The Devcratic Method

Mitt Romney's 20% Income Tax Cut Idea

2012-11-06T15:06:00.001-08:00

The most important issue for the November 6th, 2012 Presidential Election is the economy. The main reason Mitt Romney will be good for America is that he is proposing a permanent 20% income tax cut across the board so instead of rates like this:

Tax Bracket Married Filing Jointly Single
10% Bracket $0 – $17,400 $0 – $8,700
15% Bracket $17,400 – $70,700 $8,700 – $35,350
25% Bracket $70,700 – $142,700 $35,350 – $85,650
28% Bracket $142,700 – $217,450 $85,650 – $178,650
33% Bracket $217,450 – $388,350 $178,650 – $388,350
35% Bracket More Than $388,350 More Than $388,350

The rates would be:

Tax Bracket Married Filing Jointly Single
8% Bracket $0 – $17,400 $0 – $8,700
12% Bracket $17,400 – $70,700 $8,700 – $35,350
20% Bracket $70,700 – $142,700 $35,350 – $85,650
22.4 Bracket $142,700 – $217,450 $85,650 – $178,650
26.4 Bracket $217,450 – $388,350 $178,650 – $388,350
28% Bracket More Than $388,350 More Than $388,350

The Median Household Income in the United States in 2010 was $51,914, so on a joint filling the average American household would see an increase in income of $1,383.42 “annually” with the new tax rates under Romney. (The reason annually is in quotes is that the median income should increase so the additional amount people receive would be higher each next year.) Since there are approximately 114,235,996 households in the United States the additional spending power of Americans would be $158 billion “annually.” (These statistics are assuming, for the sake of simplicity, that all households are married and filing jointly.)

$158 billion more in the hands of Americans is great for the American economy, but there is still one issue, a secondary issue, that people might bring up in order to argue against permanent income tax cuts and that is the change a permanent income tax cut has on Government Revenue. Before that issue is addressed, I’ll explain why this is a secondary issue. The Federal Government does not exist in order to rake in as much revenue as possible. The Federal Government is here for the people and does not exist to become as large and gain as much power as possible, so creating an atmosphere in which the economy can flourish so that people have jobs is more important than increasing revenue so politicians’ power increases and they can spend more. With that being said permanent income tax cuts increase revenue and, in this current specific case with unemployment (7.9%) and underemployment being as high as it is now, permanent income tax cuts would work very well.

A tax cut that increases revenue goes against conventional wisdom, so how is this possible? When you permanently cut income tax rates people have more money to spend. They may save some initially and pay off some debts at first, but they will spend and spending will increase with time as they realize they are getting this new increase in income each year. When these people spend, businesses have to start hiring to keep up with demand and investors invest in companies and start new ones as they see the economy improving and consumer spending increasing. As these businesses hire employees, unemployment decreases and people who were formerly unemployed are now paying income taxes. Now that these formerly unemployed people are employed they have money to spend which creates the same effect over and over and over. This will spiral down until the economy levels out (unless there is a serious crisis that destroys the economy like the financial crisis and housing crisis in 2008). (Other benefits of permanent income tax cuts are increases in corporate income tax revenue, increases in capital gains tax revenue, increases in payroll tax revenue, increases sales tax revenue for local municipalities and state governments, increases in state income tax revenue, increases in excise tax revenue, increases in people covered by health insurance, decrease in unemployment benefit payments, decrease in entitlement payments, etc. etc.)

Don’t just take my word for it here are some historical examples that prove my point:

1. Calvin Coolidge: Calvin Coolidge, at the urging of Andrew Mellon, reduced the top income tax bracket in the 1920s from 73% to 24% and “magically” unemployment reduced from 6.7% to 3.2% and real gross national product grew at an annual average rate of 4.7 percent between 1922 and 1929. Taxes paid by high income earners soared from roughly $300 million to $700 million per year. The share of overall income taxes paid by the group rose from about one-third in the early 1920s to almost two-thirds by the late 1920s. (Inflation was virtually zero between 1922 and 1930.) The total income tax revenue was $1.075 billion in 1922 and in 1928 revenue was $1.164 billion (a 7.7% increase with sharp income tax rate cuts).

2. JFK/LBJ: “It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now … Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus.” – JFK

The Revenue Act of 1964 reduced the top marginal income tax rate from 91% to 70%. Individual income tax rates were cut across the board by approximately 20%. When the bill was passed in February of 1964 unemployment was 5.4%. Unemployment gradually decreased all the way down to 3.4% in 1968 and 1969. Total Federal Government Tax revenue in 1963, before the tax cuts, was $106.6 billion and individual tax revenue was $47.588 billion. In 1969 total Federal Government Tax revenue was $186.9 billion and individual income tax revenue was $87.249 billion (with a little less than 20% inflation in that time period). That is a significant gain in individual and total tax revenue in a 6 year period.

3. Ronald Reagan: Ronald Reagan sharply cut the top income tax bracket rate from 1981-1988 from 70% to 28%, but he also raised taxes in other areas, however, the large individual income tax cut trumps all the other smaller tax increases. Unemployment reached the highest level in December of 1982 of 10.8% and by the time Reagan left office unemployment was 5.4% (in January of 1989). In 1980, before the Reagan tax cuts began, the individual income tax revenue was $244.069 billion. In 1988, individual income tax revenue was $401.181 billion. Inflation over that time period was 43.5%, so revenue was still higher when factoring in inflation.

4. George W. Bush: The Bush Tax Cuts are the best example of effective income tax cuts (in terms of analyzing Mitt Romney’s 20% income tax cut) because they did not bring down an extremely high top income tax bracket like in the other examples. Bush cut the top income tax rate from 39.6% to 35%. The Bush Tax Cuts also cut the rates of the other income tax brackets including the bottom rate by 50% from 15% to 10%. These tax cuts went into full effect in 2003. Below are their results:

Tax Receipts by Year:

2003: Individual ($793 billion), Corporate ($131 billion), Capital Gains ($51 billion), & SS & MED ($712 billion)

2004: Individual ($808 billion), Corporate ($189 billion), Capital Gains ($73 billion), & SS & MED ($733 billion)

2005: Individual ($927 billion), Corporate ($278 billion), Capital Gains ($102 billion), & SS & MED ($794 billion)

2006: Individual ($1.043 trillion), Corporate ($353 billion), Capital Gains ($117 billion), & SS & MED ($837 billion)

2007: Individual ($1.163 trillion), Corporate ($370 billion), Capital Gains ($137 billion), & SS & MED ($869 billion)

(Inflation over this time period was 12.7%)

From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenues increased by $785 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history. Unemployment in June of 2003 was 6.3% and unemployment dipped to 4.4% in May of 2007 (just before the financial crisis and housing crisis destroyed the economy).

If Obama wanted to reduce unemployment he would permanently cut income taxes, but that does not fit with his ideology even though tax policy should be based on math, reason, and historical information.

Vote for Romney as has the right ideas to get people working and to fix the economy!

Obama is Bush on Steroids

2012-11-05T20:41:00.000-08:00

If you hated George W. Bush as President and you love Barack H. Obama as a President, I’m not sure exactly why. Perhaps it’s because one is a Democrat and the other is a Republican even though that’s not a good reason. They have their obvious differences, but their similarities are striking especially on some large issues. Here is a list of how Obama is similar to Bush or Bush on steroids:

1. Increase in Spending: Under President George W. Bush’s reign the Federal Government spent liberally. His last year in office the Federal Government’s outlays were $2.982 trillion. This year under Obama the projected outlays are $3.795 trillion. (Bush on Steroids)

2. Debt: The total debt in 8 years under the Bush Presidency was $4.9 trillion. Under Obama the debt has increased by about $5.6 trillion in almost 4 years. (Bush on Steroids)

3. Increase in Size of Government: The number of Federal Employees grew by 53,000, under President George W. Bush and by 123,000, or 6.2%, under President Obama. (Bush on Steroids)

4. Unemployment: Unemployment levels under Bush were subpar. The lowest level was 4.2% and the highest 7.3% when he left office. Bush instituted tax cuts after the first recession in 2001 and that helped lower the unemployment rate from 6.3% to 4.4%, but a severe recession struck in 2008 and the unemployment rate rose. Under Obama the unemployment level rose to 10%, largely due to the financial and housing crisis in 2008, and has bottomed out at 7.8% in September of 2012. The rate is currently 7.9% and Obama has been unable to return them near normal levels. (-)

5. War: George W. Bush started two wars, in Iraq and Afghanistan. Barack Obama started two wars, one in Libya and a covert drone war in Yemen in addition to continuing the war in Afghanistan. (Mini George)

6. Guantanamo Bay: Guantanamo Bay was open under Bush and is open under Obama despite Obama’s promise to close it in one year. He received the Nobel Peace Prize and stated that Gitmo would be closed, but it still isn’t. (Same)

7. Immigration: George Bush and Barack Obama both failed to pass comprehensive immigration reform. In fact the issue was largely ignored during both Presidencies. (Same)

8. Patriot Act: The Patriot Act was signed into Law under Bush and Obama signed the Patriot Act extension despite Obama criticizing the Bill in the past. (Same)

9. Healthcare: George W. Bush expanded Federal Government Healthcare with Medicare Part D. The program cost $62 billion in 2010. Under Obama the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was passed (also known as ObamaCare). ObamaCare is projected to cost $1.674 trillion over the 9-year span from 2014 through 2022. That is an average of $186 billion per year. The cost will probably even be more than these projections assume. (Bush on Steroids)

10. Regulation: If you love regulation, you’ll love George Bush and Barack Obama. In Bush’s first term, regulations increased by 4.4%. The first three years of Obama’s one term, regulations increased by 7.3% or a total of 11,327 pages. This does not even include the ObamaCare and Dodd-Frank regulations. (Bush on Steroids)

11. Bush Tax Cuts: The Bush Tax Cuts were extended under Obama. (Same)

12. Czars: Both President Bush and Obama greatly surpassed any other President’s usage of Czars. (Same)

13. Drone Usage: Obama has already authorized 283 strikes in Pakistan, six times more than the number during President George W. Bush's eight years in office. As a result, the number of estimated deaths from the Obama administration's drone strikes is more than four times what it was during the Bush administration -- somewhere between 1,494 and 2,618. (Bush on Steroids)

14. Rendition: Rendition - The CIA's "extraordinary rendition" program consists of seizing "terror suspects," detaining them without warrant or trial, and sending them offshore to outsource their "interrogation" to third world countries where they are tortured for information and confessions. Torture was one of the big criticisms faced by the Bush Administration, and in February 2009, the Obama Administration wasted no time in quietly retaining the practice of rendition. (Same)

15. Afghanistan Troop Casualties: During the Bush presidency, which ended on Jan. 20, 2009 with the inauguration of President Obama, U.S. troops were present in Afghanistan for 87.4 months and suffered 570 casualties—a rate of 6.5 deaths per month. During the Obama presidency, through today, U.S. troops have been present in Afghanistan for 29.1 months and have suffered 970 casualties—a rate of 33.3 deaths per month. (Bush on Steroids)

16. Defense Spending: Defense Spending Levels has only gone up during President Obama's first term from $616 billion under Bush in 2008 to $768 billion in 2011. (Bush on Steroids)

17. Habeas Corpus: The Obama Administration also continued Bush's suspension of the long-standing legal tradition of habeas corpus, insisting that it has the right to detain suspected terrorists indefinitely without trial. (Same)

18. Post-Partisan President: Despite promises of being a post-partisan president, Obama has tussled with Republicans and raised the rhetoric higher on healthcare and the economy, blaming them for trying to undermine his agenda despite having majorities in both the House and Senate for almost two years. Some say it's shades of former President Bush who also promised bipartisanship, but rarely made it work. (Bush on Steroids)

19. Transparency: Amid promises of transparency, Obama is running secret wars a la Nixon and Bush. Today's Washington Post, for example, reveals that the administration, which arrived with plans to cut back on the wars, is expanding "a largely secret U.S. war against al-Qaeda and other radical groups" in Yemen, Africa, Central Asia, and the Middle East. Also, why won’t Obama release many of his records? Furthermore, Obama promised to publish all non-emergency legislation to a website for five days before the President signs it, but then broke that promise over and over again. (Bush on Steroids)

20. Executive Orders: Both Bush and Obama have issued executive orders, a lot of executive orders. Obama and the left accused Bush of running an “imperial presidency.” Then Obama came along and did the same thing as Bush. (Same)

21. Stimulus: Bush passed the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008. The law provided for tax rebates to low- and middle-income U.S. taxpayers, tax incentives to stimulate business investment, and an increase in the limits imposed on mortgages eligible for purchase by government-sponsored enterprises (e.g., Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). The total cost of this bill was projected at $152 billion. Obama singed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. The cost of the bill is a principal amount of $840 billion, and when adding interest owed, a total amount of $1.2 trillion. (Bush on Steroids)

22. Lobbyists: Despite promising to keep lobbyists out of his administration, Obama broke his word again and again, making 17 exceptions to this promise in his first two weeks as president. Bush was also greatly influenced by lobbyists. (Same)

23. Earmarks: Obama did a shameless 180 degree turn on earmarks by sharply criticizing them (and bragging that he would pass legislation without a single one) and then signing a spending bill with literally thousands of them. (Same)
24. Bailouts: Bush authorized $13.4 billion in bailouts for General Motors and when Obama took office he authorized tens of billions more for Detroit. (Same)

25. Ben Bernanke: Another continuation of Bush era economics, fiscal policy, and monetary policy: Obama's appointment of Ben Bernanke to another term as Fed Chair. (Same)

26. Dealing with Disasters: Bush poorly handled the aftermath Hurricane Katrina. Obama poorly handled the aftermath of the Gulf Oil Spill. (Mini George)

27. Golf: In just ten months as U.S. President, Obama has already played as much golf as George W. Bush did in his entire eight years in power. (Bush on Steroids)

28. Said Ridiculous Things: I’m sure some of you are surprised at this category as you may have thought Obama never makes a speaking mistake, but you’d be wrong. He rivals Bush in his speaking gaffes.

Bush:

1. "I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family." —Greater Nashua, N.H., Jan. 27, 2000Name

2. "I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully." —Saginaw, Mich., Sept. 29, 2000

3. "They misunderestimated me." —Bentonville, Ark., Nov. 6, 2000

4. "Rarely is the questioned asked: Is our children learning?" —Florence, S.C., Jan. 11, 2000

5. "Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." —Washington, D.C., Aug. 5, 2004

6. "We spent a lot of time talking about Africa, as we should. Africa is a nation that suffers from incredible disease." --Gothenburg, Sweden, June 14, 2001

7. "Families is where our nation finds hope, where wings take dream." --LaCrosse, Wis., Oct. 18, 2000

Obama:

1. "I've now been in 57 states -- I think one left to go." --at a campaign event in Beaverton, Oregon

2. "One such translator was an American of Haitian descent, representative of the extraordinary work that our men and women in uniform do all around the world -- Navy Corpse-Man Christian Brossard." –mispronouncing "Corpsman" (the "ps" is silent) during a speech at the National Prayer Breakfast, Washington, D.C., Feb. 5, 2010 (The Corpsman's name is also Christopher, not Christian)

3. "The Middle East is obviously an issue that has plagued the region for centuries.”

4. "UPS and FedEx are doing just fine, right? It's the Post Office that's always having problems." –attempting to make the case for government-run healthcare, while simultaneously undercutting his own argument, Portsmouth, N.H., Aug. 11, 2009

5. "I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody." -- defending his tax plan to Joe the Plumber, who argued that Obama's policy hurts small-business owners like himself, Toledo, Ohio, Oct. 12, 2008

6. "What I was suggesting -- you're absolutely right that John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith..." --in an interview with ABC's George Stephanopoulos

7. "On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes -- and I see many of them in the audience here today -- our sense of patriotism is particularly strong."

ETC. ETC. ETC.

If you hated George W. Bush as a President than you should probably hate Barack Obama too.

Obama's Unpatriotic Debt

2012-11-04T18:19:00.001-08:00

Obama called the national debt increase under George W. Bush “irresponsible” and “unpatriotic.” The debt accumulated under the Bush Administration was about $4.9 trillion in 8 years. Under Obama the debt has increased by about $5.6 trillion in almost 4 years. According to Obama this means he is irresponsible and unpatriotic. Furthermore, spending levels from 2008-2012 have increased by more than $800 billion, so if you disliked Bush because of the amount of debt that ran up on his watch, you must really hate Obama.

Obama's Stimulus Failure

2012-11-04T18:09:00.001-08:00

The Obama Administration has put forth two major pieces of legislation. One of those pieces of legislation is the “American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009” otherwise known as the Stimulus. The Stimulus has cost American taxpayers a principal amount of $840 billion. After ten years the total cost to taxpayers, principal plus interest owed due to borrowing, will be about $1.2 trillion. Let’s see what kind of return Americans have received for such a costly piece of legislation.

The CBO has ESTIMATED (as of 2011) that the Stimulus has saved or created 1.3 million-3.6 million jobs based on a formula (not based on certain figures). Also, an increase in real GDP of 0.1-1% has been attributed to the Stimulus. Now that sounds decent, but you have to remember that the money will run out soon, so it’s merely a temporary boost in unemployment and to the economy. As of March 2012, 90% of the Stimulus had been used. This is of course why we heard Barack Obama pushing for a $447 billion Stimulus #2, also called the American Jobs Bill. He knew more money was needed to prop up the economy. When the money runs out though (which will be very soon), most of those 1.3 million-3.6 million jobs will vanish or, since more than 75% of the jobs saved or created were government jobs, the federal government could increase its “budget” to keep jobs adding even more to the debt than the calculated $1.2 trillion, but unfortunately what the country needs is more private sector jobs.

This month unemployment has started increasing again, from 7.8% to 7.9%. Obama’s economists predicted that unemployment would never rise above 8% with the stimulus and would be at about 5.6% now with the Stimulus. They were a “little” off. Unemployment rose to a height of 10% in August of 2009 and, as I said earlier, is currently at 7.9% (12.3 million unemployed) and rising. This past quarter the smallest amount of Stimulus funds were distributed and unemployment increased. I don’t think that is a coincidence. Now that the Stimulus funds are dwindling down, unemployment will continue to increase since the Stimulus has not actually fixed the economy. On top of that, of the 88.9 million that are out of the workforce, just about 7 million people say they still want a job and can’t get one (as of September 07, 2012). Also, the labor-force participation rate, the percentage of the civilian working-age population that is either working or looking for a job, is 63.5%, the lowest since 1981. These are very bad numbers with an 840 billion infusion of cash into the economy.

The CBO has predicted that the Stimulus will have no long term affects. The Stimulus is a short-term patch work piece of legislation. It propped up the economy for more than three years, but fixed nothing while adding $1.2 trillion to the United States’ already massive debt. The Stimulus did make the recession not as steep, BUT it has prolonged the economic misery because it artificially propped up the economy and now that artificial crutch is almost gone, things will head downhill again (as we now see unemployment rising).

The question should not be whether the Stimulus did some good the past few years. The two critical questions should be: 1. Is the Stimulus overall a good piece of legislation? No, and 2. Were there better options available to help the economy and unemployment? Yes. A better option would be a permanent cut to income tax rates and in this specific case, because the recession in 2008 was so severe, the best option would be a permanent cut to income tax rates and a much smaller stimulus (of about $100-$150 billion). I say that because the income tax cuts do not fix the economy instantly. They take a year or two to take hold on the economy. The small stimulus would prop up the economy in the short-term while the economy is actually being repaired.

Now we all know what Obama wants, more Stimulus, which is only a short-term band aid. If Romney is elected President, he said he will slash income tax rates by 20% across the board which is the move the economy needs as it will truly fix the economy and not just prop it up like the Stimulus has. How do I know that will work? History tells me so. Coolidge, JFK, Reagan, & George W. Bush all cut income tax rates and all of them saw employment increase and revenue increase. Would you rather the wasteful, inefficient, and crony capitalist Federal Government handing out money or a direct income tax cut to the people that eliminates the chance of waste? The answer is quite obvious to me.

If you want the next President of the United States to have good economic ideas than your man is Mitt Romney. He’ll bring this country back to being the economic powerhouse that it should be. Not the 5th place ranked country in Global Economic Competitiveness below Switzerland, Singapore, Sweden, and Finland like it is currently! (The United States was last ranked #1 in 2008 or in other words right before Obama became President)

I leave with a video of Obama laughing about how those shovel ready jobs weren’t shovel ready.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4p4-vPrcDBo

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Other things to consider about the Stimulus: 1. I find it interesting that the Stimulus funds just miraculously happen to last until a little after the 2012 Election Day. Of course, this was done on purpose by Obama and the Democrats so that the economy didn’t start slipping too much before the election, so it would appear that they had actually done something to fix the economy over these past 4 years., 2. Billions in Stimulus money wasted on failed companies such as Solyndra., and 3. 50% of the Stimulus was used in 2010 and unemployment that year never went below 9.4% (from a height of 10% in 2009). This just shows how ineffective $420 billion in government spending was.

The Obama Administration's Mishandling of the Benghazi Terror Attacks

2012-11-01T19:24:00.001-07:00

On September 11th, 2012, 11 years after the 9/11 Twin Tower attacks, 4 people at the United States Embassy in Benghazi, Libya died including a United States Ambassador (the first Ambassador to die while on duty since 1979). When you consider who to vote for as the next President of the United States remember that the Obama Administration brought home 16 United States security agents just before the attack despite a dangerous situation at the Embassy (2 recent attacks at the Embassy and an attack on the United Kingdom Ambassador's motorcade), ignored requests for increased security despite direct attacks on the Embassy (even while the United Kingdom withdrew their Ambassador and Staff from their Embassy in Libya), denied 3 requests for help by those who were under attack for 12 hours at the Embassy and Annex despite having forces available just a few miles away and a ship just off the coast, and then flat out lied for two weeks about a riot breaking out relating to a demonstration about a video when there was no such riot. The Administration knew it was a terrorist attack, but that didn't play into the narrative that Obama had Al Qaeda on the run. A live feed of the attack was available and communication between the Embassy and Annex was fluid and clear with Washington D.C.. The Administration knew the truth, but lied anyways. Even a military drone was flying overhead during the attack. The Administration put people in harms way for political reasons and that is disgraceful. Whether it was the Administration ignoring the reality of the terrorist threat in Libya or trying to create a false alternate reality in order to down play Islamic Terrorism and the situation in Libya for the American voters, the Administration is at fault and heads should roll. If you don't think the Obama Administration cares about the politics ask yourself why Obama went campaigning the next day to Nevada. It's almost always politics with Obama. Don't you want a President that serves others and not himself?

Keep this in mind what transpired throughout the Benghazi attacks and after when you are in the voting booth this November 6th.

Gay Marriage: The Intolerance of the “Tolerant”

2012-05-09T20:33:00.000-07:00

Gay Marriage is a huge issue in the news again despite there being many more important issues such as the debt, Afghanistan, Iran, spending, taxes, unemployment, underemployment, the economy, ObamaCare, Social Security, Medicare, etc. etc.. First it was Joe Biden saying he supported gay marriage, then it was the decision in North Carolina, and finally Romney stating he's against gay marriage and Obama evolving into a gay marriage supporter. My post in not regarding the support or opposition of gay marriage; both sides have reasonable arguments available to promote their positions. This post instead will be concerning the intolerance of the supposedly tolerant gay marriage supporters.

I decided to weigh in on this subject because of the people that have been posting about gay marriage on Facebook. The predominant, perhaps unanimous, view from my Facebook friends posting on this issue is that they support gay marriage and anyone who is against gay marriage must be an idiot, bigot, and/or a religious nut. This might clear up why those comments about gay marriage on Facebook are all pro-gay marriage comments since the people who are against gay marriage are probably afraid to say so publicly on Facebook since the other side thinks so lowly of their position that was “obviously” a creation of their “prejudice.” What I realize, that makes me laugh, when reading these Facebook posts is that the people that think they are “tolerant” and support “diversity” are in a way, just the opposite!

The problem is that these pro-gay marriage Facebook posters have no tolerance for the opposing position and believe that any differing opinion on the gay-marriage issue must be due to idiocy or bigotry. Since they don’t care for the diversity of ideas, they arrive at a position without even trying to accurately understand the other side’s position thus making their own position weak. After all, it is easier to just call the other side idiots and bigots than to have to think, analyze, and while doing those things, be in fear that your position might not be the most reasonable. Why analyze both sides of an issue when you already have a position, right?

Also, it seems that the gay marriage supporters’ positions are formed based on a deconstruction of the reasons they think people are against gay marriage rather than formed based on a constructive argument for gay marriage. They think that people who are against gay marriage are stupid, bigots, and religious nuts and that’s primarily why they have the opposite position as they would not want to be considered stupid, a bigot, or a religious nut. That’s no argument though; it’s merely taking a position based on believing the other side’s position is intolerant when in reality it is not! (There are fringe intolerant people, who just hate gays, but prejudice is not the argument of the vast majority of those that are against gay marriage and most pro-gay marriage people don’t comprehend that).

What this all boils down to is that the so called "tolerant" pro-gay marriage people are the ones that are intolerant of those who stand on the other side of the gay marriage issue (while also misrepresenting their position). Many gay marriage supporters don't understand their opposition's stance and ironically thus do not understand their own stance. This is just another example of Democrats being the party of diversity, just not the diversity of ideas.

Sweden's Gender Neutrality Stupidity

2012-04-18T22:23:00.000-07:00

Recently, Sweden added the word "hen" to the country's National Encyclopedia. The word is a gender-neutral pronoun. Also, teachers in preschools stopped referring to students as "boys" or "girls." One school even went so far as to stop allowing free playtime because "stereotypical" gender patterns are born and cemented. In free play there is hierarchy, exclusion, and the seed to bullying."

What is the reason behind forcing gender neutrality on young children? The said purpose is to create a society that focuses on "hens" instead of allowing children to grow up being limited by their gender stereotypes.

Sweden is one of the most Liberal countries in the world, so this addition to their Encyclopedia does not surprise me. The intentions of the Swedes are most likely good, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The societal repercussions of this move are far worse than any benefits and I'll explain why.

It is my belief that the Swedes had several motives in mind when they created the gender-neutral word hen. The motives probably are to 1. make boys and girls equal, 2. change the social norms or completely destroy them, 3. make sure there is less stress for children growing up, and 4. make it easier for gay children (if gay children exist).

Here are the problems with the Swedes Liberal plan:

1. Young boys and girls cannot be equal, it is a biological impossibility. This is an issue that Liberals can't seem to come to terms with. They "wish" that everyone could be equal when it is just not possible! They confuse equal rights, with being equal in terms of ability, skills, strengths, amount of money and things you have, etc. etc. They are very different things. When Thomas Jefferson stated that "all men are created equal" he is saying everyone should have equal rights. There are things men generally do better than women and women generally do better than men and Liberals have to come to grips with that instead trying to change society when they can't because they do harm. Children should begin to understand their gender differences at a young age because they will be able to comprehend and cope with things easier when they are adults.

2. The Swedes want to change social norms or completely destroy them. They do not want children to be "limited" by their gender stereotypes or to be locked into gender stereotypes. I find it interesting that they think social norms are limiting as it's not necessarily true. Stereotypes usually exist for a reason, because they are "generally" true for a certain group. Understanding those stereotypes, but realizing that you don't have to be limited by them or to them, is more productive than confusing children with telling them they are all equal. Furthermore, from my perspective, I would want there to be a clear difference in men and women. It seems odd, and not just because it is different, to make up a gender-neutral word in order to not make a distinction between men and women. Differences should be understood and accepted.

3. There is a real problem with the reasoning that since "In free play there is hierarchy, exclusion, and the seed to bullying" gender neutrality is a necessity. This is how their idea is particularly harmful. Young children SHOULD be exposed to hierarchy, exclusion, and bullying. If not exposed to some adversity at a young age they will not handle their hardships properly when adults. The real world is not kind and not knowing how to deal with the difficulties that will arise is a problem. The sense that you are entitled to a life where you have no problems could make you bitter, lazy, and mad when you do ultimately face difficulties. I would not be able to get through the tough times I have faced in my life without having experienced some adversity when young.

4. Another possible reason for the creation of the word hen is to make it easier for gay children. Of course, there is no scientific evidence that someone is born gay (despite Lady Gaga's opinion), but it is a possibility. Usage of the word hen may help ease stress for gay children, but again this will give them a perception that they won't face prejudice regarding their sexually orientation when they are older. That perception is most likely wrong as there are many people who are prejudice against gays. If they cannot cope with this intolerance, since they didn't figure out how to when they were young, they will most likely become hateful people instead of secure people.

Why would the Swedes stop at gender neutral words? How about ethnicity neutral or "skin color" neutral words? Neutral words for ethnicity and skin color would be the same as gender in terms of those things are merely the consequence of being born. You can't change the parents that gave you life, so to try to force people to be neutral regarding something that is uncontrollable and impossible to change is absurd. It just welcomes confusion for the children. Differences should be embraced, so that people can be accepted while being different instead of forcing everyone in society to be equal when in reality they are not. ... And I thought Liberals were for diversity!

Chris Christie vs. William Brown & University Name Changes

2012-03-12T21:14:00.002-07:00

A few days ago New Jersey Governor, Chris Christie, was hosting a town hall conference when a 34 year old law student, William Brown, stepped to the mic and proceeded to get into an argument with Governor Christie regarding the proposed Rutgers University name change to Rutgers Camden-Rowan. William Brown was against the name change (and so am I). This exchange reminded me of three ridiculous New York University name changes that have occurred during my lifetime.

Someone should have cried foul when the Stony Brook University Patriots changed their name to the Stony Brook University Seawolves. The change was made because Patriots, which referred to fighters in the Continental Army of the American Revolutionary War, was not inclusive enough. Those in charge of political correctness at Stony Brook at the time figured the name change was necessary since Patriots didn't include minorities and women, even though there were 5,000 black fighters and women spies, including a woman spy right in Stony Brook's backyard, East Setauket, who would put certain garments on her clothesline to inform the Continental troops where the British troops were located. Perhaps the PC Police at Stony Brook don't know their history or they may have been overly concerned with the number of white male troops in the Continental Army. Nevertheless, this name change is one of the most ridiculous examples of political correctness I can think of and what makes it even more egregious is that the name they replaced Patriots with was Seawolves, a mythical made up animal so as to not offend real animals, as if they could even get offended.

Another example of ridiculous political correctness at a New York University is when the St. John's Redmen changed their name to the St. John's Red Storm. Redmen was OF COURSE offensive to Native Americans even though the name refers to the St. John's teams' uniform colors (and always has). Maybe the PC Police at St. John's knew the history of the name and didn't want to offend colors, I wouldn't be shocked. The made up Red Storm was the clear choice because if they picked anything that was real that would naturally be offensive and not honorary.

The final absurd name change is when the Hofstra Flying Dutchmen name was changed to the Hofstra Pride. Apparently the Dutch were incensed about the name and forced the University to change it (no, not really). The University was founded by the Dutch thus the name Hofstra Flying Dutchmen. This name is not even conceivably offensive. The name was changed to the Hofstra Pride, the feeling, ignoring the college's heritage and the fact that pride is the downfall of man. Pride now means a group of lions which at least isn't ridiculous, but still doesn't connect the college with its founding.

The three examples I just listed above are far more unreasonable then what William Brown is arguing against now, but not much was made of those changes.

Andrew Mellon on Taxes (Someone Show this to Obama)

2011-12-09T18:08:00.000-08:00

“There is no reason why the question of taxation should not be approached from a non-partisan and business viewpoint. ... Tax revision should never be made the football either of partisan or class politics but should be worked out by those who have made a careful study of the subject in its larger aspects and are prepared to recommend the course which, in the end, will prove the country’s best interest.

I have never viewed taxation as a means of rewarding one class of taxpayers or punishing another. If such a point of view ever controls our public policy, the traditions of freedom, justice, and equality of opportunity, which are distinguishing characteristics of our American civilization, will have disappeared and in their place we shall have class legislation with all its attendant evils. The man who seeks to perpetuate prejudice and class hatred is doing America an ill service. In attempting to promote or defeat legislation by arraying one class of taxpayers against another, he shows a complete misconception of those principles of equality on which the country was founded. Any man of energy and initiative in this country can get what he wants out of life. But when that initiative is crippled by legislation or by a tax system which denies him the right to receive a reasonable share of his earnings, then he will no longer exert himself and the country will be deprived of the energy on which its continued greatness depends.” - Andrew W. Mellon

Deficit Cutting Made Easy!

2011-11-02T22:35:00.000-07:00

It is incredibly easy for me to sit here on my computer and in just a few minutes find $1.2-$1.5 Trillion in Federal Government spending cuts over the next ten years (I could find $5-$10 Trillion in just a few hours). Of course, I do not have have personal interests such as reelection to worry about. Nonetheless, it is simple to find spending cuts which is why I'm so puzzled to hear that the super-committee is having difficulty finding the cuts. More than half of the minimum cuts will come off the books automatically at the end of this year (End of the Iraq War)! Below are a few spending cut options that can be implemented:

Cut deficit by $1.2-$1.5 Trillion over 10 years ($120-$150 Billion a year)

1. $66,000,000,000 - End of the Iraq War

- This is technically a spending cut since $66 Billion will no longer be needed annually for the War in Iraq. The super-committee is already more than half way there.

2. $29,266,824,800 - Cut Federal Government Employees Salary and Benefits by 10% (after 5% of employees are laid off)

- Average Federal Worker Salary: $67,691, Annual Benefits: $40,785

- Average Private Sector Worker Salary: $42,432, Annual Benefits: $9,882

- After the 10% cut, the federal worker would still be making $45,314.40 more than the private sector worker in salary and benefits annually.

3. $18,400,000,000 - Reduce Corporate Welfare by 20% ($92 Billion Annually)

4. $15,403,592,000 - Layoff 5% of Federal Government employees

- There are about 2,800,000 federal employees (far too many). If 5% of the workforce was laid off that would be about 140,000 people. It may be a difficult for politicians to fire workers, but they are paid to do the difficult things. The nation is in a debt crisis and if the inflated size of the Federal Government is not reduced the crisis will eventually destroy America.

5. $10,000,000,000 - Reduce foreign aid by 20% ($50 Billion Annually)

- It is time for that money to be used at home.

6. $9,130,800,000 - No more earmarks

- Obama did promise an end to earmarks!

7. $3,100,000,000 - Cut Saturday Post Office delivery

- The Post Office loses the American taxpayers about $8 Billion annually, it is time for some changes.

8. $146,000,000 - Federal employees refusing to fly coach

- The American taxpayers aren't paying for federal employees to live luxuriously. If federal employees want to travel in style they should pay out of their own pockets.

Total Annually: $151,447,216,800 ($1.51 Trillion over 10 years)

Are Teachers Underpaid or Overpaid?

2011-10-30T20:21:00.000-07:00

The below analysis has been visible all over social networks in support of teachers the past few weeks. It is an attempt to show how teachers are underpaid. I will add that I support teachers and many of my family members are teachers, but in the instance of being fair, I will show you why the below numbers are completely off base.

Read the entire thing before you judge me....

Teachers' hefty salaries are driving up taxes, and they only work 9 or 10 months a year! It's time we put thing in perspective and pay them for what they do - babysit! We can get that for minimum wage. That's right. Let's give them $3.00 an hour and only the hours they worked; not any of that silly planning time, or any time they spend before or after school. That ...would be $19.50 a day (7:45 to.............................. 3:00 PM with 45 min. off for lunch and plan-- that equals 6 1/2 hours). Each parent should pay $19.50 a day for these teachers to baby-sit their children. Now how many students do they teach in a day...maybe 30? So that's $19.50 x 30 = $585.00 a day. However, remember they only work 180 days a year!!! I am not going to pay them for any vacations. LET'S SEE.... That's $585 X 180= $105,300 per year. (Hold on! My calculator needs new batteries).What about those special education teachers and the ones with Master's degrees? Well, we could pay them minimum wage ($7.75), and just to be fair, round it off to $8.00 an hour. That would be $8 X 6 1/2 hours X 30 children X 180 days = $280,800 per year. Wait a minute -- there's something wrong here! There sure is!

The average teacher's salary (nation wide) is $50,000. $50,000/180 days = $277.77/per day/30 students=$9.25/6.5 hours = $1.42 per hour per student--a very inexpensive baby-sitter and they even EDUCATE your kids!) WHAT A DEAL!!!!

Heaven forbid we take into account highly qualified teachers...

Misleading Political Headlines are Providing Misinformation to Many

2011-08-18T20:10:00.000-07:00

Dewey Defeats Truman

In recent months, as I have read more and more political articles online and in the newspaper, I have realized that many political article headlines are misleading, bordering on untruthful. When comparing the body of these articles to the headlines it seemed evident to me that journalists are writing misleading headlines purposefully. Why would journalists do this? ... I decided to analyze how I view articles in newspapers to try and derive an answer to my question.

When reading the newspaper I typically skim over all the headlines in the paper and stop at a few articles that I want to read. This technique is probably performed by most people. By reading the article headlines I get a sense of the articles without having to read all the articles in the newspaper. After completing my quick examination I discovered the answer to why journalists write bias headlines. ... Many people only read the headline of an article.

Since many people read headlines and not the full articles, journalists can sway public opinion by merely writing a misleading headline (that often aligns with the journalist’s perspective). Of course, a journalist is supposed to be objective and leave their point of view at the door step, but unfortunately many journalists today have become egregiously bias in their reporting. To fortify my inference, I came across a study that proclaims 44% of Google news visitors scan article headlines without ever accessing (reading) the articles. I'm sure journalists know that statistic, and others alike, and that prompts them to write deceptive headlines thus fooling almost 50% of the population into believing something that is untrue.

Operation: Blame the Tea Party

2011-08-07T22:44:00.000-07:00

“A man can fail many times, but he isn't a failure until he begins to blame somebody else.” - John Burroughs

Do I know anyone who constantly blames others? Hmm … oh yea, Barack Obama and the members of his Administration do that often. In fact, they lay blame to anyone who is of an opposing political party or they deem threatening while rarely, if ever, admitting their own failures. Mr. Obama even holds primetime press conferences with the primary purpose of telling the American Citizens who is to blame for the current state of America (by the way, it isn’t him). How can this Administration try to fix the problems of this country if they cannot admit that many of their own policies are failing? The answer is they can’t because they choose to ignore reality.

A great example of Obama blatantly ignoring reality is when he filled out his Census form in 2010 and checked the box “Black, African American, or Negro” and didn’t check the box labeled “white” despite the FACT that he is 50% white (or Caucasian). This should not only be considered ignoring reality, but lying on a Census form subject to a $500 fine. Don't hold your breath for that government deficit reducer. This example does not have any real direct effect on Americans, but should not be considered an insignificant occurrence. If Obama can ignore his race when it suits him, what else could he choose to ignore or lie about in order to push his agenda? A person who is in a powerful position and chooses to believe something not based on fact or reason, but based on what he wishes to be true is a dangerous person.

I'd be remiss if I didn't mention that I think Barack Obama is a good person, but unfortunately his idealistic naivety is putting the United States in a precarious position. The modern day Roman Empire may be crumbling right before our eyes and Barack Obama is playing the violin for himself.