I noticed something the other day. I found it interesting that the Supreme Court has ruled that the government can tax as a social control method (not just for the purpose of revenue). I was wondering where I've seen this before; then I remembered, It's China's One-Child Policy!

The policy is enforced at the provincial level through fines that are imposed based on the income of the family and other factors.

Population and Family Planning Commissions exist at every level of government to raise awareness about the issue and carry out registration and inspection work. Despite this policy, there are still many citizens that continue to have more than one child.

China's One-Child Policy is enforced through fines? Remember the individual mandate was a fine/penalty not a tax; said Obama. The supreme court determined that the individual mandate is a tax. Either way, it's designed to steer individuals toward an outcome that will prop up a particular piece of social policy PPACA (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act).

What's the difference between the penalty found in the "One-Child Policy" and the "Individual Mandate?" If you can tax individuals for not purchasing something, you can tax individuals for anything else. If the US government can tax for purposes other than revenue, why not tax to ensure any particular social outcome? The Supreme Court's ruling on the PPACA is very disturbing, because it sets a very dangerous precedent. That's not to say that there will be a one child limit in the US, but the legal mechanism for such legislation is now in place. That should be enough to open people's eyes.

I thought The United States of America was supposed to be the land of the free; or are those days ever increasingly behind us? Limited economic freedom is limited freedom.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Follow The WindUpRubberFinger on Twitter!

Remember when Obama said, "Just words, just speeches..." Well that's an interesting way to look at things.

Obama is now saying more words, making more speeches. People are not paying close enough attention to exactly what he is saying.

Remember the health care debate? Obama, on many occasions, mentioned that Obamacare would help 46.3 million Americans who don't currently have health insurance. Then on September 9, 2009 Obama addressed Congress. That is where he said that Obamacare would help more than 30 million American citizens who don't have coverage. I don't think that many people caught onto the fact that he mentioned two separate numbers. but those numbers are from a US Census report. Check page 28 under Nativity, you will find the subheading "Not a citizen" and a value of 9.7 million.

Paying close attention there is another Language Lie in Obama's Address Accepting the Presidential Nomination at the Democratic National Convention in Denver: "The American Promise" During this address Obama said, "But I will also go through the federal budget, line by line, eliminating programs that no longer work and making the ones we do need work better and cost less – because we cannot meet twenty-first century challenges with a twentieth century bureaucracy." Again Obama has pulled a fast one. Most people are not aware of this fact, but the US Government has not passed a budget in what is now [a long time] (in 2012 there was a counter).

Because of this; Obama has not gone line by line through the federal budget -- because there hasn't been one.

Then we come around to health care; there was mention of a "public option" government health insurance which would lead to socialized medicine (private insurance would not be able to compete, government monopoly...) Because socialized medicine polls negatively, they went with "single payer option". They aren't going to call their socialized medicine plan by any name that correctly identifies it. It speaks volumes when people have go this far to avoid the truth under the guise of helping people.

It is an art to lie to people and make them feel comfortable about it. You have to state things with such specificity as to never be pinned down by the truth. These are just two examples. Pay close attention to what Obama actually says and I bet you'll find quite a few more Language Lies hidden in the details.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Follow The WindUpRubberFinger on Twitter!

Obama and Facebook

I'm concerned about a few things with this upcoming election. First I want to start with Facebook and it's IPO. I'm no stock wizard but I had a few questions about the pricing of Facebook. 100 billion just seemed a little steep/insane to me. In my opinion the only people who invested in Facebook are those who misunderstand what Facebook is and why it has gained so many users.

Take a peek at this article form 2005. In 2005 it was all about Myspace and how it would be able to rule the Internet for the foreseeable future. But this article misses what is probably the most important aspect of any social networking site --it's FREE.

A few things have changed since Myspace was on top. The "newness" of Myspace has worn off. Myspace was good for computer users; remember smart phones were considerably less advanced in 2005, so the mobile aspect was not as much a driving force. Myspace was not yet sold, so it was more user oriented.

The popularity of Facebook began to increase greatly after Myspace was purchased by Newscorp. The reason for this, I believe, is that once Myspace became nothing but a never-ending bulletin board of Flash animations and advertisements; people quickly lost interest in it. It was too cluttered. Not to mention a bandwidth hog. The trend as I see it is to move to the next social network once the current one becomes too bloated and self interested. Myspace was catering too advertisers and not its users. Myspace users naturally moved over to Facebook. It offered similar features and wasn't so cluttered. Keep in mind that Facebook and Myspace are both free services. The ability of either site to earn money can only be based on advertising.

Facebook has more things working against it than it does working for it. Let me list the issues facing Facebook. History has shown, at least to me, that advertising can hurt social networking membership numbers. Facebook's users are increasingly mobile. How can you advertise to mobile users with real estate so precious on tiny little screens? Google's social networking site Google+ is waiting to snap up Facebook users as they flee either advertisements or usage fees. Not to mention Google's Android operating system will undoubtedly ship with Google+ pre-installed.

Now let's tie Obama into all this. Obama has been wrong on everything he's said about the economy. When Facebook was valued at around 100 billion, shortly after the IPO a sell-off began. Then an investigation was launched into the pricing methodology by Morgan Stanley. People were angry because they feel they were lied to about their investment.

The only people who will vote for Obama now are those who don't understand basic economics, or actually believe that it's so complicated that they can't understand it. Obama is hedging his bets on the hope that Americans as a whole are so misinformed about the economy that they will believe the media hype about the economy and elect him again. The problem for Obama is that the "sell-off" of the US economy has already begun and is happening now in the form of job losses. Unemployment keeps going up. Businesses are not investing in workers because they don't have enough demand for their products.

On the upside there was a poll that showed that many people were skeptical about the Facebook stock prices.

Half of Americans think Facebook is a passing fad, according to the results of a new Associated Press-CNBC poll. And, in the run-up to the social network's initial public offering of stock, half of Americans also say the social network's expected asking price is too high.

Just a third of those surveyed think the company's expected value is appropriate, 50 per cent say it is too high. Those who invest in the stock market are more likely to see Facebook as overvalued, 58 per cent said so. About 3 in 10 investors say the expected value of shares is fair.

Hopefully people will be equally skeptical about Obama's economic claims. After all there is nothing to historically back them up. I hope that tax payers are as angry with the economic situation as investors were with the Facebook deal.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Follow The WindUpRubberFinger on Twitter!

Of course I don't know the future, but I have a hunch about something. Obama is most likely going to loose with Joe Biden as his running mate. Biden is good for nothing but distracting attention away from Obama and issues that might harm him politically. Biden is not widely seen as a decision maker on any substantive level.

I believe that at the last minute, perhaps even after the Democratic Convention, Hillary Clinton will be selected as Obama's VP choice. I know that selecting a VP choice that late would go against tradition, but this is Obama we're talking about here. What respect has Obama shown for tradition so far? Obama's goal is to make new traditions not uphold old traditions.

I know other's have said this as well, but I think it might actually be a possibility here. Hillary could bring enough swing voters over to keep Obama in the White House.

Hillary could be a double edged sword. Hillary was looked upon as one of the chief decision makers during president Bill Clinton's time in office. She has a great advantage as well; she is constantly in the news, but has avoided most criticism so far. She will do better to stay out of the news and just be on the ticket maintaining whatever polling numbers she has now.

What is the likelihood of this? Who knows? I just don't think that Obama is going to have enough steam to overcome himself.

When it comes to Democrats the ends justify the means. As Bill Clinton said, "Loyalty doesn't exist in politics."

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Follow The WindUpRubberFinger on Twitter!

Sens. Schumer and Bob Casey are determined to push legislation to go after an individual citizen, or ex-citizen in this case. Not only will it go after someone who has already done something legally, it will attempt to retroactively make illegal what was already done.

Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., has a status update for Facebook co-founder Eduardo Saverin: Stop attempting to dodge your taxes by renouncing your U.S. citizenship or never come to back to the U.S. again.

At a news conference this morning, Sens. Schumer and Bob Casey, D-Pa., will unveil the “Ex-PATRIOT” – “Expatriation Prevention by Abolishing Tax-Related Incentives for Offshore Tenancy” – Act to respond directly to Saverin’s move, which they dub a “scheme” that would “help him duck up to $67 million in taxes.”

The plan would bar individuals like Saverin from ever reentering the United States again.

This proposition alone is reason enough for Schumer and Casey to be voted out of office. Anyone who thinks that it's the job of The United States Senate to target an individual obviously has no historical knowledge of the founding of this country.

Schumer and Casey represent a larger problem here. Why is it that the Facebook co-founder Saverin is a target? I thought someone like Saverin would be an example of what others could do if they worked hard and became successful. What right does the US government have to tell Saverin where he should live based on how much wealth he's acquired.

So the message here is; get rich and pay up. If you don't pay up, we'll criminalize your past actions and fine you. It also states; if you are a wealthy entrepreneur stay away from the US because we don't want you here, we just want your money in the form of taxes, economic benefit be damned.

I think it's a safe bet to say that Saverin will put his money to better use than the US government would.

Saverin responded to this attack today.

Saverin, though, staunchly defended himself in a written statement Thursday. In a reference to the so-called "exit tax" those who renounce their citizenship pay, he said "I am obligated to and will pay hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes to the United States government."

He added: "I have paid and will continue to pay any taxes due on everything I earned while a U.S. citizen. It is unfortunate that my personal choice has led to a public debate, based not on the facts, but entirely on speculation and misinformation."

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Follow The WindUpRubberFinger on Twitter!