Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Warning: Justifiable Profanity.
U/T: iOwnTheWorld
posted by Karl @ 2:36 PM Permalink 0 comments Post a comment
U/T: iOwnTheWorld
Labels: Tax
posted by Karl @ 2:36 PM Permalink 0 comments Post a comment
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Coke's CEO Muhtar Kent comments on the soda tax idea floating around DC:
I have never seen it work where a government tells people what to eat and what to drink...
---
If it worked, the Soviet Union would still be around.
---
If it worked, the Soviet Union would still be around.
A CEO who knows his history? Did he just call President Obama a commie??
Our advice: order your Leninade now, while it is still tax-free!
U/T: Reason.com - who used a picture of our hat in their post!
UPDATE 9.17:
We asked the RealSoda CEO, Ushanka.us friend, Commie Obama Rally Cap owner, the idea man behind Leninade, and the Willy Wonka of the soda world to offer his $0.02 on this matter. His reply:
So they say they will not raise taxes on 95% of the population... so I guess only 4% drinks soda then?? !!
Well, actually this is another example of how the politicians who have no real scientific knowledge find another way to collect money from the general public under the supposed guise of protecting people from overconsumption of something. Now, again... if you don't have nationalized medicine then you should not be so worried about paying the costs of overconsumption. So the argument that makes most sense is to let people eat and drink what they want and pay their own medical bills and/or insurance.
Just as is the case with the schools, they banned sodas including stuff like Diet Coke and Diet Pepsi and then they introduced fruit juices which have the same sugar per ounce (albeit "natural", whatever that means) as what's in sodas. That is to say, the caloric content is essentially the same but one is banned and the other is forced down peoples' throats. Of course the liquor stores in the perimeter of the schools are selling sodas like there's no tomorrow...
Should the tax on sodas be limited to those with HFCS? Or cane sugar? How about evaporated cane juice? How about honey (more fattening than sugar)? How about concentrated fruit juice additives which are like simple syrup when added? The government doesn't care if you get fat or not; they just want your money. Their death panels will take care of anyone who overindulges once their health scare plan takes effect :(
Yours effervescently,
Danny
Well, actually this is another example of how the politicians who have no real scientific knowledge find another way to collect money from the general public under the supposed guise of protecting people from overconsumption of something. Now, again... if you don't have nationalized medicine then you should not be so worried about paying the costs of overconsumption. So the argument that makes most sense is to let people eat and drink what they want and pay their own medical bills and/or insurance.
Just as is the case with the schools, they banned sodas including stuff like Diet Coke and Diet Pepsi and then they introduced fruit juices which have the same sugar per ounce (albeit "natural", whatever that means) as what's in sodas. That is to say, the caloric content is essentially the same but one is banned and the other is forced down peoples' throats. Of course the liquor stores in the perimeter of the schools are selling sodas like there's no tomorrow...
Should the tax on sodas be limited to those with HFCS? Or cane sugar? How about evaporated cane juice? How about honey (more fattening than sugar)? How about concentrated fruit juice additives which are like simple syrup when added? The government doesn't care if you get fat or not; they just want your money. Their death panels will take care of anyone who overindulges once their health scare plan takes effect :(
Yours effervescently,
Danny
Link to RealSoda. Link to our Leninade commercial.
Labels: Not a Socialist, Tax
posted by Karl @ 10:10 PM Permalink 0 comments Post a comment
Saturday, August 08, 2009
At Victor Davis Hanson's blog, Praire-Fire Anger. Some excerpts from the 4-pages of thoughts as to why the anger from freedom-loving Americans:
Daniel Henninger suggests many of Obama's original supporters have suffered two reality checks with the size and scope of the health care socialism push. Why Obama May Fail, in his WSJ article this week:
In the same WSJ, Karl Rove argues that politicians that let polls dictate their positions are rudderless. What happened to Hope and Change being the key values of our leaders??
posted by Karl @ 9:31 AM Permalink 0 comments Post a comment
Evocation of “socialism” is still considered inflammatory by the Left, but it is now simply an empirical term, not a slur, given that America’s tax codes and entitlement spending may look like the social landscape in France or Scandinavia in short order.
---
The zealotry of expansive bureaucracy and dependency instills fears, rational or not, of a radicalized huge federal work force, a sort of national version of Acorn to the nth degree that in pack-like fashion is mobilized to target potential naysayers.
---
One senses that a number of the successful are already detaching themselves psychologically from the American scene—and figuring out how to reduce, shield, and avoid income. They often see themselves, if not in melodramatic fashion, as modern-day Kulaks, targeted for extinction by equality-of-result state, FICA, and federal tax hikes that may result in nearly 70% of their income going for the Obama New Deal.
---
I confess that when I first read Dreams From My Father and The Audacity of Hope, first learned in depth about Trinity Church and its tirades about “black middle classness”, first studied the modus operandi of Obama’s state legislative campaigns and the mysterious implosions of both his primary and general election senatorial foes—all this belatedly in late 2006 and early 2007—I had little hope that he would prove to be anything other than the fossilized angry liberal that he is sadly proving to be.
But I erred in one key regard: I assumed his prepped oratory, youth and “cool”, transracial profile, media sycophants, and “Bush did it” excuses would ensure that his ratings stayed well above 60% at least through the midterm elections.
---
The zealotry of expansive bureaucracy and dependency instills fears, rational or not, of a radicalized huge federal work force, a sort of national version of Acorn to the nth degree that in pack-like fashion is mobilized to target potential naysayers.
---
One senses that a number of the successful are already detaching themselves psychologically from the American scene—and figuring out how to reduce, shield, and avoid income. They often see themselves, if not in melodramatic fashion, as modern-day Kulaks, targeted for extinction by equality-of-result state, FICA, and federal tax hikes that may result in nearly 70% of their income going for the Obama New Deal.
---
I confess that when I first read Dreams From My Father and The Audacity of Hope, first learned in depth about Trinity Church and its tirades about “black middle classness”, first studied the modus operandi of Obama’s state legislative campaigns and the mysterious implosions of both his primary and general election senatorial foes—all this belatedly in late 2006 and early 2007—I had little hope that he would prove to be anything other than the fossilized angry liberal that he is sadly proving to be.
But I erred in one key regard: I assumed his prepped oratory, youth and “cool”, transracial profile, media sycophants, and “Bush did it” excuses would ensure that his ratings stayed well above 60% at least through the midterm elections.
Daniel Henninger suggests many of Obama's original supporters have suffered two reality checks with the size and scope of the health care socialism push. Why Obama May Fail, in his WSJ article this week:
Taxpayers in New York, California and other states at the fiscal brink are asking whether they’d rather pay a jacked-up marginal rate unto death for another federal health-care program or pay taxes to support the quality of life where they live.
The newly arrived inhabitants of the Obama White House, who this week floated the possibility of middle-class taxes to pay for their deficit, talk as if the states don’t exist. Factoring in the “millionaire” health surtax, the Tax Foundation’s recent analysis puts the top marginal rate over 50% in 39 states. This is nuts. Even if they back off on the surtax, the health-care debate has made clear the needs and compulsions of this White House...
---
For years, Democratic politicians said the health-care problem was about “47 million uninsured Americans.” Whatever the merits, many people were willing to do something for those with no health insurance. Suddenly, these voters discovered that ObamaCare is about them. When did that happen?
The newly arrived inhabitants of the Obama White House, who this week floated the possibility of middle-class taxes to pay for their deficit, talk as if the states don’t exist. Factoring in the “millionaire” health surtax, the Tax Foundation’s recent analysis puts the top marginal rate over 50% in 39 states. This is nuts. Even if they back off on the surtax, the health-care debate has made clear the needs and compulsions of this White House...
---
For years, Democratic politicians said the health-care problem was about “47 million uninsured Americans.” Whatever the merits, many people were willing to do something for those with no health insurance. Suddenly, these voters discovered that ObamaCare is about them. When did that happen?
In the same WSJ, Karl Rove argues that politicians that let polls dictate their positions are rudderless. What happened to Hope and Change being the key values of our leaders??
...he is losing control of his agenda and resorting to rhetorical tricks and evasions.
---
If some version of ObamaCare is passed, the president will break his tax pledge several more times while adding trillions to the deficit, dismantling the best elements of our health-care system and slashing Medicare by hundreds of billions of dollars.
There are no polling data or focus groups on earth that can help Mr. Obama out of this jam. He has set in motion events he appears unable to control and commitments he cannot keep. Great communicators succeed when the ideas they are communicating are sound. Tax-and-spend liberalism doesn’t work, no matter how pretty its package.
---
If some version of ObamaCare is passed, the president will break his tax pledge several more times while adding trillions to the deficit, dismantling the best elements of our health-care system and slashing Medicare by hundreds of billions of dollars.
There are no polling data or focus groups on earth that can help Mr. Obama out of this jam. He has set in motion events he appears unable to control and commitments he cannot keep. Great communicators succeed when the ideas they are communicating are sound. Tax-and-spend liberalism doesn’t work, no matter how pretty its package.
Labels: Healthcare, Tax, Weekend Reading
posted by Karl @ 9:31 AM Permalink 0 comments Post a comment
Tuesday, August 04, 2009
"you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody". So said our Dear Leader during the campaign last year to Joe the Plumber.
In today's WSJ, Teeing Up the Middle Class. It appears the middle class will get an opportunity to spread the wealth too.
A ten-percent VAT will add $3 to our Commie Obama Rally Cap. Don't let Obama get that $3 - buy yours today!
UPDATE Noon: Saw this cartoon at Townhall:
posted by Karl @ 8:13 AM Permalink 0 comments Post a comment
In today's WSJ, Teeing Up the Middle Class. It appears the middle class will get an opportunity to spread the wealth too.
The Obama advisers are laying the groundwork for taxing the middle class while claiming the deficit made them do it.
---
Democrats already plan to repeal the Bush tax cuts, but that won’t raise enough money. So they’re proposing an income tax surcharge on “the wealthy,” but that won’t raise enough either. Democrats have no choice but to soak the middle class because only they have enough money to finance the liberal dream of yoking the middle class to cradle-to-grave government entitlements.
---
...waiting in the wings is the biggest middle-class tax increase of them all: a European-style value added tax, or VAT. This tax would apply to every level of production or service, and it is beloved by politicians in Europe because it raises so much money so easily without voters noticing. Ezekiel Emanuel, a White House aide and brother of Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, has advocated a 10% VAT to finance national health care. Look for a VAT to be one of the prominent options when Mr. Obama’s tax reform commission issues its report later this year.
The undeniable reality is that you can’t run a European-style welfare-entitlement state without European-style levels of taxation on the middle class (and eventually without low European-style growth and high jobless rates). It’s looking more and more like Mr. Obama’s no-middle-class-tax pledge was one of the greatest confidence tricks in American political history.
---
Democrats already plan to repeal the Bush tax cuts, but that won’t raise enough money. So they’re proposing an income tax surcharge on “the wealthy,” but that won’t raise enough either. Democrats have no choice but to soak the middle class because only they have enough money to finance the liberal dream of yoking the middle class to cradle-to-grave government entitlements.
---
...waiting in the wings is the biggest middle-class tax increase of them all: a European-style value added tax, or VAT. This tax would apply to every level of production or service, and it is beloved by politicians in Europe because it raises so much money so easily without voters noticing. Ezekiel Emanuel, a White House aide and brother of Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, has advocated a 10% VAT to finance national health care. Look for a VAT to be one of the prominent options when Mr. Obama’s tax reform commission issues its report later this year.
The undeniable reality is that you can’t run a European-style welfare-entitlement state without European-style levels of taxation on the middle class (and eventually without low European-style growth and high jobless rates). It’s looking more and more like Mr. Obama’s no-middle-class-tax pledge was one of the greatest confidence tricks in American political history.
A ten-percent VAT will add $3 to our Commie Obama Rally Cap. Don't let Obama get that $3 - buy yours today!
UPDATE Noon: Saw this cartoon at Townhall:
Labels: Tax
posted by Karl @ 8:13 AM Permalink 0 comments Post a comment
Thursday, May 21, 2009
This week's reading suggestions have to do with California's recent propositions. But first, guns!
A faceless WSJ writer(s), supposedly the editorial board, announces that the end of gun control is here. Well, what a relief! We suppose this will be our last post with the label - Gun Rights. WSJ, May 19, Democrats and Guns:
We envy the editorial board's new, relaxed attitude toward this issue. We won't, however, take our eye off of this ball.
California, our former home state, asked voters to approve tax increases for the greater good. Those pesky voters, even in Berkeley, couldn't bring themselves to vote YES on any of them. Ever know the answer yet could not articulate it? We felt these propositions were meaningless but couldn't bring ourselves to say why. Rush Limbaugh told us. There won't be any belt-tightening in CA. They'll threaten to cut programs voters like, which will bring the voters to the table for more taxes. Voters revolt? Just threaten to release inmates early, or cut police & fire services. As Rush said, 'But they never offer to cut the bloat that led to this mess.' Yep. That is the California we remember. And fled.
Arthur Laffer and Stephen Moore write in the WSJ, Soak the Rich, Lose the Rich:
George Will at Townhall, California's Dependency Culture:
Carol Platt Liebau at Townhall, California is Liberalism's "Canary in the Coal Mine":
Merk Steyn weighs in with a blog post at NRO's The Corner, Over and Out:
Victor Davis Hanson also comments in NRO's The Corner, California on the Horizon:
Today's WSJ Opinion page, Golden (State) Opportunity:
Exactly.
posted by Karl @ 1:01 PM Permalink 0 comments Post a comment
A faceless WSJ writer(s), supposedly the editorial board, announces that the end of gun control is here. Well, what a relief! We suppose this will be our last post with the label - Gun Rights. WSJ, May 19, Democrats and Guns:
...the political cause of gun control is as dead as a mounted moose.
We envy the editorial board's new, relaxed attitude toward this issue. We won't, however, take our eye off of this ball.
California, our former home state, asked voters to approve tax increases for the greater good. Those pesky voters, even in Berkeley, couldn't bring themselves to vote YES on any of them. Ever know the answer yet could not articulate it? We felt these propositions were meaningless but couldn't bring ourselves to say why. Rush Limbaugh told us. There won't be any belt-tightening in CA. They'll threaten to cut programs voters like, which will bring the voters to the table for more taxes. Voters revolt? Just threaten to release inmates early, or cut police & fire services. As Rush said, 'But they never offer to cut the bloat that led to this mess.' Yep. That is the California we remember. And fled.
Arthur Laffer and Stephen Moore write in the WSJ, Soak the Rich, Lose the Rich:
We believe there are three unintended consequences from states raising tax rates on the rich. First, some rich residents sell their homes and leave the state; second, those who stay in the state report less taxable income on their tax returns; and third, some rich people choose not to locate in a high-tax state. Since many rich people also tend to be successful business owners, jobs leave with them or they never arrive in the first place. This is why high income-tax states have such a tough time creating net new jobs for low-income residents and college graduates.
---
They're wrong, and New Hampshire is our favorite illustration. The Live Free or Die State has no income or sales tax, yet it has high-quality schools and excellent public services. Students in New Hampshire public schools achieve the fourth-highest test scores in the nation -- even though the state spends about $1,000 a year less per resident on state and local government than the average state and, incredibly, $5,000 less per person than New York. And on the other side of the ledger, California in 2007 had the highest-paid classroom teachers in the nation, and yet the Golden State had the second-lowest test scores.
---
Texas created more new jobs in 2008 than all other 49 states combined. And Texas is the only state other than Georgia and North Dakota that is cutting taxes this year.
---
They're wrong, and New Hampshire is our favorite illustration. The Live Free or Die State has no income or sales tax, yet it has high-quality schools and excellent public services. Students in New Hampshire public schools achieve the fourth-highest test scores in the nation -- even though the state spends about $1,000 a year less per resident on state and local government than the average state and, incredibly, $5,000 less per person than New York. And on the other side of the ledger, California in 2007 had the highest-paid classroom teachers in the nation, and yet the Golden State had the second-lowest test scores.
---
Texas created more new jobs in 2008 than all other 49 states combined. And Texas is the only state other than Georgia and North Dakota that is cutting taxes this year.
George Will at Townhall, California's Dependency Culture:
Californians should now pay a real price, in realism about ways and means, for Schwarzenegger's wasted years. His governance-by-attention-deficit-disorder has involved flitting from one trendy irrelevance (e.g., stem cell research) to another (e.g., cooling the planet) while the state has sagged. Fittingly, he was in Washington as his shambolic legacy was being defined by Tuesday's defeat.
He was at the White House, applauding the Obama administration's imposition of severe fuel efficiency standards on a dependent automobile industry that at least has a proven aptitude for its new task of building cars Americans will not like. Standing far from Tuesday's repudiation, in the shadow of the president who may soon effectively be California's governor, Schwarzenegger was the administration's dependency agenda writ small.
He was at the White House, applauding the Obama administration's imposition of severe fuel efficiency standards on a dependent automobile industry that at least has a proven aptitude for its new task of building cars Americans will not like. Standing far from Tuesday's repudiation, in the shadow of the president who may soon effectively be California's governor, Schwarzenegger was the administration's dependency agenda writ small.
Carol Platt Liebau at Townhall, California is Liberalism's "Canary in the Coal Mine":
How times change. Forty years ago, California’s roads and schools were the envy of the country. Now, of course, highways are jammed, and schools languish near the bottom of nationwide rankings. Hospitals are overcrowded, as are prisons. And contrary to the claims of those on the left, the problem isn’t inadequate “investment,” i.e., spending. Forty years ago, the state spent $1240 for every man, woman and child in the state, in today’s inflation-adjusted dollars. Now, it spends more than double that amount – $3200 per person – even as ordinary citizens’ quality of life has plummeted.
Merk Steyn weighs in with a blog post at NRO's The Corner, Over and Out:
Not to be too gloomy, but the country feels like it's seizing up. It's as if California and New York have burst their bodices like two corpulent gin-soaked trollops and rolled over the fruited plain to rub bellies at the Mississippi. If you're underneath, it's not going to be fun.
Victor Davis Hanson also comments in NRO's The Corner, California on the Horizon:
It is generally known that Americans want it both ways — green giddiness and plenty of oil and gas for their cars and homes; lots of government services and low taxes; a big military but spasms of isolationism. But now California is where the rubber meets the road, and we just saw the big government side of the equation dissolve. With the highest income taxes, highest sales taxes, and biggest deficits, Californians finally said "no mas," and let the cutting begin. Of course, we have expanded government to such a degree that "radical" cuts will only get us back to about 2005-sized government, and "tax cutting" in this loopy state will mean holding firm at a 9% sales tax and 10%-plus income tax. But one must begin somewhere.
Today's WSJ Opinion page, Golden (State) Opportunity:
Mr. Schwarzenegger, legislators and public-worker unions are now conspiring to roll out plan B: a federal bailout. The Governor was in Washington on Tuesday and, sounding like a Detroit auto executive, declared: "We need assistance."
---
But a federal bailout is an injustice to the residents of other states, especially those that run their governments responsibly. Why should taxpayers in Colorado, Virginia or Ohio pay for California's incompetence?
---
But a federal bailout is an injustice to the residents of other states, especially those that run their governments responsibly. Why should taxpayers in Colorado, Virginia or Ohio pay for California's incompetence?
Exactly.
Labels: Gun Rights, Tax, Weekend Reading
posted by Karl @ 1:01 PM Permalink 0 comments Post a comment
Saturday, April 18, 2009
We can't call em "Tax and Spend Liberals" anymore. The MO has been flipped. Spend $1 Trillion first, then raise taxes to pay for the spending.
The TaxProf blog explains how Obama's spending will result in a doubling of our taxes over time.
U/T: Instapundit
posted by Karl @ 6:57 PM Permalink 0 comments Post a comment
The TaxProf blog explains how Obama's spending will result in a doubling of our taxes over time.
Regardless of what politicians tell you, any additional accumulations of debt are, absent dramatic reductions in the size and role of government, basically deferred tax increases. Remember the old saw? "You can pay me now or you can pay me later, with interest."
To help put things in perspective, the Peterson Foundation calculated the federal government accumulated $56.4 trillion in total liabilities and unfunded promises for Medicare and Social Security as of September 30, 2008. ... If $56.4 trillion in financial commitments is too big a number to digest, think of it as $483,000 per American household, or $184,000 for every man, woman and child in the country. ...
---
Unless we begin to get our fiscal house in order, there's simply no other way to handle our ever-mounting debt burdens except by doubling taxes over time. Otherwise, our growing commitments for Medicare and Social Security benefits will gradually squeeze out spending on other vital programs such as education, research and development, and infrastructure.
To help put things in perspective, the Peterson Foundation calculated the federal government accumulated $56.4 trillion in total liabilities and unfunded promises for Medicare and Social Security as of September 30, 2008. ... If $56.4 trillion in financial commitments is too big a number to digest, think of it as $483,000 per American household, or $184,000 for every man, woman and child in the country. ...
---
Unless we begin to get our fiscal house in order, there's simply no other way to handle our ever-mounting debt burdens except by doubling taxes over time. Otherwise, our growing commitments for Medicare and Social Security benefits will gradually squeeze out spending on other vital programs such as education, research and development, and infrastructure.
U/T: Instapundit
Labels: Tax
posted by Karl @ 6:57 PM Permalink 0 comments Post a comment
Friday, October 31, 2008
Andrew Walden reviews the Obama-Communist past at the American Thinker, Barack Obama: Red Diaper Baby.
Paul Kengor, also at the American Thinker, returns to two articles written by Obama's mentor, and known communist, Frank Davis Marshall. Dreams from Frank Marshall Davis:
And, the Heritage Foundation published a comparison between Obama's and McCain's tax plans. Here are their summary points and conclusion (with our emphasis), and one of the article's graphs.
posted by Karl @ 3:20 PM Permalink
Barack Obama is a "red diaper baby" who has spent his formative years -- literally from the moment of his birth -- interacting with members and sympathizers of the Communist Party, USA.
Paul Kengor, also at the American Thinker, returns to two articles written by Obama's mentor, and known communist, Frank Davis Marshall. Dreams from Frank Marshall Davis:
Obama's recent remarks on wealth redistribution made me think of two Davis columns in particular, both for the Honolulu Record:
The first was Davis's January 26, 1950 piece, "Free Enterprise or Socialism?" Davis hoped that America and its economy were at a turning point, as if a kind of perfect storm was brewing that could at last allow him and his comrades to realize their dreams of a socialist America. They would need to trash the current free-enterprise system and argue for a change to something else. Of course, they could not fully disclose themselves, their beliefs, and their intentions, although any thinking observer could easily read between the lines. The key was to gain the support of the people who didn't know any difference.
---
[article #2] For Davis, the only hope was a huge, emboldened federal government that could save Americans from the capitalists, that could rein in fat-cat corporations, that could slap down Wall Street and its excesses, that could spread the wealth, and that could ensure that the poor could buy a home.
The first was Davis's January 26, 1950 piece, "Free Enterprise or Socialism?" Davis hoped that America and its economy were at a turning point, as if a kind of perfect storm was brewing that could at last allow him and his comrades to realize their dreams of a socialist America. They would need to trash the current free-enterprise system and argue for a change to something else. Of course, they could not fully disclose themselves, their beliefs, and their intentions, although any thinking observer could easily read between the lines. The key was to gain the support of the people who didn't know any difference.
---
[article #2] For Davis, the only hope was a huge, emboldened federal government that could save Americans from the capitalists, that could rein in fat-cat corporations, that could slap down Wall Street and its excesses, that could spread the wealth, and that could ensure that the poor could buy a home.
And, the Heritage Foundation published a comparison between Obama's and McCain's tax plans. Here are their summary points and conclusion (with our emphasis), and one of the article's graphs.
1. Jobs respond more to McCain's plan than to Obama's.
2. Overall economic activity more vigorous under McCain's plan.
3. More after-tax spending potential under McCain than under Obama.
Conclusion
The economy improves under each plan as compared to the baseline. The baseline forecast assumes that all of the Bush tax cuts disappear, which raises the cost of capital and marginal tax rates. Both candidates plan to reduce taxes com pared to this scenario.
Senator McCain's plan is substantially better at spurring economic growth than Senator Obama's. This is not surprising, since Senator McCain focuses on economic growth and job creation while Senator Obama focuses on the redistribution of income. As Tax Policy Center Director Len Burman states, "the major themes of the two plans are, in the case of Senator McCain's plan, that the major emphasis is on economic efficiency—cuts marginal tax rates, improves economic incentives…. In the case of Obama's plan, the goal is primarily to improve pro gressivity…to lower tax burdens on low-income people and raise them on higher-income people."[10] Each presidential candidate achieves his stated goal,with Senator McCain generating the most new jobs, growth, and additional income for individuals. Senator Obama's plan drives up the tax rate for individ uals with annual incomes above $250,000 and redistributes money to workers with lower incomes.
2. Overall economic activity more vigorous under McCain's plan.
3. More after-tax spending potential under McCain than under Obama.
Conclusion
The economy improves under each plan as compared to the baseline. The baseline forecast assumes that all of the Bush tax cuts disappear, which raises the cost of capital and marginal tax rates. Both candidates plan to reduce taxes com pared to this scenario.
Senator McCain's plan is substantially better at spurring economic growth than Senator Obama's. This is not surprising, since Senator McCain focuses on economic growth and job creation while Senator Obama focuses on the redistribution of income. As Tax Policy Center Director Len Burman states, "the major themes of the two plans are, in the case of Senator McCain's plan, that the major emphasis is on economic efficiency—cuts marginal tax rates, improves economic incentives…. In the case of Obama's plan, the goal is primarily to improve pro gressivity…to lower tax burdens on low-income people and raise them on higher-income people."[10] Each presidential candidate achieves his stated goal,with Senator McCain generating the most new jobs, growth, and additional income for individuals. Senator Obama's plan drives up the tax rate for individ uals with annual incomes above $250,000 and redistributes money to workers with lower incomes.
Labels: Tax, Weekend Reading
posted by Karl @ 3:20 PM Permalink
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Three great picks from this week's rags:
Laura Hollis at Townhall uses the "C" word!!
A well-earned Ushanka Tip to Laura!
Adam Lerrick asks, "What happens when the voter in the exact middle of the earnings spectrum receives more in benefits from Washington than he pays in taxes?" From his Wednesday WSJ article, Obama and the Tax Tipping Point:
Kimberly Strassel at the WSJ shares the circus atmosphere in her article, Obama's Magic:
posted by Karl @ 9:38 AM Permalink
Laura Hollis at Townhall uses the "C" word!!
I am tired of all the dancing around the subject with respect to Barack Obama’s political, social, and economic views. He’s not a “liberal,” or a “Democrat,” or a “progressive,” or even a “socialist.” Let’s call it what it is, shall we? It’s time to use the “C” word. His policies are communist, pure and simple.
---
It’s not that Obama is ignorant, or misguided. He knows – as do his Red backers – that the policies he espouses will cause further economic trauma. This is deliberate. Because the worse things get, the more receptive the public will be to Obama’s & Co.’s honey-tongued assurances that the government will step in and “make it all better.” Look at Hurricane Katrina, and the recent financial crisis: how many people were clamoring for the government to “do something”? And that’s nothing compared to what we’re going to face when Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid collapse.
---
It’s not that Obama is ignorant, or misguided. He knows – as do his Red backers – that the policies he espouses will cause further economic trauma. This is deliberate. Because the worse things get, the more receptive the public will be to Obama’s & Co.’s honey-tongued assurances that the government will step in and “make it all better.” Look at Hurricane Katrina, and the recent financial crisis: how many people were clamoring for the government to “do something”? And that’s nothing compared to what we’re going to face when Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid collapse.
A well-earned Ushanka Tip to Laura!
Adam Lerrick asks, "What happens when the voter in the exact middle of the earnings spectrum receives more in benefits from Washington than he pays in taxes?" From his Wednesday WSJ article, Obama and the Tax Tipping Point:
In 2006, the latest year for which we have Census data, 220 million Americans were eligible to vote and 89 million -- 40% -- paid no income taxes. According to the Tax Policy Center (a joint venture of the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute), this will jump to 49% when Mr. Obama's cash credits remove 18 million more voters from the tax rolls. What's more, there are an additional 24 million taxpayers (11% of the electorate) who will pay a minimal amount of income taxes -- less than 5% of their income and less than $1,000 annually.
In all, three out of every five voters will pay little or nothing in income taxes under Mr. Obama's plans and gain when taxes rise on the 40% that already pays 95% of income tax revenues.
In all, three out of every five voters will pay little or nothing in income taxes under Mr. Obama's plans and gain when taxes rise on the 40% that already pays 95% of income tax revenues.
Kimberly Strassel at the WSJ shares the circus atmosphere in her article, Obama's Magic:
To kick off our show tonight, Mr. Obama will give 95% of American working families a tax cut, even though 40% of Americans today don't pay income taxes! How can our star enact such mathemagic? How can he "cut" zero? Abracadabra! It's called a "refundable tax credit." It involves the federal government taking money from those who do pay taxes, and writing checks to those who don't. Yes, yes, in the real world this is known as "welfare," but please try not to ruin the show.
---
Mr. Obama will now demonstrate how he gives Americans the "choice" of a "voluntary" government health plan, designed in such a way as to crowd out the private market and eliminate all other choice! Don't worry people: You won't have to join, until you do.
---
Moving along to a little ventriloquism. Study his mouth carefully, folks: It looks like he's saying "I'll stop the special interests," when in fact the words coming out are "Welcome to Washington, friends!" Wind and solar companies, ethanol makers, tort lawyers, unions, community organizers -- all are welcome to feed at the public trough and to request special favors. From now on "special interests" will only refer to universally despised, if utterly crucial, economic players. Say, oil companies. Hocus Pocus!
---
Mr. Obama will now demonstrate how he gives Americans the "choice" of a "voluntary" government health plan, designed in such a way as to crowd out the private market and eliminate all other choice! Don't worry people: You won't have to join, until you do.
---
Moving along to a little ventriloquism. Study his mouth carefully, folks: It looks like he's saying "I'll stop the special interests," when in fact the words coming out are "Welcome to Washington, friends!" Wind and solar companies, ethanol makers, tort lawyers, unions, community organizers -- all are welcome to feed at the public trough and to request special favors. From now on "special interests" will only refer to universally despised, if utterly crucial, economic players. Say, oil companies. Hocus Pocus!
Labels: Tax, Weekend Reading
posted by Karl @ 9:38 AM Permalink
Friday, September 19, 2008
Does Biden's comment require a retort?
Not from us. But we'll pass on Senator McCain's response:
posted by Karl @ 1:12 PM Permalink
Not from us. But we'll pass on Senator McCain's response:
Labels: Tax
posted by Karl @ 1:12 PM Permalink
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Savage Politics blog, one of our great blogrolled blogs, has a good post on Obama's tax plan. The numbers are the same everywhere, but Savage gets the Ushanka Tip as they do the best at number-presentation. Click here to see his post.
MCCAIN: (no changes)
Single making 30K - tax $4,500
Single making 50K - tax $12,500
Single making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 60K- tax $9,000
Married making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 125K - tax $31,250
OBAMA: (reverse all tax cuts)
Single making 30K - tax $8,400
Single making 50K - tax $14,000
Single making 75K - tax $23,250
Married making 60K - tax $16,800
Married making 75K - tax $21,000
Married making 125K - tax $38,750
Single making 30K - tax $4,500
Single making 50K - tax $12,500
Single making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 60K- tax $9,000
Married making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 125K - tax $31,250
OBAMA: (reverse all tax cuts)
Single making 30K - tax $8,400
Single making 50K - tax $14,000
Single making 75K - tax $23,250
Married making 60K - tax $16,800
Married making 75K - tax $21,000
Married making 125K - tax $38,750
God help the people making $50k or less!
Labels: Tax
posted by Karl @ 10:19 PM Permalink
Friday, August 01, 2008
"Is the $300'ish/year subscription to the WSJ enough, or should we be paying them more?" That was the question on our lips Tuesday morning when we opened the opinion section. It is one of those days where we clear the next hour of our morning schedule and pour a large cup of coffee. The first three recommendations below are from Tuesday's paper, the fourth from Thursday's.
Garry Kasparov criticizes Obama for the missing message in his Berlin speech in Obama Should Stand Up to Russia's Regime. The missing message: lack of confrontation towards countries that do not respect human rights. Primarily, Russia and China.
Stanford economics professor Michael J. Boskin reviews the tax changes of an Obama Administration in Obamanomics Is a Recipe for Recession. Some high-income libs are in for a shock...
Editorial writer William McGurn exposes the generous offer from Blackwater's CEO Erik Prince to train African Union soldiers to fight the Darfur murderers, and comments on the lack of interest in the best and cheapest solution to date.
Karl Rove discusses the "Iraq problems" that both candidates suffer from in Obama's Iraq Fumble. How each candidate resolves his Iraq issues will provide the voters valuable information on judgement and character. His comments on Obama:
posted by Karl @ 11:09 AM Permalink
Garry Kasparov criticizes Obama for the missing message in his Berlin speech in Obama Should Stand Up to Russia's Regime. The missing message: lack of confrontation towards countries that do not respect human rights. Primarily, Russia and China.
The stage for his disappointing performance was set several weeks ago, when the Illinois senator rejected John McCain's proposal to eject Russia and exclude China from the Group of Eight (G-8). Mr. Obama's response during a July 13 interview on CNN -- "We have to engage and get them involved" -- suggests that it is impossible to work with Russia and China on economic and nuclear nonproliferation issues while also standing up for democracy and human rights.
It has repeatedly been shown that the exact opposite is true.
The U.S. does not cede leverage with authoritarian governments when it confronts them about their crimes. Instead, the U.S. increases its credibility and influence with foes and friends alike. Placating regimes like those in Russia and China today only entrenches hostile, antidemocratic forces.
---
In short, the candidate of change sounds like he would perpetuate the destructive double standards of the current administration. Meanwhile, the supposedly hidebound Mr. McCain is imaginative enough to suggest that if something is broken you should try to fix it. Giving Russia and China a free pass on human rights to keep them "at the table" has helped lead to more arms and nuclear aid to Iran, a nuclear North Korea, and interference from both nations in solving the tragedies in Darfur and Zimbabwe.
It has repeatedly been shown that the exact opposite is true.
The U.S. does not cede leverage with authoritarian governments when it confronts them about their crimes. Instead, the U.S. increases its credibility and influence with foes and friends alike. Placating regimes like those in Russia and China today only entrenches hostile, antidemocratic forces.
---
In short, the candidate of change sounds like he would perpetuate the destructive double standards of the current administration. Meanwhile, the supposedly hidebound Mr. McCain is imaginative enough to suggest that if something is broken you should try to fix it. Giving Russia and China a free pass on human rights to keep them "at the table" has helped lead to more arms and nuclear aid to Iran, a nuclear North Korea, and interference from both nations in solving the tragedies in Darfur and Zimbabwe.
Stanford economics professor Michael J. Boskin reviews the tax changes of an Obama Administration in Obamanomics Is a Recipe for Recession. Some high-income libs are in for a shock...
The top 35% marginal income tax rate rises to 39.6%; adding the state income tax, the Medicare tax, the effect of the deduction phase-out and Mr. Obama's new Social Security tax (of up to 12.4%) increases the total combined marginal tax rate on additional labor earnings (or small business income) from 44.6% to a whopping 62.8%. People respond to what they get to keep after tax, which the Obama plan reduces from 55.4 cents on the dollar to 37.2 cents -- a reduction of one-third in the after-tax wage!
Editorial writer William McGurn exposes the generous offer from Blackwater's CEO Erik Prince to train African Union soldiers to fight the Darfur murderers, and comments on the lack of interest in the best and cheapest solution to date.
Darfur gets plenty of news coverage from sympathetic reporters sickened by the carnage and devastation they have seen. What the people of Darfur do not get is an armed force capable of taking on the Janjaweed -- a horse-mounted militia. The Janjaweed has murdered men, gang-raped women, beaten children to death, and left poisoned wells and burnt-down villages in its wake.
---
Mr. Prince has a remedy. He believes that with 250 or so professionals, Blackwater can transform about a thousand of the African Union soldiers into an elite and highly mobile force. This force would also be equipped with helicopters and the kind of small planes that missionaries use in this part of the world. It would be cheaper than the hundreds of millions we are spending to set up a larger AU/U.N. force. And he says he'd do it at cost.
---
Strongly worded resolutions, sanctions and boycotts are generally what you do in place of decisive action. I understand that the whole idea of Blackwater helicopters flying over Darfur probably horrifies many of the same people frustrated by Mr. Bashir's ability to game the system. But it's at least worth wondering what that same Blackwater helo might look like to a defenseless Darfur mother and her daughters lying in fear of a Janjaweed attack.
---
Mr. Prince has a remedy. He believes that with 250 or so professionals, Blackwater can transform about a thousand of the African Union soldiers into an elite and highly mobile force. This force would also be equipped with helicopters and the kind of small planes that missionaries use in this part of the world. It would be cheaper than the hundreds of millions we are spending to set up a larger AU/U.N. force. And he says he'd do it at cost.
---
Strongly worded resolutions, sanctions and boycotts are generally what you do in place of decisive action. I understand that the whole idea of Blackwater helicopters flying over Darfur probably horrifies many of the same people frustrated by Mr. Bashir's ability to game the system. But it's at least worth wondering what that same Blackwater helo might look like to a defenseless Darfur mother and her daughters lying in fear of a Janjaweed attack.
Karl Rove discusses the "Iraq problems" that both candidates suffer from in Obama's Iraq Fumble. How each candidate resolves his Iraq issues will provide the voters valuable information on judgement and character. His comments on Obama:
Mr. Obama's problem is he opposed the policy that created the progress that makes victory in Iraq possible. Mr. Obama's unbending opposition to the surge undermines his fundamental argument that he has better judgment on national security. Mr. McCain needs to use Mr. Obama's retrospective mistake to shape voters' prospective conclusion, convincing them that Mr. Obama's badly flawed judgment on the surge shows he cannot be trusted with major foreign-policy decisions.
Mr. Obama also created a problem by canceling a visit to U.S. soldiers who were wounded in Iraq and are now recuperating at Landstuhl hospital in Germany. His campaign has offered a welter of explanations. What's the real one? My rule is that when in doubt, see what a candidate said at the time and judge his candor. In a July 26 London news conference, Mr. Obama explained: "I was going to be accompanied by one of my advisers, a former military officer. And we got notice that he would be treated as a campaign person, and it would therefore be perceived as political because he had endorsed my candidacy, but he wasn't on the Senate staff."
The solution was obvious. Leave the campaign adviser behind and visit the wounded troops. Mr. Obama's decision to work out in the hotel gym instead adds to his growing reputation for arrogance.
Mr. Obama also created a problem by canceling a visit to U.S. soldiers who were wounded in Iraq and are now recuperating at Landstuhl hospital in Germany. His campaign has offered a welter of explanations. What's the real one? My rule is that when in doubt, see what a candidate said at the time and judge his candor. In a July 26 London news conference, Mr. Obama explained: "I was going to be accompanied by one of my advisers, a former military officer. And we got notice that he would be treated as a campaign person, and it would therefore be perceived as political because he had endorsed my candidacy, but he wasn't on the Senate staff."
The solution was obvious. Leave the campaign adviser behind and visit the wounded troops. Mr. Obama's decision to work out in the hotel gym instead adds to his growing reputation for arrogance.
Labels: China, Russia, Tax, Weekend Reading
posted by Karl @ 11:09 AM Permalink
Friday, May 02, 2008
As you would expect, we have plenty of links and quotes on Rev. Wright below. We've narrowed our opinion on the matter to one of two possibilities: Either Obama was misled for 20 years by someone he rightly assumed he could trust. We're guilty of similar mistakes. Or, Obama is an idiot. We honestly put the odds at 50-50 and hope, in the event he is elected in November, that it is the former. Some more important links first, then the Wright stuff:
James Taranto at the WSJ Best of the Web nails the AP on the voter ID ruling this week. We need more of this!
WSJ's Wednesday editorial, Obama Gains, addressed Obama's two ignorant claims about capital gains taxes: 1) Most stocks are in 401k accounts and therefore will not be impacted by a CG tax increase, and 2) only the wealthy pay CG taxes. Really?
Victor Davis Hanson reviews the good and the bad about the War on Terror in his Townhall.com article, The Half-Won, Half-Lost War. This particular 'bad' piece stood out, which reminds us that we're not going to get this level of analysis watching CNN...
And now the responses to Rev. Wright, as brief as possible.
Larry Elder, Townhall.com
Charles Krauthammer, Townhall.com
Michelle Malkin, Townhall.com
Dan Henninger, WSJ
James Taranto, WSJ
And last, the sarcastic wit and clarity from Commie Obama Rally Cap owner, Ann Coulter. Townhall.com
No further questions, Your Honor!
posted by Karl @ 10:18 AM Permalink
James Taranto at the WSJ Best of the Web nails the AP on the voter ID ruling this week. We need more of this!
Accountability Journalism
On Monday the U.S. Supreme Court, by a 6-3 vote, upheld Indiana's requirement that voters present photo identification before casting ballots. Yesterday the Associated Press published a dispatch titled "Advocates: Voter ID Ruling May Disenfranchise US Voters."
It ran 15 paragraphs, required two reporters (Deborah Hastings got the byline; David Lieb "contributed"), and was totally one-sided, offering not a single argument in favor of voter ID requirements. It's possible that the AP did another dispatch titled "Advocates: Voter ID Ruling Helps Prevent Fraud," or some such, but we couldn't find it in a Factiva search.
On Monday the U.S. Supreme Court, by a 6-3 vote, upheld Indiana's requirement that voters present photo identification before casting ballots. Yesterday the Associated Press published a dispatch titled "Advocates: Voter ID Ruling May Disenfranchise US Voters."
It ran 15 paragraphs, required two reporters (Deborah Hastings got the byline; David Lieb "contributed"), and was totally one-sided, offering not a single argument in favor of voter ID requirements. It's possible that the AP did another dispatch titled "Advocates: Voter ID Ruling Helps Prevent Fraud," or some such, but we couldn't find it in a Factiva search.
WSJ's Wednesday editorial, Obama Gains, addressed Obama's two ignorant claims about capital gains taxes: 1) Most stocks are in 401k accounts and therefore will not be impacted by a CG tax increase, and 2) only the wealthy pay CG taxes. Really?
It is true that withdrawals from 401(k)s are taxed at ordinary income rates. That does not mean that the stock holdings in tax-deferred mutual funds are somehow fenced off from rising and falling values in the market. If investors see an increase in capital gains taxes in the offing, even to 20% from 15%, many will cash out before the new rate goes into effect. Unless Senator Obama can guarantee that the economy will be in a strong growth spurt when he imposes a higher capital gains tax rate, it's likely that share prices will fall, causing a decline in the value of the 401(k)s held by average Americans.
Indeed, Mr. Obama should reconsider his belief that capital gains are mostly the province of the wealthy. Millions of middle-class Americans do in fact realize investment gains annually. In 2005, according to IRS data, 47% of all tax returns reporting capital gains were from households with incomes below $50,000, and 79% came from households with incomes below $100,000.
Indeed, Mr. Obama should reconsider his belief that capital gains are mostly the province of the wealthy. Millions of middle-class Americans do in fact realize investment gains annually. In 2005, according to IRS data, 47% of all tax returns reporting capital gains were from households with incomes below $50,000, and 79% came from households with incomes below $100,000.
Victor Davis Hanson reviews the good and the bad about the War on Terror in his Townhall.com article, The Half-Won, Half-Lost War. This particular 'bad' piece stood out, which reminds us that we're not going to get this level of analysis watching CNN...
In all our major wars — except the present one — Americans have won through a combination of military prowess, correctly identifying the enemy and economic savvy. In the Civil War, the South was blockaded and starved of its cotton revenues, an effort that proved every bit as important as Gettysburg and Sherman's "March to the Sea." Germany was blockaded in both World Wars and cut off from precious metals, oil and food. The Soviet economy collapsed before its military could. Only in this war has our own profligacy empowered our enemies.
And now the responses to Rev. Wright, as brief as possible.
Larry Elder, Townhall.com
Here's the "victicrat" mindset: Kids having difficulty performing well on standardized tests? Blame "cultural bias." Get pulled over by a cop? DWB -- driving while black. A disproportionate number of blacks in prison? A racist criminal justice system that "targets" blacks for prosecution and imprisonment. Katrina? As Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., put it, "ethnic cleansing by inaction." Difficulty qualifying for a loan? Blame banks' devious plan to prevent blacks from getting "access to capital." Pay more for car insurance because you live in a high-crime neighborhood? Why, illegal "redlining," of course. High inner-city dropout rate? Bad teachers, unequal funding, racist teachers -- yada, blah, etc.
Charles Krauthammer, Townhall.com
How does one explain campaigning throughout 2007 on a platform of transcending racial divisions, while in that same year contributing $26,000 to a church whose pastor incites race hatred?
What is Obama to do? Dismiss all such questions about his associations and attitudes as "distractions." And then count on his acolytes in the media to wage jihad against those who have the temerity to raise these questions. As if the character and beliefs of a man who would be president are less important than the "issues."
What is Obama to do? Dismiss all such questions about his associations and attitudes as "distractions." And then count on his acolytes in the media to wage jihad against those who have the temerity to raise these questions. As if the character and beliefs of a man who would be president are less important than the "issues."
Michelle Malkin, Townhall.com
It was just this March, in his Philadelphia racial reconciliation speech, that Obama was urging us not to dismiss Wright as a "crank or a demagogue" and protesting that he could "no more disown him than I can disown the black community."
Now, realizing how gravely his self-serving association with Wright has wounded his campaign, Obama himself has attempted to do both those things -- and expects the American public to believe him when he weakly and belatedly asserts that "when I say I find [Wright's] statements appalling, I mean it."
Now, realizing how gravely his self-serving association with Wright has wounded his campaign, Obama himself has attempted to do both those things -- and expects the American public to believe him when he weakly and belatedly asserts that "when I say I find [Wright's] statements appalling, I mean it."
Dan Henninger, WSJ
Even as they watched Barack win, pundits and reporters were agog that a one-term, black-American senator from Illinois could have such an effect. This pickup-team coalition of idealists and pols, led by a virtual Luke Skywalker, was on the brink of pushing the Clinton empire over the cliff. It made the Clintons crazy.
This week we learned the limit of a dream in American politics. At Barack Obama's darkest hour, not one prominent ally came forward to support him. Everyone abandoned Everyman.
This week we learned the limit of a dream in American politics. At Barack Obama's darkest hour, not one prominent ally came forward to support him. Everyone abandoned Everyman.
James Taranto, WSJ
Jeremiah Wright* may be a kook, but he has Barack Obama's number. The two men, who once either were intimates or barely knew each other, are now engaged in a kerfuffle about, among other things, whether they were intimates, as Wright asserts, or barely knew each other, as Obama claims. Wright says that Obama is playing politics in distancing himself from Wright, while Obama is offended by the notion that he would play politics. After all, he's a different kind of politician!
---
Obama listened to his gut and did what it told him to do. If the uncommitted superdelegates happened to be saying the same thing, why, that was just a happy coincidence.
---
Obama listened to his gut and did what it told him to do. If the uncommitted superdelegates happened to be saying the same thing, why, that was just a happy coincidence.
And last, the sarcastic wit and clarity from Commie Obama Rally Cap owner, Ann Coulter. Townhall.com
Whew! I'm certainly glad to hear the "snippets" from Rev. Jeremiah Wright's sermons "in context."
---
In his speech to the National Press Club on Monday, for example, Wright described America as a country of "segregation, Jim Crow, lynching and the separate-but-equal fantasy." Then he ran outside to feed more quarters into the meter where his time machine was parked.
---
He said this is a country that "cuts food stamps and spends billions fighting in an unjust war in Iraq," neglecting to add that before you can cut the food stamp program, you must have a country that has a food stamp program.
---
He clarified his Sept. 16, 2001, sermon, in which he said that on 9/11 "America's chickens are coming home to roost" by saying: "You cannot do terrorism on other people and expect it never to come back on you." I'm glad to get the full context on that because I had thought he was talking about chicken farming.
---
Why did Rev. Wright's supporters think it would be helpful to hear longer versions of the "snippets"?
---
In his speech to the National Press Club on Monday, for example, Wright described America as a country of "segregation, Jim Crow, lynching and the separate-but-equal fantasy." Then he ran outside to feed more quarters into the meter where his time machine was parked.
---
He said this is a country that "cuts food stamps and spends billions fighting in an unjust war in Iraq," neglecting to add that before you can cut the food stamp program, you must have a country that has a food stamp program.
---
He clarified his Sept. 16, 2001, sermon, in which he said that on 9/11 "America's chickens are coming home to roost" by saying: "You cannot do terrorism on other people and expect it never to come back on you." I'm glad to get the full context on that because I had thought he was talking about chicken farming.
---
Why did Rev. Wright's supporters think it would be helpful to hear longer versions of the "snippets"?
No further questions, Your Honor!
Labels: Tax, Weekend Reading
posted by Karl @ 10:18 AM Permalink
Friday, April 25, 2008
The big news this week was the Pennsylvania Primary. Obama's 10-point loss, despite spending nearly 3-to-1 over Hillary, and his embarrassing performance in the debate will keep the Dem in-fighting going for another month or more. Here are the four best quotes regarding Obama from this week's readings:
Lawrence Kudlow, from his Towhall.com article, Why Not Blame Obama?
Karl Rove, from his opinion piece in the WSJ, Is Obama Ready for Prime Time?
Too hot in the kitchen! That is our take on Obama's refusal to debate in North Carolina.
From James Taranto's Best of the Web posting from Tuesday, The Obama Quarantine, where he comments on Obama's lack of debate backbone:
And Charles Krauthammer comments on Obama's strongest supporters, the media, in his Townhall.com article The "Distractions"of Obama's Character:
posted by Karl @ 8:51 PM Permalink
Lawrence Kudlow, from his Towhall.com article, Why Not Blame Obama?
But here's the deal: During the debate, Obama bungled his answers on tax policy, big time. Period. End of sentence. End of story. To my liberal friends in the media, all I can say is: Get over it. Your guy has a very poor grasp of basic economic principles.
First off, you don't raise taxes during a recession. That's a no-brainer. Second, doubling the capital-gains tax rate will affect Americans up and down the income ladder, not just rich hedge-fund managers. In addition, capital-gains tax cuts are self-financing, and they stimulate jobs and the economy. You want to raise budget revenues and spark economic growth? Cut the cap-gains tax rate. That's what history shows.
The Wall Street Journal's Steve Moore points out that in 2005, almost half of all tax returns reporting capital gains came from households with incomes under $50,000, while more than three-quarters came from households earning less than $100,000.
First off, you don't raise taxes during a recession. That's a no-brainer. Second, doubling the capital-gains tax rate will affect Americans up and down the income ladder, not just rich hedge-fund managers. In addition, capital-gains tax cuts are self-financing, and they stimulate jobs and the economy. You want to raise budget revenues and spark economic growth? Cut the cap-gains tax rate. That's what history shows.
The Wall Street Journal's Steve Moore points out that in 2005, almost half of all tax returns reporting capital gains came from households with incomes under $50,000, while more than three-quarters came from households earning less than $100,000.
Karl Rove, from his opinion piece in the WSJ, Is Obama Ready for Prime Time?
Mr. Obama has not been a leader on big causes in Congress. He has been manifestly unwilling to expend his political capital on urgent issues. He has been only an observer, watching the action from a distance, thinking wry and sardonic and cynical thoughts to himself about his colleagues, mildly amused at their to-ing and fro-ing. He has held his energy and talent in reserve for the more important task of advancing his own political career, which means running for president.
But something happened along the way. Voters saw in the Philadelphia debate the responses of a vitamin-deficient Stevenson act-a-like. And in the closing days of the Pennsylvania primary, they saw him alternate between whining about his treatment by Mrs. Clinton and the press, and attacking Sen. John McCain by exaggerating and twisting his words. No one likes a whiner, and his old-style attacks undermine his appeals for postpartisanship.
But something happened along the way. Voters saw in the Philadelphia debate the responses of a vitamin-deficient Stevenson act-a-like. And in the closing days of the Pennsylvania primary, they saw him alternate between whining about his treatment by Mrs. Clinton and the press, and attacking Sen. John McCain by exaggerating and twisting his words. No one likes a whiner, and his old-style attacks undermine his appeals for postpartisanship.
Too hot in the kitchen! That is our take on Obama's refusal to debate in North Carolina.
From James Taranto's Best of the Web posting from Tuesday, The Obama Quarantine, where he comments on Obama's lack of debate backbone:
Of course, after last week's debate--which turned out to be highly informative--Obama has got to be wishing he had stopped at 20. Given that he seems to have the nomination nearly locked up anyway, it makes tactical sense for him to run out the clock and stay far away from anyone who may ask him a tough question.
But does it make strategic sense? It strikes us that Obama may be setting a trap for himself. Consider the experience of John Kerry in 2004: He won nomination easily, with the media largely buying into his "war hero" story and not asking tough questions. One notable exception was ABC's Charlie Gibson, who almost exactly four years ago confronted Kerry about his shifty behavior vis-à-vis his medals.
Once Kerry was past the convention, the questions that should have been asked much earlier began coming out. The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ended up doing the media's job for them. If Obama succeeds in avoiding the tough questions now, someone will end up asking them in the fall. Will he be prepared?
But does it make strategic sense? It strikes us that Obama may be setting a trap for himself. Consider the experience of John Kerry in 2004: He won nomination easily, with the media largely buying into his "war hero" story and not asking tough questions. One notable exception was ABC's Charlie Gibson, who almost exactly four years ago confronted Kerry about his shifty behavior vis-à-vis his medals.
Once Kerry was past the convention, the questions that should have been asked much earlier began coming out. The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ended up doing the media's job for them. If Obama succeeds in avoiding the tough questions now, someone will end up asking them in the fall. Will he be prepared?
And Charles Krauthammer comments on Obama's strongest supporters, the media, in his Townhall.com article The "Distractions"of Obama's Character:
In the now-famous Pennsylvania debate, Obama had extreme difficulty answering questions about these associations and attitudes. The difficulty is understandable. Some of the contradictions are inexplicable. How does one explain campaigning throughout 2007 on a platform of transcending racial divisions, while in that same year contributing $26,000 to a church whose pastor incites race hatred?
What is Obama to do? Dismiss all such questions about his associations and attitudes as "distractions." And then count on his acolytes in the media to wage jihad against those who have the temerity to raise these questions. As if the character and beliefs of a man who would be president are less important than the "issues." As if some political indecency was committed when Obama was prevented from going through his 21st -- and likely last -- primary debate without being asked about Wright or Ayers or the tribal habits of gun-toting God-loving Pennsylvanians.
What is Obama to do? Dismiss all such questions about his associations and attitudes as "distractions." And then count on his acolytes in the media to wage jihad against those who have the temerity to raise these questions. As if the character and beliefs of a man who would be president are less important than the "issues." As if some political indecency was committed when Obama was prevented from going through his 21st -- and likely last -- primary debate without being asked about Wright or Ayers or the tribal habits of gun-toting God-loving Pennsylvanians.
Labels: Tax, Weekend Reading
posted by Karl @ 8:51 PM Permalink
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Proletarians Unite - Behind Low Taxes! No matter how bad tax day was this year, it will be getting worse. Are you ready? Is you employer? Is your economy?
posted by Karl @ 9:57 AM Permalink
Labels: Tax
posted by Karl @ 9:57 AM Permalink
Friday, April 11, 2008
Get ready to pay some taxes. Especially you poor people! Excerpt and graph from Tuesday's Opinion page of the WSJ - "The Coming Tax Bomb" by John F. Cogan and R. Glenn Hubbard:
What will President Obama say in his 2012 re-election campaign? Will he blame Bush for not extending the tax cuts further? Will he tell the burdened tax payers to have more hope? Will he explain that these taxes make it possible for the 15-month wait for a taxpayer-paid hip replacement? Or will he convey the tried-and-true commie line: "just a few more years of sacrifice and we'll have the Utopia we've dreamed of!"? Pay a high tax rate? Yes we can!
Michael Yon says "Let's 'Surge' Some More" in his WSJ opinion article today:
Our thoughts exactly! The US wins every time it takes the fight to the enemy. Should we accept the premise from the other enemy - the Democrats - that the only options are to retain troop strength, or reduce?
Speaking of the 'other' enemy, Michael Reagan responds to the latest Petraeus visit to congress in his Townhall article, "Congressional Democrats: The Other Insurgents":
posted by Karl @ 7:17 PM Permalink
The tax code changes enacted in 2001 and 2003 are scheduled to expire at the end of 2010. If they do, statutory marginal tax rates will rise across the board; ranging from a 13% increase for the highest income households to a 50% increase in tax rates faced by lower-income households. The marriage penalty will be reimposed and the child credit cut by $500 per child. The long-term capital gains tax rate will rise by one-third (to 20% from 15%) and the top tax rate on dividends will nearly triple (to 39.6% from 15%). The estate tax will roar back from extinction at the same time, with a top rate of 55% and an exempt amount of only $600,000. Finally, the Alternative Minimum Tax will reach far deeper into the middle class, ensnaring 25 million tax filers in its web.
What will President Obama say in his 2012 re-election campaign? Will he blame Bush for not extending the tax cuts further? Will he tell the burdened tax payers to have more hope? Will he explain that these taxes make it possible for the 15-month wait for a taxpayer-paid hip replacement? Or will he convey the tried-and-true commie line: "just a few more years of sacrifice and we'll have the Utopia we've dreamed of!"? Pay a high tax rate? Yes we can!
Michael Yon says "Let's 'Surge' Some More" in his WSJ opinion article today:
As the outrages of Abu Ghraib faded in memory – and paled in comparison to al Qaeda's brutalities – and our soldiers under the Petraeus strategy got off their big bases and out of their tanks and deeper into the neighborhoods, American values began to win the war.
Iraqis came to respect American soldiers as warriors who would protect them from terror gangs. But Iraqis also discovered that these great warriors are even happier helping rebuild a clinic, school or a neighborhood. They learned that the American soldier is not only the most dangerous enemy in the world, but one of the best friends a neighborhood can have.
---
Precisely because we have made so much political progress in the past year, rather than talking about force reduction, Congress should be figuring ways and means to increase troop levels. For all our successes, we still do not have enough troops. This makes the fight longer and more lethal for the troops who are fighting.
Iraqis came to respect American soldiers as warriors who would protect them from terror gangs. But Iraqis also discovered that these great warriors are even happier helping rebuild a clinic, school or a neighborhood. They learned that the American soldier is not only the most dangerous enemy in the world, but one of the best friends a neighborhood can have.
---
Precisely because we have made so much political progress in the past year, rather than talking about force reduction, Congress should be figuring ways and means to increase troop levels. For all our successes, we still do not have enough troops. This makes the fight longer and more lethal for the troops who are fighting.
Our thoughts exactly! The US wins every time it takes the fight to the enemy. Should we accept the premise from the other enemy - the Democrats - that the only options are to retain troop strength, or reduce?
Speaking of the 'other' enemy, Michael Reagan responds to the latest Petraeus visit to congress in his Townhall article, "Congressional Democrats: The Other Insurgents":
There must have been times when Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker thought they were back in embattled Sadr City when they faced Democrats on Capitol Hill this week -- no Iraqi insurgents or al Sadr militiamen could have been more hostile.
No wonder. The goals of the Democrats and both al Qaeda and al Sadr insurgents are the same: the defeat of the United States in the war in Iraq.
---
If we had listened to the defeatist Democrats there wouldn't be 175,000 trained Iraqi soldiers, 379,000 trained Iraqi police, 90,000 trained Sons of Iraq, and you wouldn't have Maliki, a Shia leader, sending his military into Basra to fight Shia militias.
Instead, al Sadr would be running Iraq with the help of Iran, and bin Laden would be using Iraq as a training base for al Qaeda.
No wonder. The goals of the Democrats and both al Qaeda and al Sadr insurgents are the same: the defeat of the United States in the war in Iraq.
---
If we had listened to the defeatist Democrats there wouldn't be 175,000 trained Iraqi soldiers, 379,000 trained Iraqi police, 90,000 trained Sons of Iraq, and you wouldn't have Maliki, a Shia leader, sending his military into Basra to fight Shia militias.
Instead, al Sadr would be running Iraq with the help of Iran, and bin Laden would be using Iraq as a training base for al Qaeda.
Labels: Tax, Weekend Reading
posted by Karl @ 7:17 PM Permalink
Friday, January 18, 2008
Many bloggers and writers are coming out for their candidates now - all with convincing arguments and passion. While we are leaning toward a decision personally, we're on the record here to support the Republican nominee while we wear our attractive Ushanka.us hat. So instead of linking to a number of candidate-specific articles that, chances are, you have already read, we'll link to some others.
Charles Krauthammer pens "The Dreamer and the Doer?" at Townhall.com. He analyzes the recent HRC remark about MLK, and exposes the repulsive analogy within.
The WSJ Opinion Page reviews the Republicans' tax pledges against the coming 'inevitable showdown in 2009':
And Larry Elder offers us a fun review for why we vote the way we do in his Townhall.com article, "A Democrat or a Republican?, summarizing with:
posted by Karl @ 1:47 PM Permalink
Charles Krauthammer pens "The Dreamer and the Doer?" at Townhall.com. He analyzes the recent HRC remark about MLK, and exposes the repulsive analogy within.
In my view, the real problem with Clinton's statement was the implied historical analogy -- that the subordinate position King held in relation to Johnson, a function of the discrimination and disenfranchisement of the time, somehow needs recapitulation today when none of those conditions apply.
---
The King-Johnson analogy is dead because the times are radically different. Today an African-American can be in a position to wield the emancipation pen -- and everything else that goes along with the presidency: from making foreign policy to renting out the Lincoln Bedroom (if one is so inclined). Why should African-American dreams still have to go through white liberals?
---
The King-Johnson analogy is dead because the times are radically different. Today an African-American can be in a position to wield the emancipation pen -- and everything else that goes along with the presidency: from making foreign policy to renting out the Lincoln Bedroom (if one is so inclined). Why should African-American dreams still have to go through white liberals?
The WSJ Opinion Page reviews the Republicans' tax pledges against the coming 'inevitable showdown in 2009':
With Democrats insisting on a giant tax increase, taxes will be a major issue this fall no matter who wins the GOP nod. And if a Republican does win the White House, a tax reform showdown is inevitable in 2009. The AMT continues to swallow more taxpayers, the death tax is due to expire for a single year in 2010 and then rise back to 55%, and the Bush tax cuts expire after 2010. This is a perfect storm that means the next President will have no choice but to make taxes a political priority.
And Larry Elder offers us a fun review for why we vote the way we do in his Townhall.com article, "A Democrat or a Republican?, summarizing with:
Republicans believe what they see, and Democrats see what they believe.
Labels: Tax, Weekend Reading
posted by Karl @ 1:47 PM Permalink
Sunday, January 13, 2008
Our long holiday from posting Weekend Reading suggestions is over. Here are some picks from the past weeks:
John Bolton suggests the US pull out of the February 13, 2006 nuclear agreement with North Korea after their "umpteenth violation". We concur, but for another reason. President Bush is the only one that will drive change in the N. Korea regime. If he doesn't reset the standard to full compliance, something always lacking in this agreement, we are confident his predecessor will not either. Reagan was uncomfortable knowing masses lived behind a wall, and he led with this core frustration while declining offers other presidents would have jumped at. That focus and discipline is absent today.
The criticisms of B. Hussein Obama are rolling in, and quite a few minutes too late. Kimberly Strassel dedicates two columns to this: December 28, 2007 - Change Agent? (link), and January 11, 2008 - Barack or Hillary (link). No critical comments here. We agree with her on every point, and HOPE she is right.
Charles Krauthammer reacts to Obama in his January 11 Townhall.com article, Finding the Unscripted Turning Point:
posted by Karl @ 11:44 PM Permalink
John Bolton suggests the US pull out of the February 13, 2006 nuclear agreement with North Korea after their "umpteenth violation". We concur, but for another reason. President Bush is the only one that will drive change in the N. Korea regime. If he doesn't reset the standard to full compliance, something always lacking in this agreement, we are confident his predecessor will not either. Reagan was uncomfortable knowing masses lived behind a wall, and he led with this core frustration while declining offers other presidents would have jumped at. That focus and discipline is absent today.
The criticisms of B. Hussein Obama are rolling in, and quite a few minutes too late. Kimberly Strassel dedicates two columns to this: December 28, 2007 - Change Agent? (link), and January 11, 2008 - Barack or Hillary (link). No critical comments here. We agree with her on every point, and HOPE she is right.
Charles Krauthammer reacts to Obama in his January 11 Townhall.com article, Finding the Unscripted Turning Point:
It is fitting that New Hampshire should have turned on a tear or an aside. The Democratic primary campaign has been breathtakingly empty. What passes for substance is an absurd contest of hopeful change (Obama) vs. experienced change (Clinton) vs. angry change (John Edwards playing Hugo Chavez in English).
---
The freest of all passes to Obama is the general neglect of the obvious central contradiction of his candidacy -- the bipartisan uniter who would bring us together by transcending ideology is at every turn on every policy an unwavering, down-the-line, unreconstructed, uninteresting, liberal Democrat.
---
The freest of all passes to Obama is the general neglect of the obvious central contradiction of his candidacy -- the bipartisan uniter who would bring us together by transcending ideology is at every turn on every policy an unwavering, down-the-line, unreconstructed, uninteresting, liberal Democrat.
Labels: N. Korea, Tax, Weekend Reading
posted by Karl @ 11:44 PM Permalink
Monday, August 27, 2007
Bruce Bartlett, Bush Sr's Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, tries to smear the Fair Tax in Saturday's WSJ editorial. It justifies a response:
Smear Rule #1: If you want others to dislike something, tie it to the Church of Scientology. Para. 2:
As if only the Scientologists would be happy to see a 100% layoff at the IRS...
Smear Rule #2: Use phrases like "so and so asserts" or "so and so claims". This makes your audience think the other side is lying. But, don't offer a counter clarification or, in the case of the FairTax, a counter calculation. Para. 3:
Mr Bartlett continues with his guess that the FairTax will instead be closer to 30%. This argument is refuted in the Fair Tax Book (available one click away at the Ushanka.us Book Club to your left), but Mr. Bartlett ignores the author's argument.
He also misses one big point here - 23%, 30%, 40%, whatever. IT. IS. FAIR. Fair for the 50% of Americans that pay tax today, but also fair for those who don't pay taxes today. Get it?
Smear Rule #3: Talk about the burden on the government. Liberals eat this up! Paras. 8 & 11:
Mr. Bartlett, do you mean the government will have to be more selective on how it spends our money? Do you also ignore the possibility that the government may receive higher revenues now that our 12 million illegal immigrants and the tens of thousands of tourists will start paying taxes? Have you not heard of technologies called "database" and "direct deposit" that could support monthly payments to the, so called, American poor?
Smear Rule #4: Incorporate words like "deception", even if you do not know how to use the word correctly. Para. 17:
Actually, the FairTax DOES eliminate federal tax returns, the need for extensive records and audits. So far, the only deception appears to be Mr. Bartlett's purpose for writing this article. We suspect Mr. Bartlett will be coming out for a Republican other than Gov. Huckabee, as this is clearly a hit piece on Gov. Huckabee's recent surprise showing in Iowa.
To further use the "deception" word, let's look at what Mr. Bartlett leaves out. There is no mention that employees will now keep every penny of their gross salary, minus any state tax. Like all FairTax opponents, he deceives by painting the picture that you'll pay 23/30% more of your current take-home pay at the cash register. Nor does he address the idea that the reduced tax burden on businesses will result in lower prices for goods and services. And where is the new concept - people will now choose when they pay taxes, and how much they will pay? These missing items were not for a lack of space.
Mr. Bartlett used his previous position in government to grab half of the WSJ editorial page. He wasted an opportunity to apply critical thought to a complex, but popular idea. His article has two target audiences: those who haven't read the Fair Tax Book, and those who remember that wonderful economic boom in 1991-1992 when Mr. Bartlett was serving our country. For everyone else, Mr. Bartlett has shown himself to be an economic non-authority.
We think taxes will rank equal to the war on terror in the 2008 election, thanks to the Alternative Minimum Tax. We hope someone will step up for the FairTax, offer an enhancement of the FairTax, or provide a fair alternative. Here's to hoping...
I'm Karl. Thanks for reading.
posted by Karl @ 9:05 PM Permalink 0 comments Post a comment
Smear Rule #1: If you want others to dislike something, tie it to the Church of Scientology. Para. 2:
For those who never heard about it, the FairTax is a national retail sales tax that would replace the entire current federal tax system. It was originally devised by the Church of Scientology in the early 1990s as a way to get rid of the Internal Revenue Service, with which the church was then at war (at the time the IRS refused to recognize it as a legitimate religion). The Scientologists' idea was that since almost all states have sales taxes, replacing federal taxes with the same sort of tax would allow them to collect the federal government's revenue and thereby get rid of their hated enemy, the IRS.
As if only the Scientologists would be happy to see a 100% layoff at the IRS...
Smear Rule #2: Use phrases like "so and so asserts" or "so and so claims". This makes your audience think the other side is lying. But, don't offer a counter clarification or, in the case of the FairTax, a counter calculation. Para. 3:
They assert that a rate of 23% would be sufficient to replace federal individual and corporate income taxes as well as payroll and estate taxes. Mr. Linder's Web site claims that U.S. gross domestic product will rise 10.5% the first year after enactment, exports will grow by 26%, and real investment spending will increase an astonishing 76%.
Mr Bartlett continues with his guess that the FairTax will instead be closer to 30%. This argument is refuted in the Fair Tax Book (available one click away at the Ushanka.us Book Club to your left), but Mr. Bartlett ignores the author's argument.
He also misses one big point here - 23%, 30%, 40%, whatever. IT. IS. FAIR. Fair for the 50% of Americans that pay tax today, but also fair for those who don't pay taxes today. Get it?
Smear Rule #3: Talk about the burden on the government. Liberals eat this up! Paras. 8 & 11:
...state and local governments would have to pay the FairTax on most of their purchases. This means that it is partly financed by higher state and local taxes. It's also worth remembering that state sales taxes now average 6%, which means that the total tax rate will be 36% on retail sales.
Since sales taxes are regressive--taking more in percentage terms from the incomes of the poor and middle class than the rich--some provision is needed to prevent a vast increase in taxation on the nonwealthy. The FairTax does this by sending monthly checks to every household based on income.
Since sales taxes are regressive--taking more in percentage terms from the incomes of the poor and middle class than the rich--some provision is needed to prevent a vast increase in taxation on the nonwealthy. The FairTax does this by sending monthly checks to every household based on income.
Mr. Bartlett, do you mean the government will have to be more selective on how it spends our money? Do you also ignore the possibility that the government may receive higher revenues now that our 12 million illegal immigrants and the tens of thousands of tourists will start paying taxes? Have you not heard of technologies called "database" and "direct deposit" that could support monthly payments to the, so called, American poor?
Smear Rule #4: Incorporate words like "deception", even if you do not know how to use the word correctly. Para. 17:
Perhaps the biggest deception in the FairTax, however, is its promise to relieve individuals from having to file income tax returns, keep extensive financial records and potentially suffer audits. Judging by the emphasis FairTax supporters place on the idea of making April 15 just another day, this seems to be a major selling point for their proposal.
Actually, the FairTax DOES eliminate federal tax returns, the need for extensive records and audits. So far, the only deception appears to be Mr. Bartlett's purpose for writing this article. We suspect Mr. Bartlett will be coming out for a Republican other than Gov. Huckabee, as this is clearly a hit piece on Gov. Huckabee's recent surprise showing in Iowa.
To further use the "deception" word, let's look at what Mr. Bartlett leaves out. There is no mention that employees will now keep every penny of their gross salary, minus any state tax. Like all FairTax opponents, he deceives by painting the picture that you'll pay 23/30% more of your current take-home pay at the cash register. Nor does he address the idea that the reduced tax burden on businesses will result in lower prices for goods and services. And where is the new concept - people will now choose when they pay taxes, and how much they will pay? These missing items were not for a lack of space.
Mr. Bartlett used his previous position in government to grab half of the WSJ editorial page. He wasted an opportunity to apply critical thought to a complex, but popular idea. His article has two target audiences: those who haven't read the Fair Tax Book, and those who remember that wonderful economic boom in 1991-1992 when Mr. Bartlett was serving our country. For everyone else, Mr. Bartlett has shown himself to be an economic non-authority.
We think taxes will rank equal to the war on terror in the 2008 election, thanks to the Alternative Minimum Tax. We hope someone will step up for the FairTax, offer an enhancement of the FairTax, or provide a fair alternative. Here's to hoping...
I'm Karl. Thanks for reading.
Labels: Tax
posted by Karl @ 9:05 PM Permalink 0 comments Post a comment
Our Sponsors
Recent Posts
Labels
Communists
Russia
China
Venezuela
N. Korea
Cuba
DNC
MSM
Loss of Freedom
Slippery Slope
Gun Rights
Taxes
Education
Health Care
Cartoons
White Flag
Hammer & Sickle
Other
Not a Socialist
Losing a War
Russia
China
Venezuela
N. Korea
Cuba
DNC
MSM
Loss of Freedom
Slippery Slope
Gun Rights
Taxes
Education
Health Care
Cartoons
White Flag
Hammer & Sickle
Other
Not a Socialist
Losing a War
Campaigns
Library
Reagan’s War
Peter Schweizer
While Europe Slept
Bruce Bawer
Arrogance
Bernard Goldberg
Carnage and Culture
Victor Davis Hanson
Animal Farm
George Orwell
The President, the Pope, and the Prime Minister
John O'Sullivan
Reagan: In His Own Hand
Red Horizons
Ion Mihai Pacepa
The Black Book of Communism
Communism: A History
Richard Pipes
The Venona Secrets
Herbert Romerstein
The Case For Democracy
Natan Sharansky
Programmed to Kill
Ion Mihai Pacepa
Liberal Fascism
Jonah Goldberg
No Simple Victory
Norman Davies
The Crusader
Paul Kengor
Atlas Shrugged
Ayn Rand
Ivan Denisovich
Alexander Solzhenitsyn
The Great Terror
Robert Conquest
Tears of My Soul
Sokreaksa S. Himm
Peter Schweizer
While Europe Slept
Bruce Bawer
Arrogance
Bernard Goldberg
Carnage and Culture
Victor Davis Hanson
Animal Farm
George Orwell
The President, the Pope, and the Prime Minister
John O'Sullivan
Reagan: In His Own Hand
Red Horizons
Ion Mihai Pacepa
The Black Book of Communism
Communism: A History
Richard Pipes
The Venona Secrets
Herbert Romerstein
The Case For Democracy
Natan Sharansky
Programmed to Kill
Ion Mihai Pacepa
Liberal Fascism
Jonah Goldberg
No Simple Victory
Norman Davies
The Crusader
Paul Kengor
Atlas Shrugged
Ayn Rand
Ivan Denisovich
Alexander Solzhenitsyn
The Great Terror
Robert Conquest
Tears of My Soul
Sokreaksa S. Himm
Cinema
BlogRoll
Archives
October 2006
November 2006
December 2006
January 2007
February 2007
March 2007
April 2007
May 2007
June 2007
July 2007
August 2007
September 2007
October 2007
November 2007
December 2007
January 2008
February 2008
March 2008
April 2008
May 2008
June 2008
July 2008
August 2008
September 2008
October 2008
November 2008
December 2008
January 2009
February 2009
March 2009
April 2009
May 2009
June 2009
July 2009
August 2009
September 2009
October 2009
November 2009
December 2009
January 2010
February 2010
March 2010
November 2006
December 2006
January 2007
February 2007
March 2007
April 2007
May 2007
June 2007
July 2007
August 2007
September 2007
October 2007
November 2007
December 2007
January 2008
February 2008
March 2008
April 2008
May 2008
June 2008
July 2008
August 2008
September 2008
October 2008
November 2008
December 2008
January 2009
February 2009
March 2009
April 2009
May 2009
June 2009
July 2009
August 2009
September 2009
October 2009
November 2009
December 2009
January 2010
February 2010
March 2010
- Blog
- Add as Friend