WERE TAKEN BY NEWLY ARRIVED IMMIGRANTS (Legal and Illegal)
Thursday, September 22, 2011
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
I Hope the Rich Get Richer
AND YOU SHOULD TOO
Obama always needs someone or some thing to blame when one of his ill conceived ideas fail to work as he promised. Its Bushes fault, it’s the flood, it’s the Japan earth quake, etc. His most recent villain is the “millionaire,” you know, the guy with the white mustache whose picture you see in the monopoly game lighting his illegal Cuban cigars with crisp new hundred dollar bills, while the slavering masses wallow in abject deprivation, dragging their tired asses along endless soup-kitchen line-ups. Yeah, we get the picture.Super rich business moguls like Warren Buffet occasionally spout anti-affluence nonsense like “the rich should be paying a lot more in taxes.” Hey Warren, in case you didn’t know, there is no limit on the amount of tax you’re allowed pay. You’re free to pay as much as you like.
If Buffet won’t defend the rich, I will. I love rich people. I wish them well and I hope they get richer. Well, allow me to qualify that. I should say I love rich people who live in a capitalistic society like America because, the richer they become, the richer, healthier and happier everyone else becomes. Unlike rich rulers in a monarchy or, worse yet, wealthy dictators, American capitalists are the average person’s best friend and entrepreneurial inspiration.
Look at it this way. Everything we have in America is because a few people worked hard, got "RICH" and hired other people so they no longer had to do all the work themselves! The "RICHER" they get, the more people they hire to do whatever makes them "RICH" so they can keep on getting "RICHER."
Wealthy Americans do not rule over other Americans. The Constitution does not grant them special privileges or royal titles. I’ve been around for a long time and have had quite a few jobs but I have never been hired by a poor person. Every job I ever had was either working for a rich person or a company that was owned by a rich person before it went public.
Rich people did not make poor people poor. Suppose I was to invent some sort of new widget that everyone wanted. Now suppose a take out a big loan and start manufacturing these widgets and I hire hundreds of employees and I become super rich. Would that make anyone poor? No, of course not.
You wouldn’t hate me for being rich, unless you’re some idiot like Michael Moore. You would be happy that my hard work and risk had paid off and I was now helping hundreds of families put food on their tables.
When new innovators rise to achieve wealth and when the already-rich get richer, it’s a sign that the economy is thriving and public policies are business-friendly. The markets are healthy. Inflation, interest rates and taxes are typically low.
Most mainstream journalists do not understand wealth. For example, TIME Magazine columnist Bill Saporito says, “The wealthiest 5% earn 21.7% of the nation’s income but spend proportionately less of it than average folk. That’s logical and also explains why the former save more than the latter and thus become wealthier.”
But money has to come from somewhere. You don’t just stumble upon a billion dollars. You create a billion dollars by taking risks, persevering and working hard.
Even if you inherit all of your money, someone worked hard at some point to create it. For example, if Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg’s future children or relatives inherit his wealth and become rich, their luck does not negate the work and innovation it took for Zuckerberg to build his wealth.
Simply saving money does not magically yield more money, as Saporito infers. No one increases their wealth by hoarding it under a pillow. At the end of the day, wealthy people—whether they are self-made or heirs—must take some level of risk by investing their money if they wish to become wealthier.
When wealthy Americans are confident in the economy, they invest more aggressively, they expand their businesses faster, they lend more generously and they spend their wealth more freely. This behavior produces innovative technologies, loans and jobs so that millions of other people have access to homes, cars, vacations, higher education and high-tech toys.
Obama says it’s time to tax the rich. He thinks raising the tax on millionaires and billionaires will fix the economy. I say it will make the economy worse. I say leave the millionaires and billionaires alone and soak the trillionaires. That’s where the real money is.
Who are the trillionaires? They’re the people who spent and spent until we ended up with a 15 trillion dollar deficit. They are the politicians, public sector unions, crony capitalists and the rest that left us with a debt so big that it can never be repaid. It’s time to make the trillionaires pay. It’s time to make them pay their fair share.
Obama has complained that unless we raise taxes on the rich, there will be no money for Medicare. That’s a fair point, so let’s tax the trillionaires to recoup the costs. Since the money that should have kept Social Security solvent was spent by the trillionaires for other purposes, it should be taken out of their spending. Forget taxing income—it’s time to tax Federal spending.
Anti-wealth public policies amounts to “killing the goose that lays golden eggs”, and will only persuade independently wealthy Americans to shut down their businesses, stop hiring and retire early to some tropical paradise somewhere.
If the government is really serious about turning the economy around, the first step would be to totally eliminate all corporate taxes. I know Liberals won’t believe a word of this, but most conservatives know I’m right.
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
WHAT ME WORRY?
SHOULD OBAMA WORRY?
Up until now, our dictator in chief has been a lot like Alfred E. Newman of Mad Magazine years ago. If you don’t remember, he’s the one that always said “WHAT ME WORRY?” Well, all that may soon change.
The economy is sputtering and on the verge of totally crashing, unemployment is high, the jobs program probably won’t pass because it’s pretty much the same as the one already tried, and it failed miserably. Foreclosures are still rampant and the white house appears to be up to their ears in not one, but three scandals. (Solyndra and LightSquared and of course the fast and furious gun-running fiasco) http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-20108240-10391695.html
His approval rating is at its lowest level ever. His party just lost two House elections — one in a district it had held for 88 consecutive years. He's staked his future on the jobs bill, which most Americans don't think would work.
Former white house spokesman Bill Burton said that unless Obama can rally the Democratic base, which is disillusioned with him, "it's going to be impossible for the president to win." Democratic consultant James Carville had one word of advice for Obama: "Panic."
One would think things couldn’t get any worse, but as a general rule with two term Presidents, the second term is usually worse than the first. This is pointed out in the book “Second Term Blues” by John Fortier and Norman Ornstein.
Former white house spokesman Bill Burton said that unless Obama can rally the Democratic base, which is disillusioned with him, "it's going to be impossible for the president to win." Democratic consultant James Carville had one word of advice for Obama: "Panic."
One would think things couldn’t get any worse, but as a general rule with two term Presidents, the second term is usually worse than the first. This is pointed out in the book “Second Term Blues” by John Fortier and Norman Ornstein.
Some classic examples; Richard Nixon was forced to resign or be impeached in his second term. Ronald Reagan had the Iran-Contra scandal in his second term. Bill (slick willie) Clinton had the “I did not have sex with that woman” scandal in his second term.
Considering the total disaster Obama’s first term has been, all I can say is God spare us from a second term. If Obama runs for re-election, he may find that the only fate worse than losing is winning.
Monday, September 19, 2011
WHAT OBAMA DID NOT SAY
DURING THE DEBT CEILING DEBATE.
Remember when President Obama stated that he could not guarantee that Social Security checks would be mailed on August 3 if the debt ceiling was not raised? There has been much discussion about that statement, but more important is what he did not say.
For example;
He did not say “I will not be able to get my monthly check for $33,333.33, Vice-President Biden will not get his check for $19,225.00, and oh by the way, Michelle will be happy to give up a vacation until we get this mess straightened out.”
He did not say “Congress will not be able to get their checks which average $14,500.00 per member. My Czars will not be able to receive their checks, some of which receive $14,350.00 per month and others receive $13,208.33 a month.”
He did not say “My cabinet members will not receive their $15,941.66 monthly check. Their Deputy Secretaries will not be able to receive their $14,350.00 monthly check. Their Under Secretaries will not be able to receive their $13,208.33 monthly check. Their Assistant Secretaries, general counsels, and heads of minor departments will not be able to receive their $12,416.66 monthly check. My various administrators, board members, commissioners, and others will not be able to get their $11,633.33 monthly check.”
He did not say “The Supreme Court will not be able to receive their $17,341.66 monthly check. The U.S. Appeals Court and Appeals Judges for the Armed Forces will not be able to receive their $14,591.66 monthly check. The U.S. District Court, Claims Court, International Trade Court, and U.S. Tax Court Judges will not be able to receive their $13,766.66 monthly check. And the Bankruptcy and Magistrate Judges will not be able to get their $12,665.33 monthly check.”
He did not say “The gaggle of Washington TSA bureaucrats will not receive their $8,750.00 monthly checks. The tens of thousands of other various paper shufflers who are pigeon holed in various offices in Washington will not receive their checks which average more than $8,333.33 a month.”
What I heard coming from the lips of the President was that the only folks that should be concerned was people receiving Social Security checks. Isn't it ironic that the only people he feels that he cannot assure with any degree of certainty that they will get their checks are the ones who need the money the most? The national average for all Social Security beneficiaries is $1,079.00 monthly, which totals a whopping $12,948.00 yearly; the money coming from a fund that most have paid into their entire working lives. Or put another way, the average Social Security recipient gets a check each month that equals about 3% of what the President receives each month; and in theory, they are getting back their own money.
Never mind that the United States Constitution requires the President to pay Principal and Interest on the National Debt and then Federal Pensions before any other funds can be obligated. It is a foregone conclusion that Mr. Obama missed his constitutional law classes at Harvard.
The mere fact that the President, any President, would threaten in any "thinly veiled" manner that the elderly would not get their pension checks is about as contemptible and fear mongering effort as any elected official could use for expediency. This is outrageous even for this chronic avoider of the truth!
All seniors should reward this Prince of Politics in November 2012 in like manner for his obvious lack of respect for our welfare, physical and mental, and his attempt to manipulate the debt ceiling discussion using senior citizens as pawns.
He did not say “I will not be able to get my monthly check for $33,333.33, Vice-President Biden will not get his check for $19,225.00, and oh by the way, Michelle will be happy to give up a vacation until we get this mess straightened out.”
He did not say “Congress will not be able to get their checks which average $14,500.00 per member. My Czars will not be able to receive their checks, some of which receive $14,350.00 per month and others receive $13,208.33 a month.”
He did not say “My cabinet members will not receive their $15,941.66 monthly check. Their Deputy Secretaries will not be able to receive their $14,350.00 monthly check. Their Under Secretaries will not be able to receive their $13,208.33 monthly check. Their Assistant Secretaries, general counsels, and heads of minor departments will not be able to receive their $12,416.66 monthly check. My various administrators, board members, commissioners, and others will not be able to get their $11,633.33 monthly check.”
He did not say “The Supreme Court will not be able to receive their $17,341.66 monthly check. The U.S. Appeals Court and Appeals Judges for the Armed Forces will not be able to receive their $14,591.66 monthly check. The U.S. District Court, Claims Court, International Trade Court, and U.S. Tax Court Judges will not be able to receive their $13,766.66 monthly check. And the Bankruptcy and Magistrate Judges will not be able to get their $12,665.33 monthly check.”
He did not say “The gaggle of Washington TSA bureaucrats will not receive their $8,750.00 monthly checks. The tens of thousands of other various paper shufflers who are pigeon holed in various offices in Washington will not receive their checks which average more than $8,333.33 a month.”
What I heard coming from the lips of the President was that the only folks that should be concerned was people receiving Social Security checks. Isn't it ironic that the only people he feels that he cannot assure with any degree of certainty that they will get their checks are the ones who need the money the most? The national average for all Social Security beneficiaries is $1,079.00 monthly, which totals a whopping $12,948.00 yearly; the money coming from a fund that most have paid into their entire working lives. Or put another way, the average Social Security recipient gets a check each month that equals about 3% of what the President receives each month; and in theory, they are getting back their own money.
Never mind that the United States Constitution requires the President to pay Principal and Interest on the National Debt and then Federal Pensions before any other funds can be obligated. It is a foregone conclusion that Mr. Obama missed his constitutional law classes at Harvard.
The mere fact that the President, any President, would threaten in any "thinly veiled" manner that the elderly would not get their pension checks is about as contemptible and fear mongering effort as any elected official could use for expediency. This is outrageous even for this chronic avoider of the truth!
All seniors should reward this Prince of Politics in November 2012 in like manner for his obvious lack of respect for our welfare, physical and mental, and his attempt to manipulate the debt ceiling discussion using senior citizens as pawns.
REMEMBER NOVEMBER 2012
IF OBAMA WERE A REPUBLICAN
HE WOULD HAVE BEEN IMPEACHED BY NOW.
New Day, a New White House Scandal: First Solyndra, Now LightSquared
By Bob Beauprez 9/17/2011
According to reports published by The Daily Beast, General William Shelton, Commander of the Air Force Space Command Center at Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado Springs, said the "White House tried to pressure him to change his testimony to make it more favorable to a company tied to a large Democratic donor. "
The company is LightSquared, a Virginia wireless broadband provider seeking approval for a coast-to-coast wireless network. The majority owner of LightSquared is Harbinger Capital Partners an investment fund whose CEO, Philip Falcone, is a large Democrat Party donor.
The bandwidth spectrum proposed to be used by LightSquared would be very close to the global GPS system used by private industry as well as the U.S. military and intelligence communities. Although LightSquared maintains their proposal would be "quiet neighborhood" network, the Pentagon and industry experts have voiced serious concerns that the "tens of thousands of ground stations for a wireless network could drown out the GPS signal."
Prior to appearing before the House Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee, the White House reviewed and recommended changes to General Shelton's testimony that would have been favorable to LightSquared. "There was an attempt to influence the text of the testimony and to engage LightSquared in the process in order to bias his (Gen. Shelton's) testimony." Rep. Mike Turner (R-OH), the Committee Chairman told The Daily Beast. "The only people who were involved in the process in preparation for the hearing included the Department of Defense, the White House, and the Office of Management and Budget."
According to the report, the White House pressed Gen. Shelton to alter his testimony on two critical points: first, that the General supported the White House policy to add more broadband for commercial use (a campaign pledge by Obama), and secondly that the Pentagon would try to resolve the questions around LightSquared with testing in just 90 days. Instead of caving to the White House pressure, General Shelton "chafed at the intervention" and blew the whistle.
Consistent with what has become standard-operating-procedure, the White House issued a statement denying any wrong doing or pressure on the General.
LightSquared was granted conditional approval for their system in 2004, but the go-ahead for build out of the whole system has been stalled because technical experts have warned that the "proposal to build tens of thousands of ground stations for a wireless network could drown out the GPS signal."
Indeed, General Shelton testified that preliminary tests concluded that only a portion of the band that was licensed in 2004 "would cause significant disruptions to GPS."
Members of Congress have smelled a rat in the LightSquared deal for some time recognizing that the Administration and the FCC have been trying to rush through an approval for the proposal. "The FCC's fast-tracking of LightSquared raises questions about whether the government is rushing this project at the expense of all kinds of other things, including national security and everyone who uses GPS, from agriculture to emergency medical technicians," said Sen. Chuck Grassley who has been suspicious since at least last April. "Without transparency, and with media coverage of political connections in this case, there's no way to know whether the agency is trying to help friends in need or really looking out for the public's interest."
In April, Grassley asked the Chairman of the FCC Julius Genachowski to hand over all records of communications, including emails between Falcone and the FCC, and LightSquared and the FCC. Genachowski declined to turn over those records.
Genachowski is a political appointee of Barack Obama. He cut his teeth as an aid to New York Senator Chuck Schumer before making millions in the telecommunications industry. He was a classmate of Obama's at the Harvard law school, and became a critical member of the 2008 campaign and transition team credited for the development of the sophisticated campaign communications system utilizing social media networks.
Perhaps trying to get ahead of a developing scandal involving one of the military's top commanders, on Tuesday the FCC issued a public notice prohibiting LightSquared from further build out until more testing proves GPS would not be damaged.
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)