Tag: Democrat

Many Politicians Are Two-Faced When It Comes To Tariffs

Many Politicians Are Two-Faced When It Comes To Tariffs

As I write this, POTUS Donald Trump is pledging to begin tariffs on Mexico for its accused lack of assistance in the immigration crisis on the southern border of the US. Here is a quick news account from Politico:

The White House pledged on Thursday to charge ahead on tariffs on Mexico, saying the U.S. position “has not changed” after officials met for a second day to address the steady flow of Central American migrants trying to enter the United States.

Talks between Mexican and U.S. officials at the White House wrapped up without resolution. Several key officials in the administration were unavailable for negotiations. President Donald Trump was in France for the 75th anniversary of the D-Day invasion, and both Vice President Mike Pence and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo were on the road.

Just about every politician is talking out of both sides of their mouth on this issue. This includes a good portion of the Republicans (especially Mr. Trump) and nearly ever Democrat that I can think of.

To be crystal clear, I despise the use of tariffs against another country. I don’t like taxes in general and using taxes as weapon (i.e. tariffs) is simply a bad practice.

Tariffs are taxes. Plain and simple. They are taxes on corporations that import from the punished country, which in this case is Mexico.

The problem with tariffs and corporate taxes is that corporations never pay taxes. They incur costs. They pass those taxes as costs on to their customers in the form of higher prices for the product. They think of taxes as the same as wages, costs of materials, rent on their buildings, etc. It is a separate line item on their financial sheet, but it is deducted from their income the same way when calculating earnings.

It isn’t the corporation that pays the taxes, it is the consumer. Worse, the tax is regressive in that it is applied to all consumers of the product regardless of their ability to afford to pay or their income. Nearly everyone agrees that regressive taxes that take a larger percentage of poor people’s income than the percentage of wealthy people is unfair. But corporate taxes and tariffs are exactly that – a regressive tax on poor people.

Trump and most Republicans want lower corporate taxes. This, in general, is a good thing because as I said above, corporations don’t pay taxes – they only incur costs that are passed to their consumers. Corporate taxes are an evil and regressive tax against consumers.

So it is illegitimate for Trump and these anti-corporate tax Republicans to support the tariff on Mexico (and probably on China, but China is a different problem).

Democrat readers shouldn’t get too excited about the above paragraph, as they are actually worse.

Most of the leaders of the Democrat party are in favor of raising corporate taxes. This is a terrible stance since, as I stated above, corporate taxes are simply a regressive tax against the poor. The Democrats are supposed to be the party of the poor worker and yet they support regressively taxing those people. That is incredibly evil and insincere. They only do it because it plays well in political speeches. Democrats don’t really want to help poor people, they just want to be re-elected (which is also the goal of Republicans). They are willing to be for a tax that hurts their constituents rather than be truthful and lead those constituents. This is unbelievably cruel and ruthless.

But then Democrats become even more two-faced. Because they hate Trump so much they oppose the Mexican tariff. This is ridiculous if they were ideologically pure since tariffs (while very bad IMO) are simply what most Democrats espouse – higher corporate taxes.

So what does all of that mean?

Unfortunately, it is simple. Both parties are mostly evil and don’t want to help Americans. They are willing to lie and mislead their constituents simply to retain their individual jobs. The only valid option as voters is to THROW THE BUMS OUT! EVERY LAST SITTING FEDERAL POLITICIAN NEEDS TO LOSE THEIR JOB IN THEIR NEXT ELECTION!

First thoughts on the day after election

First thoughts on the day after election

The massive mid-term election of 2010 is now over. My phone won’t ring 25 times today with some computer imploring me to vote for one candidate over another. The signs that are all along the streets in my town can come down (hopefully the candidates come out and clean up their mess). Life can now go back to some sort of normal.

The Republicans evidently picked up approximately 60 seats in the House of Representatives. They also made major increases in the Senate and that house appears to be split nearly 50/50 (the exact count probably won’t be known for a couple days as Alaska will probably take a while to count due to the write-in candidate).

What does this election mean? Does it mean that the 2-year era of liberalism is over? Does it mean that conservatism is the rule of the day? Does it mean that Barack Hussein Obama will lose in 2 years? Does it mean that the Republicans have a mandate to go ultra-conservative? Does it mean that the poor and down-trodden will need to look for their medicine in the trash cans of the homes of the wealthy? Does it mean that I have to give up drinking coffee and now drink tea?

What I am 100% confident in is that it doesn’t mean any of the above! It doesn’t mean that BHO is done. It doesn’t mean that all of healthcare should just go to the wealthiest. It doesn’t mean that we should now savage the environment.

I don’t think that the newly elected Republicans have a mandate at all except for the mandate to do a good job and figure out the best way to solve each individual problem regardless of party direction.

I think it means that Americans want a government that works. We want it to work rather slowly and deliberately. We want politicians that don’t act like politicians but rather act like leaders. We want compromise to be the rule of the day. We want our leaders to read, understand, and thoughtfully debate the bills that are before them. We don’t want to find out about what is in the bill after it is turned into law – we want our leaders to know what is in the bill before they make it a law.

We don’t want stagnation. If Boehner drives the government to a stall the way that Gingrich did, that would be a mistake.

Most of all, I think Americans don’t want to deal with the federal government. We don’t want our lives to be tied up with governing. Life is hard enough with births, jobs, bills, lousy bosses, teenagers, sickness, and death – we don’t want to worry about the feds as well. I think most Americans would be perfectly happy if government would just get out of our lives with the exception of keeping us safe, making sure the infrastructure works, and helping out with the truly disadvantaged. We will pay a reasonable tax for that as long as we think it is well managed.

I raise my coffee cup in a salute to the Tea Party activists for energizing America in making their point. That point, I believe, is that we want our legislators to pay attention to us, don’t tax us to death, and spend what you need but make sure what you buy is needed. 2 years ago, pundits were saying that the Republican party was dead, now the pundits need to say, “Listen to your constituents if you want to keep your job.” 

There is no such thing as a mandate to do radical things. Extremism is a bad position no matter which side of the scale you are on.

If the grown men and women in the federal government can’t get along better than a bunch of nursery school kids, then we will take away their ball and send a new bunch of children to Washington in 2 years.

Healthcare for illegals

Healthcare for illegals

First, let me be clear, I think that Rep. Wilson of South Carolina should be censured for his outburst while President Barack Hussein Obama was speaking in a joint session of Congress. He reminds of irresponsible brats such as Kanye West. Public outbursts while the President is speaking are simply unacceptable in any format and definitely not allowed in a joint session of Congress.

I do think that it is interesting that the rude outburst occurred due to a statement from BHO regarding healthcare for illegal aliens. There is a reasonable argument that BHO, while perhaps not lying, was not telling the complete truth. Check out this interesting video below and then read the rest of my comments.

 

Now I see that the Democrats in the Senate would like to toughen up the loopholes to prevent illegal aliens from getting taxpayer supplied insurance. I don’t get it, BHO says that this can’t happen but now a few days later there is an amendment that prevents this thing that can’t happen.  Makes me think that BHO was bending the truth a bit and probably knew it.

Of course the solution that the Senate is currently thinking about is to use Social Security numbers.  Seems reasonable.  SS numbers have become the defacto national identity card that we need. I have ranted on this before, if we would just have national identity cards then we would control much of the illegal problem that we have.

Below are a few clips from a recent article in the Wall Street Journal:

A key Democratic senator said Friday that lawmakers planned to toughen provisions in a health bill to prevent illegal immigrants from enjoying benefits, in a Democratic response to concerns by some Republicans.

Members of the Senate Finance Committee met Friday, and Sen. Kent Conrad (D., N.D.) said they wanted to use Social Security numbers to ensure that illegal immigrants weren’t eligible for subsidies envisioned as part of a plan to expand health coverage.

President Obama’s health-reform proposal has sparked heated debate over whether the plan benefits illegal immigrants, as demonstrated by Rep. Joe Wilson’s “You lie” outburst. WSJ’s Elizabeth Williamson breaks down the details of the proposed new government-run insurance plan.

Still up in the air is whether illegal immigrants would be banned from participating in federally regulated insurance “exchanges” under Democrats’ health bills, even if the immigrants were willing to use their own money to buy policies. On Friday, a coalition of three dozen faith-based groups wrote to Congress to express anger at the proposed ban.

I agree until I disagree – Senator John Kerry

I agree until I disagree – Senator John Kerry

We are all familiar with the famous quote by Senator Kerry: “I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it.”  Now it seems that Mr. Kerry has had another opportunity to change his mind.  He is now in favor of Governors of States to appoint an individual to fill an open Senate seat. 

Four or five years ago, Senator Kerry was concerned that his seat would be open if the USA would have been foolish enough to vote this weak-spine individual to the office of the President of the United States.  At that time, he supported Senator Kennedy’s successful efforts to change Massachusetts state law regarding the filling of Senate seats.

I do not live in Massachusetts.  I have no vote there and my opinion on their local politics should have little weight.  However, aren’t the good residents of Massachusetts tired of flip-flop Kerry?  Please remove him from our national agony and get him out of office.  Surely, there is another good Democrat that your beautiful and important state can find.

The following Wall Street Journal opinion actually describes this the best.  It is short, so despite my best efforts, I have been unable to edit this opinion and still retain its message.  I apologize to the Wall Street Journal for borrowing their content in entirety as it is not my typical technique.

John Kerry, the former junior Senator from Massachusetts, was back in Boston Wednesday, urging the state legislature to change the law governing U.S. Senate vacancies. The seat held by Edward Kennedy from 1962 until his death last month is to be filled in a January special election. Mr. Kerry, echoing a letter Kennedy wrote not long before he died, asked lawmakers to enact legislation allowing Governor Deval Patrick to appoint a Senator to serve in the interim.

“What Ted proposed is a plan that is hardly radical,” Mr. Kerry declared in his prepared testimony. “It’s hardly even unprecedented, even in Massachusetts.” That’s for sure. The law in the Bay State provided for interim appointment by the Governor as recently as 2004. That, of course, was the year that Mr. Kerry won the Democratic nomination for President. Just in case he won, the state legislature changed the law to strip the Governor of this power. That change also came at Senator Kennedy’s urging.

What changed in the ensuing five years? In 2004, the Governor, Mitt Romney, was a Republican. Mr. Patrick is a Democrat. So are the overwhelming number of state lawmakers, who overrode Mr. Romney’s veto. Raw partisan advantage explains why Mr. Kerry, like his departed colleague, was for the 2004 change before he was against it.

Articles that I have read that are interesting – July 28, 2009

Articles that I have read that are interesting – July 28, 2009