get the same things whether you sell 1 item or 100, so why strive to be successful. If you are a farmer and you give all of the food you grow to the government only for them to give you some rations back regardless of how much you grow, why would you spend time breaking your back working the government's fields? You would just grow enough to keep the government off of your back. Now you might say, 'those people just have poor work ethic', but most people in those conditions will do the same thing eventually.
Now our three candidates aren't proposing the Soviet Union for America. (at least not yet) But they are proposing things that are leading us down the road to hard core socialism. All three have either said they want to raise taxes or (in the case of McCain) have voted against tax cuts. The liberal doctrine says, 'those tax cuts are just for the rich.' Well how many poor men (or women) have you ever worked for? If the rich are taxed higher, they can't afford as many employees, meaning they will spend less money and save more which means less jobs, meaning less people paying income taxes, meaning less revenue for the US Treasury. The very wealthy won't be too affected though, because they can live off of the interest of their savings and investments. If you have $20,000,000 in the bank, the interest is pretty decent money and even though you are paying taxes, you are paying tax only on the interest. You can withdraw all of the interest every year, which is probably $1,000,000, live very nicely and you will always have $20,000,000 in the bank. But you won't invest much money in expanding your wealth because the tax penalties are too high. You sit it out, live off of interest and wait for a more favorable environment to begin growing your business again.
So who suffers? The middle class. Those who depend on their jobs. Those who depend on rich people to create new jobs. Those who don't have $20,000,000 in the bank. The people who have six months living expenses in the bank or less. Why is John McCain the least dangerous? Well his base believes that high taxes are bad. He will be forced to not go too far from the conservative camp, though he likes to do whatever he feels like doing, even if it's spitting in the face of the people who put him where he is.
Hillary Clinton. Though she is further left than she is portraying herself, I think she will be looking to correct the negative legacy of Bill Clinton, and build on what is seen as his strength. She will look to solidify that the Democrats were responsible for the successful economy of the 90's instead of the Republican Congress with their tax cuts and their curbing of spending. Since Bush 43 (and the Republican Congress he controlled) spent money like water, she can probably convince the masses that the democrats are better when it comes to fiscal responsibility if (and only if) she and a Democratic Congress can reign in spending. She will have a hard time, but I think she will give it a shot.
Barack Obama. He is the worst in this area in my opinion. Every time I hear him speak he is talking about money for this, money for that. We already have a massive deficit. We need to STOP spending. Raising taxes will not make up for what we are short, because Treasury revenues will decrease. The only way to fix what is wrong with America is to STOP SPENDING. I'll paraphrase a quote from Warren Buffett that I read once that says something like, "If you are in a financial hole the first step is to stop digging." Yet the liberal mentality is to dig some more with the belief that by digging a little more we can bring in more dirt. Now Obama in my opinion is the most likable candidate. He is certainly the best speaker and that can't hurt when you're following the president who is probably the worst speaker in modern presidential politics. Of the three, he is the only one I could see myself sitting down with and hanging out with. But, I see him following in the mold of FDR and bringing in massive expansions of government, higher taxes, and less freedom. For liberals who are all about freedom, why would you accept bigger government which only leads to less freedom?
To be continued.
Why is socialism bad? I'm glad you asked. It gives little to no incentive for people to work harder. The problem with socialism isn't poor work ethic, it's the fact that profits, ownership, wealth etc. are great incentives for people to work harder. When you take these incentives away, work ethic follows. Now maybe you're thinking, those things (profits, ownership and wealth) are BAD! Taken to excess, I would agree, however there is nothing inherently wrong about striving for success. It is what has made America great for centuries. People from all over the world have flocked here; why? Because of our wonderful social security benefits? No. How about our free health care? Nope. People have come here because if you work hard enough and make the right choices, you can be successful. It doesn't matter who you are, with hard work you can succeed in America.
What does socialism carried out to a more full extent do? It says, 'you are smart enough to work these types of jobs'. It says, 'do your job and you can get a place to live just like everyone else as 'good' as you'. You get so many rations for food (regardless of whether or not that food is available) and work this job for the rest of your life. You don't really own anything. You get the same things whether you work hard or not, so why work hard? Why strive to be better? If you run a store, you will get the same things whether you sell 1 item or 100, so why strive to be successful. If you are a farmer and you give all of the food you grow to the government only for them to give you some rations back regardless of how much you grow, why would you spend time breaking your back working the government's fields? You would just grow enough to keep the government off of your back. Now you might say, 'those people just have poor work ethic', but most people in those conditions will do the same thing eventually.
Now our three candidates aren't proposing the Soviet Union for America. (at least not yet) But they are proposing things that are leading us down the road to hard core socialism. All three have either said they want to raise taxes or (in the case of McCain) have voted against tax cuts. The liberal doctrine says, 'those tax cuts are just for the rich.' Well how many poor men (or women) have you ever worked for? If the rich are taxed higher, they can't afford as many employees, meaning they will spend less money and save more which means less jobs, meaning less people paying income taxes, meaning less revenue for the US Treasury. The very wealthy won't be too affected though, because they can live off of the interest of their savings and investments. If you have $20,000,000 in the bank, the interest is pretty decent money and even though you are paying taxes, you are paying tax only on the interest. You can withdraw all of the interest every year, which is probably $1,000,000, live very nicely and you will always have $20,000,000 in the bank. But you won't invest much money in expanding your wealth because the tax penalties are too high. You sit it out, live off of interest and wait for a more favorable environment to begin growing your business again.
So who suffers? The middle class. Those who depend on their jobs. Those who depend on rich people to create new jobs. Those who don't have $20,000,000 in the bank. The people who have six months living expenses in the bank or less. Why is John McCain the least dangerous? Well his base believes that high taxes are bad. He will be forced to not go too far from the conservative camp, though he likes to do whatever he feels like doing, even if it's spitting in the face of the people who put him where he is.
Hillary Clinton. Though she is further left than she is portraying herself, I think she will be looking to correct the negative legacy of Bill Clinton, and build on what is seen as his strength. She will look to solidify that the Democrats were responsible for the successful economy of the 90's instead of the Republican Congress with their tax cuts and their curbing of spending. Since Bush 43 (and the Republican Congress he controlled) spent money like water, she can probably convince the masses that the democrats are better when it comes to fiscal responsibility if (and only if) she and a Democratic Congress can reign in spending. She will have a hard time, but I think she will give it a shot.
Barack Obama. He is the worst in this area in my opinion. Every time I hear him speak he is talking about money for this, money for that. We already have a massive deficit. We need to STOP spending. Raising taxes will not make up for what we are short, because Treasury revenues will decrease. The only way to fix what is wrong with America is to STOP SPENDING. I'll paraphrase a quote from Warren Buffett that I read once that says something like, "If you are in a financial hole the first step is to stop digging." Yet the liberal mentality is to dig some more with the belief that by digging a little more we can bring in more dirt. Now Obama in my opinion is the most likable candidate. He is certainly the best speaker and that can't hurt when you're following the president who is probably the worst speaker in modern presidential politics. Of the three, he is the only one I could see myself sitting down with and hanging out with. But, I see him following in the mold of FDR and bringing in massive expansions of government, higher taxes, and less freedom. For liberals who are all about freedom, why would you accept bigger government which only leads to less freedom?
To be continued.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)