Congratulations to Hillsdale College Young Americans for Freedom chapter for winning the annual Young America's Foundation GPA redistribution video contest.
Showing posts with label Wealth Redistribution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Wealth Redistribution. Show all posts
Thursday, April 25, 2013
Hillsdale College - 2013 GPA Redistribution Video Contest Entry
Congratulations to Hillsdale College Young Americans for Freedom chapter for winning the annual Young America's Foundation GPA redistribution video contest.
Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Austin Hill - In Washington - The Goal Is Control Of Private Wealth
They’re probably not trying to, no. But with the current governing philosophy in Washington, a recession has become an acceptable means to a necessary end. And the intended “end” doesn’t necessarily entail economic growth and prosperity.
That sounds harsh, I know. But think it through with me. Because as the nation’s media has been obsessed about the “fiscal cliff” and whether or not the President and congressional Republicans will work out an agreement to forestall it, insufficient attention has been paid to how the President and congressional Democrats have augmented their agenda in the past couple of weeks. Journalist Ron Scherer was, as far as I can tell, the first to catch on, with a story he published at Yahoo! News and in the Christian Science Monitor.
Sherer noted in a November 30th news story that in the midst of the “fiscal cliff” tax rate negotiations, President Obama had added a little extra talking point to his campaign for higher taxes on “rich” people. While promoting his tax hike plan in Ohio that day, he slipped in a little “oh, and by the way let’s do another $255 billion stimulus package.” Scherer surmised that the President was proposing more stimulus spending as a means of “offsetting” the impact of his own proposed tax hikes.
But what, precisely, would need to be “offset,” if President Obama’s tax hike agenda prevails? The President just completed a successful re-election campaign claiming that raising taxes on “rich people” would be good for the economy, yet it now appears that he wants more stimulus spending as a means of saving our economy from his own economic policies. This would seem to be, at the very least, a tacit admission from the President that raising taxes on individual people – even those awful “rich people” among us – does, indeed cause a slowdown in economic activity, and may very well bring about a recession.
So what if officials in our government chose to pursue neither of these agendas? That is, what if we did not deploy governmental power to confiscate greater proportions of wealth from private individuals (that is, what if the government didn’t raise income taxes), and what if our government didn’t spend more tax dollars to “stimulate” the economy? If the tax hikes were eliminated, then perhaps the need for a stimulating “offset” would be eliminated, as well.
That’s a plausible idea, if the country’s agenda is economic growth and prosperity. But that is not the agenda of President Obama and his party. By taking more money away from “rich”people and by spending more money on “stimulus projects,” the President is able to control more wealth that is currently in possession of private individuals, and then re-distribute that wealth to people whom he believes are deserving of it and spend it on things that are important to him.
Shortly after the President began his new stimulus push, former Democratic National Committee Chairman (and former presidential candidate) Howard Dean made some extraordinary remarks of his own about the economy. In an interview at MSNBC, Dean stated that he wants the across-the-board income tax increases entailed in the “fiscal cliff” scenario, and welcomed the resulting outcome. “Will it cause a problem?” he asked rhetorically. “Yes. There will be a short recession, and it will be painful.” Yet despite this “painful recession” that Dean believes will ensue, he nonetheless expressed exuberance for the higher tax rates and the cuts in military spending that will result as well.
That was an amazing admission. For Dean, it seems that a recession is an acceptable means to the intended end: government control of private wealth. In this scenario, it doesn’t matter so much that working individuals and families often lose jobs, careers, and homes in recessions. Those are unfortunate things, sure, but when the goal is government control of the economy, personal prosperity ceases to be a priority.
If this sounds far too conspiratorial, consider the report last week about the President’s squabble with non-profit charities. In a December 13th news story, the Washington Post reported that the Obama Administration was leveling a threat to the leaders of high-profile charity groups: either publicly support the President’s tax hike plan, or face the possibility that the President will seek to reduce tax deductions for charitable contributions.
We’re talking here about long-standing, reputable groups like the American Red Cross, United Way, the Salvation Army, and World Vision. And yes, if charitable donors couldn’t deduct the amount they donate from their income taxes, they probably wouldn’t donate as much – which would hurt charitable groups. But again, the goal of the Administration is controlling private wealth, and the prosperity of private individuals and organizations is not a priority.
A majority of Americans seem oblivious to the President’s economic control agenda in Washington -either that, or they’re comfortable with it. Multiple polls show the President is regarded as more trustworthy on economic issues than his political opponents in Congress are right now. And pollster Scott Rasmussen of Rasmussen Reports recently found that only 54% of Americans still believe that economic prosperity is more important than economic “fairness” (“fairness” being the promise of politicians who seek to control private wealth and re-distribute it).
Will America return to a pathway of prosperity? Or have we resigned ourselves to the President’s will for our lives?
Austin Hill
Thursday, October 25, 2012
Austin Hill - Yes, Atlas Will “Shrug,” Eventually
With those remarks, business magnate and former presidential candidate Steve Forbes drew thunderous applause from his audience last Wednesday. Headlining the “Power Up!” business and motivational seminar with Sarah Palin, Rudy Giuliani, and Indian-born Zig Ziglar protégé Krish Dhanam, Mr. Forbes was speaking before a crowd of ten thousand at the Idaho Center indoor sporting complex.
Forbes had just finished explaining why a confluence of cheap credit, billions of dollars in stimulus spending, lots of new taxes and government regulations, and the ensuing government debt have all failed to stimulate our economy. He was confirming with his technical explanation, what many of us know instinctively in our hearts: the reality that no organization- no individual or family, no business, no government – can spend its way out of debt and re-distribute its way to prosperity.
We should all hope that Forbes is right – that “as free people, we won’t stand for it.” Because if we continue to vote for politicians who viciously take expanding portions of wealth from our society’s producers and selfishly redistribute that wealth to those of their choosing, eventually the politicians will run out of other’s people’s money to redistribute and we will all suffer the consequences. The social disorder and collapse of Greece and Spain could be our future in the U.S., if, “as free people,” we don’t choose more wisely.
For those who have eyes to see and ears to hear, examples abound in this present day of how not to construct a national economy. Greece and Spain qualify, yes, and so does Venezuela. Yet even within the last week the news from France, another bureaucratic, debt-laden, and not-so-free-anymore part of the free world, should be a wake-up call to all Americans.
After five years of service from President Nicolas Sarkozy who sought to reduce government controls of the economy and to stimulate private enterprise, French voters tossed him aside last May in favor of a presidential candidate who was nominated jointly by both the French Socialist Party, and France’s “Radical Left Party.” Francois Hollande campaigned with a set of 60 propositions - referred to as his “manifesto” – which included raising taxes on corporations; raising taxes on banks; raising taxes on “rich” individuals; lowering the official retirement age back down to age 60 from 62; hiring 60,000 new government school teachers; and establishing government subsidized “youth jobs programs” in regions of high unemployment.
Today, many French citizens seem horrified that – shock! – President Hollande is doing precisely what he pledged to do. “The situation is very serious” noted Laurence Parisot, head of France’s largest labor union MEDEF in an interview with the London Telegraph last week. “Some business leaders are in a state of quasi-panic” he claimed, as the Telegraph reported that “France is sliding into a grave economic crisis and risks a full-blown ‘hurricane’ as investors flee rocketing tax rates.”
In less than six months, President Hollande has managed to raise capital gains taxes from 34.5% to 62.2%. According to Reporter Ambrose Evans-Pritchard at the London Telegraph, this compares to 21% in Spain, 26.4% in Germany, and 28% in Britain (capital gains taxes reach as high as 35% here in the U.S.).
Mr. Parisot claims that President Hollande has yet to understand the “extreme gravity” of the nation’s “crisis.” Additionally, a private enterprise coalition has launched a nationwide protest movement which they call the “State of Emergency For Business,” claiming that President Hollande’s “confiscatory tax rates” threaten lasting damage to their country.
So let’s be clear about what’s happening in France. A major, national labor union leader (Laurence Parisot) – arguably a counterpart of Teamsters leader James P. Hoffa here in the U.S. – is upset because a Socialist President is taking more money from “the rich” and re-distributing it to others via government employment programs. Such policies would seem like a dream come true for the AFL-CIO, yet the union leader in France seems to understand that the “rich” in his country play a vital role in other people’s livelihoods, and simply seizing more of their money is damaging for everybody. Mr. Parisot takes his criticisms further, stating that “aligning taxes on capital with those on wages is a profound economic error; it is scandalous that the French have been left in such economic ignorance for years” (a stinging indictment on France’s unionized public education system).
So is Atlas “shrugging” in France? When labor union leaders panic over taxes being too high, it suggests that, yes, the trains may soon stop running, in a matter of speaking.
Here in the U.S., it might not be so much of a proactive “shrug” right now as it is a more passive abandonment, a “sitting on the sidelines,” “waiting to see what happens” phenomenon with those who could otherwise be starting new businesses (a subtle “death by a thousand cuts,” perhaps). If he’s re-elected, President Obama will get his “Francois Hollande moment” as he can allow income and capital gains taxes to skyrocket on January 1 (which he has pledged to do) and watch lower and middle income Americans reel from the infliction of Obamacare taxes and penalties.
Let’s hope that Steve Forbes is right – that this is not our “new normal;” that we will reject politicians who are vicious with society’s wealth creators; that we will choose to remain a “free people” – and that we will reject President Obama in November.
Austin Hill
Thursday, September 27, 2012
Dennis Miller - Ahmadinejad at the UN and NFL Ref Chaos
Comedian and political commentator Dennis Miller believes the United States is perceived as weak in the Middle East, and he wants President Obama to send a stronger message to the region’s countries, to get their attention. One of his ideas includes diverting American aid to Egypt, to Israel.“This is what happens when you’re deemed to be the weak horse,” Miller said on Bill O’Reilly’s program on Fox News Wednesday night. “I think we’re deemed to be the riderless horse in that part of the world right now. We got to send a message and you know, I think the only thing we’re sending right now is Ben Bernanke with QE3 and the additional pump of the Fed has so devalued our dollar right now that the $2 billion we send to Egypt is a big slap in the face. That’s about all we got to send them a message.”
Monday, September 24, 2012
Thomas Sowell - Growing Dependence on Government Benefiting Obama
Hoover Institution Senior Fellow Thomas Sowell on the growing government dependency and efforts to raise taxes on the rich.Friday, August 17, 2012
Jeannie DeAngelis - Obama’s ‘Shared Prosperity’
At one of four fundraisers in Illinois yesterday
(8/13/12), the President of the United States said, "Chicago is an example of what makes this country great." This in the city where a former ballet dancer-turned mayor called in Minister Louis Farrakhan of the Nation of Islam to police the mean streets and turned away Chick-fil-A for taking a stand for traditional marriage.
But that wasn't the worst of it. At one fundraiser held at Bridgeport Art Center, the always upbeat and encouraging Obama, speaking on behalf of "many folks" and leaving his failed policies out of the equation, said "Too many folks still don't have a sense that tomorrow will be better than today. And so, the question in this election is which way do we go?"
Immediately after asking that question the President answered it himself. Seems Obama doesn't like the old America, and the direction he wants to head is "forward" to "a new vision of an America in which prosperity is shared," not earned.
Common ownership of personal property is a bold platform to campaign on for a second term, especially for a man who was warned by his wife to stay away from the fried Twinkies at the state fair.
Nonetheless, in Obama's new America, the government controls profits in much the same way Michelle controls what and how much Barry eats. Quite simply, the Obama plan is to have the federal government seize property from the prosperous and distribute it as he sees fit, and then after redistributing other people's wealth, justifying the confiscation of personal property as being necessary to establish fairness and maintain the common good.
According to Obama, anything short of "sharing the wealth" would be moving backward. Obama said,
"I believe we have to go forward. I believe we have to keep working to create an America where no matter who you are, no matter what you look like, no matter where you come from, no matter what your last name is, no matter who you love, you can make it here if you try."What American doesn't believe that "you can make it here if you try?" Those are certainly old American values. Unless Barack Obama's idea of "trying" means that any amount of effort suffices, and if you at least try a little but fail to prosper, then a person who's worked harder and has prospered more will be compelled under government edict to help you "make it."
Sharing prosperity can only mean that those who have prospered will be forced to relinquish an even greater portion of their good fortune. That is how, in Obama's "new America," a better; more equal tomorrow will be furthered for everyone - except hardworking people whose earnings will be forcibly purloined.
But despite his plans to take yet another step closer to "fundamentally transforming the United States of America" from something old into something new, there is still a playful side to President Obama. At the Iowa state fair, a few days after introducing his "new America" spiel and in lieu of forbidden fried Twinkies, Barack Obama used the occasion to exhibit allegiance to fair-mindedness and equality by mentioning both the "butter cow" and the "chocolate moose."
Then, after referring to the moo and the moose, a disappointed Obama said he was forbidden by the Secret Service to use the bumper cars, which would have provided the President the perfect vehicle for an Iowa state fair object lesson to illustrate the direction he plans to take in his "new America," where prosperity -- and everything else that happens -- is shared.
Jeannie DeAngelis
Friday, June 29, 2012
Laura Ingraham - Bill O'Reilly Boils Down "Obamacare" and "Fast and Furious"
Bill O"Reilly defines in very clear terms EXACTLY what has happened in regards to the SCOTUS ruling on "Obamacare" and the 'contempt of court' vote for Attorney General Eric Holder in the "Fast and Furious" case. Which direction do the American people want to go in the future of our country?Friday, June 22, 2012
Lurita Doan - Barack Obama the Shape Shifter
Barack Obama does lip service to the concept of entrepreneurship and small business ownership and, as he moves full tilt into election campaign mode, repeatedly cues up small business photo ops in an effort to become all things for all people. Like a shape-shifter from a sci-fi film, Obama’s primary skill is to appear to be something he is not, as he repeatedly masks his full-tilt assault on entrepreneurs and small businesses.Consider the many, small business photo-ops that Team Obama has staged in the past few months, in New York, Ohio, Wisconsin, Georgia, Michigan, and Florida. At the same time, the regulatory costs and burdens of Obama’s policies have fallen heavily on the small business community, even as the net worth of Americans has plunged 40% in the past three years under the Obama Administration.
Barack Obama has, arguably, destroyed more wealth during his three years in office than almost any other individual in the history of the United States. And much of this destruction has occurred because Obama is anti-small business and anti-entrepreneurship. Much of this destruction of the economy has occurred because Barack Obama does not understand that business owners and risk takers are what grow an economy, and when the government creates an environment of instability, uncertainty, scapegoatism, topped off with draconian tax regulations, businesses and the economy suffer.
To Obama’s thinking, small business owners are considered part of the “rich”, and thus have become the whipping boy of the Obama Administration. The group labeled “rich”, earning $200,000 or more annually, whom Barack Obama believes need to be taxed at 40% or higher is mainly composed of small business owners, sole proprietors and entrepreneurs, who file their business taxes on Schedules and addenda to their personal income taxes.
Consider, too, that the group hardest hit by the mandates of Obamacare is the small business community which will be required to provide government-legislated healthcare options to employees, regardless of business size and profitability. The new rate hikes due to Obamacare may result in businesses facing a 9% increase in the cost of healthcare premiums. For many small businesses, 9% oftentimes represents the business' entire profit that year, so the Obamacare mandate could wipe out the fruits of an entire year's effort, or even worse, put a small business in the red.
The sad story goes on, as the group hardest hit by the reporting requirements of the Obama Administration policies is the small business community, where the SBA estimates that the cost of the various reports now required by the federal government cost approximately $10,000 to $20,000 dollars—often more than what the average small business makes in profit annually.
The proof that the small business community is the hardest hit by the Obama Administration’s anti-business policies is evidenced in several surveys that have been released this past month.
Small businesses are the biggest employer for minorities and teenagers. But, hiring by small business has slowed to the lowest point ever measured over a ten year period—which also helps to explain the disastrous unemployment numbers for minorities and teens. (The Administration has been trying to posit that teen hiring improved in May, but studies show that teens are discouraged and, thus, there are fewer teens in the market looking for jobs.)
Since small businesses are not hiring, they are also not borrowing as much—which affects the banking industry. Business lending to small business has slowed. Small loans to business of $1 million or less have been shrinking consistently since June 2008.
Average monthly pay for all small business employees decreased to $2,688 in May, a decrease of 13 percent.
The construction sector which has a large proportion of small businesses is, as a direct result of Obama’s anti-business assault is also in serious trouble. Construction sector revenue stopped growing at the beginning of 2006, began a slow decline in mid 2007, and then continued a more dramatic decline starting in mid-2008
“The most common source of startup capital for immigrant-owned businesses is personal or family savings, with roughly two-thirds of businesses reporting this source of startup capital”. But, the devastation within the economy over the past three years means that there’s a lot less “family savings” available for use as startup capital.
There’s an oft heard saying “small businesses need a hand up, not a hand out”, but in the Obama Administration, these kinds of assistance to small businesses are regarded, incorrectly, as one in the same.
The belief that one person can make a difference, can create a thing of value with no help from the government is antithetical to everything that Obama believes. Furthermore, the entrepreneurial ideology scares Obama because business owners act in direct opposition to the kind of government-doled out opportunities that Obama wants Americans to think is the best they can do.
The 2012 election is all about the government and its relationship to the American people and American business. That’s it. That’s all. Whether the issue under discussion is the economy, strengthening the capital markets, the bloated entitlement system, the military, American involvement overseas, Greek debt, healthcare legislation, attracting talented and educated workers, the tax code, or the risks and rewards of being an American, there’s just one degree of separation from these issues and the Obama Administration’s heavy-handed, regulatory overreaching into the lives of Americans.
Barack Obama’s policies cannot and will not work, because the Obama Administration does not truly believe that the economic success of America is intrinsically tied to the success of the American small business community.
And so, our shape-shifting president hopes to disguise his antipathy towards business, entrepreneurs and small business leaders, as he moves skillfully around the country in one staged photo-op after another. Each carefully orchestrated to mask the economic destruction caused by his policies.
Americans should watch how effortlessly Obama shifts his shapes, how effortlessly Obama dons whatever mask is calculated to disguise his intents and best serve his reelection efforts. Americans better say a prayer for the small businesses and entrepreneurs pitted against Barack Obama—a most formidable foe, capable of destroying vast amounts of wealth, ushering in even more restrict regulations, and killing off job creators.
Lurita Doan
Saturday, April 14, 2012
Star Parker - Obama's Message Has Nothing to Do with Fairness or Recovery
You have got to give credit where credit is due. President Obama has laid out the core message of his reelection campaign. It is a message whose claims are blatantly false and whose point is irrelevant to what is of greatest concern to Americans today.
Yet despite this, there is no evidence so far that his strategy and messaging is not working and won’t be successful.
In his speech at Florida Atlantic University last Tuesday, the President defined what he called “…the defining issue of our time.”
And this defining issue, per the president, appears to be that America is not fair.
We suffer today, he says, from “a shrinking number of people who are doing really, really well, but a growing number who are struggling to get by.”
And apparently the reason this is happening is we are not a nation (the President never tells us if we ever were) where “everybody gets a fair shot and everybody does a fair share, and everybody plays by the same set of rules.”
Now excuse me for pointing out the irony of hearing from our nation’s first black president a suggestion that America may no longer be a nation where dreams can be realized or where someone can come out of nowhere and make it.
But Mr. Obama probably would explain his unlikely success in this unfair nation as the result of his being an exceptional and extraordinary individual.
Which is why, I would assume in his thinking, we ordinary folk should turn our lives over to him to determine who should have what.
Ironically, I would say, that if America is unfair today, it is because politicians and government have the power to do exactly what it is that Mr. Obama wants to do. Seize control of the wealth of some and redistribute it to whomever they choose.
The Bible that I read every day calls this theft.
The president seeks to gain political support for this redistribution of wealth by tapping into the widespread dissatisfaction with our most disappointing economy.
But is our economy underperforming because some have more than others, because some succeed more than others?
At a time when Americans are looking for answers to restart our sputtering economy, our president chooses to use his time complaining about the wealthiest not paying sufficient taxes.
But according to the National Taxpayers Union, in 2009 the top 5 percent of income earners paid almost 60 percent of the funds raised by the federal income tax and the bottom 50 percent paid about 2 percent.
Yet, in the president’s remarks in Florida, he defined fairness as everybody playing by “the same set of rules.” Not only are the tax rules not fair by the president’s own definition, in the name of alleged fairness he wants to make them even more unfair.
Of course, the president’s real problem is that his policies have failed so he has to change the subject. He told us that the almost $900 billion in stimulus spending passed in 2009 would revive our economy and reduce unemployment to 6 percent. Unemployment now, three years later, stands at 8.2 percent.
There is no evidence that our president has a clue about what why we are not on the path to recovery. But, unfortunately, he does have a clue about how to tap into the worst instincts of people in order to garner political support. And inspiring blame and envy, sadly, pays political dividends.
The fairness the president obsesses about has nothing to do with fairness, nor does it have anything to do with fixing our economy.
If he really wants guidance on a fair and moral tax system, he might turn to his Bible instead of his campaign spin machine.
He can learn there that the ten percent tithe on income applies to everyone.
Star Parker
Saturday, March 10, 2012
THP Videos - Revolution - Barack Obama's Fundamental Transformation of the United States
"One of Barack Obama's great 'Gifts', is the ability to say things that are absolutely absurd and make them sound not only plausible but inspiring."Dr. Thomas Sowell
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
Star Parker - Memo to Romney: Whole Nation Is On Government Plantation
Here’s free advice for Mitt Romney.Before bringing up the poor again, read my book “Uncle Sam’s Plantation.”
Romney has been taking a drubbing about his remarks in a CNN interview that he is “not worried about the very poor…we have a safety net there…If it needs a repair, I will fix it.” And then going on to say it is “..middle income Americans…that are really struggling…” that are his concern.
What the now Republican presidential frontrunner missed in his off-the-cuff economic analysis of American class is that the cause driving the struggle among both low and middle income Americans is the same.
Economic stagnation and social breakdown caused by welfare state socialism.
As I explain in “Uncle Sam’s Plantation,” America’s inner cities offer laboratory results for what is wrong today with the whole country.
If you want to know why America is failing, look at why our inner cities are failing.
Governor Romney is incorrect to label as a safety net welfare state programs like Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training, Emergency Assistance to Needy Families with Children, Section 8 Housing, and Food Stamps.
A safety net is what is provided when a free person, acting on their own initiative, falls and we offer assistance to help them get back up and start again.
The welfare state amounts to wholesale takeover of individual lives. As opposed to government stepping in to soften the blow, the welfare state assumes from the start that individuals won’t make it without government managing their lives.
It is not an accident that despite some ten trillion dollars spent on anti-poverty programs since the 1960’s there is little discernable change in our poverty rate.
The problem was made worse because the broken families and broken spirits resulting from government plantation dependence have institutionalized inner city poverty.
If America is going to get back on track, we must appreciate that we are doing to our whole country what we did to America’s poor.
Seventy percent of government spending today consists of transfer payments – government redistributing funds from one set of individuals to others.
Even before the Obamacare government takeover, our health care market was already dominated by government. About ten percent of our healthcare expenditures today are out-of-pocket expenditures by individuals. About half of health care expenditures in 1960 were individual out-of-pocket expenditures.
Despite the central role that government sponsored enterprises – Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – played in the recent housing collapse, their role in the housing market today has become even greater.
In 2011, 95% of all new mortgages were bought or guaranteed by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, or FHA.
And, of course, just about every working American is part of Social Security and Medicare, both of which are now fiscally untenable.
Now layer on to all this Obamacare, a trillion dollars in spending on stimulus programs, and bailouts of banks and auto companies. And five trillion in new debt, a 45 percent increase, over the last four years as a down payment on it all.
The bigger role government plays in our lives, the more America resembles the Post Office rather than FedEx.
And the bigger role government plays, the harder it is to fix the problem because individuals become used to these programs and fear fundamental change.
Mitt Romney touts his business experience as his qualification for the presidency.
That business experience amounted to turning companies around, improving their performance by making more efficient use of their assets.
This is exactly what our country needs today. A reallocation of our assets from government to private sector efficiency.
Getting off Uncle Sam’s Plantation is no longer a problem limited to our poor. It is a problem and challenge for the whole country.
Star Parker
NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.
Saturday, February 4, 2012
Bill Whittle - The Coin of the Realm
What is the coin of the realm in a country filled with sanctimonious liberals like Michael Moore, Matt Damon and Jay Z? Find out as Bill Whittle talks about the unearned moral superiority of American liberals, and their demands to redistribute American wealth.NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.
Sunday, January 29, 2012
Bill Whittle - The Vote Pump
Barack Obama will have ONE BILLION DOLLARS to spend on his re-election in 2012. Bill calls that chump change. Find out how the Big Government statists spent 22,000 times that amount on buying votes in 2011 alone!NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.
Monday, December 26, 2011
Austin Hill - Politics, “Inequality,” And Becoming An Adult
It almost sounds like a curse word, doesn’t it?
For most of my life, American media, politics and pop culture have been defining “inequality” in the narrowest terms possible. When the word pops-up in one of these contexts, it implies financial disparity between the “rich” and the “poor,” a disparity that is allegedly caused by grave injustices of the rich.
Nobody doubts that inequality and injustice exist in the United States, and at times the two are correlated. Yet the two concepts are not synonymous with one another, and instances of inequality do not always mean that something bad has happened.
So as the President of the United States and many other elected officials run for re-election on an agenda of “fixing” our alleged inequality problems, it behooves us all to pause and do some critical thinking. If some types of inequality are normal and acceptable, then why do politicians insist that all inequality is a problem that requires a government solution?
Political rhetoric about the alleged injustices of inequality may temporarily allow me avoid certain adult realities. For example, if I believe the President’s assertions about the injustice of other people achieving more than I have, then I can allow myself to believe that somebody else’s success has caused my failure, which in turn allows me – at least for a while – to avoid taking responsibility for my failure. Yet this kind of chatter doesn’t help me become a better, more mature person, and it certainly does not make for productive public policy.
One of the most obvious examples of inequality without injustice is found in the events of Christmas, the holiday that many of us celebrate today. Millions of Americans – especially many parents- will be receiving far less in their traditional gift exchanging rituals than they will be giving. There is “inequality” entailed in our receiving and giving ratios, yet we don’t mind a bit - we freely choose to give from our abundance without the prospect of “getting” much in return.
Cynics will claim that an analysis of Christmas gifting habits is no counter-example to the grave injustices of the other 364 days of the year. Yet the point here is unmistakable: in the context of holiday gift exchanging, inequality is so normal and non-problematic that most of us don’t even recognize it.
But let’s look at the more crucial areas of our lives. For example, let’s consider whether or not our nation is – to use President Obama’s terminology - “a country where working people can earn enough to raise a family, build a modest savings, own a home, (and) secure their retirement…”
It was a very provocative and important moment when the President raised this question on December 6th, during his now-famous speech at Osawatomie, Kansas. And yet he never really answered it, at least not in any concise way. He didn’t say “no, America is not a country where these things can be achieved” (which would have been a false answer), and he didn’t say “yes, America is that kind of place” either.
What President Obama did was to use the framing of his question to make several political assertions. For example, anyone who disagrees with his policies – namely the congressional Republicans – is guilty of leaving helpless American individuals to “fend for themselves” (whatever that means). The fact that most Americans are struggling economically while some are not, is evidence of both injustice AND of – there was that dreaded word again - “inequality.” And the only solution to fixing the inequality is for President Obama to have more control over how people’s money gets spent; hence the “need” for higher taxes and more government funded programs.
When I hear the President spout his inequality and injustice rhetoric like this, it often causes me to think of – believe it or not – Governor Sarah Palin. Ms. Palin and I actually share a whole lot in common: we are essentially the same age (she was born 2 days before me in February of 1964); we were both raised in humble, white, middle class, west coast, protestant Evangelical, 2 parent households; her father was a public school teacher and my mother was a public school secretary; and we each graduated from the type of west coast state university that Ivy Leaguers scoff at.
I don’t know Governor Palin’s net worth – nor do I need to know – but if book sales figures are any indication, I suspect she’s much closer to “financial independence” than I am right now. But here is where adult reality sets-in: despite how similar and “equal” our lives have been, Sarah Palin and I are presumably quite “unequal” these days in terms of our financial assets, yet there is absolutely no injustice in this situation.
Times are tough right now. And while some governmental policies can make matters better, others can certainly make things worse. Americans should resolve to make 2012 a year for renewal, and a year for growing up.
And may the renewal begin with a wholesale rejection of petty political rhetoric – the kind that plays to our child-like jealousies and envy.
Austin Hill
Austin Hill is an emerging American voice, addressing culture-defining questions through books, talk radio, web, speaking, and interviews. His recent books "White House Confidential" and his new title "The Virtues Of Capitalism" show his range from whit-infused writer to thought-provoking expert on the intersection of philosophy, religion, politics & culture. Hill helps to make the complex seem simple when exploring capitalism, socialism, and other "Isms".
He is an editorial contributor to national publications such as U.S. News & World Report, a columnist with TownHall.com, and is a popular expert-host on radio from leading stations in Washington DC, Chicago, Phoenix and Los Angeles, and nationally with networks such as Fox NewsTalk Radio. He hosts the "Austin Hill Show" weekday mornings at Fresno, California's Talk Radio 105-9 KMJ-FM, and weekday afternoons at Boise, Idaho's Newstalk 580 K I D O radio.
Hill holds a Bachelor's Degree in English Literature from California Polytechnic State University at San Luis Obispo, and a Master's Degree in Philosophy of Religion and Ethics from Biola University in California.
NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Star Parker - Land of the Envious and Home of the Victim
President Obama laid out his vision of America in Osawatomie, Kansas.We are no longer, in our president’s take on things, land of the free and home of the brave.
America now is land of the envious and home of the victim.
We are a land, as our president explains it, where the success of one American comes at the expense of another. Where the poor are poor because the rich are rich. And where the role of government is not to ensure “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” but to tax away wealth from those it deems to have too much and determine how to invest our nation’s resources.
The president chose to give this speech in Osawatomie because President Theodore Roosevelt, a Republican, spoke there in 1910 and made a plea for more government in American life. How clever.
But in 1910 the federal government was extracting less than five cents from every dollar produced by the American economy.
It was not until the 1930’s, except for the period of World War I, that this doubled to 10 cents of every dollar.
After World War II, this doubled again to 20 cents.
Now, after three years under President Obama’s vision, the federal government takes 25 cents of every dollar produced by the American economy. If we throw in the costs of state and local government, barely 50 cents of each dollar of our economic output remains in the private economy.
But President Obama thinks we’re languishing because we’re still too free.
The idea that “the market will take care of everything” may look good on a “bumper sticker” according to our president, but, in his words, the idea of free citizens and free markets “…doesn’t work” and “…never worked.”
Perhaps our president ought to wake from his dream, and our nightmare, and take a closer look at the country he is living in.
According to the Kauffman Foundation, which specializes in studying entrepreneurship, almost all net new jobs created in our country come from firms less than five years old.
Net new job growth in American comes from entrepreneurs. Not from government bureaucrats and not even from corporate monoliths.
This entrepreneurial activity takes place at considerable risk. According to one study from Case Western Reserve University, only 30 percent of new business start-ups are still operating after ten years.
Entrepreneurs start and build their businesses with personal savings, credit cards, funds from family and friends, and loans and investments from banks and venture capitalists.
But what entrepreneur will take these risks if there isn’t upside as well as downside? Who will do it if success is punished rather than rewarded? If power seeking politicians decide that certain successful entrepreneurs have become too wealthy?
Our president cannot seem to grasp that freedom and entrepreneurship is not about “doing your own thing” but is the essence of what he calls “we’re greater together than we are on our own.”
Businesses grow by competing to serve customers.
It is also not about, to the president’s confusion, “making up your own rules.” It works when we don’t make up our on rules and live by eternal truths which prohibit theft and protect private property. Our problems start when government stops doing its job to enforce those rules and starts making up its own.
Where President Obama was correct was to say that “This is the defining issue of our time.”
Whatever solutions Republicans propose to deal with issues like government spending, taxation, healthcare, and education must flow from a core vision of what America is about.
Whoever emerges as the Republican presidential nominee in 2012 must be ready to offer a dusted off and clear vision of America that will restore our understanding of and faith in the freedom that made and makes this country great.
Star Parker
NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.
Thursday, December 8, 2011
Wild Bill for America - "Obama's Parasites"
Obama's welfare scammers are wrecking our economy and our national work ethic.Visit the Wild Bill for America Blog
NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
Kevin McCullough - Why Income Inequality is Pure Myth
Income "inequality" is a myth of hysterical proportion.
There, that felt good.
Like tiny Miss Virginia in the movie Miracle on 34th Street, the Occupy forces have a very rough time believing reality. Yet the truth is all around them.
The problem is, they do not wish to admit basic truths. Truths like:
If they understood these basic concepts they would cease whining about the myth of "income inequality" and get their fannies back to their homes and begin efforts to reinvent, create, produce, and multiply (ideas.)
- No one is guaranteed anything in this life.
- Success comes through hard work.
- The world is largely unfair.
- America is the most fair/advantageous economic laboratory on the planet.
The truth is most of Occupy Wall Street is so riddled with absolute hypocrisy that even when CNN confronts an occupier using an Apple Computer at the Occupy location, the occupier merely smiles and says, "well no one is perfect."
Even so the talking point of "income inequality" has outlasted most of the hypocrisy and has begun to be a point of discussion in "serious media" as a "benefit" of the silly occupy movement.
Yet here's the certainty, no one is, nor should be guaranteed an income of any kind. Not without hard work, not without struggle, initiative, extra effort, and accomplishment. Even then that mindset of "results" should be evident in the everyday labor that is being performed.
The problem with Occupy is that it largely sees itself as victims, instead of decision makers. They view themselves as the have-nots, as opposed to those-that-do-not-have... yet. They stare in the mirror each morning examining life as an employee instead of as an entrepreneur. They lack motivation. They lack confidence. They lack direction. And they lack discernment.
They claim to be part of the 99%, when in reality almost no one in America is truly part of the 99% of the world's poorest.
And they are ungrateful, to their creator, to their fellow man, to the public servants that allow them the cover to gather, and to a nation which continues to insist upon them having the right to speak freely, even when that freedom has been grossly abused.
But Occupy's main problem is that they don't live reflective lives. They don't think. They don't problem solve.
They are all about building consensus. Punt consensus, go get a job, and start a savings account, learn about how to build wealth in little pieces over long periods of time, and do what they normal working people do every single day--work hard.
While many of Occupy would love to spit on the perceived wrongs they've been dealt, few of them understand what true income inequality is. Go back to the 1920's in the midst of women's suffrage and you would see it. Employers having the right to pay people less for the same job being done by a woman vs. the man she was working next to. But women now dominate the work scene, they head companies, they lead entire swaths of the work force in attaining success.
But our laws don't allow us to do that anymore.
We give raises based on merit and experience (except in labor unions who honestly believe they shouldn't have to work to get anything.)
In the free market we reward innovation, and we let the market handle the lack of it.
In America new ideas have not found their limits, and the need to produce, distribute, create, and expand will always exist.
Occupy really wants something different--they don't want income equality, because that would require real work--they want evenly distributed "wealth equity," regardless of how you went about getting it.
And that's the lazy man's approach.
So listen up Occupy. You don't have a "right" to a dime of anything. Earn your keep. Work hard. Excel in your endeavors and continue to learn. Make yourself invaluable to the operation--or shock of shocks--go start your own.
American history--unlike the histories of the socialist empires you pine for--is filled with people who changed the course of millions of lives, and because of their creativity and commitment to excellence and hard work they grew companies that employed thousands, made millions, and some even left behind plans to continue to change the world long after they no longer walked among us.
Taking a page from such a playbook, would begin to open your eyes--not to your victimhood, but to the array of potential that you have been too blind to even see!
Kevin McCullough
Kevin McCullough is the nationally syndicated host of "The Kevin McCullough Show" weekdays (7-9am EST) & "Baldwin/McCullough Radio" Saturdays (9-11pm EST) on 289 stations & Sirius/XM . His newest best-selling hardcover from Thomas Nelson Publishers, "No He Can't: How Barack Obama is Dismantling Hope and Change" is in stores now.
NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.
Monday, December 5, 2011
Star Parker - Payroll Tax "Cut" Just Another Welfare State Scam
Last year a one year cut in the payroll taxes that working Americans pay to finance Social Security was enacted in the name of so-called economic “stimulus.”But, like the rest of the economic stimuli that have come from Washington over the last three years, the only thing that has been stimulated is the growing hole of national debt into which we sink deeper and deeper.
But now, not without surprise, our president and his Democrat colleagues want to continue, and possibly expand, this payroll tax holiday despite its obvious failure.
But wait a second. Failure is a matter of definition.
If the point was helping get our economy back on the road to growth and prosperity, the payroll tax holiday has been a failure.
But if the point of the payroll tax holiday is not to reduce government interference in our lives but to keep it, grow it, and strengthen the decided movement of the last three years to turn our nation into a welfare state plantation, it’s a great idea.
And that is really what is going on here and why President Obama and his Democrat colleagues on Capitol Hill love the idea.
Unlike our income taxes that government takes for general revenue and unspecified spending, the payroll tax is earmarked and specified. It pays for Social Security.
A cut in income taxes, even if not accompanied with an equivalent cut in government spending, puts the pressure for such cuts in place and carries with it the prospect of reduction of government interference in our lives.
But there is no such possibility with the payroll tax. When the tax was reduced “temporarily” last year from 6.2 percent to 4.2 percent, were working Americans asked to agree to an equivalent cut in their Social Security benefits that that payroll tax pays for?
Of course not.
What politician in his or her right mind would suggest to working Americans that they intend to cut Social Security benefits?
But cutting the payroll tax is a dream idea for anyone whose project is turning our nation into a welfare state.
This is because, unlike the income tax, which almost half Americans don’t pay, practically every working man and woman pays the payroll tax.
And, what the payroll tax pays for, Social Security, is impossible to cut.
So, if the payroll tax is cut, you have to find another way to pay for those Social Security retirement benefits.
So how about rich people?
Democrats would like for super high income earners, the top one percent, who already pay 40 percent of America’s income taxes, to also start paying for everyone’s Social Security benefits.
Why not also force high income earners to put their addresses up on the internet and we can all send them our grocery bills, our car payments, and our kid’s tuition bills? Let’s get the rich to pay for all our bills, including our retirement.
Unfortunately, some Republicans are allowing themselves to be suckered into this political blackmail.
Cutting payroll taxes earmarked for a Social Security system that is already bankrupt is no way to run a country and no way for people that are allegedly free and responsible citizens to live.
And using a payroll tax holiday as a back door plan to turn Social Security into a middle class welfare program does not bode well for our nation’s future.
If the point is to fix Social Security, let working Americans keep their payroll tax and use it to fund their own private retirement account – an idea that three of four Americans under fifty favor.
If the point is to restore our economy, let’s cut the trillion dollars in new spending we’ve larded into the government over the last three years and start focusing on rewarding rather than punishing individual freedom and success.
Star Parker
NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.
Sunday, December 4, 2011
Austin Hill - Washington Shares “Feelings,” But The Nation Needs Facts
It sounds so scandalous to hear those five words strung together in that order- or at least it’s supposed to sound that way. And the slogan belongs on the “greatest hits” list of the current crop of feelings-based phrases from Washington politicians.
As President Obama and members of Congress struggle to convince us that they are trustworthy on economic and fiscal policy, thoughtful Americans should be paying close attention. Despite our dire need for real economic solutions, Washington is stuck in “emotions mode” as the rhetoric of the politicians is simply intended to make us feel good about them, and badly about their opponents.
If we’re going to get past the politics and arrive at solutions, we the people will first need to reject the feelings-based rhetoric and begin demanding facts. This means that we need to become more well-versed in facts ourselves, and begin challenging the politicians with facts (not just shouting and “emoting” at them). One of the most challenging ways to respond to the comments of a politician is to simply ask them, “What do you mean by that?”
Think about it. When President Obama or Senator Harry Reid or Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi fuss about “tax breaks for the wealthy,” it engenders feelings of envy and anger towards people who possess more wealth than us (isn’t that the vague way in which they define “rich” – someone who has more than me?) and it suggests that the rich are getting away with something naughty.
But when politicians say “tax breaks for the wealthy,” what if we were to ask, “How are you defining “break?’ Somebody is allegedly getting a “break,” but from what are they getting a break?
The fact is that the U.S. Congress and former President Bush all voted to reduce federal income tax rates back in 2001. The law is the law, and the law that stipulates our current taxation rates has been in place for slightly over a decade. Perhaps it make sense to say that rich people are getting a “break” from the taxation rates of the 1990’s, but this is also true of middle and lower income earners as well.
And not only have we all been given a “break” from the 90’s taxation rates – the law has been repeatedly reinstated by the President and the Congress over the past decade, and most recently got approved by President Obama and the democratically controlled House and Senate a year ago.
Spouting off about alleged “breaks” for the rich may satiate some people’s feelings of jealousy or resentment, but it doesn’t grow the economy. We should all be questioning our members of Congress with the facts about our “break from the 90’s,”when they default to their “hate the rich” feelings-based rhetoric.
And here’s another one from the greatest hits list of Washington politicians: the rich need to pay their “fair share” in taxes. President Obama and members of his party love to use this line. They never really define what a “fair share” is, but once again this language isn’t supposed to stipulate any succinct policy. It’s intended to make us feel as though wealthy people are getting away with something wayward.
The fact is that the top 10% of income earners in America pay roughly 70% of all income taxes. Worse yet, the bottom 40% of income earners are getting close to paying nearly none of the income taxes in our country – which means that we’re getting dangerously close to a scenario where a majority of Americans simply live as beneficiaries of the minority’s largesse.
This type of arrangement is, in a word, “unsustainable.” And it is unconscionable that President Obama and the Congress would not only allow this to happen, but would actually help usher-in this new level of dependency and economic destructiveness.
If our government is to ever return to fiscal sanity, we must first reject the self-serving, emotionally-driven rhetoric of politicians, and demand that they produce substantive solutions.
Austin Hill
Austin Hill is an emerging American voice, addressing culture-defining questions through books, talk radio, web, speaking, and interviews. His recent books "White House Confidential" and his new title "The Virtues Of Capitalism" show his range from whit-infused writer to thought-provoking expert on the intersection of philosophy, religion, politics & culture. Hill helps to make the complex seem simple when exploring capitalism, socialism, and other "Isms".
He is an editorial contributor to national publications such as U.S. News & World Report, a columnist with TownHall.com, and is a popular expert-host on radio from leading stations in Washington DC, Chicago, Phoenix and Los Angeles, and nationally with networks such as Fox NewsTalk Radio. He hosts the "Austin Hill Show" weekday mornings at Fresno, California's Talk Radio 105-9 KMJ-FM, and weekday afternoons at Boise, Idaho's Newstalk 580 K I D O radio.
Hill holds a Bachelor's Degree in English Literature from California Polytechnic State University at San Luis Obispo, and a Master's Degree in Philosophy of Religion and Ethics from Biola University in California.
NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.
Sunday, October 23, 2011
Doug Giles - Four Habits of an Occupy Wall Street Occupuss
Herewith are four common denominators of a Wall Street occupier.
Doug Giles
NOTE: To share or email this 'Specific' article, you must click on the Title of the article.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)