The Loss of Personal Finance

Could maintaining the current tax rate increase the deficit as the Leftists claim? Depending on rhetoric, yes, if non-existent money the government never had was already planned on being spent and counted as a loss. That's like purchasing a $1000 TV on sale, 50% off from $2000. You wouldn't tell your wife you made $1000 and got a free TV. In truth, you lost $1000 but got a TV. What's worse, you already have a TV. You only made the purchase because there was a sale!

Ultimately, increased taxes won't decrease deficits as government will always find a way to spend any new money coming in. Often they spend it before it's even there! It's cutting spending which reduces deficits. Careful of Leftist rhetoric. Reducing taxes is not the process of taking money from government, the pile of taxes we paid last year, and giving it to rich people. Taxes aren't trouble… spending is.


Economic Academics

The Left is playing mathematical semantics. The argument is hiking tax rates versus maintaining them. There is no tax cut. No one is giving money to the rich. Forget class warfare. Take a person who can barely make ends meet every month. Come the new year, hike his taxes and he cannot make ends meet at all. This is bad. But keep his taxes the same and he continues to barely make ends meet. His situation does not improve. It is sustained.

If Congress does nothing, taxes go up. If Congress acts, taxes are maintained. Nothing changes, but hopefully things won't get worse. However to actually cut taxes by lowering current rates, would free up money. That person who barely makes ends meet every month can now meet his ends and perhaps pay off a loan, go on vacation or buy a Wii for everyone on his Christmas list. Cut taxes and the economy may improve.

President Obama is doing something very clever. By calling sustaining of the present tax rate a cut, he positions himself so when nothing improves he can say, "You see? I told you cutting taxes won't work! It makes things worse!" Just remember… there are no tax cuts.


JFK... The Tea-Bagger?

This guy would make a pretty good Conservative.



Earlier this year Secretary Gates stopped production of the F/A 22 Raptor at 187 aircraft. The replacement, the F/A-35 Joint Strike Fighter is mediocre at best, relative to a Raptor, but must save money. Recently China succeeds in reverse engineering Russian technology, the Sukhoi-27 fighter, in cheaper form, as China does with many technologies.

You may argue China steals technology and can't innovate it's own. You may argue China is doing what China does best; make products affordable using a cheaper and abused labor force. But China is doing what's best for China, making money. (Strange how communism is doing capitalism better than capitalists.) The same goes for Russia selling it's technology to turn a buck. But aside from an intellectual property discussion this gives way to bigger issues on US national defense.

In a world where weaponry is being globalized, the US will soon no longer rely on superior weapon technology. This will make US military encounters much more costly in both in budget and lives as fighting terrorists driving jeeps is easier than flying fighters. With US's resolve for war fading, here's where it gets dicey.

Thanks in part to the left, the US is spending with two hands, while China is spending with one hand and profiting with another. For the US to compete, we need to either ensure our war endeavors benefit us ten fold, which will create an even more imperialistic view of the US, something the left won't like. Or we innovate war such as disabling fighters from the ground using a viral tactic Mike uses like Jeff Goldblum used on alien invaders in "Independence Day". Note cyber-attacks are also being explored by China.

Exploration of creating new weaponry such as this increases spending, and defense is an area the left spends conservatively. If we are we looking at Regan-esque military spending in the near future, there's even more call for tightening of the government belt and stabilizing the economy through less intervention.



For some strange reason the Leftists praise WikiLeaks and founder Julian Assange as a great journalist. One of Assange's self proclaimed purposes is to expose what he believes to be an unjust War. It's one thing to report and comment on news. Another to compromise America's interest abroad. While this may satisfy him, it should land him in jail for treason. In the end, Assange is simply a thief.


The Nanny State of Love

Why is the Left the loving hippy and the right a cold calculated sack of greed? Look carefully at language, particularly the words, "special" versus "unique" for it is the equivalent of "collectivist" versus "individualist".

Every Leftist cause touts theirs as more special than the other. But if everyone is special, then no one is. Is there a Leftist chart that grades one over another? People are defined by classes and groups. Needs are blanketed to entire groups and classes, often by those outside of those groups and classes, in a kind of cold scientific categorization.

The right describes people as unique not special. Everyone can be unique, without taking away from another. Being unique creates self appreciation as you are essentially the only one of your kind, and creates appreciation of others as they are the only one of their kind. People are defined by their unique individual character, not by their collective class. Justice is based on each unique individual case, not whose side is a more deprived or higher ranking class of the week.

As God said to His children as well as all Moms asked by their youngest which child they love the most, everyone is unique, no one is better than the other and all are loved equally. If hippies were really looking for love over control, it was under their noses all along.


Virtual Communism

Finished with "fixing" health care, the government is now moving online. Starting out with good intentions, to save us from big evil companies, will turn to old fashioned government regulatory hell. A quote emailed to me from a technology expert: "You have people like me that are pros at making sure internet traffic is NOT handled the same, so that end-user experience is optimized. [Government regulations will] level the playing field, and these customizations are flushed down the toilet, along with technology like Cisco's content switches that are designed to handle traffic differently to optimize Quality of Service (QoS) ~ all into the shredder!

Think about what happened to AT&T's network when all those smart phones were added to it ~ massive bandwidth consumption when people started tethering devices, streaming live video, teleconferencing, etc. [AT&T's] net was not designed to handle it, and [their] scalability was wiped out. Now, take this example, and think about what's going to happen when 300 million people are on the internet."

As with health care... the same question begs answer. What has the government touched that's become more efficient and affordable without subsidy? The function of government is to ensure businesses aren't gaming the system, preserving open and near chaotic competition. This requires congress to know very little about the internet or any industry. Instead, stiff regulatory control requires congress to seek expert consultation, often coming from the very deep pocket companies we need protection from. Regulation will be written favoring business models of the consultants. Instead of big business, we get big business AND government. While both sides of the isle are guilty of this, one side's ideology leans toward getting out of the way more often thus becoming the lesser of two evils. There needs to be a return to true competition.