If one reads the website for the World Socialist Movement, one is left with a Utopian view. Everyone will voluntarily work at what they most want to and share goods in common that are produced only for use, according the website. Karl Marx was a little more blunt, and called for a proletarian revolution, while Socialist Action states that socialism can not be enacted through normal democratic processes, and calls for mass protest and revolution. Don't panic! Obama isn't going to start a world-revolution , and I doubt anyone cares whether or not he shared toys or a peanut butter sandwich. Because despite the Utopian language of some, and revolutionary language of others, the heart of socialism is the sacrifice of individual liberty for the sake of collective thinking and control of production. That is the heart of socialism. I've heard plenty of people state that they wouldn't mind a little sacrifice of liberty in exchange for care and justice for the poor, state health care, and yes, some wealth redistribution - that is as long as they were on the receiving end. But that's one of the main problems with socialism. It tells us that we all need to help each other, and then whips right around and tells us that some of us are too successful and others deserve a share of that success. This concept reminds me of Barry Goldwater's 1964 Republican Convention acceptance speech where he famously said, "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also, that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." There is no vice, in the mind of the socialist, in extreme redistribution, and their is no virtue in moderating that stance.
Now I am a Christian, and the Bible has more verses about the poor and destitute than just about any other subject. It is my Christian duty to provide true charity (love) to any who need and want it. That is my Christian duty. But is it the responsibility of the state? Most of us could agree that the state should bear a collective responsibility to help those who truly need help, particularly those who, for whatever reason, can not physically work or better themselves. But what about those who can. If I out-compete my neighbor, and earn $10K more a year, is he entitled to some of my earnings, simply because I did better? I don't believe that. Further, every state that has tried this system long-term has failed, been forced to change, or exists in a perpetual twilight (ala Cuba). It's very true that Capitalism unchecked descends into chaotic greed, and that all Capitalism rests in part on some measure of competition. But, socialism is a disincentivizing system. It reward mediocrity.
Competition is what motivates individuals to push hard, to succeed beyond the expectations of their social setting. That is the very heart of the Middle Class in the US - a desire to better oneself, rather than to be assigned a place in society, and have nothing to work for. Competition increases a society's wealth and productivity. Socialism makes society dependent on the government . That is why McCain and Palin have been labeling Obama a socialist. Not because he shared something, but because he wants to share other people's somethings, and then convince them it was all their idea in the first place. And even if Obama is only moderately socialist in his leanings, even if Biden was really just making another 'gaffe' when he declared that the tax increases would begin at $150K, there is Congress to contend to. The current Congressional leadership (note to the constituencies of these clowns - vote them out!) has made it very clear that they will push for redistribution, and that the burden will start at incomes far lower than $250K.
Tomorrow (well, later today) - taxes. For now, go to the name link below for a hilarious take on the election. The video is on Slashdot.org. It was posted by samzepus, and I bow to his creativity.
Showing posts with label biden. Show all posts
Showing posts with label biden. Show all posts
31 October 2008
25 October 2008
Fuzzy Math
Sen. Obama's tax and spending proposals have been dissected in this blog and elsewhere ad nauseum, so I will not dwell on all of them here. My concern in this article is to specifically address the blatant attempts on the part of the Obama campaign do deceive through fuzzy math. The deception specifically relates that most basic of household activities, balancing a checkbook. A caveat: I do not always succeed at this activity myself (mostly from failure to take time), so I can relate to someone who might struggle to do so. I can not however, excuse a planned, deliberate national policy that is not only designed to end in imbalance, but is designed to deceive the public.
Our national debt currently stands at over $1 trillion. Obama's proposed plans for tax rebates and increased spending, amount to around $1.6 trillion. Additionally, he proposes an additional $1.4 trillion according to the National Taxpayers Union. Multiple reports have stated that Obama's proposals would dramatically increase the deficit, would eventually increase taxes on the very middle class he purports to protect, and would slow growth just as we're entering a global recession. Would people get money from from the government under Obama's plans? Yes they would. Would these policies be the best way to grow the economy and spread opportunity (rather than 'the wealth')? No they would not. It is physically impossible for 5% of the populace to take care of a $4 trillion + deficit, and the demands that the Obama policies place on business and individuals in exchange for the benefits they supposedly will receive are onerous at best. The government should be in the business of creating a favorable climate for growth, and then allowing that to succeed or fail, not ensuring that everyone is the same. Freedom and equality depend on limits on government action as much as they do on government action.
How are we going to pay for this massive deficit under the Obama plan? We don't know for certain since Obama has been particularly vague (even more than normally) in stating if he would cut any spending, and what his intentions toward the deficit are. We might have some clues however. In an interview on CNBC the other day, Rep. Barney Franks alternately said we should forget the deficit for awhile and find the 'plenty of other rich people' out there to increase taxes on. There have been several reports examining a possible market reaction to the anti-growth nature of the Obama proposals recently, and of course, we Obama's promise to spread the wealth and Biden's statement that paying taxes is our religious and patriotic duty.
I would agree that paying taxes are necessary and important for government functions. I would even agree that there's a case to be made for increasing the tax rate somewhat on higher income levels. But I find it ludicrous that liberals are constantly referring to all increased taxes as 'progressive' and all decreased taxes as 'regressive' (particularly as concerns higher income tax brackets). The higher the burden a small or middle-sized business has to bear, the less they'll be able to pay for additional work-force. If a small business is pulling in a million a year, after paying the additional taxes under the Obama plan (which the owner is charged at an individual rate as if the business income is a personal take for the owner), the additional health care, the additional Medicare, overhead costs, and reinvestment in the business, there would be precious little left to make the business worthwhile. If the owner then invested what little he or she took home, Obama would then increase the rate of the capitol gains tax paid upon those investments, and increase the tax rate upon the inheritance built over the years.
The Obama policies are quite simply, anti-growth. They are socialist in nature, but worse, they will hand a tremendous deficit down at least several generations. What really bothers me the most, is the consistent attempt by Obama and Biden to sell these policies, in the vaguest of terms, as helpful to the middle-class. These proposals simply don't add up, and are deceptive. This is not change we can believe in. In fact, it's our patriotic duty to vote against it.
Our national debt currently stands at over $1 trillion. Obama's proposed plans for tax rebates and increased spending, amount to around $1.6 trillion. Additionally, he proposes an additional $1.4 trillion according to the National Taxpayers Union. Multiple reports have stated that Obama's proposals would dramatically increase the deficit, would eventually increase taxes on the very middle class he purports to protect, and would slow growth just as we're entering a global recession. Would people get money from from the government under Obama's plans? Yes they would. Would these policies be the best way to grow the economy and spread opportunity (rather than 'the wealth')? No they would not. It is physically impossible for 5% of the populace to take care of a $4 trillion + deficit, and the demands that the Obama policies place on business and individuals in exchange for the benefits they supposedly will receive are onerous at best. The government should be in the business of creating a favorable climate for growth, and then allowing that to succeed or fail, not ensuring that everyone is the same. Freedom and equality depend on limits on government action as much as they do on government action.
How are we going to pay for this massive deficit under the Obama plan? We don't know for certain since Obama has been particularly vague (even more than normally) in stating if he would cut any spending, and what his intentions toward the deficit are. We might have some clues however. In an interview on CNBC the other day, Rep. Barney Franks alternately said we should forget the deficit for awhile and find the 'plenty of other rich people' out there to increase taxes on. There have been several reports examining a possible market reaction to the anti-growth nature of the Obama proposals recently, and of course, we Obama's promise to spread the wealth and Biden's statement that paying taxes is our religious and patriotic duty.
I would agree that paying taxes are necessary and important for government functions. I would even agree that there's a case to be made for increasing the tax rate somewhat on higher income levels. But I find it ludicrous that liberals are constantly referring to all increased taxes as 'progressive' and all decreased taxes as 'regressive' (particularly as concerns higher income tax brackets). The higher the burden a small or middle-sized business has to bear, the less they'll be able to pay for additional work-force. If a small business is pulling in a million a year, after paying the additional taxes under the Obama plan (which the owner is charged at an individual rate as if the business income is a personal take for the owner), the additional health care, the additional Medicare, overhead costs, and reinvestment in the business, there would be precious little left to make the business worthwhile. If the owner then invested what little he or she took home, Obama would then increase the rate of the capitol gains tax paid upon those investments, and increase the tax rate upon the inheritance built over the years.
The Obama policies are quite simply, anti-growth. They are socialist in nature, but worse, they will hand a tremendous deficit down at least several generations. What really bothers me the most, is the consistent attempt by Obama and Biden to sell these policies, in the vaguest of terms, as helpful to the middle-class. These proposals simply don't add up, and are deceptive. This is not change we can believe in. In fact, it's our patriotic duty to vote against it.
18 October 2008
Obama Defends ACORN
The Obama campaign is no longer just acknowledging that ACORN is under investigation, and 'apparently' engaged in filing illegal registrations (for which some of its members bribed the registrants). Now, the Obama campaign is calling for a special prosecutor, the AG no longer being good enough for these complaints, alleging partisan politics, false accusations of voter fraud, and the specter of fired state attorneys. Hmmm, seems to me when the same individual can register multiple times, when the dead are registered, and when ACORN is under investigation for false filings in nine states, that we can fairly claim fraud has occurred. Except for those states where early voting has already occurred, voter fraud can't be alleged yet, but fraud there was. When registrants report bribery and coercion to register in a certain direction (or at all), that's fraud folks. To quote the estimable Sen. Biden, "if it walks like a duck ... it is a duck."
Freep.com reports that:
'Bauer said there appears to be an “unholy alliance” between law enforcement officials and Republican officials, including presidential nominee John McCain’s campaign. In his letter, Bauer said in a footnote that several of the nominee’s supporters in Congress have written to the Justice Department “pressuring them to investigate ACORN.”'
Well, yes, they probably have written to the Justice Dept., and I'm sure they have their own partisan leanings, but since we have wide-spread allegation of fraudulent registrations in multiple states (all of which are conveniently must-have states) demanding an investigation is the Congress' job.
'Obama does have ties to the group, though he has repeatedly said they are straightforward. He was one of a group of lawyers – including Justice Department representatives – who represented ACORN, the League of Women Voters and other groups in a voter registration case against the state of Illinois in the 1990s, and he also sat on a foundation board which gave money to the community organizing group. Obama – a former community organizer – also attended training sessions for the group in the past but never worked for it.'
Hey, Sen. Obama, why not take a stand for shedding light on the situation rather than trying to suppress information. Oh, that's right, suppression is only something Republicans do, right?
Click the title for a link to the full story, and let me know what you think.
Freep.com reports that:
'Bauer said there appears to be an “unholy alliance” between law enforcement officials and Republican officials, including presidential nominee John McCain’s campaign. In his letter, Bauer said in a footnote that several of the nominee’s supporters in Congress have written to the Justice Department “pressuring them to investigate ACORN.”'
Well, yes, they probably have written to the Justice Dept., and I'm sure they have their own partisan leanings, but since we have wide-spread allegation of fraudulent registrations in multiple states (all of which are conveniently must-have states) demanding an investigation is the Congress' job.
'Obama does have ties to the group, though he has repeatedly said they are straightforward. He was one of a group of lawyers – including Justice Department representatives – who represented ACORN, the League of Women Voters and other groups in a voter registration case against the state of Illinois in the 1990s, and he also sat on a foundation board which gave money to the community organizing group. Obama – a former community organizer – also attended training sessions for the group in the past but never worked for it.'
Hey, Sen. Obama, why not take a stand for shedding light on the situation rather than trying to suppress information. Oh, that's right, suppression is only something Republicans do, right?
Click the title for a link to the full story, and let me know what you think.
03 October 2008
Serbs, Croats and Bosniacs, O My!
Tonight's VP debate was spirited, serious and hard-hitting. I have to draw the same conclusion I did with last week's debate; stylistically, it was a tie. Both candidates hit their talking points well, and didn't disgrace themselves.
I think Gov. Palin clearly made the point, through her very person and mannerisms, that she doesn't just talk about the middle class, she is the middle class. Sen. Biden was dignified and didn't fall into some of his usual speaking problems.
One thing I wish that Gov. Palin had hammered home more concretely pertains to the tax cuts/tax increases debate. The Obama campaign says that it will cut taxes for 90% of the working public, raise taxes on the remaining 10%, and increase spending programs almost across the board. It also says that in addition to raising taxes on the 10% of the public, it will offset tax cuts and spending increases by withdrawing troops from Iraq. There are some basic problems with these policies. First, the President does not levy or cut taxes - Congress does. More importantly, the math is 'funny.' How 10% of the populace, no matter how wealthy they may individually be, will support the remainder of the country, I don't know. Warren Buffet has managed to bail out two companies. Do you really think he can take care of all of them? Additionally, about 50% of those 90% pay little to no taxes to begin with. That means that a tax 'refund' is simply put, a redistribution of wealth. I would certainly benefit from a tax cut, but I don't want tax monies going into a cash handout. I would rather build business, increase the job market and get more people moved into higher tax brackets. Finally, cutting funding in Iraq, while also trying to dramatically increase the size of the military (particularly the Army) and shift effort to Afghanistan will in no way free up funding. It will simply shift the funding into a new category. These facts combined with the Obama and Biden histories of voting for tax increases bely their claims to enact major tax reductions. While Gov. Palin touched on all of these, I have yet to hear the campaign attack this in a cogent, efficient fashion.
I also wish that the McCain campaign would stop pussy-footing around hitting the Dems on Fannie and Freddie. The well-circulated video of Barney Frank spewing over any attempts to cut or regulate Fannie and Freddie, combined with the multiple attempts on the part of Sen. McCain to get any kind of reasonable regulation of the mortgage industry would make a perfect ad spot (if you haven't seen it, it's in my blog from several days ago) - I don't know why they haven't used it effectively.
All-in-all, it was a good debate. We await the polls!
Finally (and off topic), if you link to this site (http://blip.tv/file/1310113) you can see the brainwashing of the youngest Obama-fans. It's right in line with his campaign's attempt to sue stations for broadcasting any advertisement deemed offensive or 'untruthful' to the campaign.
I think Gov. Palin clearly made the point, through her very person and mannerisms, that she doesn't just talk about the middle class, she is the middle class. Sen. Biden was dignified and didn't fall into some of his usual speaking problems.
One thing I wish that Gov. Palin had hammered home more concretely pertains to the tax cuts/tax increases debate. The Obama campaign says that it will cut taxes for 90% of the working public, raise taxes on the remaining 10%, and increase spending programs almost across the board. It also says that in addition to raising taxes on the 10% of the public, it will offset tax cuts and spending increases by withdrawing troops from Iraq. There are some basic problems with these policies. First, the President does not levy or cut taxes - Congress does. More importantly, the math is 'funny.' How 10% of the populace, no matter how wealthy they may individually be, will support the remainder of the country, I don't know. Warren Buffet has managed to bail out two companies. Do you really think he can take care of all of them? Additionally, about 50% of those 90% pay little to no taxes to begin with. That means that a tax 'refund' is simply put, a redistribution of wealth. I would certainly benefit from a tax cut, but I don't want tax monies going into a cash handout. I would rather build business, increase the job market and get more people moved into higher tax brackets. Finally, cutting funding in Iraq, while also trying to dramatically increase the size of the military (particularly the Army) and shift effort to Afghanistan will in no way free up funding. It will simply shift the funding into a new category. These facts combined with the Obama and Biden histories of voting for tax increases bely their claims to enact major tax reductions. While Gov. Palin touched on all of these, I have yet to hear the campaign attack this in a cogent, efficient fashion.
I also wish that the McCain campaign would stop pussy-footing around hitting the Dems on Fannie and Freddie. The well-circulated video of Barney Frank spewing over any attempts to cut or regulate Fannie and Freddie, combined with the multiple attempts on the part of Sen. McCain to get any kind of reasonable regulation of the mortgage industry would make a perfect ad spot (if you haven't seen it, it's in my blog from several days ago) - I don't know why they haven't used it effectively.
All-in-all, it was a good debate. We await the polls!
Finally (and off topic), if you link to this site (http://blip.tv/file/1310113) you can see the brainwashing of the youngest Obama-fans. It's right in line with his campaign's attempt to sue stations for broadcasting any advertisement deemed offensive or 'untruthful' to the campaign.
01 October 2008
The VP Debate
Much has been made recently, by right-leaning writers, on the treatment of Gov. Palin by the media. I for one, didn't find it absolutely out of bounds that Charlie Gibson looked at her over the top of his glasses (I just thought he looked at little ridiculous). And the demands by the Atlantic that she submit amniotic fluid for testing to prove that Trig is her baby just helped the McCain campaign by being so obviously in the tank for Obama. But the National Review article linked here addresses a far more serious and subtle type of potential partisanship in media coverage of the campaign. When I was in ROTC and OBC, training to be a military officer, one of the principles of conduct hammered into my head was to 'avoid the semblance of misconduct.' We were taught that appearance does matter. It matters that an officer present him/herself in such a way that it would not be likely that an outside observer would assume that one's behavior is dishonorable. Ms. Ifill may very well be able to conduct herself as a neutral moderator, despite her personal preferences. But, her open promotion over the previous months of Sen. Obama and his campaign, present the appearance of partisanship. Is is any wonder that many observers assume that she will engage in misconduct?
17 September 2008
Agent of Change
Sen. Obama has claimed to be the one who would change Washington, bring change to the country, bring change to the world. And yet ... what would he change and how? He refused to help even encourage change in the Illinois State legislature (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/09/obama_sidesteps_
reform_in_illi.html); having lived there for some time, I genuinely wish he would. He has accomplished no change in the U.S. Senate since arriving there two years ago. He has not sponsored, co-sponsored or authored any legislation to enact real reform. Sen. Obama's campaign has mocked Sen. McCain for having 'current' (in fact, they're all former) lobbyists on the campaign payroll, while ignoring the many lobbyists who are volunteers on his. Sen. Biden's son just resigned his position as a paid-lobbyist, having cosily achieved favorable regulation and funding for firms he lobbied for that his father signed off on. Sen. McCain has a clear record of working hard for change in Washington. Following the S&L crisis in '88 (looking at this is a good way to put the current bank failures in perspective), he began a 20-year campaign against earmarks and lobbyist perks. He has sponsored and co-authored several pieces of legislation aimed at limiting lobbyist influence. He has religiously campaigned against earmarks, to the point of voting against legislation he would normally favor to protest the pork. So who will bring the change? It'll be the one whose actually done it already.
reform_in_illi.html); having lived there for some time, I genuinely wish he would. He has accomplished no change in the U.S. Senate since arriving there two years ago. He has not sponsored, co-sponsored or authored any legislation to enact real reform. Sen. Obama's campaign has mocked Sen. McCain for having 'current' (in fact, they're all former) lobbyists on the campaign payroll, while ignoring the many lobbyists who are volunteers on his. Sen. Biden's son just resigned his position as a paid-lobbyist, having cosily achieved favorable regulation and funding for firms he lobbied for that his father signed off on. Sen. McCain has a clear record of working hard for change in Washington. Following the S&L crisis in '88 (looking at this is a good way to put the current bank failures in perspective), he began a 20-year campaign against earmarks and lobbyist perks. He has sponsored and co-authored several pieces of legislation aimed at limiting lobbyist influence. He has religiously campaigned against earmarks, to the point of voting against legislation he would normally favor to protest the pork. So who will bring the change? It'll be the one whose actually done it already.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)