Rendezvous with Reagan and Destiny

Flashback to the convention in 1964 and Reagan’s infamous “A Time For Choosing” speech. So many takeaway lines that would just as much apply to us today, even more so.

The point is not whether there are any Reagans today but whether this kind of common sense is now mainstream or deemed dead? Government rewrites the Constitution so that anything in their schemes can mean public use for confiscation of private property.

Government rules by fiat to suite it’s own interests. If you haven’t seen that your eyes aren’t open. It’s the same old story…

Excerpt from A Time for Choosing: (video below)

“Now it doesn’t require expropriation and confiscation of private property or business to impose socialism on a people. What does it mean if you own the deed or the title to your business or property if the government holds the life and death over that business or property? And such machinery already exists; the government can find some charge against any concern it chooses to prosecute. Every businessman has his own tale of harassment.

“Somewhere a perversion has taken place. Our natural unalienable rights are now considered to be a dispensation of government. And freedom has never been so fragile, so close to slipping from our grasp as it is at this moment. Our Democratic opponents seem unwilling to debate these issues. They want to make you and I believe that this is a contest between two men, that we’re to choose between just two personalities. Well, what of this man that they would destroy? And in destroying, they would destroy that which he represents, the ideas that you and I hold dear.”

It picks winners and losers in the markets and business. It decides what businesses will be allowed to succeed and which are considered antiquated, such as the war on coal. By “government,” none is more prevalent than the federal one which rules by strong arm.

It dictates which laws states will be allowed to have, and which it will abolish. It determines what healthcare policies should be, what marriage certificates they can issue, what water they can drink, which lands they must preserve. What government giveth government can taketh, so it decides which funds it will withhold to twist the arms of states.

It decides how much of federal dollars it will dispense back to the state from whence they came. It decides what school curriculum we shall have — if you want to play by Washington’s rules, or if you will be considered an enemy of the State and lose funding.

See speech, a timeless indictment.

Where would you go?

This Map Proves You Could Be Paying Less In Income Taxes If You Lived Here Instead

Justin Koski — July 18, 2014 | Western Journalism

Do states with higher or lower taxes do better economically?

While everyone has their own opinions on the question, a new study on state economic prosperity and taxation will have some saying, “I told you so.”

Governors of states with high taxes will relentlessly deny their effects on the state, or simply justify them with fairness, necessity or needed to sustain the revenue.

Governors of states with low taxes, use that as a means to attract business. For example, Governor Rick Perry (R-Texas) ran advertisements throughout California just last year in an attempt to sway companies to move to Texas because of their lower taxes.


So which of the two is actually true?

The Mercatus Center, a research center at George Mason University conducted a study to find out just that. Its key findings are:

1-Higher taxes reduce economic growth. A one percent increase in taxes results in a 1.9 percent decrease in growth.
2-Taxes impact where people live. People move to states with lower rates and leave those with higher ones.
3-Income tax progressivity (higher rates as income increases) affects new firm creation.

The key findings illustrate that if a governor wants to bring in more residents, create more jobs and make life better for everyone in it, then instead of increasing the taxes, they need to be dropping them.

If only there was a way we could get this into the hands of Congress and see if they could apply these new findings to the whole country…

Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/new-study-liberals-livid-challenges-everything-know-raising-taxes/?utm_source=MailChimp&utm_medium=email&utm_content=featured-stories&utm_campaign=DailyEmail07.18.14

— H/T to Dave

To be or not to be…

 

“To be, or not to be: that is the question:
Whether ’tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them?”–

William Shakespeare

______________________________________________________________

I want to remind people what we heard in recent years: 

It’s about the economy… or only about the debt
Republicans must stick to fiscal conservatism.
Stay away from the cultural, divisive issues.
Obama won’t be any worse than anyone else.
Let states decide those controversial issues.
Do not bring character into the debate, or campaign.

Compare Obama’s actions to those above talking points. Who said all the above? Liberals. But I heard the exact same lines from the GOP and fellow Republicans. Just because it’s repeated a thousand times doesn’t make it so.

Now I hear if the economy improves, Obama wins. If the economy is in the tank he loses.

When will the right wake up and smell the propaganda?

I want to believe “the One” cannot be reelected, even if the economy improved. Why should that be the lone deciding factor? As Scott Rasmussen says.  He does not deserve to be reelected in any case. But as we see with the sly “One”, he is making this election about anything but the economy, including big donors to Republicans — who are not running…but neither was Bush.

To the left it’s just a popularity contest: “but people like him”.

Geithner to Ryan: “what we do know is we don’t like yours.” [@4:40]