Monday, January 31, 2011
Saturday, January 29, 2011
Friday, January 28, 2011
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
If Only The Palins And The Chuas Had Gone Camping…. | Conservatives4Palin
If Only The Palins And The Chuas Had Gone Camping…. | Conservatives4Palin
David Riddick on the superiority of Chinese mothers sensation.
David Riddick on the superiority of Chinese mothers sensation.
Monday, January 24, 2011
Friday, January 21, 2011
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
2 Authentic Problems with the Fair Tax
RealClearPolitics - Video - Neal Boortz Explains The Fair Tax
Judging from the Eric Bolling video, I think its fair to say that Neil Boortz has not thought through the issue of a wartime need for government funds and how to handle it. To be fair though, all tax reform has that same issue to think through.
Obviously most criticism of the Fair Tax is unfair. I'm totally on the side of my tax reform brethren, like Boortz, on all the unfair stuff that is lobbed at them from the protectors of big government.
But at some point there has to be some thought that goes into the post-tax-reform period. Yes it would be permanently pro-growth but then so would the Laffer-Moore Flat tax.
I would respectfully argue that there are two authentic problems with the Fair Tax when compared with a low [13%] flat tax:
If you compared an average rich person to an average middle class person you would find that by far the rich person spends a smaller part of his total income than the average middle class person, who generally has to struggle not to spend all of it. This would mean that the average middle class person will bear the weight of the government more than the average rich person when you look at it from a fraction of yearly income standpoint. And it would be even worse from a wealth standpoint, since the rich spend an even smaller percent of their wealth. In the bigger sense you could look at the yearly total of government tax receipts. The middle class would bear the burden in this snapshot too.
Conversely, whenever we have flattened the tax rates the rich have significantly increased their share of that final total of government tax receipts. And it's because they have freed up their money and taken risks with it and profited from their risks so that a low tax on their increased income brings in more revenue than in our current punish the rich system. I'm glad that the Fair Tax is not a punish success tax system.
But I would respectfully say that the regressiveness of the Fair Tax, even though it would shield the poor from this problem, would be a huge problem politically. The middle class would not be shielded. And why is that "fair"? This problem would be true even with all its pro-growth realities coming to bear, while the flat tax would have the political virtue of yearly pools of tax revenue being permanently weighted toward the upper incomes. Why is that "unfair"? Actually to me the flat tax is more authentically fair than the fair tax.
To raise taxes in a national emergency, and this might be one solution for Boortz and the Fair Tax as well, would be to go into the kind of wartime debt we took on during WWII. That is certainly preferable to losing a serious war.
Judging from the Eric Bolling video, I think its fair to say that Neil Boortz has not thought through the issue of a wartime need for government funds and how to handle it. To be fair though, all tax reform has that same issue to think through.
Obviously most criticism of the Fair Tax is unfair. I'm totally on the side of my tax reform brethren, like Boortz, on all the unfair stuff that is lobbed at them from the protectors of big government.
But at some point there has to be some thought that goes into the post-tax-reform period. Yes it would be permanently pro-growth but then so would the Laffer-Moore Flat tax.
I would respectfully argue that there are two authentic problems with the Fair Tax when compared with a low [13%] flat tax:
#1 When compared with the flat tax it is less amenable to the ups and downs of the business cycle. The fair tax would be great in times of strong and good growth, but it would be unfair to retailers during slumps. (Even granting that there would be less recession after strong tax reform kicks in.) Obviously there were recessions in the 1800's when there were no income taxes.
#2 When compared with a flat tax the Fair Tax is a regressive tax on the middle class. This is a huge deal! The middle class would be stuck with the bill for our government. Unfairly so.
If you compared an average rich person to an average middle class person you would find that by far the rich person spends a smaller part of his total income than the average middle class person, who generally has to struggle not to spend all of it. This would mean that the average middle class person will bear the weight of the government more than the average rich person when you look at it from a fraction of yearly income standpoint. And it would be even worse from a wealth standpoint, since the rich spend an even smaller percent of their wealth. In the bigger sense you could look at the yearly total of government tax receipts. The middle class would bear the burden in this snapshot too.
Conversely, whenever we have flattened the tax rates the rich have significantly increased their share of that final total of government tax receipts. And it's because they have freed up their money and taken risks with it and profited from their risks so that a low tax on their increased income brings in more revenue than in our current punish the rich system. I'm glad that the Fair Tax is not a punish success tax system.
But I would respectfully say that the regressiveness of the Fair Tax, even though it would shield the poor from this problem, would be a huge problem politically. The middle class would not be shielded. And why is that "fair"? This problem would be true even with all its pro-growth realities coming to bear, while the flat tax would have the political virtue of yearly pools of tax revenue being permanently weighted toward the upper incomes. Why is that "unfair"? Actually to me the flat tax is more authentically fair than the fair tax.
To raise taxes in a national emergency, and this might be one solution for Boortz and the Fair Tax as well, would be to go into the kind of wartime debt we took on during WWII. That is certainly preferable to losing a serious war.
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
More Fuller...
From the New York Post:
Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/docs_upgrade_gabby_condition_LZ3Z2FWj75oEr26HpCeAdI#ixzz1BRNwxY8s
James Eric Fuller, 63, who was shot in the knee, had told The Post on Friday, the day before his arrest, that top Republican figures should be tortured -- and their ears severed.
"There would be torture and then an ear necklace, with [Minnesota US Rep.] Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin's ears toward the end, because they're small, female ears, and then Limbaugh, Hannity and the biggest ears of all, Cheney's, in the center," Fuller said.
Also on Friday, Fuller stopped by the home of gunman Jared Lee Loughner and told a neighbor he was going to forgive the shooter, The Associated Press said.
Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/docs_upgrade_gabby_condition_LZ3Z2FWj75oEr26HpCeAdI#ixzz1BRNwxY8s
Monday, January 17, 2011
Sunday, January 16, 2011
Saturday, January 15, 2011
Exacting insight from young Dutch libertarian
Palin In Action, from the blog, Right Across The Atlantic, by Michael van der Galien:
After she – and other prominent conservatives – were blamed for the horrendous tragedy in Arizona, former Governor of Alaska Sarah Palin clouded herself in silence for a few days, after which she came back with avengeance. She released a video in which she took on the mainstream media and leftist activists (but I’m repeating myself) for playing dirty games; for literally using the horrific deaths of six innocent people to further their agenda.
Watch the video:
Sarah Palin: “America’s Enduring Strength” from Sarah Palin on Vimeo.
It goes without saying that Palin is right. Leftists condemned conservatives in general for the shooting before we even knew the slightest thing about Jared Lee Loughner’s political views. Once more information surfaced about his background, it became clear that he is simply insane. Politics had nothing to do with his terrible crime. Of course that inconvenient fact did not prevent leftists from lashing out at, especially, Palin time and again. They had found a new political weapon, and they were determined to use it for all its worth.
Palin waited a few days, but when she finally came out, she did so blasting. She blasted the media and her other leftist critics, and had no qualms accusing them of ‘blood libel.’ While the Left will undoubtedly hate her for it, she has the truth on her side. Progressives’ reaction to the Arizona shooting was nauseating.
What’s more intriguing about this whole affair than the Left’s reaction, however, is Palin’s response to the ‘blood libel.’ Some advisers undoubtedly told her to keep her mouth shut, to let this one go. But that’s not Palin’s style. No. She’s a self-styled momma grizzly. Although it’s easy to make fun of this term, the fact of the matter is that she does embody the grizzly-attitude. She fears nothing. When cornered, she lashes out. She plays offense at all times, not just when so-called ‘experts’ think it’s convenient. And big pappa grizzlies don’t impress her one bit. She’s determined to protect her cubs – whether they’d be her own career, her ideals, her policy views, her children, or her allies – against all cost. And that’s precisely what makes her so dangerous to the left.
Palin’s distinct approach to politics is “Palinism.” To me, it’s basically a libertarian conservative world view, combined with an aggressive strategy to win elections and shape the general tone of the debate. Although some more careful – and fearful – conservatives may not like it, Palin’s combination is the way forward; at least for her.
Although I have a record of criticizing Palin, I’ve come to respect her tremendously in recent months. The more she says and writes, the more impressed I am by her character, fearlessness, political intelligence and strategy. This is one dangerous lady – if you oppose her agenda, that is.
I’m not ready yet to (prematurely) endorse any candidate for president, but Palin certainly is at, or near, the top of my list. Conservatives need her desperately; other politicos are too afraid of the mainstream media to fight back, but not Palin. Unlike any other conservative politician, she’s able to set the tone of the debate. Even those who are right-of-center and who do not support the governor’s ambitions, have to admit that she has a vital role to play in the conservative movement. To silence her – because you consider her ‘too divisive’ – is not just ludicrous, but potentially dangerous. After all, who else is willing and able to take on the left and its dirty games?
h/t Hot Air.
Check out van der Galien's blog.
Watch the video:
Sarah Palin: “America’s Enduring Strength” from Sarah Palin on Vimeo.
It goes without saying that Palin is right. Leftists condemned conservatives in general for the shooting before we even knew the slightest thing about Jared Lee Loughner’s political views. Once more information surfaced about his background, it became clear that he is simply insane. Politics had nothing to do with his terrible crime. Of course that inconvenient fact did not prevent leftists from lashing out at, especially, Palin time and again. They had found a new political weapon, and they were determined to use it for all its worth.
Palin waited a few days, but when she finally came out, she did so blasting. She blasted the media and her other leftist critics, and had no qualms accusing them of ‘blood libel.’ While the Left will undoubtedly hate her for it, she has the truth on her side. Progressives’ reaction to the Arizona shooting was nauseating.
What’s more intriguing about this whole affair than the Left’s reaction, however, is Palin’s response to the ‘blood libel.’ Some advisers undoubtedly told her to keep her mouth shut, to let this one go. But that’s not Palin’s style. No. She’s a self-styled momma grizzly. Although it’s easy to make fun of this term, the fact of the matter is that she does embody the grizzly-attitude. She fears nothing. When cornered, she lashes out. She plays offense at all times, not just when so-called ‘experts’ think it’s convenient. And big pappa grizzlies don’t impress her one bit. She’s determined to protect her cubs – whether they’d be her own career, her ideals, her policy views, her children, or her allies – against all cost. And that’s precisely what makes her so dangerous to the left.
Palin’s distinct approach to politics is “Palinism.” To me, it’s basically a libertarian conservative world view, combined with an aggressive strategy to win elections and shape the general tone of the debate. Although some more careful – and fearful – conservatives may not like it, Palin’s combination is the way forward; at least for her.
Although I have a record of criticizing Palin, I’ve come to respect her tremendously in recent months. The more she says and writes, the more impressed I am by her character, fearlessness, political intelligence and strategy. This is one dangerous lady – if you oppose her agenda, that is.
I’m not ready yet to (prematurely) endorse any candidate for president, but Palin certainly is at, or near, the top of my list. Conservatives need her desperately; other politicos are too afraid of the mainstream media to fight back, but not Palin. Unlike any other conservative politician, she’s able to set the tone of the debate. Even those who are right-of-center and who do not support the governor’s ambitions, have to admit that she has a vital role to play in the conservative movement. To silence her – because you consider her ‘too divisive’ – is not just ludicrous, but potentially dangerous. After all, who else is willing and able to take on the left and its dirty games?
h/t Hot Air.
Check out van der Galien's blog.
Friday, January 14, 2011
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Franklin Graham Statement
I have been shocked at the reports from those suggesting that former Governor Sarah Palin has some level of responsibility for the horrific shootings in Arizona. I got to know Governor Palin when she served as Governor of Alaska. She was extremely helpful to Samaritan’s Purse in providing relief to remote villages throughout the state. Most recently, she and members of her family traveled with me to Haiti where we visited cholera clinics, temporary shelter communities, and participated in an Operation Christmas Child distribution. She is a kind and compassionate God-fearing woman who believes with all her heart that Jesus Christ is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Whether you agree with her politics or not, it is outrageous to suggest that her political opinions encourage violence toward anyone. This is a time for mourning and prayer for the victims and their families.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Monday, January 10, 2011
Friday, January 7, 2011
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)