Search This Blog

Tuesday, November 27, 2012

Destroying the middle class









Today you hear a lot about how the separation between the rich and poor in America is widening and that the middle class is being wiped out.  For the left, the problem is the rich, out of their own greed, are preventing the poor from moving up.  To me however the problem is not caused by the rich, but instead by government regulation. 

In the past, America had  a very vibrant and health middle class.   Our structure was one of a series of "steps" ranging from  poor, lower-middle, middle, upper-middle, and rich.  Each step was within "reach" of the previous step allowing people to move up (and in some cases down) with little difficulty.  A poor person could work a simple factor job and work their way up to more skilled position and enter the middle class.  A lower-middle-income person could open up a small business out of their car or garage.  After some time they can work their business up to a level of opening up a shop.  They could hire extra help and work their business up to where they could afford to expand to multiple locations and within time if they desired take company to a more national level and enter the rich class of America.  Success stories like that of Dave Thomas the founder of "Wendy's" restaurants, who started with literally nothing and became a millionaire by working his way up through the restaurant business and later starting his own chain, were common place.

Enter the "nanny state" in which the government, for our own "protection", adds business regulations.  These regulations limit things such as where you can set up your business.  You want to use your garage?  Forget it!  You want to sell things out of your car on the street?  Don't even think about it!   Other regulations limit WHO can open up a business and who cannot.  You want to braid hair?   In the state of Illinois you will need 1000 hours of training and $15,000 of education to obtain a cosmetology degree before you can do that.  And all to often, those you create such regulations are already in the business and use the government as a way to keep competition low.These regulations remove the lower rungs of the economic ladder (see below).


 This makes it MORE difficult for the poor to take that "first step" in the economic ladder towards a better life.  While some of these regulations seem non-intrusive to you or me, to someone who is heavy in debt and has little in their savings (if they have any at all), even a small $100 license fee can seem insurmountable.

But it doesn't stop there.   For even the Middle class trying to make it into the "rich" class, regulation can be used to impede their progress. In the early 1900's one could hire workers on as little as a "handshake and a promise".   But today, without litigation-happy society, this is a mere dream.   Employers must have employee contracts detailing, how they will be paid, how they will be evaluated, what their duties will be, what their "rights are", how much time off they will get etc...  Also with regulations being added to them a break-neck speeds, employers must hire hosts of lawyers and accountants to help them keep up and navigate the regulation complexities and nuances.   For established corporations these lawyers are a drop in they proverbial bucket, but for the business owner just starting out, these costs reduce their ability to hire lower skilled workers they need to build, package, ship and bill. 









 And so with fewer people able to ENTER the middle class from the poor-class, the middle class is literally "dying off" over time.

Finally,  because we allow illegal immigrants to enter our country we are "growing" the poor class by adding to them at alarming rates.  Therefore the "poor" class is growing while the middle class is ever shrinking.










Monday, November 26, 2012

North and South poles have switched!!







Many people don't know this, but the North pole has not always been in the north.  In a weird twist of geological events, the north and south poles occasionally switch ends.   This process takes years to happen but it does in deed occur about ever 780,000 years (not sure how this would effect migratory birds, but I am sure it will give our airplanes and ships a run for their money).

Joseph Stalin
Ronald Reagan
So it also seems to occur with political "poles" in which on one end we have freedom and the other end we have totalitarianism (or communism) for just a little over 20 years ago, Russia was the leader and promoter of communism and the US was the leader of the free world. 






  Now looking at our two countries, one must wonder if the US and Russia have somehow "swapped'
 sides.

Vladimir Putin
To illustrate, consider this: the Russian paper, "The Pravda", which was the Soviet Union's own propaganda newspaper today is labeling our President, with no uncertain terms,  a communist.  At the same time the newspaper is contrasting what their leader Vladimir Putin has said recently in speeches that look eerily similar to what President Reagan was promoting in the 80's (lower taxes, smaller government etc..)

See the link below for more information:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/russian-news-outlet-pravda-previously-the-official-press-of-the-ussr-labels-obama-a-communist-in-scathing-oped/

I swear world is upside down now!

Thursday, November 15, 2012

3 solutions to our national debt

There are really on 3 solutions to our national debt crisis.  Anyone who says we can ignore it and it will eventually go away is not living in reality.   The 3 solutions I have can be rated as: BAD, BAD and DISASTROUS

First solution:  Austerity measures. 

    Who likes it:  No one.

This solution requires serious cuts the federal budget.  Everything from welfare, social security, medicare and even the military would need to be addressed.  People would need to help other people rather than hope the government would be there to catch them.

Second solution:  Inflate our way out of debt

    Who likes it:   Politicians
\This is not a new method.  Germany did it after WW-I in the Weinmar Republi.  Loaded with all of Europe's war debt (a requirement from Woodrow Wilson to get France on board for his League of Nations), Germany printed loads of money to payback its debts.  This lead to Hyper-Inflation where wheel-barrels of money were needed to buy a loaf of bread and for many it was more cost effective to use the money as fuel for their furnaces.  This method was also used by the US in the 1970's as well.  Strapped with loads of debt both from the Vietnam War and also from Johnson's War on Poverty, Nixon took the US off the gold-standard in 1971 freeing the treasury to print more money and inflation ensued at levels of 15-20%.  This is Washington's favorite way of fixing these kinds of problems.  Because Congress can set their own pay levels, they are immune to inflation.  While the average person must get by with less and see their savings eaten up by inflation.  For example if inflation is at 12%, the value of goods and services doubles every 6 years (rule of 72), therefore money sitting in a bank drawing 3-5% loses buying power.

Third solution:  Bankruptcy

     Who likes it:  Those who want to "transform" the country

Governments can and often do go bankrupt.  This doesn't mean the country does not exist anymore.  It just means the country must change how it does things.  This is what we did to the USSR in the 90's after they bankrupted themselves trying to compete in an arm's race with the US under the leadership of Ronald Reagan.  They had to re-write their constitution and make changes to their way of doing things.  Russia went from a centralized government that owned everything to a republic in which citizens were free to own property and businesses again.  In other words, they became more like us.

We too, if we do not fix the mess we are in may also have to declare bankruptcy.  We would have to re-write our contract with the citizens as well and most likely that Constitution will be LESS Free than the one which we have held for over 200 years.  We may see the end of "states" and instead have a large national system with "zones" or "wards".   We will most likely see the end of gun ownership and the freedom of religion and speaking.  Property rights may need to be "communitized" (the individual is subject to the community and its interests). 

This is of course the most disastrous of the 3 solutions.  But I fear there are many who are counting on this.















Wednesday, November 14, 2012

I want to SCREAM!

I am sitting in a Starbucks waiting for my son to get out of his meeting and can't help but notice all the obliviously happy people around me.  Most of them are under 25 from what I can tell.  The man next to me is listening to music on his cell phone.  Another man two tables from me is watching a movie on his laptop.  At a table in the corner is a group of what appears to be college students sitting around joking about their lives (2 are guys who are trying to desperately get the attention of the one very attractive female in the group).  A girl across from me is feverishly texting on her phone (maybe she should call and save her fingers the trouble). 

All of them so merry but unaware that the world they were brought up in going to change dramatically over the next 4 years.   Most of these "adults" (I use that term loosely) have no idea of what inflation, qualitative-easing, laffer-curve, dynamic-scoring, static-scoring, debt crisis, fiscal-cliff even mean.  They have no understanding of our government or our constitution.   They know nothing of our heritage or our history.   They know more about Justin Bieber and Justin Timberlake than they do of Washington, Jefferson, Madison or Lincoln combined.  To them watching Jon Stewart counts as watching the news and staying "informed" (sort of a TV-two-fer where you get comedy AND news all rolled into one).  They also see watching the president on the late-night-talk-shows as election-decision-data-gathering and feel the debates are too long and too wordy (Can't we cut it down to 30 minutes instead of 3 90 minute sessions?)

They will spend more time deciding what to put on in the morning than who they will vote for in a presidential election.  (a news piece showed that the most Googled question on November 6th was "Who is running for president").   They have been pampered and padded over their lives.  Given A's when they should have gotten B's or C's.  They are frustrated when their phone doesn't get service within 10 seconds of turning it on.    They will spend $5 on a coffee they will consume in  15 minutes but not give  $5 to a charity.  They know how to work their smart phone but they are not smart enough to find a job.

I JUST WANT TO SCREAM!  ARE YOU SO BLIND?  ARE YOU SO STUPID?

Why taxing the rich NEVER works

People often mistake INCOME and WEALTH as the same thing when nothing can be further from the truth.  When people hear that we are only going to increase taxes on the millionaires and billionaires they compute the amount of money they think the government will pull in based on their wealth and not on their income.   We forget that the tax we pay is the INCOME tax and not a wealth tax.  As the word income implies, its the wealth that is in-coming or coming-into our possession.  Once possessed it cannot be taxed again.

The millionaires and billionaires may in fact end up paying ZERO federal income tax when all is said and done.  How this is done is not magic or some hidden fund or loop-hole they are utilizing.  Instead it is simply by reducing their "income" to zero and zero times anything is still zero.  They can do this because they can afford to do this.

If I gave you 10 million dollars, you would be able to live out the rest of your life fairly comfortably.  For me that would give me about $300,000 per year.  I would not have to invest it at all and therefore pay no tax on it.  This is how millionaires and billionaires would circumvent the increase in taxes altogether and in the end the treasury would collect less in taxes rather than more. 

This is the difficult dance that Obama has attempted to perform.   As we know from this past election Obama demonized the rich by going after one of their own ... Mitt Romney.  He cannot take back all of his rhetoric and negative ads and expect the golden goose to which he has beaten over the head time and time again to lay its golden eggs at his feet.  Instead it may spurn his requests and make him go without.

But wait a minute you say, "We've seen many rich people saying they would gladly pay more in taxes.  So maybe they don't feel so badly about the president"

To me, however, the rich can be divided into 2 camps:  earners and non-earners.

Earners:
   - Business owners and CEO's
   - Entrepreneurs
   - Inventors
   - Capital Investors

Non-earners
   - Hollywood stars
   - Sport Athletes (NBA, NFL, MLB etc)
   - Musicians and Singers
   - Hedge Fund managers




Now looking at those 2 lists you may be thinking.. "CEOs??"    Yes they do earn the money they are  paid.  Did they just wake up one day and say "Make me a CEO!" ?  No.  Many worked their way up through the manager ranks and VP levels to prove their ability to manage large groups of people and large budgets.  They make the big decisions like:

- Where to build (or close)
- What to make (or not make)
- When to hire (and when to fire)
- When to split stocks (or buy them back)

Those who fill out the non-earners ranks of course do work hard at what they do, but often they do not make decisions that effect the lives of 1000's of people and while they may give us a few minutes of enjoyment, they do not move the world forward and give us more stuff to put under our proverbial "christmas tree".   The non-earners are of course MORE than happy to give up more of their NON-EARNED-INCOME to the government for that which is not earned is not appreciated whether that be a welfare check or a big-paycheck from a movie studio.

What about the sub-millionaires?  Those making $250K or more?   They can't live on their acquired wealth as well so won't they be paying more in taxes? 

To a point yes.  But we will not go unscathed because most of these are small business owners who will either make up for the higher taxes either by charging more for their services or by laying off some of their workers to increase their profits.  Either way, everyone will be paying these taxes and not just the top 1 or 2 percent.

Secession is NOT an option

Recently the White House web-site has been inundated with requests to allow their states to secede from the union peacefully.

First of all, I understand the frustration of losing the election.  It hurts.  I also know the frustration of knowing what is coming down the pipe towards us.  More taxes. More regulation. Less freedom.  More crap from the White House.  It's like the time when I was in the backyard with some friends years ago and we were watching our kids play on the swing when we saw my friends 3 year run in front of the swinging kids.  We knew what was about to happen but were powerless as we watched my son swing right into her, knocking her over like a bowling pin.  It all happened in slow motion in our minds and I swear I felt a pain strike into me before she was struck.

So to it is with what we see happening before our very eyes.  The death of the Republic and the rise of Socialist-States-of-America.

But in reality we are still the UNITED STATES of AMERICA.  We must stick together and hope that through education (not the kind the schools provide) we can win back the hearts of our citizenry.  Secession is NOT the answer because there are many around the world who would LOVE to see that happen for they know a divide USA is an impotent USA.   Tough times are ahead.  The 70's were not a cake-walk either.  High gas prices. High unemployment. High interest rates (18%).  Hostages in Iran.  A Republican party in disarray after Watergate.  A military coming back from its first defeat (Vietnam).   Yet with all of this, America turned around and voted in Ronald Reagan in a land-slide.  It can happen again, but only if we stick together.

Finally, I do not think it wise to "sign" the White House website request to secede.  Putting your name on a document that some could use against you in the future is not a wise thing.  I know it may be a way of "protesting" but protest is only useful if it brings about a change.  This type of protest will never bring about change and is a dead end.   Some have decided to protest by flying their flag upside down.  This has been used by sea going vessels as a sign of "distress" and is not dishonoring the flag.  However, I say do not do this lightly.  Be ready for those around you who do not understand this as a sign of distress to call you unpatriotic and look to do you harm.   Also, be ready with an answer to those who question your upside-down-flag.  Be reasonable and thoughtful.  Not angry.

If you have read my other blogs you know how much value I put in education. To me that is half the battle.  For too long we let our public schools do all the teaching and this is what they have brought us.  We must first educate ourselves and then our children, our grand-children, nieces, nephews, boy-scouts .. who ever.  We must teach them REAL history and REAL values. We are blessed by God with the internet and EASY access to materials both written and in videos.  We can show them  Reagan's 1964 speech and Milton Friedmans 1980 TV series "Free to chose" .  There are also countless websites that offer education free of charge such as : Prager University and  Declaration Entertainment


And these are just a few..





Monday, November 12, 2012

Between a rock and a hard place

  Now the election is over and American has found itself in dire-straights for the next 4 years with a debt ceiling crisis looming (referred to as the fiscal cliff) we are right where many on the extreme-left have wanted to put us for a long time.  Taking a page from Ronald Reagan they have put us on a road to serfdom that we may not be able to get out of without some Houdini-like maneuvers on our part.

  To those who are unclear about that last sentence let me be more expound.   Back in the 80's the US was in the middle of the Cold-War with their arch rival the USSR (Soviet Union) and many feared that the two countries would square off in a nuclear-war contest.  Ronald Reagan however turned the Cold-War into Economic-War.  Using our economic might, he ratcheted up our military spending building better aircraft, ships, submarines and satellites (Start Wars Initiative to take down incoming enemy missiles).  Russia countered our efforts by spending larger and larger parts of their GDP to build up their own military, but because of their economic model their did not have as deep of pockets as our US government did causing them to go further into debt.  As a result the people of the USSR suffered.  They had to go without for a long period of time (food and resources were in short supply).   The grumblings of "the masses" forced Russia to invoke Perestroika (reforms) that allowed more freedom of speech and ownership.   This was the beginning of the end for the USSR.

   Finally the debt was too much and the only way out was a full blown bankruptcy.  Just as a company that is debt ridden can go through bankruptcy so also a country can and the methods are quiet similar.

   First a company sells off its less necessary and viable parts allowing it to focus on its main areas.  For Russia, this was letting go of its eastern block countries like Poland, Rumania, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia etc.  With these gone, Russia would be able to serve its own people better

  Second a company must restructure itself and come up with a better business plan/model.  This may mean firing the CEO and several VP's and managers while also changing their system of rewards and bonuses.  For Russia, this was throwing away their old Constitution and system of government and coming up with a new system that is fairer and just.   Their new system allowed capitalism and free-markets to come in and develop new businesses.  

  With the first 2 steps in place, a company needs to bring in new investors to help fund them and pay off old debts (or at least the ones they can pay back).  Without the first 2 steps, very few would be willing to take a chance.  For Russia, we became their largest investor and gave them loans to keep their lights on until they could become a democratic republic.

   Now here we are facing a debt crisis.  Not one created by external forces, but one created by those inside who care little about our history and our system of government.  Like Russia, we have been duped into running up huge debts through social-security, welfare, medicare and food-stamps.  Later on we will start to feel the weight of the debt of all debts: Obamacare.  All of this, at a time when our country is not at its HEIGHT of economic power, but at its WEAKEST.  Our economy is in a perpetual recession (no one likes to say DEPRESSION anymore).  Higher taxes coming will do two things.

   1) Slow our economy further causing more layoffs. These layoffs will increase to government 
       expenditures in welfare and food-stamps.
   2) Higher taxes will cause lower revenues (Laffer-curve) as incentive to grow income will be
       reduced.  Higher debts will call for MORE taxes and therefore reduced revenues

   At some point we, like Russia, will have to say "UNCLE" and call in the bankruptcy attorneys (the UN) to negotiate a new system of government.   This new system of course will not be as free as the last one, because to them it's FREEDOM that is the cause of all the ills in this world.   To them, too much freedom is a bad thing and allows too much money to go in the hands of too few.  Ronald Reagan predicted this day would happen and said in his 1960 speech, "When that time comes, our surrender will be VOLUNTARY because by that time we will have been weakened within: spiritually, morally and economically".

   To those of you who think this is all just conspiracy stuff, let me discuss what happened in 2008.  If you remember when the debt-crisis first came out in the fall of 2008, by January of 2009, Congress had a 2000 page stimulus bill ready to pass with over $800 billion in goodies to pass out.   Did that bill just write itself?  Of course not.  A group called "The Apollo Alliance" had been working on it over several years in the "event such a catastrophe occurred",  Amazing huh?    We are so lucky to have such a group spending their time thinking about these things.  Given this, don't you think there are people out there right this very minute working on a NEW CONSTITUTION for us to pass in the event we just might need one? 

   What can be done?  We are in a very difficult position.   If business pushes itself and gets the economy running it will only encourage more people to vote for the democrats and would show Obama as the "economic saviour" of our country and further push his agenda.  If business slows down and lays off more people then that plays into the democrats hands all over again and will cause us to race towards the fiscal-cliff.

   To me the only solution would be for business to shutdown in a massive way such that no matter how much sugar the media tries to put on it things will look extremely bad.  This will destroy Obama's clout and any "mandate" he thought he had and hopefully by 2014 we would be able to have a revolution at the polls where people will vote with their pocket books and not their bleeding-hearts.

Friday, November 9, 2012

Increase the DEBT by increasing TAX RATES

PREFACE:  
Obama just met with reports to discuss the issue of the national debt.  During the speech Obama specifically said that in the talks he would NOT allow "dynamic scoring" of whatever budget is produced.  What is "dynamic scoring" ??  It is where the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) takes into account that raising tax rates effects taxpayers behavior and can cause a decrease in revenue (and therefore an increase in the national debt).   This blog was written BEFORE the President made his remarks and proves that the President fully knows that the Laffer-Curve is real which is why he wants to use "static scoring" in which tax rates do not effect our behavior (under this method we would gladly pay 100% of our income to the government).

PLEASE READ THE REST OF THIS BLOG FOR MORE EXPLANATION



Does the title of this blog seem odd?

  It will for most people.

  Human reason seems to make you think that RAISING TAXES should INCREASE REVENUES and therefore DECREASE THE DEBT.

  But that is not reality (something Washington DC is lacking in).  It has been a long proven fact an effect called "The Laffer Curve" is an economic reality.

  The Laffer-Curve was developed by the famous economist Art Laffer who showed that people do not hand over their income to the government without considering ways to reduce their tax levels.  To prove this effect, let us first consider a graph showing the relationship between tax rates of 0% to 100% and how much revenue the government collects.  At the low end when the government has a tax rate of 0% the government collects $0 in revenue ( 0 time anything is 0).  When the government sets the tax rate to 1% they will collect $R of revenue.  When they raise the tax level to 2% they can pretty much be sure they will collect  2 x $R in revenue since the tax level is still relatively low.  At 3% they will collect  3 x $R.

   Now let's consider the extreme level of 100%.  How many people are going go to work if they have to turn over 100% of their income to the government.  That is slavery!   Since there is no incentive to work, there will be $0 collected by the government.  Even at 99% there is still little desire to work.  At some level (maybe 70%) we might feel some accomplishment in going to work and begin to get off our couches and earn some income, although most of us would find some way to under-report our income either by working for cash or barter so that we can keep more of our income.

 

    So we have 2 areas of positive revenue growth on both the left (low side) of the scale and at the right (high side) of the scale.  Therefore there must be a place in the middle where they meet in which the slope of the line is 0 (or horizontal).   This point on the graph is pointed to above with arrow from X% .  This place is where the MAXIMUM level of tax revenue is gathered by the government.  Going OVER this level and the government will start to see a REDUCTION in revenues gathered.

     The question remained for some time , "What is the value of X?".  For some time, many thought the level was at about 70%,but after the Reagan tax reduction from 75% to 38% we saw the government revenues grow and not shrink therefore we knew X had to be much lower.  Finally a study done by 2 professors of economics at UC Berkley called the Romer-and-Romer study (they are married) determined that X was at about 33%. which is where our highest level of taxation is today.

   Are these two economists just some right-wing-tea-party-loving extremists?  NO!  In fact, these 2 professors were put on the Obama administrations counsel on economic reform so we can be sure that President Obama is fully aware that moving the tax levels above where they are today will cause the government to see a reduction in tax revenues if they pursue their "plan of increasing the taxes on the top 2% of earners".

    I believe this is the Presidents overall strategy for by doing so he can bankrupt the country at a faster rate AND make it seem like it was not his fault since, after all, he forced the wealthy to pay more of their "fair share".   You might say he will be able "have his cake AND eat it too".  Today he just wants a 3% increase on the highest tax rate, but what will happen is we will see fewer $$ in revenue and an increase in the national debt.  The democrats will call for even HIGHER tax rates on the wealthy which will result in even LESS revenue   The debt will grow faster and the democrats will call for even HIGHER taxes....

   Do you get the picture now?

   Each increase in taxes will result in fewer revenues and more debt thereby making us drive toward the "fiscal cliff" at higher and higher speeds.



















New Poll: 50% of Americans believe in Santa Claus


 

 

     A poll done on Tuesday delivered some very good news for our retail stores this Christmas.  The poll revealed that 50% of Americans believe in Santa Claus.  That's right Virginia!  There IS a Santa Claus after all only he does not reside at the North Pole and he does not ride a red sleigh pulled by 8 reindeer.  Instead Santa Clause now resides in a large white building on Pennsylvania avenue in Washington DC and he doesn't limit his gifts to just good little boys and girls.  He gives gifts to all of his constituents who voted for him and coal (the clean variety) for those who did not.  He also doesn't need to carry a large red sack over his shoulder and deliver them on one night a year.  Instead, this Santa Claus delivers all year long and his gifts are handed out by elves who work (if you want to call it "work") in unemployment offices and welfare offices across our land handing out free money and food stamps for all who "need" them.   He can also hand out electronic gift cards to the banks using the Federal Reserve through Qualitative Easing (QE1,2,3...) so he doesn't have to use printing presses to print REAL money and get his fingers dirty with all the ink. 

   Yes America now believes in Santa Claus. 

They believe that all these free gifts are all payable by taxing the rich, but little do they know that if they confiscated 100% OF ALL THE WEALTH (not just their income but also emptied their bank accounts and confiscated all their assets) we would only be able to pay for 1 year of our national expenditures and after that there would be nothing left over for the next years expenditures.

   But as we the "grown-ups" know , there is NO Santa Claus.  We know this because it is US who pays the credit card bills in January for all the crap we lavished on our children on December 25th. We feel the pain of cutting back on things we like to do and places we like to go to so we can make those payments (with interest) and so it is with our country.  The children now out-number the grown-ups and they want Christmas to be extended and made a year-round holiday.   The children voted and Santa Claus won and like our own situations at home, we the grown-ups will be footing the bill for generations to come.  There is little that the other side can do other than wait for the bag of goodies to run out.  After all, how can the other side compete with Santa Claus?   If you gave a child a choice between Santa Claus giving him free gifts or him making his own toys, what do you think they will choose?   No matter how eloquently you speak of the feeling of satisfaction you will get by making your own toys and how proud you would feel about them, the child will always choose "free gifts".  So what do we do?

   To me the answer is education.

    I am sorry to say this, but it's time we stop teaching our children about jolly old St. Nick.  Maybe we need to teach our children reality rather than mythology.  We need to educate our children about taxes and spending.  We need to indoctrinate them on the values of making things and producing rather than sucking on the teet of the government.  We need to teach them about freedom and free-enterprise.  We need to show them that you cannot solve all the worlds problems and develop a totally "fair" society. We need to teach the the evils of Socialism and that any one who can "give you everything" can also therefore "take everything you have".  

   The church as well MUST take a stand and be involved in this education as well.  Especially the Catholic Church.  For too long the Catholic Church has sided with Democrats on "social issues" (even though they violently disagree on abortion) and now finds itself at odds with the party it once promoted.  Now it is time for them to change sides and help educate the immigrants who come here (most of whom are Catholic) on the problems of the Democratic Party and on what it means to be an American.  For too long the churches have been silent, thinking it to be a "sin" to speak "evil" against the government even though the government speaks evil of them.  THIS HAS GOT TO STOP!

   Unless we do this, we will doom our children to a bankrupted country (just like the USSR in the 90's)  and faced with a choice of either crushing levels of taxes or a NEW CONSTITUTION and a NEW FORM OF GOVERNMENT (and trust me that new government will not promote a free society either).






Wednesday, November 7, 2012

Beware the man who has nothing to lose

Well the election is over and Obama has 4 more years to tear down this country with his taxes and regulations and as he messaged to Vladimere Putin, he will have more "flexibility when he wins his next election".

For those who think Obama will consult Clinton on how to conduct himself on his 2nd term, move to the center and reach out to Republicans all I have to say to is..

ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR MINDS????

Obama has never lived in the center and certainly will not be worrying about how to get there now.

No. He has wanted this position and he has us exactly where he wants us.  He has NOTHING TO FEAR because he has NOTHING TO LOSE.

He has already said he doesn't need Congress.  After all he can change our country by using his many administrations and czars.

He doesn't need Senate approval for his appointments... he can appoint whoever he wants when they are in recess or declare another person to be the Czar of XYZ

He doesn't need bills to pass the House or the Senate... he can have the EPA pass any regulation he needs or order the Justice Department to ignore any law he doesn't agree with.

He doesn't need Congress to approve of where or how he uses the military... he can order his drones at will to kill whoever he wills (US citizen or not) or send in his troops in any country for however long he needs (like he did in Libya).

He doesn't need to ever answer to Congress for any laws his administration may have broken... he can just declare Executive Privilege at will and prevent any committees from getting to bottom of its many cases it is investigating.

He doesn't need a budget to be passed ... he can just have the Federal Reserve hand out free "digital money" to the banks through QE3,4,5.. (Qualitative Easing is where the Fed electronically prints money into the banks accounts which he has done 3 times already) and cause massive inflation when that money goes into circulation.

(In fact I think Congress should just go on a 4 year vacation because I can guarantee they won't be needed by this President and will be wasting there time hanging around the Capitol building waiting for bi-partisan direction to come from the White House)

He doesn't need to fear the press for he knows they are his lap dogs (attack dogs when he needs them).

I have little hope that the next 4 years will be better than the last 4 years but I pray that I am wrong.  But one hope I do have is this....

OBAMA CANNOT RUN FOR A THIRD TERM!!!!

THANK GOD!

POST NOTE:
   The Roman Empire started out as a Republic as well and only with the advent of a General by the name of Julius Caesar did they abandon this form of government for an Emperor.  As the Emperor's became more and more powerful their Senate became impotent and their wealth and power was squandered until there was nothing left.  And so it will become of us too I fear for history repeats itself for humans are deaf to its lessons.

Tuesday, November 6, 2012

Prop 30 revenge

Well with 41% of the precincts reporting, it looks like Proposition 30 here in California is going to be passed. 

For those of you who are outside of California (I envy you), Prop 30 requires 1/4 % sales tax increase along with increasing the tax rates on those making more than $250,000 dollars.  All this money will be used to pay for the pension shortfalls of our beloved public school teachers who work so hard 9 months a year (sarcasm added).

So how should Californian's get the final say in this?  Well I can't do much about the income tax increase, but I can do something about the sales tax increase.

My answer?  Buy all your big items on the internet at every opportunity.

Stick it to California and tell them you are not going to be sheared anymore.

Open Letter to Mitt Romney

Dear Mr. Romney,

   Thank you for your service and your effort at defeating Obama in this election.  You worked tirelessly and did everything we could expect from a candidate.  You showed grace and kindness that was not returned by the other side.  Though they tried to destroy your reputation and cast you as a horrible person, you took the high road and made your campaign about the economy and how we need to turn this ship around before we bankrupt our children.  You ran a very moral and uplifting campaign that we can all be proud of.  As I have told my family, I would rather run a campaign that God can be proud of and lose than to run a campaign that the Devil would enjoy and win. 

   You have nothing to be ashamed of and you can hold your head high.   May God bless you and encourage you in the days to come.  If you ran again I would vote for you all over again.

John from Rocklin, CA

Monday, November 5, 2012

Probationary period is over..time to let him GO!

If I sat at my desk during work and did nothing but play solitaire or Sudoku all day long I would be guilty of stealing from my employer because I am not performing the duties for which I agreed to be paid for.  In fact, at where I work, being caught sleeping on the job is grounds for automatic termination.

Firing someone is not easy nor is it enjoyable. Recently a good friend of mine was re-hired by the company I work for, only he was not the same person who had previously worked with me.  He went through some very painful and stressful situations while working for other companies which, I believe, caused him to have a complete nervous breakdown.  It was difficult to watch a person who once was so brilliant and so capable be turned into an introverted and impotent employee.  He never came into work but opted to work from home on his computer.  Week after week went by and no progress was made.  He missed staff meetings constantly.  He forgot critical meetings and deadlines.  After 6 months, his probationary period was over and our boss had to make the critical decision to let him go.  It was agonizing but there was no other choice.

To let him continue "working" would make all of his guilty of cheating the company out of 100's of thousands of dollars.    I hated to see him go because I saw him not only as a co-worker but also as a friend of 18 years.

So it is with our choice tomorrow (Nov 6th).

We made a choice back in 2008.  We chose (although I did not vote for him, as an American I must say WE CHOSE because that is what WE DID) an unknown upstart from Illinois.  A man who never worked in business but instead was a "community organizer".  We chose a man who spent most of his years in the Illinois senate voting "present" rather than "yes" or "no".  A man who spent only 2 years as a US Senator.  We chose a man who could give great speeches and had great campaign slogans of "HOPE and CHANGE" or "CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN".

This was similar to what I did when I helped re-hire my friend.  I saw some changes in his behavior that was concerning during his interview.   He spoke very softly (almost to the point you could not hear him).  He appeared VERY agitated when the subject of some people he worked with previously came up.  But we (there were several of us who interviewed him who were his friends) decided to look past all of that because we were emotionally attached to him.  We hoped that during his probationary period things would change and he would come around and be the engineer he was before.  But, alas, that was not to be the case and our hopes were dashed.

The same can be said for President Obama.  We had the same "hope" when the American people elected him, but now 4 years later the "probationary period" is over and we must decided to keep him on for 4 more years or let him go.   And like my situation, I must decide if I am going to be complacent and be an accomplice in this theft or I am going to do the right thing.

Let's look at the facts:

When we interviewed him in 2008 he said he would cut the national debt in half by the end of his first term.  He called Bush's addition of 4 trillion in 8 years (500 Billion every year) "unpatriotic".   Now 4 years later Obama has added 5 Trillion dollars (1,250 Billion every year).

When Obama took office he said that with the $800B stimulus he would get unemployment down to 5.2% in 3 years.   Well it has been 4 years and unemployment is 7.9% (and really its 10.5% if you factor in those who have given up looking for work).

In 2008 Obama lambasted Bush for spending too much time on the golf course and not in the White House dealing with issues that concern our country.  Bush played 24 rounds of golf in 8 years (3 per year) and so far Obama has hit the links over 100 time in 4 years (25 per year).  He also came off the golf course with just 20 minutes to spare before the take down of Osama Bin-Laden was complete (which is why in the Situation Room photo he is wearing someone else's jacket at the table).

In 2000, the Bush administration found out who was responsible for 9/11 within 24 hours.  In 2012, it has been over 7 weeks and the Obama administration has yet to determine who and what caused the 9/11 attack on Benghazi that killed 4 Americans including a US Ambassador.  Instead, they trotted out the YouTube video as the cause of riots and arrested an American citizen as the instigator even though we can see from the videos of the attack that it was an organized raid on our facilities and not a mob riot.

During the BP oil spill, Obama order ALL off-shore drilling stopped (not just those doing 1-mile deep drilling) causing many of our oil rigs to leave our coasts and drill for other countries because they are not going to stick around unused waiting for Obama to open them back up.  He also gave $2 billion dollars to a Brazilian oil producer to drill in the Gulf at a depth 3 MILES (3 times more than BP was doing).

In 2008 he said he would be the most bi-partisan president ever.  But instead under his leadership the Senate has not voted a budget in over 3 years and his own budget proposal was so far out of reality that the House voted against it 414-0 and the Senate voted against it 97-0.  (He is not even uni-partisan with his own democrats).

When he could not get Cap-and-Trade passed through Congress he order his EPA to find ways to implement it though regulation by making CO2 an environment hazardous waste. (Yes. What we exhale as humans is now under government control).  When he failed to get any legislation passed on immigration as he promised he would (even though for 2 years he had full control of the House and Senate) he decides to bypass Congress again and orders his justice department to not prosecute cases involving illegal immigrants under the age of 25.   (Where is his vow to uphold the laws of the land and the Constitution?).  He also orders his ICE agents to NOT assist Arizona in processing illegals they capture on their roads.

In 2008 he said it was wrong for Bush to use drones to kill terrorists because of civilian casualties.  As President he has not ended the use of drones but increased it.  His answer to civilian casualties is to RE-DEFINE all people killed within a 50 foot radius of a drone strike to be terrorists since their proximity to the target means they are probably involved.

In 2008 he said it was wrong of Bush to keep enemy terrorists in Gitmo without a trial even though these men are not US citizens he argued they deserved an American trial by jury.   In 2011 the President orders the drone strike of Anwar al-Awlaki an American citizen who had Al-Qaeda connections.  Later he orders another strike for Anwar al-Awlaki's 16 year-old son, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki because they deemed him a threat since most likely he had been radicalized as well and would most likely take his fathers place. (Where were these 2 US citizens rights to a trial by a jury Mr. President?)

In conclusion, we must FIRE this worker though it pains us to do so because we had such great hopes for him.  We cannot expect better from him, in fact we can only expect worse.  As in my case, people usually are on their BEST BEHAVIOR during the probationary period because they know they are being watched closely and they might not get held on.  Often people's behaviors get WORSE after their probationary period because they know it will be harder for the company to fire them and they can get away with more.  Those are the hard facts we must face.

Obama will , in my opinion, become more extreme in his views and his actions.  He will issue MORE executive orders ... not less.  He will order MORE regulations through the EPA ... not less.  He will ignore the Constitution more... not less.




Friday, October 26, 2012

Bengazi-gate

   Well this president just keeps stepping in it.  As we find out more and more about what was going on in Libya, we see that much of what the President has been telling us is just not true.

   First of all we find out that Al-Queda is NOT weakening but instead is growing stronger.  We find out that our embassy was struck 2 times before this year and even had  a hole blasted into its walls that a truck could drive through.  Also we see that our people there asked for more security two times in August and both times were refused.  Finally we hear them call out for help the night of 9-11 3 times and their pleas fell on dead ears.

   Where was the President?   Las Vegas... that's where!

   Who was advising him?  Apparently no one is the answer!

   Email's show that it was a straight on terrorist attack and not a mob action caused by a stupid YouTube video.  Yet the President went on TV interviews for up to 2 weeks after the attack and stuck with this ridiculous story.

   We have been lied to over and over again and like a stupid teenage girl who doesn't want to acknowledge that their boy-friend is cheating on them some in this country REFUSE to see it any other way.

   Wake up America!  This President is a pathological liar!

Monday, October 15, 2012

The Giving Tree

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/79/The_Giving_Tree.jpg

Many of us remember the famous children's book "The Giving Tree" by Shel Silverstein.  (if you have not read the book you can view the following animated short movie)

The Giving Tree

The book tells the story of a boy and a tree.  Throughout the story the boy needs things for his life to be fulfilled and the tree gladly gives up its apples, its branches, its trunk and finally its stump.  We are made to think that in the end BOTH the boy and the tree are happy together but I beg to differ as I personally felt the boy was a selfish little brat and the tree was taken advantage of over the course of its life.

In retrospect, I think this story is more of an analogy for what we see today.  The modern day socialist is represented by the boy and the capitalist system is represented by the tree.  As the socialist grows up, he needs things and the capitalist system obliges by giving him money (sells apples), shelter (makes branches into a home), travel (boat from its trunk) and finally a place to retire (its stump for a place to sit).

This is much like what we see around us today.  Our capitalist system has provided much to those who care very little about it and each time they come back for more (mostly baby-boomers), wanting more for themselves and demanding higher and higher taxes to pay for it all.   Eventually our private sector will be overwhelmed and left with nothing unless we stop making our greedy little demands of it.  We cannot keep taking from the capitalist thinking that they (like the government) has an unlimited amount of money to provide for our every whim.




Sunday, October 14, 2012

Prop 1313

Have you heard about Proposition 1313?  This proposition would tax everyone above 1 million dollars at a rate of 90% and distribute the proceeds to everyone else NOT making 1 million dollars.  Are you going to vote YES on this proposition?  Sounds like a great idea doesn't it?

Sorry to tell you, but there is no such proposition on the California ballot.  But what if there were?  Would you be in favor of it?  A lot of people would since who doesn't want FREE MONEY?   But that is exactly what is wrong with the proposition system.  Propositions are part of what is called Direct Democracy.  Many states added this as a way to give people a way to work around their politicians to pass laws they desire.  The idea may be noble, but the outcome has become disastrous for as all democracies go, they all fall apart.


Why?

People are greedy

We all want more for ourselves and less for others.  Using the proposition system it is too easy to take from others and give to ourselves.  This does not have to do only with money but also with the rights of others.  We want not just money, but also safety and any proposition that gives us either of those often gets our vote.   Want fewer criminals on the streets?  Put them in prison for the rest of their lives.   Want more money for your child's school?  Hamstring the government to appropriate a larger percentage of revenues to them.  Want lower taxes for your property?  Pass a prop to prevent your property from being re-assessed. Want fewer drunk drivers?  Pass a prop to reduce the alcohol level to lower and lower levels, take away licenses for longer periods of time, force drivers to have breathalizers installed in their cars.  

People are lazy

Who has the time to read over 30 different propositions and decide what to do?  None of us that's who!  We are inundated with countless props written in language that only a lawyer would be able to understand and therefore we rely on "commercials" to dumb down the prop so we can "understand" it.  This problem makes it too easy for the proposition system to be abused and get laws passed that should never see the light of day.  The reason we have a republic (not a democracy) is because we need full time politicians who have the time (and the staff) to read and understand the laws and the future problems they may or may not cause. 

People are stupid

This fact is hard to separate from the previous problem (laziness) but it deserves to be discussed.  Example, if a proposition says it will pay for better roads by selling 100 million dollars in bonds.  Does that sound like free money?  But it's not free money.  All bonds need to be paid back... WITH INTEREST!  But very few people ever think about it that way and so many bond measures are passed without much effort at all.  Similarly, people also do not consider the ramifications of many law props.   Example: California's 3-strikes law.  This proposition was passed because many people thought that this would only affect people guilt of major felonies like murder or rape, but little did they know that many non-violent-felony offenders would be put away for good. 

What should we do?  My answer is simple. 

VOTE NO ON ALL PROPOSITIONS NO MATTER HOW GOOD THEY SOUND!!!

(unless of course the proposition promises to end all future propositions)