Visit YouArgue.Com for the new site

The Democrat party tries to paint the Republican party as "only catering to the rich." Talk to any Democrat for more than 5 minutes, and you'll surely hear this argument  But 48% of the American population is not rich (Romney's share), 7 out of the 10 richest members of congress are Democrats, and 8 of the top 10 richest counties in the country voted for Obama. Hmmmm, what does that tell you?

Sending Money Overseas

There's one concept seems a little contradictory to me. Many people are pissed off when an illegal immigrant works here and then sends money out of the country and back home; They are ready to start lynching when a millionaire invests overseas, with a factory or such.

But then they have absolutely no problem when billionaires like Gates and Buffett send billions of dollars overseas to provide direct services for Africans. In all three cases money is leaving the country. So is money that leaves for the reason of increasing the world population with direct food and services somehow more noble than providing jobs for people so that they can feed themselves and at the same time increase the world GDP?

Direct aid is money that is vaporized and never has a prospect of returning. It also does nothing to "teach them to fish." An investment in a factory produces goods that people can use, provides a productive activity for employees, the business owners earn a return on their money, and one day the factory may be sold and the profits brought home if a new investment opportunity in the country is appealing (and tax incentives are fair). Furthermore, direct aid just increases the world population which then increases environmental damage with a never ending feedback loop that requires more and more money. And finally, while it helps some individuals, it does nothing to help humanity, such as what disease or vaccine research would (The Gates Foundation does do some of this).

I don't care where anyone spends their own money. That is their business and they could wipe their asses with twenties for all I care. But I just think that when people start talking about other people's money business, they should really look a little closer at the concept.

Obama wants the ability to imprison US citizens infidelity without trial, with the National Defense Authorization Act.

Remember all that infrastructure rebuilding that Obama once touted? Well much of it went to Chinese firms and workers. Good job with those jobs Obama.

Notice how payroll taxes have increased over the last 60 years? Social Security costs cannot be contained and have continued to increase to pay for the benefits of current retirees. You didn't think that social security was an investment did you?

Obama's Socialist Rant

To all you business owners out there: "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen....If you've been successful, you didn't get there on your own," Obama said Monday. He goes on to say that the wealthy should pay a little bit more. I ask, a little bit more than what? The wealthy are already paying a LOT more. With the top 1% paying 40% of all federal income taxes, and a progressive tax that continues to punish the successful the more they make, how much more does this socialist want? Everybody uses roads, everybody uses national defense, everybody had a teacher at one point (and don't forget, we ALREADY are paying taxes for these), but I fail to see how these directly help someone make more money than another person when everyone is faced with the same infrastructure. The key differences are the choices that the person who started a business made and the choices the person who walked over to the welfare line made. If the presence of government is what makes one rich, then why isn't everyone rich? I'll raise the stakes: why is it that the government is saying more people are "poor" and have added them to the government dole as government has gotten bigger?

Over at Investor's Business Daily, there is a an excellent critque of Obama's ignorant words such as, "Is it a coincidence that virtually the only people President Obama gives credit to for anything are teacher and construction unions?"
And a quote that just nails it, "Michelangelo didn't paint the Sistine Chapel, you know. Credit must be given to the folks who built the scaffolding and the inventor of paint." 

As is known to anyone who has bothered to look at underlying tax data, this article Debunks the class warfare topic that the 'rich' pay less of a tax rate than the middle class.

Florida Drug Screening

The best law ever: drug screening required for those who leech off the system. Why isn't this a federal law?

Discrimination in Michigan Colleges is okay again

Discrimination is back in Michigan, with Affirmative Action. Affirmative action is another liberal reverse racism policy, that generally sets quotas for firms or, in this case, universities. Instead of hiring or admitting the most qualified applicants, sub-par candidates are required to be accepted solely because of the color of their skin.

As I have posted before in another article, it does not make sense to lower college admission standards to anyone for the sake of putting in artificial quotas of some racial demographic. College is college. It is designed to be an academic challenge, and the degree only has value if it is something difficult to accomplish. Because affirmative action lowers the admission standards for some groups, all it does is lower the quality of the school and causes sub-par students to struggle. If a minority is X% of the population and they are as intelligent or capable as every other race, as is usually assumed, then the college student body will be naturally made up of X% of that minority. So by advocating an affirmative action plan, they trying to tell us that some minorities are less intelligent or less capable than others. Why doesn't this bother minorities? And for those well qualified students admitted in a college with an affirmative action plan, aren't they worried that employers will automatically consider this college entrance policy and have second thoughts about their achievement?

The ACLU spokesman says,

The ruling has kept the door open for thousands of academically qualified students of color to continue to pursue the American dream through our state's colleges and universities

If they were academically qualified students then they wouldn't have had a problem getting into the school to begin with. So a law would be superfluous.

The petitioner Gratz, who originally won the suit to have AA banned, was a well qualified student, but because the color of her skin was white, she was denied admission while other less qualified minorities were accepted because of racial considerations.