American democrats are working overtime to divide this nation and hopefully they are abysmally failing with the majority of citizens. If ethnic minorities and their Democrat representatives would wake up and realize that they would be infinitely better off in a free market economy than succeed in their ongoing hot pursuit of the socialist model, the country would all but instantly recover from the economic malaise that has held it back since the advent of Obama.

Before Obama, jobs, American style were created not mandated. It is the ingenuity of those Americans who want to earn a living that propels them ahead of those who want to be given a living. It is the height of irony that on the one hand, the Federal Government encourages people to apply for food stamps which is ostensibly a noble gesture, and on the other in virtually every national park where there is an abundance of wildlife that same Government proscribes feeding the animals to prevent them from becoming dependant on handouts, a factually noble gesture.

Democrats argue that government spending drives the economy and no doubt it does influence it, but all spending really does is put money in the hands of the "animals" who have not earned it and who literally grow dependant on it for survival. The strongest and most vital economy is one where people can earn as much as they are able to earn, spend as much of what they earn as they choose and create a booming economy in the process.

Over the past decade or so nail art salons have enjoyed explosive growth. Are they necessary to the survival of those having their nails done? The answer of course is, "hardly." But are they necessary to the survival of the operator? In a relative sense, yes, with the obvious (but not obvious to socialist or Democrats) understanding that if demand for nail art declines the availability of nail salons will decline as the strongest ones survive and the less competitive ones close their doors. But, are nail salons essential to the nation's survival? In a socialist setting the answer is, "no" and salons would all but disappear. In America where taxes pay for the so called "less fortunate" (who manage to have their nails done weekly, but who are on food stamps) the answer is, "absolutely."

Is it necessary to have hundreds of different models of cars? In a socialist society only one model would suffice and that would be most cost effective to produce, market, and maintain; but the cost per unit would be markedly higher than if produced in a free market, competitive setting, which would result in more people owning one...or two...or three; and that would help the economy; but, would cause more pollution, unless an electric model was invented that was economically competitive that actually did reduce carbon emissions. All one has to do is examine the Soviet economy to conclude that socialist/communist economies do not produce vibrant economic growth. Compare that to contemporary China where a booming economy is still awakening to the benefits...and pitfalls of free capital markets.

But...there is a difference between earning and taking, with the nauseating excuse that takers, that is, speculators, provide liquidity for the market. BS! Investing in, or providing capital for a business is one thing, but corrupting the "system" or "stock market" by manipulation or gamesmanship that sucks in private money, wherein a speculator takes legitimate investors' money for personal use, destroys or at the least undermines businesses' economic foundation. That is, unless there is excess capital, in which case stock trading becomes a gambling operation, not an investment. Therefore, there is good reason for well regulated financial markets that keeps speculators at bay and fosters healthy business development.

When speculators in a symbiotic relationship with "day" traders gain such a hold on the nation's economy that they individually have the ability as does George Soros to disrupt, manipulate or destroy it, the nation should enlist the services of James Bond. If it is George Soros that Democrats have in mind to tax to the hilt, so be it...and Soros isn't alone; take his "gains;" they certainly do not qualify as earnings.

But for ball players, shop owners, skilled laborers or corporate executives and etc. who earn it, lower taxes creates an incentive to earn more...and therefore pay more taxes; taxes that should be spent wisely!


The BasicsProject.org informational and educational pamphlet series is now available for Kindle and iPad. Click here to find out more...