Socialism Alerts Blog
Featured Blogs
Latest News!
Written By
Comment Count
Comment Last Three
September 03, 2010
Site Blog
Make no mistake: this is a battle on principle that has often put me at odds with members of my own party. You see, I feel strongly that it makes no sense to elect Republicans who aren't going to act like Republicans. Too many of my Senate colleagues thought that being a Republican was merely their vehicle to get elected. Instead of cutting government spending, they consistently voted to increase spending! Instead of serving the American people ...A special message from:
|
Year after year, I saw my own party hurt viable conservative candidates by inexplicably supporting liberal candidate who had no intention of upholding their limited government campaign rhetoric. And as I spoke to voters and fellow conservatives, I could see that I was not alone in my frustration. 
As Steve Moore points out in the 
At the time, the same establishment that attacked me for endorsing the conservative Pat Toomey over Arlen Specter had inexplicably recruited and endorsed Florida Governor Charlie Crist for this seat. 
After this victory, we continued to fight the good fight. Over the last year, the Senate Conservatives Fund has made key endorsements in races across the country. 
Jim DeMint
-
0
September 02, 2010
Site Blog
Some of the most important things in history are things that didn't happen — even though just about everyone thought they would. Recent example: Scads of liberals gleefully predicted that the financial crisis and deep recession would destroy Americans' faith in markets and increase their confidence in big government. Many conservatives gloomily feared they were right. Hasn't happened. If anything, public opinion has moved in the other direction, with most Americans rejecting ...
Michael BaroneActually, "Big" -- in this sense -- has always been Bad
Recent example: Scads of liberals gleefully predicted that the financial crisis and deep recession would destroy Americans' faith in markets and increase their confidence in big government. Many conservatives gloomily feared they were right.
Hasn't happened. If anything, public opinion has moved in the other direction, with most Americans rejecting the stimulus package and the health care bill, denying that government action is needed to address global warming, expressing negative feelings about labor unions.
How to explain this? One way is to see the public's reaction as opposition to governance by an alliance of Big Units — Big Government, Big Business and Big Labor.
In the 1930s, Americans supposedly lost faith in markets and rallied to government. But if you go back and look at public opinion polling then, you find something rather different. You find majorities grumbling about Big Government, scorning Big Business and opposing Big Labor.
The 1940s were different. Facing the threat of total war, Franklin Roosevelt transformed himself from "Dr. New Deal" to "Dr. Win the War." He fostered cooperation between Big Government, Big Business and Big Labor. Roosevelt was brilliant at selecting, from all these sources, the best men (and women) for jobs he considered important.
The result was a war effort that was brilliantly successful. America was the arsenal of democracy, vanquishing its enemies and inventing the atomic bomb. Big Unit governance gained enormous prestige and held onto it for a generation after the war.
The result was prosperity but also stasis. The Big Government of 1970 looked a lot like the Big Government of the 1940s. The same Big Businesses that dominated the Fortune 500 list in 1940 did so in 1970. The list of Big Labor unions remained pretty much the same.
Around 1970, these Big Units lost their edge. Big Government got mired in wars on poverty and in Vietnam. Big Business got hidebound and bureaucratic. Big Labor started to shrink.
Starting around 1980, the country began to revive. Big Government lowered taxes and deregulated transportation and communications. Entrepreneurs and investors replaced stodgy corporate managements with new companies and new products.
The conformist, "organization man" Americans of the 1950s were replaced by nonconformist innovators, risk-takers and creators who made a new economy that central planners could never have envisioned. Bill Gates and Steve Jobs didn't wait for those at the top of Big Units to tell them what to do.
Big Business changed: The Fortune 500 list of 2010 doesn't look anything like that of 1970. Big Labor almost vanished: Most union members today are public employees.
The Obama Democrats, faced with a grave economic crisis, responded with policies appropriate to the Big Unit America that was disappearing during the president's childhood.
• Their financial policy has been to freeze the big banks into place.
• Their industrial policy was to preserve as much as they could of General Motors and Chrysler for the benefit of the United Auto Workers.
• Their health care policy was designed to benefit Big Pharma and other big players.
• Their housing policy has been to try to maintain existing prices.
• Their macroeconomic policy was to increase the size and scope of existing government agencies to what looks to be the bursting point.
What we see is Big Government colluding with Big Business and trying to breathe life into Big Labor.
Some of this can be defended. The Obama Democrats are right in pointing out that the TARP financial bailout was the product of the George W. Bush administration, and they may well be right that it would have been disastrous to allow Citibank to fail.
But Big Unit policies are not a good fit for a country that has grown out of the wreckage the Big Units made of things in the 1970s. They freeze poorly performing incumbents in place, and they don't provide the breathing room for small units to start up and grow.
In the meantime, the Big Units are not performing as well as they did for Dr. Win the War. The visibly flagging economy and the slapdash stimulus and health care bills have left most voters ready to take a chance on the still-reviled Republicans. The unanswered question is: Will the Republicans have an effective alternative to Big Unit governance?
-
0
September 02, 2010
Site Blog
[It is now] is a crime to manufacture or ship for sale a traditional 75-watt incandescent light bulb in the European Union. Autocrats in Brussels last year declared war on Edison's greatest invention with a ban on 100-watt lamps. Homes throughout the Old World will continue to dim until incandescent lighting of all types is snuffed out in 2012 - the same year the United States is scheduled to begin a phaseout schedule mirroring the European plan. Public rejects overseas fluorescent push
[It is now] a crime to manufacture or ship for sale a traditional 75-watt incandescent light bulb in the European Union. Autocrats in Brussels last year declared war on Edison's greatest invention with a ban on 100-watt lamps. Homes throughout the Old World will continue to dim until incandescent lighting of all types is snuffed out in 2012 - the same year the United States is scheduled to begin a phaseout schedule mirroring the European plan.
The EU's final solution to the incandescent problem was sparked by bureaucratic irritation at a public that refused to accept the pale, flickering, cold light emanating from government-approved, expensive compact fluorescent bulbs. "Although energy-saving bulbs have been clearly labeled since 1998 as the most cost-effective bulbs, their relatively high purchase price has inhibited take-up," the European Commission website explains. "To remedy this, EU governments and the European Parliament asked the Commission to adopt minimum requirements phasing out the least-efficient bulbs."
Consumers realize the warm glow of a cheap incandescent is superior in every way to the deadly, mercury-filled substitute being foisted upon them. In Finland, Helsingin Sanomat reported that the new ban has not resulted in a surge of sales for the new bulbs that the bureaucrats expected. Instead, 75-watt packages have been flying off the shelves as customers filled their closets, garages and attics with lighting supplies for the long term. Such hoarding has been the rule for more than a year. London's Daily Mail gave away 25,000 of the 100-watt bulbs as a prize in a January 2009 contest. Der Spiegel reported that German customers left hardware stores with carts jammed with enough incandescent bulbs to last 20 years.
We can look forward to a similar reaction on these shores as our own Jan. 1, 2012, deadline approaches. President George W. Bush's signature on the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 condemned the traditional bulb in favor of the fluorescent lights rejected by the free market. Only eight senators and 100 House members opposed the bill.The EU's final solution to the incandescent problem was sparked by bureaucratic irritation at a public that refused to accept the pale, flickering, cold light emanating from government-approved, expensive compact fluorescent bulbs. "Although energy-saving bulbs have been clearly labeled since 1998 as the most cost-effective bulbs, their relatively high purchase price has inhibited take-up," the European Commission website explains. "To remedy this, EU governments and the European Parliament asked the Commission to adopt minimum requirements phasing out the least-efficient bulbs."
Consumers realize the warm glow of a cheap incandescent is superior in every way to the deadly, mercury-filled substitute being foisted upon them. In Finland, Helsingin Sanomat reported that the new ban has not resulted in a surge of sales for the new bulbs that the bureaucrats expected. Instead, 75-watt packages have been flying off the shelves as customers filled their closets, garages and attics with lighting supplies for the long term. Such hoarding has been the rule for more than a year. London's Daily Mail gave away 25,000 of the 100-watt bulbs as a prize in a January 2009 contest. Der Spiegel reported that German customers left hardware stores with carts jammed with enough incandescent bulbs to last 20 years.
There is still hope that sanity could return before the U.S. ban on normal light bulbs takes effect. Two years ago, New Zealanders faced an imminent ban. The National Party, at the time in the minority, made overturning the light-bulb scheme a priority in its campaign against the ruling Labor government. The public responded favorably to the party that proclaimed that it "stands for freedom, choice, independence and ambition." In December 2008, the National Party government overturned the light-bulb ban. Republican challengers seeking an edge over Democrats in November could learn a few things from the Kiwis.
It's not just Europe... similar legislation is being drafted NOW in the United States
FAX All Congressmen STOP Washington's Secret Energy Tax!
FAX All Congressmen STOP Washington's Secret Energy Tax!
Source
-
0
September 02, 2010
Site Blog
UPDATE: It looks like it isn't just the false science of global warming that is motivating Harry Reid to pass his "new and improved" climate tax bill. The only green Harry Reid cares about is the amount green in his wallet. His energy bill will inject billions of dollars into businesses and companies that he has personally invested in. While Reid is raking in the financial profits from his bill, the rest of America can expect to see their energy bills skyrocket and massive job loses ...
UPDATE: It looks like it isn't just the false science of global warming that is motivating Harry Reid to pass his "new and improved" climate tax bill. The only green Harry Reid cares about is the amount green in his wallet. His energy bill will inject billions of dollars into businesses and companies that he has personally invested in. While Reid is raking in the financial profits from his bill, the rest of America can expect to see their energy bills skyrocket and massive job loses across the country. Reid is pulling a fast one on America and hoping he will get away with it. Don't let Harry Reid succeed in fleecing money from YOUR PAYCHECK to pay for bogus "green" initiatives!
Congress is on vacation. Interrupt their R & R by flooding their HOME STATE OFFICES with faxes! Tell Reid & Washington WE need a vacation for their taxes!
Select Below to Tell Washington "I HAVE BEEN IGNORED ENOUGH!"
FAX All Congressmen at their HOME STATE OFFICES
Vote No to Reid's Energy Tax Scam!
Reid is calculating a sneak attack on America with his energy racket. He is purposely delaying Congress from voting on the bill so he has time to triple its size! Reid is planning on dropping his energy bomb right after Congress' August recess. That's right around the corner! His new bill includes multiple renewable energy projects for his home state of Nevada. Reid wants to blow through our tax dollars to pay "green" energy companies to conduct frivolous money wasting projects. One of the outrageous things in the bill Reid wants us to funding is Fulcrum BioEnergy, a biotech company headquartered in Reno, Nevada. Nevada, what a coincidence! Fulcrum BioEnergy takes garbage and spends millions of dollars trying to figure out how to turn it into something useful. So far, Fulcrum has produced nothing but garbage. Reid wants our money to be funneled to numerous other "green" companies in Nevada. It's very convenient that Reid's re-election is coming up.
REID'S ENERGY TAX BILL AND POLITICAL CAREER ARE PURE GARBAGE!
Select Below to Tell Washington "I HAVE BEEN IGNORED ENOUGH!"
FAX All Congressmen at their HOME STATE OFFICES
Vote No to Reid's Energy Tax Scam!
Reid claims his energy hoax will help create jobs. What a lie. For every job that his bill will artificially "create" we will lose two American jobs to competitors overseas. Harry Reid's bill inflicts severe punishments on American businesses. Reid wants to restrict emissions and fine companies who exceed his proposed limit. Restricting emissions will make the cost of electricity go through the roof and will destroy jobs that depend on the use of coal, oil and natural gas. Only a Liberal wing-nut like Harry Reid could think that taxing companies on their energy production will create jobs. 15 million Americans are currently unemployed. Harry Reid wants to exterminate the last of our remaining jobs and paralyze our economy. This bill is more of an underhanded Liberal power grab than ObamaCare!
TAXING & PUNISHING COMPANIES WILL NOT CREATE JOBS!
Select Below to Tell Washington "I HAVE BEEN IGNORED ENOUGH!"
FAX All Congressmen at their HOME STATE OFFICES
Vote No to Reid's Energy Tax Scam!
Reid's Energy Tax Hike Will Spend Billions of Dollars to Destroy Our Way of Life:
- Wind and solar combined can't even produce 1 percent of our needs yet
- Gas prices will be deliberately raised to make us cut back
- Heating bills will be forced up so much we'll be freezing in the dark
- Ethanol schemes are already shooting food prices through the roof
- Emission rules will be so harsh that jobs will flee to other countries
TELL HARRY REID THAT AMERICA IS NOT HIS PERSONAL CREDIT CARD!
We have been abused enough by our government! Reid and his henchmen keep looking for new ways to tax us every day! Enough is enough! Send Reid and Senate a clear message to STOP this legislation chock full of new taxes!
HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of faxes are needed to be delivered to EACH AND EVERY Congressman's PERSONAL HOME STATE OFFICE right away! Make Washington listen for once by sending faxes directly to their OFFICES! Be sure to send this Alert to EVERYONE you know who wants to help FORCE our government to STOP the EXCUSES and Save Taxpayers Not Spend More and Raise Taxes!
Select Below to Tell Washington "I HAVE BEEN IGNORED ENOUGH!"
FAX All Congressmen at their HOME STATE OFFICES
Vote No to Reid's Energy Tax Scam!
Keep calling your Congressmen today, toll free numbers include 1-877-851-6437 and 1-866-220-0044, or call toll 1-202-225-3121 AND REGISTER YOUR OUTRAGE at Harry Reid's GIGANTIC NEW ENERGY TAX!
CALL PRESIDENT OBAMA: 202-456-1111 and 202-456-1414 expressing your outrage at Harry Reid's incompetence! HE CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO HIKE UP OUR ENERGY BILLS!
DO NOT BE SILENCED - MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD!
NOTE: We need TENS OF THOUSANDS of faxes and PHONE CALLS and EMAILS delivered to the ALL Congressmen's HOME STATE OFFICES right away!
Your voice can be heard -- we need your urgent help at CDFE.
Even smaller donations are going to help.
Any amount -- $1000, $500, $250, or even $100 will help us fight the battle in Congress to tell Congress about the Harry Reid's energy scam. It's time we stood up and said enough is enough! Please join us with your CDFE donation TODAY. Thank you.
Select Below to Tell Washington "I HAVE BEEN IGNORED ENOUGH!"
FAX All Congressmen at their HOME STATE OFFICES
Vote No to Reid's Energy Tax Scam!
SELECT HERE- Read the Shocking Facts Ignored by the Liberal Media
The Obama White House is a huge problem facing every one of us in the nation today. Floating around Congress right now are various plans with "progressive" goals, including nationalizing America's energy companies!
Support the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise (CDFE) by sending this book and the truth about the destruction being done to America's standard of living by the Obama White House to everyone you know.
YOU can make a REAL DIFFERENCE. So, for your sake, for the sake of your children, your grandchildren, neighbors and for generations to come, please help CDFE continue its fight to protect and preserve the United States of America and the world.The way of life you save may be your own.
Sincerely,
Ron Arnold
Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise Action Fund
www.CDFEActionFund.org
Select Below to Tell Washington "I HAVE BEEN IGNORED ENOUGH!" FAX All Congressmen at their HOME STATE OFFICES- Vote No to Reid's Energy Tax Scam!
Or SEND your donation to:
Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise Action Fund
Dept Code - 2873
12500 NE 10th Place
Bellevue, WA 98005
Paid for by Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise Action Fund.
A lobby organization Contributions are not tax deductible.
-
0
September 01, 2010
Site Blog
One has to congratulate President Obama and his advisers on their success. Rahm Emanuel's quip about "never let a crisis go to waste" in late 2008 was a prelude to the administration's attack on U.S. economic growth. In perspective, Obama mounted an attack on the pillars of U.S. economy — growth, wealth creation and personal responsibility — that amounted to a shock-and-awe economic attack. It took Obama less than 18 months to transform ... Mike Cosgrove |
In perspective, Obama mounted an attack on the pillars of U.S. economy — growth, wealth creation and personal responsibility — that amounted to a shock-and-awe economic attack.
It took Obama less than 18 months to transform a historically vibrant U.S. economy to one that has been paralyzed by his shock-and-awe economic policies. The U.S. economy has little or no private-sector job growth, nearly 10% unemployment, a high rate of underemployment, no wealth creation and a heavy dose of government control.
This administration has been relentless in its push to transform an economy that was based on growth, wealth creation and personal responsibility to one characterized by wealth-sharing, government control and slow growth. Obama succeeded in what he wanted for the U.S. economy.
Obama signed the crown jewel of his U.S. economic transformation — the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act — on March 23 of this year. ObamaCare amounts to, over time, a takeover of the health care industry — 17% of the economy. It is a wealth-sharing policy that increases costs and taxes on the private sector.
ObamaCare is phased in over the next four years, but taxpayers and businesspeople responded immediately to the higher costs and taxes as if ObamaCare were already fully implemented.
The cost of ObamaCare is a high rate of unemployment and underemployment. Taxpayers are saving more of their disposable income as their stream of disposable income is permanently impaired. Businesses selling products and services to customers within the U.S. are concerned about slow growth and higher costs, so they don't hire.
The U.S. economy increased at a pace of 3.7% in the first quarter of this year. The passage and signing of ObamaCare was equivalent to a huge immediate tax increase on taxpayers and cost increases on the private sector. This is on top of higher taxes people were expecting to pay for the huge federal deficit.
The present value of ObamaCare's higher expected taxes and costs decimated economic growth in the April-June quarter, as growth came in at a paltry 1.6%. Expect more of the same in the years ahead as taxpayers and businesses hunker down.
President Obama's economic and regulatory policies have permanently reduced trend economic growth as well as the pace of wealth creation in the equity market. The detrimental effects of ObamaCare hit at exactly the point in time when pension plans need sizable equity market gains to meet funding requirements.
Members of the House and Senate allowed this 18-month attack to run. Republicans are as much to blame as Democrats for the continuous assault on the private sector. Business leaders also share in that blame. Perhaps members of Congress as well as business leaders were in fact paralyzed by the ferocious attack.
High unemployment, slow growth and a significantly higher tax burden is where the U.S. is positioned. Sharply higher tax increases may be delayed for a year depending on what Congress and the president decide this fall. An economic adviser to the Obama administration recently suggested delaying personal tax hikes by a year. That tells everyone about the damage to the U.S. economy that the Obama policies have already created.
Delaying tax hikes would be a plus, but taxpayers realize that their disposable income stream is permanently reduced due to a higher tax burden embedded in the high federal deficit and ObamaCare. The result is a crippling of private-sector job growth and a delay of any housing market recovery until at least 2012.
Obama policies have created a permanent reduction in the pace of increase in the standard of living. Households know this, which is why there was and is major opposition to ObamaCare.
The only way out of this slow-growth, wealth-redistribution economy is to repeal ObamaCare. ObamaCare was the game-changer that reduced trend economic growth to the 1.5% to 2% range. Countries with a national health scheme have a value-added tax, the other shoe that falls on U.S. households.
The size of the federal deficit and costs of ObamaCare appear to make a value-added tax the default case. That means to avoid the value-added tax ObamaCare must be repealed. It may seem like a long shot, but to restore the pillars of the American economy — wealth creation, economic growth and personal responsibility — it has to go. The equity market will boom once the pillars of ObamaCare start to crumble.
Source
-
0
September 01, 2010
Site Blog
ALERT: It looks like the climate bill debate has already been decided by Washington and voters didn't even have a chance to say "NO!" A staggering $65 billion dollars has been transferred from the private sector to fund the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI.) RGGI is government created entity that is choking companies in the northeast with huge tax increases in the name of the environment. Our tax dollars are funding ...
Select Below to Tell Congress To Kill the Cap & Tax Conspiracy
FAX All Congressmen STOP Washington's Secret Energy Tax!
RGGI is the nation's first mandatory greenhouse gas cap and trade regulating entity. This waste of tax dollars is responsible for "making an impact on climate change" in 10 Northeast states. Never mind that GLOBAL WARMING ISN'T EVEN REAL! The only impact RGGI has made so far is they have raised energy prices and created a slush fund for each member state. What exactly that money is being used for is unclear. Each state is capped on their carbon emissions and taxed if they use them up. RGGI added a 0.9% increase in energy prices in New England. WASHINGTON CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO SECRETLY TAX ENERGY UNDER THE GUISE OF CLIMATE CHANGE!
The Beltway sense of entitlement is mind boggling. While everyday Americans struggle to pay the bills and live through the stress of the Recession, RGGI is rolling in the dough. RGGI Chief, Jonathan Schrag is living a life most of us could only dream of. In June, Schrag and his wife Kristen purchased a $2.2 million dollar loft in Manhattan. Schrag's posh condo is 2,000 square feet and has three bedrooms and two bathrooms with a nice view of the Manhattan skyline. Schrag's luxurious residence is only a five block walk to the RGGI headquarters. I guess he didn't want to risk creating a carbon foot print by driving to work.
OUR TAX DOLLARS ARE FUNDING LUXURIOUS LIFESTYLES FOR CROOKS
Schrag is paid to keep secrets. He has refused to disclose how much money he makes and the salaries of his employees. Schrag told New Jersey Watch Dog to get lost when they asked him to disclose RGGI's records. In the most recent public disclosure requests from the IRS Schrag declined to reveal how much everyone is paid in the organization. Most companies have to reveal to the IRS the salaries of their employees. RGGI is given special treatment because our government is backing their scheme.
Select Below to Tell Congress To Kill the Cap & Tax Conspiracy
FAX All Congressmen STOP Washington's Secret Energy Tax!
The corruptocrats in Washington are completely responsible for this gigantic waste of tax dollars. Everyday Americans work hard to earn money and provide for their families while Washington fat cats get paid to accomplish nothing! The crooks behind RGGI must be exposed and help accountable!
THIS IS A FIGHT WE CAN'T AFFORD TO LOSE. YOUR FUTURE IS AT STAKE AND ALSO THE FUTURE OF YOUR FAMILY.
1. Select Below to Tell Congress They Investigate RGGI NOW!
Select Below to Tell Congress To Kill the Cap & Tax Conspiracy
FAX All Congressmen STOP Washington's Secret Energy Tax!
2. Send this Alert to EVERYONE you know every like-minded friend on your personal email list who wants stop RGGI from making energy prices skyrocket! We need to get HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of faxes delivered to EACH AND EVERY Senator and Congressmen. Since Congress is taking another vacation all faxes will be SENT TO THEIR HOMES! It will be pretty hard for them to ignore their constituents with faxes flooding their machines!
3. Keep calling your Senators today, toll free numbers include 1-877-851-6437 and 1-866-220-0044, or call toll 1-202-225-3121 AND REGISTER YOUR OUTRAGE Demand an Investigation into the Secret Cap & Tax entity!
4. CALL President Obama, 202-456-1111 and 202-456-1414 expressing your disdain and ABSOLUTE REJECTION of blowing through our tax dollars to fund a bogus organization and pad the pocketbooks of his buddies.
5. Print this copy and pass it around where normal working class Americans gather. Polling data reveals that Americans do not want more taxes!
DO NOT BE SILENCED - MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD!
NOTE: We need TENS OF THOUSANDS of faxes and PHONE CALLS and EMAILS delivered to ALL Congressmen right away!
Your voice can be heard - we need your urgent help at AmeriPAC.
Even smaller donations are going to help.
Any amount - $1000, $500, $250, or even $100 will help us fight the battle to preserve our Constitution. It's time we stood up and said enough is enough! Please join us with your Ameripac donation TODAY. Thank you.
DONATE NOW. Say -
"I Am Mad As Hell And I Am Not Going To Take This Anymore!"
| Paid for by AmeriPAC, a federally-authorized and qualified multicandidate political action committee. Contributions to AmeriPAC will be used in connection with federal elections. Maximum contribution per individual per calendar year is $5,000. Contributions from foreign nationals and corporations are prohibited. Contributions are not deductible for federal income tax purposes. |
For more information, visit www.ameripac.org
Defend America,
Alan Gottlieb
AmeriPAC
President and Founder
www.AmeriPAC.org
Please make checks payable to AmeriPAC:
American Political Action Committee (AmeriPAC)
PO Box 1682
Dept Code 2873
Bellevue, WA 98009-1682
-
0
September 01, 2010
Site Blog
Washington's out of control spending has bankrupted Social Security! The Liberals are spending Social Security money and giving away benefits like drunken sailors. At the rate the Obama regime is blowing through the funds, Social Security will not have a dime by 2013! What does Washington usually do when something fails? THEY BAIL IT OUT! Take action NOW to prevent another TAXPAYER FUNDED BAILOUT!|
Washington's out of control spending has bankrupted Social Security! The Liberals are spending Social Security money and giving away benefits like drunken sailors. At the rate the Obama regime is blowing through the funds, Social Security will not have a dime by 2013! What does Washington usually do when something fails? THEY BAIL IT OUT! Take action NOW to prevent another TAXPAYER FUNDED BAILOUT! Congress is on vacation. Interrupt their R & R by blasting faxes to their HOMES STATE OFFICES! It's time we get a vacation from funding BAILOUTS! Select Below to Tell Congress To Fix Social Security!
Social Security is in crisis! The President's 2011 budget does not even mention Social Security. That's because the spendaholics in Washington DON'T HAVE A SOLUTION! Washington needs to take a breath, stop spending and FIX SOCIAL SECURITY! According to government figures, in 2009 over 2.7 million new beneficiaries were added to Social Security, up 20% from 2008. This was the largest increase in Social Security benefits since 1975. Right now, over 15 million people are unemployed and that number is rapidly increasing. Baby boomers make up a large segment of the jobless population. Baby boomers had planned to retire, but because of the economic collapse they need to return to work to pay the bills. The only problem is there are no jobs so they are applying for Social Security early retirement benefits in record numbers. So much for Obama's "Stimulus." Select Below to Tell Congress To Fix Social Security! Social Security was created to be a cushion against poverty or illness that we could rely upon as we grew older. There is no security in Social Security anymore. Because the Liberals flushed the funds down the drain, our children and grandchildren will have NOTHING TO FALL BACK ON! Now, more than ever, we need the safety net that Social Security provides. But we need real solutions to fix this problem, not another bailout. Given Washington's tax happy culture you can bet they will slap you with huge tax increases to pay for the Social Security bailout. It's simple: If Washington continues to choke us with new taxes we will all be poor! Pretty soon, everyone will need apply for Social Security benefits! Â It's a viscous cycle and Washington is doing absolutely nothing to stop it! Select Below to Tell Congress To Fix Social Security! The Beltway wheelers and dealers must be held accountable for bankrupting Social Security! Tell Obama and his accomplices that they can't continue to spend their way out of the calamity they create! Washington needs to find a way to fully fund Social Security without stealing our hard earned money! Team Obama created the Social Security mess and they need to fix it! Time is running out! HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of faxes are needed to be delivered to EACH AND EVERY Congressman's PERSONAL OFFICE right away. Be sure to send this Alert to EVERYONE you know who wants to help FORCE our government to STOP the EXCUSES and Save Taxpayers! No More Spending to Bailout the Mayhem Obama and the Liberals Create! Select Below to Tell Congress To Fix Social Security! Keep calling your Congressmen today, toll free numbers include 1-877-851-6437 and 1-866-220-0044, or call toll 1-202-225-3121 AND REGISTER YOUR OUTRAGE at Obama's negligence! We cannot continue to foot the bill for Washington's failures! CALL PRESIDENT OBAMA: 202-456-1111 and 202-456-1414 expressing your anger at Obama's refusal to take responsibility for bankrupting Social Security! NOTE: We need TENS OF THOUSANDS of faxes and PHONE CALLS and EMAILS delivered to ALL Congressmen's HOME STATE OFFICES right away-before they get back to Washington! Your voice can be heard -- we need your urgent help at CDFE. Even smaller donations are going to help. Any amount -- $1000, $500, $250, or even $100 will help us fight the battle in Congress TO FIX SOCIAL SECURITY. It's time we stood up and said enough is enough! Please join us with your CDFE donation TODAY. Thank you. Select Below to Tell Congress To Fix Social Security! SELECT HERE- Read the Shocking Facts Ignored by the Liberal Media The Obama White House is a huge problem facing every one of us in the nation today. Floating around Congress right now are various plans with "progressive" goals, including nationalizing America's energy companies! Support the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise (CDFE) by sending this book and the truth about the destruction being done to America's standard of living by the Obama White House to everyone you know. YOU can make a REAL DIFFERENCE. So, for your sake, for the sake of your children, your grandchildren, neighbors and for generations to come, please help CDFE continue its fight to protect and preserve the United States of America and the world. The way of life you save may be your own.Sincerely, Ron Arnold Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise www.CDFE.org
Paid for by Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise Action Fund. |
Thanks to the economic meltdown, this year Social Security will give out more benefits than it will receive in payroll taxes. The Beltway bureaucrats will not reduce benefits in response to the growing deficit Social Security is creating. Just like the financial firms and auto companies, the Liberal loons think Social Security is too big to fail! The Obama disciples will do what they always do best: instead of actually solving the problem they will keep throwing our money at the wall and hope something sticks. Under the Obama empire, regular hard working Americans are the ones who are always stuck cleaning up the mess. Don't be fooled, Obama will want YOU to clean up this mess VERY SOON!-
0
August 31, 2010
Site Blog
With a number of polls showing a sustained level of opposition to the Democrats’ health care reform efforts more than five months after passage, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said the Obama administration has “a lot of reeducation to do” heading into the midterms. While some surveys – namely the Kaiser Family Foundation monthly tracking poll – have suggested an uptick in support for the reforms, most other surveys continue to show a steady level of ... Steven Portnoy
With a number of polls showing a sustained level of opposition to the Democrats’ health care reform efforts more than five months after passage, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said the Obama administration has “a lot of reeducation to do” heading into the midterms.
While some surveys – namely the Kaiser Family Foundation monthly tracking poll – have suggested an uptick in support for the reforms, most other surveys continue to show a steady level of opposition to the new law that remains higher than the favorable opinions of it.
“Unfortunately, there still is a great deal of confusion about what is in [the reform law] and what isn’t,” Sebelius told ABC News Radio in an interview Monday.
With several vulnerable House Democrats touting their votes against the bill, and Republicans running on repeal, Sebelius said “misinformation given on a 24/7 basis” has led to the enduring opposition nearly six months after the lengthy debate ended in Congress.
“So, we have a lot of reeducation to do,” Sebelius said.
The administration is particularly concerned about the views of senior citizens – who “have been a target of a lot of the misinformation,” according to the health secretary.
As of Monday, one million seniors have received $250 rebate checks to help them fill the “donut hole” in Medicare’s prescription drug coverage. Sebelius says by the end of the year, as many as four million Part D participants may get checks.
While some surveys – namely the Kaiser Family Foundation monthly tracking poll – have suggested an uptick in support for the reforms, most other surveys continue to show a steady level of opposition to the new law that remains higher than the favorable opinions of it.
“Unfortunately, there still is a great deal of confusion about what is in [the reform law] and what isn’t,” Sebelius told ABC News Radio in an interview Monday.
With several vulnerable House Democrats touting their votes against the bill, and Republicans running on repeal, Sebelius said “misinformation given on a 24/7 basis” has led to the enduring opposition nearly six months after the lengthy debate ended in Congress.
“So, we have a lot of reeducation to do,” Sebelius said.
The administration is particularly concerned about the views of senior citizens – who “have been a target of a lot of the misinformation,” according to the health secretary.
As of Monday, one million seniors have received $250 rebate checks to help them fill the “donut hole” in Medicare’s prescription drug coverage. Sebelius says by the end of the year, as many as four million Part D participants may get checks.
“Once people understand that [the rebate checks are] just one of the new features for Medicare beneficiaries, they become increasingly more enthusiastic,” Sebelius told ABC News.
In an ABC News/Washington Post poll, taken in July, 50 percent of Americans disapproved of the president’s handling of health care, with 45 percent saying they approved. The level of disapproval was stronger than approval of the Obama administration’s actions.
But the latest Kaiser poll – also taken in July – shows 50 percent of those surveyed had a favorable view of the health care reform law, with 35 percent holding an unfavorable view. Support in the Kaiser poll was up four points from the organization’s April tracking poll, with opposition down five points.
However, among those 65 years and older, 43 percent said in July that Medicare would be “worse off” under the reforms, compared to 25 percent who said the program would be “better off.”
Sebelius says she understands the concerns of American seniors.
“They’re worried about what happens to their benefits in the future, worried about what happens to the overall stability of Medicare.”
The secretary says she “strongly” disagrees with what her immediate predecessor, former Health and Human Services secretary Mike Leavitt, wrote in a Washington Post op-ed last week suggesting the changes to Medicare in the health care law merely create the “illusion” of reform.
“It does not ease cost pressures but papers over them with unsustainable price controls,” Leavitt wrote.
Sebelius argues the reforms “strengthen” Medicare, extending its solvency by 12 years through 2029.
“My view is actually supported by independent actuaries, by economists and by the Congressional Budget Office,” Sebelius said.
Source
-
0
August 31, 2010
Site Blog
The mother's milk of American politics may be money, but the fuel for American socialism is Keynesian economics. Keynesianism's inherent bias toward bigger government has made it the indispensable tool for statists around the globe. Politicians' natural wont to spend and control benefited immensely when John Maynard Keynes published The General Theory in 1936. His work initially provided a rationale for the ad hoc efforts to fight the Great Depression. Monty PelerinThe mother's milk of American politics may be money, but the fuel for American socialism is Keynesian economics. Keynesianism's inherent bias toward bigger government has made it the indispensable tool for statists around the globe.
Politicians' natural wont to spend and control benefited immensely when John Maynard Keynes published The General Theory in 1936. His work initially provided a rationale for the ad hoc efforts to fight the Great Depression. Subsequently, it provided support for growth in government.
The "Keynesian Revolution" represented a massive paradigm shift. Paradigm shifts in scientific fields were dealt with by Thomas Kuhn in his famous book, The Structure of Scientific Revolution. The change process is generally characterized by an older paradigm being discarded after a newer one demonstrates its superiority. That is the evolutionary process of progress.
Kuhn dealt only with the natural sciences, although the same process applies elsewhere. Greater verification problems, vested personal interests, and political considerations ensure that the process will be less smooth in the social sciences. The adoption of Keynesian economics provides an excellent example.
Classical economics, the prior paradigm, developed over centuries. Its body of knowledge evolved as a result of trial and error, itself a form of the Kuhnian evolutionary process. Classical economics argued for a limited role for government. This constraint was an impediment to politicians' natural desires to increase power.
Keynesian theory never "earned" the right, at least in a Kuhnian sense, to replace its predecessor. It did not demonstrate relative superiority. It was simply ordained by the ruling political class. Politicians saw in it the opportunity to manage the economy. That was all that was necessary to abandon the previous paradigm, at least for them. It was adopted via a form of political fiat.
Politicians decades ago were little different from today. They believed themselves to be smarter than the rest of us. Their hubris assured them they could manage an economy better than the "chaos" of free markets. These were the grounds on which Keynesianism was adopted. Its adoption was political rather than economic. On such grounds began the economic profession's version of "hope and change." On such grounds began the decline of the U.S. economy and society.
While it was clear why politicians embraced Keynesian economics, it was less obvious why economists did. Actually, most did not, at least initially. Eminent economists of the time were quite skeptical. Contemporaneous criticisms by a few famous names, including Mises, Hayek, Knight, Modigliani, Viner, Hazlitt, Garrett, Burns, and Hahn, can be seen in a collection of essays entitled The Critics of Keynesian Economics (1st edition, 1960).
Shortly after WWII, the economics profession began to turn toward Keynesianism. From the early 1960s, economists who espoused Keynes' views were eligible for new powerful, prestigious government jobs. Those who did not were increasingly ignored and eventually marginalized. Economists, qua people, are not saints. Many were corrupted by government largesse. President Eisenhower warned about this possibility in his Farewell Address:
Politicians' natural wont to spend and control benefited immensely when John Maynard Keynes published The General Theory in 1936. His work initially provided a rationale for the ad hoc efforts to fight the Great Depression. Subsequently, it provided support for growth in government.
The "Keynesian Revolution" represented a massive paradigm shift. Paradigm shifts in scientific fields were dealt with by Thomas Kuhn in his famous book, The Structure of Scientific Revolution. The change process is generally characterized by an older paradigm being discarded after a newer one demonstrates its superiority. That is the evolutionary process of progress.
Kuhn dealt only with the natural sciences, although the same process applies elsewhere. Greater verification problems, vested personal interests, and political considerations ensure that the process will be less smooth in the social sciences. The adoption of Keynesian economics provides an excellent example.
Classical economics, the prior paradigm, developed over centuries. Its body of knowledge evolved as a result of trial and error, itself a form of the Kuhnian evolutionary process. Classical economics argued for a limited role for government. This constraint was an impediment to politicians' natural desires to increase power.
Keynesian theory never "earned" the right, at least in a Kuhnian sense, to replace its predecessor. It did not demonstrate relative superiority. It was simply ordained by the ruling political class. Politicians saw in it the opportunity to manage the economy. That was all that was necessary to abandon the previous paradigm, at least for them. It was adopted via a form of political fiat.
Politicians decades ago were little different from today. They believed themselves to be smarter than the rest of us. Their hubris assured them they could manage an economy better than the "chaos" of free markets. These were the grounds on which Keynesianism was adopted. Its adoption was political rather than economic. On such grounds began the economic profession's version of "hope and change." On such grounds began the decline of the U.S. economy and society.
While it was clear why politicians embraced Keynesian economics, it was less obvious why economists did. Actually, most did not, at least initially. Eminent economists of the time were quite skeptical. Contemporaneous criticisms by a few famous names, including Mises, Hayek, Knight, Modigliani, Viner, Hazlitt, Garrett, Burns, and Hahn, can be seen in a collection of essays entitled The Critics of Keynesian Economics (1st edition, 1960).
Shortly after WWII, the economics profession began to turn toward Keynesianism. From the early 1960s, economists who espoused Keynes' views were eligible for new powerful, prestigious government jobs. Those who did not were increasingly ignored and eventually marginalized. Economists, qua people, are not saints. Many were corrupted by government largesse. President Eisenhower warned about this possibility in his Farewell Address:
The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present - and is gravely to be regarded.
After decades of Keynesian folly, the country now teeters on the brink of another Great Depression. Both the economy and its guiding theoretical construct are in crisis. Referring to the recent spate of downside "surprises," Kevin Hassett commented in Bloomberg, "The bad news confirmed what conservative economists have been saying for some time: The biggest Keynesian stimulus in U.S. history was a bust."
Despite increasing evidence to the contrary, most economists and politicians continue to defend Keynesian theory. Self-interest and ideology are strong motivators because if Keynesianism economics falls, so does big government.
Ironically, the vagaries of history have set up a political nightmare. Expiration of the Bush tax cuts at the end of this year is the event. Mr. Hassett explains the leftist conundrum:
But notice the problem for the Robin Hooders: If you cut tax rates in a recession in order to stimulate the economy, then you are conceding that lower tax rates can be a good thing. And if that's true, then higher tax rates will be harmful -- something the left has always denied.
Keynes favored spending over tax cuts in normal times. He was, after all, a big government advocate. His theory, however, never supported tax increases during economic downturns. The expiration of tax cuts is a tax increase. As such, it goes against his theory. Statist ideology, however, always favors tax increases because they expand the size of government.
This tax issue represents a major conflict for big-government politicians. Leftist ideology conflicts with its primary tool -- Keynesian economics. If, indeed, politicians believe in Keynesian economics, they should vote to extend the Bush tax cuts. If they don't, they have no economic basis for their vote. A vote against Keynesian economics on this particular issue is an unadulterated vote to grow government. It can be based on no principle other than that more power is better than less.
The Obama administration has already shown its hand. They want the tax cuts to expire. They have unequivocally revealed that Keynesianism was merely a convenient tool to advance their goals. Now, when it stands in the way, it becomes just as expendable as Reverend Wright.
Rarely have politicians been so neatly cornered. That Democrats procrastinate instead of making a simple decision is an indication how strong their statist orientation is. Given the upcoming elections, many may break ranks and support extending the Bush tax cuts.
Politicians will likely make their typical non-decision decision. The meme is apt to be that the "rich" deserve to pay their "fair share," while others deserve the tax break. Political hedging and doublespeak aside, that position represents a tax increase. It will be harmful to the economy regardless of how it is spun.
A decision to raise taxes represents more than the abandonment of Keynesian economics. Arguably, that should have happened decades ago. Allowing taxes to increase represents a vote to abandon reason. No economic school supports a tax increase now. No one concerned with the well-being of the citizenry and the country would, either. By advocating for a tax increase, this administration has revealed its truly ugly, unvarnished lust for power. You and I don't matter. Only the acquisition of more power does. Statists are so wedded to ideology that they appear to be willing to risk an economic collapse of the country.
Regardless of the outcome of this particular issue, Keynesian advocates and practitioners need not worry. Keynesianism will not be abandoned. Its usefulness still exists. If it were abandoned, then real economics would replace it. That outcome would end the statist march.
Economics is not driving economic decisions. Statist ideology and the desire for power are. Pseudo-economics has been the means to hide this reality since the 1930s. Keynesianism was the convenient tool. In Lenin's terms, Keynesianism was and still is a "useful idiot." Its political value was too important for its validity to be subjected to a Kuhnian process. Only its prestige mattered, and the government bought that. Support for Keynesian theory was never tested or earned. It was bought!
As a result of the extensive use of Keynesian economics, government now runs the country instead of citizens running the government. Americans have become mere tokens in a power struggle. The founders provided a Constitution designed to preclude this outcome. Over time, protections were vitiated and violated to where citizens matter only for their political utility -- votes and taxes.
If votes can be obtained via harmful policies, the elite will oblige. If damage is incurred to the country or the economy, so be it. After all, as Stalin supposedly said, you can't make an omelet without breaking eggs. We are all merely expendable eggs.
The enemies of freedom are in both parties. November is a first message, but not a sufficient one. Many, many more must follow.
No more omelets!
Source
-
0
August 31, 2010
Site Blog
Despite unrelenting attacks from President Obama, liberal special interest groups, and the national media, conservative candidates are surging in the polls. A recent poll from a Democrat pollster (Public Policy Polling) shows Marco Rubio opening up an 8 point lead in Florida over his opponents, including the party switching Charlie Crist, in that three way race. In Pennsylvania, the latest Rasmussen Poll (8/16) shows Pat Toomey surging to an 8 point lead over his Democrat ...A special message from:
|
In Pennsylvania, the latest Rasmussen Poll (8/16) shows Pat Toomey surging to an 8 point lead over his Democrat opponent, Joe Sestak.
I believe this is a revolutionary website that will be the key to conservative victories in November. You see, unlike other websites, with one donation you can target your money directly to the candidates. -
0
August 30, 2010
Site Blog
Minimum estimate of Saturday's crowd on the Mall: 300,000; Maximum estimate: One million people. Meaning of the crowd: An enormous upheaval in the emotions of average Americans is coursing through the country, with a certain significance for November's elections. It will have a lasting, profound impact on America's political direction. lenn Beck and Sarah Palin provided an occasion to glimpse this undeniable phenomenon. Of course, the interpretations of what the phenomenon is and ... Hugh Hewitt Meaning of the crowd: An enormous upheaval in the emotions of average Americans is coursing through the country, with a certain significance for November's elections. It will have a lasting, profound impact on America's political direction.
Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin provided an occasion to glimpse this undeniable phenomenon. Of course, the interpretations of what the phenomenon is and what its consequences will be will keep the chattering class busy for weeks, if not years.
Some on the left are trying, with increasing desperation, to use old and new media to brand this surge in public participation in politics as sinister, even though it was preceded by a surge from the left of people and energy into President Obama's campaign.
The new tools of communication and the ease of movement have unleashed a tumultuous era of politics driven by the demand that elites not attempt to speak for, or condescend to, average citizens. They will not quietly or passively be lectured to, or insulted by, the president, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg or any anchor on any network, any columnist in any paper, or any blogger on any Web site.
The people on the Mall and the millions more who watched the gathering with satisfaction rather than fear are quite simply sick of the left, and of its vast sneer toward the traditions, values and, yes, faith of the American middle class.
The American Enterprise Institute's Arthur Brooks has quite accurately described America as a 70/30 nation, with the 70 percent presently massively underrepresented in the federal government, the Manhattan-Beltway media elite and academia.
The 70 percent is appalled by the placebo economics practiced by the president and the Congress over the past two years, shocked by its profligacy with the wealth of the republic, and sickened by the looting of the next generation's opportunities.
FIRE CONGRESS HERE
The 70 percent did not want Obamacare, but it has been thrust upon them.
The 70 percent did not want federal judges to declare "game over" in the complex discussion of what marriage is and means.
The 70 percent want a fence on the border that works, and do not want their concern over unregulated immigration dismissed as nativisim.
The 70 percent are not ashamed of their belief in God, deeply resent being labeled bigots because they view ground zero as land that ought not to be exploited for "messaging" of any sort by any group, and are enraged by the scorn which they encounter everywhere in media except Fox News and talk radio.
The 70 percent believe that the federal government is remote and clueless, and that the Constitution's principles of enumerated and limited powers and the sovereignty of the states are vibrant, important core values to the republic.
The 70 percent think Iran is in the grip of an evil, theocratic fascism, and that Israel is our true friend and ally deserving of our full-throated support.
We are in the middle of a perilous economic passage to a new competitiveness across the globe. We are watching other countries across the globe respond to the new demands of competitiveness by shrinking the public sector and encouraging private-sector growth. But American education is crippled by bureaucracy and burdened by the inability of a political class to demand reform of the practices and pensions of the public sector. Children have been hostages of this countrywide collapse of common sense for a generation, despite wave after wave of "reform".
Two years into what had been sold as a new politics and a new approach, the 70 percent are fully aware that they have been conned, suckered, and taken to the cleaners by a hyper-ideological amalgam of leftist public intellectuals, snarling bloggers, career politicians with limited abilities who are often corrupt, and a president wholly inexperienced in the management of complex problems who is in way over his head and prisoner to slogans and schemes that make for great campus debates -- but for disaster in the real world.
The people on the Mall were saying much more than "this far and no farther." They were saying "rewind and restart." They will hold that thought and that purpose as they peacefully, but with great passion and purpose, insist on real change come Nov. 2.
Source
-
0
August 30, 2010
Site Blog
Government anti-poverty programs that have grown to meet the needs of recession victims now serve a record one in six Americans and are continuing to expand. More than 50 million Americans are on Medicaid, the federal-state program aimed principally at the poor, a survey of state data by USA TODAY shows. That's up at least 17% since the recession began in December 2007. Richard Wolf
WASHINGTON — Government anti-poverty programs that have grown to meet the needs of recession victims now serve a record one in six Americans and are continuing to expand.
More than 50 million Americans are on Medicaid, the federal-state program aimed principally at the poor, a survey of state data by USA TODAY shows. That's up at least 17% since the recession began in December 2007.
"Virtually every Medicaid director in the country would say that their current enrollment is the highest on record," says Vernon Smith of Health Management Associates, which surveys states for Kaiser Family Foundation.
The program has grown even before the new health care law adds about 16 million people, beginning in 2014. That has strained doctors. "Private physicians are already indicating that they're at their limit," says Dan Hawkins of the National Association of Community Health Centers.
More than 40 million people get food stamps, an increase of nearly 50% during the economic downturn, according to government data through May. The program has grown steadily for three years.
More than 50 million Americans are on Medicaid, the federal-state program aimed principally at the poor, a survey of state data by USA TODAY shows. That's up at least 17% since the recession began in December 2007.
"Virtually every Medicaid director in the country would say that their current enrollment is the highest on record," says Vernon Smith of Health Management Associates, which surveys states for Kaiser Family Foundation.
The program has grown even before the new health care law adds about 16 million people, beginning in 2014. That has strained doctors. "Private physicians are already indicating that they're at their limit," says Dan Hawkins of the National Association of Community Health Centers.
More than 40 million people get food stamps, an increase of nearly 50% during the economic downturn, according to government data through May. The program has grown steadily for three years.
STOP THE HANDOUTS, BAILOUTS, AND DEFICIT SPENDING!
Select Here and Take Action!
Select Here and Take Action!
Caseloads have risen as more people become eligible. The economic stimulus law signed by President Obama last year also boosted benefits.
"This program has proven to be incredibly responsive and effective," says Ellin Vollinger of the Food Research and Action Center.
Close to 10 million receive unemployment insurance, nearly four times the number from 2007. Benefits have been extended by Congress eight times beyond the basic 26-week program, enabling the long-term unemployed to get up to 99 weeks of benefits. Caseloads peaked at nearly 12 million in January — "the highest numbers on record," says Christine Riordan of the National Employment Law Project, which advocates for low-wage workers.
More than 4.4 million people are on welfare, an 18% increase during the recession. The program has grown slower than others, causing Brookings Institution expert Ron Haskins to question its effectiveness in the recession.
As caseloads for all the programs have soared, so have costs. The federal price tag for Medicaid has jumped 36% in two years, to $273 billion. Jobless benefits have soared from $43 billion to $160 billion. The food stamps program has risen 80%, to $70 billion. Welfare is up 24%, to $22 billion. Taken together, they cost more than Medicare.
The steady climb in safety-net program caseloads and costs has come as a result of two factors: The recession has boosted the number who qualify under existing rules. And the White House, Congress and states have expanded eligibility and benefits.
Conservatives fear expanded safety-net programs won't contract after the economy recovers. "They're much harder to unwind in the long term," says Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank.
Other anti-poverty experts say the record caseloads are a necessary response to economic hardship. "We should be there to support people when the economy can't," says LaDonna Pavetti of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal-leaning think tank.
Source
-
0
August 30, 2010
Site Blog
ALERT: It looks like the climate bill debate has already been decided by Washington and voters didn't even have a chance to say "NO!" A staggering $65 billion dollars has been transferred from the private sector to fund the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI.) RGGI is government created entity that is choking companies in the northeast with huge tax increases in the name of the environment.A special message from:
Select Below to Tell Congress To Kill the Cap & Tax Conspiracy FAX All Congressmen STOP Washington's Secret Energy Tax! RGGI is the nation's first mandatory greenhouse gas cap and trade regulating entity. This waste of tax dollars is responsible for "making an impact on climate change" in 10 Northeast states. Never mind that GLOBAL WARMING ISN'T EVEN REAL! The only impact RGGI has made so far is they have raised energy prices and created a slush fund for each member state. What exactly that money is being used for is unclear. Each state is capped on their carbon emissions and taxed if they use them up. RGGI added a 0.9% increase in energy prices in New England. WASHINGTON CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO SECRETLY TAX ENERGY UNDER THE GUISE OF CLIMATE CHANGE! The Beltway sense of entitlement is mind boggling. While everyday Americans struggle to pay the bills and live through the stress of the Recession, RGGI is rolling in the dough. RGGI Chief, Jonathan Schrag is living a life most of us could only dream of. In June, Schrag and his wife Kristen purchased a $2.2 million dollar loft in Manhattan. Schrag's posh condo is 2,000 square feet and has three bedrooms and two bathrooms with a nice view of the Manhattan skyline. Schrag's luxurious residence is only a five block walk to the RGGI headquarters. I guess he didn't want to risk creating a carbon foot print by driving to work. OUR TAX DOLLARS ARE FUNDING LUXURIOUS LIFESTYLES FOR CROOKS Schrag is paid to keep secrets. He has refused to disclose how much money he makes and the salaries of his employees. Schrag told New Jersey Watch Dog to get lost when they asked him to disclose RGGI's records. In the most recent public disclosure requests from the IRS Schrag declined to reveal how much everyone is paid in the organization. Most companies have to reveal to the IRS the salaries of their employees. RGGI is given special treatment because our government is backing their scheme. Select Below to Tell Congress To Kill the Cap & Tax Conspiracy FAX All Congressmen STOP Washington's Secret Energy Tax! The corruptocrats in Washington are completely responsible for this gigantic waste of tax dollars. Everyday Americans work hard to earn money and provide for their families while Washington fat cats get paid to accomplish nothing! The crooks behind RGGI must be exposed and help accountable! THIS IS A FIGHT WE CAN'T AFFORD TO LOSE. YOUR FUTURE IS AT STAKE AND ALSO THE FUTURE OF YOUR FAMILY. 1. Select Below to Tell Congress They Investigate RGGI NOW! Select Below to Tell Congress To Kill the Cap & Tax Conspiracy FAX All Congressmen STOP Washington's Secret Energy Tax! 2. Send this Alert to EVERYONE you know every like-minded friend on your personal email list who wants stop RGGI from making energy prices skyrocket! We need to get HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of faxes delivered to EACH AND EVERY Senator and Congressmen. Since Congress is taking another vacation all faxes will be SENT TO THEIR HOMES! It will be pretty hard for them to ignore their constituents with faxes flooding their machines! 3. Keep calling your Senators today, toll free numbers include 1-877-851-6437 and 1-866-220-0044, or call toll 1-202-225-3121 AND REGISTER YOUR OUTRAGE Demand an Investigation into the Secret Cap & Tax entity! 4. CALL President Obama, 202-456-1111 and 202-456-1414 expressing your disdain and ABSOLUTE REJECTION of blowing through our tax dollars to fund a bogus organization and pad the pocketbooks of his buddies. 5. Print this copy and pass it around where normal working class Americans gather. Polling data reveals that Americans do not want more taxes! DO NOT BE SILENCED - MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD! NOTE: We need TENS OF THOUSANDS of faxes and PHONE CALLS and EMAILS delivered to ALL Congressmen right away! Your voice can be heard - we need your urgent help at AmeriPAC. Even smaller donations are going to help. Any amount - $1000, $500, $250, or even $100 will help us fight the battle to preserve our Constitution. It's time we stood up and said enough is enough! Please join us with your Ameripac donation TODAY. Thank you. DONATE NOW. Say - "I Am Mad As Hell And I Am Not Going To Take This Anymore!"
For more information, visit www.ameripac.org Defend America, Alan Gottlieb AmeriPAC President and Founder www.AmeriPAC.org Please make checks payable to AmeriPAC: American Political Action Committee (AmeriPAC) PO Box 1682 Dept Code 2873 Bellevue, WA 98009-1682 |
-
0
August 27, 2010
Site Blog
There is an instinctive conclusion among the American public that President Obama's stimulus package has failed to create a sustained recovery. Unemployment has increased, not declined; consumers have retrenched; housing starts have crashed along with mortgage applications; and there is a fear that a double-dip recession may very well be in the pipeline. The public perception, reflected in Pew Research/National Journal polls, is that the ... Mortimer B. ZuckermanWhat Reliance On Government Brings...
Click here to find out more!
There is another instinctive conclusion among the American people. It is that the national deficit, and the debts we have accumulated, are of critical political importance. On the national debt, the money the government has spent without the tax revenues to pay for it has produced mind-numbing numbers so large as to be disconnected from reality. Zeros from here to infinity. The sums are hard to describe; it is hard to describe an elephant, but you know one when you see one. The public knows that, shuffle the numbers as you may, the level of debt is unsustainable.
Who could be surprised since millions of voters have discovered that for themselves? As one realizes the morning after the night before, there is an unavoidable penalty for excess. It is unnerving to wake up and learn that you have a mortgage on your home that exceeds the value of the property. Or, and too often both, you have a credit card line that you cannot repay and the issuer has you on the rack for ever bigger compound interest on the debt. The lesson has been well and truly learned that debt catches up with you. Millions understand that they are just going to have to find a way to live within their means—and then still eke out some savings to pay down debt. And there are well over 14 million Americans without a paying job, so the level of discontent is very high. Just how are they going to regain control of their lives? In a usnews.com post on July 26, Jodie Allen of the Pew Research Center reported that in recent weeks more academic and market economists have been urging the government to defer budget cuts and tax increases and instead provide additional stimulus to a still-fragile economy, some by continuing the Bush tax cuts. But among the public there has been a suggestive shift of opinion the other way, reflecting worries about debt. "Deficit and government spending" has jumped from 10th or 11th place as a priority for the federal government to one that is second only to job creation and economic growth. The drift of opinion is manifest in other recent polls. For instance, a CBS poll conducted July 9-12 assessed the most important problem facing the country as the economy and jobs (38 percent), with concern about the budget deficit and national debt way down at 5 percent. Yet CNN (July 16-21) has 47 percent preoccupied first with the economy, and 13 percent with the federal deficit. In a recent Time magazine poll, two thirds of the respondents say they oppose a second government stimulus program and more than half say the country would have been better off without the first one.
People see the stimulus, fashioned and passed by Congress in such a hurry, as a metaphor for wasted money. They are highly critical about the lack of discipline among our political leaders. The question that naturally arises is how to forestall a long-term economic decline.
The Fed has lowered rates dramatically to keep the economy ticking and maybe continue the painfully slow recovery, but at the receiving end there is no feeling of relief at all. People know that the stimulus is about to stop stimulating. They know that money is petering out. They know that states are preparing to cut $200 billion to balance their budgets. They realize that the Great Recession has wiped out huge amounts of wealth and that, unlike other recessions, this will not be followed by the kind of economic boom when people who had sat on their money during the lean years unleash pent-up demand for all sorts of goods and services.
There is no sign of that happening this time around. Households and businesses have kept their hands in their pockets. And so while many think that the only way to revive the economy and to inject more money into it is through governmental spending, the general feeling is that we can't afford that right now. The government will be writing more IOUs on top of those we already can't afford. Why plan a second stimulus if the first stimulus couldn't prevent high unemployment?
Source
-
0
August 27, 2010
Site Blog
"President Hayes said that a Napoleon in the White House in time of war could do almost as he pleased. Possibly he could, but it is doubtful. Anyhow, the popular instinct has seen to it that no man of that stamp has approached the White House." Ironically, that was published in 1969, when our hippie movement was just picking up steam — and our government 40 years later is dominated by hippies or fans of that movement! Under Hillary Clinton, the Dept. of State is sending an ... Curtis Dahlgren"THERE IS NO LITTLE ENEMY," said Benjamin Franklin. In other words, don't regard an enemy as necessarily harmless just because you are told that that is what you are expected to think! Morgan wrote:
"President Hayes said that a Napoleon in the White House in time of war could do almost as he pleased. Possibly he could, but it is doubtful. Anyhow, the popular instinct has seen to it that no man of that stamp has approached the White House."
Ironically, that was published in 1969, when our hippie movement was just picking up steam — and our government 40 years later is dominated by hippies or fans of that movement! Under Hillary Clinton, the Dept. of State is sending an Islamist extremist on a "good-will mission" at government expense! To see how 'harmless' all of this is, let's look back at the story of Communism in the old Soviet Union.
Does any of this sound familiar? From preaching "spreading the wealth around" to making a mockery of honest elections, there's a communistic pattern here. Our so-called "Youth Revolution" of the 1960s was preceded by Russia's Nihilism movement by exactly 100 years. The Encyclopaedia Britannica (1910) says:
"It originated in the early years of the reign of Alexander II, and the term [nihilism] was first used by Turnueniev in his celebrated novel, Fathers and Children, published in 1862. Among the students of the universities and the higher technical schools Turgueniev had noticed a new and strikingly original type — young men and women in slovenly attire, who called in question and ridiculed the generally received [traditions] of social life, and who talked of reorganizing society on strictly scientific principles. They reversed the traditional order of things even in trivial matters of external appearance, the males allowing the hair to grow long and the female adepts cutting it short, and adding sometimes the additional badge of blue spectacles.
"Their appearance, manners and conversation were apt to shock ordinary people, but to this they were profoundly indifferent, for they had raised themselves above the level of so-called public opinion, despised Philistine respectability, and rather liked to scandalize people still under the influence of what they considered antiquated prejudices.
"For aesthetic culture, sentimentalism and refinement of every kind they had a profound and undisguised contempt. Professing extreme utilitarianism and delighting in paradox, they were ready to declare that a shoemaker who distinguished himself in his craft was a greater man than a Shakespeare or a Goethe, because humanity had more need of shoes than of poetry.
STOP THE HANDOUTS, BAILOUTS, AND DEFICIT SPENDING!
Select Here and Take Action!
"Thanks to Turgueniev, these young persons came to be known in common parlance as 'Nihilists,' though they never ceased to protest against the term as a calumnious nickname. According to their own account, they were simply earnest students who desired reasonable reforms, and the peculiarities in their appearance and manner arose simply from an excusable neglect of trivialities in view of graver interests.
"In reality, whatever name we may apply to them, they were the extreme representatives of a curious moral awakening and an important intellectual movement among the Russian educated classes.
"In material and moral progress Russia had remained behind the other European nations, and the educated classes felt, after the humiliation of the Crimean War, that the reactionary regime of Emporer Nicholas must be replaced by a series of drastic reforms. With the impulsiveness of youth and the recklessness of inexperience, the students went in this direction much farther than their elders, and their reforming zeal naturally took an academic, pseudo-scientific form.
"Having learned the rudiments of positivism, they conceived the idea that Russia had outlived the religious and metaphysical stages of human development, and was ready to enter on the positivist stage. She ought, therefore, to throw aside all religious and metaphysical conceptions, and to regulate her intellectual, social and political life by the pure light of natural science."
[Does any of this sound familiar yet? To those of you who have gone to college since the 1950s, it should sound very familiar! The Russian nihilists suddenly appeared a couple years after Darwin published his Origin in 1859, and I could cite many other 100-year "coincidences" in this repitition of history, but please note that the 1917 Bolshevik revolution was pioneered by hippies in the universities in the "sixties." It took nearly 70 years for the socialist movement to come to fruition (and it died about 70 years later).]
"Among the antiquated institutions which had to be abolished as obstructions to real progress were, religion, family life, private property [etc] . . Religion was to be replaced by the exact sciences, family life by FREE LOVE, private property by collectivism [etc, my emphasis throughout] . .
"Such doctrines could not, of course, be preached openly under a paternal, depotic government, but the PRESS censure had become so permeated with the prevailing spirit of enthusiastic liberalism, that they could be artfully disseminated under the disguise of literary criticism and fiction, and the public very soon learned the art of reading between the lines . . .
"The programme of the government was extensive enough and liberal enough to satisfy, for the moment at least, all reasonable reformers, but the well-intentioned, self-confident young people to whom the term Nihilists was applied were not reasonable. They wanted an immediate, thorough-going transformation of the existing order of things according to the most advanced socialistic principles, and in their youthful, reckless impatience they determined to undertake the work themselves, independent of and in opposition to the government . . .
"They began, therefore, a propaganda among the working population of the towns and the rural population in the villages . . Some disguised themselves as artisans or ordinary labourers, and sought to convert their uneducated fellow-workmen in the industrial centres, whilst others settled in the villages as school-teachers, and endeavoured to stir up disaffection . . . Landed proprietors and officials, it was suggested, should be got rid of, and then the peasants would have arable, pastoral and forest land in abundance, and would not require to pay any taxes.
"To persons of a certain education the agitators sought to prove that the general economic situation was desperate . . . " [my emphasis]
CONCLUSION -
DOES ANY OF THIS SOUND FAMILIAR YET? The 2008 and 2009 "emergency bailouts" were justified on the premise that "the general economic situation was desperate" -eh?
When historians say that history "repeats," they're not kidding! The Nihilists assassinated a "Tsar" in 1881–100 years to the month from the attempted assassination of President Reagan. They suffered setbacks in the 1880s and 1890s, but the revolutionary Socialists never give up.
Source
-
0
August 27, 2010
Site Blog
The leader of the "progressive Christian" Sojourners movement has accepted funding from leftist atheist billionaire George Soros. Mark Tooley, president of The Institute on Religion & Democracy (IRD), tells OneNewsNow the information about Jim Wallis receiving the funds surfaced recently in a report from WORLD Magazine. "This was significant in that Jim Wallis in recent years has adamantly insisted he did not belong to either side of the political spectrum ... Charlie ButtsMark Tooley, president of The Institute on Religion & Democracy (IRD), tells OneNewsNow the information about Jim Wallis receiving the funds surfaced recently in a report from WORLD Magazine.
"This was significant in that Jim Wallis in recent years has adamantly insisted he did not belong to either side of the political spectrum, but essentially was a centrist who was transcending left and right and was simply a purely Christian activist," Tooley notes. But in fact, he continues, with the Wallis-Soros connection now confirmed, "Wallis...stands exposed as what he always was: a man of the political left."
Wallis -- a spiritual advisor to President Obama -- has openly stated in the past that Sojourners did not receive funding from atheists, but he later issued a statement confirming there had been at least three Soros grants from Soros' Open Society Institute totaling about $325,000. One of those grants, according to Christianity Today, totaled $100,000 and was earmarked for "immigration reform" -- prompting Wallis to tell the publication: "I have no apologies for taking a donation on immigration reform from Open Society. We'd do it again."
Tooley feels it is disingenuous for a Christian group to accept money from non-believers, and he thinks Wallis and Soros are in sync on several different levels.
"George Soros, besides being politically on the left, obviously is very pro-abortion rights and pro-euthanasia and would have very strong views on a whole range of topics involving sanctity of life and definition of marriage and others that the vast majority of orthodox Christians would disagree with," Tooley suggests.
But the IRD president points out that at the same time, Wallis is trying to make his appeal primarily to evangelical Christians -- resulting in what Tooley describes as a clear "dichotomy."
Source
-
0
August 26, 2010
Site Blog
We know we're not happy with our current government. A Rasmussen poll released last week noted that 40 percent of voters are very angry, and 25 percent are somewhat angry "at the current policies of the federal government." Combined, this means two out of every three likely voters are not happy with their government. So the people who are likely to vote for the politicians, and who pay the politicians, are angry. The result: This fall, politicians will be falling fast. Jackie Gingrich Cushman
We know we're not happy with our current government. A Rasmussen poll released last week noted that 40 percent of voters are very angry, and 25 percent are somewhat angry "at the current policies of the federal government." Combined, this means two out of every three likely voters are not happy with their government.
So the people who are likely to vote for the politicians, and who pay the politicians, are angry. The result: This fall, politicians will be falling fast.
If it were possible to short elected officials, now would be the time.
We know that we don't like what President Barack Obama is doing to our country. And yes, I meant doing TO our country, not doing FOR our country. This dislike registers as disapproval. His disapproval rating (54 percent) is currently higher than his approval rating (45 percent).
The question is why are we so angry, so disapproving? Not just the obvious why -- too much government, too much spending, too much health care intervention -- but the underlying why. What ails our nation? What is the underlying malaise that is gripping our country?
Instead of trying to bring about "change we can believe in," the Obama administration is trying to change what we believe by attacking American values of hard work, thrift, entrepreneurship and personal responsibility.
The Obama administration's policies are bad. Not in the sense that they are not a good idea, but bad in the sense that the policies are morally corrupting. They take money and control away from people and give it to government bureaucrats, who then decide what should be done. The policies encourage people to be less responsible personally and to rely more on the government.
Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher argued that "socialism itself -- in all its incarnations, wherever and however it was applied -- was morally corrupting," Claire Berlinski wrote in "There Is No Alternative: Why Margaret Thatcher Matters" (Basic Books, 2008), out this week in paperback. "Socialism turned good citizens into bad ones; it turned strong nations into weak ones; it promoted vice and discouraged virtue ... transformed formerly hardworking and self-reliant men and women into whining, weak and flabby loafers."
"There Is No Alternative" is a must-read for anyone who wants to understand how to win the argument against socialism. Republicans are currently debating the surface arguments about programs -- they cost too much, they are not paid for and there is too much government intervention.
So the people who are likely to vote for the politicians, and who pay the politicians, are angry. The result: This fall, politicians will be falling fast.
If it were possible to short elected officials, now would be the time.
We know that we don't like what President Barack Obama is doing to our country. And yes, I meant doing TO our country, not doing FOR our country. This dislike registers as disapproval. His disapproval rating (54 percent) is currently higher than his approval rating (45 percent).
The question is why are we so angry, so disapproving? Not just the obvious why -- too much government, too much spending, too much health care intervention -- but the underlying why. What ails our nation? What is the underlying malaise that is gripping our country?
Instead of trying to bring about "change we can believe in," the Obama administration is trying to change what we believe by attacking American values of hard work, thrift, entrepreneurship and personal responsibility.
The Obama administration's policies are bad. Not in the sense that they are not a good idea, but bad in the sense that the policies are morally corrupting. They take money and control away from people and give it to government bureaucrats, who then decide what should be done. The policies encourage people to be less responsible personally and to rely more on the government.
Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher argued that "socialism itself -- in all its incarnations, wherever and however it was applied -- was morally corrupting," Claire Berlinski wrote in "There Is No Alternative: Why Margaret Thatcher Matters" (Basic Books, 2008), out this week in paperback. "Socialism turned good citizens into bad ones; it turned strong nations into weak ones; it promoted vice and discouraged virtue ... transformed formerly hardworking and self-reliant men and women into whining, weak and flabby loafers."
"There Is No Alternative" is a must-read for anyone who wants to understand how to win the argument against socialism. Republicans are currently debating the surface arguments about programs -- they cost too much, they are not paid for and there is too much government intervention.
The core of the matter is the same today as it was in Great Britain in the 1970s.
The system is morally wrong.
Berlinski said in a telephone conversation with me earlier this week, to defeat Obama in 2012, the Republican nominee will have to be "capable of delivering the message. ... The business of American has always been business." The current administration is "destroying American values, creating people with bad character."
Berlinski believes that someone has to stand up and clearly communicate directly to the American people that the system is bad and that it creates a bad society. That person needs to articulate what it is to be an American, and why we must defend America's core values, why they are good values.
Thatcher had an unwavering confidence to do what she believed was right, an ability to transform situations by moving forward even as she ignored her critics. No one knows from where she got her belief that she had what it took to become prime minister.
And no one knows for sure where such a leader will come from to take up this mantle in the 2012 election.
I asked Berlinski about former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's potential to pick up this mantle. Berlinski said Palin has "good instincts, is attractive and charismatic," but is not a potential heir to Thatcher because she does "not inspire confidence" required of a potential president.
So who does Berlinski think could potentially pick up the Thatcher mantle and articulate the importance of the moral imperative? "Right now ... Newt (Gingrich)," she said.
According to Berlinski, Thatcher must have looked around, noticed there was no one else who could do the job and determined that she had what it takes. She was right -- she took on socialism and turned the tide for her country.
Often cited as ignoring her critics and for not reading anything negative written about her personally, Thatcher allowed neither the media nor her opponents to distract her from her goal of standing up for what was right to save Britain.
It's to soon to tell. But it will be interesting to see if Berlinski is right about who can help Save America.
Source
-
0
August 26, 2010
Site Blog
Guilt exists because humans know the difference between right and wrong. Those who have no sense of guilt are labeled "sociopaths" in our society, because they are able to murder, maim, abuse, kidnap, steal and lie without any feelings of remorse or repentance. How do we inherently know the difference between right and wrong, and why do we feel guilt? The founding fathers of America had no doubts about these questions. They created legislative and judicial systems ... Nanette Malher
Guilt exists because humans know the difference between right and wrong. Those who have no sense of guilt are labeled "sociopaths" in our society, because they are able to murder, maim, abuse, kidnap, steal and lie without any feelings of remorse or repentance. How do we inherently know the difference between right and wrong, and why do we feel guilt? The founding fathers of America had no doubts about these questions. They created legislative and judicial systems that follow biblical law — God's explanation of right and wrong — in order to build, maintain and protect a great and free society.
It is impossible to refute the fact that the social/moral standards we abide by in the United States are based on the Bible, specifically the The Ten Commandments of the Old Testament, which include:
* You shall not murder.
* You shall not steal.
* You shall not lie.
We use these standards to punish people who are "guilty" of crimes against society. All over America, our government buildings and monuments are etched with the Ten Commandments given to Moses by God. The Supreme Court building, the highest court in the land, holds numerous images of Moses holding the Ten Commandments. The Supreme Court courtroom entrance doors contain the Ten Commandments engraved on the lower portions of each door. The Ten Commandments are also engraved over the chair of the Chief Justice. All of these references are visible today because the founding fathers looked to the righteous laws of God as the foundation of a successful society. A very small minority of Americans are now fighting to erase any reference to God and to the laws that helped create our great and free nation. They would prefer to throw a blanket of guilt over our illustrious history and over all Americans. What good does it to do to invoke guilt without understanding why we feel it and when feeling it is justified?
Guilt and Christianity = Individual Responsibility
Christians believe that the ability to discern right from wrong comes directly from God. Guilt and true forgiveness (God's, not the world's) can only be settled through a relationship with God, which means following His rules, accepting His love through Jesus Christ, and offering true repentance. All of us are guilty of wrongdoing, because it is a part of our human nature since we, as humans at the beginning of time, decided we wanted to be our own gods. Our Creator loved us enough to give us free will, and we chose our love of self over God's unending love for us. We separated ourselves from God. He has never separated Himself from us, proving that with the ultimate sacrifice — the death of his only son, Jesus Christ. In other words, God came to earth and let us kill him to prove that no matter what we do, if we believe in the reality of His sacrifice of love and ask forgiveness for our wrongdoing, we will redeem our relationship with our Creator and live with Him in all eternity. We cannot save ourselves. Only God can save us.
Each human being is responsible for his or her own moral standing in this life and in eternity. If you love God, you will obey his laws and confess your shortcomings — that is to say your "sins" (great or small) — with honesty, sincerity and repentance. You will move forward with the knowledge that you will be forgiven in this life and for all eternity if you strive to do the right things, not repeat the wrong things. You will — and should — encounter punishment for the wrong actions you take within the confines of moral and social laws on this earth, because:
* You — you alone — are responsible for your actions.
* You — you alone — are responsible for paying the price for wrongdoing.
* You — you alone — are responsible for asking forgiveness.
Most importantly, you — and you alone — are responsible for the actions you take after you have paid the price for wrongdoing and have asked for forgiveness. If you start a wrong cycle all over again, then you must start your journey back to payment and forgiveness.
Guilt and Socialism = All Pay for Some
Socialists, on the other hand, who do not believe in God or adhere to any higher power above themselves, must turn to their own version of penance for any true relief of guilt: "Taxation." Although our nation's judicial system was built on the most logical and universally accepted standard of right and wrong, socialists would rather have you believe they can force people to be "good" and we can live in a redeemed society without the premise of God-inspired rules if we'll just pay the monetary price. Sadly, in a socialist society, Godless people angrily and readily state that it is their fellow citizens who are guilty. Blame and guilt are shifted away from the individual, away from his or her relationship with God and the world (because there is no God), and onto the masses.
A thief robs a bank: "He had a bad childhood." Society must pay.
A man goes on a rampage and kills his co-workers: "He was bullied." Society must pay.
A politician is caught it a lie: "It's just politics." Society must pay.
As we continue to excuse the guilty, who refuse responsibility, and remove God and God-given standards of living from our society, sociopaths are fast becoming the leaders and heroes of our age in all areas: business, sports, entertainment, politics.
Even if we decide to throw out the notion that guilt is attached to the relationship between man and God, guilt will never disappear, because God will never disappear. Socialists cannot rid the world of guilt even as they try to rid themselves of God. They are on a futile mission to force all of society to look elsewhere for redemption.
It is impossible to refute the fact that the social/moral standards we abide by in the United States are based on the Bible, specifically the The Ten Commandments of the Old Testament, which include:
* You shall not murder.
* You shall not steal.
* You shall not lie.
We use these standards to punish people who are "guilty" of crimes against society. All over America, our government buildings and monuments are etched with the Ten Commandments given to Moses by God. The Supreme Court building, the highest court in the land, holds numerous images of Moses holding the Ten Commandments. The Supreme Court courtroom entrance doors contain the Ten Commandments engraved on the lower portions of each door. The Ten Commandments are also engraved over the chair of the Chief Justice. All of these references are visible today because the founding fathers looked to the righteous laws of God as the foundation of a successful society. A very small minority of Americans are now fighting to erase any reference to God and to the laws that helped create our great and free nation. They would prefer to throw a blanket of guilt over our illustrious history and over all Americans. What good does it to do to invoke guilt without understanding why we feel it and when feeling it is justified?
Guilt and Christianity = Individual Responsibility
Christians believe that the ability to discern right from wrong comes directly from God. Guilt and true forgiveness (God's, not the world's) can only be settled through a relationship with God, which means following His rules, accepting His love through Jesus Christ, and offering true repentance. All of us are guilty of wrongdoing, because it is a part of our human nature since we, as humans at the beginning of time, decided we wanted to be our own gods. Our Creator loved us enough to give us free will, and we chose our love of self over God's unending love for us. We separated ourselves from God. He has never separated Himself from us, proving that with the ultimate sacrifice — the death of his only son, Jesus Christ. In other words, God came to earth and let us kill him to prove that no matter what we do, if we believe in the reality of His sacrifice of love and ask forgiveness for our wrongdoing, we will redeem our relationship with our Creator and live with Him in all eternity. We cannot save ourselves. Only God can save us.
Each human being is responsible for his or her own moral standing in this life and in eternity. If you love God, you will obey his laws and confess your shortcomings — that is to say your "sins" (great or small) — with honesty, sincerity and repentance. You will move forward with the knowledge that you will be forgiven in this life and for all eternity if you strive to do the right things, not repeat the wrong things. You will — and should — encounter punishment for the wrong actions you take within the confines of moral and social laws on this earth, because:
* You — you alone — are responsible for your actions.
* You — you alone — are responsible for paying the price for wrongdoing.
* You — you alone — are responsible for asking forgiveness.
Most importantly, you — and you alone — are responsible for the actions you take after you have paid the price for wrongdoing and have asked for forgiveness. If you start a wrong cycle all over again, then you must start your journey back to payment and forgiveness.
Guilt and Socialism = All Pay for Some
Socialists, on the other hand, who do not believe in God or adhere to any higher power above themselves, must turn to their own version of penance for any true relief of guilt: "Taxation." Although our nation's judicial system was built on the most logical and universally accepted standard of right and wrong, socialists would rather have you believe they can force people to be "good" and we can live in a redeemed society without the premise of God-inspired rules if we'll just pay the monetary price. Sadly, in a socialist society, Godless people angrily and readily state that it is their fellow citizens who are guilty. Blame and guilt are shifted away from the individual, away from his or her relationship with God and the world (because there is no God), and onto the masses.
A thief robs a bank: "He had a bad childhood." Society must pay.
A man goes on a rampage and kills his co-workers: "He was bullied." Society must pay.
A politician is caught it a lie: "It's just politics." Society must pay.
As we continue to excuse the guilty, who refuse responsibility, and remove God and God-given standards of living from our society, sociopaths are fast becoming the leaders and heroes of our age in all areas: business, sports, entertainment, politics.
Even if we decide to throw out the notion that guilt is attached to the relationship between man and God, guilt will never disappear, because God will never disappear. Socialists cannot rid the world of guilt even as they try to rid themselves of God. They are on a futile mission to force all of society to look elsewhere for redemption.
Today, in the name of standing for "the greater good," socialists have taken it upon themselves to turn personal guilt into guilt for the masses. Unlike Christianity, where the individual is responsible for his or her own wrongdoing, many socialists believe that guilt and the cause (imagined or otherwise) should be collective — shared by all. They feel it is their duty to purge the collective conscience by forcing everyone to pay — with money — for the real or imagined wrongdoing of individuals in the past, present and future. After all, if there is no God who wants a forgiving relationship with each and every person on earth, how can wrong be righted in the world? Today, socialists are applying a forced-penance ideology to all issues in American society:
* healthcare for all
* global warming
* consequences of war
* the plight of the poor
* racial tension
* capitalistic greed
* religious differences
Socialists wish to engage the guilt of all people to "pay" for whatever they deem wrong in society. They blame those who disagree with their philosophies for the ills of the world, and they do so with religious zeal.
* If you are not for healthcare reform, you are selfish!
* If you do not believe in global warming, you are against Mother Nature!
* If you are for defending your country, you are a right-wing extremist!
* If you are against wasteful social programs, you are a bigot!
* If you disagree with a socialist of color, you're a racist!
* If you are a Capitalist, you are greedy!
* If you are a Christian, you are a hateful Bible thumper!
Healthy debate and human respect have gone by the wayside, and they have been replaced with blame and name calling. The sad reality is that in trying to alleviate individual guilt, socialists use collective guilt as a means to an end. Taxation — their payment for social sins — results in the loss of freedom and leads to a one-world-order philosophy. But forced, collective guilt will only lead to more anger, more disillusionment, less prosperity, less peace and less personal happiness for all Americans.
Former U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Dr. Louis W. Sullivan talked about the state of American society in a lecture at Yale University in 1990. He pleaded for a revitalization of the "culture of character" and a return to "self-discipline, integrity, taking responsibility for one's acts, respect for others, perseverance, moderation, and a commitment to serve others and the broader community."
Americans who understand and honor the founding principles that made America great know the difference between right and wrong. We don't need to be taxed into social obedience. We cannot be a successful nation of free people who love and serve others if we cannot be responsible individuals, who love and serve others. We must be allowed to give without being forced to give (which is not giving at all). We must be allowed to live without guilt served on a silver platter by government.
The Ten Cannots
Presbyterian Minister William J. H. Boetcker understood the consequences of socialism and the issue of misplaced guilt in 1916, when he explained in simple terms what guilt cannot do; it cannot replace logic, which comes from understanding the laws established by a loving and forgiving God. Understanding the origin of guilt is the only way to create true brotherhood of man.
* You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
* You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
* You cannot help little men by tearing down big men.
* You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.
* You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
* You cannot establish sound security on borrowed money.
* You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
* You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn.
* You cannot build character and courage by destroying men's initiative and independence.
* You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they can and should do for themselves.
Source
-
0
August 26, 2010
Site Blog
Someone has to say it. The debate surrounding so-called net neutrality proposed policies reminds me of a heavily Marxist-influenced student protest from 1968. It's all about keeping private property in name only, while regulating the product so that it can only be provided in a way defined by the government. In other words, it's a regulated utility which may just as well not be a private enterprise at all. The "debate" regarding net neutrality ... Anton WahlmanThe "debate" regarding net neutrality is in fact no debate at all, reading 99% of the commentary on the matter. It's equivalent to the debate surrounding "rent control" in many cities, say 50 years ago. Just prohibit private property owners to run their businesses the way they want, and the consumer will benefit unequivocally and proportionately the argument goes. The government bureaucrat proposing to rob Peter and give the monies to Paul can always count on the support from Paul.
We all know what a brilliant idea rent control was. Indeed, applying the net neutrality principle to all of society, as it was ostensibly done in the Soviet Union, really catapulted the standard of living forward to new consumer friendly heights -- not.
So what is net neutrality? It's the idea that it will be illegal for anyone to purchase preferred access on broadband networks -- wired as well as wireless. All bits must be treated equally. No special privileges for anyone. A fine principle, taken straight out of Cambodia's "Killing Fields" and of every other socialist utopia attempted over the last 100 years or so.
Indeed, why limit the net neutrality legislation to broadband networks? Shouldn't all products and services in society benefit from the egalitarian principle of nobody being able to purchase a preferred service or product? Take an airline, for example. Let's establish an air neutral policy of prohibiting business class and the practice of charging people based on supply and demand for seats. Each airline seat will have a fixed price and there will be no multiple classes of service. Air neutrality will prevail in the same nirvana as on the net utopia envisioned by the Federal Communications Commission.
What are the most important products in society? Food, shelter and clothing. Without them, we would die relatively soon. We can manage without broadband, air travel, and even health care in many cases over an entire lifetime. Let's apply the net neutrality principle to food. Nobody should be able to buy "preferred" food of higher quality and better taste than anyone else. This dictates a government bureaucracy dispensing identical rations to all citizens. Think Mao's Chinese cultural revolution and great leap, and 50 million dead.
The net neutrality principle applied to shelter? Equal apartments to all. Nobody should be able to pay for a better house than anyone else. That is, except for the political elite. Did you ever pay a visit to a Moscow suburb in the 1980s?
How about the net neutrality principle applied to clothes? Nobody should be able to pay up for something differentiated or better. Government must ensure neutrality in clothing, with everyone in adult school uniforms. Think North Korea or China in the 1950s, again. I can't wait!
I could go on and on showing how the net neutrality principle is simply a warmed-over Marxist wet dream. The sad part here is that these madnesses of Marxism sometimes make it into policy, such as the innocent-sounding "rent control" which managed to destroy the living conditions in many U.S. cities for decades until they were phased out, allowing for entrepreneurial freedom and individuality.
Owners of broadband networks need to have the freedom to provide access to their properties on whichever terms they see fit, just like owners of hotels and airlines. If the consumers demand and are willing to pay for usage looking like net neutrality, chances are those service providers will find it in their best interest to supply services in that fashion. You can always get together with like-minded investors and build your own net neutral network if you think the incumbents aren't doing what they should.
We just can't have a situation -- at least not in a free non-North Korea-style society -- in which government bureaucrats dictate the manner in which private companies provide services. If this happens, we must ask ourselves why the government doesn't just expropriate Comcast(CMCSA), AT&T(T), Verizon(VZ), Time Warner Cable (TWC) and others. If a private company isn't allowed to design and price its product in any manner its shareholders see fit, we simply aren't a free country anymore.
Back in 1944, Friedrich Von Hayek, who later came to receive the Nobel Prize in economics in 1974, published his most-read book -- "The Road To Serfdom" -- in which he explained that government control over the private means of production must spiral into a lack of political freedom. If people don't have control of their private property, they cannot fund political pluralism.
Hayek's book became a favorite behind the Iron Curtain, passing hands in brown envelopes because its possession could yield a labor camp sentence or worse. In the current net neutrality debate, we should heed Hayek's warning and praise the right of owners of property to be free from socialism enacted through the back door. If you like government-mandated products and services -- from food to clothing, shelter and transport -- you will love net neutrality. Those of us who value the freedoms afforded to us through our exercise of private property rights will fight net neutrality just like Ronald Reagan fought the Evil Empire.
Advocates of net neutrality tend to be the same people who complain that there hasn't been enough broadband capacity built. If broadband networks are to remain privately owned, net neutrality legislation will only serve to disincentivize investment. If the government told you how you had to use your house, offer services in your hotel, or whatever, how much would you invest in such a building? Probably next to nothing. You surely wouldn't expand. This is basic incentive theory, folks. If the government will punish you for making an investment, you're not going to do it. Enacting net neutrality legislation is simply one big discouragement of investment.
Source
-
0
August 24, 2010
Site Blog
It wasn't supposed to be this way. Democrats were promised repeatedly by their leadership and the "professional left" that once ObamaCare passed, the public would embrace it. Voters would even reward Democrats at the polls in November. Former President Bill Clinton, for example, told audiences that the reason Democrats faired so poorly in the 1994 off-year elections, when Republicans took over the House and Senate for the first time in 40 years, was his failure to pass ClintonCare. Merrill MatthewsFormer President Bill Clinton, for example, told audiences that the reason Democrats faired so poorly in the 1994 off-year elections, when Republicans took over the House and Senate for the first time in 40 years, was his failure to pass ClintonCare.
However, no one claimed in 1994 that Democrats were beaten for failing to pass health care reform; everyone understood it was because they tried to pass a massive government-run takeover of the health care system. Had Democrats succeeded, as President Obama has now done, the beating would likely have been worse.
And that's what we're seeing in the polls. The Rasmussen poll has consistently shown that 55% to 60% of the public wants ObamaCare repealed, even as Team Obama tries to convince the public of its benefits--and of leaving Democrats in charge.
But with oblivion looming in the November elections, the White House and its allies have decided that the non-Ivy-League-educated rabble--i.e., the vast majority of Americans--is too stupid to understand how good ObamaCare is. So they've brought in the high-paid consultants to help with the messaging.
As Ben Smith of Politico reports, Families USA held a conference call featuring Lake Research Partners, Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research and the Herndon Alliance, which did some marketing tests on how to explain ObamaCare to Stupid.
"Use personal stories coupled with clear, simple descriptions of how the law works. One of the most powerful findings of this research is that a compelling personal story helps tremendously to make the health care reform law real, break down resistance, tap into anger about how things were under the old system, provide hope for how health care reform can make it better, and help voters retain knowledge of key provisions."
But some of the stories intended to "break down resistance" are just flat wrong.
In one illustration a 23-year-old woman has a 6-year-old child with asthma. The family had coverage through the husband's employer, but he lost his job. He got a new one but the new employer imposed a pre-existing condition exclusion and wouldn't cover the asthma. ObamaCare is supposed to stop that.
Except that for most people with employer-provided coverage that wouldn't happen. Federal legislation passed in 1996 says that if you have "credible coverage," which the large majority of employer-provided coverage is, the new employer's coverage cannot impose a pre-existing condition exclusion.
The report also says, "It is critical to reassure seniors Medicare will not be cut." Except Medicare will be cut--by more than $500 billion over 10 years. That's how Democrats helped pay for ObamaCare.
And then there's a list of "don'ts," such as don't "say the law will reduce costs and deficit." But that's exactly how Democrats sold the plan to the public, despite the fact that most economists and health policy experts warned that ObamaCare would force health care costs to explode.
ObamaCare is so unpopular not because the public is too stupid to understand it, but because millions of Americans understand the law better than many members of Congress.
"Use personal stories coupled with clear, simple descriptions of how the law works. One of the most powerful findings of this research is that a compelling personal story helps tremendously to make the health care reform law real, break down resistance, tap into anger about how things were under the old system, provide hope for how health care reform can make it better, and help voters retain knowledge of key provisions."
But some of the stories intended to "break down resistance" are just flat wrong.
In one illustration a 23-year-old woman has a 6-year-old child with asthma. The family had coverage through the husband's employer, but he lost his job. He got a new one but the new employer imposed a pre-existing condition exclusion and wouldn't cover the asthma. ObamaCare is supposed to stop that.
Except that for most people with employer-provided coverage that wouldn't happen. Federal legislation passed in 1996 says that if you have "credible coverage," which the large majority of employer-provided coverage is, the new employer's coverage cannot impose a pre-existing condition exclusion.
The report also says, "It is critical to reassure seniors Medicare will not be cut." Except Medicare will be cut--by more than $500 billion over 10 years. That's how Democrats helped pay for ObamaCare.
And then there's a list of "don'ts," such as don't "say the law will reduce costs and deficit." But that's exactly how Democrats sold the plan to the public, despite the fact that most economists and health policy experts warned that ObamaCare would force health care costs to explode.
ObamaCare is so unpopular not because the public is too stupid to understand it, but because millions of Americans understand the law better than many members of Congress.
We've already seen Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., lash out at companies that were taking a billion-dollar write down because of tax changes in retirees' drug benefits. The outraged Waxman demanded hearings until his staff explained to him that the companies were doing exactly what they needed to do under the law. He canceled the hearings.
And then there were four Democratic senators who sent a letter to the head of the IRS in July complaining, "Not only will a 1099 form be necessary for millions of new transactions, the stricter requirements force business owners to collect taxpayer identification information from vendors, contractors, and other companies." Yes, senators, and you voted for it, so it's a little late to complain.
By contrast, we've seen the remarkable phenomenon of Americans actually trying to read the 2,700-page health care monstrosity--which I suspect is more than the majority of the members of Congress have done.
And the voters have been trying to get answers from their elected representatives--when they could find them--about specific provisions in the bill.
ObamaCare has been one of the most widely discussed and debated pieces of legislation in our lifetimes. The public has a pretty good idea about what's in the bill, and they don't like it.
Yes, ObamaCare needs to be explained to Stupid--and I suggest they start with the Democrats who voted for it.
Source
-
0
