Before reading the rest of this post, it is important for you to look closely at, and try to find what is wrong with this picture...
Do you see it?
There is nothing wrong with it. It is a picture of a number of people, all with different thoughts, different opinions, different problems all coming together to work for a common goal, and solve the problem at hand. The PEOPLE are doing it, not the government.
And this is exactly what built this great nation into the most prosperous and powerful nation the Earth has every seen.
This sense of community, once the norm in America, is all but gone now. How many barn raisings have you been involved in recently? Or ever?
America has been history's greatest success story only because we knew the value of all pulling together in spite of all our differences, and because we had the personal freedom to do so. We knew we did not have to agree with our neighbor - only that he was our neighbor and an important part of the wholeness of the community.
Today, America is more divided than it was in 1859 with the buildup to the Civil War. The sense of community has been replaced by a growing desire to fill our own personal goals at any cost - even at the expense of others. We have shed our responsibility towards ourselves and one another in favor of letting the government handle that for us. We have become lax and lazy.
Whenever we give up any power or authority to a government, we give up some of our own freedom. And as our freedoms wane, so does the need for that sense of community. Let the government take care of the poor and needy. Let the government take care of education. Let the government take care of the elders.
We can clearly see that is not the solution. In fact, it is the problem. There was a time when we had the right solutions. We had barn raisings. Each family, community and church took care of their own, directly. Each township had a Community Chest. We all worked together to overcome trials and tribulations, and it worked.
Please take another look at that picture, and burn it into your consciousness. Remember it. And then go out and do some little thing every day that will bring you - us - closer to that sense of community.
Let's stop giving our power, our stength and our freedom to a government. No government has ever used that power well or wisely. A government is like any other entity - it wants to grow and gain power. To do that, it must consume. And what it consumes is the freedom of its people.
The Founding Fathers knew the importance of having a central government, but they also understood that we, the people, needed to keep it small and within OUR power. In essence, they wanted the strength of a tree, but decided it would be best to cultivate it as a Bonzai variety - trimmed, pruned and trained to remain small, and not overly consuming.
We can bring back that crucial, warm sense of community. But to do so, we must have the need to do so. And that means taking back our power and freedom from a government that has gone rogue, and replacing that government with one that serves its people without consuming their freedoms with overbearing regulation and burdened with excessive taxes.
Vote on November 2nd.
/
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Monday, October 18, 2010
Is It Immigration - Or Infiltration?
In Germany, Chancellor Merkel said their multicultural immigration policy is not working. It appears that Muslims are "immigrating" into Germany - and almost all countries - in large numbers. They do not assimmilate - they simply set up Islamic mini-countries within the host country.
The same thing is happening throughout Europe, and even in North America. In the United States, the Islamic community is not the only one that does not assimilate - the Mexican community is doing the same thing. They come, refuse to assimilate, set up their own communities and pretty much ignore American culture and even its laws. In fact, they insist on incorporating THEIR laws and culture, trying to impose Sharia law in America, for example, and flying flags of their homeland, and not flying the American flag.
Some people still refer to this as immigration. It is not. It is infiltration. These cultures are infiltrating the host nations who permit multiculturalism (non-assimilation) and from there they have every intention of spreading, like a cancer.
France is already in trouble with its huge muslim population, as is the Netherlands, and now Germany. England is also on the verge of losing its control over the muslim population in that once great nation.
In America it is not yet too late - but soon will be if we don't wake up and give the heave-ho to multiculturalism and liberal ideas on open borders. Multiculturalism, coupled with liberal Political Correctness will be America's suicide pact if we do not stop it.
I am not saying we should keep other cultures from coming to America. What I am saying is if someone comes here, they should be required to assimilate, or go home. This is not Mexico, and it is not Yemen. This is America. Come here if you wish, but you had better understand you need to assimilate, and become American. You fly the AMERICAN flag. You learn ENGLISH. And you abide by OUR laws. If you do not want to be American, then don't come here. When in Rome, do as the Romans do.
Otherwise, you are not welcome to stay.
/
The same thing is happening throughout Europe, and even in North America. In the United States, the Islamic community is not the only one that does not assimilate - the Mexican community is doing the same thing. They come, refuse to assimilate, set up their own communities and pretty much ignore American culture and even its laws. In fact, they insist on incorporating THEIR laws and culture, trying to impose Sharia law in America, for example, and flying flags of their homeland, and not flying the American flag.
Some people still refer to this as immigration. It is not. It is infiltration. These cultures are infiltrating the host nations who permit multiculturalism (non-assimilation) and from there they have every intention of spreading, like a cancer.
France is already in trouble with its huge muslim population, as is the Netherlands, and now Germany. England is also on the verge of losing its control over the muslim population in that once great nation.
In America it is not yet too late - but soon will be if we don't wake up and give the heave-ho to multiculturalism and liberal ideas on open borders. Multiculturalism, coupled with liberal Political Correctness will be America's suicide pact if we do not stop it.
I am not saying we should keep other cultures from coming to America. What I am saying is if someone comes here, they should be required to assimilate, or go home. This is not Mexico, and it is not Yemen. This is America. Come here if you wish, but you had better understand you need to assimilate, and become American. You fly the AMERICAN flag. You learn ENGLISH. And you abide by OUR laws. If you do not want to be American, then don't come here. When in Rome, do as the Romans do.
Otherwise, you are not welcome to stay.
/
Saturday, October 16, 2010
Reactionaries Do Not Solve Problems
Todays headline reads:
Obama Wants to End Tax Breaks for Companies that Move Jobs Overseas
People like Obama just don't get it. And they don't get it because they are reactionaries. Instead of finding the cause of a problem and fixing it, they react to the result of the problem and try to fight only the symptoms using punishment, not positive incentives. If a person chooses to get to the core of a situation, they will find the solution is usually simple and effective.
The problem APPEARS to be that businesses are moving jobs overseas. This is what liberals believe. It is what a community organizer would see. It is what someone would see if they did not bother to think it out. But businesses moving jobs overseas is not the problem - it is only a sympton of the problem. Consider...
A business has one function - to make as much profit as possible. If they move jobs overseas it is only because they can make more profit by doing so. Therefore, the solution lies in finding out WHY it is more profitable overseas, and what can we do to offset that and give businesses a profit motive for staying in America.
If you have followed me this far, you are now beginning to see the problem, and not just the symptom. The four highest cost factors (COB - Cost of Business) are wages, inventory, taxes and union benefits and costs. To make America more competitive so businesses will stay here, those costs must be reduced - preferably to a level below the costs of doing business overseas, to entice them to return to America.
Because of our chosen lifestyles of excess, we cannot compete with China when it comes to wages. And inventory is pretty much a wash - nearly the same, regardless. That leaves two areas where America can make changes.
In this regard, we can make two major changes. High corporate taxes (federal and state) can add 48% to the COB, and union benefits and costs can add from 20%-30%. Together, they add at least 68% to the cost of doing business in America. That is more than two-thirds the COB. Therefore, if we reduce taxes (instead of increasing them further as proposed by Democrats) and if we reduce the impact of unions (instead of increasing it as proposed by Democrats), we could easily reduce the COB by as much as 48% or more. How would that translate in terms of competitiveness?
In most American industries, wages account for roughly 18% of costs; inventory 10%; taxes 48% and unions 20%. The remaing 4% is profit.
In China, wages (which, by the way are rising rapidly) account for 8%; inventory 15%; taxes between 15% and 25%; unions 0%. Profit is 52%.
See the problem? If Congress were to reduce federal corporate taxes to 10% and reduced the union stranglehold by half, that would add 48% to the profit margin of businesses, giving a total profit of 52% - the same as China - while still retaining our high wages structure and the most necessary union benefits. There would be no incentive to move to China. And if states could be convinved to reduce corporate taxes to 5% (from the average of 10% currently), that would give businesses already in China an incentive to move back to the states - particularly since China's wages are quickly rising. And America would have plentiful jobs - even enough for all the illegal aliens.
I know many of you, particularly liberals, will scream that we are just making the rich richer. But think about that a moment - do poor people hire employees? Do poor people spend billions on R&D to create the products you want? Making the rich wealthier is the only way of creating more jobs. The rich make our lives better - they are the ones, like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs - that make our lives richer. Yes, they get a bigger share of the pie, but they are also making more pies, so we all benefit.
In short, the rich will be rich, either here or in China. So the choice is clear - in which country do you want them to live, and produce jobs and products?
/
Obama Wants to End Tax Breaks for Companies that Move Jobs Overseas
People like Obama just don't get it. And they don't get it because they are reactionaries. Instead of finding the cause of a problem and fixing it, they react to the result of the problem and try to fight only the symptoms using punishment, not positive incentives. If a person chooses to get to the core of a situation, they will find the solution is usually simple and effective.
The problem APPEARS to be that businesses are moving jobs overseas. This is what liberals believe. It is what a community organizer would see. It is what someone would see if they did not bother to think it out. But businesses moving jobs overseas is not the problem - it is only a sympton of the problem. Consider...
A business has one function - to make as much profit as possible. If they move jobs overseas it is only because they can make more profit by doing so. Therefore, the solution lies in finding out WHY it is more profitable overseas, and what can we do to offset that and give businesses a profit motive for staying in America.
If you have followed me this far, you are now beginning to see the problem, and not just the symptom. The four highest cost factors (COB - Cost of Business) are wages, inventory, taxes and union benefits and costs. To make America more competitive so businesses will stay here, those costs must be reduced - preferably to a level below the costs of doing business overseas, to entice them to return to America.
Because of our chosen lifestyles of excess, we cannot compete with China when it comes to wages. And inventory is pretty much a wash - nearly the same, regardless. That leaves two areas where America can make changes.
In this regard, we can make two major changes. High corporate taxes (federal and state) can add 48% to the COB, and union benefits and costs can add from 20%-30%. Together, they add at least 68% to the cost of doing business in America. That is more than two-thirds the COB. Therefore, if we reduce taxes (instead of increasing them further as proposed by Democrats) and if we reduce the impact of unions (instead of increasing it as proposed by Democrats), we could easily reduce the COB by as much as 48% or more. How would that translate in terms of competitiveness?
In most American industries, wages account for roughly 18% of costs; inventory 10%; taxes 48% and unions 20%. The remaing 4% is profit.
In China, wages (which, by the way are rising rapidly) account for 8%; inventory 15%; taxes between 15% and 25%; unions 0%. Profit is 52%.
See the problem? If Congress were to reduce federal corporate taxes to 10% and reduced the union stranglehold by half, that would add 48% to the profit margin of businesses, giving a total profit of 52% - the same as China - while still retaining our high wages structure and the most necessary union benefits. There would be no incentive to move to China. And if states could be convinved to reduce corporate taxes to 5% (from the average of 10% currently), that would give businesses already in China an incentive to move back to the states - particularly since China's wages are quickly rising. And America would have plentiful jobs - even enough for all the illegal aliens.
I know many of you, particularly liberals, will scream that we are just making the rich richer. But think about that a moment - do poor people hire employees? Do poor people spend billions on R&D to create the products you want? Making the rich wealthier is the only way of creating more jobs. The rich make our lives better - they are the ones, like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs - that make our lives richer. Yes, they get a bigger share of the pie, but they are also making more pies, so we all benefit.
In short, the rich will be rich, either here or in China. So the choice is clear - in which country do you want them to live, and produce jobs and products?
/
Monday, October 11, 2010
Opaque
Remember the promise of TRANSPARENCY?
Obama's hidden records: Why are these off limits?
1. Certified copy of original birth certificate. (I am not a "birther", but this is still an unanswered question - no original copy has been produced to date, so this question remains pertinent here concerning transparency)
2. Columbia University transcripts sealed.
3. Columbia thesis paper sealed.
4. Campaign donor analysis requested by 7 major watchdog groups. (millions were donated via untraceable pre-paid cards which could have come from anywhere - even Iran or China)
5. Harvard University transcripts sealed.
6. Illinois State Senate records limited access.
7. Illinois State Senate schedule limited access.
8. Law practice client list and billing records/summary
9. Locations and names of all half-siblings and step-mother
10. Medical records (only the one page summary released so far)
11. Occidental College Transcripts hidden.
12. Parent’s marriage Certificate not available.
13. Record of baptism.
14. Did Obama Actually Ever Register for Selective Service?
15. Schedules for trips outside of the United States before 2007
16. Passport records for all passports.
17. Scholarly articles not available.
18. SAT and LSAT test scores not available.
19. Access to his grandmother in Kenya.
20. List of all campaign workers that are lobbyists.
21. Punahou grade school records.
22. Noelani Kindergarten records are oddly missing from the the State of Hawaii Department of Education.
23. Obama 1964 Divorce Papers - 13 Pages - Missing Pg 11.
24. Why isn’t Barack Obama still a member of the Illinois bar and where are all of the relevant documents?
25. Why isn’t Michelle Obama still a member of the Illinois bar, after only about four years of practice, and where are all of the relevant documents?
Anyone who cares about their country would be very concerned that a POTUS had hidden every scrap of information of his life that he possibly could. These are pretty easy things to produce. Why are they all missing or sealed? For what purpose?
Just wondering...as we all should be.
/
Obama's hidden records: Why are these off limits?
1. Certified copy of original birth certificate. (I am not a "birther", but this is still an unanswered question - no original copy has been produced to date, so this question remains pertinent here concerning transparency)
2. Columbia University transcripts sealed.
3. Columbia thesis paper sealed.
4. Campaign donor analysis requested by 7 major watchdog groups. (millions were donated via untraceable pre-paid cards which could have come from anywhere - even Iran or China)
5. Harvard University transcripts sealed.
6. Illinois State Senate records limited access.
7. Illinois State Senate schedule limited access.
8. Law practice client list and billing records/summary
9. Locations and names of all half-siblings and step-mother
10. Medical records (only the one page summary released so far)
11. Occidental College Transcripts hidden.
12. Parent’s marriage Certificate not available.
13. Record of baptism.
14. Did Obama Actually Ever Register for Selective Service?
15. Schedules for trips outside of the United States before 2007
16. Passport records for all passports.
17. Scholarly articles not available.
18. SAT and LSAT test scores not available.
19. Access to his grandmother in Kenya.
20. List of all campaign workers that are lobbyists.
21. Punahou grade school records.
22. Noelani Kindergarten records are oddly missing from the the State of Hawaii Department of Education.
23. Obama 1964 Divorce Papers - 13 Pages - Missing Pg 11.
24. Why isn’t Barack Obama still a member of the Illinois bar and where are all of the relevant documents?
25. Why isn’t Michelle Obama still a member of the Illinois bar, after only about four years of practice, and where are all of the relevant documents?
Anyone who cares about their country would be very concerned that a POTUS had hidden every scrap of information of his life that he possibly could. These are pretty easy things to produce. Why are they all missing or sealed? For what purpose?
Just wondering...as we all should be.
/
An Oxford Casino
Question #1 on this years ballot is whether or not we should permit casino gambling in Oxford (next time it will be Calais). Frankly, I do not intend to vote either way, as it does not directly impact me and there are pros and cons. But...
Those who promote the idea are being dishonest with you. They claim it will bring huge amounts of money from out-of-state. But if you think about that for a moment, and know anything about geography, you will know that claim is absurd.
The only "out-of-state" money will come from northern New Hampshire, with a sparse population, and not all of them gamblers. Much of southern New Hampshire is closer to the well-established Mohegan Sun in Connecticut. And most of Massachusetts is also closer to Connecticut. And Canada - they already have casinos. So I fail to see how a casino in Oxford will bring in huge amounts of revenue not already here.
But what it will bring in is a certain level of crime, as evidenced everywhere there is a casino, and a greater likelihood of family dissolutions caused by addictive gambling made easy. But what might be even more onerous is the shift in political power that always accompanies a casino. Casinos make money. LOTS of money. And with that kind of money comes power. And power corrupts. If you think we have problems in Maine politics now, just wait until we have casinos. The people - the average Joe on the streets - will lose power.
But there is an upside to a casino. Currently, Mainers who want to enjoy a weekend at a posh gambling resort would have to travel to Connecticut, ot Atlantic City. Not only is that expensive and time consuming, it also removes money from Maine.
Therefore, proponents would be better served, and would be more honest if they were to plug the casino on the basis on millions of dollars staying in Maine, rather than trying to sell us on millions coming in.
/
Those who promote the idea are being dishonest with you. They claim it will bring huge amounts of money from out-of-state. But if you think about that for a moment, and know anything about geography, you will know that claim is absurd.
The only "out-of-state" money will come from northern New Hampshire, with a sparse population, and not all of them gamblers. Much of southern New Hampshire is closer to the well-established Mohegan Sun in Connecticut. And most of Massachusetts is also closer to Connecticut. And Canada - they already have casinos. So I fail to see how a casino in Oxford will bring in huge amounts of revenue not already here.
But what it will bring in is a certain level of crime, as evidenced everywhere there is a casino, and a greater likelihood of family dissolutions caused by addictive gambling made easy. But what might be even more onerous is the shift in political power that always accompanies a casino. Casinos make money. LOTS of money. And with that kind of money comes power. And power corrupts. If you think we have problems in Maine politics now, just wait until we have casinos. The people - the average Joe on the streets - will lose power.
But there is an upside to a casino. Currently, Mainers who want to enjoy a weekend at a posh gambling resort would have to travel to Connecticut, ot Atlantic City. Not only is that expensive and time consuming, it also removes money from Maine.
Therefore, proponents would be better served, and would be more honest if they were to plug the casino on the basis on millions of dollars staying in Maine, rather than trying to sell us on millions coming in.
/
Saturday, October 9, 2010
Could Not Believe My Ears
I could not believe what she said, or that she could be either that stupid, or that dishonest. Nancy Pelosi, House Speaker, said food stamps and unemployment give the biggest bang for the buck; that every dollar we give out in that way will come back as $1.79.
I have a degree in economics. I have run the numbers every way possible, and Pelosi's statement doesn't even begin to hold water - or make any sense at all. She claims that money goes to companies who then have to hire people to meet the increased demand.
First, there is no indication food stamps or unemployment increases demand enough to force any company to hire more employees. But even assuming it does, here is the great flaw in her "thinking" (I use the term "thinking" in a very loose sense when referring to Pelosi).
The average business has a profit margin of 4-20%. Most run at the low end. Assuming a profit margin of even 10% on average, it would require $300,000 in subsidies like food stamps to provide a company with just $30,000 profit - enough to pay for an employee. But it gets worse. A company cannot use all its profits for hiring because, in order to increase production they must aslso increase costs, like the cost of inventory on goods needed to produce their product. So, in order to pay a new employee $30,000, the company would have to collect closer to $1.2 million dollars worth of subsidies like food stamps.
$1.2 million spent to create one $30,000 job. And since most Americans earning $30,000 pay ZERO taxes, none of that money makes it back to the Treasury.
Again, I have tried running the numbers in every possible light and could find no way to make a spent dollar come out to $1.79. Except one...
When money is given, free, to lower income people, it earns their support. By Democrats increasing the amount of food stamps and unemployment, they increase the number of people who are indebted to them, and will vote for them to insure the money keeps coming. This is the ONLY scenario in which a spent dollar earns a profit in votes and power for Democrats.
That said, on the other hand a dollar invested rather than spent can, indeed, result in $1.79 return. Investing money is the ONLY way to make it grow. Hence, if those dollars were given to small businesses (which employ 97% of all employees), the money could be used directly for growth, which means hiring. After all, the only reason for selling shares of a business to investors is to provide growth capital.
The figures do not lie. I wish I could say the same for people like Speaker Pelosi.
Ms Pelosi, if there is a way to turn $1.00 of taxpayer money into $1.79, perhaps you should pass a law that forces the U.S. Treasury to use the method. We could then pay off our debt and deficits in no time at all.
Now, I'm sure there will be those who will claim I am advocating putting an end to entitlements, but there is nothing in this post that says I am against food stamps or unemployment. I am not. But I am against giving so much, for so long to people who COULD be caring for themselves but just do not want to. Fully 70% of all government entitlements are wasted; given not to the needy, but to the clueless and useless. The government needs to put "welfare" back into local hands, and the federal governments only role should be to make sure all localities are doing the job. Local communities know who is needy and who is just lazy.
By cutting even 50% of the waste, we can do much more to help those who really need it while saving taxpayer money. Instead of giving $100 to needy Joe and $100 to lazy Mike, we could give $150 to needy Joe and put $50 back into the Treasury. Lazy Mike can fend for himself.
Frankly, I am tired of giving my hard-earned money to drug-dealers, drunks and child molesters simply because they "qualify" using "income guidelines". Instead of using income guidelines, we need to start using more sensible methods of determining need, such as physical ability, mental ability and/or unforeseen personal crisis (short term only). Everyone else can and should fend for themselves.
Except for the severely impaired mentioned above, everyone can earn a living. Nothing stops a poor person from getting a job of some sort, or if that is not possible, to give themselves a job by hiring out. Be the local handyman. Do baking or housekeeping for busy people. Do shopping for busy people. Mow lawns. Everyone can do something.
When the steelworker's union killed the company I was working for in '72 I could have collected unemployment and food stamps. Instead, I grabbed my wife's ballpoint paints and painted T-shirts. It paid the bills, along with some metal detecting on the side. And again in '76 when I got laid off at my newest job, I supported my family by starting a small business that connected local college students with residents who needed work done - I would send Don over to put up Mrs. Murray's storm windows, and Margie would go over to babysit for the Davisons. My "Work For Education" company provided a lot of cash in commissions, without me having to work very hard at all. After all, instead of earning 100% of one income I was earning 10% of 50 incomes.
The point is this - if someone is incapable of supporting themselves due to causes not within their control, help them. Everyone else needs to help themselves or pay the consequences - if they get desperate enough, they will work. Even homeless drunks go "canning", picking up aluminum cans and cashing them in so they could buy their next bottle of MD 20/20.
The short take - Pelosi and other liberals care nothing about helping the poor. All they want to do is stay in power, and are using the disadvantaged for that purpose. They are simply buying gratitude - and votes. It's time to take the politics out of charity and to do more to help those who truly are needy.
/
I have a degree in economics. I have run the numbers every way possible, and Pelosi's statement doesn't even begin to hold water - or make any sense at all. She claims that money goes to companies who then have to hire people to meet the increased demand.
First, there is no indication food stamps or unemployment increases demand enough to force any company to hire more employees. But even assuming it does, here is the great flaw in her "thinking" (I use the term "thinking" in a very loose sense when referring to Pelosi).
The average business has a profit margin of 4-20%. Most run at the low end. Assuming a profit margin of even 10% on average, it would require $300,000 in subsidies like food stamps to provide a company with just $30,000 profit - enough to pay for an employee. But it gets worse. A company cannot use all its profits for hiring because, in order to increase production they must aslso increase costs, like the cost of inventory on goods needed to produce their product. So, in order to pay a new employee $30,000, the company would have to collect closer to $1.2 million dollars worth of subsidies like food stamps.
$1.2 million spent to create one $30,000 job. And since most Americans earning $30,000 pay ZERO taxes, none of that money makes it back to the Treasury.
Again, I have tried running the numbers in every possible light and could find no way to make a spent dollar come out to $1.79. Except one...
When money is given, free, to lower income people, it earns their support. By Democrats increasing the amount of food stamps and unemployment, they increase the number of people who are indebted to them, and will vote for them to insure the money keeps coming. This is the ONLY scenario in which a spent dollar earns a profit in votes and power for Democrats.
That said, on the other hand a dollar invested rather than spent can, indeed, result in $1.79 return. Investing money is the ONLY way to make it grow. Hence, if those dollars were given to small businesses (which employ 97% of all employees), the money could be used directly for growth, which means hiring. After all, the only reason for selling shares of a business to investors is to provide growth capital.
The figures do not lie. I wish I could say the same for people like Speaker Pelosi.
Ms Pelosi, if there is a way to turn $1.00 of taxpayer money into $1.79, perhaps you should pass a law that forces the U.S. Treasury to use the method. We could then pay off our debt and deficits in no time at all.
Now, I'm sure there will be those who will claim I am advocating putting an end to entitlements, but there is nothing in this post that says I am against food stamps or unemployment. I am not. But I am against giving so much, for so long to people who COULD be caring for themselves but just do not want to. Fully 70% of all government entitlements are wasted; given not to the needy, but to the clueless and useless. The government needs to put "welfare" back into local hands, and the federal governments only role should be to make sure all localities are doing the job. Local communities know who is needy and who is just lazy.
By cutting even 50% of the waste, we can do much more to help those who really need it while saving taxpayer money. Instead of giving $100 to needy Joe and $100 to lazy Mike, we could give $150 to needy Joe and put $50 back into the Treasury. Lazy Mike can fend for himself.
Frankly, I am tired of giving my hard-earned money to drug-dealers, drunks and child molesters simply because they "qualify" using "income guidelines". Instead of using income guidelines, we need to start using more sensible methods of determining need, such as physical ability, mental ability and/or unforeseen personal crisis (short term only). Everyone else can and should fend for themselves.
Except for the severely impaired mentioned above, everyone can earn a living. Nothing stops a poor person from getting a job of some sort, or if that is not possible, to give themselves a job by hiring out. Be the local handyman. Do baking or housekeeping for busy people. Do shopping for busy people. Mow lawns. Everyone can do something.
When the steelworker's union killed the company I was working for in '72 I could have collected unemployment and food stamps. Instead, I grabbed my wife's ballpoint paints and painted T-shirts. It paid the bills, along with some metal detecting on the side. And again in '76 when I got laid off at my newest job, I supported my family by starting a small business that connected local college students with residents who needed work done - I would send Don over to put up Mrs. Murray's storm windows, and Margie would go over to babysit for the Davisons. My "Work For Education" company provided a lot of cash in commissions, without me having to work very hard at all. After all, instead of earning 100% of one income I was earning 10% of 50 incomes.
The point is this - if someone is incapable of supporting themselves due to causes not within their control, help them. Everyone else needs to help themselves or pay the consequences - if they get desperate enough, they will work. Even homeless drunks go "canning", picking up aluminum cans and cashing them in so they could buy their next bottle of MD 20/20.
The short take - Pelosi and other liberals care nothing about helping the poor. All they want to do is stay in power, and are using the disadvantaged for that purpose. They are simply buying gratitude - and votes. It's time to take the politics out of charity and to do more to help those who truly are needy.
/
Friday, October 8, 2010
Obama Indicates He Is Not President Of The U.S.
Let's get something straight right at the start - anyone elected to be the POTUS is supposed to be the President of ALL people in the U.S. But Mr. Obama does not believe that, nor does he act accordingly. Rather, he has set himself up, publicly, as the President of the Democrats and Liberals of the United States.
I have gone over several hundred tapes, and in every case where Obama got in front of the camera he made it a point to be partisan - to slam Republicans at every opportunity. Sometimes for no other reason than they are Republican. Never once did we see President Bush do that.
Mr. Obama, if you cannot act like EVERYONE'S president, without bias, then you should step down and let a real leader step up to the plate. Someone who wants to represent ALL Americans, and not just those who agree with your personal ideology.
You are a disgrace, Mr. President. And I am beginning to suspect that when you got up to the podium the other day, proclaiming to be President, that it was an Act of God that the Presidential Seal fell off the podium. At the very least, it would appear to be an omen.
Mr. Obama, you were elected to be the President of ALL Americans. Start acting like you know what that means. It means setting your partisan ideology aside, leaving that to Congress, as THEY were elected to represent their party. You were not! Stop acting like a cheap community organizer and start acting like a President or get out of the way for someone who will. Even Biden would be more qualified - at least he understands what integrity is.
/
I have gone over several hundred tapes, and in every case where Obama got in front of the camera he made it a point to be partisan - to slam Republicans at every opportunity. Sometimes for no other reason than they are Republican. Never once did we see President Bush do that.
Mr. Obama, if you cannot act like EVERYONE'S president, without bias, then you should step down and let a real leader step up to the plate. Someone who wants to represent ALL Americans, and not just those who agree with your personal ideology.
You are a disgrace, Mr. President. And I am beginning to suspect that when you got up to the podium the other day, proclaiming to be President, that it was an Act of God that the Presidential Seal fell off the podium. At the very least, it would appear to be an omen.
Mr. Obama, you were elected to be the President of ALL Americans. Start acting like you know what that means. It means setting your partisan ideology aside, leaving that to Congress, as THEY were elected to represent their party. You were not! Stop acting like a cheap community organizer and start acting like a President or get out of the way for someone who will. Even Biden would be more qualified - at least he understands what integrity is.
/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)