So, last week a convicted murderer died. Unless you have been living under a rock or don't live in the US, you've heard the outcry. He proclaimed his innocence to the end, which was good.
I am happy that I live in a country that is ruled by laws and NOT public opinion. He was found guilty. He has had numerous appeals over the past 21 YEARS. They never found enough proof to release him. It's not like they haven't been looking.
But to be fair, it's not about the fact he's a convicted murderer. It's more about opposition to the Death Penalty. And also to be fair, both right and left sides of the political spectrum are hypocrites. You have one side opposed to the Death Penalty, but in support of Abortion... Solet me get this straight, if you are an innocent, it's ok to kill you, but if you're guilty, you can live? Yeah that makes sense... On the other hand... All life is sacred, i.e. Pro-Life, except when you are a convicted murderer. So let's kill the person that killed someone else, because one person wasn't enough. This is not Babylon. Hammurabi is dead.
Now I'm not criticizing the way you think. I just want people to be consistant. I, myself, support Abortion and the Death Penalty. Unfortunately with the way the world works, you can't save everyone. It's sad and tragic, but that's reality.
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Monday, September 19, 2011
Now when I hear cut $3 trillion long term deficit reduction over the next 10 years, it means that the deficit will be $3 trillion less in 10 years than it is now. But I bet you that actually what they mean is that they will try to spend $3 trillion less unless something comes up. But if they can actually cut $3 trillion over the next 10 years, does that mean they could cut $1.5 trillion before levying the $1.5 trillion in new taxes on the rich? And what is their definition of rich? And are we talking individuals or private businesses or both? I believe they would be hard pressed to generate $1.5 trillion from just individuals. So that would mean that private businesses will have less operating capitol, which means that private businesses won't hire or will move what they can to different countries (ala Bermuda, India, etc...)
Actually the term that the Media is using is "the Wealthiest Americans". I don't know about you, but what is the cut off for Wealthiest? 2 year's ago Obama thought it was $250,000 per year.
Here is an excerpt from an article dated May 5, 2009. From CNN which is odd because I have never really thought of them as even close to the middle.
"What is possibly more galling than the easier ride of the super-rich is that raising taxes probably won't accomplish much when it comes to getting us out of these troubled times.
Consider a couple of harsh realities:
Soaking the rich doesn't stimulate the economy. It only changes who is doing the spending - the government or private citizens.
Soaking the rich doesn't even seem to increase tax revenues. The top marginal tax rate has fluctuated wildly over the past 50 years, from 91% to 28%; it's now 35%. But individual tax revenue as a percent of GDP hasn't varied much at all - it hovers at about 8% - and its variations don't correlate with the top tax rate. The reasons are many, but the bottom line is that as government deficits soar to unimagined levels, taxing the rich isn't likely to yield nearly as much as governments are hoping for, and it may not yield anything when the numbers are all totaled.
The best alternative is to rein in spending. If we are going to create record deficits, it would have been better to do it by cutting taxes than by jacking up spending, but that battle is over. Now let's be sure not to increase the stimulus, as Obama has suggested we might, and not let taxes rise in 2011 as they're scheduled to do. Most important, the Federal Reserve needs to keep interest rates low, which research shows is the main factor that ends recessions.
There is one thing that soaking the rich will do effectively, and that's redistribute wealth.
Obama's new budget would increase federal payments to low- and some middle-income Americans through increases in the Earned Income Tax Credit, the Child Tax Credit, and other programs. Candidate Obama was quite clear that he intended to do that, so he can rightly claim that the voters gave him a mandate for it. Let's just understand that reslicing the pie to give the rich a smaller piece doesn't make the pie any bigger - and won't get us out of the recession any faster."
So yeah that was two years ago. Now something else I wonder about is he just focusing on income or assets? Income is easily defined for most of us, but what about the retired rich who aren't earning any yearly income? Are they going to take what someone has already earned and paid taxes on already? Of course they are. Because even if they are living off investments, those investments are increasing in value, but that value has already been taxed by the government before it even gets to the company that made the money. Usually many times. Then it gets taxed again when they get it for their own personal use. The funny, or sad thing is, that it would probably be better for those people to withdraw all their money and bury it in the backyard or stuff their mattress. I actually love that idea because then the government couldn't touch it! Oh wait a minute they could take it as suspected drug money, my mistake.
I now understand why people put their money in off shore accounts and only use in the market what they can afford to lose. It's just like gambling.
Stupid Government...
Actually the term that the Media is using is "the Wealthiest Americans". I don't know about you, but what is the cut off for Wealthiest? 2 year's ago Obama thought it was $250,000 per year.
Here is an excerpt from an article dated May 5, 2009. From CNN which is odd because I have never really thought of them as even close to the middle.
"What is possibly more galling than the easier ride of the super-rich is that raising taxes probably won't accomplish much when it comes to getting us out of these troubled times.
Consider a couple of harsh realities:
Soaking the rich doesn't stimulate the economy. It only changes who is doing the spending - the government or private citizens.
Soaking the rich doesn't even seem to increase tax revenues. The top marginal tax rate has fluctuated wildly over the past 50 years, from 91% to 28%; it's now 35%. But individual tax revenue as a percent of GDP hasn't varied much at all - it hovers at about 8% - and its variations don't correlate with the top tax rate. The reasons are many, but the bottom line is that as government deficits soar to unimagined levels, taxing the rich isn't likely to yield nearly as much as governments are hoping for, and it may not yield anything when the numbers are all totaled.
The best alternative is to rein in spending. If we are going to create record deficits, it would have been better to do it by cutting taxes than by jacking up spending, but that battle is over. Now let's be sure not to increase the stimulus, as Obama has suggested we might, and not let taxes rise in 2011 as they're scheduled to do. Most important, the Federal Reserve needs to keep interest rates low, which research shows is the main factor that ends recessions.
There is one thing that soaking the rich will do effectively, and that's redistribute wealth.
Obama's new budget would increase federal payments to low- and some middle-income Americans through increases in the Earned Income Tax Credit, the Child Tax Credit, and other programs. Candidate Obama was quite clear that he intended to do that, so he can rightly claim that the voters gave him a mandate for it. Let's just understand that reslicing the pie to give the rich a smaller piece doesn't make the pie any bigger - and won't get us out of the recession any faster."
So yeah that was two years ago. Now something else I wonder about is he just focusing on income or assets? Income is easily defined for most of us, but what about the retired rich who aren't earning any yearly income? Are they going to take what someone has already earned and paid taxes on already? Of course they are. Because even if they are living off investments, those investments are increasing in value, but that value has already been taxed by the government before it even gets to the company that made the money. Usually many times. Then it gets taxed again when they get it for their own personal use. The funny, or sad thing is, that it would probably be better for those people to withdraw all their money and bury it in the backyard or stuff their mattress. I actually love that idea because then the government couldn't touch it! Oh wait a minute they could take it as suspected drug money, my mistake.
I now understand why people put their money in off shore accounts and only use in the market what they can afford to lose. It's just like gambling.
Stupid Government...
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)