POLITICAL: Calling the Democratic budget and tax policy “socialistic”? Yes!

Sunday, March 1, 2009

http://pbsmonitor.blogspot.com/2009/03/bankrupt-republicans-call-obama.html

ROBERTO ANTONIO HUSSEIN
A critical look and commentary on the news as found on TV, radio and in the newspapers.

Sunday, March 1, 2009BANKRUPT REPUBLICANS CALL OBAMA DEMOCRATS “SOCIALISTS”
*** begin quote ***

Larry Kudlow, that Republican ideologue on CNBC, calls the Democratic budget and tax policy “socialistic.”

*** end quote ***

As a little L libertarian, I’m not pleased with EITHER “party”. At least the “conservatives” are closer the “truth” of freedom and liberty that the “Rockefeller Republicans” or any “Democrat”. I think that “socialism” is fair criticism from FDR onward. Probably even since 1913 and the various wars of colonizations (i.e., Spanish American and WW1). Unfortunately, we’ve lost the “American Revolutionary Dream” after the “Civil” War. Which more properly should be called the War of Northern Aggression or the Second American Revolution. Stealing the wealth of the productive class to “redistribute” it to the unproductive class is the hallmark of socialism’s promise. Like most gooferment efforts, it fails at that too. Funny how the benefits seem to accrue to the politicians, their friends, the bureaucrats, and the elite. Stuck on their way to the rest of us no doubt. National Socialism, Communism, European Socialism, Italian Fascism, or just Mercantilism. Call it what you want but it is NOT freedom and liberty. When we get back to the American Dream, we can take the plastic garbage off the Statue of Liberty and welcome everyone who want to work hard again. End welfare and all the gooferment intrusions and the people will thrive and provide. There ain’t no such thing as free lunch. No matter what politicians promise you; they can’t deliver it!

# # # # #

Leave a Comment » | Political | Tagged: , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by reinkefj

POLITICAL: Tax increases in a recession?

Sunday, February 22, 2009

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/21/AR2009022100911_pf.html

Obama’s First Budget Seeks To Trim Deficit
Plan Would Cut War Spending, Increase Taxes on the Wealthy
By Lori Montgomery and Ceci Connolly
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, February 22, 2009; A01

*** begin quote ***

President Obama is putting the finishing touches on an ambitious first budget that seeks to cut the federal deficit in half over the next four years, primarily by raising taxes on businesses and the wealthy and by slashing spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, administration officials said.

*** end quote ***

Companies don’t pay taxes; people do. So raising the corporate tax is essentially a tax increase for everyone; poor included.

Rich folks have the ability to defer income and shit it and even “coast”. Watch how revenues “fail to appear”!

Stupidity!

Ignores the lessons of Kennedy and Regan.

# # # # #

Leave a Comment » | ADMINISTRIVIA | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by reinkefj

POLITICAL: Abortion is genocide

Saturday, February 14, 2009

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=87549

The George Bailey Effect
Posted: January 31, 2009
1:00 am Eastern
By Larry Burkett

Editor’s note: The late Larry Burkett, popular Christian financial counselor and author, penned this article in 1998. It is a compelling “response” to Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s recent statement that the economy benefits from “family planning.” Joseph Slife contributed to this column.

*** begin quote ***

As the preceding evidence demonstrates, abortion is not simply a matter of private conscience, but of public concern. Abortion-on-demand has effects that are rippling throughout our society and could even threaten our future liberties.

This is why abortion, even if all moral arguments are totally discounted, cannot be ignored in framing public policy. Simply writing off abortion as a “moral” or a “religious” issue is a short-sighted approach that fails to reckon its economic and demographic consequences.

We can’t undo the past, of course. We can’t undo the fact that we have had 35 million George Baileys, people never born, people whose lives were never allowed to touch other lives. Indeed they have left an “awful hole.” But for the sake of our nation’s economic future and national security, as well as its moral character, we must resolve to promote from this time forward an ethic that is pro-family and pro-children. Only then can America continue to have a wonderful life.

*** end quote ***

When Pelosi and the Obama Democrat “liberals” advnace the pro-abortion agenda, everyone has to think of the “George Bailey” effect.

Have we aborted the future of America?

Like a self-imposed genocide.

# # # # #

Leave a Comment » | Political | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by reinkefj

POLITICAL: Is Obama “foreign born”?

Friday, February 13, 2009

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=88746  

*** begin quote ***

With Kreep out of town for a business trip, he did not respond immediately and the motion eventually was filed. It states that the records, which could reveal on what name Obama attended classes at Occidental and whether he attended on scholarship money intended for foreign students, “are of no relevance to this moot litigation.”

*** end quote ***

What’s to hide, Mister President?

We will not be “shocked” if this comes out eventually that he was “foreign born”. As in, “I’m shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!” Captain Renault in Casablanca.

Inquiring minds want to know!

# # # # #

Leave a Comment » | Political | Tagged: , , , | Permalink
Posted by reinkefj

POLITICS: The Drinking Age

Wednesday, February 4, 2009

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/131173.html

And Instapundit’s Glenn Reynolds suggests inculcating respect for disparate ideological points of view and comes up with a specific idea that’s not only right, but do-able:

*** begin quote ***

   I will make one policy proposal. Some of my fellow libertarians hope that the Obama administration will put an end to the drug war. I hope so too, but I’m not too optimistic. Instead, I propose a smaller step toward freedom—eliminating the federally mandated drinking age of 21. This mandate was a creature of Elizabeth Dole (who is no longer in the Senate to complain at its abolition), and it has unnecessarily limited the freedom of legal adults, old enough to fight for their country, to drink adult beverages.

*** end quote ***

# – # – #

I find the logic of prohibition incredulous. Even if we skip over the lack of a Constitutional basis for any Prohibition and the argument about who owns your body, it is unbelievable that a man can go to fight and die for a country that won’t let them drink.

At the very least, a military id card should trump ANY age restriction.

Argh!

# # # # #

1 Comment | Political | Tagged: , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by reinkefj

MONEY: What is a dollar?

Tuesday, February 3, 2009

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rajiva/rajiva12.html

Fiat Law and Fiat Currencies – the Relic of Barbarians
by Lila Rajiva

*** begin quote ***

The free market arose wherever there were laws and systems like that – whether in Europe or Africa or Asia. One way to think about this difference would be to see it as the difference between a fiat money, like paper, and a real store of value, like gold. You can print all the money you want, but if there’s nothing to back it up, then you’re in a bit of trouble. Your creditors are unlikely to put much store in you as a credit risk, just as the world’s wringing its hands today over the dollar. Pretty soon, they come calling for their loans with cudgels and pitchforks.

Gold does not have the same problem, because there’s a limited supply of it. It has to occur in nature. It has to be found somewhere underground and then mined and refined. It’s an expensive business – that takes risk, time, and money. There are costs attached to it that someone has to pay. Paper money, on the other hand, can be printed any time you want. Just ask Ben Bernanke. He’s dropping it by the helicopter load from the clouds.

*** end quote ***

They are “counterfeiting value” by printing more money electronically. It’s slight of hand. To understand, you have to understand the answer to the question: “What is a dollar?” and proceed from there.

The answer is it’s NOW an imaginary unit, backed by the belief that you can exchange a green peice of paper for something. A Keynesian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian) will never talk about what the definition of money is. An Austrian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_School) will insist that the pricing mechanism in the economy have commodity money. It USED to be tied to gold.

Sadly, as an Austrian, I think you are in for hard times. O is going to “finance” 2T$ in current spending. By monetizing it. A fancy word for counterfeiting. And, the value of the dollar is going down even further.

To understand, you have to go to Robinson Crusoe’s island, that economist’s use to simplify ideas. A fisherman, egg gatherer, and a fruit gatherer are on the island. (Magic; don’t ask questions yet!) They barter between themselves. After a while, 1 fish = 2 eggs = 4 coconuts. Due to the relative difficulty of effort. But the fisherman and fruit gatherer don’t deal directly. The egg gather is the middle man. Then a banker arrives. He creates money so that the Fisherman can deal directly with the Egg guy. He uses seashells. Then the value equation is 1 fish = 2 eggs = 4 coconuts = 8 seashells. The evil banker after a while introduces more seashells into circulation by spending them. So he get more stuff. Similarly through out the ages, the King (Government) seeks to enrich itself that way. When the currency is gold coins, it’s much harder. (I first learned this when I saw an exhibit at the Smithsonian of French Francs over time. The French Franc of Louis I was a gold hockey puck; Louis XIV’s was a very thin button. Inflation!) When the currency is pretty green pieces of paper, it’s much easier.

So there you have how O44 is goign to spend 2T$ that we don’t have.

Basically, it’s a “tax” on anyone who has a dollar or dollar denominated assets. By adding a “seashell”, the value of all the other seashells is adulterated. Watered down.

So who get’s screwed?

The Chinese have 5T$. There’s a lot of dollars out there. The poor and people on fixed incomes (i.e., the purchasing power of their few dollars goes down) get less for their money.

Who makes out?

The US Government mostly. People who have “valuable stuff”. Commodities, commodity producers, land owners, people who produce stuff that others want.

So that’s how O will spend what he ain’t got.

He’s betting that before the inflation comes, the economy will “restart” and we won’t notice. (Think LBJ and Carter!) It worked for Kennedy because he lowered taxes on the productive class and everyone was motivated to get to work. His quote was: “A rising tide raise all boats!”

Sadly, I don’t see O or his staff being that smart.

# # # # #

Leave a Comment » | MONEY | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by reinkefj

INTERESTING: Bush’s RENDITION OK to Obama?

Tuesday, February 3, 2009

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/02/obama_to_keep_renditions.html

February 01, 2009
Obama to keep Renditions
Rick Moran

*** begin quote ***

Rhetoric notwithstanding, Barack Obama does not want a terrorist attack on his watch. Since he and the Democrats decided to politicize the entire war on terror by making it a virtual crime for the president to do much of anything to protect us, he has suddenly woken up to the fact that much of what Bush initiated might not be such a bad idea if you’re a president who doesn’t want to be blamed for a mass casualty assault on America.

Hence, his hedging on keeping the Terrorist Surveillance Program and other programs that, while being controversial, nevertheless were effective at keeping America safe.

{Extraneous Deleted}

It also underscores the idea that Obama is a two faced hypocrite who pandered to his far left base during the campaign by savaging Bush and calling him a criminal but now that the responsibility is his, things take on a different light altogether and what Bush was doing is fine with him.

# – # – #

Interesting how politicians can say one thing and do another?
# # # # #

Leave a Comment » | INTERESTING | Tagged: , , , , | Permalink
Posted by reinkefj

RANT: Who’s the “worst” President?

Sunday, February 1, 2009

Well, imho, we need a few decades to properly evaluate the “worst” label.

There were the fellows who tried — Eisenhower (Identified the Military Industrial complex) and Regan (Couldn’t control the Congressional spending).

There was Carter whos was merely incompetent; not evil.

Bush41 reneged on “read my lips, no new taxes”.

Clinton was too busy with intens to kill or capture Bin Laden; that might have prevented 9/11. Clinton (“I did not have sex with that woman” and parsing the word ‘is’) set a new low for personal conduct. And, was a negative moral influence on a generation.

Bush43 was another incompetent big G socialist.

Now we can get into the competition for the “worst”! Runners up:

Wilson, who campaigned on peace, instituted the draft, signed the Federal Reserve act, and immediately led us into WW1 which set the table for WW2.

FDR, who maneuvered us into WW2 via Pearl Harbor and entrenched Socialistic Big Government.

Truman who dropped the A-bomb on civilians.

BUT, the “worst” has to be Lincoln.

(1) The War of Northern Aggression. What you call the Civil War. What some call the Second American Revolution. There is no Constitutional, legal, or moral justification for this war on “his” own citizens. That alone would rocket him too the top of the list.

(2) Income tax to pay for that war. Government debt too. And, a draft for poor folks to fight the war; rich people could buy their way out.

(3) Freedom of Press savaged when editors dared to criticism him.

(4) Atrocities against civilian populations like Sherman’s “March to the Sea”.

(5) Single handedly destroying the concept of a Union of Equals amd morphing into the USA as the tyrant state.

And, don’t forget, he want to send all the “Negros” back to Africa. A racist among his other “endearing” qualities.

Slavery was a smokescreen! It wasn’t about slavery. The rest of the world, for the most part, eliminated slavery peacefully. At the time of the war, there had been plans to buy all the slaves and free them. It was a labor model that was unsustainable.

# # # # #

Leave a Comment » | Ranting | Tagged: | Permalink
Posted by reinkefj

RANT: Smoot Hawley — the 2009 version?

Saturday, January 31, 2009

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090131/D9624PL00.html

Obama facing dilemma over protectionism in bill

Jan 31, 8:01 AM (ET)

By DESMOND BUTLER

*** begin quote ***

WASHINGTON (AP) – Less than two weeks into office, President Barack Obama faces a dilemma over protectionist provisions in a massive economic stimulus bill: Backing the measures could set off a trade war, while opposing them could trigger a backlash from his supporters.

The choice involves “buy American” provisions attached to White House-backed stimulus legislation moving through Congress. They would require major public works projects to favor U.S. steel, iron and manufacturing over imports.

Some Democratic lawmakers and interest groups allied to the president support the measures, but international allies and trading partners are warning that favoring U.S. companies would breach U.S. trade commitments and could set off tit-for-tat countermeasures around the world.

*** end quote ***

What bunch of idiots we have in Congress.

Did anyone read about the Great Depression and Smoot Hawley?

The mere passage of that was the trigger that set off the Great Depression. That didn’t end until WW2.

How stupid are they?

Warm up the lines to the congress critters!

# # # # #

Leave a Comment » | Ranting | Tagged: , , , , | Permalink
Posted by reinkefj

RANT: O versus L? The typical false choice.

Friday, January 30, 2009

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/18194_Page2.html  

Are you with Obama or Rush?
By JONATHAN MARTIN
1/29/09 8:00 PM EST
Updated: 1/30/09 4:37 AM EST

*** begin quote ***

Politico has learned that tomorrow Americans United for Change, a liberal group, will begin airing radio ads in three states Obama won — Ohio, Pennsylvania and Nevada — with a tough question aimed at the GOP senators there: Will you side with Obama or Rush Limbaugh?

“Every Republican member of the House chose to take Rush Limbaugh’s advice,” says the narrator after playing the conservative talk radio giant’s declaration that he hopes Obama “fails.”

“Every Republican voted with Limbaugh — and against creating 4 million new American jobs. We can understand why a extreme partisan like Rush Limbaugh wants President Obama’s Jobs program to fail — but the members of Congress elected to represent the citizens in their districts? That’s another matter. Now the Obama plan goes to the Senate, and the question is: Will our Senator”—here the ad is tailored by state to name George Voinovich in Ohio, Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania, and John Ensign in Nevada—”side with Rush Limbaugh too?”

Asked to respond, Limbaugh had a message for his party.

“Senate Republicans need to understand this is not about me,” he wrote in an email. “It is about them, about intimidating them, especially after the show of unity in House. It is about the 2010 and 2012 elections. This is an opportunity for Republicans to redefine themselves after a few years of wandering aimlessly looking for a ‘brand’ and identity.”

*** and ***

Senate Republicans acknowledge that they’ll lose some of their members on the first vote.

“We’re in a little different spot than the House in that we have a handful of Republicans who have all but committed to supporting the package,” said a Senate GOP aide.

The aide declined to say who, but speculation on both sides of the aisle is centered on a group of northeasterners — Senators Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine, Sen. Judd Gregg (NH) and Specter.

*** end quote ***

Everyone should be real clear. The “stimulus” bill is not about stimulus, jobs, or benefits for the “folks”.

It’s about socialism, pork spending, and making future voters for the democratic party.

Rahm told you that a crisis is a terrible thing to waste.

We’ve been hustled before — the Bush pre-rebate, the TARP, and now this!

And, the ad offers a false choice — O versus L?

I’m with neither.

The Republican Party NOW, when it’s out of power wants to “brand” itself as the party of smaller gooferment again. Where were they for eight years? We have the TSA, deficits, and out of control spending. All caused by a President who wouldn’t veto anything.

And, O wants to remake America on the basis of he “won” an election. Hey, guess what, more folks didn’t vote than voted. So you were elected by 28% to 24%. That should tell you that your plurality is very small.

More than half the Americans know they are getting screwed no matter which “side” won.

Not that there is much difference between EITHER “side”!

In this case, I am against the “gooferment enlargement” package.

You want to restart the economy. Shrink gooferment — Nuke the TSA, Kill whole gooferment department and agencies, stop the psuedo drug war, pardon all non-violent drug offenders, and return to normal. Cut the corporate tax to ZERO forever. It’s a sham; only real people pay taxes. Corporate taxes hide how much the gooferment is stealing from us.

Argh!

# # # # #

Leave a Comment » | Ranting | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by reinkefj

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »