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!
No comments:
Post a Comment