Here are a couple articles that give varying perspectives on the bailout. This is obviously a difficult issue that not even Republicans can agree on. I recommend you read both articles in order to understand the differing viewpoints.
Article in favor of the bailout
Article opposing the bailout
Guilty Party
An ACORN falls from the Tree
Democrat Leaders Played to Lose
Monday, September 29, 2008
How McCain Wins
Not racist to reject Obama
Obama and the Reagan Doctrine
Obama in Leftland
Here's some more explanation about the current financial downturn. Not suprisingly, the mainstream media isn't covering this. McCain must hit this point home.
Obama's Dangerous Pals
Blame Fannie Mae and Congress for the Credit Mess
Franks fingerprints are all over the financial fiasco
Financial Affirmative Action
Not racist to reject Obama
Obama and the Reagan Doctrine
Obama in Leftland
Here's some more explanation about the current financial downturn. Not suprisingly, the mainstream media isn't covering this. McCain must hit this point home.
Obama's Dangerous Pals
Blame Fannie Mae and Congress for the Credit Mess
Franks fingerprints are all over the financial fiasco
Financial Affirmative Action
Friday, September 26, 2008
I'm about to leave for the weekend and I don't have a lot of time, but here are just a few...
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTc4MDFjNzdhMjFjNDcwNTdhMzgyZDQ1NmRhMjQ5Yzg==
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/25/AR2008092503602.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
http://townhall.com/columnists/JonahGoldberg/2008/09/26/gray_lady_dons_a_cheerleader_skirt?page=full&comments=true
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/sep/26/fear-conomics/
http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/608daafj.asp?pg=1
http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/609phfzu.asp?pg=2
http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=76234
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTc4MDFjNzdhMjFjNDcwNTdhMzgyZDQ1NmRhMjQ5Yzg==
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/25/AR2008092503602.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
http://townhall.com/columnists/JonahGoldberg/2008/09/26/gray_lady_dons_a_cheerleader_skirt?page=full&comments=true
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/sep/26/fear-conomics/
http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/608daafj.asp?pg=1
http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/609phfzu.asp?pg=2
http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=76234
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
It seems like most articles I have read in the past several days all address the failure on Wallstreet and the potential for a Washington bailout. So rather than continue to add more links to articles that point fingers or provide solutions, I figure I would just write a little something.
Unfortunately, I great deal of the American public is being fooled by the Obama campaign's pledge to lower taxes on the middle class (while raising taxes on the "rich"). Obama claims that he will lower taxes for 95% of American families. In actuality this may be true, Obama's tax plan could reduce income tax rates on the middle class. However, this is where liberal "logic" stops.
While Obama preaches that he will protect the middle class by providing tax cuts, he also says he will punish those big, bad corporations like the evil oil companies by raising the corporate tax rate.
First of all, I constantly hear democratic politicians chastizing the greedy oil companies for their outlandish profits. Since when should their be a limit to a company's profits? Companies should be allowed to be successful but not too successful? What about Hollywood? Is Congress going to step in and say the movie-making industry is too profitable therefore we have the right to confiscate some of their earnings? Isn't that the point of capitalism... for companies to make money and to make as much as they can? It is easy to get upset at oil companies who many think are exploiting the consumer. But just like any other industry, the consumer can refuse to buy the product. Yes, I know gas in considered a necessity, unlike going to the movies, but when people become unsatisfied with a product they begin looking elsewhere, opening the door for innovation and cheaper alternatives (ie. new technologies or more fuel-efficient cars.)
Staying on point, raising corporate taxes will not punish greedy corporations as Obama suggests. This is where the average American with a limited understanding of the economy is left disillusioned. Every business sets necessary profit margins. These profit margins must be met in order for companies to stay in business. Higher corporate tax rates do not change this truth. If a company is taxed more, they must do something to compensate for their loss. Namely, raise the cost of their product. This means that higher corporate tax rates are not paid for by the businesses but by the consumer who now must pay a higher price for goods. So the thousand dollars that may be saved by middle class families from income tax cuts will prove completely meaningless when the cost of living increases due to higher corporate taxes. Don't be fooled, middle class Americans. This is simple economics...simple economics that Obama must not understand or simply is trying to disguise. No one will benefit from Obama's "tax cuts."
Unfortunately, I great deal of the American public is being fooled by the Obama campaign's pledge to lower taxes on the middle class (while raising taxes on the "rich"). Obama claims that he will lower taxes for 95% of American families. In actuality this may be true, Obama's tax plan could reduce income tax rates on the middle class. However, this is where liberal "logic" stops.
While Obama preaches that he will protect the middle class by providing tax cuts, he also says he will punish those big, bad corporations like the evil oil companies by raising the corporate tax rate.
First of all, I constantly hear democratic politicians chastizing the greedy oil companies for their outlandish profits. Since when should their be a limit to a company's profits? Companies should be allowed to be successful but not too successful? What about Hollywood? Is Congress going to step in and say the movie-making industry is too profitable therefore we have the right to confiscate some of their earnings? Isn't that the point of capitalism... for companies to make money and to make as much as they can? It is easy to get upset at oil companies who many think are exploiting the consumer. But just like any other industry, the consumer can refuse to buy the product. Yes, I know gas in considered a necessity, unlike going to the movies, but when people become unsatisfied with a product they begin looking elsewhere, opening the door for innovation and cheaper alternatives (ie. new technologies or more fuel-efficient cars.)
Staying on point, raising corporate taxes will not punish greedy corporations as Obama suggests. This is where the average American with a limited understanding of the economy is left disillusioned. Every business sets necessary profit margins. These profit margins must be met in order for companies to stay in business. Higher corporate tax rates do not change this truth. If a company is taxed more, they must do something to compensate for their loss. Namely, raise the cost of their product. This means that higher corporate tax rates are not paid for by the businesses but by the consumer who now must pay a higher price for goods. So the thousand dollars that may be saved by middle class families from income tax cuts will prove completely meaningless when the cost of living increases due to higher corporate taxes. Don't be fooled, middle class Americans. This is simple economics...simple economics that Obama must not understand or simply is trying to disguise. No one will benefit from Obama's "tax cuts."
Friday, September 19,2008
Here is your list of required reading heading into the weekend.
This article goes along perfectly with what I wrote about yesterday.
Scapegoating Tax Cuts
Foreign Affairs:
The Irrationality of Anti-Americanism
We are Losing Europe to Islam
Lastly...
The Future of Bush's Legacy
This article goes along perfectly with what I wrote about yesterday.
Scapegoating Tax Cuts
Here's a few more dealing with economic issues:
The whole story to the financial meltdown
Obama is tight with Freddie and Fannie
More on the race:
Obama is stoking racial antagonism
Obama Releasing his In-Your-Face Hounds
Catholics Condemn BidenForeign Affairs:
The Irrationality of Anti-Americanism
We are Losing Europe to Islam
Lastly...
The Future of Bush's Legacy
Thursday, September 18, 2008
A Very "UnAmerican" Answer to Solving Our Financial Woes
I'm only posting a couple links today in order to emphasis a subject that has been on my mind recently...
Obama and the Democratic party are advocating raising taxes on the "rich" in order to correct the "unfairness" of our "tickle down economy." First of all, a "tickle down economy" is a socialist's way of describing capitalism. They think that the "rich" undeservedly hoard all of America's wealth, leaving little to be shared by the middle and lower class. Obama's solution to this problem is nothing short of wealth redistribution. Basically, this amounts to Robin Hood economics: Steal from the "rich" and give to the poor.
According to Obama, the current tax code is "unfair" and is causing the middle and lower classes to suffer. Let's look at some figures to illustrate just how "unfair" the current tax system is. The top 50% of wage earners pay over 96% of all federal income taxes. The top 10% of wage earners pay around 65% of all federal income taxes. The top 1% of all wage earners pay about 35% of all federal income taxes. Therefore, the top 1% of wage earners pay 10 times more in income taxes then the bottom 50%. I must agree with Obama, this tax system seems to be unfair, indeed. However, Obama believes it to be unfair for an entirely different reason... he thinks the "rich" need to pay more. What he fails to acknowledge is that since the Bush tax cuts, the federal government's tax revenue has increased by about 20%. Therefore, its not that Washington is not raking in enough money from taxes, they are just spending too much. Washington's spending will only increase if Obama is elected, considering his plan to socialize the health care industry. (A real problem with socialized medicine, besides the fact that it overextends government responsibility and authority, is that there is no cost control, however, that is an entirely new subject altogether.) Note: When you hear Obama say "tax cuts" for the lower class, just insert the word "handouts."
Without further addressing the "unfairness" that also accompanies the capital gains, payroll, and dividends taxes, I think it is important to focus on the language that Obama and Biden have used recently when speaking of taxes. As one of the articles above reports, Biden said it is "patriotic" to pay more taxes. He thinks that if the "rich" were to pay higher taxes, they should feel satisfied in having providing government handouts to the poor, thus creating a greater sense of equality. (I have no doubt Karl Marx would agree.) This sentiment exposed a fundamental difference between conservatives and liberals, which I have come to discover. Conservatives believe in equal opportunity. Liberals, on the other hand, believe in equal outcome. Meaning regardless of how hard you work or how smart you are, liberals believe everyone deserves an equal piece of the pie. (This is yet another subject that could be discussed in greater depth.)
One question I have is if patriotism is directly proportional to paying more taxes, then I guess the middle class is less patriotic since they pay less taxes, right?
This statement is of even greater concern, considering Biden's recently released tax returns that show he has only given around $3000 to charity in the last nine years. (The link to this article is on my previous posting.) Oh, and by the way, he made nearly $3 million during this time period! This perfectly illustrates liberals' idea of the role of government. They believe the government should assume complete responsibility for the less fortunate and should dictate where my money is spent; therefore, freeing me of all individual responsibility and making the recipients of the money over-reliant on government aid.
Obama recently made a similar remark when interviewed by Bill O'Reilly. He compared paying more taxes to giving a larger tip to a waitress who is not as financially well-off. He is confusing the role of government and the role of the individual. The act of tipping a waitress or donating money to charity should only occur due to the freewill of the individual, not government force. Having your money confiscated by the government and redistributed is not charity. It is socialism.
Government should not be likened to the Salvation Army and the tax system should not provide for the redistribution of wealth. Limited taxation with limited government encourages a more vibrant economy for all to share. Now, I know that paying taxes is a necessary evil; however, I believe patriotism is not best revealed by paying higher taxes but when the individual is given the opportunity to spend and donate his money freely.
Monday, September 15, 2008
McCain: The true bipartisan candidate
Life of the party returning at last
Antidisestablishmentarianism
Why feminists hate Sarah Palin
Duty, Honor, Country... and Columbia
Yet another questionable Obama relationship
Roy Blunt article: Bait and Switch
Barney Frank and the politics of family values
Biden the Philanthropic
Life of the party returning at last
Antidisestablishmentarianism
Why feminists hate Sarah Palin
Duty, Honor, Country... and Columbia
Yet another questionable Obama relationship
Roy Blunt article: Bait and Switch
Barney Frank and the politics of family values
Biden the Philanthropic
Friday, September 12, 2008
Gov. Palin's first interview as VP nominee...
Let Sarah be Sarah
"Tough" interview
Gibson called out
The not-so-one-dimensional Bush Doctrine
Its a race!
Feminists Exposed
Obama's Tax Policy
Sen. Jim DeMint's defense of Palin as fiscal conservative
Today, Sen. John McCain was a guest on The View. During the interview, he discussed the need for the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade, allowing states to then pass legislation restricting abortion. Whoopi Goldberg then interjected, "Should I be worried about being a slave again?" Using completely flawed logic (as is common among liberals), she thinks the practice of strict constitutionalism would bring about the reinstatement of slavery. She might want to read the Constitution more often (or for the first time), particularly the 13th Amendment, which bans slavery. Let it be noted that slavery was not banned by a judicial ruling of the Supreme Court. When Congress passed the 13th Amendment in 1865, it became part of the Constitution. Therefore, strict constitutionalism, by definition, firmly upholds the illegality of slavery. Unfortunately, McCain gave a poor response, basically conceding the point to Whoopi.
This exchange reminded me of a recent article by Ann Coulter, which further points out liberal hypocrisy (or maybe just lack of intellect.)
Let Sarah be Sarah
"Tough" interview
Gibson called out
The not-so-one-dimensional Bush Doctrine
Its a race!
Feminists Exposed
Obama's Tax Policy
Sen. Jim DeMint's defense of Palin as fiscal conservative
Today, Sen. John McCain was a guest on The View. During the interview, he discussed the need for the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade, allowing states to then pass legislation restricting abortion. Whoopi Goldberg then interjected, "Should I be worried about being a slave again?" Using completely flawed logic (as is common among liberals), she thinks the practice of strict constitutionalism would bring about the reinstatement of slavery. She might want to read the Constitution more often (or for the first time), particularly the 13th Amendment, which bans slavery. Let it be noted that slavery was not banned by a judicial ruling of the Supreme Court. When Congress passed the 13th Amendment in 1865, it became part of the Constitution. Therefore, strict constitutionalism, by definition, firmly upholds the illegality of slavery. Unfortunately, McCain gave a poor response, basically conceding the point to Whoopi.
This exchange reminded me of a recent article by Ann Coulter, which further points out liberal hypocrisy (or maybe just lack of intellect.)
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
