Posted by jemartynowski on August 12, 2008
Barack Obama’s campaign has announced a plan to relieve seniors earning less than $50,000 of their income tax burden. This, says Barack Obama, would save 7 million people an average of $1,400 per year. What a heroic man to save the seniors from their terrible plight.
This is just the latest in Obama’s line of bold, herd-pleasing claims that sounds better to those who don’t care to think about consequences of our actions. How about we try not to be one of the sheep and talk about what this plan would mean:
- Senior citizens, already loaded with government subsidies, will get more government subsidies. Seniors currently have Social Security and Medicare, two of the most expensive things for us to pay for. Every time the government gives something to someone, they take from somebody else. So non-seniors are going to pay additional amounts to pay for that $1,400/ year. Which is made even more unfair because…
- Seniors are better off than most non-seniors. Think of it this way: Pensions and Social Security that all of the current seniors are getting will be non-existent for those of us who will now need to save for our own retirement. Why, then, should we be paying even more money to them. The dollars I will be paying to Social Security, Medicare, and this new subsidy should be going towards my own retirement. Thanks again, Democrats, for not giving a crap about my generation.
- Seniors are mostly in a better position than non-seniors in life. I know, we all get the stories about how a senior-citizen can’t afford their medicine because they are on a fixed income and can’t afford it, and that is sad. However, for every one of those people, there are probably fifteen or twenty non-seniors who have not one penny saved for retirement, have no pension, and (despite incorrect claims to the contrary) have no Social Security to look forward to. Mostly, seniors have many advantages others don’t. Plus, most seniors have other advantages: they own their house outright, have no college costs, no day-care costs, and have investments and savings.
- If you are under 40, Barack Obama doesn’t care about you. He claims that “If you work hard and pay into the system, you’ve earned the right to a secure retirement.” However, what about us? I’m 25. I’m paying into the system and will be for awhile. What’s going to be there for me? The correct answer is nothing. But don’t worry, I’m sure someone else will come along and “save” us by creating more legislation and taking more control over our lives.
- Most low- and moderate-income seniors already owe no income tax. Really, this plan just gives breaks to the more wealthy seniors who already have substantial assets. This isn’t helping who Obama says it is there to help. Not even a little bit. It’s kind of an outright lie.
OK, so it sounds good when you say you are trying to help low- and moderate-income senior citizens. The problem is, all you are doing is taking advantage of their votes by claiming you are helping them with something that doesn’t really help them at all. That’s pretty low. Even for a politician.
(Sorry for such anangry post; it’s just that the unrealistic BS coming from Barack Obama makes me even more furious because people actually buy into it. We can’t be willing to hand over our freedom, or else we don’t deserve it.)
Posted in 2008 Presidential Election, Capitalism and Politics | Tagged: Barack Obama, campaign, Election | 5 Comments »
Posted by jemartynowski on August 11, 2008
I would like to point out an article that Dr. Walter Williams wrote recently. Whereas the article is pointing out the evils of lobbyists and environmentalists who currently own Washington, I would like to point to one thing in particular.
See, it seems to me that more and more people think that it doesn’t matter who is elected president, because in the end, they won’t accomplish much. That is true, to a point, but not entirely accurate. The problem is that we don’t see the big picture of things that seem less important at the time until it is too late. Dr. Williams does a great job here:
“There’s a hateful side to Cap and Trade that’s revealed by asking the question: How will it be decided who received how much allowance to emit greenhouse gases? Congress could sell the allowances and/or give them away to favorite constituents.”
That’s an important thing to think about. More decisions made by Washington = less control for the average U.S. citizen and more power for lobbyists with deep pockets. Which leads us to the most important paragraph:
“Much worse than that is the massive control government would have over our economy and our lives. Congress might decide that since tobacco use is unhealthy, it might not issue allowances to tobacco companies. While many Americans might applaud that, how many would like Congress to refuse to issue allowances to companies that produce foods that some people deem unhealthy such as French fries, sodas, canned soups and potato chips. Congress might deny, or threaten to deny, allowances to companies that in their opinion didn’t hire enough women and minorities. The possibilities for control over our lives would be endless and could include nuisance-type edicts such a requiring us to buy a permit to barbeque in our backyard.”
This is the loss of freedom. We are handing it over with enthusiasm. All I’m saying is we should always think of the long-term consequences of who we elect to office and what they will do. Maybe the “Cap and Trade” sounds like a relatively harmless appeasement of the environmentalist cult, but we should know better.
Posted in 2008 Presidential Election, Capitalism and Politics | Tagged: Barack Obama, cap and trade, captialism, Election, Environmentalist, global warming, John McCain | Leave a Comment »
Posted by jemartynowski on August 5, 2008
Another “journalist” for ESPN.com has decided to speak out against Personal Seat Licensesfor professional sports teams. This time the anti-capitalist is Jemele Hill for ESPN.com’s Page 2. At least she understands enough not to throw all the blame on the owners, because she mentions the fans’ lust for sports and their willingness to pay ridiculous amounts of money to see them. However, she still seems angry at these owners and makes just plain stupid comments about the situation.
Let’s point out the obvious exaggerations to make her point. First, she mentions how MLB All Star Game tickets have doubled in price in one year. Hmm, San Francisco’s AT&T Park vs. Yankees Stadium in its final year of existence: which do you think will cost more? Logic, people. She then talks about the face value of last year’s Super Bowl tickets vs. what they cost on the open market. That’s like comparing the value of a stock at its IPO vs what it’s price is on the secondary market. It’s face value at IPO is worthless as soon as it enters the market. As a matter of fact, the value the NFL put on those Super Bowl tickets must have been a gift to the fans, seeing as their real value was more than twice their face value.
The fundamental problem we have here is that people either don’t like or don’t understand Capitalism. She cannot argue about the value of something if somebody is willing to pay that much for it. The value is set right there. It is inarguable. Another recent article by someone at SI.com was trying to determine what the value of European soccer players was.
Gabriele Marcotti wrote a couple of articles trying to figure what the value of high-priced players could possibly be. He says that clubs are overpaying some players and not getting what they paid for them. How can he say that? He even goes so far as to say Capitalism doesn’t work right (first paragraph of linked article). He tries to do the accounting of it and says that these players can’t be worth it because of their resale value. Umm, isn’t the most important thing for these people the dollars they bring in from marketing, television rights, and, uhh, winning? Marcotti barely glances at those things and when he does, he seems clueless. He talks about how increased television dollars and box office sales are barely anything. I’ll bet they’re more important than you think, Mr. Marcotti. Plus, commercial deals and marketing he values pretty low at $10 to $15 million.
I think the best (worst?) part is where he argues that you can’t quantify the value of those players when it comes to winning, saying that Manchester United might have won the league last year without Ronaldo. That’s a joke, people. No chance without him. Add the Champions League. Winning those titles increases the value of the club by tons of cash, which can be valued at what? Open market value.
I’m getting off topic. Marcotti is right that there is an unwritten amount to place on these players, but that’s part of the gamble. Jemele Hill makes some good points when it comes to the tax dollars we are fronting for these stadiums. Of course we shouldn’t pay for these things, but then again, we vote to do it. I just want to point out that people seem to have no faith in the free market capitalist system, but their arguments make no sense. Was the price determined by free, voluntary exchange? If so, it’s fair.
Posted in Capitalism in Sports | Tagged: Capitalism, ESPN, PSL, Sports Illustrated, Sports journalism | Leave a Comment »