Tonight ends another legacy in the American tradition. The Bush father/son duo together served 12 years in office, and fought two wars in the middle east. I don't agree with everything that Bush did while in office, nor do I condone his presidency. However, I do believe that he has a sincere interest in preserving this nation, and that his motives should not be questioned. From what I have seen of the man, and the decisions he has made, I think history will vindicate him. Many criticize his economic and military decisions; however, with the knowledge that he had and the time schedule forced upon him, I think that he made the right decisions. The biggest blot upon his record in these past eight years will be the bailout. The war in Iraq will come back to honor the president who served his country by by placing the orders that are now overwhelmingly unpopular.

I guess if there's on thing that can be said for the leaving president, it's the fact that he never bowed to popularity. He made the decisions based only upon the information he had and extrapolating the data into the future. He didn't bow to the wishes of the majority, but rather did what he thought was best for the nation. I don't mean to say that all his decisions were worthwhile, but rather that his motives were clean. I don't believe that he ran into Iraq for the oil. His texan accent and the characteristic smirks will go down in history for this president. Lincoln was very unpopular in his day, and history has now redeemed him. I think it will do the same for Bush.

To quote Dr. Samuel Johnson, the British Author,

This world, where much is to be done and little to be known.

This is the legacy of the Bush administration.
Farewell to GWB.

-Cheers

Read more!

You know, it amazes me that some people have the gall to claim that this nation was not founded on Christian principles. Then, they further embarrass themselves by quoting the "separation of church and state".... which, if you are a learned educator from Harvard or Yale, is actually not in the Constitution, but since it is a "living" document and it evolves with the rest of culture and socie... Blah.... Blah... (insert much hot air here)

Folks, I'm here to tell you today that you don't have to listen to the guy in the tweed sweater any longer. Please, follow their advice and open up your minds. Read a little, learn a little, grow a little. I'm working through De Tocqueville's Democracy in America right now, and I have to admit, having been written from a guy who didn't believe in a god, it's pretty well unbiased. If only Dawkin's "brights" would learn this lesson. Granted, I've hardly scratched the cover yet, but even with just a before the end of chapter two, De Tocqueville brings in the religious nature of the first settlers. He is amazed at the nature of the early colonists and their aptitude to survive because of their faith.

However, that's all great stuff, but it's not my purpose here. In chapt 2, De Tocqueville quotes the famous Cotton Mather in a very astounding piece of writing:

Reading this makes me almost shiver. There is an idea within the American mindset that our "freedom" is what Mather describes first: men and beasts doing what they will. It's the idea that we have the freedom to do whatever we want... However, as Mather points out, "'tis the grand enemy of truth and peace".

However, there is another idea of liberty. A civil, moral, and federal liberty. Mather even goes so far as to say that this liberty "is the proper end and object of authority". Think about that for a moment. What would happen in this country if people saw freedom and liberty not as the ability to do whatever they want; but rather the idea that they can do whatever is right and just and moral. Imagine the difference. Imagine the revolution that would occur in this nation if we truly believed this.

Cheers y'all.
Read more!

So last time we looked at the president-elect's economic ideas for the bailout, and even though he has good intentions, we could see that it would eventually drive this country into the hole.

So now, we are going to look at the president's ideas for the tax cuts for all the "disadvantaged" Americans, or rather those who make less than 250 Gs a year. I highly doubt that the soon-to-be president will ever put this into practice, and I think you'll see why in the course of this article....

So, back in the beginning of this site, I posted an article that explained Obama's tax policies. You can look it up here. Quoting a section of this article:

99% of the American public makes less than 250,000$ a year. So when you lower taxes by 1000$ per each family, and the average family size is 2.59 people. Considering the US population to be 300 million total, the number of families in the 99% of the population that makes under 250 thousand dollars a year is roughly 115 million families. Because 50 % of the population is now single, we will cut this number in half and round up to rough 58 million families. Multiplying this by 1000 dollars a family makes the total come out to about 58 billion dollars that the US government is not going to be receiving whenever you enact this plan. This might sound like a lot of money, and it truly is, but the total amount of federal funds is roughly 2.65 trillion dollars, so the 0.058 billion dollars that you will be losing in tax income is small indeed, but it still is a chunk out of the pie. So, you plan to impose this on the 1% of the population (of which you are part). If you required that everyone in the households of the 1% pay taxes, the cost would be about an extra 50 grand per household per year. (58 billion divided by 3 million, multiplied by 2.59)

Now, 50 Gs per household doesn't actually sound that much, right? wrong. The average amount paid by the that top 1% is around 33-38%+. So, for the sake of argument, let's pin down a number here. We'll take the low end at 33% of 250 Gs. This ends up at $82,500 a year in taxes for those making 250,000 a year. Leaving them only $167,000 to work with. Adding another $50,000 on top of this $83,000 only leaves these families with $117,000 a year. That adds up to $132,500 going to the government on a yearly basis. That is over 50% of their yearly income. Basically, that's tyranny of the highest sort. That was the basic reason that we left England in the first place.

The problem is: this is a completely optimistic look at the situation, not even taking into account the estimated 40% of the public who don't pay their taxes. This 40% lies in the bottom tax brackets, which already is putting strain on the higher income levels. Basically, if Obama "cuts" the taxes on the lower incomes, he's going to be killing off the higher incomes. This is socialism 101 as taught by Barack Obama.

What's the way to combat this? Uh.....

We as the taxpayers are basically jammed between an empty bank and a socialist president. I'm not even paying taxes yet, and I'm already scared about the prospects. If this was a problem that only lasted four years and then we were done, there wouldn't be much fuss. However, the implications of this presidency last far beyond just these four/God-forbid-eight years. One of the legacies out of this elections will be one, maybe two SCT justices... Lord help us...

Cheers,

Read more!