53% vs "99%" - Personal and Financial responsibility versus entitlement mentality and dependency

The "99%" has made a claim that they represent the rest of the Americans who aren't rich in this country.  Is this true?  No. Absolutely not!  These people represent a fringe of this country who believe capitalism or free-markets are bad.  For the record the United States economy is not purely capitalistic.  If anything we live in a quasi socialist capitalist state.  If we didn't have medicare, medicaid, social security, food stamps, and welfare then we would be living in a purely capitalistic state.  And, that is what the Church objects to.  I do believe that everyone should pay their fair share.  But I am not talking about the rich or wealthy.  The rich, wealthy and those in the middle class already pay ALL of the federal taxes in this country and that in and of itself isn't fair.  My proposal includes that anyone who is able to pay for internet access or cable/satellite/Fios should also be able to make the plunge into accepting personal responsibility for their households and pay $250 worth of income taxes for the year.  These two things are amenities - extras which are not a necessity but contributing to our society is a duty each individual or family has a responsibility to do. In addition those that have cell phones, internet, cable which is being paid by our government - the taxpayers of America - should accept personal responsibility and pay for all of those non-essentials and if they can't afford those items then find a job or an additional job.

The liberal Democrat vision has expanded the government dependent rolls over the past 50 years.  Now this is mostly because the Democrats love big government and they need more people to be dependent on the government for them to be re-elected.  These Democrats are self-indulgent users who are in actuality against the common good and welfare of those poor individuals.  If they really cared about the poor they would help them become financially independent and not keep them on the government dole.

We should fix the loopholes that allow big corporations to pay zero taxes.  Corporations that pay no federal taxes should at least pay 4 X as much as those who would be required to pay $250 per year in federal income taxes. Herman Cain's plan would eliminate these loopholes. This is one reason I like Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan or 9-0-9 plan, whichever it may be now.  I am against crony capitalism.  Some of the "OWS" protesters may be only against crony capitalism too.  I'm sure many are confusing crony capitalism with true capitalism.  I believe in order to be on welfare the person should be required to get a job and/or further their education so that they can achieve financial independence by going off of welfare and avoiding becoming permanently dependent on the government.  There needs to be a time limit for those receiving benefits from the government, with the exception of social security since the person paid into this program. Although this may change if the social security program changes.

I believe that welfare and other social safety nets should be run similar to that of unemployment.  The unskilled poor should be able to go to school and earn a living (minimum wage?) while receiving welfare checks.  As the person moves up the ladder his/her welfare payments should be decreased by 25%, then 50%, and then eliminated.  I don't think that staying on or getting off of welfare should be an all-or-nothing deal.  Keeping welfare as an all-or-nothing program only acts as a disincentive for the person to get off of welfare.

Morning's Minion is in a huff over at Vox Nova complaining that the 53% is waging a "war on the poor".  Some of the poor who survive solely on welfare, food stamps and other social safety nets and are not employed may in fact be "freeloaders".  Now there are people who pay those medicare taxes et al on their paychecks but the fact remains that these people do not pay any federal income taxes.  Is it really fair for these people to pay zilch and demand others to pay even more than they already do?  I believe in charity but not forced charity.   Plus in the past when Congress has passed legislation which forced the rich to pay more but the tax revenues from solely the rich or wealthy wound up not being enough to meet the tax burden so taxes ended up being raised on everyone.  This is because increased taxes do not create more revenues.

Conservatives want to help the financially poor to help themselves.  Standing on your own two feet gives a person a sense of pride and accomplishment.  There is a clear difference between helping those who are needy and keeping them dependent on the government.  Conservatives believe in the former and progressives believe in the latter.  Conservatives believe in empowering the individual to be the best they can possibly be while liberals believe in keeping the chains on the individual and classifying them on groups so they receive preferential treatment.

Morning's Minion says "The richest one percent gets about 20 percent of the income and pays about 20 percent of the taxes."  But this isn't true. The National Taxpayers Union has broken down how much each person or family pays toward federal taxes according to their gross income and they show that the top 1% pays 38% of the total federal tax income and the top 10% pays 70% of the total tax burden.


Here are some examples of those 53%ers who believe in hard work, personal responsibility, and financial responsibility instead of the Occupy Wall Street protesters who believe that they are entitled to whatever simply because they want it.  The class warfare and war against the innovators, inventors and producers needs to stop.

H/T The Blaze for pics 

Cross-posted @ Catholibertarian 

Obama is Kicking the Can Down the Road but is GOP Kicking Smaller Can Down the Road Too?

The Obama budget is a fiscal joke, or a fiscal nightmare for our future.  The American people sent a message loud and clear to Congress and President Obama on November 2nd and it is obvious that he didn't get it.  


Senator Jon Kyl points out that Obama's budget adds nearly $13 trillion in debt by the end of the decade and the gross debt will reach $26.3 trillion by the end of the decade - which is 107 of gross domestic product.


 Senator Kyl says that: 
"The debt will eclipse the size of the entire economy." 




The United States will have a mega-financial disaster on its hands, which will look much like Greece does today.  


Sen. Kyl states: 


 "That’s a gloomy outlook, and it would be prudent to stop raiding the treasury. But, not in this budget. Under President Obama’s budget, the size of the federal government will nearly double since he took office. Over the next 10 years, the President proposes $8.7 trillion in new spending, with $46 trillion in total spending. Spending in this fiscal year is projected to be a record $3.8 trillion, or 25.3 percent of gross domestic product, the highest spending-to-GDP ratio since World War II!" 


I agree with Sen. Kyl.  This is a gloomy outlook.  This type of financial disaster can be avoided if President Obama, the Democrats, and the Republicans have the will and listen to the American peoples' voices which were spoken loud and clear in the November elections.  


The Obama budget would increase taxes on families, small businesses, and job creators at a time when  our economy is still very fragile.  How does raising taxes on small business owners and other job creators encourage businesses to hire new employees?  Simply put, it doesn't.  It decentivises the job creators from opening up new stores and hiring new employees.  It is a real possibility that their will be layoffs due to Obama's fiscal insanity. With this kind of backwards mentality of penalizing the backbone of our country - the entrepreneurs - in the near future I can see the unemployment rate rising above 10 percent. 


  But, does the GOP get it?

The GOP seems to be waving the white flag of compromise and giving into the Democrats.  Most of what is in the GOP's Stop Gap proposal consists of cuts which were already proposed by Obama and the Democrats.  The GOP is acting very weak and are compromising to avoid a government shutdown.  I am all for a government shutdown.  What has the government done right in the past few years?  The government has expanded like a huge balloon full of helium and it needs to be popped and shrunk down to a much smaller, acceptable size.  The Federal government has invaded our lives, like an invasion of aliens from outer space.  This ever expansive government needs to be reigned in and if it takes a government shutdown to save money and show the Democrats that we want to save or country from fiscal ruin, so be it.  The dynamics of our economy is different than in 1995 and there are more people who are more aware that the United States needs to get its fiscal house in order.  


The GOP didn't even have the will to cut at least $100 billion from the budget, as they pledged to the American people in November.  The House approved $61 billion in spending cuts and the GOP can't even stand on principle and put pressure on the Senate to pass those cuts.  This is unacceptable and makes me furious. We definitely need to boot some RINO's out of the GOP.  These compromisers need to go.  I am sick of the GOP being more worried about their political appearances than solving both our budget and deficit woes.  


So, sadly I have to say that more than a few in the GOP don't get it.  They are indeed kicking the can down the road, albeit a smaller can than the Democrats.  But, this should not be the barometer we use to judge the GOP. They must have had some serious wax in their ears during the November campaigns.  Or, maybe they have had amnesia?  Their actions and words are evidence that we need to remind them consistently and often of the will of the American people and what this country needs in order to get its fiscal house in order.