The Death Tax

After listening to Geraldo Rivera with some other progressive type on how lowering the Death Tax, I have had it with these Death Tax nuts.

I have the ultimate fool proof argument to use against these socialists, Most (if not all) Small Businesses worth anything, have all of their capital tied up in land, merchandise, equipment, and/or investments, they don't have millions sitting in a bank account or in a mattress. So if a Small Business or Farm owner dies and their worth is $3 million if you tax at just 40% that means they have to come up with $1.2 million to pay the Imperial Federal government, and how do those grieving heirs pay the only way they can sell the business or farm. Now who can afford to buy a business or farm worth $3 million? One answer, the big corporations and very rich with the cash to do such a transaction, the very groups that these progressives claim to hate, they are the ones who push the small businesses or farms of America in to the hands of a few, usually their few. 

And then we have The Weiner with this wonderful statement from earlier in the week, see video below,


Where to start, where to start, well first Mr. Weiner THEY ARE NOT INHERITING CASH MONEY! Sorry for the caps but I really wanted to emphasize the point, Small Businesses and Farms that pass to the next generation don't have heaps of cash laying around, if they did Mr. Weiner might, might have an argument for people under fifty million of worth. I have also heard some compare inheritances to casino and lottery winnings, first that is just offensive as hell, as some who has lost a relative if you said that to my face you would be on the floor holding your nose, second that argument is another fallacious one it must assume that the inheritance is predestined for the person by the Fates, which then means in order to equal things out it is predestined again by the Fates that half of that wealth be taken as if some ancient Greek writer had wrote it. 

Lastly I think Mr. Weiner has been watching and reading to many episodes of Richie Rich, but I find one of the last scenes from the Richie Rich film (1994) from a few years ago much more representative of the rich and wealthy here in America, when the villain finally gets into the Rich family vault he finds family trinkets and memory related items, when he demands an explanation, he finds the Rich family keeps their money in banks, the stock market, and real estate because they simply did not value money. That is the way most wealthy who do not let the love of money run them, men like George Soros though I believe would not, and does not under stand this, as do many on the left and progressives.

If Weiner represents the thought processes of the progressives and those on the left, if they keep speaking like this and we keep them out of the republican party the country will be in a better state in a few years.   

Solomon.

P.S. Since many Progressives will say they do not have a love of money I will simply preempt them with this, then why is it that you always go after the income wealth and not the interest wealth, such as the kind earned by Soros, Gore, and many more on the left? Perhaps it is because you know that people who actually earn their wealth with businesses that provide a good or service will prominently lean towards freedom, capitalism, and individualism then what Progressiveism leans towards.

The Post Office, A Fine Example of Government Run Business.

The Post Office, A Fine Example of Government Run Business.

So Tuesday July 6th the Federal Postal Service has announced it's asking for 2-cent rate increase to fight is financial crisis, as of 2009 the Federal Postal Service was three+ billion dollars in the red for that year and is still losing money. So their idea is to increase prices in a down economy, that is just about as brilliant as when customers were complaining about the long lines and wait times the Federal Postal Service removed all their clocks from the pick up areas, if the continue to complain will the next take their customers time pieces and any thing that could tell time? That would be really brilliant.

Bill O'Reilly and his Problem with the Free Market.

Bill O'Reilly has his problems with the Free Market this is brought by his talking points from 6/7/2010, watch it below,
Bill O'Reilly talking points 6/7/2010,


Well I have another response to O'Reilly.

The Bay of Rigs.

I knew Obama's Oval Office Speech was going to be a progressive propaganda piece, but I didn't think he would be stupid enough to say that they were drilling in mile deep water because we are running out of easy oil. Boy was I wrong! After weeks of pundits talking about the reason why they were drilling out that deep was because the Feds were forbidding them to drill where the easily accessible oil is, it's now obvious for someone as clever as he is he thinks that he can pull the wool over the Americans eyes he is a fool.

The Case against the Feds regulating the the Problems they created.

This is a continuation of my post, Bill O'Reilly Believes the Feds can Fix the Problems it Created.

In a conversation I had the other day on on small claims court and when someone sues a contractor when they mess up a job or don't do it right, it hit me that its the perfect argument against the Feds regulating the the Problems they created.

First let me lay out a simple hypothetical, you hire Federal Roofers to fix your roof because it has leaks, they come out give you price to do the job, you like it so you hire them. They show up and replace you old roof, then a week later during a rainstorm you start having leaks again. Now at this point you can go back to them to have them do the job again with no charge, or you can go to some one else who you have more faith in to get the job done right, and sue Federal Roofers for what you paid to get the job done right by another party. Now depending on your area and state, some places may require you to give them a second chance to fix the problem, but from personal experience when a particular group you hire to do a job doesn't get it right the first time, and I mean not getting it right in a fairly big way, tend not to get it right with the second chance.

Now the federal government created this whole mess in the first place by requiring the banks to make loans to people who couldn't possibly pay them, also what people like Bill O'Rilly don't pay attention to is the government threatened to take from the banks who complained that this was bad their federal credentials in other words these banks wouldn't be able to operate in the US and its territories, and so the banks wouldn't make any noise they backed these loans with Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, with our tax dollars. Also it was the former head of Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae who came up with the idea of selling these bundled mortgages as investments.

So I ask again to Bill O'Rilly tell me that this whole mess isn't the fault of the Federal Government? And why should we give more power to the same people who made this mess in the first place, and then blame the private businesses when their pyramid scheme collapsed.

Solomon.

Bill O'Reilly Believes the Feds can Fix the Problems it Created.

Here we go again, O'Reilly Believes the Feds who made the housing mess in the first place can now fix it! Does the phrase "one's born every minute" sound familiar, O'Reilly wants more government regulation of the markets to fix what the government created by way of its earlier regulations, does that even sound logical!? For example when people were complaining of long lines at the post office, what was the post office's answer? Why to remove all of the clocks! What next, if people keep complaining of long lines will the confiscate anything capable of keeping time until you leave the post office facilities!? John Stossel tried to get O'Reilly to see the error of that view but like with Oil O'Reilly lets his anger cloud his critical thinking on this, see my past articles for more on O'Reilly's clouded critical thinking The Oil Company Profits and the Truth Bill O’Reilly Ignores. & Ethanol - The Gas Substitute that Can’t. And Other Options.

One of the key things O'Reilly is ignoring on this is government used it's police powers on the banks to force them to make loans to people who couldn't pay them back, basically putting a gun to the head of the banks. Any bank that made a noise about making these loans was told they would lose their Federal backing, in other words they would not be able to operate in the territories of the United States, and to keep those banks quiet the Federal Government backed the loans with Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, with our tax dollars. So O'Reilly tell me that this whole mess isn't the fault of the Federal Government.



Solomon.

Government Licensing Gone Wild!

This is a continuation of my previous post, Herman Cain on American Live W/Megyn Kelly, from yesterday. While this originally aired on 3/11/2010, it works with my previous post.

This whole issue of Licensing and Licenses, with some exceptions, is crazy. I can give you some good examples you might find ridiculous, as I posted back in my post, My Rage at the Minimum Wage, from 1998-2005 I ran my own small business, with myself as the only employee, I mainly sold collectible games, you might know some of them Magic the Gathering, Yu-Gi-Oh!, Pokemon, and several others as well as gift items for anyone. First for most of my time I was at a place called the Barnyard Flea Market in South Augusta, well I had to have a business license to be in one of the Mini Stores spots, as did everyone else, and this wasn't the market's policy this was law by Richmond County. I didn't think, still don't, that you should have a business license to sell cards, games or gift items, I still have friends over their that have to have a business license. Just a short list of items they sell toys, craft items ranging from things made from wood, cloth, beads, thread, and paper, movies, tapes, DVDs, and, music (all legitimate originals, no counterfeit goods,) Clothing new, used, and handmade, coins and other collectibles, used-not new glassware, plates, china, etc, books, comics, computers and other electronic items, other household items, and so much more, but if you wanted to do this in a Mini Store spots you needed a business license. Yet if you were to sell the same things in one of the open spaces you didn't need one, why? Probably because the county didn't think that any one would set in a space consecutively, but they do I know several people who use the same spaces, renting by the month, who sell the same stuff as people in the Mini Stores, including produce.

If you didn't read my previous post, Herman Cain on American Live W/Megyn Kelly, do so now because it is important for the next part. . . . . Ready, good.

As I said before when government sticks its nose in the business of businesses all it does is cause trouble for more then 75% of the time, such as with the railroads, only a few businesses one can really argue should be regulated, such as those that deal with food, and then only as far as it takes to keep the food supply clean and safe and no further. Because when it does it only increases the coasts of business, often to the risk of that business's health.

And before I finish this up I want to repeat something, Caveat Emptor, let the buyer beware!

Solomon

P.S. I want comments on this, especially any arguments on why people who sell cards, games, and some other things listed, almost all second hand, should have to get a business license to sell. Especially from any one on the left, but fellow conservatives are free to have fun with it too.

Herman Cain on American Live W/Megyn Kelly

Herman Cain was on Fox this afternoon, and I have to say I agree with everything he said. Unfortunately he left out the part on how government regulations have been the biggest deterrent to business and opportunity in America. The best example I can give comes from a book I bought to use for a essay some years ago. I never finished that essay my English teacher then was one of those you can't write the title this way or that way. Anyway, the book is "The Routledge Historical Atlas of the American Railroads" by John F. Stover and series editor: Mark C. Carnes, the example is from the chapter "Midcentury Problems" the last paragraph of pg116 and first paragraph of pg117,

"In the 1950s there was little letup in the federal regulation of railroads. Railways were still subject to the same regulations of service, rates, and fares as in the days when the indeed possessed a full traffic and travel monopoly. The ICC required that railroads keep 258 types of records while the airlines had to keep only a fifth as many. A railroad could not close a depot, discontinue a train, or hike a fare without requesting ICC approval. As a Boston & Main Railroad official put it, "Every rate case has become a carnival of oratory.""
(ICC was the Interstate Commerce Commission, it was abolished in 1995.)

As you can read/see even as far back as the 1950s, and we conservatives know all about FDR's actions, government regulations have tied the hands of business. When you need to close a poor preforming depot, or a train that needs to be discontinued, that isn't making the company any profit you can not force that company to have to wait for government approval to do those things while it loses money on those things without serious consequences to that company. And the requirement that the railroads had to keep 258 types of records versus the 52 types the airlines had to keep only increased the costs to the railroads making it even harder to compete with the new form of travel, or maintain their properties.

When they originally created the ICC it was meant to protect the public, but it ended up harming the public. Because of the ICC the railroads deteriorated from what they had been over a hundred years ago and probably made the airlines what they are today. And now we come full circle with people, like Bill O'Rilly, demanding the regulation of the airlines. Look I have heard the horror stories in all medias, but their is an old saying that Judge Joe Brown is always telling people, Caveat Emptor, let the buyer beware, if the airlines are abusing people then the people should vote with their feet. It isn't cheap to fly a passenger plane and if they fly a plane with only a few passengers without some kind of extremely profitable cargo they will lose money and be forced to reexamine how they treat passengers.

And in case some one should say something about fraud, we have laws that protect us from fraud, such as when someone is selling us things like snake oil, lets say they claim that their "oil" will cure cancer, and if it doesn't that's fraud.

Solomon.

P.S. And for some fun for my fellow conservatives, if you know some one who is always claiming Jimmy Carter was a "good" president, I have a curve ball you can through them to see their reaction, In the last months of his presidency he favored legislation that would, to a degree, deregulate the nations railroads, the Staggers Rail Act, which he signed on October 14, 1980. Tell them that Jimmy Carter was in favor of deregulation of the nations railroads and watch them some will claim you're making it up, some will like it, and some will become angry at Carter for wanting to deregulate a big business.