I will admit that a certain amount of executive branch regulation is for the public good. For example, if a mattress manufacturer was filling its products with fiberglass and ceramic shards, it could prove to be bad for Americans.
However, some of these agencies are determined to take away your freedom of choice by limiting or completely removing your options.
For a quick primer in the 10 worst laws and non-legislated executive regulations, see this article by the Heritage Foundation.
First, let's take the wonderful NLRB. Members are appointed by the Chief Executive (That means the POTUS) with congressional approval, normally. They openly support unions. Once upon a time, labor unions served a purpose. That time has long since passed and they have become the very monster they were allegedly designed to prevent. These days, unions decide who gets to work and who doesn't. They also charge those who wish to work fees in order to even be eligible. What do they do with those funds? First they line their pockets. Next they lobby. They lobby the NLRB to enact regulations against companies that do not employ union members. They lobby Congress to earmark government spending into companies that hire ONLY union members. They assist in picking and choosing what companies are able to produce what products and at what prices. They drive up production costs of union employers. The non-union employers can provide more net pay to non-union workers while keeping capital costs down, therefore product prices lower. So, these unions get the NLRB to seek fines and regulatory restrictions against those non-union employers, causing production and capital costs to rise. Higher capital costs mean higher capital gains tax bills. This makes the non-union employers have to charge more for the products in order pay those higher bills, fees, taxes. This drives those companies out of business. So, the NLRB kills free trade and reduces the variety of products available.
http://www.pjtv.com/s/G42DEMI
Either that, or the companies seek labor and manufacturing capital outside of the US.
And let us not forget that the NLRB also sides with Teachers' Unions, but not in the interests of bettering education or eliminating comprachico indoctrination. In fact, they help further the comprachico's goals to brainwash your kids while failing to teach them basic skills like grammar, math, thinking, and reading: http://townhall.com/columnists/kyleolson/2011/12/21/teachers_union_president_deems_education_too_complex_for_taxpaying_rubes
Next we have the lovely FDA. Untested drugs loosed onto the public could lead to bad things. However, the FDA doesn't just review testing and approve products. It would be nice if that is all they did. However, they force pharmaceutical companies to go through exhaustive and costly testing above what is necessary. After that testing is complete, the FDA does its own testing, charging the companies to do so. Why? So they can regulate what is put on the market and what choices you have available. All the testing also drives up the per pill cost for the medications. A pill that costs $.30 in materials and labor can carry up to $10 in regulatory fees and "research costs" resulting from all of the testing. The release to the public of safe and necessary drugs also requires years and years before being available, at the cost of the health of those who could most benefit.
Thus the FDA drives up health care costs. Yes, those very costs that the government passed Obamacare under the claim it is meant to reduce. It doesn't reduce those costs. In fact, elements of the Obamacare law grant the FDA further powers to restrict production, choice, availability, and costs of drugs.
Under current FDA regulations, Aspirin would never make it onto store shelves and would likely cost $12 a pill by prescription (if it even got beyond the regulations to be made available).
The US Dept of Agriculture has even passed regulations that make it illegal for a Dairy Farmer to serve his own milk to his own family. Under recent regulations, that dairy farmer has to sell his milk to a processing plant and buy it back at increased prices in order to feed it to his family. Isn't it wonderful that a government agency can tell you that you do not have a choice to eat the food you grow? Those "victory gardens" planted during WWII would be regulated, taxed, fined, and restricted under current regulations. In other words, the USDA is trying to force you to have to buy food from the businesses that lobby them and bribe them.
Now let's move onto the greatest fiend in the executive branch bureaucracy, the EPA.
Who wants clean air, water, land, etc? I do. Everybody does.
But at what cost?
First of all, we have these "clean energy/green energy" bulbs. How good for the environment are they? They contain toxins that "Edison" bulbs do not. Sure, they use less electricity to produce candle-watt power. But if one breaks, you have to spend a mint to clean up the mess. If one burns out, what will the average American do? Toss it in the trash. From there, it goes into a landfill and poisons the land. So, it may reduce the amount of coal burned to keep your lights on. However, it poisons the land that will be the next low-rent housing project 5 years from now. Also, these things cost a LOT more at the retailer. Well, the EPA passed regulations and lobbied Congress to pass a bill outlawing incandescent bulbs. That means you lost the choice to purchase the types of bulbs you may want, and be forced to sit in the dark or buy the poison-bulbs. Thankfully, congress told the EPA to take a flying leap on this one.
http://videos2view.net/smackdown.htm
The EPA also restricts US petroleum and natural gas companies from producing and refining domestic resources. They make us dependent upon foreign supplies. This drives up prices at the pump.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/12/m-the_epas_unconscionable_war_on_fracking.html
The EPA restricts and regulates coal mining, making it almost ten times its non-regulated price.
The EPA pushed for federal spending into such great products as the Prius and the Volt. The replacement cost on a Prius battery can be as high as $6000. And there is no means of disposing of the batteries without poisoning the air, land, or water. Why? Allegedly to decrease carbon emissions and gasoline consumption. However, those emissions over 5 years use of a regular car are nowhere near as toxic as a single battery. And those lovely Volts? Have you read up on them? They tend to burst into flames. Those fumes are far more toxic than the emissions of a standard gasoline engine. You have the same issues with the batteries you do with the Prius. Now you get to add the public safety hazard of cars bursting into flames. And the NLRB conspired with the EPA on the Volt. How? American Auto-Workers Union being given stock in GM during the government buy-out ("stimulus") ring any bells?
Here's even more headaches about the Chevy Volt. Sticker price to a buyer: $41,000. Cost to Taxpayers? $250,000 so far. http://reddogreport.com/2011/12/each-chevy-volt-costs-taxpayers-250000/#.TvH9_LpjZd0.twitter
And let us not forget how they intend to inflate your electric bills, heating costs, transportation overhead, etc. : http://townhall.com/tipsheet/erikajohnsen/2011/12/22/the_epa_to_oil_and_coalfired_plants_cut_down_or_shut_down
I can go for days on the EPA. They are the single most intrusive regulatory agency in the executive branch. http://www.boortz.com/weblogs/nealz-nuze/2011/dec/15/epa-and-phony-environmental-movement/
http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/amyoliver/2011/12/24/green_technologythat_pollutes_the_planet
http://blog.heritage.org/2011/12/26/obamas-green-jobs-program-infused-with-politics-at-every-level/
Now let us look at the DOJ. Here we have Eric Holder trying to Unconstitutionally regulate state polling laws. We have Eric Holder bringing suits against states for enacting laws to support federal laws that he happens not to like. Then we have Eric Holder attempting to take away our Constitutionally guaranteed 2nd Amendment rights. How? He broke the law and supplied invading foreign criminals and their terrorist allies with weapons. His programs failed and caused a negligent fallout of US BP agents, US Citizens, and Mexican Nationals to be murdered. He then complains that the investigation is "racist". Why? He wants to join that fallout with the left-wing fanatic's assassination attempt against Gabby Giffords (D-AZ, but 2nd Amendment supporter). http://townhall.com/columnists/chriswcox/2011/12/20/obama_administration_endangered_lives_to_justify_gun_control
http://biggovernment.com/jcadams/2011/12/22/confessions-of-perjury-inside-doj/
The list goes on and on and on.
US Dept of Education telling you what you can and cannot teach your kids. They support truancy laws against parents who choose to home school. Abraham Lincoln was home schooled. He became a lawyer and then President of the US. The comprachicos in the government schools were nowhere near as insipid in their indoctrination programs in the early 1800s. They want to force you to have to pay for certain books if you do home school, in places they haven't been able to take away the home school choice completely.
And let us not forget what happens when the Dept of Indoctrination (Education) links up with the NLRB, Dept of Health and Human Services, and the First "Lady". We get substandard and overpriced "free lunches" "for the kids" that do nothing but line the pockets of another union known to be a bastion of the socialist agenda: http://townhall.com/columnists/michellemalkin/2011/12/21/michelle_obamas_unsavory_school_lunch_flop
The IRS is given the power to enact regulations, fines, and fees that carry the weight of law, without actually being law. They try to tell you what charities you can give to. They try to tell you what you can invest in. They try to restrict how much you can expand your business capital in order to produce more (and employ more people). http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/danieljmitchell/2011/12/20/federal_court_ignores_constitution_gives_more_power_to_irs
Now for the truly scary part of all of this. These agencies enact regulations either directly or through executive orders that have the weight of law. They do so WITHOUT representative legislation. That means they do things that have the powers of laws without YOU having an elected official voicing your rights or wishes in congress. This is not what the framers of the US Constitution had in mind. In fact, the Federalist Papers were highly against such actions.
So, they drive up prices, restrict production, and eliminate your freedom of choice. Why? All in the name of controlling you because they believe they know what is best for you more than YOU do.
I would love to extend a personal "Thank You!" to all of the journalists that wrote the articles I linked into this essay. You guys are nothing less than awesome.
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
Friday, December 16, 2011
Who gets my GOP nod?
If you are reading this, you have some reason for wondering who I plan to vote for in the AZ GOP primary. Well, if you are looking for an answer and a reason, you will be disappointed. This article is more about where I stand in my personal vetting process.
Following the race, I liked a few candidates right out of the gate. I liked Cain, Gingrich, Perry, and Paul. However, the race was early on, and I made a concerted effort to remain open-minded. Why? I want to give my nod to the one person who fits a short list of criteria:
1. Can beat the socialist Herr Ruler who is currently a massive disgrace to that esteemed office.
2. Will cut economy & employment killing taxes, something VITAL to restoring the US economy.
3. Will work with congress to actually pass a proper and balanced budget ON TIME!
4. Strong on National Security, Veterans' Benefits, Keeping military paid, fed, equipped, trained, and ready
5. Pays attention to intelligence, prepared to act instead of REACT, including good foreign/international relations in trade, diplomacy, as well as military action when needed.
6. Get rid of executive branch regulations (they are NOT laws, but are treated like them) that drive up capital costs and restrict the very freedoms our Constitution guarantees. These include EPA and FDA regulations, etc.
7. Repeal Obamacare. It is designed to destroy the medical INDUSTRY and make it a state-controlled NATIONAL SOCIALIST activity.
2, 3, 6, &7 combine to reduce unemployment, increase US Prosperity, and increase free-market capitalism.
4&5 include securing our borders against invaders (illegal aliens).
I have yet to make up my mind. Cain dropped out of the race. He was a champion of tax reform and probably the best on the list to turn around the economy. That leaves me even more undecided.
Newt's debate answers continue to impress me. They should. he has a vast knowledge of history and can relate lessons from the past to today. We call that ability "wisdom". I will admit, some of the allegations coming out of the housing crisis do concern me. So, he has far from clinched my nod.
Bachman turned me off early in the race. I am a huge supporter of the First Amendment, especially the Freedom of Religion clauses. She tends to push her religion as "correct" and shove it down my throat. She's backed off on that quite a bit. I am not "Pro-Life". I am anti-abortion as a means of birth control. I do find it disgusting that people can just procreate irresponsibly and not have to face the consequences. However, I will say that I am a man. If the kid didn't come from my sperm, I have no right to tell the woman what to choose. I just have the right to NOT agree with her choice. But if an 18 year old college student is drugged and raped at a frat party, she didn't choose anything in the resulting pregnancy. So, she has the right to terminate if so wishes. There ARE other options I'd prefer she chose. However, like not agreeing with somebody's spoken words, I do respect her right to make the choice in that situation.
One huge not on this is that I STRONGLY believe that US Taxpayers should not suffer that woman's choice, be it through welfare programs OR Planned Parenthood. Let them pay for their own decisions like I have to pay for mine. (THAT is equality).
The power of choice is very important to me in all walks of life. I also believe that one's choice is also the choice to accept the consequences, good or bad, and to be accountable and responsible for them.
But Bachman has given some answers and statements that I do agree with, recently.
I can go on an on. Perry impresses me with his immigration stand. I live in Arizona. We have a serious illegal immigration problem here. It is not a "victimless crime". We have people getting killed by illegals here. We have sex-slaves being smuggled who are criminally abused and forced into addiction.
In last night's debate, even Mitt "Mittens" Romney gave a few answers I liked. His track record in Massachusetts still leaves me highly skeptical of him. I don't need to rehash Romneycare, tax hikes, 2nd Amendment violations, or Court Appointments. They are all over the net.
Even Huntsman and Santorum haven't completely lost me. I just don't think either has the pull to beat Obama. However, if any of the above get the nod, I am comfortable with them as POTUS. Each has strengths this country is in dire need of in a leader right now.
And here comes the kicker. No, I have not yet mentioned former Libertarian Ron Paul .
If you look at some of my statements, you'll see quite a bit of a "Libertarian Lean" in my views. I am conservative, yes. I also am a card-carrying libertarian. "So what about Paul"?
Ron Paul might be a doctor, but he is ignorant on key things I find important.
The jury was out on him until the last few days. Let me tell you what ended any chance Paul had in getting my nod.
First, when I stated I wanted the candidates own words and actions on issues to make up my mind, and not campaigning by "supporters" I started getting harassed by Ron Paul's goons. I am sure this blog is going to bring more of them out of the woodwork. All they will do is add nails to the coffin containing Ron Paul's credibility with me. It is being down a run at the top of the 9th and putting in your 3rd string bench warmers and nose pickers to try to win the game.
Paul's supporters started harassing me right after I told them that doing so will turn me off of their candidate. I guess they, like their candid-dunce, are just to moronic to listen.
To top it off, they argued things that I already know to be untrue. They tried to state that Active Military support Ron Paul more than any other candidate. Ok, that's nice. However, I recently retired. I have HUNDREDS of friends who are still active duty. NONE of them admitted to supporting Ron Paul. So, my own experience is against their claims.
They presented numbers. That's nice. They overlooked federal laws such as the UCMJ in regards to political activity done by US Service Members. They CANNOT campaign while representing the military. If they say "I'm SPC Snuffy of the US Army and I support..." they are subject to a Court Martial.
Can they make campaign contributions? Yes, anonymously. If those contributions are less than $200, they do not have to state their employer. Paul's faithful minions try to say all contributions need to contain both employer and SS#. That one right there killed their argument. The Privacy Act of 1974 makes it illegal for campaigns to ask for that information. If they are collecting that data and using it to track military donors, they have broken federal law.
To top it off, Military Officers are prohibited from publicly claiming support for any candidate. Only enlisted members can do so, and under conditions that they make sure they STRONGLY evade doing so "as a Soldier".
Not quitting after being told several times to stop harassing me, they started sending me videos of alleged US Service members endorsing Paul. Not only is it illegal for them to do so, most of those on the videos have facial hair and haircuts that are grossly out of regulation. I saw more violations of AR 670-1 in those adds than I saw in all of the "Occupy" videos. If these actors are Active Duty military, I am a Hare Krishna. I also want to have a chat with their NCOs about enforcing the regulations and standards.
All of that wasn't enough to put me off. The resurgence of anti-Semitic comments Ron Paul has made (and continues to make) throughout his career puts me off further. In case you haven't noticed, I have strong religious beliefs that, for all intents and purposes, are Jewish in nature. I converted in 1991. My beliefs have evolved and are mine. But I hold most Jewish tenets close to my heart. So, for all intents and purposes, Ron Paul is prejudiced against my religion.
http://www.mrdestructo.com/2011/12/game-over-scans-of-over-50-ron-paul.html
Of course, Dr. Paul had a perfect excuse lined up when confronted about the articles published by his paper and in his name. "I didn't read them and I didn't know. It was the editors' jobs." However, when you look for the editor's name, you find Dr. Paul listed as the editor. Perhaps he forgot he authorized the pieces. If that is the case, he's senile and should not be in office. However, let's give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that somebody did the actual editing and approval for him. In that case, he is using the same defense that AG Eric Holder attempted to use in his Fast and Furious defense. "I didn't know" does not work for something that needed his signature for approval. That level of incompetence and negligence is not something that we need in the White House. We have that with Obama, Holder, Napolitano, etc, etc, etc. That is the type of dangerous administration we would rather vote OUT of office.
Below is a record of the final nail in the coffin of Ron Paul's chances of getting my vote. It comes from the last Iowa GOP Primary debate. If you take the almost 20 minutes to watch the video in the link, you'll see where I saw the following statements that just destroyed any credibility Paul ever had (time hacks are approximate):
00:35 Paul grossly dodges the question. All candidates do this. But, it was a start to his fall.
02:00 He claims he will "cut the budget". What he doesn't say is his intended agenda to cut military spending and taking care of veterans as part of these cuts. His proposed cuts to defense spending will gut our military more than Carter did in the '70s. We all know how that turned out, right? Can I remind you of the failed rescue attempt into Iran? It failed because of lack of funding leading to an inability to properly maintain equipment.
03:00 Paul starts making up his own definitions. Government and Defense contractors are PRIVATE businesses that sign business contracts with the USGOV as a client. They are still private-sector jobs. If they weren't, they'd have to hire through USAJOBS.gov instead of private recruitment sites. Paul also ignored the key economic variable in macro-economics known as the "G" variable. This is government spending into the private sector economy for goods and services industries (in our country, these are owned by citizens) that the government is not capable of producing/providing to itself. Of course, he had to say his favorite word "bwubbwel". every time he says that, I want to hand him a bottle of liquid dish soap mixed with propylene glycol and tell him to go play in the back yard.
05:00 He tap dances his answer attempting to dodge and answer simultaneously. Here he proved he is anything but a martial artist. In any case, he was asked about "earmarks". He stated he votes against them. Then he says they are essential to take care of his constituents. Then he says they are necessary to keep the funds where they belong. Then he says they are evil. Then he says they shouldn't exist. then he defends adding them and voting for them if they go back to his state. Then he says "earmarks bad, if me president they no longer exist bcause me in backyard chasing bwubbwes" (paraphrased snark). Nice job begging the question with circular logic there. I liken this to Kant's failed attempt to argue against reason, values, and ethics.
07:30 He gives an answer that I interpreted as simply "As president, I won't be a leader. I'll let everybody roll over me because I want people to see me as their FAVORITE Weird Uncle who is chasing bwubbwes in the backyard". We need a strong leader. We had a socialist tyrant in charge for the last 3 years. we don't need Carter 2.0.
08:30 "Congress shouldn't have the power to subpena or impeach bad judges." He's been a US Representative for how long? Has he bothered to read the US Constitution? Guess what, THAT POWER IS IN THERE!
10:00 His answer can be boiled down to the following: "I don't pay attention to intelligence. I will bow to what the UN claims on everything." He also slammed concerns over Iran as being "another Iraq". I hate to tell the ignorant buffoon, but I know the Intel leading up to Iraq. Iraq was NOT a bad move, at all. It was a smart one. The poor decision was pulling out too soon.
11:00 He referred to OIF as "useless". He is ignorant of the intelligence gathered prior to and during OIF. He has no clue about what happened over there. He claimed over 1,000,000 Iraqis were killed at US hands. That is blatantly false. His statement here boiled down to a personal insult against all the US Service Members who served, fought, and bled over there. It is a GRAVE insult to those fallen heroes who died over there. At this point he lost me completely. He insulted the heroic memories of my brothers and sisters in arms.
12:50 Paul demonstrates a lack of strategic and tactical analysis on Arabian/Persian Gulf states. He fails to understand that Iran's closing of the Strait of Hormuz does not affect just the US. It affects all of Europe. It affects our allies in Turkey, Jordan and Israel. It will harm developing African countries. It will destabilize the region causing global ripples.
14:30 I have to give some serious credit here to Rep. Michelle Bachman (MN-6) at this point. She calls Paul out on his statements and nails why Paul's statements are so disturbing. Her summary of the international relations and strategic nightmare such a policy creates is nothing less than a wonderful revelation of the extreme madness in Ron Paul.
15:15 Paul again shows his myopic views on the international scale. He makes a claim that terrorism hasn't touched "Switzerland or Sweden". Has he even bothered to watch the news over the past 20 years? How about the past 6 months? Rep. Paul then admitted he doesn't read intelligence reports and analysis. He countered Bachman's mention of an International Atomic Energy Agency report on Iran's nuclear program. His rebuttal "It wasn't a UN report". There you go again, Paul, saying you bend your knee to the "One World Order" and claim you will give the UN sovereignty over OUR Country.
http://patdollard.com/2011/12/ron-paul-%E2%80%9Ci-wouldn%E2%80%99t-have-risked-american-lives%E2%80%9D-to-end-the-holocaust/
Ron Paul's Iowa Debate Dec 15, 2011 Highlight Reel
I didn't get the exact time of the remark, but Rep. Ron Paul also made a statement about his having been drafted in 1962. For me, this explains his dislike of our heroic service members. He is still butt-sore that, in the 60s, our military drafted him. Well, we haven't used the Selective Service to draft people into service since 1973. All the people currently in the military voluntarily signed their contracts with the USGOV. They deserve the benefits and pay they have earned, and more. So, here we are, 50 years and numerous changes in military recruitment, manning, and structure later, and he holds it against those who forced him to serve. Maybe he should turn his aggression towards Kennedy, who was POTUS at the time, and not towards GWB. GWB asked for volunteers who went bravely into the breach and fought a tough and heroic war to rid the world of a genocidal tyrant. And Saddam's political party was the Ba'ath Party. The Ba'ath party is a party rooted in National Socialism. They supported Hamas and Al Q'aeda. I am PROUD to have served four (4) tours in Iraq supporting that effort. Paul insults that pride.
Ron Paul, the OIF veteran, Soldier Hard, has a Message for you:
"Shame on Ya'll"
To go along with Paul's disdain for the military, he backs traitors ( make that alleged traitors) such as PFC Manning. Manning was one of my AIT students. He was a dirtbag then. I didn't know nor did I care his sexual orientation at the time. What mattered was he failed to follow orders and security protocols while he was in school. And what did he do after graduating and going off to do real MI work? He violated laws and orders put in place to safeguard US Intelligence assets and Diplomatic missions. He (allegedly) sold those classified documents to WikiLeaks, for money, and all but shut-down several intelligence and diplomatic missions. Now, Ron Paul is all about diplomacy over military action, supposedly. Considering his ignorance on international events, I doubt it. A true diplomacy over military advocate should be even more on top of world events than a warmonger. But I digress. Paul has time and again made statements that he sees this traitor (alleged) as a "hero". http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2011/12/20/ron-paul-bradley-manning-soldier-who-stole-secret-us-docs-and-handed-them-to-wikileaks-is-a-hero-and-patriot/ If that is the type of person Ron Paul sees as a Hero, he is not the sort of person who should be Commander-in-Chief of the military AND head Diplomat for the US. (Yes, boys and girls, the POTUS is a higher ranking diplomat than the Secretary of State who he appoints). I'll bet Mr. Bwubbwes secretly praises Benedict Arnold as a hero.
Somebody give him a bottle of "bwubbwes" and a wand. let him and his cronies go play in the backyard. He doesn't belong in the Oval Office.
My jury is still out on the rest of the candidates.
Other readings on Ron Paul's racism and downright insane views on National Security and National Defense:
http://townhall.com/columnists/mattbarber/2011/12/29/ron_paul_is_dangerous
http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2011/12/20/why_ron_paul_can_never_be_president_in_12_quotes
http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/12/20/from-the-mail-bag-ron-paul-is-that-you/
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/company-ron-paul-keeps_613474.html?page=1
http://thecollegeconservative.com/2011/12/28/the-arc-of-crisis-today-why-ron-paul-cant-be-president/
http://townhall.com/columnists/jonahgoldberg/2011/12/21/ron_pauls_naive_promises
http://pjmedia.com/ronradosh/2011/12/20/ron-pauls-dangerous-campaign/
Following the race, I liked a few candidates right out of the gate. I liked Cain, Gingrich, Perry, and Paul. However, the race was early on, and I made a concerted effort to remain open-minded. Why? I want to give my nod to the one person who fits a short list of criteria:
1. Can beat the socialist Herr Ruler who is currently a massive disgrace to that esteemed office.
2. Will cut economy & employment killing taxes, something VITAL to restoring the US economy.
3. Will work with congress to actually pass a proper and balanced budget ON TIME!
4. Strong on National Security, Veterans' Benefits, Keeping military paid, fed, equipped, trained, and ready
5. Pays attention to intelligence, prepared to act instead of REACT, including good foreign/international relations in trade, diplomacy, as well as military action when needed.
6. Get rid of executive branch regulations (they are NOT laws, but are treated like them) that drive up capital costs and restrict the very freedoms our Constitution guarantees. These include EPA and FDA regulations, etc.
7. Repeal Obamacare. It is designed to destroy the medical INDUSTRY and make it a state-controlled NATIONAL SOCIALIST activity.
2, 3, 6, &7 combine to reduce unemployment, increase US Prosperity, and increase free-market capitalism.
4&5 include securing our borders against invaders (illegal aliens).
I have yet to make up my mind. Cain dropped out of the race. He was a champion of tax reform and probably the best on the list to turn around the economy. That leaves me even more undecided.
Newt's debate answers continue to impress me. They should. he has a vast knowledge of history and can relate lessons from the past to today. We call that ability "wisdom". I will admit, some of the allegations coming out of the housing crisis do concern me. So, he has far from clinched my nod.
Bachman turned me off early in the race. I am a huge supporter of the First Amendment, especially the Freedom of Religion clauses. She tends to push her religion as "correct" and shove it down my throat. She's backed off on that quite a bit. I am not "Pro-Life". I am anti-abortion as a means of birth control. I do find it disgusting that people can just procreate irresponsibly and not have to face the consequences. However, I will say that I am a man. If the kid didn't come from my sperm, I have no right to tell the woman what to choose. I just have the right to NOT agree with her choice. But if an 18 year old college student is drugged and raped at a frat party, she didn't choose anything in the resulting pregnancy. So, she has the right to terminate if so wishes. There ARE other options I'd prefer she chose. However, like not agreeing with somebody's spoken words, I do respect her right to make the choice in that situation.
One huge not on this is that I STRONGLY believe that US Taxpayers should not suffer that woman's choice, be it through welfare programs OR Planned Parenthood. Let them pay for their own decisions like I have to pay for mine. (THAT is equality).
The power of choice is very important to me in all walks of life. I also believe that one's choice is also the choice to accept the consequences, good or bad, and to be accountable and responsible for them.
But Bachman has given some answers and statements that I do agree with, recently.
I can go on an on. Perry impresses me with his immigration stand. I live in Arizona. We have a serious illegal immigration problem here. It is not a "victimless crime". We have people getting killed by illegals here. We have sex-slaves being smuggled who are criminally abused and forced into addiction.
In last night's debate, even Mitt "Mittens" Romney gave a few answers I liked. His track record in Massachusetts still leaves me highly skeptical of him. I don't need to rehash Romneycare, tax hikes, 2nd Amendment violations, or Court Appointments. They are all over the net.
Even Huntsman and Santorum haven't completely lost me. I just don't think either has the pull to beat Obama. However, if any of the above get the nod, I am comfortable with them as POTUS. Each has strengths this country is in dire need of in a leader right now.
And here comes the kicker. No, I have not yet mentioned former Libertarian Ron Paul .
If you look at some of my statements, you'll see quite a bit of a "Libertarian Lean" in my views. I am conservative, yes. I also am a card-carrying libertarian. "So what about Paul"?
Ron Paul might be a doctor, but he is ignorant on key things I find important.
The jury was out on him until the last few days. Let me tell you what ended any chance Paul had in getting my nod.
First, when I stated I wanted the candidates own words and actions on issues to make up my mind, and not campaigning by "supporters" I started getting harassed by Ron Paul's goons. I am sure this blog is going to bring more of them out of the woodwork. All they will do is add nails to the coffin containing Ron Paul's credibility with me. It is being down a run at the top of the 9th and putting in your 3rd string bench warmers and nose pickers to try to win the game.
Paul's supporters started harassing me right after I told them that doing so will turn me off of their candidate. I guess they, like their candid-dunce, are just to moronic to listen.
To top it off, they argued things that I already know to be untrue. They tried to state that Active Military support Ron Paul more than any other candidate. Ok, that's nice. However, I recently retired. I have HUNDREDS of friends who are still active duty. NONE of them admitted to supporting Ron Paul. So, my own experience is against their claims.
They presented numbers. That's nice. They overlooked federal laws such as the UCMJ in regards to political activity done by US Service Members. They CANNOT campaign while representing the military. If they say "I'm SPC Snuffy of the US Army and I support..." they are subject to a Court Martial.
Can they make campaign contributions? Yes, anonymously. If those contributions are less than $200, they do not have to state their employer. Paul's faithful minions try to say all contributions need to contain both employer and SS#. That one right there killed their argument. The Privacy Act of 1974 makes it illegal for campaigns to ask for that information. If they are collecting that data and using it to track military donors, they have broken federal law.
To top it off, Military Officers are prohibited from publicly claiming support for any candidate. Only enlisted members can do so, and under conditions that they make sure they STRONGLY evade doing so "as a Soldier".
Not quitting after being told several times to stop harassing me, they started sending me videos of alleged US Service members endorsing Paul. Not only is it illegal for them to do so, most of those on the videos have facial hair and haircuts that are grossly out of regulation. I saw more violations of AR 670-1 in those adds than I saw in all of the "Occupy" videos. If these actors are Active Duty military, I am a Hare Krishna. I also want to have a chat with their NCOs about enforcing the regulations and standards.
All of that wasn't enough to put me off. The resurgence of anti-Semitic comments Ron Paul has made (and continues to make) throughout his career puts me off further. In case you haven't noticed, I have strong religious beliefs that, for all intents and purposes, are Jewish in nature. I converted in 1991. My beliefs have evolved and are mine. But I hold most Jewish tenets close to my heart. So, for all intents and purposes, Ron Paul is prejudiced against my religion.
http://www.mrdestructo.com/2011/12/game-over-scans-of-over-50-ron-paul.html
Of course, Dr. Paul had a perfect excuse lined up when confronted about the articles published by his paper and in his name. "I didn't read them and I didn't know. It was the editors' jobs." However, when you look for the editor's name, you find Dr. Paul listed as the editor. Perhaps he forgot he authorized the pieces. If that is the case, he's senile and should not be in office. However, let's give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that somebody did the actual editing and approval for him. In that case, he is using the same defense that AG Eric Holder attempted to use in his Fast and Furious defense. "I didn't know" does not work for something that needed his signature for approval. That level of incompetence and negligence is not something that we need in the White House. We have that with Obama, Holder, Napolitano, etc, etc, etc. That is the type of dangerous administration we would rather vote OUT of office.
Below is a record of the final nail in the coffin of Ron Paul's chances of getting my vote. It comes from the last Iowa GOP Primary debate. If you take the almost 20 minutes to watch the video in the link, you'll see where I saw the following statements that just destroyed any credibility Paul ever had (time hacks are approximate):
00:35 Paul grossly dodges the question. All candidates do this. But, it was a start to his fall.
02:00 He claims he will "cut the budget". What he doesn't say is his intended agenda to cut military spending and taking care of veterans as part of these cuts. His proposed cuts to defense spending will gut our military more than Carter did in the '70s. We all know how that turned out, right? Can I remind you of the failed rescue attempt into Iran? It failed because of lack of funding leading to an inability to properly maintain equipment.
03:00 Paul starts making up his own definitions. Government and Defense contractors are PRIVATE businesses that sign business contracts with the USGOV as a client. They are still private-sector jobs. If they weren't, they'd have to hire through USAJOBS.gov instead of private recruitment sites. Paul also ignored the key economic variable in macro-economics known as the "G" variable. This is government spending into the private sector economy for goods and services industries (in our country, these are owned by citizens) that the government is not capable of producing/providing to itself. Of course, he had to say his favorite word "bwubbwel". every time he says that, I want to hand him a bottle of liquid dish soap mixed with propylene glycol and tell him to go play in the back yard.
05:00 He tap dances his answer attempting to dodge and answer simultaneously. Here he proved he is anything but a martial artist. In any case, he was asked about "earmarks". He stated he votes against them. Then he says they are essential to take care of his constituents. Then he says they are necessary to keep the funds where they belong. Then he says they are evil. Then he says they shouldn't exist. then he defends adding them and voting for them if they go back to his state. Then he says "earmarks bad, if me president they no longer exist bcause me in backyard chasing bwubbwes" (paraphrased snark). Nice job begging the question with circular logic there. I liken this to Kant's failed attempt to argue against reason, values, and ethics.
07:30 He gives an answer that I interpreted as simply "As president, I won't be a leader. I'll let everybody roll over me because I want people to see me as their FAVORITE Weird Uncle who is chasing bwubbwes in the backyard". We need a strong leader. We had a socialist tyrant in charge for the last 3 years. we don't need Carter 2.0.
08:30 "Congress shouldn't have the power to subpena or impeach bad judges." He's been a US Representative for how long? Has he bothered to read the US Constitution? Guess what, THAT POWER IS IN THERE!
10:00 His answer can be boiled down to the following: "I don't pay attention to intelligence. I will bow to what the UN claims on everything." He also slammed concerns over Iran as being "another Iraq". I hate to tell the ignorant buffoon, but I know the Intel leading up to Iraq. Iraq was NOT a bad move, at all. It was a smart one. The poor decision was pulling out too soon.
11:00 He referred to OIF as "useless". He is ignorant of the intelligence gathered prior to and during OIF. He has no clue about what happened over there. He claimed over 1,000,000 Iraqis were killed at US hands. That is blatantly false. His statement here boiled down to a personal insult against all the US Service Members who served, fought, and bled over there. It is a GRAVE insult to those fallen heroes who died over there. At this point he lost me completely. He insulted the heroic memories of my brothers and sisters in arms.
12:50 Paul demonstrates a lack of strategic and tactical analysis on Arabian/Persian Gulf states. He fails to understand that Iran's closing of the Strait of Hormuz does not affect just the US. It affects all of Europe. It affects our allies in Turkey, Jordan and Israel. It will harm developing African countries. It will destabilize the region causing global ripples.
14:30 I have to give some serious credit here to Rep. Michelle Bachman (MN-6) at this point. She calls Paul out on his statements and nails why Paul's statements are so disturbing. Her summary of the international relations and strategic nightmare such a policy creates is nothing less than a wonderful revelation of the extreme madness in Ron Paul.
15:15 Paul again shows his myopic views on the international scale. He makes a claim that terrorism hasn't touched "Switzerland or Sweden". Has he even bothered to watch the news over the past 20 years? How about the past 6 months? Rep. Paul then admitted he doesn't read intelligence reports and analysis. He countered Bachman's mention of an International Atomic Energy Agency report on Iran's nuclear program. His rebuttal "It wasn't a UN report". There you go again, Paul, saying you bend your knee to the "One World Order" and claim you will give the UN sovereignty over OUR Country.
http://patdollard.com/2011/12/ron-paul-%E2%80%9Ci-wouldn%E2%80%99t-have-risked-american-lives%E2%80%9D-to-end-the-holocaust/
Ron Paul's Iowa Debate Dec 15, 2011 Highlight Reel
I didn't get the exact time of the remark, but Rep. Ron Paul also made a statement about his having been drafted in 1962. For me, this explains his dislike of our heroic service members. He is still butt-sore that, in the 60s, our military drafted him. Well, we haven't used the Selective Service to draft people into service since 1973. All the people currently in the military voluntarily signed their contracts with the USGOV. They deserve the benefits and pay they have earned, and more. So, here we are, 50 years and numerous changes in military recruitment, manning, and structure later, and he holds it against those who forced him to serve. Maybe he should turn his aggression towards Kennedy, who was POTUS at the time, and not towards GWB. GWB asked for volunteers who went bravely into the breach and fought a tough and heroic war to rid the world of a genocidal tyrant. And Saddam's political party was the Ba'ath Party. The Ba'ath party is a party rooted in National Socialism. They supported Hamas and Al Q'aeda. I am PROUD to have served four (4) tours in Iraq supporting that effort. Paul insults that pride.
Ron Paul, the OIF veteran, Soldier Hard, has a Message for you:
"Shame on Ya'll"
To go along with Paul's disdain for the military, he backs traitors ( make that alleged traitors) such as PFC Manning. Manning was one of my AIT students. He was a dirtbag then. I didn't know nor did I care his sexual orientation at the time. What mattered was he failed to follow orders and security protocols while he was in school. And what did he do after graduating and going off to do real MI work? He violated laws and orders put in place to safeguard US Intelligence assets and Diplomatic missions. He (allegedly) sold those classified documents to WikiLeaks, for money, and all but shut-down several intelligence and diplomatic missions. Now, Ron Paul is all about diplomacy over military action, supposedly. Considering his ignorance on international events, I doubt it. A true diplomacy over military advocate should be even more on top of world events than a warmonger. But I digress. Paul has time and again made statements that he sees this traitor (alleged) as a "hero". http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2011/12/20/ron-paul-bradley-manning-soldier-who-stole-secret-us-docs-and-handed-them-to-wikileaks-is-a-hero-and-patriot/ If that is the type of person Ron Paul sees as a Hero, he is not the sort of person who should be Commander-in-Chief of the military AND head Diplomat for the US. (Yes, boys and girls, the POTUS is a higher ranking diplomat than the Secretary of State who he appoints). I'll bet Mr. Bwubbwes secretly praises Benedict Arnold as a hero.
Somebody give him a bottle of "bwubbwes" and a wand. let him and his cronies go play in the backyard. He doesn't belong in the Oval Office.
My jury is still out on the rest of the candidates.
Other readings on Ron Paul's racism and downright insane views on National Security and National Defense:
http://townhall.com/columnists/mattbarber/2011/12/29/ron_paul_is_dangerous
http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2011/12/20/why_ron_paul_can_never_be_president_in_12_quotes
http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/12/20/from-the-mail-bag-ron-paul-is-that-you/
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/company-ron-paul-keeps_613474.html?page=1
http://thecollegeconservative.com/2011/12/28/the-arc-of-crisis-today-why-ron-paul-cant-be-president/
http://townhall.com/columnists/jonahgoldberg/2011/12/21/ron_pauls_naive_promises
http://pjmedia.com/ronradosh/2011/12/20/ron-pauls-dangerous-campaign/
Thursday, December 8, 2011
This "Religion is Offensive" Claptrap is OUTRAGEOUS!
By "Outrageous" I mean it in its most literal sense. I am outraged. Any SENSIBLE person (with a glimmer of REASON) should be.
It is an affront to our constitutional rights.
It is tearing at the moral fabric of our country.
It is ripping at the very basic construction of the foundations of our great nation.
It needs to stop, NOW!
New Jersey threatened to suspend a HS student in charge of a “holiday assembly” because he violated the “no Jesus, no Christmas, no SANTA!” rules. After student wrote an OP-ED published by Huff-Po, they backpedaled. Of course, this happened only because the Huffington Post stopped being a "progressive" rag filled with socialism propaganda for about five minutes and actually did the right (as in correct) thing and printed the kid's editorial.
Fort Worth, Texas socialist indoctrination centers, I mean, public schools district, not only eliminated any “blatant” religious references like Christmas, Jesus, Yule, Hanukkah, Menorah, Dreidel, Holly King, etc. But they removed ALL replicas of Frosty, Rudolph, and Santa first claiming “religious undertones”, then “too distracting”.
A California school has followed suit.
And I have heard rumors of the same in Denver.
I love Jan Brewer. I don’t always agree with her, and her voice can get on your nerves. But I love her. Over the past couple of years she has issued an executive order that, in Arizona, it is a Christmas Tree if on public property. She also has announced that Druids are more than free to have “Yule Trees”. She welcomes Jewish children to have dreidels and menorahs in schools as well. See, she gets it.
What is “it”?
“It” is the religion clause of the First Amendment.
First, Congress nor any state government (or duly elected official) may impose a state religion. That means, that the government cannot declare any faith or sect thereof to be the “one true faith” of the people. Sorry, kids, but we are NOT a “Christian” nation. Our Constitution, the Federalist Papers, and the Declaration are very clear in recognizing there is at least one deity. There are several names for it. End of discussion. But they will not tell you that you must worship that deity in any certain way, faith, or creed. Call him “YHVH”, “Jesus”, “Odin”, “Jehovah”, or “Bob”. You are even free to not believe. No laws can force you.
The second part of that clause is that the right to worship “shall not be infringed”. That means THEY CANNOT STOP YOU! If your kid wants to say a few words to Taranis or Thor in between lessons at school, he has the right to. If the government school says “no”, they are in violation. (Private schools are a different story. You have a contract with them.) If you daughter wants to sing “Aleinu Shalom” and hug her friends in peace at recess, she has the RIGHT to do so. The government schools cannot legally stop her. If Abu Ali wants to genuflect in the city park at noon… yeah, we have to let him.
So, Jan gets it. The people want a nice, big, lit-up, bedazzled, beautiful CHRISTMAS TREE in front of the AZ capitol. They have one. I am more than sure she would allow Druids to place, with a permit, a Yule tree next to it. I am sure she’d allow a public menorah in the square.
In the opinion of this fringe-Jewish-sect convert, it’s a blessed CHRISTMAS TREE. Let the Christians have their celebration, PLEASE! It’s pretty. It’s nice. It’s about peace, and love, and being kind. I don’t get the problems with it. Let the kids have Santa! Santa is based on Tomte, a Scandinavian demigod who gives gifts and joy to kids. He is based upon the Celtic “Holly King” who does the same as well as brings warmth and joy to the season of ice.
He is Saint Nicholas, the Catholic patron Saint of children and charity. “St. Nicholas, who was said to live in Myra (Turkey) in about 300 A.D. Born an only child of a wealthy family, he was orphaned at an early age when both parents died of the plague. He grew up in a monastery and at the age of 17 became one of the youngest priests ever. Many stories are told of his generosity as he gave his wealth away in the form of gifts to those in need, especially children. Some years later Nicholas became a bishop–hence the bishop’s hat or miter, long flowing gown, white beard and red cape.” ( http://www.earthwitchery.com/santa.html )
Santa represents love, charity, and joy to children, especially those “underprivileged” or sick. There is a version of him in almost every religion.
There is a serious problem in today’s society when we give up symbols and celebrations of joy, charity, warmth, love, and kindness because it may “offend” some unmitigated douche-canoe.
To you Christians, Merry Christmas. I hope your Advent is filled with joy, love, and warmth. I hope you enjoy every second of it. You deserve to. Even more, you are ENTITLED to and and have a CONSTITUTIONAL Right to.
Even Chuck Norris, yes THAT Chuck Norris has noticed this has gone too far: http://townhall.com/columnists/chucknorris/2011/12/20/feds_war_on_religion_part_1_of_2
Others joining the outrage:
http://chicksontheright.com/2011/12/08/santa-and-poinsettias-forbidden-at-school/
http://chicksontheright.com/2011/12/08/governor-chafee-there-is-no-such-thing-as-a-holiday-tree/
http://www.boortz.com/videos/news/boortz-rant-santa-in-schools/vFRZ9/
http://www.boortz.com/weblogs/nealz-nuze/2011/dec/08/war-christmas-explained/
http://www.boortz.com/weblogs/nealz-nuze/2011/dec/06/political-correctness-run-amok/
http://video.foxnews.com/v/1291106762001/merry-christmas-phrase-banned-by-school-board/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/06/ban-on-school-christmas-c_n_751839.html
http://kfyo.com/christmas-decorations-banned-from-school-buses/
It is an affront to our constitutional rights.
It is tearing at the moral fabric of our country.
It is ripping at the very basic construction of the foundations of our great nation.
It needs to stop, NOW!
New Jersey threatened to suspend a HS student in charge of a “holiday assembly” because he violated the “no Jesus, no Christmas, no SANTA!” rules. After student wrote an OP-ED published by Huff-Po, they backpedaled. Of course, this happened only because the Huffington Post stopped being a "progressive" rag filled with socialism propaganda for about five minutes and actually did the right (as in correct) thing and printed the kid's editorial.
Fort Worth, Texas socialist indoctrination centers, I mean, public schools district, not only eliminated any “blatant” religious references like Christmas, Jesus, Yule, Hanukkah, Menorah, Dreidel, Holly King, etc. But they removed ALL replicas of Frosty, Rudolph, and Santa first claiming “religious undertones”, then “too distracting”.
A California school has followed suit.
And I have heard rumors of the same in Denver.
I love Jan Brewer. I don’t always agree with her, and her voice can get on your nerves. But I love her. Over the past couple of years she has issued an executive order that, in Arizona, it is a Christmas Tree if on public property. She also has announced that Druids are more than free to have “Yule Trees”. She welcomes Jewish children to have dreidels and menorahs in schools as well. See, she gets it.
What is “it”?
“It” is the religion clause of the First Amendment.
First, Congress nor any state government (or duly elected official) may impose a state religion. That means, that the government cannot declare any faith or sect thereof to be the “one true faith” of the people. Sorry, kids, but we are NOT a “Christian” nation. Our Constitution, the Federalist Papers, and the Declaration are very clear in recognizing there is at least one deity. There are several names for it. End of discussion. But they will not tell you that you must worship that deity in any certain way, faith, or creed. Call him “YHVH”, “Jesus”, “Odin”, “Jehovah”, or “Bob”. You are even free to not believe. No laws can force you.
The second part of that clause is that the right to worship “shall not be infringed”. That means THEY CANNOT STOP YOU! If your kid wants to say a few words to Taranis or Thor in between lessons at school, he has the right to. If the government school says “no”, they are in violation. (Private schools are a different story. You have a contract with them.) If you daughter wants to sing “Aleinu Shalom” and hug her friends in peace at recess, she has the RIGHT to do so. The government schools cannot legally stop her. If Abu Ali wants to genuflect in the city park at noon… yeah, we have to let him.
So, Jan gets it. The people want a nice, big, lit-up, bedazzled, beautiful CHRISTMAS TREE in front of the AZ capitol. They have one. I am more than sure she would allow Druids to place, with a permit, a Yule tree next to it. I am sure she’d allow a public menorah in the square.
In the opinion of this fringe-Jewish-sect convert, it’s a blessed CHRISTMAS TREE. Let the Christians have their celebration, PLEASE! It’s pretty. It’s nice. It’s about peace, and love, and being kind. I don’t get the problems with it. Let the kids have Santa! Santa is based on Tomte, a Scandinavian demigod who gives gifts and joy to kids. He is based upon the Celtic “Holly King” who does the same as well as brings warmth and joy to the season of ice.
He is Saint Nicholas, the Catholic patron Saint of children and charity. “St. Nicholas, who was said to live in Myra (Turkey) in about 300 A.D. Born an only child of a wealthy family, he was orphaned at an early age when both parents died of the plague. He grew up in a monastery and at the age of 17 became one of the youngest priests ever. Many stories are told of his generosity as he gave his wealth away in the form of gifts to those in need, especially children. Some years later Nicholas became a bishop–hence the bishop’s hat or miter, long flowing gown, white beard and red cape.” ( http://www.earthwitchery.com/santa.html )
Santa represents love, charity, and joy to children, especially those “underprivileged” or sick. There is a version of him in almost every religion.
There is a serious problem in today’s society when we give up symbols and celebrations of joy, charity, warmth, love, and kindness because it may “offend” some unmitigated douche-canoe.
To you Christians, Merry Christmas. I hope your Advent is filled with joy, love, and warmth. I hope you enjoy every second of it. You deserve to. Even more, you are ENTITLED to and and have a CONSTITUTIONAL Right to.
Even Chuck Norris, yes THAT Chuck Norris has noticed this has gone too far: http://townhall.com/columnists/chucknorris/2011/12/20/feds_war_on_religion_part_1_of_2
Others joining the outrage:
http://chicksontheright.com/2011/12/08/santa-and-poinsettias-forbidden-at-school/
http://chicksontheright.com/2011/12/08/governor-chafee-there-is-no-such-thing-as-a-holiday-tree/
http://www.boortz.com/videos/news/boortz-rant-santa-in-schools/vFRZ9/
http://www.boortz.com/weblogs/nealz-nuze/2011/dec/08/war-christmas-explained/
http://www.boortz.com/weblogs/nealz-nuze/2011/dec/06/political-correctness-run-amok/
http://video.foxnews.com/v/1291106762001/merry-christmas-phrase-banned-by-school-board/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/06/ban-on-school-christmas-c_n_751839.html
http://kfyo.com/christmas-decorations-banned-from-school-buses/
Friday, December 2, 2011
A Little Common Sense
The latest numbers are out. The unemployment rate has dropped to 8.6%, the lowest it has been in over two years. That sounds like great news and a point in favor for Keynesian Economics. But it is a coat of white-wash I am about to rain all over.
Here are the reasons for the drop in unemployment numbers. First of all, there were a large number of seasonal hires in retail, private portage (UPS and FEDEX), and hospitality jobs. 90% of those "new hires" will be let go by January 15th. So, expect a sharp jump in unemployment in the report at the end of January.
The second big reason is a change in the labor force. Some people idyllically delude themselves to believe that the labor force is every adult over 18. That is so far from reality it is disgusting. The labor force (or "work force") are people who are employed or seeking employment. If you have a married couple and momma gets knocked up, then decides to be a stay-at-home mom for the next 4 years until junior hits school age, well, momma is no longer part of the labor force. If you get a war veteran whose injuries have debilitated to the point he can no longer work, he is not part of the work force. If a federal contractor says "screw this" and decides to quit and go use his Post-9/11 GI bill full time, he is no longer part of the "work force". Because of the pension, even military retirees who are actually seeking employment are not calculated into the "work force". Well, let me give you the reality here. The work force/labor force shrank by 315,000+ people in the past month. That means more than 315k said "screw it, I give up" and stopped working or seeking employment.
Let's do some simple math. Let's keep this easy. Let's say the labor force is 100 people. Unemployment was around 9% for October. So, that would mean 91 people were employed and 9 were looking for a job. Then 31 people say "screw this". So now you have only 69 people in the labor force. 8.6% of them are now unemployed. 8.6% of 69 people is 5.9. You can't have 9/10 a person, so let's say 6. So you now have 63 people employed instead of 91. You now have 37 people not working, not producing, not paying taxes, etc.
If we had a truly "fair" system that employed a flat income tax (and that were the only payroll tax), then we can see even more dismal news here. Let's be nice and "fair" and say each of these working laborers earned the same amount at, let's say $5k a month. $60k a year is middle class, you know. Let's say the tax is a flat 10%. So, before this mass exodus from the work force, the government collected 10% of the $5k made by 91 people. $5k times 91 people is $455k of gross income to pull from. 10% of that is $45,500 for the month in federal tax revenue. That's a salary for a GS-5 level bureaucrat for a year (to pay one gov't worker). Now, those 31 people leave, the unemployment rate drops. We all jump "hooray, the economy is picking up". I look at you like you are an idiot. Why? Well, now you have 63 people earning that $5k. So only $315k in gross income is generated. Now revenue on that (tax) is only $31,500. That's a $14k loss.
Now let's take that a few steps further. First, the gov't isn't going to fire that GS-5 for lack of funds. It's going to borrow that $14k increasing the federal deficit (which is already over $15TRILLION). Also, the net income for those working drops from $410k to $283,500. That's a $126k drop in money being spent. Look at the logic here. That means $126k less is going to be spent on food, rent, real estate, gas, cars, toys, movies, cell phones, airfare, music, etc, etc, etc. You would think that it meant more job openings due to 31 people leaving the force, right? Nope. It is a 28% drop in productivity. That means 28% of businesses end up having to cut productivity or flat out close up shop. Demand for those services will drop a bit due to reduced income, sure. But there will be about a 1/4 drop in supply. That drives prices up for products produced by those still in business. So your $1 loaf of bread is now $1.25. You have less money to buy it. Those who are still working see their $4 per gallon of gas go up to $5. Heck, you think "take the bus" instead? Well, the bus ticket goes from $1.50 each way ($3 total) go to $3.80 each work day.
As you can see, this leads to inflation combined with a depressed or "malaise" economy. This is BAD news.
Oh, yeah, then the gov't needs to pay its bills. So what do they do? If they cut social subsidies ("welfare") and education, everybody will scream. If they cut regulation programs (so-called "green" programs), "progressives" will scream. So, the gov't isn't going to cut their pork. Hell, no. Keynesians will INCREASE TAXES to cover at least part of their bills. So, that flat 10% gets bumped to 15% or 20%. Watch the spiral. That means that those few still working are taking home even LESS. Demand will drop a little. But necessities will stay relatively constant. So supply drops again. Prices go up again.
On the surface, this drop in unemployment looks good. But, when the underlying reasons behind it are examined, you can see that this is VERY bad news.
Now let me depress you further with another dose of reality.
Congress passed TEMPORARY cuts to payroll taxes. Big deal. They are temporary. However, they intend to let the Capital Gains cuts ("Bush Tax Cuts") expire. The temporary payroll tax cuts will expire before those. So, they produce no incentive to hire more people. It just means they get a short little break for those they already employ. It will affect NOTHING in the marketplace. Why can I say this? Well, they also passed a 3% surtax on people making over $1Million. I'll bet the "99%" idiots are happy about that. They shouldn't be. It means that they now have less capital with which to hire anybody. That 3% raise actually means they will be paying MORE than they will save from the payroll tax cuts.
Now let me rain more on your parade. 75% of those $1million a year earners are private business owners. That means they are NOT corporate employees. They are Doctors, Lawyers (I could care less about them), Restaurant owners, shop owners, software designers, etc, etc, etc. They own the local qwik-e-marts. They own your local bookstore or movie theater. They own your local cab company. They own your favorite "mom and pop" coffee house or nightclub. They own your local game store. They own the company that picks up your trash and recyclables.
So, 75% of them are now seeing up to a 75% marginal effective tax rate. Yes, 75%. They pay business taxes, regulatory fees, payroll taxes, income tax, sales taxes on their supplies and insurance, property taxes, etc, etc, etc. By the time they are added up with that 3% surtax and increases in other "hidden taxes", they face a 75% effective marginal tax rate in 2012.
How many of you would take an $8 an hour job just to take home $2 an hour? Say you work 8 hours in a day, 5 days a week. So, standard 40 hour work week. Would you work 40 hours, promised $320 a week before taxes only to see an $80 paycheck? Remember, it's costing you $3 to $5 a day just to get to work (travel expenses). At $3 a day that's $15 a week just to get TO work. So, now you have $65 a week for food, rent, utilities, internet. Would you work for that?
So what incentive remains for those 75 out of 100 millionaires to bother keeping their businesses going? Here's a hint: THERE ISN'T ONE! So, expect them to start cutting productivity (reducing supply yet again, therefore prices go up). Also, prices will go up to offset those taxes. (A 3% increased tax becomes about a 5% increase in a price tag on items produced or services rendered). It is more cost effective to go to part-time or just quit the business. That means all those employees are now out of work. So, nobody on a payroll means payroll tax cuts go all the way to NOTHING being paid, because, well, nobody is employed.
If you study the past 100 years, you will find that the "theory" of Keynesian Economics has proven itself invalid. Yet our current administration (both sides of the aisle, mind you) are using a system they MUST know to be incorrect. And who suffers? We do. We have 315k+ people say "fuck it" and quit trying to work. We will soon have employers saying "fuck this" and not producing or employing because they cannot afford to do so.
I do not see the sense in these policies. They are not reasonable or logical. They are stupid. And they sugar coat it all when presenting it to the dumb masses in the public who just take cursory numbers from the news as gospel. If you don't bother to THINK and ask "Why?" you get deluded by the white-wash. I just rained on it. So, I guess Tom Sawyer will be hiring idiots to try to paint his fence for him again, though he'll have no capital with which to do so. And I'll be here to rain all over it again.
And I won't be the only one doing the rain dance:
http://allpatriotsmedia.com/
http://www.redcounty.com/content/brilliant-look-how-obama-gingrich-jobs-gap-widening
http://www.boortz.com/weblogs/nealz-nuze/
http://www.therightsphere.com/2011/12/unemployment-drops-to-8-6-how-numbers-lie/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/nfp-prints-120k-below-expectations-125k-unemployment-rate-drops-86
http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2011/12/employment-summary-part-time-workers.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CalculatedRisk+%28Calculated+Risk%29
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
http://www.clearancejobs.com/defense-news/471/federal-workers-don-t-see-rewards-for-innovation-high-performance
http://jackchambless.blogspot.com/2011/12/tenacity-of-hope.html
Here are the reasons for the drop in unemployment numbers. First of all, there were a large number of seasonal hires in retail, private portage (UPS and FEDEX), and hospitality jobs. 90% of those "new hires" will be let go by January 15th. So, expect a sharp jump in unemployment in the report at the end of January.
The second big reason is a change in the labor force. Some people idyllically delude themselves to believe that the labor force is every adult over 18. That is so far from reality it is disgusting. The labor force (or "work force") are people who are employed or seeking employment. If you have a married couple and momma gets knocked up, then decides to be a stay-at-home mom for the next 4 years until junior hits school age, well, momma is no longer part of the labor force. If you get a war veteran whose injuries have debilitated to the point he can no longer work, he is not part of the work force. If a federal contractor says "screw this" and decides to quit and go use his Post-9/11 GI bill full time, he is no longer part of the "work force". Because of the pension, even military retirees who are actually seeking employment are not calculated into the "work force". Well, let me give you the reality here. The work force/labor force shrank by 315,000+ people in the past month. That means more than 315k said "screw it, I give up" and stopped working or seeking employment.
Let's do some simple math. Let's keep this easy. Let's say the labor force is 100 people. Unemployment was around 9% for October. So, that would mean 91 people were employed and 9 were looking for a job. Then 31 people say "screw this". So now you have only 69 people in the labor force. 8.6% of them are now unemployed. 8.6% of 69 people is 5.9. You can't have 9/10 a person, so let's say 6. So you now have 63 people employed instead of 91. You now have 37 people not working, not producing, not paying taxes, etc.
If we had a truly "fair" system that employed a flat income tax (and that were the only payroll tax), then we can see even more dismal news here. Let's be nice and "fair" and say each of these working laborers earned the same amount at, let's say $5k a month. $60k a year is middle class, you know. Let's say the tax is a flat 10%. So, before this mass exodus from the work force, the government collected 10% of the $5k made by 91 people. $5k times 91 people is $455k of gross income to pull from. 10% of that is $45,500 for the month in federal tax revenue. That's a salary for a GS-5 level bureaucrat for a year (to pay one gov't worker). Now, those 31 people leave, the unemployment rate drops. We all jump "hooray, the economy is picking up". I look at you like you are an idiot. Why? Well, now you have 63 people earning that $5k. So only $315k in gross income is generated. Now revenue on that (tax) is only $31,500. That's a $14k loss.
Now let's take that a few steps further. First, the gov't isn't going to fire that GS-5 for lack of funds. It's going to borrow that $14k increasing the federal deficit (which is already over $15TRILLION). Also, the net income for those working drops from $410k to $283,500. That's a $126k drop in money being spent. Look at the logic here. That means $126k less is going to be spent on food, rent, real estate, gas, cars, toys, movies, cell phones, airfare, music, etc, etc, etc. You would think that it meant more job openings due to 31 people leaving the force, right? Nope. It is a 28% drop in productivity. That means 28% of businesses end up having to cut productivity or flat out close up shop. Demand for those services will drop a bit due to reduced income, sure. But there will be about a 1/4 drop in supply. That drives prices up for products produced by those still in business. So your $1 loaf of bread is now $1.25. You have less money to buy it. Those who are still working see their $4 per gallon of gas go up to $5. Heck, you think "take the bus" instead? Well, the bus ticket goes from $1.50 each way ($3 total) go to $3.80 each work day.
As you can see, this leads to inflation combined with a depressed or "malaise" economy. This is BAD news.
Oh, yeah, then the gov't needs to pay its bills. So what do they do? If they cut social subsidies ("welfare") and education, everybody will scream. If they cut regulation programs (so-called "green" programs), "progressives" will scream. So, the gov't isn't going to cut their pork. Hell, no. Keynesians will INCREASE TAXES to cover at least part of their bills. So, that flat 10% gets bumped to 15% or 20%. Watch the spiral. That means that those few still working are taking home even LESS. Demand will drop a little. But necessities will stay relatively constant. So supply drops again. Prices go up again.
On the surface, this drop in unemployment looks good. But, when the underlying reasons behind it are examined, you can see that this is VERY bad news.
Now let me depress you further with another dose of reality.
Congress passed TEMPORARY cuts to payroll taxes. Big deal. They are temporary. However, they intend to let the Capital Gains cuts ("Bush Tax Cuts") expire. The temporary payroll tax cuts will expire before those. So, they produce no incentive to hire more people. It just means they get a short little break for those they already employ. It will affect NOTHING in the marketplace. Why can I say this? Well, they also passed a 3% surtax on people making over $1Million. I'll bet the "99%" idiots are happy about that. They shouldn't be. It means that they now have less capital with which to hire anybody. That 3% raise actually means they will be paying MORE than they will save from the payroll tax cuts.
Now let me rain more on your parade. 75% of those $1million a year earners are private business owners. That means they are NOT corporate employees. They are Doctors, Lawyers (I could care less about them), Restaurant owners, shop owners, software designers, etc, etc, etc. They own the local qwik-e-marts. They own your local bookstore or movie theater. They own your local cab company. They own your favorite "mom and pop" coffee house or nightclub. They own your local game store. They own the company that picks up your trash and recyclables.
So, 75% of them are now seeing up to a 75% marginal effective tax rate. Yes, 75%. They pay business taxes, regulatory fees, payroll taxes, income tax, sales taxes on their supplies and insurance, property taxes, etc, etc, etc. By the time they are added up with that 3% surtax and increases in other "hidden taxes", they face a 75% effective marginal tax rate in 2012.
How many of you would take an $8 an hour job just to take home $2 an hour? Say you work 8 hours in a day, 5 days a week. So, standard 40 hour work week. Would you work 40 hours, promised $320 a week before taxes only to see an $80 paycheck? Remember, it's costing you $3 to $5 a day just to get to work (travel expenses). At $3 a day that's $15 a week just to get TO work. So, now you have $65 a week for food, rent, utilities, internet. Would you work for that?
So what incentive remains for those 75 out of 100 millionaires to bother keeping their businesses going? Here's a hint: THERE ISN'T ONE! So, expect them to start cutting productivity (reducing supply yet again, therefore prices go up). Also, prices will go up to offset those taxes. (A 3% increased tax becomes about a 5% increase in a price tag on items produced or services rendered). It is more cost effective to go to part-time or just quit the business. That means all those employees are now out of work. So, nobody on a payroll means payroll tax cuts go all the way to NOTHING being paid, because, well, nobody is employed.
If you study the past 100 years, you will find that the "theory" of Keynesian Economics has proven itself invalid. Yet our current administration (both sides of the aisle, mind you) are using a system they MUST know to be incorrect. And who suffers? We do. We have 315k+ people say "fuck it" and quit trying to work. We will soon have employers saying "fuck this" and not producing or employing because they cannot afford to do so.
I do not see the sense in these policies. They are not reasonable or logical. They are stupid. And they sugar coat it all when presenting it to the dumb masses in the public who just take cursory numbers from the news as gospel. If you don't bother to THINK and ask "Why?" you get deluded by the white-wash. I just rained on it. So, I guess Tom Sawyer will be hiring idiots to try to paint his fence for him again, though he'll have no capital with which to do so. And I'll be here to rain all over it again.
And I won't be the only one doing the rain dance:
http://allpatriotsmedia.com/
http://www.redcounty.com/content/brilliant-look-how-obama-gingrich-jobs-gap-widening
http://www.boortz.com/weblogs/nealz-nuze/
http://www.therightsphere.com/2011/12/unemployment-drops-to-8-6-how-numbers-lie/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/nfp-prints-120k-below-expectations-125k-unemployment-rate-drops-86
http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2011/12/employment-summary-part-time-workers.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CalculatedRisk+%28Calculated+Risk%29
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
http://www.clearancejobs.com/defense-news/471/federal-workers-don-t-see-rewards-for-innovation-high-performance
http://jackchambless.blogspot.com/2011/12/tenacity-of-hope.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)