Send back your social security

When I talk with conservatives about raising taxes, I am often told, "If you want to pay more, then you can send in your money to the government.  But don't try and take mine."  Upon reflection, I think this could apply to the tea partiers.  A lot of the tea partiers are senior citizens who are complaining about government spending.  To them I would say, "If you think the government is spending to much, then feel free to send back your social security checks.  But don't threaten the benefits due to other people."  

hoarding

If, in a society, a small percentage of people hoarded all the food, took way more than they would ever need and just socked it away, took so much that there was not enough food to feed the rest of society, then that society would die.  That is what is happening to our economy and the super-rich hoarding all the money.  If it happened with food, the people would either all starve, or at some point they would kick in the gates of the hoarders and take what they all need.  Since you can't buy food without money, the super-rich hoarders may be driving America to a revolt.  It's about sustainability people, and all this wealth drifting (being taken) from the middle to the top of our strata is not sustainable.  I am not a communist and don't think everyone should have the same regardless of effort or talent, but we now have a small number of people gaming the system and breaking it.  You can be rich, but not so rich that no one else can eat.

Sarah Palin will not run

As the kicks off her bus tour with all the vague references to changing the world and all the coyishness of saying "this is not a political tour," there is a lot of speculation as to whether or not she will run for President.  If not, why then is she touring the Eastern states, and why did she say yesterday that her tour would go to Iowa?  I'll tell, ya why- It's for money and power.  She does not want to run for President.  Don't get me wrong, she would love to be President, but she does not want to do all the work involved in preparing a campaign, like being able to answer questions.  She just wants to threaten to run so she can get offers to NOT run. 

She wants the RNC to promise her an ambassadorship, or the other candidates to pay her handsomely to bow out of the race.  That is why she is being as vague as she is.  We need to stop covering her like a celebrity and just let her be the joke that she is. 

responsibility to life

As a conserviative, I have the responsibility, and the moral authority, to require that every child conceived in this country is carried to term and given a live birth.  I care about life, and even if it will kill the mother to deliver this baby, that baby is the most important thing in the world and I must ensure its well-being.  That is, until the moment it is born.  I have to make sure the baby makes it to the world, but once here, I have no responsibility to help make usre that child is fed, clothed, housed, educated, nor have health care.  Once you're born, you are on your own.  And if you can't feed, clothe, house, educate, and insure yourself, well that is just because you are a lazy, undeserving loser.  It's the free market baby. 

"Government does not create jobs"

Every politician who spews this tired, old talking point should relinquish their salary and all their staff.  Government created your job and those of the people in your office.  I know you get a lot more money taking under-the-table contributions from the private industry, so why not just make it official and declare that you are really working for them and give up your public salary? 

The Liberal Media

The Liberal Media is constantly decried by the right.  I wonder how the Liberal Media came into existence.  I guess a few poor, welfare recipients got together and bought up a bunch of tv, radio, and print outlets.  Then they sold millions of dollars worth of advertising to their other poor, drain-on-society, good-for-nothing, waiting-for-a-handout friends.  And they use this power to fight the haves and give back to their kind- the have-nots. 

Who owns the stations?  Millionaires and Billionaires. 
Who pays for the advertising that keeps the stations operating?  Companies that make millions or billions. 
Who do these stations work for?  Bleeding heart liberals who want to steal from the rich?  I don't think so. 

questions for my conservative friends

I do not believe that any extreme position is good and that proper governance is a delicate balance.  Our nation is not perfect; we are an experiment and a work in progress.  So I have some questions.

1.  Should there be rules regarding the economy?  For example, should there be protections against monopolies, minimum wage laws, taxes, tariffs, etc?  Should those who use more of the commons pay more, or those who benefit more from the commons share more of their wealth back with the commons?  I am not asking for answers to these specific questions, just to the greater one:  Should there be rules at all?
2. If there are rules, then is there ever truly a "free market"?  Or is it always influenced somewhat by the rules that govern it? 
3. If there should be rules, would it be possible that the rules could be written in such a way that they wealthy were unjustly over-taxed and burdened?
4. If that is the case, could it also be possible that the rules could unfairly favor the haves at the expense of the have-nots?
5. Realizing that the rules are not set in stone and have changed over time, how would we know if the current configuration was working or if it was in need of some adjustment.
6. Realizing that our government is supposed to be of and for the people, should it intervene to adjust the rules if they are found to harm most of the people? 
7. If our current balance results in the producers and job-creators being overly burdened to the point where it is no longer profitable to create jobs, then should the government change the rules so that job-creators have enough reward to incentivize them to remain innovators?
8. If our current trend results in greater disparity of wealth and greater unemployment, then should we push the pendulum back a little towards a balance that favored more of the people?
9. Assuming that we are all somewhat dependent on this economy, do we all have an interest in making sure that whatever system we use is sustainable?

If our current balance is causing problems, then should we (through the government) adjust that balance?  Look at the data.  George W's own Comptroller, Comptroller Walker, said that 70% of our current deficit is from reducing the tax rates on the super-rich (in the form of income tax rates, estate tax, and capitol gain rates).  We lowered the rates, and we quickly ran out of money.  We need to swing the pendulum again.