Tag Archives: political parties

Tax Deductions

Posted on by
Reply

Progressive-Democrat Vice President and Party Presidential candidate Kamala Harris wants to expand the start-up business tax deduction from $5,000 to $50,000 [sic].

However, in typical Party duplicitous fashion, she gives with one hand and takes away far more with the other. She wants to raise taxes on us citizens and our businesses so much that that deduction increase would disappear in the flood.

  • Increase the corporate income tax rate from 21% to 28%
  • Increase the corporate alternative minimum tax introduced in the Inflation Reduction Act from 15% to 21%
  • Quadruple the stock buyback tax implemented in the Inflation Reduction Act from 1% to 4%
  • Make permanent the excess business loss limitation for pass-through businesses
  • Further limit the deductibility of employee compensation under Section 162(m) [currently limiting public companies’ tax deduction for compensation of covered executives to $1 million per individual]
  • Increase the global intangible low-taxed income tax rate from 10.5% to 21%, calculate the tax on a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction basis, and revise related rules
  • Repeal the reduced tax rate on foreign-derived intangible income

How about cutting out the intrinsic contradictions of deductions here and tax rate increases there to pay for them? How about, instead, simply lowering tax rates across the board—begin, say, with a rate reduction equal in effect to the sum of all the subsidies and credits—Harris’ latest small business “deduction,” for instance and both Harris’ and Trump’s child tax credit, along with the myriad welfare subsidies?

Let the resultant vast growth in activity in the private economy pay for the tax rate decrease. The Jack Kennedy large tax rate deduction, the Reagan nearly as large tax rate reduction, and the Trump tax cuts all led to economic expansion that produced a net increase in revenues to the Federal government—all those cuts were paid for by the responding expanded economic activity.

But Progressive-Democrats are incapable even of saying the words “tax rate reduction.”

“Will No One Rid Us of this Troublesome Candidate?”

Posted on by
Reply

If you see Republicans/Conservatives in a restaurant, do not give them a moment’s peace. Come up in their faces.

Running Conservative politicians out of restaurants.

Extremist MAGA.

Extremist Republicans.

Republicans are semi-fascists.

Murder attempts against Republican Congressmen practicing baseball.

Overt threats against originalist/textualist Supreme Court Justices.

Murder attempts against Supreme Court Justices.

Overt lies about the troublesome candidate—e.g., would sign nationwide abortion ban, would cut Medicare.

Manufactured desire to put blacks back in chains.

Openly false fact “checking.”

He’s a threat to democracy.

The list of these lies and smears and assault-encouraging rhetoric by Progressive-Democratic Party politicians, by the press, by the Left in general goes on and on.

The deliberate attempt to divide Americans from each other and to pit Americans against each other began in earnest with ex-President Barack Obama (D) and his openly expressed contempt for flyover country Americans, and it has been exploded by Progressive-Democrat President Joe Biden and his Vice President and Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Kamala Harris with their extremist MAGA distortions and abortion lies.

And now we have the second assassination attempt of Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump.

A second attempt that comes against the background of President Biden and his DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas’ refusal to increase Trump’s Secret Service security after the first attempt.

This is what the Progressive-Democratic Party politicians’ carefully divisive and inflammatory rhetoric has wrought. And will continue to wreak.

These two attempts to murder a political rival, even if they’re only attempts to murder a politician who happens to be a political rival, are reason enough to elect Trump. It’s time to demonstrate to the Left that they cannot dictate to us average Americans who our political candidates will be, much less who we will elect to represent us.

What She’s Committed To

Posted on by
Reply

This is excerpted from the ACLU questionnaire that Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Kamala Harris filled out the last time she ran for President (via Just the News):

6. Will you commit to ending the use of ICE detainers?
Yes X No⬜
Explanation (no more than 500 words): Throughout my career, I have made it clear that law enforcement should use their time and resources to keep communities safe, not act as federal immigration agents. It’s also important that law enforcement build trust with the communities they are sworn to protect—acting as de facto immigration officers erodes this trust. As Attorney General, I issued a bulletin on December 4, 2012 informing all California law enforcement that they did not have to comply with ICE detainers. As president I will focus enforcement on increasing public safety, not tearing apart immigrant families. This includes requiring ICE to obtain a warrant where probable cause exists as to end the use of detainers.

This is nonsense. ICE detainers in no way convert police into immigration officers. The detainers merely ask police, who have already arrested the individual(s), to notify ICE that the police have the individual, so ICE can pick him up at the jail or on release by the police. The ICE agents respond promptly; there’s no call, by the detainer, to hold the individual longer.

10. Will you work to stop states from shutting down abortion providers by urging Congress to pass and signing into law the Women’s Health Protection Act? If yes, how will you take a leadership role in advancing this legislation at the national level?
Yes X No ⬜
Explanation (no more than 500 words): I am a co-sponsor of the Women’s Health Protection Act and will fight to sign it into law as president. As President, protecting the right to reproductive healthcare services will be one of my top priorities and I will fight to stop dangerous state laws restricting reproductive rights before they go into effect. That’s why I have a plan to require states with a history of unconstitutionally restricting access to abortion to pre-clear any new law or practice with the Justice Department before it can be enacted. We have to fight back against this all out assault on reproductive rights. Women have agency and they have authority to make decisions about their own lives and their own bodies. My administration won’t leave them to fight alone.

This is wrong on a number of levels. Most basic is the error embedded in the ACLU’s question and carried through by Harris’ response: there’s not a minim of concern for protection of the baby, only concern for the woman’s “right” to kill the baby for no better reason than she wants to.

Secondly the history of unconstitutionally restricting access to abortion is nonsense. There is not, and there never has been, a constitutionally based access to abortions. There has only been a Supreme Court generated access, and that has been rescinded by the Court so the matter can be returned to the States and to each State’s citizens so those citizens can decide for themselves the degree of access. And that’s where the matter should be.

Thirdly, the requirement for States to say “Mother may I” to the Federal government is an active and blatant attack on the federal structure of our nation and our nation’s governance.

There are other such…errors…in Harris’ questionnaire, many of which are variations on a theme, as well as some on separate subjects.

These, though, are Harris’ indelibly stated extreme positions, no matter her current rhetoric—which no less a light than Bernie Sanders (I, VT) has said are just words convenient to her effort to get elected, and in no way are to be taken seriously.

There’s a Difference

Posted on by
Reply

The House of Representatives Judiciary Committee held a hearing concerning the crimes committed by illegal immigrants inside the US as a result of the open border maintained by the current administration.

Progressive-Democrats are trying to deny that fact.

Congressman Jerry Nadler (D, NY) said crimes were committed by illegal immigrants during the Trump administration but he [Chairman Jim Jordan (R, OH)] doesn’t blame Trump for them.

Former President Donald (R)] Trump was actively trying to close the border; one of the outcomes of that was a reduction—by a lot—in the number of illegal aliens coming across our border and the resulting vastly lower numbers of illegal alien crimes committed in the US compared with what the Biden-Harris administration is allowing today by holding our border open.

Nadler knows that full well.

What’s Not Being Discussed

Posted on by
Reply

Minority, particularly black, enrollment is flat to down in many of our more selective colleges and universities since the Supreme Court ruled in Students For Fair Admissions, Inc v President And Fellows Of Harvard College that colleges and universities no longer could use race as a factor in their admission selections.

Leaders of those institutions, a group that includes Washington University in St Louis and some Ivy League schools, are now trying to figure out why their numbers shook out the way they did. … They also say previous growth didn’t come at the cost of academic talent.

That last is an especially interesting claim, since those Leaders provided no data to support their claim, or at least the article’s author did not quote their data or provide any from her own digging.

I have two questions that bear on the matter. One is what are the minority-enrolled normalized majors of black admittees before the ruling compared with the majors after the ruling? What are the majors at graduation before and after the ruling? The latter will be the more dispositive datum since students change their majors, often more than once, over the course of their studies.

My other question is what is the normalized graduation rate before the Court’s ruling compared with after the ruling.

Since this is the first academic year after the ruling, it’s too soon to answer those questions. That, by itself, demonstrates the disingenuousness of those institution leaders: they have no data with which to compare, and so they have no data on which to base their claim “no cost of academic talent.” The questions still need to be asked, and the data collected, so substantiated assessments can be substituted for vapor claims.

Also not being discussed—it is a larger topic—is what, if anything, should be done about any enrollment disparities, assuming disparity is defined as enrollment percentages not well approximating population percentages. That answer, I claim, is independent of whether racist enrollment selection criteria are allowed or not. The answer, instead, centers on making available to all children opportunities for education and entry into the world post education. That, in turn, demands those opportunity availabilities must begin before kindergarten; extend through K-12 schooling, whether home schooling, public schools, voucher schools, or charter schools according to parent choices; and on through trade schools, community colleges, and colleges/universities according to parent and student choices.

That actual equality of opportunity will make those enrollment numbers look more like our population numbers.