Archive for the ‘government handouts’ Category

I was very relieved to see that Senator Mitch McConnell is standing up for the most abused people in the country today–employers–when he vowed to fight the President Obama compromise on the birth control/ insurance debate.

From a religious standpoint, McConnell is, of course, right. It’s a shame that the government thinks that people should be able to make their own choices about family planning–that’s half of what God does. He sits up there in Heaven and points out who should have a successful sexual outcome (meaning between a man and woman!!!!) and is blessed with a child and who doesn’t.

Man has no business making those types of decisions for themselves.

But that religious debate aside, it only makes sense that employers should decide what types of coverage they’re comfortable in providing to employees across the board–sort of like the chef at an all-you-can-eat Chinese restaurant. If a chef doesn’t like to provide Shrimp with Lobster Sauce, whether it’s because it’s too expensive to make or because he doesn’t like the flavor, then he doesn’t have to put it in the bar.

It’s the same with health care–the employee is the boss, meaning that he gets to make the decisions.

If he doesn’t want to provide contraceptive insurance, he shouldn’t have to. If he doesn’t want to provide coverage for diabetes insurance because it’s too expensive or because he, himself, doesn’t have diabetes, then he shouldn’t have to put it in the insurance package.

Let’s face it: American employees are spoiled brats who expect a free lunch when it comes to health insurance–and it’s the poor employers who are left with the tab of an all-you-can-use health insurance bar.

It’s time that we get these health care costs under control, and the most logical way is by providing less coverage to more people.


Whiny liberals have this annoying habit of appealing to the public’s soft side whenever any issue comes up–talking to the sick whose insurance was just lost or talking to an unemployed mother of three when she can’t afford food because of food stamp cuts.

Dems (and the poor–as if there’s a difference) aren’t the only ones negatively affected by political decisions, and I’m going to share an open letter to Representative Boehner from a devout reader of this blog.

Mr. Thirston J. Worthingon, III, is a devoted reader of the blog and is very concerned about what closing the tax loopholes related to private jets might mean to him.

Representative Boehner:

When I supported your reelection campaign and subsequent election as the speaker of the house, I did so with the understanding that you would continue to support the interests of those who supported you–strict conservatives who believe in the constant lowering of the tax burden, not ideological liberals with a socialist plot to redistribute wealth from the top to the bottom.

Closing the tax loophole on private jets would be a personal hardship for me. In fact, if I had to pay my share of taxes, in addition to the rising cost of fuel (my burns roughly 400 gallons of fuel per hour) and expenses related to storage, maintenance, and flying my Gulfstream 550, I might have to give up my plane altogether.

It’s entirely possible that I would have to go back to my embarrassing former lifestyle (back in the Clinton era) when I could only afford to rent a private jet each time I needed one. On occasion, I would be forced to travel in an 8-person model rather than the 15-person jet that I prefer, or the carpet would be stained with red wine, or my preferred chauffeur pilot might not be available.

Needless to say, I don’t want to go back to those days.

In addition, closing the tax loophole would have a trickle-down effect. My full-time pilot would need to look for work elsewhere, as would my six-person plane maintenance staff, including Pablo (who has been with the family for 20 years and is hoping to apply for legal status soon). Pablo’s large family, many of whom are still in Mexico, depends on my generous cash (also tax free) gifts, especially around the holidays.

I believe that other private jet owners are in a similar situation, and forcing private jet owners to pay their taxes would likely mean a severe reduction in the private jet industry as a whole. Think of the loss of money to oil companies alone if private jet usage was limited.

With all of these things in mind, I do hope that you take the necessary steps to protect my rights as a rich American, even if that means a temporary inability for the U.S. government to pay its bills.


Mr. Worthington, III

The NFL is no NASCAR (as any conservative will tell you), but I’ve always enjoyed the NFL–but as the NFL becomes more like the SFL (Socialist Football League), I think that might be about to change.

Apparently, the owners and players are approaching an end to their several-week lockout, and the solution isĀ  based on pure, unadulterated socialism. It looks like NFL owners are reading out of the Karl Marx playbook.

The agreement will be all about sharing the multi-billion-dollar wealth in the NFL coffers–sharing it with the players union (Where are Ronald Reagan and his union-busting friends when you need them?) and, worse, with other teams!!!!!!!

stock image of football player being tackled

stock image of football player being tackled

The wealth should belong to the owners who collect it exclusively, to be done with as they please. And it should be tax free as an incentive to spend it, thereby creating more jobs

Yes, the owners will have to pay the players, but once the union is broken, they could be paid less. They will also have to pay for expenses related to running the teams–although the cities and states should have to build massive, expensive venues for them.

The point is that if the owners share the wealth, then they’re sharing in socialism.

The stated reason for sharing the wealth is for the overall benefit of the league, to ensure that all teams can remain competitive and continue to field teams. In other words, the less competitive teams want welfare, and for some reason, the rich teams participate willingly.

I say that the socialism should stop–and the success of teams should depend on the individual owner’s ability to make money.

Let’s take the San Francisco 49’ers as an example.

They were a dominant team in the 1980s, and it resulted in high profits. They’ve fallen on hard times since, and if it weren’t for league-sponsored socialism, the team would have disbanded by now. That’s how it should be.

If we end up with a league with just the Cowboys (who always make money), the Steelers (who win often enough to stay competitive), along with teams in some of the larger market teams who always make money and no one else, then, that’s the way it is.

So what if Green Bay has a couple of bad years and loses its franchise. That’s life in a capitalistic society. We shouldn’t protect individual teams just to protect the league as a whole.

I say shut down the NFL before it becomes the SFL.

Note: I’m not Democratic slacker, so I don’t watch liberal tv all day. That’s why I haven’t watched and blogged about the Republican debate yet. I still will, though; I’ll do a live blog when I watch it on Youtube.

Now, on to today’s topic: Herman Cain.

As you know, this blog believes that Cain is a strong presidential candidate, but I have my serious doubts that his common sense approach to governing will get through the vetting of the liberal media. A recent article (You Should Know: Five Facts about Herman Cain) twists his mainstream beliefs into some sort of radical agenda.

Here are the facts they highlighted as radical:

  • Cain oversaw the firing of thousands of workers while on the Board of Directors at Whirpool.
    I’m tired of hearing Republicans being labeled as being heartless when they’re just being good men of business. I’m sure that it was a problem with a liberal union or something.
  • Cain supports the Paul Ryan budget plan that would end Medicare as we know it.
    I’ve talked about this before, but this is part of Cain’s job-creating plan (replacing the Whirlpool jobs): An entire new industry will need to be developed in order to help the elderly shop for insurance with their vouchers.
  • Herman Cain wants to repeal and replace health care reform despite the fact that it would increase the deficit by hundreds of billions of dollars.
    Liberals just don’t get it. If we lower taxes more, the deficit will completely disappear. All financial problems are about taxes being too high. If there’s inflation, lower taxes. If there’s a recession, lower taxes. If there’s a job crisis, lower taxes. If there’s a problem with too little money, lower taxes. If we have a war, lower taxes. If we have too little money, lower taxes. If bridges collapse, lower taxes. If schools need more books, lower taxes.
  • Herman Cain opposes raising the debt ceiling, and says we should pay Chinese creditors first before issuing seniors their Social Security and Medicare benefits.
    This makes so much sense that it stands on its own without my commentary needed.
  • Herman Cain supports implementing the “fair tax” for everyone, which would hit middle-class families hard.
    Cain is a business man, so he believes in no taxes, but until we cut enough government handouts to get to a zero percentage, a fair tax is reasonable alternative. This is clearly a liberal attack since the very name of the tax shows how fair it is.

This article (Congress Mulls Cuts to Food Stamps Program Amid Record Number of Recipients) highlights the mistaken philosophy of the Democrats (Dumbocrats if you ask me) when it comes to finances.

The article points out that Republicans want to cut the food stamp program while the president’s budget wants to increase the amount of money spent on the food stamp program.

Increase the food stamp program? Can you say socialism?

If you give those people money (which is what a food stamp is), they’re going to immediately put that money in the hands of local grocery stores. All it will do is provide a family in desperate need with food and give local businesses (and the companies who provide the businesses with the food products, such as food manufacturers and farmers) money during difficult financial times. In other words, the money won’t “create” anything.

That sounds like a government handout to me.

If, instead, you give another tax cut to the rich, like conservatives would like to do, then the money will go straight toward creating jobs. It’s not a direct process since some of the money will be added to existing profit or buried in tax-free shelters, but some of it will be invested into the economy. A significant portion of that will be the global economy, not the national or local economy, but a little of it might eventually end up creating a job in the neighborhood where the food stamp recipient lives. Then, one person wouldn’t need food stamps.

That sounds like Reaganomics 101. Sign me up for that class.

Sometimes it seems as if Senator Mitch McConnell is the only sane one left.

McConnell said yesterday that he’d refuse to raise the debt ceiling unless the Democrats accept cuts to Medicare in the next round of budget talks.

That makes sense to me. The government handouts are killing this country, so cut them and we won’t have to raise the debt ceiling the next time. We could lower it, like a drop ceiling in a basement.

What is the liberal media’s response to McConnell’s common sense plan–to heap praise on him? No, of course not.

They say that he’s out to get senior citizens. I doubt that’s the case–McConnell practically looks like a senior citizen himself, and he doesn’t look all that healthy. He’s not going to cut his own health insurance. That’s all a liberal lie. Medicare would be better if a big company ran it.

I’ve also heard liberal loudmouths and Washington insider economists say that the global economy is at risk if the debt ceiling isn’t raised.

My neighbor across the street is bankrupt, just like the United States. Do you think that he could raise his debt ceiling? No, he had to declare bankruptcy and then everything was fine. Some judge told him he didn’t have to pay anyone anything.

The U.S. should do that–kind of like a do over. Other countries would be fine with that.

God Bless America!