Numbers are thrown around all the time from various sources, both credible and otherwise about budgets, taxes, and the cost of entitlement programs. For the most part a single individual cannot even comprehend magnitudes of billions of dollars, and now we're talking trillions. Politicians and self-appointed economic geniuses get bogged down in the trenches of individual government programs, individual lines of the tax code, and individual regulations. We lose sight of the big picture.
If you have children/grandchildren/nieces/nephews or even are a young person yourself, take a good look at them (or in the mirror). Then take a look at what the future tax rates are going to have to be in order to keep the federal government from collapsing under the weight of the debt being created today. Estimates are the lowest income bracket will have to go from 10% to 25% and the middle income brackets will become 66%, up from 25-28%. And that's before you start counting State income taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, etc. So in essence, if we continue on this spending binge, in the very near future, average people trying to work hard and earn a living will be paying between 70-80% or more, of their income to fund paying off the debts we are incurring so callously today. And if your children are working that much for the government instead of themselves or their own families, are they really going to be free? I submit to you that the answer is no. People will be working as tax slaves. The real cost of big government is very literally, our freedom.
Now with that groundwork of what the future is going to hold laid, let's return to the present.
Today, the President threatened to veto any spending bill that cut $60 billion or more out of a budget that spends almost 4 trillion dollars. $60B is 1.5% of 4 trillion. So the President says that 98.5% of his budget is untouchable. How many sane people believe that 98.5% of what the federal government spends is actually vitally important?
When you further consider that this 4 trillion dollar budget includes locking in the almost trillion dollars worth of "stimulus" spending as a permanent thing, can a sane person really believe that more than 25% of the federal budget is vitally important? That so-called stimulus layout was supposed to be a one-time thing, wasn't it?
Take a look at that article. While I normally disapprove of the way the national media implicitly (and sometimes explicitly) endorses the fiscal ruination of this nation, Jake Tapper is normally very good on actual reporting instead of regurgitating what he's told by government officials.
It's the same old tired propaganda of "we have to spend more on education, this that and the other..." because it's compassionate and/or good for the future.
How compassionate/good for the future is the very realistic scenario outlined above?
If the President thinks that 1.5% of the massively over-inflated budget is worth shutting down the entire government temporarily, then it's time to go ahead and do it. In the end, a little inconvenience now is much preferable to enslaving ourselves and our children to the government in the future.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Does the law mean anything today?
Yesterday a federal judge in Florida hearing the lawsuit by 26 states against what everyone now calls "Obamacare" ruled that the individual mandate is unconstitutional. He went further, taking the government's argument that without the mandate the law was unimplementable and agreed thereby throwing out the entire law and issuing a de facto injunction against implementation.
However, not hours later did the regime already show its condescension for the law by attempting to justify its intent to defy the court. The regime's only course of action is to comply with the ruling until they appeal. This is not the Third World where the dictator trashes a so-called independent judiciary and over rules them. This isn't a democracy where you can say the people don't agree. This is a republic where each branch of government has checks and balances against each other and if the democrats want to over rule the judicial ruling without appealing then their only option is to start over and rewrite the legislation and make it legal under the Constitution.
If Obama and his minions take any other path than the two mentioned above, it's time to drag this regime before that court and declare them in contempt and once done, remove them from office through the allowed Constitutional process. This is not a game folks. These are serious transgressions against the republic and Constitution and puts our freedom in a precarious state. It cannot be tolerated by any president not matter who they are or what label or mantle they wear.
Otherwise the law means nothing anymore, and we see in Tunisia, Egypt and other places, past and present what results. And the United States of America is better than that; the people are better than that, and the rule of law must be respected.
However, not hours later did the regime already show its condescension for the law by attempting to justify its intent to defy the court. The regime's only course of action is to comply with the ruling until they appeal. This is not the Third World where the dictator trashes a so-called independent judiciary and over rules them. This isn't a democracy where you can say the people don't agree. This is a republic where each branch of government has checks and balances against each other and if the democrats want to over rule the judicial ruling without appealing then their only option is to start over and rewrite the legislation and make it legal under the Constitution.
If Obama and his minions take any other path than the two mentioned above, it's time to drag this regime before that court and declare them in contempt and once done, remove them from office through the allowed Constitutional process. This is not a game folks. These are serious transgressions against the republic and Constitution and puts our freedom in a precarious state. It cannot be tolerated by any president not matter who they are or what label or mantle they wear.
Otherwise the law means nothing anymore, and we see in Tunisia, Egypt and other places, past and present what results. And the United States of America is better than that; the people are better than that, and the rule of law must be respected.
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Harry Reid: The Moronic Tyrant Wannabe
I don't know about you, but I'm not much for tyranny. And more and more of these politicians in Washington are exposing themselves for what they are. Tyrannically minded. When the Senate Majority Leader proclaims for all the world to hear "Americans love government. It's the politics in government they don't love" I take notice, and so should every other American.
Americans don't love government. If we did we never would have fought a war to separate from the tyrannical government of Britain in the 18th century. We love liberty, which is the opposite of large, suffocating, in your face, Orwellian government.
And I can think of quite a few places that don't have "politics in government". Cuba. China. Venezuela. Burma. You know, places where if you disagree with the ruling regime and make noise about what they're doing, you disappear. Sometimes to a prison, sometimes face down in a ditch.
Politics, discourse, and dissent are a large part of free societies. But to the radical Left, dissent is only for when they are in the minority and are fighting against things school choice, State sovereignty, gun ownership, the entire rest of the Bill of Rights, etc. When they're in power, everyone should bow to their every whim and agree with everything they do.
All you have to do to understand these people is pay attention to moments like this where they are speaking off script and expose their true thoughts and intentions. And it's why we need to continue to remove them politically through the voting system and not back down to compromise with those who have this tyrannical mindset.
Americans don't love government. If we did we never would have fought a war to separate from the tyrannical government of Britain in the 18th century. We love liberty, which is the opposite of large, suffocating, in your face, Orwellian government.
And I can think of quite a few places that don't have "politics in government". Cuba. China. Venezuela. Burma. You know, places where if you disagree with the ruling regime and make noise about what they're doing, you disappear. Sometimes to a prison, sometimes face down in a ditch.
Politics, discourse, and dissent are a large part of free societies. But to the radical Left, dissent is only for when they are in the minority and are fighting against things school choice, State sovereignty, gun ownership, the entire rest of the Bill of Rights, etc. When they're in power, everyone should bow to their every whim and agree with everything they do.
All you have to do to understand these people is pay attention to moments like this where they are speaking off script and expose their true thoughts and intentions. And it's why we need to continue to remove them politically through the voting system and not back down to compromise with those who have this tyrannical mindset.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)