“… ‘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.

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.

Op-Ed Columnist:  An Absence of Class

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 8^th 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.

 

 

 

Find the Bias

This article by the BBC is clearly biased against Israel. Can you find the smoking gun?

Channeling Neville Chamberlain

September 30, 1938 Neville Chamberlain addressed the crowds at Heston Aerodrome with what is known as his "Peace in our Time" speech. Waving the Munich agreement he had signed with Hitler in which the Furor gave his word that he would not war with Britain, Chamberlain intoned:   "…This morning I had another talk with the German Chancellor, Herr Hitler, and here is the paper which bears his name upon it as well as mine. Some of you, perhaps, have already heard what it contains but I would just like to read it to you (Reads the agreement). We regard the agreement signed last night and the Anglo-German Naval Agreement, as symbolic of the desire of our two peoples never to go to war with one another again."

Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., announces he will vote to pass the health care reform bill after President Obama agreed to sign an executive order reaffirming the ban on the use of federal funds to provide abortions as the house prepares to vote on health care reform in the U.S. Capitol in Washington, Sunday, March 21, 2010. (AP Photo/Harry Hamburg)

American Welfare State

"The government has continually expanded the value of benefits such as the earned income tax credit to the point where you get a check from Uncle Sam even if you paid no taxes during the year. That's what made it so laughable when the administration claimed it was cutting taxes for most Americans when nearly 40% pay no taxes to start with. These are in essence welfare checks."

FDR Prolonged the Depression

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Policies-Prolonged-Depression-5409.aspx

The advent of the internet has given Truth an avenue broad and expeditious.

Within hours we are able to review the differing political opinions of both left and right and draw thoughtful, personal conclusions. What a blessing it is to have the clarity of free and open debate on such a grand scale. How better to distill truth than to have access to everyone's opinion; weigh objectivity, appraise rationality, atomize substance, assess relevance, and compare those opinions with raw data.

Why only now, nearly seven decades hence, are we, as a general public, gaining access to information dispelling the myth of the New Deal as the salvager of the depression era? Only now because we are able to bypass academia and the progressive episteme of the Keynesian epoch which says that government is the answer to the human condition.

"Two UCLA economists say they have figured out why the Great Depression dragged on for almost 15 years, and they blame a suspect previously thought to be beyond reproach: President Franklin D. Roosevelt."

 

 

Maurice Enchel

 

 

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=522844

If you've a tough time seeing through to the tyranny gun bans create over the average Joe, this sentence should enlighten you.

City politicians, he noted, used their influence to "become deputized peace officers so they can carry" or "often go around surrounded by armed bodyguards on the city payroll."

Political Elitism Explained

Tim says:
I thought it was very interesting that Obama talked with the House Republicans. That never would have happened if he didn't have to do it.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean about the "party of elite power" having issues with capitalism. Which party do you think that is? Most people would say it's the Republicans. If you mean it's the Democrats, I'd like to hear why. Also, doesn't it seem that the ruling class uses capitalism to its advantage? Why would they have issues with capitalism when capitalism helps them stay on top?

I'm not sure you can say that the ruling class is either Republican or Democrat. It seems that the rich are the ruling class. It seems to me that there are just as many rich Democrats in power as there are rich Republicans....



Maurice Says:
Since the catholic church in the 17th century, through the English and European monarchies of the 18th and 19th centuries, ‘Elite’ rule has always been associated with intellectual hegemony, an authoritarian ruling class which dictates political and cultural attitudes through executive privilege. Since the enlightenment, this group has been characterized by liberal arts academics, scientists, lawyers, artists, and political ‘thoroughbreds’. Starting with the New Deal in America this elite class has put forth the “premise that Americans value the wrong things, that the view the American people have of the good life is wrong, and that Americans must give up the low-density living arrangements they have preferred since colonial days and live like Europeans, closely packed and using primarily public transportation.” (Angelo Codevilla – The Character of Nations) Hence the critique not about how to increase or even maintain America’s prosperity, but about redefining it to fit an economically incongruent narrative. (Repair America’s infrastructure? Was it government that built America?) Capitalists, pure capitalists, Atlas Shrugged, are repelled by the bureaucracy of government. You are not wrong that the ruling class can use capitalism to its advantage. No finer example than the Obama takeover of GM and Chrysler, AIG, Fanny and Freddie, heck Goldman Sachs is so tight with the Democrats; it gave nearly 70% of its political contributions to them. Why not, Clinton bailed them out in the 90’s and Rahm Emanuel is ensuring their continued success. But this is bigger than political party necessarily. Look to the ideologies in both camps. Which party has a platform of smaller government and which promotes expansion? Which talks of deregulation and tort reform and which of regulation and litigation? The meaning of free enterprise differs radically for people of different moral dispositions. While leftists in the elite bureaucracy chart a new “path to riches by knowing what the government wants, ever greater attention and effort being shifted away from production and toward fitting into government schemes” (Codevilla), capitalists expect to succeed or fail on their own ethic. Their interest in government, an interest reflected in originalist interpretations of the Constitution, is to maintain equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. They prefer private to public investment, free trade to managed trade, and low taxes to high ones. Success will be achieved by a free exchange of ideas and capital. Can you say that the US Auto industry is truly a free market any longer? (Ironic isn’t it that Toyota, a competitor of Barack-O-Motors, is facing congressional investigations?) What about banking?

Wealth is not a determinant of ‘Elite’ status, ideology is. As noted, ‘Elitism’ is perceived by ‘commonality’ as an authoritarian, intellectual movement in politics which seeks control of the governmental and/or cultural apparatuses in an effort to fix the status quo or radically alter it against common sentiment. The nearest example of elite establishment conservatism, the Soviet nomenklatura. The nearest example of elite radical progressivism, the American Democrat party.