Heh. Big shocker here. Scott Brown, the Republican Liberal, voted Liberal. Well, 'magine that. Despite the overwhelming response from many Republicans of "Thank God we got Scott Brown," or "Thank Goodness a Republican got in! And in Massachusetts, too," Brown was nothing more than Same Ole', Same ole'. And guess what, you vote for Same ole', you get same ole'. Sorry, that's life.
And, of course, he was never anything different from other Republicans and Democrats. He just doesn't understand the political game in Washington quite yet, I don't think. Maybe people in Massachusetts will finally wise up and realize that, hey- neither the Republicans nor the Democrats are helping them.
Showing posts with label jobs. Show all posts
Showing posts with label jobs. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
State of the Union, Part I
**I know, I know, I was supposed to do this last week. Shoot me. :P**
Well, I'm going to read over the transcript of President Obama's State of the Union address, and comment on a few of his comments...and politely applaud if I actually agree with him. :P And yes, it's late. Oh well. ^.^
First off, I'd like to rant about the many times applause interjected. It was quite annoying. Like really, really, really incredibly annoying.
Simply put, at least at first, President Obama's address seemed to be yet more of the hopey-changey mumbo jumbo we were subjected to during the campaign. Nothing much of consequence, no real solutions offered; just "moving forward" and hope. Yeah, sorry, but moving forward doesn't pay the bills.
"And if there's one thing that has unified Democrats and Republicans, and everybody in between, it's that we all hated the bank bailout. I hated it -- I hated it. You hated it. It was about as popular as a root canal."
He hated the bank bailouts? Well we sure didn't see that when he was pushing for them so hard, and when he quite eagerly crammed it into his budget, despite the economic ramifications that would almost certainly ensue (chief among them a higher debt and deficit, higher taxes, more spending on a federal level, but less on a state and individual level).
"Now, let me repeat: We cut taxes. We cut taxes for 95 percent of working families. We cut taxes for small businesses."
He cut taxes on small businesses. Really? My dad owns his own business, as I think I've mentioned before. This year, he paid $12,000 in taxes. Twelve thousand dollars. My family is not rich; my dad's business is not rich. He has five employees, plus a CPA. This year, we couldn't even draw a profit check. Yet our capital gains taxes went up.
I'd also like to add that just because paper says a business made a 'profit' doesn't mean they have that money. On paper, my dad's electrical company made a profit. Yet we have no extra money in the business' bank account. **Pet Peeve Moment**
"The plan that has made all of this possible, from the tax cuts to the jobs, is the Recovery Act."
Ah. So the fact that the American people are just resilient has nothing to do with it. It has nothing to do with the fact that the market is doing its job, at least in part. Oh no. It was all the doing of the Almighty Government.
I'd also like to point out that...um...well, most of that money hasn't even been spent. So unless they managed to (through some conniving on the part of the Fed, no doubt) stretch each dollar by several hundred thousand, I don't see how that much good came out of the little they actually spent. (The rest is, apparently, still sitting in a treasury somewhere. Or currently coming off the presses in the Federal Reserve mint.)
"And to encourage these and other businesses to stay within our borders, it is time to finally slash the tax breaks for companies that ship our jobs overseas and give those tax breaks to companies that create jobs right here in the United States of America."
Excellent idea. I mean, like imagine that- companies leave because they have to pay high taxes!
But just giving them tax breaks isn't enough. One of the most basic rules of economics is that people will not do things unless there is an incentive to do them. If there is no incentive (money) for companies to hire people here, they won't- and I don't think miniscule tax breaks will do much to add said incentives.
We need to make it easier for companies to keep workers, especially smaller businesses. They can't, not because there aren't enough tax breaks, but because they have to a) pay so much to their workers, b) pay so much in benefits to their workers, and c) they have to pay so many taxes for their workers.
Yes, yes, we all feel sorry for the poor laborers of America who unjustly toil while their evil bosses, the ones who really benefit from capitalism, drive them unmercifully hard. But then again, that picture isn't real. So it's really a nonissue.
Workers in America don't need to be paid so much. There's something messed up when a person can get paid $7.50 an hour at Walmart for putting my bleach and apples together. Pay should be by merit, not by what the government says employers have to pay. This is simple- if someone does a good job, they get more money. If they do a crappy job, they don't get money. Too bad for them. Maybe they'll grow up and see that "Hey, I need to do a better job!"
Something I just noticed- Obama likes setting Goals. Perhaps we should give him a button- Honorary Goal Setter of the United States of America.
"Still, in this economy, a high school diploma no longer guarantees a good job."
What constitutes "a good job"? Sorry, but not everybody can have a job that pays $100,000 a year. We have to have garbage men and plumbers and electricians and sewer scrubbers and all sorts of other people. Those are still good jobs. We need people who can flip burgers and stock shelves and sew shirts and do nails. Those are still good jobs.
Someone has to do them. And if everybody has a college degree, there will be no one to flip burgers or take out the garbage or clean out our blocked sewers or fix our lights. Then your college degree is pretty much worthless. I'm not saying people shouldn't be able to pursue their dreams...but people shouldn't be pushed to do something they cannot feasibly do, whether because of money, time, or other constraints. That is just as wrong. (And besides, I've met a few people whose highest goal is to be a garbage man or a plumber.)
"And let's tell another 1 million students that, when they graduate, they will be required to pay only 10 percent of their income on student loans, and all of their debt will be forgiven after 20 years, and forgiven after 10 years if they choose a career in public service..."
...Wow. No. This isn't how debt works. If people get into debt so they can go to college, that's their problem. Too bad for them. If they knew they wouldn't be able to pay for it, they shouldn't have gone, or they should have made better money choices.
Secondly, I don't think we should be telling college students the taxpayer will foot the bill for them. My goal is to be able to either work or pay my way through college. Yeah, it might be difficult. It probably will be. But I'm not going to steal from others, or chain myself to a huge debt because I couldn't plan ahead and manage my money.
Of course, I do think college tuition could go down. Significantly. How much they charge for the privilege of going to college is nuts, and I'm pretty sure those deans and board members aren't exactly hurting for money. They could lower rates. (But they won't, because they know their education can only be gotten in certain places, they're some of those places, and people will pay whatever it takes.)
"I didn't choose to tackle this issue to get some legislative victory under my belt. And by now, it should be fairly obvious that I didn't take on health care because it was good politics."
Nevertheless, it is good politics, and I haven't seen anything but rhetoric that says otherwise. The political reality is this- if he doesn't get this passed ASAP, he's going to be in big trouble with his base.
It still amazes me how much Obama throws into the Federal government's court. Sorry, but ensuring everyone has affordable coverage is not the Federal government's job. You might- might- be able to swing it through state governments. But not the Federal government. It is so unconstitutional on so many levels. That is the job of the free markets and (my, here's a concept!) the people. If people wouldn't blindly follow the insurance companies and their elected officials (*coughRepublicanscough*) we would be in a lot smaller mess.
"By -- by the time I took office, we had a one-year deficit of over $1 trillion and projected deficits of $8 trillion over the next decade. Most of this was the result of not paying for two wars, two tax cuts, and an expensive prescription drug program."
This I can agree with. Bush did do a lot of bad things, and a lot of it left us a lot deeper in debt. But that doesn't mean Obama has to continue the process. I thought the point of "Change" was to change the past administration's bad policies and find good ones...not just continue the old bad ones.
"I'm absolutely convinced that was the right thing to do, but families across the country are tightening their belts and making tough decisions. The federal government should do the same."
Agreed. Like oh, cutting back on spending. And to be quite frank, adding trillions to the debt heap with a healthcare bill that won't do a thing isn't going to help us dig out of said debt heap. Believe me.
"To help working families, we'll extend our middle-class tax cuts. But at a time of record deficits, we will not continue tax cuts for oil companies, for investment fund managers, and for those making over $250,000 a year. We just can't afford it."
We could if we'd start scaling back programs that are already bankrupt and have fundamental flaws. Like Medicare. Instead of adding more bandaids to the huge gash in it, let's just let it go down. Or welfare. Too many people are dependent on it. Wean them off. Or the Department of Education. Guzzles money, and our literacy rates are declining. Let's rethink that one, make it so that it works better, for less money.
Or Social Security. Good idea, bad results. Too many people get it, too much taxes get taken to pay for it. DHS, TSA...yeah, those could go and I don't think anyone would cry bucket loads of tears. The wars. And our foreign bases. Excess foreign aid. All those things could go, and there are other things I'm sure I'm missing...or rather, it would take much too long to list them all. Like the Administration on Aging. Or the Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Interagency Coordinating Committee (Seriously, it's a real committee).
Endless Programs, Endless Possibilities for Fund Reduction.
"And when the vote comes tomorrow, the Senate should restore the pay-as-you-go law that was a big reason for why we had record surpluses in the 1990s."
Something that would really help us- either bribing the Federal Reserve, or getting rid of it. It has a past history of artificially inflating our currency, then letting it plummet back- or the other way around. Either way, it isn't good. Now, I see no problem with a pay-as-you-go policy. It's actually quite a wise way to do things. But um, well, I don't think it'll help much when the Senators keep raising their incomes. And sending money to special interests. Nope nope nope.
"From some on the right, I expect we'll hear a different argument, that if we just make fewer investments in our people, extend tax cuts, including those for the wealthier Americans, eliminate more regulations, maintain the status quo on health care, our deficits will go away.
The problem is, that's what we did for eight years."
Actually, that's really not what we did for eight years. What we did for eight years is Regulate, Spend Some More, Start A War, Make A Gaffe, Distract the Pesky People, Start Another War, Regulate, Spend Some More...
Not exactly a recipe for success, or debt reduction.
Part II soon to come.
Well, I'm going to read over the transcript of President Obama's State of the Union address, and comment on a few of his comments...and politely applaud if I actually agree with him. :P And yes, it's late. Oh well. ^.^
First off, I'd like to rant about the many times applause interjected. It was quite annoying. Like really, really, really incredibly annoying.
Simply put, at least at first, President Obama's address seemed to be yet more of the hopey-changey mumbo jumbo we were subjected to during the campaign. Nothing much of consequence, no real solutions offered; just "moving forward" and hope. Yeah, sorry, but moving forward doesn't pay the bills.
"And if there's one thing that has unified Democrats and Republicans, and everybody in between, it's that we all hated the bank bailout. I hated it -- I hated it. You hated it. It was about as popular as a root canal."
He hated the bank bailouts? Well we sure didn't see that when he was pushing for them so hard, and when he quite eagerly crammed it into his budget, despite the economic ramifications that would almost certainly ensue (chief among them a higher debt and deficit, higher taxes, more spending on a federal level, but less on a state and individual level).
"Now, let me repeat: We cut taxes. We cut taxes for 95 percent of working families. We cut taxes for small businesses."
He cut taxes on small businesses. Really? My dad owns his own business, as I think I've mentioned before. This year, he paid $12,000 in taxes. Twelve thousand dollars. My family is not rich; my dad's business is not rich. He has five employees, plus a CPA. This year, we couldn't even draw a profit check. Yet our capital gains taxes went up.
I'd also like to add that just because paper says a business made a 'profit' doesn't mean they have that money. On paper, my dad's electrical company made a profit. Yet we have no extra money in the business' bank account. **Pet Peeve Moment**
"The plan that has made all of this possible, from the tax cuts to the jobs, is the Recovery Act."
Ah. So the fact that the American people are just resilient has nothing to do with it. It has nothing to do with the fact that the market is doing its job, at least in part. Oh no. It was all the doing of the Almighty Government.
I'd also like to point out that...um...well, most of that money hasn't even been spent. So unless they managed to (through some conniving on the part of the Fed, no doubt) stretch each dollar by several hundred thousand, I don't see how that much good came out of the little they actually spent. (The rest is, apparently, still sitting in a treasury somewhere. Or currently coming off the presses in the Federal Reserve mint.)
"And to encourage these and other businesses to stay within our borders, it is time to finally slash the tax breaks for companies that ship our jobs overseas and give those tax breaks to companies that create jobs right here in the United States of America."
Excellent idea. I mean, like imagine that- companies leave because they have to pay high taxes!
But just giving them tax breaks isn't enough. One of the most basic rules of economics is that people will not do things unless there is an incentive to do them. If there is no incentive (money) for companies to hire people here, they won't- and I don't think miniscule tax breaks will do much to add said incentives.
We need to make it easier for companies to keep workers, especially smaller businesses. They can't, not because there aren't enough tax breaks, but because they have to a) pay so much to their workers, b) pay so much in benefits to their workers, and c) they have to pay so many taxes for their workers.
Yes, yes, we all feel sorry for the poor laborers of America who unjustly toil while their evil bosses, the ones who really benefit from capitalism, drive them unmercifully hard. But then again, that picture isn't real. So it's really a nonissue.
Workers in America don't need to be paid so much. There's something messed up when a person can get paid $7.50 an hour at Walmart for putting my bleach and apples together. Pay should be by merit, not by what the government says employers have to pay. This is simple- if someone does a good job, they get more money. If they do a crappy job, they don't get money. Too bad for them. Maybe they'll grow up and see that "Hey, I need to do a better job!"
Something I just noticed- Obama likes setting Goals. Perhaps we should give him a button- Honorary Goal Setter of the United States of America.
"Still, in this economy, a high school diploma no longer guarantees a good job."
What constitutes "a good job"? Sorry, but not everybody can have a job that pays $100,000 a year. We have to have garbage men and plumbers and electricians and sewer scrubbers and all sorts of other people. Those are still good jobs. We need people who can flip burgers and stock shelves and sew shirts and do nails. Those are still good jobs.
Someone has to do them. And if everybody has a college degree, there will be no one to flip burgers or take out the garbage or clean out our blocked sewers or fix our lights. Then your college degree is pretty much worthless. I'm not saying people shouldn't be able to pursue their dreams...but people shouldn't be pushed to do something they cannot feasibly do, whether because of money, time, or other constraints. That is just as wrong. (And besides, I've met a few people whose highest goal is to be a garbage man or a plumber.)
"And let's tell another 1 million students that, when they graduate, they will be required to pay only 10 percent of their income on student loans, and all of their debt will be forgiven after 20 years, and forgiven after 10 years if they choose a career in public service..."
...Wow. No. This isn't how debt works. If people get into debt so they can go to college, that's their problem. Too bad for them. If they knew they wouldn't be able to pay for it, they shouldn't have gone, or they should have made better money choices.
Secondly, I don't think we should be telling college students the taxpayer will foot the bill for them. My goal is to be able to either work or pay my way through college. Yeah, it might be difficult. It probably will be. But I'm not going to steal from others, or chain myself to a huge debt because I couldn't plan ahead and manage my money.
Of course, I do think college tuition could go down. Significantly. How much they charge for the privilege of going to college is nuts, and I'm pretty sure those deans and board members aren't exactly hurting for money. They could lower rates. (But they won't, because they know their education can only be gotten in certain places, they're some of those places, and people will pay whatever it takes.)
"I didn't choose to tackle this issue to get some legislative victory under my belt. And by now, it should be fairly obvious that I didn't take on health care because it was good politics."
Nevertheless, it is good politics, and I haven't seen anything but rhetoric that says otherwise. The political reality is this- if he doesn't get this passed ASAP, he's going to be in big trouble with his base.
It still amazes me how much Obama throws into the Federal government's court. Sorry, but ensuring everyone has affordable coverage is not the Federal government's job. You might- might- be able to swing it through state governments. But not the Federal government. It is so unconstitutional on so many levels. That is the job of the free markets and (my, here's a concept!) the people. If people wouldn't blindly follow the insurance companies and their elected officials (*coughRepublicanscough*) we would be in a lot smaller mess.
"By -- by the time I took office, we had a one-year deficit of over $1 trillion and projected deficits of $8 trillion over the next decade. Most of this was the result of not paying for two wars, two tax cuts, and an expensive prescription drug program."
This I can agree with. Bush did do a lot of bad things, and a lot of it left us a lot deeper in debt. But that doesn't mean Obama has to continue the process. I thought the point of "Change" was to change the past administration's bad policies and find good ones...not just continue the old bad ones.
"I'm absolutely convinced that was the right thing to do, but families across the country are tightening their belts and making tough decisions. The federal government should do the same."
Agreed. Like oh, cutting back on spending. And to be quite frank, adding trillions to the debt heap with a healthcare bill that won't do a thing isn't going to help us dig out of said debt heap. Believe me.
"To help working families, we'll extend our middle-class tax cuts. But at a time of record deficits, we will not continue tax cuts for oil companies, for investment fund managers, and for those making over $250,000 a year. We just can't afford it."
We could if we'd start scaling back programs that are already bankrupt and have fundamental flaws. Like Medicare. Instead of adding more bandaids to the huge gash in it, let's just let it go down. Or welfare. Too many people are dependent on it. Wean them off. Or the Department of Education. Guzzles money, and our literacy rates are declining. Let's rethink that one, make it so that it works better, for less money.
Or Social Security. Good idea, bad results. Too many people get it, too much taxes get taken to pay for it. DHS, TSA...yeah, those could go and I don't think anyone would cry bucket loads of tears. The wars. And our foreign bases. Excess foreign aid. All those things could go, and there are other things I'm sure I'm missing...or rather, it would take much too long to list them all. Like the Administration on Aging. Or the Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Interagency Coordinating Committee (Seriously, it's a real committee).
Endless Programs, Endless Possibilities for Fund Reduction.
"And when the vote comes tomorrow, the Senate should restore the pay-as-you-go law that was a big reason for why we had record surpluses in the 1990s."
Something that would really help us- either bribing the Federal Reserve, or getting rid of it. It has a past history of artificially inflating our currency, then letting it plummet back- or the other way around. Either way, it isn't good. Now, I see no problem with a pay-as-you-go policy. It's actually quite a wise way to do things. But um, well, I don't think it'll help much when the Senators keep raising their incomes. And sending money to special interests. Nope nope nope.
"From some on the right, I expect we'll hear a different argument, that if we just make fewer investments in our people, extend tax cuts, including those for the wealthier Americans, eliminate more regulations, maintain the status quo on health care, our deficits will go away.
The problem is, that's what we did for eight years."
Actually, that's really not what we did for eight years. What we did for eight years is Regulate, Spend Some More, Start A War, Make A Gaffe, Distract the Pesky People, Start Another War, Regulate, Spend Some More...
Not exactly a recipe for success, or debt reduction.
Part II soon to come.
Friday, July 3, 2009
Unemployment and Debt
Well, despite all the media hype about how President Obama was going to pull us out of the recession, more people are still losing their jobs. The unemployment rate climbed to 9.5 this past month, and where oh where has all the money gone?!
Well, let's see...billions to foreign aid. Billions to welfare. Trillions to our crummy public education system. And the Fed continues to print more Monopoly money, so be assured that the weekly 'Free Parking' truck will be around quite soon!
Now, perhaps I'm being unfair. But I don't think so. The government seems to think that the only way to achieve prosperity (a rather shallow goal, at the best of times), is to get in debt. We have a President who apparently worships debt, hailing it as the end-all to economic success.
Somebody needs to hit them all upside the head with a great big dose of reality.
Debt doesn't bring prosperity. The only thing it brings is 'Stupid tax' as Dave Ramsey phrases it. America is paying a lot of stupid tax. Or, they would be, if the government was actually trying to pay off their debt instead of let it fester and accrue interest...and be there so China can own us in a few years.
Debt does not equal economic success. Like I said, it only brings with it more spending. If my family had not bought a house that was too expensive, and hadn't bought so much stuff on credit, we would be comparatively well off right now. Yeah, we might not be living in the best neighborhood, but we wouldn't have to worry about where food was coming from next week.
A lot of families are in that fix. Why? Because they've gotten themselves into debt.
Now, back to our original topic.
Why is 'creating jobs' the end-all? It isn't the government's job to create jobs. It never has been, and it won't be. Ever. But, somebody needs to tell that to our Smart and Smarter legislators in Washington. Oh, and to our President. (Somebody also needs to tell him lots of other things, but that's another post.)
I truly think that if the government would back off and let the economy run it's course, we'd see an improvement. The people who run these businesses know what they're doing. They're trying to make money. Having to kow-tow to the government doesn't make them money. Firing or laying off people doesn't make them money.
Neither do unemployment taxes, or social security taxes, or any of the other dumb taxes they have to pay to the government. It isn't profitable to run their businesses. So, they'd be pretty silly if they stayed in a business that wasn't making them money.
The government needs to back off already. Seriously.
Well, let's see...billions to foreign aid. Billions to welfare. Trillions to our crummy public education system. And the Fed continues to print more Monopoly money, so be assured that the weekly 'Free Parking' truck will be around quite soon!
Now, perhaps I'm being unfair. But I don't think so. The government seems to think that the only way to achieve prosperity (a rather shallow goal, at the best of times), is to get in debt. We have a President who apparently worships debt, hailing it as the end-all to economic success.
Somebody needs to hit them all upside the head with a great big dose of reality.
Debt doesn't bring prosperity. The only thing it brings is 'Stupid tax' as Dave Ramsey phrases it. America is paying a lot of stupid tax. Or, they would be, if the government was actually trying to pay off their debt instead of let it fester and accrue interest...and be there so China can own us in a few years.
Debt does not equal economic success. Like I said, it only brings with it more spending. If my family had not bought a house that was too expensive, and hadn't bought so much stuff on credit, we would be comparatively well off right now. Yeah, we might not be living in the best neighborhood, but we wouldn't have to worry about where food was coming from next week.
A lot of families are in that fix. Why? Because they've gotten themselves into debt.
Now, back to our original topic.
Why is 'creating jobs' the end-all? It isn't the government's job to create jobs. It never has been, and it won't be. Ever. But, somebody needs to tell that to our Smart and Smarter legislators in Washington. Oh, and to our President. (Somebody also needs to tell him lots of other things, but that's another post.)
I truly think that if the government would back off and let the economy run it's course, we'd see an improvement. The people who run these businesses know what they're doing. They're trying to make money. Having to kow-tow to the government doesn't make them money. Firing or laying off people doesn't make them money.
Neither do unemployment taxes, or social security taxes, or any of the other dumb taxes they have to pay to the government. It isn't profitable to run their businesses. So, they'd be pretty silly if they stayed in a business that wasn't making them money.
The government needs to back off already. Seriously.
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Job Diversion
Our lovely President Obama released a statement this week that Wall Street was not going to play as big a part in the economy as formerly. Why? All in the interest of jobs, of course.
"That means that more talent, more resources will be going to other sectors of the economy. I actually think that's healthy. We don't want every single college grad with mathematical aptitude to become a derivatives trader. We want some of them to go into engineering, and we want some of them to be going into computer design."
Don't people already go into those fields? You know where we're headed with this? A nuclear physicist being assigned to a knitwear mill, because 'We need you here!' (That was an actual case in China, by the way.)
This is a stupid idea. He has said things like this before. Assigning jobs, Mr. Obama, does not work. Never has, never will.
"That means that more talent, more resources will be going to other sectors of the economy. I actually think that's healthy. We don't want every single college grad with mathematical aptitude to become a derivatives trader. We want some of them to go into engineering, and we want some of them to be going into computer design."
Don't people already go into those fields? You know where we're headed with this? A nuclear physicist being assigned to a knitwear mill, because 'We need you here!' (That was an actual case in China, by the way.)
This is a stupid idea. He has said things like this before. Assigning jobs, Mr. Obama, does not work. Never has, never will.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Stimulus...works?!
According to this man, apparently so. According to him, the Nazis did right by pumping a bunch of money into their economy.'
First off, let me say something: America is not Nazi Germany. Is not, and I hope never will be. America is not the nation of the 'we give you, you give us.' No.
Secondly, Nazi Germany flourished because Hitler was giving everyone jobs! Oh yes, he was giving them hundreds of jobs...in his mechanic factories. Making tanks and guns, so he could go to war. Yay. Just what I want here.
In the article, the columnist states: "Stimulus opponents here in the United States — mainly Congressional Republicans (though not, tellingly, Republican governors of some large states) — have been warning about debt, too. "
OK. Not only is it 'congressional republicans'...there's also quite a few congressional democrats on this anti-stimulus wagon. Oh, and all the obscure 'We the People' out here. Yeah. That obscure, little-heard-from majority, y'know? Not that we matter: you just keep on doin' your thing! We don't care that you're spending billions of the taxpayer's money!
After all, it's all going to a good cause. We get to be just like Nazi Germany, free to you after an eight trillion stimulus package, paid for by you, the taxpayer!
Gimme' a break.
"When Roosevelt stuck to a stimulus program, unemployment fell markedly, and the biggest stimulus of all — World War II — did the rest. "
Wow. Such great stimulus! I love it!!! Of course, since Obama plans on sending us into war with Iraq, it doesn't much matter. We'll get all the 'War Stimulus' we need. In fact, it'll probably be coming out our ears!
Excuse me if I seem rather steamed tonight. I saw this article and simply couldn't believe it. There is so much more I'd like to say, but it isn't making itself presentable in words, LOL
First off, let me say something: America is not Nazi Germany. Is not, and I hope never will be. America is not the nation of the 'we give you, you give us.' No.
Secondly, Nazi Germany flourished because Hitler was giving everyone jobs! Oh yes, he was giving them hundreds of jobs...in his mechanic factories. Making tanks and guns, so he could go to war. Yay. Just what I want here.
In the article, the columnist states: "Stimulus opponents here in the United States — mainly Congressional Republicans (though not, tellingly, Republican governors of some large states) — have been warning about debt, too. "
OK. Not only is it 'congressional republicans'...there's also quite a few congressional democrats on this anti-stimulus wagon. Oh, and all the obscure 'We the People' out here. Yeah. That obscure, little-heard-from majority, y'know? Not that we matter: you just keep on doin' your thing! We don't care that you're spending billions of the taxpayer's money!
After all, it's all going to a good cause. We get to be just like Nazi Germany, free to you after an eight trillion stimulus package, paid for by you, the taxpayer!
Gimme' a break.
"When Roosevelt stuck to a stimulus program, unemployment fell markedly, and the biggest stimulus of all — World War II — did the rest. "
Wow. Such great stimulus! I love it!!! Of course, since Obama plans on sending us into war with Iraq, it doesn't much matter. We'll get all the 'War Stimulus' we need. In fact, it'll probably be coming out our ears!
Excuse me if I seem rather steamed tonight. I saw this article and simply couldn't believe it. There is so much more I'd like to say, but it isn't making itself presentable in words, LOL
Monday, March 16, 2009
Helping Small Business
Yay! Let's all help the small businesses!! I have an idea to help them. Let's stop taxing the lives out of them. Let's stop making them pay outrageous unemployment. Let's stop making them pay Medicare, social security, and all the thousands of dollars they pay in taxes.
That'd help them a whole lot more than this. Believe me.
My dad is the owner of a small business. It was started just this last year (2008). He now owes over $10,000 in taxes. He didn't even make a profit on the business. They own all their own vehicles. And they owe the government, which thinks it owns the business.
You know how much unemployment tax the company has to pay? $28,000 a year. Yeah. $7,000 a quarter. If that isn't just disgusting, I don't know what is.
Businesses have to pay per employee for medicare and social security. Lest that sound not so bad, let me clarify. The employees themselves pay about $100 per week from their paychecks for these two costs. Then, the employer must match that money. For instance, if a business has seven employees, then the employer/company must pay $700 per week, including the other $700 that is being taxed from the employees themselves. That's $1,400 each week per business the government is raking in.
Not outraged yet? Let us continue.
The capital gains tax is a tax on the profit a company makes. But even companies that haven't made a profit have to pay the 'capital gains' tax. These are the taxes President Obama is seeking to raise. Yeah, that's a great idea!
Not.
So, in closing: what is the point of so many taxes? Apparently, the government is trying to dig itself out of a trillions-deep hole...and not getting anywhere, despite the many taxes they charge. Want to know why? They keep borrowing. And investing in stupid programs that don't do anything anyway.
Sometimes politics disgust me.
That'd help them a whole lot more than this. Believe me.
My dad is the owner of a small business. It was started just this last year (2008). He now owes over $10,000 in taxes. He didn't even make a profit on the business. They own all their own vehicles. And they owe the government, which thinks it owns the business.
You know how much unemployment tax the company has to pay? $28,000 a year. Yeah. $7,000 a quarter. If that isn't just disgusting, I don't know what is.
Businesses have to pay per employee for medicare and social security. Lest that sound not so bad, let me clarify. The employees themselves pay about $100 per week from their paychecks for these two costs. Then, the employer must match that money. For instance, if a business has seven employees, then the employer/company must pay $700 per week, including the other $700 that is being taxed from the employees themselves. That's $1,400 each week per business the government is raking in.
Not outraged yet? Let us continue.
The capital gains tax is a tax on the profit a company makes. But even companies that haven't made a profit have to pay the 'capital gains' tax. These are the taxes President Obama is seeking to raise. Yeah, that's a great idea!
Not.
So, in closing: what is the point of so many taxes? Apparently, the government is trying to dig itself out of a trillions-deep hole...and not getting anywhere, despite the many taxes they charge. Want to know why? They keep borrowing. And investing in stupid programs that don't do anything anyway.
Sometimes politics disgust me.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Finally- Optimism...sort of
In his speech to congress last night, President Obama finally showed a little optimism about this 'crisis'. Maybe because his bill got passed? Anyway- apparently, the Congress just loved it, standing and applauding him several times.
Personally, I really don't see what was so great about it. More rhetoric, more 'take from the rich and give to the government so we can say we're giving to the poor', more 'give the government everything so we can...take care of you." Like this quote:
I've made my position on these points clear before, but I'll do it again.
Prosperity is not the government's job.
Creating jobs is not the government's job.
Investing in energy is not the government's job.
Investing in healthcare and education is not
All those things are more efficiently handled, handled with less cost, and also just work better overall when put in the hands of the private sector. When the free market is allowed to be free, prosperity will happen on it's own. It happened for over 100 years here in America. People were allowed to do what they wanted with their land, didn't have to have government permission to build a building. People were prosperous, all their needs were met- without the government's interference.
Same with jobs. If the government would just get their noses out of the people's business, we wouldn't have a problem. If employers didn't have to pay exorbitant taxes for things like Medicare, unemployment, and the like, they could afford to hire more people. Unemployment problem solved.
Energy, healthcare, and education are always better when handled by the private sector. History shows it- even recent history. All energy breakthroughs have been done by private companies, without government involvement. Healthcare the same. It always works better when the government doesn't get their paws on it. If education is really handled better by the government, why did we see a decline in literacy rates after universal public schooling became the norm?
My point is that the government can't do it all. Even if they can, they shouldn't. This Big Brother mentality, that the government should take care of all of us is wrong. We don't need- and I don't want- the government controlling our lives.
Personally, I really don't see what was so great about it. More rhetoric, more 'take from the rich and give to the government so we can say we're giving to the poor', more 'give the government everything so we can...take care of you." Like this quote:
"Now is the time to act boldly and wisely - to not only revive this economy, but to build a new foundation for lasting prosperity. Now is the time to jump-start job creation, re-start lending and invest in areas like energy, healthcare and education that will grow our economy, even as we make hard choices to bring our deficit down."
I've made my position on these points clear before, but I'll do it again.
Prosperity is not the government's job.
Creating jobs is not the government's job.
Investing in energy is not the government's job.
Investing in healthcare and education is not
All those things are more efficiently handled, handled with less cost, and also just work better overall when put in the hands of the private sector. When the free market is allowed to be free, prosperity will happen on it's own. It happened for over 100 years here in America. People were allowed to do what they wanted with their land, didn't have to have government permission to build a building. People were prosperous, all their needs were met- without the government's interference.
Same with jobs. If the government would just get their noses out of the people's business, we wouldn't have a problem. If employers didn't have to pay exorbitant taxes for things like Medicare, unemployment, and the like, they could afford to hire more people. Unemployment problem solved.
Energy, healthcare, and education are always better when handled by the private sector. History shows it- even recent history. All energy breakthroughs have been done by private companies, without government involvement. Healthcare the same. It always works better when the government doesn't get their paws on it. If education is really handled better by the government, why did we see a decline in literacy rates after universal public schooling became the norm?
My point is that the government can't do it all. Even if they can, they shouldn't. This Big Brother mentality, that the government should take care of all of us is wrong. We don't need- and I don't want- the government controlling our lives.
"As soon as I took office, I asked this Congress to send me a recovery plan by President's Day that would put people back to work and put money in their pockets. Not because I believe in bigger government - I don't."
Oh gosh. There is no nice way to say this- President Obama is not being very truthful. Oh yeah- "I'm trying to create jobs, make you utterly dependent on the government, and control every little facet of your lives, but hey- I still don't believe in big government!" President Obama may not believe in larger government. That might be because he believes in a government consisting of one person!! (aka.- a dictatorship.)
"Over the next two years, this plan will save or create 3.5m jobs. More than 90% of these jobs will be in the private sector - jobs rebuilding our roads and bridges; constructing wind turbines and solar panels; laying broadband and expanding mass transit."
First of all- 3 and a half million jobs? That isn't very much (considering the 500 million that are losing their jobs monthly!), and thinking of how frantic Obama was about how many Americans were losing their jobs daily. Sure a lot more than 3 million. Come to think of it, how do you 'create' jobs?
Oh! I know! Hire some people to dig holes, then more to fill them in! Yay! The government takes care of us! Hail the Leader!
"Because of this plan, there are teachers who can now keep their jobs and educate our kids. Healthcare professionals can continue caring for our sick. There are 57 police officers who are still on the streets of Minneapolis tonight because this plan prevented the layoffs their department was about to make."
Okay...so we're forcing businesses to keep employees that are unneedful, and are simply draining resources. Wow. I like it. It's so...Communism-y. And that's what we want, right?!
"Because of this plan, families who are struggling to pay tuition costs will receive a $2,500 tax credit for all four years of college."
Things like this make me want to work my way through college just so I can prove that I can do it. So I can prove that I don't need the government's help. To prove that even though I'm 'struggling', I don't need money that, ultimately, is coming out of some other person's pocket in the form of taxpayer dollars. Or, my own, if I pay taxes.
Now just a few fun little quotes that I won't comment on:
"And when we learn that a major bank has serious problems, we will hold accountable those responsible, force the necessary adjustments, provide the support to clean up their balance sheets and assure the continuity of a strong, viable institution that can serve our people and our economy."
"So I ask this Congress to join me in doing whatever proves necessary. Because we cannot consign our nation to an open-ended recession. And to ensure that a crisis of this magnitude never happens again, I ask Congress to move quickly on legislation that will finally reform our outdated regulatory system. It is time to put in place tough, new common-sense rules of the road so that our financial market rewards drive and innovation, and punishes short-cuts and abuse."
"I reject the view that says our problems will simply take care of themselves; that says government has no role in laying the foundation for our common prosperity."
"In each case, government didn't supplant private enterprise; it catalysed private enterprise. It created the conditions for thousands of entrepreneurs and new businesses to adapt and to thrive."
Short and sweet- a Communism-laced speech. Read the entire transcript here- if you can stomach it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
