Tuesday, September 28, 2010

Relax Max personal counseling services now available by prepaid appointment

["Counseling Questions and Answers" is a public service of this blog. Previously known as "Shrinking the Masses."]

Dear RM counseling services,

I find flaws with people, and once this happens I do not like being around them, and they irritate me. I am not sure I like people that much. I do not get it, though - because I have a lot of friends and am an extrovert. Why is it that once I find out someone is not perfect, I dislike them?

"Troubled in Idaho"

[Counseling questions are answered by one of our staff clinical psychologists, randomly selected]

Dear Troubled,

The obvious answer that springs to mind is that you are simply an arrogant asshole. Of course, giving an answer that quickly would not allow us to set up years of counseling appointments, so we can assure you your problem is more deeply rooted. Like an Idaho Potato.

Are you sure people like you? Sometimes it may seem like it on the surface, but in reality they are making fun of you behind your back. That is just one possibility, so don't go get paranoid or your counseling sessions will need to be extended. If you knew how people really felt about you, you would probably not be such an extrovert. Just saying.

Do you have any flaws yourself? If so, do you dislike yourself or just other people who have flaws?

In our profession, we say what you have is delusions of grandeur as an offshoot of a sick superiority complex. Of course we never use the word "sick" when actually talking to patients. We say this in order to get you into formal counseling. In reality, you are quite inadequate. In fact, your case reminds us of a classic Napoleon-ic syndrome, except you are not being poisoned on an island. (Are you?)

It is really difficult to diagnose and offer treatment by letters in a blog, but we thought we would give it an awkward try. So our counsel is to lighten up and don't be this way anymore. Just try to smile and keep it bottled up inside, would be our free advice. Perhaps take up pottery or fish-gazing.

Thank you for your letter. Please disregard this advice if you work for the government. Or if you are a lawyer.

In Capital Punishment news:

Virginia just executed its first female a few days ago. First since 1912, I think they said. Well, not first female since 1912 in the U.S., just in Virginia. She sex-hired a couple of guys to kill her husband a few years back for some insurance money. After the sex, they also said the killers wanted a cut of the insurance money, too. The newspaper said she got religion and was always happy and laughing while living on death row. Sobered up quickly when she entered the death chamber, though, witnesses said. A guard compassionately patted her shoulder as she was in mid-croak, the paper said. So I'm guessing it wasn't the electric chair.

In California, Governor Swartzhoweveryouspellhisname had to stay an execution this week. Why? The expiration date on the death drugs had expired at midnight last Thursday. You think I am kidding? This is America. God forbid the killer gets some bad lethal drugs. They are finding some more now to restock the medicine cabinet, I guess.


Tuesday, September 21, 2010

Winged Victory

There has been some unfortunate derogatory female discussion as to whether or not a burnished winged helmet is sufficient in and of itself to attract women. Only Boris was savvy enough to instinctively recognize the truth in this, even to the point of intuiting that the addition of a Camel cigarette in the (probably sneering) lips of the helmeted one would obviously emit enough pheromonic karma to effect a full knee-buckle swoon in even the most too-much-protesting of frails, to not quote Shakespeare. This is pure scientific fact, of course, proven daily by watching the most educated of lab-babes lose the long white lab jackets and involuntarily begin to froth at the wafting passing or even semi-nearness of your standard tatooed long-haired bad boy metalhead lead singer. Also included in the body of evidence (which can be obtained by sending a self-addressed pre-stamped envelope to Boris, along with €200 in currency) is the origin of Conan's third law of conquest, "The more educated and scholarly the female test subject, especially if she has a background in IT, the more shallowly susceptible to raw maleness they are." Or, as Adullamite so concisely explained it recently, "Of course I love you. Now bring me a beer."

I will go ahead and put a paragraph break here, just in case I should have done so above. Not sure. Irish rules of grammar don't really call for paragraph breaks, and Irish rules are what are being used in this post, of course.

I remind you that the IT statement is included in Conan's Canon, and is not something Relax Max himself would ever say or even think, for gosh sakes.

Many of you long-time lovers of truth will remember that I have addressed this phenomenon before within the sacred pages of the earlier incarnation of this award-winning blog, but obviously it needs repeating because some newbie readers of the female persuasion are still living in denial, even delusion.

I could simply put a link to that earlier blog post HERE, but I know none of you will bother going to read it. Hence, the pertinent portion of that storied post's wisdom is repeated below. Please file this on your iPad under "Edify: I stand corrected." Gracias.

The wisdom of how to pick up girls (especially the aloof-feigning ones) is reprinted below. Those of you who would actually jump in the car will remain nameless, but you know who you are.

As if this [Lidian's] post wasn't sufficiently droll enough on its own merits, it reminded me of another ad on tv about something called a "Mr. Microphone." By Ronco, of course. Ron Popeil is my personal idol, without whom we would never have had the Vegematic or the black string stuff you can spray on bald spots, and so much more. My absolute idol. I swear to god. [Note: I no longer swear to god. And Popeil has been long-since been replaced by Desmond Llewelyn as my invention hero. ]

In the tv commercial, a carload of obnoxious guys pull up at a stoplight next to a babe in another car and one of them harasses her by talking into a cheap plastic microphone that transmits a low quality signal over her car radio. Like she couldn't hear the creep anyway, since they are both in convertibles. You may remember the commercial if you were unfortunate enough to have been alive in the late 1970s and watched late night old movies. That is what the old ad on Lidian's Kitchen Retro reminded me of - that old Mr. Microphone tv commercial.

Right now you are probably thinking wishing hoping that this post is over so you can leave and go drop on someone else, but the Mr. Microphone commercial reminded me of my third digression: that of a carload of young males cruising main street for girls to pick up. Trolling trolls. Maybe you remember.

The way it works is to find an unpopular guy in school who has a car and cram about 15 pimply-faced male adolescents into it, so that several of them are forced to hang out the windows, and then drive slowly down the main drag hoping to pick up a pretty girl. Why? I don't know. Perhaps they somehow dreamed they could all make love to her in the back seat and then drop her off before they ran out of their $2 worth of gas. It doesn't matter because there never seemed to be any girls, pretty or otherwise, who were looking to jump in the back seat of an old car loaded with 15 pimply-faced vulgar-mouthed teenaged virgins. But it was a rite of passage, and I was reminded of it when I thought of the crass dope with Ron Popeil's Mr. Microphone. Which in turn was brought to mind by the even older magazine ad on Lidian's blog about the Radio Microphone that would help you practice your voice. Or whatever.

Here I should be plain, in case any of you new readers get the wrong idea, that Relax Max has never personally participated in any packed-car pimply-faced "Here Chicky Chicky" main street trolling rituals. For the record, Max was cool. Is cool. Whatever. He had his own car and wore sunglasses and smoked filterless Camel cigarettes and therefore never had any trouble getting plenty of sex whenever he wanted it. (This foolproof "Camel Cigarette Sexual Attraction" technique is outlined in another of Lidian's old ad posts.)

No, Max was talking about other boys.

Brennis, leader of the Gauls at the battle of Allia

The Daily Tribune
A syndicated story by Titus Livius

Dateline 387 BC, more or less.

"In the mean while the Gauls, on hearing that honour was even conferred on the violators of human law, and that their embassy was slighted, inflamed with resentment, over which that nation has no control, immediately snatched up their standards, and enter on their march with the utmost expedition. When the cities, alarmed at the tumult occasioned by them as they passed precipitately along, began to run to arms, and the peasants took to flight, they indicated by a loud shout that they were proceeding to Rome, taking up an immense space of ground, wherever they passed, with their horses and men, their troops spreading widely in every direction. But fame and the messengers of the Clusians, and then of the other states one after another, preceding them, the rapid advance of the enemy brought the greatest consternation to Rome; for, with their tumultuary troops hastily led on, they met them within the distance of the eleventh mile-stone, where the river Allia, descending from the Crustuminian mountains in a very deep channel, joins the river Tiber not far below the road. Already all places in front and on each side were crowded with the enemy, and this nation, which has a natural turn for causeless confusion, by their harsh music and discordant clamours, filled all places with a horrible din."

(Continued on page 13)

Heroic headgear

I have always been a sucker for winged helmets. I find they attract the ladies even better than smoking Camel cigarettes on the beach.

Anyone know who this boy is?

Three points for a right answer. 5 without google.

Whoever he is (I will say later) he has spared you from reading a very long and boring post about a battle in the American Civil War whose anniversary passed a few days ago.

Sunday, September 19, 2010

Love that left and their National Enquirer headlines

On the front page of the Huffington Post yesterday (9.19.10):

"Glenn Beck Mocks Michelle Obama"

Stunned, I breathlessly followed the link to the interior. How did this bastard mock our first lady? Let me at him. On page 2, the horrible story unfolded:

Beck received a standing ovation from the Sears Center crowd when he took the stage, the Chicago Tribune reports. With his chalkboard behind him, Beck discussed many of his usual [hateful?] topics--Thomas Jefferson, the Constitution and God, according to the Chicago Sun-Times. He also made fun of First Lady Michelle Obama's anti-junk food campaign:

The Sun-Times reports:

. . [Beck] ridiculed first lady Michelle Obama's campaign to get people to eat healthier snacks like apples or carrots.

"Get away from my french fries, Mrs. Obama," Beck warned. "First politician that comes up to me with a carrot stick, I've got a place for it. And it's not in my tummy."

Sheesh. That's it? He MOCKED the first lady by patting his fat belly and saying he loved french fries? He MOCKED her and her campaign for healthier eating???? HE MOCKED HER????

Most truthful journalists would have used "Beck joked" instead of "Beck warned," Since it was obviously a self-deprecating joke and since the whole audience laughed. Christ - I'm sure Michelle Obama herself would rolling in hysterics on the floor of the White House had she been watching Beck on TV.

Who says the Looney (but dangerous) Left needs to lighten up and grow a sense of humor? I do.

This non-story left me as empty as The Incredible Bat-Faced Boy promised on the front page of the Enquirer.

Kudos to Glenn Beck, a registered Independent, for taking shots at self-righteous idiots on BOTH sides of the political spectrum.

And Kudos to President Obama for daring to eat a greasy cheeseburger like the rest of us, even knowing Michelle could beat the living crap out of him.

Bonus: here's his birth certificate, Birthers. Read it and weep.

Tuesday, September 14, 2010

The Scotsman

In the late 1950s, Studebaker was living on borrowed time. Studebaker (soon to be Studebaker-Packard) had had a fairly good run, had stayed the course, had lost the battle with the "Big Three" automakers in the U.S.

In one of its last horrifying wheezing death gasps (Avanti was the very last) Studebaker came out, in 1957, with the Studebaker Scotsman. The insultingly named Scotsman was meant to undercut the Big Three cars (of GM, Ford, and Chrysler) and attempt to gain the auto business of....mmmm... the unemployed? Of the FRUGAL I mean. Scotsman, get it? The Scotsman was a stripped down (WAY down) version of Studebaker's allegedly-popular Champion, and it came with a 185 cubic-inch 6-banger that belted out a whopping 101 horsepower, or so Studebaker said in their print ads. This, I'm thinking, was probably enough to catapult the Scotsman from 0-60 in probably 7 or 8 minutes flat, or thereabouts.

The Scotsman came with no frills. It didn't even have chrome except for the bumpers. The trim was removed or painted over. It cost $1,776 in 1957. That's about £30, more or less, if you are REALLY a Scotsman. Well, probably more than that.

Did I say NO frills? I lie: you could choose among blah red, sorrow blue or battleship gray. Over the next 3 years, Studebaker sold about 61 of them. Oh, I'm lying again!

Technically, Studebaker limped on until 1966. It had moved to Canada and was using Chevrolet engines. It died in Hamilton that year. R.I.P.

Anyone care to hazard a guess what a rare (3-year run) mint-condition blah red Scotsman would fetch on on today's collector's market?



There are no mint Scotsman(s) Scotsmen? and never were. Additionally, the sole collector died in 1997.

Oh! I'm lying again! Take me away!

Monday, September 13, 2010

Is economic hard times teaching us anything?

GDP stands for gross domestic product.

Gross domestic product is the total value of goods produced and services provided in a country in one year.

Recession means a temporary economic decline, and is defined as having begun when a country’s GDP falls two quarters in a row.

Since demand for products and services drops during a recession, people lose their jobs; the unemployment rate rises.

The cure for an economic recession is not to “create” jobs but to recreate demand for goods and services; jobs follow.

Economic recessions seem almost cyclical without rhyme or reason, and without regard to what politcal party is in power, and often without being able to point to any specific things the party in power did wrong.

Certainly, logic tells us that the political party in power, or at least the federal government in general, CAN do things to hasten the advent of a recession.

“Uncertainty” is the enemy of both the stock market and robust economic growth in general.

Uncertainty means producers of good and services are reluctant to take chances on expanding their businesses or embark on new business ventures until they are more certain the rules of the game are not going to be changed in mid-investment. When uncertain, money tends to stay on the sidelines in the form of more secure investments such as Treasury Bills, and banks become more and more reluctant to lend money until they find out what the government is going to do.

If nothing bad happens for a while, money begins to seep back into the economy and producers of goods and services begin to take cautious chances little by little.

What can the federal goverment do to create fear and uncertainty in the marketplace, and thereby exacerbate a recession?

What can the federal government do to promote confidence and reduce fear?

If the federal goverment assumes huge paper debts (borrows on whatever is left of its good name) and “injects” that money into the economy to be used to hire and pay workers on temporary jobs, is this action likely to magically make these jobs turn permanent once the money runs out, and thereby make the recession go away?

True, it will put money into the pockets of workers and employers, and, true, they will go out and spend this money. George Bush did much the same thing by simply mailing out checks for $400 to everyone on the tax rolls, but that was hardly a permanent economic fix, either. It did put some money in lots of people's hands and they did spend it. That only works until that temporary money runs out, in my opinion.

No, mailing out money to Americans created only a temporary and false demand for products and services, not true long-term sustainable demand. It helped people sell their goods and services for a few weeks, and it helped a few people get temporary employment, but it didn’t really address the real causes of a recession.

I do realize that what Bush did and what Obama is doing is strictly textbook Keynesian economics, but I am arrogant enough to think I have enough common sense to fly in the face of the experts and enough ignorance to sit here and write my contrary opinions down.

My gut tells me, similarly, that the recent injection of borrowed money into make-work projects (some projects were sorely needed, many we could have lived without), though better than Bush's simple mailout, because we at least got some infrastructure repaired for our money, still didn’t address the real reason we are in a recession. Besides, the government can put billions of dollars into the economy overnight, if it wishes to do so, by simply declaring a payroll tax holiday. I don't think injections of any sort are really the permanent answer.


Another reason our current recession is deeper than most, borderline depression, is that, for a lot of high-rolling thieves and assorted bad managers, the bubble burst and the rent came due. Bankers and investment brokers had been screwing around with worthless paper for a very long time, without any meaningful oversight hassle from the goverment “watchdogs.” Finally, the Ponzi scam pyramid caved in on them. And did our government finally do the right thing and let them fail and drag them off to jail?

Some others weren’t especially dishonest, but were merely poor managers on a staggering scale: General Motors comes to mind. Did our government make them take their lumps for being terrible money managers?

What have we learned from this recession and its causes? One thing I hope we have learned is to put new laws in place that trigger automatic (mandatory) action on the government’s part, earlier on, when a large corporation or financial institution starts emitting smelly signs of mismanagement.

To me, if a company is truly “too big to be allowed to fail,” then that means that particular business is large enough to affect the lives of many America citizens, and the rules need to be different for that business. I’d like to see the government changing the boards of directors (Warren Buffett would have to sit on each such board, to pay him back for being so financially savvy) and setting up an emergency office there with government auditors and financial experts watching over and approving each contract and financial transaction as long as that large company stays unprofitable. I would like to see a “special master” appointed to oversee badly managed large businesses and brokerage houses. The symptoms in both cases are that common people begin losing their money and jobs because of executive mismanagement practices.

While I'm on this rant, huge corporations that are "too big to fail" should not have the option of building factories in Mexico and exporting American jobs to Mexico as one of their cost-saving measures. Think of something else, boys. Or don't expect a bailout from American workers down the road. And even smaller corporations like Stanley Tools and Polaris ATVs (never buy another snowmobile from Polaris as long as you live, or a screwdriver from Stanley, for that matter) should be sorely penalized when they move off-shore and strand hundreds of loyal American workers in Wisconsin without jobs. Fuck them. No more tax breaks. Tariffs on their now-foreign-made stinking products when they leave the country that made it possible for them to become big in the first place. May I have an amen?

We need to have learned enough to heed warning signs of recession and put rescue plans into place before the ship takes on too much water to save.

The Fed is not the answer anymore, if it ever was.

My opinion.

Sunday, September 12, 2010

Another 9/11 come and gone. Imagine.

A song by Relax Max (With apologies to John Lennon)

Imagine there’s no liberals

Conservatives gone too

No safety nets below us

Just sunny skies all blue

Imagine all the people

Living so stress-free

Imagine there’s no labels

Just close your eyes and dream

No rudeness or agendas

Only lollies and ice cream

Imagine all the people

Walking hand and hand

You may say that I’m a dreamer

And likely the only one

But I hope someday you’ll join me

We’d all have lots of fun

Imagine there’s no hatred

Nobody calling names

Just working hard together

No need to point or blame

Imagine all the people

Sharing all the world

You may say that I’m a dreamer

And likely the only one

But I hope someday you’ll join me

And our world can live as one

Friday, September 10, 2010

Of Robin Hood, Toto, and Scarlett

Soubriquet is all in favor of taxing the rich. Stephanie couldn't agree more, I'm sure, since a major plank in her platform has always been to tax the rich to fund social programs. That's fine and dandy. Everyone is entitled to his opinion, and no socialist progressive worth his salt would be against income redistribution.

The question remains, though, just how much should we be taxing these rich bastards who've spent their lives building their businesses and investments? I say take it all. Take every cent from the rich and give it to the poor, Robin Hood style, and then the progressives (and the poor) will be happy. Well, maybe not the progressive politicians who would want to remain wealthy. Like Algore and Hillary.


That would only mean the poor would then be rich and the rich would be poor. What would we have gained? Obama has just appointed a "diversity czar" to go with his 100 or so other czars, whose job it is to make sure the spoils go to a diverse lot. This czar told us a few days ago that a huge lot of important positions of authority are held by a lot of smart competent white people, but, nevertheless, and notwithstanding they are doing a competent job, it is time they should give some thought to stepping down and giving "someone else" a chance at power. I'm guessing the "someone else" he has in in mind isn't white. But then, neither is he. That probably colors his thinking. No pun intended.

So in the spirit of diversity, let's give the poor a chance at being rich, wot? Except there is a hell of a lot more poor than rich, so they aren't going to end up with as much money per head after the redistribution. That sucks. And somehow you just KNOW these new rich aren't going to be any more charitably-minded than the newly ex-rich were, so who is going to feed and clothe these new poor people who used to drive fancy cars and live in mansions? Screw them, I say. (It's ok to say that about ex-rich bastards, whereas it would be politically incorrect to say that about the current non-producers poor.


Here's a better idea: let's just take all the money from EVERYBODY, rich and poor, and put it in a big pile somewhere, maybe in a mall parking lot, and then just divvy it up equally amongst us all. Now there's a Karl Marx progressive dream if ever there was one. So we take all the money from the banks and the stock markets and sell off all the real property and personal property and we would have (in the U.S.) a mound of cash amounting to some 3 trillion dollars. Whoa. (At this point, try not to think of the fact that Obama just popped us 9 trillion into the hole recently, if you count the Bush dumbassedness as well. Keep your mind on the prize here.)

So we divide all this wealth up by 300 million drooling souls and each will get... what?...$10,000 or so? And if that's not bad enough, you just KNOW the old former rich would soon have the money back in their hands again anyway; the poor are not that good at making money with money, else they wouldn't have been poor in the first place. Ummmm.... some of them.


Something is wrong with this picture, no?

Hie ye back to The Wizard of Oz where Toto runs behind the curtain and unmasks the "wizard" manipulating all the fake controls. Now substitute "Federal Reserve" in place of "wizard."

It should be abundantly clear to anyone with half a brain that there is no real money in the USA or anywhere else anymore. Take out a piece of that boring green paper and look at it. "Federal Reserve Note" it says. It doesn't say "Silver Certificate" anymore, and it DAMN sure isn't backed by gold - not for a VERY long time.

Your money - your wealth - is only a promise. Backed by "the full faith and credit of the United States of America." What exactly does that mean? It means you are going down with the ship just like me, that's what it means. Let's hope the poor are good swimmers. We want no poor flotsam.

So, in a very real sense, we are only arguing semantics here, and "rich" and "poor" are relative terms. Actually the poor have more certainty as to what they will be tomorrow; the rich may be poor tomorrow.

Are you going to be the first to tell the rich that the "faith" has been broken? Sounds like you are eager to do that.

There is only one way to keep the magic balloon floating, and that is to kick Toto out of the way and close the curtain back up. It is too late, by far, to do it right - there just aren't enough assets in the US of A to back up THIS kind of debt. Put your hands over your ears and sing "DA DA DA DA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"

Everything will be ok.

Like Scarlett O'Hara, we will think of these things tomorrow and be at peace tonight.

I do understand that my definition of rich differs from Soubriquet's. The rich I'm talking about were hard-working and made sacrifices and used the extra money their sacrifices provided to invest in starting businesses and putting people to work; eventually they found themselves in nice houses and driving nice cars. They paid by deferring their gratification, unlike the poor in many cases. My friend Soubriquet sees the rich differently. He sees the CEOs and robber baron money movers and cheats making ridiculous salaries and bonuses that they could NEVER deserve, and he's right. Those people I would, as always, shoot behind the ear. I just want you to know who I am talking about when I defend the right of the self-made wealthy to keep their gains. I won't comment on ball players and other entertainers except to say it is we, the masses of hungry poor, who are the ones who drive that kind of worship and income.

Hit me with your best shot. Even if you have to flout logic to argue.

But Oz never did give nothin' to the Tin Man
That he didn't, didn't already have...

Wednesday, September 8, 2010

Good times

I guess I don't really know that much about formal economic systems, such as capitalism. I know vaguely how it works, though pure capitalism has never been tried in any history book I've ever read. That's just as well, I suppose.

I do know, however, the difference between good times and bad times. When I look back on the good times, it has always been a time in our history (of the United States, I mean) when people were working at good jobs and making good money and buying things for their families.

The bad times were when lots of people were out of work and a lot more were worried they might lose their jobs any day.

So, that's how I judge our economy rather than whether we are in a socialistic or capitalistic period in our history.

Right now, a lot of people are not happy. A lot of people are out of work. People don't have money to buy things for their families.

Now, a lot of you reading this are a lot smarter than I am with regards to economic theories, but it seems to me the top priority of our government right now should be concentrated on fostering an atmosphere that was conducive to creating jobs and putting people back to work so they could buy things (like food and clothing and maybe new cars) and be happy again.

Something else I know is that jobs are produced by small businesses and factories and contractors. Jobs created by the government for people to go to work for the government are top-heavy in the sense they are an expense, for the most part, which must be paid for by taxes.

Government jobs are necessary of course, but we should be mindful that it is not really productive for the government to simply "make work" for people and put them on the government payroll, taking the money to pay them out of the pockets of all workers. Better, it seems, to let private businesses hire people and pay the workers out of profits.

Again, where do private jobs come from? They come from private business owners who are willing to risk their savings, or risk borrowing money, to expand their businesses, or start new businesses.

Why would a government who should be wanting to increase employment ("good times") in our country instead try to stifle and cripple the very people who hire other people?

Right now, our government is about to (January 1st) raise taxes on the wealthy in this country - the people who have business and hire people to work in them. This tax increase is not going to make the wealthy go hungry, but it IS going to stop them from expanding their businesses and hiring people.

Capitalism is what creates wealth for everyone from the top on down in this country. It helps the wealthy buy another yacht and it helps Joe Plumber buy a new car and Christmas presents for his kids. Socialism, (social programs, I mean) on the other hand, is a necessary government expense to care for our needy citizens. Over-regulation stunts capitalism and can actually kill it. It is pretty sick in this country right now.

When you heavily tax the entities which alone are capable of creating "real" jobs (not tax jobs) then I say you are shooting yourself in the foot. When you create an atmosphere of uncertainty, no one is going to go out and borrow big money to open a new factory, especially if they are pretty sure the government is going to tax all the profits out of such an enterprise. So money sits on the sidelines, like it is right now, and waits for the return of certainty.

It seems to me our present government and crew have created that atmosphere of uncertainty. They are not dependable. No one knows what they are going to do next.

For a long time, I didn't understand how cutting taxes brought in more actual money into the government treasury. I think there are a lot of people in this country right now - Democrats AND Republicans - who still don't understand the magic of this paradox that capitalism produces. Otherwise they wouldn't be so quick to raise taxes on people who hire people, and would not be so sure that it was time to kill the goose who lays our golden eggs.

The magic is really quite simple: cut taxes and allow people to keep more of the money they earn, and that extra money will be spent and reinvested. People will make more money, and because they make more money, they will pay more in taxes, even though the tax rate is lower. With more actual money coming in, the government then has money to fund it's needed social programs.

The whole point of capitalism is to get a lot of money into circulation, through profits, and keep it there, and keep everyone spending it. Let people who want to create jobs, who are good at creating jobs, start hiring Americans again. Don't make them sit on the sidelines or, worse, take their money offshore and employ people in other countries. Let's build some factories HERE for a change. Insist that our government make it EASY for businesses to start up, expand, increase their incomes.

The current pervading atmosphere is one of spending, debt, government takeovers, and the stifling of free enterprise. Government is NOT the answer to our troubles.

The government is, or should be, good at making people play by the rules. Let's let them stick to that job, and otherwise get the hell out of the way.


Related Posts with Thumbnails