Folks at the Cafe have asked me to post the Social Security piece to distract from the fools that are showing their complete ignorance of FREE ENTERPRISE. Those idiots of course would be our own governor, Rick Perry, and of course, the Newt. Perry appears to be consistent in his stupidity. Newt is 90% brilliant and 10% way stupid. Right now he is caught up in his stupid phase. So here is the distraction. It also provides facts we should all know about how Washington is COMPLETELY MISMANAGING OUR RETIREMENT CONTRIBUTIONS. It clearly points up the well know fact that retirement is not a service the federal government should be involved in much less should it have access to our retirement funds. It is none of their business.
What if you went down to your local bank to check on your retirement fund? You have been paying into this fund for many years and this money should be in a very secure position to fund your future retirement. Your visit doesn't go so well. Your bank informs you they have taken the money from all retirement accounts, "The Fund", and have transferred it to the bank's general account. Not only that, they have spent all the money to cover other bank expenses. However, your friendly banker assures you that there was no need to worry, and so far they are making good on their commitments to retirees having never missed a payment.
You have several pesky little questions. First, you ask how are they paying those who are retiring? The banker says they have people like you who are paying into "The Fund", and they are using your and other folks payments into "The Fund" to pay retirees.
My next question is do you have enough payments coming in to meet your obligations to those retiring? The banker says up until this past year they had sufficient payments coming in to meet their obligations, however this year because of lower birth rates and longer life expectancies they had more demand than income, but assured me again I shouldn't worry.
Logically I asked why I shouldn't worry. The answer was the bank was calling the money they had taken and spent from "The Fund" and classified it as a loan. Their intentions and practice, so far, was to pay interest on this loan. These interest payments were making up the difference enabling them to pay the retirees.
OK, but where are you getting the money to pay the interest on "The Fund" that you took? The banker answered," but of course, we are borrowing the money to make the interest payments".
I summarized. So you have "borrowed" all the money from "The Fund" and spent the money on things other than your retirement customers. Your outflow of retirement payments are now, have been for some time, exceeding your income from retirement payments and will continue to do so in the future. At the present time, you are making up the difference by borrowing additional money from unnamed sources (like maybe in China). Correct?
One last question, how long do you think this can continue? If we can continue to borrow money to make our interest payments we see no disruption to making our promised payments to retirees for as much as 25 years.
My comment was, " that seemed like a big IF".
Folks, this is exactly the PONZI scheme (remember Bernie Madoff who is now in prison?) that the Federal Government has sneaked by the American taxpayer:
1. The Social Security Fund is non-existent. The government has loaned the money to themselves and used it to pay other expenses.
2. Current Social Security payments exceeded current receipts by $46 billion in 2010 and $43 billion in 2011.
4. The government is theoretically accruing interest on the money they took from the fund.
5. Even if the government can continue to borrow money to make up for shortfalls in revenue the theoretical fund reserves go negative in 2022 and are exhausted by 2036. These are best case numbers.
6. Unless the federal budget and deficit spending is brought under control we clearly will not be able to continue borrowing money to keep things afloat. Under current spending practices the 2036 date is a pipe dream.
And what does Obama and our current Congress do as they face these facts? They give taxpayers a Social Security Payroll tax holiday by cutting their deductions by about 1/3, and then extend this so called holiday for a second year. Of all the many places federal spending and/or taxes could be cut, these geniuses picked Social Security. Oh well if they had collected the payroll taxes, they would have just spent them for other expenses anyway.
So what do we do? How about these steps? Get Obama out. Vote in a Solid Red Congress. Reform Social Security by separating the funds from the general funds. Make intelligent changes to future retirees that would include giving them a choice to manage their own retirement funds (young people would be very smart to opt out). Make government run retirement funds in the future a safety net welfare program only. Bottom line, you just can't trust politicians with the a large complex operation like Social Security. They are not qualified, nor honest enough, to accept this kind of responsibility. Let's face it. The Social Security system has been a political scam to fund politicians spending to buy votes. They have deceived the American people, BIG TIME.
Think about it,
Jim
Thursday, January 5, 2012
Monday, January 2, 2012
Did You Get Your GAO Christmas Report Card?
It is my humble opinion that Barack Hussein Obama knows that he will not be elected in 2012. That gives him about 12 months to implement his agenda. It is clear this agenda has one major goal: TO TAKE THE UNITED STATE AS WE KNOW IT, TO ITS KNEES (he calls in REFORM). The Obama destruction plan has several components:
1. Economics (Continued deficit spending, increased regulations and industry takeovers, and higher taxes where possible)
2. Executive Orders (Using Obama's agencies to implement policy in lieu of passing legislation)
3. Presidential Side Letters (A way to get around any congressional legislation that doesn't further his agenda)
4. Foreign Policy (Withdrawing as the leader of the free world, playing footsie with all enemy states of the US while dismantling the military with budget cuts and social experiments)
5. Using the Obama Justice Department to harrass Red states while increasing voter fraud everywhere possible
As much as I hate to bog blog readers with numbers it seems democracies don't work so well without informed citizens. To really understand what devious politicians do requires delving into the detail. Politicians on both sides of the isle go to great lengths to hide ugly facts from the American voter. Today's posting exposes the size of our country's true financial challenge. The next posting will tell the truth about Social Security.
Time and again we read that our federal debt has surpassed the Gross Domestic Product. Put simply this means our country could not pay its debts if it confiscated (taxed) all goods and services produced by the country in one full year and applied all of that revenue to the deficit. Put another way if the government spent no more than it received in revenues (you know like a balanced budget), and it put a 10% surtax on all goods and services, it would take about 9 years to pay off our debt at the current growth rate of the country. Scary, right? But this isn't half the sad story. In fact, it is only about 1/3 of the story.
Releasing information on the Friday before a big holiday is a time-tested way to bury bad news. So when the Government Accountability Office’s fiscal 2011 financial statements for the federal government were released on the Friday before Christmas, you knew there must be some big time bad news. Not only has the government created a deficit of over $15 Trillion, it has made promises way beyond that number. Pesky little promises like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and pensions.
In 2011, the cost of these promises grew from $30.9 trillion to $33.8 trillion. To put that in context, consider that the total value of companies traded on U.S. stock markets is $13.1 trillion. Or the value of the equity in all U.S. taxpayers’ homes, according to Freddie Mac, is $6.2 trillion. Said another way, there just ain't enough wealth in America to meet these promises. NOT EVEN IF OBAMA CAN GET THE MILLIONAIRES PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE!!
If the government followed corporate accounting rules (imagine that) , it would add the promises to the cash deficit and the real deficit would be $4.2 Trillion last year. A huge number when you realize that total federal income from taxes and fees is "only" $2.5 Trillion in 2011. In other words our spending and promised spending exceeds our tax revenues by almost a factor of 3.
For we common folks if your family made $50 thousand in 2011, and spent and made promises like the federal government, it would create debt of $84 thousand over and above your income. That's trouble!! AND OBAMA AND THE DEMS SAY THEY JUST HAVEN'T SPENT ENOUGH TO GET US OUT OF THIS ECONOMIC DOWNTURN. LET'S JUST KEEP SPENDING UNTIL THE ECONOMY GETS BETTER, AND THEN WE CAN ADDRESS THE DEBT ISSUES (maybe after the election in 2012?).
The Libs say the greatest threat to our country isn't radical muslims developing nukes nor communists dictators with nukes nor financial bankruptcy driven by an entitlement state but RADICAL TEA PARTIERS. Radical in that they want a smaller federal government that spends less and with less government control over private enterprises so they can commit more resources to building an American economy that can reduce their children's debt (the only way to get out of this mess is less spending, less regulations, and economic growth rates exceeding 4% a year). Nothing threatens the ruling elite's power more than the Tea Party's radical concept that originated with the original radicals that founded this country. Evil and stupid guys like Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and Adams (you know old rich white guys with slaves). These leaders just didn't have the good of the people in their hearts like these nice and brilliant guys FDR, LBJ, Teddy Kennedy, Jimmy Carter, and Obama/Reid/Pelosi.
It is time for Americans to pick sides, NOT COMPROMISE. A compromise between brilliance (Jefferson) and stupidity (Obama) is just plain old fashioned dumb (Reid).
Think about it,
Jim
1. Economics (Continued deficit spending, increased regulations and industry takeovers, and higher taxes where possible)
2. Executive Orders (Using Obama's agencies to implement policy in lieu of passing legislation)
3. Presidential Side Letters (A way to get around any congressional legislation that doesn't further his agenda)
4. Foreign Policy (Withdrawing as the leader of the free world, playing footsie with all enemy states of the US while dismantling the military with budget cuts and social experiments)
5. Using the Obama Justice Department to harrass Red states while increasing voter fraud everywhere possible
As much as I hate to bog blog readers with numbers it seems democracies don't work so well without informed citizens. To really understand what devious politicians do requires delving into the detail. Politicians on both sides of the isle go to great lengths to hide ugly facts from the American voter. Today's posting exposes the size of our country's true financial challenge. The next posting will tell the truth about Social Security.
Time and again we read that our federal debt has surpassed the Gross Domestic Product. Put simply this means our country could not pay its debts if it confiscated (taxed) all goods and services produced by the country in one full year and applied all of that revenue to the deficit. Put another way if the government spent no more than it received in revenues (you know like a balanced budget), and it put a 10% surtax on all goods and services, it would take about 9 years to pay off our debt at the current growth rate of the country. Scary, right? But this isn't half the sad story. In fact, it is only about 1/3 of the story.
Releasing information on the Friday before a big holiday is a time-tested way to bury bad news. So when the Government Accountability Office’s fiscal 2011 financial statements for the federal government were released on the Friday before Christmas, you knew there must be some big time bad news. Not only has the government created a deficit of over $15 Trillion, it has made promises way beyond that number. Pesky little promises like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and pensions.
In 2011, the cost of these promises grew from $30.9 trillion to $33.8 trillion. To put that in context, consider that the total value of companies traded on U.S. stock markets is $13.1 trillion. Or the value of the equity in all U.S. taxpayers’ homes, according to Freddie Mac, is $6.2 trillion. Said another way, there just ain't enough wealth in America to meet these promises. NOT EVEN IF OBAMA CAN GET THE MILLIONAIRES PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE!!
If the government followed corporate accounting rules (imagine that) , it would add the promises to the cash deficit and the real deficit would be $4.2 Trillion last year. A huge number when you realize that total federal income from taxes and fees is "only" $2.5 Trillion in 2011. In other words our spending and promised spending exceeds our tax revenues by almost a factor of 3.
For we common folks if your family made $50 thousand in 2011, and spent and made promises like the federal government, it would create debt of $84 thousand over and above your income. That's trouble!! AND OBAMA AND THE DEMS SAY THEY JUST HAVEN'T SPENT ENOUGH TO GET US OUT OF THIS ECONOMIC DOWNTURN. LET'S JUST KEEP SPENDING UNTIL THE ECONOMY GETS BETTER, AND THEN WE CAN ADDRESS THE DEBT ISSUES (maybe after the election in 2012?).
The Libs say the greatest threat to our country isn't radical muslims developing nukes nor communists dictators with nukes nor financial bankruptcy driven by an entitlement state but RADICAL TEA PARTIERS. Radical in that they want a smaller federal government that spends less and with less government control over private enterprises so they can commit more resources to building an American economy that can reduce their children's debt (the only way to get out of this mess is less spending, less regulations, and economic growth rates exceeding 4% a year). Nothing threatens the ruling elite's power more than the Tea Party's radical concept that originated with the original radicals that founded this country. Evil and stupid guys like Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and Adams (you know old rich white guys with slaves). These leaders just didn't have the good of the people in their hearts like these nice and brilliant guys FDR, LBJ, Teddy Kennedy, Jimmy Carter, and Obama/Reid/Pelosi.
It is time for Americans to pick sides, NOT COMPROMISE. A compromise between brilliance (Jefferson) and stupidity (Obama) is just plain old fashioned dumb (Reid).
Think about it,
Jim
Monday, December 26, 2011
2012: Blue, Purple, or SOLID RED?
So what are the choices in 2012? There are three: Blue, Purple, or SOLID RED.
Blue would be a return to the first two years of Obama's term. If you loved Obama/Reid/Pelosi dominated government resulting in Obamacare, $1 trillion handouts to voters and capitalistic cronies, deficit spending exceeding $1 trillion each year ($5 trillion in Obama's first 3 years), gays in the military, bans on energy exploration and production unless it went into the pockets of Algore and the green scammers, government takeovers of industries like autos, health care and energy, and taking your hard earned money and "spreading it around". A second term would be a repeat with one huge difference. It would be on STEROIDS. In other words, "you ain't seen nothing yet".
Or if you loved the drama of the so called Payroll Tax Holiday extension, your color of choice would be to repeat the good old Purple government split between the Democrats and Republicans. Nothing big would get done, and most of the time that is a good thing for the government to do nothing. However, these times are different. The greatest nation in history has been dramatically weakened by entitlements, bailouts, and redistribution. A continuation of our Purple government would hasten our slide into bankruptcy (today our debt exceeds our GNP). And without economic power, we have no foreign power or influence. Our "leading from the rear" approach practiced by Hillary and Obama, while giving these two egomaniacs clips for the 6:00 News, renders the US as impotent in real world affairs. Do you really believe there is a single world leader who listens to Barack Hussein Obama today?
This Purple government not only did not cut the federal budget this year they actually increased spending for the coming year by $50-$100 billion. Remember the downgraded credit rating of the US for the first time in history. Remember the creation of the super committee to identify bi-partisan spending cuts to avoid the dreaded "government shutdown". Remember newly elected Republicans pledging to cut the budget by $100 billion when they came to town in the first year. Bottom line, Obama would not make any cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security and the Republicans were unsuccessful in cutting any of the federal agency spending. It was a complete standoff as the Senate completed its third year in a row without passing, or even submitting, a budget in a violation of the US Constitution. So hold on because our economic slide just gains speed with the color Purple.
Our last choice is to go SOLID RED with a Republican in the White House combined with Republican majorities in the House and Senate. The last SOLID RED government left office on January 3rd, 2007 when the Democrats took control of the House and Senate for George Bush's last two years. At the time the DOW Jones closed at 12,621.77. The GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5% vs. last quarters 1.8%. The unemployment rate was 4.6% vs. a fudged current 8.6%.
A SOLID RED government going forward would adapt Tea Party principles of returning the country to fiscal responsibility by not overspending, and not burdening our children and grandchildren with our bills. These principles also include constitutionally limited government which means power resides with the people and not with the government. Governing should be done at the most local level possible where it can be held accountable. The American people make this country great, not our government.
The third, and last, Tea Party principle would return us to free market economics that has for at least two centuries provided generations of Americans more opportunities and higher standards of living than any nation in history. An erosion of our free markets through government intervention is at the heart of America’s current economic decline, stagnating jobs, and spiraling debt and deficits. Failures in government programs (Fannie and Freddie loans to moochers) and government-controlled financial markets (packaging bad loans and reselling them) helped spark the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.
The most reliable polling organization, Rasmussen, explored the type of action that voters were looking for the government to take. Among all voters, 77% want the government to cut deficits, 71% think the government should cut spending, and 59% want the government to cut taxes. This is consistent with long held voter views that cutting spending and taxes is good for the economy, and it is right out of the Tea Party playbook. And of course, the Obama media calls the Tea Party radical, in which case the majority of voters are "radical" as well. It is time for this country to get radical, big time.
Non-Tea Party issues would include energy independence, allowing God back into our public life, supporting the family unit, and returning schools and marketplaces to a merit based system of rewards.
So there are clear choices. Our challenge is to communicate these choices to the American electorate in simple, positive terms while not getting caught up in the weeds (a 2 month payroll tax holiday or a 12 month theft of social security). Communications are critical. The Republican House just forced Obama and the Senate to drop a tax on millionaires while also forcing Obama to move up his decision on the Keystone pipeline. These were big wins, yet America is absolutely convinced House Republicans lost because the Senate got a 2 month extension instead of a 12 month extension. Many are touting this dribble as Obama's biggest win that will insure his re-election. Only in a Liberal controlled media could this happen.
Think about how we do can replace Obamaspeak with the truth, and think SOLID RED, big time! So what are the odds we can go SOLID RED? I believe in the American people so I would give it a 51-49 chance of going RED. And the odds of implementing a country saving agenda which would take great courage and tenacity? Again I am a believer, so I would give it another 51-49 chance.
This is a chance we have to take,
Jim
Blue would be a return to the first two years of Obama's term. If you loved Obama/Reid/Pelosi dominated government resulting in Obamacare, $1 trillion handouts to voters and capitalistic cronies, deficit spending exceeding $1 trillion each year ($5 trillion in Obama's first 3 years), gays in the military, bans on energy exploration and production unless it went into the pockets of Algore and the green scammers, government takeovers of industries like autos, health care and energy, and taking your hard earned money and "spreading it around". A second term would be a repeat with one huge difference. It would be on STEROIDS. In other words, "you ain't seen nothing yet".
Or if you loved the drama of the so called Payroll Tax Holiday extension, your color of choice would be to repeat the good old Purple government split between the Democrats and Republicans. Nothing big would get done, and most of the time that is a good thing for the government to do nothing. However, these times are different. The greatest nation in history has been dramatically weakened by entitlements, bailouts, and redistribution. A continuation of our Purple government would hasten our slide into bankruptcy (today our debt exceeds our GNP). And without economic power, we have no foreign power or influence. Our "leading from the rear" approach practiced by Hillary and Obama, while giving these two egomaniacs clips for the 6:00 News, renders the US as impotent in real world affairs. Do you really believe there is a single world leader who listens to Barack Hussein Obama today?
This Purple government not only did not cut the federal budget this year they actually increased spending for the coming year by $50-$100 billion. Remember the downgraded credit rating of the US for the first time in history. Remember the creation of the super committee to identify bi-partisan spending cuts to avoid the dreaded "government shutdown". Remember newly elected Republicans pledging to cut the budget by $100 billion when they came to town in the first year. Bottom line, Obama would not make any cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security and the Republicans were unsuccessful in cutting any of the federal agency spending. It was a complete standoff as the Senate completed its third year in a row without passing, or even submitting, a budget in a violation of the US Constitution. So hold on because our economic slide just gains speed with the color Purple.
Our last choice is to go SOLID RED with a Republican in the White House combined with Republican majorities in the House and Senate. The last SOLID RED government left office on January 3rd, 2007 when the Democrats took control of the House and Senate for George Bush's last two years. At the time the DOW Jones closed at 12,621.77. The GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5% vs. last quarters 1.8%. The unemployment rate was 4.6% vs. a fudged current 8.6%.
A SOLID RED government going forward would adapt Tea Party principles of returning the country to fiscal responsibility by not overspending, and not burdening our children and grandchildren with our bills. These principles also include constitutionally limited government which means power resides with the people and not with the government. Governing should be done at the most local level possible where it can be held accountable. The American people make this country great, not our government.
The third, and last, Tea Party principle would return us to free market economics that has for at least two centuries provided generations of Americans more opportunities and higher standards of living than any nation in history. An erosion of our free markets through government intervention is at the heart of America’s current economic decline, stagnating jobs, and spiraling debt and deficits. Failures in government programs (Fannie and Freddie loans to moochers) and government-controlled financial markets (packaging bad loans and reselling them) helped spark the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.
The most reliable polling organization, Rasmussen, explored the type of action that voters were looking for the government to take. Among all voters, 77% want the government to cut deficits, 71% think the government should cut spending, and 59% want the government to cut taxes. This is consistent with long held voter views that cutting spending and taxes is good for the economy, and it is right out of the Tea Party playbook. And of course, the Obama media calls the Tea Party radical, in which case the majority of voters are "radical" as well. It is time for this country to get radical, big time.
Non-Tea Party issues would include energy independence, allowing God back into our public life, supporting the family unit, and returning schools and marketplaces to a merit based system of rewards.
So there are clear choices. Our challenge is to communicate these choices to the American electorate in simple, positive terms while not getting caught up in the weeds (a 2 month payroll tax holiday or a 12 month theft of social security). Communications are critical. The Republican House just forced Obama and the Senate to drop a tax on millionaires while also forcing Obama to move up his decision on the Keystone pipeline. These were big wins, yet America is absolutely convinced House Republicans lost because the Senate got a 2 month extension instead of a 12 month extension. Many are touting this dribble as Obama's biggest win that will insure his re-election. Only in a Liberal controlled media could this happen.
Think about how we do can replace Obamaspeak with the truth, and think SOLID RED, big time! So what are the odds we can go SOLID RED? I believe in the American people so I would give it a 51-49 chance of going RED. And the odds of implementing a country saving agenda which would take great courage and tenacity? Again I am a believer, so I would give it another 51-49 chance.
This is a chance we have to take,
Jim
Saturday, December 24, 2011
2012: MOOCHERS VS. PRODUCERS!
The latest statistics revel that 53% of Americans pay all federal income taxes. Not only is this a small majority it is an alarming wake up call.
There is a clear choice in the next election no matter who the Republican candidate. The choice is between an entitlement society or a merit based society. The entitlement worshipers believe in a Keynesian approach to economics and a concept called "social justice".
First let us look at the economics. Obama and other liberals believe that if the government gives people money (let's say a $600 'tax credit') the recipients will stimulate the economy by spending that money resulting in more production, more jobs, and therefore, more employment. They believe the government produces economic growth through stimulating the economy.
The truth is the government produces nothing. It just redistributes. The $600 the government in the above example gave away came from producers. The government took the $600 out of the economy and redistributed it to someone who, in effect, is mooching off the producers. Again, redistribution takes from producers and gives to moochers. It is a zero sum game. And that is not he worst part of government stimulus.
Look at the incentives created by redistribution. The moocher is incented to not produce and to rely on the government for more handouts (the moocher is entitled to compensation rather working or not, health care, food, housing, education, childcare, etc.). Businesses are even created to sponge off the moochers who are sponging off the producers. Producers are incented to produce less (there are not rewarded for MERIT) since the government takes their production and gives it away to moochers. Bottom line, both moocher and producer are incented to work less (THE MERIT BASED SOCIETY IS DEAD). This is why socialism fails time and time again even though it appears so appealing to moochers, and of course, to those who want power to rule over moochers (unions, welfare pimps, many lawyers, big government capitalistic cronies like GE/green energy gurus/Warren Buffett, and socialist politicians).
Let's break this down into a simpler example. What if there were two farmers, and only two, in an economic market? What if farmer A decided to retire and draw unemployment while farmer B continued to work? Where would the unemployment come from? (I hope this isn't getting too complex!) It comes from farmer B, right? And how about incentives? Farmer A has successfully, at least for a little while, become a MOOCHER. Farmer B, meanwhile, has lost all incentive to work hard as a PRODUCER since his extra effort has no MERIT BASED REWARD and is redistributed to farmer A. Doesn't work, right? This economic market will not continue to grow and prosper. And if it doesn't work on a small scale like this example just guess how much it doesn't work in a complex $3.5 Trillion economy like the US (3Q US GDP growth was pathetic at 1.8%). Or how about worldwide? Just look at Europe. The MOOCHERS are rioting in the streets because their ENTITLEMENTS are threatened. Meanwhile, the entitlement pimps claim a merit based approach is just plain greed.
Now let's look at this thing called "social justice" since it is used as justification for most entitlements. Just plain old "justice" means to be fair in making judgments based on facts and the truth. Justice favors no one and treats everyone equal. To put any descriptor on the front of justice is to attempt to sell "injustice". It is simply used to favor someone or some group. "Social Justice" in most cases is an attempt to redistribute or take from one group and give to a "favored" group. This is theft whether it is done by a blindfolded scoundrel in an alley or by Washington politicians doing the biding of a majority of voting moochers.
Liberals use the "Social Justice" theme to favor their voters. These voters may be black, Hispanic (anything but white even though the hypocritical Liberal elite is mostly white), gay, lesbian, transgender, female (anything but male even though most of the hypocritical Liberal elite leaders are white), unemployed, illegal, members of labor unions (anyone but the producers), etc., etc. The size and number of groups varies based on the number of votes required by the pimping politicians. Liberals invented "social justice" when the term welfare became unpopular (remember Bill Clinton double crossed them). Social justice arguments are aimed at those 47% that don't pay taxes, and the Liberal elite who live off them.
So who could be against "social justice"? The answer is simple. Anyone who believes in "justice". These would be most of the 53% that are producing and paying taxes.
While we all agree there are real situations where true welfare assistance is needed in our society. This assistance is provided generously by Americans. It is clearly best handled at local levels whether by churches, local care organizations, or local government. Big government entitlement pimps are doing everything possible to drive local organizations out of the practice of assisting those in need. This is criminal, and what is really sad, it hurts those in need the most. No one has suffered more by the entitlement society than minorities and the poor.
Think MERIT BASED IN 2012,
Jim
There is a clear choice in the next election no matter who the Republican candidate. The choice is between an entitlement society or a merit based society. The entitlement worshipers believe in a Keynesian approach to economics and a concept called "social justice".
First let us look at the economics. Obama and other liberals believe that if the government gives people money (let's say a $600 'tax credit') the recipients will stimulate the economy by spending that money resulting in more production, more jobs, and therefore, more employment. They believe the government produces economic growth through stimulating the economy.
The truth is the government produces nothing. It just redistributes. The $600 the government in the above example gave away came from producers. The government took the $600 out of the economy and redistributed it to someone who, in effect, is mooching off the producers. Again, redistribution takes from producers and gives to moochers. It is a zero sum game. And that is not he worst part of government stimulus.
Look at the incentives created by redistribution. The moocher is incented to not produce and to rely on the government for more handouts (the moocher is entitled to compensation rather working or not, health care, food, housing, education, childcare, etc.). Businesses are even created to sponge off the moochers who are sponging off the producers. Producers are incented to produce less (there are not rewarded for MERIT) since the government takes their production and gives it away to moochers. Bottom line, both moocher and producer are incented to work less (THE MERIT BASED SOCIETY IS DEAD). This is why socialism fails time and time again even though it appears so appealing to moochers, and of course, to those who want power to rule over moochers (unions, welfare pimps, many lawyers, big government capitalistic cronies like GE/green energy gurus/Warren Buffett, and socialist politicians).
Let's break this down into a simpler example. What if there were two farmers, and only two, in an economic market? What if farmer A decided to retire and draw unemployment while farmer B continued to work? Where would the unemployment come from? (I hope this isn't getting too complex!) It comes from farmer B, right? And how about incentives? Farmer A has successfully, at least for a little while, become a MOOCHER. Farmer B, meanwhile, has lost all incentive to work hard as a PRODUCER since his extra effort has no MERIT BASED REWARD and is redistributed to farmer A. Doesn't work, right? This economic market will not continue to grow and prosper. And if it doesn't work on a small scale like this example just guess how much it doesn't work in a complex $3.5 Trillion economy like the US (3Q US GDP growth was pathetic at 1.8%). Or how about worldwide? Just look at Europe. The MOOCHERS are rioting in the streets because their ENTITLEMENTS are threatened. Meanwhile, the entitlement pimps claim a merit based approach is just plain greed.
Now let's look at this thing called "social justice" since it is used as justification for most entitlements. Just plain old "justice" means to be fair in making judgments based on facts and the truth. Justice favors no one and treats everyone equal. To put any descriptor on the front of justice is to attempt to sell "injustice". It is simply used to favor someone or some group. "Social Justice" in most cases is an attempt to redistribute or take from one group and give to a "favored" group. This is theft whether it is done by a blindfolded scoundrel in an alley or by Washington politicians doing the biding of a majority of voting moochers.
Liberals use the "Social Justice" theme to favor their voters. These voters may be black, Hispanic (anything but white even though the hypocritical Liberal elite is mostly white), gay, lesbian, transgender, female (anything but male even though most of the hypocritical Liberal elite leaders are white), unemployed, illegal, members of labor unions (anyone but the producers), etc., etc. The size and number of groups varies based on the number of votes required by the pimping politicians. Liberals invented "social justice" when the term welfare became unpopular (remember Bill Clinton double crossed them). Social justice arguments are aimed at those 47% that don't pay taxes, and the Liberal elite who live off them.
So who could be against "social justice"? The answer is simple. Anyone who believes in "justice". These would be most of the 53% that are producing and paying taxes.
While we all agree there are real situations where true welfare assistance is needed in our society. This assistance is provided generously by Americans. It is clearly best handled at local levels whether by churches, local care organizations, or local government. Big government entitlement pimps are doing everything possible to drive local organizations out of the practice of assisting those in need. This is criminal, and what is really sad, it hurts those in need the most. No one has suffered more by the entitlement society than minorities and the poor.
Think MERIT BASED IN 2012,
Jim
Friday, December 23, 2011
What A Shameful Week In American Politics
This past week the American federal debt rose to $15.2 trillion, a big milestone. Why? Because our Gross Domestic Product (all the goods and services this country produces) is $15.1 Trillion. Yep, our debt is over 100% of our GDP. That is only supposed to happen in places like Italy and Greece. Maybe France.
But not worry, Americans. Obama has saved our economy by extending the "Payroll Tax Holiday". Obviously that is the case are the media would not have given this legislation such attention. If fact all the smart folks say that Obama was so brilliant in how he handled this major crisis that it just might insure his re-election. Must be a really big deal, huh?
Let's take a look. The law extends the payroll tax cut, set to expire on Dec. 31, through Feb. 29. That means workers will only pay 4.2% on the first $110,100 of their wages into Social Security. That is 2 percentage points below the normal 6.2% rate.
If the payroll tax cut is extended for all of 2012 -- which both parties say they want and will work to do when they return from their Christmas recess -- workers would reduce what they pay into their retirement funds from several hundred dollars if they're low-income to more than $2,000 if they earn six figures.
Estimated cost of a two-month extension: $21 billion. If extended for one year: $126 billion will not be available for social security funding. Ain't that great!
The proposed extension of the payroll tax holiday is touted by the idiot in the White House to prevent a hit to our anemic economic recovery. The White House and members of Congress have sold the end of the holiday as a tax increase on the middle class. In fact, this Social Security payroll tax is actually an investment into one’s retirement account. Promoting continued reduced payment into Social Security is the same as telling folks to borrow from their retirement and spend the money now. Obama used the story of a woman who said if she did not get the $20 per week "tax cut" she would not be able to have pizza with her daughters each week. She is happy to trade off her retirement for pizza?
Shame on any citizen who buys into the idiot pitch that the opponents of extending this underfunding of future security just want to increase tax rates for the middle class. Greater shame on those immoral politicians who make that claim. Similarly, replacing the billions of dollars (approximately $126 billion/year) that don’t come to Social Security from workers paychecks by funds the government has to borrow to cover its huge deficit is bad policy. Surely there are better initiatives to support economic growth (how about permanent tax cuts paid for by reduced government spending?). Bottom line the politicians continue to rob our social security system to buy votes.
The passed legislation also extended jobless benefits: Emergency federal unemployment benefits, also scheduled to expire on Dec. 31, will be extended through February. Without that extension, an estimated 1.8 million jobless workers in January would have run out of benefits, which average $296 a week. Obama claims this extension some how creates jobs by giving the unemployed money to spend.
With the dramatic decrease in unemployment from 9% to 8.6% you would think we will not need this provision. Oh, I forgot. The reduction in unemployment numbers were because of the way we count. Over 300,000 people left the workforce last month and only 120,000 people took new jobs. Since we don't count those that left the workforce our employment percentage goes up and unemployment percentage goes down. Got that? Obama doesn't get into weeds like this.
Estimated cost: $8.4 billion.
Next comes the extension of the "Doc fix": The new law prevents a scheduled 27% cut in payments to Medicare physicians for the first two months of next year. The American Medical Association has noted that even with the regular intervention by Congress, Medicare payments lag 20% behind the cost of caring for seniors.
Many in Congress would like to pass a permanent doc fix, but the biggest stumbling block to doing so is figuring how to pay for the estimated $300 billion cost over the first decade. So the politicians just sneak it by the public one little piece at a time. This is a perfect example of what happens when the government takes over an industry. Medicare and medicaid are a mess, and Obamacare is even worse. The continuation of these programs as they are will doom this nation to bankruptcy, and soon.
Estimated cost: $3.6 billion.
The last item in the legislation is a congressional push to force the President to expedite his decision on whether to allow construction of the 1,700-mile Keystone oil pipeline. The Obama administration has said that if forced to make a decision before the election Obama will decide against the pipeline. Why doesn't Obama want to make a decision now? If he approves the pipeline HE LOSES HIS CONTRIBUTIONS FROM ENVIRONMENTALISTS. If he disapproves the pipeline HE LOSES HIS CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE AFL/CIO LABOR UNIONS. Surprise, surprise it is about idiot in chief's re-election.
And of course the pols argued and argued about HOW TO PAY FOR THESE EXTENSIONS. What did they settle on? The law calls on mortgage financing giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to charge lenders more to guarantee repayment of new loans. Fannie and Freddie play a central role in destroying the housing market by purchasing mortgages from banks and bundling them into mortgage-backed securities (and getting taxpayer bailouts when their corrupted strategies don't work). New housing starts in the US are at an all time (since they started keeping records in 1963) record low in 2011 at about 325,000. To economically recover we need them to be over 700,000. So let's raise the cost of buying a new home so a lady can take her daughters out to have pizza. Makes complete sense doesn't it.
Estimated to raise: $36 billion over 10 years. Note how we always spend the money now and pay for it over 10 to 20 years.
What didn't make the cut? Not every expiring tax provision is accounted for in the new law. Left out was any action on a host of other "temporary" tax breaks that expire this year. These include the research and development credit for businesses and a state and local sales tax deduction for individuals.
Also left out was the usual fix to protect the middle class from getting hit by the Alternative Minimum Tax when they file their taxes for 2012. I don't know about you but every year I am unable to write off my mortgage interest and some other deductions because the AMT kicks in. Enough said about the big tax loopholes for the rich.
And then to top things off. Obama's media is quoting "unnamed sources" who are wanting to fire John Boehner, Republican Speaker of the House. I have a better suggestion. DITCH MITCH! Fire Mitch McConnell, the Republican Senate Minority Leader, who sided with Obama, Reid, and Pelosi against the House Republicans in supporting this insanity.
Bottom line: What a shameful week.
Think about it,
Jim
But not worry, Americans. Obama has saved our economy by extending the "Payroll Tax Holiday". Obviously that is the case are the media would not have given this legislation such attention. If fact all the smart folks say that Obama was so brilliant in how he handled this major crisis that it just might insure his re-election. Must be a really big deal, huh?
Let's take a look. The law extends the payroll tax cut, set to expire on Dec. 31, through Feb. 29. That means workers will only pay 4.2% on the first $110,100 of their wages into Social Security. That is 2 percentage points below the normal 6.2% rate.
If the payroll tax cut is extended for all of 2012 -- which both parties say they want and will work to do when they return from their Christmas recess -- workers would reduce what they pay into their retirement funds from several hundred dollars if they're low-income to more than $2,000 if they earn six figures.
Estimated cost of a two-month extension: $21 billion. If extended for one year: $126 billion will not be available for social security funding. Ain't that great!
The proposed extension of the payroll tax holiday is touted by the idiot in the White House to prevent a hit to our anemic economic recovery. The White House and members of Congress have sold the end of the holiday as a tax increase on the middle class. In fact, this Social Security payroll tax is actually an investment into one’s retirement account. Promoting continued reduced payment into Social Security is the same as telling folks to borrow from their retirement and spend the money now. Obama used the story of a woman who said if she did not get the $20 per week "tax cut" she would not be able to have pizza with her daughters each week. She is happy to trade off her retirement for pizza?
Shame on any citizen who buys into the idiot pitch that the opponents of extending this underfunding of future security just want to increase tax rates for the middle class. Greater shame on those immoral politicians who make that claim. Similarly, replacing the billions of dollars (approximately $126 billion/year) that don’t come to Social Security from workers paychecks by funds the government has to borrow to cover its huge deficit is bad policy. Surely there are better initiatives to support economic growth (how about permanent tax cuts paid for by reduced government spending?). Bottom line the politicians continue to rob our social security system to buy votes.
The passed legislation also extended jobless benefits: Emergency federal unemployment benefits, also scheduled to expire on Dec. 31, will be extended through February. Without that extension, an estimated 1.8 million jobless workers in January would have run out of benefits, which average $296 a week. Obama claims this extension some how creates jobs by giving the unemployed money to spend.
With the dramatic decrease in unemployment from 9% to 8.6% you would think we will not need this provision. Oh, I forgot. The reduction in unemployment numbers were because of the way we count. Over 300,000 people left the workforce last month and only 120,000 people took new jobs. Since we don't count those that left the workforce our employment percentage goes up and unemployment percentage goes down. Got that? Obama doesn't get into weeds like this.
Estimated cost: $8.4 billion.
Next comes the extension of the "Doc fix": The new law prevents a scheduled 27% cut in payments to Medicare physicians for the first two months of next year. The American Medical Association has noted that even with the regular intervention by Congress, Medicare payments lag 20% behind the cost of caring for seniors.
Many in Congress would like to pass a permanent doc fix, but the biggest stumbling block to doing so is figuring how to pay for the estimated $300 billion cost over the first decade. So the politicians just sneak it by the public one little piece at a time. This is a perfect example of what happens when the government takes over an industry. Medicare and medicaid are a mess, and Obamacare is even worse. The continuation of these programs as they are will doom this nation to bankruptcy, and soon.
Estimated cost: $3.6 billion.
The last item in the legislation is a congressional push to force the President to expedite his decision on whether to allow construction of the 1,700-mile Keystone oil pipeline. The Obama administration has said that if forced to make a decision before the election Obama will decide against the pipeline. Why doesn't Obama want to make a decision now? If he approves the pipeline HE LOSES HIS CONTRIBUTIONS FROM ENVIRONMENTALISTS. If he disapproves the pipeline HE LOSES HIS CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE AFL/CIO LABOR UNIONS. Surprise, surprise it is about idiot in chief's re-election.
And of course the pols argued and argued about HOW TO PAY FOR THESE EXTENSIONS. What did they settle on? The law calls on mortgage financing giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to charge lenders more to guarantee repayment of new loans. Fannie and Freddie play a central role in destroying the housing market by purchasing mortgages from banks and bundling them into mortgage-backed securities (and getting taxpayer bailouts when their corrupted strategies don't work). New housing starts in the US are at an all time (since they started keeping records in 1963) record low in 2011 at about 325,000. To economically recover we need them to be over 700,000. So let's raise the cost of buying a new home so a lady can take her daughters out to have pizza. Makes complete sense doesn't it.
Estimated to raise: $36 billion over 10 years. Note how we always spend the money now and pay for it over 10 to 20 years.
What didn't make the cut? Not every expiring tax provision is accounted for in the new law. Left out was any action on a host of other "temporary" tax breaks that expire this year. These include the research and development credit for businesses and a state and local sales tax deduction for individuals.
Also left out was the usual fix to protect the middle class from getting hit by the Alternative Minimum Tax when they file their taxes for 2012. I don't know about you but every year I am unable to write off my mortgage interest and some other deductions because the AMT kicks in. Enough said about the big tax loopholes for the rich.
And then to top things off. Obama's media is quoting "unnamed sources" who are wanting to fire John Boehner, Republican Speaker of the House. I have a better suggestion. DITCH MITCH! Fire Mitch McConnell, the Republican Senate Minority Leader, who sided with Obama, Reid, and Pelosi against the House Republicans in supporting this insanity.
Bottom line: What a shameful week.
Think about it,
Jim
Thursday, December 22, 2011
The Idiot In The White House
I just watched an idiot on television. He was speaking to the American Public from the White House. He said that most Democrats and Republicans in the Senate passed a bill to stop a tax increase on 160 million Americans that he would sign. He said it is being held up by a faction of Republicans in the House. The idiot in chief said the average American would have their taxes raised by $1,000 on an annual basis. The idiot then said that would result in taking $40 per week from their paychecks. Any school child would tell you that $40 per week is over $2,000 per year. This guy doesn't even have his math right, much less the facts.
This President did not mention the difference between the House and the Senate is the House wants to pass the Payroll Tax Holiday for ONE YEAR VERSUS THE SENATE VERSION OF TWO MONTHS. The President shamelessly claims he and the Senate want to extend the tax holiday and the House does not. This is completely untrue.
What is the truth?
The first truth is the "Payroll Tax Holiday" is an Obama scheme to get votes by weakening our Social Security System which is going bankrupt. This ploy weakens Social Security, increases our national debt, and creates a tax cut that has to be taken away at some future date. Additionally, this creates no new jobs whatsoever. No employer is going to add employees because the employee gets an $80 per month tax holiday. Also, hidden in the rhetoric is an extension of unemployment required because of the Obama economy. Also, hidden is the "Doctor's Fix" which must be passed periodically because Medicare and Obamacare are so screwed up. Overall these provisions increase our national deficit by ONE QUARTER OF A TRILLION DOLLARS.
The second truth is if the President and Congress want to cut taxpayers taxes they should do it permanently, and they should offset that tax cut by cutting government spending as not to increase the deficit. Social Security deductions should not be the means for a tax cut. A twelve month extension means we have to face the music by reinstating the Payroll Taxes at the same time the Bush tax cuts expire. Both of course, come due after the 2012 election.
The third truth is the reason this issue is getting so much press time is the Congress once again has put off doing its business until the 11th hour. The Democratic controlled Senate has not passed a budget now for 3 years, and obviously will not pass a budget until after the 2012 election. In fact a Democratic controlled government may never pass another budget. This same Senate put off extending the Payroll Tax Holiday until the last day they were in Washington before they left for a 30 Holiday vacation. Meanwhile the Payroll Tax terminates January 1. The bill they passed for a meager 60 day extension does not give employers time to change their payroll systems before January 1, and then requires them to change again possibly after 60 days. If the Senate had passed their bill earlier they would have plenty of time to engage the House in negotiations to get a quality piece of legislation instead of the 60 day hodgepodge they approved.
The fourth truth is the only bigger idiot than Obama and Reid is a Republican. Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell led his Republican Senators into a massive political trap for Republicans by voting for the 60 day mess, and then leaving Washington while timidly suggesting the House Republicans should drop their principles and go along as he and his colleagues did.
The fifth truth is the American electorate can be tricked by political maneuvers as practiced by Obama, Reid, and Pelosi and supported by the main stream media. They pull political stunts like the Payroll Tax Holiday (robbing social security funding) while claiming they are only putting $40 per week (bad math) in needy American pockets only to be challenged by a fragment of radical Republicans in the House who are only interested in politics. Bottom line: The electorate has been convinced the Republican led Tea Party Radicals are only interested in political games while Obama and his democrats are only interested in cutting taxes for middle class Americans. In other words BLACK IS WHITE, AND WHITE IS BLACK. UP IS DOWN, AND DOWN IS UP.
Interestly the press doesn't talk about "truth" anymore. They talk about sophisticated things like "optics". I call these "deceptions".
Don’t think about this too much because it will drive you crazy,
Jim
This President did not mention the difference between the House and the Senate is the House wants to pass the Payroll Tax Holiday for ONE YEAR VERSUS THE SENATE VERSION OF TWO MONTHS. The President shamelessly claims he and the Senate want to extend the tax holiday and the House does not. This is completely untrue.
What is the truth?
The first truth is the "Payroll Tax Holiday" is an Obama scheme to get votes by weakening our Social Security System which is going bankrupt. This ploy weakens Social Security, increases our national debt, and creates a tax cut that has to be taken away at some future date. Additionally, this creates no new jobs whatsoever. No employer is going to add employees because the employee gets an $80 per month tax holiday. Also, hidden in the rhetoric is an extension of unemployment required because of the Obama economy. Also, hidden is the "Doctor's Fix" which must be passed periodically because Medicare and Obamacare are so screwed up. Overall these provisions increase our national deficit by ONE QUARTER OF A TRILLION DOLLARS.
The second truth is if the President and Congress want to cut taxpayers taxes they should do it permanently, and they should offset that tax cut by cutting government spending as not to increase the deficit. Social Security deductions should not be the means for a tax cut. A twelve month extension means we have to face the music by reinstating the Payroll Taxes at the same time the Bush tax cuts expire. Both of course, come due after the 2012 election.
The third truth is the reason this issue is getting so much press time is the Congress once again has put off doing its business until the 11th hour. The Democratic controlled Senate has not passed a budget now for 3 years, and obviously will not pass a budget until after the 2012 election. In fact a Democratic controlled government may never pass another budget. This same Senate put off extending the Payroll Tax Holiday until the last day they were in Washington before they left for a 30 Holiday vacation. Meanwhile the Payroll Tax terminates January 1. The bill they passed for a meager 60 day extension does not give employers time to change their payroll systems before January 1, and then requires them to change again possibly after 60 days. If the Senate had passed their bill earlier they would have plenty of time to engage the House in negotiations to get a quality piece of legislation instead of the 60 day hodgepodge they approved.
The fourth truth is the only bigger idiot than Obama and Reid is a Republican. Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell led his Republican Senators into a massive political trap for Republicans by voting for the 60 day mess, and then leaving Washington while timidly suggesting the House Republicans should drop their principles and go along as he and his colleagues did.
The fifth truth is the American electorate can be tricked by political maneuvers as practiced by Obama, Reid, and Pelosi and supported by the main stream media. They pull political stunts like the Payroll Tax Holiday (robbing social security funding) while claiming they are only putting $40 per week (bad math) in needy American pockets only to be challenged by a fragment of radical Republicans in the House who are only interested in politics. Bottom line: The electorate has been convinced the Republican led Tea Party Radicals are only interested in political games while Obama and his democrats are only interested in cutting taxes for middle class Americans. In other words BLACK IS WHITE, AND WHITE IS BLACK. UP IS DOWN, AND DOWN IS UP.
Interestly the press doesn't talk about "truth" anymore. They talk about sophisticated things like "optics". I call these "deceptions".
Don’t think about this too much because it will drive you crazy,
Jim
Friday, December 16, 2011
Mitt Romney Is THE MAN!
Last night's debate did it for me.
I thought Michelle Bachman was great. She is conservative, consistent, courageous,and courteous. Over the next four years she will provide excellent leadership to the Republican Party.
Newt was Newt. His description of Obama's failure to allow the pipeline from Canada was fantastic. His scorning of the whacko liberal judges was over the top but stimulating and refreshing. His defense of Fannie and Freddie was horrible. His defense of his $1.6m "consulting fees" was even worse.
Ron Paul was inspiring with his Libertarian domestic views and totally frightening with his view of the world and his isolationism.
And then there was Mitt. No screw ups. Great answers. Terrific temperance. And then he closed me with his philosophy of leadership.
Mitt said under Obama's leadership we were a declining nation and under his Presidency we would regain our position of leadership.
Post debate with Hannity, Mitt gave his formula for making the next century, America's Century. It follows:
"We need to make this century the American Century. It will require leadership in two critical areas to make that happen. The first input pertains to our nation's values and principles. Our values must be based on freedom and opportunity. Our society must return to a 'merit based' society, and it must be built around strong family units."
"The second requirement for American leadership is to restore an American economy that leads the world. The essentials include restoring a climate of innovation, entrepreneurship, and providing a business friendly environment."
Contrast this to Obama's recent tirades of condemning his Republican opposition for wanting to "go back" to those practices that got us in trouble (Obama hates the pre-Obama America). Obama's vision is clear. More government (taxpayer) spending on teacher's unions, more government (taxpayer) spending with construction unions, more government (taxpayer) spending with green energy cronies (Solyndra), higher taxes on job producers (the spending has to come from somewhere), and more government regulations and control (picking winners). These are the "new" reforms espoused by Obama that have worked so well over the last 3 years. In his view we just have not done enough spending, taxing, and regulating to assist his cronies and contributors (the governing class which is the real 1%).
Contrast that to "going back" to Romney's proven American values (freedom, opportunity, merit based outcomes, and striong families) and American economic leadership (business led innovation and entrepreneurship) with a government that gets out of the way of producers and encourages moochers to participate in the American dream. Just how difficult is this choice?
Mitt Romney was an effective counter balance to the Democratic controlled Massachusetts' legislature when he served as Governor. He was an effective CEO at Bain and Company and then at Bain Capital. He volunteered to rescue the 2002 US Winter Olympic organization and did a great job there. Given a Republican House and Senate I am convinced Romney can be trusted to return this country to it's rightful place of world leadership. I am also confidant he is the man to expose Barack Hussein Obama, and his Chicago style of corrupt politics, as the phony incompetent that he is.
Think about it,
Jim
I thought Michelle Bachman was great. She is conservative, consistent, courageous,and courteous. Over the next four years she will provide excellent leadership to the Republican Party.
Newt was Newt. His description of Obama's failure to allow the pipeline from Canada was fantastic. His scorning of the whacko liberal judges was over the top but stimulating and refreshing. His defense of Fannie and Freddie was horrible. His defense of his $1.6m "consulting fees" was even worse.
Ron Paul was inspiring with his Libertarian domestic views and totally frightening with his view of the world and his isolationism.
And then there was Mitt. No screw ups. Great answers. Terrific temperance. And then he closed me with his philosophy of leadership.
Mitt said under Obama's leadership we were a declining nation and under his Presidency we would regain our position of leadership.
Post debate with Hannity, Mitt gave his formula for making the next century, America's Century. It follows:
"We need to make this century the American Century. It will require leadership in two critical areas to make that happen. The first input pertains to our nation's values and principles. Our values must be based on freedom and opportunity. Our society must return to a 'merit based' society, and it must be built around strong family units."
"The second requirement for American leadership is to restore an American economy that leads the world. The essentials include restoring a climate of innovation, entrepreneurship, and providing a business friendly environment."
Contrast this to Obama's recent tirades of condemning his Republican opposition for wanting to "go back" to those practices that got us in trouble (Obama hates the pre-Obama America). Obama's vision is clear. More government (taxpayer) spending on teacher's unions, more government (taxpayer) spending with construction unions, more government (taxpayer) spending with green energy cronies (Solyndra), higher taxes on job producers (the spending has to come from somewhere), and more government regulations and control (picking winners). These are the "new" reforms espoused by Obama that have worked so well over the last 3 years. In his view we just have not done enough spending, taxing, and regulating to assist his cronies and contributors (the governing class which is the real 1%).
Contrast that to "going back" to Romney's proven American values (freedom, opportunity, merit based outcomes, and striong families) and American economic leadership (business led innovation and entrepreneurship) with a government that gets out of the way of producers and encourages moochers to participate in the American dream. Just how difficult is this choice?
Mitt Romney was an effective counter balance to the Democratic controlled Massachusetts' legislature when he served as Governor. He was an effective CEO at Bain and Company and then at Bain Capital. He volunteered to rescue the 2002 US Winter Olympic organization and did a great job there. Given a Republican House and Senate I am convinced Romney can be trusted to return this country to it's rightful place of world leadership. I am also confidant he is the man to expose Barack Hussein Obama, and his Chicago style of corrupt politics, as the phony incompetent that he is.
Think about it,
Jim
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
