BLOGGER TEMPLATES AND TWITTER BACKGROUNDS �
Showing posts with label taxes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label taxes. Show all posts

Thursday, July 16, 2009

"God Awful" Liberal Racism

Compassionate Barbara Boxer: Hey, Mr. Alford, a bunch of other black people support this plan. Why don't you get on board with what some others of your kind think.

Misguided Harry Alford: That's racism. I don't care what color your skin is, this plan is stupid.

Non-racist Barbara Boxer: Racism? How is that racism? I'm a liberal, therefore I can't be racist. White conservative men are the only racists! If you were a "wise Latina" you'd understand.

Okay, so it wasn't word for word, but that's basically how this conversation went.


Read more...

Biden: Isn't the Economy Great?

Biden says the stimulus is working. All we have to do is follow him everywhere he goes to see all the jobs saved. He said:

"Come see what I see everywhere I go: workers rehired, factories reopened, cops on the street, teachers in the classroom, progress toward getting our economy back on the move."

Here's my response: Mr. Biden, if the stimulus was working so well, we wouldn't have to follow you around, because we'd see the jobs being created where we are. I'm not sure where you're going, but the current unemployment rate kinda makes me think things aren't as rosy as you think they are. Instead of us entering your world, where everybody has jobs and too much money to handle, why don't you come hang out in the real world and help two of my friends who lost their jobs this week find new ones. See, my friends, unlike most unmotivated and apathetic liberals, they actually don't want to be dependent on government or to live off of unemployment handouts. If you really want to help, then lend a hand to people who actually contribute to the economy and stop taxing everyone to death so that companies can hire my friends instead of paying you and your planet-saving super hero friends to save our cooling planet from getting too hot.


Read more...

Thursday, July 2, 2009

Letter to My Senator (Nelson): Cap-and-Trade and Health Care Reform

I wrote this letter and sent it to my Senator and Congressional Representative. I express my desire for the Constitution to be respected and for the Cap-and-Trade and Nationalized Health Care to be opposed. If you would like to use it, feel free to copy and send it along to your representatives.



I am writing for a number of reasons, primarily to express my displeasure with two unconstitutional bills that have been proposed, and if passed, would not only break the Supreme Law of our land, but would damage our life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. These two bills are the Cap-and-Trade Bill and the Nationalized Health Care proposition currently being discussed. I will treat these both individually.

CAP-AND-TRADE

First, I am very disappointed in the recent vote in Congress to pass the Cap-and-Trade bill. This vote was irresponsible in my opinion for several reasons:

First, it was based on suspect scientific data. The scientific community is not even convinced that climate change is even a problem. The EPA’s suppression of Alan Carlin’s report on the current global cooling trend lends credence to the growing opinion of many Americans that Global Warming is a theory sustained by liberal political ideology, not scientific integrity. The NIPCC has released a condemning report “Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate” (ISDN 1-934791-01-6). Scientific data shows a cooling trend over the last ten years, and history shows that less than 40 years ago the predominant theory was one of global cooling.

Proponents of this bill need to actually consider the audacity of the claim that man is capable of controlling the weather. Really? Man can control the weather? Such outrageous propaganda is the stuff of fiction, of conspiracy theory, of childish fantasy, believable only for the naïve and gullible, not appropriate for the serious and responsible leaders such as yourselves, who ought to see through such adolescent foolishness and govern with discretion fitting of those given the privilege of statesmanship. If the public were to learn that its leadership had reached a level of incompetence and actually believed such irrational theories, I can only imagine the response of fear and potential anarchy that would justifiably ensue as the people worked to establish a new and more capable representative government. That is happening in America—the silent majority is learning of the growing gap between themselves and the increasingly disconnected ruling class, and is working to change that disturbing trend.

Second, even if there were a problem of Global Warming, the proposed changes in the Cap-And-Trade system will not solve the problem. The bill is clearly designed as a tax, which will only remove more money from the already receding US economy. If Global Warming is a man-made problem, and if all countries share in the culpability, then reversing the trend requires cooperation of all nations to effect the necessary change.

There is no evidence that other countries will adopt the US policy, which means that the efforts on the part of the US will only handicap Americans and put us at a further economic disadvantage compared to the rest of the world, as we fail to solve a problem that scientific integrity is increasingly suggesting does not even exist. It’s for this very reason that the Senate has agreed in years past not to accept any such treaties without such world consensus. The bill recently and foolishly passed by Congress carelessly throws our money at a fabricated problem designed to create the sense of false alarm in which unconstitutional government seizure of power has historically thrived. Keep your wit about you. Don’t fall prey to this.

Third, I cannot afford the burden of this bill. I cannot afford a 58% gasoline price increase, a 55% natural gas price increase, a 56% home oil price increase, a 90% electricity price increase, an annual tax increase $4,609 and the potential of paying $71,000 in additional taxes from 2012 to 2035. These numbers, as projected by the Heritage Foundation are numbers that, even if they are slightly higher than actuality, still represent the types of tax increases that Americans cannot afford. You are elected to protect my freedoms, not to tax me. The taxes you do raise should be only as necessary to fulfill government’s role to provide for the common defense as outlined in the Constitution, not to institutionalize a disproven theory to solve a problem that doesn’t exist. Please respect my freedom, protect this economy, and resist the corrupting lure to abuse your power and break trust with those who chose you as their public servant, not as their tax collector.

NATIONALIZED HEALTH-CARE

The second reason I am writing is to express my vehement opposition to the nationalization of health care. I am opposed to this for several reasons. I trust that if logic and reason have any value to you, you will be persuaded by these fairly obvious and academic points:

First, what is being proposed has been tried in a variety of nations throughout the world and has a proven track record of lowering the quality of health care. I guess we should not be surprised that government involvement decreases the quality and efficiency of personal care. Health care systems in which government regulation impedes free market principals inevitably delay care, increase taxes and ultimately bring the advancement of health sciences to a grinding halt. The reason why America has historically had the best health care system in the world is because government has been sufficiently removed from the picture, allowing competition and the principals of capitalism to inspire innovation in the service of the common good. The downturn of health care in recent years has been a result of the severely heightened government regulation, the resultant frivolous lawsuits that followed, and the introduction of the public options of Medicare. True health care reform must only involve a retraction of these hindrances to the system.

This is a truism that fiscal liberals and proponents of nationalized health care do not understand: government can only serve the common good by protecting free-market incentive, not by suppressing it with regulation portrayed as a ‘public option’. We’ve tried public options. They’ve failed and corrupted the system. The supposed public option under consideration will only limit true options and ultimately produce a monopoly and become the only option.

Government grants do not create scientific advancements. It’s the desire of individuals to create wealth has served the common good and made America the great nation that it is today. The Constitution protects this. Please don’t go down in history as the generation of politicians that ultimately destroyed American freedom by ignoring the very laws that the blood of patriots has secured for us.

On both of these issues, the Cap-And-Trade and Nationalized Health Care, you are being tempted to break the law. The Constitution delineates and limits the powers of Congress, and the Tenth Amendment specifies that all powers not delineated be reserved to the states and the people of those states. The power to dictate health care options for citizens, and the power to limit a businesses ability to produce carbon emissions is not explicitly granted the Congress and is by virtue reserved to the states. Any law passed which attempts to set such restrictions would violate the rights of the states and its citizens. Please resist the temptation to usurp this authority and state sovereignty and thereby violate our freedom.

The very fact that I would insist on our Constitutional freedoms has probably caused you to write me off as a radical. If freedom is a radical idea, then I plead guilty to that charge—and you should know that this great country is full of my sort of radicals who are being awakened by such unlawful propositions as these two terrible bills. For your own perseverance in office, and for the good of this country, I would encourage you to be a bit more ‘radical’ yourself. Do something ‘radical’ like fulfilling your oath to the people you say you are serving by upholding the Constitution you were elected to defend. If you don’t, we’ll find someone else who will.

You get your power to serve from us. We gave it to you on the premise that you’d govern according to the law. Voting for these unconstitutional laws would constitute a breech of trust and violation of your promise to govern lawfully. In short, I am respectfully informing you that if you support such irresponsible policies, you can be assured of my fierce determination to do use every ounce of my God-given patriotism to protect American freedom from unlawful government actions by replacing you with someone who will show more fiscal restraint and respect for the Constitution.

Thank you,
God Bless America


Read more...

Monday, June 29, 2009

Washington Post: US Fiscal Policy Unsustainable

When the Washington Post is concerned about liberal policies, you know it must be out of control.

In 10 years, our debt will be 82% of our gross domestic product. That's like a family making $100,000 per year carrying $82,000 in debt. By 2038, our debt would reach 200% of the total production of our economy.

Stop spending! Our government wants to nationalize health care on top of this, adding a few more trillion dollars to this already out of control, insanely irresponsible course of action.


Read more...

Monday, June 8, 2009

Sarah Palin regarding Obama: "I told you so"

Sarah Palin on America's choice of a socialist president: "I told you so."

From Drudge:

'TOLD YA SO'
Mon Jun 08 2009 10:29:02 ET

Sarah Palin hits FOXNEWS tonight for the big 'Told Ya So' interview, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

As President Obama vows to spend the 'stimulus' faster, Governor Palin tells host Sean Hannity: 'You gotta quit digging that hole!'

MORE

HANNITY: What do you make of – look at the state of the economy now...

PALIN: Well, when you consider that the federal government is about eleven trillion dollars in debt, and we’re borrowing more to spend more.. it defies any sensible economic policy that any of us ever learned through college. It defies economy practices and principles that tell ya ‘you gotta quit digging that hole when you are in that financial hole’

Palin continues:

"America is digging a deeper hole and how are we paying for this government largesse. We’re borrowing. We’re borrowing from China and we consider that now we own sixty percent of GENERAL MOTORS – or the U.S. government does… But who is the U.S. government becoming more indebted to? It’s China. So that leads you to have to ask who is really going to own our car industry than in America."

HANNITY: You know but it goes back - It does go back a little to the campaign. I mean, ‘spread the wealth, patriotic duty…’

PALIN: Kind of a ‘we told ya so’.

HANNITY: Well, is that how you feel?

PALIN: That’s how I feel! I feel like… and I think that more and more constituents are going to open their eyes now and open their ears to hear what is really going on and realize ok… Maybe we didn’t have a good way of expressing that, or articulating that message of ‘here is what America could potentially become if we grow government to such a degree that we cannot pay for it and we have to borrow money from other countries, some countries that don’t necessarily like America.

And this many months into the new administration, quite disappointed, quite frustrated with not seeing those actions to rein in spending, slow down the growth of government. Instead Sean it is the complete opposite. It’s expanding at such a large degree that if Americans aren’t paying attention, unfortunately our country could evolve into something that we do not even recognize.

HANNITY: Socialism?

PALIN: Well, that is where we are headed. That is where we have to be blunt enough and candid enough and honest enough with Americans to let them know that if we keep going down these roads… nationalizing many of our services, our projects, our businesses, yes that is where we would head. And that is why Americans have to be paying attention. And we have to have our voices heard. And ultimately it need to be our will, the American people’s will imposed on Washington, instead of the other way around.

The interview is set to air tonight on FOXNEWS, 9 PM ET.

Developing...


Read more...

Supreme Court Opposes Obama's Law-Breaking

The Supreme Court blocked Chrysler's sale to Fiat.

This is a positive development for two reasons:

1. It protects Chrysler's debtors from having their 5th amendment rights violated. The 5th Amendment states that no person can be "deprived of...property without due process of law". In other words, nobody can have their money taken unless they break a law. According to the Breitbart.com report:

As part of Chrysler's restructuring plan, the automaker's secured debt-holders will receive $2 billion, or about 29 cents on the dollar, for their combined $6.9 billion in debt.
The government is forcing the rightful owners of Chrysler, the bondholders, to take 29% of what their bonds are worth, and turning ownership over to the UAW. Did you catch that? The government is telling private investors to give 71% of what they have in the company to unions (which, and I'm sure this is just a coincidence, just happen to be overwhelmingly Democrat).

This is unlawful. The 5th Amendment protects this from happening. Had the Supreme Court not intervened would have been akin to partnering in the crime. If they do not uphold the debt-holders and rule against the UAW, they will be turning a blind eye to a colossal disregard of property rights.

2. It challenges to constitutionality of the bailouts: As Breitbart.com reports:
The funds also are challenging the constitutionality of the Treasury Department's use of money from the Troubled Asset Relief Program to supply Chrysler's bankruptcy protection financing. They say the government did so without congressional authority.
If the Treasury Department is found to be in violation of the constitution, it will set an important precedent that will hopefully rein in the Obama administration's socialist frenzy. It will by no means suffice, but it will be a step in the right direction.

The point is this: anyone who respects capitalism, the free market, and desires the constitution to be upheld and American freedom to be preserved, should pray to God that the court does the right thing, protects the interests of the shareholders, slaps the President's hand for his shameless favoritism toward liberal unions, and allows the failed corporation to die if necessary, so that the capitalist system can strengthen itself as it always does without government obstacles.


Read more...

Saturday, June 6, 2009

Fair Tax In California?

California has been a case study of the destructive power of liberalism. Now it could be a shining example of how to destroy it. Governor Arnold wants some drastic proposals. He could get one as "drastic" as a flat tax.

This is how far America has fallen: a proposal that everyone be taxed the same is considered "radical." In our faulty view of 'fairness', it's not fair in the eyes of liberals that poor people should be taxed at the same rate as rich people.

What liberals fail to recognize is that the rich are going to pay more taxes, even if they are taxed at the same rate because they have more money, and the percentage of their income shoveled out is going to be higher than the same percentage on a lower income (Question for self: Am I really sitting here having to explain this? Yes, I am.)

Here's an example, for those who need it: Filthy Rich Man makes $1,000,000 per year. He is taxed at 15%. So he pays $150,000 in taxes. Dirt Poor Man makes $50,000 per year. He is also taxes at 15%, paying $7,500 in taxes. Here's a fancy graph to compare these side-by-side.


Person
Income
Tax Bill (15%)
Filthy Rich Man
$1,000,000
$150,000
Dirt Poor Man
$50,000
$7,500

For those of you concerned about the fact that poor people are going to be disproportionately burdened by taxes because they are taxed the same, remember that we are talking about a tax rate not a flat dollar amount. In this example, at the same tax rate, the Filthy Rich Man paid 20 times more tax than the poor man.

Do the rich need to carry the greater tax burden? That's debatable, but for the sake of argument, I'll say yes. Do the rich, therefore, need to be taxed at a higher percentage of income? No, the rich will carry the greater tax burden at the same percentage level, because they're rich and they make more money.


Read more...