President Obama’s huge drop in popularity is clearly evident in a plethora of new bumper stickers found across the country. A few of these are shown below:
It’s too bad the President and Congress don’t. Please take 5-1/2 minutes, and watch the video below. Whether you agree or disagree, please take the time to enter your answer to the new poll in the right margin.]]>
“Fathom the hypocrisy of a Government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured, but not everyone must prove they are a citizen.”
I wish I knew who coined this, because it strikes a chord in my soul and I would like to give them credit.
Excerpts of classic movies with a modern theme. Trademarks and copyrights belong to their respective owners. Enjoy!
First, I can’t take credit for this, and it came out awhile ago. Also, due to some rough language, it’s not safe for work or kids, so be forewarned. This will definitely piss you off, but it will make you laugh, too. I especially like the subtle image of the tennis racket on the bench.
There is a new storm brewing on the horizon you all should be aware of: That of the approximately 10 million private pensioners lobbying for a government bailout. None of us have forgotten the trillions of our tax dollars spent on the private financial sector bailouts of 2008 and 2009. Well, that’s just the tip of the iceberg.
We have police and firemen retiring in their early 40s on full pensions, teachers (and school administrators) receiving guaranteed annual raises (not based on merit) despite the recession, and our politicians continually agreeing to unsustainable (and unfundable) public sector compensation programs. The Tea Party movement has seen this coming, and you should be aware of it, too.
To quote Damien Hoffman of the Wall St. Cheat Sheet, “There are no guarantees in Capitalism. If the U.S. is to recreate one of the greatest economies in the world, we must end the practice of aiding businesses and programs which would otherwise go bankrupt without government subsidy. Once guarantees are offered to a privileged group of people, a society ends up in the current tit-for-tat gameplay currently reaching elevated heights in the U.S.”
Granted, there are programs providing significant value to a small percentage of people that really need the assistance. However, guaranteeing survival in the private market or permitting outlandish retirement benefits in the public sector are a direct path to the same fate as ancient Rome.
It used to be that a person contemplating going to work in the public sector would work for less wages than his private sector counterpart, but had a nicer retirement and benefit package to offset the wage disparity. This has changed, in that public sector wages have caught up with (and in many cases, surpassed) those in the private sector, while the public sector fringe benefits have gotten even fatter.
The tit-for-tat mentality works this way:
The public sector employees aren’t blind, and see the bailout money flowing to the public sector for a lot of stupid reasons… much of which lines the pockets of upper management in the form of bonuses.
Then, the private sector sees public employees retiring after 15+ years with full pensions at ridiculous rates (much of which is based on trumped up timekeeping methodology), fully paid medical benefits with little or no worker contribution, and other completely outrageous benefits dreamed up by the labor unions. This is on top of the wage rate, which in most cases matches that of the private sector.
The private sector then pushes back because they see the waste of tax dollars used to prop up the public sector’s ever increasing standard of living. The tit-for-tat continues until rational people intervene and stop the BS.
The public sector needs to learn basic math. More importantly, so do the legislators that cave in to the public sector labor unions’ demands. Organized Labor must be forced out of the public sector, or else there will never be a balanced budget or sustainable tax burden to pay for the continued increases in public sector benefit packages. This applies at the Federal, State and Local levels. Government must set the pay scales (similar to the old Federal “GS” system), where promotion and raises are based on time and merit. Public sector employees must start contributing to their own retirement plans, and the employee contributions must constitute the bulk of the funding. The High-3* system needs to be retired, being replaced with something similar to the private sector’s 401(k) system, where the pension amount is determined by employee/taxpayer contributions, without regard to how much the employee earned in his/her highest 3 years of compensation. A change to this type of system would give the public sector employee total control of their retirement fund, thus preventing the Government and Unions from using retirement fund money to fund their pet projects.
Yo… Organized Labor… do you hear me? My name is John Q. Taxpayer, and I’m mad as Hell and am not gonna take it any more. Wanna know why? I’ll tell you:
That’s right… it’s YOUR FAULT.
When $1,600 of the current cost of a GM vehicle goes toward paying legacy costs (i.e., mostly retiree health and pension benefits), that’s a sign of a major problem. Assuming the average price of a GM vehicle is $25,000, the cost of retiree health and pension benefits comprises 6.4% of that vehicle’s price and is paying benefits for people that no longer work for GM. That’s a problem, don’t you think?
39.5% of California’s General Fund expenditures goes toward K-12 education, and 82.9% of that pays teacher and staff salaries and benefits. In 2006-2007 salaries for classroom teachers accounted for 39.5 percent of school expenditures; salaries for other school staff, including counselors, principals, and secretaries, accounted for 24.4 percent; and employee benefits, including retirement and health benefits, accounted for 19.0 percent. That’s right… 19% of California’s education budget pays for retirement benefits. When added to administrative costs, 43.4% of the budget goes toward what we in the private sector call G&A (General and Administrative Expenses). If a private sector company had G&A expenses of 43.4%, it would be bankrupt because it couldn’t compete in the market. Oh gee…. look at GM and Chrysler.
For the record, I believe Organized Labor once had its place in this nation. But those days are over. We have Federal Labor and Minimum Wage laws that protect the Worker. The American worker doesn’t need a union to look out for his or her best interests. What the American worker needs to do is get a better education so they’re better equipped to negotiate their own best deal with their potential employers.
In 2009, just over 16 million Americans are union members, accounting for approximately 12.4% of the workforce. Organized labor believes that new legislation such as the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA aka Card Check) will give workers a better opportunity to join the union movement. Opponents feel it’s nothing more than pressure tactics on non-unionized employees. If you take out the public sector, unions are practically irrelevant, representing just 7.8% of the private sector workforce.
More concerning is the influence unions have through their pension funds. A study done by New York University professor Ashwini Agarwal found that AFL-CIO (the central federation of labor unions in the U.S.) affiliated pension fund assets total $100 billion, with 46% invested in domestic equities (as of September 30, 2006). In 2006, union-related funds were responsible for 295 out of 699 shareholder proposals. It also found that AFL-CIO funds became much less combative when the union no longer represented a company’s employees.
If you have a union pension, take a very close look at the investments. You can bet they’re playing retired workers against the current workers in a sophisticated game of chicken. Don’t let it happen. Unions increasingly find themselves in a conflict of interest today, in that they claim to represent the worker, when in reality they only represent themselves using their (unearned) influence to buy political favors by contributing to political campaigns. It’s a cat and mouse game that politicians would do well to beware of (and this includes you, Mr. Obama, with your cozy relationship with SEIU). Conflict of interest works both ways.
Of course, this is just One Man’s View. Your comments are, as always, most welcome.
The object of the game is to destroy American capitalism by having the government take over everything!
Too bad, you’re already playing…
I can’t take credit for authoring this, but my hat is off to the person that did.]]>
NOTE: This should be read by every member of Congress up for re-election. Perhaps they will then understand why they did not get re-elected. Stop crime and corruption, re-elect no one in November. It’s only 175 days away.
This is a very good letter to the editor. The author made some good points. For some reason, people have difficulty structuring their arguments when arguing against supporting the currently proposed immigration revisions. This lady made the argument pretty simple. This submission was NOT printed in the Orange County Register… my home newspaper. Shame on them!
Newspapers simply won’t publish letters to the editor which they either deem politically incorrect (read below) or which do not agree with the philosophy they’re pushing on the public. This woman wrote a great letter to the editor that should have been published. So, I decided to help her and publish it here.
From: “David LaBonte”
My wife, Rosemary, wrote a wonderful letter to the editor of the O.C. Register which, of course, was not printed. S o, I decided to “print” it myself by sending it out on the Internet. Pass it along if you feel so inclined. Written in response to a series of letters to the editor in the Orange County Register:
So many letter writers have based their arguments on how this land is made up of immigrants. Ernie Lujan for one, suggests we should tear down the Statue of Liberty because the people now in question aren’t being treated the same as those who passed through Ellis Island and other ports of entry.
Maybe we should turn to our history books and point out to people like Mr. Lujan why today’s American is not willing to accept this new kind of immigrant any longer. Back in 1900 when there was a rush from all areas of Europe to come to the United States, people had to get off a ship and stand in a long line in New York and be documented. Some would even get down on their hands and knees and kiss the ground. They made a pledge to uphold the laws and support their new country in good and bad times. They made learning English a primary rule in their new American households and some even changed their names to blend in with their new home.
They had waved good bye to their birth place to give their children a new life and did everything in their power to help their children assimilate into one culture. Nothing was handed to them. No free lunches, no welfare, no labor laws to protect them. All they had were the skills and craftsmanship they had brought with them to trade for a future of prosperity.
Most of their children came of age when World War II broke out. My father fought along side men whose parents had come straight over from Germany, Italy, France and Japan. None of these 1st generation Americans ever gave any thought about what country their parents had come from. They were Americans fighting Hitler, Tojo Mussolini and the Emperor of Japan They were defending the United States of America as one people.
When we liberated France , no one in those villages were looking for the French-American or the German American or the Irish American. The people of France saw only Americans. And we carried one flag that represented one country. Not one of those immigrant sons would have thought about picking up another country’s flag and waving it to represent who they were. It would have been a disgrace to their parents who had sacrificed so much to be here. These immigrants truly knew what it meant to be an American. They stirred the melting pot into one red, white and blue bowl.
And here we are with a new kind of immigrant who wants the same rights and privileges. Only they want to achieve it by playing with a different set of rules, one that includes the entitlement card and a guarantee of being faithful to their mother country. I’m sorry, that’s not what being an American is all about. I believe that the immigrants who landed on Ellis Island in the early 1900′s deserve better than that for all the toil, hard work and sacrifice in raising future generations to create a land that has become a beacon for those legally searching for a better life. I think they would be appalled that they are being used as an example by those waving foreign country flags.
And for that suggestion about taking down the Statue of Liberty, it happens to mean a lot to the citizens who are voting on the immigration bill. I wouldn’t start talking about dismantling the United States just yet.
I sincerely hope this letter gets read by millions of people all across the nation!! Please spread it around.
This is just One Man’s View. As always, your comments are welcome.]]>
This article in the series discusses how the left is turning our Government into a nation of entitlements. I’m sure you’ve heard this discussed many times by all the radio and TV pundits. What you don’t hear much about is why this is happening. You see, this isn’t an accident. It’s all part of a grand plan to make the citizenry so dependent upon Government that only those with a certain viewpoint will ever be elected at the national level. As I’ve stated on more than one occasion, it’s all about Power!
I’m not normally a conspiracy theorist. However, I’ll make an exception in this case, and what I’m discussing goes all the way back to Theodore Roosevelt… who happened to be a Republican. Roosevelt served as President from 1901-1909, where he attempted to move the Republican Party in the direction of Progressivism, including trust busting and increased regulation of businesses. He tried to run again in 1912, and when he failed to win the Republican nomination against William Howard Taft, he formed the Progressive Bull Moose Party, beating Taft in the election, but losing to Woodrow Wilson. You can read more about Teddy Roosevelt here.
When Democrat Woodrow Wilson was elected President with a Democratic Congress in 1912 he implemented a series of progressive policies. In 1913 the income tax was instituted in the United States with the Sixteenth Amendment. Other significant changes enacted at the national level included direct election of Senators with the Seventeenth Amendment, Prohibition with the Eighteenth Amendment, and women’s suffrage through the Nineteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. You can read more about Wilson here. If you check out the link, make sure you scroll down to the discussion of Wilson’s thoughts on Government Systems. You’ll be appalled.
Wilson resolved the longstanding debates over tariffs and antitrust, and created the Federal Reserve. Many of today’s U.S. regulatory agencies were created during these years, including the Interstate Commerce Commission and the Federal Trade Commission. You’re probably asking yourself “Well, are these such bad things?”. In and of themselves, no, they weren’t. At that time, big business (i.e., Oil, Textiles, Coal, Steel, et. al.) was running amok and something had to be done. Unfortunately, they didn’t stop there.
The progressives were committed to changing and reforming the country, and were avid modernizers. They believed in science, technology, expertise—and especially education—as the grand solution to society’s weaknesses. Progressivism typically included a favorable attitude toward urban-industrial society, belief in mankind’s ability to improve the environment and conditions of life, belief in obligation to intervene in economic and social affairs, and a belief in the ability of experts and in efficiency of government intervention. Do you see where this is going?
The term “progressive” is today often used in place of “liberal”. Although the two are related in some ways, they are separate and distinct political ideologies. According to John Halpin, senior advisor on the staff of the Center for American Progress, “Progressivism is an orientation towards politics, it’s not a long-standing ideology like liberalism, but an historically-grounded concept… that accepts the world as dynamic.” Progressives supposedly see progressivism as an attitude towards the world of politics that is broader than conservatism vs. liberalism, and as an attempt to break free from what they consider to be a false and divisive dichotomy.
Cultural Liberalism is ultimately founded on a concept of natural rights and civil liberties, and the belief that the major purpose of the government is to protect those rights. Liberals are often called “left-wing”, as opposed to “right-wing” conservatives. The progressive school, as a unique branch of contemporary political thought, tends to advocate certain center-left or left-wing views that may conflict with mainstream liberal views, despite the fact that modern liberalism and progressivism may still both support many of the same policies (such as the concept of war as a general last resort).]]>