Tag Archives: political parties

Tax the Rich

Posted on by
Reply

Of course, tax the rich, but tax everyone else, too.  The latest get (the) rich quick scheme, this one offered by Alan Davis, The Leonard and Sophie Davis Fund President and ex-founder and CEO of Conservatree Paper Company, though, falls into the same trap that all the other Progressive-Democrat schemes—Senator Elizabeth Warren’s (D, MA) wealth tax, Senator Bernie Sanders’ (I, VT) estate tax expansion, and Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’ (D, NY) 70% marginal tax—do.  What Davis is proposing is

a 10% surtax on the earnings (including both income and capital gains) of the top 0.1% of taxpayers

That’s the sucker trap.  Not singling out the rich for extra taxing, but maintaining the special treatment of capital gains, other than within his surtax.

Why should capital gains—or debt interest or any other form of income, or expense—get special treatment?  That’s just the social engineering distortion of our tax code that’s so badly counterproductive for our economy.

In 2007, the last year before the Panic of 2008, from which we’ve only begun a serious recovery over the last couple of years, we Americans earned $17.8 trillion dollars from all sources: wages and salaries, interest payments, dividends and capital gains, gambling earnings, pass-throughs from small businesses, and so on, and we paid, in aggregate, $1.15 trillion dollars in taxes on that income.

Of those taxes, the top 10% of us paid 70% while the bottom 50% of us paid little to nothing.

Take the social engineering out of our tax code.  Charge a flat 10% tax on all income regardless of source, and charge it to all who have income.  Americans will spend their money where they deem fit, not where Government dictates, and businesses will allocate their money according to sound business decision, not according to Government “desires.”

That will suitably tax the rich, as well as all of us.

Set our economy free.

Tax, Tax, Tax

Posted on by
Reply

The Progressive-Democrats want more.  It’s almost like an OPM addiction.

Now they’ve proposed the Wall Street Tax Act of 2019, which is intended to charge traders and investors a price for the privilege (apparently) of investing in economic products.  Their bill would

impose a tax on the purchase of most securities—including stocks and bonds—and on transactions involving derivatives. The tax would be about 0.1% of the value of the security or 0.1% of all payments made under the terms of a derivative contract.

Because Progressive-Democrats just can’t get enough of our money.

And this from Senator Brian Schatz (D, HI) who intends to introduce a similar bill in the Senate, citing the need to discourage “risky, volume-based trading.”

Because Progressive-Democrats Know Better than us petty citizens how to invest or trade.

Cutting spending, on the other hand, is utterly inconceivable to Progressive-Democrats.  After all, they also know how to spend our money better than we do.

The Problem with this Kind of Law Suit

Posted on by
Reply

The State of Michigan, through its Attorney General and Department of Civil Rights, has decided to use the Southern Poverty Law Center’s claimed identifications of “hate groups” to spearhead those two agencies’ pretended protection of Michigan citizens from the ravages of hatred.

One of the targets of the State’s AG and MDCR, selected from the SPLC’s smear lists, is the American Freedom Law Center, an Evil Judeo-Christian law firm.  Far from being cowed, the law firm is pushing back, in spades: they’ve filed suit against Dana Nessel, the AG, and Agustin Arbulu, the MSCR’s Executive Director.  Robert Muise, AFLC’s Co-Founder and Senior Counsel:

It’s one thing for the Southern Poverty Law Center, which is a private organization, to engage in political propaganda and political hyperbole.  [It’s a violation of the Constitution] when you have the Attorney General who’s relying on that political propaganda to investigate and target us with the power of the state.
You now have the government giving its endorsement to the Southern Poverty Law Center’s nonsense—that now triggers our constitutional protections[.]

The AFLC is bringing three charges to their suit:

violation of free speech rights under the First Amendment; violation of expressive association rights under the First Amendment; and violation of equal protection as guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Here’s a bit of the central evidence against Nessel and Arbulu according to the AFLC’s suit:

According to the SPLC report relied upon by Defendants, Plaintiff [AFLC] is identified as a “hate” group because it is allegedly “anti-Muslim,” and according to SPLC’s “Hate Map,” Plaintiff is located in the Ann Arbor area. Consequently, Plaintiff is one of the very groups that Defendants referred to in their public announcement as an “extremist and hate organization in Michigan.”

The AFLC also alleges in its suit that Nessel’s and Arbulu’s goal is to legitimize the SPLC’s own hatred of those disagreeing with them, to

create in the collective mind of the public that organizations designated by SPLC as “hate” groups are criminal organizations rather than legitimate charitable organizations.

And so on.  RTWT.

Trouble is, though, even if the AFLC wins its suit—which ultimately it should, based on published information—nothing serious will change.  Nessel and Arbulu still will be in place, and they’ll still pursue their anti-freedom policies.  They’ll just be doing it sub rosa.  These two persons and their senior staffs have to go.  That’s the only way there can be any hope that the policies they’ve put in place overtly can be believed to be beginning to be prevented from continuing covertly.

Precedents and Progressive-Democrats

Posted on by
Reply

Progressive-Democrats in Congress are threatening President Donald Trump with “precedents” if he doesn’t withdraw his declaration of a national emergency over the crisis on our southern border.

Julian Castro:

I will come into office with a strong belief that climate change is a national emergency, that the fact that so many people in this country die because of gun violence, that is a national emergency….

Senator and Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Kamala Harris:

It’s time we address the actual emergencies plaguing our nation: gun violence, lack of access to health care, and climate change.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D, CA):

The one-year anniversary of another manifestation of the epidemic of gun violence in America. That’s a national emergency.

Senators and Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate and possible candidate Elizabeth Warren and Sherrod Brown insist that

Gun violence is a real national emergency

and Senator Chris Murphy (D, CT) is threatening to use a national emergency declaration to ban “assault” weapons.

The thing is, the next Progressive-Democratic President will do these things, anyway; there’s no real concern for precedent here.  Ex-President Barack Obama’s (D) unprecedented Pen-and-Phone as substitute for Congress has already set that particular precedent, and the current Progressive-Democratic Party leadership, with their threats if they don’t get their way, are confirming that the precedent already exists.

As if they need a precedent to do their trick.

The Progressive-Democratic Party and Democracy

Posted on by
4

Party discipline is the only thing and everything for the Progressive-Democratic Party, and they’re taking steps to discipline those who misbehave.  And by misbehave, I mean supporting a policy on merit rather than on Party diktat.

After more than two dozen moderate Democrats broke from their party’s progressive wing and sided with Republicans on a legislative amendment Wednesday, New York Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez reportedly sounded the alarm in a closed-door meeting Thursday and said those Democrats were “putting themselves on a list.”

The amended bill expanded background checks for firearm purchasers.  The offending amendment, aside from having been a Republican offer?  It would have required the checkers to advise ICE of the attempted purchase if the buyer were an illegal immigrant.

That’s just the enforcer threatening.  Party leadership in the sole personage of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D, CA) in that same closed-door meeting, reportedly said

We are either a team or we’re not, and we have to make that decision.

Vote the Party’s line; there is no alternative.

Progressive-Democratic Party Congressmen are not beholden to their constituents back home in their separate districts.  On the contrary, they’re beholden to Party.

This is how we can expect to be ruled (not governed) by a Progressive-Democratic government.  Constituents won’t matter.  Democracy won’t matter.  Only Party will matter.

[Sh]e’s got ’em on the list—[s]he’s got ’em on the list;
And they’ll none of ’em be missed—they’ll none of ’em be missed.*

 

*Bonus points to those who can provide the citation.