Read it here.
Monday, August 31, 2015
Sunday, August 30, 2015
Why Ending Birthright Citizenship Would Create A Nightmare For Everyone
Ending birthright citizenship, politically speaking, would be nearly impossible. But if such a change was achieved, implementation wouldn’t be much easier. And in an ironic twist for big-government-hating conservatives, ending birthright citizenship would be an ideological nightmare.
Eliminating the longstanding and constitutionally enshrined practice of granting every child born on U.S. soil citizenship would create its own set of complicated and costly bureaucratic obstacles, immigration lawyers say. More than just remove an alleged “magnet” for people to immigrate here illegally, ending birthright citizenship would deeply impact the lives of all Americans.
“Everyone benefits from the fact that they just have to show their birth certificate to show that they’re an American citizen and have all the rights of an American citizen,” Bill Stock, president-elect of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, told TPM.
Eliminating the longstanding and constitutionally enshrined practice of granting every child born on U.S. soil citizenship would create its own set of complicated and costly bureaucratic obstacles, immigration lawyers say. More than just remove an alleged “magnet” for people to immigrate here illegally, ending birthright citizenship would deeply impact the lives of all Americans.
“Everyone benefits from the fact that they just have to show their birth certificate to show that they’re an American citizen and have all the rights of an American citizen,” Bill Stock, president-elect of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, told TPM.
Abandoning the simplicity of birthright citizenship would mean establishing a new system that would complicate the lives of all Americans, from birth to when the time comes to apply for Social Security benefits, experts tell TPM.
“It becomes this sort of paper chase, and who is going to police this? How do you know if a child born in a U.S. hospital is a citizen or not? Are we going to have ICE agents in a maternity ward?” said David Leopold, an immigration lawyer in Cleveland and former president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association.
“It’s all lovely to say that we are only targeting people who are born to illegal parents, but what that means is that everyone has to show that their parents were not illegally present,” Stock said. “If we want to administer this fairly, there are white people who have undocumented parents. So we can’t just say that we are not going to check for people who are white, or African American or have American accents. You have to check for everybody.”
Immigration lawyers ask: If a birth certificate no longer guarantees citizenship, then what?
“In order to prove that I am an American citizen, I don’t have to just prove that I was born in Rhode Island," Stock said. "I have to prove that when I was born in Rhode Island, both my parents were legal citizens, and to prove that they’re legal citizens, I have to prove that their parents were legal citizens. How far back are we going to make people prove?”
“It becomes this sort of paper chase, and who is going to police this? How do you know if a child born in a U.S. hospital is a citizen or not? Are we going to have ICE agents in a maternity ward?” said David Leopold, an immigration lawyer in Cleveland and former president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association.
“It’s all lovely to say that we are only targeting people who are born to illegal parents, but what that means is that everyone has to show that their parents were not illegally present,” Stock said. “If we want to administer this fairly, there are white people who have undocumented parents. So we can’t just say that we are not going to check for people who are white, or African American or have American accents. You have to check for everybody.”
Immigration lawyers ask: If a birth certificate no longer guarantees citizenship, then what?
“In order to prove that I am an American citizen, I don’t have to just prove that I was born in Rhode Island," Stock said. "I have to prove that when I was born in Rhode Island, both my parents were legal citizens, and to prove that they’re legal citizens, I have to prove that their parents were legal citizens. How far back are we going to make people prove?”
Story's here.
Asylum Seeker Crisis
People dying in their dozens – whether crammed into a truck or a ship en route to seek safety or better lives is a tragic indictment of Europe’s failures to provide alternative routes. Countries neighboring conflict areas are reaching their maximum capacity to absorb any more refugees. Without legal alternative routes for refugees to enter European countries, people fleeing conflicts in the Middle East, Africa and elsewhere have taken matters into their own hands.” Those are just excerpts of statements by human rights organizations about the global asylum-seeker crisis. In the face of tragedies in Austria and Libya, questions are being asked about how Europe’s foreign policy has contributed to this current situation, while some of its right-wingers stoke the flames of hatred.
Story's here.
Monday, August 24, 2015
Capitalism Explaineded...
TRADITIONAL CAPITALISM: You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull. Your herd multiplies, and the economy grows. You sell them and retire on the income.
AMERICAN CAPITALISM: You have two cows. You sell three of them to your publicly listed company, using letters of credit opened by your brother-in-law at the bank, then execute a debt/equity swap with an associated general offer so that you get all four cows back, with a tax exemption for five cows. The milk rights of the six cows are transferred via an intermediary to a Cayman Island company secretly owned by the majority shareholder who sells the rights to all seven cows back to your listed company. The annual report says the company owns eight cows, with an option on one more. You sell one cow to buy a new president of the United States, leaving you with nine cows. No balance sheet provided with the release. The public buys your bull.
AUSTRALIAN CAPITALISM: You have two cows. You sell one, and force the other to produce the milk of four cows. You are surprised when the cow drops dead.
FRENCH CAPITALISM: You have two cows. You go on strike because you want three cows.
JAPANESE CAPITALISM: You have two cows. You redesign them so they are one-tenth the size of an ordinary cow and produce twenty times the milk. You then create clever cow cartoon images called Cowkimon and market them worldwide.
GERMAN CAPITALISM: You have two cows. You re-engineer them so they live for 100 years, eat only once a month, and milk themselves.
BRITISH CAPITALISM: You have two cows. Both are mad.
CANADIAN CAPITALISM: You have two cows. Come to think of it, they look more like a pair of moose - in fact, yes they are. One speaks French, one speaks English. One fights to create a new country, the other won't let it. They both play ice hockey rather well.
ITALIAN CAPITALISM: You have two cows, but you don't know where they are. You break for lunch.
RUSSIAN CAPITALISM: You have two cows. You count them and learn you have five cows. You count them again and learn you have 42 cows. You count them again and learn you have 12 cows. You stop counting cows and open another bottle of vodka.
SWISS CAPITALISM: You have 5000 cows, none of which belong to you. You charge an outrageous fee to others for storing them.
CHINESE CAPITALISM: You have two cows. You have 300 people milking them. You claim full employment, high bovine productivity, and arrest and detain without trial the journalist who reported the number of cows.
NEW ZEALAND CAPITALISM: You have two cows. That one on the left is kinda cute...
I found this here.
AMERICAN CAPITALISM: You have two cows. You sell three of them to your publicly listed company, using letters of credit opened by your brother-in-law at the bank, then execute a debt/equity swap with an associated general offer so that you get all four cows back, with a tax exemption for five cows. The milk rights of the six cows are transferred via an intermediary to a Cayman Island company secretly owned by the majority shareholder who sells the rights to all seven cows back to your listed company. The annual report says the company owns eight cows, with an option on one more. You sell one cow to buy a new president of the United States, leaving you with nine cows. No balance sheet provided with the release. The public buys your bull.
AUSTRALIAN CAPITALISM: You have two cows. You sell one, and force the other to produce the milk of four cows. You are surprised when the cow drops dead.
FRENCH CAPITALISM: You have two cows. You go on strike because you want three cows.
JAPANESE CAPITALISM: You have two cows. You redesign them so they are one-tenth the size of an ordinary cow and produce twenty times the milk. You then create clever cow cartoon images called Cowkimon and market them worldwide.
GERMAN CAPITALISM: You have two cows. You re-engineer them so they live for 100 years, eat only once a month, and milk themselves.
BRITISH CAPITALISM: You have two cows. Both are mad.
CANADIAN CAPITALISM: You have two cows. Come to think of it, they look more like a pair of moose - in fact, yes they are. One speaks French, one speaks English. One fights to create a new country, the other won't let it. They both play ice hockey rather well.
ITALIAN CAPITALISM: You have two cows, but you don't know where they are. You break for lunch.
RUSSIAN CAPITALISM: You have two cows. You count them and learn you have five cows. You count them again and learn you have 42 cows. You count them again and learn you have 12 cows. You stop counting cows and open another bottle of vodka.
SWISS CAPITALISM: You have 5000 cows, none of which belong to you. You charge an outrageous fee to others for storing them.
CHINESE CAPITALISM: You have two cows. You have 300 people milking them. You claim full employment, high bovine productivity, and arrest and detain without trial the journalist who reported the number of cows.
NEW ZEALAND CAPITALISM: You have two cows. That one on the left is kinda cute...
I found this here.
Saturday, August 15, 2015
Sunday, August 9, 2015
Donald Trump...
... is running for President. HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HEE HEE HEE HEE HOO....
The Gun Violence Just Don't End.... This Time Texas....
The man accused in the murderous rampage that left six children and two adults dead inside a northwest Harris County home climbed through an unlocked window, restrained them and shot each one in the head, according to prosecutors.
"He restrained, shot and killed eight people," Celeste Byrom, an assistant district attorney said during a brief court hearing in which David Ray Conley III, 48, who is charged with multiple counts of capital murder, was ordered held without bail.
Valerie Jackson, 40, had recently changed the locks, but Conley was still able to get inside the home as a window had been left unlocked, according to the prosecutor. He is charged in the murder of Jackson and her 50-year-old husband Dwayne Jackson, as well as their five children: Jonah, 6; Trinity, 7; Caleb, 9; Dwayne, Jr., 10; and Honesty, 11. Conley's son, Nathaniel, 13, was also killed, authorities said.
"He restrained, shot and killed eight people," Celeste Byrom, an assistant district attorney said during a brief court hearing in which David Ray Conley III, 48, who is charged with multiple counts of capital murder, was ordered held without bail.
Valerie Jackson, 40, had recently changed the locks, but Conley was still able to get inside the home as a window had been left unlocked, according to the prosecutor. He is charged in the murder of Jackson and her 50-year-old husband Dwayne Jackson, as well as their five children: Jonah, 6; Trinity, 7; Caleb, 9; Dwayne, Jr., 10; and Honesty, 11. Conley's son, Nathaniel, 13, was also killed, authorities said.
Here. This is the type of mass murder that doesn't get the press coverage as do shootings in theaters. More evidence that leads me to question whether Americans are mature enough to own guns.
Tuesday, August 4, 2015
Best Way To Avoid Responsibility: Divide And Conquer, II
Texas Paramedic Making 15 Bucks An Hour Has PERFECT Reaction To Fast Food Workers Making The Same (Letter)
There has been a lot of talk on the campaign trail and in America about raising the minimum wage to a more livable 15 dollars an hour. Indeed, New York City has begun to incrementally raise the wage to 15 an hour. Down in Texas one paramedic decided to take a stand and tell the world exactly how he feels about the audacity of people who make, serve and clean up other people’s food should earn a “livable” wage.
He minces no words and pulls no punches. His comments are spot on for a 21st century America. They were originally posted on the site Imigur.
There has been a lot of talk on the campaign trail and in America about raising the minimum wage to a more livable 15 dollars an hour. Indeed, New York City has begun to incrementally raise the wage to 15 an hour. Down in Texas one paramedic decided to take a stand and tell the world exactly how he feels about the audacity of people who make, serve and clean up other people’s food should earn a “livable” wage.
He minces no words and pulls no punches. His comments are spot on for a 21st century America. They were originally posted on the site Imigur.
Monday, August 3, 2015
Denver Meteorologist Addresses Climate Deniers' Misconceptions About Global Climate Change (Warming)
Climate change will likely be higher in the news conversation in the coming days, so here is some information from my perspective...
Over the course of time, I have been called many different things while talking and writing about this subject. From courageous to foolish, to (my favorite) "the Pied Piper of Anti-Science"!
The TV meteorologist is often asked to provide their viewers with insight and explanations on earthquakes, meteors and comets, tsunamis and volcanoes. For many Americans, we are as close to a scientist as they will get, and they invite us into their living rooms.
I hope that, even if you do not agree with my comments and explanations, you will appreciate the attempt and still choose to watch my weather reports. With that said, here we go...
Weather is NOT Climate!
It is important to understand that a heat-wave, tornado outbreak, record flood or major blizzard is not climate - it is weather! The weather goes through tremendous fluctuations from day to day and even hour to hour - let alone over the course of weeks, months or even years.
Scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) feel that 90 to 95% of what we see in the wide variety of weather is due to natural variability. The remaining 5 to 10% is due to the warming of the planet due to an increase in various greenhouse gases.
If 5 to 10% of the change does not seem like much, consider what that can mean in terms of tangible measurements. A 5 to 10% drop in crop yields in future decades would have a huge impact on agri-business in our state and across the nation.
A 5 to 10% drop in snowpack in future decades would be a major concern for Colorado and the West. A 5 to 10% increase in insurance losses from weather would amount to billions of dollars over the long term.
Even though an individual severe weather event cannot be blamed on Global Warming, a warmer climate "juices" the atmosphere and may bring more frequent severe weather events in the future.
One Cold Winter Does Not Mean There Is No Global Warming!
There are often comments and questions about Global Warming when unusual regional weather events occur - such as recent snow in Sidney, Australia or extremely cold weather this past winter in the eastern U.S. It is important to understand that short term weather is to climate as one play in a football game is to the entire history of the NFL.
For example, the extreme episodes of cold and snow in southern locales is due to a southern bulge in the circumpolar vortex, bringing the chilly air down from Alaska and Canada into the lower 48 states.
This past winter, while portions of the lower 48 states were shivering, Fairbanks had a warm and dry winter that has led to the numerous wildfires this summer in Alaska and western Canada.
The key here is that we are talking about regional weather events. Things tend to even out - if one area is unusually warm, another is cold. But on a global average, we are seeing a warming of the planet by about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit since 1900.
The World Has Not Warmed Since 1997!
There is an often quoted issue of 1997 being the warmest year and that global temperatures have cooled since that time. This information is misleading. In 1997, the world climate was influenced by one of the strongest El Nino events ever recorded.
This pool of very warm Pacific Ocean water bumped global temperatures higher. Temperatures have remained warmer than the long term average in the years since 1997 - just not quite as warm as that one spike.
The oceans have an enormous capacity to absorb heat and much of the global warming we are seeing is going into the oceans. This is causing sea levels to rise and the increase in CO2 is changing the chemistry of the water – making it more acidic.
But in the 1970s, They Said The Earth Was Cooling!
I did my meteorology training at the University of Wisconsin at Madison in the 1970s. At that time, Dr. Reid Bryson, one of the founders of the UW Meteorology Department was lecturing about the prospect of a "New Ice Age". The cause, Bryson theorized, was due to the increase in tiny particles of smoke and dust during the Industrial Revolution.
The increase in atmospheric aerosols would block incoming sunlight like a dirty window. It was from that theory that several magazines ran feature articles about "Global Cooling". It stands to reason that folks would be concerned about such an about face in forty years.
In fact, even at the time, most researchers, including Bryson, felt that the increase in CO2 would eventually offset this "dirty window" effect and the climate would begin to warm. This is an important point, as many anthropogenic global warming (AGW) skeptics still bring up the "1970s Global Cooling Theory" as an argument that the current consensus among climate scientists has been an "about face" form the 1970s.
Here is an article about this from the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society...
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1
For nearly 150 years scientists have known that each doubling of the CO2 results in a net increase of 4 watts per square meter of stored energy over the entire surface of the Earth. That is about a night-light’s worth of heat over a square meter, but taken over the vast surface area of the Earth, this is a tremendous amount of energy!
Climate Has Always Changed
It is absolutely true that the Earth's climate has cycled through great changes over the course of our geologic history. These changes are obvious in the fossil record - Denver was once under a great shallow ocean!
These changes are due to a variety of causes, from volcanoes to continental drift to the shift in the Earth's orbit on its journey around the Sun, to changes in the output of energy from the Sun.
One of the key components to our Ice Ages has been what are called the Milankovitch Cycles. These long term changes in the shape of our orbit and the shift in the tilt of the Earth work like the complex gears of a clock, gradually switching our planet from Ice Age to warmer periods and back again.
The Milankovitch Cycles are well documented and have been a primary driver of our changing climate for hundreds of thousands to millions of years. Here is a link to learn more...
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/milankovitch.html
Political Science vs. Climate Science
The topic of climate change has been given much political attention and in that light, there is a seemingly large controversy about what is happening and to what extent mankind is helping to cause some of the changes. In the strict world of truly peer reviewed science, the degree of controversy is not as great as some would have you believe.
The American Meteorological Society (AMS) is the oldest and largest professional society for weather and climate researchers. Here is a link to their statement on Climate Change.
http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2012climatechange.html
~Mike Nelson
Over the course of time, I have been called many different things while talking and writing about this subject. From courageous to foolish, to (my favorite) "the Pied Piper of Anti-Science"!
The TV meteorologist is often asked to provide their viewers with insight and explanations on earthquakes, meteors and comets, tsunamis and volcanoes. For many Americans, we are as close to a scientist as they will get, and they invite us into their living rooms.
I hope that, even if you do not agree with my comments and explanations, you will appreciate the attempt and still choose to watch my weather reports. With that said, here we go...
Weather is NOT Climate!
It is important to understand that a heat-wave, tornado outbreak, record flood or major blizzard is not climate - it is weather! The weather goes through tremendous fluctuations from day to day and even hour to hour - let alone over the course of weeks, months or even years.
Scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) feel that 90 to 95% of what we see in the wide variety of weather is due to natural variability. The remaining 5 to 10% is due to the warming of the planet due to an increase in various greenhouse gases.
If 5 to 10% of the change does not seem like much, consider what that can mean in terms of tangible measurements. A 5 to 10% drop in crop yields in future decades would have a huge impact on agri-business in our state and across the nation.
A 5 to 10% drop in snowpack in future decades would be a major concern for Colorado and the West. A 5 to 10% increase in insurance losses from weather would amount to billions of dollars over the long term.
Even though an individual severe weather event cannot be blamed on Global Warming, a warmer climate "juices" the atmosphere and may bring more frequent severe weather events in the future.
One Cold Winter Does Not Mean There Is No Global Warming!
There are often comments and questions about Global Warming when unusual regional weather events occur - such as recent snow in Sidney, Australia or extremely cold weather this past winter in the eastern U.S. It is important to understand that short term weather is to climate as one play in a football game is to the entire history of the NFL.
For example, the extreme episodes of cold and snow in southern locales is due to a southern bulge in the circumpolar vortex, bringing the chilly air down from Alaska and Canada into the lower 48 states.
This past winter, while portions of the lower 48 states were shivering, Fairbanks had a warm and dry winter that has led to the numerous wildfires this summer in Alaska and western Canada.
The key here is that we are talking about regional weather events. Things tend to even out - if one area is unusually warm, another is cold. But on a global average, we are seeing a warming of the planet by about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit since 1900.
The World Has Not Warmed Since 1997!
There is an often quoted issue of 1997 being the warmest year and that global temperatures have cooled since that time. This information is misleading. In 1997, the world climate was influenced by one of the strongest El Nino events ever recorded.
This pool of very warm Pacific Ocean water bumped global temperatures higher. Temperatures have remained warmer than the long term average in the years since 1997 - just not quite as warm as that one spike.
The oceans have an enormous capacity to absorb heat and much of the global warming we are seeing is going into the oceans. This is causing sea levels to rise and the increase in CO2 is changing the chemistry of the water – making it more acidic.
But in the 1970s, They Said The Earth Was Cooling!
I did my meteorology training at the University of Wisconsin at Madison in the 1970s. At that time, Dr. Reid Bryson, one of the founders of the UW Meteorology Department was lecturing about the prospect of a "New Ice Age". The cause, Bryson theorized, was due to the increase in tiny particles of smoke and dust during the Industrial Revolution.
The increase in atmospheric aerosols would block incoming sunlight like a dirty window. It was from that theory that several magazines ran feature articles about "Global Cooling". It stands to reason that folks would be concerned about such an about face in forty years.
In fact, even at the time, most researchers, including Bryson, felt that the increase in CO2 would eventually offset this "dirty window" effect and the climate would begin to warm. This is an important point, as many anthropogenic global warming (AGW) skeptics still bring up the "1970s Global Cooling Theory" as an argument that the current consensus among climate scientists has been an "about face" form the 1970s.
Here is an article about this from the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society...
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1
For nearly 150 years scientists have known that each doubling of the CO2 results in a net increase of 4 watts per square meter of stored energy over the entire surface of the Earth. That is about a night-light’s worth of heat over a square meter, but taken over the vast surface area of the Earth, this is a tremendous amount of energy!
Climate Has Always Changed
It is absolutely true that the Earth's climate has cycled through great changes over the course of our geologic history. These changes are obvious in the fossil record - Denver was once under a great shallow ocean!
These changes are due to a variety of causes, from volcanoes to continental drift to the shift in the Earth's orbit on its journey around the Sun, to changes in the output of energy from the Sun.
One of the key components to our Ice Ages has been what are called the Milankovitch Cycles. These long term changes in the shape of our orbit and the shift in the tilt of the Earth work like the complex gears of a clock, gradually switching our planet from Ice Age to warmer periods and back again.
The Milankovitch Cycles are well documented and have been a primary driver of our changing climate for hundreds of thousands to millions of years. Here is a link to learn more...
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/milankovitch.html
Political Science vs. Climate Science
The topic of climate change has been given much political attention and in that light, there is a seemingly large controversy about what is happening and to what extent mankind is helping to cause some of the changes. In the strict world of truly peer reviewed science, the degree of controversy is not as great as some would have you believe.
The American Meteorological Society (AMS) is the oldest and largest professional society for weather and climate researchers. Here is a link to their statement on Climate Change.
http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2012climatechange.html
~Mike Nelson
Best Way To Avoid Responsibility: Divide And Conquer
Republicans condemn illegal immigrants because they want to blame them for the stagnant wages of most Americans rather than acknowledge the truth: that wages are stagnant because almost all the economy's gains for the last thirty years have gone to the top. It's also part of the old Republican divide-and-conquer strategy -- to convince the white working class that the main cause of their economic frustrations are minorities. The greatest fear of the Republican Party is that poor, working class, middle class, black, Latinos, and whites will join together in a coalition to reclaim our economy and democracy from the moneyed interests that have dominated it for over three decades, and which are bankrolling the GOP.
A similar pattern of immigrant-bashing is occurring in Europe, where right-wing nationalist groups are gaining ground by whipping up hatred toward immigrants from Africa and the Middle East. In fact, history is replete with shameful examples of demagogues who use economic insecurities and frustrations to advance themselves by making scapegoats of minorities. But in America -- a nation comprised almost entirely of immigrants, and soon to have a majority of minorities -- this cynical tactic is bound to backfire.
A similar pattern of immigrant-bashing is occurring in Europe, where right-wing nationalist groups are gaining ground by whipping up hatred toward immigrants from Africa and the Middle East. In fact, history is replete with shameful examples of demagogues who use economic insecurities and frustrations to advance themselves by making scapegoats of minorities. But in America -- a nation comprised almost entirely of immigrants, and soon to have a majority of minorities -- this cynical tactic is bound to backfire.
Sunday, August 2, 2015
Another Flat Tax Proposal
I've researched the latest flat tax proposal and how it would affect me personally. I've run the numbers, comparing Rand Paul's approx. 14% flat tax vs. my current 15%, less deductions, tax rate. A pure flat tax would raise my tax liability by over $2500. It would raise my state income tax bill, too, since it is based upon my federal-taxable income, which would appear higher since flat tax programs don't allow for deductions. Since flat taxers almost always want states to be responsible for stuff, rather than the federal gummit, states would have to raise their property tax rates and/or state income tax rates, or do without services they currently enjoy.
Now, if someone wants to develop a flat tax that takes into account a structure of deductions to protect low/middle income earners, have at it. I'll be happy to run the numbers.
Now, if someone wants to develop a flat tax that takes into account a structure of deductions to protect low/middle income earners, have at it. I'll be happy to run the numbers.
Current flat tax proposals are weighted to benefit a small percentage of earners. The highest earners in the middle class would see a benefit of a few hundred $ savings, and the highest income earners would see savings of thousands to hundreds of thousands of $$$$ under Paul's flat tax proposal. The hit to federal $ intake would not be pretty. We'd either have to cut military spending dramatically, which under the current Congressional makeup is not going to happen, or we'd see further crumbling of our infrastructure and cuts to aid to poor folks, who would get a double whammy of not benefitting from flat taxes AND would lose out on aid. But many flat tax proponents don't care about rich folks benefitting and poor folks getting hurt, because 1). "I'm only temporarily NOT rich. My ship will come in any day now" and 2). "Everyone knows it's poor folks scamming the system, not rich folks like dear Donald Trump." Of course, the chance of one's ship coming in is lower now than ever before, and folks like Trump cost taxpayers far more than poor folks do.
It is not an accident of Providence that America saw it's fastest economic growth for everyone when the progressive income tax was at it's highest level for upper incomes and America crashed and burned by 2008 as tax cuts, which benefitted mostly upper income folks, became the law of the land. I remember promises that tax cuts would put more dough in the hands of Americans, and I've seen the actuality that the "job creators" folks who benefitted from lower tax rates just held onto their dough, as American wages stagnated.
American politicians stink to high Heaven. They are doing the will of thems who donate the biggest $$ to their coffers. But, of course, "money is speech", and in politics, money is talkin' loud 'n clear.
It is not an accident of Providence that America saw it's fastest economic growth for everyone when the progressive income tax was at it's highest level for upper incomes and America crashed and burned by 2008 as tax cuts, which benefitted mostly upper income folks, became the law of the land. I remember promises that tax cuts would put more dough in the hands of Americans, and I've seen the actuality that the "job creators" folks who benefitted from lower tax rates just held onto their dough, as American wages stagnated.
American politicians stink to high Heaven. They are doing the will of thems who donate the biggest $$ to their coffers. But, of course, "money is speech", and in politics, money is talkin' loud 'n clear.
Saturday, August 1, 2015
2 Gunnies 2nd Amendment Each Other In Michigan Road Rage Incident
Herewith is presented yet more evidence that if you own a gun:
1. you are more likely to get yourself killed,
2. you are more likely to kill someone in anger, and
3. large numbers of Americans are probably too stupid to own guns.
Of particular note is the fact that the apparent instigator in this road rage shootout was an NRA supporting gun nut.
1. you are more likely to get yourself killed,
2. you are more likely to kill someone in anger, and
3. large numbers of Americans are probably too stupid to own guns.
Of particular note is the fact that the apparent instigator in this road rage shootout was an NRA supporting gun nut.
- Ionia Public Safety releases preliminary report on Steele Street shooting
- Read it here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)