Thursday, September 11, 2008

Conservatives are compassionate


Is anyone else tired of hearing how conservatives are for the rich? Why are there so few conservatives who can articulate the fallacy of this statement? Year after year we hear the media blathering on about this as if it is fact. Most conservatives don't even bother trying to explain where this is wrong. It's like we've conceded the argument. I'm not conceding it. I'll try to offer up a few ideas on the matter.

Start with taxes. Conservatives want to lower taxes on individuals and corporations. Right now, under George Bush the bottom 50% don't pay any income tax already. That sounds compassionate doesn't it?? Doesn't this actually help the middle and lower classes? Those yelling no, stay with me for a few sentences. One big reason our economy is stuck (besides high energy costs) is we have the third highest corporate tax burden among industrialized economies. Since I've been born (35 years), every time we lower the tax rate, income into the US Treasury goes UP...not down. Research income receipts at www.ustreas.gov and the facts will back me up. How is that possible? Lowering taxes offers incentives for folks to work harder. Folks working harder, take risks and often become more successful. They hire additional people who work harder to generate more income, and the cycle continues on and on bringing more income tax in even at the lower rate.

This principle is so common sense I can't see why people even argue against it. Say you are making $10/hr and the government decides to tax you 50%. That's $5. Are you really going to even bother working for a net of $5/hour? I doubt it. What if taxes were 10% or $1. Aren't you much more likely to bother working for $9 vs. $5? Why is this logic any different at the top of the income ladder? People taking on the risk of borrowing money to start businesses often by threat of losing their homes if they fail are not going to when 30, 40, even 50% of the money is gone before they start. So, I say conservative tax policy is actually for both the rich and the poor.

What about the church? Well, about 2/3rd's of the Christian & Catholic churches in America identify themselves as conservative. According to www.generousgiving.org, churchgoers give about 3.4% of their income vs. 1.1-1.4% for non-churchgoers. Non-churchgoers is a group of folks always polled as extensively liberal and progressive. In addition, conservative congregations give $2,627 per person/per year versus $1,582 by "liberal congregations." Who are the compassionate ones again?

Let's end with "teaching a man to fish." Conservatives always get attacked because we don't want our hard earned funds redistributed to others by fiat. This is interpreted as not caring. The principal here is: I worked hard, I paid for my college education, I took risks, and I don't want government just "taking" my money. I want and believe individuals, the church and other private enterprises should WANT to help these folks. My wife and I give a lot because of this principal.

Private enterprise almost always does things better than government. And many of us believe we should offer help but also teach folks how to be self-sufficient so they are productive members of society. Isn't that truly compassionate?? Giving someone on the street $10 so they can often turn around and buy beer or drugs is not compassionate. It is enabling and makes liberals "feel good" but doesn't actually accomplish anything. Soon the same person is back at it looking for free money so they don't have to work.

I'd like to hear from you. Am I all wet on this? What do you think. Comment me and get a dialog going.





Tuesday, September 9, 2008

Bye-Bye Keith

What wonderful news thine ears have heard. This past 10 days has been the most fun I've had since Al Gore lost Florida 8 years ago. It's like manna falling from Heaven. This is just so unexpected it seems too good to be true. It seems everyday brings better McCain poll numbers and more attacks on Sarah Palin's character. For me, today was extra special because the biggest hack on television is finally not allowed to run his mouth off during political coverage.


Mr. Hate Monger, Keith Olbermann, along with Chris Matthews have been dropped from political night coverage by MSNBC! How can this be? These are the beacons of fairness and tolerance. To me, this is a no brainer as Mr. Olbermann lost his journalistic integrity long before this. He is the only man on television I absolutely won't watch. Admittedly, Keith is a hit with the David Letterman and You Tube crowd, but the guy is just plain nasty. He distorts the truth and often mixes and matches sound bites from Fox anchors he doesn't like to make it appear they are less than honest and then passes it off as truth.


Join me in sending Keith a goodbye email at countdown@msnbc.com. Please keep it clean as we don't need to play his game.


During the Republican convention, Pat Buchanan was remarking that Sarah Palin has given the GOP base energy, and Mr. Olbermann replied, "Those reading US Weekly with the picture of her and her youngest daughter with the word `scandal' written across it won't be so happy,"


The true scandal is Mr. Olbermann still works for MSNBC.