I have for months now intended to turn a corner on my Blog from political campaigning and commenting, and broaden it to include general philosophical perspectives. I haven’t luminous credentials in either politics or philosophy: I consider myself a studied amateur in both. I have observed politics most all of my life and participated in the process of political conventions. I studied philosophy in college and graduate school, finishing a couple of years before taking to work and marriage without finishing a thesis and securing a graduate degree to flaunt. However, I had determined to discuss my experience with multiple sclerosis and how that experience and study has illuminated my existing perspectives. I may not have a graduate degree or a political office, but I have a certifiable diagnosis of and 16+ years of experience with multiple sclerosis. The course of the disease varies in victims, from occasional disturbances to a gradual or possibly more precipitous decline. On such a scale of 1 to 10, I’m probably around a 5: many facilities are weakened, but none are entirely devastated. I walk a hundred yards or so, slowly with a walker. My vision is diminished somewhat, as is the tactical perception of my fingertips, my fine motor coordination, and some other ordinary physical facilities. But, my convictions seem to get only more sharpened, and my enthusiasm for discussing them is still keen.
I intended to direct my Blog in this ambitiously broad direction, and have written (but not posted) a post to announce having turned this corner. However, pulling it all together in one direction was an imposing project, and as time passes, the enormity and urgency of discussing the social prospects look ever stronger. I will still appeal to these other matters, and I AM positive that, as much as American politics provoke me. It is certainly not the most important thing in life. In fact, we as Americans are spoiled by what we have had. Most of the history of human life on earth has had to engage the challenge to be joyful with infinitely less in terms of both wealth and freedom. It’s probably the provision of both in America that highlights the grief of watching this dismantling of the values that produced it. For weeks now, I have wondered how America might surmount the massive folly of government usurping of authority and resources, extinguishing of innovation and production, and creating an almost unfathomable and certainly inhibiting debt. While I have listened to many conservatives who have reconciled their ambitions to recovery and even are confident of coming political victories, I have not grasped an answer to my question and am not so sanguine; the record in history of reversing the sort decisive changes that Barack Obama and the Democratic Congress intend and have already wrought is very poor and looks unlikely short of some dramatic upheaval. Achieving such a revolution absent violence would be an extraordinary accomplishment.
Speaking of overreach and subsequent reform, last Thursday, Glenn Beck had judge Andrew Napolitano on his program: Napolitano on Beck: Montana 2nd Amendment and States Rights Part 1 (5-7-09)(obviously, there’s a Part 2) They discussed a state measure in Montana that would reject federal attempts to regulate firearms that were manufactured and remained in Montana that would supposedly fall outside the federal justification of “regulating interstate commerce,” which over time has come to cover most any measure that the federal government wants to impose. State representatives from Utah and Texas who are posing similar measures joined them. Napolitano said he thought that the Supreme Court as comprised today, might affirm such measures, and Beck got a little excited about the idea that the interstate commerce justification might be undermined. I sat there thinking that would be great but he shouldn't get his hopes up: basically, that it isn’t going to happen. By Monday, Beck had a writer on who said he didn’t think The Supreme Court would buy it; that the laws needed to be more tightly defined.
But, even that writer isn’t considering the real problem, that once power is exercised, people don’t kindly give it up, whether in politics, in business, churches or anywhere else. It’s human nature. Let me give you a few examples from my own experience, and they are only examples of what is all but universal. I have a friend in Texas that I first met during the campaign preceding the 1996 election. He’s a fellow conservative who in the early '90’s served on The Republican Party of Texas rules committee and was a state parliamentarian. He’s a rules guy and changed some rules in the state party during that period…until the party caught on that the rules changes would make party officials more accountable to the state arty platform and devolve power from the central party apparatus to the state executive committee chosen from around the state and more accountable to the people: basically constraining the maneuvering and bargaining power of the central party officials. Henceforward, the party has put a sock in his mouth via parliamentary contrivance and personal ridicule. Even to today, he soldiers on with what would be worthy rules change proposals.
Until my uneven health made it difficult, I served for a while on the board of an extraordinarily connected and active pro-life organization. Much focus was of course, put toward the effort of pressing alterations in the law. At one point, with a case before The Supreme Court, our legal counsel expressed optimism about submitting a brief with an argument that he thought would undermine Roe v. Wade. A friend and I thought such optimism was ill founded and of course, it was.
In both of these cases the main problem is not the rules or the argument. The main point is that when it came right down to it, neither of those things mattered. While the other side will do what it can with argument and finagling, if it is ultimately necessary, they will deceive and cheat, which is what happened in the face of rules changes at that 1996 convention. The issue isn’t rules or argument or laws. The issue is that power once held, will be retained if at all possible, by hook or by crook. So it is with Beck’s dreams of obviating the commerce clause justification for federal regulation, which would be about as easy to execute as removing Congress’ huge power to manipulate the tax code. Federally, I support The Fair Tax, which would do just that. But, I know that it would never be put in place short of an unprecedented social upheaval. And The Fair Tax itself doesn’t even directly address the problem of over-taxation and government waste. It just changes how the current level of taxation is collected, but returns control to the people, who determine the level of their taxation through the level of their spending.
As of today, reviving state sovereignty seems a more urgent project.
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Monday, May 11, 2009
Monday, October 20, 2008
Prager & Medved, Powell's Endorsement And Obama's Impervious Liberal Dogma
The two issues aren’t related, but they were prominent in media discussion, today. Many were unable to dismiss the suspicion that Powell’s declaration that he will vote for Barack Obama was based in Obama’s status as an African American. Michael Medved asked if we could imagine Powell announcing such an endorsement of Hillary Clinton. Also, Powell mentioned his discomfort with Sarah Palin (obviously he’s bothered by explicit and relevant faith) and the prospect of more conservative judges. Are the last two supposed to be right wing extremists? Really? To me, this clearly says more about Powell than it does about Roberts and Alito.
Dennis Prager also could not fully explain Powell’s action on elements other than race, supposing that Powell was a “fiscal conservative” and a “social liberal.” But, he is not. Among his other concerns, Powell said that he thought Obama had a better sense and plan to deal with the economic problems. When this was raised, Prager elaborated, supposing that like most Obama supporters, Powell would be unable to detail exactly how Obama would address and improve the economy. I’m sure he wouldn’t. We knew long ago when the media tried to shove Powell down Republican throats as a Republican presidential candidate, that he was no social conservative, being pro-choice and pro-affirmative action, at least.
Now we know that he is no economic conservative either, and probably never was, else he would choke on the idea that we will tax and spend our way to economic prosperity. Colin Powell’s Republicanism begins and ends with the fact that he is a dedicated and dutiful military soldier. He’s an honorable man, but philosophically undefined. I’m not mad at him, but his endorsement of Obama means nothing to me.
And speaking of fiscal policy, there was also reference in both programs to Obama’s “socialism.” Because of visceral reactions, I don’t endorse the use of the term. But John McCain is right that “spreading the wealth” is at least a definitive element of socialism, a statement he made to Chris Wallace in the context of discussion of Joe Wurzelbacher, or “Joe The Plumber.” Prager frequently discusses the impermeable nature to liberals of the consequences to their policy, which is based on feeling and dogma. Ironically of course, this is the criticism of religious dogma of many outsiders, frequently on the left. But, it is important to understand that Barack Obama has been very explicit in this regard.
Though I couldn’t quickly find it, I believe it was Bob Schieffer (in an interview, not the debate) who responded to Obama’s expressed interest in raising taxes on upper incomes, essentially that many economists say that history suggests that raising taxes will thwart economic growth, reduce government revenues, and bring unemployment. Obama responded that he still would want to do it in the interest of “fairness.” Oookay: economic constriction, diminished revenues, and losing jobs means “fairness?” And some people call trust in God irrational? Anyway, as Prager says, the consequence is irrelevant. It’s about liberal doctrinal faith and how they “feel.” And I suppose that if I don’t embrace this crap, it’s because I’m “racist?”
Dennis Prager also could not fully explain Powell’s action on elements other than race, supposing that Powell was a “fiscal conservative” and a “social liberal.” But, he is not. Among his other concerns, Powell said that he thought Obama had a better sense and plan to deal with the economic problems. When this was raised, Prager elaborated, supposing that like most Obama supporters, Powell would be unable to detail exactly how Obama would address and improve the economy. I’m sure he wouldn’t. We knew long ago when the media tried to shove Powell down Republican throats as a Republican presidential candidate, that he was no social conservative, being pro-choice and pro-affirmative action, at least.
Now we know that he is no economic conservative either, and probably never was, else he would choke on the idea that we will tax and spend our way to economic prosperity. Colin Powell’s Republicanism begins and ends with the fact that he is a dedicated and dutiful military soldier. He’s an honorable man, but philosophically undefined. I’m not mad at him, but his endorsement of Obama means nothing to me.
And speaking of fiscal policy, there was also reference in both programs to Obama’s “socialism.” Because of visceral reactions, I don’t endorse the use of the term. But John McCain is right that “spreading the wealth” is at least a definitive element of socialism, a statement he made to Chris Wallace in the context of discussion of Joe Wurzelbacher, or “Joe The Plumber.” Prager frequently discusses the impermeable nature to liberals of the consequences to their policy, which is based on feeling and dogma. Ironically of course, this is the criticism of religious dogma of many outsiders, frequently on the left. But, it is important to understand that Barack Obama has been very explicit in this regard.
Though I couldn’t quickly find it, I believe it was Bob Schieffer (in an interview, not the debate) who responded to Obama’s expressed interest in raising taxes on upper incomes, essentially that many economists say that history suggests that raising taxes will thwart economic growth, reduce government revenues, and bring unemployment. Obama responded that he still would want to do it in the interest of “fairness.” Oookay: economic constriction, diminished revenues, and losing jobs means “fairness?” And some people call trust in God irrational? Anyway, as Prager says, the consequence is irrelevant. It’s about liberal doctrinal faith and how they “feel.” And I suppose that if I don’t embrace this crap, it’s because I’m “racist?”
Prager & Medved, Powell's Endorsement And Obama's Impervious Liberal Dogma
The two issues aren’t related, but they were prominent in media discussion, today. Many were unable to dismiss the suspicion that Powell’s declaration that he will vote for Barack Obama was based in Obama’s status as an African American. Michael Medved asked if we could imagine Powell announcing such an endorsement of Hillary Clinton. Also, Powell mentioned his discomfort with Sarah Palin (obviously he’s bothered by explicit and relevant faith) and the prospect of more conservative judges. Are the last two supposed to be right wing extremists? Really? To me, this clearly says more about Powell than it does about Roberts and Alito.
Dennis Prager also could not fully explain Powell’s action on elements other than race, supposing that Powell was a “fiscal conservative” and a “social liberal.” But, he is not. Among his other concerns, Powell said that he thought Obama had a better sense and plan to deal with the economic problems. When this was raised, Prager elaborated, supposing that like most Obama supporters, Powell would be unable to detail exactly how Obama would address and improve the economy. I’m sure he wouldn’t. We knew long ago when the media tried to shove Powell down Republican throats as a Republican presidential candidate, that he was no social conservative, being pro-choice and pro-affirmative action, at least.
Now we know that he is no economic conservative either, and probably never was, else he would choke on the idea that we will tax and spend our way to economic prosperity. Colin Powell’s Republicanism begins and ends with the fact that he is a dedicated and dutiful military soldier. He’s an honorable man, but philosophically undefined. I’m not mad at him, but his endorsement of Obama means nothing to me.
And speaking of fiscal policy, there was also reference in both programs to Obama’s “socialism.” Because of visceral reactions, I don’t endorse the use of the term. But John McCain is right that “spreading the wealth” is at least a definitive element of socialism, a statement he made to Chris Wallace in the context of discussion of Joe Wurzelbacher, or “Joe The Plumber.” Prager frequently discusses the impermeable nature to liberals of the consequences to their policy, which is based on feeling and dogma. Ironically of course, this is the criticism of religious dogma of many outsiders, frequently on the left. But, it is important to understand that Barack Obama has been very explicit in this regard.
Though I couldn’t quickly find it, I believe it was Bob Schieffer (in an interview, not the debate) who responded to Obama’s expressed interest in raising taxes on upper incomes, essentially that many economists say that history suggests that raising taxes will thwart economic growth, reduce government revenues, and bring unemployment. Obama responded that he still would want to do it in the interest of “fairness.” Oookay: economic constriction, diminished revenues, and losing jobs means “fairness?” And some people call trust in God irrational? Anyway, as Prager says, the consequence is irrelevant. It’s about liberal doctrinal faith and how they “feel.” And I suppose that if I don’t embrace this crap, it’s because I’m “racist?”
Dennis Prager also could not fully explain Powell’s action on elements other than race, supposing that Powell was a “fiscal conservative” and a “social liberal.” But, he is not. Among his other concerns, Powell said that he thought Obama had a better sense and plan to deal with the economic problems. When this was raised, Prager elaborated, supposing that like most Obama supporters, Powell would be unable to detail exactly how Obama would address and improve the economy. I’m sure he wouldn’t. We knew long ago when the media tried to shove Powell down Republican throats as a Republican presidential candidate, that he was no social conservative, being pro-choice and pro-affirmative action, at least.
Now we know that he is no economic conservative either, and probably never was, else he would choke on the idea that we will tax and spend our way to economic prosperity. Colin Powell’s Republicanism begins and ends with the fact that he is a dedicated and dutiful military soldier. He’s an honorable man, but philosophically undefined. I’m not mad at him, but his endorsement of Obama means nothing to me.
And speaking of fiscal policy, there was also reference in both programs to Obama’s “socialism.” Because of visceral reactions, I don’t endorse the use of the term. But John McCain is right that “spreading the wealth” is at least a definitive element of socialism, a statement he made to Chris Wallace in the context of discussion of Joe Wurzelbacher, or “Joe The Plumber.” Prager frequently discusses the impermeable nature to liberals of the consequences to their policy, which is based on feeling and dogma. Ironically of course, this is the criticism of religious dogma of many outsiders, frequently on the left. But, it is important to understand that Barack Obama has been very explicit in this regard.
Though I couldn’t quickly find it, I believe it was Bob Schieffer (in an interview, not the debate) who responded to Obama’s expressed interest in raising taxes on upper incomes, essentially that many economists say that history suggests that raising taxes will thwart economic growth, reduce government revenues, and bring unemployment. Obama responded that he still would want to do it in the interest of “fairness.” Oookay: economic constriction, diminished revenues, and losing jobs means “fairness?” And some people call trust in God irrational? Anyway, as Prager says, the consequence is irrelevant. It’s about liberal doctrinal faith and how they “feel.” And I suppose that if I don’t embrace this crap, it’s because I’m “racist?”
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Distressing Stories, The Polls, And A Typically Misleading TV Report
I completed the comments below on Monday, which related my distress at reports from people of whom I would expect differently, who affirm or even dabble with the intention to support Obama and/or oppose McCain. At the bottom, I report current national polls which show McCain having moved into a lead over Obama, while acknowledging that they still suggest a definite Obama lead from an Electoral College standpoint. Monday, even the Rasmussen poll which Sunday showed a tie in its daily tracking poll shows McCain to have nudged into a 1% lead, which they conceded is statistically insignificant. But more notably, in Rasmussen’s current Electoral College breakdown, McCain is shown to have moved within ten points of Obama. And further, with some awareness of the status of these states, I would conjecture that McCain will take at least two of the three states listed as toss-ups which would imply a narrow victory. In every analysis I have looked at, that third state is the most clearly and evenly divided and up-in-the-air: Virginia. I will say that relative to Virginia, Obama needs to maintain the emotional magic that has driven much of his support, because I think those emotionally stoked in Virginia about McCain-Palin will reliably turn out. Further, among the states listed as “leaning” Republican, I would at this point agree that McCain will win them all, while among those listed as “leaning” Democrat, I would consider 3 or 4 of them still in play. In short, for the first time (and this could still change with a dramatic event or report), I would project that McCain would win were the election held today.
But because it relates directly to what I have written below, I want to (briefly, I hope) discuss a typically misleading report that I saw on CNN, today. The report listed the supposed benefit that taxpayers could expect to see under McCain's and Obama’s respective tax plans, listed by income level. Unsurprisingly, the figures showed those in the lowest income group benefiting the most under Obama’s plan relative to McCain’s (never mind the fact that much of this group are not taxpayers at all)., while as the income level rises that benefit in raw dollars moves increasingly toward McCain’s plan. Now, this is neither new nor surprising in its suggestion that such reports represent an actual benefit to Americans. They don’t. Not because they don’t reflect projections about how different income-levels would be affected on a dollar basis. The problem is that it is entirely opaque about how different tax plans will affect what peoples’ income level WILL BE.
For example, perhaps someone in the second-to-lowest income level will fall into the category that supposedly most plainly benefits lower income people. Why is this? Because they may very well drop from the second-lowest to the lowest income level. Therefore, they would get the highest relative benefit BECAUSE THEIR INCOME DROPPED! When taxes on investors and commercial enterprises are increased, the revenue to income-distributing entities is restricted. When that income is insufficient, employess will either be dropped or new positions OR PROMOTIONS not created. This will apply in any manner of endeavor. If your work is construction, business will have fewer dollars to invest in new projects and contractors will have less work for construction workers. If you sell cosmetics in a department store, women will have fewer dollars with which to purchase cosmetics. If you work in a church, the members will have fewer dollars with which to build the church’s budget. And on and on and on…
One would like to think that those responsible for broadcasting such a report on CNN, for example, would not have given such consideration a thought., and most probably haven’t. But, however man y have (and surely some have), they are willfully participating in a misinformation of the public. Anywway, how your income is taxed is only a fragment of the relevant consideration of tax policy. Much more important is WHAT YOUR INCOME MIGHT BE!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My fellow Texan friend pondered the potential benefit to him of supporting Obama, though he disagrees with him on social issues about which he is not assured about McCain, anyway. Other friends reported other Christians who support Obama. Frankly its another discussion, but the thought makes my head swim. It is correct that if McCain does not safely win Texas, he is toast in the rest of the country. But, your discussion heaped on one I had this afternoon of reports of other very evangelical people seemingly hypnotized by Obama, leaves me rather disturbed and disconsolate, not because of Texas but because that sort of thinking around the country could actually elect this man who is either a huckster or UTTERLY deluded.
Be certain to understand: I know you have legitimate issues to consider and others do as well. But, the belief that Obama or anyone else can repair their concerns is a short-sighted delusion of people who are not considering how human nature operates in a society.
First of all, it isn't strong enough to say that I don't BELIEVE that that Obama's plan is going to put more dollars in pockets. I KNOW that that's pure horsepucky. If he has only a cosseted Ivy League education to work with, maybe he's in fantasyland. But frankly, I incline to believe that politicians of his sort are primarily interested in manipulating others to aggrandize themselves. As Sarah Palin put it, “some men use change to advance their careers, while other men use their careers to advance change.”
I know that you can look at me and believe me. I haven’t the least interest in helping rich men who don’t need my help. But, the idea that you can take from the richest and help “95% of taxpayers” in Obama’s case is complete fancy that is worthy of a traveling medicine show. A rich man is rich: you can take half his income and he is still rich. He won’t miss a thing. When all of the wealthiest men in a large country like ours have more or less money it only means that there is more or less to spend or invest, either of which activities create work and income for people who are not so rich. Work doesn’t come from nowhere. If resources aren’t investyed into new projects, there is no work.
Be sure to understand what socialism is: it isn’t just taxing “the rich” to help everyone else. Oh, no! Socialism is an alliance between government and large established businesses. While scamming the people with taxes on big companies with one hand, they reward them with the other with subsides and/or regulation of markets to restrict or eliminate their competition. A corporation will happily shell out a few billion in taxes in order to more effectively dominate their market: better to pay higher taxes on much more market share than lower taxes on a smaller percentage of the market. The long-term effect of this is to retard innovation and technological progress. But, it’s a good run while it lasts: business and government leaders tip toasts on the same parties and trips.
Ultimately, that’s why communism failed. As Marx said, “From each according to his ability. To each according to his need.” Sounds great doesn’t it? Millions and millions of working class peons around the world thought so. But, the subsidized poor remained poor while government leaders and their business benefactors coasted. But over time, the lack of advancement couldn’t keep pace with progress around the world in less socialist places.
But, this also explains why Obama can boast of taxing big corporations and specifically vilify oil companies with one hand while on the other hand voting with the rest of the government opportunists to grant oil companies large corporate welfare subsidies. John McCain by the way, as in so many other cases, voted against this. Sarah Palin in Alaska let oil companies pursue larger profits while taxing them to fund Alaska according to their increased profitability: You make it profitable for them to earn another dollar while paying another penny to the state. But you never make it unprofitable for them to invest another dollar, in which case no one would get anything. Anyway, if Obama is elected with a Democratic Congress they will squeeze the vitality out of the economy. Prices will rise. Interest rates will rise. Unemployment will rise. Opportunity will dwindle. AND, they will blame it on Republicans: “Bush left even a bigger mess than we thought.” Why not? People bought the other stuff.
By the way, you say “I do disagree with Obama on social issues, at least, on the ones that get talked about the most. But having been frustrated by the almost casual lack of attention paid to them during the Bush administration, after anticipating action…” I never anticipated anything. Bush’s statements alone were so soggy and limp that I knew he either could not or would not (or both) inspire any change in the culture. As I’ve said before, Bush’s pathetic statement, “I prefer life,” was a flashing red sign that he had nothing productive to say. As I’ve often said, “I prefer chocolate.” SO WHAT?!
As I also have often said, when Bush was elected in 2000 I said, “Leviathan gets a night manager.” And, it did exactly that. With Bush and a Republican Congress, federal spending increased at a rate not seen since Johnson in the 60’s. The federal education department (neither a federal responsibility or capacity) increase hugely. Entitlement liability and spending increased as it hadn’t since Johnson too, and in a way that Al Gore could never have achieved with a Republican Congress, which went to Disneyland with Bush. By the way, McCain voted against those things, too. I’m not mad at Bush, and I appreciate his foreign policy resolve (if not always his method) in the face of fierce pop-culture headwinds. But, I never voted for him and wouldn’t still.
Irrespective of all of this; even if I believed that Obama could do the magic that his words and lackeys suggest, I would NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, support a man who voted at ever opportunity for as far a “pro-choice” (of what, again?) position as one could take. He voted against a partial-birth abortion ban, which I in fact never advocated. A) I don’t believe it saves a single life. Men who do that for a living aren’t going to be concerned about a little law. But b) the even verbal restriction of one abortion procedure implies the legitimacy of all of the others. But, Obama also voted alone and TWICE in the Illinois state Senate, against a bill to protect infants born alive after botched abortions from being left to die. No type or no amount of candy, even if I believed in it which I don’t, could bring me to vote for such an empty soul.
Particularly in his late years, I think McCain is sincere in his anti-abortion posture. By the way, if Obama appoints 2 to 4 Supreme Court justices, that extends a calamitous court and society through the rest of our lives. Do you really doubt that Palin is serious? I know she is. I want her there in line. Anyway, all of that Christian dalliance with Obama left me in a state. I said it might give me nightmares at night. I might curl up in fetal position with my thumb in my mouth. At least, some polls out today show McCain-Palin having moved into a lead, even though electoral maps still decidedly favor Obama.
But because it relates directly to what I have written below, I want to (briefly, I hope) discuss a typically misleading report that I saw on CNN, today. The report listed the supposed benefit that taxpayers could expect to see under McCain's and Obama’s respective tax plans, listed by income level. Unsurprisingly, the figures showed those in the lowest income group benefiting the most under Obama’s plan relative to McCain’s (never mind the fact that much of this group are not taxpayers at all)., while as the income level rises that benefit in raw dollars moves increasingly toward McCain’s plan. Now, this is neither new nor surprising in its suggestion that such reports represent an actual benefit to Americans. They don’t. Not because they don’t reflect projections about how different income-levels would be affected on a dollar basis. The problem is that it is entirely opaque about how different tax plans will affect what peoples’ income level WILL BE.
For example, perhaps someone in the second-to-lowest income level will fall into the category that supposedly most plainly benefits lower income people. Why is this? Because they may very well drop from the second-lowest to the lowest income level. Therefore, they would get the highest relative benefit BECAUSE THEIR INCOME DROPPED! When taxes on investors and commercial enterprises are increased, the revenue to income-distributing entities is restricted. When that income is insufficient, employess will either be dropped or new positions OR PROMOTIONS not created. This will apply in any manner of endeavor. If your work is construction, business will have fewer dollars to invest in new projects and contractors will have less work for construction workers. If you sell cosmetics in a department store, women will have fewer dollars with which to purchase cosmetics. If you work in a church, the members will have fewer dollars with which to build the church’s budget. And on and on and on…
One would like to think that those responsible for broadcasting such a report on CNN, for example, would not have given such consideration a thought., and most probably haven’t. But, however man y have (and surely some have), they are willfully participating in a misinformation of the public. Anywway, how your income is taxed is only a fragment of the relevant consideration of tax policy. Much more important is WHAT YOUR INCOME MIGHT BE!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My fellow Texan friend pondered the potential benefit to him of supporting Obama, though he disagrees with him on social issues about which he is not assured about McCain, anyway. Other friends reported other Christians who support Obama. Frankly its another discussion, but the thought makes my head swim. It is correct that if McCain does not safely win Texas, he is toast in the rest of the country. But, your discussion heaped on one I had this afternoon of reports of other very evangelical people seemingly hypnotized by Obama, leaves me rather disturbed and disconsolate, not because of Texas but because that sort of thinking around the country could actually elect this man who is either a huckster or UTTERLY deluded.
Be certain to understand: I know you have legitimate issues to consider and others do as well. But, the belief that Obama or anyone else can repair their concerns is a short-sighted delusion of people who are not considering how human nature operates in a society.
First of all, it isn't strong enough to say that I don't BELIEVE that that Obama's plan is going to put more dollars in pockets. I KNOW that that's pure horsepucky. If he has only a cosseted Ivy League education to work with, maybe he's in fantasyland. But frankly, I incline to believe that politicians of his sort are primarily interested in manipulating others to aggrandize themselves. As Sarah Palin put it, “some men use change to advance their careers, while other men use their careers to advance change.”
I know that you can look at me and believe me. I haven’t the least interest in helping rich men who don’t need my help. But, the idea that you can take from the richest and help “95% of taxpayers” in Obama’s case is complete fancy that is worthy of a traveling medicine show. A rich man is rich: you can take half his income and he is still rich. He won’t miss a thing. When all of the wealthiest men in a large country like ours have more or less money it only means that there is more or less to spend or invest, either of which activities create work and income for people who are not so rich. Work doesn’t come from nowhere. If resources aren’t investyed into new projects, there is no work.
Be sure to understand what socialism is: it isn’t just taxing “the rich” to help everyone else. Oh, no! Socialism is an alliance between government and large established businesses. While scamming the people with taxes on big companies with one hand, they reward them with the other with subsides and/or regulation of markets to restrict or eliminate their competition. A corporation will happily shell out a few billion in taxes in order to more effectively dominate their market: better to pay higher taxes on much more market share than lower taxes on a smaller percentage of the market. The long-term effect of this is to retard innovation and technological progress. But, it’s a good run while it lasts: business and government leaders tip toasts on the same parties and trips.
Ultimately, that’s why communism failed. As Marx said, “From each according to his ability. To each according to his need.” Sounds great doesn’t it? Millions and millions of working class peons around the world thought so. But, the subsidized poor remained poor while government leaders and their business benefactors coasted. But over time, the lack of advancement couldn’t keep pace with progress around the world in less socialist places.
But, this also explains why Obama can boast of taxing big corporations and specifically vilify oil companies with one hand while on the other hand voting with the rest of the government opportunists to grant oil companies large corporate welfare subsidies. John McCain by the way, as in so many other cases, voted against this. Sarah Palin in Alaska let oil companies pursue larger profits while taxing them to fund Alaska according to their increased profitability: You make it profitable for them to earn another dollar while paying another penny to the state. But you never make it unprofitable for them to invest another dollar, in which case no one would get anything. Anyway, if Obama is elected with a Democratic Congress they will squeeze the vitality out of the economy. Prices will rise. Interest rates will rise. Unemployment will rise. Opportunity will dwindle. AND, they will blame it on Republicans: “Bush left even a bigger mess than we thought.” Why not? People bought the other stuff.
By the way, you say “I do disagree with Obama on social issues, at least, on the ones that get talked about the most. But having been frustrated by the almost casual lack of attention paid to them during the Bush administration, after anticipating action…” I never anticipated anything. Bush’s statements alone were so soggy and limp that I knew he either could not or would not (or both) inspire any change in the culture. As I’ve said before, Bush’s pathetic statement, “I prefer life,” was a flashing red sign that he had nothing productive to say. As I’ve often said, “I prefer chocolate.” SO WHAT?!
As I also have often said, when Bush was elected in 2000 I said, “Leviathan gets a night manager.” And, it did exactly that. With Bush and a Republican Congress, federal spending increased at a rate not seen since Johnson in the 60’s. The federal education department (neither a federal responsibility or capacity) increase hugely. Entitlement liability and spending increased as it hadn’t since Johnson too, and in a way that Al Gore could never have achieved with a Republican Congress, which went to Disneyland with Bush. By the way, McCain voted against those things, too. I’m not mad at Bush, and I appreciate his foreign policy resolve (if not always his method) in the face of fierce pop-culture headwinds. But, I never voted for him and wouldn’t still.
Irrespective of all of this; even if I believed that Obama could do the magic that his words and lackeys suggest, I would NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, support a man who voted at ever opportunity for as far a “pro-choice” (of what, again?) position as one could take. He voted against a partial-birth abortion ban, which I in fact never advocated. A) I don’t believe it saves a single life. Men who do that for a living aren’t going to be concerned about a little law. But b) the even verbal restriction of one abortion procedure implies the legitimacy of all of the others. But, Obama also voted alone and TWICE in the Illinois state Senate, against a bill to protect infants born alive after botched abortions from being left to die. No type or no amount of candy, even if I believed in it which I don’t, could bring me to vote for such an empty soul.
Particularly in his late years, I think McCain is sincere in his anti-abortion posture. By the way, if Obama appoints 2 to 4 Supreme Court justices, that extends a calamitous court and society through the rest of our lives. Do you really doubt that Palin is serious? I know she is. I want her there in line. Anyway, all of that Christian dalliance with Obama left me in a state. I said it might give me nightmares at night. I might curl up in fetal position with my thumb in my mouth. At least, some polls out today show McCain-Palin having moved into a lead, even though electoral maps still decidedly favor Obama.
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Come To McCain and a REAL CHANGE
As I recall, the last time I wished to post an exchange, this person preferred not to be identified and I haven’t a last name, anyway. Anyway, I thought this discussion with a heretofore McCain doubter was important. Many should consider what is at stake. And ironically, what is at stake is CHANGE. Here is the comment and my response:
Well, I guess I should humble myself and admit that I have come around from being strongly suspicious of McCain's judgment, fearing that he would be a Bush clone and being a puppet of bad counsel, to being impressed at his independent and brilliant choice for a VP. I agree that while experience, particularly executive experience, is a factor, when it comes to some things (particularly foreign policy), what matters most is worldview and judgment--which is why I applaud McCain's choice of Palin.
I have questioned McCain's judgment, often. Having looked long and hard at the matter, my conclusion has been this:
It is the disposition of many people myself included, to adjudicate questions of policy theough the filter of a system of beliefs about human nature and its ordinary propensities. I don't think that's the way John McCain primarily operates.
Some time ago, I began to distinguish between "philosophical" conservatives of the sort I speak, and "sentimental" conservatives who honestly and with good intentions, react based on their genuine feelings about what is best, in this case for the country.
So, what would happen is that John McCain would sentimentally support a policy that sounds right to him, that some of us philosophically will in fact be de4structive. The McCain-Feingold "campaign finance reform bill is just one, but a perfect example.
Though I might disagree with the conclusion, I should understand that John McCain has operated for a few decades in a Congress where he has watched influence and policy be bought and sold. That is called "corruption." And McCain rightly perceived that this is a terrible thing. However, I philosophically identify that the actual effect of government regulation of free speech and behavior has ominous implications for the Democratic system as a whole.
So, what we have is a correct diagnosis of a problem with a mistaken prescription for a cure. Like a doctor might accurately diagnose a cold and prescribe an ineffective or corrosive medication for the very real pathological condition.
Here's the good news. I believe McCain's sentiments about helping and defending the country are genuine. And for example, his experience informs him that you can't wish away threats to security or humanity. He will be a resolute defender of American interests and security and humane values in the world.
His sentiment is also pro-life and pro-Constitution. In all cases, including the selection of judicial candidates, he will add noble sentiment to the counsel of noble but more systematic thinkers.
He will find with Sarah Palin's counsel, that drilling for oil is in the interest of America's commercial and personal financial and security interests. AND, it does not pose an environmental threat to heretofore protected areas such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska: ANWR. It's in more than just the interest of oil corporations.
One other thing I must say, is that though I opposed McCain as strongly in 2000, I would not at all liken him to Bush. Besides the fact that McCain will be more assertive about life, he will be dramatically more assertive on the matter of excessive spending.
McCain's conservative sentiments include the convictions that government spending naturally inclines to waste and corruption. He will pay for what he believes is right and essential for the federal government, AND NO MORE. His record in opposing such extravagance is probably the most clear characteristic that his record shows in common with that of Sarah Palin.
You want to see CHANGE? This team may well lead the most dramatic change in the disposition of the American government that we have ever seen. If they are victorious and a residual Democratic majority is mainly and obstruction to reform, it will be a fine thing to run on in 2010 and 2012.
If Republicans regain Congress, McCain and/or Palin will lead the most dramatic reform that American government has ever seen. Ronald Reagan had to contend with a Democratic Senate for part and a Democratic House for all of his eight years. Despite of a doubling of revenues due to Reagan-driven tac-cuts, Congress never followed through on promised spending cuts, in fact tripling spending over his term.
The sentimentally noble McCain may introduce a dramatic change in American government: And a philosophical child shall lead them.
Well, I guess I should humble myself and admit that I have come around from being strongly suspicious of McCain's judgment, fearing that he would be a Bush clone and being a puppet of bad counsel, to being impressed at his independent and brilliant choice for a VP. I agree that while experience, particularly executive experience, is a factor, when it comes to some things (particularly foreign policy), what matters most is worldview and judgment--which is why I applaud McCain's choice of Palin.
I have questioned McCain's judgment, often. Having looked long and hard at the matter, my conclusion has been this:
It is the disposition of many people myself included, to adjudicate questions of policy theough the filter of a system of beliefs about human nature and its ordinary propensities. I don't think that's the way John McCain primarily operates.
Some time ago, I began to distinguish between "philosophical" conservatives of the sort I speak, and "sentimental" conservatives who honestly and with good intentions, react based on their genuine feelings about what is best, in this case for the country.
So, what would happen is that John McCain would sentimentally support a policy that sounds right to him, that some of us philosophically will in fact be de4structive. The McCain-Feingold "campaign finance reform bill is just one, but a perfect example.
Though I might disagree with the conclusion, I should understand that John McCain has operated for a few decades in a Congress where he has watched influence and policy be bought and sold. That is called "corruption." And McCain rightly perceived that this is a terrible thing. However, I philosophically identify that the actual effect of government regulation of free speech and behavior has ominous implications for the Democratic system as a whole.
So, what we have is a correct diagnosis of a problem with a mistaken prescription for a cure. Like a doctor might accurately diagnose a cold and prescribe an ineffective or corrosive medication for the very real pathological condition.
Here's the good news. I believe McCain's sentiments about helping and defending the country are genuine. And for example, his experience informs him that you can't wish away threats to security or humanity. He will be a resolute defender of American interests and security and humane values in the world.
His sentiment is also pro-life and pro-Constitution. In all cases, including the selection of judicial candidates, he will add noble sentiment to the counsel of noble but more systematic thinkers.
He will find with Sarah Palin's counsel, that drilling for oil is in the interest of America's commercial and personal financial and security interests. AND, it does not pose an environmental threat to heretofore protected areas such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska: ANWR. It's in more than just the interest of oil corporations.
One other thing I must say, is that though I opposed McCain as strongly in 2000, I would not at all liken him to Bush. Besides the fact that McCain will be more assertive about life, he will be dramatically more assertive on the matter of excessive spending.
McCain's conservative sentiments include the convictions that government spending naturally inclines to waste and corruption. He will pay for what he believes is right and essential for the federal government, AND NO MORE. His record in opposing such extravagance is probably the most clear characteristic that his record shows in common with that of Sarah Palin.
You want to see CHANGE? This team may well lead the most dramatic change in the disposition of the American government that we have ever seen. If they are victorious and a residual Democratic majority is mainly and obstruction to reform, it will be a fine thing to run on in 2010 and 2012.
If Republicans regain Congress, McCain and/or Palin will lead the most dramatic reform that American government has ever seen. Ronald Reagan had to contend with a Democratic Senate for part and a Democratic House for all of his eight years. Despite of a doubling of revenues due to Reagan-driven tac-cuts, Congress never followed through on promised spending cuts, in fact tripling spending over his term.
The sentimentally noble McCain may introduce a dramatic change in American government: And a philosophical child shall lead them.
Monday, June 30, 2008
Social Security, Obama and McCain
See the promises made and broken in the introduction and history of FICA (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid), below.
For you young people: Social Security payments today, are 12.4% of the first $90,000 an individual earns. 6.2% is deducted from the employee paycheck by the government. And, 6.2% is paid by the employer. However, that 6.2% is part of the employer’s cost of an employee. So, that is really their cost that cannot be paid to the employee. Thus, the 12.4% cost is ALL born by the employee. The employee “cost” is just more hidden taxation to deceive the average American, just like business taxes that are part of the cost of producing a product or service, which go onto the spreadsheet when calculating the profit that will justify the investment, in order to set the price. The self-employed or contract worker pays the full 12.4% straight out. Again, it is the consumer or end-user that bears the cost of the tax.
Barack Obama proposes to lift the $90,000 cap on FICA tax eligible earnings. Thus if we acknowledge that the worker bears the entire cost, someone who earns $150,000, will see a 12.4% FICA tax increase on the $60,000, or $7440 in additional taxes under Obama’s proposal. And, even adding this 12.4% to what EVERYONE in America earns over $90,000, the most optimistic liberals say that this additional revenue would almost cover (for a short period of time) the FICA shortfall that is now perched on America’s front porch. Other tax increases, benefit restrictions, and monetary inflation would still be needed to confront the established liabilities.
That is why it is so important that John McCain, who will work stronger than most to contain spending (certainly a great deal more than Bush has) is elected, and Barack Obama , who has promised many billions of dollars in new spending, is not. This urgent need for fiscal sobriety is why a strict conservative like OK Senator Tom Coburn is strongly supporting McCain, even though he has often disagreed with McCain, as many of us have: he knows that McCain is uncommonly strong against profligate spending. An Obama presidency with a Democrat-controlled Congress could make the economic woes of the Jimmy Carter years look like a picnic. Add to that thr damage of an activist judiciary generally and Supreme Court, spefically, and the potential danger to humanity and American security of an imprudent foreign policy. Vote McCain!
-------------------
Franklin Delano. Roosevelt
32nd. President, Democrat
Terms of Office March 4, 1933, to April 12, 1945
Franklin Delano. Roosevelt
introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program.
He promised:
1.) That participation in the Program would be Completely voluntary,
2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual Incomes into the Program,
3.) That the money the participants elected to put Into the Program would be deductible from Their income for tax purposes each year,
4.) That the money the participants put into the Independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would Only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and
5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.
Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month -- and then finding that we are getting taxe d< span class="Apple-converted-space"> on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to < SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: red">'Put Away' -- you may be interested in the following:
Lyndon Baines Johnson 36th.President, Democrat
Term Of Office: November 22, 1963 to January 20, 1969
Question: Which Political Party took Social Security from the Independent 'Trust Fund' and put it into the General Fund so thatCongress could spend it?
Answer: It was Lyndon B. Johnson
and the democratically Controlled House and Senate.
Question: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax Deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?
Answer: The Democratic Party.
William Jefferson Clinton
(Bill Clinton)
42nd. President
Democrat
Term of Office: January 20, 1993to January 20, 2001
Albert Arnold Gore, Jr.
(Al Gore)
45th. Vice President
Democrat
Term of Office: January 20, 1993to January 20, 2001
Question: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?
Answer: The Democratic Party, with Albert Arnold Gore, Jr. (Al Gore) [Vice President
Term of Office: January 20, 1993 to January 20, 2001] casting the 'tie-breaking' deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the US .
James Earl Carter, Jr
(Jimmy Carter)
39th. President, Democrat
Term of Office: January 20, 1977 to January 20, 1981 Question:
Which Political Party decided to start giving Annuity payments toimmigrants?
AND MY FAVORITE:
Answer: That's right!
James Earl Carter, Jr. (Jimmy Carter) and the Democratic Party.
Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive Social Security payments!
The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!
Then, after violating the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!
And the worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it!
If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of Awareness will be planted and maybe changes will Evolve. Maybe not, some Democrats are awfully Sure of what isn't so.
But it's worth a try. How many people can YOU send this to?
Actions speak louder than bumper stickers.
AND CONGRESS GIVES THEMSELVES 100% RETIREMENT FOR ONLY SERVING ONE TERM!!!
Thomas Jefferson
3rd. President, Democrat
Term of Office: March 4, 1801 to March 4, 1809
'A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.'
- Thomas Jefferson
For you young people: Social Security payments today, are 12.4% of the first $90,000 an individual earns. 6.2% is deducted from the employee paycheck by the government. And, 6.2% is paid by the employer. However, that 6.2% is part of the employer’s cost of an employee. So, that is really their cost that cannot be paid to the employee. Thus, the 12.4% cost is ALL born by the employee. The employee “cost” is just more hidden taxation to deceive the average American, just like business taxes that are part of the cost of producing a product or service, which go onto the spreadsheet when calculating the profit that will justify the investment, in order to set the price. The self-employed or contract worker pays the full 12.4% straight out. Again, it is the consumer or end-user that bears the cost of the tax.
Barack Obama proposes to lift the $90,000 cap on FICA tax eligible earnings. Thus if we acknowledge that the worker bears the entire cost, someone who earns $150,000, will see a 12.4% FICA tax increase on the $60,000, or $7440 in additional taxes under Obama’s proposal. And, even adding this 12.4% to what EVERYONE in America earns over $90,000, the most optimistic liberals say that this additional revenue would almost cover (for a short period of time) the FICA shortfall that is now perched on America’s front porch. Other tax increases, benefit restrictions, and monetary inflation would still be needed to confront the established liabilities.
That is why it is so important that John McCain, who will work stronger than most to contain spending (certainly a great deal more than Bush has) is elected, and Barack Obama , who has promised many billions of dollars in new spending, is not. This urgent need for fiscal sobriety is why a strict conservative like OK Senator Tom Coburn is strongly supporting McCain, even though he has often disagreed with McCain, as many of us have: he knows that McCain is uncommonly strong against profligate spending. An Obama presidency with a Democrat-controlled Congress could make the economic woes of the Jimmy Carter years look like a picnic. Add to that thr damage of an activist judiciary generally and Supreme Court, spefically, and the potential danger to humanity and American security of an imprudent foreign policy. Vote McCain!
-------------------
Franklin Delano. Roosevelt
32nd. President, Democrat
Terms of Office March 4, 1933, to April 12, 1945
Franklin Delano. Roosevelt
introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program.
He promised:
1.) That participation in the Program would be Completely voluntary,
2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual Incomes into the Program,
3.) That the money the participants elected to put Into the Program would be deductible from Their income for tax purposes each year,
4.) That the money the participants put into the Independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would Only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and
5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.
Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month -- and then finding that we are getting taxe d< span class="Apple-converted-space"> on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to < SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: red">'Put Away' -- you may be interested in the following:
Lyndon Baines Johnson 36th.President, Democrat
Term Of Office: November 22, 1963 to January 20, 1969
Question: Which Political Party took Social Security from the Independent 'Trust Fund' and put it into the General Fund so thatCongress could spend it?
Answer: It was Lyndon B. Johnson
and the democratically Controlled House and Senate.
Question: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax Deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?
Answer: The Democratic Party.
William Jefferson Clinton
(Bill Clinton)
42nd. President
Democrat
Term of Office: January 20, 1993to January 20, 2001
Albert Arnold Gore, Jr.
(Al Gore)
45th. Vice President
Democrat
Term of Office: January 20, 1993to January 20, 2001
Question: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?
Answer: The Democratic Party, with Albert Arnold Gore, Jr. (Al Gore) [Vice President
Term of Office: January 20, 1993 to January 20, 2001] casting the 'tie-breaking' deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the US .
James Earl Carter, Jr
(Jimmy Carter)
39th. President, Democrat
Term of Office: January 20, 1977 to January 20, 1981 Question:
Which Political Party decided to start giving Annuity payments toimmigrants?
AND MY FAVORITE:
Answer: That's right!
James Earl Carter, Jr. (Jimmy Carter) and the Democratic Party.
Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive Social Security payments!
The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!
Then, after violating the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!
And the worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it!
If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of Awareness will be planted and maybe changes will Evolve. Maybe not, some Democrats are awfully Sure of what isn't so.
But it's worth a try. How many people can YOU send this to?
Actions speak louder than bumper stickers.
AND CONGRESS GIVES THEMSELVES 100% RETIREMENT FOR ONLY SERVING ONE TERM!!!
Thomas Jefferson
3rd. President, Democrat
Term of Office: March 4, 1801 to March 4, 1809
'A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.'
- Thomas Jefferson
Social Security, Obama and McCain
See the promises made and broken in the introduction and history of FICA (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid), below.
For you young people: Social Security payments today, are 12.4% of the first $90,000 an individual earns. 6.2% is deducted from the employee paycheck by the government. And, 6.2% is paid by the employer. However, that 6.2% is part of the employer’s cost of an employee. So, that is really their cost that cannot be paid to the employee. Thus, the 12.4% cost is ALL born by the employee. The employee “cost” is just more hidden taxation to deceive the average American, just like business taxes that are part of the cost of producing a product or service, which go onto the spreadsheet when calculating the profit that will justify the investment, in order to set the price. The self-employed or contract worker pays the full 12.4% straight out. Again, it is the consumer or end-user that bears the cost of the tax.
Barack Obama proposes to lift the $90,000 cap on FICA tax eligible earnings. Thus if we acknowledge that the worker bears the entire cost, someone who earns $150,000, will see a 12.4% FICA tax increase on the $60,000, or $7440 in additional taxes under Obama’s proposal. And, even adding this 12.4% to what EVERYONE in America earns over $90,000, the most optimistic liberals say that this additional revenue would almost cover (for a short period of time) the FICA shortfall that is now perched on America’s front porch. Other tax increases, benefit restrictions, and monetary inflation would still be needed to confront the established liabilities.
That is why it is so important that John McCain, who will work stronger than most to contain spending (certainly a great deal more than Bush has) is elected, and Barack Obama , who has promised many billions of dollars in new spending, is not. This urgent need for fiscal sobriety is why a strict conservative like OK Senator Tom Coburn is strongly supporting McCain, even though he has often disagreed with McCain, as many of us have: he knows that McCain is uncommonly strong against profligate spending. An Obama presidency with a Democrat-controlled Congress could make the economic woes of the Jimmy Carter years look like a picnic.
-------------------
Franklin Delano. Roosevelt
32nd. President, Democrat
Terms of Office March 4, 1933, to April 12, 1945
Franklin Delano. Roosevelt
introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program.
He promised:
1.) That participation in the Program would be Completely voluntary,
2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual Incomes into the Program,
3.) That the money the participants elected to put Into the Program would be deductible from Their income for tax purposes each year,
4.) That the money the participants put into the Independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would Only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and
5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.
Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month -- and then finding that we are getting taxe d< span class="Apple-converted-space"> on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to < SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: red">'Put Away' -- you may be interested in the following:
Lyndon Baines Johnson 36th.President, Democrat
Term Of Office: November 22, 1963 to January 20, 1969
Question: Which Political Party took Social Security from the Independent 'Trust Fund' and put it into the General Fund so thatCongress could spend it?
Answer: It was Lyndon B. Johnson
and the democratically Controlled House and Senate.
Question: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax Deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?
Answer: The Democratic Party.
William Jefferson Clinton
(Bill Clinton)
42nd. President
Democrat
Term of Office: January 20, 1993to January 20, 2001
Albert Arnold Gore, Jr.
(Al Gore)
45th. Vice President
Democrat
Term of Office: January 20, 1993to January 20, 2001
Question: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?
Answer: The Democratic Party, with Albert Arnold Gore, Jr. (Al Gore) [Vice President
Term of Office: January 20, 1993 to January 20, 2001] casting the 'tie-breaking' deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the US .
James Earl Carter, Jr
(Jimmy Carter)
39th. President, Democrat
Term of Office: January 20, 1977 to January 20, 1981 Question:
Which Political Party decided to start giving Annuity payments toimmigrants?
AND MY FAVORITE:
Answer: That's right!
James Earl Carter, Jr. (Jimmy Carter) and the Democratic Party.
Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive Social Security payments!
The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!
Then, after violating the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!
And the worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it!
If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of Awareness will be planted and maybe changes will Evolve. Maybe not, some Democrats are awfully Sure of what isn't so.
But it's worth a try. How many people can YOU send this to?
Actions speak louder than bumper stickers.
AND CONGRESS GIVES THEMSELVES 100% RETIREMENT FOR ONLY SERVING ONE TERM!!!
Thomas Jefferson
3rd. President, Democrat
Term of Office: March 4, 1801 to March 4, 1809
'A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.'
- Thomas Jefferson
For you young people: Social Security payments today, are 12.4% of the first $90,000 an individual earns. 6.2% is deducted from the employee paycheck by the government. And, 6.2% is paid by the employer. However, that 6.2% is part of the employer’s cost of an employee. So, that is really their cost that cannot be paid to the employee. Thus, the 12.4% cost is ALL born by the employee. The employee “cost” is just more hidden taxation to deceive the average American, just like business taxes that are part of the cost of producing a product or service, which go onto the spreadsheet when calculating the profit that will justify the investment, in order to set the price. The self-employed or contract worker pays the full 12.4% straight out. Again, it is the consumer or end-user that bears the cost of the tax.
Barack Obama proposes to lift the $90,000 cap on FICA tax eligible earnings. Thus if we acknowledge that the worker bears the entire cost, someone who earns $150,000, will see a 12.4% FICA tax increase on the $60,000, or $7440 in additional taxes under Obama’s proposal. And, even adding this 12.4% to what EVERYONE in America earns over $90,000, the most optimistic liberals say that this additional revenue would almost cover (for a short period of time) the FICA shortfall that is now perched on America’s front porch. Other tax increases, benefit restrictions, and monetary inflation would still be needed to confront the established liabilities.
That is why it is so important that John McCain, who will work stronger than most to contain spending (certainly a great deal more than Bush has) is elected, and Barack Obama , who has promised many billions of dollars in new spending, is not. This urgent need for fiscal sobriety is why a strict conservative like OK Senator Tom Coburn is strongly supporting McCain, even though he has often disagreed with McCain, as many of us have: he knows that McCain is uncommonly strong against profligate spending. An Obama presidency with a Democrat-controlled Congress could make the economic woes of the Jimmy Carter years look like a picnic.
-------------------
Franklin Delano. Roosevelt
32nd. President, Democrat
Terms of Office March 4, 1933, to April 12, 1945
Franklin Delano. Roosevelt
introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program.
He promised:
1.) That participation in the Program would be Completely voluntary,
2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual Incomes into the Program,
3.) That the money the participants elected to put Into the Program would be deductible from Their income for tax purposes each year,
4.) That the money the participants put into the Independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would Only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and
5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.
Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month -- and then finding that we are getting taxe d< span class="Apple-converted-space"> on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to < SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: red">'Put Away' -- you may be interested in the following:
Lyndon Baines Johnson 36th.President, Democrat
Term Of Office: November 22, 1963 to January 20, 1969
Question: Which Political Party took Social Security from the Independent 'Trust Fund' and put it into the General Fund so thatCongress could spend it?
Answer: It was Lyndon B. Johnson
and the democratically Controlled House and Senate.
Question: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax Deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?
Answer: The Democratic Party.
William Jefferson Clinton
(Bill Clinton)
42nd. President
Democrat
Term of Office: January 20, 1993to January 20, 2001
Albert Arnold Gore, Jr.
(Al Gore)
45th. Vice President
Democrat
Term of Office: January 20, 1993to January 20, 2001
Question: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?
Answer: The Democratic Party, with Albert Arnold Gore, Jr. (Al Gore) [Vice President
Term of Office: January 20, 1993 to January 20, 2001] casting the 'tie-breaking' deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the US .
James Earl Carter, Jr
(Jimmy Carter)
39th. President, Democrat
Term of Office: January 20, 1977 to January 20, 1981 Question:
Which Political Party decided to start giving Annuity payments toimmigrants?
AND MY FAVORITE:
Answer: That's right!
James Earl Carter, Jr. (Jimmy Carter) and the Democratic Party.
Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive Social Security payments!
The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!
Then, after violating the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away!
And the worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it!
If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of Awareness will be planted and maybe changes will Evolve. Maybe not, some Democrats are awfully Sure of what isn't so.
But it's worth a try. How many people can YOU send this to?
Actions speak louder than bumper stickers.
AND CONGRESS GIVES THEMSELVES 100% RETIREMENT FOR ONLY SERVING ONE TERM!!!
Thomas Jefferson
3rd. President, Democrat
Term of Office: March 4, 1801 to March 4, 1809
'A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.'
- Thomas Jefferson
Thursday, May 1, 2008
How I Might Vote For Barack Obama Over John McCain
A family member forwarded this link to a video about the frightening prospect of a President Barack Obama. It is followed by my response.
“It takes about 13 minutes to view the video on this link. It was an eye-opener for me in some aspects.”
Barack Obama Video
You know, I know that millions of people vote on the basis of this kind of information. But, such matters don’t even get on the map for me. Barack Obama has never said or done a single socially constructive thing that I am aware of, beyond the most non-specific calls for "change," “unity,” “hope,” and such general abstractions.
He has persuaded populations of people to support him, as many anti-liberty tyrants in history have done. Honestly, it is difficult for me to look at a man who has earned a law degree and an accompanying fortune, and who can construct a speech that moves populations and is at least syntactically correct though substantially empty, without the strong suspicion that his ideals have nothing to do with American society but are primarily oriented toward personal wealth and power. I’m sorry, but it’s just extremely difficult for me to imagine that these people could be so utterly ignorant about human nature and the social dysfunction that will grow from implementing their totalitarian supposed ideals.
You know of course, that there is little danger of me casting a vote for Barack Obama. Though I can imagine a scenario under which I might consider it: At least two gunmen break into my home on election day, one of whom corrals my family at gunpoint and instructs me that I will go with the other man to my polling place and he will watch me cast my vote for Barack Obama. He tells me that if I do not return in an hour with the other man’s confirmation that I did indeed, cast my vote for Obama, that the brains of my family will be splattered on the walls of our home.
It is at such a point that I would seriously consider the benefits of voting for Barack Obama. And, I hope that this dispels any suspicions that I might be entirely closed to the idea.
We should consider, on the other hand, that though I have frequently disagreed with conclusions that John McCain has reached. He is exceptionally strong on a few points that are of particular importance at this time of American history: on spending (today we are not just spending foolishly, but on the brink of budgetary calamity, and that’s not just words) judicial restraint that respects liberty and The Constitution, and the defense of American welfare and moral standards. And whatever John McCain concludes, he concludes it sincerely with America’s interest in mind. That is a monumental difference that I hope intruders don’t impose upon.
“It takes about 13 minutes to view the video on this link. It was an eye-opener for me in some aspects.”
Barack Obama Video
You know, I know that millions of people vote on the basis of this kind of information. But, such matters don’t even get on the map for me. Barack Obama has never said or done a single socially constructive thing that I am aware of, beyond the most non-specific calls for "change," “unity,” “hope,” and such general abstractions.
He has persuaded populations of people to support him, as many anti-liberty tyrants in history have done. Honestly, it is difficult for me to look at a man who has earned a law degree and an accompanying fortune, and who can construct a speech that moves populations and is at least syntactically correct though substantially empty, without the strong suspicion that his ideals have nothing to do with American society but are primarily oriented toward personal wealth and power. I’m sorry, but it’s just extremely difficult for me to imagine that these people could be so utterly ignorant about human nature and the social dysfunction that will grow from implementing their totalitarian supposed ideals.
You know of course, that there is little danger of me casting a vote for Barack Obama. Though I can imagine a scenario under which I might consider it: At least two gunmen break into my home on election day, one of whom corrals my family at gunpoint and instructs me that I will go with the other man to my polling place and he will watch me cast my vote for Barack Obama. He tells me that if I do not return in an hour with the other man’s confirmation that I did indeed, cast my vote for Obama, that the brains of my family will be splattered on the walls of our home.
It is at such a point that I would seriously consider the benefits of voting for Barack Obama. And, I hope that this dispels any suspicions that I might be entirely closed to the idea.
We should consider, on the other hand, that though I have frequently disagreed with conclusions that John McCain has reached. He is exceptionally strong on a few points that are of particular importance at this time of American history: on spending (today we are not just spending foolishly, but on the brink of budgetary calamity, and that’s not just words) judicial restraint that respects liberty and The Constitution, and the defense of American welfare and moral standards. And whatever John McCain concludes, he concludes it sincerely with America’s interest in mind. That is a monumental difference that I hope intruders don’t impose upon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)