Archive for May, 2012

How much of your money should you be allowed to keep?

Posted by Troy on 17th May 2012 in Current Events, Political

Anti-tax pundits always pose this question to pro-tax pundits.  The in variable answer is a bunch of stammering and a failure to take a concrete stance by using such platitudes as “fair share,” etc.  This is due to a couple of reasons.  The first is the phrasing of the question.  What we often forget is that we earned the money that we pay into the system.  By bringing the question in this way, it points out that tax “revenues” is really a form of wealth confiscation which was earned by someone else.  This is a minor point, however.  Everybody (even anti-tax pundits) will say that some taxes are necessary in order to keep the roads paved and the military going and the like.  Really, the problem is the second issue.  Setting a limit would do one of two things: either they will have to make themselves into hypocrites when they call for even higher taxes to pay for even more government spending or they will have to quote a tax rate that would cause any sane person to choke (much like Will Smith did when he learned of the 75% tax rate in France).  I, however, have moral courage, and I will actually give you an actual number: No one should have to pay more than 50% of their income as taxes.  Ideally, this would include city, state, Federal, payroll, property, sales, and other taxes.  However, this would be an accounting nightmare for many people since taxes like property and sales taxes are variable based upon the person’s spending decisions.  As such, let’s just limit it to income taxes.  The effect of this would be that the Federal tax rate would be set by taking 50% and subtracting the largest marginal combined city/state tax rate.  If additional revenues are needed, the top bracket could only be expanded to include more people.

The reason for my limit is simple:  Anything over 50%, and you are officially working more for someone else than yourself.  This makes you a slave.  Imagine that you plant a garden.  When it comes time to harvest, someone comes and takes 60% of what you picked and gave it to someone else who did nothing to grow the garden.  You would be pissed.  You could have canned the goods for later.  You could have given it to friends or family.  Instead, it was given to someone who did nothing to earn it, and you didn’t have a say in where it went.

As far as the Buffett Rule goes, know this: If we let capital gains rates disappear, the economy is going to CRASH.  Also, history has shown that lower capital gains rates increase tax revenues.  This was pointed out to Obama in 2008 in a debate against Hillary, and he responded that he didn’t care because having a higher rate was about fairness, not revenue.  His words, not mine.

Long Live the Constitution!

Odds are Lugar’s Defeat is None of Your Business

Posted by Troy on 16th May 2012 in Political

Poor Lugar.  Defeated unjustly!  Oh, how foolish of Republicans to bow to the Tea Party.  This surely means that the Republicans will lose everything.

Isn’t it funny how people who are not Republicans are so concerned about the future of the Republican party?

Why is it so important that Republicans have people that reach across the aisle, but it’s okay if Democrats do not compromise?

The fact of the matter is that most of this criticism is coming from outside of Indiana.  As such, they have no business in who the Indiana Senator is.  I despise Nancy Pelosi for so many different reasons, but she is a good Representative of her people.  They adore her.  I can only assume that her district is as wacked out as she is, but she represents THEM, not ME.  Ergo, she should continue to win re-election.

Obviously, Lugar was not representing the Republicans of his district, and thus he was defeated.  It could have been his vote banning “assault” (really cool looking) weapons, his vote for the Brady Bill, his vote for gun lock requirements, his vote to hold gun manufactures responsible for gun deaths, his vote against concealed weapon laws, his vote for amnesty, his vote for the Dream Act, his vote to allow illegal workers the right to receive Social Security, his confirmation of Ginsburg (who believes South Africa’s Constitution is great and ours is a relic) or Sotomayer (who is a proponent of judicial activism and social justice through the court system) or Kagan (who was Obama’s Solicitor General), his votes for unreasonable energy standards (as though you can legislate technological advances) which will cost American companies fortunes in R&D that might not pan out and cause our products to be more expensive, his commitment of climate change (which many do not believe is man-made), his support of cap and trade (which is a method of global socialism more than anything),  his votes for TARP or the auto bailouts, his insane START treaty support, his support of the Law of the Sea Treaty, or his refusal to repeal Obamacare.  I don’t know.  I’m sure they have their reasons.

Senators do not have tenure.  They don’t get to keep their job regardless of their actions and votes.  He voted for these things, and he was held accountable.  Maybe Mourdock will win, maybe he will lose.  Personally, I see no point in electing someone who is willing to sell out our national sovereignty to international organizations.  I don’t think the Democrat could be much worse.  Regardless, once a Senator or Representative stops representing the interest of his people, it is time for them to be replaced.

Long Live the Constitution!

Family Guy’s take on the Tea Party

Posted by Troy on 15th May 2012 in Current Events, Entertainment, Political

This past Sunday, Family Guy decided to take on the Tea Party.  In their opinion, Tea Party members want to completely do away with all government.  I’m going to to guess that Seth McFarland has never been to a Tea Party meeting.  I’m pretty sick of how the Tea Party has been portrayed by the Left.  Bill Maher often makes fun of the Tea Party by claiming that they are a bunch of backwards, racist, hicks.  Juan Williams accuses them often of being racist.  When pressed for evidence, he says “We all know they are.”  Question to Juan Williams, if the police was investigating a robbery and a man comes forward and says, “A black man did it,” and the cops ask if he saw anything and he responded, “No, but we all know it was a black guy;” what would people think of him?  It’s called prejudice, and it doesn’t matter if it’s used on the Tea Party or a black man.  It’s the same thing.  If you believe something of someone without any evidence whatsoever to support that claim, you are a prejudiced bigot.  Clean and simple.

Let me enlighten anyone who would be interested in what the Tea Party actually believes in:  They believe in Constitutional government.  They do not believe in regulatory agencies passing regulations that have the weight of law without any legislative process by duly elected government officials.  They do not believe in international government or giving up our national sovereignty to foreign entities.  They believe in self-reliance.  They believe that states have rights.  They believe that the rights in the Constitution should be protected.  Most Tea Party members I know are against the Patriot Act.  The Tea Party believes in changing the system by primaries, writing Congressmen, and voting (imagine that!).  They believe that we should not devalue the dollar by printing worthless cash until the entire monetary system collapses.  They do not believe in running us into debt and enslaving us to our enemies.  They are against government officials exceeding their Constitutional authority and grabbing power that does not belong to them.

Yeah, the Tea Party is for reducing government.  But there is a LOT of area to be reduced before we get to NO government.  Limited Government is Constitutional Government.  No Government is Anarchy (Check with Occupy Wall Street if you’d like some Anarchy).  And Unlimited Government is Tyranny (check with either political party, especially the Democrats, if you’d like some Tyranny).

Long Live the Constitution!

Bullying

Posted by Troy on 14th May 2012 in Current Events, Human Nature

How on Earth has bullying become an issue?  Of course, now everyone’s on Mitt Romney’s case about being a bully in high school.  Now, let me be clear: I do not approve of bullying.  However, as someone who was bullied when he was growing up, let me tell ya…it’s not that big of a deal.  Teenage boys are jerks (by and large).  I gave up on holding a grudge against them.  I ran into some of my bullies since high school.  For the most part, they are nice people these days.  Far be it for me to drag up the past.  Besides, the trial and tribulations of high school cemented strength of character in me.  It taught me to face adversity and over come it.  In truth, I think that being bullied may be one of the best things that ever happened to me, honestly.

I think the real question is why the hell are kids killing themselves over being bullied?  There have been bullies since the dawn of time, and these bullies have insulted and belittled and beaten up weaker kids since the dawn of time as well.  However, now kids are killing themselves.  Why is that?  ”Bullying” is not a good answer.  I also do not believe that the bullying is any worse today than it ever was.  You can’t tell me American teenager bullies are tougher than a Spartan bullies.  I don’t have the answer.  Maybe they have not been taught coping skills.  If someone is cyber bullying you…HIT THE IGNORE BUTTON or turn off the computer.    Are parents not teaching kids to stand up to bullies anymore?  Is it a lack of fortitude?  Again, I do not know why it is, but I think this the the question.  You will never get rid of bullying in the same way that you will never get rid of racism, murder, rape, or hundreds of other atrocities that humans inflict upon each other.  The real question is why is this causing deaths when this was not the case in the past?

Long Live the Constitution!

Obama’s Evolution on Same-sex Marriage…Just in Time for the Election!

Posted by Troy on 10th May 2012 in Current Events

Wow, at the timing!  Biden has a “slip” which causes Obama to “evolve” his position on Same-sex marriage (the issue previously known as gay marriage – God, I hate it when linguists try to shape perception with language…so annoying) just in time for a big same-sex marriage fund raising event kicking off his re-election.  It’s almost (almost!) as though it were planned in advance!

Let’s take a look at Obama’s giant leap on gay marriage:

“At a certain point I’ve just concluded that, for me personally, it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married.” – Obama

It’s important to note that aides have said that the President does not want a new federal law concerning gay marriage or an Amendment.  He is for the states deciding what they want to do.  So, let me translate:

“You know, personally, I think you should be able to get married.  I’m not actually going to do anything about it, but you totally should be able to get married.”

Now let me translate the response from the gay and lesbian community (and their advocates):

“Yea!!!!  Here’s our money!!!!”

Imagine you are walking down a desert highway.  You have no water.  You’re in pretty bad shape.  Car after car goes by.  You’re probably going to be annoyed with them and wish they would stop, but you keep walking.  Should the next car come by and the guy gives you a glass of water and offers you a lift into town, you’re going to be so thankful.  If the next car comes by and he offers to sell you a ride into town, you’re not going to love the guy, but you’ll still be thankful regardless.  But Obama’s stance is more akin to the guy stopping, you giving him the money for the lift into town, and then him leaving you behind.  You would be pissed.

You’re being played, people.  He has no plan to help you and is never going to help you because he is more concerned with “evolving” us from a Capitalist system to a Socialist one.  He had the House and Senate for two years.  He could have gotten you gay marriage.  Did he?  Nope.  He went for healthcare.  You’re just a tool to be used for votes and money.

Now is your time to hold his feet to the fire.  If you’re serious, really serious, about getting gay marriage, demand that he actually take action BEFORE THE ELECTION before you pony up the bucks.  Or at the very least, tell him to have the guts to announce that he will actually DO something if he is re-elected.

There are those that say that he shouldn’t do this, that you should take it on faith that he will actually help you, but he won’t.  The logic behind this sentiment rests upon the assumption that he cannot be re-elected if people know what he actually wants to do.  Therefore, he should have license to get re-elected under false pretenses.  So, if he’s willing to lie to all of America to be re-elected, how do you expect to trust that he is actually going to do something to help you once he gets there?

Long Live the Constitution!

CIA Underwear Bomber

Posted by Troy on 9th May 2012 in Current Events

A plot to blow up a plane was “uncovered” by a CIA agent undercover.  The agent was able to get the bomb and turn it over to our intelligence agency, and my question?  What do we need to know this?

“Someone” leaked that this went down.  Of course, this is “someone” who happened to have high level clearance.  I would assume that most CIA agents can keep their trap shut, so why do we know about this?

Leaking the information puts all of our agents overseas at risk.  Now Al qaeda knows that we had at least one agent in their midst.  Don’t you think that they (and other terrorist groups) will be looking harder for our guys?  Probably.  We probably won’t pull this kind of thing off again.  They know the trick, and they are going to be looking for it.  They’re going to pick their couriers much more carefully.  That increases the chances that a future attempt will actually work.  We were never in danger.  This was on foreign soil.  There was literally no reason for us to know.  So why do we know about this?

We know about this because Obama wants to be re-elected, and he believes that this will make him look good.  ”Look at me, I foiled a terror plot!”  Regardless of the fact that it puts us and our agents at greater risk, but hey, Obama’s gotta get credit so he can get re-elected, right?  This guy goes beyond self-centered.  This is pure narcissism.

Let me make one thing perfectly clear, I do not find fault with everything Obama does just because I don’t like him.  I don’t like him because I find fault with about 95% of what he does.  I think he has a total lack of judgement.

Long Live the Constitution!

Socialism Wins!

Posted by Troy on 8th May 2012 in Current Events, Political

France and Greece have held their elections and have decided to kick out those fuddy duddies that are enforcing austerity in exchange for Socialist party candidates that are “pro-growth” (i.e. spending) strategies.  So…has the world completely lost its mind?  I don’t know what else to say, honestly.  They are on the brink of bankruptcy and fiscal failure.  France was recently downgraded, and Greece is having to beg for scraps from their larger EU cousins…and they are doubling down on the policies that have brought there there!  This is like someone throwing wood on a wild fire in an attempt to smother it!  The sad thing is that this does not give me much hope for our future.  We are on the path of Europe now.  Nearly half the country does not pay taxes.  No one seems willing to cut their own freebies.  Here’s the thing: if we are to survive the common crisis, we’re going to have to stand up and say, “I don’t need my benefits.”  As long as we are demanding that others give up their freebies without giving up ours, we are in trouble.

Long Live the Constitution!

Occupy Wall Street is against affecting election

Posted by Troy on 2nd May 2012 in Current Events

Supposedly, Occupy Wall Street has a civil war (the few people who are left in it).  Some people are wanting them to affect the election, and others want to avoid that as they believe it will mean they are only a tool for the Democrats.  Naturally, the Democrats want Occupy Wall Street to be the left wing Tea Party.  However, despite the fact that the Tea Party and OWS are both against corporate cronyism, the similarities end there.

The Tea Party was instantly a political movement.  If you talk to a Tea Party member, they are less excited about the general election.  Instead, they are interested in watching their Senators and Representatives, writing letters, and defeating them in primaries if they act in bad faith or do a bad job.

By fighting becoming a voting block, OWS shows their true colors.  There is only one legitimate way to change things in our system, and that is voting.  How else are they supposed to change things?  Well, that comes back to what I’ve always said about them…they are a revolutionary group.  They wish to overthrow the Constitution.  What they want to have cannot be supported by the Constitution.  They are a youth movement, which means they are being manipulated by the old revolutionaries of the 60′s that failed to overthrow the capitalist system back then.  It appears that the movement is dying out.  If they have the numbers though, they will eventually be given the order to riot.  It’s just common sense.  If you want to change the system and you’re not interest in voting, what does that mean?  Isn’t that as suspicious as people learning how to fly a plane and not being interest in learning how to land?

Long Live the Constitution!

Obama, Romney, and Osama bin Laden walk into a bar and order a Bush

Posted by Troy on 1st May 2012 in Current Events, Political

Obama has recently attacked Romney with his own words concerning Osama bin Laden.  Romney was quoted as saying that it was not worth “moving heaven and earth and spending billions of dollars to catch one person…it’s more than Osama bin Laden.”  Obama has twisted these words to somehow mean that, if Romney were in Obama’s situation, he would not have ordered the raid to kill Osama bin Laden.  This is, of course, a faulty argument.  It means, if Romney had been in Bush’s position, he would not have gone to war in Afghanistan and (by extension) Iraq.  As such, the President after him would not have had the opportunity to order the raid on Osama bin Laden.  Accordingly, Obama himself would have also not gone to war if he had been in Bush’s place.  As much as I hate President Bush, he’s the one that deserves the credit for the kill.  It is doubtful we would have been in the position to locate and kill Osama bin Laden without Bush’s policies.

Now, let’s examine Romney’s statement.  Was it worth it?  Yep, we killed him.  Justice served.  Of course, justice could have been a bad kidney infection away.  Death isn’t justice; it’s what we face on the other side that’s justice.  So, was it worth spending billions of dollars and thousands of human lives and political capital to kill him?  Was he the only terrorist out there?  Is his death going to stop all other terrorist from plotting and planning?  I hate to say it, but no, it wasn’t worth it.  We have spent a trillion dollars to kill one man, and we are probably just as safe today as we were ten years ago.  One could argue that we are safer in the short term, but our history in meddling in the affairs of other countries has shown that the end results are almost always bad for us.  Afghanistan, Panama, Iraq, Egypt, Libya, North Korea, China, and so forth.  The second part of his statement justifies the first.  It is more than just Osama bin Laden.  If he were the only terrorist on the planet, and we just killed terrorism itself, then yeah, it would be worth it.  Saying you were against the planting of a tree doesn’t mean that you won’t eat the fruit once it grows.  We already spent the billions of dollars.  Might as well kill him while we’re at it.

It’s so funny that the Democrats are trying to spike the ball on this issue, since Democrats are against war in general.  I shall now outline how hypocritical Obama is being.  First of all, he was against the wars to start with.  Fine and dandy, but without the wars (at least Afghanistan anyway), Osama walks.  Obama took office promising to close Gitmo.  He didn’t.  He said he would stop “enhanced interrogation.”  He didn’t.  Because of the continuation of these Bush policies, information was obtained allowing for the killing of Osama bin Laden.  When he was a Senator, he said that justice could only be served if we captured Osama bin Laden alive and brought him to court and tried him for his crimes.  And yet, when the opportunity presented itself to do just that, he had him executed instead.  During the Iraq war, he called Seal Team Six “Chaney’s assassins.”  Now they are heroes (Well, after he’s had time to take credit for finding Osama and ordering the killing…then the Seals get a shout out.  Hey, after all, Obama did all the hard work.  All they did was jump out of a helicopter and shoot a guy.  Any idiot can do that.).  Last year, he refused to let us see pictures of Osama’s body because it might incite violence and acts of terrorism.  Of course, a year later it’s honky dory to flaunt it all over the news.  So, which is it?  Of course, I guess last year it wasn’t an election year.  I guess his re-election is worth the risk.

Say what you will, there is no flip-flop on Romney’s position in this matter, and I am not his biggest fan.  Obama, meanwhile, has flip-flopped like a fish.  He doesn’t deserve any more credit than a fire chief telling his crew to put out a fire or a bus driver slamming on breaks to avoid hitting a child that ran into the road.  It’s the call that should be made by whoever is in that position.

Long Live the Constitution!