Friday, July 25, 2014
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Where I give you my slightly quirky opinion, and you can give me yours, as long as you're man or woman enough to be civil and control your language.
Time (EST)
About Me
- Joe
- I was born in Miami, Florida, the son of an Air Force officer, traveled the world, was saved at age 17, and have served the Lord since. That's me on the left and my lovely wife, Bonnie...the pretty one...on the right.
There Are But A Few Rules To Follow
1. Absolutely no foul language (including the use of asterisks). If you are not man or woman enough to control your language, you are not welcome here...go somewhere else.
2. I am not looking for strings of commenters arguing with each other, so confine your comments to the topic at hand and address your comments to me, unless you can be exceptionally gracious and polite.
3. Since this is my blog, I am the sole arbiter of what can be placed on this blog. My decisions are final and without recourse. All anonymous comments, unsigned, will be deleted, as will ad hominem attacks against me or others.
4. Within the scope of those rules, you may feel free to have fun here (I sure will). Sarcasm, wit, half-wit, nit-wit, parody, satire, puns (especially puns), etc. are encouraged.
FOUR PRINCIPLES THAT DEFINE TRUE CONSERVATISM:
1. Respect for The Constitution
2. Respect for Life
3. The Smallest Possible Government
4. Individual Responsibility
This blog is about my philosophy of government, which is a very conservative philosophy.
You are not required to agree with me (although you would be better off if you did).
I am biased toward conservatism, and make no apologies for that.
Freedom means not being controlled by the government, that being the very reason we declared our independence from Great Britain.
2. I am not looking for strings of commenters arguing with each other, so confine your comments to the topic at hand and address your comments to me, unless you can be exceptionally gracious and polite.
3. Since this is my blog, I am the sole arbiter of what can be placed on this blog. My decisions are final and without recourse. All anonymous comments, unsigned, will be deleted, as will ad hominem attacks against me or others.
4. Within the scope of those rules, you may feel free to have fun here (I sure will). Sarcasm, wit, half-wit, nit-wit, parody, satire, puns (especially puns), etc. are encouraged.
FOUR PRINCIPLES THAT DEFINE TRUE CONSERVATISM:
1. Respect for The Constitution
2. Respect for Life
3. The Smallest Possible Government
4. Individual Responsibility
This blog is about my philosophy of government, which is a very conservative philosophy.
You are not required to agree with me (although you would be better off if you did).
I am biased toward conservatism, and make no apologies for that.
Freedom means not being controlled by the government, that being the very reason we declared our independence from Great Britain.
Government's job is not to provide things for people, but to provide the opportunity for people to persue the things they want via the vehicles of freedom and responsibility.
Some of My Favorite Bloggers
NATIONAL BLOGS & STUFF
- American Spectator
- American Thinker
- Big Government (Breitbart)
- Big Journalism
- Breitbart TV
- CNS News
- Cato Institute
- Contact Your Congressperson
- Contact your Senator
- Daily Caller
- Darwin's God
- Drudge Report
- Everything About Congress!
- Fox Nation
- Gateway Pundit
- Heritage Foundation
- Hot Air
- Insta Pundit
- Joe's Jottings (My Other Blog)
- Kingdom FM Christian Radio
- Mark Levin
- Michelle Malkin
- News Max
- NewsBusters
- On Racism & Republicans
- Politico
- Real Clear Politics
- Right Scoop, The
- Rush Limbaugh
- Sean Hannity
- WINK News Radio
- Wall Builders (A Web Site)
- Weekly Standard
- What's Happening in Congress
SPECIAL STUDIES
BHO-THE CONSUMATE AMATEUR
WHY I CALL HIM "PRESIDENT BO"
I call him "President" out of respect for the office. I call him "BO" (as in Body Odor) because his agenda stinks.
I also refer to him as our "Acting President."
I also refer to him as our "Acting President."
SPECIAL REPORT
The Obama Dictionary
IF YOU REALLY WANT TO LEARN, READ THESE
FAIR USE
FAIR USE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Former Features to Visit or Revisit
Blog Archive
-
▼
2014
(227)
-
▼
July
(26)
- SURGERY THURSDAY-Back as soon as I can
- All of Our Problems In One Outburst
- And All with A Straight Face
- A Different Kind of SUNDAY RESPITE-Acclamation of ...
- I Ask Again: How Many Will It Take?
- Here They Are (But I'll Bet that Liberals Can)
- How Proud We Can All Be
- When Hard Choices Equal Poor Choices
- "So What's Next?" Is the Question the World Is Asking
- Kidding Around
- SUNDAY RESPITE-Every Praise-Hezekiah Walker
- A Real President
- Talk about Income Disparity
- "I hope he fails."-Rush Limbaugh. Sadly, he has no...
- Me, Myself and I
- SUNDAY RESPITE-The End of the Beginning-David Phelps
- Palestinian State?
- Keeping the Story Straight
- Cover Up Galore
- Really?
- Hard Drive Crash?
- SUNDAY RESPITE-You Are My Hiding Place-Maranatha S...
- What Is the REAL Motive for Gun Control?
- Happy Independence Day! (Recommended viewing: full...
- I Double-Dog-Dare Liberals to Address the Actual I...
- On the left, Democrats. On the right, Republicans
-
▼
July
(26)
IMPORTANT FEATURED ARTICLES FROM OTHERS
Visitors Since 02-04-10
12 comments:
I can hardly wait until the liberal trolls begin commenting on this one.
GEC: I don't expect them to respond. They never do respond to the incontrovertible.
Well Joe, it's all in the way you use language. Take number one.
If you think anyone is proposing legislating the wealthy out of prosperity then you're a fool. Taxing the likes of carried interest at a rate lower than many people's meager CD interest seems ill advised to me.
But you and Glenn would rather see the upward transference of wealth accelerate and create a larger permanent underclass because that's what you think form a healthy, vibrant society.
You two should stick to your pithy aphorisms.
You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it? Actually, you can. Look into multiplier effects and report back to the class. Or just join Glenn in being snotty and ignorant and mired in your 15th century Calvinism.
Societies start to break when the wealth disparity becomes very large and basic needs like health insurance are unavailable to low income earners.
Of course with increased automation jobs are becoming scarcer and unemployment higher but deep thinkers like yourself think that there are jobs begging for everyone.
You are being intensely shallow.
Ducky,
Once again you show yourself to be the fool, as well as a liar with false accusations.
“But you and Glenn would rather see the upward transference of wealth accelerate”
Amazing how you can claim to be such a mind-reader! What I want to see is that people earn a living and are not looked down on if they get rich doing so. What I also want to see is an equal tax burden whether one is poor or rich; imagine if EVERYONE had to pay 15% income tax. I’d pay less, the wealthy would pay less, and the poor would pay more. It is not fair to burden the richer people with a higher rate of taxation— it merely punishes them for being successful and rewards the indigent.
Glenn in being snotty and ignorant and mired in your 15th century Calvinism.
Calvinism — You keep using that word; I do not think it means what you think it means.
No one who knows me would ever accuse me of being a Calvinist, and I have stated that to you many times. But you obviously know better and know what I believe no matter how often I state otherwise.
Societies start to break when the wealth disparity becomes very large and basic needs like health insurance are unavailable to low income earners.
Suppose you give me an example from history where “wealth disparity” (an ambiguous term) has caused a society to “start to break.” Nice assertion, an argument without argument - and it makes YOU feel good.
Suppose you tell me when health insurance began and who all had it prior to Obamacare causing people to lose it. Health insurance through employers was started as a way of attracting employees. The government has no right under any law (let alone the Constitution) to tell employers that they must provide health insurance. Health insurance is NOT a “basic need” any more than is home-owner’s insurance or car insurance or dental insurance or vision insurance. Everyone has always had access to necessary health care. Insurance is NOT a right.
The rest of your claims against us have no basis in reality - which is normal for you.
Ducky: As usual, you have misstated my position, as well as the position of most conservatives. I do not believe in taxing the rich more just because they "can afford" it is good economic policy. Nor do I think 45%+ on some kind of government welfare is a good thing (myself included - although Social Security is somewhat different from other welfare forms).
Do a little study about what constitutes Calvinism. Don't forget to include TULIP.
Glenn is not a Calvinist, nor am I.
With regard to health insurance: there are more people have lost theirs than there are of people who did not have it but have gained it under ObamaCare.
I work at a physician referral service in the call center. The percentage of callers who have to change doctors because theirs is not listed on their insurance has grown by leaps and bounds. It is about 47% of our calls, now.
Before ObamaCare, it was almost rare.
Oh my, isn't the bee hive all stirred up.
Let me explain my vernacular usage of "Calvinist". I refer to your belief in an elect which you must have because you believe that wealth accumulation is strictly and always a matter of individual achievement.
Just ask the heirs to the Walmart fortune and the Koch Bros., right? But to quote Thatcher, a favorite of yours, "There is no society", right?
Just the elite and the undeserving.
And Glenn comes through like a champ with the flat tax. Right on cue he suggests that the poor who are struggling should have their taxes increased while the wealthy see a reduction. God thinking, Glenn.
I noticed you didn't try to respond to the issue of multipliers. Keep trying. You'll come up with a reason why letting wealthy slugs pile up a bunch of cash untaxed in the Caymans generates more growth than using a graduated tax to see that some money goes to the poor who spend it on food.
But no, we'll get a canned bogus rant about the Affordable Care Act while you lick your wounds.
Let's have some more pithy aphorisms.
Ducky: "'There is no society', right?
"Just the elite and the undeserving."
The only undeserving are those who can work but won't. Everyone else can become rich if they want to. I say let's teach them how. There is NOT a finite amount of money.
There is no "vernacular" use of "Calvinist."
@Glenn ---
Suppose you give me an example from history where “wealth disparity” (an ambiguous term) has caused a society to “start to break.”
---------
Why not start with the French Revolution and continue your studies from there.
Joe,for your consideration
Ducky: Considered. Rejected. It is false.
Oh, and BTW, China does not have a "trickle down" economy. It would be impossible for them to do so unless you deliberately change the meaning of the phrase in order to deceive.
Ducky,
Let me explain my vernacular usage of "Calvinist". I refer to your belief in an elect which you must have because you believe that wealth accumulation is strictly and always a matter of individual achievement
You just demonstrated your complete ignorance of what Calvinism is, and it has nothing to do with wealth accumulation.
Heirs of someone who accumulated the wealth have not accumulated wealth when they inherit it, rather they inherit wealth. But that wealth was not magically created - it was earned through the hard work of the accumulator.
And Glenn comes through like a champ with the flat tax. Right on cue he suggests that the poor who are struggling should have their taxes increased while the wealthy see a reduction. God thinking, Glenn.
So, if someone is poor, they should pay no tax at all?!?!?! The real “poor” in the USA are a very, very small minority, and exemption could certainly be made for income which is extremely low, but that can get to be very subjective, can’t it? Who gets to determine what “poor” is?
You liberals are always demanding “equality” or “equity” yet when someone with common sense says everyone should pay the same percentage of their income as tax, suddenly you are no longer for equality — you want to punish the rich.
Are you able to read? Try this one:
http://moralophobia.blogspot.com/2014/01/are-they-as-poor-as-government-says.html
Or this one:
http://moralophobia.blogspot.com/2014/04/redistributing-wealth-doesnt-end-poverty.html
Ducky,
Why not start with the French Revolution and continue your studies from there.
It was about class warfare, just like what you and your ilk want to start. But overall it was about ABUSE by the nobility and the Romanist Church rather than income disparity. But, you liberals always like to revise history.
Post a Comment