There is all this talk about Mitt Romney's taxes. Demands that he release his tax returns, to prove that he paid taxes. Make no mistake, everyone demanding his taxes be released knows he paid taxes. They just want everyone to see how much he made and how he took advantage of different deductions, adjustments and credits. I guess we're supposed to begrudge Mitt Romney for being smart and successful. I find it funny that it is coming from the guy who fought tooth and nail to avoid releasing his birth certificate and still hasn't released his college transcripts.
This is just more class warfare tactics. If Romney's taxes were questionable, the IRS would have been all over. That's what they do. So, if Romney's taxes were legal and let's say he paid $0 in taxes, what does that mean? Did he break the law? Is it illegal? Is it wrong? Does it make him "stingy?" Actually no.
In order for Mitt Romney to have a low tax rate, he would have to take advantage of certain deductions, adjustments and credits on his taxes. These "loopholes" are ways for the government to steer our behavior to get what government wants, and reward us with lower taxes. We are basically, helping the government and cutting government out as the middle man. Why should the government subsidize something when they can just encourage us to buy it? The government wants us to drive more fuel efficient cars? Boom. There's a loophole for that. Government wants us give to charity? Boom. There's a loophole for that. Solar panels on your house? Simply buying a house? Loopholes for those as well.
So why don't the rest of us get these? Short answer: we do. These loopholes are available to us all. The lesson you learn real quick is that the amount you need to donate to charity to max out that loophole is A LOT. The amount of medical expenses you need to rack up to max out that deduction is A LOT. Hybrids are more expensive. Solar panels are expensive. Buying a house is expensive. Student loans are expensive. If you were to legally take every loophole you could, you'd go broke.
Think about this. If I want to deduct healthcare expenses. In order to deduct that it has to be more than 7.5% of my AGI (it goes up to 10% as part of Barack's, "no middle class tax increases" line. Make no mistake, this is a tax increase on the middle class). If my AGI is $40,000 that means I have to have $3,001 in medical expenses to qualify. So let's say I rack up $6,001 in medical expenses. What does this loophole yield? $750. That's it. If I was just going for the loophole I spent $6,001 to get out of $750 in taxes. If I didn't need medical care, I'd just prefer to keep the six grand and pay the $750 in taxes.
At the end of the day, this issue has already been addressed.
From Judge Learned Hand, "Anyone may arrange his affairs so that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which best pays the treasury. There is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes. Over and over again the Courts have said that there is nothing sinister in so arranging affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everyone does it, rich and poor alike and all do right, for nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands."
And from the Supreme Court in Gregory v. Helvering, "The legal right of a taxpayer to decrease the amount of what otherwise would be his [or her] taxes, or altogether avoid them, by means which the law permits, cannot be doubted."
In other words, it is completely legal and OK to not pay taxes if you do so legally.
Saturday, August 18, 2012
Sunday, August 12, 2012
Hitler was a Dog Lover, or the Politics of Mutual Exclusion
Or perhaps I should call this, "How journalistic partisanship has ruined journalism." By extension it has ruined us.
In recent weeks we have had a series of high profile, tragic, shootings. There was the Colorado movie theater shooting and now the shooting at the Sikh temple in Wisconsin. I'm sure everyone knows the story. The thing that I find frustrating aside from the fact that these things happened anyway is the reporting.
If you've been paying attention, you've already heard it. If not, then I apologize for being late to the game. Within a couple of hours of the Aurora shooting, ABC's Brian Ross went on the air and said that James Holmes was a member of the TEA Party. Keep in mind that at that point we didn't even know the exact number of people murdered or injured, but Mr. Ross darn sure knew that the murderer was a TEA Party member. Of course this was false, and a backward pseudo-apology was issued.
This is not the only instance. Last year there was Jarrod Lee Loughner ran amok and shot several people, including Gabby Giffords. Shortly thereafter Politico ran this article all about how the DHS is investigating Loughner's "ties to a hate group" which turns out to be a website. They make sure to mention that:
"The feds are reportedly probing whether shooting suspect Jared Lee Loughner has ties to what they describe as an anti-Semitic, anti-government hate group that has ads for tea party organizations on its website."
How ominous. The two are obviously in bed with each other. It's obvious. That is if you are a child or an idiot. I find it hard to believe that someone with the level of education to write for a major publication doesn't understand how Internet ads work. Here's a quick primer, the ads you see on the Internet are based on a) keywords embedded by the webmaster to get the most amount of traffic; and b) the cached data on the visitor's computer.
It is almost certain that the journalist who wrote the article saw TEA Party ads on the site BECAUSE THEY WERE BROWSING FOR THE TEA PARTY!!! I'm willing to bet they were browsing for the TEA Party to find the very link that their browsing habits produced in the form of a targeted ad. It's a lock that their Google search bar holds the phrase, "jarrod lee loughner tea party." Just as Brian Ross's obviously contained, "james holmes tea party."
This sort of thing happens all the time. Whenever some madman goes on a killing spree there is a race to see if this this nutjob a righty or a lefty?
Now I am getting to the important part.
If some nutjob shoots up a bunch of people, or blows up a building, it doesn't matter if they are liberal or conservative, TEA Party or communist, Republican or Democrat. Nutjobs and their political alignment, group affiliations aren't mutually exclusive.
Why?
Hitler was a dog lover, that's why.
When someone tries to make these ties between really bad people and their political affiliation they are actually trying to say that political ideology is to blame. Another famous example is that serial killer John Wayne Gacy was a Democrat. Here he is hanging out with Roslynn Carter:
That absolutely does not mean that Jimmy Carter has dead boys buried in the rose garden of the White House.
So again, Hitler was a dog lover. By the line of thinking we have been exploring, that would mean that all dog lovers were genocidal maniacs.
Here is the most important part of what I am saying. If someone is trying to make that connection we are talking about... They are trying to pull the wool over your eyes. They are attempting to manipulate you.
So remember, the next time someone tries to tell you that all Democrats are pervs because of Anthony Weiner; or because of Larry Craig, or some such. Be sure to tell them that Hitler was a dog lover.
In recent weeks we have had a series of high profile, tragic, shootings. There was the Colorado movie theater shooting and now the shooting at the Sikh temple in Wisconsin. I'm sure everyone knows the story. The thing that I find frustrating aside from the fact that these things happened anyway is the reporting.
If you've been paying attention, you've already heard it. If not, then I apologize for being late to the game. Within a couple of hours of the Aurora shooting, ABC's Brian Ross went on the air and said that James Holmes was a member of the TEA Party. Keep in mind that at that point we didn't even know the exact number of people murdered or injured, but Mr. Ross darn sure knew that the murderer was a TEA Party member. Of course this was false, and a backward pseudo-apology was issued.
This is not the only instance. Last year there was Jarrod Lee Loughner ran amok and shot several people, including Gabby Giffords. Shortly thereafter Politico ran this article all about how the DHS is investigating Loughner's "ties to a hate group" which turns out to be a website. They make sure to mention that:
"The feds are reportedly probing whether shooting suspect Jared Lee Loughner has ties to what they describe as an anti-Semitic, anti-government hate group that has ads for tea party organizations on its website."
How ominous. The two are obviously in bed with each other. It's obvious. That is if you are a child or an idiot. I find it hard to believe that someone with the level of education to write for a major publication doesn't understand how Internet ads work. Here's a quick primer, the ads you see on the Internet are based on a) keywords embedded by the webmaster to get the most amount of traffic; and b) the cached data on the visitor's computer.
It is almost certain that the journalist who wrote the article saw TEA Party ads on the site BECAUSE THEY WERE BROWSING FOR THE TEA PARTY!!! I'm willing to bet they were browsing for the TEA Party to find the very link that their browsing habits produced in the form of a targeted ad. It's a lock that their Google search bar holds the phrase, "jarrod lee loughner tea party." Just as Brian Ross's obviously contained, "james holmes tea party."
This sort of thing happens all the time. Whenever some madman goes on a killing spree there is a race to see if this this nutjob a righty or a lefty?
Now I am getting to the important part.
If some nutjob shoots up a bunch of people, or blows up a building, it doesn't matter if they are liberal or conservative, TEA Party or communist, Republican or Democrat. Nutjobs and their political alignment, group affiliations aren't mutually exclusive.
Why?
Hitler was a dog lover, that's why.
When someone tries to make these ties between really bad people and their political affiliation they are actually trying to say that political ideology is to blame. Another famous example is that serial killer John Wayne Gacy was a Democrat. Here he is hanging out with Roslynn Carter:
That absolutely does not mean that Jimmy Carter has dead boys buried in the rose garden of the White House.
So again, Hitler was a dog lover. By the line of thinking we have been exploring, that would mean that all dog lovers were genocidal maniacs.
Here is the most important part of what I am saying. If someone is trying to make that connection we are talking about... They are trying to pull the wool over your eyes. They are attempting to manipulate you.
So remember, the next time someone tries to tell you that all Democrats are pervs because of Anthony Weiner; or because of Larry Craig, or some such. Be sure to tell them that Hitler was a dog lover.
Saturday, August 4, 2012
The Great Chicken Debate - Part 1
As you may or may not have heard, apparently Chick-Fil-A hates gay people. Actually, that’s not true at all, despite what you may have heard. Where does all this controversy come from? Dan Cathy made the following statement to the Bapist Press:
“We are very much supportive or the family -- the biblical definition or the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.”
Someone please tell me how that is an anti-gay, well, anything? He is not bashing homosexuality, he’s not attacking anybody. He is merely voicing his support for the idea of one man/woman marriage without divorce. Where’s the problem with that? Where is the intolerance? I’ll tell you where the intolerance is in just a second.
What is Dan Cathy’s real sin? It’s his lack of tolerance. New tolerance, that is. In more reasonable times tolerance meant something different than it means today. In more reasonable times, tolerance meant that you “put up with” something that you didn’t necessarily agree with. You “you lived” with it, you dealt with it. Live and let live.
I am not a fan of wide brim baseball caps, I think they look stupid. However, when I see people wearing them I don’t go out of my way to tell them they look like a d-bag. I will not snatch it off their head and stomp it in the dirt. I tolerate it. When someone is driving under the speed limit, I either slow down or go around. In other words, I tolerate it. When my neighbor puts diarrhea brown siding on her house, I tolerate it. I don’t say crap, even if that is what it looks like.
Were I intolerant of these things, wide brim hats would be stomped, slow drivers run off the road and ugly siding ripped off houses.
But that does not fit in with the newspeak version of tolerance. Now tolerance is synonymous with advocate. Dan Cathy didn’t bash gays, he didn’t never even mentioned gays in his statement. But he failed to advocate homosexuality. His failure to properly promote and support gay marriage means that he is “intolerant.”
As a result, the “tolerant” crowd have made themselves known by harassing, slandering and attempting to bankrupt, not only Chick-Fil-A but their employees as well. Who’s intolerant again?
“We are very much supportive or the family -- the biblical definition or the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that.”
Someone please tell me how that is an anti-gay, well, anything? He is not bashing homosexuality, he’s not attacking anybody. He is merely voicing his support for the idea of one man/woman marriage without divorce. Where’s the problem with that? Where is the intolerance? I’ll tell you where the intolerance is in just a second.
What is Dan Cathy’s real sin? It’s his lack of tolerance. New tolerance, that is. In more reasonable times tolerance meant something different than it means today. In more reasonable times, tolerance meant that you “put up with” something that you didn’t necessarily agree with. You “you lived” with it, you dealt with it. Live and let live.
I am not a fan of wide brim baseball caps, I think they look stupid. However, when I see people wearing them I don’t go out of my way to tell them they look like a d-bag. I will not snatch it off their head and stomp it in the dirt. I tolerate it. When someone is driving under the speed limit, I either slow down or go around. In other words, I tolerate it. When my neighbor puts diarrhea brown siding on her house, I tolerate it. I don’t say crap, even if that is what it looks like.
Were I intolerant of these things, wide brim hats would be stomped, slow drivers run off the road and ugly siding ripped off houses.
But that does not fit in with the newspeak version of tolerance. Now tolerance is synonymous with advocate. Dan Cathy didn’t bash gays, he didn’t never even mentioned gays in his statement. But he failed to advocate homosexuality. His failure to properly promote and support gay marriage means that he is “intolerant.”
As a result, the “tolerant” crowd have made themselves known by harassing, slandering and attempting to bankrupt, not only Chick-Fil-A but their employees as well. Who’s intolerant again?
Friday, August 19, 2011
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
This shows what happens to minorities who don't tow the line.
"Know your enemies..." That is what Sun-Tzu once said. There are few more wise statements. If there is one thing that I know about the Democrat Party and Liberals it is this: They play the race card and they play it often. There is good reason for this, it is effective. Being called a racist is a charge that's weight alone is enough to finish someone off regardless of the facts. If you tell the big lie enough it becomes the truth.
However, something I have contended for a long time is that Liberals are in fact the racists in this country. They are obsessed with it. From the time Obama started running for President (AKA, his Senate career) any and all criticism of Obama has been labelled 'racist.' Don't like Obama's take over of the auto industry? Racist. Don't like Obama's 400% increase in spending over W's? Racist. Ad nauseum. Keith Olbermann's rant where he asked the Tea Party, "how many black people do you see?" is not a fluke. I've talked to several liberals and they are ALL taking racial inventory. Race really does matter to these people. It is of the utmost importance, ahead of silly things like merit and ideas.
Please have a look at Les Phillip's ad for Congress:
I love the ad, but, "...and they're not going to call me a racist."???
Les, that's what they do. You criticized Obama. It can't be anything other than you are a racist, right? That was the immediate response swirling around in my head. However, I know my enemy. I knew that something darker and more disgusting was going to come forth from the Left. I found this at Wonkette.com.
Not only do they play the "he's a racist card", arguably tongue-in-cheek. But, check out the comment section. Count the use of "Uncle Tom" and other slurs. This is rule numero dos of the Democrat race playbook. If a minority espouses anything but adoration for the Democrat Party and Liberalism, let it loose. In the eyes of the Left the fact that Les Phillip is not even a black man at all.
The Left gets so angry when minorities dare to have their own political beliefs and it is not Liberal that they show who they really are and how they really feel. Perhaps this is a fluke? I'll go ahead and let you bask in some Liberal artwork directed at Michael Steele and Ken Blackwell.
If you are a minority reading this and think those images are OK because you disagree with these mens' political leanings please think real hard about who has REALLY sold out.
However, something I have contended for a long time is that Liberals are in fact the racists in this country. They are obsessed with it. From the time Obama started running for President (AKA, his Senate career) any and all criticism of Obama has been labelled 'racist.' Don't like Obama's take over of the auto industry? Racist. Don't like Obama's 400% increase in spending over W's? Racist. Ad nauseum. Keith Olbermann's rant where he asked the Tea Party, "how many black people do you see?" is not a fluke. I've talked to several liberals and they are ALL taking racial inventory. Race really does matter to these people. It is of the utmost importance, ahead of silly things like merit and ideas.
Please have a look at Les Phillip's ad for Congress:
I love the ad, but, "...and they're not going to call me a racist."???
Les, that's what they do. You criticized Obama. It can't be anything other than you are a racist, right? That was the immediate response swirling around in my head. However, I know my enemy. I knew that something darker and more disgusting was going to come forth from the Left. I found this at Wonkette.com.
Not only do they play the "he's a racist card", arguably tongue-in-cheek. But, check out the comment section. Count the use of "Uncle Tom" and other slurs. This is rule numero dos of the Democrat race playbook. If a minority espouses anything but adoration for the Democrat Party and Liberalism, let it loose. In the eyes of the Left the fact that Les Phillip is not even a black man at all.
The Left gets so angry when minorities dare to have their own political beliefs and it is not Liberal that they show who they really are and how they really feel. Perhaps this is a fluke? I'll go ahead and let you bask in some Liberal artwork directed at Michael Steele and Ken Blackwell.
If you are a minority reading this and think those images are OK because you disagree with these mens' political leanings please think real hard about who has REALLY sold out.
Monday, March 22, 2010
It's not a pill, it's a supository.
Last night, the Democrat led House passed the Democrat Senate's take over of the American health care system. Betweenweighing in at around $1 Trillion, and knowing that no government entitlement EVER has stuck to a budget this thing could very well bankrupt the country. After it's passage, Obama stated the following, "We proved that this government — a government of the people and by the people — still works for the people."
Really? At the last count, 45% strongly opposed the bill while 24% strongly support it. Well more than half of the people oppose it in general.
Make no mistake, this was not done to cover more people with health insurance. This was done to control more of our lives and more of our economy. There were six ways from Sunday to expand coverage. This bill will not start dishing out benefits until 2013, meanwhile you get taxed for it now. This gives the illusion that it is budget neutral. In fact we will be Trillions in the hole. Another trick is that they are cutting Medicare by $500 Billion, then using it to fund the new bill TWICE!
Let's get to Bart Stupak. This is the guy who could have stopped this. Stupak ran with the ruse that he was pro-life. In the end he caved and threw pro-life overboard with Obama making an executive order that there would not be federal funding of abortion. Problem is, it's in the bill. The President cannot override legislation with an executive order. It was a sham. The myth of the pro-life Democrat has been shattered.
Republicans are vowing to fight the additional crap the Dems are trying to put in this bill. But the real fight change this starts with us. We have to remove the Democrats from power in November.
Really? At the last count, 45% strongly opposed the bill while 24% strongly support it. Well more than half of the people oppose it in general.
Make no mistake, this was not done to cover more people with health insurance. This was done to control more of our lives and more of our economy. There were six ways from Sunday to expand coverage. This bill will not start dishing out benefits until 2013, meanwhile you get taxed for it now. This gives the illusion that it is budget neutral. In fact we will be Trillions in the hole. Another trick is that they are cutting Medicare by $500 Billion, then using it to fund the new bill TWICE!
Let's get to Bart Stupak. This is the guy who could have stopped this. Stupak ran with the ruse that he was pro-life. In the end he caved and threw pro-life overboard with Obama making an executive order that there would not be federal funding of abortion. Problem is, it's in the bill. The President cannot override legislation with an executive order. It was a sham. The myth of the pro-life Democrat has been shattered.
Republicans are vowing to fight the additional crap the Dems are trying to put in this bill. But the real fight change this starts with us. We have to remove the Democrats from power in November.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
My letter to the Blue Dog Coaltion
It is obvious one of the only things that will keep the nightmare of "ObamaCare" from coming true is the Blue Dog Democrats. These congressmen and women purport to be fiscally conservative and have resisted thus far. I have written them the following email. I urge you to write them as well.
bluedog@mail.house.gov
"Good morning ladies and gentlemen,
I wanted to take this opportunity to contact regarding the current healthcare reform proposals that are working their way through Congress. I am urging you to vote no on any form of the current proposals. Last August, the citizens of the United States showed up in force to show their displeasure toward a large bloated healthcare reform proposal; and the sentiment has not changed.
The two proposals known as the "Baucus Bill" and the recent House bill unveiled by Speaker Pelosi are completely unacceptable for the following reasons:
1. Both of these are too expensive. Topping out around (or over) $1 Trillion neither of these bills are sustainable. Healthcare legislation in this form cannot be paid for without massive amounts of borrowing, skyrocketing taxes, or cutting funds to other necessary programs. Piling on huge amounts of debt will further weaken the US dollar. Additionally, excessive borrowing is one of the things that bottomed out Wall Street and helped make the current recession worse. The amount of taxes and fees associated with this will cripple the private sector of the economy, especially small businesses and their employees.
2. Too much government control over citizens' healthcare. Both of these bills show that there will literally be a government official involved in your healthcare from cradle to grave. I don't know anyone who wants the government to be a buffer between them and their doctors. I don't know anyone who wants a bureaucrat involved in their treatment plans. Additionally, this level of control by government will stifle medical research for new treatments.
3. This level of government involvement in healthcare will kill the private industry. Health insurance companies simply cannot compete with the government when the government is one making the rules and setting the prices. Doctors will have no negotiating power with the government as the government dictates to the doctors what they will pay. A congresswoman was caught on YouTube stating that a private insurer once said that this will kill their profits, and she gloated that he's "absolutely right." Does Congress not realize that by killing of private insurance companies that millions will be left without jobs? In the end there will be less competition, not more (as is promised.)
Make no mistake. The people of this country do not want this. Please don't think that just because you are not wading through a room full of angry constituents that we have forgotten about this issue; we have not. Please don't buy into the line that Republicans and people like myself don't want any reform. Nothing could be further from the truth.
If this were a matter of insuring the uninsured, that would not be such a big deal. However, the current proposals go far beyond that and do not touch on things that could really make a difference in the cost of healthcare. Things such as tort reform, there are good programs in Texas and Indiana. What about allowing interstate sale of health insurance? What about treating personally purchased health insurance with the same benefits as employer provided health insurance? What about allowing medications in from certain other countries?
Thank you for your time and consideration,"
bluedog@mail.house.gov
"Good morning ladies and gentlemen,
I wanted to take this opportunity to contact regarding the current healthcare reform proposals that are working their way through Congress. I am urging you to vote no on any form of the current proposals. Last August, the citizens of the United States showed up in force to show their displeasure toward a large bloated healthcare reform proposal; and the sentiment has not changed.
The two proposals known as the "Baucus Bill" and the recent House bill unveiled by Speaker Pelosi are completely unacceptable for the following reasons:
1. Both of these are too expensive. Topping out around (or over) $1 Trillion neither of these bills are sustainable. Healthcare legislation in this form cannot be paid for without massive amounts of borrowing, skyrocketing taxes, or cutting funds to other necessary programs. Piling on huge amounts of debt will further weaken the US dollar. Additionally, excessive borrowing is one of the things that bottomed out Wall Street and helped make the current recession worse. The amount of taxes and fees associated with this will cripple the private sector of the economy, especially small businesses and their employees.
2. Too much government control over citizens' healthcare. Both of these bills show that there will literally be a government official involved in your healthcare from cradle to grave. I don't know anyone who wants the government to be a buffer between them and their doctors. I don't know anyone who wants a bureaucrat involved in their treatment plans. Additionally, this level of control by government will stifle medical research for new treatments.
3. This level of government involvement in healthcare will kill the private industry. Health insurance companies simply cannot compete with the government when the government is one making the rules and setting the prices. Doctors will have no negotiating power with the government as the government dictates to the doctors what they will pay. A congresswoman was caught on YouTube stating that a private insurer once said that this will kill their profits, and she gloated that he's "absolutely right." Does Congress not realize that by killing of private insurance companies that millions will be left without jobs? In the end there will be less competition, not more (as is promised.)
Make no mistake. The people of this country do not want this. Please don't think that just because you are not wading through a room full of angry constituents that we have forgotten about this issue; we have not. Please don't buy into the line that Republicans and people like myself don't want any reform. Nothing could be further from the truth.
If this were a matter of insuring the uninsured, that would not be such a big deal. However, the current proposals go far beyond that and do not touch on things that could really make a difference in the cost of healthcare. Things such as tort reform, there are good programs in Texas and Indiana. What about allowing interstate sale of health insurance? What about treating personally purchased health insurance with the same benefits as employer provided health insurance? What about allowing medications in from certain other countries?
Thank you for your time and consideration,"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)