America is the single greatest nation in the world, full of stories of great success. I look at my own life and often think to myself, “What if I were born in a land where my future was decided for me?” I am grateful that God saw it fit to put me in this magnificent land of opportunity, for I would not be where I am today as a result.
“I don’t believe in the greatness of America because I read it in a book, but because I’ve seen it with my eyes,” said U.S. Senator Marco Rubio(R-FL). He is a true story of American exceptionalism, as he is the son of Cuban exiles and now is a prominent figure in the conservative movement.
When I look at stories like Senator Rubio, my story pales in comparison to that. However, the fact is, we all have a great story about opportunities that this great country has afforded us. We should all be thankful that we are in the single greatest nation of mankind.
However, we have seen declines in America as of late. We have seen our futures mortgaged due to the entitlement mentality that is crippling America. This mentality will leave our future generations worse off than our parents left us. Further, it will leave the next generation worse off than any other generation has been left before.
In America, we are at a crossroads. We have to make the choice of whether or not we will continue to mortgage the future or whether we will begin to make the cuts necessary to save it. According to the U.S. National Debt Clock, in order to pay our debt off, every American citizen would have to pay $46,023.25, and it’s more since I’ve written this. This is an alarming statistic that we should keep in mind when we decide who to vote for in 2012. Will we continue to spend ourselves into oblivion, or will we begin to restore the ideals of our Founders of small, but effective government?
In America, we need to preserve freedom for all generations and fight for it rabidly. As one of my favorite presidents, Ronald Reagan, famously said, “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.”
This is why I’ve written all year. I would like to give a special thanks to everyone that has read and followed my writing, as well as to the FlorAla for giving me the opportunity. This has truly been a great opportunity, for which I am very appreciative. God bless you all, and God bless America!
Monday, April 18, 2011
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Education and Infrastructure
I recently sent this in to the Times Daily. Let me know your thoughts.
In this great county, state, and nation we have passed measures ensuring better infrastructure and education, and they have not improved anything. In reading a “You Said It” comment on April 8, I noticed someone’s anger over the poor quality of Wood Avenue. I agree, it is a bumpy ride along the way, but surely our tax dollars are being well spent, right?
Wrong. We passed a measure in Florence in 1984 that allowed the sale of alcohol in city limits, and even went a step further in allowing it on Sundays in restaurants later. These measures were passed all in the name of “better schools and roads,” and I have seen neither! It is sad to see our money going to other places than promised. What’s new, though?
Our state legislature holds in their hands a bill allowing the citizens to vote on bingo. Need I remind them that we have already declared gambling illegal in a vote, and these machines are merely improvised slot machines, aka gambling.
However, with increased taxation on such things, our education system will improve, right? Wrong. The end result will be just like the wet law in Florence. We will see little, if any, improvements in our roads and schools and see more corrupt politicians lining their pockets. How about instead of giving yourself a 62% pay increase, you give that money to education?
I will end by saying more money will not increase the quality of education, studying harder will!
In this great county, state, and nation we have passed measures ensuring better infrastructure and education, and they have not improved anything. In reading a “You Said It” comment on April 8, I noticed someone’s anger over the poor quality of Wood Avenue. I agree, it is a bumpy ride along the way, but surely our tax dollars are being well spent, right?
Wrong. We passed a measure in Florence in 1984 that allowed the sale of alcohol in city limits, and even went a step further in allowing it on Sundays in restaurants later. These measures were passed all in the name of “better schools and roads,” and I have seen neither! It is sad to see our money going to other places than promised. What’s new, though?
Our state legislature holds in their hands a bill allowing the citizens to vote on bingo. Need I remind them that we have already declared gambling illegal in a vote, and these machines are merely improvised slot machines, aka gambling.
However, with increased taxation on such things, our education system will improve, right? Wrong. The end result will be just like the wet law in Florence. We will see little, if any, improvements in our roads and schools and see more corrupt politicians lining their pockets. How about instead of giving yourself a 62% pay increase, you give that money to education?
I will end by saying more money will not increase the quality of education, studying harder will!
Friday, January 8, 2010
The Benefits of Tax Cuts
It was the great founder Benjamin Franklin that said, “In this world nothing is certain but death and taxes.” Mr. Franklin knew exactly what he was saying and this is definitely the feeling of most Americans today, some more than others. Many say, “Tax the rich and give to the poor!” This is not what our founders had in mind when this country was constructed. America was founded on the basis of capitalism and taxes do nothing but hinder business as it strives to move forward. No president knew this better than Ronald Reagan. Reagan knew that cutting taxes was more beneficial to businesses because this removes unnecessary burdens from them and allows them to flourish.
Liberals prefer to insure equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity. Liberals have a tendency to love government spending. However, this increases the national debt. How do they plan to pay for this? They plan to do this by taxing the successful. The Obama administration ran on the basis of “spreading the wealth”, as most Liberals like the idea of. “Raise the taxes on those that make $250,000 or more!” was his cry. The Liberals like the idea of “bridging the inequality gap” and allowing more government control over the aspects of private enterprise. This “gap” is bridged by taking money from those that work hard to make a living and giving to others that do not. This is dangerous and harmful to the idea that all should possess what our founders believed we deserve, namely “The right to life, liberty, and property.”
I strongly disagree with this idea of “spreading the wealth” amongst all. This principle is extremely unfair to the one that worked hard for all the money he earned (regardless of how much). Think on this: Suppose we are in a class together and I am one of the laziest students in the class. I make Fs on all my tests, do not do any homework, and I do not participate in any class projects. You, however, are the epitome of a great student. You make As on the tests, do all your homework, and your class projects are flawless. On the last day of class, the professor approaches the class and says, “I’ve decided to do things differently. Many of you have done well in this class, but there are many on the other end of the spectrum, as well. To be fair to all, I’ve given everyone in the class a C.” If I were you, I would be enraged, and you would have a right to be. You would not work near as hard next time, for you would have no reward in doing so. The same principle applies to all these people that work hard for a living, only to pay another’s way. These people that work to make an honest living would not desire to work hard anymore, for in giving one’s earnings to another for nothing, you destroy the incentive to work on both sides. This is sad, but it is what the leaders of this administration are trying to accomplish.
We should note that Conservatives like the idea of laissez faire economics in which the government should leave the market alone and let the problems work themselves out. They favor tax cuts for businesses, which allow businesses to be more profitable and create more jobs, thus creating a greater revenue base. Reagan knew our economy was based on the law of supply and demand and that individuals had the right to choose their line of work. If one person opens a business and it flourishes, then the government should not tax that business to death. Taxes on businesses as a whole destroy the incentive to work and shred our capitalistic values until there is nothing left but empty buildings with “For Sale” signs in the front window.
One should see that tax cuts are profitable for businesses. Reagan cut the top marginal tax rate for individuals by over 50% after taking office. Revenues fell at first, but over the next eight years of his presidency the revenue doubled. Higher taxes, especially on smaller businesses, discourage investing in equipment and opening new plants, resulting in no job creation. Lower taxes allow businesses to retain more profit and invest more money in the business, as any good business owner would do. President Reagan would support lower taxes on the sector of our economy that consistently creates the most jobs: small business.
See what Mr. Reagan says on capitalism and socialism here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gIxuOabGBE.
I have to say I agree wholeheartedly with the Mr. Reagan on this one, as I do most other things, for the Liberal ideals make absolutely no sense. We need to listen to the Conservatives and tax consumption rather than production. In doing so, we would open many more options for business expansion and create jobs. The founders did not tax those that produced goods; one simply gave them the tax money on the things they consumed. It seems that a flat sales tax is the fairest way to go, for this would force the government to live inside their means, which they should be doing all along.
In conclusion, cutting taxes for businesses removes many unnecessary burdens and allows them to invest more money in their business. Not only that, it creates a greater source of revenue, because the more people there are employed, the more revenue there is coming in. Ibn Khaldoon, a Muslim philosopher, said, “At the beginning of the dynasty taxation yields a large revenue from small assessments. At the end of the dynasty, taxation yields a small revenue from large assessments.” This is saying, when rates are low, revenue is great; when rates are high, revenue is low. We need to use the Conservative ideals and apply these to our economy. In doing so, the economy will flourish, as it has done in past Conservative administrations. American businesses would also be more profitable, resulting in a happier American citizenry.
Liberals prefer to insure equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity. Liberals have a tendency to love government spending. However, this increases the national debt. How do they plan to pay for this? They plan to do this by taxing the successful. The Obama administration ran on the basis of “spreading the wealth”, as most Liberals like the idea of. “Raise the taxes on those that make $250,000 or more!” was his cry. The Liberals like the idea of “bridging the inequality gap” and allowing more government control over the aspects of private enterprise. This “gap” is bridged by taking money from those that work hard to make a living and giving to others that do not. This is dangerous and harmful to the idea that all should possess what our founders believed we deserve, namely “The right to life, liberty, and property.”
I strongly disagree with this idea of “spreading the wealth” amongst all. This principle is extremely unfair to the one that worked hard for all the money he earned (regardless of how much). Think on this: Suppose we are in a class together and I am one of the laziest students in the class. I make Fs on all my tests, do not do any homework, and I do not participate in any class projects. You, however, are the epitome of a great student. You make As on the tests, do all your homework, and your class projects are flawless. On the last day of class, the professor approaches the class and says, “I’ve decided to do things differently. Many of you have done well in this class, but there are many on the other end of the spectrum, as well. To be fair to all, I’ve given everyone in the class a C.” If I were you, I would be enraged, and you would have a right to be. You would not work near as hard next time, for you would have no reward in doing so. The same principle applies to all these people that work hard for a living, only to pay another’s way. These people that work to make an honest living would not desire to work hard anymore, for in giving one’s earnings to another for nothing, you destroy the incentive to work on both sides. This is sad, but it is what the leaders of this administration are trying to accomplish.
We should note that Conservatives like the idea of laissez faire economics in which the government should leave the market alone and let the problems work themselves out. They favor tax cuts for businesses, which allow businesses to be more profitable and create more jobs, thus creating a greater revenue base. Reagan knew our economy was based on the law of supply and demand and that individuals had the right to choose their line of work. If one person opens a business and it flourishes, then the government should not tax that business to death. Taxes on businesses as a whole destroy the incentive to work and shred our capitalistic values until there is nothing left but empty buildings with “For Sale” signs in the front window.
One should see that tax cuts are profitable for businesses. Reagan cut the top marginal tax rate for individuals by over 50% after taking office. Revenues fell at first, but over the next eight years of his presidency the revenue doubled. Higher taxes, especially on smaller businesses, discourage investing in equipment and opening new plants, resulting in no job creation. Lower taxes allow businesses to retain more profit and invest more money in the business, as any good business owner would do. President Reagan would support lower taxes on the sector of our economy that consistently creates the most jobs: small business.
See what Mr. Reagan says on capitalism and socialism here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gIxuOabGBE.
I have to say I agree wholeheartedly with the Mr. Reagan on this one, as I do most other things, for the Liberal ideals make absolutely no sense. We need to listen to the Conservatives and tax consumption rather than production. In doing so, we would open many more options for business expansion and create jobs. The founders did not tax those that produced goods; one simply gave them the tax money on the things they consumed. It seems that a flat sales tax is the fairest way to go, for this would force the government to live inside their means, which they should be doing all along.
In conclusion, cutting taxes for businesses removes many unnecessary burdens and allows them to invest more money in their business. Not only that, it creates a greater source of revenue, because the more people there are employed, the more revenue there is coming in. Ibn Khaldoon, a Muslim philosopher, said, “At the beginning of the dynasty taxation yields a large revenue from small assessments. At the end of the dynasty, taxation yields a small revenue from large assessments.” This is saying, when rates are low, revenue is great; when rates are high, revenue is low. We need to use the Conservative ideals and apply these to our economy. In doing so, the economy will flourish, as it has done in past Conservative administrations. American businesses would also be more profitable, resulting in a happier American citizenry.
A Christian Nation?
The First Amendment :
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
There is a major debate in current American politics over the “Wall of separation” that is believed to be established in the Constitution. However, I find no such use of the words concerning religion in my reading of the Constitution. I do believe that our Founders had no intention to establish their religion, for they just rebelled against a tyrannical country that had done so. However, there is a fine line between establishing a religion and acknowledging God. I believe that all people, even those in authority, have the right to acknowledge God in public, and see no crime committed in doing so.
First, I will agree with Washington, as he says, “happily the government of the United States ... gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance. ... Everyone shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree, and there shall be none to make him afraid.” He makes a very valid point and sets the precedent that those that are persecuted can seek safety and those that persecute will be brought to justice. I see no problem in the government protecting the right to a person’s religious beliefs and even going to the point of punishing others for harming them. I see great promise in a government that will allow me to worship freely and protect me from the persecution of others.
Next, I believe that people should be able to acknowledge God in public circles. In many of the Founders’ opinions, they sought that they should acknowledge God in public, but this was not establishing a religion as some may say. In Washington’s inaugural and farewell addresses he opened with an acknowledgement of God, prayer. He also added “So help me God” to all of the oaths administered to those in public office. James Madison also expressed his confidence “in the guardianship and guidance of that almighty Being, whose power regulates the destiny of nations.” There is a clear desire that the state should acknowledge God, but not establish a religion in doing so.
Finally, I see no problem in displaying the Ten Commandments in public circles. There are many that disagree and claim that it is breaking the Establishment Clause, but there is no religion established in doing so. In the cases I have seen, the Constitution did not apply to the public officials on trial because they were Supreme Court justices, and the law only applies to Congress. Also, this is not religion that we are speaking of, it is the foundation of moral law. On the monuments I have seen, the text is stated as, “The Laws of Nature and Natures God,” which should not be problematic, for the words are pulled straight from the Declaration of Independence, the very document from which the Supreme Court came to the conclusion in 1892 that we are a Christian nation.
In conclusion, I believe that everyone, including civil magistrates, should be able to acknowledge God in public circles. I find it interesting that our Founders had no problem in the acknowledgement of God and even put their beliefs into practice. I believe that there is a misunderstanding all too often of the definitions of acknowledgement and establishment, and people should be made aware of the fact that these two mean totally different things. I fully disagree with establishing a religion, for this is one belief our country was founded upon. However, this does not take away the rights of the people to acknowledge God. We need to continue to stand for our Founders’ beliefs and uphold their convictions, for even those apply to us today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
