U.S.P.S. For Sale

Why not, the government clearly cannot keep it sustainable in a changing market place.  The olde style business model has been updated from when they were established, but does not allow the USPS to remain a viable competitor in the free market.

Postmaster General Patrick Donahoe attempted to propose a free market solution to keep the USPS soluble, but was quickly rejected for many reasons amongst them where:

·         Closing 3,700 Locations

·         Consolidating hundreds of distribution centers

This proposal was an unfortunate necessity to stay soluble.  Instead, politicians rejected it to foot the bill to the American people who obviously do not utilize their services as they once did.  We pay the Post Office if we use them or not.  Does that make sense?

Common Sense says:  That does not make any sense on any level to anyone who has a level of basic business knowledge.

I apologize to the hundreds of thousands of hard working postal service works that could possibly be affected by this solution.  But there are solutions to relieving people of work as well.  Early retirement is a possible solution for a percentage of employees.  Which is occurring already. 

When large corporations down size, it is no easy task but out of survival instinct to remain afloat and continue supporting more employees than released, a select few are let go.  How employees are selected to be released is a per company decision, my guess they are going to look at cost of employee vs. output of employee work.

The United States Postal Service is a prime example of why the federal government should not be in the market place.  Many federal branches if released from government control would flourish.  While the big government types stay in power, they will keep their strangle hold on as much as they can for as long as they can.

Who wants the USPS to become a success to our economy rather than a drag?  How do we make it a success?

 Easy: USPS for SALE!

Jared Taylor

Invest in America, Invest In Your Country

A new tax, no surprise there, but from the U.N.?  What sovereign government are they?  Did planet earth suddenly vote to empower the U.N. to implement a new world tax?

Lots of questions can come of this new idea.  Such as, what’s the motive, how will it be used accurately, who will monitor it and how once the U.N. starts collecting, when the tax serves its original purpose, how will it stop?  (The last being of the most significant)

The devil is in the details.  Just the mere idea of a global tax is jaw dropping.  Why must those in elected positions always think they can solve all problems with more money.  “If everyone puts in enough money we can buy our way out.”  Yes?

No.  Here are two examples of huge budgets not producing in the US and someone still wanting more:

·         US Department of Education – Approximately $68.1 billion in discretionary appropriations

·         Rural Electrician – Approximately $5 billion budget

Government wise $5 billion is not exactly looked upon as a huge amount these days, which is sad.  I argue if you were to fund a global entrepreneur like Sir Richard Branson who over decades of hard work has amassed a value of an estimated $4.2 billion, how much money could he produce for how many people to create a good living on?  How would that help the recession that has gripped so much of the world?

Why not put the money the U.N. wastes on creating legitimacy for itself on the global stage and put that money into the hands of those who can produce?

Every country should suspend its contribution/dues to the U.N. for 5 years.  That money should be invested domestically on entrepreneurship to where that country sees fit to create more wealth.  Encourage the private market to invest and only those who are confident will risk, earning the reward. 

Those who are truly committed to the U.N. and agree with its ideals can volunteer as a charitable donation to the world if they still feel the U.N. brings true value.

The US alone in FY 2012 has an estimated tab/due of over $4 billion going to the U.N.  I would love to watch the US economy spurred by a $20 billion investment over five years into the private sector.  Watch successful business men and women all over from every type of business flourish, grow and create more jobs putting more people back to work.  A nice bi-product of more people back to work is the government collects more taxes.  My guess it would be more than the initial $20b investment, but that is what a solid investment looks like.  Invest, watch those who can produce turn that money into more money, everybody wins, you make more money back, while others continue to produce and make more money.

Common Sense says: Don’t tax the ultra-wealthy even more, encourage them to invest and create more wealth!  Budget approving elected officials handling mass amounts of funds that they did not earn themselves, but by collecting taxes should look to the experts of how to invest and produce.

Please President Obama, who held domestic infrastructure investment so high on his list in 2008, encourage the budget approves and the hands that feed by giving out money to seek expert advice from those who at their own risk earned their rewards.  Turn your back on the U.N. for allowing such a horrible idea to even be discussed.  Allow charitable donations to remain a personal responsibility of the people not a guarantee by the federal government.  Invest in the U.S.  I promise you, the people of the United States of America will succeed.  United We Stand, United We Fall.  America will not fail nor will we fall.

 

Jared Taylor

What's More Important National Security or The View

According to President Obama, The View is more important.  Or is it his bid for re-election?

How can a sitting President feel that sitting on a sofa yakking it up is more important than the national security of this country.

The answer is simple, re-election.

Consider this:

• The View: Audience is primarily made up of women
• Attend the show with his wife, show lots of affection and adoration for her.
• Leave one of the most important meetings this country has had in a recent history concerning unrest in the Middle east to a woman. Sec. Hillary Clinton.

He is looking for support from the woman vote that has become extremely important for winning the oval office. His economic record which effects women just as much as men as been at best, poor. Obama needs another driving force to carry him to the win of the woman vote.

By nature women are more emotionally in touch than men. Men are more detached. It is impactful for a woman to see Obama sitting on a couch, hugging, smiling, adoring, promoting his wife than it is to a man. With recognition of above three simple points, it will be hugely impactful on the woman vote to see Obama laughing, yakking it up, promoting his wife and I am sure, talking about his trust and belief Hillary will do great in this meeting. This all adds up to something all women will want to vote for.

Of course not all woman are this naive or "emotional". That would be an unfair blanket statement generalizing millions.

I would still not be surprised if there is a bump in support for Obama by women.

This post is written to those who choose The View over National Security. I ask you to rethink your priorities.

If Iran obtains nuclear weapons due to lack of diplomacy and if needed, military action, and the United States of America is bombed, killing millions, possibly hundreds of millions, what would be more important then?  Sitting on a couch laughing or leading this country.

Common Sense Says: President Barrack Obama, rethink your priorities, what is more important, re-election or national security? How many leaders of the world will you ignore in an attempt to remain the sitting President? Please consider IF you win, how will these leaders respond to you when you try and call them back. My guess, you'll get their voicemail.

As President of the United States, national security is number one on your list of constitutional responsibilities, not guarantying health care. You will earn much more creditability putting your campaign efforts on hold for one week to lead this nation on foreign policy than sitting on a couch.

President Obama, put your ego aside and do what this country elected you to do, lead.  Not sit on the sideline on a couch and smile.

Jared Taylor

United We Stand, Even Against D.C. When Required

On an economic level, I personally will side with a fiscal conservative more often than not. If you have read our post: Applying Common Sense Everywhere, you will see I take a very basic approach to spending; If you don't have it, don't spend it.

I have suggested to the more fiscally conservative campaign to arrange on a day prior to election that all that are unemployed, underemployed or even if you know someone who fits into un/under-employed status to meet at their local employment security office.

The intent is to be a non-partisan agenda, but unite the country with a single problem that affects all of us, directly or indirectly. It’s time America takes a stand and shows Washington D.C. they work for us.

If they are not doing everything with the power we bestowed on them to adhere to our Constitutional right to the pursuit of happiness, and align with our Declaration of Independence;

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

Then it is time they leave Washington and make way for someone who will fight for us.

The federal government is not in the business of guarantees, if they were, we should request a refund. But we need to hold officials accountable.

Common Sense says: If I get reprimanded at work or even terminated for not doing my job or not doing my job well enough, Politian’s need to be held at the same level.

I truly hope something comes of this suggestion, it is best for our nation to stand together united under a common goal, bring D.C. back in our corner and come out swinging, gloves off at our Nation’s problems united. After all, we are the United States of America.

Jared Taylor

If you support this suggestion please share with as many as you can.

Ambition Surpassing Talent and Ability

President Barack Hussein Obama II is a classic case of ambition surpassing talent and ability.  I believe most who are not straight ticket voting Democrats will consider this statement.  Although he holds many talents and is an intelligent man, with good ideas, there are many short comings the United States has learned over his first term.

I believe America, misguided or not, where so desperate to vote against the Republicans in 2008, if the Democrats nominated Vladimir Lenin, even he may have won the oval office.  I won’t go into compare and contrast of the two, but you understand the point.  The country wanted change, and Obama promised just that.

President Obama’s determined ambition to out race the heavy hitting Clinton’s is a fantastic trait for the leader of the free world, but only if talent and ability are present to capitalize and follow through when title and authority are bestowed.  He knew his goal, to be President.  Like all politicians, he said whatever he needed to win.  He did whatever it took to achieve that goal. 

The reality is all of us need to weigh our personal thoughts as to what we believe is insufficient amount of talent and ability to fulfill ambitious words and promises like Obama gave.  Did the country get the change it really wanted?  Keep in mind it is easier to quarterback a Sunday game on Monday morning from an armchair. 

Just like four years ago, on Monday review, America decided it was time for a break from the Republicans.  Now review time Monday morning is upon us again.  This time after quarterback, I mean President Obama’s Sunday.  The question remains: Is he fit to lead next Sunday?

If this was a real football game, it would be interesting to see what type of odds Las Vegas would give Obama to play first string a second time.

Jared Taylor

Term Limits and Service Pay for Elected Officials

We give the United States President term limits, but not other elected officials.  The president gets elected just like Congress does.  Why not term limits for them as well?

If you are enlisted in the United States Armored services, you are given a pay grade, based on, branch, rank, length of service and specialty training.  (To name some particulars)  Those who serve this country proudly and boldly even in the direct line of fire have an average starting pay of $28,377.27. ¹

The average salary for Rank-and-File Senators and Representatives in 2012 is $174,000.  Vice President earns a cushy $230,700 and the President, a comfortable $400,000. ²

Common denominators:

1.       Work for the people of the United States

2.       Have a high sense of patriotism and duty to their nation

3.       Funded trips around the US and the world

 

Behind Common denominators:

 

Government Officials:

 

1.       Most believe the people work or them

2.       Blinded by their own ideals and need of power

3.       To campaign for another few years of power and credential building

 

Government Service Men and Women:

1.       Sacrifice to serve the people

2.       Train to protect those who cannot protect themselves

3.       Free trips to combat zones and support bases

Common sense says:  For those in power, should be compensated the exact same way as those who sacrifice.  It is about service and patriotism to our nation.  Not money hunger, power gathering, get as much as I can from the country.  Elected officials should have term limits just like the President.  They can serve only for so long before being replaced by a like mind individual or a new thinking individual elected by the people.

Which Office would you prefer?

Office 1

Office 2

Don't worry common sense knows already it takes a special person to take office 1.  Be proud and honored there are those who take this office to keep us focused on office 2.

 

Jared Taylor

 

¹ www.todaysmilitary.com/military-benefits/military-compensation

² http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/governmentjobs/a/Annual-Salaries-Of-Top-Us-Government-Officials.htm

Apply Common Sense Everywhere

Have you ever heard someone say "Where did common sense go?" or "They are so smart, they are dumb."

Well, we know Washington, D.C. is not the destination of common sense and there are a lot of smart people with high paying jobs that to be blunt, are just plain dumb.

National Debt:  Hot topic right now for both candidates.  Both parties have over spent for whatever reason or ideal they claim to be best.

Common Sense says: "I don't care who spends the money, Washington, D.C. stop bleeding my hard earned money!  Spend with common sense!”

Why is it I have to live on a tight budget?  Because common sense says, if I don't have it, I cannot spend it.

Washington D.C. does not understand this truly and is unwilling to make sacrifices.  Politicians will always make exceptions to spend on their ideas.  All the while pointing at the other side saying, "You're wrong, I'm right"

My opinion, they are all wrong and all right.  Not one person as all the perfect plans, not one party has all the ideas.  That is why collaboration is so important.  Everyone knows this.  Even D.C. knows this but refuse to submit to common sense that it is best for our nation. So many politicians clam to be bi-partisan. But how many truly are?

I say revive common sense in all we do for each other as the people, what we the people do for our nation, what Washington D.C. does to lead our nation and for what our nation does for the world.

“Revive common sense.”
Jared Taylor