Friday, January 27, 2012

The Massive Hypocrisy of the Obama Administration

The Massive Hypocrisy of the Obama Administration
Al Ritter

In the State of the Union Speech this week President Obama decided to parade a tax cheat and his secretary in the public eye to promote what he constantly refers to as wealthy Americans who are not paying their “fair share.” Obama brings Warren Buffet and his “secretary” to prove to the American people that his secretary pays more in tax than he does.

This is cannot be further from the truth. To begin with Warren Buffet and his “secretary” pay certain percentages on income taxes based on investments and wage income. By shear bulk dollars rather than percentage Buffet pays WAY more than his “secretary,” so lie #1.

Fact: Warren Buffet’s company Berkshire Hathaway owes over $1 Billion in back taxes and has for YEARS, and yet Buffet constantly crows about not paying enough in taxes? How about paying what you already owe Mr. Buffet and stop being the mouthpiece for a socialist president?

This is the really funny part in all this. Steve Forbes did an evaluation of what his “secretary” must make in wages and investment returns for Buffet to make his claim. Forbes says that his “secretary” makes between $250-500K a year! On top of all that she must not be very savvy about investments because her capital gains have to be practically nil.

Now I don’t know about you but I don’t know any “secretary” that makes that kind of money. Buffet conveniently demoted her position in name to make the claim seem more preposterous. She is obviously an executive assistant and not a secretary. Her salary alone makes her a 1%er………one of the evil nasty people that Obama says isn’t paying her fair share and wants to raise her tax!

Wouldn’t that make her taxes higher still Mr. President? Make Berkshire Hathaway pay what they owe in taxes Mr. President, and while you are at it collect the $1 Billion in back taxes owed by federal workers, and leave the unsavvy executive assistant out of it, we don’t care how much she makes!

Wednesday, January 25, 2012

Why the Middleclass Is Scared To Death of Obama

Why the Middleclass Is Scared To Death of Obama
Al Ritter

The media and the Administration claim that Obama is demanding that the “rich” pay more of their “fair share,” has Middleclass Americans scared to death. Obama claims to want to put more money in middleclass American’s pockets, but the general feeling of the Republicans is that we already know the man lies, and they are afraid this is just one more in a continuing trail.

With 41% of Americans paying no tax at all, and the top 1% of wage earners paying 95% of the taxes in America, where is the equity in that? What is the fair share of the 41% who pay nothing? We pay percentages, meaning the more you earn as a base the more you pay volume wise. A study was done that reported that if the top 1% of American wage earners were taxed at 100%, the National debt, and the deficit wouldn’t even improve .01 of one percent! So why this sudden attack on the group as Obama says isn’t paying their fair share?

Folks it is the attack of socialism plain and simple, the need to want to give the fruits of someone’s hard work into the hands of someone with either no drive or no skill to do the same thing. Republicans are baffled at his claims of not paying their fair share, but it’s the basic mindset of capitalism versus socialism that is at stake here.

Middleclass Republicans are afraid to do well now, afraid to go into that higher echelon of the upper class, for fear if they do their fruits of labor will be taken from them. Is it any wonder that 48% of America still support Obama? Of course it isn’t, look at the percentage that pay no taxes………..why would they want to give up their free ride with a chance at getting more?

Friday, January 20, 2012

Open Letter to Andrew Sullivan

Dear Mr. Sullivan
Kevin Bryant

The cover of Newsweek asks the question “Why Are Obama’s Critics So Dumb” by Andrew Sullivan. My question to you Mr. Sullivan is what makes you think you have the right to call over half of all voter aged Americans and many more around the world “Dumb”? Well Mr. Sullivan, I’m NOT dumb enough to try and answer that question for over 100 million people. I'm just one person and these are just a few of my own reasons to criticize Obama:

It’s dumb for Obama to call President Bush “Unpatriotic” for adding 4 trillion to the debt in 8 years in office and the turn around and add an additional 5 trillion in only 3 years in office.

It’s dumb when the first major oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico occurs and halt all operations for an exuberant amount of time before any investigation has even reveals preliminary findings, effectively killing over 20,000 jobs.

It’s dumb to make it ALMOST impossible to drill for oil in the U.S. and yet give BILLIONS of tax payer dollars to Brazil to promote and increase oil production.

It’s dumb to take over bankrupt car companies and mandate that the labor unions get almost all their money back first while stock holders and other investors receive less than 40 cents on the dollar.

It’s dumb to look at a report that plainly states that Solyndra is not a viable company and give them half a billion of tax payer dollars only to see them file bankruptcy two years later.

It’s dumb to champion the idea of reducing the dependency on foreign oil and kill an already approved major project that does just that and kill over 20,000 direct jobs and countless tens of thousands of additional indirect jobs in the process.

It’s dumb to make it impossible to build coal fired power plants in the country that has the most coal in the world even though technology exists that can make a coal fired power plant less pollutant than a natural gas fired plant.

It’s dumb to look the other way when the Secretary of the Treasury and the Federal Reserve Chairman loan TRILLONS of tax payer dollars to other countries knowing full well that the U.S. will not see one dime of it returned.

It’s dumb to have an Attorney General in place that refuses to uphold the constitution, lies to congress and approves the sale of guns to Mexican drug cartels and has no plan in place to track where these guns go.

It’s dumb to state that as President I (Obama) will not have my justice department investigate or prosecute any Black on White racial cases, will not defend the Defense of Marriage Act, will not pursue charges of voter intimidation on any member of the Black Panthers even though the act was extremely blatant.

Mr. Sullivan, in only three years in office, the current president has committed about as many “dumb” acts than all the other 8 presidents combined during my almost 50 years of existence on this earth. You ask, “Why Are Obama’s Critics So Dumb”, my question to you is “Why Are You Too Stupid Not To Criticize Obama”?

Monday, January 16, 2012

How To Drop Gasoline a Dollar a Gallon in One Day

How To Drop Gasoline a Dollar a Gallon in One Day
Al Ritter

The EPA has successfully increased the price of gasoline little by little since the inception of the agency in 1970. Yearly mandates have not only added to the cost of fuels, but are slowly forcing an end to the use of fossil fuels. What started as an admirable aim to curb emissions has now blossomed into a headlong assault on the American economy.

Fossil fuels represent the largest single item any country either imports or exports. Source materials may or may not be the determining factor to whether a country is forced into importing or not. Different Presidents set the tone of the EPA each year as to the ferocity of the agency and also to their agenda during his term.

The President we have now has set the tone to full attack mode on the average American. It was no secret that Barack Obama claimed as a candidate that he would “necessarily bankrupt the coal industry.” It should be no surprise that he is implementing that aim to the fullest of his ability. The president hasn’t asked congress to make or change laws thereby accomplishing his goals through legislature. He has given the EPA the green light to implement his agenda through mandates approved by nobody but himself.

The EPA regulates so many things in the energy sector, it isn’t even funny anymore. I’m sure you remember when the cost of diesel fuel was less than the price of regular gasoline. Did you ever wonder why that changed to the point of where it cost more now than premium gasoline? The answer is the EPA. In a move to reduce the emission of sulfur dioxide the EPA mandated the immediate reduction of sulfur in diesel fuel, thus adding yet one more refining process to the cost.

Gasoline has also been targeted in another attack. Seasonal blending is a term used to describe the ability of gasoline to burn cleanly in temperature changes. One blend for summer, one blend for winter. Not many people know that the winter blend actually offers less miles per gallon than the summer blend, but that really doesn’t matter to the EPA, their concern is strictly environmental.

Add these mandates to the absurdly ridiculous addition of ethanol to gasoline blends started by President Bush and the price of fuel skyrockets.

What we really need is an EPA that takes the delicate balance of emissions and compares that the negative effect it will have on our economy before making mandate changes. Forcing such changes on a struggling economy serves nobody but the arrogance of a single man bent on removing fossil fuels from his country.

Until the technologies are there to offer alternative fuels on a comparable cost basis an agenda of destroying the use of fossil fuels should be put on the back burner. Only an illogical thinker destroys one industry without a replacement in the wings. Claiming that you are going green should mean you have a viable alternative, not just an idea. We can’t run America’s tractor trailers on wind and solar power, that is not only unrealistic, it is downright foolish.

Relax the EPA mandates on fuels tomorrow and the price WILL drop a dollar a gallon in one month. Increase the mandates silently and off the radar and the price of gasoline will continue to climb. In much the same way the economy was blamed on Bush……Obama will blame the fuel price increase on the oil companies……..surprised? I didn’t think so!

Monday, January 9, 2012

California Politics

Califonnia Politics
William Grant Burmer

Looking over the initiatives for 2012 ballot in California there are five which will increase taxes for all Californians. Any California voters who would support any of them should have their head examined, better yet, removed as a useless appendage. Truth is Jerry Brown is hoping the voter (the one with the useless appendage) will pass them so that he can save face with the Union bosses who supported h is election. Californians can no longer fund the extravagant pensions and salaries state workers, including those who work for the counties and cities currently enjoy. These ballot measures are a glaring proof of that.

It does not matter that State, County, and City employees pay taxes; the biggest pinch will be felt upon the private employer and employee. Somehow it does not register with the majority of government employees that their job does not produce a dime in real revenue that will sustain their current standard of living; If not for private capitalism they would not have a job--------Period. It is my humble opinion that by the end of 2012 California is going to be the first state in the Union to drive home that reality as the ship will sink from the sheer weight of government.

One “watch dog” group has predicted that California will soon have the nations’ highest unemployment rate (currently 11.7%) and that in addition, California companies are continuing to leave the state, further increasing the unemployment figures, and driving down tax revenues to the state.

Logic, common sense, would dictate our governor and legislature should take a 180 degree turn towards a more responsible fiscal attitude; that is decrease taxes(eliminate most), further, eliminate burdensome regulations, and make government workers abide the same rules of living and acquire pensions that currently are a standard part of the private sector reality. That would take courage which for the better part of our current crop of public servants lacks the will or character to stand for. To Browns credit he has suggested this approach be taken for future employees of the state. We shall wait and see how that ship sails. Without some drastic, immediate reforms in current pension plans, and elimination of Union interests it will be the same old same old.

Less government, more capitalism is the answer to solve California’s problems.

Friday, January 6, 2012

Fair Share…What’s Fair About It???

Fair Share…What’s Fair About It???
Louis Lazarus

We’ve all heard the term “pay your fair share” so many times since Obama took office that we’re sick to death of hearing him say this. A day doesn’t go by where this fake president doesn’t insinuate that millionaires and billionaires aren’t “paying their fair share”. We hear it and yet we don’t bother to challenge the idea. We allow a man who hasn’t a clue what the meaning of “fair” really is dictate to us what his lame ideas are. We know deep down inside there is something drastically wrong with his thinking but we can’t put our finger on it. Maybe it is time we try. Let’s use our brains and think a bit out of the box. “Pay your fair share. Pay your fair share.” Doesn't it really depend on what the true meaning of "fair share" really is? Obama defines it people paying more (a larger percentage) of what they earn than poor people. It is his contention that a person who works very hard and is successful be penalized for that success. He says that is fair. He claims that because someone else wasn’t quite so successful or lucky, it just isn’t fair. This comes from his crazy notion that the government should really get all your money and only allow you to keep what they feel is “fair”. The country was founded on the principle ideas of life, liberty and property and somehow, liberals have mucked it all up to the point where property (wealth) is not something you really are entitled to. They are also busily working on depriving you of the other two.

You have been lucky and the guy next to you hasn’t. It really doesn’t matter to people like Obama if you get up at the crack of dawn and work 16-hour days, 7 days a week while the other guy sleeps until 11 a.m. and doesn’t work at all. It should be “share and share alike”. Seems fair...or does it? Wouldn't it really be fairer if everyone paid exactly...EXACTLY the same amount based on the premise that one man equals one vote? Why should someone who pays zero taxes get the same amount of votes as someone who works very hard and pays a lot of money to fund the lazy man's life? Is that "fair"? Who says so? Fair would be more like someone who pays a lot of taxes gets more votes than someone who pays nothing. Wouldn't that be fairer? Truly, it would. In fact, if we really delve into the conception of this ambiguous word…fair…might we come away with a whole new appreciation for what it really means? From the standpoint of a single person working hard and creating a company, which hires tens, hundreds or even thousands of people as a result of this one man’s effort, wouldn’t the fair thing to do be to reward this person for what he has done? Through his hard work, risk taking and good decision making he has provided jobs for thousands of people… all of whom pay taxes to the federal, state, local and other entities thus enriching all our lives. Instead of thanking this person or rewarding him for his exceptional efforts, Obama and those who think like him want to punish him for his success. Is that really fair? The taxes he directly helped to create, which theoretically provide governmental goods and services for all of us would not be there had this person not achieved extraordinary success through extraordinary effort. Punish him by making him pay more? I think not. That is totally unfair any way you define the word.

The entire reason for our financial collapse is because Democrats defined the word “fair” and we allowed them to do this. We didn’t speak up because we didn’t want to be perceived as mean. Here’s what they did in a nutshell and it was all because they wanted to be “fair”. You’ve heard of the Community Reinvestment Act by now? President Carter signed it into law. It encouraged loans be made available in a safe and sound manner to those people who previously were unfairly eliminated from the housing market. Under Bill Clinton, the law was changed in such a way that it mandated banks to make loans that they would otherwise not make. This created the “housing bubble” as the banks knew these loans would not be paid off so they bundled them together and sold them off as fast as they could so they wouldn’t be left “holding the bag”. Through unscrupulous lending practices, one thing lead to another and this is why we are in such a pickle today. To the liberal mind, everyone is ENTITLED to own a home. It’s the only fair thing to do. It used to be that buying a home was a bit of a challenge unless you had enough money to buy the home outright. If you didn’t, you needed to get a loan from a lending institution. This was called a “mortgage”. The banks made a certain percentage on the money they loaned you and you were thus able to afford to buy a house and pay it off month by month. That payment went on for 30 years and as a rule, you paid off a large percentage of the interest in the first half of the loan and then a larger percent of the principle in the second half of the loan. The banks got most of their money, with profits included, back long before you owned your home. That is fair. They took a risk by loaning you money. They retained the deed to the property and once you fulfilled your obligation and paid off the loan, you were then given the deed and became the owner of the property. This fair concept worked well for years and years and years. Then along came Barney Frank and Chris Dodd and Bill Clinton. In an effort to make themselves and their party popular, they devised what was known as The Community Reinvestment Act. In essence, this federal law forced banks to make loans to people who otherwise couldn’t afford to make the payments. After all, everyone should own a home if they wanted to. Right? They are entitled to at least that!! The banks had no choice in the matter. They knew this was a bad thing and in order to protect themselves, they bundled bunches of these “toxic loans” together and sold them to other institutions. The banks knew these loans were destined to fail and they did what any of us would do…they protected their own interest. The original bank was out from under the toxic loan and the new lender simply assumed the loan and all that went with it. Can you see a problem here? Remember, we’re not just talking about one or two houses. We are talking about millions of houses and millions of transactions, which are all doomed to fail because the government forced the lenders to do what they knew they should not ever do. The government forced them to make BAD loans. This created what is known as a “bubble”. What do bubbles eventually do? Yep…they break. Millions and millions of these transactions finally had nowhere to go. Time ran out and the bubble burst. Imagine playing musical chairs on the Titanic. This is what happened. And all of our woes since have been because we didn’t challenge the term “fair”. We accepted it as defined by the liberals. Bad move on our part. Do you think we’ve learned anything?

We have just simply discussed one little problem Democrats are responsible for. We haven’t mentioned all the others. Their ideas don’t work. They’ve never worked. They never will work and yet we allow them to set the agenda. We shouldn’t do that. Doing that is unfair to all of us.

When you accept liberal arguments and let liberals define the terms, you get sucked into their way of thinking which is polluted and toxic. I'd like to see one of our candidates challenge Obama on his ideas.... all of his ideas…instead of accepting his terms and definitions. Maybe it is time we actually used our brains, logic and common sense and took these people to the mat? If we ever did that, it wouldn't be a fair fight at all...would it?

Wednesday, January 4, 2012

A New Frontrunner Emerges in Iowa

A New Frontrunner Emerges in Iowa
Al Ritter

Iowa signals a new start for one GOP candidate, and the end for another. I was telling people last week that Michelle Bachmann would be the next candidate to bow out of the race, but it appears that maybe Rick Perry might get added to that list sometime tomorrow as he reassesses his bid also. The one big star of the night was Rick Santorum.

Despite the fact that Santorum was reported at the bottom of the pack the last few months, his bid has blossomed at precisely the right time to end second place in the Iowa caucus by only 8 votes behind Romney. It’s nice to have a real choice between a real conservative and a moderate coming down to the wire. The people can really choose what they want to represent their party instead of letting the media pick their candidate for them.

Ron Paul says he’s happy with his finish last night, but you know he has to be disappointed in his dismal showing. My gut feeling tells me that after a few more caucuses you will see him pull out of the GOP race and run once again as a libertarian.

Gingrich I am afraid is hanging on by the skin of his teeth too. Organizational problems, money problems, and a faltering base may signal the end to his run shortly also, only time will tell.

Huntsman? Well what can you say about Huntsman? He was there, just barely coming in dead last, one has to wonder how much longer he can endure last place polling before throwing in his hat.

It was an interesting night to say the least…….now comes New Hampshire!