The main reason that Obama won the election was because of the army of supporters chanting the “we can’t afford four more years of Bush”. And, I’ll have to agree with them. However, Bush served more as a Democrat rather than a Republican. The giveaways of his administration rivaled those of any Democrat president. We can’t afford four more years of that. I am going to stand by and watch our new president. I don’t think he is the right man for the job. But I have not based this opinion on the wild Republican accusations of the campaign. I have based them on his own words, and the words of his supporters.
It is his ideas that I have a problem with:
I don’t agree with the concept of “Spreading the wealth”.
Taking from the rich and giving to the poor is the story of Robin Hood. This concept works fairly well in fair tales. But, the last time I checked, this is real life. However, Robin Hood is not what has been proposed. With all the tax shelters available to the rich, do not think for an instant that the truly rich are going to pay more in taxes. Think about it, do you really think that Oprah going to have to give up 30% or more of her income as a result of his new program? What about Tom Cruze, Sean Penn, and all those others who make millions per movie? I know that some of them are living overseas, but they work for American production companies. And, when the income is earned in the United States, isn’t it supposed to be taxed as income in the United States? What about the other entertainers and sports figures? Are they all for giving their earnings to those who don’t work?
What about the likes of Bill Gates, the Walton family and the Kennedy clan? Are they going to have to pay these tax increases? Or do they have loopholes they can use? The tax code is so complicated that I am certain they will be able to avoid these new taxes. It will be interesting to see exactly who gets taxed and who doesn’t. It is my opinion that the $250,000 floor is going to be lowered. In fact, Obama has mentioned $200,000, and Biden mentioned $150,000. Who knows what the real figure is going to be.
When the Bush “tax cuts on the rich” (I was making $30,000 a year when these were imposed and I got a cut – I didn’t think of myself as rich though) are eliminated in 2010, all those “rich” are going to get an automatic tax increase. Unless there is something I am not aware of, I am going to get that tax increase as well, and I am nowhere near that $250,000 that Obama has spoken of.
And the Corporate tax increases that are being proposed just will not work the way they are laid out for us. Increasing taxes on corporations will make it more expensive for them to operate in the United States. When this happens, some of them will leave for more favorable (that is spelled “less taxation”) climates. We can see this on a smaller, more local level when we watch Corporations move from high tax states such as California for places like Tennessee and South Carolina.
It is his morality that I have a problem with.
For Obama to claim to be pro life, but against saving the life of a baby born the result of a late term abortion is confusion. Is he saying that it is wrong to kill a baby in the womb, but OK to let it die outside the womb? Following that logic, would it also be OK for a parent to kill a child that they just don’t want for some reason? I can hear the conversation now!
“You know Darlin’, if didn’t have these three kids, we could afford that trip to Florida next year.”
I really don’t see much difference between abortion and killing a baby. I don’t understand the mentality that we must treat prisoners, including terrorist, better than our children. Both are wrong. It is that simple. For a Nation to have more laws against mistreatment of pets, more laws against killing wild animals, more laws against abusing terrorist prisoner of war than we have laws against killing an infant just terrifies me. I fear there will be Holy retribution to pay for this attitude.
It is him talking about me and my kind clinging to our religion and our guns that bother me.
The United States was created by a group of people who came to this land to escape from religious persecution. Our Constitution and the Declaration of Independence guarantees the right to religious freedom. But, this guarantee has been perverted. In this climate of “political correctness” we have reached a point where only some religions are protected. It is against the law for a Baptist child to lead a prayer in a public school. It is against the law for a group of students to come together and read the Holy Bible in school. However, should a Muslim student want to do these things, then it is wrong to deny them. This is wrong. If prayer is not allowed in school, then prayer of all kinds should be prohibited. But, I feel that when prayer and patriotism were taken out of the school (it happened at the same time) the education of our young declined. And soon after, the decline of the Nation began.
However, as a nation, we should have the right to cling to religion. It is sad that when Baptists, Catholics and other Western Religions want to pray in public, we are “clinging to our religion”. But a Muslim can file charges against their employer if they are allowed to pray five times a day. There is something wrong about that. I fear our “clinging to religion” is the only thing that keeps it from being taken away from us. And, “clinging to our guns” is necessary as well. When they come to tell us not to pray, we may need the guns to protect our rights.
And, clinging to our guns is something guaranteed to us by our Constitution. We have the right to bear arms. We have the right to protect our homes and our communities. This is not only a right, this is an obligation. Look at time in history when people have lost this right. Hitler was one of the leaders who took the right of gun ownership away from the people, as did Stalin, and others. Look at the end result of those instances. Obama claims to be for “sensible gun ownership”. But, what is that? If all I am allowed to keep is a single shot 410 shotgun, and the criminal element has a 9mm Glock with a 20 shot clip, how am I to protect my home?
Now, I am for keeping guns out of the hands of the criminal element. And, I am for stiff penalties for those who us a firearm to commit a crime. But, for most of us, we do not abuse the right to own a firearm. And because of the abuse of this right by a few, I feel that the masses should not lose this right.
Let’s look at it from a different perspective. When you compare the number of people killed by drunk drivers to the number of people killed by fire arms, you will find that more are killed on the road. Yet, no one is proposing elimination the automobile. I agree that we need the automobile to maintain the way we live. But, we don’t need alcohol. And no one is proposing taking that away. How many lives are lost to tobacco, but that isn’t being taken away (yes, it is being restricted so that non-users can avoid inhaling the smoke should they desire – but the right to smoke is not being infringed upon).
We have in this country as well armed criminal element. It has been shown that when a town allows gun ownership, crime goes down. It has also been shown that criminals prefer areas where gun ownership is not allowed (as in the shootings at Virginia Tech for example). Should We, the People, not be allowed to own guns, and to carry them, we are subject to the criminal element. And, we are subject to the Government.
“A Government afraid of its citizens is democracy. Citizens afraid of the Government is tyranny."
Thomas Jefferson
It is his shifting opinions that bother me.
Obama has said that he is not a socialist. However, take a look at the Global Poverty Act, a piece of legislature that he sponsored in the Senate. America can not afford, especially in the current economic climate, to give an additional 0.7% of our Gross National Product to help Nigeria, Kenya and other countries to climb out of poverty.
Now, I do have pity for those who live in these poor countries. But, I have been watching this situation for a long time. Even when I was in Grade School, we were asked to save our loose change to help feed those poor, starving people. And, we students gave. And still the people are starving. We have been helping them for decades. And as we have, the leading class and the military in these countries have gotten richer, and stronger. And the people continue to starve. Giving to them does not work. Socialism does not work. The only thing that will bring any society out of poverty is capitalism. Allow the people to work. Allow them to enjoy the fruits of their labors. Allow them to prosper.
And, this is best done with minimal Government assistance. I have observed that when the Government gets involved with any activity, the end result is a decline in the profitability of the activity. Government got involved with the housing industry, and look at the mess we are in now. Government dictated automobile standards (mileage and other factors), and look where the automobile industry is now. Competition is what drives success. If Ford comes out with a better, safer, more fuel efficient car (that meets the public’s expectation) then GM’s sales will suffer. And then GM and Chrysler will have to follow if they are to maintain competitiveness.
We need more work from the individual and less help from the Government.
His party’s plan for the environment scares me. Yes, this is a large part concerning Al Gore.
Last year we were told that Mankind’s activities were responsible for global warming. A few decades before that, we were warned that a new ice age was coming. Now, we are again told that we may be approaching an ice age. The amount of our effort and resources that we are spending to comply with the regulations to “save the planet” are bankrupting the world.
We are being told that if we don’t change our ways, the world as we know it is going to end. We are being told that we must drive electric little cracker boxes instead of pickup trucks to help save the planet. The thing is, though, those who are preaching this doom and gloom are zipping around the planet in their private jets in order to preach us their message. The King of these preachers is Al Gore. Take a look at his background. Look at where his family got their money. See if you can find some old pictures of the areas of Tennessee where the Gore Family mines were. There was total devastation. It is interesting that it was OK for his family to devastate the area and generate their wealth, but not OK for the rest of us to drive our SUV to take the kids to soccer practice, or to drive our pickup truck to the construction site. That is the way it is with these people. They amass their wealth while raping the environment. And after they have theirs, they want the door closed to others.
A Gore family property has been mined for zinc and germanium for decades. The Vice-President and his dad, the late Senator Albert Gore, Sr., obtained the land in a very favorable deal with the late Armand Hammer of Occidental Petroleum. Gore, Sr. was heavily supported by Hammer financially, and carried his water in the U.S. Senate.
Back in 1972, when zinc was discovered across the river from the Gore family land in Carthage, TN, Hammer sent engineers out and offered $20,000 per year for a mineral rights lease on some property owned by a church that had been willed the land. Instead, they wanted to sell and Hammer won a bidding war to buy the land for $160,000. He then sold it to Gore Jr. and Sr. for the same amount, and immediately started leasing the land back from him for the same $20,000. Lynwood Burkhalter, who in the 70s was president of the company that assumed this lease from Occidental Petroleum, called the payments "extraordinarily large."
Mining is, of course, a very messy business environmentally. The mine itself hasn't been that bad. Republicans have claimed that it's polluting the local drinking water, but according to the Wall Street Journal those problems "are actually very minor." However, the Journal notes that the plant in Clarksville TN, which processes the Gore minerals, is a federal Superfund site contaminated with cadmium and mercury, posing "a threat to the human food chain."
http://www.realchange.org/gore.htm
I wonder how many people have been killed by environmental feel good regulations. I wonder how long it will take the population to finally see that nothing we have done has made a change toward the goals that Gore has set. I wonder how much longer the environmental fringe will be able to hide the fact that the Earth has going through cycles for thousands of years.
Think about it. When I was in school, they taught us about the several ice ages that came and killed many of the dinosaurs. The ice would descend. Then, the ice would retreat. The ice would descend (global cooling). Then, the ice would retreat (global warming). Humans have not been keeping records long enough to know if we are actually making any difference in climate.
We are told that the pollution from our cars is ruining the world. However, compare old pictures of New York City or Los Angeles from the 1960’s to pictures of these cities today. We have more cars, more industry and more people now than before. But, the pollution is less. But we are being told that America must make the change. America must bear the expense of changing, because America is the problem.
Now, take a look at China. Chinese officials closed down factories and motor vehicle traffic before the Olympics in order to clean up the air. Pollution there is horrendous. And China is not the only one. India and other places of industrialization are creating much more pollution per vehicle than us. I am not suggesting that they bear the responsibility of cleaning the environment there. We should offer them access to the technology. We should offer incentives for them to clean their countries up.
But, I am not saying that we need to pay them to clean up their own countries. We can tell them, “China, we will no longer buy products from you until you get your part of the atmosphere cleaned. And, India, we are going to provide our own technical support if you can’t keep your country clean.” That is incentive at no cost. As a side note, we must also tell those countries that we will no longer accept products that are not made to our specifications. The very fact that China and other countries would ship us pet food that is deadly, infant formula that is deadly, tainted toothpaste, children’s toys with lead in the paint, medication with tainted ingredients. I could go on, but you get the picture. IF, I repeat, IF we buy imported products, we should insist that they be made under the same controls we demand of America companies. This would be an incentive for companies to keep jobs here in America.
He is not clear on his stance of protecting the border, and that scares me.
Protecting the border means more than just keeping people from crossing the border illegally. Yes, that is important. It is important to the American worker that we keep the illegal workers out of the country. More on this in a moment. The main importance in protecting the border is that we have unknown people coming across the border. And, in the world we have unknown people who want to do harm to America. We need to keep those people out.
With all the talk about weapons of mass destruction, we are overlooking many different scenarios. Given the willingness of our enemies to die for their cause, it is not outside the realm of possibility for a few of these people to load a bed of a pickup truck with biological agents in open containers and drive through the downtown areas of large cities just after 5PM when the bulk of the people are leaving work. Any place where large groups of people gather could be infected with chemical or biological agents. This is a true danger.
His stance on Socialism scares me.
Now back to the American worker. America is in the midst of an economic crisis. It is not that people are out of work because of a bad economy. The economy is bad because people are out of work. According to the Bureau of Labor statistics for November 11, 2008, there are 10.1 million people out of work. If these people were put to work at only $7 per hour the result would be an additional $147 billion dollars pumped into our economy. And, most of these people could be earning more than $7 per hour. The median wage, according to the same report, is $720 a week. At this rate, these workers would pump $378 billion a year into the economy.
Why don’t these people get to work? There are some who are looking. But there are many who don’t want to work. They are being paid the same amount not to work. Free food, free housing, free medical all add up. Now, look at the true cost on the system for these people to not work. Suppose we are paying them about $147 billion to not work. If they did work, they would be earning $147 billion (at $7 per hour). This would be a net gain to the American Economy of $294 billion dollars.
For those who say there are not enough jobs for these people, I would say “wrong”. Perhaps there is not enough right now. But, as these people are put to work and as they spend to raise their standard of living, the demand for products will increase. And, as those of us who are funding the welfare system have more money to spend, the demand for products will increase. As the demand for products increases, the need for more workers will also increase. Also, eliminating the illegal immigrant workers would open up jobs for more American.
Welfare Benefits
I have been trying to find out the actual current amount of dollars spent of the welfare system and the number of people receiving the benefits. But it seems the Government doesn’t want us to know this. The figures I have come up with are very discouraging. According to one source, the Federal Government spent $271.4 billion dollars on welfare. According to another source, there were 3.8 million people receiving benefits. (If anyone finds that these figures are wrong, please let me know, and give me source of your information). If these figures are accurate, we are spending $71,400 per welfare recipient. That seems a lot to me. This comes to $285,000 for a family of four. As Ronald Reagan once said about welfare, “It seems we have some overhead here.” However, other sources are even worse. One quoted that 20% of the Gross National Product goes to welfare. We can’t afford this to continue.
One thing I found, according to the Government source book web site, out of the 3,866,581 welfare recipients in the nation 1,157,566 were in the state of California. This is nearly a third of American welfare recipients living in the state of California. And, now we hear that California is facing bankruptcy if they can’t get a bailout. This alone should show us that socialism doesn’t work.
If I were able to change the welfare laws I would create the following changes:
1. Benefits only to American Citizens. Anchor babies would maintain the citizenship of the parents, not American citizenship. The even one of the parents are in this country illegally, they get no benefits including free food, medical care, housing or any other benefit given by the federal or local governments, and they get expelled from the country. Yes, we should give lifesaving care, as needed. But, then they should be escorted to the airport or bus terminal and sent home.
2. No benefits without drug screening. And I would include tobacco and alcohol as well. For those who would think that this is wrong, think about it this way, with us paying for their food, housing and medical care, we should have the right to restrict what they spend their (spelled OUR) money on. And, when I had my regular job, I was required to submit to a drug screening, both on hiring and random. If being a welfare recipient is their job, we as employers, should have the right to expect them to follow the same rule many of us have to follow to keep our jobs.
3. There would be a limit on the foods that welfare recipients can buy. We working people have to follow a budget. There are things we can’t afford – often because we are paying for their support.
4. There would be no more unlimited visits to the emergency room. Those who take their child to the ER with a cold, rather than taking the child to the local health department, would be subject to losing medical benefits. Remember, we are paying for their abuse of the system.
5. If, and I repeat IF, housing is given as a part of welfare, then having “visitors” dropping in to live would result in the cancellation of the housing benefit. When a woman, with her kids is being housed because of our generosity, we should have the right to expect her to not have her boyfriend living with her. This is not moral based decision. This decision is based on the fact that we should not pay for a house for the man to live in as well. Many times the man is able to work. The man doesn’t qualify for the benefits. The man is there because it suits his needs. Free house and sexual favors too! What a deal. Again, I am not basing my idea on morality. I just don’t want to pay for it.
6. Those receiving welfare should be expected to do some sort of community service. They can pick up trash along the highways, help at homeless shelters, help build houses for Habitat for Humanity, paint the houses for the elderly, work in community farms that would help supply food for the hungry, work in soup kitchens or any other job that the community needs done. If we are going to be supporting them, they can contribute back to the community. If it is too much trouble for them to work for the benefit, then they don’t really need it. They just want it. I have found that in most cases, those who are really in need of help will work. And, I have found that those who are just out for a free ride are opposed to working for benefits. Those who are able, but not willing to work would be cut off.
Welfare is killing America’s financial growth. I am not opposed to helping the truly helpless. There are those who can not do anything to contribute. But these are the minority. Most are able to contribute something to the system. Many would welcome the chance to contribute to the system, but fear being penalized for doing so.
The purpose of welfare was to prevent those who find themselves out of temporarily out of work from starving and living on the street. However, through the years the purpose has been changed to give those who are not working for whatever reason the same lifestyle as those who are working. This takes away the incentive to work.
The following is an anonymous letter in response to the question “Should recipients of Welfare be screened for drugs.
I agree with the notion that everyone who is able should work for their money and not depend on taxpayers to support their families. The problem is not drug abuse. A small portion of my caseload has a drug problem. And in most cases, those who have drug convictions are not eligbile for foodstamps anyway. The problem is simply laziness fueled by an enabling society. Every recipient who is a US citizen is required to participate in a work or edcuational program in order to receive aid or they are penalized 25% of their grant. Currently only about 22% participate. The rest are content to stay home and take the 25% penalty. There is no incentive to participate as long as we are giving them enough money to pay their rent and enough foodstamps to buy their groceries. Persons who are not legal citizens are not required to participate and are eligible to recieve a full grant for all their citizen children. I think every able body should be required to contribute to the community that supports them in some way. They should at least be required to give 4 hours of their day to some community service. Everyone has a talent to contribute. They can help out a shelter or read to our youth. If they refuse, then they receive no aid. This should be applied to all people receiving aid. Citizens and non Citizens. I think this will encourage a lot of people to get off welfare and find a job because they are working 4 hours a day anyway and only receiving a small welfare check. This will weed out the ones who really don't need it vs the ones that really can’t find a job.
Another thing, unrelated, that bothers me is that immigrants get an income tax break (5 years I have been told) when it comes to building businesses. This is why you see so many of Indian and Pakistanian heritage owning motels and gas stations. If Americans could have the same tax exempt period, perhaps we could have more American owned businesses. Tax incentives should be reserved for Americans.
According to Dictionary.com, poverty is, among other things, "The state of being poor; lack of the means of providing material needs or comforts." In America, the means to provide food and comfort exists. But so many people choose not to explore these means. They blame racial barriers, be they Black, White, Native, Asian. They blame sexual barriers, be they Male, Female or undecided. They blame physical barriers. The reality is, everyone feels discriminated against. Yet, the reality is, opportunity for success exists for all. When was the last time somebody literally starved to death in the United States? It does happen. But we do have mechanisms in place to prevent it.
We have won the war on poverty. There is still income inequality. Many Americans have less wealth than many other Americans. This will always be the case. But even the poorest American is richer than the Middle Class of most Third World nations.
But the bureaucracy, the “Overhead” that Ronald Reagan spoke about, goes on forever. And this overhead is nothing but Governmental waste. McCain and Palin said that they were going to go through each department of the Government and trim the fat. Obama has said that he will do the same. I hope he has the strength and wisdom to do so,
Well, these are the things that bother me about our new president. I hope he proves me wrong. I hope he does have the right answers to bring us out of our economic slump. I hope his ideas on national security are better than I believe them to be. I hope that his health plan is sound. I wish him well. Our lives, as well as the lives of our children and great children depend on him doing well.
God Bless America
No comments:
Post a Comment