The Neosecularist

I Said That? Yeah, I Said That!

Archive for the category “economy”

Thank You, James Zogby! (For Your Patently Biased, Offensive And Stupid Observation About President Romney)

To paraphrase – with one factually wrong, decidedly insensitive, and patently biased comment, Arab American Institute President, James Zogby, and liberal aspirant, is doing more to focus attention away from the devastating impact Palestinian culture has had on the Palestinian economy and its own people for well over two decades, the result of which (should Zogby’s despicable propaganda mesmerize the masses of Palestinians he caters to) can only stymie development in that region for more decades to come.

James Zogby, being of Arab descent, (his father came to America illegally, from Lebanon, and Zogby was born in New York) and having a liberal mindset, and bias against Israel, (probably a personal hatred too), and writing for the “Arianna Nation” severely scolds soon to be President Romney for his “patently bias comment” he made about Palestinian culture, which was neither patently biased nor anywhere near off the mark.  In fact, when Romney blamed Palestinian culture for its own economic woes, Romney hit a grand slam.  Zogby, conversely, in his pathetic diatribe, struck out.

Says Zogby:

Romney’s observation that “culture makes all the difference,” which he offered as his explanation for the disparities between the Israeli and Palestinian economies, was so remarkably out of touch with reality that it set off an unprecedented explosion of press commentary in the United States and Europe.”

Since Palestinian culture only lives to destroy Israel, and since Palestinian terrorists have had, and continue to have a long history of hostility and violence against Israel; since its own faux government, whether that be Hamas or the PLO, both openly supports terrorist activities against Israel and Israeli citizens; since there is no real Palestinian nation, but a mere collection of people living in and around Israel, who identify themselves as Palestinians; since these people who call themselves Palestinians are wont to kill all Jews and overtake Jerusalem and all of Israel distinctly because of their culture and their cultural upbringing, what Romney said about Palestinian culture was right – and Zogby knows it!

Zogby speaks of  “an unprecedented explosion of press commentary in the United States and Europe.”  Well, to be exact, Romney’s “observation” set off an avalanche, “explosion” of hate-filled criticism throughout the liberal Main Stream Media (MSM) in America and around the world.  Who is surprised by that?  Who is baffled that liberals in America and around the world, most of whom also hate Jews and Israel, would condemn Romney for pointing out an obvious fact and truth about a deviant, childish, malevolent and very violent culture such as that of the Palestinians?

Most of the United States’s (sic) major daily newspapers featured articles, commentary and even editorials taking issue with the Romney quote — highlighting repressive Israeli policies, and not an “inferior culture” as the reason for the poor performance of the Palestinian economy.”

Well, duh!  It’s only the liberal media “taking issue”.  Of course, to the liberal media, the very thought of Israel protecting itself against such an “inferior culture” as that of the Palestinians, who have not stopped, nor will they stop, attacking Israel, would be shocking.  The only product the Palestinians manufacture, create and sell is terrorists and terrorism.  If a Palestinian even has a job, it is most likely as a terrorist.  If the Palestinians even have schools, can anyone imagine what is being taught?

Zogby completely ignores history when he writes:

in 1994 the Palestinian economy received a devastating hit resulting from the Israeli closure of the territories. The “closure,” which cut Palestinians off from Greater Jerusalem, and severely limited interaction between Palestinians and Israel, was initially imposed as a temporary “preventive measure” in the wake of the massacre of Palestinians committed by an Israeli settler in Hebron. The “temporary closure” never ended.

That massacre was initiated by Baruch Goldstein, and not only was it condemned by Israel, but its own cabinet expelled an extreme right-wing Kach party over its support of Goldstein’s actions that left dozens of Palestinians dead.  In other words, Israeli culture openly condemned acts of terrorism against Palestinians.  Where has Palestinian culture ever condemned acts of terrorism against Israelis?

And why does anyone think Zogby might have omitted those facts from his Romney- Israeli bashing article?

Israel, and its culture, which is far superior to anything in or around the Middle East, is the only think keeping the Middle East from imploding on itself.  If the Palestinians were to stop their acts of terrorism and violence against Israel; if the Palestinians were sincerely interested in peace with Israel, Israel would be more than happy to reopen itself, its borders, to the Palestinian people; to its economy and its culture.  Palestinians don’t want that.  Palestinians want all Jews dead and to take control of Israel for themselves.  That is who the Palestinians are, and that is their culture.  And James Zogby knows it!

Until the Palestinian economy divests itself from terrorism, from the manufacturing, selling and exploitation of terrorism, it will not have an economy worthy of supporting.  And until the Palestinian people, within their culture, renounces its goal of total annihilation for Israel, they will continue to live and die in the poverty they themselves created from their own deep-seeded hate.  And James Zogby knows it!

What is the rest of the Arab world doing to help the Palestinians, to shoulder some of the responsibilities and help Palestinians out of poverty and into jobs?  What is the hapless, useless United Nations doing?  Nothing.  And James Zogby knows it!

With the exception of blood money, and that money used specifically to fuel terrorism and terrorist activities, how much money has the Arab world contributed to the Palestinians to help create jobs, spur new business ventures and economic growth?  Nothing.  And James Zogby knows it!

How much land has the Arab world agreed to donate (or even sell at a reasonable price) to its Muslim and Islamic brethren for a Palestinian State of its own?  Nothing.  And James Zogby knows it!

And so, for pointing out, yet again, just how deeply biased liberals such as yourself are against Israel; how much you truly despise Israel and self-loving Jews (as opposed to self-hating Jews); enough to have gone to the “Arianna Nation” to post your anti-Romney, anti-Israel diatribe, thank you, James Zogby, for best illustrating patent and blatant absurdity, which is the cornerstone of liberalism.

Doesn’t James Zogby know that?

How Republicans Can Use Schumer’s, Dems “Ex-Pat” Tax Scheme To Benefit All Americans

Chuck Schumer, (D -NY), and Bob Casey, (D-Pa) are unveiling a new tax scheme, the “Ex-PATRIOT Act” or Expatriation Prevention by Abolishing Tax-Related Incentives for Offshore Tenancy Act.  But before Republicans roll their eyes and hammer their fists in anger, they would do well to take a moment and reflect at what a golden opportunity this “tax hike” could be for Republicans and how it could actually reduce the tax burden if Republicans are smart enough to use the Dems tax scheme to a new advantage.  How would they do that?

The Ex-Pat Act is in direct response to those Americans who have renounced their American citizenship, specifically to keep from having to pay the exorbitant taxes Americans are forced to pay under our draconian tax system.  The Act would impose a 30% tax “on the capital gains of anybody who renounces their U.S. citizenship.”  The reason why Schumer, and other Dems, are proposing this, new tax, besides the obvious reason – their Democrats, and Democrats never met a tax hike they didn’t like – is to make certain that people who do renounce their American citizenship, like Facebook co-founder Eduardo Saverin, who did renounce his American citizenship before taking Facebook public, would still be required to pay the tens of millions in taxes on his stock purchases he would otherwise owe as an American citizen, some 67 million dollars.

But – why should Republicans go along with this scheme, and how can Republicans use it to their advantage, and to ultimately reduce the tax burden?

Before Republicans throw the Ex-Pat Act into the Boston Harbor, they ought to sit down with Democrats and make a deal that would benefit all Americans and American business; and, while it would impose a hefty fine on American tax “traitors” (which we ought not be too concerned with, yet) the benefits of this tax could have dramatic implications if Republicans play their cards right.  But, of course, if Democrats balk, or refuse to compromise, then by all means we ought to support, with a certain amount of understanding and sympathy, those Americans entrepreneurs and business risk takers that flee American and America’s outrageous and crippling tax system.

Behind those proverbial “closed” doors” Republicans ought to demand, in exchange for going along with the Ex-Pat Act, that both capital gains and corporate taxes be put in limbo (a moratorium) for a period of five years, after which both those taxes would come back at a competitive 9%, respectively.  Ideally both those taxes would be abolished all together, along with a host of other non-essential taxes (of which most taxes are).  However, until Republicans control all three Houses, and in particular, fiscal conservative Republicans who are determined to shrink the size of government, that is unlikely to occur.  But we can get the ball moving in the right direction.

One of the most important things we can accomplish in regaining control of our economy, and growing that economy, and in creating a plethora of new jobs, and new tax revenue, is to reduce the risk involved in owning and operating a business, investing in that business and profiting from that business.  It makes absolutely no common sense, or smart business sense, to have among the highest corporate and capital gains taxes in the world.  The more we can reduce these taxes, make them more competitive, more attractive for American businesses who have already fled to other nations to return to America, and even for foreign business to relocate to America, the more we can reverse our stagnant economy, which is, in essence in a coma and on life support right now.

Obviously there are other business taxes associated, and we will need to deal with those too, as well as the entire tax system.  But if we can do this one thing, put that five-year moratorium on capital gains and corporate taxes, in that five-year period we will see our economy rebound and grow with dramatic results.  New businesses will be created; current businesses will expand; all of which will need new workers to meet demands.  Millions of real jobs, with competitive wages and salaries will be created, putting millions of Americans back to work, and dropping to unemployment rate well below 5%.

We know exactly what Schumer and the Democrats are up to with their Ex-Pat Act, but before we pooh-pooh it, let’s use it to our advantage for real and meaningful tax change in our country.  Of course, the Democrats might just walk away from the table and scrap their tax scheme altogether.  That is a possibility.

So what?

Republicans are in a good position to retain the House, pick up more seats in the Senate (if not take that too) and Romney is looking pretty good in the polls right now against Obama.  This may be the Democrats one and only opportunity to increase taxes before the election, and, if Romney’s wins, the last opportunity for a very long time.  Would Schumer and the Democrat Party risk blowing such an opportunity?  Just how badly do they want to “sock it to ‘em” – those Americans who renounce their citizenship in order to avoid, and to evade paying taxes?  Are we willing to find that out, or will we arrogantly squander a precious opportunity to cut taxes?

Mafia Style Unions Create Unemployment, Not Jobs: The “Right To Work” Is Solely Up To Business

Unions do not create jobs.  What do they create?  Unions create headaches for both business owners and their employees, and unions create unemployment for employees laid off from businesses who can no longer afford to keep them on because unions have muscled their way in, mafia style, and taken over a business owner’s right to run his/her business how they want.

S. S. blogger, Roger Bybee, doesn’t know business, and he doesn’t know Wisconsin.  In the Arianna Nation, he warns that Wisconsin Governor, Scott Walker, is waging a “War against Workers“, and that such a “war” is “crippling the activities of public employee unions”.  Well – isn’t that “crippling” effect among unions a good thing for the workers in Wisconsin, the businesses in Wisconsin and all Wisconsin citizens who now will not be forced to pay more for products and services?  Or – is it better for everyone if they are forced to pay higher and higher prices for products and services because business are forced to pay higher and higher wages to their employees?  The extra cost has to come from somewhere, and it is always passed down to the next person/business.  In the meantime, the unions rake in big bucks from unions dues, (protection money), mafia-style.

We all want higher paying jobs, better benefits, job and pay raise securities, medical and health insurance provisions, time off, etc.  For most businesses (predominately small business) this added burden causes businesses to either lay off employees to cover the extra expenditures of the remaining workforce, or to simply go out of business altogether after the unions have bled them dry, mafia style.

What liberals and otherwise pro-union supporters don’t talk about is that when businesses are forced, by unions, to pay more for an employee, and pay more into that employees overall benefit package, that money has to come from somewhere.  Where that “somewhere” is ought to be obvious, and is obvious to conservatives.  Businesses simply drive up the cost of their products and services and pass that cost onto their consumers, who can either pay the extra cost, if they can afford it, or find a competitor.  What in all likelihood happens to a business’s revenue when their customer goes to a competitor?

Now, what happens if a customer stays with a business who has raised their price to cover the mafia-style union enforced employee wage/salary increase?  The customer is left with that much less money for either their own business, or household.  When one business customer must pay more for a product or service it is receiving from another business, that business, likewise, must raise the price of its products and services to its customer base.  This causes an unnatural chain reaction, a domino effect, in that every business is forced to eventually raise its own prices for its own products and services to cover the additions costs they have had to incur to purchase the products and services they need to remain in business.

When that customer is a person – say a grocery shopper – who is paying more for a product which is now more expensive because the manufacturer of that product had to raise the cost to offset its union’s demands for higher employee wages/benefits; because the grocery store has to further raise the cost of that product to offset its loss incurred from having to pay more to put that product on its shelves, that shopper is also left with less money, which stretches their household budget, forcing them to reserve, conserve and spend less.  Everyone suffers when consumers, whether that is business to business transactions or a person grocery shopping, slows the flow of cash in an economy.  In very simple terms anyone ought to comprehend, the less money coming into a business, the more unhealthy that business is financially.  When a business is unhealthy, financially, how healthy are its employees, financially?

What happens when the customer refuses to pay the extra cost?  They find a competitor who can deliver the products and services they need, at a cheaper cost, obviously.  (And most likely this business is non-union.)  That business which has lost a customer to a competitor has less revenue, which means they have less money available to pay not only their employees, but the rest of their business related costs.  In the meantime, unions have made a killing on union dues, mafia-style.

When push comes to shove – is a business going to pay more money to save an employee their job, or is that business going to cut one or more employees from the workforce to save their own business?  And if a business, even one that is unionized, goes belly-up, what “protections” do those unions provide to the employees who are now out of work?

The inevitable result from this is that there is  “survival of the fittest” going on among all businesses.  Those business that have more capital, more cash flow and more investment in their business are better able to stay afloat, while other (small businesses in particular) are forced to fold because they cannot compete.  Non-union businesses, even in the small business sector, are better able to compete because they don’t have unions bearing down on them, pressuring them for more money, mafia-style.

There is no Constitutional demand that all, or any, business be unionized.  The only people who ever benefit from having unions in their business are the unions themselves.  How do unions benefit anyone when all they are really looking out for is themselves?  Employees might think their (union) jobs are more secure, and they will receive a higher wage, better benefits, etc, than a non-unionized business.  However – if a business goes under because of unions demanding they pay more to their employees, money which does not actually exist unless they raise the cost of their products and services, and those businesses lose customers to non-unionized competitors, how are those employees benefited by unions when they are laid off?

American businesses have a right to run their own businesses their own way.  When mafia-style unions barge in to a business, demanding that business pay more to their employees those unions are effectively taking the right to run a business away from the business owner.  And, by the way, it is understood that unions are not barging in for free.  They damn well expect to get their mafia-style “cut” and “tribute”.

Unions, and union pensions, also are directly responsible for many unbalanced state budgets, and the reason why your state’s Governor and legislature wants to raise taxes in your state.  Either abolish teachers, police, firefighters and hospital unions and all public unions – or begin having public union employees pay more into their own pensions that go towards balancing states budgets.  Good luck with that in Blue states.  Or – will teachers only teach, police only protect, firefighters only slide down those poles, hospital personnel only saves lives if they are being paid what they feel they are worth, depending on the salary they feel a mafia-style union can negotiate they feel they deserve?  And remember – whatever is negotiated is paid for by taxpayers, who don’t have any say in the matter.

Unions, just like any mafia, have destroyed the American economy and made hundreds of millions in “protection” dues.  Meanwhile, millions of people are still out of work, still hunting for a job, and still out of luck.  And unions in Wisconsin are doing everything they can to make finding a job even more difficult for Wisconsin citizens and business owners.

And Roger Bybee wants us to believe Governor Scott Walker, because he is fighting against mafia-style unions, is the problem?

Americans – Get Off Your Lazy Butts And Get Back To Work!

Are you one of the millions of Americans sitting on your couch in your underwear channel surfing, thumbing through old books, glancing up every now and then to see if the mailman has brought your welfare/unemployment check?  Governor Chris Christie has offered up some advice for Americans like you who are still out of work – and still not looking for a job in this, our “paternalistic entitlement society”.

“Government’s telling them stop dreaming, stop striving, we’ll take care of you.  We’re turning into a paternalistic entitlement society.  That will not just bankrupt us financially, it will bankrupt us morally.  We’ll have a bunch of people sitting on a couch waiting for their next government check”.

The problem we face in America right now, and will continue to face so long as Obama remains President, is that the opportunity for full-time employment is extremely low.  Businesses are being pinched, over taxed and over regulated by Obama’s government and to an extent their own state and local governments.  Knowing and understanding this is fundamental because too many Americans still feel that so long as the welfare/unemployment checks keep coming in, there is no urgency for finding a full-time job.  Does anyone believe that even a slight majority of people collecting a check in some form from government is actively searching for a job – any job – whether it is full time or not?  In other words, if one can get by on government assistance, what incentive is there for independence, as opposed to government dependence?

Now that the federal extension for unemployment insurance is being reduced from 99 weeks to 73 weeks over the remaining year, 2012, more people will be looking for jobs, but the amount of jobs available will either be the same or lower.  In other words, because the full-time jobs are not there, and because more Americans will be thrown into a market that works much like musical chairs, this will leave millions of Americans both without jobs and without government assistance to get them through another month.  Action by Democrats and liberals only revolves around adding more weeks of unemployment insurance benefits.  But how many more weeks can government add before the time comes when jobless Americans will see their children pass through elementary school, Jr. High and high school, all while they are at home collecting a check?  Billions of dollars are being squandered, and while there are millions of Americans who genuinely need short-term assistance, are we supposed to overlook and ignore the many millions of Americans who are intentionally abusing and taking advantage of the system and taxpayers?

If enough full-time jobs are not available right now for every American who wants one, is there an alternative to get them, and those of us who also want and need to work full-time, through until those full-time jobs are available?

Of course.  The solution is to simply take on two or three very part-time jobs.  Those types of jobs are plentiful, and while they don’t pay as much as full-time, and don’t offer insurance or other benefits of full-time employment – they still offer a paycheck.  And paychecks, for people who need an income right now, are, and ought to be, more important in the short-term, while still looking for full-time employment.  It makes no sense to sit on the couch, collecting welfare/unemployment waiting, expecting – demanding – full-time employment, and refusing to leave that couch until someone comes along and offers you a that job.  It doesn’t work that way in America, in Europe, or anywhere in the real world.  Try living like that in Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, China or any socialist “paradise” and “utopia”.  Mm, maybe France.

Why should Americans not be willing to “suck it in” so to speak (their pride, that is) and be willing to take these lesser paying jobs until the economy improves and business start offering more full-time jobs?  Virtually every single small business in America  that is still afloat, that is still fighting for life, is looking for extra help, even for a few hours a day or week.  We have been put in a situation, in America, primarily caused by Obama and the Democrat Party, that has seen businesses close their doors to new full-time hires, or close its door permanently, thereby laying off all its employees.  Our economy is very sensitive.  It does not react well to high taxes, high regulations, high inflation – and threat of even higher taxes, regulation and inflation.  Obama promises more of this, so why would any savvy business owners take on full-time employees during a time they know their cash flow is going to be further depleted?

Our best bet is to get off the couch, brush away the crumbs, grow some courage and take that part-time job across the street.  Get a few hours there, and go into the business next door as see what they have.  Doing this will put millions – tens of millions – of Americans back to work.  It will help an already fledgling small business sector, which account for about 75% off all business in America, get back on its own feet and pull our economy out of this hole.  The success of small businesses will cross over to medium and large businesses who rely and depend upon small business for myriad services.  And if/when big business is helped by small business, that extra help will transfer into the need, and urgency, for more full-time jobs.

If we have to work three or four, or five jobs, why should that be more insulting, more degrading, more indignant and more “work” than going to the mail box, collecting the welfare/unemployment check and taking it to the bank to cash it?

Post Navigation

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 61 other followers

%d bloggers like this: