Posts Tagged ‘Alan Peppers’

Oh the leftist cry and the leftist moan and the leftist whine… well there’s nothing new about that but one of the things that bothers them now, is that we on the right have so much UNWARRANTED disrespect for the office of the President.

Yeah, seriously, like they have no remembrance of how they treated Bush. But… Bush isn’t their leader, so they are butthurt that people don’t respect Obama. They say that we lie about him.

To my knowledge the only one who has disrespected the Office of the President is our current President. I mean, Clinton was getting blowjobs but Obama is just screwing everybody from the Oval Office.

So, I asked them to make a list of the lies and this is what I got…

There is a post on FB about President Obama committing treason because he made an address that was aimed mostly at the Iranian people. There are the lies about congress being exempt from ACA. There are the lies about his being Muslim. There are the lies about his allowing the Muslim Brotherhood to infiltrate his presidency. Do I need to go on? The easy thing to do is look at FB.

OK, so I reply…

People did not lie about the ACA. They quote the bill that was released. The bill that was passed was never released until after it had been placed on a different bill number and passed without being released. Most people do not understand what happened. Yes, some try to mislead. The bill did exempt them from the ACA and only after public outrage was it changed.

I find it strange that you feel the need to defend him against the charge of being Muslim. His step father was Muslim, he grew up in a Muslim country, he went to a Muslim school and practiced the Muslim religion. I wonder how anyone could believe that he could be Muslim? I guess that if you attend catholic school and go to mass that we should assume you to be Jewish.

As to the Muslim Brotherhood, Obama has supported them all along. Congress votes no to supporting them and Obama and Kerry still give them money, he invites them to a meeting at the white house

But lets be honest about his religion. If he’s Muslim, I don’t know and I don’t care but no one can deny that he spent 20 years sitting in a Black Liberation Church and his views reflect that that attitude toward both America and to white people.

As for speeches, there is no telling what he will say.

Now you picked out some nut jobs from the right but lets deal with real life and not facebook life. I use facebook as a source to find news; a meme is not a news source.

Question… Did Obama bring each of these things on his self? He was been his own worst enemy in covering up, not knowing and attacking the other party. Do you think that he did not know that Hillary had a private server at her house and was hiding the emails that had been requested by congress?

Find anywhere that Bush attacked the people on the left. It didn’t happen. He still doesn’t criticize Obama when all Obama has done is blame bush for

And the answer is NO!!! Obama did not bring anything on himself, he is a perfect angel and that we just don’t like him because we’re racist.

Now Before I lay out a few things on the King … I mean Obama… please read this short link. It puts into words what many of us have felt from the beginning of the Obama Presidency.
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2010/04/a_stranger_in_our_midst.html

On the campaign trail we heard such gems as “I want to fundamentally change this country … I think that it’s good to spread the wealth around.” How about this one… “They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

His wife says “For the first time in my adult life, I’m proud of my country.”

Obama is the first President to be elected for insulting the people and wanting to take their money

He is the first President to appoint an admitted Communist to be a Czar.

He is the first President to go to war with a TV station.
He is the first President to have Christmas balls with pictures of Mao Zedong hanging in the White House.
He is the first President to force the resignation of the CEO of a major company.


President Barack Obama was sworn in on Jan. 20, 2009 and in less than 1 month crammed through the $832 Billion Stimulus with zero republican votes and against the wishes of the majority of Americans. Remember the president remark when asked about bi partition support? I Won!!!

It was a failure by every matrix.

My first, half page spread, letter to the editor was published in the Index Journal on the Stimulus.

He began the illegal gunrunning scheme Fast and Furious, getting border patrol agents killed, hiding evidence from Congress to protect Holder.

By March the President is pushing Cap and Trade.
He is following through on his plan from 2008 when he said So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it’s just that it will bankrupt them, because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted. Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”

So he picks a guy to be Sec. Of Energy who in 2008 said that Somehow, we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.” Well OK then. Gas was only $9 a gallon there, so with that and electricity, that will really help the people who are on hard times.

Politifact looked it this comment and…

Gingrich, March 20: Of course… you know that. He has said it himself. Chu, his secretary of energy, said in 2008 he wanted gasoline prices in America to get to the European level, which is $9 or $10 a gallon.

Did Chu really say that? Yes, but he said it before he became energy secretary and before Obama won the 2008 presidential election. Shortly after becoming energy secretary, Chu said it would be “completely unwise to want to increase the price of gasoline.”

Well he said it before Obama won and picked him, so that doesn’t count. That’s good to know.


The President then went on his around the world apology tour. While he did not actually apologize, ( Politifact said that they were not “true” apologies) he did a very good job of talking our country down. The people do not forget.

Obama structures the bankruptcy of Chrysler to give Unions a majority share and screws the investors.

And all of this damage happened in just 3 months of him taking office. It’s still spring time


But comes summer


August 2009 was a wonderful time of facing the democrats down as they thought that they were going to make people happy about healthcare. Nope, That didn’t work. So, instead of listening to the people the weasels just stopped having meetings. Yeah, that’s the ticket… Just keep the doors closed.


I say that Barack Obama brought all of this hardship upon himself with his outlandish liberal ideas, divisive behavior and attitude toward anyone how doesn’t agree with him. Remember that he makes the statement about the republicans that “He will not negotiate with terrorist.” When nothing gets through he crys bout obstructionist. How dare they interfere with the King?

Got a little off track there but during the summer meetings, a lady nailed flip flop Sen. Arleen Specter. Looking him dead in the eyes and said, “You have awakened that sleeping giants.” And they had. Obama and his pet weasels had achieved something that no one had done. They awoke a large group of people who knew absolutely nothing about politics.


You cannot learn politics overnight. I have followed it for 35 years and don’t get fooled but some of these people fell and still fall for the most insane things. Now these Obama giants came from both the right and the left, full of piss and vinegar with no clue of what is going on.

If their response to questions are, Bush lied, birth certificate, fox news, Muslim, Koch Bros. Racist, greedy… you are dealing with a giant that is dumb as dirt.

The giants are the fault of Obama. He created them himself so all I can say is suck it up.

I never got out of 2009 and into his real corruption but I believe that this clear that where theres Obama, there’s fire.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/mar/15/mitt-romney/obama-remarks-never-true-apology/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/obama-quotes/

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2011/02/obamas_apology_tour.htmlhttp://prairiepundit.blogspot.com/2009/02/why-obama-liberalism-is-worse-than.html

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2009/06/barack-obamas-top-10-apologies-how-the-president-has-humiliated-a-superpower

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2011/07/stimulus_rip.html

http://www.infoplease.com/us/government/tea-party-history.html

http://api.talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ted-yoho-obama-impeachment

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/21/gmchrysler-bailout-was-it_n_732729.html

http://am.blogs.cnn.com/2009/06/01/bondholder-furious-over-gm-

bankruptcy/http://prairiepundit.blogspot.com/2009/02/why-obama-liberalism-is-worse-than.html

Hello boys and girls, Today I want to take you on a little trip through the wonderful world of science. What type of science are we going to look at today you ask; well that will be…

Global Warming… Al Gore’s golden egg laying goose, the battle cry of the leftist and the sign of Earth’s doom. Now, even though I can play one on the internet, I am not a climate scientist but don’t let that stand in the way because the important part is that I’m not a dumb ass either.

There is a term that has been thrown around over the last couple of years and that is “prepper.” A prepper learns skills and has the supplies to make a minor disruption pleasant or to survive a major disruption. Everyone was freaking out over Y2K and I never blinked an eye. As usual, the Gunslinger was ahead of the curve,

what type of disruption would someone prepare for? In the late 70’s to early 80’s, that disruption would have been the coming of a new ice age. Yep, let me repeat that “Ice Age.” in a span of 30 years th scientific consensus went from years in bitter cold and ice to the earth was going to die from global warming. Hummmm… quite a shift there isn’t it. The leftist today just can’t belive that anyone could doubt the scientist, but if they were so wrong about the ice age, why should anyone believe them now?

Global warming became a religion and anyone who didn’t believe Al Gore was a heretic. Climate deniers, they don’t believe in science and on and on went the left. They have to demonize anyone who doesn’t agree with them. The reason that I’m writing this is because of a meme with Sen. Ted Cruz saying that there had been no warming in the last 15 years. Oh, the leftist loved to laugh but the problem is… that he is right.

Yeah, no warming in 15 years. When called on it the scientist simply changed the name from global warming to climate change and went right on blaming CO2 and humans and American humans in particular.

This climate change, also known as weather has divided the people. Both sides have things that they are right about but both sides are also wrong.

The polar caps are and all the glaciers are going to melt. The sea level is going to rise and flood all of the coastal areas world-wide scream the leftist. I’ve never been one to pull a punch so I’ll tell you now, THIS is the part that they have right. Sorry about that but, yes they are correct.

If you want to know the future, you have to look at the past. So let’s start on our little scientific journey.

New computer modeling suggests the Arctic Ocean may be nearly ice-free in the summertime as early as 2014, Al Gore said Monday at the U.N. climate conference. This new projection, following several years of dramatic retreat by polar sea ice, suggests that the ice cap may nearly vanish in the summer much sooner than the year 2030, as was forecast by a U.S. government agency eight months ago.

One U.S. government scientist Monday questioned the new prediction as too severe, but other researchers previously have projected a quicker end than 2030 to the Arctic summer ice cap.

“It is hard to capture the astonishment that the experts in the science of ice felt when they saw this,” said former U.S. Vice President Gore, who joined Scandinavian officials and scientists to brief journalists and delegates.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/14/gore-polar-ice-may-vanish_n_391632.html

Well, the summer of 2014 has come and went and the polar ice is steady growing. Those who believe that the polar ice growing shows that there is no warming are just as wrong as the ones who believe that we can stop it.

Now, scientist say that the earth is 4.54 billion years old (See, I’m not arguing science) and through those billions of years there have been many changes. I’m going to hit the nail now so that anyone who isn’t interested will know and can go about their business.

Ok, the two main events that seem to repeat are the times that the earth is glacial, covered with ice as in the ice ages and interglacial, where there is no ice. There have been 5 major glacial periods with the last beginning some 3 million years ago and peaking around 20,000 years ago.

So what is the natural state of the earth? interglacial; having no ice at the poles and no glaciers. We are still in the last glacial period and the earth is returning to normal.

Bad news…

It turns out that we are most likely in an “ice age” now. So, in fact, the last ice age hasn’t ended yet!”
http://www.amnh.org/ology/features/askascientist/question06.php


The melting of the polar ice caps has happened before and to believe that we are to blame this time is nothing but ego and arrogance. The very idea that we can change the normal cycle is absurd.

So, the ice is going to melt, the oceans are going to rise and the land is going to flood. It’s easy to know that because we know that it has happened before. The only difference is that this time, humans have built huge cities right on the flood plain. Nature say’s “Not my fault. I didn’t tell you to build them there.” Nature is going to do what nature does.

Just as when the mighty Mississippi decides to flood, you can prepare for it, you can try to protect things but can you stop the Mississippi river from flooding? No, and you’re not going to stop this.

The question is, how soon will this happen? I don’t know, nobody knows. Abrupt climate change means just that; abrupt.

On a shorter time scale, global temperatures fluctuate often and rapidly. Various records reveal numerous large, widespread, abrupt climate changes over the past 100,000 years. One of the more recent intriguing findings is the remarkable speed of these changes. Within the incredibly short time span (by geologic standards) of only a few decades or even a few years, global temperatures have fluctuated by as much as 15°F (8°C) or more.

For example, as Earth was emerging out of the last glacial cycle, the warming trend was interrupted 12,800 years ago when temperatures dropped dramatically in only several decades. A mere 1,300 years later, temperatures locally spiked as much as 20°F (11°C) within just several years. Sudden changes like this occurred at least 24 times during the past 100,000 years. In a relative sense, we are in a time of unusually stable temperatures today—how long will it last?”

A few years, a few decades, a couple of hundred thousand years… no clue

http://geology.utah.gov/surveynotes/gladasked/gladice_ages.htm

If it makes you feel better you can know that CO2 played a large roll in the melting. But it is not the cause. You laugh at Ted Cruz because he is right about a 15 year pause.. but here is the future… are you laughing about it?

http://news.usc.edu/17808/Clues-to-End-of-the-Last-Ice-Age/

http://www.livescience.com/40311-pleistocene-epoch.html

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-thawed-the-last-ice-age/

http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/nerc130k.html

http://www.epa.gov/gmpo/edresources/pleistocene.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/6606227/Antarctic-temperatures-between-ice-ages-6C-warmer-than-today.html

One week ago, Monday October the 27th was the 50th anniversary of Ronald Reagan’s speech; A Time For Choosing. We could change some numbers around and his speech from 1964 would resonate with the same impact today. Allow me to lay out certain parts of Reagan’s speech for clarity and also for those who simply will not bother to read or even listen to the recording.

Not too long ago, two friends of mine were talking to a Cuban refugee, a businessman who had escaped from Castro, and in the midst of his story one of my friends turned to the other and said, “We don’t know how lucky we are.” And the Cuban stopped and said, “How lucky you are? I had someplace to escape to.” And in that sentence he told us the entire story. If we lose freedom here, there’s no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth.”

This is the issue of this election: Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capitol can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves. 

You and I are told increasingly we have to choose between a left or right. Well I’d like to suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There’s only an up or down—[up] man’s old—old-aged dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. And regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.

In this vote-harvesting time, they use terms like the “Great Society,” or as we were told a few days ago by the President, we must accept a greater government activity in the affairs of the people. But they’ve been a little more explicit in the past and among themselves; and all of the things I now will quote have appeared in print. These are not Republican accusations. For example, they have voices that say, “The cold war will end through our acceptance of a not undemocratic socialism.” Another voice says, “The profit motive has become outmoded. It must be replaced by the incentives of the welfare state.” Or, “Our traditional system of individual freedom is incapable of solving the complex problems of the 20th century.” Senator Fullbright has said at Stanford University that the Constitution is outmoded. He referred to the President as “our moral teacher and our leader,” and he says he is “hobbled in his task by the restrictions of power imposed on him by this antiquated document.” He must “be freed,” so that he “can do for us” what he knows “is best.” And Senator Clark of Pennsylvania, another articulate spokesman, defines liberalism as “meeting the material needs of the masses through the full power of centralized government.” ”

I’ve showcased a good bit, so, I’ll skip to the end.

You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We’ll preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we’ll sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness.”

Sadly, America did not listen… So here we are, standing at a cross road in this short term experiment called America. The problem with being at this cross road is simple. We can’t turn left or right, up or down is no longer a choice that we get to make. We have boxed ourselves in and left us just one way to go… we can only move forward on the road that we are already on.

That road looks stormy indeed. How did we end up traveling on this road, you ask? Easy answer, lack of knowledge and lack of understanding. There is a meme out that sums up our current state of being “If you believe that voting Obama and the democrats out of office will save America… then you haven’t been paying attention.”,

You say, “wait a minute. The liberals are dragging us into socialism.” Yes they are but the only difference between the leftist and the right is the speed that they are traveling. The destination is the same. While Barack Obama said the he wanted to fundamentally transform America, the truth is that the process began the day the country was founded and he’s just coming in on the tail end.

So, is the Gunslinger telling you that we’re doomed; that we’ve come too far to reverse and right the ship? Yep, that’s what I’m saying. I’ll be voting tomorrow with the knowledge that nothing is going to change. I’ll vote in 2016, knowing that nothing is going to change. I mean really, My leftist friends think that I just bust on Obama. He has no leadership abilities, no understanding of how the world is and absolutely no common sense. He is a disaster that is happening right before our eyes.

BUT, I don’t see a republican out there with leadership abilities, understanding or common sense anywhere. Take a look at the people who fell for Ron Paul and fell for Obama; the people want a leader… but there’s not one to be found. As with Mitt Romney, our choice in 2016 will be between two losers that will continue the downward spiral. Now… listen while I tell you why all is not lost.

I am and have always been a pessimistic optimist. That is how my life has always been, The worst that can happen, will happen. But it’s OK. In the end I not only survive but thrive, grow and move forward knowing that I can face whatever comes.

We the people have chance, not to save the country but to guide the country and decide how fast or slow the end comes. That probably doesn’t sound like a good thing to you but it is. Think of the end of your own life and think of how important that ability would be. Fast or slow? Long or drawn out? The choice is yours.

I’m old, fat, crippled up, deaf and can’t see well. So what, I’m still the Gunslinger and I vote for quick. Life is hard and it’s time for hard men to make some hard decisions. Do we drag it along for 20, 40 or 50 years? In the 50 years since Reagan gave this speech we have watched miracles in technology move the world at a fantastic pace yet the human spirit seems to have peaked and is now in decline. Our government, all government from the local and state to federal is out of touch and out of control. Our police have became the military. No need to worry about Posse Comitatus when the local cops have tanks and machine guns.

What will happen in the next 50 years? I don’t have clue but do we just leave it to chance? Do we hope the our children and grandchildren will be fine while we bicker over things that are happening whether we want them or not. The writings of Thomas Paine have guided me more than any other Founder. The simple words, “If trouble must come, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace” should stir every man to look forward and say “I’ll make a stand.”

Here in Greenwood County, we have millions of of unused tax dollars sitting around from a 1% tax that was to do repairs on the dam, repairs that we then found out weren’t needed. So what does the County do? They have a unanimous vote to add a 2% hospitality tax on food and drink.

STARVE THE BEAST.

Instead of making money, we cause them to lose money. Save every tax penny that you can. While it would be close to impossible go tax-less we can consciously control what we do pay. Liberals love to boycott things especially non liberal things. I’ve never boycotted a company but I will boycott the government. It would hurt a lot of businesses but that would just give the liberal government what it wants.

Starve the politicians. Yeah everybody talks about the big money players but most of the money comes in 10’s and 20’s from everyday people. Not one penny for any politician. We stop fighting. I’m never going to stop pointing out their stupidity but if the people want a liberal government, I’ll let them have a liberal government. Give them what they think that they want and in the end all they will have is pain.

The United States Constitution is the greatest governing document that the world has seen but it is not a sacred document sent from Heaven. Lysander Spooner summed up the flaws when he said that we have the government that we have because the Constitution allowed the things or was not strong enough to prevent them from happening.

Starve the beast, all of the beast, stop fighting, pain is a great motivator. Be ready to step up after the fall and put a strong government in place that can return faith to the people.

Love and Service

Alan Peppers ~ The Gunslinger.

He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.”

Thomas Paine, Dissertation on First Principles of Government, December 23, 1791

I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. ‘Tis the business of little minds to shrink; but he whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death.”

Thomas Paine, The American Crisis, No. 1, December 19, 1776


Society in every state is a blessing, but government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer or are exposed to the same miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country without government, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer.

Thomas Paine, Common Sense, 1776

These are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman.

Thomas Paine, The American Crisis, No. 1, December 19, 1776

We have it in our power to begin the world over again.

Thomas Paine, Common Sense, 1776

These are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman.

Thomas Paine, The American Crisis, No. 1, December 19, 1776

Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigues of supporting it.

Thomas Paine, The American Crisis, No. 4, September 11, 1777

 

 

 

Let me talk a little bit about guns. Now a word to my liberal friends; drop the talking point “common sense” when talking about the school shootings and such. There is no common sense way to deal with madness. It is just something that can be repeated over and over to make your ideas sound good. No one is falling for that………Now

I grew up and still live in the semi rural south. Growing up, there were no gun cabinets, no gun safes, most people just propped their guns against the corner of the fire place and kids didn’t bother them. What has changed?

How did we go from a nation where guns were not given a second thought but had very few gun deaths, to a nation where guns are shunned but kids are dying all over the place? Popular thought is that if you can hide the gun, don’t let kids see it, teach them to run away, that they will be safe. It seems as if the opposite is true.

I was raised around guns. There is an old 8mm movie clip that was made when I was about 6, where I’m leaning against my father and shooting a 12ga. shotgun. In the early 70’s if my friends and I wanted to go squirrel hunting, the only way to the city limits was marching right through the middle of town carrying our shotguns and 22 rifles. No one cared. People would wave at us as they drove by, no one called out the SWAT team and locked the town down. During hunting season you could find a gun in over half of the cars at the high school. Dropping a knife in your pocket with your change was as natural as putting on your shoes.

What happened? Guns didn’t change. Knives didn’t change.

I raised my children around guns. My son has since raised his children around guns. During the 80’s I did a lot shooting. I shot Bulls Eye, Silhouette, Combat with pistols and Bench Rest with rifles. Never did much with shotguns except play with them. Saturdays were reloading day so that we could go and shoot on Sunday. Most Sundays we would meet at my house, everybody would get their gear out and there would be all kinds of guns everywhere. My children never bothered anything. Why?

I drug my daughter around from gun show to gun show and range to range from the time she was a toddler. By the time my son was born, my shooting was slowing down but he went to his share too. If I happened to buy anything, the first thing that I would do when we got home was to ask my children if they wanted to hold it. If they weren’t interested they said no but if they said yes, I made sure that it was unloaded and just handed it to them. I didn’t make deal of it. Usually after about 4 seconds they would give it back and go about their business. Their curiosity was satisfied.

I never had a problem with them getting even a BB gun when they weren’t supposed to because they knew that if there was something that they wanted to shoot, all they had to was ask. Nothing was hidden.

If you try to hide something from a kid you will send your child hunting for whatever they think you have hidden. If you tell a child not to touch something, it will have little finger prints all over it. That is what kids do and no one can change that. They hunt and they find and there they are holding a gun in their hand. Is it loaded? They don’t know. Is the safety on? They don’t know. Is it single action or double action? They don’t know. They put their finger on the trigger and they can’t pull it back so they play, they don’t know that by pulling the hammer back that it now only takes ¼ the pressure to pull the trigger. And a child dies simply because, they didn’t know. But they should have.

Now, lets talk about Rauch’s favorite scapegoat, the mentally ill, rampaging dangerous criminal. This is from facebook.

 

dyrjudtykdt

Everybody wants to talk about statistics. How many this and how many that and they never want to talk about what the statistics show.

What is the number 1 cause of gun deaths?

Suicide...In 2010 suicide accounted for 62% of of all gun related deaths.So out of 31,076 gun deaths, 19,372 were due to suicides.

How do you feel about suicide? Do you support abortion? Do you believe that a person has a right to their own bodies? While suicide is tragic for the families and so pointless, can it be described as preventable? Does having a gun cause a person to commit suicide? Of course not.

When it comes to unintentional gun deaths, the above mentioned children, the careless hunters and such, there were 606 deaths in 2010.I have to keep repeating myself that I see all deaths as tragic and I don’t want to be seen as just minimalizing these deaths but this is the same number of people that froze to death in the United States in 2003. Where is the outcry? Where are the hundreds of millions of dollars that could possibly save some lives to stop people from freezing? It’s not as politically useful as dead children. The shame is that through education, most of these deaths are preventable.

ftyjkftkuyf

Now we come to the big boy, homicide.

In 2010 there were around 11,000 gun homicides out of a population of 310 million. I don’t know what that percentage is and it really doesn’t matter. The number is very small.
.
I make it plain that I support the 2nd amendment as a codification of a God given right.  I believe in constitutional carry and that what weapon a person has is none of the governments business, so now let me give you the kicker… I don’t carry a gun, I’m not licensed to carry because i have no reason to carry a gun and I don’t want to carry a gun. Being a man with a big belly and no ass at all, it;s hard enough for me to keep my pants up now without a gun pulling them to my knees.

The reason that I don’t feel the need to carry a gun is simple but it is something that both the left and the right get wrong. The chance of random violence is miniscule. Murders are committed by friends and family.Gang on gang, drug dealer on drug dealer, they seem to keep to their own.  If something does happen you have a better chance of being shot by the police rather than Rauch”s crazy criminal.

Now let me give you the deal. If there is a person that I’m afraid to see walk down the street with a gun, that is a person that I;m afraid to see walk down the street period…
Why is a dangerous, mentally ill felon walking down the street? The government has completely failed the people when the people are left at the mercy of predators.

As Jefferson wrote in his draft of the Virginia Constitution,  “No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”Now that is keeping with the constitution. Whether on probation, parole or completed sentence, a person is released upon the population because they are free. They have been returned to society. If a person has been judged unfit to own or carry a gun because they are a danger to themselves or others, what the hell are they doing letting that person out? Remember the signs that store used to have up about armed robbery? Get 25 years at hard labor without parole if you rob this store, turned into 18 months and they are unleashed back on the population.

As usual, the government has it’s role completely reversed. It’s job is not to control guns to protect the people, it’s job is to control the people that are a danger to others. That is a job that it can do but no, we;ll push the law abiding people and turn the criminals loose.

If I don’t want to carry a gun, why do I fight for the right so hard? I have children and grandchildren and while they may not come for peoples guns tomorrow, what are they going to do in 50 years? Over the last 50 we went to kids being hauled to jail because they forgot about a fishing knife in the trunk of their car.

The liberal mantra seems to be now, now, now. My job is to do what I can today to secure a future for others after I’m gone. A stand has to be made and now is the time to make it.

I’m going to close this with a couple of quotes and a couple of pics that you may find interesting…

 

 

 

I prefer peace. But if trouble must come, let it come in my time, so that my children can live in peace. ~ Thomas Paine

“The science of government it is my duty to study, more than all other sciences; the arts of legislation and administration and negotiation ought to take the place of, indeed exclude, in a manner, all other arts. I must study politics and war, that our sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. Our sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history and naval architecture, navigation, commerce and agriculture in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry and porcelain.”

“A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.”
― John AdamsLetters of John Adams, Addressed to His Wife
“Posterity! you will never know how much it cost the present generation to preserve your freedom! I hope you will make a good use of it.”
― John AdamsLetters of J
He has a rifle that fits him much better now.
462760_2603984229233_1002381579_o
Learning to shoot a revolver about age 6
463051_2604018510090_221690904_o
Braden shooting an AR 15
964461_4655455074722_789874053_o

 

 

Have you ever had one of those days when you just need to rant; to pitch a little hissy fit and get something off your chest? Well I’m having one and I think that the best thing to do is just to go ahead and let it out.

Now a lot of people aren’t going to like what I have to say, so I’m going to say in advance that I really don’t care if you like it or not. If you don’t like it you may need to look at yourself pretty hard.

Recently, to my surprise I came across this article about Greenwood S.C. putting up surveillance cameras everywhere. Notice how they called them “Security” camera’s but they in fact do not secure anything, they simply spy on people.

http://www.uptowngreenwood.com/video_cameras_in_uptown_2014.aspx

Barrineau said, in applying for the CDBG funding through the South Carolina Department of Commerce, the city noted it would install security cameras as part of the project.

There is a section of the grant application that reads as follows: 

As a public safety feature, the city will install hardware and software to support a color PTZ (pan-tilt-zoom) camera system with infrared capability. The system will allow for future expansion for more cameras and will include monitoring capability along with record and playback features. This system will be an affective policing tool during outdoor events.” 

About $10,000 has been budgeted to meet this grant requirement.

Barrineau said the cameras will be installed to cover large public gathering areas — around the Veterans Monument and Uptown fountain — that are within the project area of Oak and Main.

We will also be using the camera system to deter potential vandalism to the South Carolina Festival of Flowers topiaries,” the city manager said.

In addition, Greenwood City Council has budgeted $25,000 in the 2014 local hospitality tax budget to expand the initial number of cameras.

Barrineau said the distribution of additional cameras will focus on topiary locations and highly traveled pedestrian areas frequented by residents and tourists.

Also, Barrineau said the Greater Greenwood Parks and Trails Foundation has funded cameras to be installed at West Cambridge Park and Magnolia Park. The city manager said the Uptown cameras and park cameras likely will be installed in coming weeks.

Feeds from the cameras will be maintained by the city’s information technology department.”

So, you can’t walk down the street in uptown Greenwood without being tracked by local NSA or master spy or what ever the hell they do because of plants. OK.

I posted a little piece on this and then went about my business. Yesterday, I happened to see the local papers headline and it was “Greenwood considers stop-and-identify law.”…

http://www.indexjournal.com/Content/Default/Homepage-Rotating-Articles/Article/Greenwood-considers-stop-and-identify-law/-3/225/25718

WHAT!!! Just who the hell do these people think they are and who comes up with these insane ideas? Two council members voted no but the Mayor, the City Manager and 5 other council members are stupid enough to think that this is a good idea.

Of course the online news is just a teaser, you still have to go and buy the hard copy to much information but don’t worry; I sprang the 75 cents for the paper.

According to the proposed ordinance, no person who is in a public place shall refuse to disclose their name, address or date of birth when requested by a law enforcement officer who reasonably suspects the person is committing, has committed or is about to commit a criminal offense.”

Reasonable suspicion, yeah right, we all know how that works. And don’t you like the part about the psychic cops? If they know that you haven’t committed a crime but that you are about to, shouldn’t they be able to pull your name address and birthday out of the cosmos? This is just 1 level below a stop and frisk law where they can just throw you to the wall and frisk you for walking down the street.

Now here’s a doozy from the paper… “ Nothing in the ordinance requires a person to answer any question beyond providing their name’, address and date of birth. Also, nothing in the ordinance authorizes a police officer to arrest anyone for not providing information beyond their name, address or date of birth or for refusing to describe the offense they witnessed.”

WOW… silly me… in all of my years, I always thought that the 4th amendment of the United States Constitution protected me from arrest and now after heading on 60 years I find that it was the Greenwood city council all this time. Who knew?

Now why do they want to stop and identify? Well they claim that is for officer safety. Bull shit… Do you know how stupid that sounds? You see the law is actually pretty clear on this.. If you break the law, the police can arrest you. Simple right. If you have not broken a law, the police can not arrest you and your name, address, date of birth or what color drawers you have on is absolutely none of anybodies business. Simple right? Small town nazi’s on the march if you think otherwise.

What the hell is wrong with these people?

UPDATED…

I almost forgot the plan… You can take stupid people and point out how stupid their plan is but unfortunately they are too stupid to understand. So, here is what needs to be done… You take the Mayor, the City Manager and the 5 council members and anyone else who support this and every time that they step out of their house, somebody needs to be demanding their name, address and date of birth… over and over and over. Follow them through the grocery store though Walmart, walking down the street, driving their car… Hey what’s your name?… What’s your address?… What’s your date of birth? Line up and when one gets tired another steps up and the relentless questioning continues.

Make them regret the day they ever came up with this stupid idea….


 

Economics in One Lesson (LINK)

by Henry Hazlitt

Contents

///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

The Lesson

Economics is haunted by more fallacies than any other study known to man. This is no accident. The inherent difficulties of the subject would be great enough in any case, but they are multiplied a thousandfold by a factor that is insignificant in, say, physics, mathematics or medicine-the special pleading of selfish interests. While every group has certain economic interests identical with those of all groups, every group has also, as we shall see, interests antagonistic to those of all other groups. While certain public policies would in the long run benefit everybody, other policies would benefit one group only at the expense of all other groups. The group that would benefit by such policies, having such a direct interest in them, will argue for them plausibly and persistently. It will hire the best buyable minds to devote their whole time to presenting its case. And it will finally either convince the general public that its case is sound, or so befuddle it that clear thinking on the subject becomes next to impossible.

In addition to these endless pleadings of self-interest, there is a second main factor that spawns new economic fallacies every day. This is the persistent tendency of men to see only the immediate effects of a given policy, or its effects only on a special group, and to neglect to inquire what the long-run effects of that policy will be not only on that special group but on all groups. It is the fallacy of overlooking secondary consequences.

In this lies the whole difference between good economics and bad. The bad economist sees only what immediately strikes the eye; the good economist also looks beyond. The bad economist sees only the direct consequences of a proposed course; the good economist looks also at the longer and indirect consequences. The bad economist sees only what the effect of a given policy has been or will be on one particular group; the good economist inquires also what the effect of the policy will be on all groups.

The distinction may seem obvious. The precaution of looking for all the consequences of a given policy to everyone may seem elementary. Doesn’t everybody know, in his personal life, that there are all sorts of indulgences delightful at the moment but disastrous in the end? Doesn’t every little boy know that if he eats enough candy he will get sick? Doesn’t the fellow who gets drunk know that he will wake up next morning with a ghastly stomach and a horrible head? Doesn’t the dipsomaniac know that he is ruining his liver and shortening his life? Doesn’t the Don Juan know that he is letting himself in for every sort of risk, from blackmail to disease? Finally, to bring it to the economic though still personal realm, do not the idler and the spendthrift know, even in the midst of their glorious fling, that they are heading for a future of debt and poverty?

Yet when we enter the field of public economics, these elementary truths are ignored. There are men regarded today as brilliant economists, who deprecate saving and recommend squandering on a national scale as the way of economic salvation; and when anyone points to what the consequences of these policies will be in the long run, they reply flippantly, as might the prodigal son of a warning father: “In the long run we are all dead.” And such shallow wisecracks pass as devastating epigrams and the ripest wisdom.

But the tragedy is that, on the contrary, we are already suffering the long-run consequences of the policies of the remote or recent past. Today is already the tomorrow which the bad economist yesterday urged us to ignore. The long-run consequences of some economic policies may become evident in a few months. Others may not become evident for several years. Still others may not become evident for decades. But in every case those long-run consequences are contained in the policy as surely as the hen was in the egg, the flower in the seed.

From this aspect, therefore, the whole of economics can be reduced to a single lesson, and that lesson can be reduced to a single sentence. The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups.

The Lesson

Section 2

Nine-tenths of the economic fallacies that are working such dreadful harm in the world today are the result of ignoring this lesson. Those fallacies all stem from one of two central fallacies, or both: that of looking only at the immediate consequences of an act or proposal, and that of looking at the consequences only for a particular group to the neglect of other groups.

It is true, of course, that the opposite error is possible. In considering apolicy we ought not to concentrate only on its long-run results to the community as a whole. This is the error often made by the classical economists. It resulted in a certain callousness toward the fate of groups that were immediately hurt by policies or developments which proved to be beneficial on net balance and in the long run.

But comparatively few people today make this error; and those few consist mainly of professional economists. The most frequent fallacy by far today, the fallacy that emerges again and again in nearly every conversation that touches on economic affairs, the error of a thousand political speeches, the central sophism of the new economics, is to concentrate on the short-run effects of policies on special groups and to ignore or belittle the long-run effects on the community as a whole. The “new” economists flatter themselves that this is a great, almost a revolutionary advance over the methods of the “classical” or “orthodox,” economists, because the former take into consideration short-run effects which the latter often ignored. But in themselves ignoring or slighting the long-run effects, they are making the far more serious error. They overlook the woods in their precise and minute examination of particular trees. Their methods and conclusions are often profoundly reactionary. They are sometimes surprised

The Lesson

Section 3

It is often sadly remarked that the bad economists present their errors to the public better than the good economists present their truths. It is often complained that demagogues can be more plausible in putting forward economic nonsense from the platform than the honest men who try to show what is wrong with it. But the basic reason for this ought not to be mysterious. The reason is that the demagogues and bad economists are presenting half-truths. They are speaking only of the immediate effect of a proposed policy or its effect upon a single group. As far as they go they may often be right. In these cases the answer consists in showing that the proposed policy would also have longer and less desirable effects, or that it could benefit one group only at the expense of all other groups. The answer consists in supplementing and correcting the half-truth with the other half. But to consider all the chief effects of a proposed course on everybody often requires a long, complicated, and dull chain of reasoning. Most of the audience finds this chain of reasoning difficult to follow and soon becomes bored and inattentive. The bad economists rationalize this intellectual debility and laziness by assuring the audience that it need not even attempt to follow the reasoning or judge it on its merits because it is only “classicism” or “laissez faire” or “capitalist apologetics” or whatever other term of abuse may happen to strike them as effective.

We have stated the nature of the lesson, and of the fallacies that stand in its way, in abstract terms. But the lesson will not be driven home, and the fallacies will continue to go unrecognized, unless both are illustrated by examples. Through these examples we can move from the most elementary problems in economics to the most complex and difficult. Through them we can learn to detect and avoid first the crudest and most palpable fallacies and finally some of the most sophisticated and elusive. To that task we shall now proceed.

The Lesson Applied

The Broken Window

Let us begin with the simplest illustration possible: let us, emulating Bastiat, choose a broken pane of glass.

A young hoodlum, say, heaves a brick through the window of a baker’sshop. The shopkeeper runs out furious, but the boy is gone. A crowd gathers, and begins to stare with quiet satisfaction at the gaping hole in the window and the shattered glass over the bread and pies. After a while the crowd feels the need for philosophic reflection. And several of its members are almost certain to remind each other or the baker that, after all, the misfortune has its bright side. It will make business for some glazier. As they begin to think of this they elaborate upon it. How much does a new plate glass window cost? Two hundred and fifty dollars? That will be quite a sum. After all, if windows were never broken, what would happen to the glass business? Then, of course, the thing is endless. The glazier will have $250 more to spend with other merchants, and these in turn will have $250 more to spend with still other merchants, and so ad infinitum. The smashed window will go on providing money and employment in ever-widening circles. The logical conclusion from all this would be, if the crowd drew it, that the little hoodlum who threw the brick, far from being a public menace, was a public benefactor.

Now let us take another look. The crowd is at least right in its first conclusion. This little act of vandalism will in the first instance mean more business for some glazier. The glazier will be no more unhappy to learn of the incident than an undertaker to learn of a death. But the shopkeeper will be out $250 that he was planning to spend for a new suit. Because he has had to replace a window, he will have to go without the suit (or some equivalent need or luxury). Instead of having a window and $250 he now has merely a window. Or, as he was planning to buy the suit that very afternoon, instead of having both a window and a suit he must be content with the window and no suit. If we think of him as a part of the community, the community has lost a new suit that might otherwise have come into being, and is just that much poorer.

The glazier’s gain of business, in short, is merely the tailor’s loss of business. No new “employment” has been added. The people in the crowd were thinking only of two parties to the transaction, the baker and the glazier. They had forgotten the potential third party involved, the tailor. They forgot him precisely because he will not now enter the scene. They will see the new window in the next day or two. They will never see the extra suit, precisely because it will never be made. They see only what is immediately visible to the eye.

The Lesson Applied

The Blessings of Destruction

So we have finished with the broken window. An elementary fallacy. Anybody, one would think, would be able to avoid it after a few moments’ thought. Yet the broken-window fallacy, under a hundred disguises, is the most persistent in the history of economics. It is more rampant now than at any time in the past. It is solemnly reaffirmed every day by great captains of industry, by chambers of commerce, by labor union leaders, by editorial writers and newspaper columnists and radio and television commentators, by learned statisticians using the most refined techniques, by professors of economics in our best universities. In their various ways they all dilate upon the advantages of destruction.

Though some of them would disdain to say that there are net benefits in small acts of destruction, they see almost endless benefits in enormous acts of destruction. They tell us how much better off economically we all are in war than in peace. They see “miracles of production” which it requires a war to achieve. And they see a world made prosperous by an enormous “accumulated” or “backed-up” demand. In Europe, after World War II, they joyously counted the houses, the whole cities that had been leveled to the ground and that “had to be replaced.” In America they counted the houses that could not be built during the war, the nylon stockings that could not be supplied, the worn-out automobiles and tires, the obsolescent radios and refrigerators. They brought together formidable totals.

It was merely our old friend, the broken-window fallacy, in new clothing, and grown fat beyond recognition. This time it was supported by a whole bundle of related fallacies. It confused need with demand. The more war destroys, the more it impoverishes, the greater is the postwar need. Indubitably. But need is not demand. Effective economic demand requires not merely need but corresponding purchasing power. The needs of India today are incomparably greater than the needs of America. But its purchasing power, and therefore the “new business” that it can stimulate, are incomparably smaller.

But if we get past this point, there is a chance for another fallacy, and the broken-windowites usually grab it. They think of “purchasing power” merely in terms of money. Now money can be run off by the printing press. As this is being written, in fact, printing money is the world’s biggest industry—if the product is measured in monetary terms. But the more money is turned out in this way, the more the value of any given unit of money falls. This falling value can be measured in rising prices of commodities. But as most people are so firmly in the habit of thinking of their wealth and income in terms of money, they consider themselves better off as these monetary totals rise, in spite of the fact that in terms of things they may have less and buy less. Most of the “good” economic results which people at the time attributed to World War II were really owing to wartime inflation. They could have been, and were, produced just as well by an equivalent peacetime inflation. We shall come back to this money illusion later.

Now there is a half-truth in the “backed-up” demand fallacy, just as there was in the broken-window fallacy. The broken window did make more business for the glazier. The destruction of war did make more business for the producers of certain things. The destruction of houses and cities did make more business for the building and construction industries. The inability to produce automobiles, radios, and refrigerators during the war did bring about a cumulative postwar demand for those particular products.

To most people this seemed like an increase in total demand, as it partly was in terms of dollars of lower purchasing power. But what mainly took place was a diversion of demand to these particular products from others. The people of Europe built more new houses than otherwise because they had to. But when they built more houses they had just that much less manpower and productive capacity left over for everything else. When they bought houses they had just that much less purchasing power for something else. Wherever business was increased in one direction, it was (except insofar as productive energies were stimulated by a sense of want and urgency) correspondingly reduced in another.

The war, in short, changed the postwar direction of effort; it changed the balance of industries; it changed the structure of industry.

Since World War II ended in Europe, there has been rapid and even spectacular “economic growth” both in countries that were ravaged by war and those that were not. Some of the countries in which there was greatest destruction, such as Germany, have advanced more rapidly than others, such as France, in which there was much less. In part this was because West Germany followed sounder economic policies. In part it was because the desperate need to get back to normal housing and other living conditions stimulated increased efforts. But this does not mean that property destruction is an advantage to the person whose property has been destroyed. No man burns down his own house on the theory that the need to rebuild it will stimulate his energies.

After a war there is normally a stimulation of energies for a time. At the beginning of the famous third chapter of his History of England,Macaulay pointed out that:

No ordinary misfortune, no ordinary misgovernment, will do so much to make a nation wretched as the constant progress of physical knowledge and the constant effort of every man to better himself will do to make a nation prosperous. It has often been found that profuse expenditure, heavy taxation, absurd commercial restriction, corrupt tribunals, disastrous wars, seditions, persecutions, conflagrations, inundations, have not been able to destroy capital so fast as the exertions of private citizens have been able to create it.

No man would want to have his own property destroyed either in war or in peace. What is harmful or disastrous to an individual must be equally harmful or disastrous to the collection of individuals that make up a nation.

Many of the most frequent fallacies in economic reasoning come from the propensity, especially marked today, to think in terms of an abstraction—the collectivity, the “nation”—and to forget or ignore the individuals who make it up and give it meaning. No one could think that the destruction of war was an economic advantage who began by thinking first of all of the people whose property was destroyed.

Those who think that the destruction of war increases total “demand” forget that demand and supply are merely two sides of the same coin. They are the same thing looked at from different directions. Supply creates demand because at bottom it is demand. The supply of the thing they make is all that people have, in fact, to offer in exchange for the things they want. In this sense the farmers’ supply of wheat constitutes their demand for automobiles and other goods. All this is inherent in the modern division of labor and in an exchange economy.

This fundamental fact, it is true, is obscured for most people (including some reputedly brilliant economists) through such complications as wage payments and the indirect form in which virtually all modern exchanges are made through the medium of money. John Stuart Mill and other classical writers, though they sometimes failed to take sufficient account of the complex consequences resulting from the use of money, at least saw through “the monetary veil” to the underlying realities. To that extent they were in advance of many of their present-day critics, who are befuddled by money rather than instructed by it. Mere inflation—that is, the mere issuance of more money, with the consequence of higher wages and prices may look like the creation of more demand. But in terms of the actual production and exchange of real things it is not.

It should be obvious that real buying power is wiped out to the same extent as productive power is wiped out. We should not let ourselves be deceived or confused on this point by the effects of monetary inflation in raising prices or “national income” in monetary terms.

It is sometimes said that the Germans or the Japanese had a postwar advantage over the Americans because their old plants, having been destroyed completely by bombs during the war, they could replace them with the most modern plants and equipment and thus produce more efficiently and at lower costs than the Americans with their older and half-obsolete plants and equipment. But if this were really a clear net advantage, Americans could easily offset it by immediately wrecking their old plants, junking all the old equipment. In fact, all manufacturers in all countries could scrap all their old plants and equipment every year and erect new plants and install new equipment.

The simple truth is that there is an optimum rate of replacement, a best time for replacement. It would be an advantage for a manufacturer to have his factory and equipment destroyed by bombs only if the time had arrived when, through deterioration and obsolescence, his plant and equipment had already acquired a null or a negative value and the bombs fell just when he should have called in a wrecking crew or ordered new equipment anyway.

It is true that previous depreciation and obsolescence, if not adequately reflected in his books, may make the destruction of his property less of a disaster, on net balance, than it seems. It is also true that the existence of new plants and equipment speeds up the obsolescence of older plants and equipment. If the owners of the older plant and equipment try to keep using it longer than the period for which it would maximize their profit, then the manufacturers whose plants and equipment were destroyed (if we assume that they had both the will and capital to replace them with new plants and equipment) will reap a comparative advantage or, to speak more accurately, will reduce their comparative loss.

We are brought, in brief, to the conclusion that it is never an advantage to have one’s plants destroyed by shells or bombs unless those plants have already become valueless or acquired a negative value by depreciation and obsolescence.

In all this discussion, moreover, we have so far omitted a central consideration. Plants and equipment cannot be replaced by an individual (or a socialist government) unless he or it has acquired or can acquire the savings, the capital accumulation, to make the replacement. But war destroys accumulated capital.

There may be, it is true, offsetting factors. Technological discoveries and advances during a war may, for example, increase individual or national productivity at this point or that, and there may eventually be a net increase in overall productivity. Postwar demand will never reproduce the precise pattern of prewar demand. But such complications should not divert us from recognizing the basic truth that the wanton destruction of anything of real value is always a net loss, a misfortune, or a disaster, and whatever the offsetting considerations in a particular instance, can never be, on net balance, a boon or a blessing.

The Lesson Applied

Public Works Mean Taxes

There is no more persistent and influential faith in the world today than the faith in government spending. Everywhere government spending is presented as a panacea for all our economic ills. Is private industry partially stagnant? We can fix it all by government spending. Is there unemployment? That is obviously due to “insufficient private purchasing power.” The remedy is just as obvious. All that is necessary is for the government to spend enough to make up the “deficiency”.

An enormous literature is based on this fallacy, and, as so often happens with doctrines of this sort, it has become part of an intricate network of fallacies that mutually support each other. We cannot explore that whole network at this point; we shall return to other branches of it later. But we can examine here the mother fallacy that has given birth to this progeny, the main stem of the network.

Everything we get, outside of the free gifts of nature, must in some way be paid for. The world is full of so-called economists who in turn are full of schemes for getting something for nothing. They tell us that the government can spend and spend without taxing at all; that is can continue to pile updebt without ever paying it off because “we owe it to ourselves.” We shall return to such extraordinary doctrines at a later point. Here I am afraid that we shall have to be dogmatic, and point out that such pleasant dreams in the past have always been shattered by national insolvency or a runaway inflation. Here we shall have to say simply that all government expenditures must eventually be paid out of the proceeds of taxation; that inflation itself is merely a form, and a particularly vicious form, of taxation.

Having put aside for later consideration the network of fallacies which rest on chronic government borrowing and inflation, we shall take it for granted throughout the present chapter that either immediately or ultimately every dollar of government spending must be raised through a dollar of taxation. Once we look at the matter in this way, the supposed miracles of government spending will appear in another light.

A certain amount of public spending is necessary to perform essential government functions. A certain amount of public works — of streets and roads and bridges and tunnels, of armories and navy yards, of buildings to house legislatures, police and fire departments—is necessary to supply essential public services. With such public works, necessary for their own sake, and defended on that ground alone, I am not here concerned. I am here concerned with public works considered as a means of “providing employment” or of adding wealth to the community that it would not otherwise have had.

A bridge is built. Ifit is built to meet an insistent public demand, if it solves a traffic problem or a transportation problem otherwise insoluble, if, in short, it is even more necessary to the taxpayers collectively than the things for which they would have individually spent their money had it had not been taxed away from them, there can be no objection. But a bridge built primarily “to provide employment” is a different kind of bridge. When providing employment becomes the end, need becomes a subordinate consideration. “Projects” have to be invented. Instead of thinking only of where bridges must be built the government spenders begin to ask themselves where bridges can be built. Can they think of plausible reasons why an additional bridge should connect Easton and Weston? It soon becomes absolutely essential. Those who doubt the necessity are dismissed as obstructionists and reactionaries.

Two arguments are put forward for the bridge, one of which is mainly heard before it is built, the other of which is mainly heard after it has beencompleted. The first argument is that it will provide employment. It will provide, say, 500 jobs for a year. The implication is that these are jobs that would not otherwise have come into existence.

This is what is immediately seen. But if we have trained ourselves to look beyond immediate to secondary consequences, and beyond those who are directly benefited by a government project to others who are indirectly affected, a different picture presents itself. It is true that a particular group of bridgeworkers may receive more employment than otherwise. But the bridge has to be paid for out of taxes. For every dollar that is spent on the bridge a dollar will be taken away from taxpayers. If the bridge costs $10 million the taxpayers will lose $10 million. They will have that much taken away from them which they would otherwise have spent on the things they needed most.

Therefore, for every public job created by the bridge project a private job has been destroyed somewhere else. We can see the men employed on the bridge. We can watch them at work. The employment argument of the government spenders becomes vivid, and probably for most people convincing. But there are other things that we do not see, because, alas, they have never been permitted to come into existence. They are the jobs destroyed by the $10 million taken from the taxpayers. All that has happened, at best, is that there has been a diversion of jobs because of the project. More bridge builders; fewer automobile workers, television technicians, clothing workers, farmers.

But then we come to the second argument. The bridge exists. It is, let us suppose, a beautiful and not an ugly bridge. It has come into being through the magic of government spending. Where would it have been if the obstructionists and the reactionaries had had their way? There would have been no bridge. The country would have been just that much poorer. Here again the government spenders have the better of the argument with all those who cannot see beyond the immediate range of their physical eyes. They can see the bridge. But if they have taught themselves to look for indirect as well as direct consequences they can once more see in the eye of imagination the possibilities that have never been allowed to come into existence. They can see the unbuilt homes, the unmade cars and washing machines, the unmade dresses and coats, perhaps the ungrown and unsold foodstuffs. To see these uncreated things requires a kind of imagination that not many people have. We can think of these nonexistent objects once, perhaps, but we cannot keep them before our minds as we can the bridge that we pass every working day. What has happened is merely that one thing has been created instead of others.

The Lesson Applied

Public Works Mean Taxes

Section 2

The same reasoning applies, of course, to every other form of public work. It applies just as well, for example, to the erection, with public funds, of housing for people of low incomes. All that happens is that money is taken away through taxes from families of higher income (and perhaps a little from families of even lower income) to force them to subsidize these selected families with low incomes and enable them to live in better housing for the same rent or for lower rent than previously.

I do not intend to enter here into all the pros and cons of public housing. I am concerned only to point out the error in two of the arguments most frequently put forward in favor of public housing. One is the argument that it “creates employment”; the other that it creates wealth which would not otherwise have been produced. Both of these arguments are false, because they overlook what is lost through taxation. Taxation for public housing destroys as many jobs in other lines as it creates in housing. It also results in unbuilt private homes, in unmade washing machines and refrigerators, and in lack of innumerable other commodities and services.

And none of this is answered by the sort of reply which points out, for example, that public housing does not have to be financed by a lump sum capital appropriation, but merely by annual rent subsidies. This simply means that the cost to the taxpayers is spread over many years instead of being concentrated into one. Such technicalities are irrelevant to the main point.

The great psychological advantage of the public housing advocates is that men are seen at work on the houses when they are going up, and the houses are seen when they are finished. People live in them, and proudly show their friends through the rooms. The jobs destroyed by the taxes for the housing are not seen, nor are the goods and services that were never made. It takes a concentrated effort of thought, and a new effort each time the houses and the happy people in them are seen, to think of the wealth that was not created instead. Is it surprising that the champions of public housing should dismiss this, if it is brought to their attention, as a world of imagination, as the objections of pure theory, while they point to the public housing that exists? As a character in Bernard Shaw’s Saint Joan replies when told of the theory of Pythagoras that the earth is round and revolves around the sun: “What an utter fool! Couldn’t he use his eyes?”

We must apply the same reasoning, once more, to great projects like the Tennessee Valley Authority. Here, because of sheer size, the danger of optical illusion is greater than ever. Here is a mighty dam, a stupendous arc of steel and concrete, “greater than anything that private capital could have built,” the fetish of photographers, the heaven of socialists, the most often used symbol of the miracles of public construction, ownership and operation. Here are mighty generators and power houses. Here is a whole region, it is said, lifted to a higher economic level, attracting factories and industries that could not otherwise have existed. And it is all presented, in the panegyrics of its partisans, as a net economic gain without offsets.

We need not go here into the merits of the TVA or public projects like it. But this time we need a special effort of the imagination, which few people seem able to make, to look at the debit side of the ledger. If taxes are taken from individuals and corporations, and spent in one particular section of the country, why should it cause surprise, why should it be regarded as a miracle, if that section becomes comparatively richer? Other sections of the country, we should remember, are then comparatively poorer. The thing so great that “private capital could not have built it” has in fact been built by private capital—the capital that was expropriated in taxes (or, if the money was borrowed, that eventually must be expropriated in taxes). Again we must make an effort of the imagination to see the private power plants, the private homes, the typewriters and television sets that were never allowed to come into existence because of the money that was taken from people all over the country to build the photogenic Norris Dam.

The Lesson Applied

Public Works Mean Taxes

Section 3

I have deliberately chosen the most favorable examples of public spending schemes—that is, those that are most frequently and fervently urged by the government spenders and most highly regarded by the public. I have not spoken of the hundreds of boondoggling projects that are invariably embarked upon the moment the main object is to “give jobs” and “to put people to work.” For then the usefulness of the project itself, as we have seen, inevitably becomes a subordinate consideration. Moreover, the more wasteful the work, the more costly in manpower, the better it becomes for the purpose of providing more employment. Under such circumstances it is highly improbable that the projects thought up by the bureaucrats will provide the same net addition to wealth and welfare, per dollar expended, as would have been provided by the taxpayers themselves, if they had been individually permitted to buy or have made what they themselves wanted, instead of being forced to surrender part of their earnings to the state.

The Lesson Applied

Taxes Discourage Production

There is a still further factor which makes it improbable that the wealth created by government spending will fully compensate for the wealth destroyed by the taxes imposed to pay for that spending. It is not a simple question, as so often supposed, of taking something out of the nation’s right-hand pocket to put into its left-hand pocket. The government spenders tell us, for example, that if the national income is $1,500 billion then federal taxes of $360 billion a year would mean that only 24 percent of the national income is being transferred from private purposes to public purposes.[1] This is to talk as if the country were the same sort of unit of pooled resources as a huge corporation, and as if all that were involved were a mere bookkeeping transaction. The government spenders forget that they are taking the money from A in order to pay it to B. Or rather, they know this very well but while they dilate upon all the benefits of the process to B, and all the wonderful things he will have which he would not have had if the money had not been transferred to him, they forget the effects of the transaction on A. B is seen; A is forgotten.

In our modern world there is never the same percentage of income tax levied on everybody. The great burden of income taxes is imposed on a minor percentage of the nation’s income; and these income taxes have to be supplemented by taxes of other kinds. These taxes inevitably affect the actions and incentives of those from whom they are taken. When a corporation loses a hundred cents of every dollar it loses, and is permitted to keep only fifty-two cents of every dollar it gains, and when it cannot adequately offset its years of losses against its years of gains, its policies are affected. It does not expand its operations, or it expands only those attended with a minimum of risk. People who recognize this situation are deterred from starting new enterprises. Thus old employers do not give more employment, or not as much more as they might have; and others decide not to become employers at all. Improved machinery and better-equipped factories come into existence much more slowly than they otherwise would. The result in the long run is that consumers are prevented from getting better and cheaper products to the extent that they otherwise would, and that real wages are held down, compared with what they might have been.

There is a similar effect when personal incomes are taxed 50, 60 or 70 percent. People begin to ask themselves why they should work six, eight or nine months of the entire year for the government, and only six, four or three months for themselves and their families. If they lose the whole dollar when they lose, but can keep only a fraction of it when they win, they decide that it is foolish to take risks with their capital. In addition, the capital available for risk-taking itself shrinks enormously. It is being taxed away before it can be accumulated. In brief, capital to provide new privatejobs is first prevented from coming into existence, and the part that does come into existence is then discouraged from starting new enterprises. The government spenders create the very problem of unemployment that they profess to solve.

A certain amount of taxes is of course indispensable to carry on essential government functions. Reasonable taxes for this purpose need not hurt production much. The kind of government services then supplied in return, which among other things safeguard production itself, more than compensate for this. But the larger the percentage of the national income taken by taxes the greater the deterrent to private production and employment. When the total tax burden grows beyond a bearable size, the problem of devising taxes that will not discourage and disrupt production becomes insoluble.

I’m going to stop there for now and in the next section, I will jump ahead a few chapters.

Here’s a meme that I ran across and had to comment on. The lack of basic math ability still amazes me. Then you have this one cat talking about his college economics professors and they undoubtedly can”t do math either. Last we have the one who doesn’t believe me and decides that it is all because of “Corporate greed.” For about the 10th time I have asked a lefty to explain what corporate greed is and Bam, they’re gone, never to speak again.

After this post, I’m going to share Henry Hazlitt’s –  Economics in one lesson. Since this is not a novel, I’m not going to start at the beginning but show 3-4 chapters that are pressing at the moment first. This book could have been written yesterday.

loony 1 uohuohuh

 

    •  
    • Alan Peppers Say that minimum wage is raised from $7.25 to $10.10; that is a raise of $2.85 per hour.
      Now say that there are 7 people working at McDonalds per shift. 
      This would increase pay by $19.95 per hour.
      To cover this cost by raising the Dollar menu to $1.05 would require 399 items to be sold per hour; every hour. 
      How do they do that?
      •  
        Rich Schmidt Cut the CEOs salary by one tenth of one percent
        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…/mcdonalds-ceo-pay_n…
      •  
        Kris Vaughn Mcdonalds makes about 4-6 billion a year… Im sure it would barely put a dent in their pockets.. For what Ive gathered from my own economic professors, to what studies Ive seen on the internet.. Probably look at 100 million AT MOST lost… But then you gotta figure.. How many of those people with new raises are gonna turn right around and take their family to Mcdonalds? Honestly.. From my own figures.. Im guessing Mcdonalds is gonna loose out on anywhere between 50-80 million. But when your making 4-6 billion a year.. What does it even matter?
      •  
        Pamela Sue And of course Mickey’s will get a bigger tax break & even more incentives. The important thing is that many Americans will have their foot on the botton rung of the climb to self-sufficiency & prosperity.
      •  
        Alan Peppers If each McDonalds pays $19.95 per hour more and there are 14000 McDonalds that = $279,300 per hour x 16 hours = $4,468,800 per day.
        Now $4,468,800 per day x 365 days = $1,631,112,000 per year.
        And yes, that is $1.6 BILLION and you’re talking about 1/10 of 1 % of the CEO’s salary.

        Please learn basic math.

      •  
        Russ Schleicher Alan that is 1.6 billion into the economy a great protion of which they will have spent there.
      •  
        Alan Peppers Do large corporations and rich people keep their money stuffed in a mattress? No, they spend it and invest it which keeps the money in the economy. You can’t take $1.6 billion out of the economy, turn around and put it back in the economy and call it a gain.
      •  
        Milton Strumpf Alan, the wealthy do NOT spend it. Give someone who makes $290 a week a raise to make $404 a week and they WILL spend it, generating more profits for businesses. Someone making $1 million/year a raise to $1.1 million, they will mostly just bank it. That’s been proven over and over throughout history. We have the lowest tax rate on the highest earners in history. Corporate profits are the highest they’ve been in years. It’s time to reign in corporate greed. And remember, people making so little survive on government benefits and assistance. So let’s stop giving places like McDonalds corporate welfare they don’t need and make them start paying their workers like they’re supposed to.
      •  
        Alan Peppers Explain to me exactly what “corporate greed” means.
      • Alan Peppers