Thursday, November 18, 2010

Another thief at the NY Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/18/opinion/18kristof.html?ref=opinion

We can add Mr. Kristof to the list of liberal thieves who believe that it's the government's money first and foremost, and that they should get to decide where it goes.

"At a time of such stunning inequality, should Congress put priority on spending $700 billion on extending the Bush tax cuts to those with incomes above $250,000 a year? Or should it extend unemployment benefits for Americans who otherwise will lose them beginning next month?"

Notice the bold print. Mr. Kristof honestly believes that it is Congress' money. This perception is mind boggling to me. The choice is not should Congress spend the money on tax cuts or unemployment benefits. The choice is should Congress forcibly take money from some people and give it to others, or let people keep their own money. Those are the options. I wish Mr. Kristof could at least be honest about the question instead of making it sound like a simple spending issue. I hope that he is just being disingenuous when talking about the issue but perhaps he is truly that ignorant and doesn't see the stupidity of what he is saying.

Mr. Kristof is entitled to his opinion but his attempt to hide the real question with his "spending" disguise is pathetic. Man up Mr. Kristof and at least tell your reading public that you like to steal from some and give to others, as long as they are "rich" enough to afford it of course.

Sunday, November 14, 2010

So stupid

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=7567291&page=1

Apparently being a white African American can get you in a lot of troube in New Jersey.

A 3rd generation white man from Mozambique, Africa, Paulo Serodio, was suspended from medical school for labeling himself a white African American in a class. One of his classmates said they were offended by his characterization. Apparently only black people can be from Africa.

This raises quite the dilemma. Are black people born in England not allowed to call themselves English? Where is the outrage when white people from Australia call themselves Australians? They aren't native to that land. How many generations must a family live in a place before they can begin referring to themselves as being from there?

To add even more complication, what about someone from Egypt, Algeria, or Morocco? All of these countries are in Africa yet their native inhabitants are not black. Are they not allowed to refer to themselves as African Americans if they choose?

Anyone who takes offense to a man who was born and raised in Africa and then became an American citizen calling himself an African American needs to be ignored as the idiot they are.

Tuesday, November 9, 2010

Mankiw on the estate tax

http://www.economics.harvard.edu/files/faculty/40_npc.pdf

Good remarks from Dr. Mankiw concerning the estate tax. There is currently no estate tax for 2010 but the tax will revert to 2001 rates in January if Congress does nothing.

What Congress should do is permanently repeal the estate tax and Dr. Mankiw does an excellent job of explaining why.

Sunday, November 7, 2010

I totally agree

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=12529

Good article from David Boaz at the CATO institute. The economy needs to be and remain the #1 focus of the GOP controlled House into the foreseeable future. The GOP needs to put the social issues on the back burner for a while and cut spending, cut taxes, and get the economy moving again.

Saturday, November 6, 2010

How much is enough?

http://robertreich.org/post/1471662081

In a recent blog post (link above), Robert Reich offers up a compromise for Republicans and Democrats concerning the expiring Bush tax cuts:

"He (Obama) should respond by offering this olive branch: Extend the Bush tax cuts to the bottom 99 percent — to families earning less than half a million dollars.

But not to the top 1 percent."


So instead of extending them for everyone or only people making less than $250,000 a year, Dems and the GOP should meet in the middle, stack hands, and then go grab a sundae together, slapping each other's asses for a job well done.

My problem with this though is the arrogance of people like Robert Reich. You see, Mr. Reich, in his infinite wisdom, knows how much money is too much. He used to think it was more than $250,000/yr, but now after crunching some more numbers, or talking to God, Buddha, Tom Cruise, Allah, or whoever it is he talks to, he has decided $500,000/yr is the right number. Anything over that is just too much and it needs to be shared with the rest of us.

He tries to show his reasoning with this wonderful bit of logic:

"The top 1 percent now gets almost a quarter of the nation’s total income — a larger share than at any time since the 1920s. The top 1 percent have also received about 40percent of the benefits of the Bush tax cuts."

Wow, that sure does seem unfair. But wait, the top 1% don't "get" almost a quarter of the nation's total income do they? Does it rain down from the heavens and land in their yard? I don't understand what "get" means. They EARN almost a quarter of the nations income Mr. Reich. And unless they do something illegal to earn this money, what they earn is theirs, and you and your liberal friends aren't allowed to just decide "Hey, that's too much, we are going to take some of that now and put it over here because we are so smart and right and cool." (On a side note, the top 1% may have gotten 40% of the benefits of the tax cuts, but they also still currently pay 40% of the nations income tax. So yeah Mr. Reich, lets take a bit more of that money huh?)

The problem with people like Mr. Reich, Krugman, Pelosi and Pres. Obama is that they are greedy. They don't see this, but it's true. They cannot stand the fact that their are rich people out there that aren't them, and they want their money. They disguise this greed by saying "we need to help the middle class and save starving babies", but if that is their real intention, they can do that with their own money. None of these democrats are living in near poverty themselves, giving everything they have earned to the poor a la Mother Theresa. They just have some number that they plucked out of the air and decided that anything over that is too much and we need to take if from you. Giving it to the poor is just a way to make it sound better.

I am sure that liberals like to think of themselves as modern day Robin Hoods. But Robin Hood was a thief, a title he embraced. Perhaps it is time for Mr. Reich and friends to start referring to themselves as thieves. I am sure that the American people would see the Robin Hood connection and embrace them as heroes, right?