…Those who earned the money should keep it?

I happened across this article, “America Needs Taxes,” and I find it a bunch of hooey.

Like this statement:

In fact, Eisenhower, a Republican, presided over an era where corporate taxes accounted for a quarter of all federal tax receipts, and the richest Americans still enjoyed their wealth while paying a 90% top tax rate. Americans were never more prosperous as a whole than during that era.

It took some digging, and it’s like comparing Granny Smith apples to McIntosh apples, but I found that Federal tax revenues declined under Eisenhower. However, under JFK’s posthumous and Reagan’s tax cuts, Federal revenues increased. I can’t dig up W’s tax rate numbers, But I do know that the revenue numbers were mixed. But considering what the country was going through in our post 9/11 world, it could have been much worse.

Keynesian economics suck. Debt is not acceptable as a “percentage of our GDP.” Especially when you’re talking about $7,000,000,000,000. Yes, that is the number for $7 trillion. Why? Because if the GDP falls to a disaster, we default on our loans. Let’s put it this way: No debt, no risk. As Dave Ramsey says, “100% of the home foreclosures had a mortgage on them.”

Getting back to taxes. If you let people, especially business owners, keep their own money, they will likely invest it some way. The smart ones at least. If business owners can believe things like, the government won’t take over their business, or taxes aren’t going up, then they will invest their money back into the business. This will grow the business, and he will have to hire people. When you hire an unemployed person, they go from being a “tax consumer” (i.e., on food stamps, unemployment, etc., consuming governmental services) to being a “tax producer” (someone who pays taxes). This lowers the costs of the government and increases their tax revenue. The person has a job, the business owner gets more money because his capacity (and business) have expanded, and the government gets more money. Win-Win-Win.

Now, let’s look at it the other way. The government raises taxes, the business owner cuts back on his business because he can’t afford the tax burden, so he lays people off. They go from tax producers to tax consumers. The business makes less money, so the owner pays less in taxes. Sure, tax revenues go up, for a while. Until the downturn hits, then the death spiral starts, more taxes leads to less people working, and so on.

We see this in all the Liberal cities. Detroit, New York, Chicago and so on.

So, we come back to my original point, whatever happened to the concept of letting the people keep the money that they earned?

To think that America is a static pot of money where someone has to lose for someone else to win is ludicrous. America is an ever growing pie, and everyone has pretty much the same chance to get ahead that anybody else does. It all depends on how much you are willing to work. Liberals have the opposite view. They believe that everyone needs to cross the finish line at the same time, no matter how far you have to run. Some will have to run a marathon, while others may only have to walk a foot.

Think about that.

This weekend is not about barbecues, or car sales, or furniture sales.

This weekend is meant to remember my battle brothers and sisters, who went out to protect our country and our way of life, and who never came back.

Please visit a veterans cemetery this weekend, and thank them for your freedom. Tread lightly, heroes lie sleeping there.

Always remember this:

It is the VETERAN, not the preacher,
who has given us freedom of religion.

It is the VETERAN, not the reporter,
who has given us freedom of the press.

It is the VETERAN, not the poet,
who has given us freedom of speech.

It is the VETERAN, not the campus organizer,
who has given us freedom to assemble.

It is the VETERAN, not the lawyer,
who has given us the right to a fair trial.

It is the VETERAN, not the politician,
who has given us the right to vote.

It is the VETERAN who salutes the flag,
who serves under the flag, and who’s
coffin is draped by the flag.

Take this story with a grain of salt. I heard it third hand, but it sounds not only plausible, but probable.

If you don’t know who the Westboro  Baptist Church is, then you’ve been living under a rock. This is a group of idiots who protest the funerals of our fallen heroes with signs like “Thank God for IED’s” and other idiotic thoughts. Their position is because the government supports gay marriage and other gay rights, our brave soldiers are getting what they deserve.

Well, one of these heroes was from the deep part of Mississippi. Several cultists members of this church came down to protest the funeral. One found himself alone at a gas station, where he had the crap beat out of him. When the police showed up, the twenty or so people milling around the area didn’t see or hear a thing, and had no idea that anything had happened.

The day of the funeral, pickup trucks mysteriously parked themselves behind any car with a Kansas license plate at the local hotel, blocking the vehicles in. The police came and called for some tow trucks, but it seems they were all busy and could not show up for several hours. One carload did manage to get out of the hotel parking lot, and when the nutjobs protesters made it to the funeral site, the Sheriff promptly detained and questioned them for several hours concerning a crime in the area. After several hours of questioning, and well after the hero was laid to rest, the Sheriff determined the protesters had no connection to the crime and released them.

You will find no bigger proponent of the Constitution, especially the First Amendment than myself. However, I also believe your right to swing your arms however you want to stops at my nose. When you protest a funeral, you add unnecessary anguish on top of already unbearable agony of those left behind. While I might do a Snoopy dance if certain people drop dead (nobody in particular), I would not do it publicly, especially around the mourners.

Too bad this doesn’t happen more often. The protesters might get a clue and stop and keep their opinions to themselves.

Well, President Obama finally showed some guts and okayed the operation that killed Bin Laden. I will give the President props for that.

What gets me upset is they treated the body with respect and buried it in Muslim fashion. Since the Muslim extremists have no trouble desecrating the bodies of our dead, I personally think they should have rubbed the body up with bacon grease, put a strip of bacon in his mouth, and chummed the water well before dumping the body into a pack of hungry sharks.

I was told a story a while back about General “Black Jack” Pershing. It seems that he had a Muslim insurrection somewhere (I can’t find anything on this story). He desecrated the bodies similar as to what I described above. It seems the other side lost their will to fight when they found out they weren’t going to heaven and their virgins because they were buried with pork in their mouths. Like I said, I can find no evidence supporting this story, but I think we should start treating the bodies of the Muslim extremists with the same level of respect they treat ours.

I am truly sorry that things like this happen. To hear about people gunned down, no matter their political persuasion is always a tragedy. My heart and prayers go out to the victims and their families.

I am personally enraged by posts like this and this from Liberal bloggers. They never fail to politicize a tragedy when they think they can profit and advance their agenda on it.

The shooter was not a “right-wing nutjob.” He is a person with a serious mental illness. And just like the shooting at Fort Bragg, everyone saw the signs, but no one expended the effort to actually do something and help the person.

I am not justifying the actions of this murderer; I am trying to give you an insight into his head and thought processes. Jared Loughner was and is a person with a severe mental illness. I am not a doctor, but as a person with similar experiences, I feel confident to say that this person suffers from some kind of psychosis.

I used to suffer psychotic breaks. Which means my thought processes would suddenly change. I would go off into my own world, existing exclusively in my head. My thoughts made perfect sense, to me and me alone. It was because of these psychotic breaks that my wife, in self-defense of her and our son, would tell me to get out. So, I would pick up a backpack and walk out of the house for 2-4 days, until I returned to reality.

I have done things like try to walk to my sisters house (she lives 750 miles away in Ohio), walk out into traffic (yes, I got hit; I broke my right wrist and leg.) and one night, instead of leaving the house, I grabbed my wife by the throat and almost killed her.

Now, some will say my Conservativeism stems from my mental illness (“He’s Conservative, therefore he’s crazy”) and that accusation has been made against me before. Nothing could be farther from the truth, but it does explain why the Left must demonize anybody who does not hold their world view. I think they’re wrong, they think I’m insane, evil, or both. It’s kind of hard to hold rational discussions when one side thinks the other is evil. You can’t even agree to disagree.

Getting back to Lean Left, it starts out:

TRIGGER WARNING: Failure to take right-wing bullshit seriously. May cause discomfort among those who cannot bear to have their fantasies punctured.
The suspected shooter in this case harbored obviously right-wing obsessions, but was not consistent in this respect, and seems too weird to easily classify. But the link between his fixations and derangements, and the eliminationist and violent rhetoric of the right wing that shared many of his political obsessions, is obvious and significant.

I love this. “The suspected shooter in this case harbored obviously right-wing obsessions, but was not consistent in this respect…” Which, what? He “harbored” left-wing obsessions as well, but you don’t want to talk about them?

History is replete with examples of Left wing extremist groups attempting to destabilize our government back in the 60’s with acts of violence. Weather Underground anybody? I don’t think I have to go into any detailed history, unless you believe the rewritten history books. Suffice it to say that the Left is not above violence when they think it will accomplish their objectives. But they are perfectly comfortable in pointing their finger to the extreme Right and say, “See? They do it! And they use guns as well! THEY’RE THE EVIL ONES!”

I would love to really fisk both posts, but I do not have the time nor inclination. Suffice it to say that they are on the wrong side of this. This tragedy was not orchestrated by a rational person, rather a tragically untreated person. If they actually lived up to their own standards, (“It takes a village” and all that) then someone would have spoken up and tried to get him help, rather than recoiling in horror and sweeping him under the carpet.

Here’s something to think about: Democrats think the Constitution is ‘weird.’

It’s a very good article about how the Democrats don’t think anything about passing any law they want, and never mind that piddling document written by dead white men called the “Constitution.”

The Constitution, with all its messy checks and balances and its attempt to limit government to only certain “enumerated powers,” is little more than a nuisance. “I don’t worry about the Constitution,” if it gets in the way of passing legislation, Rep. Phil Hare (D., Ill.) told a town-hall meeting. And Rep. James Clyburn (D., S.C.), the third-highest-ranking Democrat in the House, proudly told Fox News, “There’s nothing in the Constitution that says that the federal government has anything to do with most of the stuff we do.”

But it’s not just about the Democrats, there is a dig in there against the Republicans as well.

A truly constitutional view of federal power might discomfort conservatives as well. It is one thing for tea-partiers to carry around a copy of the Constitution or for candidates to call themselves “constitutional conservatives.” The test will be when their idea of a good federal program conflicts with the Constitution.

For instance, it would be hard to find the constitutional provision allowing Congress to play sheriff by federalizing every crime that catches the headlines. A strict reading of the Constitution would make it much harder for presidents to intervene militarily around the world without a congressional declaration of war. Any number of conservative pet projects from faith-based initiatives to federal drug laws would fail the constitutional test. Conservatives might have to accept the idea that the Constitution does not empower the federal government to enforce the nation’s morality.

It is most certainly harder to fight for your ideals than to live up to them. I have certainly fallen short of my ideals, many times. But I strive for them, work for them, sweat for them. That’s better than the other side, which is trying to tear down everything I’m trying to build.

And I’ll leave the final thought by one of those Dead White Guys:

Thomas Jefferson warned, “An elective despotism was not the government we fought for.”

Here is a classic Liberal tactic. Scream that something is wrong, but quietly say that its okay. Charlotte Bergmann receives a salary from her campaign

The story opens with this:

Republican 9th District congressional candidate Charlotte Bergmann is receiving a salary from her campaign committee that her campaign manager maintains is both nominal and within federal guidelines.

So, in the first paragraph the Republican campaign is deliberately put on the defensive so they have to prove they are doing things legally, instead of the paper having to prove they are breaking FEC rules.

But you see, this is a woman who, by her own admission, slept in a car while going to college because she was homeless. This woman pulled herself up by her bootstraps. Charlotte has to give up her paid work to campaign, while Steve Cohen doesn’t have to give up a penny? And the paper is going to press over $3,160 worth of legally transferred money. Talk about being a shill for the incumbent.

The paper gets one expert who admits that “she has no empirical data,” but she also says, “My sense is that its fairly rare.” So this expert doesn’t have any data one way or the other, but she feels that its not used that often.

And of course, incumbent Steve Cohen doesn’t do it. He isn’t allowed to do it, being the incumbent. But that’s beside the point. Then again, he does get $174,000 a year salary for his job. I wonder, if we paid him by the hour, and took out the time he was campaigning on the clock, how much he would really get.

I happened across this post, Do the Math from Born Again Hippies, and I just had to say something.

First of all,

If George W. Bush dug us into an eight year hole, how is Barack Obama supposed to dig us out in two?

Lets get this straight, shall we?

First of all, the President has NO control over governmental spending. Congress spends the money. If you dont believe that, just look it up in that archaic document, the Constitution. He proposes budgets, he can ask for things, but thats it. It takes a lowly Congressman to propose spending the Peoples money, not the President.

Second, President Obama has driven us father into debt than every President before him. Combined. Bush may have been using a shovel to get us into debt, but Obama went and got a backhoe and kept digging.

I didnt like President Bushs economic policies. I supported him overall, especially with the wars we have fought since 9/11, but expanding social programs is not compassionate conservatism. Conservatives are supposed to count how many got off the Welfare roles, rather then how many are on it.

Paulson was wrong in pushing for TARP to save those Too Big To Fail companies. FDRs social policies (just like what Obamas policies are now) extended the depression. The only thing that brought us out of it was WWII.

Lets look at it this way. Your neighbor just lost his job. Do you think it is good sense for you, who wants to help, to give him cash advances from your credit cards to help keep him afloat? No, of course not. You are not going to put yourself at risk for great financial harm by going into debt to extend the misery of your neighbor. If you wont do it on a personal level, why do it on a governmental level?

The post also goes on to talk about the obstructionist Republicans. Um, hey dude. DEMOCRATS HAVE CONTROL OF BOTH HOUSES. THEY DONT NEED TO WORK WITH REPUBLICANS. THEY CAN PASS ANYTHING THEY WANT. Sure, the Republicans can bitch and moan all they want, they might even filibuster, but in the end, it was the radicalness of the Health Care Plan and other Liberal agenda items that kept the Blue Dog Democrats from voting for it until certain changes were made.

Getting to the tax cuts part of the post, lets get this straight. How many poor people create jobs? How many rich people create jobs? If people with money are allowed to keep it, those that are businesspeople will invest it into growing their business. That means more jobs. If the government takes the money through high tax rates, how can they invest it? JFK, Reagan and W all got Congress cut taxes (remember, Congress controls the money), and all saw economic growth in their administrations. And economic growth means MORE income for the government. Way beyond predictions.

Which would you rather have, 40% of three dollars, or 80% of one? Do the math, and get back to me on that.