I found this wonderful little poster plastered all over countless profile pages on a social media powerhouse we like to call "Facebook." Facebook is the online propaganda generator of the century! Even though I often don't agree with the same beliefs adopted by the General Left, my all-too curious mind just makes it impossible for me to resist reading what it has to say...and it says a lot, indeed.
Upon reading this poster, I suffered a panic attack for about a fourth of a second thinking that perhaps I may have been on the wrong side of the political spectrum; which was clearly one of the poster's intentions. Initially, I had to ask myself why the Republicans would ever oppose the creation of jobs, take care of 9/11 responders, or care about equal pay for women? I continued on to read some of the comments where I discovered the Facebook Libs were just eating this poster up; qualifying these "facts" to satisfy their own convictions that Republicans are "enemies of the U.S." Yes, that's what some of the Liberal commentators posted in response to this eloquent piece of literature (sarcasm). The one thing I do like about this poster is it proves Liberals acknowledge the fact that America really isn't better off today than it was four years ago. Accepting responsibility for failure is not something they seem to do well, however, and I'd wager not one of these Facebook Libs took the time to read up on any of the bills that are listed. I, on the other hand, decided it's best to look further into these claims, so I read each and every one of those bills. After only a few minutes, I come to find the claims of this poster came as no surprise. Even though most of the material listed above is indeed true, it fails to include the full story, which goes without saying. I'll explain what I mean in full detail below...
H.R. 847 - James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2009. This bill was actually passed
by the Senate in Dec, 2010. Although the bill may have been filibustered before, it still made its way through. Pres Obama just needs to sign it into law, which according to my resources, hasn't happened yet. This bill should not be a complaint from Democrats any longer.
31 House Republican Reps did support and vote in favor of it, after all.
S. 3816 – Creating American Jobs and Ending Offshoring Act. Bill overview: Includes small tax benefits for companies who move jobs back to
the U.S., but imposes tax penalties for business that don't. Personal opinion: No business-minded person
in the world would agree to a bill like this. And according to the Republicans, Democrats aren't known for having a strong business mind-set (with the exception of Clinton, perhaps). It’s no surprise why all the
Repubs shot it down along with 4 Democratic Senators (the only surprising part about the life of this bill). It's hard for U.S. workers
to compete with offshore workers because the corporate tax rate is so much lower in
other countries (like China) and the workers only get paid pennies on the dollar compared to
U.S. workers. The only thing that I believe will fix that problem is if the
U.S. corporate tax is lowered and if workers in other countries start demanding
higher wages and benefits, which they currently are. Lowering the corporate tax is not a new idea considering the U.S. currently has the highest corporate tax rate in the world. I've heard Liberals claim the U.S. actually does not have the highest corporate tax and they all seem to mention Germany being among the highest. I looked into this claim only to find it is, in fact, false. Yes, offshoring is a problem that needs fixed. So, make the U.S. more competitive for businesses to operate locally and the problem should fix itself with time. A bill like this is blatantly proposing a raw deal to business owners across the country. It would never fly under a Republican Senate majority. "Nay!"
S. 1723 – Teachers and First Responders Back to Work Act of 2011. Bill Overview: Proposes lots of government spending to retain public sector
jobs in a broke economy. My opinion: No one, from either political party, can argue that public sector jobs are paid for by
taxation of the private sector and the private sector is already suffering immensely in today's economy. A strong economy in the private sector is
paramount if public sector jobs want to keep receiving their pay and benefits,
which are currently better than most jobs in the private sector. The New York Times, a predominantly Liberal news source, even agrees with this claim. This is
especially true with Police and Firefighters working within predominantly Democratic
states, like California. Currently there is more money being spent to support public workers than what the taxpayers can afford, and this bill proposes we should burden the tax payers even more. The Democratic
leaders need to focus only on jobs in the private sector, but they seem to be
avoiding it like the plague. Why is that? It’s the private sector that pays most of their salaries, after all. I'm not surprised why Republicans voted against this bill. I wouldn't have voted in favor of it, either. "Nay!"
Sidenote: In Jan, 2012 President Obama vetoed the Alberta Keystone Pipeline proposal, which would have created around 20k jobs here in the U.S. and not paid for through taxation. We're talking raw revenue paid to the U.S. from Canada; an opportunity for the U.S. to make some real money. Not borrowed money. Not taxed money... Real money! Talk about a "stimulus." If job creation really was a priority of Obama's, then why would he veto this proposal? Even a sizeable chunk of Democratic Senators and House Representatives supported the pipeline, rapidly accelerating the bill through the legislation process only to be crushed under Obama's green thumb. I'll tell you why this happened. 1) Oil productions in the Bakken fields of North Dakota are ramping up considerably; making the pipeline proposal a fast and cost-efficient method of transportation between the oil and its refineries. Without the pipeline, shipping of oil must now rely on locomotive transportation (railroads). Coincidentally, Warren Buffett (Democratic Party contributor and billionaire) purchased a portion of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp in November, 2009 (the company that operates the BNSF railroad) on behalf of Berkshire Hathaway, Inc. Currently, this railroad is the primary method of transportaion of Keystone XL's oil between the Gulf Coast and Canadian refineries. So, what does this have to do with Obama's veto of the Keystone Pipeline? It's simple. The pipeline would have nullified the need for railroad transportation of oil, which would have cost our poor, Liberal, billionaire Buffet about 20% of Bakken's business and about 950k barrels a day of Keystone XL's (pipeline) business. Obama couldn't afford to support a bill that would damage business endeavors of one, very rich Liberal, even if it's at the expense of thousands of Americans, both Democrat and Republican. The veto of the Keystone Pipeline is the very essence of corruption, but wait! ...the motives don't stop there. 2) Obama and his environmentalist supporters decided that "oil emissions" were a bigger threat to the country than the unemployment rate and the country's stagnant economy; not to mention the pipeline would have only run through predominantly Republican States. Go figure. President Obama tried to justify his veto as a means to "protect the American people." A statement that puckered the sphincters of Liberals across the country. The Liberal media now portrays Obama as a big American hero because of it. Enviromentalists; they'll sit back and worry so much about people breathing "dangerous" fumes all while choking on their own bong emissions. Perhaps if these environmentalists spent a few less hours baking their minds into oblivion, they would have come to discover that pipeline transportation of oil would have been the least environmentally detrimental alternative to oil transportation.
Sidenote: In Jan, 2012 President Obama vetoed the Alberta Keystone Pipeline proposal, which would have created around 20k jobs here in the U.S. and not paid for through taxation. We're talking raw revenue paid to the U.S. from Canada; an opportunity for the U.S. to make some real money. Not borrowed money. Not taxed money... Real money! Talk about a "stimulus." If job creation really was a priority of Obama's, then why would he veto this proposal? Even a sizeable chunk of Democratic Senators and House Representatives supported the pipeline, rapidly accelerating the bill through the legislation process only to be crushed under Obama's green thumb. I'll tell you why this happened. 1) Oil productions in the Bakken fields of North Dakota are ramping up considerably; making the pipeline proposal a fast and cost-efficient method of transportation between the oil and its refineries. Without the pipeline, shipping of oil must now rely on locomotive transportation (railroads). Coincidentally, Warren Buffett (Democratic Party contributor and billionaire) purchased a portion of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp in November, 2009 (the company that operates the BNSF railroad) on behalf of Berkshire Hathaway, Inc. Currently, this railroad is the primary method of transportaion of Keystone XL's oil between the Gulf Coast and Canadian refineries. So, what does this have to do with Obama's veto of the Keystone Pipeline? It's simple. The pipeline would have nullified the need for railroad transportation of oil, which would have cost our poor, Liberal, billionaire Buffet about 20% of Bakken's business and about 950k barrels a day of Keystone XL's (pipeline) business. Obama couldn't afford to support a bill that would damage business endeavors of one, very rich Liberal, even if it's at the expense of thousands of Americans, both Democrat and Republican. The veto of the Keystone Pipeline is the very essence of corruption, but wait! ...the motives don't stop there. 2) Obama and his environmentalist supporters decided that "oil emissions" were a bigger threat to the country than the unemployment rate and the country's stagnant economy; not to mention the pipeline would have only run through predominantly Republican States. Go figure. President Obama tried to justify his veto as a means to "protect the American people." A statement that puckered the sphincters of Liberals across the country. The Liberal media now portrays Obama as a big American hero because of it. Enviromentalists; they'll sit back and worry so much about people breathing "dangerous" fumes all while choking on their own bong emissions. Perhaps if these environmentalists spent a few less hours baking their minds into oblivion, they would have come to discover that pipeline transportation of oil would have been the least environmentally detrimental alternative to oil transportation.
S. 1769 - Rebuild America Jobs Act. While many of the contents of this bill are certainly desirable, it still calls
for A LOT of Gov spending, which is not the direction Republicans want to go right
now; not with a national debt teetering at the brink of 16 trillion dollars. Despite the vast amount of money needed for this bill, it still would not
be enough to fund all the things it wanted to do. For instance, part of the
bill wanted to allocate 50 million dollars in job training for up to 3 million
jobs. If my math is correct, that equals $16.67 per job. Even McDonalds spends
more than that to train a burger flipper. That 50 million would have been wasted
money. And that’s just one example. Also, most of these jobs are
contract/infrastructure jobs that are not permanent. What happens to all
these workers when the jobs are finished? Don’t get me wrong; the concept of
the bill is decent, it just needs serious revision and more focus on the private sector. Perhaps under better economic
circumstances and less national debt, the concept of this bill would gain more
support than it got. For now... "Nay!"
S. 2230 – Paying a Fair Share Act of 2012. Proposes to raise taxes on any household income of $1 million or more. Ok,
let’s examine what “household income” means. It means if two peoples’ combined
salaries equal more than $1 million, they get taxed more. This means 2 married
individuals making at least $500k a year, unless a spouse files their tax
returns separately. If either household partner owns a small business that is
not a corporation, it is not unusual to gross out at more than a million dollars per
year. Let's also take a moment to realize that with owning a small business, there is a considerable difference between one's gross income and one's net income. Does a bill such as this mean small business owners would get taxed even more?
Yes, it does. While small business owners may make a lot on paper, they also
incur a lot of costs to doing business. Let’s also realize that small business owners
are the primary job creators in this country. Taxing them more is detrimental
to job creation, especially if it’s taxing 30% gross income, as the bill proposes.
Small Businesses would suffer immensely, more layoffs would
occur as a result and unemployment would continue to rise. If the Dems want to tax the rich, then tax the rich.
$1 million/yr in today’s world is hardly what I would call “rich.” "Nay!"
S. 3220 – Paycheck Fairness Act. I and every other conservative I spoke with wholeheartedly agree that women
should make just as much as men while working the same job; plain and simple.
The way this bill wanted to address this problem, however, is just...irrational.
It basically proposes setting up a whole new bureaucracy intended to oversee workplaces across the board to ensure women are getting paid fairly. Sanctions for non-compliance would be put in place, too...as expected. The bill also proposes a government program to train girls and women on how to negotiate higher salaries with new employers. New bureaucracies = additional regulations, the government borrowing more money and more tax dollars being spent. Even with all these new regulations, it wouldn't stop businesses from not hiring women if such a bill were passed. My conclusion, everything about this bill is an incentive for businesses to NOT employ women. Why would anyone hire one if doing so would only bring about more bureaucracy; big brother making sure you're in compliance with yet another cluster of government regulation. As if business' compliance departments aren't already pulling their hair out. Not to mention the additional hours sole proprieters have to spend every day on compliance alone. It's another strain that businesses will attempt to avoid in any way possible, even if it means trying to hire less women. Another thing to keep in mind is that variability in pay between workers (males AND females) of the same job is not unusual. This is because there are a lot of gender-neutral variables that play a part in determining how much one should make. Previous work experience in the same field and educational credentials are relevant factors for determining how much a worker's beginning salary should be in comparison with his/her colleagues. All are contributing factors to why people working the same job may see variances in pay. I don't think this bill would help women. It would maginalize them even more. "Nay!"
So
there you have it. I read all the bills and these were the conclusions I drew from them. Before any Liberal goes on saying that Repubs hate everyone and are trying to disrupt
everything the Dems are working toward, read the bills they propose and decide
for yourself if their methodologies really are in America’s best interests. We all have the right to make our own decisions, after all.
The
information presented is complements of OpenCongress.org.
If you made it this far...thank you for reading. God Bless!
- JSR
No comments:
Post a Comment