Federal regulators are pinning the blame on Democrat Senator Charles Schumer (NY) for creating a panic among depositors of IndyMac bank.  IndyMac bank recently was taken over by the federal government.

As you may know, no bank keeps 100% of its deposits on hand.  They take money that is deposited and lend most of it out, keeping only a small fraction as a reserve.  What Chuck Schumer did is unnecessarily spread rumors of the bank’s demise, causing fear among depositors that resulted in a run on the bank.

During a bank run, depositors line up demanding their money, even if they risk no loss because of FDIC deposit insurance.  No bank can survive a bank run since they retain only a small portion of deposits.  IndyMac had no liquidity left, thus they were forced into failure.

If that idiot Chuck Schumer had left his mouth shut the bank probably would not have failed.  Or if it did fail, it would have done so in an orderly fashion.  Now taxpayers will be on the hook for $4 billion to $8 billion because of Schumer’s idiocy.

You don’t need to have a reason for a bank to fail.  All you need is a rumor.  Even healthy banks can fail during a bank run.  Schumer created the rumor.  He is to blame for IndyMac’s failure.

John D. Hawke, former Comptroller of the Currency, (national bank regulator) said the following about Schumer:

If Schumer continues to go public with letters raising questions about the condition of individual institutions, he will cause havoc in the banking system.

Leaking his IndyMac letter to the press was reckless and grossly irresponsible. I don’t see how he can be trusted with confidential information in the future. What this incredibly stupid conduct does is put at risk the willingness of regulators to share any information with the [congressional] oversight committees. After this, you’d be crazy to share information with Schumer.

A Democrat engaging in “incredibly stupid” conduct?  Everything Democrats do is incredibly stupid.  No surprises there.

Democrats destroy everything they get their hands on.

I’ve read several articles the past month or two about how the economic troubles faced by the United States are going to be problematic for John McCain.  Why should this be the case?

Barack Obama wants to raise taxes on investment and income on those who make over $250,000 per year.  Those are the people who create the jobs that Americans need.  How is leaving those people with less money to spend and invest going to create jobs?  It isn’t.  Less money means less spending and investment which means less jobs.  It’s as simple as that.

Barack Obama also opposes lifting bans on oil drilling where there are billions of barrels of oil just waiting to be tapped.  Gas prices are at record levels, leaving all Americans whether they ride the bus or drive vehicles with less money to spend elsewhere (bus fares are increasing all over the country because of higher fuel costs).  How is restricting new supplies of oil going to reduce the price of gasoline?  It isn’t.

High oil prices are also fueling food inflation.  People are spending more to feed themselves than before, leaving less money to spend elsewhere which means that jobs are going to be harmed.

If anything, the economic troubles should be good news for McCain because Barack Obama is on the exact opposite side of every issue that he should be on.

Raising taxes during an economic downturn is never a good thing.  Restricting the supply of oil during record high oil prices is not a good thing, either.  McCain and the Republicans need to do a better job of explaining this to the American people.  The last thing they should do is let the Democrats have control of the economic arguments when they are the ones responsible for the current situation.

McCain should pose the following questions to the American people:

• How does taking money out of the economy by raising taxes sustain current jobs and create new ones since less money means less spending?
• How does raising taxes on investment going to encourage investment and the creation of new jobs?
• How does blocking new oil from making it to market help lower the price of gasoline?

Every dollar that is spent in the economy becomes income for someone else.  Every dollar saved or invested helps create jobs.  Democrats want to do everything possible to take money out of the economy and harm American jobs.  McCain and the Republicans need to speak up about this.  It’s basic economics, and the DFL is on the wrong side of the argument.

This morning I read the news and what did I see?  I see that oil prices have set a new record, climbing to $147 per barrel in intraday trading.

Meanwhile, Democrats in Washington are doing everything they can to continue blocking domestic oil drilling, preventing new supply from coming to market in the next few years.

With 250 million passenger vehicles on American roads we are going to require petroleum for many years to come.  Nothing, not even record oil prices, have made the Democrats see the error of their ways and the need for more supply.

Conservation and technology are the answer, Democrats say.  But there comes a point where people can’t conserve any more than they already are, and there comes a point where that conservation comes as a cost in reduced economic activity.  Technology?  Hydrogen cars are still many years into the future.  A recent news story I saw had an expert in hydrogen cars saying that it will be at least ten years before they are on the roads in any significant numbers.  Ten years!  What will we do in the meantime?  Continue to pay record prices for gasoline because the Democrat fools don’t want to allow more domestic drilling?

The people hardest hit by the high cost of gasoline are the very people the Democratic Party pretends to represent.  The Democrats screw over their constituents every chance they get, and those Democrat voters aren’t smart enough to realize it.

Democrats now want to sue OPEC for price fixing.

Unbelievable! These Democrat morons did everything they could to limit new domestic supply of oil for years, and now they want to sue sovereign nations because they aren’t pumping more oil to help lower global prices?

Just when you think the Democratic Party can’t get more idiotic, it does. First off, how do you sue a sovereign nation when they are not obligated to do anything for you at all? Secondly, how can you even think of suing countries when you have refused for years, and still are refusing, to allow more domestic drilling for oil? You want to sue countries for not doing what you yourself refuse to allow? Thirdly, where is the evidence of price fixing? Is there any?

Also, how the hell could anybody in their right mind suggest doing anything to antagonize suppliers of oil–the lifeblood of our economy–by filing lawsuits against them? What if they get mad and refuse to supply us with oil? Then what? We would have massive shortages!

From ABC News:

With the average price of gas in the United States now above $4, Senate Republicans today rejected a plan by Democrats to give the president the authority to declare an “energy emergency” and sue OPEC nations, prosecute price gouging, assess a “windfall profits tax” on oil companies and cut down on speculation in the energy markets.

OK, I can see limiting speculation per the Democrat plan. But here’s the thing that Democrats are too dumb to realize: oil is a globally traded commodity and it is not possible to limit speculation in other countries. Foreign nations are not subject to American law or, fortunately for them, the idiocy of the Democratic Party. If you tried to limit speculation in America, what you would probably end up doing is driving trading of oil outside of America. Then what do you have?

As usual, the Republicans are the voice of reason; they provide the logic to the backdrop of Democrat foolishness.

NY Times Article:

Republican opponents of the oil-tax measure have argued that higher taxes on Big Oil would backfire, driving up gasoline prices and discouraging new domestic oil production and exploration. If the bill were approved, the American people “will get exactly what they don’t want,” said Senator Pete Domenici, Republican of New Mexico, who predicted higher prices and more reliance on imports.

Yes, that makes logical sense. Higher taxes always retard investment, in this case investment in exploration and development. Regarding the Democrats’ windfall profits tax scheme, which would not do a thing to lower gas prices:

Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican minority leader, summed up the argument of most of his party colleagues by asserting that “those who think we can tax our way out of this problem” are wrong.

Yes, that too, makes sense. You will not solve the problem of high oil prices–which are being felt worldwide–by increasing taxes.

The White House said the United States was “paying a price today for decades of Democratic opposition and regulatory obstacles to increasing domestic oil production,” as President Bush’s spokesman Tony Fratto put it. “Instead of populist votes that would do nothing for gas prices, we need to allow domestic oil production in environmentally sensitive ways,” Mr. Fratto said.

Yes, that too, makes logical sense. Democrats blocked domestic oil drilling for years. Now, all of America is paying the price. Interestingly, I did not see this mentioned on any of the national newscasts I watched tonight. Why is that?

Why are the news networks not talking about how Democrats blocked oil drilling all these years?

As you can clearly see, it is the Republicans who make sense and the Democrats who do not.

Democrats created this mess. Every American is paying the price.

The national unemployment rate has jumped to 5.5%. The cause of most of these job cuts is the high cost of energy, for which the Democratic Party is to blame.

From a news story:

The nation’s unemployment rate jumped to 5.5 percent in May — the biggest monthly rise since 1986 — as nervous employers cut 49,000 jobs.

The unemployment rate soared from 5 percent in April to 5.5 percent in May. That was the biggest one-month jump in the rate since February 1986.

The 5.5 percent rate is relatively moderate judged by historical standards.

The government said the number of unemployed people grew by 861,000 in May — rising to 8.5 million. The over-the-month jump in unemployment reflected more workers losing their jobs as well as an increase in those coming into the job market to look for work, the Bureau of Labor Statistics said.

With food and energy prices marching upward, paychecks aren’t stretching as far.

See that last sentence? That’s the key. High oil prices have driven up not only the cost of fuel, but of food as well since food is now being used to create fuel due to the high cost of oil.

The Democratic Party is solely to blame for this.

Democrats in Congress have blocked oil drilling every year since 2001. Each and every time Republicans introduced legislation to open up areas for drilling to increase the supply of oil on the market, Democrats have blocked it.

Let’s think about this for a few seconds. What happens as the population increases and the economy grows both nationally and worldwide and the supply of oil doesn’t keep pace? The answer is obvious: oil prices will rise.

Try explaining that to the Democrat fools or their dimwitted voting base.

Even as recently as this year, Democrats have tried to block oil drilling off the coast of California. Here are a few news stories proving how Democrats have been trying to sabotage the economy for years, and still are.

August, 2, 2001 CNN Article

August 2, 2001 Posted: 12:31 PM EDT (1631 GMT)

After hours of spirited debate, House lawmakers early Thursday approved a broad energy bill that would allow some oil drilling in an Alaskan refuge.

The vote marks a victory for President George W. Bush, who had campaigned on the philosophy that exploration in the refuge is key to the nation’s energy needs.

Democrats sought to rally support from enough moderate Republicans with environmental leanings for an amendment to block the plan to allow drilling in the reserve, but that was defeated in a 223-206 vote.

Supporters said opening the Arctic refuge for oil exploration was needed to reduce U.S. dependence on imported oil.

2001 CNN Article About Democrats taking control of the Senate

Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle: Daschle has promised to continue working in a bipartisan fashion but he’ll also advance the Democratic agenda.

He already has pronounced President Bush’s push for oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as dead.

President Bush and most Republicans understood that oil is the lifeblood of the American economy, and will be for many years to come. But Democrats blocked oil drilling every time it came up in the Senate. They blocked drilling each and every year. Democrats didn’t block oil drilling in just Alaska, but everywhere they could.

June 29, 2001 NY Times Article

Published: June 29, 2001

In another slap at President Bush’s energy and environment policies, the House of Representatives voted today to prohibit drilling for oil and gas in the Great Lakes.

The president has not taken a specific stand on exploration in the Great Lakes, but his energy policy is based on increasing domestic oil and gas production.

Last week, the House voted to ban drilling in the Gulf of Mexico off Florida and on the grounds of national monuments. And Congress has shown little interest in adopting the president’s plan to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

”The Democrat leadership is constraining our economy,” Mr. DeLay said, in an ”energy straitjacket.”

He accused Democrats of trying to ”choke off every promising source of domestic energy” and added, ”Their actual objective must be to eradicate America’s energy security.”

…Nearly all the Democrats (voted) to block Great Lakes drilling.

Even just this year, Democrats in a House committee voted to block oil drilling off the coast of California. Even during a period of soaring oil prices, Democrats are working hard to sabotage the American economy.

March 12, 2008 Article

Published: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 at 1:07 p.m.

Bill banning oil drilling wins endorsement

A bill that would permanently bar oil drilling in the waters off Sonoma County could soon face a U.S. House vote after the measure won committee endorsement Wednesday.

Not surprising, is it? The Democratic Party has articulated their opposition to domestic oil drilling many times.

July 30, 2007 SF Gate Article

Monday, July 30, 2007

Democrats, in taking back the House from Republicans, promised to tilt the nation’s energy policy away from oil drilling…

May 13, 2008 CNN Article

Pelosi argued that more drilling is not the answer…

So, if more oil drilling isn’t the answer, would less oil drilling reduce prices? Honestly, how stupid can you get? The reason oil rose to over $130 per barrel is because people are willing to pay that price, or they have no choice and must pay the price.

The fact is that when the world markets were flooded with oil, prices were low. Now that everything has grown, Democrats still insist that limiting domestic supply of oil is the correct course of action. Obviously, they are oblivious to the law of supply and demand.

Make no mistake: job losses are directly attributable to the high cost of oil.

United Airlines Cutting 1,100 Jobs

United Airlines said Wednesday it will discontinue its low-fare airline, called Ted, retire aircraft and cut up to 1,100 more jobs in an effort to lessen the impact of high prices for jet fuel.

Continental Airlines Cutting 3,000 jobs

DALLAS - Continental Airlines Inc. said Thursday it is cutting 3,000 jobs and reducing capacity in the fourth quarter by 11 percent, citing record fuel costs that have pushed the airline industry into a “crisis.”

But Democrats still cannot make the connection between energy prices and the economy. Each and every time the DFL has hauled oil industry executives before Congress in what amounts to nothing more than a public flogging, the oil company executives have given the same answer: allow more domestic drilling. And every time, the Democrats have ignored them, insisting that the proper course of action is to block oil drilling.

To demonstrate the idiocy of Democrats, here is a video of an oil company executive telling them that if they want to reduce prices, they must allow domestic drilling

http://youtube.com/watch?v=lI4OHVTNzlg

Transcript

Oil company exec: I can guarantee to the American people because of the inaction of the United States Congress ever increasing prices unless the demand comes down, and the $5 will look like a very low price in the years to come if we are prohibited from finding new reserves, new opportunities to increase supplies.

Democrat Maxine Waters: And guess what this liberal will be all about? This liberal will be all about socializing… Uh… Will be about… Basically, taking over and the government running all of your companies.

Look how stupid those Democrats are. They are given the answer to the question they asked and they completely ignore it, just like they’ve been ignoring it for years.

Now all of America is paying the price for the idiocy of the Democratic Party. And we will be paying for years to come.

You must keep one critical thing in mind: Democrat voting strongholds have the lowest academic achievement in the modernized world. It’s a fact that cannot be disputed. What’s more, intelligence, not income, is the primary determinate of academic achievement. It makes sense that smart people will do better in school than dumb people, right?

So, if Democrat communities have the lowest academic achievement and academic achievement is largely dependent on intelligence, what conclusion can we draw?

Now we can understand why these Democrats keep getting elected: Democrat voters aren’t very bright. No matter how badly the DFL screws them over, they will continue to vote Democrat.

Recent CNN Article About Gas Prices Causing Job Losses

Democrats in the House and Senate are working feverishly to harm those they claim to represent: lower income Americans.

In a desire to help alleviate the “foreclosure crisis”, Democrats are proposing ways to prop up the price of housing. The problem is that housing values in America have gotten ridiculously out of line with inflation and wage growth, meaning that housing eats up more household income than it should. In many areas of the country, housing values have appreciated at 8% to 10% per year for the past decade or so prior to the collapse of the housing bubble. In my area, a house that sold for $65,000 in 1995 would have sold for $180,000 to $200,000 in 2006–a near tripling in value. Wages in that time have certainly have not tripled.

Democrats are trying to spin the housing crisis by framing it in terms of average Americans losing their homes because this is what resonates with their voting base and because it helps make the economy look worse than it is. What they don’t tell you is that in many of the hardest hit communities, 70% or more of the homes in foreclosure are not owned by families, but by investors. Certainly, some families will lose their homes. Some because of greed and refinancing their mortgages to convert the equity to cash, others because they weren’t smart enough to research the price history of the house they purchased or because they bought into the myth that housing values never decline.

Anybody who bought their home before 2002 and is still living in it should emerge from the deflating housing market unscathed. The only thing they will lose is paper value, nothing out of pocket. People who bought homes more recently will surely be upside down in their mortgages, owing more than the house is worth. This presents a special problem.

Democrats want to federally insure $300 billion in mortgages so they can be restructured. They are ignoring the fact that many people who are upside down in their mortgages are voluntarily defaulting and stop making payments because it makes no sense to continue to pay on something on which they owe significantly more than it is worth. I’ve read several articles about this phenomenon recently. In fact, there is a website, youwalkaway.com, that helps people to abandon their homes so they can walk away without owing a penny.

The only thing the Democrats’ housing plan will do is push the United States further into debt since many people will continue defaulting on their mortgages because they owe more than their home is worth. They should stop meddling in the economy and let the housing market run its course. In the long run, housing values will decline. People will be able buy houses for less money, leaving them with more discretionary income every month to fuel further economic growth. Housing should not be prohibitively expensive. Let the market fall where it may, please!

Inexpensive housing is best for everyone–especially the people the DFL claims to represent. The Democrats’ plan will make housing more expensive than it otherwise would be if they let the bubble deflate naturally.

Walking Away From Mortgages Article

MSNBC Housing Plan Article

How stupid do these Democrats think the American people are?

Hillary Clinton has been promoting her job creation plan recently, which really isn’t much of a plan at all. In a nutshell, she has proposed a $7 billion plan to persuade companies to not ship jobs overseas. Five billion of that amount would be for tax credits supposedly to help companies compete globally. Hillary Clinton was quoted as saying:

“Today I’m proposing one of the largest expansions of tax benefits for research and job growth in a generation,” she said. “We have to update our tools for rewarding innovation. The research-and-development tax credit, for example, has been a successful, cost-effective tool to increase investment in research jobs here in the United States. When I’m president, we will increase it by 50 percent.”

OK, great. Hillary has just proposed tax credits for big corporations, which she has been criticizing for years. But another question one must ask is this: why has Hillary not proposed such legislation while she has served in the Senate? If she thinks this is such a great idea, why didn’t she propose this years ago, or even more recently? And why didn’t she introduce the legislation to get the ball rolling?

The reason Mrs. Clinton didn’t do anything about this earlier is because she doesn’t believe in this kind of thing. She is interested in getting votes and will pander to anyone who wants to listen. In one speech she will rail against corporations and tax credits much like the ones she has proposed. Then in another speech she will completely contradict herself and propose the very thing she has been critical of in the past.

What’s even worse is that these Democrat troglodytes aren’t bright enough to not only see Hillary Clinton for the fraud she is, but they aren’t capable of realizing the detrimental effect her other proposals will have on business and industry.

Hillary has proposed mandatory employer-provided health insurance for all employees, even part-time flunkies. She has also proposed mandatory paid maternity leave for employees who have babies, starting first with federal government employees.

Then we must consider Hillary’s position that taxes on corporations and wealthy individuals must be raised, both income and investment taxes. How does raising taxes on investment returns encourage the investment necessary to create jobs? How does raising income taxes on those who actually do the investing and purchasing create jobs given that they have less money to spend on either? It doesn’t.

Nobody invests money to have the majority of it taken away from them. Taxes diminish investment returns. When investment returns decline, less investment takes place! Why the hell don’t these Democrats realize this?

All of these policies that Hillary has proposed increase the burden on employers and raise the cost of doing business in America. A few billion in tax credits won’t come close to offsetting the tens-of-billions in additional taxes and mandates that Hillary champions.

I won’t even get into the DFL’s desire to put carbon taxes on energy, which would raise the cost of doing business even more.

It seems like a twisted joke for Hillary to propose a jobs plan when she is also proposing policies that will destroy jobs. I just wish the Democratic Party’s voting base was smart enough to see this nonsense for what it truly is.

The idiocy of the Democratic Party never ends!

At a time when oil has reached a record price, just under $110 per barrel, Democrats in the House Natural Resources Committee passed a bill to permanently ban oil drilling off the coast of Sonoma and Marin Counties in California.

According to this article, oil companies have long wanted to get at the oil offshore. The Democrat plan would double size the of the Gulf of the Farallones and Cordell Bank national marine sanctuaries, preventing access to the liquid gold beneath the ocean floor.

Now, unless you are a total and complete idiot, in other words, a Democrat, you know that the Democratic Party has been blocking domestic oil drilling for years.

In all the years from 2001 to 2006, Democrats have blocked oil drilling in Alaska, and more recently they have blocked oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.

Most Democrat voters are either not smart enough to care about this or are unwilling to look beyond their hand which is extended for more welfare freebies. The Democratic Party’s policy of blocking domestic oil drilling is raising the cost of everything they buy, harming productivity, and costing them a fortune at the pump.

But those Democrats just aren’t smart enough to see it, are they?

Democrats want to steal all of your money. Republicans don’t want Democrats to steal any of your money. The Democrat notion of compromise: let Democrats steal half of your money; then next year they will come back and try to steal the other half.

Here is an article about Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards’ speech to the Teamster’s Union in Chicago, IL.

(Bloomberg Article About John Edwards)

Democrats promise to:

• Raise income taxes sky high
• Raise capital gains and dividends taxes, making it more costly to do business and raise job-creating capital in America
• Require all employers to provide health insurance for employees, even for part-time workers (if they can’t get socialized medicine rammed down our throats)
• Make it more difficult to do business by giving unions greater power over entrepreneurs and business owners so they can more easily extort above-market wages and benefits
• Tax the hell out of energy products by putting a “carbon tax” on everything from gasoline to electricity, dramatically raising the cost of production

Why don’t Democrats ever discuss the detrimental effects their policies have on American jobs and manufacturing?

Wages are a concern for every employer, absolutely. But another concern–and depending on the industry, possibly the biggest concern–is taxes. Taxes are a direct bite out of your profits. Taxes mean not only less money for business owners, but also less money for reinvestment and further job creation. Employee wages are a cost of production, taxes are not.

Another huge concern is regulation. Do you think the restaurant owner who barely makes $75,000 in annual profits wants to be forced to buy health insurance for his part-time waitstaff?

If you want to push jobs overseas, tax businesses at a very high level and regulate every aspect of their activities. Mandate that businesses must waste time and money on things other than production. Also, make it very difficult to fire under-performing employees. Put in place an agency that vigorously investigates fraudulent and vindictive claims of “racism” which cost thousands of dollars to defend against.

Hmmm, Democrats in America are trying to push us toward the very things France is moving away from. Democrats could learn from France, particularly their economic troubles which were caused by these very same policies that Democrats are fighting for.

By the way, do you think John Edwards’ barber is a union barber?

The only difference between a Democrat and a thief is that a thief is much more efficient at stealing your money.

The US economy grew at an annualized rate of 3.4% during the second quarter of 2007.

Wall Street Journal Article

That’s good, solid growth. It’s not too high, not too low, it’s just right.

Keep in mind: Democrats have been fighting to take money out of the economy via tax increases since 2001.

If the Democrats had gotten their way, our economy would not be as strong as it is. Millions of jobs that are held by American workers today would not exist. Thanks to President Bush and the Republicans–and no thanks to the Democrats–our nation’s unemployment rate is at a record low.

Our economy is 70% driven by consumers. If the Democrats take money out of the pockets of consumers by raising taxes, that is money that will not be spent to drive the economy and job growth. Does that make sense? Well, it doesn’t to the Democrats or their dim-witted voters.

Hillary Clinton is promising to raise taxes. So is John Edwards. So is Barack Obama. As a matter of fact, every Democrat is promising to raise taxes. They are promising to take money out of the economy and kill economic growth! Millions of American workers will be hurt by the Democratic Party if they get what they want!

If you have any sense at all you will reject the Democratic Party and their socialist ideals.

The Democratic Party: Bad for workers, bad for America.

Everywhere you look, the Democratic Party and their allies are destroying something. Destroying cities with crime and violence, destroying schools with misbehavior and low intelligence, destroying industries, and if they had their way, entire economies.

Now, the United Auto Workers Union is hellbent on destroying itself.

Despite the auto industry being in severe financial straits due to ridiculously high wages and life-long benefits, the United Auto Workers Union is “not in the mood” to offer concessions.

UAW membership peaked in 1979 at 1.5 million members, stands at 538,000 today, and could drop to around 400,000 in a couple of years if business conditions do not change.

Auto workers make about $30 doing a job a trained monkey could do. Plus, they get generous health benefits and a life-long pension once they hit the 30-year mark. They are grossly over-compensated for what they do.

If the UAW and its members agreed to give up their pensions, which they do not deserve in the first place, that would go a long way to making the American automotive industry profitable again. It might even spare a hundred-thousand union jobs or more.

But the UAW will never give up its pensions. Why? Because pensions are the ultimate way to “stick it to the man”. Pensions are payments for doing nothing. You don’t work, you still get paid.

What better way for an anti-capitalist Democrat ally to “stick it to the man” than insist on getting paid for nothing?

Almost every unionized industry in America has been on the brink of destruction. The steel, airline, grocery, and automotive industries just to name a few. They’ve all been on the brink of destruction for the same reason: union stubbornness in adapting to a changing world economy.

There is something seriously wrong with the brains of Democrats. Logic is lacking, for sure. But there is something else, something so destructive inside that it results in the destruction of the self to spite another party.

The American economy will be much more efficient and better positioned to compete in the global economy once these unions are stamped out. Let’s hope these unions bleed to death quickly after they slit their own throats!

(Bloomberg Article)

Each and every time a Democrat opens his or her mouth, he or she proposes new social services spending and higher taxation. It’s fact. Democrats need your money so they can redistribute it and buy votes, which will keep them in power. Look at how Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and Barack Obama propose new spending at every campaign stop.

On tonight’s showing of “60 Minutes”, there was a story about the impending disaster that will take place in the coming decades as a result of an aging population coupled with generous Social Security and Medicare benefits. The United States will not be able to pay for the benefits foolishly promised to the elderly.

So what do we do? Democrats want us to raise taxes, which will guarantee them eternal power. But one thing the Democrats never do, probably because they lack the intelligence to ponder such matters, is talk about the economic harm that comes from increases in taxation. (If Democrats had brains they wouldn’t be Democrats!)

How does raising taxes create jobs? How does taking the money away from a wealthy person who would otherwise invest it in productive activity create jobs? How does reducing the rate of return from investment by taxing it away stimulate investment? How does taking money out of the pockets of families create jobs?

Taking money out of our consumer-driven economy by raising taxes doesn’t create jobs. It kills jobs.

Think about it: if a family has $5,000 of discretionary income that they can save or spend per year, and the Democrats come along and their raise taxes by $1,000, that is a thousand dollars less the family has to spend on restaurants, recreational activities, vacations, household items, etcetera. The waitress who would otherwise get a tip won’t, the restaurant owner won’t get the business, the family won’t stay at a motel for a few days on a family get-away… It’s simple logic, right? Yet it escapes the vast majority of Democrat voters.

Not only do Democrat tax increases result in less spending and, hence, less jobs, it results in less saving for retirement, which makes people even more dependent on the government! Every policy the Democrats have is designed to push the nation closer to socialism and make the populace more dependent on the Democratic Party.

We need to look at the elderly and decide what we can and cannot afford to spend on a no-longer productive segment of society before we bankrupt the nation.

Everybody dies, right? You, me, and everyone we know and love will die one day. Nobody lives forever. It seems very foolish to me to spend $50,000 for open-heart surgery on a 77-year-old man when, statistically, he could drop dead at any moment. It seems like a total waste to spend $100,000 per year to keep an elderly Parkinson’s patient alive in a nursing home by hooking him up to a feeding tube, making him a prisoner in his own bed, when he would otherwise be out of his misery. Wouldn’t that money be better spent on the youth? If it is to be spent at all, that is, instead of allowing the people who earn that money to keep it.

The former principal of the high school I attended died several months ago. The obituary article in the paper mentioned how he died of complications from heart surgery. He was 77-years-old. How many college kids could have been put through college for the amount of money spent on that 77-year-old man’s heart surgery–which he didn’t live to benefit from? Even if he had lived, odds are he would have been dead in a few years anyway.

How many college kids could be put through college every year on the $500 billion America spends on Medicare alone? The youth are the future, right? Today’s youth are the ones who will make life better for those who come after us, right? So why is America devoting so much resources on the past?

In no way, shape, or form am I anti-elderly. I like senior citizens. Most of them are very nice people with history and wisdom to share. But that doesn’t change the fact that they have a foot in the grave and spending tens-of-thousands of dollars on them to keep them alive for a few more months or years is a complete waste of limited resources that would be better allocated to the youth.

People tell me that when I get old, I’ll look to the government to take care of me. That isn’t true. I’ve been in nursing homes, I’ve seen my grandparents slowly waste away until they died. I’d prefer to die a quick death than linger and be a burden to anyone–including taxpayers.