Posts Tagged ‘ taxes ’

15.2 TRILLION and there ain’t no stopping us now

January 9, 2012 was a historic day in America.  It came and went without much notice in the press or by the millions of Americans affected.  Without Congressional approval, without a vote, without a whimper, the debt limit was automatically raised and the national debt became a record 15.2 trillion dollars.

The new debt number exceeds the total Gross Domestic Product of the entire nation,* which was $15.176 trillion in 2011.  As Americans we should be outraged.  We should recall and impeach all our elected officials who silently approved.  But will we?

No.  Most Americans don’t even realize the danger.  Most won’t care until collapse is imminent.  Then just like in Greece, riots will erupt and people will be confused wondering why they never saw this coming.  I’ve been predicting this since 2004 and writing about it here since 2008.  People smarter than me have as well, but no one listens.

Would you like some fries with that?

Some with shallow understandings of macro economics argue, “it’s a harmless debt, we owe it to ourselves.”  That’s like walking across the Sahara without water and saying, “But it’s a dry heat.”  Nor is it unlike a 900 pound man claiming the extra 1300 calories in the Monster Thickburger won’t make a difference in his 20,000 calorie per day diet.  In both examples the result is the same. Continue reading

More proof on how to grow an economy, not that ideologues will care

The President, the media, the CPUSA, the Democrats, and all their bleating followers do not seem to understand basic economics.  They don’t and they don’t want to.  Their own logic and emotional response trumps any facts one might present.  As one of my liberal friends once said, “It just makes sense, if the government needs money they must raise taxes, it defies logic that lower taxes could result in more government revenue.”

But of course he meant other people’s taxes needed to increase, not his.  All the facts in the world about how people are less productive, take fewer risks, hire fewer employees (who in turn would have paid taxes), hide their money, invest outside the high tax areas, or leave high tax areas, all of this was illogical or was simply dismissed as untrue.

Here is yet another case study.  High tax cities saw population reductions and slow growth.  Low tax cities saw population growth and the healthiest economic growth in the United States.  More growth, especially in personal income and increased employment mean more tax revenues for all levels of government.

Here is an excerpt from a paper you really should read.

Why Some Cities Are Growing and
Others Shrinking

by Dean Stansel
 

Over the last three decades, large cities like Pittsburgh, Detroit, Cleveland, Buffalo, and Toledo have seen their populations shrink, while areas like Houston, Atlanta, Dallas, Tampa, and Phoenix have seen their populations grow rapidly. Examining the policy differences between high-growth and low-growth areas can provide evidence that may help declining cities reverse their fortunes.

In 1980, Austin, Texas, and Syracuse, New York, were roughly the same size. The Austin metro area had a population of about 590,000, and the Syracuse metro area had about 643,000 residents. By 2007, Austin’s population had increased by more than 1 million while Syracuse’s population had been stagnant. That same disparity exists when one examines the growth of employment and real personal income. Another disparity between the two areas is the tax burden. State and local taxes accounted for nearly 13 percent of personal income in Syracuse but only about 9 percent in Austin.  Although there are numerous factors that can influence the growth of individual economies, one finds a consistent relationship between low taxes and high economic growth in metropolitan areas, in states, and in nations.

This article details that relationship between taxes and growth for the 100 largest U.S. metropolitan areas. In the 10 highest-tax metro areas, the state and local tax burden accounted for about 12.4 percent of personal income. In those same areas, population grew by 21.3 percent from 1980 to 2007, employment grew by 40.1 percent, and real personal income grew by 75.5 percent. In contrast, taxes were only 8.3 percent of personal income in the 10 lowest-tax areas.  The economic growth in those areas was much faster. Population grew by 64.4 percent, employment by 107.6 percent, and real personal income by 157.3 percent.

The contrasting experiences of Austin and Syracuse occurred in countless other areas as well. This article provides 14 additional examples of pairs of metro areas that had similar tax and growth patterns.1  The experiences of all 15 pairs of metropolitan areas provide valuable lessons for distressed areas everywhere. Keeping tax burdens low appears to be an important ingredient in the recipe for economic prosperity. If high-tax, low-growth metro areas like Detroit, Milwaukee, Buffalo, and Syracuse want to be more like high-growth areas such as Dallas, Tampa, San Antonio, and Austin, they should lower their onerous burden of taxation and bring spending under control.

For the entire article click here.

An honest question, why do Conservatives support business

I surf blogs.  If you’re a blogger you probably do as well.  You want to know what others are thinking.  Not just your own ideas.  At least I hope so.  Here I post a lot of opinions.  I strive to post stuff I can support and I hope for intelligent discussion.  Most people read but never comment.  That’s unfortunate because it creates a monologue rather than a dialogue.  If I’ve visited your blog you’ll more than likely know because 4 out of 5 times I’ll comment.  Unless you’re a pinhead who interjects the F-bomb every sentence, then there’s not much point, but again I digress.

Today I came across an interesting editorial from a political science major, who works as an accountant. An anonymous blogger under the moniker, Well Whiskey Friday. He was musing about the economy and wondering aloud what could be done about it.  He posed the question, “Why the blind faith in corporations to create jobs and innovation?”  Continue reading

What America Needs Now Is Job Creation

The Administration is using a faulty model

The Obama Administration can talk about saving jobs until they are blue in the face.  They can tell us they created a million new jobs – no wait, why not tell us it’s five million, it doesn’t matter what the number is.  As someone I admire once said, “Facts are stubborn things,”  10.2% vs. the promised 7.8%.  Phony job creation claims do not improve the unemployment numbers.  I don’t know about you, but I am nearly depressed every time I see the latest unemployment figures.  10.2% only counts those actively looking for work.  The situation is so desperate that many people are simply too depressed and despondent to continue looking.  They’re still unemployed but they are no longer counted in the official statistics.  Arriving at the true unemployment numbers can be a bit of an art rather than pure science.  According to the New York Times, true unemployment now stands at 17.5%, nearly a half percent higher than the previous record set in 1982.  And there is no sign the trend has reversed.  It will likely climb ever higher.

In the early 1980s the Reagan administration countered the Carter recession by encouraging new business.  New businesses hire new employees.  The Kauffman Foundation released a study Nov. 5th illustrating this fact.  The study shows that since 2007, two-thirds of all new jobs were created by companies less than five years old.  Contrary to current Washington thinking, these jobs are not public sector jobs, temporary jobs, or welfare entitlements.  Job creation that benefits the nation comes from companies employing people with the express purpose of making money for themselves and their employees.  Making money motivates job creation.  Imagine that!

A maxim that accurately defines the federal government’s role in managing the economy is, if you want to discourage a behavior tax it, if you want to encourage a behavior offer a tax credit.  Instead we have a government that adheres to another maxim, “If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.” Or more accurately, nationalize it.

The economy has stopped moving and all we see is from our huge stimulus package are temporary jobs and a continuing rise in unemployment.  Big established companies are receiving billions in bailout money and for what?  Are they hiring?  Are they even maintaining their employees?  No they are only continuing to be mismanaged by overpaid and persecuted CEO’s, corrupt boards, and now, meddling Czars.  It would have done more good to have evenly divided that money between all the unemployed people and sent out checks.  At least some mortgages and car payments would have been paid.

New ventures, small new ventures, are the fuel for the economic engine.  Washington, OBAMA, yo, how about encouraging new business?  Maybe even a bit of protection against foreign threats, definitely low interest loans to start-ups, decrease business taxes, and enact tax credits for companies hiring new employees.  This phoney job creation has to end.  If you don’t want to preside over the Second Great Depression, do something constructive, something that grows jobs and rebuilds the economy.  Stop pursuing new government bureaucracies that only suck more money out of the economy.  Stop seeking more government control that only inhibits the economy.  Do not engage in any action that would slow or stop economic productivity.  Be a positive factor in the economy by protecting and encouraging growth and new business ventures.

Mr. President, look at your models, then look at the actual economy since you took office.  Are your models accurate?  Are they within an acceptable margin of error?  If the answer is no, then you must reject those models and embrace new ones.  Partisan politics are what got us here and you continue to play that game.  We, the people, are sick of it.  You promised change.  We voted for positive change and have only received radical negative change.  You seem more concerned about political ideology than actually helping people find employment.  Employed people pay taxes, unemployed people consume tax revenues.  Want to increase revenues for the government?  Encourage new business, encourage real job creation in the private sector.

It is not working and you must change.  As for those in Congress, your days are numbered.  Change or be changed.  Government cannot create jobs, but they can create an environment conducive to job creation.

Houston’s Tea Party Attendees Show How It’s Done

More than 10,000 turn out for Tea Party in Houston

HoustonTeaParty02
According to preliminary figures based upon turnstile counts provided by Sam Houston Race Park officials, more than 10,000 people turned out Monday night for a North Houston Tea Party Patriots gathering at Sam Houston Race Park to protest Nancy Pelosi’s Affordable Health Care for America Act (HR-3962), big government spending and overzealous government leadership. Continued …

Define tax, please

George is all grown up now.  Ten years ago he was defending a President who tried to redefine the word “is,” today he challenges another dictionary challenged President.

President Obama was interviewed by ABC’s George Stephanopoulos earlier today.  The topic was health care, of course.  It is never clear when Obama speaks on this topic whether he is supporting the House Bill, HR3200 or Baucus’s Senate Bill, “Affordable Health Choices Act”.  No doubt that is by design.  It keeps the opposition confused.

This is just amazing, folks.  The question was simple, he promised no new taxes to fund health care but now seems poised to impose a massive new tax to fund health care.  Obama attempts to redefine “tax” by telling us increases in health care costs are effectively taxes.  No, Mr. President, private companies cannot impose taxes, only the government can do that.  The President then compares mandatory Auto Insurance to mandatory health care insurance.  The comparison really ends at the word “insurance.”  Auto Insurance protects victims from another party who is at fault.  You are required to buy auto insurance not to be protected but to protect others. In the case of health insurance the government would force us to buy insurance for our own protection.  This makes less sense to me.  But of course the government doesn’t really care about protecting those who can afford insurance, they want to give free insurance to those who will repay them at the polls.

Then the President says something incredible.  After telling us rising private health insurance costs are tax increases and then telling us government mandated auto insurance coverage is not a tax, he says, “But George you can’t just make up that language and decide that’s called a tax increase.”  Excuse me, but isn’t that what Barack just did?  But Stephanopoulos doesn’t just roll over and agree.  That in itself is impressive coming from ABC (Another Barack Channel.)   He puts the heat on the President, even going so far as to define the word, “tax” for the President.  “Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary.  Tax, a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes,” George was still talking when the President laughed and then scoffed at the dictionary.

With an arrogant wave of his hand, Obama replied, “George the fact that you’ve looked up Merriam’s dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you’re stretching a little bit right now.  Otherwise you wouldn’t have gone to the dictionary to check on the definition.”  (It seems to me when discussing anything with someone so skilled at twisting words the dictionary might be a very valuable tool.)

President Obama wants us to believe researching an issue is stretching.  Now I understand why none of these people in Washington bothers to read the bills they vote on and impose on the rest of us.  If they bothered to read the bills, they’d be stretching.   We wouldn’t want that would we?  After all ignorance is bliss.

This impacts me personally, the Baucus Bill would increase my insurance premium from $200 a month to 13% of my income. That is one hell of an increase.  Call it a tax or anything else and it is still a massive increase in what I currently pay.  In my case it’s a 500% increase!  Oops I researched that fact.

What If A Tea Party Fell On Washington

NPR discusses the widely varying crowd estimates

What if a tea party fell on Washington DC and the press didn’t reported it?  Would it have happened?  Well it seems the mainstream media is betting their lack of detailed coverage will erase the fact that it happened.  If they even report the protest they downgrade the crowd size to a few thousand – I read as few as 60,000 and never saw more than 75,000 reported.  Conservative bloggers, conversely, like to boost the number to as high as 2 million.  Reality is never partisan, so the actual number is somewhere in the middle.  But the middle, in this case, is a very wide chasm.  Wizbang, a conservative blog not known for being “crazy,” estimated the crowd, “at between 500,000 and one million” people.

The WSJ under-reported the size of the protest.

A Google News search this morning found hardly an American press outlet acknowledging this weekend’s huge protest in Washington DC.  The Wall Street Journal reported the crowd to be only “tens of thousands” and included a tightly cropped image leaving readers to conclude it was a relatively small protest composed of crazies.  Perhaps the same crazies that keep showing up at the town hall meetings.  Similarly, the Washington Post under-reported the crowds but they carried more stories related to the protest than any other news outlet.  (I guess I’ll give a limp hand clap to them for that.) NPR waited a day to report the protests, while downplaying the size and significance.  Others kept their stories brief.

By this afternoon, the press were finally covering the story.  Perhaps they had to coordinate a counter-attack with David Axelrod.  Or more likely they did not become interested until Politifact.com discovered something to wet their anti-conservative appetites.  Apparently, some conservative bloggers were displaying an aerial photo of the 1997 Promise Keepers Rally and attributing it to Saturday’s march.  Perhaps by mistake, perhaps to deceive, I don’t know.  Either way it provided the Conservative-hating Huffington Post fodder to discredit the entire protest, while ignoring the very impressive real photos posted on Michelle Malkin. (If you have not seen this blog I encourage you to visit the site.)

Apparently this crowd is smaller than it appears.  Go figure.

The moral of this story might be that if you want coverage of a story the press refuses to cover, just tell a big lie.  It’ll get the left-wing bloggers all stirred up and attract plenty of main-stream media attention.  Presto!  Problem solved.  I hope that wasn’t what happened because lies discredit us.  Those of us who blog do so because we want our opinions heard.  If we frame our opinions in lies we are no different than the Left.  It is the Left that chants the Stalin quote, “A lie told often enough becomes the truth.” Don’t believe me?   Read FactCheck.org’s dissection of last Wednesday’s health care speech, perhaps the President should apologize to Joe Wilson, but I digress.

The fact is that while the press was largely quiet about Saturday’s huge march on Washington that does not mean it didn’t happen.  And just because “Joe Liberal” in Seattle thinks a few thousand people, who don’t represent him, marched on Washington, doesn’t mean David Axelrod believes it.  Sure Axelrod said, “I don’t think it’s indicative of the nation’s mood,” but you can bet the march impressed him that the country is not happy.  Ultimately, it doesn’t matter if the press reported the tea party in DC, what really matters is that those stubborn Congressional asses, their blue dog pets, and the red-looking Administration saw the crowds, read the signs, and heard the angry voices.
submit to reddit

%d bloggers like this: