Tag Archives: entitlements

Urine or u’re out

paying taxes

I work. They pay me.

I pay my taxes, and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit.

In order to get that paycheck, I am required a pass a random urine test, with which I have no problem.

What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don’t have to pass a urine test.

So, here is my question:

Shouldn’t one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check because I have to pass one to earn it for them?

Please understand, I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet. But I do have a problem with helping someone sit on their butt doing drugs while I work!

Can you imagine how much money each state would save if people have to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check?

We can call the program “Urine or You’re Out!”

One last thought:

All politicians, including the one in the White House who goes around passing out free Obama welfare phones, should have to pass a urine test too!

And while they’re at it, they should also have to pass an intelligence test, a common sense test, and an understanding the Constitution test as well, because by their actions they show they lack intelligence, have no common sense, and are bent on shredding the U.S. Constitution into pieces. :(

H/t my sis-in-law Shireen

~Eowyn

Why do they not see?

3 monkeys

A recent essay by a blogger who calls himself Monty Pelerin struck a chord in me. Monty Pelerin is the pseudonym of a former CFO in the corporate finance field, with a Ph.D. in economics.

Pelerin’s essay “Why Don’t People See?” asks a question I and many of us also have asked: Why is it that so many seem blind to the problems that we see so clearly?

Here’s Pelerin’s essay of Feb. 18, 2013:

I meet people that still believe that the world is fine. They believe things like:

  • The US government has plenty of money.
  • Government cares for its citizens.
  • The economy cannot crash.
  • We are not in a recession (Depression).
  • The lives of their children will be better than their own.
  • The government can continue to print money to fund promises they cannot afford.

Despite these untenable beliefs, these are not stupid people. Many are professionals who do quite well — doctors, lawyers, dentists, college professors, etc. They are not  zombies, our walking dead, who have no idea about what is happening around them no less  the way things work in an economy, society or the world. It is our educated who should care yet seem to be oblivious to what lies ahead.

The ignorance and/or lack of concern of this group is perplexing and maddening. They are certainly capable of understanding. It is also in their interests to comprehend, as they are the ones who will lose the most. How doe one open their eyes? What can they be shown to arouse them from their ignorance?

Sadly, I don’t have answers to these frustrating questions. It is not that others have not presented the information as much as these people refuse to acknowledge the implications. Are they all too busy? Are they idiot savants who are geniuses in their fields but not very smart away from it? Warnings come from many sources and from many different perspectives, yet they do not seem to penetrate the minds of those most capable of effecting change.

From a self-interest standpoint, this productive group should be the most concerned. After all, they are ground zero for the Socialist schemes that are destroying society. They are the ones that will be crushed in the redistribution dreams of our political class. Will they awaken too late? Or, will many of them just withdraw their productivity by retiring early, emigrating, etc.?

I don’t have answers to these questions, but I do know that this professional class is about to become prey for our predatory State. And, when that happens, they will hurt be but not nearly as much as the rest of us.

Indeed, why are so many oblivious to and in denial about America’s stark economic realities? — those of:

The only difference between Pelerin and me is his question is narrower in scope than mine. Pelerin’s concerns are mainly about America’s economic problems, whereas in my view, our country’s problems transcend the economic to include the political and especially the cultural.

Politically, the federal government under Obama has become one where, instead of a division of powers among three branches, the Executive is dominant, with Obama ruling by executive orders, like kings and emperors once ruled through edicts.

Congress, the legislative branch, seems unable to address our economic problems but only exacerbates them with the passage of Obamacare (that leads to higher insurance premiums, fewer doctors, death panels, and a greater burden for small businesses) and the reprehensible National Defense Authorization Act (that authorizes the arrest without charge and indefinite detention of U.S. citizens).

The Supreme Court is also adrift, too timid to even hear cases that concern Obama’s eligibility and his strange Connecticut-issued Social Security number. That is, assuming the Supreme Court justices even saw the documents concerning those cases to begin with.

Did you know that clerks of the Supreme Court never forwarded to the justices the pleadings and documents submitted by plaintiffs and attorneys? The faceless clerks also removed cases from the electronic docket, as well as reported conferences of justices which never took place.

French philosopher and statesman Count Joseph Marie Maistre (1763-1821) once said, “Every nation has the government it deserves.” Subtending the economy and government is America’s culture, now thoroughly corrupted from decades of moral relativism do-as-you-will narcissistic amorality. Patriotism has become a dirty word: As many as 33% in a 2010 poll said they wanted the American flag banned.

John Adams wrote that “The foundation of national morality must be laid in private families.” By that yardstick, the American family is in trouble.

Although every evidence we have points to marriage being good for not just the married, but for children and society as well, the percentage of married Americans is at a lowest recorded level. Between 2000 and 2009, the share of young adults ages 25 to 34 who are married dropped 10 percentage points, from 55% to 45%.

There is an epidemic of fatherless children — 30% of U.S. children live apart from their fathers. That 30% will account for 63% of teen suicides, 70% of juveniles in state-operated institutions, 71% of high-school dropouts, 75% of children in chemical-abuse centers, 80% of rapists, 85% of youths in prison, 85% of children who exhibit behavioral disorders, and 90% of homeless and runaway children.

So, how do we account for the blindness of so many? Why do they not see what you and I so clearly see?

Is it willful ignorance? Have they been brainwashed by the Establishment Media? (but how do we account for the media’s blindness?) Is it stupidity? Is it a narrow and short-sighted selfishness? Or is it the terrible darkness of spiritual blindness?

“…you are living among a rebellious people. They have eyes to see but do not see and ears to hear but do not hear, for they are a rebellious people.” -Ezekiel 12:2

“…because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie.” -2 Thessalonians 2:10b-11

~Eowyn

Newsweek says Obama must go

This is an expansion on our Dave’s post yesterday evening, “Sunday Night Shocker,” about the cover-story of the newest edition of the very liberal Newsweek magazine, calling for President Obama the POS in the White House to “hit the road.”

The article’s author is 48-year-old Niall Ferguson, the Laurence A. Tisch Professor of History at Harvard University and a columnist for Newsweek since 2011. In 2004, he was named as one of the 100 most influential people in the world by Time magazine. Among his areas of specialty are economic history, hyperinflation and the bond markets. In 2008, Ferguson was an adviser to John McCain and had NOT voted for Obama. Therefore Ferguson’s urging the POS to “hit the road” is not a surprise. The significance, rather, is the fact that Ferguson’s essay is published in the über liberal Newsweek. 

Ferguson’s main objection to four more years of the POS is the economy. Here are excerpts from the article. Enjoy! :D

~Eowyn

Niall Ferguson: Obama’s Gotta Go

Aug 19, 2012 

Why does Paul Ryan scare the president so much? Because Obama has broken his promises, and it’s clear that the GOP ticket’s path to prosperity is our only hope.

[…] In his inaugural address, Obama promised “not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth.” He promised to “build the roads and bridges, the electric grids, and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together.” He promised to “restore science to its rightful place and wield technology’s wonders to raise health care’s quality and lower its cost.” And he promised to “transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age.” Unfortunately the president’s scorecard on every single one of those bold pledges is pitiful.

[…] But the total number of private-sector jobs is still 4.3 million below the January 2008 peak. Meanwhile, since 2008, a staggering 3.6 million Americans have been added to Social Security’s disability insurance program. This is one of many ways unemployment is being concealed.

In his fiscal year 2010 budget—the first he presented—the president envisaged growth of 3.2 percent in 2010, 4.0 percent in 2011, 4.6 percent in 2012. The actual numbers were 2.4 percent in 2010 and 1.8 percent in 2011; few forecasters now expect it to be much above 2.3 percent this year.

Unemployment was supposed to be 6 percent by now. It has averaged 8.2 percent this year so far. Meanwhile real median annual household income has dropped more than 5 percent since June 2009. Nearly 110 million individuals received a welfare benefit in 2011, mostly Medicaid or food stamps.

Welcome to Obama’s America: nearly half the population is not represented on a taxable return—almost exactly the same proportion that lives in a household where at least one member receives some type of government benefit. We are becoming the 50–50 nation—half of us paying the taxes, the other half receiving the benefits.

Jobs Graphic

And all this despite a far bigger hike in the federal debt than we were promised. According to the 2010 budget, the debt in public hands was supposed to fall in relation to GDP from 67 percent in 2010 to less than 66 percent this year. If only. By the end of this year, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), it will reach 70 percent of GDP. These figures significantly understate the debt problem, however. The ratio that matters is debt to revenue. That number has leapt upward from 165 percent in 2008 to 262 percent this year, according to figures from the International Monetary Fund. Among developed economies, only Ireland and Spain have seen a bigger deterioration.

Not only did the initial fiscal stimulus fade after the sugar rush of 2009, but the president has done absolutely nothing to close the long-term gap between spending and revenue.

His much-vaunted health-care reform will not prevent spending on health programs growing from more than 5 percent of GDP today to almost 10 percent in 2037. Add the projected increase in the costs of Social Security and you are looking at a total bill of 16 percent of GDP 25 years from now. That is only slightly less than the average cost of all federal programs and activities, apart from net interest payments, over the past 40 years. Under this president’s policies, the debt is on course to approach 200 percent of GDP in 2037—a mountain of debt that is bound to reduce growth even further.

And even that figure understates the real debt burden. The most recent estimate for the difference between the net present value of federal government liabilities and the net present value of future federal revenues—what economist Larry Kotlikoff calls the true “fiscal gap”—is $222 trillion.

The president’s supporters will, of course, say that the poor performance of the economy can’t be blamed on him. […] Yet surely we can legitimately blame the president for the political mistakes of the past four years. After all, it’s the president’s job to run the executive branch effectively—to lead the nation. And here is where his failure has been greatest.

[…] It is five years since the financial crisis began, but the central problems—excessive financial concentration and excessive financial leverage—have not been addressed.

Today a mere 10 too-big-to-fail financial institutions are responsible for three quarters of total financial assets under management in the United States. Yet the country’s largest banks are at least $50 billion short of meeting new capital requirements under the new “Basel III” accords governing bank capital adequacy.

GDP Graphic

And then there was health care. No one seriously doubts that the U.S. system needed to be reformed. But the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) of 2010 did nothing to address the core defects of the system: the long-run explosion of Medicare costs as the baby boomers retire, the “fee for service” model that drives health-care inflation, the link from employment to insurance that explains why so many Americans lack coverage, and the excessive costs of the liability insurance that our doctors need to protect them from our lawyers.

[…] The president pledged that health-care reform would not add a cent to the deficit. But the CBO and the Joint Committee on Taxation now estimate that the insurance-coverage provisions of the ACA will have a net cost of close to $1.2 trillion over the 2012–22 period.[…] barring some miracle, the country will hit a fiscal cliff on Jan. 1 as the Bush tax cuts expire and the first of $1.2 trillion of automatic, across-the-board spending cuts are imposed. The CBO estimates the net effect could be a 4 percent reduction in output.

The failures of leadership on economic and fiscal policy over the past four years have had geopolitical consequences. The World Bank expects the U.S. to grow by just 2 percent in 2012. China will grow four times faster than that; India three times faster. By 2017, the International Monetary Fund predicts, the GDP of China will overtake that of the United States.

Meanwhile, the fiscal train wreck has already initiated a process of steep cuts in the defense budget, at a time when it is very far from clear that the world has become a safer place—least of all in the Middle East.

For me the president’s greatest failure has been not to think through the implications of these challenges to American power. Far from developing a coherent strategy, he believed—perhaps encouraged by the premature award of the Nobel Peace Prize—that all he needed to do was to make touchy-feely speeches around the world explaining to foreigners that he was not George W. Bush.

[…] Remarkably the president polls relatively strongly on national security. Yet the public mistakes his administration’s astonishingly uninhibited use of political assassination for a coherent strategy. According to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism in London, the civilian proportion of drone casualties was 16 percent last year. Ask yourself how the liberal media would have behaved if George W. Bush had used drones this way. Yet somehow it is only ever Republican secretaries of state who are accused of committing “war crimes.”

The real crime is that the assassination program destroys potentially crucial intelligence (as well as antagonizing locals) every time a drone strikes. It symbolizes the administration’s decision to abandon counterinsurgency in favor of a narrow counterterrorism. What that means in practice is the abandonment not only of Iraq but soon of Afghanistan too. Understandably, the men and women who have served there wonder what exactly their sacrifice was for, if any notion that we are nation building has been quietly dumped. Only when both countries sink back into civil war will we realize the real price of Obama’s foreign policy.

America under this president is a superpower in retreat, if not retirement. Small wonder 46 percent of Americans—and 63 percent of Chinese—believe that China already has replaced the U.S. as the world’s leading superpower or eventually will.

[…] Now Obama is going head-to-head with his nemesis: a politician who believes more in content than in form, more in reform than in rhetoric. In the past days much has been written about Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney’s choice of running mate. I know, like, and admire Paul Ryan. For me, the point about him is simple. He is one of only a handful of politicians in Washington who is truly sincere about addressing this country’s fiscal crisis.

Over the past few years Ryan’s “Path to Prosperity” has evolved, but the essential points are clear: replace Medicare with a voucher program for those now under 55 (not current or imminent recipients), turn Medicaid and food stamps into block grants for the states, and—crucially—simplify the tax code and lower tax rates to try to inject some supply-side life back into the U.S. private sector. Ryan is not preaching austerity. He is preaching growth. And though Reagan-era veterans like David Stockman may have their doubts, they underestimate Ryan’s mastery of this subject. There is literally no one in Washington who understands the challenges of fiscal reform better.

[…] I first met Paul Ryan in April 2010. I had been invited to a dinner in Washington where the U.S. fiscal crisis was going to be the topic of discussion. So crucial did this subject seem to me that I expected the dinner to happen in one of the city’s biggest hotel ballrooms. It was actually held in the host’s home. Three congressmen showed up—a sign of how successful the president’s fiscal version of “don’t ask, don’t tell” (about the debt) had been. Ryan blew me away. I have wanted to see him in the White House ever since.

It remains to be seen if the American public is ready to embrace the radical overhaul of the nation’s finances that Ryan proposes. The public mood is deeply ambivalent. The president’s approval rating is down to 49 percent. The Gallup Economic Confidence Index is at minus 28 (down from minus 13 in May). But Obama is still narrowly ahead of Romney in the polls as far as the popular vote is concerned (50.8 to 48.2) and comfortably ahead in the Electoral College. The pollsters say that Paul Ryan’s nomination is not a game changer; indeed, he is a high-risk choice for Romney because so many people feel nervous about the reforms Ryan proposes.

But one thing is clear. Ryan psychs Obama out. This has been apparent ever since the White House went on the offensive against Ryan in the spring of last year. And the reason he psychs him out is that, unlike Obama, Ryan has a plan—as opposed to a narrative—for this country.

Mitt Romney is not the best candidate for the presidency I can imagine. But he was clearly the best of the Republican contenders for the nomination. He brings to the presidency precisely the kind of experience—both in the business world and in executive office—that Barack Obama manifestly lacked four years ago. (If only Obama had worked at Bain Capital for a few years, instead of as a community organizer in Chicago, he might understand exactly why the private sector is not “doing fine” right now.) And by picking Ryan as his running mate, Romney has given the first real sign that—unlike Obama—he is a courageous leader who will not duck the challenges America faces.

The voters now face a stark choice. They can let Barack Obama’s rambling, solipsistic narrative continue until they find themselves living in some American version of Europe, with low growth, high unemployment, even higher debt—and real geopolitical decline.

Or they can opt for real change: the kind of change that will end four years of economic underperformance, stop the terrifying accumulation of debt, and reestablish a secure fiscal foundation for American national security. […]

Read Ferguson’s entire essay on Newsweek, here.

Road to Ruin – Cradle to Grave

H/T Kelleigh

Why Big Govt ain’t going away

As many as half of U.S. households are recipients of government benefits.

Phil Izzo reports for the Wall Street Journal, May 26, 2012, that recent Census Bureau data show 49.1% of the U.S. population live in a household where at least one member received some type of government benefit in the first quarter of 2011. Many likely received more than one.

The 49.1% of the population in a household that gets benefits is up from 30% in the early 1980s and 44.4% as recently as the third quarter of 2008. The increase in recent years is likely due in large part to the lingering effects of the recession.

As of early 2011, 15% of people lived in a household that received food stamps, 26% had someone enrolled in Medicaid and 2% had a member receiving unemployment benefits. But even without the effects of the recession, there would be a larger reliance on government. The Census data show that 16% of the population lives in a household where at least one member receives Social Security and 15% receive or live with someone who gets Medicare. There is likely a lot of overlap, since Social Security and Medicare tend to go hand in hand, but those percentages also are likely to increase as the Baby Boom generation ages.

With increased government spending comes the need to pay for it, and if taxes aren’t going to increase that means deficits. Nearly three-quarters of Americans blame the U.S. budget deficit on spending too much money on federal programs, according to a Gallup poll last year, but when the conversation turns to which programs to cut, the majorities are harder to find. For example, 56% of respondents oppose making significant changes to Social Security or Medicare.

The more people who receive benefits, the harder it’s going to be to make cuts, and it’s never popular to raise taxes. In some respects that argues for letting a combination of tax increases and spending cuts that is set to automatically hit in 2013 take effect. There’s just one problem: the Congressional Budget Office says it would sink the economy into recession. Letting the 2013 provisions come into force would be like dealing with a weight problem by cutting off your right arm.

And so, a long-term, well-planned diet is the only solution.

But where are the political leaders who are statesmen, instead of mere self-serving politicians, to tackle this?

~Eowyn

Bill Whittle Video: The Vote Pump

-Dave 

(h/t: boortz.com)

Why Obama Will Win in 2012?

This essay is being circulated via e-mail. It is mistakenly attributed to conservative black economist Dr Walter Williams. But he did not write it.

The essay originated in April 2011 but is no less descriptive now. What the anonymous real author has to say is credible — and depressing. Our only hope is if the key Dem demographic groups not turn out to vote in the large numbers they did in 2008.

Note: In republishing this essay, I’ve done some tweaking and editing. Feel free to circulate the essay, but please, don’t attribute it to Dr. Williams!

H/t my dear friend Sol.

~Eowyn

Amerika in 2016

Why Obama can not lose the 2012 election

by Anonymous

Can President Obama be defeated in 2012?

No.

He can’t.

I am going on record as saying that President Barak Obama will win a second term.

The media won’t tell you this because a good election campaign means hundreds of millions (or in Obama’s case billions) of dollars to them in advertising.

But the truth is, there simply are no conditions under which Barak Obama can be defeated in 2012. The quality of the Republican candidate doesn’t matter. (Though the quality of the voters DOES matter!)

Obama gets reelected. Nine percent unemployment? No problem. Obama will win. Gas prices moving toward five dollars a gallon? He still wins. The economy soars or goes into the gutter. Obama wins. War in the Middle East? He wins a second term.

America’s role as the leading Superpower disappears? Hurrah for Barack Obama! The U.S. government rushes toward bankruptcy, the dollar continues to sink on world markets and the price of daily goods and services soars due to inflation fueled by Obama’s extraordinary deficit spending? Obama wins handily.

You are crazy. Don’t you understand how volatile politics can be when overall economic, government, and world conditions are declining? Sure I do.

And that’s why I know Obama will win. The American people are notoriously ignorant of economics. And economics is the key to why Obama should be defeated.

Even when Obama’s policies lead the nation to final ruin, the majority of the American people are going to believe the bait-and-switch tactics Obama and his supporters in the media will use to explain why it isn’t his fault. After all, things were much worse than understood when he took office.

Obama’s reelection is really a very, very simple math problem. Consider the following:

1) Blacks will vote for Obama blindly. Period. Doesn’t matter what he does. It’s a race thing. He’s one of us.

2) College educated women will vote for Obama. Though they will be offended by this, they swoon at his oratory. It’s really not more complex than that.

3) Liberals will vote for Obama. He is still their great hope.

4) Democrats will vote for Obama. He is the leader of their party and his coat tails will carry them to victory nationwide.

5) Hispanics will vote for Obama. He is the path to citizenship for those who are illegal and Hispanic leaders recognize the political clout they carry in the Democratic Party.

6) Union members will vote overwhelmingly for Obama. He is their key to money and power in business, state and local politics.

7) Big Business will support Obama. They already have. He has almost $1 Billion dollars in his reelection purse gained largely from his connections with Big Business and is gaining more everyday. Big Business loves Obama because he gives them access to taxpayer money so long as they support his social and political agenda.

8) The media love him. They may attack the people who work for him, but they love him. After all, to not love him would be racist.

9) Most other minorities and special interest groups will vote for him. Oddly, the overwhelming majority of Jews and Muslims will support him because they won’t vote Republican. American Indians will support him. Obviously homosexuals tend to vote Democratic.

10) Approximately half of independents will vote for Obama. And he doesn’t need anywhere near that number because he has all of the groups previously mentioned. And lastly….

11) There is one last group, and it’s a huge group. The group overlaps with some of the groups listed above. What’s this last group? I’ll call this group The Parasites. They are the nearly one-half (43% at last count) of all U.S. adults who do not pay any federal taxes, most of whom receive money from the government. These people will vote for Obama because they will not do anything that might jeopardize the flow of taxpayer dollars to themselves.

Obama will win an overwhelming victory in 2012.