Visit YouArgue.Com for the new site

The Democrat party tries to paint the Republican party as "only catering to the rich." Talk to any Democrat for more than 5 minutes, and you'll surely hear this argument  But 48% of the American population is not rich (Romney's share), 7 out of the 10 richest members of congress are Democrats, and 8 of the top 10 richest counties in the country voted for Obama. Hmmmm, what does that tell you?

Sending Money Overseas

There's one concept seems a little contradictory to me. Many people are pissed off when an illegal immigrant works here and then sends money out of the country and back home; They are ready to start lynching when a millionaire invests overseas, with a factory or such.

But then they have absolutely no problem when billionaires like Gates and Buffett send billions of dollars overseas to provide direct services for Africans. In all three cases money is leaving the country. So is money that leaves for the reason of increasing the world population with direct food and services somehow more noble than providing jobs for people so that they can feed themselves and at the same time increase the world GDP?

Direct aid is money that is vaporized and never has a prospect of returning. It also does nothing to "teach them to fish." An investment in a factory produces goods that people can use, provides a productive activity for employees, the business owners earn a return on their money, and one day the factory may be sold and the profits brought home if a new investment opportunity in the country is appealing (and tax incentives are fair). Furthermore, direct aid just increases the world population which then increases environmental damage with a never ending feedback loop that requires more and more money. And finally, while it helps some individuals, it does nothing to help humanity, such as what disease or vaccine research would (The Gates Foundation does do some of this).

I don't care where anyone spends their own money. That is their business and they could wipe their asses with twenties for all I care. But I just think that when people start talking about other people's money business, they should really look a little closer at the concept.

Obama wants the ability to imprison US citizens infidelity without trial, with the National Defense Authorization Act.

Remember all that infrastructure rebuilding that Obama once touted? Well much of it went to Chinese firms and workers. Good job with those jobs Obama.

Notice how payroll taxes have increased over the last 60 years? Social Security costs cannot be contained and have continued to increase to pay for the benefits of current retirees. You didn't think that social security was an investment did you?

Obama's Socialist Rant

To all you business owners out there: "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen....If you've been successful, you didn't get there on your own," Obama said Monday. He goes on to say that the wealthy should pay a little bit more. I ask, a little bit more than what? The wealthy are already paying a LOT more. With the top 1% paying 40% of all federal income taxes, and a progressive tax that continues to punish the successful the more they make, how much more does this socialist want? Everybody uses roads, everybody uses national defense, everybody had a teacher at one point (and don't forget, we ALREADY are paying taxes for these), but I fail to see how these directly help someone make more money than another person when everyone is faced with the same infrastructure. The key differences are the choices that the person who started a business made and the choices the person who walked over to the welfare line made. If the presence of government is what makes one rich, then why isn't everyone rich? I'll raise the stakes: why is it that the government is saying more people are "poor" and have added them to the government dole as government has gotten bigger?

Over at Investor's Business Daily, there is a an excellent critque of Obama's ignorant words such as, "Is it a coincidence that virtually the only people President Obama gives credit to for anything are teacher and construction unions?"
And a quote that just nails it, "Michelangelo didn't paint the Sistine Chapel, you know. Credit must be given to the folks who built the scaffolding and the inventor of paint." 

As is known to anyone who has bothered to look at underlying tax data, this article Debunks the class warfare topic that the 'rich' pay less of a tax rate than the middle class.

Florida Drug Screening

The best law ever: drug screening required for those who leech off the system. Why isn't this a federal law?

Discrimination in Michigan Colleges is okay again

Discrimination is back in Michigan, with Affirmative Action. Affirmative action is another liberal reverse racism policy, that generally sets quotas for firms or, in this case, universities. Instead of hiring or admitting the most qualified applicants, sub-par candidates are required to be accepted solely because of the color of their skin.

As I have posted before in another article, it does not make sense to lower college admission standards to anyone for the sake of putting in artificial quotas of some racial demographic. College is college. It is designed to be an academic challenge, and the degree only has value if it is something difficult to accomplish. Because affirmative action lowers the admission standards for some groups, all it does is lower the quality of the school and causes sub-par students to struggle. If a minority is X% of the population and they are as intelligent or capable as every other race, as is usually assumed, then the college student body will be naturally made up of X% of that minority. So by advocating an affirmative action plan, they trying to tell us that some minorities are less intelligent or less capable than others. Why doesn't this bother minorities? And for those well qualified students admitted in a college with an affirmative action plan, aren't they worried that employers will automatically consider this college entrance policy and have second thoughts about their achievement?

The ACLU spokesman says,

The ruling has kept the door open for thousands of academically qualified students of color to continue to pursue the American dream through our state's colleges and universities

If they were academically qualified students then they wouldn't have had a problem getting into the school to begin with. So a law would be superfluous.

The petitioner Gratz, who originally won the suit to have AA banned, was a well qualified student, but because the color of her skin was white, she was denied admission while other less qualified minorities were accepted because of racial considerations.

Hollywood is Left

Proof of liberal bias in Hollywood.

Foreign Aid

Look at all the money we waste on foreign aid just for Muslim nations. This is our tax money! I don't want my tax dollars going to Egypt!

I think that most people are disconnected from their tax dollars that they don't understand that less money wasted means more money in their pockets!

Democrat Tax

With all the tax talk coming back into political furor from the political left, I had a random idea. I think there should be a tax to vote for a Democrat. I'm being quasi-facetious so bear with me here.

But doesn't it make sense? Democrats love higher taxes, so it would fit right in with their philosophy. Sure, we'd have to repeal the 24th amendment to implement it, but since their whole platform is spending other people's money, shouldn't they have to chip in a little more than the average bear?

Anybody who votes to raise taxes on another group should be required to give up a certain percentage of their salary that year. This way, they actually have a vested interest in the vote. It is way too easy to vote for higher taxes on someone else while keeping one's own situation at the status quo. Democrats are all about equality until it comes to taxes - then they are all about discrimination, whether it be against income cohorts or unpopular industries.

As the system stands now, they don't have to put any skin in the game and get to reap all the benefits of subsidized taxes. Even a kindergartener would understand that as being unfair.

And no matter what, they do not seem to understand that the 'rich' already DO pay most of the taxes in this country (see my Jan 31, 2010 post). Democrats always crow MORE MORE MORE because if there is someone rich out there, they just don't seem to like it.

Unemployed? Here, have a cape.

Obama is understating the deficit.

Welfare State

Currently 1/3rd of US wages are from entitlement programs. Scary.

Today, I came across an interesting discussion on the new collectivism viewpoint our society has become. Give it a read.

Democrats heed watch out for those open mics again when trying to spin Republicans as extreme.

Tax Breaks for the 'Rich' Revisited

While reading through a message board today, someone posted a link on 'the evidence' that the 'game is rigged for the wealthy.'

Here was my reply:

So in the article,

"...most federal subsidies aimed at building wealth, such as certain tax deductions (officially called "expenditures"), credits, and preferential rates, go to the richest taxpayers."

It does not elaborate on what breaks we are supposedly talking about, but for starters, the terms for a subsidy and a tax 'expenditure' are quite misleading. This implies that the government just hands over a check for being rich. One actually has to do something, the activity that the tax deduction is trying to encourage the populous to do, in order to take it. If the deduction is being doled out, then the intended policy is working.

Also, to take advantage of most tax breaks, you actually have to be making income to be able to deduct something. Since the size of the break will be proportionate with the investment or activity, which will be proportionate to income, obviously wealthier people will be able to use more of a break than a poor guy. As an example, if a poor guy and a rich guy both buy houses of 50% of their net worth, and the poor guy spends 50k, but the rich guy spends 5M, clearly the rich guy is going to get a bigger deduction than the poor guy. This should not be a news flash to anyone. But suddenly, when the raw numbers are compared people scream and shout that it is unfair because the breaks are larger for the rich guy. They suddenly forget about the other side of his tax burden and that most of the tax burden in this country is shouldered by people making more than 100k a year. For example, if he got a tax break of 5k, that shouldn't be the end of the story as it usually is, but instead put in context to the 50k he paid in taxes that year. Populist media loves to focus on only one part of the story that attempts to anger the masses.

"This money helps the more prosperous buy homes, save money, start businesses, pay for college, and retire comfortably."

Once again it would be nice if instead of being aloof with the details that they would actually name some of the breaks. Many breaks apply to everyone, but many are phased out under certain income limits. While a 'rich' guy with a big house can get more deduction than a middle class guy with a small house, many breaks like IRA contribution, Pell Grants, and student loan interest are only available to those making less than 60k a year (approx.). So what breaks for the rich this sentence is supposedly referring to is quite intentionally vague.

In referring to the "preferential rates" for the rich, this is also misleading. Ordinary income rates are not preferential. In fact, they are quite the opposite with an exponential punishing marginal curve for higher levels of income. So I suspect that once again the author is using sleight-of-hand and referring to long term capital gains rates, which the 'rich' are likely to have more of. But this rate applies to everybody, not just the wealthy as the article is implying. Should it be policy to punish a rich guy if he happens to have more investments that qualify for these rates than a middle class guy? And as discussed in another article, the long term capital gains rate exists for a reason. Investments involve an aspect of risk - you can lose money. It's not like just showing up for work and collecting a paycheck. And generally long-term capital gains come from investing in a venture that creates jobs for other people, which should be encouraged.

If you didn't catch it from the front, well, the article leaves you with a biased tone towards the end. You should note that this is an opinion article (See 'Commentary' at the top), and given his previous writings it is clear he is just another populist.

Hey, as it would turn out, that same politician written about below owes 300k in unpaid back taxes on her plane. Well what'dya know.