Business As Usual

Despite being punch-drunk in love for the past two weeks in a whirlwind of a new relationship, I have still managed to catch all the news about the deficit flap. Republicans come up with a plan, Democrats shoot it down, Republicans ask Democrats for a plan, Democrats simply sneer. After eight-hundred-odd days of not having a solution to the debt crisis, talking heads claimed we were nearing a default on our debt. Republicans and Democrats alike scrambled to find something they could sign so they could all say, “see? We really are doing our jobs!”

Oh, gag me.

Rather than trying to get spending under control, the only thing either side has managed to do is make a bigger mess of things. While some of the finer points may be complicated, the general idea is still quite simple: you and I, John and Jane Q. Taxpayer, have to live within our means. We have to live on a budget. We write it all out usually, starting with the bills we owe, subtracting them from the amount of money we’ve earned, and delegating the remainder to different categories, usually simple things such as groceries, savings, and extra spending money. We know that if we don’t save up we may end up in the midst of a crisis with little to no money to help ourselves. When that happens, we may take out a loan or credit card to cover the crisis and pay it back over time as we can. When I landed in the hospital a few months ago in need of emergency surgery, my insurance covered all but $1800; if I’d had no savings, I would still be in debt.

Some folks don’t know how to manage their budget and end up with tens of thousands of dollars in debt on top of a mortgage that easily tops $200,000. They end up spending the rest of their lives treading financial water, trying to pay off credit cards and loans that they didn’t consider the affordability of when they took them out. Many end up declaring bankruptcy at least once, some of them multiple times (former MCSO chief deputy Dave Hendershott famously declared bankruptcy three times in his personal finances while nearly tanking MCSO’s budget). All of these people end up in serious legal trouble with creditors and government agencies alike. They don’t know how to live within their means, much less plan for the possibility of a crisis that can be costly.

The federal government lost the ability to live within its means right around the time George Bush Sr. took office.

The deal that was struck was not an argument about debt reduction – it was about deficit reduction. There’s a distinct difference. Debt is the amount you owe. Deficit is the damage done when you’re operating in the red; in other words, how much money you’re losing in a given year because you’re spending more than you’re getting. When Bill Clinton took office, his famous tagline was “it’s the economy, stupid.” Yet Clinton still managed to raise spending during his tenure by more than $520 million over Bush Sr.’s spending.

Bush Jr. was far worse – he raised spending by $1.6 trillion over Clinton, though it took him eight years to do it. Thus far, Obama has raised spending by a whopping $4.3 trillion over Bush’s spending in a mere three years. That means federal spending has gone up by nearly six trillion dollars since the days of Bill Clinton. There has been plenty of anger here at over Bush’s terrible fiscal policies, but liberals have far outdone Bush in less than half the time. The only thing they’ve offered is a cheap one-liner: “they drove the car into the ditch, now they want the keys back!”

Again…gag me.

If the government is pulling in $175 billion in revenue from taxes alone every month, that gives them $2.1 trillion annually (estimated). That’s just in taxes from you and I. Where is the money going? The government has a few essentials: immediate infrastructure (such as Congress), military, federal-level law enforcement and corrections, and federally-kept interstate highways. What else are we paying for? Medicare, social security, and a host of government-sponsored programs, most of which have a plurality (particularly education). We send billions to other countries annually, including to Brazil to do the offshore drilling that Obama doesn’t want going on near America’s shores.

Why are we spending so much money on non-essential programs? Well, that depends on who you ask. There’s not a liberal alive who is willing to call any government program expendable unless it has to do with the military. To a liberal, it is unthinkable to get rid of entitlements. Of course, we’re talking about liberals, many of whom have put Republicans to shame in the era of earmarks (which is saying something, because there are some Republicans who have managed some pretty silly earmarks). Why should the federal government fund a Woodstock museum? Damned if I know, but Hillary Clinton wrangled an earmark for it.

(As an aside, you can get a liberal to agree to an earmark for the Woodstock museum, but they’ll scream bloody murder if you start suggesting that the government pay for a few hundred kids to attend private religious schools. Not that I think the government should pay for that, but hey, at least those religious schools don’t churn out illiterate thugs the way government-run schools do.)

I’m an EMT-I currently going to paramedic school. I was told back in 2005 when I started my original EMT classes that it wasn’t a matter of if I’d get sued, but when. Eventually, no matter how good you are, you’ll get sued by someone who didn’t get the outcome they wanted. Did you c-spine a patient correctly while they still ended up paralyzed? Did you go to a child drowning and bring that child back to life only for them to be declared brain-dead at the hospital? You’ll still get sued, they told me, and I’ve seen friends who did everything right end up in court defending themselves from money-hungry lawyers and their clients who are simply looking for their lottery payment. That comes from the idea that the government has endless pockets. People really, honestly believe that the government has an endless supply of money that they can hand out at will, all they have to do is get in line. That couldn’t be further from the truth. The government can’t keep shelling out money like candy any more than you or I can.

Why in the name of Thomas Jefferson are we talking about reducing the deficit and raising the debt ceiling rather than going beyond that and reducing our debt? Both sides are being complete idiots here. There are tax-exempt organizations fronting as quasi-political organizations for both sides (i.e. the Heritage Foundation, Media Matters) that should have their tax-exempt status revoked. That status was created for charities, not for front groups who funnel money from elitists to certain political groups. As incentive, we should enact term limits and stop people from holding seats for entire lifetimes. The government should get out of the charity business and leave the charity to those who wish to offer it. Unemployment should not be unending. While we’re at it, I think those who accept government handouts should not be allowed to vote. Liberals need to stop labeling all conservatives as terrorists for simply wanting some commonsense rules to be applied to the Beltway.

Business as usual cannot continue or the government will end up in the same predicament as those people who continually take out new credit cards when they run out of money: destitute.

It’s the economy, stupid.

Where Are The Jobs? (Left vs. Right)

In response to a voter’s question in August of 2009, President Obama said:

Normally, you don’t raise taxes in a recession, which is why we haven’t and why we’ve instead cut taxes. So I guess what I’d say to Scott is – his economics are right. You don’t raise taxes in a recession. We haven’t raised taxes in a recession.

Oddly enough, conservatives are still shying away from indignant liberal cries: “Where are the jobs?” when they attempt to underscore the success of the Bush Tax Cuts including raising revenue to the Treasury 785B by 2007, adding 8 million jobs to the economy, and increasing the median household wealth by more than $20K.

But what about the Lamestream Media who constantly allows the White House and Democrats in Congress to escape their drunken spending spree which took place in the last three years including the failed stimulus and the ObamaCare travesty?  “Where are the jobs?”  Trillions of dollars of feckless spending, unemployment did go above 8%, and revenues to the treasury are at historic lows.  Yet, Obama, Pelosi, and Reid are allowed to escape on their loose versions of a series of “what-ifs?”

Can you imagine what would have happened if we weren’t allowed to fecklessly spend trillions of dollars in historic amounts of time? If you thought unemployment was bad now, you wouldn’t believe what it would have been if we hadn’t printed billions of valueless paper and created a few temporary Census jobs!

Listening to the House today during the debt-ceiling debates made me ill.  After it being crystal clear, not only proven by President Bush but also by President Reagan, that tax cuts and deregulation creates millions of jobs, liberals are still allowed to deny the benefit of the doubt to tax cuts but get to hand it over no- questions-asked to excuse the most unbelievable spending ever in the history of our government.

This is common sense.  This is what we must continue to remember as our party heads into the 2012 battle for the White House and the Senate.

America is broke.  We need politicians who are going to respect Americans by being honest with them.  Clearly, the accounting tricks, gimmicks, and experiments of the left are not prepared to do that.

All The King’s Horses

I’m from Houston, Texas. I’m pretty sure that comes with a requirement to be a die-hard Astros fan and sincerely dislike the New York Yankees (I don’t like to use the word “hate” – I disliked using that word long before it was cool). So, I was largely disinterested when I heard that Yankee shortstop Derek Jeter hit his 3,000th ball, and homered at that.

At least I was disinterested until I heard about the fan who caught the ball.

23-year-old Christian Lopez caught Jeter’s record-setting ball and promptly gave it back to Jeter without any strings attached. He didn’t ask for payment, though he could have sold the ball on eBay and made off like a bandit. At least then he would have been able to get some kind of monetary value to pay the IRS off with.

You won’t believe what came next. The Yankees repaid the fan with season suite seats and a host of autographed Yankee memorabilia, but experts say the value of the gifts is right around $120,000. That would mean he’d owe the IRS around $14,000 – $15,000 in taxes for the goods.

This just highlights a conversation my dad and I had last night about taxes. Right now, we have the Big O and his minions talking about raising taxes to take care of the trillion-dollar deficit. The government is spending money like a drunken sailor on a bender; rather than corral their spending, they’d prefer to raise taxes in the middle of a recession in which people are losing jobs and houses left and right. They’re about to commit fiscal hari-kari all because they can’t give up their socialist ideals long enough to do the smart thing. Urkel himself said recently that “the public is not paying close attention to the ins and outs of how a Treasury option goes. They shouldn’t. They’re worrying about their family; they’re worrying about their jobs; they’re worrying about their neighborhood. They’ve got a lot of other things on their plate. We’re paid to worry about it.” He is saying here that professional politicians know best.

Don’t worry, John and Jane Q. Taxpayer. We’ve got things under control. Your job ends at the ballot box, we’ll take it from here. It’s just too complicated for simpletons like you to understand. Let us do what we’re paid to do and take care of the small things. What’s that? You don’t want to pay taxes that high? Well, you wanted us to do this job. Pay up and let us do it.

Stop right there, homeboy.

It irritates me that we pay so damn much in taxes and we get next to nothing back for it. We pay taxes through our paychecks, and any paycheck that you get on top of the norm (which I do in the form of bonuses every month when I do a particularly good job), they go from taking 22% to taking 45%, sometimes even 50%. Separate from that, our paychecks are automatically hit with taxes for Social Security and Medicare, neither of which were ever supposed to be requirements. Then we get hit for state taxes. Those aren’t the only taxes we pay, but you don’t see most people paying attention to it. We pay sales tax on nearly everything we buy, and there’s a movement to force internet retailers to levy sales taxes now, too. We pay taxes on the bills we pay for water, sewer, electricity, cable, phone, and rent. Homeowners pay a separate tax based on the value of their property, both to state and federal governments.

We even pay taxes just to friggin’ die. Is this really what our Founders had in mind?

Now we have Christian Lopez getting gifts from a sports club because he did something entirely selfless in giving a very valuable piece of equipment back, and the IRS is already salivating. Since when is this acceptable?

The government needs to be cut off. They’re behaving like a trust fund kid on a shopping spree, yet we’re hemming and hawing about cancelling their credit cards. Really? Why is this so difficult? No more endless unemployment benefits. No more duplicate programs (or eighty of the same program across sixteen agencies, half of which have nothing to do with the programs they’re administering). No more healthcare monstrosities that Congress gets a free pass from. You live exactly the way we do and follow the same rules or you get kicked to the curb like the abusive ex that you are.

I have no illusions, however, that we are capable of doing what Thomas Jefferson called our duty and resisting when injustice becomes law. We’d rather feed all the king’s horses than set them free.

How Do You Spell “Union”?


Just a week ago, Mark wrote quite eloquently on the subject of the public worker strikes in Wisconsin:

Today, most labor unions are very similar to the “evil corporations” they so frequently rail against. They claim big business doesn’t care about its workers, only profit. But are unions any different? They need members to pay dues, or they cease to exist. Clearly they are also profit-driven. They believe industry has too much influence compared with the working class. But unions have far more influence than their numbers would suggest, given that only 8% of Americans are in unions. And what do many of these labor organizations do with the hard-earned dollars they take from their members in the form of dues? They give them to politicians running for office – almost exclusively in the Democratic Party – whether their members support them or not.

The bill being bandied about in Wisconsin, AB-11, would end collective bargaining rights for state employees (excluding public safety workers), require that state employees pay more than the paisley 5% they’ve been paying for health insurance and the ridiculous 2% they’ve been paying for their pensions, and would cut medical services to the poor and uninsured. During all the brouhaha going on at the state capitol, this woman was filmed to make a statement:


Don’t worry, dear damsel! Obamacare will save you!

First of all, we all need to understand something: corporations can simply go out of business if a union or special group continues to push for what they cannot afford. Government bodies – local, state or federal – cannot go out of business. They are unfortunately necessary to survival in our country. While corporations will do nearly everything to save face all the way to the bankruptcy line, governments that need to save money start cutting things from the budget. What does that mean? It means that in governments such as those in Europe, which have multitudes of entitlement programs to include socialized healthcare systems, they simply start cutting out things they can’t afford. It usually starts with healthcare; what Sarah Palin dubbed “death panels” are bureaucratic panels that convene to determine what they can change and how they can shuffle things in an effort to cut costs. Since healthcare workers are already paid peanuts, they start with services. Are you too old to benefit from a transplant or chemotherapy? Sorry, the state can’t afford it, especially since you probably won’t go back to work when you recover, anyway. We’d rather spend that money on a teenager who will benefit us more. Is your prognosis too grim? Sorry, we’re not going to pay for any treatment at all because you’ll die anyway and it would be a waste. Do you have a minor illness? Well, you’ll wait a while to be seen, we only have doctors available during certain hours and they have to triage their patients. Once you have pneumonia give us a call.

How does this not make sense to people? We already have entitlements for welfare, unemployment, healthcare for the uninsured and all kinds of grants for college, the arts, and home buying. Our tax dollars are stretching thinner and thinner with every passing year, yet here we have left-wing moonbats still demanding that the government give us what they literally cannot afford. If we keep going down this road, we will one day find ourselves watching the US dollar collapse and the Democrats will still try to blame the right wing.

Greed is not solely a label for the wealthy. Every human being is greedy to some degree…it’s in our very nature to want to look out for number one. Even the Founding Fathers tried to remind us long ago that our rights end when they infringe on the rights of another – that means that when we demand we be recognized for the right to have what we want at the expense of the government and the government can’t afford it, the rights of the majority who ARE paying for it trump yours.

Common Sense Conservatism: Unemployment

New unemployment numbers are in, and the national rate held firm at 9.5% while the state with the worst rate broke its own record. Nevada, the hardest hit state in the nation when it comes to foreclosures and per capita bankruptcies, has led the nation in unemployment since it overtook Michigan in May. Unemployment in Nevada rose to 14.3% in July, while unemployment in Nevada’s largest city, Las Vegas, rose to 14.8%. July marks the 16th consecutive month Nevada’s unemployment rate has increased. Ignored in all of this is underemployment, which includes those who are working part-time due to a lack of full-time jobs, and is estimated at 18.4% nationally, and 21.5% in Nevada. Unemployment among teens is at 26.1%, while underemployment for African-Americans is estimated at 25% and unemployment for Black teens hit 40.6% in July.

In light of these facts, different people have different views on how to solve the problem. Democrats in Washington, along with President Obama, are committed to a strategy that includes stimulus packages and federal spending to boost the economy. Republicans in Washington disagree, and prefer options that include keeping taxes low and creating incentives for businesses to hire. These differences have turned into an ideological battle where Republicans call Democrats “socialists,” and “Marxists,” while Democrats call Republicans “obstructionists,” and “for the rich.” Name-calling may be an effective way to damage your opponent politically, but it doesn’t do much to educate Americans on the issues, or explain why there is such disagreement.

One of those points of disagreement is the extension of unemployment benefits. Every time Democrats try to pass bills to extend unemployment benefits, Republicans say “No.” And every time Republicans say “No,” they are labeled “insensitive,” “cold-hearted,” etc. So what’s wrong with Republicans? Why do they “hate the unemployed,” as MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow claims?

Two things are important to consider here. First, Democrats passed H.R. 2920, the Pay-As-You-Go-Act of 2010 (PAYGO), in February. Under PAYGO, any new spending or tax cuts must be budget-neutral, or offset by cuts elsewhere (Read: New spending must be paid for before it is passed). Democrats in the House passed the unemployment extension without paying for it with an equivalent amount of cuts, ignoring their own statute, and blaming Republicans for wanting to follow it.

Second, many Americans currently receiving unemployment benefits today are doing so based on wages they were earning when the economy was much better. The result is that their unemployment earnings are often higher than jobs are currently paying. As an example, let’s say Mary was laid off in Nevada while making $700/week. She is currently receiving roughly $350 per week in unemployment benefits, just under the $362/week cap. Looking for work today, Mary may not accept a job unless it comes with a paycheck higher than her unemployment check. Currently in Nevada, minimum wage is $8.25/hr. for jobs that do not offer health insurance, and $7.25 for those that do. This means Mary needs to find a job that pays $8.75 in order to make more than unemployment pays her to stay home. That doesn’t factor in the cost to get to work, like gas for the car. Employers simply aren’t able to pay employees today the same wages as they did one or two years ago, and unemployed workers have no real incentive to take a job that doesn’t pay more than unemployment.

Now, when Democrats extend unemployment benefits from 26 weeks to 99 weeks, which they have done, it enables people to remain on unemployment for close to two years. There’s no doubt that unemployment is needed, especially at a time when jobs are hard to find. However, I’ve seen many examples of people turning down jobs because they don’t pay as much as their unemployment benefits. To make matters worse, all you need to do to collect unemployment here in Nevada is visit a website weekly to file your claim. You have to answer some questions, but you never have to meet with anyone to prove you’re actually out looking for a job, let alone not turning them down. Nevada is practically bankrupt, and there’s virtually no accountability in the unemployment system.

So do Republicans “hate the unemployed,” as Rachel Maddow suggests? Or rather, do Republicans see the financial strain caused by indefinite unemployment benefits? Perhaps Republicans understand that revenues won’t return to state governments and profits won’t return to businesses until people start returning to work – and a 99-week safety net isn’t exactly motivation. Now unemployment is hardly a vacation. It’s demoralizing, and extremely challenging to make ends meet on such a meager income. However, there are jobs out there, and we need to make sure we are not rewarding people who pass them up to remain on unemployment. That part is not cold-hearted. It’s fiscally responsible.

Republicans are often hit hardest for favoring tax cuts and incentives for businesses. Democrats have convinced people that any benefits for businesses, small or large, only help rich people. However, the opposite is true. Small businesses in America represent 99.7% of all employers, and have generated 60 to 80 percent of net new jobs over the last decade. If these businesses are not hiring today, it is because they are afraid to spend the money, not knowing what the future holds. Every tax we add to the shoulders of job creators in this country will result in more lay-offs, less new jobs, and higher costs passed on to consumers, all at the worst possible time.

Perhaps the most frustrating part of the unemployment issue is how Democrats have politicized it. Let’s be clear: Democrats have a super-majority in the House of Representatives. They can pass ANYTHING they want, as the Republicans do not have the votes to stop them. That means if Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the Democrats wanted to pass Polish as the official language of America, they COULD! PERIOD! In fact, the only reasons Democrats CAN’T pass everything they want is that conservative Democrats who won in the 2008 Obama wave now represent traditionally Republican districts, and don’t want to lose in November. So let’s get off this narrative that Republicans are obstructionists. The truth is that Democrats prefer to have Republicans support their unpopular bills like Health Care Reform, Cap and Trade, and others, so they’re not alone in receiving heat from voters come November. If listening to the American people is considered obstructionism, we have a problem.

I talked to a voter today who told me the Republican Party was “The Party of ‘No’,” and that they oppose everything President Obama tries to do because he’s black. Earlier this week, the following statistics were featured in a National Republican Senatorial Committee ad:

* 57% think Democrat Agenda is “extreme.” (Rasmussen Poll, 8/11/10)
* 60% favor repeal of ObamaCare. (Rasmussen Poll, 8/16/10)
* 56% disapprove of Obama’s job performance. (Rasmussen Poll, 8/16/10)
* 61% favor Arizona-like law in their state. (Rasmussen Poll, 7/8/10)
* 68% oppose Ground Zero Mosque. (CNN Poll, 8/11/10)
* 65% angry at Federal Government policies. (Rasmussen Poll, 8/16/10)
* 65% say America is on the wrong track. (Rasmussen Poll, 8/11/10)

With these numbers, why shouldn’t Republicans be “The Party of ‘No’?” This clearly illustrates that President Obama and the Democrats currently controlling Washington are in direct opposition to the American people, regardless of skin color.

But it’s not this voter’s fault she feels that way. It’s what the media has been telling her for two years, every chance they get. It’s the standard attack from the Democrat Party. Whether it’s the Mosque at Ground Zero, unemployment benefit extensions, terrorism, immigration, gay marriage, health care, energy issues, education issues – if a Republican has an opinion on it, he or she is labeled a:

Choose One: [racist, homophobe, xenophobe, elitist, bigot, Islamophobe, fearmonger, hatemonger, warmonger]

…who hates…

Choose One: [Blacks, Hispanics, Gays, Muslims, the poor, children, women, the elderly, the middle-class]

Pay attention next time, and you’ll see it for yourself. The attack is always the same, and it is never based on the actual issue. That needs to change. We have to talk about the issues and work together to do what is best for our country. We need to educate voters on the issues, so Americans can make the right decisions based on accurate information. And we must start using logic, and not emotion, to determine the direction our country takes as we move forward.

As for unemployment, remember: The government has no money. The only money it has comes from taxpayers. When a private company creates a job it is paid for with profits. When the government creates one, it is paid for by YOU.

If You Can’t Blame “W”…..

Then just blame Congress.  Obama apparently got the message from poll numbers that suggested Americans were tired of his “blame it on Bush” strategy as a way to avoid responsibility for the nation’s still-unrecovered economy. So, what does the Big O do now?  Throw it off on Congress.

– But before leaving for his ninth presidential vacation, 10 days at a…...secluded estate on Martha’s Vineyard, Obama devoted four minutes in the White House driveway to a special statement on the latest disappointing jobs numbers. (Full text, as usual, can be read on the jump, along with a brief reaction from the Republican National Committee chairman.)

No questions allowed because the president didn’t want to explain why despite the administration’s announced Recovery Summer Program, the jobs numbers have started going backward again after 19 months of promises and $787 billion in alleged stimulation spending. Because, faced with the uncertainty of the economy and the certainty of new taxes after Nov. 2, employers are holding back on hiring.

According to the president, he’s been “adamant” with Congress for months now about a new jobs bill to help small businesses. Obama says this really good bill is stalled in the Senate, where so much administration legislation has been crammed through so effectively by Majority Leader Harry Reid.

Interesting ploy.  Blame it on Congress.  But….hold on now!  One problem.  OBAMA’S PARTY RUNS THE DAMNED CONGRESS!!!

It’s time to man up, Barry.  Face the fact that your idiotic policies have done nothing to pull this nation out of a lingering recession.  While Europe begins to turn things around with surprisingly conservative economic measures, you go the opposite way.  You endorse ridiculous spending measures that bring our deficit into the trillions, and you pursue social(ist) entitlement programs during a time when we can least afford it.  You are about to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire, and every new piece of legislation that you hatch with Pelosi/Reid is riddled with new taxes.  All of this during a time of recession.

Don’t blame your failure to pull us out of recession on George W.  And don’t blame things on Congress either.  Your party has more than enough votes to ramrod more crap down the throats of average Americans.  If you honestly think that throwing more money in an inefficient manner at this recession is going to solve the problem, then just tell Nancy and Harry to do it.  Are you scared?  Are they?

They’d Rather the Poor Were Poorer Provided the Rich Were Less Rich


Boy do I wish Margaret Thatcher were still around.  This lady sure could enrage liberals right out of their chairs – and she handled journalists well, too.

“Freedom incurs responsibility, that’s why many men fear it”  Margaret Thatcher quotes in this early 80’s interview when millions of British were out of work when she came in.  Afterwards, I have provided a speech she gave toward the end of her tenure when she argued with another liberal about “the gap between the rich and the poor.”

When she discusses prosperity for a nation she says in the end of video one: “it isn’t done by the pontification of politicians or commentators.”  She’s absolutely right.  Barack’s blather isn’t going to give free health care away.  Only the American people through freedom can better their own situations.

Nothing is different today and the treatment of national economic problems lies solely within the people, not the government.

How Kind of You, Mr. President!

Members of Congress and Obama have now moved toward denouncing the emphasis of opposition of this health care reform disaster and affirm their position by reminding us how much they are willing to contribute.

Obama today at a rally said he was happy that ‘people like him’ could pay a little more to make sure that 46 million Americans could have health care. 

It all sounds great now, doesn’t it?

What he isn’t able to avoid though is the fact that there aren’t many ‘people like him’ in the country.  He works for the United States Government!

What’s the difference between working for the United States Government and working for a private insurance company?  How about the fact that making a profit or loss affects CEOs at insurance companies (not to mention millions of middle-class employees) but DOES NOT affect Obama’s salary in the case of the Government?  We’ve seen all Presidents in the past rack up massive debt (Democrat and Republican) and they will still receive generous health care benefits and retirement packages – as will Obama.

Here’s my question: as the Government continues to put its hands further into the auto industry, mortgage industry, and now health care; and more and more CEOs and people making over $250K per year are phased out, how does Obama expect us to believe that the middle class will never have to pay more when less people are going to be there to pay that “little bit more” which he is willing to contribute?

My opinion is that he knows that’s impossible. After this plan is sold to the middle class under the guise of protecting them and we are all forced to a single-payer plan, he will get what he’s wanted all along.  The country will be in so deep that it will never matter once everyone realizes.

This is such an important fight.  I pray that the many articles popping up now denouncing average Americans and their concerns will not dissuade those same Americans from fighting harder in this next month.

Call your Congressman, write them, etc.  Let them know you are saying “No!”

Where Does It Stop?

Obama rammed the stimulus down everyone’s throats by using scare tactics–“if we don’t pass this, you’ll lose everything you have.” He’s trying to force cap-and-tax and universal healthcare on us the same way–“your healthcare providers will rob you blind!” and “global warming must be stopped before we destroy our only home!” He’s now taking his fiscal idiocy a step further by proposing legislation that will stop financial companies from getting too big.

My understanding of this new set of “rules” is that all financial companies will be required to limit what they do in the event that they collapse so that they don’t “pose a systemic risk” as Obama puts it. They’ll do this by imposing hefty penalties on companies that become too big to fail as they see it; it will mean that any financial powerhouse that gets too big in the eyes of the government will have to pay fines and fees that will supposedly undo all of the profits made by taking those risks. It will also strip certain companies of their rights. Companies like GE, which is in both finance AND commerce, would not be allowed to continue to operate in both ends of the industry. So much for the American dream.

Obama says his aim is to make it less appealing to get so big that failure would cost too much to be worth it to the CEO’s and other top names in these companies. In reality, this is socialism through and through: it’s the attempt to forcibly equalize everyone. What he’s basically saying is you can’t take too much risk or become too successful, otherwise you’ll pay through the teeth to make sure you don’t get into too much trouble.

ALL business involves risk, like it or not. That’s the nature of a free market. Starting a business requires that you risk everything you have should something go wrong. It can never be guaranteed or cushioned against failure in any way. Unfortunately, that’s life. When the government steps in and says, “you have to do this, this, this, this and this to avoid having a negative impact on other businesses,” freedom ceases to exist and socialism takes root. We’re up to our eyeballs in it now, and we’re doing little to stop it.

Liberals scream that it’s the lack of regulation that created this mess, thus Obama’s plan is absolutely necessary. HORSEHOCKEY. Bring back the regulation as it was previously and there would be no need for the government to tell anyone that they can’t prosper too much before they have to pay for it. Our little “experiment” in deregulation has failed miserably, just as our foray into the world of making homeownership a right rather than a privilege failed equally as miserably. Stop requiring banks to take on a certain amount of risky debt, stop requiring that they lend to everyone regardless of certain issues, and bring back the previous regulation and there would be no need for putting a cap on how big or intertwined a company can become.

But that wouldn’t play into Obama’s vision for America. I have to ask…where does it stop? Obama didn’t just bail out the banks, he took it a step further and bailed out the auto industry. Bush started that game and it was the worst step he could have taken. Where does it end? When the government has taken control over all industry, commerce and business in America? First they put a cap on the banks, then what? The automakers? Wait, he already did that. Next I suppose it’ll be retail. Wal-Mart can’t be allowed to get so big, because so many depend on the near-minimum-wage jobs the company provides. The government has to step in and stop them from failing. Grocery stores have to be regulated, too, or it might have an impact on other local retail. Oh, and mr. and mrs. small business have to be regulated, too–if they fail, individuals might have to go further to obtain certain services, and now we’ll be impacting the environment.

Where does it stop? When do we draw the line and tell the government they’ve gone too far? When they’ve taken over every aspect of our lives? That’s what we’re on the way to allowing. I work for a financial institution full-time, and that company is led by a man who saw a long time ago just how dangerous the credit default swap and subprime games were. I have a good job and a great boss because of that. I do not want to be limited in how far I can go because the government has decided that the company I work for is too big. It’s not up to anybody to set limits for me. That is MY choice. The Constitution guarantees it.

It’s difficult to see how we got to this point, but it’s not irreversible. If we start right now, it can stop RIGHT HERE.

Trying Times

Contrary to what the Democrats would have us all believe, things are getting worse. Stocks continue to drop. Unemployment hasn’t improved–in fact, it’s gotten worse (saving 150,000 jobs as opposed to losing 1.6 million? Please!). One of the stalwarts of the international lending industry, American Express, seemingly impervious to the economic hardships, announced layoffs for the first time today. And Obama, despite many reports that say it’s a bad idea, has announced a new government requirement of 35.5 MPG on all new vehicles by the year 2016.

Do we really still think Obama’s doing a good job?

We’re talking about a guy who believed that spreading the wealth was a great idea. He has all but wrested control of the banking industry from the owners, even in cases where the banks involved did a fantastic job doing the right thing while all the others were helping toss our economy down the crapper. Since when does a free country allow the government to decide what they do with their money? When did being free mean that the government decides what’s best for our vehicles? Did Obama even read the reports that show smaller vehicles account for the highest death rates on the roads?

What’s even more galling is that any liberal can still think that Obama was really just raising taxes on the rich in light of another recent development: a new $1300 tax on all new vehicles. That’s not going to hurt the rich, folks. That will be for every new vehicle, regardless of your income. Still think he’s really only raising taxes on the rich? He says we’ll make that back in three years in savings on gas, but shouldn’t we be saving PERIOD? Why should we replace a savings with another expenditure? Why do we need the new taxes?

Oh, yeah…I forgot. The Generational Theft Act of 2009, a.k.a. the “stimulus.” We gotta pay that back somehow. Aside from inflation, taxing one of the things we rely on the most is the best way to recoup those funds.

These are trying times, folks, make no mistake. Obama is NOT our messiah. And considering his gaffe-machine VP (who seems to have completely digested both feet and is working his way up to his knees now) can’t keep his mouth shut, I don’t think we can get these idiots out of office quickly enough.