politixcartoons:

New cartoons
for your inbox!


Safely delivered by FeedBurner

Archive for _fiscal conservatism

IRS Scandal

In case you live under a rock, or in case you get your news from MSNBC, the big scandal of the day is that the IRS is targeting conservative and Tea Party groups.

Yawn. This is news? I mean, I guess it is in the fact that it’s finally being reported, but no doubt this has been suspected for a long time.

My biggest frustration with all of this is the Democrats. When are you going to start cleaning house? What boggles my mind is that honest, hard working, freedom loving Americans are so loyal to their own party, that they are unwilling to rid it of corruption as it has taken over. I’m sorry, using the IRS as bullies to shut down political opposition (aka speech) during two election cycles is tyranny. There is nothing else you can call it. Sure it’s your guys doing it, so you’ll look the other way, but you same people screamed foul at W for barely even sneezing!

The Republicans have NOOOO problem jettisoning politicians the moment they are accused of wrong doing, whether or not such accusations are even true. Remember Tom Foley? Tom Delay? Dan Maes? Why can’t you Democrats do the same?

Of course, these attacks by the IRS are justified according to Democrat Harry Reid. According to him, because these conservative non-profit groups are sometimes fronted by rich (gasp!) people, they shouldn’t be allowed to qualify like the liberal non-profit groups (fronted by rich people). So, let me get this straight, rich people shouldn’t have free speech protection? Actually, yes, I’ve had some liberals tell me, and with all sincerity, they say money should be removed from speech so that it becomes fair. Then they pat themselves on the back for being so freedom minded.

Money does make speech easier, but guess what, it exists on both sides. Need I remind you that Democrats have outspent Republicans on every major national election since 2006? Money is speech and there shall be NO law restricting it!

Other prominent liberals have justified these IRS attacks by saying violent and racist groups like the TEA party should have extra scrutiny placed on them. WHAT?!? I’m confused. Do these liberals really believe that the TEA party is racist and violent, or are they just saying this as a convenient way to quickly demonize and dismiss their opposition? Every time a liberal tries to pin the TEA party as violent, I ask them, based on what? Can you name for me an actual violent incident involving a TEA party member? I can tell you how many times TEA party members have been falsely accused after any number of terrorist attacks, only to be quietly exonerated later. (Gabby Giffords, Aurora shootings, Boston bombings.) Perhaps they only remember the first media accusations and not the later correction?

And the charges of racism? Sooooo… let me get this straight. Smaller government and fiscal responsibility are racist?

This is a tactic often used by dictators. Falsely accuse your political opponent of the worst possible immorality you can think of. (In America, right now, that’s the charge of racism.) Then because they are so immoral, you can justify perpetrating whatever injustices against them you want, you know, like IRS harassment. It’s how Hitler got an entire German country to turn against the Jews.

What are your values? Forget party allegiance. Take the time to investigate the people on your side and those from the other side. When anyone, Republican or Democrat, engages in unethical activities in order to gain political power, the entire nation should be holding them accountable, not just the opposing party.

Side Note: Phew! Sorry this is so long. But it’s like the adage, a lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth can even put on its shoes. Lies are easy to spread as one liners on Facebook, Twitter and anywhere else. “The TEA party is racist.” Once it’s out there and people start believing it, just saying “no they’re not” will not suffice. Unfortunately, it requires long documentation and rational explanation in order to set the record straight and even then, people are slow to believe. That’s the beauty of cartoons sometimes. They can hammer home a truth much quicker and more poignantly than words.
Post Script:  Even I was subjected to harassment by the Obama campaign. Back in 2008, I posted Obama’s position on Orphan Works based upon a Newsweek article. A week later, I received a phone call (area code New York City) from a lady claiming to be on the Obama election campaign, telling me they were going to sue me for libel if I didn’t take down that post, citing a Time article in which Obama was quoted as taking the opposite position. Of course, I took it down, but does that mean Obama might have read some of my cartoons? Cool.

Sequestered

Here are a few facts.

  • Congress has not passed a budget in close to four years.
  • Congress has never denied raising the debt ceiling limit when asked.
  • When the Republicans proposed raising the ceiling to a level lower than the Democrats, they are said to be making cuts.
  • Every time we approach a new deadline, what should be done is not and Republicans and Democrats, under a spirit of beautiful and wonderful bipartisanship, pass bandaid measures that kicks the problem down the road a few more months, ensuring only that the problem will continue to grow.

ENOUGH ALREADY! STOP SPENDING!

Neither side wants to be the side to rob grandma of her means of living through entitlement cuts. This is the untrue accusation that crops up every election cycle. So neither side seems to have the political courage or moral fiber to do the right thing.

One observation I have made through all of these impending deadlines we have encountered over the past four years, from fiscal cliffs to debt ceilings, is that the Democrats seem scared to death to have the deadlines pass without another “bandaid” fix. It’s as if the Democrats don’t want the sequestering to occur and the closer to the deadline we get, the more irate they become. I find it fascinating. Why could this be? Could it be a clue for the Republicans?

The Republicans must believe that if we go into sequestering that somehow they will get the political sword for it. Certainly polls indicate that this will be the case and we’ve got a media that is more than ready to write that story and broadcast it 24/7. But if this truly was the case, then I would believe that the Democrats would be a lot more casual about these approaching deadlines. I don’t think we’d see Obama come out shaking his finger at Republicans accusing them of not being willing to come together for the good of the country. Perhaps the Democrats do have something to lose.

Here is what I suspect. This new deadline includes several mandatory cuts. What do we know about government spending? Once it starts, it’s nearly impossible to stop. It becomes an unchecked cash flow from that point forward. This sequestering will automatically stop a lot of that spending. The biggest issue I believe is not that these programs will loose money. That’s not what the Democrats are worried about. No, it’s that when the cuts do go into place, we will discover that all of that spending wasn’t necessary in the first place! Those in charge, Republicans and Democrats alike, are not allowing these deadlines to lapse. Wishful thinking, maybe, but should the cuts occur, I think it becomes much harder to sell additional spending to the general public. This could potentially pay huge dividends in the upcoming midterms.

I am sick of party allegiance. Seriously folks, I don’t care if you are a Democrat or a Republican, don’t you care about out of control spending?

Healthcare and the Economy

Another illustration for Centennial Review. Two excellent articles written by both an economist and a doctor.

http://www.ccu.edu/centennial/review/oct12/

First, this illustration hit close to home. Many of you know my long and extended medical history. I was born with an agressive auto-immune disease which still sends me to the hospital 2-3 times a year. The past month has been especially trying and there is some talk for additional surgery. So when it came time to needed some artistic “inspiration” for this illustration, I had plenty.

(Not to bore you with personal details, but I have made a cute little video that talks a bit about my story on YouTube. If you want more, go here:

http://youtu.be/9nnCIWCpQ-s)

So many times, Democrats are confounded as to why I would be opposed to Obamacare, or the poorly titled “Health Care Affordability Act.” Wouldn’t it benefit somebody like me the most? I haven’t read the bill, but any law that takes over 2700 pages to write scares the heck out of me. That’s too much legislation and bureaucracy for governmental abuse, not to mention trying to keep track of everything in order to remain compliant.

Yes, the old system was broken. The biggest issue was pre-existing conditions. When you have an entire industry denying a certain group of people their product because of how they were born (as it were in my case), you have a problem. I don’t know how to resolve the issue, honestly. I understand that in the long run, I’m a liability to the company and they have to pay for my care by taking premiums from somebody else’s. Perhaps there is some good with Obamacare in addressing this issue.

Which brings me to the next point. Prices were way too inflated with the old system. Having been in the system all my life, there are a few reasons why this could be.


A) Hospitals treat and then bill and you never know what you are going to get until three months down the road, when you are still recovering and they are demanding payment from some doctor who looked at your chart in another room and sends you a $200 review bill. It’s really aggrevating when you get 15 of them from the same hospital. It’s like free money. Look at the chart, bill the patient, pay for your golf trip. It has happened to me frequently, in some hospitals more than others. I’ve tried calling to contest the bill and this practice, and the receptionist promptly sent me to collections.

You want to reduce costs? Require an upfront cost to the patient or their family and have them sign off before being allowed to proceed with any procedure or treatment (emergencies excepted, of course). Let the patient decide whether they want the doctor from the third floor looking at their chart.

Disclose upfront all of your costs for standard procedures such as bone setting, colonoscopies, xrays, etc. Let the patient then go to the hospital with the best combination of rates and service. This will drive costs down. Competition always does.

B) Cut frivolous and false malpractice lawsuits.  Anybody can file a suit for whatever contrived reason. Often they are settled out of court, even if the doctor is sure of his innocense, just because it’s cheaper than taking it to court and winning! I have an idea. Let whomever brings forth a lawsuit do so knowing that if they lose, they have to pay the doctor’s and hospital’s court and lawyer costs. This will kill the incentive for fake lawsuits. This will lower malpractice insurance dramatically, which the doctor and hospital can then pass on to the patient.


The problem with Obamacare is that neither A nor B can really be found in those 2700 pages. Simple fixes we can implement right away that will start to lower overall costs. Why aren’t they there?

American has the shortest waiting time of any industrialized nation. Those countries that have national health care have wait times that are 5 times or greater. For a country that is as large as ours, imagine how long those wait times will end up being. This could be the difference between life and death for me. I might have to outsource my healthcare overseas, like everything else the government meddles in.

Obamacare also promises rationing. Obama himself even said Granny should take the pain pill once she hits a certain age. For somebody who is a perfect candidate as an individual who should allow natural selection to finally do me in, you can see why I’m not jumping up and down for joy.

Obamacare is now the law of the land. I’m hoping that because we are Americans, that somehow things will be different. Maybe we will still have the greatest healthcare in five years from now. In which case, I hope to still be around to entertain you with my latest cartoons.

Obama Follows FDR Down the Path to Economic Stagnation

This was a fun illustration to do for Centennial Review. I nailed Obama’s likeness. I wish I could say the same for FDR’s, but I was trying to get him to smirk a little, which threw off the illustration a bit. I also had fun recreating the Presidential Desk. Initially, I rendered all the detail on the side of the desk as well, but it ended up making the entire piece cluttered and busy. I went back in and made it all solid black. This helps anchor the piece visually and redirect your attention back to Obama. Yes, I lost all that beautiful pen and ink work, but sometimes ya gotta do it for the integrity of the composition.

The truths of this article are overwhelming. Keynesian policies have proven not to work. How long did Roosevelt preside over a flat, sunken economy? No matter what he tried to do on a federal level, he could not get it to turn around. But he kept getting re-elected, assuring the American people that big o’ daddy government is here to get them through this, and (haven’t heard this one repeated over and over) imagine how bad it would be if we WEREN’T doing anything.

Liberals still see FDR bringing us out of the depression through high taxation and government policies. The robust economy did not finally occur until after WW2, during the 1950s, as a result of Harry Truman, the forgotten Democrat, who lowered tax rates dramatically.

Read more from this excellent article by By Burton Folsom, Jr.

http://www.ccu.edu/centennial/review/sept12/

Presidential Response to Poverty

My goal for this illustration was to try and mimic some of the classic etched illustrations of the Victorian age. My tools were slightly different, relying on my radiographs over traditional etching, but I tried to copy their same line work. I’m very pleased with the result.

HOW AND HOW NOT TO FIGHT POVERTY:LESSONS FROM THE PRESIDENTS
By Lawrence W. Reed

“The lessons of history show conclusively that continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit. The federal government must and shall quit this business of relief.”

Surprisingly, these words of an American president do not date from the early years of the Republic, but from the progressive days of the New Deal. Franklin Roosevelt spoke them in 1935. But his pledge of quitting was empty. Indeed, 30 years later Lyndon Johnson would take “this business of relief” to new heights in an official “War on Poverty.”

to read more…

Freedom Cures Poverty

FREEDOM CURES POVERTY WHERE GOVERNMENT FAILS
By Benjamin Powell

Why do some nations become rich while others remain poor? This has been a central question in economics since at least the time of Adam Smith. Today China, India, and Botswana are booming, and in the process lifting hundreds of millions of people out of wretched poverty. Yet most of sub-Saharan Africa not only fails to get rich, but is instead actually getting poorer.

Traditional mainstream economic-growth theory doesn’t help us much to answer the question.Through most of the 20th century it focused on models that assumed growth was a simple function of labor, capital, and technology. The new growth theory looks more to institutions and policy.

to read more…

Depression’s Lessons

AMERICA’S GREAT DEPRESSION: A PREVENTABLE TRAGEDY IN FOUR ACTS
By Lawrence W. Reed

Editor: Amid a recession that some are calling the worst since the 1930s, on the heels of a Democratic presidential victory that recalled 1932 and a Republican congressional comeback echoing 1938, we called on our favorite economic historian to sort out the facts from the myths about that stormy decade. He did not spell out the political parallels between then and now,as there was no need. They speak for themselves.

How bad was the Great Depression? Over the four years from 1929 to 1933, production at the nation’s factories, mines, and utilities fell by more than half. People’s real disposable incomes dropped 28 percent. Stock prices collapsed to one-tenth of the pre-crash height. The number of unemployed Americans rose from 1.6million in 1929 to 12.8 million in 1933.

to read more…

The Bain of the Political Season

It is absolutely frustrating having to listen to the droning back and forth between the Romney camp and the Obama camp about his time at Bain Capital. Really?  Have politics denigrated to the point where we are arguing over stupid dates of when somebody left their job ten years ago? I am really trying hard to figure out how this is relevant to saving our country.

I understand the arguments. The Obama camp has accused Romney of a felony for saying he left the company at one date, but then kept working. Typical leftist smear, and even after Romney has come out on CNN to disprove all of Obama’s accusations, the media is continuing to run with the story.

Shame on Obama for this kind of smear politics! But double shame on Romney for getting himself dragged into it. I get it, at some point you have to stand up and say, look, I’m being completely misrepresented here. But come on, this argument has been going on for far too long, can we start talking about issues again? If I were Romney, there are so many other positives about his record that I would parade instead.

The biggest argument Democrats are propping is that Bain shipped jobs overseas while Romney ran Bain. Conservatives countered by saying this occurred after he left in 1999. But aren’t they both missing the point? What about all of the American jobs that Bain DID create? This record is overwhelmingly positive.

And so what if jobs got shipped overseas? Is that not a reflection of just how difficult it has become to hire American help? Between the overinflated union salaries, the herculean hoops and regulations, and the heavy tax burden, it’s becoming harder and harder to keep jobs in America. Certain city governments in America promise to audit all business owners and make their lives an accounting nightmare. And that’s just at the city level. Keeping track of all the different stupid taxes at all the different levels has become a headache. You’ve got property taxes (which are much higher for commercial than residential space), usage taxes (if you don’t know what usage taxes are, look it up, it is one of the most cumbersome and burdensome taxes out there), sales tax, income tax, taxes for hiring an employee, taxes for making certain products, taxes for using certain products, taxes for small animals that live in the area, and on and on it goes!

Then we have all of the regulations, for some industries, so many, that failure to adhere is a certainty. And we are surrounded by people more than willing to enforce these burdens through litigation, penalties and fines. As a result, most businesses simply will cease to exist if they DIDN’T outsource, at least at some level.

It amazes me on how completely ignorant of business most of these Democrat talking heads are. If they’d ever been in charge of a large and successful organization, they would know that the head does not make a lot of the intermediary decisions. These belong to the managers underneath him, and even smaller decisions belong to the managers underneath them. If the head were to micromanage every decision, he would never sleep, eventually burn out and the company would collapse. Thus, chances are high that if in fact overseas hiring did occur during Romney’s tenure at Bain, he probably was not even aware it.

And even if he was, it says to me, more than anything, that he’s a good business person. It shows me that he is willing to take whatever steps are necessary to keep his businesses alive. I would question his judgment if he chose NOT to send certain jobs overseas, ESPECIALLY if the end result was the loss of a business. Which provides jobs for the American people: A business that has had to outsource some of its labor, or a business that no longer exists? It also says to me that Romney must personally know of all of the legal headaches to keeping a job in America, and thus he would know exactly how to fix those issues in order to attract businesses back to America! Right now, I’d much rather have a shrewd manager in our oval office than the economics ignoramus we currently have.

I don’t remember where I saw this, perhaps it was an Obama ad, but basically somebody mentioned that while Romney was at Bain, he made a 15 million dollar profit, therefore, he is not fit to serve as president. I was floored when I heard this. Are you serious? That’s exactly why he SHOULD be president! This demonstrates success. Do we not want success leading us? It demonstrates an understanding of how to manage money. In our financial crisis we are in, doesn’t it make sense that the most perfect person to get us out of this mess is somebody who knows how to do it?

But what angered me more than the fact that they were saying this is that they are gambling on Americans finding the ability to make a profit to somehow be repulsive. Have we really gotten to this point in America, where success is vilified and making a profit is immoral, perhaps even felonious? We have an entire political party that thinks that this is how to get elected, and to me, that is a sad, sad thing.

I don’t normally leave such long blog entries, but this election cycle has me unnerved. While we keep on focusing on stupid minutia such as when Romney left Bain, the real issues that are at the heart of our American existence continue to be ignored.

Conservative Comeback

When this article was written, the TEA party was just starting to gain momentum. I do get the sense that even as Europe and France spiral into socialistic chaos, Americans are starting to swing back to conservative values. 

Of course, I loved creating this illustration, simply because of my deep love for baseball. I actually created this drawing while Rockies were playing on television. Nothing like mixing a little play and work together.

ADVANCING THECONSERVATIVE COMEBACK
By Ralph Reed

One of the most significant developments of 2011 is that conservatism, a philosophy many commentators were writing obituaries for not long ago, is making a comeback.

This is a startling turnabout. After Barack Obama’s election, Newsweek proclaimed in a cover story, “We Are All Socialists Now.” “Whether we want to admit it or not,” the editors opined, “the America of 2009 is moving toward a modern European state.” Democrats controlled both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue by wide margins, and a new, youthful president in the model of JohnF. Kennedy, with a background as a community organizer, prepared to usher in a new era of progressive reform. He vowed to repeal the Bush tax cuts, close the prison at Guantanamo Bay, passh ealth care reform and cap-and-trade legislation,and end the war in Iraq.

to read more…

The Guardrails of TABOR

Yes, I know, Douglas Bruce has had a pretty rough time with the law lately. But that doesn’t mean his ideas or what he stands for are somehow wrong or incorrect. The truth is, a government that is accountable to the people is a better government than one that is not, and that’s what TABOR attempts to do.

 

TAX LIMITATION: THE TIME IS NOW
By Douglas Bruce

Editor’s Note: Coloradans were farsighted when they imposed the nation’s toughest tax limitation almost two decades ago. The dangers of unrestrained taxing, spending, and borrowing are dramatized by the fiscal emergencies now unfolding from California to New York to Greece. In a Patriots’ Day lecture for the Centennial Institute on April 19, 2010, the man who designed Colorado’s fiscal restraints talked about the principles involved and the lessons to be learned.

Why should taxes be limited? To protect freedom. Taxation invokes a choice between self-government and collectivist control. The more you can“vote” for goods and services with your own dollars, the more free you are.

to read more … 

Green Energy

So let’s see if I have this straight. The green energy company Solyndra receives tons of money from the stimulus as part of the green jobs initiative. A few months later they go bankrupt. Where did the money go? Not sure, but we find out later that Solyndra contributed to Obama’s election campaign. Something’s not right with this picture, but the complacent media seems all too eager to sweep it under the rug.

Imagine if this was reversed. Suppose Bush earmarked through tax payer dollars a ton of money to some oil company who then gave it back to his election campaign before going bankrupt. The American media would go nuts, the American people would be outraged, and both would be right in doing so. Yet, in the case of Solyndra, we barely get a yawn.

What’s the difference? Is it because Obama is a Democrat, and therefore untouchable? Is it because Solyndra is a Green Energy company, so somehow their actions are divine and holy?

I’m all for standards. But double standards I can’t stand.

As our economy spins out of control, the persistent argument I hear from Obama lovers is “Obama saved us from going into Depression! Can you imagine how bad it would be if he HADN’T done the things he did?” As a rational person, I’m really trying to make sense of this statement. Not being an Obama fan, I truly wonder if these people actually believe what they are saying.

Obama takes office at 7% unemployment. It’s now close to 10%. The housing market has tanked since the passage of the stimulus bills. Commodity prices have soared. And Tim Geitner tells David Gregory that if Obama hadn’t stepped in, unemployment would easily be 15%, as if he has some sort of magic powers to know these kinds of things.

In my mind I started thinking about the logic. Suppose I had a skin rash. A doctor prescribes a cream. When I start using it, the rash worsens. As a rational person, what would I assume? That the cream is working, and that if I hadn’t used it I might be far worse? No, we would immediately get rid of that cream and find something else. So the question is, why doesn’t the same logic apply to Obama and the economy?

Thus is the thinking behind this cartoon.

Inflated Perspective

Remember when Bush was president, 4% unemployment and $3 gas was considered disastrous–a horrible, wretched economy? Yet 9% unemployment and $4 gas is considered recovery today. “Yes, but it would have been a lot worse had not Obama saved us!” comes the chorus from the left. That makes as much sense as saying the Broncos would have gone to the playoffs if only they had started Tim Tebow. We can’t possibly predict what might have happened. There is no parallel universe we can look to. Who knows, maybe it would have become a lot better had the federal government NOT gotten involved.

In the fourth grade, I remember being taught that printing money creates inflation. The example given at that time was right after the Revolutionary War, where the individual states printed their own currencies, at will, creating rampant inflation. It wasn’t until a national currency was adopted, backed by gold, did it finally settle down.

Now the feds are printing money like the printing press is some sort of toy and they have the audacity to claim there is no inflation? I know Bernanke was a Bush appointee and I didn’t like him even back then, but does he really think we are this uninformed? Any chance he’d consider early retirement?

 

Right Wing Extremist

I suppose if loving freedom, believing in limited government, less regulation, lower taxes and the incandescent lightbulb makes me an extremist, then I guess I am one.

Liberalism in 3D

Liberalism in 3D

Almost everybody I know who has seen this movie, liberal or conservative, has told me it is nothing more than a tired, recycled plot, pumped up on special effects. Yet, because it carries an anti-capitalist world view, it has been lauded by the Academy and up for Best Picture.

The Academy Award goes to the film that best carries our message and slaps it upside your head.

I’ve noticed that over the past five years, I have hated 99% of all Academy Award nominated film. I now use today’s nominations as a guide. Has it been nominated? Well then, I’ll skip it.

The High Cost of it All

high cost of it all

When you allow government to funnel your money to in order to “take care” of you, the costs far outweigh whatever perceived benefit in the long run. Thank you Mary D for this great idea!

Update.

I just wanted to drop in and say, that while I do not have a cartoon ready for your viewing enjoyment, I did want to give a little update and to keep my site current. Between hospital stays and my current work with Painting for Life (www.paintingforlife.com), I have been SWAMPED! When my plate begins to clear a bit, I’ll do a new cartoon. I have not even had the time to keep up with current events, nor have I wanted to. I am horrified by what I see on the news, and I watch helpless as I see our elected officials make decisions that will destroy freedom and democracy while granting them more power.

Just a few thoughts I have been burdened with…

What really saddens me is how ignorant many people are on how the real world operates. Ran into a guy, is in favor of school vouchers, is opposed to unions, is pro-life, and yet votes Democrat. And nothing I could say could convince him he had the wrong party. Another friend of mine, atheist by choice, did not know about America’s Christian heritage. History is boring, he always says, but then makes his decisions based upon his misconceptions of a history he does not know!

I’d like to give a lesson in economics to every graduating senior. Perhaps instead, requiring them to read Atlas Shrugged might be an easier way to get the point across. Call it balanced perspective.

I find it funny how some of those who are the first to say, “The Bible says don’t judge!” when it comes to their sexual lifestyle are the same to sit and judge the earnings of top execs and CEOs. I’m not saying that there aren’t corrupt CEOs and executives, but since when did God task us with deciding what they should earn, when and how. The last time I looked, I read, “Do not covet.”

And well meaning Christian friends tell me how socialism is God’s government of choice, because the government needs to take care of the poor, because isn’t that what Christ commanded us? Yes, when we read in Acts, we see how Peter and the church set up a communal society, from each according to his ability to each according to his need. The difference, however, was that it was a voluntary system, and even the example of Ananias and Sapphira demonstrated its failure. Socialism requires the perfectibility of mankind, and since Scripture clearly states man is fallen, it will never work without His Spirit. Capitalism works not on what man can ideally be, but on what man is now, and derives its success from there.

What is the best form of government to take care of the poor? Capitalism. Which country has the richest poor? America. There is not a country in the world that does not have poverty, however, there are so many opportunities for America’s poor that do not exist in other parts of the globe. Only out of our blessings can we bless others, how can it be otherwise? Which country has given more money, dollar for dollar, to private charity than any other nation? America. Yes, God calls us to care for the poor. But He calls us to actively participate, not to pawn it off on some government program so that we don’t have to think about it.

Don’t get me wrong. There is a always a place for government programs, but they can’t hold a candle to the effectiveness of private charity. Shouldn’t we be focusing our dollar on what works?

Final thought, just something I’ve noticed. Democrats promise big, but rarely deliver. Republicans simply don’t promise.

Moore Madness

Moore Madness

A common saying goes, “Never argue with an idiot, for after a moment, no one can tell the difference.” Michael Moore is an idiot, so at the risk of sounding like one myself, here I go.

My biggest beef with Michael Moore is that he is a hypocrite. His latest movie sets out to make the point that capitalism is evil. While I have not seen the movie (my health is too fragile for that kind of abuse), I’ve read enough glowing reviews (from the “unbiased” media) about it to know the points Moore makes to try to support is lame assertion. What befuddles me is how Michael Moore can sit making windfall profits on his movies and then point his fingers at anybody else who dares to make a profit and call them evil.

According the reviewer, Michael Moore asserts Wall Street executives gamble with innocent people’s money, and since gambling is illegal, they should be thrown into jail. The other argument he makes is that under capitalism the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, and that the middle class disappears.

These points are so easily debatable that it is not even worth my time going into them, however, I know so many people who gobble up his line of thinking, that I’m afraid I have to.

To begin, where the heck does Michael Moore think our middle class came from?!? How can capitalism be shrinking our middle class, when the very fact that we have a middle class proves that 200 years of capitalism does in fact work? Seriously, can anybody with a straight face tell me that Cuba has a more robust middle class than America? Let’s go down the line: North Korea, anybody? Aha, China has a growing middle class!… for about a couple of decades now… since American industry began injecting capitalism into their society. Moore is clever in the way he uses selective anecdotes to craft his argument, but it simply does not hold up when compared to the whole of human history.

Finally, Moore’s premise is flawed, in thinking that Wall Street is somehow stealing the people’s money and then gambling with it. People have CHOOSEN to invest their money into Wall Street, knowing the risks and possible benefits. They were never forced to hand over their money. (On the other hand, people ARE forced to give their money to government, via high taxes and fees, for government to put into programs that have PROVEN not to work. So the question remains, Who’s the real thief here?)

I don’t deny that there is a ton of corporate greed in capitalism. But there is greed in government as well. The problem isn’t the system, the problem is people! Greed is evil, yes, however, hard work is noble. Unfortunately, the two are so intricately tied that to try and destroy one will inevitably lead to the destruction of the other. To preserve hard work, ingenuity, creativity, we must preserve capitalism.

Do Not Feed the Animals

sworn enemies 05-01-08

Just… don’t do it. It’s as simple as that.

Socialism 101 for college students

Author Unknown

An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before but had once failed an entire class.

That class had insisted that socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.

The professor then said, “OK, we will have an experiment in this class on socialism. All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A.

After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B.

The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy.

As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.

The second test average was a D! No one was happy.

When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.

The scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.

All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.

Could not be any simpler than that.