The Great Debate

Well, since my last blog entry created quite the debate, its time for me to discuss several of my detractors points and even rant a little bit, but hey, its my blog!

OK, first off, I am sick and tired of Democrat and liberal arguments being about the rich, the rich, and ...oh yeah, the rich.  Tax the rich, make them pay their fair share, and on and on.  But why is it, when I brought up the FACT that 50% of Americans pay NO income tax at all, all I get is "the rich need to pay more!"  Now to be fair, it has been shown that GE paid no taxes at all in recent years.  So when this news came out, what did "the people's president" do to CEO Jeffrey Immelt?  HE PUT HIM ON HIS STAFF!!!!!!!!  Obama put Immelt on his team charged with job creation. And to his credit, Immelt is taking his new appointment seriously.  He's in the process of creating over 30 million jobs.....IN CHINA!  That's right, after receiving government bailout money, not paying any taxes, and receiving a presidential appointment, Immelt, who is still the CEO of GE (conflict of interest, anyone?), is shipping several million formerly American jobs to China.  And is it any coincidence that the news network that praises Obama endlessly, MSNBC, just happens to be owned by.....wait for it......GE?  I think not.  But I digress.  To say that the rich don't pay enough to me sounds hypocritical when half of the people in this country pay absolutely nothing in taxes. Nada. Zilch. Zero. What about their fair share?  Do they not use and are they not entitled to the same benefits as everyone else?  Yes they are.  In fact, I would go so far as to say not only do they use these benefits, they are the ones who are demanded they stay in place.  Basically, they want a free lunch, money for nothing, whatever metaphor you like.  Now, I will say that this country is in desperate need of tax reform.  If the rich don't pay their fair share, it's only because they (or more likely, their accountants) have found loopholes in the tax code to allow them to pay less.  Let's be honest here.  The U.S. tax code is so large it makes War and Peace look like a short story. It is so large and so convoluted that even Timothy Geitner, our Treasury Secretary, doesn't understand it. (But Geitner was confused by "TurboTax" so... )  The tax code needs a serious overhaul. Loopholes need to be closed, pointless deductions need to be removed, and the whole system needs to be simplified.  Most importantly, it needs to stop penalizing success. Our tax code is a progressive tax code, your tax rate goes up the more money you make, therefore it penalizes success.  We need either a flat income tax or a national sales tax, a consumption tax or fair tax, if you will, but not both.  This is why a flat tax is presently the better option.  The fair tax would only be feasible if it is preceded by a repeal of the 16th amendment.

Now before I continue, let me clear something up.  I am not rich,  Not even close.  I work 12 hours a day to care for my family.  I have a good job and a steady job.  I also know how incredibly lucky I am to have it.  There are millions of people today who are not as lucky as I am and would probably kill to get this job (don't get any ideas).  My conservative views are from a very simple standpoint.  I believe that you should be able to keep at least a solid majority of what you earn.  And that extends to all income levels, not just the rich.

While we're on the subject of the rich, it was brought up in the debate following the last blog that the rich, or at least most of them simply hoard their money and don't help the economy at all.  This view is so mind-numbingly stupid that I can't even put it into words, but I'll try.  Let's look at Obama's target of the moment - "corporate jet owners".  I'll use Donald Trump as an example since everyone identifies him with being rich.  When Mr. Trump buys a new jet, does it just pop out of thin air complete with staff courtesy of the corporate jet fairy?  Of course not.  Here's how buying a jet helps the economy.  When Trump orders the jet, he keeps engineers employed to design the jet, pilots to fly the jet, flight attendants to work the flights in that jet, mechanics to fix the jet, assembly line workers to build the jet, companies who make the parts the mechanics need to fix the jet, companies who make the tools the mechanics use to work on the jet, air traffic controllers keep their jobs, food companies that make the food that goes on the jet, delivery companies that deliver food, parts, etc. for the jet.  I could go on all day.  Now imagine if he orders 4 jets, or 8 jets.  And all the other corporations that have jets order 4 jets.  You get the picture.  And that's just corporate jets.  When a business is successful, do they just stay with their current equipment or do they expand?  Could you imagine if Coca-Cola only had one bottling plant?  Or Starbucks only running one coffee house? No.  They expand.  And in doing so, they put people to work.  That's leads to the next argument, that corporations only ship jobs overseas because labor is cheaper there.  That's true, labor is cheaper overseas, but why?  In a nutshell, labor unions.  Now don't misunderstand, labor unions were a great thing when they were created.  They put in place many, many worker protections that we as Americans, union or not, enjoy today.  However, they have driven the price of labor in this country so high, that it is increasingly difficult if not impossible, for businesses in this country to turn a profit.  And after all, a business that can't turn a profit is not a business for very long.  I would say that union leaders did not drive wages up to protect their workers, but to line their pockets with more revenue from union dues which they use to line the pockets of politicians.  Look it up.  The labor unions are some of the most generous supporters of Democratic candidate campaigns.  And when a business doesn't want to use a union, what happens? They are picketed, strong-armed and tormented until they either cave or the union gets bored and gives up.  Now I don't think unions are as necessary as they used to be since I have worked plenty of non-union jobs and I was not only well paid for those jobs, but was well protected by the policies of my employers.  I know I'm not alone.

Now let's move on to health care and education.  Let me state this as clearly as I can.  Neither health care nor  an education are rights.  Let me say it again.  Health care IS NOT A RIGHT.  Education IS NOT A RIGHT.  If you think they are, then you are confusing the Constitution of the United States with the Constitution of the United Soviet Socialist Republics (U.S.S.R.).  Yes, the USSR had health care and education as rights.  We all know what happened to them. Government health care doesn't do enough.  It's too large a burden on the government and its economy.  If you believed President Obama when he said that you could keep your doctor, keep your insurance, that everyone will be covered, that everyone will receive the care they need, and that it wouldn't add a penny to the national debt, then I've got some prime oceanfront property in Wyoming to sell you.  Now, education.  Since the Department of Education was established by the President Jimmy Carter in 1979, student test scores have gone down and our standing as one of the top educating nations in the world has slipped to near the bottom.  In my opinion, this is just another example of when the government gets involved in something that is better left to the states, it only messes it up.  Don't get me wrong, I don't hate government.  Government is necessary.  But like everything else, its only good in moderation.  Our government has become too big and oppressive in its current state.  And no this is not a Democrat thing only, there have been Republicans guilty of it too, particularly George W. Bush.  No Child Left Behind has been an abysmal failure.  While we're on the subject of education, let me say that the teacher's union is ridiculous.  I abhor the concept of tenure because it makes getting rid of a bad teacher next to impossible.  There is a case of a teacher in New York who admitted, yes admitted, to attempting to molest a sixth-grade girl.  He was removed from the school, but was not fired.  He was paid $100,000 a year to do nothing.  Yes, a six-figure salary to sit at home and do nothing.  How?  The teacher's union, and the fact that he was tenured.  Tell me that makes any sense whatsoever.  I dare you.

Finally, let me challenge the President's assertion that this whole recession is the fault of George W. Bush.  It is true that the original stimulus was proposed by Bush.  It has been said he would have implemented it anyway and maybe he would have, but we'll never know.  That being said, if President Obama wanted to, he could have stopped it from ever being done.  He didn't.  And the whole bailout thing in my opinion was a sham.  This crisis was caused by greedy bankers who saw a gold mine in the skyrocketing real estate market and made loans in all sorts of creative ways to people who should have never gotten them.  The collapse was inevitable, but totally preventable.  Common sense was nowhere to be found.  So who did Obama bail out?  The very people who created this mess.  Brilliant.  And while the crisis started under Bush's watch, Obama was the one who ramped up government spending to unprecedented levels. He took over General Motors, albeit temporarily.  That was unprecedented.  He racked up an unconscionable level of debt and took the nation to the brink of default.  It is Obama's mess now.  You can't blame George W. Bush for this anymore.

Some have said that the systems in place in Europe are better and fairer than here in America.  To that I must ask, "Why are you still here?"  If the system is so to your liking, go there and stop trying to force it on those of us who don't want it.  I will admit that liberal ides like government health care, care for the poor and elderly all are very moral and noble ideas.  The problem is the implementation.  Someone has to pay for it.  And that's where my biggest issue is.

Let me close by saying the whole point of my last post was that "career politicians", you know who I mean, are all inherently corrupt and cannot be trusted.  They will do and say anything to stay in power.  President Obama has said that we should leave government dealings to the "career politicians" like himself.  I say that's how we got into this mess.  Thank God for the Tea Party and the freshmen congressmen who understand who they work for and hold to their values and convictions.  And like them, no amount of negative feedback or name-calling will shut me up or make me go away.  God Bless the Republic.