Well, let's talk a little about the economy - and what's not being said. Just a few little things I've noticed.
The Administration keeps on telling us about jobs that have been created by them. First, the government doesn't create jobs, the private sector does. Second, why aren't they discussing the 120,000 postal workers about to be laid off?
The Administration is quick to tell us when the "jobless rate" gets lower. What "jobless" rate? They're talking about the 9.2% of Americans currently drawing unemployment checks. According to Gallup our UNDER employed rate is 27.9% (Jul '11). That includes the 18.1% of Americans who are unemployed, but they're unemployment benefits have stopped and the 8.8% who've taken part time jobs because they can't find full time jobs. Unless my figures are totally off-base, which I doubt, than we actually have 37.1% of our over-18 population not working or not working to their full potential. That sounds like a pretty big problem to me!
BTW, I have heard news reports where a number of employers say they can't hire people because the salaries they're able to offer are less than the prospect is making in unemployment. I have a solution. First, no more e-filing of unemployment. You must go in to the unemployment office. Second, you must go on a minimum of 3 interviews a week. You must turn in those interview cards and they must be signed by the interviewer. Cards will be spot checked. If you fail to do that, your unemployment benefits are cancelled. Third, if you turn down 3 job offers, your unemployment benefits are cancelled. Now for the folks that are being offered jobs with salaries less than unemployment benefits, if they take the job, the unemployment bureau(s) will make up the difference between what the employer pays and what unemployment pays. That way employers get the people they need, the new employees don't take another income cut, and the taxpayers save some money too! Oh, yeah - Obama says he needs Revenue, well these folks will now pay income and social security taxes. Before they just paid income taxes - maybe.
Corporate taxes. Do away with them. Corporations don't pay corporate income tax, consumers do. If you do away with the corporate income tax, the following MIGHT happen:
A. Corporations may bring some of their foreign jobs home.
B. The funds they have stashed in foreign banks may come home.
C. With the increase in funds available to the corporations, hiring MAY improve.
Income tax - kill it or change it. The IRS reported $1.09 trillion in Federal Income Tax for 2010. The Census Bureau reports (2009 figures) that the EMPLOYED work force was 139.9 billion people. The news media (primarily Fox) reports that 42% of Americans pay no Federal Income Tax.
Therefore, 64.7 billion members of the work force (includes the unemployed) do not pay income tax. The remaining 81.1 billion EMPLOYED people pay the entire $1.09 trillion. The Census Bureau also reports (2009 figures) that 12 billion American households have an average annual income of $117,181. If we put in a 10% Flat Rate Income Tax with NO deductions, than the IRS would receive $1.41 trillion. A net increase of $32 billion and everyone pays their fare share.
If my math is correct, the average spent by households per year is $1,116.5 trillion. If we institute a simple 2% Federal Sales Tax, and kill the Federal Income Tax, the revenue to the government would be $2.23 trillion. A net increase of $1.14 trillion and everyone pays. It could even be higher, because I'm not sure if the Census figures are Gross Income, Adjusted Gross Income, or Total Income. We all know what our Gross and Adjusted Gross Incomes are, but what is Total Income? Total Income is Gross Income plus what's not on your 1040 form. As an example, approximately 25% of my TOTAL Income is Service Connected Veterans Disability Income. Those dollars do NOT go on my 1040.
If a 2% Federal Sales Tax would more than double the USA's Tax Revenue than why the hell aren't we doing it?
Fox News favorite advertisers sell gold. They are constantly telling us that money's bad and gold is good. If that's true, why do they want to trade their gold for my money?
Finally, Mitt Romney was blasted by Democratic Hecklers last week because he said Corporations were People. Let me explain. Corporations are businesses owned by shareholders. Shareholders are people. Corporations employ people. Corporations make items that people buy. If you, Mr. Democrat, invest in the stock market, mutual funds, or variable annuities - either directly or through your retirement program - you are one of those people that OWN corporations. If you, Mr. Democrat, hold a job and work for a living, the odds are that you are one of those people that are EMPLOYED by corporations. If you buy stuff - cars, boats, clothes, appliances, and so forth - than you are one of those people that BUY from corporations. If you only fall into the third category - and only a little bit - than you're probably on welfare and will vote to re-elect Obama!
Last issue I stated that I would support Sarah Palin or Herman Cain for the Presidency. Revise the list to include Rick Perry.
God Bless American Conservatives - the only true Americans left.
Gunner Sends
Saturday, August 13, 2011
Saturday, June 11, 2011
Sarah Palin E-Mails
Oh boy where do I start?
Being that I am who I am, I guess I'll start with a sailor's eye view of the Governor. Pretty, nice figure, great smile, someone who, in my youth, I'd've hit on in a NY second!
That was then, this is now. Sarah Palin came out of nowhere to defeat the GOP machine in Alaska. She beat Murkowski in his own primary. Frank Murkowski had spent 4 years as Alaska's Commissioner of Economic Development, 21 years as a US Senator, and 4 years as Governor. Sarah Palin, on the other hand, had spent 4 years on the Wasilla City Council and 6 years as Mayor of Wasilla. (Wasilla, AK had a population of under 8,000 people in the last census.)
As Governor of Alaska she held a position of Executive Leadership, was Commander-in-Chief of the Alaska National Guard, and cleaned up the Alaskan GOP political machine. She had some foreign policy experience due to Alaska being bordered on one side by the Dominion of Canada and on the other by the Russian Federation. She dealt strongly with the oil industry, forcing them into a put up or shut up resolution in execution of an oil lease that they'd been sitting on for decades.
The main stream media continually villafies this woman whose lowest approval rating as governor of Alaska was 54% in 2009. Why? Is it that she's pro-Life? pro-Second Amendment? Or is it that they're just afraid of her?
Had any of their witchhunts against Palin been done against Obama, John McCain would be President! Now, the New York Times and the Washington Post (US subsidiaries of Pravda???) have decided to review all of her e-mails, sent and received, while she held public office. Why would they want to do that? So they could dig up dirt on her? Certainly. Will they be successful? Probably. How can I say that? Because I have sent and received e-mails to and from friends which could be construed as inappropriate, if nothing else. Who hasn't?
Now the Times and the Post both have the right to review her e-mails, while she held public office. But to actively recruit their readers to do this job for them is not only ludicrous, but reminds me of the USSR, Nazi Germany, Red China, Cuba, etc. asking/demanding that their citizens inform on neighbors and family members.
I suppose they have a good reason for doing this. My opinion is somewhat more simple than most. This is the 21st Century and print media no longer has a large impact on our lives. Today it's the Cable News programs, the Bloggers, and the on-line editions of the old standby's that are relevant. As an aside, the "tree-huggers" continue to support the liberal establishment, including the lame stream media. How many trees did the NY Times kill today???
If she runs for public office, than I don't have a problem with the media digging into her life and reporting it OBJECTIVELY. However, she has not announced that she's running for office. She's a private citizen. What she's doing now is her business ands the media doen't have the right to know - as for their cop out that the American People Have the Right to Know - where does it say that in the Constitution?
If they want to dig into people's lives and keep us informed than they should concentrate on the President and those people who've announced their candidacy for the White House.
As for Sarah Palin, her husband, her children, and her grand children, leave them alone.
If you haven't figured it out yet, my choice for the Presidency revolves around Sarah Palin and/or Herman Cain.
God Bless America, conservative Americans, and the Tea Party.
Gunner Sends.
Being that I am who I am, I guess I'll start with a sailor's eye view of the Governor. Pretty, nice figure, great smile, someone who, in my youth, I'd've hit on in a NY second!
That was then, this is now. Sarah Palin came out of nowhere to defeat the GOP machine in Alaska. She beat Murkowski in his own primary. Frank Murkowski had spent 4 years as Alaska's Commissioner of Economic Development, 21 years as a US Senator, and 4 years as Governor. Sarah Palin, on the other hand, had spent 4 years on the Wasilla City Council and 6 years as Mayor of Wasilla. (Wasilla, AK had a population of under 8,000 people in the last census.)
As Governor of Alaska she held a position of Executive Leadership, was Commander-in-Chief of the Alaska National Guard, and cleaned up the Alaskan GOP political machine. She had some foreign policy experience due to Alaska being bordered on one side by the Dominion of Canada and on the other by the Russian Federation. She dealt strongly with the oil industry, forcing them into a put up or shut up resolution in execution of an oil lease that they'd been sitting on for decades.
The main stream media continually villafies this woman whose lowest approval rating as governor of Alaska was 54% in 2009. Why? Is it that she's pro-Life? pro-Second Amendment? Or is it that they're just afraid of her?
Had any of their witchhunts against Palin been done against Obama, John McCain would be President! Now, the New York Times and the Washington Post (US subsidiaries of Pravda???) have decided to review all of her e-mails, sent and received, while she held public office. Why would they want to do that? So they could dig up dirt on her? Certainly. Will they be successful? Probably. How can I say that? Because I have sent and received e-mails to and from friends which could be construed as inappropriate, if nothing else. Who hasn't?
Now the Times and the Post both have the right to review her e-mails, while she held public office. But to actively recruit their readers to do this job for them is not only ludicrous, but reminds me of the USSR, Nazi Germany, Red China, Cuba, etc. asking/demanding that their citizens inform on neighbors and family members.
I suppose they have a good reason for doing this. My opinion is somewhat more simple than most. This is the 21st Century and print media no longer has a large impact on our lives. Today it's the Cable News programs, the Bloggers, and the on-line editions of the old standby's that are relevant. As an aside, the "tree-huggers" continue to support the liberal establishment, including the lame stream media. How many trees did the NY Times kill today???
If she runs for public office, than I don't have a problem with the media digging into her life and reporting it OBJECTIVELY. However, she has not announced that she's running for office. She's a private citizen. What she's doing now is her business ands the media doen't have the right to know - as for their cop out that the American People Have the Right to Know - where does it say that in the Constitution?
If they want to dig into people's lives and keep us informed than they should concentrate on the President and those people who've announced their candidacy for the White House.
As for Sarah Palin, her husband, her children, and her grand children, leave them alone.
If you haven't figured it out yet, my choice for the Presidency revolves around Sarah Palin and/or Herman Cain.
God Bless America, conservative Americans, and the Tea Party.
Gunner Sends.
Monday, May 23, 2011
Conquest; Spoils to the Victor
The title has been a fact of war and life since time immemorial. However, times are apparently changing.
President Obama has "asked" Israel to return the West Bank to the Palestinians. Why? I'm not even going to go there. However, I doubt seriously if the Israelis will comply. If they do, they are signing there own death warrant. The 1967 line cannot be successfully defended. At one point Israel will be a whopping 8 miles wide, from the West Bank to the Mediterranean. Jerusalem will be all but surrounded.
If Mr. Obama is successful in his quest for the West Bank to be returned, he will have set an historical precedent. Land taken by force of arms must be returned to the original owners. How could that effect other nations? It would probably only effect four additional countries.
In reverse order:
1. The United States would have to return Puerto Rico and Guam to Spain. We took them, along with the Philippines, during the Spanish American War.
2. The United States would have to return Arizona, California, Colorado, southern Idaho, New Mexico, Nevada, southern Oregon and Utah to Mexico. We took them during the Mexican War.
3. The United States would have to return the 13 original states to Great Britain. Those states are Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia (including parts of Alabama. Louisiana east of the Mississippi River and Mississippi), Massachusetts (including Maine), Maryland (including the District of Columbia), North Carolina, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, and Virginia (including Kentucky, Tennessee and West Virginia). We would also have to return the Northwest Territory to Great Britain. The Northwest Territory includes Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, northeastern Minnesota, and Ohio. All of those 18 states became ours due to force of arms in the American Revolution.
What would that leave us? The Louisiana Purchase was made from the French in 1804 and includes what is now Arkansas, Colorado east of the Rockies, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana west of the Mississippi River, Minnesota west of the Mississippi River, Montana east of the Rockies, Nebraska, northeastern New Mexico, most of North Dakota, Oklahoma, northern Texas, and Wyoming east of the Rockies. The Adams-Odonis Treaty of 1819 resulted in Spain turning over Florida and Southern Alabama to the United States. Seward's Folly was the purchase of Alaska from Russia in 1867. In 1898 the United States annexed the Republic of Hawaii. The Republic of Texas requested annexation by the United States. Oh and we bought the Dutch West Indies and renamed them the US Virgin Islands.
Assuming, if you aren't laughing hysterically, that Obama returns the states we took by force of arms to England, Mexico, and Spain, than we can look at the legal issues. If the original 13 colonies are returned to England, than there was no United States. If there was no United States, the lands we putchased and annexed would have to go back to Holland,Spain, France, the Republic of Hawaii, the Republic of Texas, and Russia. Why? Simple those nations made a reaty with the United States of America to surrender the lands in return for cash or something equally valuable. But if the United States wasn't legally a sovereign nation at the time the treaties were signed wouldn't they be void?
Now what about President Obama? Well, he could just whip out his Kenyan passport, issued when Kenya was a British Crown Colony, claim British citizenship and hope to be named governor of Britains American Colonies.
As for rest of us, well I'm afraid the Sons of the American Revolution, Sons of Confederate War Veterans, and Sons of the Grand Army of the Republic would have to haul down Grandpappies long gun and start over.
Which leads me to the thought, if I qualify for the SAR and the S-GAP would I have to go twice?
May God protect Barrack Hussein Obama from his big mouth and Chicago politicogangsta mind, because apparently Richard Daley can't do it!
Gunner sends.
President Obama has "asked" Israel to return the West Bank to the Palestinians. Why? I'm not even going to go there. However, I doubt seriously if the Israelis will comply. If they do, they are signing there own death warrant. The 1967 line cannot be successfully defended. At one point Israel will be a whopping 8 miles wide, from the West Bank to the Mediterranean. Jerusalem will be all but surrounded.
If Mr. Obama is successful in his quest for the West Bank to be returned, he will have set an historical precedent. Land taken by force of arms must be returned to the original owners. How could that effect other nations? It would probably only effect four additional countries.
In reverse order:
1. The United States would have to return Puerto Rico and Guam to Spain. We took them, along with the Philippines, during the Spanish American War.
2. The United States would have to return Arizona, California, Colorado, southern Idaho, New Mexico, Nevada, southern Oregon and Utah to Mexico. We took them during the Mexican War.
3. The United States would have to return the 13 original states to Great Britain. Those states are Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia (including parts of Alabama. Louisiana east of the Mississippi River and Mississippi), Massachusetts (including Maine), Maryland (including the District of Columbia), North Carolina, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, and Virginia (including Kentucky, Tennessee and West Virginia). We would also have to return the Northwest Territory to Great Britain. The Northwest Territory includes Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, northeastern Minnesota, and Ohio. All of those 18 states became ours due to force of arms in the American Revolution.
What would that leave us? The Louisiana Purchase was made from the French in 1804 and includes what is now Arkansas, Colorado east of the Rockies, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana west of the Mississippi River, Minnesota west of the Mississippi River, Montana east of the Rockies, Nebraska, northeastern New Mexico, most of North Dakota, Oklahoma, northern Texas, and Wyoming east of the Rockies. The Adams-Odonis Treaty of 1819 resulted in Spain turning over Florida and Southern Alabama to the United States. Seward's Folly was the purchase of Alaska from Russia in 1867. In 1898 the United States annexed the Republic of Hawaii. The Republic of Texas requested annexation by the United States. Oh and we bought the Dutch West Indies and renamed them the US Virgin Islands.
Assuming, if you aren't laughing hysterically, that Obama returns the states we took by force of arms to England, Mexico, and Spain, than we can look at the legal issues. If the original 13 colonies are returned to England, than there was no United States. If there was no United States, the lands we putchased and annexed would have to go back to Holland,Spain, France, the Republic of Hawaii, the Republic of Texas, and Russia. Why? Simple those nations made a reaty with the United States of America to surrender the lands in return for cash or something equally valuable. But if the United States wasn't legally a sovereign nation at the time the treaties were signed wouldn't they be void?
Now what about President Obama? Well, he could just whip out his Kenyan passport, issued when Kenya was a British Crown Colony, claim British citizenship and hope to be named governor of Britains American Colonies.
As for rest of us, well I'm afraid the Sons of the American Revolution, Sons of Confederate War Veterans, and Sons of the Grand Army of the Republic would have to haul down Grandpappies long gun and start over.
Which leads me to the thought, if I qualify for the SAR and the S-GAP would I have to go twice?
May God protect Barrack Hussein Obama from his big mouth and Chicago politicogangsta mind, because apparently Richard Daley can't do it!
Gunner sends.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)