Politics, Should it be funded by taxes?

UN Funding

The American citizens provide a huge amount of international support outside of tax dollars that the gov’t pours into the UN. Doctors Without Borders, City of Hope, hundreds of private charity organizations such as the Red Cross, and the list goes on. This is not to mention the individual people who volunteer a year or more of their lives to go to hell holes throughout the world, at their own expense, and get paid nothing while they teach people how to get safe water for their villages, grow and rotate healthier crops, maintain cleaner, safer environments for their children, etc.  It is the soldier in the West whose life is always put in danger to fight rogue nations who want to use nuclear weapons to harm the weaker nations.  It is the strength and willingness of the wealthy nations in the West to protect the weaker nations that prevent such disasters.

The tax dollars that would be cut from the UN by what this money grubber from Foreign Policy calls an “unprecedented retreat by President Donald Trump’s administration from international operations that keep the peace, provide vaccines for children, monitor rogue nuclear weapons programs, and promote peace talks from Syria to Yemen.” (stated by Foreign Policy as quoted in the Conservative Tribune) is not used for those purposes anyway, or at least very little of it is. Most of the funds the UN collects from Western nations end up in the hands of the wealthiest people in the poorest nations and the poorest people see very little, if any, benefit from it. 

The majority of the members of the UN are from nations that are corrupt in the highest degree and truly hate and revile the West because they, even with their corruption, still can’t achieve anything close to an affluent society. This is due mostly because of their corruption, but that doesn’t matter to them. They are constantly telling the West how to live and govern our countries, but they themselves can’t do anything to better their own governments. Yes, we have wealthy people in our governments, but our poorest citizens are living much healthier and more comfortable lives than their citizens. If our wealthiest haven’t sucked everything up and our poor are still so much better off than their poor, who are they to tell us we aren’t compassionate? 

We could give them every dime we have and their poor people would still be no better off because the wealthy in their nations would keep it all for themselves. We have paid and paid and paid to help via their UN members and programs for many years. If they were truly using those funds to help their people, we would see a big difference from what life used to be in those nations. Instead, there are still just as many poor, unhealthy and hopeless people living in abject poverty and degradation there.

It would be stupid and disrespectful to our own citizens to continue to throw our tax dollars, taken from hard working Americans, down such a rat hole run by people who hate and disrespect us while depriving their own people of the help our money could provide to them and then have the nerve to call us uncaring. They need a spanking. Cutting our funding in half would do just that. And if that doesn’t do it, then we should withdraw from the UN completely. They need to learn not to bite the hand that feeds them.  They need to learn to show gratitude and respect to those who voluntarily do so much to help them.  They need to stop demanding we do things their way when the way we do things is obviously so much more successful and beneficial to not only us but them as well.

Conservatism, Politics, Uncategorized

Bringing Jobs Back Home

Businessmen start businesses to make a profit.  The better they are at that, the more people they can hire.  Businessmen spend years of sacrifice building their businesses.  They don’t take paid vacations or holidays or even weekends off for years at a time.  They miss their children’s recitals and sporting events because they are working 80 hours a week trying to build something for their family’s future.  When and if they finally achieve success, they don’t expect to be regulated and taxed to the point where all that sacrifice wasn’t worth it.  If they can find a more profit friendly environment overseas, they take it.

This country has been over regulating and taxing the businessman into oblivion for many decades.  On top of that, it has given tax breaks to countries selling their products here.  How is a company supposed to compete with that?  Of course those jobs go overseas.  And even then, if those products our companies make overseas come back into this country for sale, they are taxed heavily.

Government makes no product so it cannot generate any revenue.  But it can raise taxes to get revenue.  A company can only raise prices on its product to increase its revenue.  Once the price is too high, they lose customers to their competition and go out of business.  The government doesn’t have any competition.  It can raise taxes until 100% of everything you earn goes to them.  You can’t stop paying them because you aren’t paying taxes by choice.  You are forced to pay taxes or go to prison and lose everything you own.  So the government never has to worry about losing its revenue source.

Trump understands business.  Trump understands trade inequities between countries.  Trump knows that US companies would love to return here, but can’t afford to do business here under the current tax and trade policies.  Want to see companies return and unemployment go down?  Then put Trump in the White House where he can do something about this problem.  When he says he wants to make America great again, a huge part of that is making sure America’s interests are put first ahead of other countries which are reaping unwarranted benefits in unfair trade agreements.  He wants to give our own companies the advantage, which they haven’t had in a very long time.  He isn’t concerned with making international trade agreements that are simply “fair” with other nations.  He wants America to have the advantage.

Life isn’t fair.  There can only be one top dog.  If you want to be top dog you have to act like top dog, and the top dog protects his pack against all comers.

Should it be funded by taxes?

Birth Control: Who Should Pay?

This isn’t a moral issue. It isn’t a faith-based issue. It is an issue of equality and fair treatment by law for all citizens of the republic.

If people want to engage in recreational sex, that’s their prerogative; however, taxpayers aren’t supposed to pay for paraphernalia for other recreational activities that have health consequences, such as buying ski equipment and lessons to prevent broken bones or SCUBA gear for divers or ropes and pitons for rock climbers to prevent injuries, so what makes taxpayers responsible for preventing pregnancy due to sex?

No one is requiring anyone to have sex against their own wishes. In fact, there are laws preventing that. No one requires people to do any other recreational activity either. So how did the taxpayer become responsible for paying for those who want to participate in this recreational activity without paying for their own safety? This isn’t a morality issue. It’s common sense.

The government is, in essence, saying, “Anyone who wants to practice a risky sexual lifestyle should be guaranteed a different status than those who do not.” Basically all recreational behaviors, with the possible exception of playing chess or cards or board games, have possible injury or other detrimental health issues as consequences. If taxpayer dollars are only spent on one particular group of people participating in one particular recreational activity, then that sets that group apart from all other citizens who do not participate in that activity, in essence creating a separate class of citizens who are given different status and allowed to receive tax money for their choice and other citizens are not given the same status or funds with regard to their choice. Does this sound equal and fair under the law to anyone?

The government has no place in the bedroom and shouldn’t be responsible for what goes on there. There are plenty of issues that pertain to all citizens on which my taxes can and should be spent. A recreational activity with known possible consequences isn’t one of them, especially when it is a person’s own free choice whether to participate in that activity or not. How does your choice to do something become my responsibility to pay for that choice?

Some argue that, by not preventing the pregnancy the taxpayers are then responsible for an unwanted baby or abortion. This should not be so. Taxpayers don’t pay for people who are laid up with broken bones due to skiing accidents or diving accidents. People drive cars and, if they don’t carry insurance, which they are required to do at their own expense, taxes don’t pay for them when they are in the hospital from a car accident. Why then don’t we require taxes to pay for our car insurance? How about our plane and boat insurance? Aren’t all of these also enjoyable activities which have possible injurious and detrimental health issues as possible consequences? Why should birth control be different?

Either be sensible or be responsible for every little thing for every individual. No free society should have a government which is micro-managing it’s citizens’ lives. We are all well aware of the possibility of a woman becoming pregnant if she participates in sexual intercourse. We are all aware that a woman should have her own choice whether to participate or not. It is illegal for her to be forced whether married, in a relationship or not. No one is forced to drive their own vehicle. We can drive a car or not. Our choice. Is it convenient not to? Of course not. But it is still a choice. No one is forced to fly a plane or a use a boat. Is it fun? Yes. Why is one activity different from another with regard to who pays for possible bad consequences? If anything, driving is more of a necessity because of transportation for work to earn the money to pay the taxes. And yet, no one thinks the government should pay car insurance or registration or forego the taxes on a car. So please explain to me why the government should pay for birth control?

Has our society’s opinion of sex become so overblown (pardon any unintentional pun) that we think it necessary to pay for people to participate in it without fear of consequences? Since when are we supposed to be protected from the consequences of our own actions? Are we going to make sex the most important thing in our society or are we going to find other activities that have a lasting and beneficial impact on our society? Why is this such a big deal in the first place? What is the real reason birth control has become an issue at all? Maybe, if we’re really honest with ourselves in answering that last question, we won’t have to worry about the question posed in the title of this post. Regardless, the bottom line is: If YOU CHOOSE to do something, YOU PAY for it, no one else. You are responsible for your own choices in life. You are not a victim when the choice was yours to make.