We must vote for those candidates of any party that reflect these values: hard work, self-determination, smaller government, fiscal responsibility and honesty. Look to the character of anyone you chose to support. Their past does matter if they haven't learned from it. Their personal life is as relevant as their public one. We must be able to trust those who will be advising and leading us on what our country must do next. -Glenn Beck

Thursday, July 26, 2012

"Greece", starring President Obama and Nancy Pelosi

I just read the following headline:

"Greece to run out of money by August 20"

Let's say that you were starting your own country.  Which country would you choose to model your economy after?  My guess is that last on your list might currently be Greece.

As I write this, I have no idea what type of government exists in Greece.  If you had to guess, what would you say?  On to Wikipedia...


Unitary Parlimentary Republic

No clue what that means.  Let's look it up:

"Unitary" means that there is one central government (rather than states having power.)
"Parlimentary Republic" means that there is no clear cut separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches.

Okay, so that doesn't help.  Or does it?  That does mean that there is less balance of power, so whichever party is in power has more power to pursue their agenda.  So who is in charge?

President of Greece since 2005:  Karolos Papoulias

And what is his political party?

Panhellic Socialist Movement

And there it is.  I was right.  How about you?


What about their financial system?  Greece has a very high standard of living.  34th in the world as of last year.  So what is the problem?  Unemployment is currently at 22.5%!  I wonder what the tax rates are?

Looks like its a  progressive tax system with six tiers.  The highest rate is 45% on those making more than $121,370.  45%!  That's 6% higher than even President Obama wants to go on even lower incomes!


Hmmmm... Lastly, I wonder about the health care in Greece.  Any guesses?  From Wikipedia:

"Health care in Greece is provided by the state through a universal health care system funded mostly through national health insurance."

Man, we're good!  This is like shooting fish in a barrel.  If you "pay" people to not be productive, production will decrease as the number of consumers increases and the number of producers decreases.  More and more people leech onto the system, and less and less people work their tails off to give half of everything they make to the government.


There are obviously many contributing factors to what is happening in Greece, so I obviously did not get all of them.  But it is interesting that after 5 minutes of research, everything that I suspected about Greece was true.

President Obama is really taking some heat from the "You didn't built that" statement.  He is probably frustrated because he can't convince people he was referring to infrastructure.

If someone like Mitt Romney had made the exact same statement, people would realize he must be talking about infrastructure because it wouldn't have fit with anything that he has said.

The problem, President Obama, is that everybody already suspected you felt that way, so the statement fits perfectly with everything else you've been saying for 4+ years.  Big business = Bad.  Rich people = Bad.  Redistribute wealth.  Down with corporations!  Etc, etc, etc.

If the shoe fits...


Now, back to the original question:  Let's say you were starting your own country.  Which country would you model your economy after?  How about one of the most stable countries with consistent high growth rates and high standards of living?  We got here through freedom, capitalism, and low tax rates.

It could be that President Obama is right that it is somehow better than it COULD have been as he has been claiming.  But COULD it also be that, as we move closer to the policies of Greece, our country begins to look more and more like Greece, maybe the policies are to blame?

President Obama may want to change our economy to be more like Greece's, but I prefer the economy that led to one of the longest and most prosperous stretches of growth in the history of the U.S..

Monday, July 23, 2012

End of Debate

I was impressed while watching a little news today to see an interview with a girl who had been in the theater in Colorado where the shooting occurred and her mother.  As the CNN anchor asked them about the shooting, he seemed to keep trying to get an emotional response about the shooting.  Both the daughter and the mother continued saying that yes, the shooting was horrible, but that we cannot become prisoners to terror.  They mentioned that they had no fear of death because of their faith in God.  They refused to let this experience change their lives.

The anchor finally asked in a quiet tone, "What would you two like to say to lawmakers after this experience?"  (Not phishing for an answer at all, right?)  The mom knew where he was going, and said that gun control would only keep the guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens, and then she reiterated that bad things will happen in life, and we can't live our life as prisoners to fear.  We have to trust in God.  The anchor was visibly disappointed.  It was one of the most refreshing interviews I've ever heard on the news.


After these type of tragedies occur, the liberals immediately try to "never let a serious crisis go to waste" and jump immediately on the issue of gun control.

Does anyone else find it interesting that the left is clamoring for gun control because of the guns used in the shooting... when there were 30 sophisticated homemade explosives and flammable devices sitting in his apartment that could have killed as many (if not more) people?  Gun control would not have stopped him from building those.

In fact, the deadliest terrorist attack that has ever taken place on American soil didn't involve a single gun -- It involved box-cutters and airplanes -- Almost 3,000 people were killed and more than 6,000 were injured. How many people could this guy have killed had he taken flying lessons and flown a plane into the movie theater instead?

Timothy McVeigh didn't use a gun in the Oklahoma City bombing -- He killed 168 people and injured 680.  In fact, in an ironic and sad way, guns may actually reduce the amount of deaths in these types of attacks because the attacker has to rely on aim and there are physical constraints like reloading and gun jams (as we saw in this attack) that give a little additional time allow people to react and do their best to get away.


Why did the Founding Fathers put the Right to Bear Arms right behind the Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Speech and the Press, and the Freedom to Assemble in the Bill of Rights?  They had just declared independence from a country that had infringed on all of those rights.

The Founding Fathers could not have stated it any clearer:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It was obviously important to them.  The purpose of all the Constitution and the Bill of Rights was to ensure that what had happened in England would not happen again.

Disarming the people only allows the government to exercise more control over the people (which is probably why the liberals are so enamored with the idea.)  The people need to retain the right to bear arms in order to form a militia (NOT just "to go hunting") and ensure the security of a free State.


The Supreme Court years ago somehow twisted freedom of speech to protect the killing of millions of unborn children every year.  But I have no idea how they could misinterpret the Second Amendment to the Constitution.  The right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.  End of debate.

Friday, July 20, 2012

President Obama's Context

Many times, my motivation to post stems from frustration.  This is one of those times.  Here is one of the latest ads from the Obama campaign:

They claim that Romney is "saying anything to get elected"... because he used a direct quote from President Obama.  That is EXACTLY what President Obama said.  He even plays his own statement 0:37 seconds into his own ad.

All of the comments I have heard and read from the left claim that the quote was pulled out of context.  So let's look at it in context:

He didn't say, "If you have a successful business, you had help from the infrastructure that was in place."  He said, "If you have a successful business you didn't built that.  Somebody else made that happen."


Here is the key to show that he meant exactly what he said.  Right before that comment, he says:

"I'm always struck by people who think, 'Well it must be because I was just so smart.'  There are a lot of smart people out there.  'It must be because I worked harder than everybody else.'  Let me tell you something -- There are whole lot of hard working people out there."

So if he was referring to the infrastructure that the government created, as the liberals are arguing... Why aren't we all rich then? If the business owners aren't smarter and they didn't work harder than others, then why aren't we all as successful as Mitt Romney has been?

Pres. Obama is pandering to his base by telling them, in essence, that they would have been as successful in life as Mitt Romney had they just been born into the George Romney family.  That is not true.  There are a few "Paris Hilton"s in the world who are born into money and opportunity.  But there would have been no Paris Hilton if there had been no Conrad Hilton.  The vast majority of the wealthy got there exactly through their ingenuity and hard work.


Earlier in the speech, you heard Pres. Obama actually say:

"We created a lot of millionaires."
"We created 23 million new jobs, turned the deficit into a surplus."

Who is "we"?  He's talking about the government creating millionaires.  Even if he was actually talking about infrastructure when he said that successful people didn't build their own businesses and that somebody else made that happen, that is a completely flawed argument.

If the government were to go away, the people would still exist.  But... if the people were to go away, the government could not exist.  How would it survive?

Where did the government get the money to build the roads and hire firemen and to research to create the Internet?  Would the Internet have gone anywhere if it weren't for businesses like AOL?  The reason we have the Internet at our houses is because of Internet Service Providers like Comcast who run their non-government business in order to make a profit.  I've heard many people make the excellent argument that we wouldn't have needed paved roads if it weren't for Henry Ford.

The reason that government exists is because the people allow it to exist.  The people in the United States of America control the government, and not vice-versa.  The reason that the government can build roads is because millions of businesses employ hundreds of millions of people, and (some of) the people pay taxes, and the businesses in America pay an exorbitant amount of taxes -- Some of the highest in the world.


Now first, let me say that the only truly fair tax would be if we were to say.  "Hey, we want to get together and build a road.  The road will cost $1,000,000,000 and there are 10 million of us that will be using it, so we need $100 from everybody."

You don't walk into a restaurant, present your W2, and then be charged for the meal based on your ability to pay.  You pay the price that the restaurant charges.

One step less fair, but a more realistic approach in society, is to say that everybody needs to pay, let's say, 10% of their income in taxes for the roads, police, firemen, military, and overhead government costs.  That way, we reduce the burden of the poor to come up with the $100 for roads, and now they just need to pay the same portion of their income as everybody else.  Mitt Romney would pay $2.16 million on his $21.60 million income.  And someone making $20,000 would pay only $2,000.  The people like Mitt Romney are still paying significantly more for using the same shared services than others, but this at least feels somewhat fair -- Everybody pays the same percentage.

What is not "fair" is for half of the people who use the roads, firemen, and Internet to pay nothing for these services... while the top 5% of income earners to pay for 60% of all of our shared costs.


According to Pres. Obama's philosophy, why don't we just raise the tax income for the rich to 100%?  If a person earns over $250,000 in income, let's just take all of it.  We could really pay for everybody to have health care that way!  Right?

It is obvious that an individual taxed at 100% on anything over $250,000 would simply earn their $250,000 and then stop.  Why would they earn any more?  They would have to be crazy.  There is no incentive.

Okay, so let's back it down to 90%.  So if a small business owner who has a painting company were to really work hard and earn $100,000 from jobs, they would get another $10,000.  Not going to happen, because the time and effort to earn the $100,000 in order to net the $10,000 of incremental income isn't worth it.

Raising taxes on something like gasoline or cigarettes will only ever lead to a decrease in consumption of that something.  That same logic applies to business.  If you raise taxes on business, you decrease business (less businesses, less jobs.)


Pres. Obama in this speech is making the argument that business owners have somehow fallen backwards into a pot of money thanks to the government, and that they now need to give more since the road the government "gave" them somehow led their to being wealthy.

That is absolutely ridiculous.  The only way to get the economy back on track is to get the government out of the way and to give people incentive to take the risks that go hand-in-hand with starting and owning a business.  The lower the taxes, the more people will jump in and create jobs.

If there is any business in this economy that is still making money and somehow keeping people employed, it is exactly through a lot of smarts and hard work... and it is in spite of this Obama-led government, not because of it.

Sunday, July 15, 2012

This... is... insane...


President Obama:  "If you've got a business -- you didn't build that.  Somebody else made that happen."

This was a very revealing statement.  I guess because that is the way that Obama achieved his successes, he believes that is the way it is for everyone.  Earlier in the quote, he says:

"There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me -- because they want to give something back.  They know they didn't -- look, if you've been successful, you didn't get there on your own.  I'm always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart.  There are a lot of smart people out there.  It must have been because I worked harder than anybody else.  Let me tell you something -- there are a bunch of hardworking people out there."

Liberal philosophy is about control.  An elite ruling class of high-thinking people making decisions for the masses who are too stupid to think for themselves.  Leveling the playing field by taking from those who find success and giving to those who haven't.

Conservative philosophy is about freedom.  Freedom to succeed, and freedom to fail.  Freedom to win, and freedom to lose.  Anybody, regardless of circumstance, can use their talents and hard work to achieve the American Dream.

President Obama would have us believe that the road to success in America goes right through the U.S. government.  (Which explains the economic "recovery" we've been experiencing.)  Insanity.