Pushing a Rope

For a moment I will ignore the idea that Democrats and socialists are “in business” for power and will take them at their word that they are trying to improve the standard of living for the poor and middle classes.

My advice to them is thus, “You are going about it all wrong.”

If they really wanted to lower the costs of living, increase the standards of living, and provide more leisure time to the poor and middle class, they would endeavor to increase the standard of living for the upper classes. The surest way to do this would be to lower or eliminate taxes. I am not going to qualify which taxes – there are plenty to choose – but will at least mention the elimination of income tax on labor.

When many think of “economic centers” they oft think of Zurich, London, and perhaps Kuala Lumpur and Dubai. Hong Kong once topped the list but prior to the Chinese take over in 1997, the city experienced a mass exodus of money to other cities.

Why does no one think of San Francisco, Dallas, or even New York? Of course there is the New York Stock Exchange and the businesses on Wall Street. Are global companies competing for office space in the city though? I think soon-to-be-ex-Governor Spitzer ensured that none are.

By lowering taxes and “being friendly” to big businesses, we ensure the vitality of the smaller businesses that require them.

This works quite the same on a personal level too. Big businesses will keep their headquarters in cities that are good for their top executives. (While they may be incorporated in Delaware or Nevada, they only maintain a post office box there.) This means exclusive neighborhoods, nice roads, low property taxes, low luxury taxes, and the like.

Initially, when areas like these are being built, that means a lot of construction jobs and later a lot of service jobs. Those in construction and service industries are also kept employed. Many will start their own businesses around their work experience. This does not even include the accounting firms, large for the big businesses and small for individuals, the churches, the pizza deliveries, and the landscapers that support them.

When those very wealthy have more of their money, they will either invest in these smaller businesses or buy luxury items. They do not take money from the poor and middle classes but instead give it to them directly. They expect something in return (other than a vote) and that is Not Bad. (I know, I said I was going to ignore the “in it for the power” bit.) They may even give it to charities of their own free will.

It will not sit well with the envious but doing this means that there will be a greater gap between the rich and the poor. However, it will mean that most of the poor are well to do as well. (Some people will always be poor regardless of how much money they have.) It means that the standard of living for the poor is higher than that of the middle and upper classes of countries with high taxes.

It will also mean that while the a poor man sits in a working, air conditioned car, he will see more luxury cars, private jets, and four star restaurants on his drive to work. While he is eating his breakfast, lunch, and dinner, he will read about celebrities flying to Africa to “get away from it all.” While he watches his wide-screen television, he will be bombarded with commercials for things he still cannot afford.

Try as I may, I still cannot believe that this is a problem.

In a free market economy with no or low taxes, the wealthy pull the others “up” with them. Little effort is required to make it so.

In a socialist economy, great effort is needed to make even the smallest improvements.

Oh Wait

Obama was talking about guns and gun rights...

I must have been confused.

Barack Obama: “Slavery is Constitutional”

Had I not read the article and seen the video, I do not think I would have believed it. I am paraphrasing here but Barack Obama has clearly stated while he supports the abolition of slavery, he believes that local governments may pass commonsense legislation allowing it. Furthermore, he believes this legislation to be Constitutional.

Excuse me for any lack of nuance or my simplistic attitude toward the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to United States Constitution. They are all very clear – especially the 13th.

What is “commonsense legislation” regarding slavery anyway?

Does that mean if a town is in need of ditch diggers, it may allow contractors to use slave labor? Is an exception to be made for farmers in need of large amounts of cheap labor? Does that mean a small town can make slave ownership completely legal without punishment against the slave owners and traders?

It is sadness that when I try to discuss this with any who support him. They cannot speak to it and only refer me to his website. When I view his website, there is nothing about slavery mentioned at all – even within the references to Africa.

Perhaps due to his non-negotiable COMMITMENT TO AFRICA – the only continent where slavery is still legal – he has the power to hold two completely contradictory beliefs in his mind simultaneously, and accept both of them.

As Warm Jell-O

Since Barack Obama is not getting enough unadulterated criticism from conservatives in general, I have decided that I will go through some issues on his website and offer my counterpoints.

I should also add that Barack Obama could be hog-tied in a room with Michael Savage berating him twenty-four hours a day and he still would not be getting enough unadulterated criticism.

For a long time, I have been searching for a comprehensive list of issues and his related stances on them. I have been advised to “check his website” for this. Unfortunately, this still comes far short of anything substantive. Unless he “goes on” with Rush Limbaugh or the like, it also appears that none of these will be brought to light by interviews of him either.

Some – relatively “hot button” – issues that are not mentioned on his site are as follows:

• The United States involvement in the United Nations
• The United Nations involvement in the United States
• Gun Rights / 2nd Amendment
• States rights
• Taxes
• Spending
• Foreign Aid
• Social Security
• Supreme Court Justices
  

Even the content of his site lacks substance. His site addresses two issues: use of diplomacy and the use of the military. Except that it really does not. He talks of building our military and arming it while his Senate record refutes it.

One issue that his site really ignores is taxation. It mentions a lot of lofty goals but no where does it mention how to fund them.

Obama continually speaks of hope. I must say that right now I hope he does not win the Presidency.

The only thing that is certain with an Obama administration is higher taxes.

Everything else is without form, meaning, or essence.

What It Means

Obama: "It's not about left and right it's about past and future!"

Me: "Hey George! What does that mean?"

George Orwell: "If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face—for ever."

Magic Number

I heard a talking head on the radio once say that “anyone who runs fifteen miles or more a week will never be fat.” I did not realize that there was a set distance that one could run to deny what nature would take for granted. It sounded to me like a contrived statistic stated with the confidence one only has when one is required to be a subject authority but in reality has not a clue.

Well… I have increased my running to more than fourteen miles a week since the beginning of the year. I am not fat – nor was I before increasing my distance – but I have managed to trim that fat I did have.

I am guessing that around fifteen miles, the body reaches equilibrium. It burns the calories needed to carry the weight of those calories, regardless of the number of calories consumed. If any fewer than that, a body will be able to store the extra calories. If any more than that, a body will need additional calories specifically to compensate for the exercise.

…Or I could be totally incorrect. For what it’s worth… Your mileage may vary… &c.

She's Outta Here

I have not posted in quite a while for a number of reasons: I have been busy with family. I have been busy with work. I have been working on a number of other interesting-but-not-going-on-my-blog things. Also, I have been annoyed with Blogspot repeatedly losing my draft posts.

I wrote this one three times and “lost” it three times. I am smart enough to do draft versions on my computer and then post it but did not get around to it until now.

In any case, this was about Kay Bailey Hutchison and her stance on amnesty for illegal aliens. She stated that she was less than supportive of a wall.

I understand that Senators are delegates and not representatives. However, the people of Texas are not going to send her to delegate for them in the future. Like Rick Perry, she will be voted out of office if she runs again.