Thursday, April 29, 2010

“… ‘til there are no poor no mo’….”

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=531278

Maurice,

Interesting article. I was shocked when I heard the news a while back

that more than 50% of Americans don't pay taxes. That just isn't fair.

While I'm all for making sure the rich don't take advantage of the poor,

I'm also against the poor taking advantage of the rich.

With the EIC, the child tax credit, the additional child tax credit, and

all the other tax credits for various financial decisions (like buying

an alternate fuel vehicle), we have seriously eroded our tax base. I

think we should scrap the whole tax code and just have a flat tax. No

exemptions, no credits. Just a flat tax based on your income/profit. Any

money that comes in qualifies as income, including inheritance. And no

corporation tax. Just tax the individuals when they get distributions

from the corporation (i.e., salary, dividends, etc.)

If we had a flat tax, it would be lower for everyone. I just want to

make sure that both the rich and the poor pay their fair share. Using

the tax law to incent various personal/business behaviors or to help out

people who need a leg up isn't what tax is for. If we need other

safety-net programs to help people rejoin the economy, we should make

those programs tailored to the individual issues in a way that builds

self-sufficiency. But to just send out blanket tax credits is

counter-productive.

Perhaps if all the single parents out there didn't have access to the

EIC, etc., they wouldn't be so lax about being single. They would see

marriage as a financial necessity like it used to be.

---


 

Tim

Glad you enjoyed it.

I am a Fair Tax man myself. It makes no sense taxing labor productivity. 

Who are the poor and how do the rich take advantage of them?

I don't have a negative view of the rich. They drive industry and econ growth. That's an advantage to 'the poor'.

The erosion of our tax base is purposeful redistribution.

Two quotes I like to keep in mind from Alexis De Tocqueville:

"A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury."

This is 'the poor' taking advantage of the rich. Something conservatives in politics are always working against and they're always demonized for it. 

"The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money."

Stimulus, 'Free' Healthcare, 'Free' Tuition, subsidized agricultural products and fuel etc. When everything becomes a constitutional right, well then....

Other safety-net programs were custom tailored to specific situations, individuals and families. They were called extended families, neighbors and Churches... Government is tearing at that fabric of society. It's a harsh reality, but what builds more self-sufficiency than the threat of starvation?

Yes, tax credits are counterproductive as is all government directed welfare.

The cultural relativism that children don't need both a mother and a father, and the idea that government provides more effectively and efficiently than the nuclear family for the needs of humanity, is the biggest reason for the size and scope of the federal government. 

From Wikipedia:

Slouching Towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline is a 1996 book by former United States Court of Appeals
judge
Robert H. Bork. Bork's thesis in the book is that American and more generally Western
culture is in a state of decline and that the cause of this decline is modern liberalism and the rise of the New Left. Specifically, he attacks modern liberalism for what he describes as its dual emphases on radical egalitarianism and radical individualism. The title of the book is a play on the last couplet of W. B. Yeats's poem The Second Coming: "And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, / Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?" Bork contends that the "rough beast of decadence … now sends us slouching towards our new home, not Bethlehem but Gomorrah."

Bork first traces the rapid expansion of modern liberalism that occurred during the Sixties, arguing that this legacy of radicalism demonstrates that the precepts of modern liberalism are antithetical to the rest of the American political tradition. He then attacks a variety of social, cultural, and political experiences as evidence of American cultural decline and degeneracy. Among these are affirmative action, increased violence in and sexualization of mass media, the legalization of abortion, pressure to legalize assisted suicide and euthanasia, feminism and the decline of religion. Bork, himself a rejected nominee of President Ronald Reagan to the United States Supreme Court, also criticizes that institution and argues that the judiciary and liberal judicial activism are catalysts for American cultural corruption.

In this light, Bork advocates an amendment to the United States Constitution which would allow Congressional supermajorities to override Supreme Court decisions.

Thursday, April 22, 2010

Tiresome Distortions

I was asked by the father of a young man, a U of U student in Comparative Cultures, to read the Bob Herbert Column below from the New York Times and comment.

Yeah… young, impressionable college students with no real world experience really go in for the inflammatory rhetoric, but you?


 

Bob's pejorative is juvenile and much more severe than what he is accusing the right of. This man is not a journalist. He gets air time because he can expertly turn a phrase, incite racist sentiment and indict Republicans without a modicum of honest guilt. His world, like Jesse Jackson Jr.'s and Rev. Al Sharpton's, is not necessarily black and white, but black vs. white. His columns and the profligate diatribes of others at The NYT are a big reason why it is no longer relevant.


 

Though I have not seen the video, it would be unfortunate that the older man with Parkinson's would be taunted in the way Herbert describes. I'm sure if you asked a thousand Republicans, including me, we'd tell you that teasing on account of disability is shameless behavior.


 

However, I've found no accounts of physical violence of any kind during Tea Party rallies. A far cry from the recent 'mishap' perpetrated by anti-GOPers in New Orleans just two weekends past. Perhaps this was fueled by The New York Times's "insane, nauseating, nonstop commitment to hatred and bigotry"?


 

If you can't bother to follow the link, here is the Headline: Republican Activist and Friend Savagely Beaten in New Orleans. They were mobbed by anti-Republican protestors outside of a restaurant on Friday after attending a GOP fundraiser.


 

Shameful that Bob Herbert didn't bother to comment on the real classless violence of his own party. Nor did The NYT, NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, MSNBC etc., it simply wasn't news worthy. Their focus is on making the Republicans out to be racists so they can sequester the minority vote and, it appears, the college student vote.


 

Appalling you say? But it's par for the course for Republicans, snubbed by the media again.


 

Examples abound of this type of violent behavior from leftwing protestors. Have you forgotten? Show me one incidence where 'Tea Party Radicals' behaved so abhorrently. C'mon, conservatives are fathers and mothers with bills to pay and mouths to feed. Jail time causes real problems for them.


 

Finally, let me dispel a few of Herbert's assertions. Andrew Breitbart is offering cash to anyone who has a recording - video, audio or otherwise - of the N'word, other "racial slurs" or "the vilest of epithets" Herbert purports to have been shouted during the CBC's brazen parade through the Tea Party rally. So far no one has come forward to claim the prize. You'd think with more than a few TV cameras, personal video cameras, and what, thousands of cell phones, someone would have something on someone. (Crickets)


 

Too, video has been circulating on the real news network, Fox, of the spitting incident. It clearly shows a protestor shouting from a rope-line at congressman Cleaver, but even Cleaver now admits that it was likely an accident.


 

Lastly, I know your 8th grade history teacher and textbook didn't bother reporting it to you this way, and we're all supposed to believe it was John Kennedy and the 'Demoncats' who gave blacks their civil rights, but you see, it was the segregationist Democrats in the south who stalled the bill for weeks with a filibuster. And Kennedy was lukewarm on the issue throughout his campaign for president.


 

History, often spun by progressive academicians (Democrats), isn't always what it seems. However, a look at the numbers reveals more than what the average public high school graduate has been led to believe. Regarding The Civil Rights Act, it was the Republicans, as a percentage of the seats held in the Senate and House, who overwhelmingly embarrassed the Democrats to pass the legislation. I'll break it down for you:


 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

The original House version:[9]

  • Democratic Party: 152-96   (61%-39%)
  • Republican Party: 138-34   (80%-20%)

Cloture in the Senate:[10]

  • Democratic Party: 44-23   (66%-34%)
  • Republican Party: 27-6   (82%-18%)

The Senate version:[9]

  • Democratic Party: 46-21   (69%-31%)
  • Republican Party: 27-6   (82%-18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:[9]

  • Democratic Party: 153-91   (63%-37%)
  • Republican Party: 136-35   (80%-20%)

*History 101 – Republicans freed the slaves while the Dem's fought to hold them, and then showed overwhelming support for their 'equal rights.' The Dems, especially those in the south, including Al Gore Sr. … not so much.

Bob Herbert is an irresponsible firebrand who counts on his reader's academic torpor and shiftless ignorance to rally to his cause. Those who really care about the Truth and unifying instead of dividing society, see Bob as the reckless malcontent he is.