In the end ... it's the idiot voters destroying the country

Let’s look at the scorecard for yesterday:

• The voters of Ohio voted to reinstate collective bargaining rights for government employee unions.
• The voters of Arizona recalled a Senator who introduced a law simply aimed at enforcing immigration laws already on the books.
• The voters in Georgia voted to increase their own taxes to reward spendthrift government education bureaucrats with billions of dollars more to spend.

Consider the Ohio voters. Ohio has a failing economy with one of the nation’s highest state income tax rates and forced unionization – Ohio private sector workers can be forced to join a union in order to work. By a narrow margin they elected a governor, John Kasich, who promised to bring government employee unions under control. Kasich ushered a law through the Ohio legislature that restricted collective bargaining rights for government employee unions.
OK … let’s stop here for a moment and consider government unions engaging in collective bargaining. Would you like to know two prominent people in American history who steadfastly opposed government union collective bargaining? That would be Franklin D. Roosevelt and labor giant George Meany, the former president of the AFL-CIO. That’s not to say these men didn’t support the growth of unions! Come on! FDR and George Meany? Of course they were pro-union. But they recognized that while private sector unions were bargaining for a share of the profits they produced through their work, government sector unions didn’t generate profits. They were merely negotiating for taxpayer money … negotiating with politicians they put in office with their campaign contributions and volunteer efforts on election day.
So now the uninformed and often flat-out ignorant voters of Ohio have handed these collective bargaining rights back to the government sector unions. They will not resume negotiations with the very officials they put into office for the money in the pockets of the people who gave them that power. The only way Ohio government entities will have to handle the rising costs will be to raise taxes, cut services or fire workers.
Yes --- I understand. The question on the ballot for Ohio voters was poorly worded. Worded, in fact, to favor the union organizers who got that question put on the ballot through a petition process. That doesn’t excuse the voters. This is their money, their economy, their future and the future of their children. They owed it to themselves and their children to become informed the issues. They didn’t. Ohio will suffer. They will suffer. Their children will suffer if they don’t get the hell out of Ohio and move to Wisconsin or some other state with right-to-work laws where government sector unions don’t have collective bargaining rights.Now .. the Georgia Voters.    … BUT once again, as pretty much everybody knew they wood, these voters cast votes to raise their own taxes. But they had to do it, right? It was for the chilllllllllllldren. Spending on government education has increased by almost 400% since I Ggraduated. Per-pupil expenditures have increased from about $5,600 per pupil to almost $13,000. The administrator to teacher ratio used to be over two-to-one. Now it’s almost one-to-one. But school administrators and politicians knew they didn’t have to streamline their operations to reduce costs. They knew they didn’t have to get rid of the administrative bloat. They knew they didn’t need to stop building education palaces instead of schools. All they had to do was go to the voters and ask them to raise their own taxes …. For the chillllllldren. They did, and it worked.
Democracy is ugly. Majority rule can be a disaster. There is a reason our founding fathers thought it to be a good idea to limit who had the privilege (not the right) of going to the polls and selecting our leaders. There was a reason our founding fathers did not include a right to vote in a federal election – including voting for our president – in the constitution. They didn’t trust mobs. They didn’t want to see the “mindless whims of the masses” translated into law. They were right … but to no avail. Now the masses are taking their ignorance to the polls. We live in a country where over half of the people get some kind of a check from the government every month without working for it … and they vote. Now you tell me how we’re supposed to survive that.

CAN AMERICA SURVIVE???

The people receiving the free stuff, don't like the folks who are paying for the free stuff, because the folks who are paying for the free stuff can no longer afford to pay for both the free stuff and their own stuff.

The folks who are paying for the free stuff want the free stuff to stop, and the folks who are getting the free stuff want even more free stuff on top of the free stuff they are already getting!

Now... The people who are forcing the people who pay for the free stuff have told the people who are RECEIVING the free stuff, that the people who are PAYING for the free stuff, are being mean, prejudiced, and racist.

So... The people who are GETTING the free stuff have been convinced they need to hate the people who are paying for the free stuff by the people who are forcing some people to pay for their free stuff, and giving them the free stuff in the first place.

We have let the free stuff giving go on for so long that there are now more people getting free stuff than paying for the free stuff.

Now understand this. All great democracies have committed financial suicide somewhere between 200 and 250 years after being founded. The reason? The voters figured out they could vote themselves money from the treasury by electing people who promised to give them money from the treasury in exchange for electing them.

The United States officially became a Republic in 1776, 235 years ago. The number of people now getting free stuff outnumbers the people paying for the free stuff. We have one chance to change that. 2012. Failure to change that spells the end of the United States as we know it.

ELECTION 2012 IS COMING

PRESIDENT OBAMA'S COMPLETE LIST OF HISTORIC FIRSTS

Yes, he's historic, alright.

• First President to Preside Over a Cut to the Credit Rating of the United States Government

• First President to Violate the War Powers Act

• First President to Orchestrate the Sale of Murder Weapons to Mexican Drug Cartels

• First President to be Held in Contempt of Court for Illegally Obstructing Oil Drilling in the Gulf of Mexico

• First President to Defy a Federal Judge's Court Order to Cease Implementing the 'Health Care Reform' Law

• First President to Require All Americans to Purchase a Product From a Third Party

• First President to Spend a Trillion Dollars on 'Shovel-Ready' Jobs -- and Later Admit There Was No Such Thing as Shovel-Ready Jobs

• First President to Abrogate Bankruptcy Law to Turn Over Control of Companies to His Union Supporters

• First President to Bypass Congress and Implement the DREAM Act Through Executive Fiat

• First President to Threaten Insurance Companies After They Publicly Spoke out on How Obamacare Helped Cause their Rate Increases

• First President to Threaten an Auto Company (Ford) After It Publicly Mocked Bailouts of GM and Chrysler

• First President to "Order a Secret Amnesty Program that Stopped the Deportations of Illegal Immigrants Across the U.S., Including Those With Criminal Convictions"

• First President to Demand a Company Hand Over $20 Billion to One of His Political Appointees

• First President to Terminate America's Ability to Put a Man into Space.

• First President to Encourage Racial Discrimination and Intimidation at Polling Places

• First President to Have a Law Signed By an 'Auto-pen' Without Being "Present"

• First President to Arbitrarily Declare an Existing Law Unconstitutional and Refuse to Enforce It

• First President to Tell a Major Manufacturing Company In Which State They Are Allowed to Locate a Factory

• First President to refuse to comply with a House Oversight Committee subpoena.

• First President to File Lawsuits Against the States He Swore an Oath to Protect (AZ, WI, OH, IN, etc.)

• First President to Withdraw an Existing Coal Permit That Had Been Properly Issued Years Ago

• First President to Fire an Inspector General of Americorps for Catching One of His Friends in a Corruption Case

• First President to Propose an Executive Order Demanding Companies Disclose Their Political Contributions to Bid on Government Contracts

• First President to allow Mexican police to conduct law enforcement activities on American soil

• First President to Golf 80 or More Times in His First Two-and-a-Half Years in Office

But remember: he will not rest until all Americans have jobs, affordable homes, green-energy vehicles, and the environment is repaired, etc., etc., etc.

Either Obama is bad at math or a liar

Dear Ruler has been caught. You know that I take the label of “liar” pretty seriously. A person can only tell a lie if they know the fact to be untrue at the time they utter it. And that brings us to an unctuous utterance from Dear Ruler. Is he merely demonstrating his ignorance (he has an adequate supply, after all) or was he lying. You be the judge. Here’s the situation …
On multiple occasions, Barack Obama has stated that he should not be paying a lower effective tax rate than a teacher. Here’s just one specific example (though there are many): At a recent town hall meeting in Mountain View, California, Obama said, "Somebody who's making $50,000 a year as a teacher shouldn't be paying a higher effective tax rate than somebody like myself.”
That’s a pretty bold claim on the part of our Dear Ruler, wouldn’t you say? So FactCheck.org did the math, and you can guess what they found … Obama’s claim that he pays a lower tax rate than a teacher earning $50,000 a year is false. Here are the details from FactCheck.org.

A single taxpayer with $50,000 of income would have paid 11.9% in federal income taxes for 2010, while the Obamas paid more than twice that rate — 25.3% (and higher rates than that in 2009 and 2008). And if the $50,000-a-year teacher were in Obama's tax situation — supporting a spouse and two children — he or she would have paid no federal income taxes at all.
The outcome is the same whether we count payroll taxes or not, and even if we look at what the $50,000 earner will pay on 2011 income. Whatever the assumption, the rates Obama paid were higher — and usually much higher.

Obama has made it crystal clear that his 2012 reelection campaign is going to be based on the exploitation of wealth envy. If you’re paying attention you now know that he will resort to flat-out falsehoods in order to pander to the dumb-masses who don’t know any better. Obama is creating his own reality – a reality where the rich don’t pay their “fair share” and he pays taxes at a lower rate than middle-class Americans. Neither of these are true, yet he will continue to push these ideas until people actually believe that they are true.
Know what? I go with liar. These statements are untrue, he knows them to be untrue, and he knows them to be untrue at the moment he makes them. That makes him a liar.
Obama’s own campaign team has acknowledged this strategy of focusing on wealth envy, because he has zero accomplishments when it comes to the economy. His advisors say, “He needs to shift the focus from his stewardship of the economy to the stark choice confronting voters about the nation's political leadership.” Well no $4it, Sherlock So now jobs are no longer the focus for Obama. Screw jobs, because Obama knows that he doesn’t know how to solve that problem. Instead, let’s focus on leadership. An Obama campaign advisor says, "Most Americans are very concerned about the future and the direction we're going to take.” I don’t understand why the Obama administration thinks that this is going to work in their favor considering the latest Rasmussen polls show that just 17% of Americans say the country is heading in the right direction. So what direction does Obama want to take this country? Toward a redistributive society where the government seizes money from the Haves and gives it to the Have-Nots; toward a society where political leaders, not the private sector, decide where new economic growth will and will not be, and where new jobs will be created and where they will be eliminated. The LATimes reports, “Obama is tapping into resentment over the growing concentration of wealth in fewer and fewer hands.” They say this “helps the president forge an emotional connection with his base, especially minorities and working-class voters who have been falling behind.”
Does this re-election strategy inspire you to work hard or risk your savings to start the business of your dreams? If Obama manages to pull this thing off based on a re-election campaign of wealth envy, then the achievers in this country better bend over.

OBAMA AND FACISM

First you must understand fascism, as described by the Concise Encyclopedia of Economics:

As an economic system, fascism is socialism with a capitalistic veneer. In its day (the 1920's and 1930's), fascism was seen as the happy medium between boom-and-bust-prone capitalism, with its alleged class conflict, wasteful competition, and profit-oriented egoism, and Marxism, with its violent socially divisive prosecution of the bourgeoisie.

Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices; fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically.

Under fascism, the state, through official agencies, controlled all aspects of manufacturing, commerce, finance, and agriculture. Licensing was ubiquitous; no economic activity could be undertaken without government permission. Levels of consumption were dictated by the state, and "excess" incomes had to be surrendered as taxes or "loans".

To maintain high employment and minimize popular discontent, fascist governments also undertook massive public-works programs financed by steep taxes, borrowing and fiat money creation.

I’m sure you can already see the similarities to the Obama economy

A LESSON FOR THE TAX THE RICH CROWD

Here’s more ammo for you when discussing taxes with your lib and prog friends or co-workers. Most of them cannot seem to wrap their brains around the idea that if you lower taxes, you actually generate MORE revenue. Instead, they preach this “tax the rich!” mantra because it sounds cool and it satisfies a primeval quest for revenge . Unfortunately for them, the numbers are not on their side.
Now, let’s talk about capital gains taxes. These evil taxes have come to the forefront of debate as of late because of Warren Buffett. I’ve explained how Warren Buffett does not pay a lower income tax rate than his secretary; he pays an entirely different tax – capital gains tax. And yes, the rate of capital gains is lower (for some) than income tax rates. But all that might change, if Democrats get their way. It will be just another way for them to nail those evil rich investors! From Forbes …

In 1997, Congress was considering a cut in the capital gains rate from 28% back down to 20%. The Joint Tax Committee (JTC) estimated that as a result revenues would increase by $7.8 billion from 1997 to 1999, but the tax cut would produce a loss of $28.8 billion over the following 7 years, for a net loss of $21 billion over the 10 year period.
The actual numbers after the tax cut was passed showed an increase of $84 billion over the pre-tax cut projections for 1997 to 2000. Despite an almost 30% cut in the rate, capital gains revenues rose from $62 billion in 1996 to $109 billion in 1999.
Similarly, when Congress considered cutting the capital gains rate again in 2003, from 20% to 15%, the JTC estimated that this would cause a loss of revenue of $5.4 billion from 2003 to 2006. But after Congress passed the tax cut, capital gains revenues increased by $133 billion during those years, as compared to the pre-tax cut projections. As Dan Clifton of the American Shareholders Association said, “There is no excuse for this $138 billion error.” Capital gains tax revenue doubled from 2003 to 2005 despite a 25% cut in the tax rate.

Wealth envy is a political scheme used to buy votes. It should not be dictating economic policy.

A telling stat about government workers

You want to understand why government is so darn inefficient?  This stat should explain it all … a USA Today analysis has found that federal government workers are more likely to die than get laid off or fired.  USA Today says, “Death — rather than poor performance, misconduct or layoffs — is the primary threat to job security at the Environmental Protection Agency, the Small Business Administration, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Office of Management and Budget and a dozen other federal operations.”  When it comes down to it, 0.55% of government hacks were fired last year for poor performance in the workplace.  Their job security is so solid, that there is almost nothing they can do to get fired.  So what’s the incentive for them to do well?  There is none.  Imagine how much better off we would be if more government services were privatized.  Make people accountable for their performance and it is amazing how they will suddenly work a little bit harder.  If they don’t, there is always someone else there who IS willing to work harder and do better .. so long as there is incentive to do so.