Since when are economic policies supposed to increase the number of people on Welfare?

Does it strike anyone else as strange that John McCain says he doesn't know as much about economics as he should, yet his economic plan is the best of the two?

McCain's plan is to cut taxes on businesses. I'm sure many people see this and say "but then they will raise taxes on workers to make up the difference!" And as long Liberals run Congress, that's probably true. That's the Socialist way, tax everyone 100% then redistribute it the way they want to. And guess what, that means you get a shot at whatever is leftover after they take their share. Care to guess who gets the higher percentage? That is how Socialization...I mean, er...Nationalization works. The government, that can't even balance their own budget and have spent away the portion of your retirement fund that they force you to pay, will decide how much money, fuel, food and the luxury items that Americans thrive on (televisions, computers, cars, and good old toilet paper) that each individual citizen is entitled to. This only benefits those way at the bottom of the social-economic ladder that would rather lay around all day instead of working, at the expense of all the rest of Americans.

But back on the candidates' economic plans. One of the core truths of economics is that businesses do not pay taxes out of their pockets, that slap that burden onto their customers by raising prices. They have to, there is no other way for them to pay the difference. By lowering taxes on businesses, two things happen: 1) businesses lower prices and 2) they can hire more workers.

So what are the benefits of each of these results? Since most consumers have a limited, fixed amount of money to use each month (within certain parameters), lower prices means consumers can buy more items. To account for increased demand on goods, businesses have to hire more workers to supply more goods and services to meet the demand. This means more people have money to purchase more goods from more companies (because once you meet daily needs such as food, clothing, and toilet paper, you stretch out into comfort and luxury items which is where the American economy actually lies). As more and more people are able to buy more and more goods and services, more workers are needed and the work force becomes more specialized which increases the need for trained and educated workers which increases wages and the economy gets even stronger.

This is all sounds good for John Q. Public, but how does that help keep taxes down? This part is even more simple. If you have 1000 workers earning $1600 a month ($10/hr) paying 30% taxes, the government gets $480,000 a month in taxes. But if you only have 500 workers earning $800 a month ($5/hr) and 500 unemployed earning $0, at 30% the government only gets $120,000 a month. So they have to raise taxes. But to make up the difference they would have to raise taxes, except that would require taxing at 120%, which is of course not even possible so they tax at 50% and borrow the rest from China.

In the first economy workers have $1120 per month to spend on goods and services in the economy and the government has $480,000. In the second, workers have $400 per month and the government has to borrow (and pay interest) on the $320,000 SHORTFALL. Plus, they have to increase their spending to help the 500 unemployed. Which economy do you want to live in???

So now I've made McCain's plan sound all rosey and good (which it is), how does Obama's plan stack up? He wants to raise taxes on businesses and use the money to fund Social and Welfare programs. This causes businesses to raise prices because they have to, and to fire workers because 1) the business can't afford to keep them and 2) the higher prices means consumers are buying fewer individual items so supply exceed demand and fewer workers are needed to keep up. So now you have fewer consumers and fewer people paying taxes and the government has to borrow even more money to pay unemployment and Welfare to the poor people that the government made poor to begin with by forcing their companies to fire them to be able to afford the extra taxes levied on them.

Basically Obama's plan creates a larger poor class so that Uncle Obama and Aunt Pelosi can take care of you in the way they want to, instead of giving you the freedom to choose on your own. And we all know deep down inside that money is freedom. Anyone who thinks differently has never been poor (and believe me I have, but am no longer). Money buys us transportation to leave our homes and gives a reason and destination once we do leave. Six Flags, Disney World, Oceans of Fun or even Put-put Golf all take money. State Parks, National Parks, Wildlife Refuges charge admission and require gas (and we know how much money that takes). Even picnics in the park require a car and gas, or at the very least, bus fare. Want to play catch with your kid? You need to buy a ball and maybe some ball gloves.

Money is freedom and that will never change. So the question is do you want to decide how to earn and spend that money? Or do you want Uncle Obama and Aunt Pelosi to make those decisions for you?

In the spirit of change, Obama says the same old things.

Once again Obama proves himself to be the very politician he claims to despise. In reading Liz Sidoti's article today about the Presidential candidates' position on the Supreme Court's ruling to end the D.C. handgun ban (at least they were 1 for 3 today), Obama flip-flops on this one subject than John Kerry did in his entire FAILED campaign in 2004.

"'You said in Idaho recently, I'm quoting here, 'I have no intention of taking away folks' guns.' But you support the D.C. handgun ban and you've said that it's constitutional," said the moderator, Leon Harris of Washington television station WJLA.

'So, there is nothing wrong, I think, with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets,' Obama said."

My question, Senator Obama, is this: How does banning average law-banning citizen from owning handguns get ILLEGAL weapons off the streets? It is the very nature of criminals to behave in an illegal fashion, that is why they are criminals. In other words, making it against the law to own a handgun won't make criminals surrender their firearms since they are already intentionally breaking the law. All it does is make their illegal activities easier.

Let's look at this another way. Here is another quote from Obama in the same article "...but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets..." I think everyone can agree that criminals are lazy and selfish. Everything they do is for themselves (yes you can cite stories about how people steal to feed their families, but there are other ways to feed your children so its not a valid argument). They want to get things things the easy way, otherwise they would work like the rest of the population (again arguments about how work is hard to find is invalid because there are many jobs out there, people are just not willing to 'demean' themselves in order to take some of these jobs, plus why should they when the Social Welfare state the Congress has created will coddle them).

So basically you have a bunch of lazy, self-serving criminals looking for the easiest score. Their choices are a house in Virginia where free handgun laws make any home likely to be protected or a house in Washington D.C. where it is against the law to own a gun. That lazy bastard is going to pick D.C. clean because he knows he's the most heavily armed so the victims have to comply with any and all demands. Whether that's watching his 62" flat-screen walk out the front door, or watching his wife and daughter getting gang-raped.

Laws do not stop criminals, point blank. Neither do police. It is naive to think so. That's not an attack on the police, it is simply not how the world works. The police exist to solve crimes and arrest criminals in an effort to prevent that specific individual from committing a future crime (and OK, every once in awhile a cop stumbles upon a crime in progress and will do everything he/she can to stop it.). But the only way to stop crime is to stop potential criminals before they commit the crime, and until ESP is more commonplace that is impossible.

The only way to stop crime before it occurs is deterence. You can either make the legal alternative more attractive than the crime or make the crime less attractive than the legal alternative. For the first part, increasing pay faster than inflation is the best option, but not necessarily practical (especially with increasing consumer prices). Or make the punishment for the crime so severe that the daily grind of washing dishes or flipping burgers is Disney Land in comparison.

And the first step needs to be the real fear of death, even if its just a burglary. Some will scoff at that and ask how getting killed over a television is right. My response is simple: if the criminal proceeds with the crime knowing he may be killed in the process, he is voluntarily accepting that as a consequence. Most crime is a voluntary act. By knowingly committing a crime, you are consenting to all possible punishments. If the criminal doesn't feel that television is worth dying for, then he shouldn't try to steal it. Its really that simple.

And Mr. Obama do not try to take the cowardly way and use Congress to take away my Springfield XD subcompact, or my shotguns, or my Remington 700. If you wish to try and take my Constitutionally-protected rights from me, come to my home and attempt it personally.

But Obama's flawed ideas on guns does not end there. He wants to eliminate all semi-automatic weapons, grouping them all under the often misused term "Assualt Weapons." Appearantly ignorant people claim its easier to kill larger numbers with "Assault Weapons." Maybe they ask Charles Whitman, who on August 1, 1966 killed most of his 16 victims with a 6mm bolt-action. Meanwhile Robert Hawkins was only able to kill 8 people with his "semi-automatic rifle" in Omaha's Crossroads mall in Dec 2007.

The gun is nothing more than a tool for the shooter. Without a shooter, a gun is nothing more than a chunk of wood and metal. You cannot blame the gun, and you certainly cannot blame the gun manufacturer. They are simply producing a consumer good that is in demand. You cannot blame Remington for Charles Whitman any more than you can blame Eli Lilly and Co because a depressed teenager committed suicide while on Prozac.

Obama is a FOOL and a SOCIALIST. His plans and ideas are dangerous for Americans. Just ask the Russians. In case you are unfamiliar with history, the USSR (that's Union of Soviet SOCIALISTS Republics) failed miserably. Put this man in charge with backing from the Congressional Communists from California (headed by Maxine "Nationalizing Big Oil" Waters), and we will be goose-stepping around Carter's tomb in 5 years.