I read in Fox News and elsewhere the howl of the demagogues to arrest George Bush.
For what?
Successfully prosecuting a war against terrorism?
For buying into every idiotic spending measure the dems wanted?
Bush was more liberal in his spending policies than he was conservative. Government grew under him faster than under any other President since Roosevelt.
The vote was too close to be called a democratic mandate for anything, other than a change of officers at the top.
What now prompts people on the left to now call for arrests of our highest officials?
Especially, since Pelosi/Reid et al voted for the war and the Patriot Act, etc. How does that history reconcile with the reviling by the mad dogs on the left now calling for the arrest of Bush for his part in prosecuting a war that their party leadership supported?
Such incredible partisanship and lack of intellect sounds more like the mob in Revolutionary France, rather than the exuberance of an educated citizen of the 21st century USA.
The only place George Bush showed his true R roots was in his prosecution of war. He did it right, and the U.S. is safer than any other country. France, Great Britain, Denmark, Norway, Germany, Spain and Italy all have suffered at the hands of their extremist Islamic populations. Both Great Britain and Spain actually had their own mini-9-11 with the London and Madrid Station bombings. The rest of the countries have suffered riots and other outrages against good order because of cartoons and other perceived insults to . . . Islam.
What those ideologues on the left need to remember is that this country was founded upon the rule of law. That law begins with the Constitution. All of our leaders, military personnel, federal officials, and federal employees swear an oath to defend that Constitution.
Most of us will not see any political party or the elected official therefrom change, rearrange, or otherwise reduce in import, impact, hierarchy, or authority that august declaration of our rights and the clear and timeless construct of our republic.
My God. Where was the publication of any such outrage, arrogance, stupidity, traitorous, and illegal demands for heads on a pole before the palace gates when George Bush, Ronald Reagan, or any other R President took office?
Only with mad dogs on the left does one get this kind of rhetoric.
The anti "hate speech" anything but our hate speech and anti-Christian anything crowd.
I am disgusted that the world has to see this kind of third world trappings of despotism upon the eve of our first half black half white President taking office.
I fear that with their idol in office, and with the likes of the Pelosi/Reid cabal in Congress, the more radical elements of the left may be moved to try to make their drug induced dream reality.
Let them be warned.
Too many died for the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence and for ideal expressed in "one nation, in God we trust, indivisible with liberty and justice for all" for any true citizen to tolerate such drivel and to ignore any unlawful act on the part of our government, just because a the political party in power is driven to excess by its radical anarchists.
The 2d Amendment stands against any who harbour such desires, as does our rule of law.
Let ideologues like Jose Rodriguez of the Arrest Bush morons howl all that they want. Their insanity is protected free speech. Protected by the very Constitution that they believe should be changed to meet their political and social viewpoint. So long as that is all that they do . . . howl, that is.
Ain't freedom grand?
Monday, January 19, 2009
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Obama's Speech today . . . what?!!!!
I am sick of the dems crying that there is something wrong with the U.S. That somehow, this nation is in perilous straits, and that only Barak Obama can somehow lift us out of this turmoil and conflict. That our economic woes are so bad, our children may starve without dem help! Why, we must spend ourselves back into economic prosperity by taxing the rich and the not so rich and the working and everybody but the illegal alien sucking the life out of our health care system . . . and, well, . . . you get the idea.
What a croc of pure unadulterated male bovine offal.
Who voted overwhelmingly for the bail out of the Wall Street billionaires' club?
Who cried for the economic stimulus package that benefits only those guilty of the greatest theft of money the world has ever seen--all of which can be largely lain at the feet of Barney Frank and Henry Waxman, not to mention Pelosi, Reid, et al. And, Bush, who signed the legislation without reservation.
What a croc.
I am not a citizen of a broken country.
I am not in need of my government's anything, except for that government to secure the borders, to insure the defense of this country, and to provide roads.
The rest of the government's interference is largely the duplicity and illusion through an interstate commerce act that gave the federal government no rights to interfere in the business of the State's except for interstate commerce. That was Congress acting with the duplicity of the Supreme Court. An expansion of federal power not granted by the Constitution, btw.
Why are so many tearing us down who know better?
"Yes we can!" the Obama supporters chanted during the race to the White House. "Yes we can . . . what?", the rest of us wondered.
Bush did not leave the U.S. in any worse condition than he found it. The military is certainly better off, even for the war.
Jobs were up, until the dems had to cover their butts over the housing mortgage scandal that they perpetrated upon this country. And, yeah, Bush signed the legislation. Just trying to be a "compassionate" conservative.
There is nothing wrong with the U.S.
Those in Congress and the White House both created the sub prime mess and encouraged it to buy votes. The party affiliation does not matter.
The same shortsightedness is still being exercised with respect to the issue of immigration and the insanity of continuing to invite radical Islam into this country in the face of the turmoil, pain and suffering of the people where it is in power.
In spite of that cynicism on the part of our political leadership, we are going to be just fine.
We would be better off even sooner if we got together and threw a bunch of double dealing investment bankers and most of Congress into the Hudson River right along with the rest of the trash.
Oh, yeah.
Just read, learn, and talk. You will figure it out sooner or later.
Those that want to "do it all for you", such as Barak Obama and Nancy Pelosi, they are the ones you must watch.
For theirs is the philosophy of "do not do as we do, but do as we say" and "what's yours is ours" to give to someone else who did not earn it in the first place.
What a croc of pure unadulterated male bovine offal.
Who voted overwhelmingly for the bail out of the Wall Street billionaires' club?
Who cried for the economic stimulus package that benefits only those guilty of the greatest theft of money the world has ever seen--all of which can be largely lain at the feet of Barney Frank and Henry Waxman, not to mention Pelosi, Reid, et al. And, Bush, who signed the legislation without reservation.
What a croc.
I am not a citizen of a broken country.
I am not in need of my government's anything, except for that government to secure the borders, to insure the defense of this country, and to provide roads.
The rest of the government's interference is largely the duplicity and illusion through an interstate commerce act that gave the federal government no rights to interfere in the business of the State's except for interstate commerce. That was Congress acting with the duplicity of the Supreme Court. An expansion of federal power not granted by the Constitution, btw.
Why are so many tearing us down who know better?
"Yes we can!" the Obama supporters chanted during the race to the White House. "Yes we can . . . what?", the rest of us wondered.
Bush did not leave the U.S. in any worse condition than he found it. The military is certainly better off, even for the war.
Jobs were up, until the dems had to cover their butts over the housing mortgage scandal that they perpetrated upon this country. And, yeah, Bush signed the legislation. Just trying to be a "compassionate" conservative.
There is nothing wrong with the U.S.
Those in Congress and the White House both created the sub prime mess and encouraged it to buy votes. The party affiliation does not matter.
The same shortsightedness is still being exercised with respect to the issue of immigration and the insanity of continuing to invite radical Islam into this country in the face of the turmoil, pain and suffering of the people where it is in power.
In spite of that cynicism on the part of our political leadership, we are going to be just fine.
We would be better off even sooner if we got together and threw a bunch of double dealing investment bankers and most of Congress into the Hudson River right along with the rest of the trash.
Oh, yeah.
Just read, learn, and talk. You will figure it out sooner or later.
Those that want to "do it all for you", such as Barak Obama and Nancy Pelosi, they are the ones you must watch.
For theirs is the philosophy of "do not do as we do, but do as we say" and "what's yours is ours" to give to someone else who did not earn it in the first place.
On Obama's eligibility . . . was he born a U.S. citizen?
I have read several articles reporting on court challenges to Obama's eligibility to hold the office of the President of the United States. These challenges seem to be focused upon the premise that he was born outside of the U.S., under a foreign flag.
What is disturbing to me is that given Obama's knowledge of the challenges, he has never publicly held up his birth certificate and said "here it is, now shut the f. . . up!". Or words to that effect. Instead, he has obfuscated, delayed, refused, and otherwise given credibility to his detractors on that issue. Why?
That is indeed the question.
The issue is raised under Article II of the Constitution:
"No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States. "
The questions raised before the courts regarding Obama seem to revolve around the primary issue of his having been born on U.S. soil. Obama's Kenyan grandmother raised the issue when she represented that she had witnessed his birth in Kenya. Meaning, Obama was born with a dual citizenship at best and certainly as a Kenyan at worst. The secondary issue questions his 14 years a resident within the U.S. prior to age 35. His mother was alleged to have been just 18 or under 18 at the time of the birth thereby disqualifying Obama from taking his mother's citizenship, and that he was well over 18 when he returned to the U.S. from Indonesia bringing into focus the 14 year residency issue.
In stark contrast to Obama's obfuscation of the issue, the former V.P. nominee of the Republican Party, Gov. Sarah Palin, was forced to endure an incredible insult to any mother, much less a woman running for national office, when she was challenged to provide proof that she bore and birthed her latest progeny. Sarah Palin submitted to that indignity and provided proof to the national press that the baby was indeed hers. That bone was then tossed aside by the press once and for all.
It has been incredible to me that the press even raised that issue, but by stark contrast still continues to ignore the challenges to Obama's qualifications based upon citizenship. Is the press trying to imply that the qualifications set forth in the Constitution of the Untied States are to be ignored?
Our President to be does not seem to feel that he should submit to the demands of those who have sought to have the issue adjudicated at least twice before the Supreme Court and now, before several state supreme courts challenging the electoral collage of those several states regarding Obama's qualifications as to his eligibility under Article II of the Constitution.
All he has to do to end any debate is to offer up his birth certificate.
Obama obviously has a passport. That requires a birth certificate as proof of citizenship. Therefore, why is that evidence not submitted for public scrutiny to end any argument?
Were Obama an R, the liberal press would still be howling at the top of their headlines about how he was ineligible to be president. The court challenges would be all the news that we would be allowed until the issue was settled one way or the other. That is the hypocrisy of the left.
Why has Barak Obama not put this issue to rest by simply producing his birth certificate?
Why?
Beats me. Certainly makes me wonder. Especially, after what Sarah Palin went through.
Talk about a double standard. . . .
Over 200,000 U.S. citizens have signed a petition requesting an investigation into Obama's citizenship. I was one.
The website of one of the attorneys challenging Obama is interesting. If the facts presented bear witness, Barak Obama is not a U.S. citizen: www.obamacrimes.com/justthefacts.html
Either our Constitution is the arbiter of qualification, or we have become the mob to throw up law when it pleases and to ignore same at our convenience.
Nah. Too many guys died defending the Constitution, too many died to make it happen in the first place.
No one is above the law, not even Obama.
What is disturbing to me is that given Obama's knowledge of the challenges, he has never publicly held up his birth certificate and said "here it is, now shut the f. . . up!". Or words to that effect. Instead, he has obfuscated, delayed, refused, and otherwise given credibility to his detractors on that issue. Why?
That is indeed the question.
The issue is raised under Article II of the Constitution:
"No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States. "
The questions raised before the courts regarding Obama seem to revolve around the primary issue of his having been born on U.S. soil. Obama's Kenyan grandmother raised the issue when she represented that she had witnessed his birth in Kenya. Meaning, Obama was born with a dual citizenship at best and certainly as a Kenyan at worst. The secondary issue questions his 14 years a resident within the U.S. prior to age 35. His mother was alleged to have been just 18 or under 18 at the time of the birth thereby disqualifying Obama from taking his mother's citizenship, and that he was well over 18 when he returned to the U.S. from Indonesia bringing into focus the 14 year residency issue.
In stark contrast to Obama's obfuscation of the issue, the former V.P. nominee of the Republican Party, Gov. Sarah Palin, was forced to endure an incredible insult to any mother, much less a woman running for national office, when she was challenged to provide proof that she bore and birthed her latest progeny. Sarah Palin submitted to that indignity and provided proof to the national press that the baby was indeed hers. That bone was then tossed aside by the press once and for all.
It has been incredible to me that the press even raised that issue, but by stark contrast still continues to ignore the challenges to Obama's qualifications based upon citizenship. Is the press trying to imply that the qualifications set forth in the Constitution of the Untied States are to be ignored?
Our President to be does not seem to feel that he should submit to the demands of those who have sought to have the issue adjudicated at least twice before the Supreme Court and now, before several state supreme courts challenging the electoral collage of those several states regarding Obama's qualifications as to his eligibility under Article II of the Constitution.
All he has to do to end any debate is to offer up his birth certificate.
Obama obviously has a passport. That requires a birth certificate as proof of citizenship. Therefore, why is that evidence not submitted for public scrutiny to end any argument?
Were Obama an R, the liberal press would still be howling at the top of their headlines about how he was ineligible to be president. The court challenges would be all the news that we would be allowed until the issue was settled one way or the other. That is the hypocrisy of the left.
Why has Barak Obama not put this issue to rest by simply producing his birth certificate?
Why?
Beats me. Certainly makes me wonder. Especially, after what Sarah Palin went through.
Talk about a double standard. . . .
Over 200,000 U.S. citizens have signed a petition requesting an investigation into Obama's citizenship. I was one.
The website of one of the attorneys challenging Obama is interesting. If the facts presented bear witness, Barak Obama is not a U.S. citizen: www.obamacrimes.com/justthefacts.html
Either our Constitution is the arbiter of qualification, or we have become the mob to throw up law when it pleases and to ignore same at our convenience.
Nah. Too many guys died defending the Constitution, too many died to make it happen in the first place.
No one is above the law, not even Obama.
Pelosi and the Dems want to . . . prosecute?
Today's Fox News gave an interview with our illustrious House Speaker. Madam Rep. Pelosi stated to the effect that the dem Congress might just not be able to overlook the issues of the war, intelligence gathering, and those other illegal activities that the Bushies used to keep us free of terrorism within our own borders the last 8 years.
She was amongst those who stood and cheered and applauded the President when he made his speech to Congress about the course of the United States in responding to 9-11. Bush hid nothing.
She was a member of the Congress that passed every act the President asked for.
Where's the beef in her alleging that there must be investigations and prosecutions for any Bush official when it comes to the prosecution of a war she voted for?
Her counterparts in the Senate have been the most flagrant. Sen. Harry Reid was widely considered to be the person whose office leaked information to the press regarding intelligence activities.
Sen. Boxer, or was it Feinstein, on the appropriations subcommittee pushed $10s of millions in contracts to a company by the name of RSR Environmental.
RSR went from about $200,000 per year in military environmental contracts to $10 million the first year the aforementioned democratic senator's husband purchased stock in the company.
I have little doubt, that given Nancy Pelosi's hardball tactics within her own party ranks in Congress, that there is undo influence and more than just one or two situations that if subjected to the scrutiny of the law that would land her posterior behind bars. She is a hardcore left ideologue who will shout the law to all who can hear to keep the proletariat from learning the truth about the democratic house of glass and her excesses.
I guess the dems actually figure that if they lie enough, and shout that Bush's people did illegal acts when they did not, that we are stupid enough to ignore the truth and take the dem tripe verbatim without recognizing the lie for what it is: a means to consolidate power and reduce the likelihood of the dem party retaining its preeminence in Congress and the Presidency.
To waste the country's time and money at a time of economic challenge is an indication that vendettas are more important than the welfare of the country.
Any prosecutions alleged by Pelosi and her ilk are not about the sanctity of the law. They are about securing and insuring power without any fair recourse to the Republicans. The intent of the dems is to deep six the ability of the Republican Party to gain and hold power in the country.
Looking at the difference in the party platforms, I take the R platform any day. I like going to caucuses where we discuss family, life, and patriotism openly. Where we take pride in our military and honor the young men and women serving. A party where language, borders and culture mean the U.S. border, the English language, and OUR culture. Where unity is the key, not divisiveness--read diversity. Where there is only 3 colors: RED, WHITE, and BLUE. Where all are Americans, not hyphenated anything.
The dems give lip service to the military and only tolerate the military for its use as a social experiment.
The dems extoll death in abortion.
The dems deny marriage is between a man and woman. Two Ms or two Fs don't make a third anything. Homosexualism is a sad "evolutionary" DEAD END.
Dems believe business is bad and that more government handing out everything and keeping those bad Christians and conservatives quiet is good.
Dems believe religion and morality is bad. That the 1st Amendment means that pornography and sexual perversion of all types is to be readily available in our public libraries at public expense, but that the Word of God is verboten in any context and an affront to them.
That feeling good is the priority in life, not having personal responsibility is a right, and that being pregnant, unmarried, and female is the way families should be.
The dems believe that courts should legislate, not the people. Judges are to be the arbiters of their socialist agenda, not elections. Voting is bad, except where the fraud benefits the dem candidate or issue.
I was a democrat. A very long time ago. I changed parties when the dem party became a party of not asking what you could do for your country, but demanding that your country owes you a living.
The last TRUE democrat in Congress was Zell Miller of Georgia. He was the last of the true conservative dems. The last of the Kennedy (as in John) dems. The last of the dems who believed in the individual, not government. Who believed in tax breaks, not more taxes.
John Kennedy was responsible for the greatest tax cuts in the history in the history of the U.S. He believed in life. What happened to that dem party?
So, you see, when Nancy Pelosi starts talking vendettas, that the law must prevail, hide. Load your weapons, and wait. The time will come when we will have refresh the tree of liberty. I fear, all too soon.
Thank you, Lord, and George Washington for the 2d Amendment. (That GW is family, btw.)
I fear not my government, but my government damn well better not step beyond the law, or my government will be held accountable by we the people.
So there.
I think Pelosi is a bully who is riding a false crest of populist support that is not there, nor was ever there in the first place. Saying that the dems had a mandate is belied by the figures. I believe that she and the other dem socialist fruitcake ideologues will be spitting nails before the first year of the Obama administration is over. The reality is, that Obama picked a largely centrist cabinet. He understood the nature of the vote, and is in for the long haul, in spite of Pelosi's stupidity and shortsightedness. He will divorce himself from her extremism, until his second term when he has nothing to lose. That is when we will see Barak Obama, the socialist.
In the mean time, let Pelosi, Reid and the other morons howl in the wind and rattle sabers. Sooner or later, after the next Congressional election, they will understand that they are too far from their president and that the people did not vote a socialist agenda, they voted against a false conservative and a false conservative Congress. That those who voted dem who would have otherwise voted R voted dem to force change in the R party by sending a strong message to the neo cons.
This election was a bell weather event for the R party. Return to conservative values, or forget it until the party returns to its core values.
Every one forgets, GW campaigned twice on conservative values, and won.
Pelosi is a fool going down the path of poltiical vendetta, all she is doing is insuring the demise of dem power . . . hmmm . . . on second thought, GO PELOSI! (Big smiley face goes here.)
She was amongst those who stood and cheered and applauded the President when he made his speech to Congress about the course of the United States in responding to 9-11. Bush hid nothing.
She was a member of the Congress that passed every act the President asked for.
Where's the beef in her alleging that there must be investigations and prosecutions for any Bush official when it comes to the prosecution of a war she voted for?
Her counterparts in the Senate have been the most flagrant. Sen. Harry Reid was widely considered to be the person whose office leaked information to the press regarding intelligence activities.
Sen. Boxer, or was it Feinstein, on the appropriations subcommittee pushed $10s of millions in contracts to a company by the name of RSR Environmental.
RSR went from about $200,000 per year in military environmental contracts to $10 million the first year the aforementioned democratic senator's husband purchased stock in the company.
I have little doubt, that given Nancy Pelosi's hardball tactics within her own party ranks in Congress, that there is undo influence and more than just one or two situations that if subjected to the scrutiny of the law that would land her posterior behind bars. She is a hardcore left ideologue who will shout the law to all who can hear to keep the proletariat from learning the truth about the democratic house of glass and her excesses.
I guess the dems actually figure that if they lie enough, and shout that Bush's people did illegal acts when they did not, that we are stupid enough to ignore the truth and take the dem tripe verbatim without recognizing the lie for what it is: a means to consolidate power and reduce the likelihood of the dem party retaining its preeminence in Congress and the Presidency.
To waste the country's time and money at a time of economic challenge is an indication that vendettas are more important than the welfare of the country.
Any prosecutions alleged by Pelosi and her ilk are not about the sanctity of the law. They are about securing and insuring power without any fair recourse to the Republicans. The intent of the dems is to deep six the ability of the Republican Party to gain and hold power in the country.
Looking at the difference in the party platforms, I take the R platform any day. I like going to caucuses where we discuss family, life, and patriotism openly. Where we take pride in our military and honor the young men and women serving. A party where language, borders and culture mean the U.S. border, the English language, and OUR culture. Where unity is the key, not divisiveness--read diversity. Where there is only 3 colors: RED, WHITE, and BLUE. Where all are Americans, not hyphenated anything.
The dems give lip service to the military and only tolerate the military for its use as a social experiment.
The dems extoll death in abortion.
The dems deny marriage is between a man and woman. Two Ms or two Fs don't make a third anything. Homosexualism is a sad "evolutionary" DEAD END.
Dems believe business is bad and that more government handing out everything and keeping those bad Christians and conservatives quiet is good.
Dems believe religion and morality is bad. That the 1st Amendment means that pornography and sexual perversion of all types is to be readily available in our public libraries at public expense, but that the Word of God is verboten in any context and an affront to them.
That feeling good is the priority in life, not having personal responsibility is a right, and that being pregnant, unmarried, and female is the way families should be.
The dems believe that courts should legislate, not the people. Judges are to be the arbiters of their socialist agenda, not elections. Voting is bad, except where the fraud benefits the dem candidate or issue.
I was a democrat. A very long time ago. I changed parties when the dem party became a party of not asking what you could do for your country, but demanding that your country owes you a living.
The last TRUE democrat in Congress was Zell Miller of Georgia. He was the last of the true conservative dems. The last of the Kennedy (as in John) dems. The last of the dems who believed in the individual, not government. Who believed in tax breaks, not more taxes.
John Kennedy was responsible for the greatest tax cuts in the history in the history of the U.S. He believed in life. What happened to that dem party?
So, you see, when Nancy Pelosi starts talking vendettas, that the law must prevail, hide. Load your weapons, and wait. The time will come when we will have refresh the tree of liberty. I fear, all too soon.
Thank you, Lord, and George Washington for the 2d Amendment. (That GW is family, btw.)
I fear not my government, but my government damn well better not step beyond the law, or my government will be held accountable by we the people.
So there.
I think Pelosi is a bully who is riding a false crest of populist support that is not there, nor was ever there in the first place. Saying that the dems had a mandate is belied by the figures. I believe that she and the other dem socialist fruitcake ideologues will be spitting nails before the first year of the Obama administration is over. The reality is, that Obama picked a largely centrist cabinet. He understood the nature of the vote, and is in for the long haul, in spite of Pelosi's stupidity and shortsightedness. He will divorce himself from her extremism, until his second term when he has nothing to lose. That is when we will see Barak Obama, the socialist.
In the mean time, let Pelosi, Reid and the other morons howl in the wind and rattle sabers. Sooner or later, after the next Congressional election, they will understand that they are too far from their president and that the people did not vote a socialist agenda, they voted against a false conservative and a false conservative Congress. That those who voted dem who would have otherwise voted R voted dem to force change in the R party by sending a strong message to the neo cons.
This election was a bell weather event for the R party. Return to conservative values, or forget it until the party returns to its core values.
Every one forgets, GW campaigned twice on conservative values, and won.
Pelosi is a fool going down the path of poltiical vendetta, all she is doing is insuring the demise of dem power . . . hmmm . . . on second thought, GO PELOSI! (Big smiley face goes here.)
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Change the tax policy if you want a green industry
Once again, the U.S. Congress is where it was during the 1970s with the politically driven and politically correct desire to reduce the environmental impact of U.S. industry. Instead of providing tax incentives to allow our industry to reduce atmospheric emissions, and to eliminate the impact upon our water ways and soils, Congress at that time chose to leave the tax code intact, and so began the great exodus of heavy industry to elsewhere in the world.
In his 1980 run for president against Ronald Regan and George H. Bush, John Connolly, former governor of Texas, proposed a sweeping change to the tax code. Connolly proposed to allow business to add pollution control equipment and to modernize plants when doing so with the ability to immediately write off the entire amount of the needed changes to meet EPA’s new regulations. Unfortunately, this idea failed with his candidacy.
Ronald Regan fought for tax cuts, but not the specific changes needed to allow a business to write off millions in new pollution control equipment in one fell swoop, rather than amortizing the expense out over 20 years, the life of the building under IRS code.
What happened to our heavy industry? Over the next 20 years it went to Japan, China, India, Argentina, Chile, and Thailand to name a few places benefiting from our stupidity. Our industry went to places without controls. And, our Congress watched it go bye bye in the name of “free trade”.
Instead of making it feasible for U.S. industry, including the car makers, to reduce their environmental impact, and to upgrade and to modernize production facilities that in many cases were unchanged since the end of WWII, Congress elected to leave that portion of the tax code unchanged.
Business, being profit driven was driven to looking offshore to compete with the burgeoning Japanese heavy industry.
Our steel, and other heavy industry went elsewhere along with hundreds of thousands of U.S. jobs. This exodus is continuing today in the service sector. All because Congress cannot figure out that a simple change in the tax code was necessary to allow our industry to meet pollution control laws.
Yet, by contrast, in response to the 1973 oil embargo, Congress authorized the Trans Alaska Pipeline System construction by passing the most the liberal construction tax package in the history of Congress. The oil companies comprising what became Alyeska Pipeline Company enjoyed tax breaks off of the construction cost for years beyond the pay off date for the pipeline. Which pipeline, by the way, was paid for within 3 months of the first barrel of oil flowing south to Valdez.
A good start is a rational tax policy designed to achieve the national goals of environmental protection and to achieve the strategic national defense goal of maintaining our industrial and labor base by keeping industry here.
Our industry has always had to compete with countries—not businesses, countries—who subsidize their industry. Try to compete with Mitsubishi when Mitsubishi can get a 2% forever loan from the Japanese government to improve production technology, whereas CAT must acquire financing at the going rate and terms in the U.S. financial market, as well as deal with unchanged tax code that punishes innovation. Hence, Mitsubishi owns part of CAT, Chrysler, on and on in order for our companies to get some degree of competitiveness.
On a micro economic scale, even this peon had that lesson brought home the hard way. In the 1980s when the price of gold was high, IHC Holland came to Alaska. Ever tried to sell a “home grown” mineral processing plant when the local banks would not support the local miner, but the foreign firm could offer national financing through the Dutch national bank for their project?
What would be the impact upon the U.S. steel industry, for example, of being allowed the full write off at the time of expenditure of the cost of meeting EPA regulations by reducing green house gas emissions and meeting environmental regulations, which tax write off also allowed renovating a steel mill to include robotics and other improvements to increase production efficiency?
The impact would be immediate and beneficial.
What business wants to depend upon the third world for manufactured goods?
My experience with Chinese fittings, hoses, and other materials handling equipment is not good. These items fail before they should. The accelerated replacement of that junk was a major factor in my job cost this summer.
I further believe, that such a tax policy would have the impact of attracting foreign industry to the U.S. That would not hurt the labor force.
The U.S. provides a stable, educated workforce. A workforce that would grow and provide generations of Americans opportunity. These workers would have a standard to meet and would need to educate themselves to meet the needs of industry.
I believe that such a need would have a positive impact upon education, as where would be a need for education in the workplace.
Even the common laborer has to be literate and able to read and write English.
However, Congress will not be able to figure this out. There are too many ways to split the dollar, and business is evil in the dem mind. As bad is the globalist Republican mindset that is too focused on a "one world" economy that the rest of us has to pay for with our jobs and the country's industry in order to raise the standard of living in every rat hold in the world. This in the face of the reality that the best way to nation build is for a nation to develop its business infrastructure to serve a domestic market rather than be used as a cheap labor pool for the U.S.
In his 1980 run for president against Ronald Regan and George H. Bush, John Connolly, former governor of Texas, proposed a sweeping change to the tax code. Connolly proposed to allow business to add pollution control equipment and to modernize plants when doing so with the ability to immediately write off the entire amount of the needed changes to meet EPA’s new regulations. Unfortunately, this idea failed with his candidacy.
Ronald Regan fought for tax cuts, but not the specific changes needed to allow a business to write off millions in new pollution control equipment in one fell swoop, rather than amortizing the expense out over 20 years, the life of the building under IRS code.
What happened to our heavy industry? Over the next 20 years it went to Japan, China, India, Argentina, Chile, and Thailand to name a few places benefiting from our stupidity. Our industry went to places without controls. And, our Congress watched it go bye bye in the name of “free trade”.
Instead of making it feasible for U.S. industry, including the car makers, to reduce their environmental impact, and to upgrade and to modernize production facilities that in many cases were unchanged since the end of WWII, Congress elected to leave that portion of the tax code unchanged.
Business, being profit driven was driven to looking offshore to compete with the burgeoning Japanese heavy industry.
Our steel, and other heavy industry went elsewhere along with hundreds of thousands of U.S. jobs. This exodus is continuing today in the service sector. All because Congress cannot figure out that a simple change in the tax code was necessary to allow our industry to meet pollution control laws.
Yet, by contrast, in response to the 1973 oil embargo, Congress authorized the Trans Alaska Pipeline System construction by passing the most the liberal construction tax package in the history of Congress. The oil companies comprising what became Alyeska Pipeline Company enjoyed tax breaks off of the construction cost for years beyond the pay off date for the pipeline. Which pipeline, by the way, was paid for within 3 months of the first barrel of oil flowing south to Valdez.
A good start is a rational tax policy designed to achieve the national goals of environmental protection and to achieve the strategic national defense goal of maintaining our industrial and labor base by keeping industry here.
Our industry has always had to compete with countries—not businesses, countries—who subsidize their industry. Try to compete with Mitsubishi when Mitsubishi can get a 2% forever loan from the Japanese government to improve production technology, whereas CAT must acquire financing at the going rate and terms in the U.S. financial market, as well as deal with unchanged tax code that punishes innovation. Hence, Mitsubishi owns part of CAT, Chrysler, on and on in order for our companies to get some degree of competitiveness.
On a micro economic scale, even this peon had that lesson brought home the hard way. In the 1980s when the price of gold was high, IHC Holland came to Alaska. Ever tried to sell a “home grown” mineral processing plant when the local banks would not support the local miner, but the foreign firm could offer national financing through the Dutch national bank for their project?
What would be the impact upon the U.S. steel industry, for example, of being allowed the full write off at the time of expenditure of the cost of meeting EPA regulations by reducing green house gas emissions and meeting environmental regulations, which tax write off also allowed renovating a steel mill to include robotics and other improvements to increase production efficiency?
The impact would be immediate and beneficial.
What business wants to depend upon the third world for manufactured goods?
My experience with Chinese fittings, hoses, and other materials handling equipment is not good. These items fail before they should. The accelerated replacement of that junk was a major factor in my job cost this summer.
I further believe, that such a tax policy would have the impact of attracting foreign industry to the U.S. That would not hurt the labor force.
The U.S. provides a stable, educated workforce. A workforce that would grow and provide generations of Americans opportunity. These workers would have a standard to meet and would need to educate themselves to meet the needs of industry.
I believe that such a need would have a positive impact upon education, as where would be a need for education in the workplace.
Even the common laborer has to be literate and able to read and write English.
However, Congress will not be able to figure this out. There are too many ways to split the dollar, and business is evil in the dem mind. As bad is the globalist Republican mindset that is too focused on a "one world" economy that the rest of us has to pay for with our jobs and the country's industry in order to raise the standard of living in every rat hold in the world. This in the face of the reality that the best way to nation build is for a nation to develop its business infrastructure to serve a domestic market rather than be used as a cheap labor pool for the U.S.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)