Tag Archives: political parties

Sound Familiar?

Posted on by
Reply

Sadanand Dhume led off his Wall Street Journal op-ed last week with this:

Seven decades after the country first embraced caste-based quotas in education and government jobs, they have become permanent entitlements that cement social divisions, encourage mediocrity and poison political discourse.

Segregationist identity politics. This is the preferred ideology of the Progressive-Democratic Party, also.  No less a light than Senator Kamala Harris (D, CA) led off her campaign for President saying she would center her campaign on her potential to be our first black woman President, and Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D, NY) insists it’s time for a woman to be President (she’s a young mom, you see).  And San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro (D) wants to be our first Hispanic President.

Notice the pattern here: none of these Progressive-Democrats want to be President of the United States.  Every single one of them want to be the first [ethnic/race/gender-of-choice] President of an identity politics-divided United States.

The Indian example is what we can look forward to if the party of identity politics ideology gets a member elected.

Progressive-Democrats and a Wall

Posted on by
Reply

In a Fox News Online piece about a Fox News Sunday interview with President Donald Trump’s Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney from last Sunday, there appeared this gem from House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson (D, MS).

…Thompson…broke with some of his fellow congressional Democrats by acknowledging in an interview that he “would not rule out a wall in certain instances,” although he cautioned that the White House needs a better “plan” than simply using a wall as a “talking point.”

But then he said this:

“Mr President, Democrats will work with you.  But you can’t pick what Democrats you work with. We have picked our leaders, and you have to work with our leaders.  The notion that we can’t have barriers is just something that’s not true.”

This is the level of disingenuousness Republicans are stuck working with.  “Walls work in certain instances. You have to work with our leaders. We can have barriers.”  But Progressive-Democratic Party leadership—particularly House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D, CA) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D, NY) have promised no wall, no way, not ever.

The Progressive-Democrats are offering only talking points, not negotiation.  Still.

The Arrest of Roger Stone

Posted on by
1

Roger Stone, pursuant to a Mueller “investigation” grand jury indictment (formally handed down by Mueller’s colleagues in the Southern District of New York), was raided and arrested by the FBI around 0600 Friday. The FBI was so fearful, too, of the highly dangerous criminal that is Stone, that they used 29 agents, including a swat team, in that dawn assault.

Mueller also arranged for CNN to be present to film, live, the raid and arrest.

Nobody but Mueller or the FBI knew the timing of the raid. The live film of the perp walk shows just how dishonest Mueller’s “investigation” or the FBI, or both, are.

“Proper Tax Rates”

Posted on by
1

According to the EU.  Or at least the European Parliament’s Green Party.

An investigation by the Greens in the European Parliament has shown big companies throughout the bloc are failing to pay their statutory taxes. The party has called for more social responsibility.

I’m always amused by claims that studies—statistics—show anything.  At most, they can indicate, even strongly indicate, something, but showing—proving?  Not so much.

Be that as it may, and it really is more sloppy elocution than it is factual error in this sort of context, what really interests me is that “failure to pay,” and “social responsibility.”

The Greens presume to be the arbiters of what is social responsibility.  Not the citizens, not their aggregate as the society at large.  No, it’s these Green Know Betters who will define the term and set the criteria for its satisfaction—for our own benefit, of course.

And that statutory claim?

Luxembourg stood out in the study, where the official tax rate is 29 percent, but corporations paid only 2 percent on average.
Hungary, the Netherlands and Austria were also highlighted as states where actual taxes paid were significantly lower than the official rates.

The study’s authors, at least as summarized by Deutsche Welle, which was citing Süddeutsche Zeitung, show a broad misunderstanding of anyone’s tax code.  It’s easy enough to get the total tax paid below a statutory rate, and do so entirely legally.

That’s what deductions, tax credits, tax subsidies, and the like do.  What starts out as top line taxable income—before deductions, credits, etc—also does not include some forms of income—income not earned within the taxing jurisdiction, for instance, which is the big player in Luxembourg’s code.  All the nations of the EU have their own suite of these, but in essence, these all reduce the income actually subject to tax by large amounts, and then the subsidies pay back into the tax payer other monies—like, for instance, subsidies for setting up “green” energy facilities.

And we arrive at a realized tax rate substantially less than the official yet mythical statutory rate.

Maybe the Greens will reach the point where financial success is socially irresponsible, too.

DACA and Walls

Posted on by
Reply

When President Donald Trump made his latest offer and attempt at negotiation last Saturday, it already had been rejected by the Progressive-Democrats—yes, even before Trump spoke.  In a Monday editorial, the Wall Street Journal was generous when it suggested the Dreamers (and TPS folks, I add) are pawns in the eyes of Progressive-Democrats. Reality isn’t that good.  Dreamers and TPS folks aren’t even human to Progressive-Democrats—they’re just votes and potential votes, just marked ballots.

This is shown by Pelosi’s stated utter refusal even to discuss DACA recipients anymore.

Here, though, the WSJ‘s editors are wrong:

Mr Trump is wrong that this will magically reduce drug traffic or illegal crossings. The solution to the flood of drugs is lower US demand [and, better] a legal system that gives migrants the chance to move back and forth….

For one thing, a wall will, indeed, contribute to a reduction of the flow of drugs and illegal crossings. Actual experts, including those who work the borders, say this unequivocally. No less a light than Progressive-Democrat and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer agrees they work in places.

The other thing is that “the solution to…” includes those additional steps. They and walls are complementary, not mutually exclusive.