Obamacare is under constitutional scrutiny. The individual mandate is the problem. The left believes that the individual mandate will stand up under the scrutiny because the constitution says taxes may be collected for the "general welfare" of the people. The left also has been attempting to claim car insurance is mandatory so they don't see the problem with health insurance. Additionally, the left is selling that health insurance is necessary to have health care. The left is delusional in their logic.
Here is the problem with the "general welfare" argument. If Congress can force people to purchase a private good or service in the name of the "general welfare", then what will ever stop the federal government from mandating citizens purchase only General Motors or Chrysler cars? The Government utilized tax payer dollars to purchase a significant share of General Motors and significantly altered the business plan of both GM and Chrysler during forced government mandated bankruptcy proceeding. So we the citizen own a stake in GM, in order for us to have a return on our investment GM must be profitable. It would be good for the "general welfare" of the investor to turn a profit. So again I ask what is stopping the left from forcing us through a law to purchase GM products only? The answer is nothing if the Supreme Court upholds the health insurance mandate. The government would no longer operate by the will of the people, we the people would become subservient to the government. Rather than a representative democracy we would become a socialist State. The government could mandate anything they deemed for the the "general welfare" of the State. Instead of the people being represented, government would be enabled to determine what we think, what we eat, what we purchase, or what we consume. We the people would be at the mercy of the Government elitists. The political establishment would make the rules, and serve the good of the elitists. Certainly that seems eerily similar to Communism as run in China.
Liberals also believe that car insurance is mandatory so what the big deal about health insurance. The problem is that car insurance is not mandated and car insurance is not necessarily designed or intended for the policy holders personal property. To understand this one must understand that car insurance is only mandatory to drive a car. Car insurance is not mandated to get a drivers license. Car insurance is not even necessary an individual product. See I could allow a person to borrow my car. The person I borrow the car to can drive it as long as they have a drivers license. My insurance policy would cover my friend in the case of him not having insurance. That don't sound like a mandated insurance purchase to me. Additionally, car insurance is only mandated to cover a third party's property, not the owner of the policy. We are only mandated to cover the personal property of others or the property of the lien holder when the car is utilized as collateral. Car insurance not mandated to cover my expenses, rather it protects the property of others. Health insurance is expected to provide coverage direct;y to the individual, and our government has decided to take the decision away from the individual. Unlike car insurance whereas I have the decision making authority to what I want covered that is personally owned by me (liability only as long as there are no leans), health insurance is designed to pay for my personal expenses yet government is decided what I have to cover. Only dishonest people would push the canard that car insurance mandate is similar to health insurance mandates.
Another favorite of mine is how the left seems to push the idea that health insurance means health care. Nothing could be further from the truth. Health insurance is a product sold to people to cover medical expenses. If I so chose, I could go without insurance and pay cash for my doctor visits. That is what is wonderful about being able to make individual decisions. If I choose not to have insurance and decide that I will pay my own expenses out of pocket, who is the government to say that is illegal and wrong, and force me into additional tax burdens? See as long as I have money to pay for services, I have health care. From experience, I can tell you that had I not had insurance when my son was born, I would have has a hospital bill of $2,800. That was the itemized bill. Yet because I had insurance, the hospital bill was over $5,000. That is an increase of almost 80% charged to the insurance company over and beyond what I would have been liable for had I just paid that out pocket instead of paying for health insurance. See I would have received health care with or without insurance. The only difference is I would have been liable for only what it really costs, whereas the insurance paid the average cost of every child birth not just mine.
This insurance mandate has to be found unconstitutional. The mandate is indefensible. The mandate is only necessary to have the young and healthy subsidize care for higher risk patients. Isn't that what got Ma Bell in trouble in the 1980's? I mean Ma Bel was charging more for local to subsidize long distance calling. This lead to an obstacle to entry for other providers. The government broke up Ma Bell. We need to break this health insurance mandate. Subsidies will in in the form of the individual mandate will lead to obstacles to entry for additional insurance companies. Our government is forming an insurance monopoly.
Saturday, February 4, 2012
Friday, February 3, 2012
Equality Under The Law For Hate Crimes
Enforcement of laws petaining to hate crimes just became very obsolete today. The decision by a Philadelphia prosecutor not to seek hate crimes charges in the case of teenagers attacking a taxi driver and a passenger even as both in sworn statements said the attackers spewed racial slurs proves that liberals believe hate crimes are only against minorities. This lack of interest in seeking hate crimes penalties in this case shows that there is no equality under the law when it comes to laws based on racial or ethnic backgrounds.
The prosecutor said that using racial slurs was not enough. In order to pursue hate crimes the suspects would have had to told someone down the street that they were going to seek out someone based on race prior to the criminal act. Is that the same standard that will be used when a white perpatrator is suspected of hate crimes? Will this same prosecutor not seek additional penalties under hate crimes when a white suspect uses racial slurs against a black person?
Laws are intended to protect everyone and not just the few. Our civil rights laws state discrimination based on race is illegal. The civil rights laws do not single out a particular race nor do they single out minority races. Nope they simply state race based discrimination is illegal. If there is not going to be equality under the law then there is no law, our constitution is based on equality. How is it social justice when minorities are not treated the same under our laws? Liberals need to understand that individuals discriminate not races. Believe me there are racists in every race category not just the caucasian race. There are people in all races, religions, and creeds that hate other people. Liberal prosecutrs from the cities in this nation need to start enforcing the laws as writen. The flash mobs of African American youths from Wisconsin attacking Caucasians at the Wisconsin State fair were racists and guilty of hate crimes. The African American youths in the Philadelphia case are racist. Racism in its entirety needs to stop. Until the laws are enforced equally, there is no law to begin with, at least not laws that will pass constitional muster in America. Liberals want fairness and equality yet when it comes to equality under law concerning a minority they ignore this same fairness and equality they claim. Liberals are hypocritical and illogical.
The prosecutor said that using racial slurs was not enough. In order to pursue hate crimes the suspects would have had to told someone down the street that they were going to seek out someone based on race prior to the criminal act. Is that the same standard that will be used when a white perpatrator is suspected of hate crimes? Will this same prosecutor not seek additional penalties under hate crimes when a white suspect uses racial slurs against a black person?
Laws are intended to protect everyone and not just the few. Our civil rights laws state discrimination based on race is illegal. The civil rights laws do not single out a particular race nor do they single out minority races. Nope they simply state race based discrimination is illegal. If there is not going to be equality under the law then there is no law, our constitution is based on equality. How is it social justice when minorities are not treated the same under our laws? Liberals need to understand that individuals discriminate not races. Believe me there are racists in every race category not just the caucasian race. There are people in all races, religions, and creeds that hate other people. Liberal prosecutrs from the cities in this nation need to start enforcing the laws as writen. The flash mobs of African American youths from Wisconsin attacking Caucasians at the Wisconsin State fair were racists and guilty of hate crimes. The African American youths in the Philadelphia case are racist. Racism in its entirety needs to stop. Until the laws are enforced equally, there is no law to begin with, at least not laws that will pass constitional muster in America. Liberals want fairness and equality yet when it comes to equality under law concerning a minority they ignore this same fairness and equality they claim. Liberals are hypocritical and illogical.
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Where Is The Energy
The Republican party needs to regroup. Obama has failed America in every way. The economy is sluggish at best with GDP growth under three percent last quarter and unemployment well over eight percent. Millions are so frustrated with the state of the economy that they left the labor force. The CBO is predicting seven percent unemployment for the next five years. Yet, with the economy in the tank and Obama out of ideas, his reelect numbers are not doing as badly as they should. Real Clear Politics still has Obama approval rating under water but not by much.
The Republican field should be doing better. While it is understandable that the Republicans have not yet rallied around one candidate, that is no reason for President to be so high in his approval ratings. Since November, Obama's approval has gained three to five points. Some of that is due to a small bounce from the State of the Union address but not all of the gain. Republicans are losing the message to a President who has to use tax payer dollars to buy votes. Republicans need to get their act together and start messaging their principles better.
Republicans have to be concerned when a Florida primary only had 1.7 million voters this year compared to a terrible Republican election cycle of 2008 had 1.94 million voters. The story is much the same in earlier States where Iowa was roughly steady and New Hampshire had a slight increase. In both Iowa and New Hampshire the primaries were open in an election cycle with an incumbent running unopposed. There doesn't seem to be any energy in the Republican base. That needs to change and quickly.
I hope the Republicans understand that they are losing right now. Rasmussen came out today with poll of party affiliation finding Democrats at a historical low point. They came in under 33% while Republicans came in at 35%. Yet we can't seem to get these people out to vote in the primaries. This campaign against Obama is going to be negative and approval ratings for every politician is bound to decline. The risk of not having energy in the electorate is that we will have the malaise election.
The wild card here in this election is malaise. Obama's intent is to turn the electorate away from the voting booth. Obama knows the Democrats will be unable to match the energy of 2008, so he is attempting to take away everyone's energy so he can win by default. Republicans need to stop attacking each other and point out a positive direction for the country. Republicans will not be able to win a negative campaign. Where is the message or better yet what is the message? We need energy to take advantage of the dwindling numbers of self identified Democrats. We need to lay out a clear message and take away Obama's message of "we may be bad but the other side is worse". We need to win the messaging war and energize the Republican electorate and we need that energy immediately.
The Republican field should be doing better. While it is understandable that the Republicans have not yet rallied around one candidate, that is no reason for President to be so high in his approval ratings. Since November, Obama's approval has gained three to five points. Some of that is due to a small bounce from the State of the Union address but not all of the gain. Republicans are losing the message to a President who has to use tax payer dollars to buy votes. Republicans need to get their act together and start messaging their principles better.
Republicans have to be concerned when a Florida primary only had 1.7 million voters this year compared to a terrible Republican election cycle of 2008 had 1.94 million voters. The story is much the same in earlier States where Iowa was roughly steady and New Hampshire had a slight increase. In both Iowa and New Hampshire the primaries were open in an election cycle with an incumbent running unopposed. There doesn't seem to be any energy in the Republican base. That needs to change and quickly.
I hope the Republicans understand that they are losing right now. Rasmussen came out today with poll of party affiliation finding Democrats at a historical low point. They came in under 33% while Republicans came in at 35%. Yet we can't seem to get these people out to vote in the primaries. This campaign against Obama is going to be negative and approval ratings for every politician is bound to decline. The risk of not having energy in the electorate is that we will have the malaise election.
The wild card here in this election is malaise. Obama's intent is to turn the electorate away from the voting booth. Obama knows the Democrats will be unable to match the energy of 2008, so he is attempting to take away everyone's energy so he can win by default. Republicans need to stop attacking each other and point out a positive direction for the country. Republicans will not be able to win a negative campaign. Where is the message or better yet what is the message? We need energy to take advantage of the dwindling numbers of self identified Democrats. We need to lay out a clear message and take away Obama's message of "we may be bad but the other side is worse". We need to win the messaging war and energize the Republican electorate and we need that energy immediately.
Mitt's Minimum Wage
Mitt is going to be a disaster if he becomes President. In his statement regarding having automatic increases in the minimum wage tied to inflation we are again reminded that Mitt is a Northeast Republican. For a candidate pushing his business credentials as the reason to vote for him, he certainly is alienating those in the business of creating jobs. This proposal is absolutely wrong for business. This type of proposal is a job killer not a job creator.
Currently, the minimum wage is $7.25 per hour. Now we all know this is not a living wage, not even close. However, it is decent pay in fact rather generous for what amounts to unskilled burger flipping jobs in fast food. We are talking unskilled labor that most people that are employed by those markets are only there for extra spending cash. The people most hurt by increases in the minimum wage are the young adolescents. Jobs that are made for 16 and 17 year old young students for extra spending money have been taken away from them. The minimum wage is now high enough that young adults in their twenties will take for extra income in a household. Middle aged empty nesters will take that kind of job for something to do now the the kids have moved away. Businesses now having higher direct labor costs will look and hire the more mature young adults or empty nester over a young adolescent that is immature. So the young of robbed of opportunity. The young adolescent's are robbed of the ability to learn responsibility. Small businesses and family businesses will work longer hours and hire even less employees. Any way you look at the minimum wage, the only one's that benefit from higher minimum wage is labor unions and only because their labor rates are often tied to the minimum wage much like credit card interest rates are tied to the prime lending interest rate.
This proposal on minimum wage is anything but a job creator. It may sound good to the labor unions but it is bad for business. This recession started in DEC 2007, according to the experts. Of course this followed a hike in the minimum wage in Jul 2007. The 2007 law also mandated two more increases in 2008 and 2009. Look at our unemployment rate's and look at the problems we are having in the job market even today. The 2007 minimum wage increase has had a negative impact on employment and we are still feeling the effects two and a half years after the last increase.
The minimum wage is an inflation driver. Tying the minimum wage to inflation is like a self licking ice cream cone. As higher labor rate across the board go into effect due to an increase in the minimum wage inflation increases, as inflation increases so does the minimum wage. We need to stop thinking of the minimum wage as a wage for the poor or a living wage. Wages should be negotiated and not mandated. The market system will take care of the wages. If a business offers to little in wages there will be a higher turnover of employees and the business will become unstable. If wages are too high the business will become unprofitable and fail. By placing a minimum wage into effect the risk is it will become too high for businesses to remain competitive, increase inflationary pressures and kill responsibility providing jobs for the young adolescents. Mitt's idea on the minimum wage is not good for Republicans, not good businesses, and not good for the country. I can't believe this idea of the left is being paraded around by a Republican Presidential Nominee candidate.
Currently, the minimum wage is $7.25 per hour. Now we all know this is not a living wage, not even close. However, it is decent pay in fact rather generous for what amounts to unskilled burger flipping jobs in fast food. We are talking unskilled labor that most people that are employed by those markets are only there for extra spending cash. The people most hurt by increases in the minimum wage are the young adolescents. Jobs that are made for 16 and 17 year old young students for extra spending money have been taken away from them. The minimum wage is now high enough that young adults in their twenties will take for extra income in a household. Middle aged empty nesters will take that kind of job for something to do now the the kids have moved away. Businesses now having higher direct labor costs will look and hire the more mature young adults or empty nester over a young adolescent that is immature. So the young of robbed of opportunity. The young adolescent's are robbed of the ability to learn responsibility. Small businesses and family businesses will work longer hours and hire even less employees. Any way you look at the minimum wage, the only one's that benefit from higher minimum wage is labor unions and only because their labor rates are often tied to the minimum wage much like credit card interest rates are tied to the prime lending interest rate.
This proposal on minimum wage is anything but a job creator. It may sound good to the labor unions but it is bad for business. This recession started in DEC 2007, according to the experts. Of course this followed a hike in the minimum wage in Jul 2007. The 2007 law also mandated two more increases in 2008 and 2009. Look at our unemployment rate's and look at the problems we are having in the job market even today. The 2007 minimum wage increase has had a negative impact on employment and we are still feeling the effects two and a half years after the last increase.
The minimum wage is an inflation driver. Tying the minimum wage to inflation is like a self licking ice cream cone. As higher labor rate across the board go into effect due to an increase in the minimum wage inflation increases, as inflation increases so does the minimum wage. We need to stop thinking of the minimum wage as a wage for the poor or a living wage. Wages should be negotiated and not mandated. The market system will take care of the wages. If a business offers to little in wages there will be a higher turnover of employees and the business will become unstable. If wages are too high the business will become unprofitable and fail. By placing a minimum wage into effect the risk is it will become too high for businesses to remain competitive, increase inflationary pressures and kill responsibility providing jobs for the young adolescents. Mitt's idea on the minimum wage is not good for Republicans, not good businesses, and not good for the country. I can't believe this idea of the left is being paraded around by a Republican Presidential Nominee candidate.
Sunday, January 29, 2012
The Do Nothing Democrats
The President has decided to run against a do nothing Congress. A look at he legislative accomplish seem to bear out the President's premise, this Congress has indeed passed very little legislation. The Presidential blame of course falls at the feet of the House and the House Republicans. Yet this isn't right, it is the democrats in the Senate that allows legislation go there to die. It is not even debated and voted for or against. The House legislation is not filibustered, it just lies there waiting for some type of action.
According to ABC this morning Congressman Lynn Westmoreland urged Speaker Boehner to stop writing, passing, and voting for legislation without ensuring there are 60 votes in the Senate. This is the wrong attitude. This would play right into the President's campaign and allows Harry Reid off the hook for blocking legislation from even having a debate. The Republicans in the House could negotiate in good faith and have the 60 votes in the Senate and Harry Reid could still sit on the legislation. In fact that is what he is doing. Reid knows debating this legislation may get to 60 votes or at least make for some difficult votes for the Democrats in the Senate. So even if there was 13 Senate Democrats willing to allow an up or down vote, Harry Reid won't even think about the legislation unless Obama pushed the idea in the first place.
The House has passed 30 jobs bills. President Obama's own job commission recommended many proposals that are similar to those already passed in the House according to Boehner. Yet because passing this type of bill, it languishes in the Senate to die because it would make the President's campaign memes of a do nothing Congress and uncompromising Republicans mute points. The bottom line is it is the democrats that are uncompromising and the Democrats that are not doing anything. Our country deserves better people in our government then a political party bent on power rather than on what is good for the American people.
According to ABC this morning Congressman Lynn Westmoreland urged Speaker Boehner to stop writing, passing, and voting for legislation without ensuring there are 60 votes in the Senate. This is the wrong attitude. This would play right into the President's campaign and allows Harry Reid off the hook for blocking legislation from even having a debate. The Republicans in the House could negotiate in good faith and have the 60 votes in the Senate and Harry Reid could still sit on the legislation. In fact that is what he is doing. Reid knows debating this legislation may get to 60 votes or at least make for some difficult votes for the Democrats in the Senate. So even if there was 13 Senate Democrats willing to allow an up or down vote, Harry Reid won't even think about the legislation unless Obama pushed the idea in the first place.
The House has passed 30 jobs bills. President Obama's own job commission recommended many proposals that are similar to those already passed in the House according to Boehner. Yet because passing this type of bill, it languishes in the Senate to die because it would make the President's campaign memes of a do nothing Congress and uncompromising Republicans mute points. The bottom line is it is the democrats that are uncompromising and the Democrats that are not doing anything. Our country deserves better people in our government then a political party bent on power rather than on what is good for the American people.
Saturday, January 28, 2012
Careful Mitt
Mitt had best tread very carefully. Right now Mitt has gone all in and is attacking Newt falsely and otherwise. Having a campaign run attack ad and not knowing it is airing , let alone knowing if the attack is even true shows the lengths that you will use to purchase the nomination. Worse than not knowing the attacks a candidate is running is the fact that Mitt is very misleading in his attacks on Newt's ethics charges. As explained already in the debates, the ethics charges were trumped up by a political party out of power. Newt was exonerated of all charges and what we all should understand is the minority party trumped up charges just to make the Republican Speaker and the Republican party look unethical as the minority party attempted to gain favor with the American electorate just so they could again come into power.
These atatcks may be working to win the Florida primary. The attacks may or may not be enough to bury Newt. However, Newt is receiving over 30% of the vote. Newt will have significant numbers in Florida and should Santorum drop out before or even after Florida, Newt will still be formidable. Mitt, should you go on to win the nomination, you are going to have to rally all Republicans including the Newt supporters. Without the support of the conservatives, Mitt has no chance. Everyone knows Mitt is a moderate. A moderate is sometimes good for the country, but a Republican candidate that is moderate that can not energize the conservative vote has no chance in November. Mitt this is a political campaign and you have made it personal. By making it personal, you are making this campaign for the nomination emotional. While I highly doubt Conservatives could stomach voting for Obama, certainly they would consider staying home. You can't win without the conservatives. Be careful Mitt because when even the liberal media believes you attacks are out of bounds, you are on the verge of alienating the very voters you need to win the general election. Bottom line you can not win by resorting to the tactics of the left. While this tactic seemed to work in 2008 with Obama ultimately winning the nomination and the general election, the times were very different. A democrat was going to win the 2008 election there was never any doubt. In 2012, there is an incumbent President and there is no certainty that the Republican will or even can win, Alienate Newt's supporters at your own peril. Be careful Mitt, the backlash could very well vanquish you to the dust bin of history. Should you win the nomination and lose the general, you will come to feel the wrath of the grass roots Republicans.
These atatcks may be working to win the Florida primary. The attacks may or may not be enough to bury Newt. However, Newt is receiving over 30% of the vote. Newt will have significant numbers in Florida and should Santorum drop out before or even after Florida, Newt will still be formidable. Mitt, should you go on to win the nomination, you are going to have to rally all Republicans including the Newt supporters. Without the support of the conservatives, Mitt has no chance. Everyone knows Mitt is a moderate. A moderate is sometimes good for the country, but a Republican candidate that is moderate that can not energize the conservative vote has no chance in November. Mitt this is a political campaign and you have made it personal. By making it personal, you are making this campaign for the nomination emotional. While I highly doubt Conservatives could stomach voting for Obama, certainly they would consider staying home. You can't win without the conservatives. Be careful Mitt because when even the liberal media believes you attacks are out of bounds, you are on the verge of alienating the very voters you need to win the general election. Bottom line you can not win by resorting to the tactics of the left. While this tactic seemed to work in 2008 with Obama ultimately winning the nomination and the general election, the times were very different. A democrat was going to win the 2008 election there was never any doubt. In 2012, there is an incumbent President and there is no certainty that the Republican will or even can win, Alienate Newt's supporters at your own peril. Be careful Mitt, the backlash could very well vanquish you to the dust bin of history. Should you win the nomination and lose the general, you will come to feel the wrath of the grass roots Republicans.
Friday, January 27, 2012
Fairness or Envy?
social justice and economic fairness are the platform of the Food Stamp President. Of course Obama want to blame Bush but the fact is under Obama the food stamp program has over 46 million participants and is going. This represent an increase of 45% from where it was under Bush. Is the trickle up economics what we really want?
The last quarter saw our GDP grow at an initial estimate of 2.8%. For the year, that is increases the GDP to a whopping 1.7%. The 4th quarter GDP is being pushed as good news for the President. Yet, the increase this quarter seems to be due largely to increased inventory and not demand. This is not a good economic indicator, rather the slight gain this quarter barely is over what is needed to keep up with a growing populous. In 2010, we had a GDP of 3.0%. The second year out of a recession should be booming, yet in 2011 the GDP growth slipped by almost half. Yet Obama is pursuing goodies for his strongest 2008 supporters and more of the same gimmicks that provided the stagnant economy.
So now Obama wants everyone to be treated fair. Obama's policies will only make everyone poorer. My daughter last night for her part relayed this story to me that perfectly represents the socialist model that Obama is pushing as economic fairness. Here is the story:
A professor decided to try out Obama's model. The professor that decided that everyone would receive the same grade out of fairness. All of the points earned by students would be tallied and divided equally for all the students. The results of the first test came out and the students seemed satisfied as they all received a "B". everything seemed to be going well, sure those that studied harder had a beef in that there grade was lowered to "B" after earning an "A" but most were satisfied. Yet the results of the second test were even more revealing. After grading the second exam and dividing equally every student earned a lowly "D" for their efforts.
See what happened there? In the second test the higher performing students decided it wasn't worth studying if their grades were going to be a shade lower to bring up the poorly performing students. Yet it wasn't only the higher performing students that performed less it was almost the whole class. The middle also had to stop performing to lower from a "B" to a "D". We can see that happening in the economy now. Obama's tax the rich mantra has investors and businesses sitting on an estimated $2 trillion dollars. See the people with money are investing less because they fear that Obama will shave there hard earned profits to give away to those precious people Obama needs to win election. Instead of making everyone richer Obama is making everyone poorer.
The state of decline for the poor will be slower than the rich but everyone will be in a state decline. Of course after a few cycles of taxing the rich and making the rich fall precipitously to a more "fair" share will only reduce the government coffers to provide for the poor even further so the poor will fall by the wayside. The trickle up economics model from Obama will only result in a declining America. See it is not fairness but envy that is the driving class warfare going on. It is not fair to take from the hard working and risk takers to payoff the weak performers and moochers. Just like the "A" students decided it wasn't fair that there hard work resulted in lower grades. What happened the "A" became "C" students and "C" Students became failing students. Envy is the root of many evils. Envying the rich in the name of fairness will only result in everyone being poorer. Americans want equal opportunity not economic fairness. Americans want everyone to be prosperous not everyone to become poor. Stop the politics of envy it can't possibly result in a liberal utopia.
The last quarter saw our GDP grow at an initial estimate of 2.8%. For the year, that is increases the GDP to a whopping 1.7%. The 4th quarter GDP is being pushed as good news for the President. Yet, the increase this quarter seems to be due largely to increased inventory and not demand. This is not a good economic indicator, rather the slight gain this quarter barely is over what is needed to keep up with a growing populous. In 2010, we had a GDP of 3.0%. The second year out of a recession should be booming, yet in 2011 the GDP growth slipped by almost half. Yet Obama is pursuing goodies for his strongest 2008 supporters and more of the same gimmicks that provided the stagnant economy.
So now Obama wants everyone to be treated fair. Obama's policies will only make everyone poorer. My daughter last night for her part relayed this story to me that perfectly represents the socialist model that Obama is pushing as economic fairness. Here is the story:
A professor decided to try out Obama's model. The professor that decided that everyone would receive the same grade out of fairness. All of the points earned by students would be tallied and divided equally for all the students. The results of the first test came out and the students seemed satisfied as they all received a "B". everything seemed to be going well, sure those that studied harder had a beef in that there grade was lowered to "B" after earning an "A" but most were satisfied. Yet the results of the second test were even more revealing. After grading the second exam and dividing equally every student earned a lowly "D" for their efforts.
See what happened there? In the second test the higher performing students decided it wasn't worth studying if their grades were going to be a shade lower to bring up the poorly performing students. Yet it wasn't only the higher performing students that performed less it was almost the whole class. The middle also had to stop performing to lower from a "B" to a "D". We can see that happening in the economy now. Obama's tax the rich mantra has investors and businesses sitting on an estimated $2 trillion dollars. See the people with money are investing less because they fear that Obama will shave there hard earned profits to give away to those precious people Obama needs to win election. Instead of making everyone richer Obama is making everyone poorer.
The state of decline for the poor will be slower than the rich but everyone will be in a state decline. Of course after a few cycles of taxing the rich and making the rich fall precipitously to a more "fair" share will only reduce the government coffers to provide for the poor even further so the poor will fall by the wayside. The trickle up economics model from Obama will only result in a declining America. See it is not fairness but envy that is the driving class warfare going on. It is not fair to take from the hard working and risk takers to payoff the weak performers and moochers. Just like the "A" students decided it wasn't fair that there hard work resulted in lower grades. What happened the "A" became "C" students and "C" Students became failing students. Envy is the root of many evils. Envying the rich in the name of fairness will only result in everyone being poorer. Americans want equal opportunity not economic fairness. Americans want everyone to be prosperous not everyone to become poor. Stop the politics of envy it can't possibly result in a liberal utopia.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
