Where does it end?
First we let the government define places where someone could smoke and where they couldn’t. Originally, it was businesses themselves who chose whether to be smoking or non-smoking. Which is just the way it should be. If a business doesn’t want people smoking in its establishment, so be it. They get to set the rules. It’s theirs. But then the government got involved and said you can only smoke in part of an establishment, then it progressed to not in the business at all. Now they are saying you can’t smoke in parks or at the beach. (Understand that I am an ex-smoker. I don’t believe in smoking. I believe it’s harmful to you. I don’t want my kids smoking. But I don’t see that it’s the governments place to say where you can or can’t do something, or where it will allow you to do or not do something in your own place of business or home.)
Next came motorcycle helmets. In the majority of places, governments demand that you are to wear a helmet if you are going to ride a motor cycle.
Then came seatbelts. I believe in seat belts, my wife and I trained ourselves to wear our seatbelts before it was the law, because we believe it is the wise thing to do. I do not believe the government should be able to mandate that you wear them. I believe it is OK to make the car companies put them in the cars for you to use. No, I take that back. I believe it’s OK for the government to make them an option you can choose, I don’t believe the government should force the car companies to put them in. If they are a good idea, and I believe they are, consumers would ask for them to be included and competition would most likely force all car companies to include them in order to keep up.
Then came salt, cholesterol, transfats (what the hell ever those are), sugar, and the list goes on and on and on. Now NY has proposed limiting the size of a drink you can order. And the health board or whatever it is called, is considering including milk drinks and coffee drinks it thinks you shouldn’t have.
OMG! Is there no end to this madness?
Now that the snowball has been rolled over the crest of the hill, will it ever stop getting bigger and bigger? Will they ever stop intruding in our lives?
What’s next in the Libpo’s (Liberal/Progressive) fevered brain that they want to force us to do, or stop doing? What if they conduct a study and find that people who have sex once and only once a day live longer, healthier lives requiring less late life care. Because of government run health care they will then want to set up sex stations where you and your partner are to come and complete your daily sex act under government supervision. If you don’t have your own partner, you will be required to have sex with a government assigned partner that day. If you fail to have sex one day, you will be fined, but they will call it a tax. The Non-F#$king tax.
This would be done under the reasoning that if you weren’t having sex, it would cost the government more to provide your health care so of course they are just recouping the cost that they will have to pay out later when you get sick more often because you failed to f#$k. They will have actuarial tables and everything to justify and quantify these fines/taxes.
Of course this is an absurd proposition. But in the 1950’s can you imagine how absurd it would have sounded and how they would have looked at you if you told them about all of the government restrictions there would be on smoking. Or that the government would make you tie yourself into a car. They would have looked at you the same way you were just looking at the metaphorical me as you read my speculation on forcing people to have sex once a day.
But we’ve all seen what crazy things the government has forced folks to do or not do for our own good. Because they know better than we do. Because they think they are the smartest kids in the room and thus should be able to tell the rest of us how to live by their rules.
Well I’m sorry (no, really I’m not), but I think the government ought to stay the hell out’ta my life. The only time the government ought to tell someone what they can or can’t do is if the individual’s actions will impact another’s life, liberty or property in a negative way through force or fraud.
If a bar owner wants to allow smoking in his/her establishment, it’s nobody’s business but their own. If people don’t want to go there because of the smoke, the business will not survive. They made a poor choice. Too bad. So sad. It was their choice and they made it. They don’t deserve to be bailed out by the government because of a poor choice on their part. Nor should they be kept from making the choice by the government because the government knows best.
Or so it would seem to an old farm boy.
Wednesday, June 13, 2012
Monday, June 11, 2012
Why Government Employment Doesn't Spur The Economy
Recently the PotUS put forth the proposal that the way to pull the economy out of recession is to employ more government employees. Federal employees, state employees and local government employees is the answer to our economic woes according to our New Party PotUS.
Well, I have to agree that if all the various levels of government were to hire more people, more people would be working. For a short period of time anyway.
The problem as I see it is, LibPos (Liberal/Progressives) don’t seem to understand the economics of government employees.
For there to be an employee in the private sector, a business must produce a product, good or service that someone else is willing to give the company money for. They must be willing to give them enough money for this product/good/service to cover the cost of production, distribution and sales plus enough left over for the owner to pay the employees to do these tasks. Additionally, there must be enough left after all of these costs for the owner to meet his own basic levels of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. If the business doesn’t produce enough for the owner to meet the first two levels of the hierarchy for the owner and their family, there is no point in the owner keeping the doors open. Thus negatively affecting all of his employees also.
If the business wishes to increase its number of employees, it must sell enough of its product/good/service to meet all of the afore mentioned costs, plus enough extra to be able to pay for the new employee. (Understand that a $10 an hour employee will cost the company between $12.50 and $15 per hour when you add in things like taxes paid by the company, insurance, holiday pay, vacation pay, etc. etc. This does not include the hidden costs like the extra time it will take to do the extra paperwork, etc. that is required for each employee.)
Again, the business owner must generate this money above and beyond the monies required to run the business at its current level.
Now consider a government. Any government; Local, State, Federal, it makes no difference. How does a government generate its money?
It gets its money by taking it from its constituents. It does it through taxes. Be they personal taxes, consumption taxes or taxes on businesses, they are taking taxes from those who are out there being productive. Where private businesses must produce something and sell it to someone who wants it. A government just takes it from its citizenry by force through a byzantine tax structure that is nearly impossible to understand by the average citizen. (This is proven by the fact that there is a whole area of accounting dedicated to assisting individuals and business stay out of trouble with the various governmental agencies as they deal with the tax system.)
So for the government to hire a $10 an hour employee they must take enough money from those being taxed to cover the same $12.50 to $15 per hour that a business would. That means for every $10 per hour employee the government has they, there must be 3 to 5 $10 per hour employees and their employers in the private sector to take the money from. For the LibPos to fund another employee without having to borrow the money from another country they must have another 3 to 5 privately employed individuals to take the money from.
Only a Democratic LibPo would think that more government employees will help stimulate the economy.
The ONLY thing more government employees will do is either: A) Increase the country’s debt to foreign creditors which will require increased future taxes to pay off, or B) Require higher taxes now on those employees who are currently working in the private sector, thus reducing their expendable cash and therefore depressing the economy even further. The higher taxes route will also reduce cash in a company’s coffers that might be used to employ more people.
This is such a straight line correlation that you would think anyone with two synapses firing would be able to see. Clearly the LibPos who are currently in charge of the Senate and the White House can’t see what’s so obvious to those of us who are realists and understand cause and effect.
Or so it would seem to an old farm boy.
Well, I have to agree that if all the various levels of government were to hire more people, more people would be working. For a short period of time anyway.
The problem as I see it is, LibPos (Liberal/Progressives) don’t seem to understand the economics of government employees.
For there to be an employee in the private sector, a business must produce a product, good or service that someone else is willing to give the company money for. They must be willing to give them enough money for this product/good/service to cover the cost of production, distribution and sales plus enough left over for the owner to pay the employees to do these tasks. Additionally, there must be enough left after all of these costs for the owner to meet his own basic levels of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. If the business doesn’t produce enough for the owner to meet the first two levels of the hierarchy for the owner and their family, there is no point in the owner keeping the doors open. Thus negatively affecting all of his employees also.
If the business wishes to increase its number of employees, it must sell enough of its product/good/service to meet all of the afore mentioned costs, plus enough extra to be able to pay for the new employee. (Understand that a $10 an hour employee will cost the company between $12.50 and $15 per hour when you add in things like taxes paid by the company, insurance, holiday pay, vacation pay, etc. etc. This does not include the hidden costs like the extra time it will take to do the extra paperwork, etc. that is required for each employee.)
Again, the business owner must generate this money above and beyond the monies required to run the business at its current level.
Now consider a government. Any government; Local, State, Federal, it makes no difference. How does a government generate its money?
It gets its money by taking it from its constituents. It does it through taxes. Be they personal taxes, consumption taxes or taxes on businesses, they are taking taxes from those who are out there being productive. Where private businesses must produce something and sell it to someone who wants it. A government just takes it from its citizenry by force through a byzantine tax structure that is nearly impossible to understand by the average citizen. (This is proven by the fact that there is a whole area of accounting dedicated to assisting individuals and business stay out of trouble with the various governmental agencies as they deal with the tax system.)
So for the government to hire a $10 an hour employee they must take enough money from those being taxed to cover the same $12.50 to $15 per hour that a business would. That means for every $10 per hour employee the government has they, there must be 3 to 5 $10 per hour employees and their employers in the private sector to take the money from. For the LibPos to fund another employee without having to borrow the money from another country they must have another 3 to 5 privately employed individuals to take the money from.
Only a Democratic LibPo would think that more government employees will help stimulate the economy.
The ONLY thing more government employees will do is either: A) Increase the country’s debt to foreign creditors which will require increased future taxes to pay off, or B) Require higher taxes now on those employees who are currently working in the private sector, thus reducing their expendable cash and therefore depressing the economy even further. The higher taxes route will also reduce cash in a company’s coffers that might be used to employ more people.
This is such a straight line correlation that you would think anyone with two synapses firing would be able to see. Clearly the LibPos who are currently in charge of the Senate and the White House can’t see what’s so obvious to those of us who are realists and understand cause and effect.
Or so it would seem to an old farm boy.
Friday, June 1, 2012
Eric Holder And The (In)Justice Department
Just finished reading this headline in The Miami Herald “Feds to Florida: halt non-citizen voter purge”.
My initial reaction is “WHAT??? That can’t be right. The purpose of the Justice Department is to protect America and Americans. How could they possibly take steps to insure that American elections of American legislatures by Americans would be tainted by Non-Americans voting?”
Then it hit me. This Justice Department is headed by a first and foremost politician, Eric Holder, rather than a law enforcement person. His, and therefore the Departments, decisions seem to be made first from a political position which always trumps any legal considerations.
I’m not saying this based on readings of this current situation. Mr. Holder has a long and distinguished record of making politically based decisions. My first knowledge of his efforts (though I’m sure there are many preceding my awareness) revolve around his part in the pardoning of the unrepentant Puerto Rican terrorists in New York, just in time to bolster support for Hilary Clinton’s run to become the US Senator from New York.
My next knowledge of our fearless hero’s exploits comes when, after being installed by our current White House resident, he and his Justice Department fail to prosecute the Black Panthers on voter intimidation charges. The Black Panthers had basically accepted their guilt and all the Justice Department had to do was show up and they would have been convicted. But Holder chose not to follow through. No US Attorney showed up to court on the date required and the judge was forced to throw the case out.
The next time I recall hearing about our sterling Justice Department headed by Eric Holder, operating under the direction of our Democratic POTUS, they are refusing to protect our border against illegal immigration. Not only do they refuse to enforce our laws, Holder actively attempts to keep Arizona from passing and enforcing laws which mirror current US statutes. And if memory serves me correctly, they even filed an amicus brief on behalf of Mexico as they sued Arizona over its attempts to protect our borders. They have since taken steps to try and prevent other states from trying to protect themselves from this foreign invasion. (I use the term invasion purposely as I believe it is an attempt, by some, to take over our country as one can clearly read in materials from organizations such as La Raza and others.)
In a related matter, we hear where the Justice Department has run an out of control gun tracking program called “Fast and Furious” or something of the sort. In this program they were to have tracked weapons sold to known miscreants who were then taking them to Mexico to be used in the illegal drug trade. Of course Holder’s Keystone Cops organization let things run amuck, and to date, at least 3 weapons from this program have been involved in murders. One being a US Border Patrol agent.
Next came Holder and his (in)Justice Department’s efforts to squelch any and all voter ID legislation. Claiming it would intimidate minorities and act as a restriction to keep them from voting. Really? The need to prove that you are who you say you are when presenting yourself to vote on who will make the laws of the land is too burdensome and would keep voters from the polls? And thus we can’t ask for photo ID’s? We all know why this is taking place. They are against these laws because it would reduce the chance of shenanigans taking place on voting day. And historically, what party has taken advantage of these opportunities to affect the outcomes? I believe a close inspection of the facts would indicate that it would be Eric Holder’s and his boss’s party.
So it should have come as no surprise when I read the article in The Miami Herald. It was merely a case of more of the same. Of course they wouldn’t want illegals removed from the voting rolls. Who would illegals be most inclined to vote for? I don’t think it takes a Mensa member to figure that one out, it would be for the folks who are doing the most to protect them from justice.
Or so it would seem to an old farm boy.
It's World Wide Builderberger Weekend.......Everybody Celebrate!
My initial reaction is “WHAT??? That can’t be right. The purpose of the Justice Department is to protect America and Americans. How could they possibly take steps to insure that American elections of American legislatures by Americans would be tainted by Non-Americans voting?”
Then it hit me. This Justice Department is headed by a first and foremost politician, Eric Holder, rather than a law enforcement person. His, and therefore the Departments, decisions seem to be made first from a political position which always trumps any legal considerations.
I’m not saying this based on readings of this current situation. Mr. Holder has a long and distinguished record of making politically based decisions. My first knowledge of his efforts (though I’m sure there are many preceding my awareness) revolve around his part in the pardoning of the unrepentant Puerto Rican terrorists in New York, just in time to bolster support for Hilary Clinton’s run to become the US Senator from New York.
My next knowledge of our fearless hero’s exploits comes when, after being installed by our current White House resident, he and his Justice Department fail to prosecute the Black Panthers on voter intimidation charges. The Black Panthers had basically accepted their guilt and all the Justice Department had to do was show up and they would have been convicted. But Holder chose not to follow through. No US Attorney showed up to court on the date required and the judge was forced to throw the case out.
The next time I recall hearing about our sterling Justice Department headed by Eric Holder, operating under the direction of our Democratic POTUS, they are refusing to protect our border against illegal immigration. Not only do they refuse to enforce our laws, Holder actively attempts to keep Arizona from passing and enforcing laws which mirror current US statutes. And if memory serves me correctly, they even filed an amicus brief on behalf of Mexico as they sued Arizona over its attempts to protect our borders. They have since taken steps to try and prevent other states from trying to protect themselves from this foreign invasion. (I use the term invasion purposely as I believe it is an attempt, by some, to take over our country as one can clearly read in materials from organizations such as La Raza and others.)
In a related matter, we hear where the Justice Department has run an out of control gun tracking program called “Fast and Furious” or something of the sort. In this program they were to have tracked weapons sold to known miscreants who were then taking them to Mexico to be used in the illegal drug trade. Of course Holder’s Keystone Cops organization let things run amuck, and to date, at least 3 weapons from this program have been involved in murders. One being a US Border Patrol agent.
Next came Holder and his (in)Justice Department’s efforts to squelch any and all voter ID legislation. Claiming it would intimidate minorities and act as a restriction to keep them from voting. Really? The need to prove that you are who you say you are when presenting yourself to vote on who will make the laws of the land is too burdensome and would keep voters from the polls? And thus we can’t ask for photo ID’s? We all know why this is taking place. They are against these laws because it would reduce the chance of shenanigans taking place on voting day. And historically, what party has taken advantage of these opportunities to affect the outcomes? I believe a close inspection of the facts would indicate that it would be Eric Holder’s and his boss’s party.
So it should have come as no surprise when I read the article in The Miami Herald. It was merely a case of more of the same. Of course they wouldn’t want illegals removed from the voting rolls. Who would illegals be most inclined to vote for? I don’t think it takes a Mensa member to figure that one out, it would be for the folks who are doing the most to protect them from justice.
Or so it would seem to an old farm boy.
It's World Wide Builderberger Weekend.......Everybody Celebrate!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)