Let’s boil the Obama tax plan down to trick-or-treating.
Let’s take 100 kids.
Since 40% of Americans don’t pay taxes then 40 children will stay home. We’ll call them the “poor”.
The other 60 all go out trick-or-treating.
After they all return we’ll line them all up by who brought back the most candy.
Then, we’ll line up the 40 who didn’t trick-or-treat right next to them.
Since we’re going to impose a tax on the top 5% of Americans then the 5 best trick-or-treaters will now share their candy with the other 95 children. We’ll call these top-5 candy gatherers the “rich”.
First, the other 55 who went trick-or-treating (who we’ll call the middle class) will each give 1 piece of candy to each of the 40 children who didn’t go trick-or-treating.
Second, the top-5 candy gatherers (rich) will give 2 pieces of candy to each of the other 55 (middle class) who went trick-or-treating.
Lastly, the top-5 candy gatherers (rich) will give 2 pieces of candy to each of the other 40 who didn’t go trick-or-treating (poor).
Does this seem fair? Is it fair for children to receive candy who didn’t earn it? Is it fair for those hard-working children to have to share their candy with those who did nothing?
Do you think the top-5 trick-or-treaters will go trick-or-treating next year since they’ll get candy whether they do or not?
If they do will they make sure they’re not in the top-5?
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Monday, October 20, 2008
Joe the Plumber
Joe the Plumber asked Barack Obama "I’m getting ready to buy a company that makes $250,000 to $280,000 a year. Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn’t it?” Ever since then the crucifixion of Joe the Plumber has begun.
His Divorce papers have been read on the radio, it’s been claimed that he’s not even a plumber, and he’s been accused of being a McCain campaign “plant” even though Obama was wandering through HIS neighborhood. Many times the Obama campaign has accused the McCain campaign of politics of distraction. Isn’t that what the Democrats and their puppet news outlets are doing now?
Joe the Plumber and his life aren’t even relevant. What IS relevant is the question he asked Barack Obama and Barack Obama’s revealing answer. Obama stated, "If your revenue is above $250,000, then from $250,000 down, your taxes are going to stay the same. It is true that for $250,000 up… you'd go from 36% to 39%, which is where it was under Bill Clinton." He went on to explain “it’s not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance at success, too. And I think that when we spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody”.
“Spread the wealth around”? Take from the rich and give to the poor? Who is he; Robin Obamahood now? How is it fair to take money from people who earned it and give it to people who haven’t? Isn’t this SOCIALISM?
After Obama wins I think I’ll retire. Why not? With all those rich people making $250,000 or more sending me checks every month who wouldn’t?
His Divorce papers have been read on the radio, it’s been claimed that he’s not even a plumber, and he’s been accused of being a McCain campaign “plant” even though Obama was wandering through HIS neighborhood. Many times the Obama campaign has accused the McCain campaign of politics of distraction. Isn’t that what the Democrats and their puppet news outlets are doing now?
Joe the Plumber and his life aren’t even relevant. What IS relevant is the question he asked Barack Obama and Barack Obama’s revealing answer. Obama stated, "If your revenue is above $250,000, then from $250,000 down, your taxes are going to stay the same. It is true that for $250,000 up… you'd go from 36% to 39%, which is where it was under Bill Clinton." He went on to explain “it’s not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance at success, too. And I think that when we spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody”.
“Spread the wealth around”? Take from the rich and give to the poor? Who is he; Robin Obamahood now? How is it fair to take money from people who earned it and give it to people who haven’t? Isn’t this SOCIALISM?
After Obama wins I think I’ll retire. Why not? With all those rich people making $250,000 or more sending me checks every month who wouldn’t?
Friday, October 17, 2008
The Last Debate
If you're looking at substance John McCain eeked out a narrow victory. But, it wasn't what he needed.
Barack Obama was on the defensive most of the night but that was probably the game plan. He was just trying to not make a mistake. In Football that's called a "prevent defense". When you have the lead you just hang on and try not to give up the big play the puts your opponent back in the game.
John McCain's problem is he doesn't know how to elaborate clearly. He had several opportunities but he missed them all. He misses the "key" words that stick in peoples minds. When discussing William Ayers he was right in saying the association didn't matter but what he should've added was "it's not the association that matters but the coverup of this association and others". The word "coverup" would've stood out. Everyone knows that both Richard Nixon's and Bill Clinton's scandal's were more about the "coverup" than the actual offense.
When talking about Partial Birth Abortion he should've looked at Obama and asked "do you even know what Partial Birth Abortion is? Do you understand that when the babies head begins to come out that they drill a hole in its head, stick a tube in and suck out its brain? Are you saying that that is OK?" THAT, would've had an impact.
When talking about taxes he should've explained that corporations don't really pay taxes. They pass that expense on to consumers as the cost of doing business. He also should've included in his talk about lowering corporate taxes that it'd help keep American jobs in America and reduce outsourcing because corporations will be able to afford to hire Americans. "Outsourcing" is a big concern with Americans these days.
To rebut Obama's middle-class tax cut he should've asked "what good is a lower tax rate on NO income?". Taxing the rich and giving to the poor will only increase prices because the business owners will hire less people, lay off more people, add the tax increase into their costs and increase the prices of their goods and services. Thus, those who still have a job will end up spending their "tax breaks" to pay for the business owners tax increases. You can either trickle down income or trickle up taxes. He also should've mentioned that 40% of Obama's 95% don't pay any taxes at all anyway. How are you going to give a tax cut to people who don't pay taxes?
McCain is losing because he fails to say the right thing. Obama is winning because he fails to say the wrong thing.
Unfortunately neither party nominated their best candidate just the easiest to nominate.
Barack Obama was on the defensive most of the night but that was probably the game plan. He was just trying to not make a mistake. In Football that's called a "prevent defense". When you have the lead you just hang on and try not to give up the big play the puts your opponent back in the game.
John McCain's problem is he doesn't know how to elaborate clearly. He had several opportunities but he missed them all. He misses the "key" words that stick in peoples minds. When discussing William Ayers he was right in saying the association didn't matter but what he should've added was "it's not the association that matters but the coverup of this association and others". The word "coverup" would've stood out. Everyone knows that both Richard Nixon's and Bill Clinton's scandal's were more about the "coverup" than the actual offense.
When talking about Partial Birth Abortion he should've looked at Obama and asked "do you even know what Partial Birth Abortion is? Do you understand that when the babies head begins to come out that they drill a hole in its head, stick a tube in and suck out its brain? Are you saying that that is OK?" THAT, would've had an impact.
When talking about taxes he should've explained that corporations don't really pay taxes. They pass that expense on to consumers as the cost of doing business. He also should've included in his talk about lowering corporate taxes that it'd help keep American jobs in America and reduce outsourcing because corporations will be able to afford to hire Americans. "Outsourcing" is a big concern with Americans these days.
To rebut Obama's middle-class tax cut he should've asked "what good is a lower tax rate on NO income?". Taxing the rich and giving to the poor will only increase prices because the business owners will hire less people, lay off more people, add the tax increase into their costs and increase the prices of their goods and services. Thus, those who still have a job will end up spending their "tax breaks" to pay for the business owners tax increases. You can either trickle down income or trickle up taxes. He also should've mentioned that 40% of Obama's 95% don't pay any taxes at all anyway. How are you going to give a tax cut to people who don't pay taxes?
McCain is losing because he fails to say the right thing. Obama is winning because he fails to say the wrong thing.
Unfortunately neither party nominated their best candidate just the easiest to nominate.
Monday, October 13, 2008
Homeless Veterans
There are many news reports that state 1 in 4 homeless people across the United States are Veterans. That is an alarming number. USAToday, Fox News, ABC News and many others have written articles about this phenomenon. But remember, statistics can tell whatever story you want them to tell.
This is not intended to belittle the claim because this is an important issue. Even ONE homeless person in the greatest country to ever grace this planet is ONE too many. But, their claim is a little misleading. While it’s true that 1 in 4 homeless people are veterans it’s not the whole story.
The 2005 census estimates there are 24.5 million veterans in the U.S. That'd make about 1 in every 12 citizens a veteran (8.3% of the general population). Thus, if homeless people were proportionate to the general population then 1 in 12 would be veterans. Based on these numbers it seems veterans are 3 times more likely to be homeless than non-veterans.
But wait, there's more. For one thing don't forget that the overwhelming number of military personnel (and therefore veterans) is male. According to 2004 census numbers 15% of the military are women and 85% are male. Some more numbers from PBS, suggest that it's not as bad as it sounds. About 66% of all homeless people are Men. While male veterans make up 34% of the general population (this would imply males are about 80% of all veterans which is consistent with the 2004 census numbers) they make up 40% of the male homeless population. Thus, homeless men are only about 18% more likely to be veterans. That's vastly different than "3 times more likely".
Homelessness in America is an important problem that must be addressed. But, there are many different reasons for people being homeless. Many people imply our Veterans are homeless because they’re suffering from “Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder”. This implies weakness that these Veterans couldn’t handle being in a war. This is obviously not true as male Veterans are only 18% more likely to be homeless than non-veterans and that could be attributed to a lack of proper transitioning from soldier back to citizen. Our young men are trained to be soldiers but are never trained to return back to an everyday citizen. Focusing on the “real” problems of homelessness like substance abuse, mental illness, and a faulty healthcare system would be more productive in solving this very important issue.
This is not intended to belittle the claim because this is an important issue. Even ONE homeless person in the greatest country to ever grace this planet is ONE too many. But, their claim is a little misleading. While it’s true that 1 in 4 homeless people are veterans it’s not the whole story.
The 2005 census estimates there are 24.5 million veterans in the U.S. That'd make about 1 in every 12 citizens a veteran (8.3% of the general population). Thus, if homeless people were proportionate to the general population then 1 in 12 would be veterans. Based on these numbers it seems veterans are 3 times more likely to be homeless than non-veterans.
But wait, there's more. For one thing don't forget that the overwhelming number of military personnel (and therefore veterans) is male. According to 2004 census numbers 15% of the military are women and 85% are male. Some more numbers from PBS, suggest that it's not as bad as it sounds. About 66% of all homeless people are Men. While male veterans make up 34% of the general population (this would imply males are about 80% of all veterans which is consistent with the 2004 census numbers) they make up 40% of the male homeless population. Thus, homeless men are only about 18% more likely to be veterans. That's vastly different than "3 times more likely".
Homelessness in America is an important problem that must be addressed. But, there are many different reasons for people being homeless. Many people imply our Veterans are homeless because they’re suffering from “Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder”. This implies weakness that these Veterans couldn’t handle being in a war. This is obviously not true as male Veterans are only 18% more likely to be homeless than non-veterans and that could be attributed to a lack of proper transitioning from soldier back to citizen. Our young men are trained to be soldiers but are never trained to return back to an everyday citizen. Focusing on the “real” problems of homelessness like substance abuse, mental illness, and a faulty healthcare system would be more productive in solving this very important issue.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Eliminate Healthcare
No, not really. But, small businesses and large businesses need to get out of the Healthcare business and do what they do best…their business.
Far too long American businesses have dabbled in the Healthcare industry. Each business that provides Healthcare for its employees tweaks what it will pay for and won’t pay for to its best advantage. They teeter-totter between keeping their own costs low and providing an enticing benefit to attract quality employees.
Sadly, when the employee leaves the company they no longer have Healthcare. They’re at the mercy of their next employer determining whether they have a “pre-existing” condition that might not be covered. The American people need their own Healthcare that frees them from their employer. Many people stay in jobs they don't like just for the Healthcare benefits. It's time this antiquated system ended.
What we need is a healthy balance between Capitalism and Universal Healthcare. Healthcare should not be “free” but it also should not be cost prohibitive. People should get the care they need when they need it at a fair and reasonable price. There's plenty of money already being spent by employees and employers to cover the costs of a new system. We don't need "new" taxes for this. What we need is to correctly funnel the money already being spent into a new and improved system for the American people.
By taking Healthcare out of the hands of the employers this frees up the employers to focus on their business. Without the overhead of determining and maintaining a Healthcare benefit for their employees they’ll save money, create jobs and grow their business.
Far too long American businesses have dabbled in the Healthcare industry. Each business that provides Healthcare for its employees tweaks what it will pay for and won’t pay for to its best advantage. They teeter-totter between keeping their own costs low and providing an enticing benefit to attract quality employees.
Sadly, when the employee leaves the company they no longer have Healthcare. They’re at the mercy of their next employer determining whether they have a “pre-existing” condition that might not be covered. The American people need their own Healthcare that frees them from their employer. Many people stay in jobs they don't like just for the Healthcare benefits. It's time this antiquated system ended.
What we need is a healthy balance between Capitalism and Universal Healthcare. Healthcare should not be “free” but it also should not be cost prohibitive. People should get the care they need when they need it at a fair and reasonable price. There's plenty of money already being spent by employees and employers to cover the costs of a new system. We don't need "new" taxes for this. What we need is to correctly funnel the money already being spent into a new and improved system for the American people.
By taking Healthcare out of the hands of the employers this frees up the employers to focus on their business. Without the overhead of determining and maintaining a Healthcare benefit for their employees they’ll save money, create jobs and grow their business.
Sunday, October 5, 2008
TAXES (Who really Pays)
This should come as no surprise to anyone, but generally the middle income earners pay the majority of the Federal/State Income taxes. To illustrate where the IRS gets most of its revenue, I will use a simple Bell Curve. Take a piece of paper and with a pencil or pen simply draw the shape of a BELL.
On the left side of the Bell, just outside of the line write “10%”. On the right side of the Bell, just outside the line write “10%”. Inside the Bell diagram write “80%”. The left side of the Bell shows that 10% of the people in the U.S. do not pay any Fed/State taxes because they are either not working or are getting a very small income. The right side of the Bell shows that 10% of working American are what Senator Obama would call Wealthy Americans. The remaining 80%, those inside the Bell are Middle Income wage earners of varying degrees of income. As you can see Middle Income wage earners is where the Democrats go to for more money in the form of a TAX Increase.
For this election Senator Obama/Biden are claiming that they will reduce the Taxes for those who reside inside the Bell and only increase Taxes for those who reside on the right side of the Bell, which by the way include all of America’s huge corporations. This sounds great, but, there are consequences to any Tax Hike of any kind. Lets take a closer look:
I will start by stating a few basic truths about the RICH:
1. The Rich did not get Rich by paying huge sums of money to the Government.
2. Corporations like profits and will NOT see their profits lowered by increased Taxes. Corporations will pass the increase onto the consumers, that means you and me, Middle Americans.
3. The incentive to become Rich is diminished knowing that once you reach the $250,000 or greater mark, the Government will swoop down and take it away as planned by the Senator for Change, Obama
If Senator Obama/Biden win the Presidency the Wealthy Americans will see a Tax Increase and everyone else will get a Tax decrease. Lets follow the money. I will use Corporation “A” as an example, but this also applies to every Small Business Owner in America that qualifies for the Tax Increase.
Corporation A is made up of Employees, Middle Income Americans, and those Americans who have bought Stock in the Company, usually the Wealthier Americans. The revenue from the sale of stock is used by the Corporation for Research and Development, Buying other Companies, etc….
The people who own this stock in Corporation A expect to earn a profit from their investment and the Corporation will do anything it can to provide that profit. So, if Corporation A now has to pay more Taxes, the corporation has to get the money from somewhere and still provide a profit to the shareholders.
Corporation A has several solutions:
1. Lay off Employees and ship the jobs overseas where the labor is cheaper and where there is a more favorable Tax structure. Enjoy that TAX Break while you can, because you may be outsourced to pay for it.
2. Raise the cost of the product that is being sold to the consumer. Maybe this will work since Middle Americans will have that big reduction in their Taxes. At least for those who still have their Jobs.
On the left side of the Bell, just outside of the line write “10%”. On the right side of the Bell, just outside the line write “10%”. Inside the Bell diagram write “80%”. The left side of the Bell shows that 10% of the people in the U.S. do not pay any Fed/State taxes because they are either not working or are getting a very small income. The right side of the Bell shows that 10% of working American are what Senator Obama would call Wealthy Americans. The remaining 80%, those inside the Bell are Middle Income wage earners of varying degrees of income. As you can see Middle Income wage earners is where the Democrats go to for more money in the form of a TAX Increase.
For this election Senator Obama/Biden are claiming that they will reduce the Taxes for those who reside inside the Bell and only increase Taxes for those who reside on the right side of the Bell, which by the way include all of America’s huge corporations. This sounds great, but, there are consequences to any Tax Hike of any kind. Lets take a closer look:
I will start by stating a few basic truths about the RICH:
1. The Rich did not get Rich by paying huge sums of money to the Government.
2. Corporations like profits and will NOT see their profits lowered by increased Taxes. Corporations will pass the increase onto the consumers, that means you and me, Middle Americans.
3. The incentive to become Rich is diminished knowing that once you reach the $250,000 or greater mark, the Government will swoop down and take it away as planned by the Senator for Change, Obama
If Senator Obama/Biden win the Presidency the Wealthy Americans will see a Tax Increase and everyone else will get a Tax decrease. Lets follow the money. I will use Corporation “A” as an example, but this also applies to every Small Business Owner in America that qualifies for the Tax Increase.
Corporation A is made up of Employees, Middle Income Americans, and those Americans who have bought Stock in the Company, usually the Wealthier Americans. The revenue from the sale of stock is used by the Corporation for Research and Development, Buying other Companies, etc….
The people who own this stock in Corporation A expect to earn a profit from their investment and the Corporation will do anything it can to provide that profit. So, if Corporation A now has to pay more Taxes, the corporation has to get the money from somewhere and still provide a profit to the shareholders.
Corporation A has several solutions:
1. Lay off Employees and ship the jobs overseas where the labor is cheaper and where there is a more favorable Tax structure. Enjoy that TAX Break while you can, because you may be outsourced to pay for it.
2. Raise the cost of the product that is being sold to the consumer. Maybe this will work since Middle Americans will have that big reduction in their Taxes. At least for those who still have their Jobs.
Saturday, October 4, 2008
O.J. Guilty...duh.
A jury found O.J. Simpson guilty. What a shocker. O.J. Simpson would be found guilty of anything he’s charged with in America. There’s no way he could get a fair trial.
There are so many people in this country who have considered O.J. Simpson guilty of murdering his ex-wife 13 years ago that they’d use any excuse to put him in jail. In professional sports it’s referred to as a “make-up” call. If charged, O.J. would even be convicted of being the second-shooter in the Kennedy Assassination.
None of this should be a surprise to anyone. Without getting into the details of his recent court case O.J. is mainly guilty of one thing...being an idiot. He should’ve known that he’d never get a truly fair trial in America and should’ve been extra careful to not do something stupid.
Where O.J. failed was in being stupid enough to do something that would get himself arrested. He should’ve remained above reproach. O.J. would be found guilty of J-walking, driving 56 in a 55, and eating more than he could eat at an all-you-can-eat Salad Bar. Thus, O.J. is guilty of being an idiot. He may spend the next 15 years in prison for being “stupid in public”.
There are so many people in this country who have considered O.J. Simpson guilty of murdering his ex-wife 13 years ago that they’d use any excuse to put him in jail. In professional sports it’s referred to as a “make-up” call. If charged, O.J. would even be convicted of being the second-shooter in the Kennedy Assassination.
None of this should be a surprise to anyone. Without getting into the details of his recent court case O.J. is mainly guilty of one thing...being an idiot. He should’ve known that he’d never get a truly fair trial in America and should’ve been extra careful to not do something stupid.
Where O.J. failed was in being stupid enough to do something that would get himself arrested. He should’ve remained above reproach. O.J. would be found guilty of J-walking, driving 56 in a 55, and eating more than he could eat at an all-you-can-eat Salad Bar. Thus, O.J. is guilty of being an idiot. He may spend the next 15 years in prison for being “stupid in public”.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)