I like a guy who is not afraid to wear an orange tie...
I like a guy who hands the President of the United States his hat, and eats his lunch....
I like a guy who can do basic math...
...all WITHOUT A TELEPROMPTER
Derned facts!
Friday, September 30, 2011
Monday, September 26, 2011
Sunday, September 25, 2011
That Duck is a Duck...
A Ponzi scheme is an investment operation that pays returns to its investors from their own money or the money paid by subsequent investors, rather than from any actual profit earned by the individual or organization running the operation.
Social Security is a social insurance program that is primarily funded through dedicated payroll taxes called Federal Insuarnce Contributions Act tax (FICA).
In 2010, Social Security total income was $781.1 billion and expenditures were $712.5 billion, which meant a total net increase in assets of $68.6 billion. Assets in 2010 were $2.6 trillion, an amount that is expected to be adequate to cover the next 10 years. In 2023, total income and interest earned on assets are projected to no longer cover expenditures for Social Security, as demographic shifts burden the system. By 2035, the ratio of potential retirees to working age persons will be 37 percent — there will be less than three potential income earners for every retiree in the population. The trust fund would then be exhausted by 2036.
Social Security is a social insurance program that is primarily funded through dedicated payroll taxes called Federal Insuarnce Contributions Act tax (FICA).
In 2010, Social Security total income was $781.1 billion and expenditures were $712.5 billion, which meant a total net increase in assets of $68.6 billion. Assets in 2010 were $2.6 trillion, an amount that is expected to be adequate to cover the next 10 years. In 2023, total income and interest earned on assets are projected to no longer cover expenditures for Social Security, as demographic shifts burden the system. By 2035, the ratio of potential retirees to working age persons will be 37 percent — there will be less than three potential income earners for every retiree in the population. The trust fund would then be exhausted by 2036.
Friday, September 23, 2011
Math...
Obama: "This is not class warfare -- It's math"
"The money has to come from some place," he continued. "If we're not willing to ask those who've done extraordinarily well to help America close the deficit... the math says everybody else has to do a whole lot more, we've got to put the entire burden on the middle class and the poor."
The president is also putting forward a measure he's calling the "Buffett Rule" -- named for billionaire investor Warren Buffett -- to compel those making $1 million or more a year to pay the same overall rate as other taxpayers. Taxpayers making $1 million or more often make their fortune through investment income, which is taxed at 15 percent; the top income tax rate is 35 percent.
Okay...lets do the math:
The top 10% of income earners in the United States, pay 70% of the personal income taxes collected by the federal government. $114,000 puts you in the top 10 percent of income earners.
Obama and the Democrats throw around the number $250,000. If a married couple makes less than $250,000, their taxes (federal income taxes) won't go up...they say. That represents the top 2%.
The average total federal tax rate (income tax + others) for those in the top 0.1 percent was 30.7 percent. That means for the ultra-rich, 1/3 of every dollar they earn, goes to the federal government (not including state taxes).
Ignore the fact that history shows when you increase tax rates you DO NOT always increase tax revenues. Ignore that Obama said “We have not proposed a tax hike for the wealthy that would take effect in the middle of a recession...the last thing you want to do is raise taxes in the middle of a recession because that would just suck up – take more demand out of the economy and put business further in a hole.”
You simply can't solve our deficit spending problem, by increasing taxes on 2% of American tax payers...
"The money has to come from some place," he continued. "If we're not willing to ask those who've done extraordinarily well to help America close the deficit... the math says everybody else has to do a whole lot more, we've got to put the entire burden on the middle class and the poor."
The president is also putting forward a measure he's calling the "Buffett Rule" -- named for billionaire investor Warren Buffett -- to compel those making $1 million or more a year to pay the same overall rate as other taxpayers. Taxpayers making $1 million or more often make their fortune through investment income, which is taxed at 15 percent; the top income tax rate is 35 percent.
Okay...lets do the math:
Obama and the Democrats throw around the number $250,000. If a married couple makes less than $250,000, their taxes (federal income taxes) won't go up...they say. That represents the top 2%.
The average total federal tax rate (income tax + others) for those in the top 0.1 percent was 30.7 percent. That means for the ultra-rich, 1/3 of every dollar they earn, goes to the federal government (not including state taxes).
Ignore the fact that history shows when you increase tax rates you DO NOT always increase tax revenues. Ignore that Obama said “We have not proposed a tax hike for the wealthy that would take effect in the middle of a recession...the last thing you want to do is raise taxes in the middle of a recession because that would just suck up – take more demand out of the economy and put business further in a hole.”
You simply can't solve our deficit spending problem, by increasing taxes on 2% of American tax payers...
Thursday, September 22, 2011
A Message...
...from Ronald Reagan to the Tea Party, in reference to the election of Barack Obama
From the Dec. 1, 1964, issue of National Review
By now a new cliché has been added to the time-worn list, but I know of no other way of comment on the election than to open with the by now familiar — “Well, it’s over and we lost.”
Yes, we did; we lost a battle in the continuing war for freedom, but our position is not untenable. First of all, there are 26 million of us and we can’t be explained away as diehard party faithfuls. We cross party lines in our dedication to a philosophy.
There are no plans for retreating from our present positions, but we can’t advance without reinforcements. Are reinforcements available? The answer is an unhesitating — “Yes!” They are to be found in the millions of so-called Republican defectors — those people who didn’t really want LBJ, but who were scared of what they thought we represented. Read that sentence very carefully because in my opinion it tells the story. All of the landslide majority did not vote against the conservative philosophy; they voted against a false image our Liberal opponents successfully mounted. Indeed it was a double false image. Not only did they portray us as advancing a kind of radical departure from the status quo, but they took for themselves a costume of comfortable conservatism. Read again their campaign fiction and you will find their normal flamboyant Liberalism hidden under the protective coloration of “the great society,” or as Hubert Horatio Humphrey (who can’t ask what time it is without conducting a filibuster) put it: “We don’t want a planned society — we want society planning.”
Unfortunately, human nature resists change and goes over backward to avoid radical change. It’s a head shaker, I know, but the whole Liberal apparatus which can be quoted ad infinitum on “the wave of the future, the need for new approaches to old problems, adopt new rules for complex new problems, forget the Constitution,” was able to campaign in a last year’s model, singing, “The old songs — the old songs are good enough for me.”
Very shortly, though, they’ll bring the show into town for a four-year run, complete with a new score — words and music by Reuther, Joseph Rauh, and the “Great Society Chorale.” Time then for the music critics — that’s us. We must dwell unceasingly on the change of tune. Our job beginning now is not so much to sell conservatism as to prove that our conservatism is in truth what a lot of people thought they were voting for when they fell for the cornpone come-on.
In short — time now for the soft sell to prove our radicalism was an optical illusion. We represent the forgotten American — that simple soul who goes to work, bucks for a raise, takes out insurance, pays for his kids’ schooling, contributes to his church and charity and knows there just “ain’t no such thing as free lunch.”
I’ll add a postscript — I don’t think we should turn the high command over to leaders who were traitors during the battle just ended.
From the Dec. 1, 1964, issue of National Review
By now a new cliché has been added to the time-worn list, but I know of no other way of comment on the election than to open with the by now familiar — “Well, it’s over and we lost.”
Yes, we did; we lost a battle in the continuing war for freedom, but our position is not untenable. First of all, there are 26 million of us and we can’t be explained away as diehard party faithfuls. We cross party lines in our dedication to a philosophy.
There are no plans for retreating from our present positions, but we can’t advance without reinforcements. Are reinforcements available? The answer is an unhesitating — “Yes!” They are to be found in the millions of so-called Republican defectors — those people who didn’t really want LBJ, but who were scared of what they thought we represented. Read that sentence very carefully because in my opinion it tells the story. All of the landslide majority did not vote against the conservative philosophy; they voted against a false image our Liberal opponents successfully mounted. Indeed it was a double false image. Not only did they portray us as advancing a kind of radical departure from the status quo, but they took for themselves a costume of comfortable conservatism. Read again their campaign fiction and you will find their normal flamboyant Liberalism hidden under the protective coloration of “the great society,” or as Hubert Horatio Humphrey (who can’t ask what time it is without conducting a filibuster) put it: “We don’t want a planned society — we want society planning.”
Unfortunately, human nature resists change and goes over backward to avoid radical change. It’s a head shaker, I know, but the whole Liberal apparatus which can be quoted ad infinitum on “the wave of the future, the need for new approaches to old problems, adopt new rules for complex new problems, forget the Constitution,” was able to campaign in a last year’s model, singing, “The old songs — the old songs are good enough for me.”
Very shortly, though, they’ll bring the show into town for a four-year run, complete with a new score — words and music by Reuther, Joseph Rauh, and the “Great Society Chorale.” Time then for the music critics — that’s us. We must dwell unceasingly on the change of tune. Our job beginning now is not so much to sell conservatism as to prove that our conservatism is in truth what a lot of people thought they were voting for when they fell for the cornpone come-on.
In short — time now for the soft sell to prove our radicalism was an optical illusion. We represent the forgotten American — that simple soul who goes to work, bucks for a raise, takes out insurance, pays for his kids’ schooling, contributes to his church and charity and knows there just “ain’t no such thing as free lunch.”
I’ll add a postscript — I don’t think we should turn the high command over to leaders who were traitors during the battle just ended.
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
How Can Someone So Smart...
...be so stupid.I give you Warren Buffet.
I have never admired Mr. Buffet, except for his personal frugality. As frugal as a billionaire can be.
Now, thankfully, Obama has jumped on Buffet's claim that Buffet's secretary pays more taxes than he does. Thankfully, it is getting alot of press that it simply isn't true. She pays a higher INCOME TAX RATE, because Buffet owns everything - he doesn't collect a PAYCHECK, which is what is taxed in INCOME TAX.
Obama and the Democrats are doing what the Democrats historically do. Ignore history.
The Buffet rule or whatever they are calling it - is an effort to get the ultra-rich to pay more taxes. Uh...we have tried that, its called the Alternative Minimum Tax.
It didn't work the first time, and its been NOT WORKING for 42 years. And worse - members of both parties campaign against it, claiming to want to get rid of it - but they don't. They can't. Once they create it, they think its an institution, and that they have to alter it.
[ Many Republicans said the same thing about Obamacare - "Well they passed it, so you can't just get rid of it"...what happened to YES WE CAN?
"Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" - Ronald Reagan]
These are the same people (including many Republicans) who try to fight "sending jobs overseas." Jobs go overseas, when it is less expensive to do so. Where does Obama think the money millionaires and billionaires have will go - when he tries to take it?
Sunday, September 18, 2011
In Other News...
Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Frank, etc., continue to try to transform the country into something it never was, pushing us to the brink...
However, now that MMA has exploded onto the scene - can't we all recognize that boxers are a thing of the past, and their sport simply exists for gamblers? I'm fine with that, its just that these clowns (current 'champions') make millions - and most Americans can't name the Heavyweight Champion of the World...or any other weight category for that matter...but you see UFC t-shirts all over the place, and any guy I know can name at least half a dozen recent champions and contenders.
Again, I'm okay with them earning their money, but where is their pride in their sport?
It all ended for me with boxing when Tyson tried to eat Evander Holyfield. They DQ'd Tyson? Isn't it a fight? A new sport was born...its called Mixed Martial Arts. It started off with only a few rules, and I think 'No Biting' was one of them, but still, its a REAL FIGHT.
The current billionaire boxing champion to prove he could not exist in a ring with any moderately skilled REAL fighter, was Floyd Mayweather.
Mayweather knocked out Victor Ortiz in what I consider a completely legal hit. Ortiz knows the rules of boxing, and should have...uh...fought. Anyway, Mayweather did not want to face tough questions about the fight, or another fight that he knows 80-year-old Larry Merchant was going to ask about.
The thing to watch....Merchant's response (Warning: Rated R language, not anything you won't hear in a fight in the park after school, but pretty bad stuff for boxing). He knows Mayweather is all show...
However, now that MMA has exploded onto the scene - can't we all recognize that boxers are a thing of the past, and their sport simply exists for gamblers? I'm fine with that, its just that these clowns (current 'champions') make millions - and most Americans can't name the Heavyweight Champion of the World...or any other weight category for that matter...but you see UFC t-shirts all over the place, and any guy I know can name at least half a dozen recent champions and contenders.
Again, I'm okay with them earning their money, but where is their pride in their sport?
It all ended for me with boxing when Tyson tried to eat Evander Holyfield. They DQ'd Tyson? Isn't it a fight? A new sport was born...its called Mixed Martial Arts. It started off with only a few rules, and I think 'No Biting' was one of them, but still, its a REAL FIGHT.
The current billionaire boxing champion to prove he could not exist in a ring with any moderately skilled REAL fighter, was Floyd Mayweather.
Mayweather knocked out Victor Ortiz in what I consider a completely legal hit. Ortiz knows the rules of boxing, and should have...uh...fought. Anyway, Mayweather did not want to face tough questions about the fight, or another fight that he knows 80-year-old Larry Merchant was going to ask about.
The thing to watch....Merchant's response (Warning: Rated R language, not anything you won't hear in a fight in the park after school, but pretty bad stuff for boxing). He knows Mayweather is all show...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)