The Democrats are attempting to give our economy a lobotomy. Even worse, they are pursuing tremendously hurtful policies during a difficult economic time, a time when we can least afford this kind of chicanery. Al Gore, perhaps sensing a disturbance in his investment income, has been popping up more and more talking about how horrible oil is. Yes, the same industry that has allowed us to develop into the strongest nation on the face of the earth, the same one the gets us to work every day, the one that heats our homes, etc, ever since people have become even more acutely aware that our reluctance to drill here at home is killing us at the pump and in the world economy as our dollar further devalues.
Before I proceed from here, you should really see the highlights of Al Gore's "major" speak on the dangers of losing his cash cow, er, I mean carbon based energy. Here it is, presented by Americans For Prosperity:
Al Gore is completely off his rocker and has been for quite some time. Why, he's even compared offshore drilling to the Iraq invasion. Which of course is nothing like the invasion of Iraq. In fact, you'd think if the point he was trying to make was to be more responsible in international affairs and leave nations to their own accord, the our energy self sufficiency would include us drilling here at home. Or maybe he's referencing the point that nations like Iran are much better stewards of the environment and have better and more cleaner technologies to pump oil than we do here in America. Oh right, he's completely and utterly insane and wrong.
Democrats and Liberals have no regard for the common man. Rather than being sensible and recognizing that we will need oil and natural gas supplies for at least 25 years (at absolute minimum) to be able to move away from using gas in our cars, etc, and seeking to blend energy forms as we do journey down that path, they could care less if you could afford to do so. They could care less if you couldn't afford to buy a new car that ran on hydrogen and we had no gas tomorrow. They could care less if you got to work and if you could afford to do so, well then they would just raise your taxes up to the point where you couldn't anymore.
Sounds like an exaggeration right? Well re-visit that clip where the guy in the AFP video is completely happy about gas going up to about $8 a gallon for the "common good." But that's OK, right, my green comrades? That's the Democrats energy policy in a nutshell. Don't think arugula lover Barack Obama has a problem with this. He just wishes it was a slower rise in the price of gas, but the price? Completely cool with it. So don't act so shocked when the Congressional Democrats are crowing about high energy prices and aren't doing jack to raise the supplies are focused on raising one thing....your gasoline tax by 50%, and they're moving to do it quickly.
-Caomhin
Showing posts with label Economics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Economics. Show all posts
21 July 2008
15 July 2008
The Democratic Congress's Destruction By The Numbers
Here are some numbers to consider. Personally, I did not think they would be able to devestate the economy as badly as they have in one and half year. I was completely wrong. Never underestimate the Left Wing's penchant for devestating American families.
Jan 4, 2007 Jul 14, 2008
Unemployment 4.6% 5.5%
Dow Jones Industrial Average 12,488.69 11,055.19
Price per barrel of oil 58.32 137.85
Gallon of Gasoline 2.33 4.11
Home Heating Oil Per Gallon 2.42 4.53
Unemployment is up because of the rise in the minimum wage rate and excessive panic that the Democrats have pushed for political purposes as well as constantly pursing policies that devalue the American dollar. The DJIA is down for that exact same reason, and we can all thank Chuck "The Sheister" Schumer for causing IndyMac to shut down. The Democrats reckless policies concerning ethanol and thier refusal to allow for more domestic drilling of the last decade, and even now, have caused a gigantic leap in oil prices. Anyone up for giving these hacks another shot a congress and giving them the presidency on top of it? If so, please research Jimmy Carter's term a bit more and prepare for the pain.
-Caomhin
Jan 4, 2007 Jul 14, 2008
Unemployment 4.6% 5.5%
Dow Jones Industrial Average 12,488.69 11,055.19
Price per barrel of oil 58.32 137.85
Gallon of Gasoline 2.33 4.11
Home Heating Oil Per Gallon 2.42 4.53
Unemployment is up because of the rise in the minimum wage rate and excessive panic that the Democrats have pushed for political purposes as well as constantly pursing policies that devalue the American dollar. The DJIA is down for that exact same reason, and we can all thank Chuck "The Sheister" Schumer for causing IndyMac to shut down. The Democrats reckless policies concerning ethanol and thier refusal to allow for more domestic drilling of the last decade, and even now, have caused a gigantic leap in oil prices. Anyone up for giving these hacks another shot a congress and giving them the presidency on top of it? If so, please research Jimmy Carter's term a bit more and prepare for the pain.
-Caomhin
10 March 2008
Vindicated on Inflation Worries
I've gone off on a tangent a few times telling everyone how inflation was the far greater worry for the economy as a whole than the subprime crisis. Indeed, I've had my fair share of intellectual arguments on this subject. I've maintained that the Fed should not be slashing interest rates at a time when the American dollar has been drastically weakened as it would simply lead to an even weaker dollar, increased inflation, and have a far more wide ranging negative impact on the economy. Indeed, this is what is happening. Oil hit another high today, briefly hitting $108 on a "weakened dollar" among other geo-political factors. The irresponsibility of lenders and borrowers with regard to the subprime mess has been appalling, but a government bail out is equally irresponsible as the burden should not shift to the people who responsible enough to do the right thing when acquiring a home.
Well, I was reading some articles on Bloomberg today, and the one headline I came across was a great highlight of some of the things I've been saying with regard to the worries I've expressed on inflation, "TIPS' Yield Shows Fed Has Lost Control of Inflation." One of the most worrisome parts of this article:
The last time investors were so worried about faster inflation amid slowing growth, Paul A. Volcker presided over a Fed that would raise rates as high as 20 percent to end the stagflation crisis of the 1970s, according to Seth Plunkett, a bond fund manager at American Century Investment Management in Mountain View, California. The firm manages $20 billion.
That's scary bad, Jimmy Carter bad. Rapid inflation will harm far more people in far more ways than just the subprime crisis. An editorial by Caroline Baum, also from Bloomberg's website, does a great job of presenting a great deal of how I feel, and probably more effectively, here's the takeaway:
-Caomhin
Well, I was reading some articles on Bloomberg today, and the one headline I came across was a great highlight of some of the things I've been saying with regard to the worries I've expressed on inflation, "TIPS' Yield Shows Fed Has Lost Control of Inflation." One of the most worrisome parts of this article:
The last time investors were so worried about faster inflation amid slowing growth, Paul A. Volcker presided over a Fed that would raise rates as high as 20 percent to end the stagflation crisis of the 1970s, according to Seth Plunkett, a bond fund manager at American Century Investment Management in Mountain View, California. The firm manages $20 billion.
That's scary bad, Jimmy Carter bad. Rapid inflation will harm far more people in far more ways than just the subprime crisis. An editorial by Caroline Baum, also from Bloomberg's website, does a great job of presenting a great deal of how I feel, and probably more effectively, here's the takeaway:
You probably can sense where I'm going. Today's economic and financial crisis would resolve itself more quickly and efficiently if the government got out of the way. Yes, there would be pain. Some banks would fail. Others would clamp down on credit to atone for the years of lax lending standards. Homeowners-in-name-only would become renters. Housing prices would fall until speculators found value.
That's not going to happen. The bigger the mess, the more urgent the calls for a government solution, the more willing government is to oblige.
We want laissez-faire capitalism in good times and a government backstop against losses in bad times. It's a tough way to run an economy.
-Caomhin
28 February 2008
Sam Zell Blasts Doomsayer Democrats
He came out swinging on his appearance on Squawk Box, specifically calling out Obama and Hillary for their nonsensical apocolyptic view of the economy:
Speaking on "Squawk Box" this morning, Zell attributed much of the current economic troubles to fear-mongering and politicking by Democratic presidential contenders Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama.
-Caomhin
Speaking on "Squawk Box" this morning, Zell attributed much of the current economic troubles to fear-mongering and politicking by Democratic presidential contenders Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama.
"Obviously what we have going on is an attempt to create a self-fulfilling prophecy," said Zell, chairman of Equity Investments Group and owner of the Chicago Cubs, Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times and other companies. "We have two Democratic candidates who are vying with each other to describe the economic situation worse.
"The reality is that if you live on Wall Street and you're in the credit markets the world couldn't be worse. If you're a farmer and you're getting $25 for your wheat, you're having a great time. If you're a CEO and you've got a balance sheet that's bullet-proof, you're in a great position. This whole thing is way out of control, way out of hand."What he's saying is very true. The Democrats desperately need for the economy to take a hard slide, much in the same way they need Iraq to take a slide, but unfortunately for the Democrats, neither is going to occur. Much as Iraq is becoming stronger on its own feet, it has now become apparent (as I have posted on before) that the economy is not going to go into a recession, so they need to drum up as much negativity and fear that they can as they always do during election season. Their rhetoric revolves around, "if you don't vote for us, you will lose everything you own," and it's down right irresponsible and reprehensible behavior. Oh, and lest I need to remind you, the MSM, which is the propaganda wing of the Democratic party will do all they can to try and capitalize on this fear and do the dirty work for the Democrats. Today's evidence? How about this article from the Chicago Sun-Times, "Clinton Holds Roundtable With Economy Victims." Victims? What, did the economy come up from behind them and bludgeon them with a tire iron? What's even funnier about this headline besides the ultra-bias is that by using the term "victim," connotatively it implies that the economy is a criminal thug of some sort. Well, that's further proof that the Democrat's philosophy is that the pesky economy hasn't plunged into recession and is hurting their chances in November, therefore it must be villainized.
-Caomhin
25 February 2008
Leftist Media Forced to Admit that Economy is not going into Recession
If you knew anything about economics you already knew this. Like a typical far left tactic, this little pipe dream of theirs fell far, far short. A recession occurs when two quarters of negative growth occurs. I laughed every time I heard ABC, CNN, NBC, etc go out and tell the general public not only would one occur, but that we were ALREADY in one...which was a ridiculous lie. We had positive growth last quarter. We weren't in a recession. Now they are admitting that just because for the first time since Clinton left office and handed over a recession to the current administration, we weren't seeing such large percentages of growth, that doesn't mean that a recession is going to happen. I can hear the lefties now, "DRAT! We needed that narrative for the elections." Yea, well, you can only lie so long before people do some research and verify that, yes, the left wing was using their typical scare tactics....and lying...again. Expect the narrative to change for them as soon as they figure out which element of fear and insecurity will work best for them.
-Caomhin
-Caomhin
Outgoing Comptroller of GAO Blast Government Irresponsibility
David Walker went off today on our inefficient and increasingly backward government. While I disagree with the portion on Iraq, (yes, the Iraqi government needs to step up some more but they have produced some good legislation lately that is helping the country towards a slow reconciliation. Besides, if they are using our government as a model, it's amazing they are overcoming partisan rifts at all) he's spot on with regard to many issues:
David Walker, comptroller general of the Government Accountability
Office (GAO) has since 1998 been the objectively informed and outspoken
critic of America's balance sheet. He has criticized supporting Iraq's
dysfunctional government, pork barrel spending by Congress, unrealistic
"universal health care plans" we can ill-afford or support, the
escalating risks of huge deficits, fiscal vulnerability to hostile
foreign governments, and a lack of will to reform our government.
Pork is completely out of control in Congress, and while I salute President Bush for stepping up and putting a halt to earmarks in the short term, it is something he should have done from the first day he was sworn in as president. Universal Health Care would be devastating to our budget and our economy as private sector jobs and economic competition would be shattered. The free market and indeed advances in the health care field would be stifled, as would the economy as a whole due to an astronomical increase in taxes. Additionally, if the left truly cared about encroachments on our civil liberties, there would be no rationality in giving our government every single detail of our health records. While the FISA remains controversial in its impact on a small portion of the population who is in direct contact with suspected terrorist, the left is looking for any reason to hand over health care records in violation of our right to privacy as given to us by our Constitution.
The deficit is another issue that must be addressed immediately, and the proper way to do so is not to raise taxes and adopt anti-growth, protectionist policies that the Democratic Party is urging. This will only restrict growth and lower government revenues. Rather, the tax rates should be preserved, if not lowered further, in order to assist small businesses, investors, and indeed, every tax payer in America as the Bush Tax Cuts have lowered the rates on ALL tax payers. To really address the deficit issues, spending in the government must be slashed significantly. A Balanced Budget Amendment is desirable but must be done in a way that provides for national emergencies in terms of natural disasters and national defense, where discretionary spending must be dropped to provide for the common defense while not incurring further debt. Ideally, the best way forward would be to reduce spending to a point where, with the lower tax rates, we could run a surplus which can be used to cut the national debt. In turn, this would reduce the threat that China and other nations pose to us by threatening to flood the world market with our dollar, an economic hostage holding of sorts. This will also strengthen the dollar and benefit every American as our currency would appreciate greatly in value. It's high time the government steps up to the plate and addresses these issues, but the leftist policies of Obama and Clinton will not do it, in fact, they will only make matters much, much worse.
-Caomhin
David Walker, comptroller general of the Government Accountability
Office (GAO) has since 1998 been the objectively informed and outspoken
critic of America's balance sheet. He has criticized supporting Iraq's
dysfunctional government, pork barrel spending by Congress, unrealistic
"universal health care plans" we can ill-afford or support, the
escalating risks of huge deficits, fiscal vulnerability to hostile
foreign governments, and a lack of will to reform our government.
Pork is completely out of control in Congress, and while I salute President Bush for stepping up and putting a halt to earmarks in the short term, it is something he should have done from the first day he was sworn in as president. Universal Health Care would be devastating to our budget and our economy as private sector jobs and economic competition would be shattered. The free market and indeed advances in the health care field would be stifled, as would the economy as a whole due to an astronomical increase in taxes. Additionally, if the left truly cared about encroachments on our civil liberties, there would be no rationality in giving our government every single detail of our health records. While the FISA remains controversial in its impact on a small portion of the population who is in direct contact with suspected terrorist, the left is looking for any reason to hand over health care records in violation of our right to privacy as given to us by our Constitution.
The deficit is another issue that must be addressed immediately, and the proper way to do so is not to raise taxes and adopt anti-growth, protectionist policies that the Democratic Party is urging. This will only restrict growth and lower government revenues. Rather, the tax rates should be preserved, if not lowered further, in order to assist small businesses, investors, and indeed, every tax payer in America as the Bush Tax Cuts have lowered the rates on ALL tax payers. To really address the deficit issues, spending in the government must be slashed significantly. A Balanced Budget Amendment is desirable but must be done in a way that provides for national emergencies in terms of natural disasters and national defense, where discretionary spending must be dropped to provide for the common defense while not incurring further debt. Ideally, the best way forward would be to reduce spending to a point where, with the lower tax rates, we could run a surplus which can be used to cut the national debt. In turn, this would reduce the threat that China and other nations pose to us by threatening to flood the world market with our dollar, an economic hostage holding of sorts. This will also strengthen the dollar and benefit every American as our currency would appreciate greatly in value. It's high time the government steps up to the plate and addresses these issues, but the leftist policies of Obama and Clinton will not do it, in fact, they will only make matters much, much worse.
-Caomhin
22 January 2008
USA Today's Pro-Illegal Immigration Stunningly Illustrated In A Single Article
It's laughable that in today's day and age, with the information that we have available at our fingertips, to both research reports as well as verify the validity of statements, that the MSM stubbornly keeps referring to themselves as "unbiased". The only network that really has legitimacy to claim that is Fox News, and yes, that has been verified. Liberals assail Fox for having the audacity to illustrate and report on more than just the vantage point that the Liberal elite has assumed. Today, the USA Today an article appear in their online journal entitled, "Rising Health Care Costs Put Focus on Illegal Immigrants," one of the most bias, pro-illegal immigration pieces I have read in quite some time. Here's some choice dissections for you:
"The phrase 'illegal immigrant' is just radioactive at the moment," says Leighton Ku, a health analyst at the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. "Efforts to provide additional benefits for the undocumented would be essentially perceived as adding fuel to the fire."
At least here, they are courteous enough to point out the fact that Ku is a liberal. "Illegal Immigrant" is not inflammatory, it's true. They are immigrants. They are illegally in this nation under our immigration policy and have thus broken the laws, hence they are illegal immigrants. Undocumented is inflammatory. It is a term designed to strip away the fact that these people are criminals, in violation of federal laws, and have shown an utter disrespect to legal immigrants as well as the American system in whole. You should also note that on the left hand side only 9% of American citizens are uninsured, which puts the number of uninsured American citizens in the range of about 27 million people, most of whom are getting government benefits to cover their insurance. A large number to be sure, but read the article to get an idea of how much of money illegal immigrants are syphoning from our taxes, contributing a gigantic amount to our deficit spending. Take special note of this gem:
Illegal immigrants can get emergency care through Medicaid, the federal-state program for the poor and people with disabilities.
Medicaid should be only for citizens of this nation and people who are here through legal means and following our laws. Illegal immigrants need to be deported and our laws need to be enforced. Pro-illegals are simply in a position where they don't care about federal laws and they are stating as much. I feel the same way about people who smoke marijuana and are SHOCKED when they get busted for it and the laws are enforced. There's always people who make excuses and give a sob story about their situation, but if you broke a law, you broke a law, you can't cry to anyone when you get nailed for it when you knew what you were doing was illegal.
Because most illegal immigrants are relatively young and healthy, they generally don't need as much health care treatment as U.S. citizens, studies show. But while they account for less than 2% of national medical spending, their growing presence is a problem in places such as eastern North Carolina, one of the nation's poorest areas.
So we're to expect that these un-named studies have been able to effectively reach out to illegal immigrants and test them for their health, and somehow that didn't cost anyone anything? There's lies a plenty in that statement, an absurd amount of garbage actually. Also notice, they point out the SPENDING, NOT THE COST. They are ducking their bills. Think about it, when you go to the hospital, the only way to really track you down is with your Social Security Number, if you don't have that or a valid (I mean OFFICIAL) government/state issued ID, how would they track you down? So sure, they are accounting for 2% of spending, the idea here is cost, and if the costs are way up and the hospitals are taking a loss, they have to make up for it somewhere, and costs to legal recipients of health insurance goes up.
The whole article is inflammatory and completely dishonest. They give some lip service to the positions that we who are right, and happen to be on the right, hold, but by and large, it is such a puff piece and pro-illegal immigrant article that it beyond blatant. However, I will leave you with this, and I'm sure you'll have the same reaction as I did.....:
Ignacio Hernandez complained recently of recurrent eye pain after being struck by a sweet potato in the fields.
-Caomhin
"The phrase 'illegal immigrant' is just radioactive at the moment," says Leighton Ku, a health analyst at the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. "Efforts to provide additional benefits for the undocumented would be essentially perceived as adding fuel to the fire."
At least here, they are courteous enough to point out the fact that Ku is a liberal. "Illegal Immigrant" is not inflammatory, it's true. They are immigrants. They are illegally in this nation under our immigration policy and have thus broken the laws, hence they are illegal immigrants. Undocumented is inflammatory. It is a term designed to strip away the fact that these people are criminals, in violation of federal laws, and have shown an utter disrespect to legal immigrants as well as the American system in whole. You should also note that on the left hand side only 9% of American citizens are uninsured, which puts the number of uninsured American citizens in the range of about 27 million people, most of whom are getting government benefits to cover their insurance. A large number to be sure, but read the article to get an idea of how much of money illegal immigrants are syphoning from our taxes, contributing a gigantic amount to our deficit spending. Take special note of this gem:
Illegal immigrants can get emergency care through Medicaid, the federal-state program for the poor and people with disabilities.
Medicaid should be only for citizens of this nation and people who are here through legal means and following our laws. Illegal immigrants need to be deported and our laws need to be enforced. Pro-illegals are simply in a position where they don't care about federal laws and they are stating as much. I feel the same way about people who smoke marijuana and are SHOCKED when they get busted for it and the laws are enforced. There's always people who make excuses and give a sob story about their situation, but if you broke a law, you broke a law, you can't cry to anyone when you get nailed for it when you knew what you were doing was illegal.
Because most illegal immigrants are relatively young and healthy, they generally don't need as much health care treatment as U.S. citizens, studies show. But while they account for less than 2% of national medical spending, their growing presence is a problem in places such as eastern North Carolina, one of the nation's poorest areas.
So we're to expect that these un-named studies have been able to effectively reach out to illegal immigrants and test them for their health, and somehow that didn't cost anyone anything? There's lies a plenty in that statement, an absurd amount of garbage actually. Also notice, they point out the SPENDING, NOT THE COST. They are ducking their bills. Think about it, when you go to the hospital, the only way to really track you down is with your Social Security Number, if you don't have that or a valid (I mean OFFICIAL) government/state issued ID, how would they track you down? So sure, they are accounting for 2% of spending, the idea here is cost, and if the costs are way up and the hospitals are taking a loss, they have to make up for it somewhere, and costs to legal recipients of health insurance goes up.
The whole article is inflammatory and completely dishonest. They give some lip service to the positions that we who are right, and happen to be on the right, hold, but by and large, it is such a puff piece and pro-illegal immigrant article that it beyond blatant. However, I will leave you with this, and I'm sure you'll have the same reaction as I did.....:
Ignacio Hernandez complained recently of recurrent eye pain after being struck by a sweet potato in the fields.
-Caomhin
08 January 2008
Investors Fear a Democrat Victory
Indeed, Wall Street is worried about the upcoming elections. Though the article unfairly takes some swipes at Gov. Huckabee for being "a loose canon" and comparing him in some regards to, ugh, John Edwards (which is incredibly unfair to any human being), it underscores a point that most people with any level of economics already knows: Democrats will hurt the economy. Arguments will come from the left that the 90s saw unprecedented growth, which, indeed it did, under the supervision of a Republican Congress, who was able to overcome many of the shortcomings of Bill Clinton. The economy is taking a beating in the liberal media, as I suppose they figure that if they can't lie to the American public about Iraq anymore, the economy should be the next target. We are no where near a recession, we have not had a single quarter of negative GDP growth and will not have one this quarter either. It's a lie.
The Congressional Democrats are all protectionist, tax loving, economy killing Liberals who will most certainly cause a recession unlike anything seen before if a Democrat is election President. Yes, it will be worse than Jimmy Carter's time in office. This batch of Democrats don't even have morals, let alone any shame, and their policies will nearly cripple businesses as they scramble to readjust. I know the prospects for a Democratic Congress are very likely, which is why this presidential election is so immensely important. We need someone in their who can wield a veto pen like crazy, and I believe our batch of candidates will be willing and able to do so. As taxes increase, it is we, the electorate who will feel the burden, as the cost of the tax increases will be passed along to us. The bottom line in capitalism is profits and industries will not simply take a loss when Congress slaps them with taxes in addition to personal tax raises. The industries will in turn, reflect these tax increases in the prices that we pay for our goods, thus causing the inflation tax. Additionally, taking hostile steps against the world community by threatening tariffs and isolationism, will not bode well for American products or the strength of our dollar and reflect no confidence in American manufacturing products, skills, et al. Incredibly, the Democrats villanize companies and the profits they make and demand that their profits fall and that the revenues are shifted to the government, not individuals mind you, all in the name of helping the average person without actually helping the average person. It is outrageous that all the while ravaging the free market and corporations, that the Democrats are so horribly dishonest or stupid as to not realize that pensions are a dinosaur and that our retirement funding is only as dependable as our 401(k)s and not Social Security, which they have horribly mismanaged for decades. Indeed, when corporations do well, we ALL do well, since our retirement portfolios, at minimum, increase over time. The Liberal system promotes an economic slavery of sorts, one in which they boo-hoo the power of the individuals to keep their own money and grow it in the free market with security in the 401(k), and attempt to strip us all of the ability and opportunity to see a windfall in the free market. The Social Security system is horribly broken and will only be "fixed" by Democrats with yet another tax hike that will lower disposable income, which lowers consumer expenditure and lower the value of the market. I could write scores of volumes on these issues, but I suppose it's best to stop here for now.
I'll conclude this post with some samples from the article for your reading pleasure:
"None of the Democratic candidates would give me any confidence in the economy because we're talking protectionism, which is always, always extraordinarily bad. We're talking about tax hikes, redistribution and none of that is good," said Mark Coffelt, president of Empiric Funds in Austin, Texas.
...
Among Democrats, Edwards wants to increase the tax rate on long-term capital gains to 28 percent from 15 percent, and tax dividends as ordinary income. Obama favors a rate of between 20 percent and 28 percent on capital gains and dividends.
It should be duly noted there is no mention of Hillary Rodham Clinton in this article. I'm sure part of it has to do with her having no experience or achievements to speak of, nor any logical understanding of what an economy even is. Not even a peep of criticism. Being a MSM article though, you know who they are pulling for, so that's not hard to figure out why.
-Caomhin
The Congressional Democrats are all protectionist, tax loving, economy killing Liberals who will most certainly cause a recession unlike anything seen before if a Democrat is election President. Yes, it will be worse than Jimmy Carter's time in office. This batch of Democrats don't even have morals, let alone any shame, and their policies will nearly cripple businesses as they scramble to readjust. I know the prospects for a Democratic Congress are very likely, which is why this presidential election is so immensely important. We need someone in their who can wield a veto pen like crazy, and I believe our batch of candidates will be willing and able to do so. As taxes increase, it is we, the electorate who will feel the burden, as the cost of the tax increases will be passed along to us. The bottom line in capitalism is profits and industries will not simply take a loss when Congress slaps them with taxes in addition to personal tax raises. The industries will in turn, reflect these tax increases in the prices that we pay for our goods, thus causing the inflation tax. Additionally, taking hostile steps against the world community by threatening tariffs and isolationism, will not bode well for American products or the strength of our dollar and reflect no confidence in American manufacturing products, skills, et al. Incredibly, the Democrats villanize companies and the profits they make and demand that their profits fall and that the revenues are shifted to the government, not individuals mind you, all in the name of helping the average person without actually helping the average person. It is outrageous that all the while ravaging the free market and corporations, that the Democrats are so horribly dishonest or stupid as to not realize that pensions are a dinosaur and that our retirement funding is only as dependable as our 401(k)s and not Social Security, which they have horribly mismanaged for decades. Indeed, when corporations do well, we ALL do well, since our retirement portfolios, at minimum, increase over time. The Liberal system promotes an economic slavery of sorts, one in which they boo-hoo the power of the individuals to keep their own money and grow it in the free market with security in the 401(k), and attempt to strip us all of the ability and opportunity to see a windfall in the free market. The Social Security system is horribly broken and will only be "fixed" by Democrats with yet another tax hike that will lower disposable income, which lowers consumer expenditure and lower the value of the market. I could write scores of volumes on these issues, but I suppose it's best to stop here for now.
I'll conclude this post with some samples from the article for your reading pleasure:
"None of the Democratic candidates would give me any confidence in the economy because we're talking protectionism, which is always, always extraordinarily bad. We're talking about tax hikes, redistribution and none of that is good," said Mark Coffelt, president of Empiric Funds in Austin, Texas.
...
Among Democrats, Edwards wants to increase the tax rate on long-term capital gains to 28 percent from 15 percent, and tax dividends as ordinary income. Obama favors a rate of between 20 percent and 28 percent on capital gains and dividends.
It should be duly noted there is no mention of Hillary Rodham Clinton in this article. I'm sure part of it has to do with her having no experience or achievements to speak of, nor any logical understanding of what an economy even is. Not even a peep of criticism. Being a MSM article though, you know who they are pulling for, so that's not hard to figure out why.
-Caomhin
04 January 2008
Don't Do It President Bush
News broke today that President George W. Bush is considering an economic stimulus package. It's irresponsible of President Bush to implement such a plan. President Bush has been a far superior President than Clinton ever was, in every way. To do such a thing would tarnish his record. He inherited a recession from Clinton due to tax rates that were too high and over speculations in the market. To date, he has done a pretty solid job of letting the free market reign, and his tax cuts are a major reason why a recession has not started since he took office. It's basic economics that when a tax increase is implemented against what Liberals declare as their enemies, that being corporations and high income earners, the impact is directly passes onto the middle and lower classes as they simply will not absorb a tax increase. This is an inflation tax. As the cost of production rises prices rise. The rich do not feel the impact of this, the middle and lower classes, however, most certainly do feel this impact. This basic logic is lost on the Left.
Among some of the problems with the economy today is the sub-prime market, in which irresponsible lenders, and irresponsible borrowers, have cost the economy dearly. There should be no bail out, there should be no hand-out, the market should be allowed to self correct. By providing these groups with tax funds taken from every individuals' earning, all people are learning is that irresponsible behavior will be rewarded. That's not to say some hardworking, honest people are getting beaten down, but the great majority of those in this market knew exactly what they were getting into. Another reason given is that of rising gas prices. See my previous post for my take on that.
On Wednesday, the Club for Growth release a study that proves that the market under performs when Congress is in session. A so called "stimulus" package that President Bush would put forth would do far more damage than good. First, our deficit is entirely too high, a "stimulus" package would result in a larger deficit. President Bush has done a good job of shrinking the deficit since our government began to run one due to discretionary spending due to the War on Terror. Second, government spending has a very, very, very poor record on actually being effective on what it is used for. Third, Americans need more empowerment to control their own destinies rather than less.
Unless this "stimulus" package would be a drastic reduction in government spending, coupled with a slash in tax rates, it will do far more harm than good. By reducing government spending and cutting taxes, two positives will be achieved. The first positive will be a reduction in deficit spending which will strengthen our dollar. The second positive, by cutting taxes, will be positive for the American tax payer, who is grossly overburdened, and who will have more disposable income and help offset the increase in gas prices. By restoring American citizens to a higher level of income, reducing the inflation tax, and strengthening our dollar, every one will be better off. It is completely mind boggling that President Bush would even consider for a microcosm of a second to follow a plan that would pursue the exact opposite positions and more than likely plunge us into a recession, one the media, and of course, the Liberals have been hoping for just as much as they have been hoping for Iraq to be a failure (old article, as it has long been their sick hope). Hopefully, with the same resolve that President Bush resisted the Liberal love-fest for defeat in Iraq, the Economic lunacy they are seeking will be avoided and turned into a great victory for America.
-Caomhin
Among some of the problems with the economy today is the sub-prime market, in which irresponsible lenders, and irresponsible borrowers, have cost the economy dearly. There should be no bail out, there should be no hand-out, the market should be allowed to self correct. By providing these groups with tax funds taken from every individuals' earning, all people are learning is that irresponsible behavior will be rewarded. That's not to say some hardworking, honest people are getting beaten down, but the great majority of those in this market knew exactly what they were getting into. Another reason given is that of rising gas prices. See my previous post for my take on that.
On Wednesday, the Club for Growth release a study that proves that the market under performs when Congress is in session. A so called "stimulus" package that President Bush would put forth would do far more damage than good. First, our deficit is entirely too high, a "stimulus" package would result in a larger deficit. President Bush has done a good job of shrinking the deficit since our government began to run one due to discretionary spending due to the War on Terror. Second, government spending has a very, very, very poor record on actually being effective on what it is used for. Third, Americans need more empowerment to control their own destinies rather than less.
Unless this "stimulus" package would be a drastic reduction in government spending, coupled with a slash in tax rates, it will do far more harm than good. By reducing government spending and cutting taxes, two positives will be achieved. The first positive will be a reduction in deficit spending which will strengthen our dollar. The second positive, by cutting taxes, will be positive for the American tax payer, who is grossly overburdened, and who will have more disposable income and help offset the increase in gas prices. By restoring American citizens to a higher level of income, reducing the inflation tax, and strengthening our dollar, every one will be better off. It is completely mind boggling that President Bush would even consider for a microcosm of a second to follow a plan that would pursue the exact opposite positions and more than likely plunge us into a recession, one the media, and of course, the Liberals have been hoping for just as much as they have been hoping for Iraq to be a failure (old article, as it has long been their sick hope). Hopefully, with the same resolve that President Bush resisted the Liberal love-fest for defeat in Iraq, the Economic lunacy they are seeking will be avoided and turned into a great victory for America.
-Caomhin
15 October 2007
Fox Business Network Debuts
Kudos to Fox for making the new network pretty damn sharp. I was flipping through DirecTV today when I came across it, not actually knowing it was up and running for the first time today, I selected it and was pleased to be able to check it on Day One. Very sharp looking, great picture quality, and I liked the gold fonts they used. It wont be long before they are crushing everyone in the ratings here, which of course will draw the ire of the moonbats. But hey, they are great at what they do, are actually balanced between conservative and liberal views, and they make the news a little more entertaining. There really is no competition for them since the traditional MSM is so far to left and uncreative with anything unless it involves comparing President Bush and all Republicans to Nazis. Nice little write up of the launch over at Breit Bart. Here's the first line, which is pretty much what you should expect from such a solid ship as Fox:
Rupert Murdoch's much-anticipated business channel started Monday as if it had been on the air for 10 years.
So kudos to Fox once again on yet another solid programming choice.
-Caomhin
Rupert Murdoch's much-anticipated business channel started Monday as if it had been on the air for 10 years.
So kudos to Fox once again on yet another solid programming choice.
-Caomhin
02 October 2007
Maryland Democrats: Tax and Spend, and Grant Amnesty, All the Doo-dah Day
Democratic Governor + Democratic Legislature = Impending Doom on State Residents. First of all, raising taxes by an astounding $7.6 Billion is insane. The article linked in the preceding sentence, The Baltimore Sun lays out some of the details:
O'Malley's plan to tackle Maryland's budget woes would include a restructuring of the state's income tax, which he says would reduce taxes for lower-income families while raising taxes for the wealthy; an increase in the state sales tax from 5 percent to 6 percent; a doubling of the cigarette tax to $2 a pack; and an increase in the car titling tax. He is advocating an increase in the corporate income tax rate from 7 percent to 8 percent.
The governor also has put forward a proposal to legalize slot machine gambling in Maryland that he says would raise $500 million to $600 million annually.
A few problems here. First, as always, the cure-all for Democrats is not to fix corrupt and wayward spending, cut programs, or even increase efficiency, it is to raise taxes. It's to make the citizens pay more for the same failed policies, which they say they will gleefully increase as well. Failing and decayed programs to get more money? It's the Liberal mantra. Raising taxes for the wealthy? Hmmm...they do not actually define what "wealthy" is here, interesting. Additionally, the "wealthy" are the ones who do the largest, by far, amount of investing in the infrastructure of the state and corporations that operate within it. By choking off the investment revenues, they are guaranteeing themselves further problems. Another policy they should really feel ashamed about is the cigarette tax increase. This will fail as well. First off, the increased cigarette prices will lead to lower consumption and restrict new smokers from entering the market, which in itself is not bad. It is bad, however, when you are expecting the demand to remain flat and therefore will result in a decline in actual tax revenue. Conversely, if they honestly expect revenues to increase and demand to remain flat, then is there any way they are any different, then say, a drug dealer? After all, cigarette smoking is an addiction and to take economic profit due to addiction is something a drug dealer does. This is essentially the argument that was made about the tobacco industry in the famous court cases. How long then, before that same argument is made against state and federal governments? After all, they are doing precisely the same thing.
Another issue is the raise in sales taxes. Maryland is not exactly a large state, I've been there many times. It's not exactly difficult to buy things from Delaware, West Virginia, and Virginia for lower sales taxes. Sure, you would think 1% is not exactly large, but when the premise of their plan is to lower taxes on the "lower income" families, these families are the exact ones who will not have the means to consistently travel outside of the state to beat these taxes. The same goes for the aforementioned cigarettes. All they would have to do is go into Delaware in order to avoid the tax, and believe me, it will happen. Raising the corporate taxes is also a great recipe for lower employment numbers and a great way to start a recession. After all, it's not exactly going to be a difficult decision for companies to pack up shop and start in another state, or even nation. Democratic politicians constantly beat the drum of outsourcing to Third World Nations. How then does it make any logical sense to attempt to stop outsourcing, which is a response to rising costs of business....by raising the cost of business? Lowering taxes would encourage employers to hire more workers in order to produce more and generate a larger revenue stream in the state. Finally, lets look at the slot issue. With slots already legal in PA, NJ, and DE, how exactly is the state planning on raising so much money through this means? Again, a larger pool of slots will result in lower revenues at all slots. Simple supply and demand. I'm not saying they will not make any money off this endeavour, I'm simply saying that when there is a massive supply of slots in the region, they payoffs from these machines will grow larger to attract more people, and these larger payoffs will result in lower tax revenues. It also goes back the addiction theme I mentioned earlier, Gambling is often classified as an addiction. For the government to provide a larger supply of something that is considered an addiction is a predatory practice, and sure wealthy people gamble, probably more so than lower income people, but the wealthy are not the ones buying lottery tickets and taking their shots at moving into a better life with a pull of a lever, a draw of the numbers, luck of the draw, etc. It's the lower income families that do. It's who the Democrats in Maryland are taking full advantage of, P.T. Barnum style.
Another major issue being overlooked is the round-a-bout amnesty that Maryland Democrats are trying to shove down their populations' collective throat. What is it with the hard left that they will try to push amnesty through by hook or by crook? They are persistent border destroyers, I'll give them that. Yet another reason to never trust the Liberals with any bill unless 100% scrutinized. Give that article a real good read, and then ask yourself who is really benefiting the greatest from the new tax and spend proposal before the Maryland Legislature. It's not very important for the Democrats in Maryland to run a tight, efficient ship, but it is important for them to by pass the REAL Act, which aims to stifle terrorists and illegal immigrants. Again...I question their patriotism.
-Caomhin
O'Malley's plan to tackle Maryland's budget woes would include a restructuring of the state's income tax, which he says would reduce taxes for lower-income families while raising taxes for the wealthy; an increase in the state sales tax from 5 percent to 6 percent; a doubling of the cigarette tax to $2 a pack; and an increase in the car titling tax. He is advocating an increase in the corporate income tax rate from 7 percent to 8 percent.
The governor also has put forward a proposal to legalize slot machine gambling in Maryland that he says would raise $500 million to $600 million annually.
A few problems here. First, as always, the cure-all for Democrats is not to fix corrupt and wayward spending, cut programs, or even increase efficiency, it is to raise taxes. It's to make the citizens pay more for the same failed policies, which they say they will gleefully increase as well. Failing and decayed programs to get more money? It's the Liberal mantra. Raising taxes for the wealthy? Hmmm...they do not actually define what "wealthy" is here, interesting. Additionally, the "wealthy" are the ones who do the largest, by far, amount of investing in the infrastructure of the state and corporations that operate within it. By choking off the investment revenues, they are guaranteeing themselves further problems. Another policy they should really feel ashamed about is the cigarette tax increase. This will fail as well. First off, the increased cigarette prices will lead to lower consumption and restrict new smokers from entering the market, which in itself is not bad. It is bad, however, when you are expecting the demand to remain flat and therefore will result in a decline in actual tax revenue. Conversely, if they honestly expect revenues to increase and demand to remain flat, then is there any way they are any different, then say, a drug dealer? After all, cigarette smoking is an addiction and to take economic profit due to addiction is something a drug dealer does. This is essentially the argument that was made about the tobacco industry in the famous court cases. How long then, before that same argument is made against state and federal governments? After all, they are doing precisely the same thing.
Another issue is the raise in sales taxes. Maryland is not exactly a large state, I've been there many times. It's not exactly difficult to buy things from Delaware, West Virginia, and Virginia for lower sales taxes. Sure, you would think 1% is not exactly large, but when the premise of their plan is to lower taxes on the "lower income" families, these families are the exact ones who will not have the means to consistently travel outside of the state to beat these taxes. The same goes for the aforementioned cigarettes. All they would have to do is go into Delaware in order to avoid the tax, and believe me, it will happen. Raising the corporate taxes is also a great recipe for lower employment numbers and a great way to start a recession. After all, it's not exactly going to be a difficult decision for companies to pack up shop and start in another state, or even nation. Democratic politicians constantly beat the drum of outsourcing to Third World Nations. How then does it make any logical sense to attempt to stop outsourcing, which is a response to rising costs of business....by raising the cost of business? Lowering taxes would encourage employers to hire more workers in order to produce more and generate a larger revenue stream in the state. Finally, lets look at the slot issue. With slots already legal in PA, NJ, and DE, how exactly is the state planning on raising so much money through this means? Again, a larger pool of slots will result in lower revenues at all slots. Simple supply and demand. I'm not saying they will not make any money off this endeavour, I'm simply saying that when there is a massive supply of slots in the region, they payoffs from these machines will grow larger to attract more people, and these larger payoffs will result in lower tax revenues. It also goes back the addiction theme I mentioned earlier, Gambling is often classified as an addiction. For the government to provide a larger supply of something that is considered an addiction is a predatory practice, and sure wealthy people gamble, probably more so than lower income people, but the wealthy are not the ones buying lottery tickets and taking their shots at moving into a better life with a pull of a lever, a draw of the numbers, luck of the draw, etc. It's the lower income families that do. It's who the Democrats in Maryland are taking full advantage of, P.T. Barnum style.
Another major issue being overlooked is the round-a-bout amnesty that Maryland Democrats are trying to shove down their populations' collective throat. What is it with the hard left that they will try to push amnesty through by hook or by crook? They are persistent border destroyers, I'll give them that. Yet another reason to never trust the Liberals with any bill unless 100% scrutinized. Give that article a real good read, and then ask yourself who is really benefiting the greatest from the new tax and spend proposal before the Maryland Legislature. It's not very important for the Democrats in Maryland to run a tight, efficient ship, but it is important for them to by pass the REAL Act, which aims to stifle terrorists and illegal immigrants. Again...I question their patriotism.
-Caomhin
28 August 2007
Liberal Unite, Form Some Kind of Marxist Voltron
Or some variation of moronic liberals coming together and attacking the free market system and individualism. Yes, much the like the Bolshevik revolution that ended in utter failure and devastating losses of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, the Liberals are uniting to attack our very system of life. First, the most obvious example, is Bill Richardson in this darling of a quote...
"I go to all the little living rooms in New Hampshire and Iowa. And you know what people say to me? They say they want somebody to inspire them. They want somebody that will say: "hey, collectively we need to do things together as a country, instead of this individualism. You know the president has these wars that don't go through the budget, the tax cuts for people that don't want 'em."
Sure. We need to collectively (aka socialism/communism) solve problems instead of, you know, taking ownership of the problem and finding solutions to problems ourselves. I suppose if my car were to ever catch fire, I can just sit there and collectively wait for others to come to my rescue instead of getting out before it blows up. Of course the wars don't go through the normal budget, it's called Emergency Defense spending for things like defending human freedom and human rights. Of course, the grand little tidbit here is the "tax cuts for people that don't want 'em." Because nobody wants tax cuts so that they have more money in their pockets to fuel the U.S. Economy. Of course by listening to John "Ambulance Chaser" Edwards, everyone is poor and the Liberals say that Bush has enacted policies that force more people to be poor. Then again, POVERTY IS DECLINING SHARPLY, a good portion due to more more money being pumped into the economy and investments due to the tax cuts that were across the board, you know, the same tax cuts Democrats decry. The only people who don't' want tax cuts and individualism are the Liberals. Taking money out of the government's hands and empowering the people to have control over their own lives cuts right against the vein of the very political ideology. Of course, the AP article is very bias against Bush, as we all fully expect anyway. They note that manufacturing jobs are on their way down. Of course they are, as wages rise the price for goods rise which in turn makes our domestic products more expensive and the law of economics will show rational consumers purchasing lower priced products with the same level of quality. Democrats hate this and push protectionism while at the same time hypocritically saying that we need to be more engaged with other nations and follow their lead. It's just another example of what I mean by the Democrats "FENCE STRADDLING", adopting policies that let them say they are always on both sides of an issue while all the while pushing towards a Marxist society in America.
Let's look at Hillary Clinton now. Hillary is a lock for the Democratic Nomination. I have been saying for a while now that Richardson will be her running mate in order to pimp him to get Latino votes. Anyway, Hillary comes down squarely on both sides of an issue by insisting that a National Smoking Ban is a policy she will push for if elected. First of all, all smoking bans are stupid, and goes back to Richardson's quote. Richardson is portrayed as a moderate Democrat in the first place which is like saying that a Jalapeno pepper is a moderate spice. Let's say you pay for a bar, put in all the work, get all your paperwork then, and them BAM, the government steps in and say, no one can smoke in your bar. It is idiotic at best. The fact that an entrepreneur puts all their time money and dreams into a bar should be enough to allow for an individual to make the decision as whether their patrons should be able to smoke in a bar. If the owner says lights out, that's fine, I just go another bar where smoking is allowed. It enables the people and the bar owners individual choices of how they are going to spend their time and provides them ownership of the issue. Banning smoking at all bars is a COLLECTIVE decision forced upon all that is counter to the reasoning and all that makes capitalism the great system that it is. Freedom of Choice is paramount towards keeping our society to be, well, free. The Democrats insist on telling you what you can and cannot do, in fact, creating a police state where all you do is determined by what is best for the masses. This is not capitalism. To further compound the issue, the Liberals want everyone to stop smoking, that is their tenant on the issue. There is no room for dissent with them. When proposed with a rational argument such as allowing for choice they get beyond upset. Now the larger point to the argument is that if everyone stops smoking the tax revenues goes way down and the Liberals will not have this. If smoking were to be phased completely out, rest assured the tax money would be made up and them some if they Liberals control the Legislative Branch for long. Hillary is not a moderate as she is trying to portray herself, and the only reason that the Liberals attack her, but not viciously, is so that in the General Election, she can point the slight ribbing (most likely a planned action) as proof that she is moderate, which of course is a bold faced lie.
John Edwards exploits are legendary. The guy is a completely scum bag. Fortress, his old company, is foreclosing on homes in New Orleans like they were going out of style, and ol' Silky Pony throws a few bucks at the families to show how much he cares. Sure. He also has a history of attacking his neighbor who dares to be a Republican. Of course pretty much everything this guy does is shameful. When he started his campaign in New Orleans by waging class warfare and saying that Bush is the cause of all their problems, he fails to explain why, as a MEGA millionaire he did nothing after Katrina. He did not send in money, did not take displaced families in, etc. Admittedly not many people did, but then, not everyone is running a campaign to show how hard they will fight for the poor. Hey John, watching the disaster on TV and Saying how bad it is, is not fighting for the poor. Now he outlines his new plan to defeat cancer. The synopsis, use Lance Armstrong as a symbol, expand the government's role in taking over all research, and increase the current plans the government runs. Because that has been so effective up till now. How about this for a plan, lower the government's role in the issue, guarantee a patent for an extended time period, say for 15 years, and put a bin Laden-like bounty on the disease, and then see what happens. When was the last time the government found a cure for any disease? Go ahead, keep thinking. Private investment and research is what will cure diseases, pointing to a large dollar sum the government is spending does nothing. Private companies get results, government programs get nothing but employees who are practically impossible to fire if they are incompetent, bureaucratic tape to run through, little to nothing to answer for because the Government does nothing to resolve issues rather than pass the buck and find a scapegoat. When was the last time a government agency actually solved problems or found innovative and cost effective methods to run a tight ship? The definition of insanity is to keep trying the same thing over and over and expecting different results, and this is the Liberal plan in a nutshell, but it sounds good and they hope to sucker in the voters with these insidious lies.
Further exacerbating the issue, and illustrating the idiocy of the Liberal agenda is yet another story on Hillary Clinton, where she is upset about the expenditure on National Defense and the empowerment of the individual in the form of tax cuts. As an incentive, read this article to see how many times John Edwards can say "conservative" in one paragraph. Hillary is upset that the expenditures on the War on Terror and tax cuts have decreased the government's control on every aspect of society and as such, promises a "lot of cleaning up" after Bush is gone. She invokes stem-cell research to spread fear and show President Bush as being backwards, but the argument he makes is based on morals and the fact that as I have previously mentioned, the position of conservatives is that when stem-cell research is allowed for in an ethical manner (i.e protect life from the start while protecting life while alive, the moral acquisition of stem cells in so much that no scientist encourages the death of a baby in order to further their studies in order to derive the benefits of curing infectious and debilitating diseases) that research ought to be done in the private sector. There is no reason for the government to run all health research. Where in our Constitution is the Federal Government afforded the powers to run every aspect and industry in American Society? What is the Liberal attack front doing to Alexander Hamilton's Federals Society as spelled out in the greatest documents ever ignored in our society, The Federalist Papers?
What is being done in today's Democratic Party is for the advancement of the Socialist cause. This is not a "Progressive" movement, but rather a regressive movement as the Democrats are moving towards a system that is proven to fail society and cause misery all the while assaulting the Constitution that founded our nation. The attacks are apparent from a multitude of angles, be it from the ones I have spelled out in this text, or to the advanced evidence of their outright refusal to allow the Christian faith to breathe (much like the Soviet Union had done) to the disassembling of the cultural melting pot into the farce that is multiculturalism in order to exploit differences and foster fear in order to secure votes. They are shifting further and further to the left and decrying anyone or anything that is sane, pragmatic, or non-communist in nature. This is particularly evidenced by the creation of Kos, which is being used a fear tactic to shun the freedom of expression and individualism even among their own party who they callously crucify for doing what they believe is right, rather than towing their party's line, it is a bloodless Stalinist purge, and much like the obedient Liberal media who said nothing was going wrong and that everything was rosy in the Soviet Union, the press is immune to the steps currently being taken by the Liberal Socialists here in America.
-Caomhin
"I go to all the little living rooms in New Hampshire and Iowa. And you know what people say to me? They say they want somebody to inspire them. They want somebody that will say: "hey, collectively we need to do things together as a country, instead of this individualism. You know the president has these wars that don't go through the budget, the tax cuts for people that don't want 'em."
Sure. We need to collectively (aka socialism/communism) solve problems instead of, you know, taking ownership of the problem and finding solutions to problems ourselves. I suppose if my car were to ever catch fire, I can just sit there and collectively wait for others to come to my rescue instead of getting out before it blows up. Of course the wars don't go through the normal budget, it's called Emergency Defense spending for things like defending human freedom and human rights. Of course, the grand little tidbit here is the "tax cuts for people that don't want 'em." Because nobody wants tax cuts so that they have more money in their pockets to fuel the U.S. Economy. Of course by listening to John "Ambulance Chaser" Edwards, everyone is poor and the Liberals say that Bush has enacted policies that force more people to be poor. Then again, POVERTY IS DECLINING SHARPLY, a good portion due to more more money being pumped into the economy and investments due to the tax cuts that were across the board, you know, the same tax cuts Democrats decry. The only people who don't' want tax cuts and individualism are the Liberals. Taking money out of the government's hands and empowering the people to have control over their own lives cuts right against the vein of the very political ideology. Of course, the AP article is very bias against Bush, as we all fully expect anyway. They note that manufacturing jobs are on their way down. Of course they are, as wages rise the price for goods rise which in turn makes our domestic products more expensive and the law of economics will show rational consumers purchasing lower priced products with the same level of quality. Democrats hate this and push protectionism while at the same time hypocritically saying that we need to be more engaged with other nations and follow their lead. It's just another example of what I mean by the Democrats "FENCE STRADDLING", adopting policies that let them say they are always on both sides of an issue while all the while pushing towards a Marxist society in America.
Let's look at Hillary Clinton now. Hillary is a lock for the Democratic Nomination. I have been saying for a while now that Richardson will be her running mate in order to pimp him to get Latino votes. Anyway, Hillary comes down squarely on both sides of an issue by insisting that a National Smoking Ban is a policy she will push for if elected. First of all, all smoking bans are stupid, and goes back to Richardson's quote. Richardson is portrayed as a moderate Democrat in the first place which is like saying that a Jalapeno pepper is a moderate spice. Let's say you pay for a bar, put in all the work, get all your paperwork then, and them BAM, the government steps in and say, no one can smoke in your bar. It is idiotic at best. The fact that an entrepreneur puts all their time money and dreams into a bar should be enough to allow for an individual to make the decision as whether their patrons should be able to smoke in a bar. If the owner says lights out, that's fine, I just go another bar where smoking is allowed. It enables the people and the bar owners individual choices of how they are going to spend their time and provides them ownership of the issue. Banning smoking at all bars is a COLLECTIVE decision forced upon all that is counter to the reasoning and all that makes capitalism the great system that it is. Freedom of Choice is paramount towards keeping our society to be, well, free. The Democrats insist on telling you what you can and cannot do, in fact, creating a police state where all you do is determined by what is best for the masses. This is not capitalism. To further compound the issue, the Liberals want everyone to stop smoking, that is their tenant on the issue. There is no room for dissent with them. When proposed with a rational argument such as allowing for choice they get beyond upset. Now the larger point to the argument is that if everyone stops smoking the tax revenues goes way down and the Liberals will not have this. If smoking were to be phased completely out, rest assured the tax money would be made up and them some if they Liberals control the Legislative Branch for long. Hillary is not a moderate as she is trying to portray herself, and the only reason that the Liberals attack her, but not viciously, is so that in the General Election, she can point the slight ribbing (most likely a planned action) as proof that she is moderate, which of course is a bold faced lie.
John Edwards exploits are legendary. The guy is a completely scum bag. Fortress, his old company, is foreclosing on homes in New Orleans like they were going out of style, and ol' Silky Pony throws a few bucks at the families to show how much he cares. Sure. He also has a history of attacking his neighbor who dares to be a Republican. Of course pretty much everything this guy does is shameful. When he started his campaign in New Orleans by waging class warfare and saying that Bush is the cause of all their problems, he fails to explain why, as a MEGA millionaire he did nothing after Katrina. He did not send in money, did not take displaced families in, etc. Admittedly not many people did, but then, not everyone is running a campaign to show how hard they will fight for the poor. Hey John, watching the disaster on TV and Saying how bad it is, is not fighting for the poor. Now he outlines his new plan to defeat cancer. The synopsis, use Lance Armstrong as a symbol, expand the government's role in taking over all research, and increase the current plans the government runs. Because that has been so effective up till now. How about this for a plan, lower the government's role in the issue, guarantee a patent for an extended time period, say for 15 years, and put a bin Laden-like bounty on the disease, and then see what happens. When was the last time the government found a cure for any disease? Go ahead, keep thinking. Private investment and research is what will cure diseases, pointing to a large dollar sum the government is spending does nothing. Private companies get results, government programs get nothing but employees who are practically impossible to fire if they are incompetent, bureaucratic tape to run through, little to nothing to answer for because the Government does nothing to resolve issues rather than pass the buck and find a scapegoat. When was the last time a government agency actually solved problems or found innovative and cost effective methods to run a tight ship? The definition of insanity is to keep trying the same thing over and over and expecting different results, and this is the Liberal plan in a nutshell, but it sounds good and they hope to sucker in the voters with these insidious lies.
Further exacerbating the issue, and illustrating the idiocy of the Liberal agenda is yet another story on Hillary Clinton, where she is upset about the expenditure on National Defense and the empowerment of the individual in the form of tax cuts. As an incentive, read this article to see how many times John Edwards can say "conservative" in one paragraph. Hillary is upset that the expenditures on the War on Terror and tax cuts have decreased the government's control on every aspect of society and as such, promises a "lot of cleaning up" after Bush is gone. She invokes stem-cell research to spread fear and show President Bush as being backwards, but the argument he makes is based on morals and the fact that as I have previously mentioned, the position of conservatives is that when stem-cell research is allowed for in an ethical manner (i.e protect life from the start while protecting life while alive, the moral acquisition of stem cells in so much that no scientist encourages the death of a baby in order to further their studies in order to derive the benefits of curing infectious and debilitating diseases) that research ought to be done in the private sector. There is no reason for the government to run all health research. Where in our Constitution is the Federal Government afforded the powers to run every aspect and industry in American Society? What is the Liberal attack front doing to Alexander Hamilton's Federals Society as spelled out in the greatest documents ever ignored in our society, The Federalist Papers?
What is being done in today's Democratic Party is for the advancement of the Socialist cause. This is not a "Progressive" movement, but rather a regressive movement as the Democrats are moving towards a system that is proven to fail society and cause misery all the while assaulting the Constitution that founded our nation. The attacks are apparent from a multitude of angles, be it from the ones I have spelled out in this text, or to the advanced evidence of their outright refusal to allow the Christian faith to breathe (much like the Soviet Union had done) to the disassembling of the cultural melting pot into the farce that is multiculturalism in order to exploit differences and foster fear in order to secure votes. They are shifting further and further to the left and decrying anyone or anything that is sane, pragmatic, or non-communist in nature. This is particularly evidenced by the creation of Kos, which is being used a fear tactic to shun the freedom of expression and individualism even among their own party who they callously crucify for doing what they believe is right, rather than towing their party's line, it is a bloodless Stalinist purge, and much like the obedient Liberal media who said nothing was going wrong and that everything was rosy in the Soviet Union, the press is immune to the steps currently being taken by the Liberal Socialists here in America.
-Caomhin
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
