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.

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.

The media's gnashing teeth

Our national news media (as represented by the most hate filled MSNBC guy shown here) and the Democratic Party are in panic mode right now. Big time panic. The "gee can we go back and put Hillary on the ticket" type panic. 37 million folks watched Sarah Palin's speech, and the latest Gallup poll yesterday has things tied 42%-42. This only five days after Obama led by around 8 points. The media's rhetoric is venomous. Their stories are shockingly petty. It's pretty fun to see angry liberals and excited Republicans again. The base has been rallied which is great even if I still can't get much satisfaction from watching and listening to McCain.

Sadly, I admit to watching CNN last night for a while. I'm told it is good to be close to your enemies, but boy does it take a toll on one's stomach. They had a focus group of eight ladies talking about Palin. The anchor went to great pains explaining women voters are leery Palin doesn't have enough experience and was chosen by McCain as a gimmick. A gimmick you say? Would this be like Joe Biden being chosen because Barack has zero foreign policy experience? Did CNN have a focus group to discuss this gimmick?? Did NBC spend 10 minutes of the nightly news exploring how it is possible Joe Biden could be Barack's VP so soon after saying he wasn't fit to be President? Shouldn't voters be informed of this?

Do you realize there has been more scrutiny of Sarah Palin in a week than Obama in the last eighteen! Our media is so concerned about Palin's time being divided between work and family. Yet, isn't this what Democratic women have been fighting for the last 30 years? How many zillion times has our liberal media opined about women being free to have careers, use day care, and be equal to men in the workplace? You know, break through the glass ceiling. What they really mean is LIBERAL women should be free to juggle career and family. Conservative women should be quiet, should stay at home in the darkness, and should stay out of politics.

That's okay because Oprah is a fair minded lady. After all, we've found out Palin has a standing invitation to come on Oprah. Well, not exactly. Oprah wants to talk with her AFTER Barack gets elected. Isn't Oprah the beacon of light for the ladies? Wouldn't you think Palin's meteoric rise would have Oprah pretty near giddy? Whoppi Goldberg should be screaming to have Mrs. Palin on The View. Oh, that's right, Palin is pro-life, pro-military, pro-USA. Now I understand their disinterest.

Do you hear the national media showing concern about Barack's association with the Rev. Wright or Barack's terrorist friend Bill Ayers? Are they concerned about his father's extreme socialistic views? Are they worried that much of his experience over the years goes back to being a community organizer? Are they fearful to elect a man who had many of his votes in the US senate cast as 'present'? Could you imagine if these were Palin's credentials? MSNBC would be shouting it 24/7. NPR and ABC would be talking about her pastor every chance they got. The NY Times would make it front page news every day.

I’m not convinced McCain is going to win, but I’m so happy the next sixty days our media will be spending more time trying to dig up dirt on Palin then talking up Obama. The more hatred they spew out, the more independents are going to sense Obama is the media’s darling with little to actually offer in the way of leadership. Isn't this fun? If you like politics and sticking it to the many hypocrites on the Left, it is great fun.

How much are you worth?

How much money should a 6th grade science teacher make? How about the nurse who took care of you so well during your hospital stay? What about your child's school bus driver? I'll bet you think all these folks are generally underpaid? What about rock stars, professional sports players, Google, Wal-Mart, or Exxon? They are all overpaid right?

It seems as though class envy is alive and well in the good ole U.S.A. I hear comments everywhere from folks making value judgments about who should have and who shouldn't. Oil companies are frequently whipped these days by folks like Barack Obama who want to tax them extra because they make "too much." He apparently doesn't think the $2 billion Google made last quarter is too much though. So in his world, tax the oil companies a lot more but leave Google where it is at. Never mind that oil companies produce the fossil fuels which have catapulted our economy to extreme wealth. Our country's poorest are among the richest folks in most other countries.

What you never hear about in these discussions is the word 'risk.' In life, risk often determines our outcome in many areas. Risk is sometimes rewarded handsomely and other times punished mercilessly. Everyone wants to talk about what people 'should be paid' but nobody wants to talk about the risk the person took to actually earn the money.

How many of you would like to start a business and put your house up for collateral?? If your business fails, you lose your home. Kind of scary stuff. So scary that maybe I should keep getting up and going to work for the person who is taking that risk. I mean if their business fails, they lose everything, but I just go and look for another job. It might be difficult for me, but at least I don't lose everything right from the beginning. Now tell me, if the person who takes the risk of losing his home performs very well, why shouldn't they reap extraordinary rewards with high profit?? Without the potential for high profits, nobody would be out there creating jobs for the rest of us who need them.

If Lebron makes way too much money, then don't go to the games or watch him on TV. Then Lebron wouldn't make a dime. If all those baseball players are way too rich, don't go and watch them. Don't pay $100 for a seat. Don't pay $20 for an autograph. In capitalism, the market decides our fate. Does it always decide the way we would? No. Is it always fair? No. Is it sometimes cruel? Yes. But it is the best possible choice for a people desiring the opportunity to reach their potential and be rewarded for it. And it is the reason why our economy's GDP is greater than the next four countries combined.

I don't want Barack Obama and the libs. deciding who deserves and who doesn't. I like people with money. Without them none of the rest of us have jobs.