This is too perfect! I hope you open this before the debate begins so that you can fully participate.
And thanks to LF for sending this to me.
This is too perfect! I hope you open this before the debate begins so that you can fully participate.
And thanks to LF for sending this to me.
The Democrat Party can always scream “Tax Cuts for the Rich” whenever anyone proposes a reduction in the number tax brackets or amount paid in each bracket. The reason is simplicity itself. If the top 10-20% pay nearly all federal income taxes, then it stands to reason that any tax cut will favor them in sheer dollars returned to their pockets (see below).
There are many ways to look at the data. One could look at the charts and say that the top 20% are getting 51% of the income and then scream “income inequality” – a favorite Democrat Party stratagem. Still, does anyone expect a truck driver (my father was a truck driver) to make as much income as a radiologist (I am a radiologist). I know that he didn’t and that he worked very hard to secure my opportunity to earn much more than he did.
If “equality” is one’s mantra, one would want the data to indicate that one’s “share of total income” should “equal” one’s “share of the federal income taxes paid.” If that is the comparison, then the rich are really getting screwed
If you believe our tax code is a seven headed hydra that must be reformed because it squashes incentives to earn and invest (as I do) then the only question is, “How do we do it?”
I like Trump’s tax plan. It helps everyone and stimulates growth and job production. Below is an analysis by the National Center for Policy Analysis. As I noted, this can’t be done without top earners benefitting the most.
[Source: Trump’s Tax Plan Will Benefit All Income Groups, But the Most Benefits will Accrue to the Top Half of Income Earners, by Pamela Villarreal]
Presidential candidate Donald Trump has proposed a number of tax reforms in order to reduce tax burdens, simplify the tax code and boost economic growth.
Table I shows the amount of tax paid per person in each income decile. The effect of the Trump plan would be to lower taxes for every group. Averaged over the ten deciles, the tax burden would fall by 20.2 percent, with lower proportionate reductions in the lower-to-middle income deciles and higher than average proportionate cuts at the two ends of the income distribution. The reductions would be modest for the lowest quintiles in terms of dollar amounts, but those in the top half of the income distribution would receive an average tax break of $1,000 per person.
While these tax cuts (in dollars) tilt heavily toward the rich, it is important to note that the bottom two income groups would experience the largest percentage change in taxes paid. The tax burden for the poorest 10 percent would fall 150 percent, and the burden for the second poorest group would fall 375 percent!
,,, In terms of broadly measured income (includes adjusted gross income and then adds some tax-exempt sources of income and employer contributions to health insurance, among other adjustments):
So there you have it. It is my opinion that the Tax Code must be revised to stimulate growth. It can’t be done without top earners gaining the most. This is due to 60 years of Democrats “taxing the rich disproportionately.” However, under the Trump Plan, the poor get the greatest percentage benefit, if not the largest dollar benefit.
These posters should give one pause… especially if you are of voting age.
And thanks to JM for sending these to me.
The following graph is more than a little disquieting.
[Source: Russia’s New Missile Means the Nuclear Arms Race Is Back On, by David Axe]
Moscow’s arsenal of roughly 7,000 atomic weapons—1,800 of which are on high alert—and America’s own, slightly smaller arsenal—again, only 1,800 of which are ready to fire at any given time—plus the approximately 1,000 warheads that the rest of the world’s nuclear powers possess are, together, more than adequate to kill every human being on Earth as well as most other forms of life…
After decades of steady disarmament, the United States and Russia are pouring tens of billions of dollars into building new and more capable nuclear weaponry that experts agree neither country needs, nor can afford… The post-Cold War nuclear holiday is over.
Millennials have surpassed Baby Boomers as the nation’s largest living generation, according to population estimates released this month by the U.S. Census Bureau. Most of them have never heard of the Cold War and, if the have, know it only as an historical footnote. They won’t be happy as it rekindles.
I point the finger at Mr. Obama’s weak foreign policy. And who helped to design the “reset” with Russia? You know! Do not let Hillary be a continuation of the “Obama legacy.”
One hundred and sixteen days and counting!
And thanks to PK for sending the graph.
Enjoy. The last one brings a twinge to my old heart.
And if you saw my earlier post from today I think Zach Galifianakis had best make a contribution to the Clinton Foundation post haste!
Hillary is supposed to be the most “handled” candidate in all of US political history. So, how is it that her handlers allowed her to schedule this interview on “Between Two Ferns With Zach Galifianakis.” It appears it didn’t go as well as they hoped.
I saw snippets of the interview below on the news, but fast forwarded through them because I suspected the usual left-wing media fawning. I was quite wrong.
But what I would like you to do is to look into Hillary’s eyes as the interview progresses. If that isn’t “murder” I don’t know what is!
And thanks to MW for sending this to me.
You may be a Trump fan or a #NeverTrumper. You may be for “comprehensive” immigration reform or against immigration of any kind. It doesn’t matter. We should build “The Wall.”
If you are anti-immigrant, then I do not need to convince you that we should build “The Wall.” You already understand that border integrity is essential to your designs.
[Source: Build the wall, by Robert J. Samuelson]
But let’s assume for the moment that you are for “comprehensive immigration reform” (even with a path to citizenship). The best way to get a majority in Congress to agree to it is to start by building “The Wall.”
There are those that say, “It would be a monstrosity.” The Chinese built a wall largely for border security purposes. That “Wall” is now referred to as “Great.” The Chinese wall stretches from Dangdong in the east to Lop Lake in the west. A comprehensive archaeological survey, using advanced technologies, has concluded that the wall measures 5,500 mi. The US border with Mexico measures only 1989 mi. The Chinese wall is made up of 3,889 mi sections of actual wall, 223 mi of trenches and 1,387 mi of natural defensive barriers such as hills and rivers. So, if we build “The Wall” and wait a few thousand years perhaps they will call our wall “Great,” as well.
There are those that say, “It would be too expensive.” Mr. Trump has stated that the cost would be $8 billion. However, a detailed analysis by AllianceBernstein, a research firm, estimates the cost at between $15 – 25 billion. That is a significant difference, but even the top estimate is a piddling amount in a federal budget of $3.8 trillion (0.01%). This year alone we will spend $1,000 billion on means-tested programs. We might not need to spend that much if we had “The Wall!”
Mr. Trump says he will make the Mexican government pay for “The Wall.” The progressive/statist/altruists laugh heartily and the President of Mexico says, “Never!” But Mr. Trump knows that Mexico receives more than $24 billion in remittances every year from immigrants living in the United States. That makes up about two percent of the Mexican GDP, according to World Bank data. Losing that money could devastate the country’s economy. I like Mr. Trump’s position better than the Mexican position.
If you favor “Comprehensive Immigration Reform,” the best route to passage comes “ATW,” not “BTW.” (ATW – After The Wall; BTW – Before The Wall). You may love or hate Charles Krauthammer, but his logic strikes me as unassailable:
In the hands of someone serious, a wall could be a catalyst for a comprehensive overhaul of U.S. immigration policy. “It’s hard to understand opposition [to a wall]. It’s the most venerable and reliable way to keep people out.” He argued correctly that the outlines of a deal have long been apparent. It would:
Immigration and Naturalization Service workers have been instructed to hurry as many people through the citizenship process as possible during this election year. Is it any wonder that conservatives hate this administration?
My friends, whether you are pro or con on Mr. Trump, logic dictates that we build “The Wall.”
The media have pilloried Donald Trump at every opportunity. When they don’t have an opportunity, they just make one up. I’m sure it will come as no surprise that Trump is accused of making racist comments.
Wasn’t it Trump that used the phrase, “working, hard-working Americans, white Americans” as if there were no “hard-working black, Hispanic or Asian Americans? No. It turns out that phrase was used by Hillary Clinton!
Wasn’t it Trump that said Barack Obama was a “light-skinned African American with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.” No. It turns out that phrase was used by Harry Reid!
Wasn’t it Trump who referred to Barack Obama as the “first mainstream African American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.” No. It turns out that phrase was used by Joe Biden.
Barack Obama said this of the woman who raised him and scrimped and saved to send him through college: She was a “typical white person.”
The duplicity of the left-wing media is breathtaking. I have said many times that this presidential race has no prior race to compare. The Americans who are fed up with Washington and the elites of both parties have reached the point that Howard Beale (played by Peter Finch in the Academy Award Winning movie “Network”) reached. They are “mad as hell and they are not going to take it anymore.” The pundits and the media can say whatever they want. These Americans will not be deterred. And if this is not the election that brings Washington primacy to an end, it will be the next one!
[Source: Never NeverTrump. The Republican dilemma. By Victor Davis Hanson]
The only way that the left-wing media will come to the conclusion that Hillary has a serious health problem:
As Obamacare slides inexorably toward oblivion we see the emergence of one of the old ploys that progressive/statist/altruists always use. What is that, ask you? They drag out their tried and true excuses for their failed centrist policies, answer I. See if you recognize any of them.
“We didn’t fund the program adequately.” (The War on Poverty was “funded” to the tune of $20 trillion, but that was “not enough.”)
“We didn’t make the penalties stringent enough.” (Dodd-Frank Act – “too big to fail” is still a looming disaster.)
“We needed to add (fill in the blank) to make it successful, but the “conservatives wouldn’t let us.” (Today, we fill in the blank with “the Public Option” for Obamacare.)
[Source: The “Public Option:” Obamacare’s final bailout, by John R. Graham]
Obamacare has never been wildly popular. The highest rating it ever achieved in the polls was in July 2010 when half of respondents voiced support for the law (no one had an Obamacare policy in 2010 – the first “open enrollment” was in November, 2013). Currently, 46 percent of those polled disapprove of the law while only 40 percent approve.
I have not been a member of the American Medical Association for a very long time. I quit the organization many years ago because it was nothing but a political surrogate for Washington policies. Here is a classic example. In a remarkable development, JAMA, the Journal of the American Medical Association, a peer-reviewed scholarly journal of the medical profession, published an advocacy piece for Obamacare by President Obama himself in August.
As even the liberal media is sounding the death knell for Obamacare, its Democrat proponents are trying to say that the “Public Option” must now be written into the law to save it. Remember that Obamacare was the only entitlement ever voted into law without bipartisan support – every Democrat voted for Obamacare (many after being either bribed or strong armed) and every Republican voted against it.
But the argument that “conservatives wouldn’t let us” put the Public Option into the bill in its original form would be a lie.
[From the Graham article] Hillary Clinton… also recently endorsed a public option. The public option is a throwback to Democratic health reform proposals before Obamacare. During the campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008, it was Senator Obama who proposed a public option and Senator Clinton who dismissed it as unworkable.
When it came time to legislate health reform in the wake of the Democratic wave election of 2008, Obama’s public option did not make it into the law. Keep this in mind: When they had the run of the table in the nation’s capital, controlling both houses of Congress and the White House, Democrats agreed the public option was unworkable. Now that Obamacare has creaked along for six years, both the President who signed the law and the woman he endorses to succeed him insist it is just the thing to fix Obamacare’s most obvious problem: Insurers dropping out of the health insurance exchanges, unable to profit even after increasing premiums by double digits every year.
Recall what most Americans believe to be the most offensive characteristic of Obamacare: It compels individuals, as a condition of residing in the United States, to buy health insurance. Health insurers are the only industry which has this privilege. Nevertheless, they have not been able to profit in Obamacare exchanges…
This will become the centerpiece for the Democrat counterargument when Mr. Trump finally gets around to Obamacare as a potent campaign issue. If Hillary is elected and the “Public Option” gets written into law, who will bear the risk? Taxpayers and their children, of course!
DO NOT VOTE FOR HILLARY CLINTON!