I previously posted:
"Why does this matter? Because together, Freddie and Fannie have about $4.5 trillion in liabilities. That's not to say all their loans will default and the US taxpayer will be on the hook for $4.5 trillion, but even if 20% failed, about equal to the proportion of subprime mortgages your standard bank issued, that's a $900 billion hit. We already owe $12 trillion. How did we get here to begin with? Because of the Community Reinvestment Act of 1979, signed by Jimma Carter, which forced banks to open branches in poor communities and issue loans to poor and subprime borrowers."
In today's CNBC article, "According to the Congressional Budget Office, the losses could balloon to $400 billion. And if housing prices fall further, some experts caution, the cost to the taxpayer could hit as much as $1 trillion."
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Friday, June 25, 2010
Financially Reformed, Maybe
This Wall Street Journal article is reporting that Congress has managed to, apparently, reconcile House and Senate versions of the Financial Regulatory reform bills that previously passed.
Accordingly, this new bill will "prohibit banks from making risky bets with their own funds" however allowing "financial companies to make limited investments in areas such as hedge funds and private-equity funds." This bill would also "limit the ability of federally insured banks to trade derivatives," however, it "would allow banks to trade interest-rate swaps, certain credit derivatives and others—in other words the kind of standard safeguards a bank would take to hedge its own risk."
Party ideology is summed up as "Democrats hailed the agreement as a tool to prevent the kind of taxpayer-funded bailouts that stabilized the economy in 2008 but left divisive scars. Many Republicans said the bill could have unintended consequences, crimping financial markets and access to credit."
However, the major point of contention I have, is that what caused the financial meltdown in late 2008 was the fact that subprime borrowers spurred the collapse by purchasing homes they could neither afford and lied on their applications to get, and in which case, banks repackaged these loans and sold them off as collatoralized debt obligations. Democrats have managed to regulate this, we'll see how effectively in the future, but have failed to curb loose lending practices to the types of borrowers that fueled this.
As the article states, "Government-controlled Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac remain a multibillion dollar drain on the U.S. Treasury, and largely untouched by this proposal." Fannie and Freddie matter because they're the two organizations which buy up subprime mortgages and other smaller mortgages. What does that say about Fannie and Freddie? One could easily speculate that they'll suffer similar collapses as the banks that loaned to these same people. What does that mean? As succinctly as the article said, they'll "remain a multibillion dollar drain on the US Treasury."
Why does this matter? Because together, Freddie and Fannie have about $4.5 trillion in liabilities. That's not to say all their loans will default and the US taxpayer will be on the hook for $4.5 trillion, but even if 20% failed, about equal to the proportion of subprime mortgages your standard bank issued, that's a $900 billion hit. We already owe $12 trillion. How did we get here to begin with? Because of the Community Reinvestment Act of 1979, signed by Jimma Carter, which forced banks to open branches in poor communities and issue loans to poor and subprime borrowers.
We'll never see the type of reform needed for Fannie and Freddie so long as Democrats exists. Their sole purpose in life is to take money from the have mores and give it to the have lesses. Any attempt by financially prudent Republicans will be lambasted as an attack against the poor and hyperbole such as "kicking the poor out of their homes" will be tossed around. Based on Federal Govt tax collections, 53% of us paid Federal Income taxes last year, there's enough have lesses to make sure Democrats have enough power to prevent the necessary regulation of Fannie and Freddie from ever coming about. So much for reform.
Accordingly, this new bill will "prohibit banks from making risky bets with their own funds" however allowing "financial companies to make limited investments in areas such as hedge funds and private-equity funds." This bill would also "limit the ability of federally insured banks to trade derivatives," however, it "would allow banks to trade interest-rate swaps, certain credit derivatives and others—in other words the kind of standard safeguards a bank would take to hedge its own risk."
Party ideology is summed up as "Democrats hailed the agreement as a tool to prevent the kind of taxpayer-funded bailouts that stabilized the economy in 2008 but left divisive scars. Many Republicans said the bill could have unintended consequences, crimping financial markets and access to credit."
However, the major point of contention I have, is that what caused the financial meltdown in late 2008 was the fact that subprime borrowers spurred the collapse by purchasing homes they could neither afford and lied on their applications to get, and in which case, banks repackaged these loans and sold them off as collatoralized debt obligations. Democrats have managed to regulate this, we'll see how effectively in the future, but have failed to curb loose lending practices to the types of borrowers that fueled this.
As the article states, "Government-controlled Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac remain a multibillion dollar drain on the U.S. Treasury, and largely untouched by this proposal." Fannie and Freddie matter because they're the two organizations which buy up subprime mortgages and other smaller mortgages. What does that say about Fannie and Freddie? One could easily speculate that they'll suffer similar collapses as the banks that loaned to these same people. What does that mean? As succinctly as the article said, they'll "remain a multibillion dollar drain on the US Treasury."
Why does this matter? Because together, Freddie and Fannie have about $4.5 trillion in liabilities. That's not to say all their loans will default and the US taxpayer will be on the hook for $4.5 trillion, but even if 20% failed, about equal to the proportion of subprime mortgages your standard bank issued, that's a $900 billion hit. We already owe $12 trillion. How did we get here to begin with? Because of the Community Reinvestment Act of 1979, signed by Jimma Carter, which forced banks to open branches in poor communities and issue loans to poor and subprime borrowers.
We'll never see the type of reform needed for Fannie and Freddie so long as Democrats exists. Their sole purpose in life is to take money from the have mores and give it to the have lesses. Any attempt by financially prudent Republicans will be lambasted as an attack against the poor and hyperbole such as "kicking the poor out of their homes" will be tossed around. Based on Federal Govt tax collections, 53% of us paid Federal Income taxes last year, there's enough have lesses to make sure Democrats have enough power to prevent the necessary regulation of Fannie and Freddie from ever coming about. So much for reform.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
My God is Obama stupid?!
Fox News is reporting that drug cartels have lookout posts throughout southern Arizona and Breitbart is reporting that drug cartels have snipers on the border ready to target American ICE agents. This is ridiculous!
The Federal Govt. has abdicated its responsibility to enforce our sovereignty and is going to make every attempt to prevent the State of Arizona from enforcing its sovereignty. When our duly elected officials fail to carry out the laws of our Nation, dereliction of duty, the responsibility to carry out said laws fall on the people of this Nation. If the Federal Govt. won't adhere to the contract we have with it, Constitution, then there is no reason for us to subjugate ourselves to it and therefore enforcing our laws becomes our responsibility. We need to enforce our border and if this means shooting armed drug cartel henchmen violating our sovereignty and poisoning our Citizenry with their drugs, then so be it. The Revolutionary War was fought over taxation without representation; we now have egregious taxation with dimwit representation and abdication when it comes to protecting our Nation!
This website is reporting that if Obama cannot get Congress to pass "comprehensive immigration reform" that he will, via Executive Order, grant "amnesty" to the 12-20 million illegal immigrants in this country. Eight Republican Senators wrote Obama a letter which contained the following:
“While we agree our immigration laws need to be fixed, we are deeply concerned about the potential expansion of deferred action or parole for a large illegal alien population. While deferred action and parole are Executive Branch authorities, they should not be used to circumvent Congress’ constitutional authority to legislate immigration policy, particularly as it relates to the illegal population in the United States.
The Administration would be wise to abandon any plans for deferred action or parole for the illegal population. Such a move would further erode the American public’s confidence in the federal government and its commitment to securing the borders and enforcing the laws already on the books.”
Jon Voight is also warning of a new "Civil War" in his open letter to President Obama in the Washington Times re: not only Obama's politics towards illegal immigration but also his politics towards the State of Israel. Is Obama the Man of Lawlessness we were warned about nearly 2,000 years ago? Does he really believe in rewarding illegal behavior by bestowing the blessings of American Citizenship solely because economic forces drove illegal immigrants to violate our sovereignty in order to look for work in the US? Is he really so sick as to abandon the State of Israel to the ruthless Islamists who want nothing better but to "wipe Israel off the map"?
The Federal Govt. has abdicated its responsibility to enforce our sovereignty and is going to make every attempt to prevent the State of Arizona from enforcing its sovereignty. When our duly elected officials fail to carry out the laws of our Nation, dereliction of duty, the responsibility to carry out said laws fall on the people of this Nation. If the Federal Govt. won't adhere to the contract we have with it, Constitution, then there is no reason for us to subjugate ourselves to it and therefore enforcing our laws becomes our responsibility. We need to enforce our border and if this means shooting armed drug cartel henchmen violating our sovereignty and poisoning our Citizenry with their drugs, then so be it. The Revolutionary War was fought over taxation without representation; we now have egregious taxation with dimwit representation and abdication when it comes to protecting our Nation!
This website is reporting that if Obama cannot get Congress to pass "comprehensive immigration reform" that he will, via Executive Order, grant "amnesty" to the 12-20 million illegal immigrants in this country. Eight Republican Senators wrote Obama a letter which contained the following:
“While we agree our immigration laws need to be fixed, we are deeply concerned about the potential expansion of deferred action or parole for a large illegal alien population. While deferred action and parole are Executive Branch authorities, they should not be used to circumvent Congress’ constitutional authority to legislate immigration policy, particularly as it relates to the illegal population in the United States.
The Administration would be wise to abandon any plans for deferred action or parole for the illegal population. Such a move would further erode the American public’s confidence in the federal government and its commitment to securing the borders and enforcing the laws already on the books.”
Jon Voight is also warning of a new "Civil War" in his open letter to President Obama in the Washington Times re: not only Obama's politics towards illegal immigration but also his politics towards the State of Israel. Is Obama the Man of Lawlessness we were warned about nearly 2,000 years ago? Does he really believe in rewarding illegal behavior by bestowing the blessings of American Citizenship solely because economic forces drove illegal immigrants to violate our sovereignty in order to look for work in the US? Is he really so sick as to abandon the State of Israel to the ruthless Islamists who want nothing better but to "wipe Israel off the map"?
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
When stupid people judge
Yahoo has an article about a town in New York, 25 miles northeast of NYC, in which a Federal judge recently ruled to force the town to have cumulative voting. Essentially all voters in the town receive six votes to delegate how they wish. What's disturbing is the intention, which is that the town is comprised of nearly half Hispanics and has never had a Hispanic village trustee. So the Federal judge believed this violated the Voting Rights Act (VRA). This requires some history.
The VRA was signed into law in 1965 by President Johnson, which ended the Southern practice of discriminating against blacks by having literacy tests, poll taxes and other such devices to try to the best of their ability to preclude as many blacks as possible from voting. For my own amusement, 94% of Republicans voted for this in the Senate vs. 73% of Democrats; and 82% of Republicans voted for this in the House vs. 78% of Democrats. So when Democrats try to misconstrue (aka lie about) history and tell you that the Republican Party is the Party of Racism, cite them these facts (beside the fact that the Republican Party was founded on the basis of abolishing slavery).
So back to this Federal judge, he believed that this town violated the VRA simply because they never elected a Hispanic village trustee. What irks me even more than this bonehead judge trying to get a specific outcome, is the waste of money that was put into "educating" voters in this town. "The village held 12 forums — six each in English and Spanish — to let voters know about the new system and to practice voting. The bilingual ballot lists each candidate across the top row..." In order to get naturalized, one has to have a command of the English language, this eliminates the necessity of having a bilingual ballot. If people want to partake in the voting process, LEARN ENGLISH. What irks me even more is this dumb broad, "I hope that if Hispanics get in, they do something for all the Hispanic people," Sandoval said in Spanish. "I don't know, but I hope so."
If she can't speak English, she's probably an illegal immigrant, and should thus be deported. But I digress, why is she expecting special treatment from a Hispanic village trustee solely because she's Hispanic? Imagine the justified outrage if a Candidate ran on the basis of representing only white people? Morons would jump to their feet and call out racism/bigotry/etc. Perhaps we've come to a point in our Nation's history where we should only worry about our own race, and make sure that our own race gets special treatment and make sure that other races don't infringe on our so called rights. Perhaps whites should, while they still comprise a majority in this country, rise up and vote in politicians that will deport the 12-20 million illegal immigrants before they're naturalized and given voting rights. Perhaps these new found voting rights will incur other Federal judges to bestow on them the right of cumulative voting? This judge's decision should be cause for concern for any and all that believe all men were created equal.
The VRA was signed into law in 1965 by President Johnson, which ended the Southern practice of discriminating against blacks by having literacy tests, poll taxes and other such devices to try to the best of their ability to preclude as many blacks as possible from voting. For my own amusement, 94% of Republicans voted for this in the Senate vs. 73% of Democrats; and 82% of Republicans voted for this in the House vs. 78% of Democrats. So when Democrats try to misconstrue (aka lie about) history and tell you that the Republican Party is the Party of Racism, cite them these facts (beside the fact that the Republican Party was founded on the basis of abolishing slavery).
So back to this Federal judge, he believed that this town violated the VRA simply because they never elected a Hispanic village trustee. What irks me even more than this bonehead judge trying to get a specific outcome, is the waste of money that was put into "educating" voters in this town. "The village held 12 forums — six each in English and Spanish — to let voters know about the new system and to practice voting. The bilingual ballot lists each candidate across the top row..." In order to get naturalized, one has to have a command of the English language, this eliminates the necessity of having a bilingual ballot. If people want to partake in the voting process, LEARN ENGLISH. What irks me even more is this dumb broad, "I hope that if Hispanics get in, they do something for all the Hispanic people," Sandoval said in Spanish. "I don't know, but I hope so."
If she can't speak English, she's probably an illegal immigrant, and should thus be deported. But I digress, why is she expecting special treatment from a Hispanic village trustee solely because she's Hispanic? Imagine the justified outrage if a Candidate ran on the basis of representing only white people? Morons would jump to their feet and call out racism/bigotry/etc. Perhaps we've come to a point in our Nation's history where we should only worry about our own race, and make sure that our own race gets special treatment and make sure that other races don't infringe on our so called rights. Perhaps whites should, while they still comprise a majority in this country, rise up and vote in politicians that will deport the 12-20 million illegal immigrants before they're naturalized and given voting rights. Perhaps these new found voting rights will incur other Federal judges to bestow on them the right of cumulative voting? This judge's decision should be cause for concern for any and all that believe all men were created equal.
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
Synchronized Swimmers killed by Israelis
In this Breitbart article, "The bodies of two Palestinians killed by Israeli fire in the seas off Gaza washed ashore on Tuesday, bringing to six the total number of alleged militants killed by the Navy in a raid off the coast." "A survivor who was on shore at the time of the attack said the six men on the boat were members of the Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, an armed group which is loosely tied to the secular Fatah movement of Western-backed president Mahmud Abbas, but that there were no weapons on the boat." "He said they were doing swimming exercises some 100 metres (yards) off the coast when they were attacked by Israeli naval forces."
Where is the international outrage over this incident too? Afterall, the "unarmed" men were only doing "swimming exercises" in occupied waters when the untermensch Israelis killed them. /sarcasm off
It appears to me that the intent of the blockade busters is having perhaps intended consequences. If Islamists know where the Israeli naval positions are, perhaps they can USS Cole them and claim some marginal victory or perhaps use Israel's distraction with the blockade busters to carry out some other plan. What's also interesting is Iran's attempt to enter the foray by declaring they'll send naval vessels to aid the blockade busters. It's ironic considering the oh so advanced Iranians cannot even refine their own oil to make gasoline and other petroleum products. At what point does the US enter this mess, which it's currently allowing to fester into something worse, and put an end to this blockade busting nonsense? I fear our leader, who couldn't punch his way out of a wet paper sack, will continue to dither on this issue as he has all other issues put on his desk.
Where is the international outrage over this incident too? Afterall, the "unarmed" men were only doing "swimming exercises" in occupied waters when the untermensch Israelis killed them. /sarcasm off
It appears to me that the intent of the blockade busters is having perhaps intended consequences. If Islamists know where the Israeli naval positions are, perhaps they can USS Cole them and claim some marginal victory or perhaps use Israel's distraction with the blockade busters to carry out some other plan. What's also interesting is Iran's attempt to enter the foray by declaring they'll send naval vessels to aid the blockade busters. It's ironic considering the oh so advanced Iranians cannot even refine their own oil to make gasoline and other petroleum products. At what point does the US enter this mess, which it's currently allowing to fester into something worse, and put an end to this blockade busting nonsense? I fear our leader, who couldn't punch his way out of a wet paper sack, will continue to dither on this issue as he has all other issues put on his desk.
Monday, June 7, 2010
Islam is very peaceful and tolerant
In this USA Today article, a University lecture in Sweden was interrupted by Islamists allegedly headbutting a Professor and shouting "Allah Akbar!" The professors two crimes, one depicting the alleged Prophet Muhammad as a dog and two, showing a video clip from an Iranian artist discussing homosexuality and Islam, specifically that engaged by the alleged Prophet Muhammad.
I note that a) if Islam is peaceful, why the head butting and b) if Islam is tolerant why the subsequent reaction and stifling of speech when Muslims disagree with another person's viewpoint/opinion/etc. For example, when the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) funded "art" showing the crucifix in a jar of urine, or the Virgin Mary smeared in feces, Christians didn't rise up and burn down the exhibition or slit the throat of the artists, or even manage to get funding to the NEA cut off. This however, doesn't fit with Progressive/Leftist/Liberal world view that Islam is the Religion of Peace and Christianity is the Religion of Intolerance and Violence (i.e. Crusades).
I guess in a way, this is why Helen Thomas can tell Jews to "get the hell out of Palestine" and "go back to Auschwitz". It's cool to be pro-Islam and anti-anti-Islamic-religions (think about that double negative for a second). If it's not cool, then it's at least hip to be passive towards Islam, which is just another means of being for it; like appeasing tyranny, you only get more of it when you refuse to confront it. When one views the current ongoing events re: Israel's legal blockade of Gaza, one can see why the world automatically sides with the Islamists-propagators and anti-Jews. Not even the U.S. is backing Israel's right to blockade Gaza, therefore the U.S. is enabling anti-Jews to continue their campaign at breaking the Gaza blockade.
Charles Krauthammer had a great article in the Wall Street Journal stating, "Because, blockade is Israel's fallback as the world systematically de-legitimizes its traditional ways of defending itself -- forward and active defense." "It's the point understood by the blockade-busting flotilla of useful idiots and terror sympathizers, by the Turkish front organization that funded it, by the automatic anti-Israel Third World chorus at the United Nations, and by the supine Europeans who've had quite enough of the Jewish problem." "The whole point of this relentless international campaign is to deprive Israel of any legitimate form of self-defense." Therefore one could summarize this campaign as essentially pro-Islamist and anti-Jew, with the U.S. taking the position of passivity. We can all take comfort however, based on the few examples I've listed, that we can expect the Islamist Palestinians to treat the non-Islamic Israelis with peace and tolerance.
I note that a) if Islam is peaceful, why the head butting and b) if Islam is tolerant why the subsequent reaction and stifling of speech when Muslims disagree with another person's viewpoint/opinion/etc. For example, when the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) funded "art" showing the crucifix in a jar of urine, or the Virgin Mary smeared in feces, Christians didn't rise up and burn down the exhibition or slit the throat of the artists, or even manage to get funding to the NEA cut off. This however, doesn't fit with Progressive/Leftist/Liberal world view that Islam is the Religion of Peace and Christianity is the Religion of Intolerance and Violence (i.e. Crusades).
I guess in a way, this is why Helen Thomas can tell Jews to "get the hell out of Palestine" and "go back to Auschwitz". It's cool to be pro-Islam and anti-anti-Islamic-religions (think about that double negative for a second). If it's not cool, then it's at least hip to be passive towards Islam, which is just another means of being for it; like appeasing tyranny, you only get more of it when you refuse to confront it. When one views the current ongoing events re: Israel's legal blockade of Gaza, one can see why the world automatically sides with the Islamists-propagators and anti-Jews. Not even the U.S. is backing Israel's right to blockade Gaza, therefore the U.S. is enabling anti-Jews to continue their campaign at breaking the Gaza blockade.
Charles Krauthammer had a great article in the Wall Street Journal stating, "Because, blockade is Israel's fallback as the world systematically de-legitimizes its traditional ways of defending itself -- forward and active defense." "It's the point understood by the blockade-busting flotilla of useful idiots and terror sympathizers, by the Turkish front organization that funded it, by the automatic anti-Israel Third World chorus at the United Nations, and by the supine Europeans who've had quite enough of the Jewish problem." "The whole point of this relentless international campaign is to deprive Israel of any legitimate form of self-defense." Therefore one could summarize this campaign as essentially pro-Islamist and anti-Jew, with the U.S. taking the position of passivity. We can all take comfort however, based on the few examples I've listed, that we can expect the Islamist Palestinians to treat the non-Islamic Israelis with peace and tolerance.
Monday, May 31, 2010
Decisions have Consequences
I don't really see what the rage is about. Six ships attempted to break a naval blockade, five were successfully boarded however the sixth ship protested by attacking the raiding soldiers with metal pipes, knives and reportedly shot at the soldiers. In any other case, the generic description given would warrant the question, why did the people attack the soldiers. However in this case, the soldiers are Israeli and those attempting to break the blockade are Pro-Hashemite-Palestinian protestors. Obviously in the world's anti-Semitic slant, the Jews are guilty, no questions asked.
When a civilian fights an armed soldier, the civilian is going to lose. Most would call the civilian deluded and probably stupid. However, this isn't case, the Jew soldier is guilty and the moron civilian activist is a saint worthy of honor. Now we can read all about the world's "outrage" over the Jew soldiers actions. It obviously merits an attempt at storming the Israeli embassy in Paris (no surprise, the French are well known anti-Semites). It merits the Turkish ambassador to Israel being recalled, unfortunate for Israel, Turkey is one of two staunch allies, Egypt being the other. It merits 8,000 strong crowd of protestors in Cairo, lead by the Muslim Brotherhood. Except that, the Muslim Brotherhood is really the precursor to Al Qaeda, being that the No. 2 guy in Al Qaeda was at some point a leading figure in the Muslim Brotherhood. So really no surprise here either. Benjamin Netanyahu also cut short his trip to Canada and US to return home to Israel to deal with this matter.
I take solace that at least Obama said all the facts should be sorted regarding this issue. I suppose he'll then issue a statement of his true feelings. Perhaps he learned about opening his mouth and giving an opinion after his disaster white cop is guilty for harassing a black professor incident. I suppose though that after Obama's shameful treatment of Netanyahu on his previous trip that there won't be very many kind words for Israel's actions at preserving her blockade of the Gaza strip. I hope that Netanyahu sticks by his Defense Forces and continues to publicly support their decision while privately finding out whether anyone merits discipline. The world should now know that Israel will protect its sovereignty, even if that means eliminating a few moronic activists that somehow don't believe decisions have consequences.
When a civilian fights an armed soldier, the civilian is going to lose. Most would call the civilian deluded and probably stupid. However, this isn't case, the Jew soldier is guilty and the moron civilian activist is a saint worthy of honor. Now we can read all about the world's "outrage" over the Jew soldiers actions. It obviously merits an attempt at storming the Israeli embassy in Paris (no surprise, the French are well known anti-Semites). It merits the Turkish ambassador to Israel being recalled, unfortunate for Israel, Turkey is one of two staunch allies, Egypt being the other. It merits 8,000 strong crowd of protestors in Cairo, lead by the Muslim Brotherhood. Except that, the Muslim Brotherhood is really the precursor to Al Qaeda, being that the No. 2 guy in Al Qaeda was at some point a leading figure in the Muslim Brotherhood. So really no surprise here either. Benjamin Netanyahu also cut short his trip to Canada and US to return home to Israel to deal with this matter.
I take solace that at least Obama said all the facts should be sorted regarding this issue. I suppose he'll then issue a statement of his true feelings. Perhaps he learned about opening his mouth and giving an opinion after his disaster white cop is guilty for harassing a black professor incident. I suppose though that after Obama's shameful treatment of Netanyahu on his previous trip that there won't be very many kind words for Israel's actions at preserving her blockade of the Gaza strip. I hope that Netanyahu sticks by his Defense Forces and continues to publicly support their decision while privately finding out whether anyone merits discipline. The world should now know that Israel will protect its sovereignty, even if that means eliminating a few moronic activists that somehow don't believe decisions have consequences.
Friday, May 28, 2010
Hillary Clinton is an Ignoramus
Politico is reporting that Hillary Clinton believes, "The rich are not paying their fair share in any nation that is facing the kind of employment issues [America currently does] — whether it's individual, corporate or whatever [form of] taxation forms," and went on to state, "Brazil has the highest tax-to-GDP rate in the Western Hemisphere and guess what — they're growing like crazy, And the rich are getting richer, but they're pulling people out of poverty."
Perhaps a brief history lesson is in store for Madam Secretary. Harding and Coolidge cut taxes from 60% to 25% beginning with the Revenue Act of 1921, which incidentally spurred growth in Federal Government revenues. Check out this link from Cato Institute for a more in depth explanation. Not only that, but the tax burden for those in the highest bracket went from paying 29.9% of taxes in 1920 to 61.3% of taxes in 1928, something Progressives should be able to take comfort in.
Here's another example for Madam Secretary to ponder. Reagan also cut taxes across the board, reducing the top margin from 70% to 50%. Here's a link from the Joint Economic Committee expounding on the benefits. Federal Revenue nearly doubled from $244 billion in 1980 to $446 billion in 1989. Again, the tax burden for those in the highest bracket went from 48.0% to 57.2%. Those making between 50th percentile and 95th percentile income saw their tax burden drop 8.8%. Those in the bottom 50th percentile saw their burden drop from 7.5% to 5.7%.
Lastly, in this country we learned this past year that 47% of Americans would pay $0 in Federal Income taxes, thus one could easily state that the bottom 50th percentile that once paid 5.7% of income taxes, now pays 0%. My question to Hillary is as follows: What exactly constitutes "fair share"? This really begs the question, will Progressives ever be satisfied with the amount of taxes the "rich" pay? I say no, and this stems from my belief that Progressives despise wealthy individuals, they truly believe that somehow their gains are ill gotten and therefore no matter what percent of the taxes they pay, it will always be insufficient.
Perhaps a brief history lesson is in store for Madam Secretary. Harding and Coolidge cut taxes from 60% to 25% beginning with the Revenue Act of 1921, which incidentally spurred growth in Federal Government revenues. Check out this link from Cato Institute for a more in depth explanation. Not only that, but the tax burden for those in the highest bracket went from paying 29.9% of taxes in 1920 to 61.3% of taxes in 1928, something Progressives should be able to take comfort in.
Here's another example for Madam Secretary to ponder. Reagan also cut taxes across the board, reducing the top margin from 70% to 50%. Here's a link from the Joint Economic Committee expounding on the benefits. Federal Revenue nearly doubled from $244 billion in 1980 to $446 billion in 1989. Again, the tax burden for those in the highest bracket went from 48.0% to 57.2%. Those making between 50th percentile and 95th percentile income saw their tax burden drop 8.8%. Those in the bottom 50th percentile saw their burden drop from 7.5% to 5.7%.
Lastly, in this country we learned this past year that 47% of Americans would pay $0 in Federal Income taxes, thus one could easily state that the bottom 50th percentile that once paid 5.7% of income taxes, now pays 0%. My question to Hillary is as follows: What exactly constitutes "fair share"? This really begs the question, will Progressives ever be satisfied with the amount of taxes the "rich" pay? I say no, and this stems from my belief that Progressives despise wealthy individuals, they truly believe that somehow their gains are ill gotten and therefore no matter what percent of the taxes they pay, it will always be insufficient.
Thursday, April 29, 2010
March on out of here while you're at it
Reuters is reporting that on May Day, a day for "unions, anarchists and socialist[Marxist/Communist] groups," that across 70 cities in the U.S., illegal immigrants and their patsies will march against the recently signed law in Arizona.
"The marches and demonstrations are going to be far more massive than they otherwise would have been," said Juan Jose Gutierrez, a Los Angeles rally organizer.
"With what's going on in Arizona we see renewed energy for folks to fight for immigration reform," said Marissa Graciosa, of the Fair Immigration Reform Movement.
"What Arizona has done is that it has galvanized, united, fortified, focused our immigration movement," Democratic Representative Luis Gutierrez declared at a news conference.
I find it rather amazing, or perhaps ironic, that the backers of illegal immigration and primary opponents of this law are Hispanic. Never mind that the majority of illegal immigrants do in fact come from south of border, but the representatives of the anti-immigration-enforcement movement call out attention to the fact this is primarily a Latino issue and therefore garners their attention precisely because those primarily affected are Latino. Americans should show grave concern for members of its society that care more about their ethnic brethren than they care about being an American. This is the problem with lack of assimilation, they have no loyalty to this country or our laws, their loyalty belongs to those of their Raza.
The solution to the estimated 12-20 million illegal immigrants is to take away their incentive to be here, jobs. After their May Day rally, Congress should immediately pass Legislation fining employers who hired illegal immigrants $100,000 per illegal immigrant for first time offenders. Second offense should be $250,000 per illegal immigrant and third offense should be confiscation of the personal property of all Corporate Executives and a minimum of five years in Federal prison for aiding and abetting criminal activity. The recently signed law, as we can read in this AP article, is already having the intended consequence of getting illegal immigrants to leave the state.
This notion that somehow people have a RIGHT to come/be here is asinine. Though one can sympathize with people wanting a better life for themselves and their children, the United States cannot alleviate world poverty simply by allowing unfettered immigration. I read a statistic that 40 million people per year are born into poverty. Even if the US allowed one million per year, after ten years we'd have 10 million more poor and the world would have 390 million more poor. The solution is clearly with the rest of the world and forcing free market expansion, weeding out corruption and preserving purchasing power. Our system and Economy are incapable of taking care of the world's poor, it's up to the world to rectify the situation, not one sole country.
"The marches and demonstrations are going to be far more massive than they otherwise would have been," said Juan Jose Gutierrez, a Los Angeles rally organizer.
"With what's going on in Arizona we see renewed energy for folks to fight for immigration reform," said Marissa Graciosa, of the Fair Immigration Reform Movement.
"What Arizona has done is that it has galvanized, united, fortified, focused our immigration movement," Democratic Representative Luis Gutierrez declared at a news conference.
I find it rather amazing, or perhaps ironic, that the backers of illegal immigration and primary opponents of this law are Hispanic. Never mind that the majority of illegal immigrants do in fact come from south of border, but the representatives of the anti-immigration-enforcement movement call out attention to the fact this is primarily a Latino issue and therefore garners their attention precisely because those primarily affected are Latino. Americans should show grave concern for members of its society that care more about their ethnic brethren than they care about being an American. This is the problem with lack of assimilation, they have no loyalty to this country or our laws, their loyalty belongs to those of their Raza.
The solution to the estimated 12-20 million illegal immigrants is to take away their incentive to be here, jobs. After their May Day rally, Congress should immediately pass Legislation fining employers who hired illegal immigrants $100,000 per illegal immigrant for first time offenders. Second offense should be $250,000 per illegal immigrant and third offense should be confiscation of the personal property of all Corporate Executives and a minimum of five years in Federal prison for aiding and abetting criminal activity. The recently signed law, as we can read in this AP article, is already having the intended consequence of getting illegal immigrants to leave the state.
This notion that somehow people have a RIGHT to come/be here is asinine. Though one can sympathize with people wanting a better life for themselves and their children, the United States cannot alleviate world poverty simply by allowing unfettered immigration. I read a statistic that 40 million people per year are born into poverty. Even if the US allowed one million per year, after ten years we'd have 10 million more poor and the world would have 390 million more poor. The solution is clearly with the rest of the world and forcing free market expansion, weeding out corruption and preserving purchasing power. Our system and Economy are incapable of taking care of the world's poor, it's up to the world to rectify the situation, not one sole country.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Racist?! Pfft!
So illegal immigrants and their patsies on the Left think Arizona's new law, SB 1070, is somehow inherently racist because it requires suspected illegal immigrants to provide proof of being in the US legally. I suppose then that being required to show proof of having paid your fare to ride the train is racist. Being required to show a driver's license while operating a motor vehicle must also be racist. This is all of course the feeble attempt of mentally deficient individuals to conjure up arguments as to why certain individuals should be exempt from the laws everyone else is expected to follow. Hopefully the 20-30% of Americans who either don't have a stance on illegal immigration or are against measures to curb illegal immigration will see the entitlement mentality of said illegal immigrants. However I suspect that since they haven't up to this point, it's unlikely they will and thus any concerns they have should be promptly dismissed as lunacy.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
47% Incentivized to not Work, Harder
Phyllis Schlafly wrote that in 2009, 47% of Americans "will pay no federal income taxes". Not only that, but the bottom 40% of earners "not only pay no income tax, but the government sends them cash or benefits". So doing some quick math, 53% of us subsidize 40% of Americans that receive either tax credits or some other form of government assistance.
In complementary fashion to this article, The Wall Street Journal is reporting that Larry Summers, current White House Economic Adviser, wrote in the Concise Encyclopedia of Economics, ed. 1999,
So in addition to redistributing wealth from 53% of taxed earners to the bottom 40%, the 53% of taxed earners subsequently pay the current 9.7% of the Nationally unemployed to remain out of a job because the incentive to find a job doesn't exist. Isn't this common sense? Why work when the "government" takes care of one through unemployment, COBRA, welfare assistance, etc.
Even though unemployment beneficiaries take on average 19 weeks off from working, they can technically receive 79 weeks of unemployment. It's just ridiculous.
This Chicago Tribune article states, in "a 2009 report by the American Legislative Exchange Council: A decade's worth of hard data suggests that states with no individual income tax created 89 percent more jobs, and had 32 percent faster personal income growth, than did states with the highest income tax rates." So let's understand this, if a state has few tax burdens, i.e. one can infer they provide less State services, that State created 89% more jobs resulting in a personal income growth of 32%. So by whatever means the State does collect revenue, it collects more of it because the residents of said State are wealthier.
All this goes to show that the more burdensome government becomes, the less productive, less wealthy, more entitled, its Citizens become. Our country will cease to function at some point because the 53% of us paying taxes will have had enough. We'll never go back to WW2 personal income tax rates of 90+%. It's time to overthrow this crap.
In complementary fashion to this article, The Wall Street Journal is reporting that Larry Summers, current White House Economic Adviser, wrote in the Concise Encyclopedia of Economics, ed. 1999,
"The second way government assistance programs contribute to long-term unemployment is by providing an incentive, and the means, not to work. Each unemployed person has a 'reservation wage'—the minimum wage he or she insists on getting before accepting a job. Unemployment insurance and other social assistance programs increase [the] reservation wage, causing an unemployed person to remain unemployed longer."
So in addition to redistributing wealth from 53% of taxed earners to the bottom 40%, the 53% of taxed earners subsequently pay the current 9.7% of the Nationally unemployed to remain out of a job because the incentive to find a job doesn't exist. Isn't this common sense? Why work when the "government" takes care of one through unemployment, COBRA, welfare assistance, etc.
"Alan Reynolds of the Cato Institute has found that the average unemployment episode rose from 10 weeks before the recession to 19 weeks after Congress twice previously extended jobless benefits—to 79 from 26 weeks."
Even though unemployment beneficiaries take on average 19 weeks off from working, they can technically receive 79 weeks of unemployment. It's just ridiculous.
This Chicago Tribune article states, in "a 2009 report by the American Legislative Exchange Council: A decade's worth of hard data suggests that states with no individual income tax created 89 percent more jobs, and had 32 percent faster personal income growth, than did states with the highest income tax rates." So let's understand this, if a state has few tax burdens, i.e. one can infer they provide less State services, that State created 89% more jobs resulting in a personal income growth of 32%. So by whatever means the State does collect revenue, it collects more of it because the residents of said State are wealthier.
All this goes to show that the more burdensome government becomes, the less productive, less wealthy, more entitled, its Citizens become. Our country will cease to function at some point because the 53% of us paying taxes will have had enough. We'll never go back to WW2 personal income tax rates of 90+%. It's time to overthrow this crap.
Monday, March 22, 2010
Health Care "Reform"
This Bloomberg article talks about all the new taxes proposed under Pelosi-Reid-Obama's supposed Health Care Reform. Let's take a look:
- $409.2 billion total in additional taxes by 2019 broken down by:
- $69 billion in penalties for individuals and businesses who don’t meet mandates to buy insurance. Individuals without insurance will be fined $325 in 2015, $695 in 2016 or 2.5% of income depending on which is greater [i.e. if you make more than $27,800 you'll pay 2.5% of your income in fines]. Employers with 50 or more workers would pay $2,000 per worker if they don’t offer health insurance.
- 3.8% Medicare tax on about 1 million individuals earning more than $200,000 and about 4 million couples filing jointly who make more than $250,000 [9 million people total].
- Obama’s budget allows the existing 15 percent tax rate on dividends and capital gains to rise to 20 percent in 2011 for the same high-earners for a total of a 23.8% tax.
- Increases Medicare tax currently imposed on salaries starting at $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for couples to 2.35 percent, from current 1.45 percent [62% increase].
- 40 percent excise tax on "Cadillac" health insurance plans is delayed until 2018, when it will apply to benefits over $10,200 for individuals and $27,500 for couples.
- Starting in 2013, Americans under 65 won’t be able to deduct medical expenses until they exceed 10 percent of income, up from 7.5 percent.
- New $2,500 limit on what can be contributed to employer-sponsored flexible spending accounts [currently there is no limit].
- Consumers who frequent tanning salons would pay a 10% excise tax.
- Insurers would be denied deductions for executive pay over $500,000.
The entire bill of taxes is a joke. 10% excise tax for frequenting a tanning salon? Who's to say that the Vitamin D produced by one's body isn't worth a 10% tax credit? What does Botox Pelosi have against tanned individuals? Why not charge 10% income taxes on obese people? They're the driving factor for most maladies requiring health care [i.e. diabetes, high blood pressure, coronary artery disease, etc.]. If the President is concerned about the price of health care, why would he depress the wages of Executives that insure most Americans? Most insurance companies run on a 2% profit margin as is. Flex spending accounts allow people to pay for procedures using tax deferred dollars, now one could only afford braces much less any real health procedure. Of course a rallying cry for Democrats is that health care is the leading cause of bankruptcy. How sympathetic is it then to raise the threshold by 33% in order for one to deduct medical expenses from one's income? Why not allow all medical expenses to be deducted from one's income, including the cost of health insurance premiums? The biggest joke of all is the kickback to Unions like SEIU or UAW, delaying their "contribution" to health care reform until 2018 when their Cadillac health plans will be taxed at 40%. The entire bill is a sick, stupid joke.
All said, if Democrats believe that 2008 gave them a mandate to pass health care "reform" then the 2010 political revolution will give Republicans/Conservatives a mandate to repeal said "reform." This business of extracting wealth from the "rich" in order to distribute to the less rich, or "poor" has got to end. People need to re-educate themselves where our Rights come from. Not from Government, who can then take them away, but from our Creator. No one has a right to money, let alone health care, except that which they earn.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Shalom
A diplomatic row erupted during Vice President Joe Biden's visit to Israel last week after it was announced that 1,600 new housing units would be constructed in East Jerusalem. Before Israel's declared Independence in 1948, and the subsequent war that was fought against its Muslim neighbors, in the land of Palestine lived Jews and Muslim Hashemites. Now days we call the Muslim Hashemites "Palestinians," completely ignoring the fact that Jews of the day were also Palestinians. This disregards the historical presence of Jews in the land of Palestine and makes for a clever and convenient argument for the Muslim Hashemites to claim land for their "Palestinian" State.
This Jerusalem Post article titled, "Softer tone coming from Washington," states in its opening paragraph, "US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who blasted Israel on Friday and kept alive a crisis in relations triggered by last week’s announcement of new housing in Ramat Shlomo, reiterated US support for Israel on Tuesday in the first public signs that the crisis was winding down." My question is why was there a crisis to begin with? Since the Jews captured Jerusalem from Adonizedek some 3,000+ years ago, they've had a historical connection to the city since. What connection do Muslim Hashemites have to Jerusalem? None. Various battles have been fought over control of Jerusalem throughout the ages, but whoever is victorious is the owner. The Israelis won their War of Independence in 1948, and won the Six Day War in 1967 [giving them full control over all of Jerusalem and the West Bank]. Which brings us to the present.
Since when in world history do the losers dictate terms of peace? Americans won the Revolutionary War and kicked out the British and formed their own government. Just to solidify our sovereignty, the British got their @$$ handed to them again following the War of 1812. Texas declared Independence following the capture of General Santa Anna following the Battle of the Alamo. Following the Mexican-American War, the terms of peace included the present day Southwest States. The Germans never dictated terms of peace following World Wars 1 & 2. The Japanese didn't dictate terms of peace following their defeat in World War 2. The Victorious always dictate the terms of peace, always. Which brings me back to my question, why was there a crisis to begin with.
There will never be peace between Israelis and "Palestinians" so long as this nefarious double standard exists. The Israelis should flat out state there will be no negotiations for any treaty between the people of Israel and "Palestinians" until the "Palestinians" stop dictating terms for peace and accept that there will never be a "Right of Return" nor will they ever have East Jerusalem as their capital nor will there be a return to pre '67 borders. If Palestinians don't agree to those terms, then war should be declared until "Palestinians" are ready to act like the losers they are and accept peace terms dictated by Israel. That's how the world works, has always worked and will always work.
If one is concerned about the well being of the "Palestinian" refugees, they should consider the fact that there is a Hashemite State called the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, and Amman is its capital. Clinton, Mitchell and Biden should educate themselves re: this country to the east of Israel and look for solutions rather than dictate to Israel what the terms of peace should include. To the "Palestinians," state the facts; you lost, accept Israel's generous offer of peace and be done with it.
This Jerusalem Post article titled, "Softer tone coming from Washington," states in its opening paragraph, "US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who blasted Israel on Friday and kept alive a crisis in relations triggered by last week’s announcement of new housing in Ramat Shlomo, reiterated US support for Israel on Tuesday in the first public signs that the crisis was winding down." My question is why was there a crisis to begin with? Since the Jews captured Jerusalem from Adonizedek some 3,000+ years ago, they've had a historical connection to the city since. What connection do Muslim Hashemites have to Jerusalem? None. Various battles have been fought over control of Jerusalem throughout the ages, but whoever is victorious is the owner. The Israelis won their War of Independence in 1948, and won the Six Day War in 1967 [giving them full control over all of Jerusalem and the West Bank]. Which brings us to the present.
Since when in world history do the losers dictate terms of peace? Americans won the Revolutionary War and kicked out the British and formed their own government. Just to solidify our sovereignty, the British got their @$$ handed to them again following the War of 1812. Texas declared Independence following the capture of General Santa Anna following the Battle of the Alamo. Following the Mexican-American War, the terms of peace included the present day Southwest States. The Germans never dictated terms of peace following World Wars 1 & 2. The Japanese didn't dictate terms of peace following their defeat in World War 2. The Victorious always dictate the terms of peace, always. Which brings me back to my question, why was there a crisis to begin with.
There will never be peace between Israelis and "Palestinians" so long as this nefarious double standard exists. The Israelis should flat out state there will be no negotiations for any treaty between the people of Israel and "Palestinians" until the "Palestinians" stop dictating terms for peace and accept that there will never be a "Right of Return" nor will they ever have East Jerusalem as their capital nor will there be a return to pre '67 borders. If Palestinians don't agree to those terms, then war should be declared until "Palestinians" are ready to act like the losers they are and accept peace terms dictated by Israel. That's how the world works, has always worked and will always work.
If one is concerned about the well being of the "Palestinian" refugees, they should consider the fact that there is a Hashemite State called the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, and Amman is its capital. Clinton, Mitchell and Biden should educate themselves re: this country to the east of Israel and look for solutions rather than dictate to Israel what the terms of peace should include. To the "Palestinians," state the facts; you lost, accept Israel's generous offer of peace and be done with it.
Friday, March 5, 2010
Immigration Reform???
In this LA Times article, it's being reported that Schumer (D) of New York and Graham (R) of South Carolina are pushing so called immigration reform. Part of this reform entails granting US Citizenship to an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants. In order to become Citizens, "Undocumented workers would need to register, pay taxes and pay a penalty for violating the law."
I won't even begin to attack how ridiculous it will be for them to pay taxes and a penalty [they're dirt poor!!] because that's such a joke a response would be a waste of time. But what's worthy of response is how much this cheapens US Citizenship. Millions of people have gone through the naturalization process which can take more than ten years, all in an effort to legally become US Citizens. Their efforts will have been in vain if this Legislation passes simply because all they had to do was hop the fence separating the US from Mexico. Part of the naturalization process is having an adequate understanding of the English language. As anyone can attest, most illegal immigrants south of the border come here looking for a yob and like to order Yumbo Yacks from Jack in the Box and furthermore take mijo and mija with them when they need someone to speak English for them.
One should ask themselves, with their close proximity to Spanish speaking Central and South America, what incentive do these people have to learn English? What incentive do they have to assimilate into American culture and become Americans? If they don't want to learn English and don't want to assimilate into America's superior culture, they need to get the hell out of here. They have no right to be here, and for one to feel they have a right to be here implies an absolute sense of arrogance and entitlement.
I've said this before and I'll say it again, the solution is to remove the incentive illegal immigrants have to be here, one word, JOBS. Give them 90-days to leave, with no fear of reprisal, after which, all rights of Habeus Corpus will be suspended for expired visa holders and illegal immigrant trespassers. After which, they'll be deported and barred from re-entry for ten years. Employers will also have 90-days to verify rights of employees to work in the US. After which, for first time offenders, a fine of $100,000 per illegal immigrant employee; second time offenders, a fine of $250,000 per illegal immigrant employee; third time offenders will have their business confiscated and sold and all proceeds will go to the US Treasury Department. Additionally, the entire Executive Board will be subject to ten years imprisonment and at a minimum all their personal property will be confiscated and sold regardless of their spouse and children.
I'll conclude by saying that Obama is insane if he thinks he can push the same Legislation pushed by Bush via McCain-Kennedy, and not suffer the same American outrage Bush faced. If this Legislation is pushed by Obama and the Democrats, it will be the death nail come Election time in November. Nothing could actually be better for Patriots and those who are fed up with Washington's arrogance than for this Legislation to be brought to the floor of the US Senate. With a takeover of the House and Senate, perhaps a little Impeachment for Dereliction of Duty is in order.
I won't even begin to attack how ridiculous it will be for them to pay taxes and a penalty [they're dirt poor!!] because that's such a joke a response would be a waste of time. But what's worthy of response is how much this cheapens US Citizenship. Millions of people have gone through the naturalization process which can take more than ten years, all in an effort to legally become US Citizens. Their efforts will have been in vain if this Legislation passes simply because all they had to do was hop the fence separating the US from Mexico. Part of the naturalization process is having an adequate understanding of the English language. As anyone can attest, most illegal immigrants south of the border come here looking for a yob and like to order Yumbo Yacks from Jack in the Box and furthermore take mijo and mija with them when they need someone to speak English for them.
One should ask themselves, with their close proximity to Spanish speaking Central and South America, what incentive do these people have to learn English? What incentive do they have to assimilate into American culture and become Americans? If they don't want to learn English and don't want to assimilate into America's superior culture, they need to get the hell out of here. They have no right to be here, and for one to feel they have a right to be here implies an absolute sense of arrogance and entitlement.
I've said this before and I'll say it again, the solution is to remove the incentive illegal immigrants have to be here, one word, JOBS. Give them 90-days to leave, with no fear of reprisal, after which, all rights of Habeus Corpus will be suspended for expired visa holders and illegal immigrant trespassers. After which, they'll be deported and barred from re-entry for ten years. Employers will also have 90-days to verify rights of employees to work in the US. After which, for first time offenders, a fine of $100,000 per illegal immigrant employee; second time offenders, a fine of $250,000 per illegal immigrant employee; third time offenders will have their business confiscated and sold and all proceeds will go to the US Treasury Department. Additionally, the entire Executive Board will be subject to ten years imprisonment and at a minimum all their personal property will be confiscated and sold regardless of their spouse and children.
I'll conclude by saying that Obama is insane if he thinks he can push the same Legislation pushed by Bush via McCain-Kennedy, and not suffer the same American outrage Bush faced. If this Legislation is pushed by Obama and the Democrats, it will be the death nail come Election time in November. Nothing could actually be better for Patriots and those who are fed up with Washington's arrogance than for this Legislation to be brought to the floor of the US Senate. With a takeover of the House and Senate, perhaps a little Impeachment for Dereliction of Duty is in order.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)