"We are going to ban all earmarks."
~President Barack H. Obama, about the spending bill
In reality, the bill contains about 9,000 earmarks, totalling about $7.8 billion. Thanks, Barry.
I'm having trouble expressing my frustration. So, I'll let Glenn Beck do it for me.
First, a little info for those of you who think that we can just raise taxes on the rich to solve our problems:
Fantastic. Now about the bill at hand and the pork within:
So not only has Obama allowed earmarks in this bill, but he is actually directly responsible for requesting some of it. But it's ok. He's having his name removed from it.
*sigh*
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
The War on Charity
I have learned to never underestimate President Obama's ability to piss me the hell off.
In his continued campaign of class warfare, he may be claiming another innocent casualty: non-profit organizations. He has proposed a reduction in tax deductions for charitable giving for the ever-maligned "wealthy." It's the latest in a stream of attempts to penalize the successful that the public just seems to love. But usually, it's not so apparent how these measures will actually negatively affect many of us beneath them - a negative trickle-down effect. Things like increased taxes and restrictions on large corporations may sound like justice to those of us who are less fortunate. But we don't realize that when the wealthy have less money and freedom, they have a harder time doing things like hiring people and expanding.
This time, it's different. We are being told point-blank just why this is a bad idea. When this takes effect, we know exactly how it will have a negative impact. If the wealthy, who are the ones who are able to give the most, get less reward for giving, when the reward is one of the biggest reasons they give in the first place, what do you think will happen to charitable donations? Amazingly, some people still think that it's a good idea.
But seriously, reducing deductions for charitable giving? That's his idea? There are so many other ways he could have tried to get more taxes out of the wealthy. And we're getting mixed signals here. He's also been talking about eliminating tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas, which I have discussed earlier. So we're led to believe that he's increasing taxes for certain activities because they are bad and he wants people to stop. So, does Obama think that wealthy people giving money to charity is a bad thing? Apparently, he does. Why else would he be punishing them?
Seriously, folks. It's a pretty simple concept that has been proven over and over: the more you tax an activity, the less of it you get.
Here's a helpful article that does a good job of representing both sides. It also has some good comments from educated people, which you don't find very often on the internet.
Obama's Plan to Reduce Charitable Deductions for the Wealthy Draws Criticism
I just want to point out a few things from the article. First is this absolutely outrageous comment from Obama on why he's doing such a terrible thing:
"The plan is an effort to 'rebalance the tax code so that the wealthiest pay more,' the document says."
For those of us who know that communism is bad (a sliding tax scale is one of the tennants of communism), realize that the wealthy are already paying more and understand what the word "balance" means, this is one of the dumbest statements ever.
Here's a little lesson for Obama on the concept of balance. When one group of people is paying more than other groups, that is the opposite of balance. Balance would mean that everyone pays the same.
The tax code is already way out of balance, anyway. If you didn't already know that, just read this: The Top 50% pay 96.54% of All Income Taxes (The top 1% pay more than a third: 34.27%)
Here's another point for those who enjoy sticking it to the rich: the only rich people being punished by this measure are those who give to charity. Those scumbags who give nothing are getting away scot free (in this case, anyway). This is just a horrible, horrible idea.
And to those of you who like this whole class warfare thing, answer this: have any of you benefitted one dime because of what has been taken from the wealthy? Anyone? Has your life improved because they can't fly their private jets as much or can't go on lavish retreats? I'll tell you whose lives have NOT improved: the companies who would be getting more income and the workers who would be getting more tips if they could take more retreats and upgrade more offices.
This whole thing is an attack on one of the main principles that I hold that keep me a conservative: non-profits, especially Christian-based, are way better for the people than government programs. Why? One main reason, really. What do the poor (like all of us) need the most? They need Jesus. And they aren't going to get that from government. That isn't allowed.
"Unless the LORD builds the house,
its builders labor in vain.
Unless the LORD watches over the city,
the watchmen stand guard in vain."
In his continued campaign of class warfare, he may be claiming another innocent casualty: non-profit organizations. He has proposed a reduction in tax deductions for charitable giving for the ever-maligned "wealthy." It's the latest in a stream of attempts to penalize the successful that the public just seems to love. But usually, it's not so apparent how these measures will actually negatively affect many of us beneath them - a negative trickle-down effect. Things like increased taxes and restrictions on large corporations may sound like justice to those of us who are less fortunate. But we don't realize that when the wealthy have less money and freedom, they have a harder time doing things like hiring people and expanding.
This time, it's different. We are being told point-blank just why this is a bad idea. When this takes effect, we know exactly how it will have a negative impact. If the wealthy, who are the ones who are able to give the most, get less reward for giving, when the reward is one of the biggest reasons they give in the first place, what do you think will happen to charitable donations? Amazingly, some people still think that it's a good idea.
But seriously, reducing deductions for charitable giving? That's his idea? There are so many other ways he could have tried to get more taxes out of the wealthy. And we're getting mixed signals here. He's also been talking about eliminating tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas, which I have discussed earlier. So we're led to believe that he's increasing taxes for certain activities because they are bad and he wants people to stop. So, does Obama think that wealthy people giving money to charity is a bad thing? Apparently, he does. Why else would he be punishing them?
Seriously, folks. It's a pretty simple concept that has been proven over and over: the more you tax an activity, the less of it you get.
Here's a helpful article that does a good job of representing both sides. It also has some good comments from educated people, which you don't find very often on the internet.
Obama's Plan to Reduce Charitable Deductions for the Wealthy Draws Criticism
I just want to point out a few things from the article. First is this absolutely outrageous comment from Obama on why he's doing such a terrible thing:
"The plan is an effort to 'rebalance the tax code so that the wealthiest pay more,' the document says."
For those of us who know that communism is bad (a sliding tax scale is one of the tennants of communism), realize that the wealthy are already paying more and understand what the word "balance" means, this is one of the dumbest statements ever.
Here's a little lesson for Obama on the concept of balance. When one group of people is paying more than other groups, that is the opposite of balance. Balance would mean that everyone pays the same.
The tax code is already way out of balance, anyway. If you didn't already know that, just read this: The Top 50% pay 96.54% of All Income Taxes (The top 1% pay more than a third: 34.27%)
Here's another point for those who enjoy sticking it to the rich: the only rich people being punished by this measure are those who give to charity. Those scumbags who give nothing are getting away scot free (in this case, anyway). This is just a horrible, horrible idea.
And to those of you who like this whole class warfare thing, answer this: have any of you benefitted one dime because of what has been taken from the wealthy? Anyone? Has your life improved because they can't fly their private jets as much or can't go on lavish retreats? I'll tell you whose lives have NOT improved: the companies who would be getting more income and the workers who would be getting more tips if they could take more retreats and upgrade more offices.
This whole thing is an attack on one of the main principles that I hold that keep me a conservative: non-profits, especially Christian-based, are way better for the people than government programs. Why? One main reason, really. What do the poor (like all of us) need the most? They need Jesus. And they aren't going to get that from government. That isn't allowed.
"Unless the LORD builds the house,
its builders labor in vain.
Unless the LORD watches over the city,
the watchmen stand guard in vain."
Monday, March 9, 2009
Time to party like it's 1773
As you may have guessed, I am not too happy with our government right now. Turns out that I am not alone. In response, people all over the country have been organizing protests that hearken back to the Boston Tea Party. This Sunday, I will be attending the Cincinnati Tea Party.
If you are interested, check out the website: www.cincinnatiteaparty.org
Hope to see you there!
If you are interested, check out the website: www.cincinnatiteaparty.org
Hope to see you there!
Monday, March 2, 2009
It's a child AND it's making choices
Most of you know that I am vehemently pro-life/anti-choice. But, like most views on important matters that I have held, there were times when I was not so sure. I've had a lot of discussions/arguments and have heard a lot of good points on both sides. I even thought that I had come up with definitive answers for why abortion is always wrong.
That was until I saw my child for the first time on the ultrasound. Now, I know what you're probably thinking. This is going to be another one of those ultra-emotional type arguments you hear from expectant parents just gushing over what a miracle their little unborn baby is. Though, I did feel a little of that. But this is a conclusion that I would come to after seeing any child in the womb.
What I am talking about was actually something that didn't occur to me until we were driving home from the doctor's office. It was actually almost purely cerebral. One of the main talking points you hear from the pro-choice side is how the unborn child is really just a part of the woman's body. This does seem to have some merit on the surface, since it is inside the boundaries of the woman's body and is actually directly connected to it. But what I saw there seemed to be in contradiction to that idea.
What I saw was a little child who was making a lot of movement. Now that probably doesn't sound too profound, since there are all sorts of internal parts of the body that move without the person consciously commanding them to. But the difference here is that the child was moving completely independently of any control from Stephanie's brain or any other part of her, conscious or unconscious. There was no message being sent from Stephanie's brain or any hormones from any glands making that little kid dance the fanciful jig that we saw it dance. Since it was in control of itself, it must be a seperate being. And since its DNA is human, then it must be a seperate human being.
Period.
That was until I saw my child for the first time on the ultrasound. Now, I know what you're probably thinking. This is going to be another one of those ultra-emotional type arguments you hear from expectant parents just gushing over what a miracle their little unborn baby is. Though, I did feel a little of that. But this is a conclusion that I would come to after seeing any child in the womb.
What I am talking about was actually something that didn't occur to me until we were driving home from the doctor's office. It was actually almost purely cerebral. One of the main talking points you hear from the pro-choice side is how the unborn child is really just a part of the woman's body. This does seem to have some merit on the surface, since it is inside the boundaries of the woman's body and is actually directly connected to it. But what I saw there seemed to be in contradiction to that idea.
What I saw was a little child who was making a lot of movement. Now that probably doesn't sound too profound, since there are all sorts of internal parts of the body that move without the person consciously commanding them to. But the difference here is that the child was moving completely independently of any control from Stephanie's brain or any other part of her, conscious or unconscious. There was no message being sent from Stephanie's brain or any hormones from any glands making that little kid dance the fanciful jig that we saw it dance. Since it was in control of itself, it must be a seperate being. And since its DNA is human, then it must be a seperate human being.
Period.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
The Lord giveth, the Lord taketh away.
Things have been hectic lately, to say the least. Some of you knew that my cousin, Hannah, was expecting to deliver her first child about now. They were hoping that the child would come before they moved, but hadn't yet as of a couple days ago. So, on Thursday, they did a cesarean, and little Adison (or Addison?) Louise Wessel was presented to the world for the first time. All 9 lbs. 15 oz. of her. Hannah's probably glad they did the cesarean. And baby and mother are doing fine, so that's pretty sweet.
Things were not so happy yesterday. My paternal grandmother passed away at 11:30am. She had some condition since about a year ago that caused muscles around her eyes to weaken, and they looked droopy and it was hard for her to keep them open. They put her on meds that seemed to be working until early last week. The flap that closed her wind-pipe when she swallowed stopped working, so she couldn't really swallow very well. They took her to the hospital, but still didn't think that it was too serious. Then it moved downward and her lungs stopped working. She didn't last long after that. It was pretty sudden. Sure, she was 88, but didn't seem anywhere near death. The funeral will be this week. Prayers would be appreciated, especially for my grandfather. The two of them were as close as any married couple I've known.
But I'll end here on a lighter note with some news that many of you may know, but some do not. Sorry if we haven't been able to tell you in person, but here goes.
STEPHANIE IS PREGNANT!!!
There. She's about 12 weeks along and the due date is September 14. We're very excited, obviously. She had her first doctor's appointment last week and they did the first ultrasound. I was surprised how expressive and full of movement the baby was. And it seems to already have my dance moves. Steph even had the doctor make sure that there was only one. I had her make sure that there was no tail. Both of us were pleased. We also got to hear AND see the heart beating.Wanna see? Here you go:
Blessed be the name of the Lord.
Monday, February 23, 2009
The return of well-timed suspense
So 24 has come back, and I'm excited. It's about the only non-comedy TV show that I follow. This season looks pretty good so far.
But it seems like they just don't want to let go of the subject of torture. And it gets me thinking. I understand both sides of the argument. Some situations call for drastic measures. At the same time, torture can produce false positives, ie, the interegation subject just saying what the interegators want just to get them to stop. And there are certain civil rights issues. But I understand where people are coming from when they argue that some of these people that we may torture have forfeited any civil rights.
One thing that I certainly do not agree with is extending Constitutional rights to detainees who are not American citizens. The Constitution is for Americans. Now, can we argue that these people have basic human rights? Yes. But they have no Constitutional rights. If they are in any way responsible for acts of terrorism against innocent civilians, I don't see any reason to go to any extreme lengths to make sure that they are all nice and comfy.
I'm still on the fence about the issue because of what I mentioned before. But I do think that some people who are against torture dismiss the issue too quickly. I can totally understand the thinking of people who are in favour of its use, and of those who actually use it.
Just think about this situation. You have this prisoner and you know that he is hiding information about an attack that could cost thousands of lives, and he's not talking. You also know that there are people who are close to you who are in danger. You know that torturing is wrong. But time is running out, and you know some very good ways of inflicting non-lethal pain on this person. No cameras, no one who would punish you will know about it. What would you do?
I'm just trying not to be so quick to judge people. We are all people, after all. We are all capable of doing the same horrible things.
But it seems like they just don't want to let go of the subject of torture. And it gets me thinking. I understand both sides of the argument. Some situations call for drastic measures. At the same time, torture can produce false positives, ie, the interegation subject just saying what the interegators want just to get them to stop. And there are certain civil rights issues. But I understand where people are coming from when they argue that some of these people that we may torture have forfeited any civil rights.
One thing that I certainly do not agree with is extending Constitutional rights to detainees who are not American citizens. The Constitution is for Americans. Now, can we argue that these people have basic human rights? Yes. But they have no Constitutional rights. If they are in any way responsible for acts of terrorism against innocent civilians, I don't see any reason to go to any extreme lengths to make sure that they are all nice and comfy.
I'm still on the fence about the issue because of what I mentioned before. But I do think that some people who are against torture dismiss the issue too quickly. I can totally understand the thinking of people who are in favour of its use, and of those who actually use it.
Just think about this situation. You have this prisoner and you know that he is hiding information about an attack that could cost thousands of lives, and he's not talking. You also know that there are people who are close to you who are in danger. You know that torturing is wrong. But time is running out, and you know some very good ways of inflicting non-lethal pain on this person. No cameras, no one who would punish you will know about it. What would you do?
I'm just trying not to be so quick to judge people. We are all people, after all. We are all capable of doing the same horrible things.
Friday, February 13, 2009
It seems that Congress shares my study habits...and that's freakin' scary.
The situation with this "stimulus" bill just keeps getting better.
Did I say "better"? Because I meant ridiculous to the point of outrage.
Remember Obama's pledge to make sure that any bill he signed will be given five days so that we, the People, have a chance to look it over ourselves? Apparently he doesn't. And even the Dems in Congress don't seem to be able to keep their promise of having this new bill available online 48 hours before the vote. It was finally posted last night at 11pm. The vote was scheduled this morning for 9am. Good try. F for effort.
You can read some details here.
The scary thing is that our Congress is now voting to spend hundreds of billions of dollars without even knowing all of the details. How do I know that? First, no one can read and retain over 1,000 pages and have a good enough grasp on it to give an educated vote in only ten hours, especially when they are hopefully sleeping during some of those hours.
Second, that's exactly what members of Congress are saying themselves.
This is so mind-blowingly...something...I can't even find words.
Oh, and Chuck Schumer is a douche.
Do you care? I care. Let them know.
Did I say "better"? Because I meant ridiculous to the point of outrage.
Remember Obama's pledge to make sure that any bill he signed will be given five days so that we, the People, have a chance to look it over ourselves? Apparently he doesn't. And even the Dems in Congress don't seem to be able to keep their promise of having this new bill available online 48 hours before the vote. It was finally posted last night at 11pm. The vote was scheduled this morning for 9am. Good try. F for effort.
You can read some details here.
The scary thing is that our Congress is now voting to spend hundreds of billions of dollars without even knowing all of the details. How do I know that? First, no one can read and retain over 1,000 pages and have a good enough grasp on it to give an educated vote in only ten hours, especially when they are hopefully sleeping during some of those hours.
Second, that's exactly what members of Congress are saying themselves.
This is so mind-blowingly...something...I can't even find words.
Oh, and Chuck Schumer is a douche.
Do you care? I care. Let them know.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Sometimes, pork is a bad thing.
I hope that all of you have at least heard of this so-called "stimulus" package that President Barry has been pushing, and that Congress has voted to pass (though in slightly different forms in each house). We're being assured that it's necessary, and that only government can save us now. That's a pretty scary thought. Not because it's actually true, but because they're trying to make us think that it's true.
I saw some of Obama's press conference on the matter last night. Someone needs to tell the man that he doesn't need to be campaigning anymore, at least for a couple years. Someone asked him a question involving where blame should be cast for our current predicament. Obama was sure to not place any on the American people, but instead blamed banks for making risky investments. Essentially, he's talking about loans and credits that banks made for people that defaulted. Apparently, it's the banks' fault for making those loans, and not the people who defaulted. And it's also definitely not the fault of the US government who, back in the '90s, imposed regulations on banks to make loans to more and more underqualified people in the name of increasing home ownership, "fairness" and "justice" and all that. They had to make loans to people who didn't even have to prove that they had a source of income! But seriously, it's all the banks' fault. People (except rich people) and government are good.
I could go on and on about this bill: all of the pork, how the first one didn't work so this won't either, government can't create wealth but only re-distribute it, the dangerous implications in it for health care - if you're old and need treatment, it's up to the government to decide whether it's worth it based on how much longer you're expected to live. Seriously. That's in there. (Thanks, Daschle!)
But I'm no expert. And according to Obama, many economic experts agree with his plan. He claims a concensus, in fact. I've learned never to trust 2 big things. One, any news story about anything that Rush Limbaugh says. Always out of context, always mis-interpreted. And two, any time a politician says "consensus." They were wrong about the consensus on anthropogenic global warming, and they're wrong about this consensus.
Proof? Of course. Here you go.
But if you would like to hear more from an expert, you can read this interview with Prof. Mike Munger from Duke University, one of the many economists to sign that add. It's really good, and he's much smarter than me. But it all makes sense. And no, he's not Republican. Just correct.
I saw some of Obama's press conference on the matter last night. Someone needs to tell the man that he doesn't need to be campaigning anymore, at least for a couple years. Someone asked him a question involving where blame should be cast for our current predicament. Obama was sure to not place any on the American people, but instead blamed banks for making risky investments. Essentially, he's talking about loans and credits that banks made for people that defaulted. Apparently, it's the banks' fault for making those loans, and not the people who defaulted. And it's also definitely not the fault of the US government who, back in the '90s, imposed regulations on banks to make loans to more and more underqualified people in the name of increasing home ownership, "fairness" and "justice" and all that. They had to make loans to people who didn't even have to prove that they had a source of income! But seriously, it's all the banks' fault. People (except rich people) and government are good.
I could go on and on about this bill: all of the pork, how the first one didn't work so this won't either, government can't create wealth but only re-distribute it, the dangerous implications in it for health care - if you're old and need treatment, it's up to the government to decide whether it's worth it based on how much longer you're expected to live. Seriously. That's in there. (Thanks, Daschle!)
But I'm no expert. And according to Obama, many economic experts agree with his plan. He claims a concensus, in fact. I've learned never to trust 2 big things. One, any news story about anything that Rush Limbaugh says. Always out of context, always mis-interpreted. And two, any time a politician says "consensus." They were wrong about the consensus on anthropogenic global warming, and they're wrong about this consensus.
Proof? Of course. Here you go.
But if you would like to hear more from an expert, you can read this interview with Prof. Mike Munger from Duke University, one of the many economists to sign that add. It's really good, and he's much smarter than me. But it all makes sense. And no, he's not Republican. Just correct.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Update to previous post
So it looks like the final price tag for Obama's inauguration was $170 million, not $150 million. That puts it at over four times as expensive as Bush's, not three.
Personally, I thought that it did a poor job of living up to the hype. His speech was supposed to be like no inauguration speech we have heard before. In a way, I guess that's correct, but not how they intended it. It wasn't really like an inauguration speech, but more like another one of his campaign speeches.
But that's just my opinion. I haven't really seen many inaugurations. This was only my second, actually. The first was Clinton's back in '92. We watched it at my elementary school. I had to run laps at recess the next day because I yawned during his speech (sure, it was on purpose and in a mocking way, but still).
But then there was the benediction delivered by Rev. Joseph Lowery. It was, well, I'll just let you read:
"Lord, in the memory of all the saints who from their labors rest, and in the joy of a new beginning, we ask you to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to get in back, when brown can stick around... when the red man can get ahead, man; and when white will embrace what is right. That all those who do justice and love mercy say Amen. Say Amen."
What decade is this guy still in? And why is it that "white" is the only group that must still "embrace what is right"? Didn't we prove already, by electing a black man to be President, that we do that? I thought that was the idea. Oh, well.
He should tell Miami University that it's ok to call American Indians "red" again, so they can go back to being the Redskins. Being a minority himself, he is apparently allowed to decide what all minorities can be called without being offended.
Well, congrats, Barry. Don't screw the pooch.
Personally, I thought that it did a poor job of living up to the hype. His speech was supposed to be like no inauguration speech we have heard before. In a way, I guess that's correct, but not how they intended it. It wasn't really like an inauguration speech, but more like another one of his campaign speeches.
But that's just my opinion. I haven't really seen many inaugurations. This was only my second, actually. The first was Clinton's back in '92. We watched it at my elementary school. I had to run laps at recess the next day because I yawned during his speech (sure, it was on purpose and in a mocking way, but still).
But then there was the benediction delivered by Rev. Joseph Lowery. It was, well, I'll just let you read:
"Lord, in the memory of all the saints who from their labors rest, and in the joy of a new beginning, we ask you to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to get in back, when brown can stick around... when the red man can get ahead, man; and when white will embrace what is right. That all those who do justice and love mercy say Amen. Say Amen."
What decade is this guy still in? And why is it that "white" is the only group that must still "embrace what is right"? Didn't we prove already, by electing a black man to be President, that we do that? I thought that was the idea. Oh, well.
He should tell Miami University that it's ok to call American Indians "red" again, so they can go back to being the Redskins. Being a minority himself, he is apparently allowed to decide what all minorities can be called without being offended.
Well, congrats, Barry. Don't screw the pooch.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
