Vaping and the get off my lawn syndrome

Those who know me know I fought long and hard against the smoking ban and am now involved in the fight to protect vapers rights. When I want to check out new hardware one of my primary go to sources is Phil Busardo at Taste your Juice with complete breakdowns and actual measurements (satisfies the geek/engineer in me). Vaping has fractured into two groups, ex-smokers (who used e-cigarettes as a tool to quit) and the cloud chasers who look like steam engines on steroids.  Many in the first group look down their noses at the second group.  I am not going to link to the comment as this is not an attack on the man but an attempt to show those in the first group the wrong headedness of those thoughts.

Also it’s not all the high wattage and subtank systems that are driving smokers away. Our government has done a great job of scaring smokers away from vaping. And number 2, the ridiculous face we have put on vaping has done nearly as much damage to the industry as government has. End of story. . . . . Marshall Keith You just agreed with what I said, at least the first part anyway. Also if you don’t think a bunch of young kids running around covered head to toe with bad tattoo’s, massive clouds of vapor pouring out of them is not massively damaging to the industry then your wrong

Do I think some of today’s kids look ridiculous with all their piercings and massive tattoos? Absolutely, much as the generation before mine thought the same about my generation (Bell bottoms flowered shirts etc etc etc) or the greasers and their “thug look” in the generation before mine.  I could not find a video of the type of kids he refers to but in my time working in a vape shop I’ve met some of them and they are good kids, but here is a video of some of the youth and their vape style.

Do I encourage kids to do this?  Hell no.  But I am a realist.  Government regulations encourage this.  Just like drinking among youth during prohibition and drug and tobacco use went up in mine, kids rebel against the establishment and it’s rules.  The harder government attacks vaping, the more attractive it will be to today’s youth.  What I see above is kids having fun, does vaping pose some risk? Probably, but far less then tobacco,alcohol or even drugs.


So are these kids the face of vaping or are the face that those who would use government force in yet another attempt at social engineering, for me, I See it as an indication as to how diverse the vaping community is. If you allow them to splinter us into warring factions, they win.  It is time to fight for freedom to be the default position, not the exception.


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Vapers Beware, They Are Coming For You!

How do I know this?  I’ve lived through it before.  I was an active member of Ban the Ban Wisconsin and we managed to fight off the ban for years. until the governor slipped a far worse ban into the budget, does anyone remember the RYO machines?  They banned those by slipping one paragraph in on the transportation bill.  I’m not arguing that cigarettes are safe, they are not.  According to recent studies, e cigarettes are 95% safer.  But we’re not talking about smoking.  We’re talking about second hand smoke and now secondhand vapors.  Remember the first rule of toxicology is “dose makes the poison” They held up children up like human shields.  I am now an avid vaper with an occasional cigar here and there.  They had to cheat and lie to get the bans passed.  If you look at the actual studies instead of the reports you will find most had 1 in the CI which means no statistical risk.  But what about the reports?  The cheated and used meta-analysis from page 21 of the Surgeon Generals report.

Judge William
L. Osteen, Sr., in the North Carolina Federal District
Court criticized the approach EPA had used to select
studies for its meta-analysis and criticized the use of 90
percent rather than 95 percent confidence intervals for
the summary estimates (Flue-Cured Tobacco Cooperative
Stabilization Corp. v. United States Environmental Protection
Agency, 857 F. Supp. 1137 [M.D.N.C. 1993]). In
December 2002, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
threw out the lawsuit on the basis that tobacco companies
cannot sue the EPA over its secondhand smoke
report because the report was not a final agency action
and therefore not subject to court review (Flue-Cured
Tobacco Cooperative Stabilization Corp. v. The United
States Environmental Protection Agency, No. 98-2407
[4th Cir., December 11, 2002], cited in 17.7 TPLR 2.472
Recognizing that there is still an active discussion
around the use of meta-analysis to pool data
from observational studies (versus clinical trials),
the authors of this Surgeon General’s report used
this methodology to summarize the available data
when deemed appropriate and useful, even while
recognizing that the uncertainty around the metaanalytic
estimates may exceed the uncertainty indicated
by conventional statistical indices, because of
biases either within the observational studies or produced
by the manner of their selection.

But what about the children? Only one study commissioned by WHO (World Health Organization) and the only thing statistically significant was it may have a protective effect on children.  

They now want to put second hand vapor in the same classification as what many of you call stinkies,  They are calling on youth to be indoctrinated on the hazards of SHS and SHA (vaping) Don’t believe me? Follow this link.

If Grim Green’s video blog is correct the indoctrination is correct the opening salvo has been fired.

Next you can expect taxes both on the devices and the juices with part of the tax money going to fund the lobby groups against us. So unlike smokers who had anti-smoking groups against them, we will have them plus big tobacco against us.  Hat tip to Audrey Silk for turning me on to the JAMA page.   So instead of looking down your noses at smokers, we should join forces and fight for freedom for all.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Breathing New Life Into Windows XP and Vista Computers

Normally my blogs are about (l)ibertarian political issues. I have been asked by many friends and acquaintances about their aging computers, some are too far away to do it myself.  So here

On top of being a broadcast engineer I am also a computer tech. I’ve worked with everything from the Commodore Pet, Atari 800 through most of the apple incarnations and most of the PC varients. As a matter of fact my first broadcast digital automation was the now defunct AuDisk, which ran on a 16 bit PC (pre 286/386 days) The entire program and a weeks worth of logs ran on a single density floppy disk and 9 hours worth of audio was stored on a ¼ gig SCSSI disk. The hard drive was carved into individual carts so no defrag was ever needed.

Now that Microsoft has abandoned Windows XP and Vista so have the likes of Google Chrome and more and more customers are having problems even on facebook especially games because of it. While I have always been a fan of Linux it was not user friendly enough for most of my customers, (especially the older ones) While I like the KDE variants such as Kubuntu and Suse as it has a polished windows feel to it. It tends to be a resource hog and tends to be too complicated for most of my customers. My first experience with Macbuntu was when a friend and fellow engineers Mac’s (power PC) motherboard died. He had me attempt to recover his data. I dual booted his wife’s PC with one of my versions of linux in order to mount the drive, He’s never been a fan of PCs or windows and wanted the look and feel of a Mac. Using various themes and modifications I came close. Then in my research I fell upon the MacBuntu theme written by the very people that produce Ubuntu. It is very lightweight (not a resource hog) and simple.

This blog post is being written on MacBook Pro 1,1 with a dual core 32 bit processor and 2 gig of memory. While I recommend the 64 bit version where possible as Chrome also abandoned   the 32 bit versions of linux and OSX but is still fully supported by firefox. I have installed it on dozens of customers computers and everyone of them are pleased with the simplicity and speed of their old computers. First you have to install the Ubuntu operating system (OS)  I normally have several on my thumb drive created with Yumi in windows or Multiboot from linux.  Yumi has the advantage of the option of downloading the software for you.  Here is a good video taking you through the install process.  If you prefer you can just download the ISO file and burn it to DVD.  Here is an excellent video on doing the OS install.

This post is about step by step instructions for installing the Noobslab MacBuntu theme MacBuntu 16.04 Transformation pack

First open a terminal window by holding down ctrl alt and hitting t.

copy and paste the following commands into the terminal one at a time.  Hitting enter after each paste.  Wait for each install to complete before entering the next one.
The first two add the repositories to the software list.

sudo add-apt-repository ppa:noobslab/macbuntu

Hit enter

The first time you enter a sudo you will be prompted for the administrator password for the install.  Software is added under Superuser hence the su.

Cut and paste

sudo apt-get update

Hit enter.

The following will install the theme, icons and cursors.

sudo apt-get install macbuntu-os-icons-lts-v7

Hit enter

sudo apt-get install macbuntu-os-ithemes-lts-v7

Hit Enter.

The following will install slingcold, this brings up a searchable list of all the software on the system.

sudo apt-get install slingscold

Hit Enter

The following will add Albert, a search tool similar to Siri on the Mac or Cortana on windows 10.

sudo apt-get install albert

Hit Enter

The following will install Plank, the taskbar at the bottom of the screen

sudo apt-get install plank

Hit enter

sudo apt-get install macbuntu-os-plank-theme-lts-v7

Hit Enter

The following will make cosmetic changes

cd && wget -O Mac.po

Hit Enter

cd /usr/share/locale/en/LC_MESSAGES; sudo msgfmt -o ~/Mac.po;rm ~/Mac.po;cd

Hit Enter

wget -O launcher_bfb.png

Hit Enter

sudo mv launcher_bfb.png /usr/share/unity/icons/

Hit Enter

sudo apt-get install unity-tweak-tool

Hit Enter

sudo apt-get install gnome-tweak-tool

Optional you can add the Mac Fonts

wget -O

Hit Enter

sudo unzip -d /usr/share/fonts; rm

Hit Enter

sudo fc-cache -f -v

Hit Enter

This completes the installation, now it’s time to configure it.

Setting up Macbuntu

Copy and past into terminal

gnome-tweak-tool &

Press Enter

Change GTK+ Theme to MacBuntu-OS-X

Change Icons to MacBuntu-OS

Change Cursor to Mac-cursors


Click on Startup applications and then +

Add Plank and Albert


Close Tweak and copy and past Unity Tweak into the terminal window.

Unity-tweak-tool &

Press enter

Under Unity click on launcher and turn on Auto-Hide


Click on Overview at the top. Then under Windows Manager click on General

Make sure Animations is turned on.

Change Minimize to Magic Lamp and UnMinimize to Magic lamp.


Close Unity Tweak Tool

Copy and paste Plank into the terminal window

plank &

 hit enter

Hold the Crtl key and right click on Plank bar across bottom. Change theme to MB-OSXLion turn on Icon Zoom and adjust to taste.


Click on Behavior an turn on Hide Dock

Click on Docklets and add Trash and any others you like.

Close Plank Settings

Cut and paste the following into the Terminal.

nautilus /usr/share/applications &

Press enter.

Drag and Drop desired applications to plank. I highly recommend Files and Slingcold. Slingcold will bring up all applications and is searchable. For some of my older customers who are less tech savy I also dragged down the shutdown app so they shut the machine down properly.

Copy and past reboot into terminal and hit enter.

 Sudo reboot

Hit Enter

Your system will now reboot into your new MacBuntu.



Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Rise of the Modern Brownshirts

Those who have a clue know that fascism belongs to the political left, nothing could make that more clear then by looking at the news and their tactics.

Gang of Four Who Brutally Beat ‘White Boy’ Trump Supporter on Video

Activists And Anarchists Plan ‘Non-Peaceful’ Action At Trump’s Inauguration

VP-Elect Pence Get Hostile Reception From ‘Hamilton’ Audience

VIDEO: Leftists Chant ‘F*** White Supremacy’ in Front of Children to Protest YAF, Shapiro

Vicki McKenna and Protesters: ‘Your Whiteness Scares Me’

Last night, Vicki McKenna admitted to being frightened by the big guy threatening her at the Ben Shapiro speech at UW-Madison.

What does all of the headlines show?  Tactics of course and these were the tactics of the Nazi brownshirts,  need a history lesson?  From Wiki.

“It was by now well recognized as an appropriate, even necessary, function or organ of the party. The future SA developed by organizing and formalizing the groups of ex-soldiers and beer hall brawlers who were to protect gatherings of the Nazi Party from disruptions from Social Democrats (SPD) and Communists (KPD) and to disrupt meetings of the other political parties. By September 1921 the name Sturmabteilung was being used informally for the group.”

From Britanica

SA, abbreviation of Sturmabteilung (German: “Assault Division”), byname Storm Troopers or Brownshirts, German Sturmtruppen or Braunhemden, in the German Nazi Party, a paramilitary organization whose methods of violent intimidation played a key role in Adolf Hitler’s rise to power. . . .

During the early days of the Nazi regime, the SA carried out unchecked street violence against Jews and Nazi opponents. . . . Temporarily in disarray after the failure of Hitler’s Munich Putsch in 1923, the SA was reorganized in 1925 and soon resumed its violent ways, intimidating voters in national and local elections. From January 1931 it was headed by Ernst Röhm, who harboured radical anticapitalist notions and dreamed of building the SA into Germany’s main military force.”

Need proof of voter intimidation?

While these same people love to hurl the label “fascist” it is they that employ the fascist tactics, when was the last time you saw a TEA party activist disrupting a leftist event, or try to intimidate attendees.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Truth Justice and the American Way?

The leftist media including the leftist at politifact miss the mark yet again!

Does it matter what the source?  Nixon a champion of progressives was run out on a rail based on an anonymous source named after a porno movie. “Deep Throat”  Remember that Nixon was drummed out of office for covering up a break in that he had no knowledge of at the time, he found out about it after the fact and covered up for his so called allies.  He deleted less then 20 minutes of tape and covered for his friends as opposed to 30K plus emails, and the left wing media pounced on it with a feeding frenzy with out looking into the source.  Jump ahead about 50 years and they now commit ad hominem and attack the source without looking into the facts.  Politifact’s headlines read:

Hillary Clinton blames high-up Russians for WikiLeaks releases

Our ruling

Clinton said, “We have 17 intelligence agencies, civilian and military, who have all concluded that these espionage attacks, these cyberattacks, come from the highest levels of the Kremlin, and they are designed to influence our election.”

We don’t know how many separate investigations into the attacks they were. But the Director of National Intelligence, which speaks for the country’s 17 federal intelligence agencies, released a joint statement saying the intelligence community at large is confident that Russia is behind recent hacks into political organizations’ emails. The statement sourced the attacks to the highest levels of the Russian government and said they are designed to interfere with the current election.

We rate Clinton’s statement True.

While it may be true that the Russians were behind the so called leaks, but given the fact that the intelligence agencies are under the control of the democrat party and Barack Obama we may never know the truth.  The real question is why has not the leftist media ruled on the leaks themselves.  The leaks show massive corruption on the part of the Clinton’s and the democrat party.  Instead of an ad hominem attack on the source, should they not look into the allegations themselves and rule on those facts?  Or does the left wing media only look into the facts when it suits their agenda?  I along with most honest American’s want to know if that which was leaked by Wikileaks was true, we don’t care where the leak came from, but we do care if the allegations are true, for if they are they show a threat to our country that far exceeds that of a foreign country (even Russia) that is a greater threat to our country and our freedom.  She would be the leader of our country and not an outside influence leaking the truth.  So come on “Politifact”  Check the facts, are the allegations made by  Wikileaks true or not?  Your lack of reporting one that speaks volumes.  Far louder then the claims made by Wikileaks,  Remember it was those same agencies that claimed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.  You have lost all credibility when you bash those agencies in that instance and deny it in another.  So man up and give us the real facts!



Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Fact Checking the Last Presidential Debate (a Libertarian Perspective)

The liberal bias of the so called fact checkers is blatant and obvious and time for people to do a little fact checking of their own.

On the second amendment.  Donald Trump.

“We need a Supreme Court that in my opinion is going to uphold the Second Amendment and all amendments. But the Second Amendment, which is under absolute siege. I believe if my opponent should win this race, which I truly don’t think will happen, we will have a second amendment which will be a very, very small replica of what it is right now.”


Hillary Clinton.

Chris Wallace said

“Secretary Clinton, you said last year — and let me quote, The Supreme Court is wrong on the second amendment. And now in fact, in the 2008 Heller case, the court ruled that there is a constitutional right to bear arms but a right that is reasonably limited. Those were the words of the judge Antonin Scalia who wrote the decision. What’s wrong with that?

Hillary Clinton said.

“You mentioned the Heller decision and what I was saying that you referenced, Chris, was that I disagreed with the way the court applied the Second Amendment in that case because what the District of Columbia was trying to do was to protect toddlers from guns. And so they wanted people with guns to safely store them. And the court didn’t accept that reasonable regulation, but they’ve accepted many others. So I see no conflict between saving people’s lives and defending the Second Amendment. “


No Heller had nothing to do with children, nothing!  Washington DC had a total ban on handguns unless you had a permit and refused to issue permits, and even if you could obtain one it would have to be kept in a non functioning state rendering it useless for self defense purposes.

“District of Columbia law bans handgun possession by making it a crime to carry an unregistered firearm and prohibiting the registration of handguns; provides separately that no person may carry an unlicensed handgun, but authorizes the police chief to issue 1-year licenses; and requires residents to keep lawfully owned firearms unloaded and dissembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device. Respondent Heller, a D. C. special policeman, applied to register a handgun he wished to keep at home, but the District refused. He filed this suit seeking, on Second Amendment grounds, to enjoin the city from enforcing the bar on handgun registration, the licensing requirement insofar as it prohibits carrying an unlicensed firearm in the home, and the trigger-lock requirement insofar as it prohibits the use of functional firearms in the home. The District Court dismissed the suit, but the D. C. Circuit reversed, holding that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess firearms and that the city’s total ban on handguns, as well as its requirement that firearms in the home be kept nonfunctional even when necessary for self-defense, violated that right. ”

Townhall did an excellent piece on the subject.

On the Supreme court.



“Secretary Clinton, Mr. Trump, welcome. Let’s get right to it. The first topic is the Supreme Court. We — you both talk briefly about the court in the last debate, but I want to drill down on this because the next president will almost certainly have at least one appointment and likely — or possibly – two or three appointments which means that you will in effect determine the balance of the court for what could be the next quarter century. First of all, where do you want to see the court take the country? And secondly, what’s your view on how the Constitution should be interpreted? Is — do the founders words mean what they say, or is it a living document to be applied flexibly according to changing circumstances? In this segment, Secretary Clinton, you go first. You have two minutes. ”

“Thank you very much, Chris. And thank you UNLV for hosting us. You know, at the goings on about the Supreme Court, it really raises the central issue in this election. Namely, what kind of country are we going to be? What kind of opportunities will we provide for our citizens? What kind of rights will Americans have? And I feel strongly that the Supreme Court needs to stand on the side of the American people, not on the side of the powerful corporations and the wealthy. For me, that means that we need a Supreme Court that will stand up on behalf of of women’s rights, on behalf of the rights of the LGBT community, that will stand up and say no to Citizens United, a decision that has undermined the election system in our country because of the way it permits dark, unaccountable money to come into our electoral system. I have major disagreements with my opponent about these issues and others that will be before the Supreme Court. But I feel that at this point in our country’s history, it is important that we not reverse marriage equality, that we not reverse Roe v. Wade, that we stand up against Citizens United — we stand up for the rights of people in the workplace. That we stand up and basically say — the Supreme Court should represent all of us. ” 

“We need a Supreme Court that in my opinion is going to uphold the Second Amendment and all amendments. But the Second Amendment, which is under absolute siege. I believe if my opponent should win this race, which I truly don’t think will happen, we will have a second amendment which will be a very, very small replica of what it is right now. But I feel that it’s absolutely important that we uphold because of the fact that it is under such trauma. I feel that the justices that I am going to appoint– and I’ve named 20 of them. The justices that I’m going to appoint will be pro-life. They will have a conservative bent. They will be protecting the Second Amendment. They are great scholars in all cases, and they are people of tremendous respect. They will interpret the Constitution the way the founders wanted it interpreted. And I believe that’s very, very important. I don’t think we should have justices appointed that decide what they want to hear It’s all about the Constitution of — and so important — the Constitution, the way it was meant to be. And those are the people that I will appoint. ”


Hillary avoided the question all together, she engaged in the appeal to emotion fallacy. But her words were telling.  She said “But I feel that at this point in our country’s history, it is important that we not reverse marriage equality, that we not reverse Roe v. Wade, that we stand up against Citizens United — we stand up for the rights of people in the workplace. That we stand up and basically say — the Supreme Court should represent all of us. “.  It is not the role of the supreme court to represent anybody, nor is it the role of the supreme court to inflict one groups morals or to pick winners or losers.  It is the role of the court to ensure all “FEDERAL LAWS” conform to the constitution.  PERIOD!  Where Trump got it right, ““We need a Supreme Court that in my opinion is going to uphold the Second Amendment and all amendments.“, and that’s where he should have stopped.  It is not the role of the courts to decide national morals or dictate what the states must or can’t allow unless it’s specified by the constitution per the 10th amendment. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

That is a fact that was even admitted to by then Senator Obama.

To advocate anything else is in and of itself a violation of the Constitution.  Hillary implying that the courts got it wrong in “Citizens United”  Is flat out wrong, I wrote about it on another blog.   If anything a politician promising to do anything “for you or give you anything” should be considered a bribe.


This is a fact that is ignored by the modern left, who promises more and more free stuff at the expense of the economy and the national debt and of course a class of people that the modern left demonizes.  Again Hillary’s words not mine.

“And I feel strongly that the Supreme Court needs to stand on the side of the American people, not on the side of the powerful corporations and the wealthy.”

No Mrs Clinton, the supreme court needs to stand on the Constitution, and stand for the rights of the individual, not a class, gender or race.  Period!



Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

First Presidential Debate, What the Fact Checkers aren’t checking.

As a (l)ibertarian I have no love for either candidate but the so called fact checkers aren’t checking anything, they are just showing their leftist bias.  I think the funniest shot was on the so called equal pay scheme.

Really Hillary?  No one deserves equal pay unless they do equal work.  Why is that such a hard concept to understand?  Of course equal pay for equal work has been the law of the land since 1963.  So this is just more of the modern left’s victim class warfare. And the myth that women are payed less has been debunked more times then I care to mention.

Give Women Unfair Advantages, Or Else

But is equal pay for equal work fair enough for the feminist? Of course not. Many would go further and claim that society as a whole should financially reward women’s personal preferences just as much as men’s by giving equal pay for unequal work. Maybe women are inclined to make different choices than men, but that just means our culture must be re-engineered so women can follow their inclinations without any financial sacrifice. To do any less would be to undervalue women’s choices in comparison to men’s.

The second one is the Trickle down lie that the left has been perpetrating for decades. Except there never was such a thing as “Trickle Down Economics”  Never!

Real economist like Steven Horwitz and Thomas Sowell totally debunked the myth.

Steven Horwitz writes.

“The problem with this term is that, as far as I know, no economist has ever used that term to describe their own views. Critics of the market should take up the challenge of finding an economist who argues something like “giving things to group A is a good idea because they will then trickle down to group B.” I submit they will fail in finding one because such a person does not exist. Plus, as Thomas Sowell has pointed out, the whole argument is silly: why not just give whatever the things are to group B directly and eliminate the middleman? . . .

General Prosperity

Government doesn’t “give” us tax refunds; it simply refrains from taking more of what we created.What the critics will find, if they choose to look, is many economists who argue that allowing everyone to pursue all the opportunities they can in the marketplace, with the minimal level of taxation and regulation, will create generalized prosperity. The value of cutting taxes is not just cutting them for higher income groups, but for everyone. Letting everyone keep more of the value they create through exchange means that everyone has more incentive to create such value in the first place, whether it’s through the ownership of capital or finding new uses for one’s labor.”

And Thomas Sowell writes,

“While there have been all too many lies told in politics, most have some little, tiny fraction of truth in them, to make them seem plausible. But the “trickle-down” lie is 100 percent lie. It should win the contest both because of its purity — no contaminating speck of truth — and because of how many people have repeated it over the years, without any evidence being asked for or given. . . . Let’s do something completely unexpected: Let’s stop and think. Why would anyone advocate that we “give” something to A in hopes that it would trickle down to B? Why in the world would any sane person not give it to B and cut out the middleman? But all this is moot, because there was no trickle-down theory about giving something to anybody in the first place. . . .One of the things that provoke the Left into bringing out the “trickle-down” bogeyman is any suggestion that there are limits to how high they can push tax rates on people with high incomes, without causing repercussions that hurt the economy as a whole.”

What you see is the typical leftist “victim class” mentality.  Create groups of victims and promise them free stuff at someone else’s expense.  So how’s that trickle down government working out for you?  The government eats a lager and larger piece of the pie and what do we have for it?  Again I’m no fan of Trumps but he is right about one thing.  We are twenty trillion dollars in debt and have nothing to show for it.  Nothing!  Our infrastructure is crumbling and the best the left can do is attempt to bribe voters with the promise of yet more free stuff?

Would anyone here call JFK a “Trickle down nut?”  From his speech in 1962.

Corporate tax rates must also be cut to increase incentives and the availability of investment capital. The Government has already taken major steps this year to reduce business tax liability and to stimulate the modernization, replacement, and expansion of our productive plant and equipment. We have done this through the 1962 investment tax credit and through the liberalization of depreciation allowances–two essential parts of our first step in tax revision which amounted to a 10 percent reduction in corporate income taxes worth $2.5 billion. . . . In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now. The experience of a number of European countries and Japan have borne this out. This country’s own experience with tax reduction in 1954 has borne this out. And the reason is that only full employment can balance the budget, and tax reduction can pave the way to that employment. The purpose of cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus.

And taxes are only part of the equation. When Kennedy made that speech most of the regulatory agencies that exist today did not exist then, and the few that did, did not have the power and scope that they have today.  The cost of the regulations on American business is higher then all of the economies of the world save nine.  From CEI.

After years of rapid growth during the Obama administration, the cost of federal regulations is now bigger than the entire economies of all but nine countries in the world. . . . Compiling reports of compliance costs from various government agencies and outside sources, author Clyde Wayne Crews found that the “regulation tax” imposed on the economy now tops $1.86 trillion.
By comparison, Canada’s entire GDP is $1.82 trillion. India’s is $1.84 trillion.

The problem, Crews notes, is that the combined cost of this “tax” never shows up anywhere in the federal budget — or any other official report — even though it is now bigger than individual and corporate income taxes combined.”

Far more people see the real problem “Big Government” then support either Clinton or Trump yet neither want’s to attack the real problem.

“WASHINGTON, D.C. — When asked to choose among big government, big labor and big business, Americans overwhelmingly name big government as the biggest threat to the country in the future. The 69% choosing big government is down slightly from a high of 72% in 2013, the last time Gallup asked the question, but is still one of the highest percentages choosing big government in Gallup’s 50-year trend.”

It’s time we take our country back and quit listening to the promise of all the free stuff in exchange for votes.  They use to call that a bribe!

Posted in Libertarian, Nanny State, Presidential Debate | Tagged , , | 3 Comments