The mere mention of the word 'taxes' draws beads of sweat on the forehead, a feeling of anger and/or fear, and a tighter grip on the wallet. That being so. It's hard to understand why anyone would vote for a man who is on a mission to bring socialism to this country along with---quietly now---higher taxes.
Someone has calculated the cost of Senator Obama's flights of fancy to be about three trillion dollars: $3,000,000,000,000. [That's 12 trillion quarters; enough to reach from New York to the nearest Star in the void---you know, the environs of Hollywood.] Even Everett Dirkson [look him up] could be impressed by that. Higher Taxes and modern liberalism/socialism go hand-in-hand, and it's high time for the American voters to reject such thinking before a catastrophe occurs. Under the leaky umbrella brought to the national stage by Senator Obama, national bankruptcy and loss of any prestige left [after the Democrats have aided its destruction], we can prepare for being the poor, nearly toothless, self-restrained lion on the block.
One of the Senator's brilliant ideas is to tax the individuals earning $250,000 or more [earned income] per year a social security tax---albeit at a lower rate than the rest of us. I've got news for you Senator. You could tax those people 50% and you couldn't put a dent into the hardening demise of Social Security, because that's not where the problem is. [By the way, the President earns $200,000 a year, just below the $250,000 starting point for Senator Obama's scheme. Just noting a fact, friends. Just noting a fact.]
The entire Social Security structure is a house of cards. Some sensible ideas for shoring it up [for now, yes, but what about down the road?] are: private investment of part of the individual social security tax; ending the use of social security taxes by Congress in the general funds available to them; let Congress run the country on the rest of its taxation [which would take a great deal of effort to pare down bloated budgets and pork projects---hard maybe, but they were hired to work for us and not to constantly run for reelection]; make Congress begin to pay back the decades of borrowing from the social security fund; ease the burden of social security taxation on the average individual and the employer.
Social Security was originally meant to be only a small addition to a person's retirement years---not the only income which has to be large enough to live on: having annual increases, and continued mis-use of its funds to add to its current, inherent problems. Had Social Security remained true to it's original premise, it would now be very solvent, private pensions would be more commonplace, and families would be more together, helping each other. And oh yes, the consumer prices would probably be lower.
We can help the situation. Yes, we can. We can add serious and permanent federal tax cuts to the budget. Once again, Congress will learn that tax cuts lead to more jobs leading to higher tax revenue. Why do Conservative thinkers have to reinvent this wheel everytime they take office? Doesn't the Democrat/Liberal/Socialist brotherhood ever study and learn from history? Raising taxes never increases the tax collected over the long run. It positively stunts economic growth and job availability. Even St. John Kennedy understood this.
To speak about another Liberal having trouble is appropo. As everyone knows, the New York Times is Liberal, bordering on Socialist. Let's not talk about its obvious political bias, erroneous fact reporting, plagiaristic and fiction-writing journalists, and general arrogance. Let's just look at its falling revenue.
Ad sales dropped 11.9% in May, 16.4% in June. Second quarter profits fell 82 percent to $21,000,000. Income from continuing operations fell 5.5% for the quarter, while revenue fell 6 percent to $742,000,000.
Consequently, the Times has acted as all Liberals act. The New York Times will respond by raising the newsstand price of the newspaper from $1.25 to $1.50 per copy as of August. This is the second increase in a year. It doesn't seem to help matters does it? The editorial policy is still the same self-serving pontificate it's always been. As any clear thinker could tell you, raising the price to the consumer only leads to fewer and fewer sales. What's the Times to do when it raises newsstand prices to $2.50 a day? $10 on Sunday? I predict sales will continue to plummet to a point where the NY Times will become an historical oddity.
Personally, I stopped buying newsstand copies of many newspapers and magazines because the prices were not representative of the content. I could stand to pay 50 cents for the NY Times Crossword Puzzle---the only content I use, but I will not pay $1.50 to work it out. I can find puzzles a-plenty for free on the Internet. [Our local newspaper---Liberal of course---now costs 75 cents a day. This for a 'paper' that can be intelligently read in five minutes---including the comics. In this case, it's 75 cents for a crossword puzzle that can be found elsewhere.]
New adage: Do not arm the Liberal with more money, mosquito! He/She/It'll only buy more fly swatters!
Monday, July 28, 2008
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Tiger by the Tail
We have a serious problem here in the good old US of A. And I'm not necessarily talking about gas prices. It's a lot more than that.
The Democrat-led Congress is worthless. Anything they do worsens the problem, whether it be gas prices or the economy in general. Raise taxes! Subsidize! Go green and suffer! Let us run your industry [into the ground.]!
And now, they plan very little real action [as if they had already been doing things] for the next five and a half months---until the supposed Democrat President takes office. In a nutshell: they will then go about trying to socialize the US to its detriment, and throw money at everything in sight except the beleaguered Taxpayer---from whom the money will be taken.
Congress needs to approve oil drilling now. The states having reserves should permit drilling now. New refineries need to be built to handle the increased US drilling. By some estimates, the US has some 2.5 trillion barrels of oil on our own land/sea, and nearby the northern coasts and Canada have another 214 billion.
In contrast, Saudi Arabia has proven reserves of about 260 billion barrels and Venezuela has 80. So, you can see how easy it would be to become energy independent. The Middle East can sell its oil to Europe, and let them suffer high prices and damaged economies. Maybe we can be an exporter of oil to the beleaguered European and Asian countries. Let them become beholden to us in ways other than as their last resort protector.
In addition to all this, we need to build another hundred or so nuclear power plants---and without the lengthy delays brought on by the states and 'greenies.' American nuclear power is safe. No one has ever died because of an accident. Nothing has ever blown up at a nuclear plant. Plenty of safeguards are in place. Nuclear power is relatively cheap to produce.
And, of course, no explosion has ever greeted an agricultural plant or oil storage facility, or oil tanker truck, or chemical tanker or chemical plant or...... Right? Yeah, right!
With these efforts, cleaner coal, coal gasification, and moderate restraint, we can be energy independent for many, many years. Hundreds of thousands of new jobs could be created. Our gas prices will go down, and our energy in general will be cheaper. So will food items and so many other things. Our economy will jump up and run smoothly and efficently.
Congress! Stop trying to micromanage the country! We can do better without you. Just make laws to make our jobs easier, and otherwise stay the hell away from us.
What's so hard to understand about all this? We have to work together as one country united in the idea that things can be better, even greater in our lives. Our own, un-governmentalized, efforts will do it.
This aura of 'renewable' energy is so much claptrap. Wind power will never reach a usable or efficient status. And it blights the view worse than a power plant. Solar panels could be okay for individual homes, but they're still expensive and less than perfect. Electric cars and mini-cars with high mileage are okay for inner cities, but I wouldn't take one out on the Interstate where I might meet a semi or SUV. I'm waiting for some idiot to suggest a power plant run by batteries, or windmills on our SUVs.
Ethanol here and throughout the world is affecting food prices adversely. Too much product is being directed to too little fuel, and the amount of food available goes way down. Not only that, but the constant production of corn is going to ruin farmland in the long run. And quite frankly, I don't want my tax dollars subsidizing these efforts. If they were all that good and promising, private money would become available overnight.
A Democrat/Liberal Congress will do nothing about any of this. Those Congressman like to keep the citizens poor and needing money from Congressional programs. That's how they 'buy' a lot of votes.
And yet, in the name of 'change', many Americans will vote for the empty suit for the Presidency and the same-old-jerks for Congress. They'll get change all right, and there is some serious doubt we can afford to live or even live free until the next election.
Don't stay acquiescent! Stand up and count! We Americans have the power to protect our lives and those of our children and children's children with an intelligent vote. Don't waste it on cheap slogans with no meat. Clara, where are you when we need you?
The Democrat-led Congress is worthless. Anything they do worsens the problem, whether it be gas prices or the economy in general. Raise taxes! Subsidize! Go green and suffer! Let us run your industry [into the ground.]!
And now, they plan very little real action [as if they had already been doing things] for the next five and a half months---until the supposed Democrat President takes office. In a nutshell: they will then go about trying to socialize the US to its detriment, and throw money at everything in sight except the beleaguered Taxpayer---from whom the money will be taken.
Congress needs to approve oil drilling now. The states having reserves should permit drilling now. New refineries need to be built to handle the increased US drilling. By some estimates, the US has some 2.5 trillion barrels of oil on our own land/sea, and nearby the northern coasts and Canada have another 214 billion.
In contrast, Saudi Arabia has proven reserves of about 260 billion barrels and Venezuela has 80. So, you can see how easy it would be to become energy independent. The Middle East can sell its oil to Europe, and let them suffer high prices and damaged economies. Maybe we can be an exporter of oil to the beleaguered European and Asian countries. Let them become beholden to us in ways other than as their last resort protector.
In addition to all this, we need to build another hundred or so nuclear power plants---and without the lengthy delays brought on by the states and 'greenies.' American nuclear power is safe. No one has ever died because of an accident. Nothing has ever blown up at a nuclear plant. Plenty of safeguards are in place. Nuclear power is relatively cheap to produce.
And, of course, no explosion has ever greeted an agricultural plant or oil storage facility, or oil tanker truck, or chemical tanker or chemical plant or...... Right? Yeah, right!
With these efforts, cleaner coal, coal gasification, and moderate restraint, we can be energy independent for many, many years. Hundreds of thousands of new jobs could be created. Our gas prices will go down, and our energy in general will be cheaper. So will food items and so many other things. Our economy will jump up and run smoothly and efficently.
Congress! Stop trying to micromanage the country! We can do better without you. Just make laws to make our jobs easier, and otherwise stay the hell away from us.
What's so hard to understand about all this? We have to work together as one country united in the idea that things can be better, even greater in our lives. Our own, un-governmentalized, efforts will do it.
This aura of 'renewable' energy is so much claptrap. Wind power will never reach a usable or efficient status. And it blights the view worse than a power plant. Solar panels could be okay for individual homes, but they're still expensive and less than perfect. Electric cars and mini-cars with high mileage are okay for inner cities, but I wouldn't take one out on the Interstate where I might meet a semi or SUV. I'm waiting for some idiot to suggest a power plant run by batteries, or windmills on our SUVs.
Ethanol here and throughout the world is affecting food prices adversely. Too much product is being directed to too little fuel, and the amount of food available goes way down. Not only that, but the constant production of corn is going to ruin farmland in the long run. And quite frankly, I don't want my tax dollars subsidizing these efforts. If they were all that good and promising, private money would become available overnight.
A Democrat/Liberal Congress will do nothing about any of this. Those Congressman like to keep the citizens poor and needing money from Congressional programs. That's how they 'buy' a lot of votes.
And yet, in the name of 'change', many Americans will vote for the empty suit for the Presidency and the same-old-jerks for Congress. They'll get change all right, and there is some serious doubt we can afford to live or even live free until the next election.
Don't stay acquiescent! Stand up and count! We Americans have the power to protect our lives and those of our children and children's children with an intelligent vote. Don't waste it on cheap slogans with no meat. Clara, where are you when we need you?
Friday, July 11, 2008
Energy for the Masses
I've been concerned about the US energy situation for many years, but my ideas have never been implemented. No surprise there.
We simply can't continue to rely on oil and gas from our ideological and physical enemies as we have been. We have to drill in and around the US for our own oil. We have to drill in Alaska wherever we can find oil, including ANWR [and that would use less than 1% of the area]. We have to drill in the upper central US, where deposits are huge. We need to concentrate on coal and its cleaner operation. We have to construct many new nuclear power plants.
Democrats, Liberals, Greenies, and whatever are preventing us from becoming energy independent. They block drilling virtually everywhere, they try to regulate coal fired energy into submission. They panic everyone about nuclear energy when they know very well it is safe and efficient. We do not operate power plants like Chernobyl.
I don't often do this, but I'm supplying here two links. One is to Family Security which gives a succinct explanation of how nuclear energy production works. And the other is an excellent essay on the need for nuclear power. Please follow these links. I think you'll be pleased at what you read.
Family Security an Introduction to nuclear energy.
Fortune Magazine an essay on the need for nuclear energy.
We simply can't continue to rely on oil and gas from our ideological and physical enemies as we have been. We have to drill in and around the US for our own oil. We have to drill in Alaska wherever we can find oil, including ANWR [and that would use less than 1% of the area]. We have to drill in the upper central US, where deposits are huge. We need to concentrate on coal and its cleaner operation. We have to construct many new nuclear power plants.
Democrats, Liberals, Greenies, and whatever are preventing us from becoming energy independent. They block drilling virtually everywhere, they try to regulate coal fired energy into submission. They panic everyone about nuclear energy when they know very well it is safe and efficient. We do not operate power plants like Chernobyl.
I don't often do this, but I'm supplying here two links. One is to Family Security which gives a succinct explanation of how nuclear energy production works. And the other is an excellent essay on the need for nuclear power. Please follow these links. I think you'll be pleased at what you read.
Family Security an Introduction to nuclear energy.
Fortune Magazine an essay on the need for nuclear energy.
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
Health Care for the Millions
This isn't complete. Just some thoughts about Health Care in the USA. And if you want details, talk to a lawyer, especially one in a political campaign. And this is based on the estimate of $12,106 now spent on average by each family for medical care [Kaiser Family Foundation.]
Let's expand on John McCain's ideas.
Everyone [usually the breadwinner] should get private insurance for health and dental care for his or her family---to cover children until they reach age 25, if they are still living at home. Employer's will no longer have to have health insurance for their employess. But when an employee succeeds in getting the health care insurance privately, the company should provide a subsidy of $1,500 to $3,500 each, depending on many factors between the employer and employee.
The Federal and State governments will provide annual tax credits [combined] of $3,500 [$2,750 federal; $750 state] for individuals and $7,000 [$5,500 federal; $1,500 state] for families.
Policy deductibles are not required, but can be chosen to reduce costs.
A standardized policy for health and dental should be set as a generous minimum. Additional sections can be added as the consumer wishes to pay for---rather like buying a basic car and adding options.
Uninsured costs will remain an itemized deduction, but with a higher percentage set-off.
Hospitals would continue to offer 'comprehensive emergency services' no matter how the individual is covered.
Hospitals would separate patients with medical needs better served by 'urgent care' with the same proviso.
A federal contract should be sent out to bid for a string of clinics to handle preventive care [Doctors would also have their own practices], and the medical care would be covered by insurance. The federal government would provide a specific subsidy for these clinics, not to exceed the actual costs.
Some illnesses would continue to be aided by specific charities and foundations. Other charities would help with major medical problems not covered by insurance.
Keep the VA system intact, with minor modifications as the above will necessitate.
Federal and State Medicare and Medicaid would be adjusted in light of the above.
Certainly, these are rough ideas. But rough ideas are always the prelude to specific ideas and then specific solutions enacted with care.
Just the thoughts of a strapped---but thinking---tax payer, but I like them better than plans of either candidate as is. It's vital to stay away from socialism. And there is plenty of opportunity for an individual or family to shuck some or every little thing in favor of self-pay. But when a 'no insurance' situation is chosen by anyone, the availability of public assistance is limited to those sections above for the hospitals. All amounts to be adjusted for inflation/deflation [Ha!] on a biennial basis.d Please feel free to comment and help me pull everything together so I can send the proposal to Congress.
Another in a series of articles of 'Better Living' for the trod-upon American taxpayer.
Let's expand on John McCain's ideas.
Everyone [usually the breadwinner] should get private insurance for health and dental care for his or her family---to cover children until they reach age 25, if they are still living at home. Employer's will no longer have to have health insurance for their employess. But when an employee succeeds in getting the health care insurance privately, the company should provide a subsidy of $1,500 to $3,500 each, depending on many factors between the employer and employee.
The Federal and State governments will provide annual tax credits [combined] of $3,500 [$2,750 federal; $750 state] for individuals and $7,000 [$5,500 federal; $1,500 state] for families.
Policy deductibles are not required, but can be chosen to reduce costs.
A standardized policy for health and dental should be set as a generous minimum. Additional sections can be added as the consumer wishes to pay for---rather like buying a basic car and adding options.
Uninsured costs will remain an itemized deduction, but with a higher percentage set-off.
Hospitals would continue to offer 'comprehensive emergency services' no matter how the individual is covered.
Hospitals would separate patients with medical needs better served by 'urgent care' with the same proviso.
A federal contract should be sent out to bid for a string of clinics to handle preventive care [Doctors would also have their own practices], and the medical care would be covered by insurance. The federal government would provide a specific subsidy for these clinics, not to exceed the actual costs.
Some illnesses would continue to be aided by specific charities and foundations. Other charities would help with major medical problems not covered by insurance.
Keep the VA system intact, with minor modifications as the above will necessitate.
Federal and State Medicare and Medicaid would be adjusted in light of the above.
Certainly, these are rough ideas. But rough ideas are always the prelude to specific ideas and then specific solutions enacted with care.
Just the thoughts of a strapped---but thinking---tax payer, but I like them better than plans of either candidate as is. It's vital to stay away from socialism. And there is plenty of opportunity for an individual or family to shuck some or every little thing in favor of self-pay. But when a 'no insurance' situation is chosen by anyone, the availability of public assistance is limited to those sections above for the hospitals. All amounts to be adjusted for inflation/deflation [Ha!] on a biennial basis.d Please feel free to comment and help me pull everything together so I can send the proposal to Congress.
Another in a series of articles of 'Better Living' for the trod-upon American taxpayer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)