I haven't done much with this blog lately because i've been put on bedrest (and it's hard to type lying down!) So when others do the work for me, I rejoice. I received this email from a friend and it saved me a lot of time in trying to explain why increasing the tax burden on the 'rich' even more isn't 'fair' and is in fact a really, really stupid idea. Enjoy.
How much have we forgotten of the values of "Free Enterpise" , "Democracy". and "Freedom Of Religion".
Taxing Times
Thomas Sowell
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Chief Justice John Marshall said it all in one sentence: "The power to tax is the power to destroy." It is not the money that is taxed away that is destroyed. What is destroyed is the wealth that does not get produced in the first place, because high taxes make its production not worthwhile. Those who are receptive to Senator Barack Obama's plan to increase taxes on "the rich" seem not to understand that the issue is the nation's loss of wealth. Today, wealth can leave the country when heavy taxes threaten it-- instantly, in an age of electronic financial transfers-- and create jobs and economic growth overseas, instead of at home. The two months between the time of a presidential election and the time when the new president takes office is an eternity in terms of how much money can be transferred out of the country electronically before any new high-tax laws can be enacted.
Like so much that is said glibly by Barack Obama, raising taxes on "the rich" has serious-- and potentially disastrous-- implications for the whole country that have been ignored amid the political euphoria. Moreover, like so much that is proposed under the magic mantra of "change," it is something that has been tried before in many countries and failed before in many countries. Much wealth from Third World countries flows out to richer countries like Switzerland or the United States, where it is safer from confiscation. Jack up the capital gains tax rate in the United States and more Americans can be expected to send their capital elsewhere. That means sending jobs elsewhere, so that even people with no capital to invest lose employment opportunities.
Economists have trouble determining how many people are affected by a tax increase because those affected extend far beyond those who write the checks to pay the government. Taxes on businesses can get passed along to consumers, in whole or in part, even though it is only the business that writes the check to the government. Payroll taxes or government-mandated employee benefits may be paid for directly by the employer, but these costs reduce the value of an employee to the employer. If these costs add up to $10,000, for example, employers bidding for labor may bid $10,000 less in salary than they would have otherwise. As in other cases, who writes the checks does not tell you who really pays the costs, since the worker is now $10,000 worse off.
The idea that you can single out one segment of society to be taxed or mandated, for the benefit of the rest of society, is reminiscent of a San Francisco automobile dealer's sign: "We cheat the other guy and pass the savings on to you." The economy is not a zero-sum game where someone gains what others lose. The whole economy can lose when ill-considered policies gain political popularity and stifle economic growth. People who do not own a single share of corporate stock can still lose big time when capital gains taxes are raised-- not only because jobs can follow capital out of the country, but also because millions of working people's pension plans own corporate stock, and those people's retirement incomes will depend on the value of those stocks, which is reduced by capital gains taxes.
One of the biggest taxes is one that is not even called a tax -- inflation. When the government spends money that it creates, it is transferring part of the value of your money to themselves. It is quiet taxation but often heavy taxation, falling on everyone, no matter how low their incomes might be. By the end of the 20th century, a $100 bill would not buy as much as a $20 bill would buy in the middle of that century. For people who saved cash, inflation amounted to an 80 percent tax. For others, it was an 80 percent tax minus whatever cumulative interest or dividends they received on the money they invested. Given the staggering cost of the government's financial bailouts, there is no way that Barack Obama's grandiose spending plans can be carried out without inflation.
When politicians start talking about taxing "the rich," remember the old saying: "Send not to know for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for thee."
Monday, November 3, 2008
Friday, October 31, 2008
Communism and sharing our kindergarten toys
As John McCain correctly labels Barack Obama's tax plan as socialism, Obama cracks lame jokes in an effort to deflect the well-placed criticism.
" . . . You know, the next thing I know, they're going to, you know, find evidence of my communistic tendencies because I shared my toys when I was in kindergarten, because I split my peanut butter and jelly sandwich with my friend in sixth grade."
Once again Barack Obama shows his misunderstanding of basic economic principles. If you 'split your peanut butter and jelly sandwich' with your friend, little Barry, that would be called charitable giving, something neither you or Joe Biden really participate in despite your wealth and desire to help all the little people. (check out the numbers here and here).
Now, if little Barry decided that he should be in charge of who got the toys and ran around taking Tommy's toys and Lisa's toys and giving them to Spencer and Brian, then we would think you were a communist in Kindergarten.
Funny image...not a funny concept. That's exactly what he's proposing to do by raising the tax on the rich and sending checks to Americans who currently pay no taxes. That's right, he wants to take money from those who 'have' and give to those who 'have not' and currently don't contribute anything to the federal government, when he and Joe Biden give significantly less as a percentage of their income than the average, middle-income household, or than their tax bracket gives. Apparently 'spread the wealth around' means 'force other people to spread their wealth around.'
Ah...little Barry in bell bottoms redistributing toys. I needed a laugh.
" . . . You know, the next thing I know, they're going to, you know, find evidence of my communistic tendencies because I shared my toys when I was in kindergarten, because I split my peanut butter and jelly sandwich with my friend in sixth grade."
Once again Barack Obama shows his misunderstanding of basic economic principles. If you 'split your peanut butter and jelly sandwich' with your friend, little Barry, that would be called charitable giving, something neither you or Joe Biden really participate in despite your wealth and desire to help all the little people. (check out the numbers here and here).
Now, if little Barry decided that he should be in charge of who got the toys and ran around taking Tommy's toys and Lisa's toys and giving them to Spencer and Brian, then we would think you were a communist in Kindergarten.
Funny image...not a funny concept. That's exactly what he's proposing to do by raising the tax on the rich and sending checks to Americans who currently pay no taxes. That's right, he wants to take money from those who 'have' and give to those who 'have not' and currently don't contribute anything to the federal government, when he and Joe Biden give significantly less as a percentage of their income than the average, middle-income household, or than their tax bracket gives. Apparently 'spread the wealth around' means 'force other people to spread their wealth around.'
Ah...little Barry in bell bottoms redistributing toys. I needed a laugh.
Monday, October 6, 2008
The bailout...a lose-lose solution
So now that Congress has passed the big, porky bailout plan I am left to shake my head at the idiocy of politicians. I am seriously disappointed in McCain as well, because he ought to have said no to this, said 'there is no way that i'm letting a huge enormous pork-filled non-solution steal $700 billion from the American people who still overwhelmingly oppose it' but he didn't. Sigh.
And I am very tired of the irresponsible reporting and finger pointing. There are some very, very simple causes to this problem, which go back for 15 years. Even Saturday Night Live got part of it right this week, for goodness' sake! These are listed in what I feel is order of accountability:
1. Government (both parties) for forcing the banks to broker loans to people who were a credit risk, who actually couldn't afford home ownership. All of this 'everyone deserves to own a home' business is socialist crap, which has in the end SERIOUSLY hurt the financial stability of low-income and minority homeowners who shouldn't have owned a home in the first place, but have now lost them and any creditworthiness for the foreseeable future.
2. Mortgage lenders/Fannie Freddie. They (the private lenders) went, hey, I can finance risky mortgages at high rates, which sounds scary, but isn't any risk to me because Fannie Freddie will buy them from me. And Fannie Freddie went around yelling 'racist! elitist!' when people started pointing to the riskiness of its portfolio, and threw obnoxious amounts of money at democrats, including Obama (which should be illegal anyway, congressionally chartered companies shouldn't be able to contribute funds to politicians or parties, but that's another post...) in order to essentially cover its butt. Oh, yeah, and there's that whole fraudulently accounting thing. WHY ISN'T ANYBODY IN JAIL OVER THIS?!
3. Greedy American homeowners. Not only did people finance themselves beyond the max to own a home, but many of them took out every cent of equity they had in a home to finance an insanely consumeristic lifestyle. Now, I know that the whole mortgage lending thing is confusing, and many people were duped into loans they couldn't afford unknowingly because of unscrupulous lenders/advisors, but there were a lot of people who thought, huh, I can buy a big fat mcmansion because I can. Or even a little, mini Mcmansion that was really beyond their budget (a word many americans don't have in their vocabulary). I am just SO tired of the lack of personal responsibility. Government says 'nothing is your fault, poor oppressed people' and the people take their thumbs out of their mouths long enough to say 'that's right! Not my fault! Now, i'd like another handout, please.' (I know, i'm just a tad irate. At some point there will be another post on personal responsibility, and the moral duty to succor the needy, and exactly how that should be handled).
Now, after saying that i'm all for personal responsibility I will admit that much of the connecting of the dots was done by Glenn Beck (or, most likely, his research team). I got his email newsletter today and said 'thank heavens! I don't have to do the research for this myself, because it's a time-consuming bear.' So here's the link to his email to his family regarding how we got into this mess, with all kinds of links if you want to do further research i.e. don't want to take my or his word for it. http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/16171/
Now go balance your budget and tighten your belt. And buy some extra basic baking supplies (flour, sugar, baking soda, baking powder, salt, powdered milk) and canned goods next time you go shopping. I promise, you will not regret it (if you rotate them into your use before they expire!)
And I am very tired of the irresponsible reporting and finger pointing. There are some very, very simple causes to this problem, which go back for 15 years. Even Saturday Night Live got part of it right this week, for goodness' sake! These are listed in what I feel is order of accountability:
1. Government (both parties) for forcing the banks to broker loans to people who were a credit risk, who actually couldn't afford home ownership. All of this 'everyone deserves to own a home' business is socialist crap, which has in the end SERIOUSLY hurt the financial stability of low-income and minority homeowners who shouldn't have owned a home in the first place, but have now lost them and any creditworthiness for the foreseeable future.
2. Mortgage lenders/Fannie Freddie. They (the private lenders) went, hey, I can finance risky mortgages at high rates, which sounds scary, but isn't any risk to me because Fannie Freddie will buy them from me. And Fannie Freddie went around yelling 'racist! elitist!' when people started pointing to the riskiness of its portfolio, and threw obnoxious amounts of money at democrats, including Obama (which should be illegal anyway, congressionally chartered companies shouldn't be able to contribute funds to politicians or parties, but that's another post...) in order to essentially cover its butt. Oh, yeah, and there's that whole fraudulently accounting thing. WHY ISN'T ANYBODY IN JAIL OVER THIS?!
3. Greedy American homeowners. Not only did people finance themselves beyond the max to own a home, but many of them took out every cent of equity they had in a home to finance an insanely consumeristic lifestyle. Now, I know that the whole mortgage lending thing is confusing, and many people were duped into loans they couldn't afford unknowingly because of unscrupulous lenders/advisors, but there were a lot of people who thought, huh, I can buy a big fat mcmansion because I can. Or even a little, mini Mcmansion that was really beyond their budget (a word many americans don't have in their vocabulary). I am just SO tired of the lack of personal responsibility. Government says 'nothing is your fault, poor oppressed people' and the people take their thumbs out of their mouths long enough to say 'that's right! Not my fault! Now, i'd like another handout, please.' (I know, i'm just a tad irate. At some point there will be another post on personal responsibility, and the moral duty to succor the needy, and exactly how that should be handled).
Now, after saying that i'm all for personal responsibility I will admit that much of the connecting of the dots was done by Glenn Beck (or, most likely, his research team). I got his email newsletter today and said 'thank heavens! I don't have to do the research for this myself, because it's a time-consuming bear.' So here's the link to his email to his family regarding how we got into this mess, with all kinds of links if you want to do further research i.e. don't want to take my or his word for it. http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/16171/
Now go balance your budget and tighten your belt. And buy some extra basic baking supplies (flour, sugar, baking soda, baking powder, salt, powdered milk) and canned goods next time you go shopping. I promise, you will not regret it (if you rotate them into your use before they expire!)
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Public response to the blog
I was slightly confused the other day as I moderated comments on this blog from a 'Spence.' The only Spence I know is in high school, quite bright, but not with a different writing style quite than the respondant's, and with opposite political views. And then I finally realized...someone random out there I don't know has found this! And is serious enough about public discourse to respond to my posts with reasoned opposition! YAY!!! Because although I obviously hold differing political convictions than this mystery commenter I totally respect him.
I think we'd have a much higher chance of electing conscientious and truly representative representatives, and of accomplishing reasonable policy, if there was less partisan bickering and more reasoned discourse. Not to say that discussion doesn't sometimes get heated, because there are some issues that are deal-breakers, and my views of the rights and responsibilities of government and on issues of personal liberty are deeply held and hence highly emotional, but I'm just tired of people yelling at each other.
[Sidenote: I'm not even going to watch the vice-presidential debate tonight, I already know their policy positions clearly, plus, i'm ticked that the moderator is clearly far from impartial (she has a book deal about Barack's spectacular rise to power set to be published on Inauguration day and it's her economic welfare is tied to Obama winning). If I thought that it would be a case of 2 respectable, truth-telling opponents discussing their policy issues in a challenging but respectful manner, i'd watch, but it's pretty much set to be a vicious attack on Palin. Or a shouting match. Sorry for the sidenote, but my rants run into each other sometimes.]
So I welcome this reader, and thank him for the time he has taken in responding to my posts. I have copied all of his comments into a text document so that I can peruse them all together, and when I have the time to finish researching the sources he cites I will respond to those comments. He made some legitimate points and also said some things with which I blatantly disagree. And yet, look at the amicable repartee.
Blog mission (at least partially) accomplished.
I think we'd have a much higher chance of electing conscientious and truly representative representatives, and of accomplishing reasonable policy, if there was less partisan bickering and more reasoned discourse. Not to say that discussion doesn't sometimes get heated, because there are some issues that are deal-breakers, and my views of the rights and responsibilities of government and on issues of personal liberty are deeply held and hence highly emotional, but I'm just tired of people yelling at each other.
[Sidenote: I'm not even going to watch the vice-presidential debate tonight, I already know their policy positions clearly, plus, i'm ticked that the moderator is clearly far from impartial (she has a book deal about Barack's spectacular rise to power set to be published on Inauguration day and it's her economic welfare is tied to Obama winning). If I thought that it would be a case of 2 respectable, truth-telling opponents discussing their policy issues in a challenging but respectful manner, i'd watch, but it's pretty much set to be a vicious attack on Palin. Or a shouting match. Sorry for the sidenote, but my rants run into each other sometimes.]
So I welcome this reader, and thank him for the time he has taken in responding to my posts. I have copied all of his comments into a text document so that I can peruse them all together, and when I have the time to finish researching the sources he cites I will respond to those comments. He made some legitimate points and also said some things with which I blatantly disagree. And yet, look at the amicable repartee.
Blog mission (at least partially) accomplished.
The Common Sense Fix courtesy of Dave Ramsey
While I wait on pins and needles to find out whether the House is as stupid as the Senate and will pass the still ridiculously expensive, ineffective, pork-laden new bailout bill I have also been taking action. This is from Dave Ramsey, an amazing financial guru whose program on personal finances have helped *I don't know exactly how many but* lots of people get on the path to financial freedom through reduced debt and increased saving. Thank you, Dave...you read my mind.
Read this, and then follow the instructions below and get the message to your representatives. I spent a good portion of the evening last night trying to get through to the Senators, and couldn't because the web pages were slammed. BTW, thanks Congressman Crapo for voting no, kudos on the integrity, and shame on you Senator Craig (but your credibility was already almost nil) for voting yes. I mean, you're not going to be re-elected regardless of what you do, so man up and represent your constituency.
"Years of bad decisions and stupid mistakes have created an economic nightmare in this country, but $700 billion in new debt is not the answer. As a tax-paying American citizen, I will not support any congressperson who votes to implement such a policy. Instead, I submit the following three steps:
Common Sense Plan.
I. INSURANCE
A. Insure the subprime bonds/mortgages with an underlying FHA-type insurance. Government-insured and backed loans would have an instant market all over the world, creating immediate and needed liquidity.
B. In order for a company to accept the government-backed insurance, they must do two things:
1. Rewrite any mortgage that is more than three months delinquent to a 6% fixed-rate mortgage.
a. Roll all back payments with no late fees or legal costs into the balance. This brings homeowners current and allows them a chance to keep their homes.
b. Cancel all prepayment penalties to encourage refinancing or the sale of the property to pay off the bad loan. In the event of foreclosure or short sale, the borrower will not be held liable for any deficit balance. FHA does this now, and that encourages mortgage companies to go the extra mile while
working with the borrower—again limiting foreclosures and ruined lives.
2. Cancel ALL golden parachutes of EXISTING and FUTURE CEOs and executive team members as long as the company holds these government-insured bonds/mortgages. This keeps underperforming executives from being paid when they don’t do their jobs.
C. This backstop will cost less than $50 billion—a small fraction of the current proposal.
II. MARK TO MARKET
A. Remove mark to market accounting rules for two years on only subprime Tier III bonds/mortgages. This keeps companies from being forced to artificially mark down bonds/mortgages below the value of the underlying mortgages and real estate.
B. This move creates patience in the market and has an immediate stabilizing effect on failing and ailing banks—and it costs the taxpayer nothing.
III. CAPITAL GAINS TAX
A. Remove the capital gains tax completely. Investors will flood the real estate and stock market in search of tax-free profits, creating tremendous—and immediate—liquidity in the markets. Again, this costs the taxpayer nothing.
B. This move will be seen as a lightning rod politically because many will say it is helping the rich. The truth is the rich will benefit, but it will be their money that stimulates the economy. This will enable all Americans to have more stable jobs and retirement investments that go up instead of down. This is not a time for envy, and it’s not a time for politics. It’s time for all of us, as Americans, to stand up, speak out, and fix this mess."
Amen, brother. And about the whole helping the rich, it's the rich who employ us! And, frankly, someday I'd like to be rich and have the opportunity to help others more than I currently can (and hire someone to do the laundry...i'll do the cleaning and cooking still, but I'd really like someone else to make an honest living doing my laundry).
"First, read this page (PDF)
Next, copy the info on this page (text file)
Send it to your Senators and representatives by copying and pasting the text in the web form you're sent to.*Note: If their websites are down, that means we're making a difference! Keep refreshing the page until you get through. You can also go through Congress.org, though we don't endorse this site."
Please, guys...we only have a few hours to try to get them to see reason. And if you want to read more about Dave Ramsey's plan, click here for a transcript of his appearance on Glenn Beck.
Read this, and then follow the instructions below and get the message to your representatives. I spent a good portion of the evening last night trying to get through to the Senators, and couldn't because the web pages were slammed. BTW, thanks Congressman Crapo for voting no, kudos on the integrity, and shame on you Senator Craig (but your credibility was already almost nil) for voting yes. I mean, you're not going to be re-elected regardless of what you do, so man up and represent your constituency.
"Years of bad decisions and stupid mistakes have created an economic nightmare in this country, but $700 billion in new debt is not the answer. As a tax-paying American citizen, I will not support any congressperson who votes to implement such a policy. Instead, I submit the following three steps:
Common Sense Plan.
I. INSURANCE
A. Insure the subprime bonds/mortgages with an underlying FHA-type insurance. Government-insured and backed loans would have an instant market all over the world, creating immediate and needed liquidity.
B. In order for a company to accept the government-backed insurance, they must do two things:
1. Rewrite any mortgage that is more than three months delinquent to a 6% fixed-rate mortgage.
a. Roll all back payments with no late fees or legal costs into the balance. This brings homeowners current and allows them a chance to keep their homes.
b. Cancel all prepayment penalties to encourage refinancing or the sale of the property to pay off the bad loan. In the event of foreclosure or short sale, the borrower will not be held liable for any deficit balance. FHA does this now, and that encourages mortgage companies to go the extra mile while
working with the borrower—again limiting foreclosures and ruined lives.
2. Cancel ALL golden parachutes of EXISTING and FUTURE CEOs and executive team members as long as the company holds these government-insured bonds/mortgages. This keeps underperforming executives from being paid when they don’t do their jobs.
C. This backstop will cost less than $50 billion—a small fraction of the current proposal.
II. MARK TO MARKET
A. Remove mark to market accounting rules for two years on only subprime Tier III bonds/mortgages. This keeps companies from being forced to artificially mark down bonds/mortgages below the value of the underlying mortgages and real estate.
B. This move creates patience in the market and has an immediate stabilizing effect on failing and ailing banks—and it costs the taxpayer nothing.
III. CAPITAL GAINS TAX
A. Remove the capital gains tax completely. Investors will flood the real estate and stock market in search of tax-free profits, creating tremendous—and immediate—liquidity in the markets. Again, this costs the taxpayer nothing.
B. This move will be seen as a lightning rod politically because many will say it is helping the rich. The truth is the rich will benefit, but it will be their money that stimulates the economy. This will enable all Americans to have more stable jobs and retirement investments that go up instead of down. This is not a time for envy, and it’s not a time for politics. It’s time for all of us, as Americans, to stand up, speak out, and fix this mess."
Amen, brother. And about the whole helping the rich, it's the rich who employ us! And, frankly, someday I'd like to be rich and have the opportunity to help others more than I currently can (and hire someone to do the laundry...i'll do the cleaning and cooking still, but I'd really like someone else to make an honest living doing my laundry).
"First, read this page (PDF)
Next, copy the info on this page (text file)
Send it to your Senators and representatives by copying and pasting the text in the web form you're sent to.*Note: If their websites are down, that means we're making a difference! Keep refreshing the page until you get through. You can also go through Congress.org, though we don't endorse this site."
Please, guys...we only have a few hours to try to get them to see reason. And if you want to read more about Dave Ramsey's plan, click here for a transcript of his appearance on Glenn Beck.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
The Housing Crisis and America's fear of the R-word
There has been enough media attention on the economy lately to make it difficult for me to get through the day without a mini panic moment. I've been scouring the latest news on the bailout bill and on the housing market several times a day. It may not be very good for my mental health, especially since I can't really figure out a way to protect my assets without contributing to a run on the banks, which would be ultimate bad ju-ju.
But I am very, very glad that Congress did not pass the bailout bill as it existed. The reason...in my opinion Congress did its job, which is a tough one consisting of 2 parts: representing the desires of its constituency and protecting constitutional rights and freedom. Protecting the economy has never been part of Congress' job description. And I fail to see how getting the country $700 billion dollars in debt will fix the crisis created by offering credit to those who couldn't afford to pay it back. See a parallel? Bank to overextended credit is as US Gov't to overextended credit. Any high school student prepping for the SAT should be able to spot that one.
I'm also very proud of Congress *gasp* listening to their constituency. Hubby was listening to NPR yesterday, and they had several congressmen from both parties who stated that essentially they have NEVER seen a public response of this magnitude on any single issue before, it far exceeds the response a while back on the immigration issue, and that there was NOT ONE call or email expressing support for the bill from a constituent. NOT ONE. And these were the words of a democrat congressman.
Basically, I think the American people, although totally freaked out about their 401(k) and how they are going to put food on the table, get what certain members of both parties don't...you. can't. fix. a. credit. problem. by. obtaining. more. credit. Just as Americans who are desperately transferring balances from one credit card to another realize that it won't fix the problem.
But the U.S. government doesn't have the option of transferring its debt, or at least it shouldn't, because it is not the government's money. It is OUR money. And I am unwilling to pay $10,000 of my money, with interest (yes, I know, the per-household estimates vary widely, just assume this is an example, okay?) to protect the jobs of CEOs with multi-million dollar golden parachutes.
And I feel the measure would have given the government WAY too much power. I'm pretty far to the right, at least fiscally. I believe that essentially the people have to be very, very careful about what rights they give the government the ability to enforce at the point of a gun, which is essentially what laws are. Laws are enacted and the government uses the point of a gun to enforce them. And I'm not so keen on my hard earned money being taken from me to finance the greed and laziness of others.
I read a fabulous article today in the Christian Science Monitor (which is a well-respected news source, not partisan) in which the author said the only cure for the economic crisis is recession. She (or he, one of those unisex names) basically stated that for some odd reason the government is scared to death of recession, or of using that word (I have a theory about that...recession doesn't seem to be so good for the party in power. Americans seem to think the government has some kind of magical power over the economy and that economic downturns are strictly the fault of governmental policy). She cites an "International Monetary Fund report that examined 124 banking crises in the past 27 years" which basically says the most healthy thing to do overall is let the failing businesses fail, sell the parts off, and deal with a very rough 2-3 year recession which is then followed by "a strong growth rebound."
This is what i've been saying for about a year now. CAPITALISM...let's all chant it, people. Capitalism is theoretically about allowing business to rise and fall without interference. Obviously we want to do what we can to help businesses succeed, because profits in business create wealth for all of us. Yes, I just stated that businesses being profitable is a good thing. The oil companies posting enormous profits is a good thing, for the CEOs of that company, and for the firefighters and nurses and teachers and video-game designers whose 401(k)s have a share in the company. And letting the failing businesses fail is a good thing too.
My husband likened it to our recent forestry management. Fires are a bad thing so you stop every fire that happens. And 50 years or so of this (give or take a few decades, this is an analogy, not a thesis) creates this huge mass of undergrowth that would have been burned off by the naturally occurring fires. So now we have fires that are uncontrollable, and we're still trying to stop every fire, because now they're even bigger, badder, and threatening more homes and lives.
Recession. Bring it on. It'll suck, and it will hurt, and I hope and pray that my husband's job is still here in 2 years (which is scary considering his company's current financial situation), and that some day soon someone will purchase our starter home so we can have a positively balancing financial sheet again (we recently purchased a larger home for our growing family...big enough to grow into but NOT a lavish McMansion, something big enough to fit our whole family around the table at once). I'm not saying that recession is the answer because i'm wealthy and can afford to take a loss, but because I don't think it's the government's role to try to beat out the flames of a fire out of their control, and I don't believe they would succeed anyway. There is evidence that the governmental interventions of the thirties actually lengthened the Great Depression. Other countries, which were in similar financial positions, basically let the natural market forces run their course, and they recovered significantly faster than the U.S.
But none of our politicians will ever say that, or state like the head of the bank of England that the standard of living will fall (such cheek!). Too bad.
But I am very, very glad that Congress did not pass the bailout bill as it existed. The reason...in my opinion Congress did its job, which is a tough one consisting of 2 parts: representing the desires of its constituency and protecting constitutional rights and freedom. Protecting the economy has never been part of Congress' job description. And I fail to see how getting the country $700 billion dollars in debt will fix the crisis created by offering credit to those who couldn't afford to pay it back. See a parallel? Bank to overextended credit is as US Gov't to overextended credit. Any high school student prepping for the SAT should be able to spot that one.
I'm also very proud of Congress *gasp* listening to their constituency. Hubby was listening to NPR yesterday, and they had several congressmen from both parties who stated that essentially they have NEVER seen a public response of this magnitude on any single issue before, it far exceeds the response a while back on the immigration issue, and that there was NOT ONE call or email expressing support for the bill from a constituent. NOT ONE. And these were the words of a democrat congressman.
Basically, I think the American people, although totally freaked out about their 401(k) and how they are going to put food on the table, get what certain members of both parties don't...you. can't. fix. a. credit. problem. by. obtaining. more. credit. Just as Americans who are desperately transferring balances from one credit card to another realize that it won't fix the problem.
But the U.S. government doesn't have the option of transferring its debt, or at least it shouldn't, because it is not the government's money. It is OUR money. And I am unwilling to pay $10,000 of my money, with interest (yes, I know, the per-household estimates vary widely, just assume this is an example, okay?) to protect the jobs of CEOs with multi-million dollar golden parachutes.
And I feel the measure would have given the government WAY too much power. I'm pretty far to the right, at least fiscally. I believe that essentially the people have to be very, very careful about what rights they give the government the ability to enforce at the point of a gun, which is essentially what laws are. Laws are enacted and the government uses the point of a gun to enforce them. And I'm not so keen on my hard earned money being taken from me to finance the greed and laziness of others.
I read a fabulous article today in the Christian Science Monitor (which is a well-respected news source, not partisan) in which the author said the only cure for the economic crisis is recession. She (or he, one of those unisex names) basically stated that for some odd reason the government is scared to death of recession, or of using that word (I have a theory about that...recession doesn't seem to be so good for the party in power. Americans seem to think the government has some kind of magical power over the economy and that economic downturns are strictly the fault of governmental policy). She cites an "International Monetary Fund report that examined 124 banking crises in the past 27 years" which basically says the most healthy thing to do overall is let the failing businesses fail, sell the parts off, and deal with a very rough 2-3 year recession which is then followed by "a strong growth rebound."
This is what i've been saying for about a year now. CAPITALISM...let's all chant it, people. Capitalism is theoretically about allowing business to rise and fall without interference. Obviously we want to do what we can to help businesses succeed, because profits in business create wealth for all of us. Yes, I just stated that businesses being profitable is a good thing. The oil companies posting enormous profits is a good thing, for the CEOs of that company, and for the firefighters and nurses and teachers and video-game designers whose 401(k)s have a share in the company. And letting the failing businesses fail is a good thing too.
My husband likened it to our recent forestry management. Fires are a bad thing so you stop every fire that happens. And 50 years or so of this (give or take a few decades, this is an analogy, not a thesis) creates this huge mass of undergrowth that would have been burned off by the naturally occurring fires. So now we have fires that are uncontrollable, and we're still trying to stop every fire, because now they're even bigger, badder, and threatening more homes and lives.
Recession. Bring it on. It'll suck, and it will hurt, and I hope and pray that my husband's job is still here in 2 years (which is scary considering his company's current financial situation), and that some day soon someone will purchase our starter home so we can have a positively balancing financial sheet again (we recently purchased a larger home for our growing family...big enough to grow into but NOT a lavish McMansion, something big enough to fit our whole family around the table at once). I'm not saying that recession is the answer because i'm wealthy and can afford to take a loss, but because I don't think it's the government's role to try to beat out the flames of a fire out of their control, and I don't believe they would succeed anyway. There is evidence that the governmental interventions of the thirties actually lengthened the Great Depression. Other countries, which were in similar financial positions, basically let the natural market forces run their course, and they recovered significantly faster than the U.S.
But none of our politicians will ever say that, or state like the head of the bank of England that the standard of living will fall (such cheek!). Too bad.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Reasons not to vote for Obama: the Born Alive bill
Let me just warn you, this will turn your stomach. I have difficulty speaking about this without crying, and it makes me really, really mad (I'm all for impassioned politics, as long as its backed by reason and facts and not presumptions). But i'll try to explain the facts before I start on the rant.
In 2001 a bill went before the Illinois senate. It dealt with the rights of and treatment for babies born alive during late term induced labor abortions. [The following is from the townhall website below.]
Barack Obama opposed the Illinois bill. Vehemently. And voted 'present.' He didn't even have the guts to vote 'no.' He gave numerous excuses for his position, and the one he has reiterated recently is that by requiring a second doctor "What we are doing here is to create one more burden on women, and I can't support that." So the constitutionally protected rights of a living person (no debate on whether a fetus is a person with constitutional rights necessary, this is now no longer a fetus and is an independently living, full-fledged person) are to be superceded by a 'burden' imposed on a woman who chose to have an abortion on a fetus on the cusp of viability?
This is infanticide. This is murder. I'm not going to debate whether abortion is murder, although I freely admit I am pro-life and anti-abortion. This isn't abortion. This procedure and the resultant suffering are the same as suffocating any newborn.
Barack Obama is the most pro-abortion presidential candidate ever. And he couldn't even take a stand on a bill that passed the Federal congress UNANIMOUSLY, and was supported by the National Abortion Rights Activists League (NARAL). Supported by a pro-choice lobbyist group!
Now, go hug your kids to try to get the ick out.
http://townhall.com/columnists/terencejeffrey/2008/01/09/obama_is_the_most_pro-abortion_candidate_ever
http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2008/08/barack_obamas_abortion_crime_a.html
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/08/obamas_abortion_challenge_1.html
In 2001 a bill went before the Illinois senate. It dealt with the rights of and treatment for babies born alive during late term induced labor abortions. [The following is from the townhall website below.]
A doctor medicates the mother to cause premature labor. Babies surviving labor are left untreated to die... Jill Stanek, who was a nurse at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Ill., testified in the U.S. Congress in 2000 and 2001 about how "induced labor abortions" were handled at her hospital.
"One night," she said in testimony entered into the Congressional Record, "a nursing co-worker was taking an aborted Down's Syndrome baby who was born alive to our Soiled Utility Room because his parents did not want to hold him, and she did not have the time to hold him. I couldn't bear the thought of this suffering child lying alone in a Soiled Utility Room, so I cradled and rocked him for the 45 minutes that he lived."
In 2001, Illinois state Sen. Patrick O'Malley introduced three bills to help such babies. One required a second physician to be present at the abortion to determine if a surviving baby was viable. Another gave the parents or a public guardian the right to sue to protect the baby's rights. A third, almost identical to the federal Born Alive Infant Protection Act President Bush signed in 2002, simply said a "homo sapiens" wholly emerged from his mother with a "beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord or definite movement of voluntary muscles" should be treated as a "'person,' 'human being,' 'child' and 'individual.'"
Barack Obama opposed the Illinois bill. Vehemently. And voted 'present.' He didn't even have the guts to vote 'no.' He gave numerous excuses for his position, and the one he has reiterated recently is that by requiring a second doctor "What we are doing here is to create one more burden on women, and I can't support that." So the constitutionally protected rights of a living person (no debate on whether a fetus is a person with constitutional rights necessary, this is now no longer a fetus and is an independently living, full-fledged person) are to be superceded by a 'burden' imposed on a woman who chose to have an abortion on a fetus on the cusp of viability?
This is infanticide. This is murder. I'm not going to debate whether abortion is murder, although I freely admit I am pro-life and anti-abortion. This isn't abortion. This procedure and the resultant suffering are the same as suffocating any newborn.
Barack Obama is the most pro-abortion presidential candidate ever. And he couldn't even take a stand on a bill that passed the Federal congress UNANIMOUSLY, and was supported by the National Abortion Rights Activists League (NARAL). Supported by a pro-choice lobbyist group!
Now, go hug your kids to try to get the ick out.
http://townhall.com/columnists/terencejeffrey/2008/01/09/obama_is_the_most_pro-abortion_candidate_ever
http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2008/08/barack_obamas_abortion_crime_a.html
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/08/obamas_abortion_challenge_1.html
Reasons not to vote for Obama: Iraq withdrawal delay
Barack Obama has been an opponent of the war and very consistent in his remarks about immediate pull-out of troops until he recently softened his position on troop withdrawal prior to his Middle East trip in July. He recently commented on Bill O'Reilly that “I think that the surge has succeeded in ways that nobody anticipated,” Obama said while refusing to retract his initial opposition to the surge. “I’ve already said it’s succeeded beyond our wildest dreams.” Analysts later criticized his remarks, saying in essence that there was nothing surprising about the success of the surge. It was from the beginning a sound strategic move (No, I don't have quotes...Google it if you want to find that specific response).
To me, it appeared that Obama was trying to 'save face.' His previous position on the war was, in essence, wrong. He was wrong, but he won't admit that he was wrong, he'll barely admit that the surge was a success. The US is in negotiations for a timeline for troop withdrawal from Iraq. Yay! Everybody wins...safer Iraq, troops coming home. Everyone should be happy, right?
Wrong, apparently. Because according to some sources, Obama headed over to the Middle East and had some lovely closed-door chats with high Iraqi officials in which he tried to get them to delay the troop withdrawal until the new US administration was in. I am not making this up, see the below links. IF this is true, which I believe it well could be, it would pretty much be treason. Completely unacceptable to try to undermine the diplomatic relations of the current Commander-in-Chief. But, this is unsurprising to me. Because now that the Democrats have egg on their face regarding the surge, there's only one thing left to do...buy time so that it can happen on Obama's watch (if he's elected) and he can take the credit for it. He talks about how now is a time for action, to put politics aside...and then tries to basically sabotage the welfare of American soldiers and the independence of an entire nation. Nice.
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/15/obama-camp-denies-he-tried-to-delay-withdrawal-agreement-of-troops-from-iraq/
http://www.nypost.com/seven/09152008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/obama_tried_to_stall_gis_iraq_withdrawal_129150.htm
To me, it appeared that Obama was trying to 'save face.' His previous position on the war was, in essence, wrong. He was wrong, but he won't admit that he was wrong, he'll barely admit that the surge was a success. The US is in negotiations for a timeline for troop withdrawal from Iraq. Yay! Everybody wins...safer Iraq, troops coming home. Everyone should be happy, right?
Wrong, apparently. Because according to some sources, Obama headed over to the Middle East and had some lovely closed-door chats with high Iraqi officials in which he tried to get them to delay the troop withdrawal until the new US administration was in. I am not making this up, see the below links. IF this is true, which I believe it well could be, it would pretty much be treason. Completely unacceptable to try to undermine the diplomatic relations of the current Commander-in-Chief. But, this is unsurprising to me. Because now that the Democrats have egg on their face regarding the surge, there's only one thing left to do...buy time so that it can happen on Obama's watch (if he's elected) and he can take the credit for it. He talks about how now is a time for action, to put politics aside...and then tries to basically sabotage the welfare of American soldiers and the independence of an entire nation. Nice.
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/15/obama-camp-denies-he-tried-to-delay-withdrawal-agreement-of-troops-from-iraq/
http://www.nypost.com/seven/09152008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/obama_tried_to_stall_gis_iraq_withdrawal_129150.htm
Reasons not to vote for Obama: Jeremiah Wright
Barack Obama's pastor and spiritual advisor for over 20 years was a man named Jeremiah Wright, head of one of the largest and most diverse black congregations in the country. His church's website states their commitment to God, and then commitment to black families, black communities, etc. Um, if any church anywhere published their commitment to white families and white communities they would be vilified, and rightly so. He is blatantly anti-white and appears to blame all whites for all of the troubles of blacks in contemporary America. Wright continually uses hateful, racist rhetoric, and has stated that black Americans should not sing God Bless America, but God damn America.
In a political race in which Mitt Romney was excoriated for his religion, with Reverend Al Sharpton saying, and I quote "As for the one Mormon running for office, those that really believe in God will defeat him anyway, so don't worry about that," and receiving only minimal criticism for the remark, it would seem that religion does appear to play a significant role in the current election. But should a candidate be judged by what type of person he chooses as his spiritual advisor? By the beliefs he holds? Absolutely. It is relevant. Because what we need (and should demand) in a leader is strength of character and integrity, and a person's values are inextricably linked with their religious beliefs. Mitt Romney's should have been judged by the beliefs of the LDS church and its leaders, at the time President Gordon B. Hinckley, a man who received the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2004, and always preached love, tolerance, forgiveness, faith, diligence, and personal responsibility.
Contrast that with the hateful, intolerant, permissive, victimizing of Reverend Wright. This man should not be considered a spiritual leader by anyone, and in my opinion is definitely NOT a disciple of Christ. He masquerades, with varied success, as a Christian, but does not live the values or teachings of Christ, in my opinion. And while Wright was calling the 9/11 attacks a judgement on the country and stating that the white, US government purposefully inflicted the AIDS virus upon blacks, Obama responded to questions regarding his pastor saying things such as they're just words, they're not important, and comparing Wright to the Jewish uncle that says crazy embarassing things but you have to tolerate.
Um, Obama? No, you don't. You denounce such hatred and fight against it. But Barack Obama took a month of hemming and hawing after the March 13 ABC report that broke the story to go from saying Wright's remarks were "unacceptable and inexcusable" but a few days later that he "couldn't disown him" to saying their relationship had been permanently damaged after Wright said that criticism of his sermons amounts to criticism of black churches in general. I believe the reason that Obama was so mild in his reaction was that he actually agrees with Wright. I mean, wouldn't that be why he attended his church for 20 something years? Would a person attend a church regularly for 20 years if he disagreed with its basic tenets?
"Politico describes Wright in this video as "deeply racially confrontational." Which might be an understatement. He rants and rails against "rich white people who run this country," demonizes white people, calls Jesus a "poor black man" oppressed by "Italians," says that Barack Obama "ain't privileged" -- this, even though Barack and Michelle Obama are Ivy-league grads in the top two percent of Americans in income. And so forth. This Wright is a clown.
True, Hillary ain't never been called a n---er, but she also ain't got a racialist, Farrakhan-loving, crypto-Marxist goof as her closest spiritual advisor. Obama has this reputation of being a conciliator, an irenic figure who can move us past the divisive politics of the past. The rap on him is that beneath that 1000-megawatt smile and his massive charisma is a politician who holds views on the hard left of the mainstream US political spectrum. Fair or not, Rev. Wright's big mouth, and the paramount importance he plays in Obama's spiritual life, serve to validate that criticism." (from beliefnet blog)
http://abcnews.go.com/blotter/story?id=4443788
http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2008/03/barack-obamas-jeremiah-wright.html (good description of the issues)
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,256078,00.html (transcript of Jeremiah Wright interview)
http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2008/04/29/1460529-timeline-of-barack-obamas-relationship-with-jeremiah-wright (timeline of Wright and Obama's association, with quotes from Obama on the Wright issue on different dates)
In a political race in which Mitt Romney was excoriated for his religion, with Reverend Al Sharpton saying, and I quote "As for the one Mormon running for office, those that really believe in God will defeat him anyway, so don't worry about that," and receiving only minimal criticism for the remark, it would seem that religion does appear to play a significant role in the current election. But should a candidate be judged by what type of person he chooses as his spiritual advisor? By the beliefs he holds? Absolutely. It is relevant. Because what we need (and should demand) in a leader is strength of character and integrity, and a person's values are inextricably linked with their religious beliefs. Mitt Romney's should have been judged by the beliefs of the LDS church and its leaders, at the time President Gordon B. Hinckley, a man who received the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2004, and always preached love, tolerance, forgiveness, faith, diligence, and personal responsibility.
Contrast that with the hateful, intolerant, permissive, victimizing of Reverend Wright. This man should not be considered a spiritual leader by anyone, and in my opinion is definitely NOT a disciple of Christ. He masquerades, with varied success, as a Christian, but does not live the values or teachings of Christ, in my opinion. And while Wright was calling the 9/11 attacks a judgement on the country and stating that the white, US government purposefully inflicted the AIDS virus upon blacks, Obama responded to questions regarding his pastor saying things such as they're just words, they're not important, and comparing Wright to the Jewish uncle that says crazy embarassing things but you have to tolerate.
Um, Obama? No, you don't. You denounce such hatred and fight against it. But Barack Obama took a month of hemming and hawing after the March 13 ABC report that broke the story to go from saying Wright's remarks were "unacceptable and inexcusable" but a few days later that he "couldn't disown him" to saying their relationship had been permanently damaged after Wright said that criticism of his sermons amounts to criticism of black churches in general. I believe the reason that Obama was so mild in his reaction was that he actually agrees with Wright. I mean, wouldn't that be why he attended his church for 20 something years? Would a person attend a church regularly for 20 years if he disagreed with its basic tenets?
"Politico describes Wright in this video as "deeply racially confrontational." Which might be an understatement. He rants and rails against "rich white people who run this country," demonizes white people, calls Jesus a "poor black man" oppressed by "Italians," says that Barack Obama "ain't privileged" -- this, even though Barack and Michelle Obama are Ivy-league grads in the top two percent of Americans in income. And so forth. This Wright is a clown.
True, Hillary ain't never been called a n---er, but she also ain't got a racialist, Farrakhan-loving, crypto-Marxist goof as her closest spiritual advisor. Obama has this reputation of being a conciliator, an irenic figure who can move us past the divisive politics of the past. The rap on him is that beneath that 1000-megawatt smile and his massive charisma is a politician who holds views on the hard left of the mainstream US political spectrum. Fair or not, Rev. Wright's big mouth, and the paramount importance he plays in Obama's spiritual life, serve to validate that criticism." (from beliefnet blog)
http://abcnews.go.com/blotter/story?id=4443788
http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2008/03/barack-obamas-jeremiah-wright.html (good description of the issues)
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,256078,00.html (transcript of Jeremiah Wright interview)
http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2008/04/29/1460529-timeline-of-barack-obamas-relationship-with-jeremiah-wright (timeline of Wright and Obama's association, with quotes from Obama on the Wright issue on different dates)
Reasons not to vote for Obama: William Ayers
Barack Obama was employed for 8 years by a man named William Ayers, who just happens to be a radical terrorist who blew up buildings in the 60s or 70s (I've read a lot of stuff, I don't remember the dates) and got off due to a technicality. Ayers confessed, to the authorities, to doing this. He also, in his 2001 memoir, said he does not regret setting bombs, only wishes they had done more. (This man is now a 'well-respected' professor, by the way...love that liberal education. Let's have him influencing our best and brightest).
Obama has repeatedly played this association down, saying things to the tune of why should I be responsible for bombs placed by this guy when I was 8 years old? (that's a paraphrase, not a direct quote). No, Mr. Obama, you didn't plant bombs when you were 8, but you sure as heck knew who Ayers was, and had your big career launch party at his house, and accepted a paid position on a foundation he chaired, and let him help grease your wheels with the corrupt Chicago political machine.
"It is of vital importance to clarify Barack’s relationship with Ayers. This is not a casual relationship. It is not a recent relationship. And, as reported in an earlier piece on this blog, Ayers has not changed his tune of political radicalism. I don’t challenge his right to believe such things, but Ayers certainly does not reflect the views of most Americans, both Democrats and Republicans. Why is Barack lying about this relationship? That is the question voters deserve to have asked and answered." (from the noquarterusa link)
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=74486 http://townhall.com/columnists/GuyBenson/2008/04/24/debunking_obamas_ayers_fact_sheet http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/04/26/why-is-obama-hiding-the-truth-about-william-ayers-follow-the-money/
Obama has repeatedly played this association down, saying things to the tune of why should I be responsible for bombs placed by this guy when I was 8 years old? (that's a paraphrase, not a direct quote). No, Mr. Obama, you didn't plant bombs when you were 8, but you sure as heck knew who Ayers was, and had your big career launch party at his house, and accepted a paid position on a foundation he chaired, and let him help grease your wheels with the corrupt Chicago political machine.
"It is of vital importance to clarify Barack’s relationship with Ayers. This is not a casual relationship. It is not a recent relationship. And, as reported in an earlier piece on this blog, Ayers has not changed his tune of political radicalism. I don’t challenge his right to believe such things, but Ayers certainly does not reflect the views of most Americans, both Democrats and Republicans. Why is Barack lying about this relationship? That is the question voters deserve to have asked and answered." (from the noquarterusa link)
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=74486 http://townhall.com/columnists/GuyBenson/2008/04/24/debunking_obamas_ayers_fact_sheet http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/04/26/why-is-obama-hiding-the-truth-about-william-ayers-follow-the-money/
Friday, September 19, 2008
4 LEGITIMATE reasons not to vote for Barack Obama
Firstly, let me say that I wish I felt like there were 2 spectactularly fabulous candidates and that either would be a major boon to our country. I do not. Although I would much rather be voting for a candidate than against a candidate, I do feel that for those who do not want to vote FOR McCain there are legitimate, significant reasons to vote AGAINST Barack Obama (and yes, that means actually casting your vote for McCain). I personally have issues with some of McCain's policies but he aligns much, much closer with my policy views. And then there's this other stuff.
There has been a lot of mud-slinging (*gasp* huge shock) in this election and much of what has been said against Obama is in my mind irrelevant. I wouldn't care if he was a Muslim (but no, he's not, and the slip-up the other day about his Muslim faith was just a meaningless slip of the tongue such as all of us are prone to).
There has been a lot of mud-slinging (*gasp* huge shock) in this election and much of what has been said against Obama is in my mind irrelevant. I wouldn't care if he was a Muslim (but no, he's not, and the slip-up the other day about his Muslim faith was just a meaningless slip of the tongue such as all of us are prone to).
I do care that his mother supposedly renounced her citizenship, and that his father is a radical, and that his wife had a job working at a hospital trying to shift poor patients away to other hospitals (for which she made a 6-figure salary), but none of those are significant enough to make me not vote for him. His mother, father, and wife and not candidates in this election.
There are however, more pertinent and serious issues with HIM, both on policy and also with his personal associations.
Wait...I just said his mom and dad weren't huge issues, but these upcoming people are? Well, yes. He didn't get to choose his mom and dad, but he did choose these other associations. And although no candidate can be responsible for all of the words and deeds of everyone they've ever known, it is perfectly legitimate to question long-time, chosen associations with and defense of hateful, anti-patriotic racists and unapologetic terrorists. That's right, terrorists. Read the next post for details. I've broken this down into separate posts for each issue, because they're rather long.
1. Obama and William Ayres
2. Obama and Jeremiah Wright
3. Obama and the Iraq delay
4. Obama and the Born Alive bill
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
