Another Reason WHY Higher Income Taxes Will Lower the American Standard of Living

.
.
The above chart (FROM Captain Capitalism, SEE: http://captaincapitalism.blogspot.com/2007/09/household-debt-as-percent-of-gdp.html) shows household debt as a percentage of GDP.

Back in 1953 it stood at about 25% of GDP, TODAY it stands at 97% because so many people insist on spending more than they earn (net or take-home).

Experience shows that higher income taxes don’t impact (1) the truly wealthy as the "truly wealthy" are those who DON’T depend upon income as the primary source of their wealth, (2) the higher income earners (those earning over $200K/year) can and DO defer MORE of their income as tax rates rise and (3) those who work in the underground (“off-the-books”) economy, but it’s even worse than that!

The debt burden of the average, working American (including home mortgage and property taxes) are so high that any rise in the rate of taxes will significantly raise the level of foreclosures and personal bankruptcies.

As Newt Gingrich has observed, “While critics both Democrat and Republican have assailed the current Republican administration for both over-spending and expanding government, and yet the Democrat’s antidote is even higher taxes and larger, more intrusive government.

What we have right now is a Party of “Big Government” against a Party of “Even Bigger Government!”

Yeah, that’s the problem alright, neither Party represents the will of the majority of working people who want lower taxes and SMALLER, more limited government.


H/T Captain Capitalism
See: http://captaincapitalism.blogspot.com/

Comparing Independents to Other Voters.

.
.
The following data is from three AP-Ipsos polls conducted in July, August and September. The surveys involved telephone interviews with 3,007 adults and have a combined margin of sampling error of plus or minus 2 percentage points.

Independent sare people who insisted they favor neither major party after being prodded during the survey to say which party they tend to support.


(*) Gender:

Independents: 49 percent male, 51 percent female;

Republicans: 53 percent male, 47 percent female;

Democrats: 45 percent male, 55 percent female.


(*) Income:

Independents: 68 percent under $50,000 annually, 13 percent $50,000 to $75,000, 19 percent over $75,000;

Republicans: 43 percent under $50,000 annually, 22 percent $50,000 to $75,000, 35 percent over $75,000;

Democrats: 54 percent under $50,000 annually, 20 percent $50,000 to $75,000, 26 percent over $75,000.


(*) Education:

Independents: 41 percent high school or less, 33 percent some college, 26 percent college graduate;

Republicans: 27 percent high school or less, 33 percent some college, 40 percent college graduate;

Democrats: 33 percent high school or less, 30 percent some college, 38 percent college graduate.


(*) Age:

Independents: 49 percent under age 45, 51 percent age 45 and older;

Republicans: 46 percent under age 45, 54 percent age 45 and older;

Democrats: 44 percent under age 45, 56 percent age 45 and older.


(*) Residence:

Independents: 34 percent urban, 49 percent suburban, 17 percent rural;

Republicans: 26 percent urban, 53 percent suburban, 21 percent rural;

Democrats: 34 percent urban, 49 percent suburban, 17 percent rural.


(*) Ideology:

Independents: 20 percent liberal, 37 percent moderate, 28 percent conservative, 16 percent don't know;

Republicans: 8 percent liberal, 28 percent moderate, 63 percent conservative, 2 percent don't know;

Democrats: 37 percent liberal, 37 percent moderate, 22 percent conservative, 4 percent don't know.


(*) Evangelical or born again Christians:

Independents: 36 percent;

Republicans: 50 percent;

Democrats: 33 percent.


(*) Ethnicity:

Independents: 57 percent white, 14 percent black, 21 percent Hispanic;

Republicans: 82 percent white, 4 percent black, 7 percent Hispanic;

Democrats: 62 percent white, 16 percent black, 14 percent Hispanic.


One very interesting thing that can be gleaned from the above survey is that while Liberals make up only 37% of those Democrats polled (59% self-identify as Conservative or Moderate), Conservatives comprise 63% of the GOP and overall, the survey shows that 22% of the respondents self-identified as “Liberal,” almost twice as many, 38% self-identified as “Conservative.”

While there was little difference in the number of College graduates between Democrats (38%) and Republicans (40%), fewer Independents (26%) were college graduates.

Interestingly enough, 36% of Independents identified themselves as Evangelical Christians. Even more interesting is that 33% of Democrats also identified as Evangelical Christians!

Ideologically, 28% of Independents identified themselves as Conservative, while only 20% identified as Liberal and 37% as Moderate.

Even more interesting is that fully 22% of Democrats identified themselves ideologically as Conservatives, which could, in part account for the shift in the kind of Democrats being elected to Congress – with last November’s gains, fully 21% of the Democrats in Congress are now “New (Blue Dog/Conservative) Democrats!


SEE: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070923/ap_po/irked_independents_numbers;_ylt=AuS7FL0UyKAU.yNdHjA4D1Bh24cA

America On The Issues

.

.

.

.

A Harris Poll released on Tuesday, September 18th, had some interesting results as to where Americans stood on the major social issues. For instance;

ONLY 19% of Americans OPPOSE the Death Penalty.

Likewise, ONLY 19% of Americans OPPOSE stem cell research.

Only 19% OPPOSE the Separation of Church and State, meaning that a large plurality of the “Christian Right” SUPPORTS that separation.

A surprising 39% of Americans SUPPORT Physician Assisted suicide.

ONLY 36% (still more than I thought) SUPPORT affirmative action, though many who support “outreach and recruitment DON’T support preferences based on race and gender.

While some 40% of Americans SUPPORT “gay rights,” ONLY 31% SUPPORT same-sex Marriage.

Turns out that I’m WITH the majority of Americans on virtually EVERY issue!

Is THIS a great country or WHAT?!

SEE: http://www.nypost.com/seven/09192007/news/nationalnews/the_issues_that_count.htm

Why I’m NOT a Catholic

Every once in awhile the Catholic Church reminds me why I no longer subscribe to the views of the Church.

On Sunday, September 16th, Pope Benedict XVI said that unbridled Capitalism is widening the gap between the world’s rich and poor and threatening the planet’s future.

“The emergencies of famine and the environment demonstrate with growing clarity that the logic of profit, if predominant, increases the disproportion between rich and poor and leads to a ruinous exploitation of the planet.”

The Pontiff went on, “Capitalism should not be considered the only valid model of economic organization.” He then asserted that Catholic Doctrine has always given priority to the fair distribution of resources, claiming it’s not too late to rein in the excesses of Capitalism, “When the logic of sharing and solidarity prevail, it is possible to correct our route and point it towards a fair and sustainable development,” said the Pope.

OK, the Pope can certainly be forgiven, as those in the Church have never run a business. The Church’s personal economy is built on a form of commune-like collectivism, which has proven to be unworkable on a larger scale.

As a matter of fact, Capitalism has not only been the ONLY workable economic model to date, but the only one that can exist within a framework of individual Liberty (self-ownership/personal responsibility) or “human freedom.”

Every collectivist economy to date has required tyranny, brutality and mass murder to enforce, as the propertied class will never relinquish its property peacefully.

In fact, Capitalism brings far more prosperity to far more people than ANY other economic model and we ALREADY HAVE a system of regulated Capitalism in America and Western Europe that regulates business and industry and uses tax revenues to pay for a slew of social services. The Pope's remarks would have us believe that problem we face today is not enough regulation and redistribution, when in fact, our current problem is that we're STILL over-regulated and over-taxed and that Capitalism's prosperity isn't being allowed to reach some people because of all those burdens!

.
Both Germany and France, only slightly more regulated and redistributionist economic systems than our own, have moved TOWARD the American model, with the elections of Angela Merckel and Nikolas Sarkozy respectively. The over-regulated, over-taxed economy doesn't work well for the vast majority of the people.

.
So, it’s odd that the head of the Catholic Church would choose, this point in time, to lambaste the greatest economic system in the world.

SEE: http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0705407.htm

What Happened to All the Cynics???

.
.
At Cynical Nation (CN) of course!

( http://vbsweb.com/cn/ )

Barry has been a great, thought-provoking blogger for years. I actually ran into him inadvertently at another discussion board many moons ago.

We don’t always agree, Barry’s somewhat more Libertarian than I am these days, but Barry’s posts have always been thought-provoking and his verbal style is impeccable, with friend and foe alike.

Sadly, since July 23rd, there’ve been only ten posts on CN...and Barry’s email link apparently isn’t working, as I’ve tried contacting him and gotten my emails back as undeliverable.

I hope it’s just a temporary hiatus, because Barry’s one of the best!

I consider myself fortunate to have run across him. He’s never failed to make me think twice...and his comments section has provided me hours of (at times testy) enjoyment.

Closer Scrutiny on the Jena Case Changes the Story...

.
.

I must stand corrected on some points after reading an article by Jared Taylor, which tells the story of Jena-6 in far greater detail than the mainstream media (MSM) has to date.

According to Taylor; "On August 30, 2006, there was a back-to-school assembly for boys only at Jena High School. An assistant principal covered rules, dress codes, etc, and called for questions. One black student asked a question that was clearly a joke: Could blacks sit with whites under a particular shade tree in the school’s courtyard. Everyone in the room laughed. The assistant principal answered that, of course, anyone could sit wherever he liked. There were a number of other questions — some funny, some serious—and the assembly broke up in good spirits.

"National commentators have assumed whites had been keeping blacks away from the tree, but no one in Jena says this. There are places where whites often sit and places where blacks often sit, but there are no rigidly enforced boundaries. The question would not have gotten a big laugh if there had been tension about who could sit under the tree."

I and the MSM are apparently also wrong about the school treating the nooses lightly. Again, according to Taylor's account, "It should be underlined that the local police and the FBI also interviewed the boys and found no racial motive. The local US Attorney, Donald Washington, who is black, later looked into the nooses incident, and he, too, and found no grounds for action...

"...The high school principal nevertheless recommended expulsion, but the LaSalle Parish School Board overruled him and the three were suspended. For several weeks they attended a special school for expelled students, and were only later let back into Jena High. Meanwhile, blacks held meetings to complain about the nooses, in which they refused to see anything but racial hatred, and were angry that the white students were not expelled."

Even the fights that occurred have apparently been misreported.

"On Dec. 1, there was a private party at the Fair Barn, a big metal building used for social events. The crowd was mostly whites with a few blacks. At about 11:00 p.m. five black Jena High students tried to crash the party, but a woman told them they could not come in. The boys insisted, and a white man - not a student — stepped in front of the woman to prevent them. There was a fight, which continued outside. A number of other whites—not students—got involved, the police were called, and one of the whites was arrested and pleaded guilty to battery. At least two of the black students were later among the “Jena 6.”

As to the second "fight," - "December 4 was the first day of school after the fire. There was considerable chaos, with students meeting in makeshift classes. After lunch, black football star Mychal Bell walked up to a white student named Justin Barker and punched him to the ground from behind. Some eight to ten boys — all black — then started kicking him. Witness statements taken later used phrases like “stomped him badly,” “stepped on his face,” “knocked out cold on the ground,” and “slammed his head on the concrete beam.” According to court documents, Mr. Barker was probably unconscious before he hit the ground, where his attackers stomped his “lifeless” body. The Jena Times calls it “one of the most violent attacks in Jena High School’s history.”

"When Assistant Principal Gawan Burgess got to the scene, he thought the boy was dead. He was bleeding from ears and nose and showed no sign of life. An ambulance took Mr. Barker to LaSalle General Hospital, where he was in the emergency room for about 2-1/2 hours and racked up a bill of $5,467. A brain scan showed no anomalies, and he was released."

Perhaps there wasn't a "double standard of justice" after all. As it turns out that a white assailant was arrested and pled guilty to criminal battery in the first altercation, which appears to have been provoked by some of the Jena football players (a number of them members of the "Jena-6") when they attempted to crash that party.

The two assaults were of completely different magnitudes, as Robert Bailey refused medical treatment after the first altercation, while Justin Barker, who was not involved in any of the incidents leading up to December 4th, was hit from behind and then stomped and kicked while unconscious on the ground.

That is a cowardly act that definitely COULD'VE resulted in paralysis or death and it certainly warrants a severe penalty.

Not attempted 2nd degree murder, BUT even Reed Walters withdrew that charge the day before the trial.

Mr. Bell and others probably SHOULD'VE been charged as adults for what amounts to an adult crime.

Taylor's full article What Really Happened at Jena can be found at; http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2007/09/jena.php

Hat Tip: Patrick McCarvil

.

SEE Also: http://www.authorsden.com/visit/viewarticle.asp?AuthorID=17296&id=32967

Hat Tip: Rachel

Let’s Bring Them Here!...

The Rapport newspaper in South Africa writes: “South Africa’s 3-million Afrikaners — all multilingual people with a high standard Western education and a protestant work ethnic — are being forced back into the stone-age by the current ANC-regime’s laws which bars such ‘whites’ from the labour market.

“South Africa has about 4.5-million “whites” of whom 3-million are Afrikaners.

“Rapport newspaper published an extensive survey this week of the current living conditions of the country’s Afrikaner community — and has found that they have now returned to identical destitution as they had been plunged into shortly after the Anglo-Boer war in 1902 right up to the Great Depression of the 1930s. During those years, the ‘poor white’ problem in South Africa was even highlighted by an international Red Cross report at that time—and international aid funding was made available to try and alleviate the destitution of poor Afrikaners in those years...
.

“...In 2006, there were 900,000 unemployed ‘white’ people in South Africa now — all living in total destitution.
.
“380,000 are men, and 610,000 are women—who are not only unemployed, but permanently unemployable due to the ANC-regime’s blacks-only hiring laws for the entire labour market.”
.
Since we’ve already invited virtually every unskilled migrant worker (along with a few child-rapists and drug dealers) into our midst, why NOT invite THESE folks who actually have some of the skills we WANT – a high level of education, multi-lingual people with a strong work-ethic.
.
We’re supposed to be in the midst of overhauling our immigration codes, ostensibly to allow in more people with skills we can use, while denying access to those without skills, while allowing some room for refugees from brutal regimes, like Castro’s Cuba, etc.
.
Well, in this case, the Afrikaners fit the bill in two ways; (1) they are “multilingual people with a high standard Western education and a protestant work ethnic and (2) subjects of the brutal, tyrannical ANC regime.
.
We divested in South Africa over the Boer’s ugly “whites only” Apartheid program, so consistency dictates that we take the same stance AGAINST the ANC’s equally despicable “blacks only” policy.
.
Taking in these refugees would bring us an educated populace, many of them multi-lingual, with a strong work-ethic.
.
It’s a veritable WIN-WIN!!! We'd get immigrants with actual SKILL-SETS we need and South Africa gets rid of a group they apparently don’t want!