Progressives further their agendas by never letting a crisis go to waste.

It makes me sick of what the politicians are doing. Progressives definitely “Never let a crisis go to waste” (Rob Emanual), they never seek to fix the cause of the problem; they only seek to further their progressive socialist agenda. We are facing the fiscal cliff, obviously caused by failed social programs and way too much unbridled spending and the printing of money, yet they twist the story and say that it is because the RICH AREN’T PAYING THEIR FAIR SHARE and that taxes aren’t high enough. Their argument is utterly ridiculous and even if the IRS grabbed 100 percent of income over $1 million, the take would be just $616 billion. That’s only a third of this year’s deficit. We wouldn’t even break even this year, let alone pay off the deficit. The problem is spending, THEY KNOW IT, but they don’t care. They only care about their agenda, which is THE REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH.

Now take this tragedy in Connecticut. They twist the truth and say that the cause of this tragedy is guns before hardly any information about the monster and the full details of the incident are out. Guns did not cause the gunman to become a monster that is capable of such evil, it was something else; a messed up childhood, mental disorders, lack of medical treatment, etc. Guns are only the tool he chose to use to carry out this evil. If guns aren’t available, evil people still carry out evil with whatever they have access to, take the Rwandan Genocide for example, almost a million slain with mainly machetes. At 9/11 the terrorists used box cutters to hijack airplanes to kill. The same day as the shooting a man in China stabbed 22 people with a knife. Evil will find a tool. Banning a tool as indispensable as guns to the citizens of this country is nonsense. The same types of guns the gunman used are essential for the protection of life and rights. Progressive politicians don’t want to let this tragedy go to waste, so instead of figuring out the actual cause of the shooting and creating a solution to that, they change the conversation to be about gun control and try to get guns out of the hands of LAW ABIDING citizens.

These politicians don’t care about the facts, us, or fixing the actual problem. They only care about their agenda and will use lies and disgustingly take advantages of tragedies such as this to further it.

Why changing the tax code will do little to get us out of this debt crisis.

Here is another long discussion I had with a progressive about taxes, the debt crisis, and reforming entitlements.  I am the red text, the progressive is the blue.

Reliable conservative economist Ben Stein agrees taxes should be raised in millionaires.

http://newsroom.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/25/ben-stein-i-agree-with-obamas-plan-of-raising-taxes-on-millionaires/?iref=obinsite

 Now before my conservative family/friends chime in, I agree we need to reduce much of our government spending and some entitlements but millionaires should still be taxed at rates at least similar to the 90’s.

[some other person]: I think so too but I don’t like the idea of raising taxes on investments. I heard that debate on t.v. yesterday and I don’t want investment tax raised. We want to encourage people to save money.

I completely disagree. I think if you make the majority of your income off of investments it should be taxed at a higher rate. Low investment taxes make perfect sense for someone planning for retirement with investments or trying to supplement their income with investments but that completely shifts when you make most of your money that way. I know there’s a slippery slope here but perhaps having a graduated investment tax based on % of the ratio of your investment earnings to your other earnings would be a better approach. Having someone who’s inherited his wealth and just invests it so they never “do an honest day’s work” and then taxing all of that income at very low rates does not make sense to me. I’m sure there’s a rational balance to be found.

It will be extremely difficult and take a long time to get out of this mess. You are right Bob, we do need to cut government spending. The main problem is without a doubt government spending. A 5% tax increase on the rich will not increase the federal income by no more than 2.5% since federal income tax only makes up 47% of government income. A 5% increase will not solve anything. Even a 5% increase on all taxes(capital gains, sales, corporate, income) on everyone will do little if anything. Increases in taxes hurt the economy. The more you tax the more money people send out of this country and the less money people spend in this country. In 2010 the government took in $2.16 trillion, and spent $3.72 trillion. The difference is 1.56 trillion between what the government spent and what it took in. If we raise taxes by 5% it will (ideally) raise federal income to 2.27 trillion still leaving a 1.45 trillion deficit. Increasing the taxes is a bad idea and will not even come close to solving this problem. The only thing this nation should be focusing on and talking about is cutting spending. Anything else is a waste of time.

I think it’s short sighted to act like taxes should be abolished and that they only hurt the economy. We should spend our money wisely, something we both agree (but not always for the same reasons) is not being done now and if necessary consider raising revenue by returning to, what I believe, is a better tax graduation similar to what was in effect in the 90’s. I’m not talking about taking all the rich people’s money away no matter how many times conservatives try to paint it that way.
The fact that you only see value in cutting government spending and refuse to consider even returning to minor tax increases that were in place fairly recently and that others are unwilling to cut even obvious government waste is why this issue is not getting resolved. We need to find out how to use a balanced approach to solve this issue. Unfortunately in our polarized society and with politicians (both left and right) more tied to special interests than good decision making will make solving these even more impossible.

I never said taxes should be abolished. They are necessary for the government to function. I do however think that the tax code is currently unfair, way too complicated, and that your idea of a death tax and an increase in capital gains tax you propose is unfair and counterproductive. But that wasn’t my argument.My argument is that raising the taxes on the rich right now will not solve any problems. If you return to the 90s 40% tax on the rich, which is a 5% increase from what it is now, that will do little or nothing to help or economy and or debt situation.I would consider taxes increases, only if they were accompanied with major spending cuts. Why should the right let the left use the excuse of the debt crisis to raise taxes when the problem isn’t taxes, it is spending.

Both sides agree on cutting spending, and that we need to cut a lot. Let’s do that first, and then we can go back to debating taxes. Why waste time, debating the tax code, when 90% of the problem is in spending and only 10% is taxes.

Negotiation and compromise doesn’t work like that, right or wrong, especially in an election year.

The debate isn’t even settled if higher taxes are best for solving the debt crisis or not. You can’t just suppose that higher taxes is the best option. Yes immediately it might give us some extra cash but down the line it could hinder the economy. That bottom line is do you agree or disagree that we should cut spending? If both sides do, then what do we have to negotiate? Lets decide to cut spending and then negotiate and compromise on what to cut. Stop trying to throw in a bonus for your side. You can’t say we will not cut spending unless we get our way and get to raise taxes, when we both agree it is vital that we reduce spending. Who is then, quoting from Obama “holding the nation hostage”?

It’s so interesting how different the filters are for this(everything?) depending on your perspective. If anything, I think that that republicans, specifically in the house, are holding us hostage but of course that’s from my perspective and you wouldn’t agree. I think that Mitt Romney’s 15% taxes is not enough. Period. I have seen enough of an argument from that scenario to believe that it is better for our country if taxes are higher than that. It’s true that this debate isn’t settled. I don’t think it will be but I do think that 30 years of supply side economics (voodoo economics) have failed and that’s basically what you’re arguing for when you say that higher taxes, (even the 2% being discussed in returning to Clinton era levels on income [not investments]), would hurt the economy. I think massively higher taxes might hurt the economy but I’m not calling for massive tax increases. Regarding off-shoring of funds, I think that should be discouraged. My bottom line is what is best for the citizens of the U.S. in some ways that is to cut funding in other ways I think tax revenues can be used wisely and effectively. I don’t subscribe to the notion that the free market will solve all problems and I don’t think the government can solve all problems.
I also think that businesses appropriately and massively benefit sometimes from the way government spends tax revenues so looking at just what they pay in taxes is only part of the picture. A good example of this is the education system. If businesses had to educate all of their employees it would be a massive expenditure and in some ways businesses are employing people educated in other countries with better subsidized higher learning rather than someone with a lower quality education here or the inability to even get a collegiate education. The cost to society ends up being higher for us when that person, basically playing in an uneven field, can’t get good employment. I think there are ways that us collectively paying money to support certain systems is wise, prudent, efficient and compassionate and simply good policy. I think Social Security is a good example of this, provided that crappy politicians don’t raid those funds like they were from their own piggy bank.

To sum up, I don’t think that cutting every penny we can from spending is the best policy. I think cutting funds from some areas now will cost us much more in the long run.

Why do you think the past 30 years have been strictly supply side economics? In the past 30 years we have been using something called the “Progressive Income Tax” and yet you say that the past 30 years didn’t work. In the past 30 years that didn’t work we used YOUR tax system, the progressive income tax, not the one I subscribe to. You can’t use the past 30 years as being the best example of supply side economics. That is utterly ridiculous. If you want to argue that supply side economics does not work, argue using the first 30 years instead of the last 30 heavily regulated years. In the beginning there was little regulation, now there is a tremendous amount of taxes, barriers, and regulations. The bottom line I am saying is we HAVE TO make cuts, we cannot continue to spend like we have both on the right and the left, and that changing the tax system right now will do little to solve the problem. I think lowering the taxes would be better, you think raising taxes would be better, but it doesn’t matter what any of us thinks about taxes right now because we need to make cuts. Yes it would be nice if we could pay for the best education for everyone in this country, but we can’t afford that. Yes it would be nice if we could keep increasing the defense budget, but we can’t afford that. If we continue running trillion dollar deficits, we are finished. I would rather cut back spending and avoid an economic collapse, rather than continue investing (going into debt) for the future and suffering an economic collapse. You can’t have everything.

The basis of the Reagan Revolution was that taxes were too high and if they were lowered businesses would invest more money in to the economy where it would “trickle down” to those making less money. During the 1980 Republican primary when Reagan was vocalizing this George HW Bush ridiculed the idea calling it “Voodoo economics”. Reagan slashes taxes 3 times in his presidency vastly changing the weighting of our tax system towards supply side economics. In doing so he vastly increased the debt cut tons of funding for programs, increased defense spending significantly and basically used government spending to make up the difference so that it would appear to be having the effect he wanted.This was followed by Bush I who started the horrible NAFTA discussions and raised taxes slightly and Clinton who got NAFTA in place and thereby reduced many of the few remaining protections for American industries and workers.Clinton was a “New Democrat” a moderate business friendly Democrat who sealed the Democratic party even closer to interests that plague the party. He also raised taxes moderately, sensibly IMO, to a level that could pay back the debt and started doing so. Why he never gets credit for this I’ll never understand. Don’t get me wrong. I’m not a Clinton fan and could write for hours about how much I hated his incrementalist approach and his triangulation tactics but he should at least get credit for starting to pay back the debt.

Then Bush II came in lowered taxes to pre Clinton levels, started 2 wars. Increased the size of National Government significantly (due to post 9-11 pressures and of course congress). And then as a parting give he gives away all the TARP funds with absolutely no restrictions on how these government funds would be used.

[This section more my personal opinion than the previous sections]
Obama, (another centrist no matter how much you want to paint him otherwise) comes in, tries to spend government money in a way that will inject fuel in to the economy but is so poor at negotiation and posturing that a combative congress hamstrung by ties to special interests and unwillingness to help legislates much of the bailout money he in a way that gives temporary tax breaks that help individuals somewhat but don’t help the economy in the way a more focused approach he originally espoused would have.

Now I’m sure you and I could find much to agree with about the bailouts but to call them Socialist is a stretch, particularly when much of them were to be paid back including the GM bailout. (I’ll get more in to this on the other thread where you said we were heading to socialism.

So to argue that this represents rational taxing or a Progressive income tax that I would espouse would just be ridiculous. 

We’ve had a “Progressive Income Tax” for almost as long as we’ve had income tax it’s not something that started with Reagan. In the first 30 years of the country (i’m guessing that’s what you’re referring to) our tax structure was based on tariffs and usary taxes. I guess you wouldn’t call them regulations but we were also a foundling nation so regulations would be a bit less likely. If you’re espousing a return to tariffs and a decrease in income taxes we probably could find a good area to agree about.

The effect of the Reagan revolution and changes to our policies since on the poor, middle and rich classes has been astounding with far more gains going to the rich and far less to the rest despite their labor and consumption fueling much of those gains. Our society cannot survive without a healthy middle class and eventually the rich will lose much of what they have and value if we don’t ensure all Americans have a secure safety net to fall back on and a way to improve their situation without breaking their backs and spirit to do it.

Part of the conservative movement in our country started a carefully crafted trend in the late 70’s that continues to this day that is fueling much of this problem. When Conservatives hold power spend like mad to bring us more in to debt and then when they are out of power whine and moan about the debt and how we have to cut all the programs that might actually the common man or help someone out of poverty, particularly those born in to it.

You’ve spoken about welfare causing some of this problem and I’m sure there’s areas where we agree about that but allowing a child born in to poverty starve and be completely unsupported will cost more in the long run because society will eventually have to take care of them in another way, frequently in prison. Spending money wisely and carefully to create a system where that person can grow out of poverty is far cheaper in the long run.

So you won’t find me espousing the slash and burn policy you’re describing. I think it would cause more harm than good but I do agree we need to find a sensible way to spend our money more effectively. As long as we are so polarized on these issues I don’t see it happening.

So instead of cutting back, you say we should just spend money we don’t have more wisely and sensibly? Bob, how do you have so much faith in this modern day government? You just went through the past 30 years bashing it and yet you think the government can turn around and start to spend our money more wisely and effectively? I do not have faith in this current government and its leaders, and would like to see it and its spending decrease because of that.

It’s all about the slash and burn. I think cutting at all costs will have ramifications down the road worse than the problem we’re trying to fix. Again, I do think much of our spending should be cut back but I think our present position is being used as an excuse to cut programs that are good investments to prevent future costs. I think we need to get big money out of politics and remove some of the incumbent benefits so that status in congress is more fragile and our politicians have to become accountable to the people rather than special interests.

Oh, and for the record I have very little faith in our current government. I have even less faith in a system controlled solely by the free market (as it exists today), and peoples charitable whims.

The debt is at 15.3 trillion, we have to something about that. We can’t even balance the budget, Obama can’t even create a budget. If we do not do anything about it, people will lose a lot more than their welfare, medicaid, unemployment, and social security benefits. They will lose even more of their retirement, they will lose their jobs, their money will turn worthless, and I pray to God they don’t lose their lives to starvation or looting mobs after this system collapses. How compassionate and caring is it if giving what you can’t pay to give ends up destroying you and those who you give it to? We cannot get out of this without cutting back, if someone comes up with a plausible way on how to keep all the benefits and spend our way out of this, I’m all for it. But for four years injecting fake money into the economy has failed, and we will not survive another 4 years, we may not even survive another 2 years. Cutting back and stopping these foolish stimulus packages look like our only option now. I am not saying completely get rid of all the entitlements like you leftists always paint it. I know a lot of people who do not need these benefits and could live without, they just get them because they can. I know people who do not get a job because the the government would stop giving them free money through unemployment. I know people who are on food stamps, who do not need them but get them solely because they can. I have seen people buy ice cream with food stamps. If you are starving, you don’t buy ice cream, you buy rice, beans, or potatoes. We are creating a system where there is less personal responsibility and more government dependency. We are creating a society where people think they are entitled to everything. There are big problems with these entitlements and we have to reduce and reform them so this nightmare doesn’t happen again. We have to get to the point soon where we are not running a deficit, then we can slowly start reducing our debt.

I think this statement is pretty accurate:
“Bush behaved incredibly irresponsibly for eight years. On the one hand, it might seem unfair for people to blame Obama for not fixing it. On the other hand, he’s not fixing it.” “And,” he added, “not fixing it is, in a sense, making it worse.”This article from 2009 (a bit out of date for sure) claims the current reversal from 2001 when estimates showed that at 2009-2012 we’d be running an 800 billion a year surplus to the (at that time) current 1.2 trillion per year deficit levels was caused by the following:37% by the Business cycle (or reduced revenues due to recession and a poor economy including greater expenses for the higher use of the “safety net” due to the economy.
33% Legislation signed by Bush like Tax Cuts, the Medicare prescription drug benefit and increased interest payments due to these expenses.
20% Obama’s extension of Bush policies, like the Iraq war and tax cuts for households making less than $250,000 and the Wall street bailout signed by Bush and supported by Obama.
7% Obama’s poorly legislated stimulus bill signed in February 2009
3% Obama’s agenda on health care, education, energy and other areas. 

Obviously this is out of date but the point I take from it is that getting our economy running again and returning to Clinton era tax levels (at least on those making over $250,000 is the key. I think the poorly handled stimulus bill didn’t do this because it was hamstrung by timidity on the left and sabotage on the right and I’m sure you feel that the government spending this money was wrong and immoral and that them just getting out of the way would help the economy faster.

In short, we disagree.  Or, more accurately, we disagree on the best path forward although we do agree about some of the steps to get there.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/10/business/economy/10leonhardt.html

The pros of legal gun ownership far outweigh the cons

So out of the blue my liberal relative sends me some anti-gun literature that he wrote, knowing that I am a gun-a-holic. He said he read every peer reviewed study on guns and this is what he came up with; “the costs of gun ownership far outweigh the benefits”. I think he was trying to help me see ‘the light’ and sell all of my guns. Hahaha, fat chance. The summary of his article is the following:

“In summary, the main benefits of gun ownership are feeling safe, free, independent, and powerful. However, if you own a gun it is much more likely the gun will be used to kill you (suicide) or someone you love (accident, homicide in a heated argument) than a stranger in self-defense. The costs of living in a society of gun owners also means a substantially higher rate of homicides, suicides, and accidents. In our view, the costs of gun ownership far outweigh the benefits.”

Here is my response:

I finished your article. You did not mention that one of the main benefits of gun ownership is personal enjoyment. I went shooting today with my brothers and it was “literally” a blast. It is one of my favorite hobbies. I agree with the portion you highlighted for me. However, I couldn’t disagree more with your statement “In our view, the costs of gun ownership far outweigh the benefits”.

Guns do not cause suicides, guns do not cause homicides, and guns do not cause accidents. If I am afraid of committing suicide, it would be better for me to fix my life, find religion, find a purpose for living, rather than throwing my guns away. If I am afraid of killing someone, it would be better for me to improve my relationship or distance myself from that person rather than get rid of my guns. If I am afraid of gun related accidents, it would be better for me to learn and practice proper gun safety rather than get rid of my guns.

I am tired of doctors, the government, and society focusing on the symptoms or temporary fixes for problems. If you get sick take a pill. If you get fat take a pill. If you are depressed, take a pill. If the government is running low on cash, raise taxes. If people kill themselves or others with a gun, take their guns away. If the globe is supposedly warming, pass a bill called Cap and Trade. They are all at best temporary fixes that avoid the main causes of the problems.

It is better to focus on the cause of these problems rather than focus on the tools with which they were carried out. If we want to lower suicides or homicides, let’s focus on what is causing people to kill themselves and others. Let’s fix the economy, let’s help people find a purpose, let’s help them find a reason for living, let’s help them find God. If we want to lower gun accidents, let’s teach gun safety better.

For me personally I own firearms for the following reasons. They are fun to shoot. I want to protect myself and my family. I want to be able to protect myself and others if the government collapses. I want to protect myself if the government fails to do so. I want to protect myself from the government if they do things I do not agree with. I want to protect my freedoms and rights. I have guns so I can obtain food if food becomes hard to come by. Having guns is an insurance against bad things that may happen. Although it is not perfect, that insurance brings peace of mind and a feeling of preparedness for hard times to come.

These things by far are more important to me than minimizing the already miniscule chance that I will kill myself or my family.

It would be like getting rid of my car because the main cause of death of people my age is car accidents. I can potentially kill myself and others, but the car is a tool, it is useful and important and I personally have chosen that driving a car is worth the risk.

I do not have a problem with anyone who chooses not to own guns. It is their decision, and I respect it. I have a major problem with people who want to take my right to own guns away from me.

If no one had guns, we would be powerless to the government. I believe the only thing stopping the government from taking our guns away and other rights they have no right to take away, is that the government knows if they try to take the guns away the government will have a civil war on their hands. Our government uses a check and balances system. Gun ownership by ordinary citizens is a way to keep the government in check.

Sorry about my tangents and my ramblings. I know you haven’t directly said anything in your article about taking away our constitutional rights of gun ownership, but I get very defensive and angry when people say guns are bad or create anti-gun literature.

How taxing the rich more than others is a bad idea and not fair.

This is some rambling from me to a liberal uncle of mine about taxing the rich and about the free market.

What will increasing taxes on the rich do? Just give the government even more money, who says any of that will go to the poor?
With all this corruption in the government and the super corporations like GE or other companies like Solyndra will get it and the corrupt rich will actually end up getting the money.
Will giving it to the poor even solve anything, other then making them more dependent and reinforcing the idea in their heads that the government will always take care of me so I don’t have to think much or make wise decisions.

I agree with you Rees, a lot of workers aren’t getting fairly compensated for they value they provide. I worked at a job where the owner only came in once a week for an hour or two and then left. I was doing a lot more work than he. But he worked his butt off to make it there and took an enormous amount of risk. Taking risk translates to increase in earnings.

Also increasing taxes on the rich based on the point by Elizabeth Warren that no one is a self made millionaire doesn’t apply to everyone. Yes there are businesses like your place of employment that rely on ideas and work from employed workers. But If I make millions making iphone apps in my parents basement, no one but me is working and why should I get taxed 40% when the people working at McDonalds don’t have to pay any. And what about about all those authors like the lady who made Harry potter? Why should she be taxed more? This is just like the Warren Buffet situation, you can’t justify a new tax on all the rich when the example they give for justifying the new tax only applies to a few.

My point is increasing taxes on the rich isn’t fair and doesn’t benefit hard working workers like yourself. Do you think you will see a dime from those new taxes on the rich Rees? This system and regulations do not help honest hard workers. They benefit the irresponsible, the poor, and the corrupt people; even that is debatable because it is helping them stay that way.
I bet you will actually be in worse condition than before. The owner of your company, since he has more taxes to pay, will lay some of you off, refuse to increase wages, and force you guys to work harder for less.

I was thinking about it and maybe a solution would be to increase wages and benefits for workers? But that is just like the unions and that has a direct effect on the unemployment rate and make companies force their workers to do more with less or force companies oversees to cheaper sources of labor.

I believe in a free market system a lot of the problems will be solved. But there needs to be less regulation for it to work. If you think you aren’t being paid enough, demand a bonus or raise, or quit and go to a different business or create your own. But now in economic hard times (that where caused by the regulations and government intervention) you can’t. Creating a business is very difficult now. It is hard for people to quit when the unemployment rate is 10%. I think the government needs to free up the markets, and reduce regulation so it is easier to start a business and compete. And capital gains tax? How can you talk about increasing that? That money has already been taxed through income tax. Why tax people on building the economy through investing? More than that who gives the government the right?

I think the federal government needs to do what it was meant to do originally. They try to poke their noses in everything, and may have good intentions, but end up making things worse.

How did the USA ever survive without all these progressive programs? There wasn’t even any income tax before 1913. The founders considered it immoral. I venture to say that the USA was in better condition before all of these regulations and new socialist programs.

Why? There was more freedom. People could start a business in a day if they wanted. Now there are loads of taxes, regulations, paperwork, legal stuff they have to deal with that are constantly changing you almost need an attorney and accountant just to start a business now. And you also deal with the constant fear that the government will add new regulation that will put your business out of business. I have personally experience with this in creating an investing program for the Foreign Exchange. They added more regulation “to protect” me that actually hurt me and wasted a whole year of my hard work because i relied on hedging which they removed.

I believe the USA was also better because I think the people had more integrity and charity. There was no social security, welfare, or Medicare programs. But the retired people survived, the widows survived, the poor survived, the handicapped survived. How? They were more responsible first off and people took care of other people. Now there is a decline in morals and the immoral government is trying to force it upon us and it is failing miserably.

Founders said for this government to work, the people must have integrity and morals. The founders said income tax was evil and immoral.

What is the solution? Quit punishing the people with integrity and morals. Quit unfairly taxing the rich. Create a flat tax for everyone. That way the corrupt rich and corporations (GE, Google) can’t find all these loopholes to get out of it. Create an environment through less regulation and more freedom where it is easier for businesses to start up. Allow people and businesses to fail but make it easy for them to get back up and start up again. Do not reinforce their bad behavior. Out of their failure they will learn and be better.

And the bottom line, even if we had a perfect system and government we will still have major economic and social problems if the people continue to lose morals and their integrity.

I don’t agree with you that the Gram,-Leach-Biley Act caused the recession. I don’t see how enabling financial institutions to merge in order to diversify caused it. Diversification promotes stability and helps during economic instability. The most irresponsible financial firms like Lehman did not take advantage of the Act at all. The institutions that did like JP Morgan where far better off.

I will stick to what I said before. The government intervening in the free markets through regulation and through manipulation through the Federal Reserve caused it. The politicians got it in their head that the new American dream was a home for everybody, despite their credit and income. Through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (both government sponsored enterprises), the Federal Reserve, and The Community Reinvestment Act the government was able to carry out their new American dream. Corrupt leftist organizations like ACORN also contributed.
The Federal Reserve artificially manipulated the interest rates to be low when they should have been much higher. The economy started to boom again in 2004 but the Fed did not increase the interest rates. Many investors took advantage of low rates to buy homes just to resell. Others bought homes they couldn’t afford thanks to interest-only loans. The Community Reinvestment Act forced banks to lend to people who would normally be rejected due to bad credit. Let the banks do their jobs on determining if a loan is a good investment or not. It is their business, not the governments.
Under the free market the government would have no involvement with home ownership or the interest rates. The interest rates would have been set by the banks based on risk, reward, and a clear understanding that making bad loans would result in bankruptcy.

A free market is a market free from state intervention. I completely agree with you that someone has to the regulating, and I completely disagree with you that it is the government that should do it. Let the businesses do their own regulating. It is their business, they know better than the government about their business. If the businesses make stupid decisions, they will fail. If businesses put harmful chemicals in their food and their customers get sick they will fail due to legal suits and diminishing sells. If they make bad loans to people with bad credit, they will fail. The businesses know these things, it is their business. The government has been constantly proved to be corrupt as corporations. They both except bribes, tell lies, and have an agenda. The difference is that the government has the legal system and guns to enforce what they say. With all that power they don’t have to be fair. They don’t have to be smart about it. They don’t have to worry about people buying their products because they can force people to pay taxes.

Companies on the other hand cannot imprison people who don’t want to comply with their regulations. Companies can’t force people to pay them taxes or buy their products. Companies are at the mercy of the market, the people. If the people don’t pay for their services, if they don’t support them, they fail. The government is at the mercy of…… the people? yeah right. The will of the people is being disregarded left and right.

You say “In addition many restrictive regulations put in place under the pretense of helping us are actual the product of powerful corporations writing our laws.” The corporations wouldn’t be able to use the government as their vehicle if the vehicle didn’t have that much power to begin with. So by limiting the government, you actually limit the ability of corrupt corporations to pass evil bills.

Corporations are essentially people. Without people corporations wouldn’t exist. Who works for them? People. Who created them? People. Who suffers when corporations are under attack? People. Who does the poor people we love so much work for? Corporations. When you hurt corporations, it ends up trickling down to the people. Buy taxing the rich, adding regulations to corporations, the workers are affected. I don’t understand how people don’t know that by attacking corporations, they actually hurt the people they were trying to save in the first place.

Grandma and Grandpa did not live in the period I am taking about, I was talking about before the 1913. Even still, there are people eating catfood today even with all these programs. There will always be poor people in our country, Jesus even said that the poor will always be among you. The thing is the poor here are hundred times better off then the poor in other countries. They are now giving free cell phones and plans to people but only if they receive free housing, food stamps, medicaid, free lunch, etc. Poor people need cell phones now? When will it end? When everyone has a BMW, house, high speed internet, free food? Or when everyone has the same? That is communism, it doesn’t work, it’s not fair, and it punishes the people who work hard. Not to mention it goes completely against what this country was founded upon.

I am all for helping the poor. But it appears what the government classifies as poor and as I do is different. I also disagree with the government on how to help them. They do not help them in the right ways. You don’t give a man a fish, you teach him how to fish. And you don’t poison the fish lake with evil regulations that kill all the fish and then steal the fish that rich have and then give it the poor. You encourage charity, encourage love, encourage service. Help people be and do those things. Do not force them. Man is supposed to have his agency, let him. Forcing was the plan of Satan.

Questions that we need to answer about Global Warming before we do anything about it.

First question in all this Global Warming debate should be: Is global warming bad? I personally wouldn’t mind if it warmed up a bit. Yes some animals may not like it but others will thrive in a warmer environment.  Seriously, we need to way the pros and cons of a warming environment.  Why do we just assume it is bad.  Was the global warming that happened at the end of the ice ages bad?

Second if it is bad, then what is causing it? The climate is changing, yes, but hasn’t the climate on Earth always changed? Even before humans, the earth went through ice ages and warming stages. Who says man is causing it? If man is contributing, then how much? Is it even a significant amount?

Then we should ask ourselves, what can we do to stop it?

Finally we need to ask how are we going to get the rest of the world (especially China) to stop burning oil and go along with it?

I find this green movement and global warming crap infuriating. We can prove the climate is getting warmer but the other questions remained unanswered and unproven. We shouldn’t be doing anything to stifle the economy until those questions are indeed answered and proven. But instead everyone just jumps to conclusions saying its bad and that we are causing it and buying hybrids will solve it, and that anyone who thinks otherwise is a global warming denier and an idiot. It is ridiculous.

Here we are facing another recession and coal plants are being shut down across the nation, regulations discourage entrepreneurs from mining or drilling for more resources, and off shore drilling is being restricted. We are a nation that runs on energy and if we restrict it, the economy will suffer.

Answer those questions and if we are doing a lot of damage then we need to get working on providing a renewable source of energy. Until we have that new energy that meets our demands, we need to drill for oil and keep burning that coal.

Bottom line is, restricting energy before answering those questions and providing a suitable replacement is restricting growth and development and is complete nonsense.

Debate on How Effective Obama has been.

Look at the evidence. Depression averted. U.S. auto industry saved. And check out the stock market and unemployment rate when President Obama took office vs. today. Data speak. Volumes.

The stock market is a horrible indicator of how successful the policies of the president are. Look at the stock market during Bush’s years. In 2007 you could have said Bush was one of the best presidents ever if you go off stock market data, and I assume we both agree he was far from being one of the best. The stock market doesn’t follow reality. It can burst like a bubble just like the housing market did.

It is easy to spend trillions of dollars that we do not have to artificially prop up the economy, but any day now it could come tumbling down. When Obama took office the debt was 10.63 trillion, now 3 years later it is at 15.26 trillion. That is 4.6 trillion dollars of debt increase in only 3 years. The total debt divided by the entire U.S. population is $50,000 per person. Add yearly interest onto that and that is a monumental debt to pay off.

We are doing bail outs left and right, the auto industry, the banks, Greece, the EU. We do not have the money to do these things. We have to pay the piper sooner or later and Obama is just putting off the pain, but it is going to be a lot worse when we eventually do have to pay it. So if you agree with Obama that we should spend money we don’t have to put off the pain, then I agree, the data does speak volumes that he is successfully doing that. I on the other wish to get the economy, debt, and government spending under control now, before an economic disaster forces us to. Because if that disaster happens we will wish we had lived in the days of the great depression instead of the great collapse.

Oh and the true unemployment rate is much higher than the government would have you to believe. If you look at the real data, it is on the rise around 11.4%. The number the government puts out conveniently doesn’t include people who have left the labor force due to inability to find a job. If you believe he has the unemployment situation under control you have been misled.

I wish I could believe Obama averted the depression. He hasn’t, he has only put it off until it grows into something worse. Tough times lie ahead for the USA. Obama didn’t start the mess but he is without a doubt making it worse. If he wins the reelection and doesn’t stop his spending we are heading for disaster.

Please, show me the evidence that Obama really has got this nation back on course because I would love to see it so I can sleep better at night.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/real-jobless-rate-114-realistic-labor-force-participation-rate

The problem is there is no comparison group. Thus, we don’t know how bad things would have been had Obama not taken the steps he took to save the U.S. economy. I am of the opinion that they would have been much worse, and that Obama saved us from a second great depression.

Obama doesn’t have to keep blaming Bush for the state of our union. It is obvious that we got here because of Bush. It is a simple argument. We are where we are because of Bush. WE ARE IN THE DIRE STRAITS WE ARE IN BECAUSE OF BUSH. And we have not gone over the edge thanks to Obama.

 Bush contributed but he did not start this mess, it’s been a hundred years in the making with all these entitlement programs and the ever growing government and regulations that have been strangling the economy. Look at Greece, that is what America is turning into. I wish we could magically pay for endless pensions and entitlement programs, but it goes against nature, you can’t create money out of thin air and taxing the producers is unsustainable due to decreasing incentives to produce. If you guys think stimulus after stimulus, printing more and more money backed by nothing but the full faith and credit of the United States will solve this debt crisis, then you are living in a dream land. He spent $787 billion in 2009 in his stimulus package, $858 in his 2010 package, and tried to get a $447 billion last year in his jobs bill. His projections on how much these will help the economy haven’t been met. They aren’t working nearly as well as everyone hoped. I hope I am wrong that magically we can get out of debt by making almost a trillion dollar stimulus each year. That isn’t even including the money the Fed is dumping into the IMF bailing out the Euro behind our backs and without any representation from us.

Yes Obama is putting off a depression so it grows into something much worse down the road. Is that what you guys want and support? If that is what you want then I can understand how great Obama has been in your eyes.

The national debt as a % of GNP was very high during WWII and then fell steadily in each presidency until Regan, when it balooned with trickle down economics. It began to fall again with Clinton (who paid off the WWII debt) but really balooned with Bush II as he started two wars and lowered taxes. President Obama had little choice about the stimulus, but it arguably did stop the fall off the cliff. BTW he last summer tried to come to a major long term budget agreement with Boehner but the latter was stymied by the House Republicans. Hopefully after the next election adults will be in charge.

Clinton paid off the WWII debt?  Hahaha wow.  Where was I when that happened?  What budget agreement are you talking about? I know there was the 1.4 trillion in cuts over 10 YEARS that would have done essentially nothing, but that was passed. What is 1.4 trillion in 10 years going to do when you are adding more then a trillion EACH YEAR to the debt. A super comittee was formed, the failed to agree on what to cut, so now in 2013 automatic spending cuts in the military of all things will start. Or maybe you are talking about the Balanced Budget ammendment that would have forced the government to spend less then what it takes in and to actually have a budget. Oh wait, silly me, the democrats voted overwhelmingly against that.

Just last week house republicans rejected Obama’s desire to raise the debt ceiling of an additional $1.2 trillion. Lets see how long the lasts until the senate and Obama yet again get it rammed through. Let’s keep on raising that limit on our national credit card. Great idea, Obama.

Occupy Wall Street versus the Tea Party

Although I agree with some of the problems in our system that the Wall Street Protestors are arguing, I disagree with them completely on the solutions they have proposed. Here is an image showing the differences between the two groups. I side with the ideas of the Tea Party. I think those solutions are the only ones that will leave our freedom intact and fix this country.  The socialism and more government control that the Occupiers want will destroy this country.

ShootersCalculator.com | Ballistic Trajectory Calculator

Hey,

I just discovered an awesome new website for those of you who shoot firearms.

ShootersCalculator.com | Ballistic Trajectory Calculator

This website allows you to compare various cartridges and their trajectories with one another.  If you input your data such muzzle velocity and the ballistic coeffecient of the bullet you are shooting, it produces a graph which shows you the bullet drop and trajectory.  It would be very useful for hunters and target shooters.  Too bad I didn’t find this site before hunting season.  Oh well, I still bagged one. 😉

Hello Everyone

Just got this blog up. I intend to use this blog as a place where I put down current political ideas I have, thoughts of life, cool things I find, and self development. Thanks!