Thursday, June 21, 2018

The Facts About The Current So-Called Border Crisis

I don’t wish to beat around the bush on this.  There are flat out lies spreading around mostly as a result of a corrupt media.  So let’s get a few things straight, first, about the current crisis of family separations at the border.

First, although some media outlets are falsely reporting that there some 12,000 children who have been separated from their parents into these facilities where they are being held, this is not true.  Of those 12K, ten thousand of them are unaccompanied minors.  There are approximately 2,000 who are being held who came here with someone that, at present, is assumed to be their parent.
Second, although some media outlets are falsely reporting that these children came across the border seeking asylum, the only thing we know for sure is they crossed illegally.  Which means they did not cross at one of the 25 authorized ports of entry at the southern border.  This, alone, is completely illegal, no matter what they came across the border seeking.  Even an American citizen crossing the border at any place other than the 25 authorized ports of entry is committing a crime and subject to arrest.

Third, these two thousand children were separated from their supposed parents because those parents were arrested.  It is fairly common practice in every country in the world that when you arrest someone, you don’t allow their children to stay with them.

Fourth, these children are being detained because they crossed the border illegally…as party to their supposed parents’ illegal act.  According to our own laws, they are held for a certain period whereby it is determined what country they came from.  By our laws, if they came from Mexico, we will deport them back to Mexico.  If they came from any non-contiguous country, like Honduras, we cannot send them back.  We are required to find them a place to stay here in the US.  Stupid law…though I’d have to say in the case of the 10K unaccompanied minors, if its really true that their parents sent them on this journey unaccompanied, I sure wouldn’t want to see them sent back to those parents.

Fifth, by pure logic, there are only five options to resolve this situation: a) separate these kids from their parents while their parents are being processed for their crime; b) keep them with their parents either in the same facility as all the other kids being held or in the holding facility for all the illegal alien adults; c) create a third holding facility just for these kids and their parents while the parents’ arrests are being processed (what Trump just ordered by EO); d) don’t stop any one crossing the border at all…leave the border completely open and let anyone cross (this is what the open border radical liberals like Pelosi and Schumer want); or e) to make it honestly fair, make it illegal for any law enforcement agency to arrest anyone, citizen or not, if it would result in that person’s children being potentially traumatized by being separated from their parents.

At first, the radical left were up in arms over these separations because they said its just not right to separate children from their parents…it’s akin to child abuse.  No matter how much rational people tried to counter the absurd argument that children just shouldn’t be separated from their parents when the parents commit a crime, the radical left just weren’t going to let this one go.

As soon as Trump signed his EO creating a means by which these arrested parents and their children could remain together through this process, the radical left showed their hand.  It was not about the children.  It never was.  Otherwise this would be done with now.  Now, finally showing their real intentions, Pelosi, Schumer and others from the deep left have made it clear their objective is get the Trump administration to stop arresting any person crossing into this country in an illegal manner.  They want complete and open borders.

Here’s the funny part about that…well, two funny parts.  First, these very Democrats were deeply outspoken about illegal immigration not so many years ago.
1.       Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) in 1993: "The day when America could be the welfare system for Mexico is gone. We simply can't afford it.
2.       "Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) in 1993: "Can it be any wonder that the American people think our immigration policies are a joke when we select 40,000 new immigrants a year by lottery?"
3.       President Bill Clinton in 1995: "But we are also a nation of laws. It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years, and we must do more to stop it."
4.       Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) in 2006: "These provisions are not amnesty. Undocumented immigrants already in the country would not get to cut to the front of the line, but, in accordance with the Committee's bipartisan plan, will need to pay fines, pay back taxes, work hard, and wait in line for green cards."
5.       Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) in 2007: "I happen to think that the Congress should be spending a lot more time discussing this issue and making it easier for us to create decent paying jobs for American workers instead of allowing corporate interest to drive wages down by importing more and more people into this country to do the work that Americans should be doing."
For more about this, go HERE.
The second funny part is that these liberals somehow want Trump to order this open border via execute fiat.  They know full well that the very laws that Congress itself passed, along with the constitutional separation of powers, lays out the laws upon which any US President must act.  To do so outside the scope of those laws is tantamount to writing his own laws and violates the very principle of the separation of powers.  Obama, himself knew this, and said so on many occasions.
“[T]here are those in the immigrants’ rights community who have argued passionately that we should simply provide those who are [here] illegally with legal status, or at least ignore the laws on the books and put an end to deportation until we have better laws. ... I believe such an indiscriminate approach would be both unwise and unfair. It would suggest to those thinking about coming here illegally that there will be no repercussions for such a decision. And this could lead to a surge in more illegal immigration. And it would also ignore the millions of people around the world who are waiting in line to come here legally. Ultimately, our nation, like all nations, has the right and obligation to control its borders and set laws for residency and citizenship.  And no matter how decent they are, no matter their reasons, the 11 million who broke these laws should be held accountable.” (7/1/10)
I am president, I am not king. I can't do these things just by myself. We have a system of government that requires the Congress to work with the Executive Branch to make it happen. I'm committed to making it happen, but I've got to have some partners to do it. … The main thing we have to do to stop deportations is to change the laws. … [T]he most important thing that we can do is to change the law because the way the system works – again, I just want to repeat, I'm president, I'm not king. If Congress has laws on the books that says that people who are here who are not documented have to be deported, then I can exercise some flexibility in terms of where we deploy our resources, to focus on people who are really causing problems as a opposed to families who are just trying to work and support themselves. But there's a limit to the discretion that I can show because I am obliged to execute the law. That's what the Executive Branch means. I can't just make the laws up by myself. So the most important thing that we can do is focus on changing the underlying laws.” (10/25/10)
For more on this, see Speaker Ryan’s webpage where is lists the many times Obama said similar things.
Yet, after all this, because the MSM blasted the airwaves with image after image after image (some images which were take in 2014, before Trump even ran for President) of children being kept behind fences and sleeping in large groups the radical left decided this was a chance to pounce on Trump yet again in hopes of swaying public opinion against him. 

But once again it didn’t work.  It made them look stupid and foolish and desperate…in some cases (Peter Fonda and others) nasty and mean…and in one instance (Occupy Wall St.) purely evil where they released the names and addresses of hundreds of ICE agents and called for their death.  

Many on the left were all too happy to have the distraction of this happening this past week or so.  They desperately needed the public’s attention away from Trump’s accomplishments with the economy and with North Korea, and to stifle the right wing side of the media from their coverage of the IG report and he subsequent testimony before Senate and House committees.

The bottom line to all this is that the left is clearly painting the picture of what they are running on this November and where they want to take this country.  They are desperate for you all not to know this, but they will clear a path towards impeachment of Trump should they win back the House.  They’ve made it very clear that their solution to a failing Obamacare is not to repeal it but to bolster it right into an universal healthcare system, a la England.  Pelosi has made it abundantly clear that should they take back the House that they will repeal the tax cuts of last December.  And there is little doubt in my mind that they will pursue major steps towards either abolishing the second amendment or weakening it severely

And now, their latest comments about the border make it finally unquestionably clear that they plan on pushing for complete open borders.  This is why they refuse to vote to end chain migration, or build a wall or fix our immigration system.  Their primary financier, George Soros, is the quintessential advocate for global open borders on the way to a global ruling class.

This coming November is as important an election as the one in 2016 was.  Imagine where we’d be right now if HRC had won in November 2016.  Now, with these five clear planks to their platform revealed, imagine where we will be if they do take over the House and Senate in November 2018.  We couldn’t let HRC win in 2016, and we cannot afford to let the Dems win this fall.  We must get out the vote.  We must not fall back asleep just because Trump is succeeding.

There’s so much more left to do.  We have finish what has been started in North Korea, with trade renegotiations and in isolating Iran and defeating ISIS to the end.

We must continue to drain the swamp.  So many have been exposed in various agencies and in Congress.  Judges need to continue to be appointed.  We need to begin seeing indictments and prosecutions and convictions.  We need to turn the light on the cockroaches that remain.

And we need to prepare to win again in 2020 so we can solidify this revolution.  Please, if you agree with this and would like to see this happen, then step up.  We should extraordinarily proud of what our President has accomplished even in the face of powerful opposition in Washington. 

Friday, June 1, 2018

Tariffs: Who Opposes Them Tells You All You Need To Know

For most of this country's history, the only source of revenue for the national government were from tariffs.  For a young and vibrant country like the early United States, it makes sense to impose tariffs but not to impose direct taxes on income.  Such was the case from our founders.

Imposing tariffs on foreign goods assists a young economy in gaining its ground.  It helps new businesses and essentially new industries to have room to grow.  Think of them as like those stakes you plant with a new tree to help it bear up against winds and other weather.

As a young economy flourishes the needs for government intervention is relative to where individual industries are in relation to foreign competitors.  In the case of the steel tariffs Trump has imposed, there was a definite purpose for them.  

China has built several steel mills from which they produce an over-abundance of steel.  Their objective is clear.  They understand market and demand.  They have a huge supply, they subsidize their steel industry and thus they can deal with selling their products far below market rates. In doing that, they put immense pressure on steel mills and companies globally.  The goal being to put them out of business...and to have the world depend up on them for their steel.

There is a huge problem with this.  Steel is the backbone of any modern industrialized nation.  From making cars to building ships and airplanes.  It's a core product from which the costs of everything 'upstream' from it is affected.  And because of that, it becomes imperative that we, as a nation, not become reliant on any one for that product.  If we have to ramp up our military for a war, we can't be depending upon a country like China for the steel we need.  If we had a natural disaster and had to rebuild a city or region, we can't be completely reliant upon China for the steel we need.

In other words, while it is fine to be compelled by market forces to compete with China on the world markets, it is not right when we have to compete under unfair and manufactured market conditions.  The imposition of steel tariffs on China and other countries which have become outlets for China's steel, has given our steel industry the chance to compete.

The short term problems with tariffs might be that the costs of some related goods would rise accordingly. The cost of a new car might be $100 higher.  But the long term ramifications of NOT shoring up our own steel industry would be far worse.

In the face of not imposing these tariffs, our own steel industry was gasping for air and on the verge of collapsing.  If that were to happen we would become completely dependent upon foreign sources of steel for every segment of our economy.  Which is completely unacceptable.

The same thing was on the verge of happening to our energy independence.  We had become so reliant upon foreign sources of oil and gas, when we have enough untapped sources, that we were facing serious issues overseas.  When we are dependent upon the middle east for our oil, we have to become involved in regional conflicts in order to protect our supplies.

But when we tap our own resources and become energy independent, we don't have to take sides with parties in the middle east who don't have our best interests at heart.  Our recent swing towards being a net exporter of oil and gas has put us in a position in the middle east where don't have to make decisions there based purely or even primarily upon protecting only our oil our interests there.

No conservative like taxes, and that's what tariffs are.  But the bottom line is the long term value of those taxes.  Congress knows this all too well.  They do it all the time with our domestic taxes.  They provide tax relief for this sector of the economy vs. higher taxes/fees for another sector.  They add deductions here but reduce them there.  All designed to aid or stiffen competition in areas of our economy.

Sometimes people balk at these things, but they have their place.  Are they misused?  Absolutely.  Simply pointing out that the tax code has become a tool for politics will say all you need to know.  There's a reason why the committee that writes and re-writes our tax code is such a prominent committee to be on.

Applying these principles to the notion of lower corporate income taxes.  Trump's idea behind this was was doing to the rest of the world what China was doing relative to steel.  But lowering corporate tax rates, essentially what Trump is doing is placing America as the premier place for corporations and the wealthy to invest their money.  Its cheaper for them to invest it here.  They can make more profits and accomplish more.  And what are the consequences?  New factories opening, millions of new jobs. Taxable activity.  

But look at it by a simplistic example.  Corporate ABC made, say $200M in profits last year...AFTER they parked $400M overseas and out of the reach of the IRS.  They paid say $70m in taxes on that.  But now this year they bring that money back into the country.  They are actually able to do more business this year as well because more people have more money to spend.  So they make $250M in domestic profits and another $500m they don't park overseas but keep here and pay taxes on a rate of 20% say.  20% of $750m = $150m...more than twice what they paid last year.

That's how it works.  That's how even with much lower rates, tax revenues rise.  You see, tax revenues don't rise from higher rates.  These tariffs are proof of that.  The US won't collect more revenue from these higher tariffs.  What they WILL do though, is help US Steel companies to stay in business, make more money and re-invest it back in the US.  China won't pay more in money to the US, because they just won't do as much business here.

The same thing happens in domestic taxes.  The liberals love raising taxes on the rich...their version of China.  But the rich won't pay more taxes just because the rate is higher.  They will simple transfer the tax liability risk to either the future, when they hope rates are lower or to a country where the profits aren't taxed as high

Let this continue for 3-4 years and watch how this economy grows.

Wednesday, January 11, 2017

The Trump Presidency - A Journal of Accomplishments

This is a journal of all successes and failures of Trump as president.  I wanted to keep a log simply to be able to reference them for those who attack him.


November 10, 2016 - Canadian Prime Minister is already saying he will sit down with Trump to renegotiate NAFTA.  It won't take long.

November 17, 2016 – Ford decides not to move its Kentucky plant to Mexico following the election. -

November 19, 2016 - Only took 10+ days, but already Mexico's president is agreeing to sit down with Trump to "modernize" NAFTA.  Jobs are coming home.

November 29, 2016 - Carrier decides not to move its plant to Mexico, saving 800-1000 jobs.  -

December 6, 2016 – Japanese investor, owner of Sprint, to invest $50B in the US and create 50K new jobs.  It was speculated that Son chose to invest this money in the US because he felt the situation under Trump would make it more feasible for Sprint to complete their merger to T-Mobile.  But let’s get real.  That’s exactly why businesses invest money…to make money.  So, they create 50000 new jobs in the process…let’s ignore that. -

December 28, 2016 – He begins the process of helping veterans by bringing in heads of major non-profit hospitals to negotiate them allowing veterans access to their services using their veterans benefits.  -

January 3, 2017 – Trump convinces Ford to build a new plant in Michigan creating 700-2000 new jobs for Americans.  -

January 6, 2017 – Fiat Chrysler to invest $1B in new projects in the US.  They tried to deny that Trump had anything to do with it, but really, let’s get real.  Businesses don’t spend their money in an environment where they won’t make money in return.  -

January 11, 2017 – Trump divests himself from his business completely.  Even though the law doesn’t require him to do so, he did it anyway.  He handed everything over to his sons and a business partner.  He made sure there were no ties at all.  He is excluded from decisions.  He has no informational rights.  He has made sure that the company is making no international deals during his presidency.  He made sure that the is an ethics attorney signing off on all deals to make sure there are no conflicts of interest.  He even cancelled all deals that were already in the process but unfinished till now...costing him and his children and others tens of millions of dollars.  He did everything necessary to make sure that the American people have no reason to believe he is using the Oval Office for his own benefit. -

January 11, 2017 - German software company SAP will be adding 400+ jobs to their Pittsburgh and Philadelphia facilities this year. -

January 12, 2017 – Trump's bitter rival, Bezos and his Amazon kingdom will be adding 100,000+ new jobs over the next 18 months.  Clearly the atmosphere for businesses is even making Trump's enemies smile.  -

January, 13, 2017 - Lockheed will doing their part to bring more jobs to America with 1800 more to work on the F35...thank you Mr. Trump.

January 16, 2017 - IMF adjusted their growth forecast for the USA because of the "Trump factor"...raising it to 2.5% for 2017 compared 1.6% for 2016.  A reminder that Obama was the first two term US president never to experience a single year of 3% growth or better.  -

January 16, 2017 - GM investing a billion dollars in the US market...1000+ new jobs.  -

January 17, 2017 - Bayer AG to invest $8B in US R&D creating thousands of jobs.

January 17, 2017 - Walmart to expand, adding 10K retail and 24K construction jobs. -

January 17, 2017 - Publicly traded automotive company LKQ Corp is establishing a new headquarters in Nashville, Tennessee.  It is another sign that the company feels the automotive industry in the U.S. is on track to grow under a Trump presidency. -

Post Inauguration - Year One

January 20, 2017 - One of his first Executive Orders was to authorize the Dept. of HHS to do whatever they can do within the bounds of the law to relieve Americans and American businesses suffering from the effects of Obamacare.  His first step in dismantling Obamacare is to do whatever he can within the law to help people suffering. This is amazing.

January 20, 2017 - A small aside about the man himself, Trump is said to have written a personal check for $10,000 to a man he met during the day who was suffering from tremendous hardships but found a way to get to the inauguration. -

January 22, 2017 - Moving the US Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem...this is a huge deal and says a whole lot about his support of Israel.  God will not forget this.  -

January 22, 2017 - Trump's inauguration has prompted Merkel to say she will negotiate on military and trade.  The "Negotiator in-chief" wins again. -

January 22, 2017 - Another $7B investment in America. -

January 22, 2017 - Trump expected to sign an Executive Order cutting off funding to Planned Parenthood. Promise kept.  -

January 23, 2017 - Trump officially withdraws the US from TPP as he promised he would.  -

January 23, 2017 - Trump cuts off funding to any international organization that performs abortions.  And puts a freeze on federal hiring, except for military.  -

January 23, 2017 - Krogens and Auto Zone adding 10000 jobs each.  Looking better.  -

January 24, 2017 - Keystone and Dakota Pipelines independence is coming.  -

January 24, 2017 - Corruption at the VA is already being cleaned out...

January 24, 2017 - Trump uses his business acumen to prioritize infrastructure projects.  Wise use of funds and reduces cronyism will benefit us all. -

January 24, 2017 - Toyota, after a meeting between Trump and automakers, said they will invest $10B in the US over the next 5 years in manufacturing their SUVs.  -

January 25, 2017 - Defunding sanctuary states and cities and ordering the wall built...promises made, promises kept. -

Friday, September 30, 2016

Comparing Trump & Hillary - Economy: Budget & Deficits

The budget and the debt just might be the single greatest advantage Trump has over Hillary.  Both candidates are making some hefty promises regarding certain issues that will cost the taxpayers a lot of money.

Hillary wants to push the healthcare button towards full and complete government run healthcare.  But she not only wants to push that button, she wants to include illegal immigrants into that equation as well.  Her solution to paying for this…as is the case with every liberal entitlement, by taxing the rich.  As though the rich will just keep paying more and more while getting less and less for their money.

Hillary also wants to make a college education free for all who want it.  This is yet another nine figure entitlement that will bankrupt this country.  And, of course, the rich will pay for this too.  Because the rich want to.

Trump also wants to revamp the healthcare programs.  He wants to get rid of Obamacare and push the healthcare industry back in the direction of free market competition.  He wants to allow for cross-state competition and to restrict lawsuits against doctors.  Thus lower costs for Americans.  He does want to try to extend our medicare program to those who have no group coverage and can’t afford health insurance.  But his solution to paying for it is to go hard after corruption and theft in the system and to inject competition into Medicare that would lower costs, thus opening the doors to paying for others to be a part of the Medicare system without raising costs.

Trump’s child care program is another that would cost money.  However, he is going into this with the idea of paying for it by finding waste and corruption in the current budget. 

Having read Martin Gross’ book, The Government Racket: Washington Waste A to Z, I can tell you unequivocally that hundreds of billions of dollars could be saved every year by simply imposing a simple rule on the federal budget.  It’s called the Zero Base Budget rule.  It requires every department and agency in the government to start from zero every year when submitting their budget requests. 

Let me explain by telling you what happens now.  As a particular budget year comes to an end, agencies and even individual congress persons rush to spend the budget they were given that year.  You hear about, for example, congressional overseas trips at the end of the budget year.  These are done a simple reason: they want to make sure they spend all that was budgeted to them.  The reason for this is that when they submit their budget request for the following year, all they have to do is show they spent their entire budget the previous year and thus all they need to do is ask for some percentage increase.

They don’t have to justify the increase except by showing they spent everything the year before.  It doesn’t matter whether they actually need the increase.  They’ll just take it. 

Every agency does this.  Imagine the Department of Agriculture requesting an additional $200m to build a new Midwest office for their Dept.   The next year, with the building complete, they show that they spent their entire budget the year before and request an automatic increase of 10%.  It doesn’t matter that they don’t have to spend $200M on a new building this year.  There is no justifying the increase.  They just get the increase.

A Zero Based Budget would require each department and agency and congress person justify their budget requests each year.  It is estimated that using a ZBB on the federal budget would save between $50B and $500B/per year.  And that compounds because every year the ZBB prevents an agency or department from just automatically increasing their budget saves exponentially.

Combined with millions more jobs contributing to the treasury with taxes, the better trade deals that benefit Americans and also increase the treasury, negotiating contracts to build what we need at a reasonable cost and more, this is how Trump plans on balancing the budget while still doing so much to rebuild our country. 

Wednesday, September 28, 2016

Comparing Trump & Clinton: Economy - Trade

One of Barack Obama’s last attempts to destroy America’s greatness economically is the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).  Like NAFTA before it, the left, and Hillary, will argue that this is the evolution in global economics.
Hillary Clinton once endorsed the TPP as the ‘gold standard’ for global trade.  While she argued in the debate that she didn’t call it the ‘gold standard’, but only ‘hoped’ it would be, fact checks show she did actually call it the ‘gold standard’.
And as Trump has said, once he pointed out the huge problems with the TPP, she changed her tune.
“I will stop any trade deal that kills jobs or holds down wages – including the Trans-Pacific Partnership”, she said at a campaign stop in Ohio back in August. “I oppose it now.  I’ll oppose it after the election.  And I’ll oppose it as President.”
So did Clinton flip on TPP? Context is key.
The deal would be the largest multilateral trade agreement ever negotiated, involving the U.S., emerging economies such as Vietnam and traditional trading partners including Japan, Canada and Mexico. It’s a major priority for the Obama administration, which sees the deal as key to cementing the president’s so-called pivot to the Asia-Pacific region. Obama hopes to persuade lawmakers to ratify it before year’s end, but Clinton’s opposition now exemplifies the political difficulty.
As a member of the Obama Cabinet in his first term, Clinton carried out the president’s priorities. Speaking on a trip to Australia in 2012 as negotiators from the partner nations were still deep in negotiations, she outlined the goals for it.
“This TPP sets the gold standard in trade agreements to open free, transparent, fair trade, the kind of environment that has the rule of law and a level playing field,” she said then1.
Since TPP is still in negotiation stage, we’ll leave judgment of it for later.  However, it is worthy to note that Trump has clearly suggested that Clinton would backtrack on her rejection of it once in office.  Of this, I have no doubt.  She will suggest that whatever concerned her during the campaign has been resolved and she’ll be right back on the trail of being a globalist.
And there in lay the fundamental difference between what Hillary wants to do in trade deals vs. what Donald Trump wants to do.  All Hillary’s trade deals will be rooted in her belief and goal for a global economy run by a global government for global purposes.  As, with Barack Obama, Clinton’s interests lay first with the global community and somewhere down the line with the United States.
This is not to suggest she hates the United States.  Nor does Barack Obama, for that matter.  What they hate is how the United States, as it is now, stands in the way of the global progress, they and their global financiers desire.  They want the US to prosper, but under a global umbrella. 
Let me explain with a little more local example.  Before the 17th Amendment was ratified, Senators were appointed by State Legislatures.  Now, of course, they are elected in general elections by the people.  You may wonder why that’s such a bad thing.  After all, isn’t it always better for the people to do the voting? 
Yes and no.  In the case of the United States, our Constitution was designed to spread out and separate powers.  The people’s representatives were elected every 2 years into the House of Representatives.  The States were represented by the appointment of two Senators.  And the Nation was represented by the President through the electoral college process.
All were either directly or indirectly voted on by the people.  We’re all well aware that the president isn’t always elected by the popular vote.  And, in fact, the so-called will of the people could be set aside, by the Constitution, through the electoral college.2
With the State Legislatures appointing Senators, they were assured that the interests of the State will represented in Congress.  If it weren’t the Legislature could simply recall the Senator.  Now, no matter what the Senator does, so long as he can convince the majority of state voters (usually the one with the most money) then they can keep their jobs.
This is exactly what is happening with trade agreements like TPP and other agreements.  The global community is slowly forming their own version of the United States.  And the United States is slowly, with the aid of globalists like Obama and Clinton, just becoming another state in that global union.
Donald Trump looks at trade not from a globalist’ perspective, but from a nationalist’s perspective.  He understands that we are involved in a global economy.  We have been for much longer than any of us have been alive.  But when Donald Trump goes out to negotiate a trade deal he’s going out first as an American.  Making sure that deal benefits us, our economy, our workers, our businesses and our people is most important to him.
Does he care about the global economy?  Absolutely.  He knows that a strong global economy aids Americans.  But to him, that is secondary to making sure that we come first.
When he threatens tariffs, he does so, not because he wants to raise prices for products Americans buy, but because sometimes tariffs are necessary to show our trade partners that we are not happy with an unfair trade deal and we’re not playing games.3
The argument some have against tariffs is legitimate.  If not used wisely, it could cause a ripple of negative financial effects.  But when it comes right down to it, are you more at peace having a businessman in charge of our trade negotiations or would you rather have a globalist politician in charge?

    3. Tariffs would be necessary in some cases “because they have to understand that we’re not playing games anymore,” – Tampa, FL rally August 24, 2016

Tuesday, September 27, 2016

Comparing Trump and Clinton: Economy - Taxes

I created a blog back in 2008 during the first Obama election, which I affectionately called Sensible Conservatism.  The meaning of the name was just this: that while I view all issues through the prism of conservative principles, I am not so pig-headed that I automatically reject something a liberal might say just because they’re liberal.  A wise person will listen to all positions and make his decisions off of all the information. Does that make me right all the time?  Goodness no.  But when sensibility is applied to these discussions, I believe right answers and solutions are found far more often. 

I had pretty much abandoned this blog in 2014 leading up to the last midterms.  But I think this is the right time to bring it back out.
Having been a trained debater, I have to tell you that watching the first presidential debate was torturous.  It was so painful because I could tell that Clinton was the more trained debater.  And yet, having researched the issues so thoroughly, it was even more painful because I knew the right way to respond to her plethora of lies and assertions and yet Trump was, for the most part, not responding well.

That being said, I found it quite intriguing that virtually every snap poll showed Trump winning the debate.  After the surprise and relief subsided I began to wonder how he won so decisively.  And it came down to two issues.  One, that Hillary Clinton is an icon of all that we voters have come to despise about Washington D.C.  And two, that despite her better presentation skills, she still can’t sell her ideas to us.

So I have decided that I wanted to start a process whereby we can study the differences between Trump and Clinton on many of the issues. After all, there are still some people on the fence and we have six weeks to bring them onto our side of the fence.

Let’s begin with the economy.  This subject would include such issues as jobs, taxes, trade, the deficit and the debt.

Let’s be clear about one thing first.  Both candidates…for that matter, all of us…have to accept that the rich have the money and our common goal is for us to find ways to get them to distribute that money to the rest of us.  The difference between Clinton and Trump is in how to get them to distribute it.

To be clear, let me just point out that there are really only three fundamental ways to get money from the rich: 1) they invest it in something like their own business, other businesses, the stock market, whatever…and thus that money is injected into the economy.  Even investing it into a bank, injects it into the economy. 2) they spend it.  In spending it, even on what you or I would consider a luxury item like a yacht, they are injecting it into the middle class.  The person who sold them the yacht.  The company who many the yacht hired employees.  The companies that made the parts that make the yacht hire employees.  The company that transports the yachts hires people.  The companies that repair the yachts hires people. And so on.  3) Its either taken from them or they give it away.  They can donate it to charities and in that case, it gets to the people who need it with few middle men or someone takes it like a thief.  And I would venture to say that we’ve become numb to the idea that even taxation is little more than legalized theft.

To Clinton and the leftists like her, the best way to get the rich to distribute money to the rest of us is to have the government take it from them and let the government decide how to best distribute it to us.  That’s nice, but it has several negative effects.  First, the rich, as any of us would do if the government tried to confiscate our money, will try every means of preventing the government from taking their money.
They will find loopholes in tax laws.  They will move their money to other countries where the tax laws are less intrusive. They’ll set up trusts and foundations.  There are hundreds, if not thousands of ways to shelter their money from the government.  Why do they do that?  The obvious reason is that they, like the rest of us, don’t want anyone just taking their money.  And if someone does take their money, they’d like some say so in where it goes.

The end result of this is that it stifles job growth…except for jobs that the government pays, or helps pay, for.  Any growth in the economy occurs where the government wants it to grow…not necessarily where we want it to grow or where it should grow.

Second, when the government gets involved in controlling more and more of the economy, that’s when these artificial bubbles develop and when they burst, we’re all hurt.  And what happens when they burst?  The government steps in as some sort of faux white knight to rescue us and ends up taking more control over even more of our lives.

From my experience, the government does this through three means: 1) economic disasters, 2) wars, and 3) health crises. And we keep falling for it.
Trump, on the other hand, advocates what those on the left have disparagingly called “trickle down economics”.  It is what is more technically known as “supply side economics”.  The basis of all capitalism is supply and demand.  And that’s what Trump advocates for.

In his plan, he lowers taxes on businesses primarily.  Why?  Because when taxes (and regulations) are lowered on businesses, their cost of doing business lowers.  The Hillary’s of the world will suggest that’s bad because they fear that business owners will greedily take that extra cash and hoard it and keep it for themselves.  And perhaps some will.

But the theories of supply side economics suggest that a vast majority of those business owners will re-invest that cash back into their business.  There is a simple reason most people go into business for themselves.  They know that the simple rules of economics suggest that if they can successfully leverage other people’s labor, cash and assets, that they can exponentially grow their own wealth.

The Hillary’s of the world think that’s just evil.  Ironically, that’s exactly what government does as well.  But somehow it’s evil when individuals do it for business purposes, but not evil when the government does it. 

But when individuals and businesses do this, it creates jobs.  And every new job creates more demand…for one product/service or another.  Which creates more jobs and more demand. And what happens with every demand?  A purchase and a local tax is paid.  And what happens with every new job?  Taxes are paid to the state and the feds. And when those businesses successfully leverage other people’s labor and cash and assets, what happens?  They make more profits, which are, of course, TAXED.

So, in the end, the money that the wealthy possessed STILL ends up in the government’s hands.  Except instead of the government simply confiscating it, it goes through millions upon millions of middle class hands on its way to the government. 

There is the appearance that the burden was upon the middle class to pay those taxes.  But who really paid them?  The money still came from the rich.  But instead of running those sticky government hands first, it goes through our hands first before it gets to the government.

Simple question…which would you prefer?

But I’m not done, nor is Trump’s plan.  Once money gets into the hands of individuals, there are individual taxes to pay.  In Trump’s plan, he lowers the overall rate of taxation down to three brackets.  In addition, he raises the threshold on how much someone can earn and NOT pay taxes (aside from FICA). 

The part of this that Hillary attacks is the lower tax bracket for the wealthy.  There’s only one problem with her complaint.  In lowered the bracket, Trump is proposing virtually eliminating tax loopholes for the wealthy.  Without the loopholes, there’s no game of hide and seek played by the wealthy with their money.  They earned money?  Here’s the tax rate for it. 

Tomorrow, I will address trade and its effect on jobs and the economy.  If there is a subject you wish to read about, let me know. 

Thursday, June 26, 2014

An Open Letter to the GOP

I grew into the Grand Old Party through Ronald Reagan in 1980.  It was my first presidential election and it laid the foundation for the next 34 years of my political life.  I have supported every candidate with an (R) after their name ever since.  Even when I didn't think Bob Dole stood a chance...even when I thought McCain was not the man to run against Obama in '08...and even during the 2012 primary season when I swore up and down I would support any candidate except Romney, I STILL supported Romney.

However many times I thought the Establishment GOP was taking their conservative base for granted, I kept supporting the party.  Then the way in which the GOP treated us conservatives took a decidedly nasty turn in 2010.  Instead of embracing the Tea Party and the grass roots energy we brought to the political landscape, you treated us like a plague.  Instead of accepting the turn to the right that the conservatives were engendering, you stood in open opposition and defiance to us.  Instead of accepting the will of the voters in several primaries in 2010, you rejected your own people and refused to support a candidate YOU didn't choose for us.  And when those Tea Party candidates didn't win in the general election, you blamed US.

Like some spoiled little kid, when the conservatives in the party wouldn't play by YOUR rules, you took your ball (your money) and went home.  Instead of taking back the Senate in 2010, like we easily could have, you were content to let the Dems keep their power just so you can maintain your unresistant control of the party.  And you blamed US for our loss in the Senate.

I should have walked away then.  I should have seen the writing on the wall.  But for the sake of not letting Obama win re-election, I stuck with you.  I gave you another chance in 2012.  There were some great candidates in 2012...even a couple whom you could have worked Newt or Santorum.  We could have had any number of non-Romney candidates who could have beaten Obama.  Rick you really think his flub about naming three agencies compares to the gaffes made by Obama and his 57 states?  Herman Cain...too much of an outsider for your tastes?

But, no.  You made a deal with Romney in 2008 that he could be the next candidate and you were determined to ruin the reputations of some very good men who stood in the way of you nominating YOUR guy.  How'd that turn out for ya?  Not good...and even worse for the country.  Thanks a bunch.

Now things have turned down right nasty.  You don't just support your chosen candidates anymore, you destroy any conservative who stands in the way.  It started in Virginia with their 2013 elections.  If you had show an ounce of support for Cuccinelli there is little question he'd have won and Virginia would have been spared such an uniquely piss poor governor for the next four years.

Then came the primary season...California, Oklahoma, Iowa, Mississippi and many more.  You couldn't just let two good candidates fight it out and save your bias for the general election by supporting whom the party in each state nominated, could you?  You had to lie, cheat, destroy any conservative who stood in your way.  And its quite clear you do so because you are so confident that we'll still vote GOP no matter how many times you piss on us.

But let me point something out to you about that Romney thing.  Barack Obama received 5 million fewer votes in 2012 than he did in 2008...while Romney couldn't even garner as many as McCain got in 2008.  You had the perfect chance to defeat Obama.  His support was never going to be as strong as it was in 2008.  Too many eyes were opened to what he was doing.  But instead of riding the wave of the TeaParty and the conservatives in the party, you shoved a terrible candidate down our throats, the very last one any conservative wanted.  And what was the result?  Millions of us stayed home.  Why do you think we lost house seats and even Senate seats?  Because you forced us to stay home.

You're about to do the same thing again in 2014.  You have pissed on us far too many times.  We won't stand for it anymore.  You may actually survive the election and win the Senate.  But I will tell you this, get your affairs in order, because that may be the last thing the GOP ever wins.  Every time you piss on us, you lose tens of thousands of more assure that the third party you've been terrified of will emerge and YOU...and the American people will be the ultimate losers.

Why?  Because those liberals you so adoringly embraced in Mississippi to help ole boy Thad win the nomination will show you no mercy.  They will wipe the floor of every political corner with the corpse of the GOP party and frankly I'm not sure our country will survive....thanks to YOU.

Bottom lost me.  I'm out.  The GOP no longer represents my political beliefs.  And I will no longer support it.  You are no longer the party of Abraham Lincoln, Calvin Coolidge and Ronald Reagan.  You wanted to be the party of Bob Dole, John McCain, Mitt Romney and Thad Cochran and that's how you'll be remembered.