The greatest kids in the world

I just want you to know how great my kids are.  Crystal worked, so Myles and Laney both slept in my bed.  So, once they were asleep, I slept on the couch. Myles got up at 6:00 and laid in his tent in the living room, and played, until 6:30, and he never said a word.  He just played real nice.  Then at 6:30 I got up and turned the TV on, and he watched TV for an hour while I slept.  How many kids would do that.

Then Laney and Myles decided they wanted to go outside.  They insisted on playing in the sandbox.  I told them they could, but they couldn't talk so as not to wake Crystal up.  So they have been sitting in the sandbox now for about an hour without saying a word.  It's just amazing how awesome my kids are.

Callie has reminded me many times in the past month that "we" had to go to the store to get something for our wedding aniversary "so you don't get into trouble." She also insisted we get flowers for mother's day.  It's neat that my children are at an age where, not only are they well behaved, but are also helpful.

Jordan is very independent, which is nice.  He's a good kid who works hard at everything he does, gets good grades, plays his video games in his room, plays his guitars, and is helpful around the house and with the kids.

Sometimes, it's just nice to remind ourselves how lucky we are to have such great kids. To add to this joy, I'm sitting outside, writing on my computer, with a refreshing 69 degree western breeze wafting over my shoulders.

Fight for income equality has created more income inequality

Back in the 1960s President Johnson waged a war on poverty.  In the end, more people are in poverty today than when the war was started.  A common mantra of liberals like Obama is to fight for income equality, although during his reign as President income inequality has gotten worse, not better.

Thomas Sowell over at National Review has a nice column on this topic.  He said:

This is not as surprising as some might think. When you make it unnecessary for many people to work, fewer people work. Unprecedented numbers of Americans are on the food-stamp program. Unprecedented numbers are also living off government “disability” payments.

There is a sweeping array of other government subsidies, whether in money or in kind, that together allow many people to receive greater benefits than they could earn by working at low-skilled jobs. Is it surprising that the labor-force participation rate is lower than it has been in decades?

In short, when people don’t have to earn incomes, they are less likely to earn incomes — or, at least, to earn incomes in legal and visible ways that could threaten their government benefits.

I hear Obama on TV bashing rich people all the time, claiming that they are "greedy" and that they got their money by "taking advantage of the poor and working class," and that they need to be "taxed more" in order to help the poor and needy."

The problem with such beliefs is that the rich are the very people who create the jobs.  Despite the fact they are considered "rich" by the President does not mean they have liquid assets sitting around ready to be spent.

Rich people only have so much money that they would otherwise use to give to charities and taxes or invest to create jobs.  If the government takes most of it in the form of taxes so the government can decide how it is spent, that leaves little money left for job creation.

This is a part of economics 101 that people like Obama seem to have trouble realizing.  When you take from the rich and give it to the poor, basically you are making a bunch of poor people.  Now, if making everyone poor is your way of creating "equal pay" for everyone, then you are accomplishing your goal.

The best way to raise a family is under God

I like to equate God with virtues, values, and morals.  In that way, it's from reading the Bible, from going to Church, that we learn these things.  It is for this reason that it's important that if you have kids that you take them to Church and raise them under the influence of God and Jesus and Christianity.

Both my parents and both sets of grandparents did this, and all of their children grew up to become respectable adults.  So when I started a family there wasn't a thought in my mind to try something different.  I am presently raising all my kids under the influence of God.

However, I know people who aren't.  And I have no problem with it.  I mean, you do what you feel you have to do.  I'm not saying you can't raise good kids without going to Church, but studies show it's harder.  In fact, every study ever done on the subject shows that children raised under God have a significantly higher chance of succeeding in life.

I mean, the numbers are so much higher it's not even close.  Kids not raised under god have a significantly higher risk of depression, anxiety, fear of death, anger, hate, etc.  They also have a significantly higher rate of getting in trouble, spending time in jail or prison, etc.

The neat thing is, however, is that without doing one study, people over 2,000 years ago figured this out.  Anyone who reads history books knows that prior to the Hebrews people married whomever they wanted to marry, had sex with whomever they desired, raped whomever they desired, aborted babies they didn't want. The result of this was lots of children in many families, and no family stability.  It also resulted in the spread of disease.

It was for this reason that the Jews, the Hebrews, created the laws they did.  It was for this reason that God, through Moses, created the laws he did.  He wanted to make sure people respected him.  He wanted to make sure people had morals and virtues.  He wanted to make sure people respected him and feared him, the way they should respect and fear their parents.

And it worked.  The Jews learned that in homes with a mom and a dad children had the stability they needed.  From mom they learned to love and respect God, and from dad they learned how to work hard and to respect women.

I'm not an expert on this subject, but I've read many books where the authors say that people who don't go to church don't go because they don't want to be judged. Christians do judge.  But we also love and respect people.

I have never once ever saw a Christian, a good Christian anyway, ever say anything bad at another person because he had a child out of wedlock, or a divorce, or anything like that.  They just don't do that.

Another reason they say people don't go to church is because it's too inconvenient.  And I will admit that it is inconvenient.  But the end product of children who love and fear the Lord, and who learn about the values and virtues that are needed to live a successful life makes all this inconvenience worth it in the end.

The Bible and God and Christianity are morals, virtues, and principles.  That's the bottom line here.  People figured this out over 2,000 years ago, so why would you want to go and wreck a system that has worked so well for so many years?

You don't learn morals and values when the dad is the government.

 I mean, even if you don't believe in God, you should do it for the children.

Latest economic statistics don't look good for Obama

Idealists don't care so much about statistics, as they only get in the way of their idealistic statistics.  If you throw statistics at idealists that show the economy is not doing good, they will generally say things like, "we just need to give it more time."

We hear Obama saying things like this all the time about his economic strategies, and we keep giving him more time, and we keep getting more statistics that don't show an improving economy. 

A realist, on the other hand, loves statistics.  If statistics show his policies aren't working, he changes course.  That said, the following are the latest statistics regarding Obamanomics and Obamacare.  

1. The U.S. Labor force shrunk by over 800,000 people in April of 2014 (note that Obama was elected in 2008, so this is six years into his Presidency), according to The Bureau of Labor Statistics
2. The labor force participation rate declined or decreased to 62% in April 2014, that was the lowest since 1978, when Jimmy Carter was President
What that.  This is according to The Bureau of Labor Statistics
3. This means is only 62% of Americans of working age have job as of April 2014
4. The number of Americans not working, but eating and watching television, probably driving and making cell phone calls, 92,594,000 in April, 2014
5. Despite these #s, the unemployment rate has plunged from 6.7 to 6.3%, but mainly because they simply stopped counting the number of people who have given up looking for work.  This is according to The Bureau of Labor Statistics
6. In other words, a large percentage of the 92,594,000 Americans not working is not counted in the unemployment rate.  This actually works to Obama's benefit because it makes the numbers look better.  
7. The unemployment rate also went down because 280,000 jobs were created in April, most in 2 years at a rate of 6.3%, according to The Bureau of Labor Statistics
8. The number of women 16 and older not in the labor force climbed to a record high of 55,116,000 in April, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics 
9. This means that there were 55,116,000 women 16 and older who were in the civilian nonsinstitutional population who not only did not have a job, they did not actively seek one in the last four weeks. That is up 428,000 from the 54,688,000 women who were not in the labor force in March.
10. 23,052,388 of U.S. households now on food stamps, that's 20% of American households that are being fed by the government, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture
11. Twenty-percent of American households have no one working.
12. If the number of people no longer looking for work, and who are working age, are included, the unemployment rate is 12.6%.  This is referred to as the U-6 number

Of interest here is that the Obama administration claimed that 280,000 jobs were created in April, and this, along with the decline in unemployment to 6.3%, was even reported by news organizations like Fox News.  This misleads people into thinking the economy is improving.

Yet labor force data suggests that 800,000 people lost their jobs in April.  The data does not add up. If 800,000 people left the job market, and 280,000 new jobs were created, this should be a net negative not a net positive.

This shows how any administration can spin the numbers to make them look good. Regardless, by studying all these numbers, we can see that Obama's economic policies are not working, and this is not good for a President who's now into his sixth year in office. look good for the economic policies of a President in his 6th year in office.  

References: 

1. ZeroHedge: One Million People Dropped Out Of Labor Force In April: Participation Rate Plummets To Lowest Since 1978
2. CBS: Report: More Than 92 Million Americans Remain Out Of Labor Force
3. AP: US Gains 288k Jobs, Most In 2 Years; Rate 6.3 Pct.
4. CNSNews: Women Not in Labor Force Hits Record High
5. Record 20% of Households on Food Stamps in 2013
6. What is the current U-6 unemployment number?
7. Economy adds 288,000 jobs in April, unemployment rate falls to 6.3 percent

Who pays all the taxes?

I hear a lot of people saying the rich don't pay their fair share of taxes, and when they do this I usually show them the picture to the right.  It shows quite clearly that the rich pay more than their fair share.

This data was from the 2005 Internal Revenue Service Data. The share of total income taxes paid by the top 1% of wage earners rose to 34.27% from 33.71% in 2002. Their income share (not just wages) rose from 16.12% to 16.77%. However, their average tax rate actually dropped from 27.25% down to 24.31%

Then thing to consider here is that most of the top 50% are not millionaires, but hard working people. Many of them are small business.  Most only make thousands of dollars.  Many are married couples who file jointly and make over $29,019.

Also, consider the following:

• The top 1% pay over a third, 34.27% of all income taxes. (Up from 2003: 33.71%) 
• The top 5% pay 54.36% of all income taxes (Up from 2002: 53.80%)
• The top 10% pay 65.84% (Up from 2002: 65.73%).
• The top 25% pay 83.88% (Down from 2002: 83.90%). 
• The top 50% pay 96.54% (Up from 2002: 96.50%). 
• The bottom 50%? They pay a paltry 3.46% of all income taxes (Down from 2002: 3.50%). 
• The top 1% is paying nearly ten times the federal income taxes than the bottom 50%! 
• The top 1% earns 16.77% of all income (2002: 16.12%). 
• The top 5% earns 31.18% of all the income (2002: 30.55%).
• The top 10% earns 42.36% of all the income (2002: 41.77%)
• The top 25% earns 64.86% of all the income (2002: 64.37%) 
• The top 50% earns 86.01% (2002: 85.77%) of all the income.

So, those are statistics from ten years ago.  So, now you want an update.  Well, today the statistics are about the same in proportions of who pays what, although the rich continue to pay more and more.  

Here are the updated numbers:

• The bottom 50%, it's next to nothing that they pay.
• The share of all federal tax revenue paid by the 1% has doubled since the 1980s.
• The top 20% of income earners have gone from paying 65% of all federal taxes in 1980 to 90% in 2010. 
• The top 1% are paying 30% of all tax revenue. 
• The top 20% are paying 90% of all collected tax revenue; this includes couples with two kids making more than $150,000.

Last year, to prevent the Bush tax cuts from expiring, republicans agreed to increase taxes on the rich.  That means that starting in 2014, the rich should expect to pay even more.  So taxes just keep going up on the rich to pay for the entitlement programs for the 52% who don't pay taxes. 

Plus there have been 442 tax increases since Obama was elected, many of which will effect the people Obama considers is rich, which pretty much on anyone who makes over $150,000.

This is exactly the reason why I am for getting rid of the progressive tax, because as it stands, 52% of American do not pay any taxes, and therefore don't care that taxes keep going up.  Why would they care, if they don't pay any?  If they paid into the system, then perhaps then they'd care. 

U.S. should put troops in Ukraine

I discussed on April 16, "Putin and Obama prepare their war strategies," that the west made a pledge to protect Ukraine when Clinton was President, and the U.S. should now honor that pledge.

Twelve days after I wrote my post, Dick Morris discussed this same topic in his April 29, 2014, column, "Send U.S. Troops to Ukraine, he said:

In 1994, President Clinton, British Prime Minister Major, Russian President Yeltsin, and Ukranian President Kuchma signed The Budapest Memorandum pledging themselves and their nations to “respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine.”

The Treaty was signed as part of a successful effort to persuade Ukraine to relinquish its nuclear stockpile, armaments stationed there when the Soviet Union broke up. In return for the joint guarantee, Ukraine promised to give up its nuclear weapons.

Its there in black and white: An American commitment we must honor.

Morris added:

When I asked President Clinton why he was so anxious to bring Hungary and the Czech Republic into NATO, he spoke of the importance of maintaining freedom in those countries, but also said that we needed “a land bridge” to Ukraine. “Ukraine,” he said, “is key. We have to make sure they can stay independent.”

If the U.S. led it, NATO would surely be willing to follow and deploy at least a token force from every European nation.

There is no way Russia would attack Ukraine if it meant war with the United States. Just as the tripwire defense we maintained in Germany throughout the Cold War did not cost us a single US life and not one shot was fired in anger, so a robust show of support for Ukraine would not lead to war. It would avert one.

If we do not stop Russia in Ukraine, Putin will attack Azerbaijan, Moldova, and the Baltic States. If we do not stop him there, Poland and Eastern Europe could well be next.

We all know the story of how Allied refusal to intervene catalyzed Hitler’s push for European domination. We all realize now that a show of force when Hitler marched into the Rhineland or into Austria would have averted World War II.

Our successful deployment in Germany throughout the Cold War gives us ample evidence that you can face down the Russians without loss of life. Putin will take what we give him as long as its free, but not at the price of war.
My work in Russian politics (for Yeltsin in the 90s) left me with a strong impression that the fear of war with the U.S. is uppermost in Russian minds and the memories of World War II have not receded.

And, we gave our word to Ukraine. What is that worth?  

I think Morris is exactly right.  Once again we must honor our pledge, our promise. Not doing so risks further damaging respect for America, further hampering U.S. influence.
----------
Update 5/11/14
The problem here is not just democrats fault, as not one republican or democrat has called for sending troops to Ukraine.  However, as Charles Krauthhammer notes in his May 1, 2014, column "Obama's foreign policy of denial:"

The critique by John McCain and others is that when the Ukrainians last month came asking for weapons to defend themselves, Obama turned them down. The Pentagon offered instead MREs, ready-to-eat burgers to defend against 40,000 well-armed Russians. Obama even denied Ukraine such defensive gear as night-vision goggles and body armor.

Obama did, however, issue these words:

...in Ukraine, what we’ve done is mobilize the international community. . . . Russia is having to engage in activities that have been rejected uniformly around the world.”

So, as Krauthammer said, "That’s a deterrent? Fear of criticism? Empty words?"

Bottom line: It's not just Obama and democrats who are choosing to ignore Ukraine's cries for help, even after the West promised to defend them if they put down their weapons at the end of the Cold War.  Republicans are equally guilty.

Fantasy sports: When do you reject a trade?

One team recently traded Greine, David Wright, Angel Pagan and Martin Prado
for Ian Kinsler, Josh Donaldson, Jenry Mejia, Alex Gordon, and Lance Lynn.
Many in the league saw this as a lopsided trade, and hotly criticized it.
Regardless, the trade was approved, and rightly so.

When a trade is approved between two teams in fantasy sports, cbssports.com allows the other general managers to approve or disapprove of the trade. So, what do you do with this opportunity.

I think what most of us do, and this is the natural tendency, is we veto trades that we perceive as unfair. Or, we veto trades that would not benefit our own teams.

I have to admit that I, too, have been found guilty of this in the past.

In fact, sometimes I have been known to veto a trade just because I don't have time to investigate it. The idea here is I trust the judgement of the other GMs to decide the matter.

However, according to the experts at cbssports.com, this was not the intended purpose of the veto or accept trade option.

The truth is, there is no such thing as a fair trade. Every trade comes with the risk of making your team worse.

So, that said, the purpose of the vote is to prevent one team from selling out to the other.

We actually had this happen a few years ago in a fantasy baseball league I participate in.  One GM wanted to quit, so he offered all his good players to another team. This trade was rejected.

So, my policy for accepting trades is this: so long as it appears to me both teams are honestly trying to make their teams better, I accept the trade.

The only other time I might reject a trade if , in my opinion, it is severely lopsided. Still, it's difficult to define "lopsided" when we all have a unique perspective on each player. So, I usually resist rejecting trades for this reason.

So, this is what I think? What is your trade voting policy?