Orlando, Obama, and Reality

In the aftermath of the Orlando terrorist attack, we watched as an angry President Obama addressed the situation.

 

It wasn’t long before Obama quickly went on the attack and found scapegoat for the events in Orlando in one Donald Trump.

In the same un-presidential rant he took the opportunity to bring gun-control rights into the address. An agenda item which he has tried to check off his bucket list since early in his presidency, when the Democrats lost control of the House.

However it was completely obvious to everyone, except died-in-the-wool, hardcore liberals, his anger was misplaced.

Understandably, he was upset about another terrorist attack on American soil under his watch, but there are other factors which need to be considered that triggered such a rant.

His anger could have been triggered, by the confronted reality which shattered a long-held fantasy; that Islam is undeniably linked to terrorism and terrorism is undeniably linked to Islam. This reality hit Obama hard, for the Orlando victims were not just any victims, they were all from the LBGT community, a group for which Obama has shown much empathy for, and they were gunned-down by an Islamic terrorist.

It is quite possible this was the event, the moment, which shattered the illusion of the peaceful nation of Islam somehow would acquiesce to America and alter their views on homosexuality.

Obama has long thought Islam and America could all just get-along; Somehow Islam to Obama was a religion of peace, only hijacked by a few nuts who have perverted the faith. What he failed to realize is in the Islamic world there is no separation between church and state, and both operate under sharia law, which no Muslim was or is interested in altering.

Somehow Obama thought because he was able to manipulate American values and change the laws to accommodate 3% of the population at the expense of acceptance by the other 97%, that he would be able to get Muslims to change Sharia law to aqueous to America, LBGT community and all. The terrorist attack by a confessed Muslim on his beloved LBGT community was just too much to rationalize, so the rant.

Proof of this is revealed in the rant itself. First he goes after Trump, the first scapegoat that came to mind. Why, because Trump’s view to temporary ban Muslim immigration, in light of the increasing number of terrorist attacks at home, was validated by the Orlando massacre. Trump was right, again, and Obama was wrong.

Part of the rant was a rebuttal, or defense, of Obama’s continual refusal to use the term “Islamic-Terrorism” and his insistence on referring to ISIS as ISIL, saying changing the name is not going to make it go away. While that is true within the confines of the statement, it does describe a direct link between terrorism and Islam, which Obama is unwilling to accept. There are certain types of people who cannot accept criticism and cannot admit being wrong without lashing out in anger, especially if the criticism, and being proved wrong, is in public.

Narcissistic people like Obama are this type of personality.

And while Obama claims “changing the name is not going to make it go away,” he is perfectly willing to freely use the term “Assault-Rifle” in these types of attacks, when in fact the gun used in the Orlando Night Club attack was not an assault rifle. The media picked up the assault rifle term and attached it to being an AR-15, which was incorrect as well.

The long and short of this tragedy, was it was directly due to the mental perceptions of Islam by Obama reflected in his fanciful policies regarding Islam. It remains to be seen how this crushed fantasy will affect Obama in the remainder of his Presidency.

 

 

Dealing With The Islamic Invasion Of The U.S.

islam2

While we are focused on events half way around the globe we are ignoring a cancer eating away at our way of life right here at home.

It’s often the unseen, unnoticed things in life that can have the most dramatic effects and dire consequences. Take cancer for example. How many times has cancer gone unnoticed or the warning signs ignored, until the damage is so great nothing can be done to defeat it.

There is a form of cancer infiltrating our country for some time now and the danger it represents to our way of life is being completely ignored. That cancer is Islam.

Why have we been ignoring the danger that Islam represents to us for so long?

There are a number of reasons, but the major reason is Political Correctness. We have been feed a steady diet of the drug PC (Political Correctness) for so long now we really truly believe that Islam is ‘a religion of peace,’ even though there are no facts, historical or otherwise, to support this ridiculous claim.

Sadly, we are being this same nonsense from the President of the United States and party of Progressives.

Throughout history Islam has spread by invasion and conquest, not by peace. A live and let live policy has no meaning to Islam. Their intolerant, radical ideology has always been convert or die.

Muslims do not assimilate into any country’s culture, they remain separate in almost all of their social activities, and do so by choice. PC propaganda would have you believe they are being ostracized, without cause, by us, yet their failure to assimilate has created their own separation.

The media is quick to defend Islam, insisting the terrorists represent a microscopic number of Muslims, and ‘moderate’ Muslims are not terrorists. And most Muslims just want to live in peace.

Why is the media so quick to participate in this cover-up? Muslim Money invested in the media.

How many of these ‘peaceful‘ Islamic leaders, or communities in general, have denounced the atrocities committed by Islamic terrorists around the world? Too few to count.

One of the founding pillars of the U.S. is freedom of religion. But the limits of religious freedom are defined by the law of the land, which dovetails into another founding pillar of our country – separation of church and state.

islam

The Muslims are taking advantage of freedom of religion while ignoring the separation of church and state, and we are allowing it to our own destruction, under the childish illusion we can all just get along, as if Islam operates on some kind of live-and-let live equality.

In Islam there is no such thing as separation of church and state. Sharia law being the inseparable link binding the two into one way of life completely contrary to our way of life.

How is this is happening?

Immigrants from Islamic countries come here, requesting citizenship while refusing to assimilate. They seek to expand Islam, expecting us to accept their faith, while they have nothing but disdain for ours.

And if you think the numbers are insignificant, then think again. According to Federal Data U.S. Annually Admits Quarter of A Million Muslim Migrants.

The countries they come from do not allow freedom of religion, its Islam, persecution, or death, so it begs the question; why do they come here? They come to take and give back nothing.

Take advantage of our freedom of religion, our healthcare, our welfare programs, social protection, and importantly our international trade agreements.

The same countries that only recognize Islam as their faith and law fund conquest efforts in the U.S. Think about that for a minute. Countries that won’t allow any religion to exist in their own country except Islam take full advantage of our freedom of religion.

The country responsible for most of the funding in this invasion, while being totally intolerant of any religion but Islam in their own country is Saudi Arabia. Our ‘friend‘ in the Middle East, our Muslim ‘ally‘, according to all of the PC indoctrination.

Why do we allow Saudi Arabia to spend $Billions to build mosques in the U.S. while refusing to allow Christian churches to be built in their own country? Christians are not only denied citizenship in Saudi Arabia, they are not allowed to worship in public.

Is that what you visualize as free trade? Social cooperation?

Has PC so clouded our judgement we have accepted the torture of Christians in Saudi Arabia while allowing them to invest Billions in our own country.

80% of the mosques build in America are Saudi funded.

And theses Mosques are being radicalized by the Saudis.

This investment in not limited to mosques, but also the establishment of schools. Islamic Academies, they are called. I would suggest you do an Internet search of Islamic Academies located in your own state, it may surprise you. Here are a couple of slogans from The Islamic Academy of Alabama. They so encapsulate peace:

 

islam3                                                             islam4

 

Of the few Muslims who seek to break away from the slavery of Islam even fewer escape. Those who attempt to leave are trampled underfoot by the radicals.

Saudi funding of Islamic efforts in the U.S. is a cancer to our way of life, and if it’s not removed soon it will kill us.

What do we do?

First, we must cut off the influx of Muslim money by new legislation. It’s only fair (in the real sense of the meaning not like fair used by a disingenuous president Obama). So what’s fair? Enacting legislation that states in clear language; for every dollar Saudi Arabia invests in Mosques here in the U.S. they have to allow equal amounts to be spent in their country for constructing Christian Churches.

Along with this funding, their local law enforcement agencies must insure their protection to the same extent Muslims in the U.S. enjoy.

You say that’s not realistic. Exactly. They of course will refuse this arrangement, but if they reject the rules then our aim is still accomplished – the banishment of Saudi funded Islamic expansion in the U.S.

Secondly– every immigrant that seeks to become a citizen of the U.S. must publicly swear or affirm the constitution of the U.S. as being the law of the land trumping Sharia law. And this must be done before they arrive here saving us the cost and trouble of deportation.

Third– any Muslim who is found guilty of terrorism against the U.S., their entire family is deported. No more of this putting one in prison and allowing the rest of the family to stay.

I think too few people understand Saudi Arabia’s role in the Muslim world. While most of the Middle Eastern countries provide brainwashed soldiers to carry out the butchery of Islam, Saudi Arabia’s mission is to provide the funds to build mosques in the U.S. and Europe, and administer brainwashing schools.

Think of Saudi Arabia as college for Islamic brainwashing. Did you know those leaders or people of import in the Middle East who have strayed from the purer faith of Islam are sent to Saudi Arabia for re-training?

Remember 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers were Saudi Arabian citizens- our ‘friend‘ in the Middle East.

These measures may seem harsh, but you have to decide do want to continue to enjoy freedom of religion or do you want to become Islamic slaves? If you discover cancer in your body do you think it wise to try and reason with it hoping it will understand and not kill you? Or do you remove it? That is the choice we face today. We must act before it’s too late.

 

Stop it with the 800,000 a month job losses already

Real close to the top of my list of pet-peeves is half-truths. People repeat half-truths time and time again to make a point, and most of the time that point is fiction. I understand why they do it – to bend the truth to make it fit their narrative, but they are none-the-less half-truths. I guess they think if thee say it enough times, it will magically become the truth, making half-truths dangerous.

One I’m sick of hearing, which I heard Bernie Sanders use in the last Democratic debate, is the half-truth about job losses in 2009.

How many times have you heard the phrase ‘we were losing 800,000 jobs a month when Obama took over?’ I’ve heard it far too many times over the last 7 years.

The Progressives love to use that line. It seems Socialists, like Bernie Sanders, love to use it too.  Generally they use it to expound another myth, how Obama saved us from another depression and it was all Bush’s fault. Well the myth of ‘how Obama saved us from another depression,’ is for another time. Let’s just stick with the first lie.

The trick is in how you say it: if you say “we were losing 800,000 jobs a month,” and leave it there, it sounds really bad – which it what it was intended to do. It makes you believe we were losing 800,000 jobs a month, every month, for a long period of time, doesn’t it? The truth is, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there was only one month where the job loses reached the 800k mark during 2009. That was March of 2009.

One month!

Loosing 800,000 jobs in one month doesn’t sound as bad as 800,000 a month, does it?

Let’s say it this way using the same 800k figure: “we lost 800,000 jobs in March of 2009,” which was the low point of the recession. Just doesn’t carry the same drama saying it like that.

The housing bubble burst and the recession took its toll in late 2008 and early 2009. There were job losses in every month of that year, but not 800k every month. The Progressive leadership doesn’t like to confess their efforts to ‘fix’ the economy was a blend of charging $Trillions to the National Debt, removing millions from the counted unemployed workforce, and everyone else taking a pay cut. All they want you to believe is ‘things were awful but we fixed them.’ Does your financial situation feel like the Progressives ‘fixed’ anything?

Politicians are very good at manipulating facts, bending the truth, all to support their narrative, but it’s time we force those same politicians to expound the truth, the whole truth, not just what supports their ideology or worse, their campaign.

Half-truths are dangerous, because they are lies. Half-truths are half-lies, and half lies can never be truth. It is sometimes difficult to separate the two, and it is exactly what politicians are hoping you won’t take the time to do. They would rather have you accept the truth as they define it.

Con men for generations have made living espousing half-truths. They wouldn’t be able to deceive people by telling the truth about their intentions, nor would they be able to con them if everything they said was an obvious lie. They skillfully blend the truth with lies until it is difficult to tell the difference. Then they keep telling you the same half-truth until you think it’s all true. By then, it’s too late for the mark.

So Bernie Sanders and everyone else who likes to parrot the line; stop it with the “we were losing 800,000 jobs a month when Obama took office” nonsense. It’s old, it’s a lie, and it’s tiring. Here’s a thought – tell the whole truth for a change.

 

 

Stop it with the 800,000 a month job losses already

Real close to the top of my list of pet-peeves is half-truths. People repeat half-truths time and time again to make a point, and most of the time that point is fiction. I understand why they do it – to bend the truth to make it fit their narrative, but they are none-the-less half-truths. I guess they think if thee say it enough times, it will magically become the truth, making half-truths dangerous.

One I’m sick of hearing, which I heard Bernie Sanders use in the last Democratic debate, is the half-truth about job losses in 2009.

How many times have you heard the phrase ‘we were losing 800,000 jobs a month when Obama took over?’ I’ve heard it far too many times over the last 7 years.

The Progressives love to use that line. It seems Socialists, like Bernie Sanders, love to use it too.  Generally they use it to expound another myth, how Obama saved us from another depression and it was all Bush’s fault. Well the myth of ‘how Obama saved us from another depression,’ is for another time. Let’s just stick with the first lie.

The trick is in how you say it: if you say “we were losing 800,000 jobs a month,” and leave it there, it sounds really bad – which it what it was intended to do. It makes you believe we were losing 800,000 jobs a month, every month, for a long period of time, doesn’t it? The truth is, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there was only one month where the job loses reached the 800k mark during 2009. That was March of 2009.

One month!

Loosing 800,000 jobs in one month doesn’t sound as bad as 800,000 a month, does it?

Let’s say it this way using the same 800k figure: “we lost 800,000 jobs in March of 2009,” which was the low point of the recession. Just doesn’t carry the same drama saying it like that.

The housing bubble burst and the recession took its toll in late 2008 and early 2009. There were job losses in every month of that year, but not 800k every month. The Progressive leadership doesn’t like to confess their efforts to ‘fix’ the economy was a blend of charging $Trillions to the National Debt, removing millions from the counted unemployed workforce, and everyone else taking a pay cut. All they want you to believe is ‘things were awful but we fixed them.’ Does your financial situation feel like the Progressives ‘fixed’ anything?

Politicians are very good at manipulating facts, bending the truth, all to support their narrative, but it’s time we force those same politicians to expound the truth, the whole truth, not just what supports their ideology or worse, their campaign.

Half-truths are dangerous, because they are lies. Half-truths are half-lies, and half lies can never be truth. It is sometimes difficult to separate the two, and it is exactly what politicians are hoping you won’t take the time to do. They would rather have you accept the truth as they define it.

Con men for generations have made living espousing half-truths. They wouldn’t be able to deceive people by telling the truth about their intentions, nor would they be able to con them if everything they said was an obvious lie. They skillfully blend the truth with lies until it is difficult to tell the difference. Then they keep telling you the same half-truth until you think it’s all true. By then, it’s too late for the mark.

So Bernie Sanders and everyone else who likes to parrot the line; stop it with the “we were losing 800,000 jobs a month when Obama took office” nonsense. It’s old, it’s a lie, and it’s tiring. Here’s a thought – tell the whole truth for a change.

The Myth of Corporate Welfare

Corporate Welfare is a catch-phrase you are likely to hear tossed into discussions involving welfare in general. The catch phrase is used by the left to defend Social Welfare programs they support, as if social welfare was some kind of moral high-ground and corporate welfare was some kind of dastardly activity. There are numerous articles and graphs describing the evils of Corporate Welfare, but most are not totally factual. If you were to ask the average tax-paying citizen what Corporate Welfare was, their answer would most likely be a vague reference to overpaid CEO’s riding around in their corporate jets, receiving tax breaks they don’t deserve. You mean like Social Welfare, where the recipients receive something they didn’t earn?

What is corporate welfare?

Once you cut through the noise, corporate welfare, as it’s called, can be broken down into two categories: One, tax write-off’s (what you and I would refer to as deductions, or income exclusions), and two, subsidies.

When you do your personal tax return at the end of the year there are certain things that you can claim as deductions. Every deduction has a dollar value, and that dollar value is referred to as adjustments to income. In other words the dollar value of that adjustment is removed from your total taxable income. Children, or dependents are adjustments to income, as well as:

Health care costs, state and local income taxes, Interest paid on a home mortgage, cash contributions to charities and churches, even gambling losses, just to name a few.

Most Americans claim the standard deduction, which is an IRS pre-determined amount covering most of the deductions you would otherwise itemize (list individually). The standard deduction is $6300 for individuals. The amount of income which is taxable or non-taxable is based on the IRS tax code.

Corporations can claim similar deductions as adjustments to their taxable income. In the business world taxable income is referred to as profits. Now here is where Progressives take issue with tax code (legal deductions to deductions) and decry Corporate Welfare; they are unhappy with the deductions allowed in the corporate tax code. Some rightfully so. They like to highlight rare instances where corporate jets were claimed as deductions and so on.

On the flip-side: If a couple decides to have a child, that child is considered an exemption having a dollar value of $1050. So if you or I decide we don’t want to have a child we have to pay more income tax than those who do have a child. The exemption is quite a bit higher for low income families who can claim up to $3250, based solely on the fact they earn less money. Looking at this, it be fair to say if you have a middle class income and don’t have children you have to pay more in taxes than those who have a lower income and a house full of children. Is that fair?

The origin of the term “Corporate Welfare” is traceable to 1990-1995. For most of those years Democrats (Progressives) controlled the Senate and/or the Whitehouse. Which means they could have easily modified the tax code, limiting or eliminating those corporate deductions. But they didn’t. They cried foul, but were themselves guilty of supporting corporate deductions.

Kind ‘a like political double-speak wouldn’t you say? Crying about corporate welfare and refusing to do anything about it.

Now, on to another form of Corporate Welfare, subsidies.

What is a subsidy?

There are two definitions, so let’s consider both.

First; “money that is paid usually by a government to keep the price of a product or service low or to help a business or organization to continue to function.”

Where do subsidies come from? The government! Yet all of the Progressive banter would have you believe it is a creation of those evil corporations. Corporations take advantage of the tax code available – don’t you do the same on a personal level?

The point is; subsidies keep the price of a product or service low enough to be affordable to the general public. Who do products and services benefit? The public of course. You and I are consumers, rich or poor, no matter where our income comes from, we all buy products and employ services.

When did subsidies begin? The first U.S. subsidies were Farm Subsidies. They were offered briefly in the late 1800’s and were quickly withdrawn on a constitutional basis, but re-appeared and took permanent root in the 1930’s under a Democratic President, Franklin Roosevelt. Since then government subsidies have only increased in number and cost.

We can argue about the worth of various subsidies all day long, but subsidies are subsidies no matter if they are corporate or individual.

Let’s consider this:

A gallon of milk today retails for $3.32 (national average). According to the govt. the production cost of a gallon of milk in 2015 was $3.21 and the retail value was $3.11.

If you wanted to buy raw milk at cost, you would need to provide your own jugs, drive to the nearest dairy, and find a dairy farmer willing to sell you a gallon of milk at cost ($3.21 a gallon). Would you be willing to do that? No, you would rather go to the local grocery store and pick up that gallon of milk for $3.32.

According to government information, in 2015 dairy farmers lost an average of .11 cents a gallon on what they produced. Just for the record dairy farmers lost about .57 cents a gallon in 2013. How long would you run a fairy farm if you lost money every year without someone making up the difference? Now add in pasteurization, packaging, transportation, storing, and retailing the true cost of that gallon of milk is now about $8.00 a gallon. Would you continue to buy the same amount of milk at $8.00 a gallon that you currently buy for $3.32? Probably not.

Let’s assume you are on a $50.00 a week food stamp allowance (social welfare), and the price of milk rose from $3.32 to $8.00 a gallon, will you continue to buy the same amount of milk? You couldn’t without cutting back on something else.

But you can still buy your gallon of milk for $3.32 a gallon because the government is subsidizing the dairy industry, or you personally – subsidies allow you to buy milk for $3.32 instead of $8.00. Corporate Welfare in action. So who benefits from this again?

Government welfare programs such as SNAP (food stamps) are managed under the same government agency as farm subsidies; the USDA (United States Department of Agriculture). Corporate and social welfare is managed by the same government agency. So the lines of social and corporate welfare become intertwined and at times indistinguishable.

We can dissect any industry and wind up at the same conclusion- corporate and social welfare working hand-in-hand.

The favorite evil industry target seems to be oil companies, which brings us to the second definition of subsidies; “a grant by a government to a private person or company to assist an enterprise deemed advantageous to the public.” Would you admit oil companies are advantageous to the public? Absolutely; virtually every technological advance made in the last 100 years is connected, in some way, to the oil industry.  Plastics, medicine, medical care, fertilizers, insecticides, cars, computers, cell phones and so on, none of which would exist with the oil industry.

You see, the oil industry is absolutely advantageous to the public, and absolutely necessary to our way of life

The Oil industry is a popular target because of the shear dollars involved, $multi-million companies garnering millions in subsidies.

Let’s use the same dissection we used in the gallon of milk to see the subsidies involved: The cost of production of a gallon of oil in Nov of 2015 in the United States was about .86 cents a gallon (at barrel price of $36) according to the government.  The yield of gasoline from a 42 gallon barrel of oil is 19 gallons, which means a gallon of gasoline cost $1.89 to produce.

The average retail price of gasoline in 2015 was $2.26 a gallon. So far we are at .37 cents a gallon above production cost before we add in transportation, storage, and retail cost of making gasoline available at the pump (which is about .16 cents per gallon). Now subtract the federal and state taxes (which average .47 cents a gallon), and we are selling gasoline for a $1.63 a gallon retail, which is selling gasoline at a loss of .26 cents a gallon. That loss is made up by government subsidies (or tax breaks, whichever you prefer).

While the oil industry enjoys large subsidies, it’s products are a huge source of tax revenue for the same government who issued subsidies for the production of the same product.

In 2013 gasoline sales generated over $30 Billion in tax revenue (which was supposed to fund infrastructure repairs).

Consider this: if the price of gasoline goes up, people purchase less, decreasing the federal revenue, and if the price goes down, people buy more and federal revenue goes up.

Once heralded as the green energy answer to fossil fuels, ethanol has turned out to be an over-priced flop; costing taxpayers twice as much as fossil fuels in tax-credits (subsidies), and because it is made from corn, which is subsidized as well, ethanol companies receive two subsidies.

The green energy crowd was gut-punched when it discovered ethanol damages the atmosphere more than fossil fuel do.  Not to mention, it is far less efficient than gasoline.

In the end, everyone screams about the profits made by oil companies, the years when things go right, but you never hear anything from the same crowd when those same companies break even or lose money in a given year. A gallon of gasoline is like a gallon of milk, the subsidies, or tax breaks issued by the government, benefit you and I the consumer as well as the oil companies.

Are corporations guilty of exploiting loop-holes in the tax code? Absolutely! Are individuals guilty of exploiting loop-holes in the tax code? Absolutely! Are individuals guilty of exploiting the social welfare system in this country? Absolutely!

So who’s fault is it the tax code allows ridiculous corporate deductions? The corporations? Or the politicians? The truth is, politicians make mucho-dinaro from the tax codes as is.

Maybe we should focus on political welfare – you know the subsidies those politicians receive.

Originally corporate subsidies were intended to protect the public from extreme price fluctuation and shortages in basic food stuffs; i.e. milk being $1.00 one year and $10.00 the next, and there being no milk at all the next, much like social subsidies were intended to be a temporary helping hand for those in need, not a full time occupation.

There is little distinction between social and corporate welfare. Call it what you will; tax breaks, deductions, subsidies, earned income credit, or school lunch programs, it’s either all or none. One cannot exist without the other. Not without serious re-thinking and an adjustment period which would cause untold social upheaval for half a decade.

But, alas, maybe we should have heeded the warning of President Calvin Coolidge when he vetoed the McNary-Haugen bill, saying: “I do not believe, that upon serious consideration the farmers of America would tolerate the precedent of a body of men chosen solely by one industry who, acting in the name of the Government, shall arrange for contracts which determine prices, secure the buying and selling of commodities, the levying of taxes on that industry, and pay losses on foreign dumping of any surplus.”

His reason for doing so, and an unheeded prophetic warning: “There is no reason why other industries— copper, coal, lumber, textiles, and others—in every occasional difficulty should not receive the same treatment by the Government. Such action would establish bureaucracy on such a scale as to dominate not only the economic life but the moral, social, and political future of our people.”

Welfare is welfare; corporate or social. You cannot justify the one and defend the other since they come from the same government.

 

 

 

 

The Myth of Corporate Welfare

Corporate Welfare is a catch-phrase you are likely to hear tossed into discussions involving welfare in general. The catch phrase is used by the left to defend Social Welfare programs they support, as if social welfare was some kind of moral high-ground and corporate welfare was some kind of dastardly activity. There are numerous articles and graphs describing the evils of Corporate Welfare, but most are not totally factual. If you were to ask the average tax-paying citizen what Corporate Welfare was, their answer would most likely be a vague reference to overpaid CEO’s riding around in their corporate jets, receiving tax breaks they don’t deserve. You mean like Social Welfare, where the recipients receive something they didn’t earn?

What is corporate welfare?

Once you cut through the noise, corporate welfare, as it’s called, can be broken down into two categories: One, tax write-off’s (what you and I would refer to as deductions, or income exclusions), and two, subsidies.

When you do your personal tax return at the end of the year there are certain things that you can claim as deductions. Every deduction has a dollar value, and that dollar value is referred to as adjustments to income. In other words the dollar value of that adjustment is removed from your total taxable income. Children, or dependents are adjustments to income, as well as:

Health care costs, state and local income taxes, Interest paid on a home mortgage, cash contributions to charities and churches, even gambling losses, just to name a few.

Most Americans claim the standard deduction, which is an IRS pre-determined amount covering most of the deductions you would otherwise itemize (list individually). The standard deduction is $6300 for individuals. The amount of income which is taxable or non-taxable is based on the IRS tax code.

Corporations can claim similar deductions as adjustments to their taxable income. In the business world taxable income is referred to as profits. Now here is where Progressives take issue with tax code (legal deductions to deductions) and decry Corporate Welfare; they are unhappy with the deductions allowed in the corporate tax code. Some rightfully so. They like to highlight rare instances where corporate jets were claimed as deductions and so on.

On the flip-side: If a couple decides to have a child, that child is considered an exemption having a dollar value of $1050. So if you or I decide we don’t want to have a child we have to pay more income tax than those who do have a child. The exemption is quite a bit higher for low income families who can claim up to $3250, based solely on the fact they earn less money. Looking at this, it be fair to say if you have a middle class income and don’t have children you have to pay more in taxes than those who have a lower income and a house full of children. Is that fair?

The origin of the term “Corporate Welfare” is traceable to 1990-1995. For most of those years Democrats (Progressives) controlled the Senate and/or the Whitehouse. Which means they could have easily modified the tax code, limiting or eliminating those corporate deductions. But they didn’t. They cried foul, but were themselves guilty of supporting corporate deductions.

Kind ‘a like political double-speak wouldn’t you say? Crying about corporate welfare and refusing to do anything about it.

Now, on to another form of Corporate Welfare, subsidies.

What is a subsidy?

There are two definitions, so let’s consider both.

First; “money that is paid usually by a government to keep the price of a product or service low or to help a business or organization to continue to function.”

Where do subsidies come from? The government! Yet all of the Progressive banter would have you believe it is a creation of those evil corporations. Corporations take advantage of the tax code available – don’t you do the same on a personal level?

The point is; subsidies keep the price of a product or service low enough to be affordable to the general public. Who do products and services benefit? The public of course. You and I are consumers, rich or poor, no matter where our income comes from, we all buy products and employ services.

When did subsidies begin? The first U.S. subsidies were Farm Subsidies. They were offered briefly in the late 1800’s and were quickly withdrawn on a constitutional basis, but re-appeared and took permanent root in the 1930’s under a Democratic President, Franklin Roosevelt. Since then government subsidies have only increased in number and cost.

We can argue about the worth of various subsidies all day long, but subsidies are subsidies no matter if they are corporate or individual.

Let’s consider this:

A gallon of milk today retails for $3.32 (national average). According to the govt. the production cost of a gallon of milk in 2015 was $3.21 and the retail value was $3.11.

If you wanted to buy raw milk at cost, you would need to provide your own jugs, drive to the nearest dairy, and find a dairy farmer willing to sell you a gallon of milk at cost ($3.21 a gallon). Would you be willing to do that? No, you would rather go to the local grocery store and pick up that gallon of milk for $3.32.

According to government information, in 2015 dairy farmers lost an average of .11 cents a gallon on what they produced. Just for the record dairy farmers lost about .57 cents a gallon in 2013. How long would you run a fairy farm if you lost money every year without someone making up the difference? Now add in pasteurization, packaging, transportation, storing, and retailing the true cost of that gallon of milk is now about $8.00 a gallon. Would you continue to buy the same amount of milk at $8.00 a gallon that you currently buy for $3.32? Probably not.

Let’s assume you are on a $50.00 a week food stamp allowance (social welfare), and the price of milk rose from $3.32 to $8.00 a gallon, will you continue to buy the same amount of milk? You couldn’t without cutting back on something else.

But you can still buy your gallon of milk for $3.32 a gallon because the government is subsidizing the dairy industry, or you personally – subsidies allow you to buy milk for $3.32 instead of $8.00. Corporate Welfare in action. So who benefits from this again?

Government welfare programs such as SNAP (food stamps) are managed under the same government agency as farm subsidies; the USDA (United States Department of Agriculture). Corporate and social welfare is managed by the same government agency. So the lines of social and corporate welfare become intertwined and at times indistinguishable.

We can dissect any industry and wind up at the same conclusion- corporate and social welfare working hand-in-hand.

The favorite evil industry target seems to be oil companies, which brings us to the second definition of subsidies; “a grant by a government to a private person or company to assist an enterprise deemed advantageous to the public.” Would you admit oil companies are advantageous to the public? Absolutely; virtually every technological advance made in the last 100 years is connected, in some way, to the oil industry.  Plastics, medicine, medical care, fertilizers, insecticides, cars, computers, cell phones and so on, none of which would exist with the oil industry.

You see, the oil industry is absolutely advantageous to the public, and absolutely necessary to our way of life

The Oil industry is a popular target because of the shear dollars involved, $multi-million companies garnering millions in subsidies.

Let’s use the same dissection we used in the gallon of milk to see the subsidies involved: The cost of production of a gallon of oil in Nov of 2015 in the United States was about .86 cents a gallon (at barrel price of $36) according to the government.  The yield of gasoline from a 42 gallon barrel of oil is 19 gallons, which means a gallon of gasoline cost $1.89 to produce.

The average retail price of gasoline in 2015 was $2.26 a gallon. So far we are at .37 cents a gallon above production cost before we add in transportation, storage, and retail cost of making gasoline available at the pump (which is about .16 cents per gallon). Now subtract the federal and state taxes (which average .47 cents a gallon), and we are selling gasoline for a $1.63 a gallon retail, which is selling gasoline at a loss of .26 cents a gallon. That loss is made up by government subsidies (or tax breaks, whichever you prefer).

While the oil industry enjoys large subsidies, it’s products are a huge source of tax revenue for the same government who issued subsidies for the production of the same product.

In 2013 gasoline sales generated over $30 Billion in tax revenue (which was supposed to fund infrastructure repairs).

Consider this: if the price of gasoline goes up, people purchase less, decreasing the federal revenue, and if the price goes down, people buy more and federal revenue goes up.

Once heralded as the green energy answer to fossil fuels, ethanol has turned out to be an over-priced flop; costing taxpayers twice as much as fossil fuels in tax-credits (subsidies), and because it is made from corn, which is subsidized as well, ethanol companies receive two subsidies.

The green energy crowd was gut-punched when it discovered ethanol damages the atmosphere more than fossil fuel do.  Not to mention, it is far less efficient than gasoline.

In the end, everyone screams about the profits made by oil companies, the years when things go right, but you never hear anything from the same crowd when those same companies break even or lose money in a given year. A gallon of gasoline is like a gallon of milk, the subsidies, or tax breaks issued by the government, benefit you and I the consumer as well as the oil companies.

Are corporations guilty of exploiting loop-holes in the tax code? Absolutely! Are individuals guilty of exploiting loop-holes in the tax code? Absolutely! Are individuals guilty of exploiting the social welfare system in this country? Absolutely!

So who’s fault is it the tax code allows ridiculous corporate deductions? The corporations? Or the politicians? The truth is, politicians make mucho-dinaro from the tax codes as is.

Maybe we should focus on political welfare – you know the subsidies those politicians receive.

Originally corporate subsidies were intended to protect the public from extreme price fluctuation and shortages in basic food stuffs; i.e. milk being $1.00 one year and $10.00 the next, and there being no milk at all the next, much like social subsidies were intended to be a temporary helping hand for those in need, not a full time occupation.

There is little distinction between social and corporate welfare. Call it what you will; tax breaks, deductions, subsidies, earned income credit, or school lunch programs, it’s either all or none. One cannot exist without the other. Not without serious re-thinking and an adjustment period which would cause untold social upheaval for half a decade.

But, alas, maybe we should have heeded the warning of President Calvin Coolidge when he vetoed the McNary-Haugen bill, saying: “I do not believe, that upon serious consideration the farmers of America would tolerate the precedent of a body of men chosen solely by one industry who, acting in the name of the Government, shall arrange for contracts which determine prices, secure the buying and selling of commodities, the levying of taxes on that industry, and pay losses on foreign dumping of any surplus.”

His reason for doing so, and an unheeded prophetic warning: “There is no reason why other industries— copper, coal, lumber, textiles, and others—in every occasional difficulty should not receive the same treatment by the Government. Such action would establish bureaucracy on such a scale as to dominate not only the economic life but the moral, social, and political future of our people.”

Welfare is welfare; corporate or social. You cannot justify the one and defend the other since they come from the same government.

Donald Trump Rolls The Dice and Dumps The Fox Debate

If you think Donald Trump has blown off the Fox debate tonight out fear you would be mistaken. Donald Trump is a lot of things, but fearful isn’t one of them. I have enjoyed the widespread commentary implying Trump is forgoing tonight’s debate because he is afraid of what Megyn Kelly might ask him. It’s laughable. Megyn-Kelly-6

There can be no argument Megyn Kelly attacked Donald Trump at the first Fox debate, and Trump is not willing to let that slide. CZnMFORW0AA-n97

Trump is rolling the dice – he is counting on his followers taking his side in this – standing up to the mighty media, and while I’m not a Trump supporter at this point, I admire his courage. Trump is going to prove tonight that Fox needs Trump more than Trump needs Fox. And he is going to win.

His victory will be expensive for Fox in lost revenue and viewership. Like it or not Trump has been, and is the main attraction in these primary debates, and everyone knows it. Fox will pay for their defense of Megan Kelly.

This is a big deal. While the Republican debates have garnered huge ratings, the Democratic debates have all been snoozers. They have all been aired at times when the viewership couldn’t possibly be lower, which I suspect has been on purpose, since the candidates the Democrats have offered are either whack-jobs or criminals.

As for me I’m not taking sides, but enjoying the game.

However, I’m tired of the media lying, influencing, and manipulating people and elections for ratings. And I am not alone. Internet viewership is exploding while national media viewership is imploding.  They no longer report the news; it’s become all commentary, opinion, and commercials. How about you just go back to reporting and let me decide what to think about the information provided. Wouldn’t that be novel?

Along comes Trump – and upsets their little apple cart. The media is realizing they are losing their long established sway over the public and they are fighting back. So far its Trump 1 Media 0.

Now that Trump has rolled the dice, people are still placing bets on who will win – the media or Trump. My money is on Trump!trump

Obama’s Gun-Grab Sham

 

The latest Obama gun-grab effort entitled Now Is The Time is a disgrace. It is as phony as the tears shed by Obama when he announced the executive order.crying

It’s little more than a Progressive give-away disguised as “The President’s plan to protect our children and our communities by reducing gun violence.” While the advertised purpose of this executive order is to protect civilians by deterring illegal gun sales and ownership, and does neither; it is a multi-Billion dollar (over $5 Billion) give away, and attempts circumventment of Congressional approval, by allowing laws to be written by administrative departments like DHS (Department of Health and Human Services), you know the food stamp folks.

It’s a sneak attack on privacy laws set up under HIPAA, by blurring the lines of what is legal and what is not.

In other words; gun purchase, sale, and ownership are no longer clearly defined by law, but are subject to the discretion of some undefined agency, or appointed agency head.

For example (from the facts sheet):

“Clarify that it doesn’t matter where you conduct your business—from a store, at gun shows, or over the Internet: If you’re in the business of selling firearms, you must get a license and conduct background checks.”

What exactly qualifies as a gun dealer? Is it one sale, ten, or is it just sales in specific locations?

Reading further:

“Quantity and frequency of sales are relevant indicators. There is no specific threshold number of firearms purchased or sold that triggers the licensure requirement.”

So it’s subjective? The identity of what constitutes a ‘gun dealer’ is determined by the government agent in charge at the time?

None of guns used in the recent mass-shootings were purchased from a gun show, yet this is a major focus of the Obama administration, and is nothing more than straining at a gnat while swallowing a $5 Billion camel.

This executive order adds 200 ATF agents and gives them an initial expense budget of $4 Million to crackdown on this non-existent gun show loophole.

The order continues the attack on the privacy of American citizens, which the Obama Administration has been doing since2009 (mascaraed as Internet Security), this time, by creating legal loop-holes in the HIPAA law.

Of these new rules were created by the Department of Health and Human Services, not the Congress.

One of these changes reads;

“Among the persons subject to the Federal mental health prohibitor are individuals who have been involuntarily committed to a mental institution; found incompetent to stand trial or not guilty by reason of insanity.”

Which is current law. But what follows is a dangerous twist:

“or otherwise have been determined by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority to be a danger to themselves or others or to lack the mental capacity to contract or manage their own affairs, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease.”

Determined by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority?

What defines a board? And who decides the definition of a ‘board’? Who decides who will sit on this board? And what constitutes a lawful authority? Who determines what a lawful authority is? Subjective and fluid regulations can be interpreted to mean a number of things depending on the person or agency doing the interpreting. Subjective interpretations are guided by a person’s personal beliefs as well as their political views.

These unexplained definitions create grey areas as wide as Loretta Lynch’s definition of a gun dealer. Is this what we want; the law meaning different things at different times?

The ACLU has had quite a bit to say regarding the administrations dangerous attack on HIPAA.

“Not  only  is  such  an  exemption  for  HIPAA  unnecessary,  because HIPAA does not pose a barrier to the transmission of relevant information to the  system,  the  creation  of  such  an  exemption  may  increase  the  risk  of inadvertent  disclosure  of  private  information,  including  medical  records, thus  subjecting  countless  individuals  to  a  loss  of privacy  and  certain  civil liberties.”

Of course the cure for all of this ‘new found’ mental illness is money. Spend more taxpayer funds for something that was supposed to have been taken care of under the great Affordable Care Act.

$100 million of the ACA budget was already earmarked for mental health, and because that $100 million is not getting the job done, the president proposes adding another $500 million to the ACA budget to address mental illness as part of gun control. What exactly does spending $600 million on mental health have to do with the 2nd amendment again?

Nothing, but it sounds good doesn’t it.

That brings me to the real reason for this executive order, the meat-and-potatoes of Obama’s ‘protecting our children and community’ dribble. Money.

Pumping more money into our failing education system (more government paid jobs): Let’s look at the list-

  • Put up to 1,000 new school resource officers and school counselors on the job: $150 Million
  • Help schools develop and implement emergency plans: $30 Million
  • Help 8,000 schools create safer and more nurturing school climates: $50 Million
  • Provide “Mental Health First Aid” training for teachers: $15 Million
  • Make sure students with signs of mental illness get referred to treatment: $40 Million
  • Support individuals ages 16 to 25 at high risk for mental illness: $25 Million
  • Help schools address pervasive violence: $25 Million
  • Train more than 5,000 additional mental health professionals to serve students and young adults: $50 Million

Grand total $385 Million (in an already gun-free zone).

Again, exactly how does putting all of these social workers in schools, at a cost of $385 Million, make any meaningful difference in reducing gun violence outside of the school building?

It doesn’t!

The $385 Million influx of money into the public school system is reminiscent of the President’s 2009 stimulus plan that pumped $145 Billion into public education (which largely went to bail out teacher retirement accounts).

The executive order does state part of the cost of this order will spend $4 Billion to “help keep 15,000 cops on the street in cities and towns across the country.”

Even this $4 Billion outlay is extremely non descriptive. It doesn’t say add 15,000 cops to an already overworked police force, it’s just “help keep.” Considering the presidents attack on police departments across the country I suspect this money is meant to impose federal control in local police departments by the lure of grants. If you want the money you have to allow the feds to regulate the way you conduct law enforcement.

Prove me wrong!

Then there are the usual, and pointless research grants (about $30 Million) to discover what we already know – the decline of faith and families has fostered a growing lawless society. But Progressive pin-heads would never admit faith and family is necessary for a civil society. They still think spending money and creating more rules will suddenly make criminals behave.

The normal attack on magazine capacity, armor piercing ammunition (where do you buy that anyway), and ‘assault rifles’. Yawn!

There is a $10 Million request for the CDC to conduct research “the causes and prevention of gun violence, including links between video games, media images, and violence.”

I have advocated for years the link between gun violence, in fact violence in general, is encouraged by video games. Many of the violent crime scenes we see greatly resemble scenes in the video games such as Grand Theft Auto and Call of Duty.

The Sandy Hook shooter; “Adam Lanza had notched up more than 83,000 ‘kills’ on his beloved video games including 22,000 ‘head shots’ as he trained himself for the horrific Sandy Hook massacre, it has emerged.”

As well of the rest of the recent mass-shooting perpetrators (except the incidents where the perpetrators were Islamic Radicals) according to this article:  Mass killers in US all found to be addicted to playing violent video games

I’m not sure $10 Million is needed to research this link (my research on this cost nothing).

One only need to allow local law enforcement to investigate if a gun-violence perpetrator has violent video games in his possession, and how much time the perpetrator spent playing those games.

In the end, this executive order is anything but “a plan to protect our children and our communities.” It’s all about the money.  Wasted money – padding the pockets of public employees at the expense of the taxpayer, while lying to those same taxpayers about the true intent of this executive order.

Shame on you Mr. President for exploiting the children so you can continue to fund lost causes.