Tuesday, January 30, 2007

Economics 202--Tax Cuts Explained

Tax Cuts Explained

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner and the bill for all ten comes to $100.

If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.
"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20."

Dinner for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to eat their meal.

So, the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20,"declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man," but he got $10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too.
It's unfair that he got ten times more than me!"

"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for dinner, so the nine had to pay the bill. They discovered something important. They didn't have enough money among all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore.

In fact, they might start eating overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, PhD Professor of Economics
University of Georgia

Friday, January 19, 2007

Candidates, Gun "Controls" & Repeating History

Let us be very, very, honest with such "leading lights" as New York's Mayor Bloomberg, Rudy Giuliani, those who blindly support the corrupt UN (Unneeded Nations), Hilary Clinton and the Democrat Party leadership (As well as some RINOs) that our American Revolution began with THE GOVERNMENT attempting to seize arms held by citizens. It happened then and can happen again!

Those anti-Constitution banner carriers should recall that many of the individuals who supported such tyrannical acts were coated with tar and feathers and provided other encouragements to leave this nation. It happened then and can happen again.

Dispatches From Londonistan

Undercover Mosque

Broadcast: Monday 15 January

A Dispatches reporter attends mosques run by organisations whose public faces are presented as moderate and finds preachers condemning integration into British society, condemning democracy and praising the Taliban for killing British soldiers.

Prime Minister Tony Blair recently described tolerance as 'what makes Britain Britain' but in this extensive investigation Dispatches reveals how a message of hatred and segregation is being spread throughout the UK and examines how it is influenced by the religious establishment of Saudi Arabia.

Dispatches has investigated a number of mosques run by high profile national organisations that claim to be dedicated to moderation and dialogue with other faiths. But an undercover reporter joined worshippers to find a message of religious bigotry and extremism being preached.

He captures chilling sermons in which Saudi-trained preachers proclaim the supremacy of Islam, preach hatred for non-Muslims and for Muslims who do not follow their extreme beliefs - and predict a coming jihad. "An army of Muslims will arise," announces one preacher. Another preacher said British Muslims must "dismantle" British democracy - they must "live like a state within a state" until they are "strong enough to take over."

The investigation reveals Saudi Arabian universities are recruiting young Western Muslims to train them in their extreme theology, then sending them back to the West to spread the word. And the Dispatches reporter discovers that British Muslims can ask for fatwas, religious rulings, direct from the top religious leader in Saudi Arabia, the Grand Mufti.

Saudi-trained preachers are also promoted in DVDs and books on sale at religious centres and sermons broadcast on websites. These publications and webcasts disseminate beliefs about women such as: "Allah has created the woman deficient, her intellect is incomplete", and girls: "By the age of 10 if she doesn't wear hijab, we hit her," and there's an extreme hostility towards homosexuals.

The investigation reveals that the influence of Saudi Arabian Islam, Wahabism, extends beyond the walls of some mosques to influential organisations that advise the British government on inter-community relations and prevention of terrorism.

The Dispatches reporter attends talks at mosques run by key organisations whose public faces are presented as moderate and mainstream - and finds preachers condemning the idea of integration into British society, condemning British democracy as un-Islamic and praising the Taliban for killing British soldiers.

Undercover Mosque features interviews with moderate British Muslim figures who are speaking out against the influence of Saudi Arabia's extreme brand of Islam, which is seeking to overturn Islamic traditions of diversity and peaceful co-existence: "We are losing our children to extremists," says Haras Rafiq of the Sufi Muslim Council. Dr Al Alawi of the Islamic Heritage Foundation also warns: "If this continues, you will have extremist mosques in every corner of the UK. You will not have moderate Muslims walking on our streets anymore."

MECCA DELANDA EST-----------------------DEUS VULT

Wednesday, January 17, 2007

New Telephone Tree Greeting


New Telephone Greeting.

Wouldn't it be pretty amazing, if this caught on, all over the country...?


"Press "1" if you speak English." "Press '2' to disconnect until you can.

Sunday, January 14, 2007

History-PoliSci-Economics 101


Humans originally existed as members of small bands of nomadic hunters/gatherers. They lived on deer in the mountains during the summer and would go to the coast and live on fish and lobster in the winter.

The two most important events in all of history were the invention of beer and the invention of the wheel. The wheel was invented to get man to the beer. These were the foundation of modern civilization and together were the catalyst for the splitting of humanity into two distinct subgroups:

1. Liberals; and
2. Conservatives.

Once beer was discovered, it required grain and that was the beginning of agriculture. Neither the glass bottle nor aluminum can were invented yet, so while our early humans were sitting around waiting for them to be invented, they just stayed close to the brewery. *_That's how villages were formed._*

Some men spent their days tracking and killing animals to B-B-Q at night while they were drinking beer. This was the beginning of what is *_known as the Conservative movement_*.

Other men who were weaker and less skilled at hunting learned to live off the conservatives by showing up for the nightly B-B-Q's and doing the sewing, fetching, and hair dressing. *_This was the beginning of the Liberal movement._*

Some of these liberal men eventually evolved into women. *_The rest became known as girliemen_*.

Some noteworthy liberal achievements include the domestication of cats, the invention of group therapy, group hugs, and the concept of Democratic voting to decide how to divide the meat and beer that conservatives provided.

Over the years conservatives came to be symbolized by the largest, most powerful land animal on earth, the elephant. Liberals are symbolized by the jackass.

Modern liberals like imported beer (with lime added), but most prefer white wine or imported bottled water. They eat raw fish but like their beef well done. Sushi, tofu, and French food are standard liberal fare.

Another interesting evolutionary side note: most of their women have higher testosterone levels than their men. Most social workers, personal injury attorneys, journalists, dreamers in Hollywood and group therapists are liberals. Liberals invented the designated hitter rule because it wasn't fair to make the pitcher also bat.

Conservatives drink domestic beer. They eat red meat and still provide for their women. Conservatives are big-game hunters, rodeo cowboys, lumberjacks, construction workers, firemen, medical doctors, police officers, corporate executives, athletes, Marines, and generally anyone who works productively. Conservatives who own companies hire other conservatives who want to work for a living.

Liberals produce little or nothing. They like to govern the producers and decide what to do with the production. Liberals believe Europeans are more enlightened than Americans. That is why most of the liberals remained in Europe when conservatives were coming to America. They crept in after the Wild West was tamed and created a business of trying to get more for nothing.

Here ends today's lesson in world history: It should be noted that a Liberal may have a momentary urge to angrily respond to the above before forwarding it. A Conservative will simply laugh and be so convinced of the absolute truth of this history that it will be forwarded immediately to other true believers and to more liberals just to piss them off.

Wednesday, January 10, 2007

Poli-Sci/History Lesson RE: Weapons

Columnists / News Columnists / J.D. Mullane
Even blue states love guns

Bucks County Courier Times
It didn't take the gun guys long to spot me wandering among the tables at the Gun and Knife Show in Bristol Township.
Once confronted, I was certain I would be bounced from the place. To them, I am “the media.”
Gun-rights defenders feel toward media the same way a blue-stater feels toward George Bush.
Yet, they let me stay.
“Write whatever you want,” said Bob Sarb, a show organizer. “But we never feel we get a fair shake from you people.”
I spent a half-hour among 200 tables of guns and ammo, as well as knives and long blades that appeared capable of cleanly lopping off the head of your common infidel.
I made my way back to Sarb, who was selling raffle tickets for a Harley motorcycle and a .50-caliber gun signed by Ted Nugent.
We chatted about law, order and gun rights. I told him I had been to Washington, D.C., last week to see the swearing in of the Congress and was in the company of many happy Democrats. Two were engaged in a lively discussion of gun rights.
The pair concluded that the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution doesn't guarantee any Joe Six-pack the right to keep or bear arms. They agreed the Second Amendment is really about arming militias, that is, the government armed forces.
Sarb chuckled.
“They should look at Pennsylvania's Constitution and what it says about guns, because it is clear what we are guaranteed,” he said.
He quoted from article 21 of the Commonwealth's Constitution, which was drafted in 1790 when most of the Founding Fathers were still living: “The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.”
“Shall ... not ... be ... questioned,” Sarb repeated to me.

I was unaware that the right to gun ownership in this state was so unambiguous. What, are we gun nuts? Or just plain-spoken on the matter?
It made me wonder what other state constitutions ring as clear. I checked. Here's the red state of Texas:
“Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.”
Texas aims to “regulate” arms? I thought they were all shoot-em-up cowboys down there.
What of the constitutions of the blue New England states? Certainly they would be as regulatory as Texas.
Maine, Art. 1, sec. 16: “Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms and this right shall never be questioned.”
Vermont, Ch. I, Art. 16: “That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State. ... ”
New Hampshire, Part I, Article 2a: “All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state.”
Connecticut, Art. I, sec. 15: “Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.”
Rhode Island, Art. I, sec. 22: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
Massachusetts, Pt. I, article 17: “The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence.”
What, are they all gun nuts up there? Or are they just —well, you get it.

Monday, January 08, 2007

Walking With Tyrants

In Truth---All it takes to correct the misbehaviors of tyrants is a short walk
with them---13-steps up and one step down.

Perhaps, we should apply the same corrective walk with those who are tyrants
in our inner-cities.

Saturday, January 06, 2007

Worshiping Embryonic Stem Cell "Research"

It most strongly appears that the support of human embryonic stem cell research is a form of religious worship based on faith and not on science. All of the “main stream” journalistic and scientific writers push forward that such research will, most certainly, provide cures for MS, MD, diabetes, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's Disease and, for all I can tell, dandruff and many persons' (Including myself) inability to dance.

Yet, such research (When applied) appears to have produced nothing but cancers and such other horrid neoplasms as masses of hair and teeth growing in inappropriate parts of the body.

Basing some projection of useful medical uses, from human embryonic stem cell research, in the face of such facts is truly a matter of religious conviction and not of a scientific statement of probability.

Yet, research based on adult and placental stem cell sources have produced positive, medical, results---Which are too often ignored by the same persons who continue to push their religion of embryonic stem cell research. Of course, it is common for priesthoods to ignore or suppress competing schools of thought---Which appears to be the mechanism at work here.

For those of a religious orientation, there appears to be little difference between the support of destroying human embryos for such irrational purposes and the self-declared “worship of death” claimed by some of the more radical Islamic teachers as basic to their religion.

For those who claim reason, logic and science as their guides in this world (And still push human embryonic stem cell “research”—If that is the correct term), I say shame-on-you for supporting a religion in the guise of science. That shame extends to too many journalists, politicians, general academics and, most specially, self-described “scientists”.

Wednesday, January 03, 2007

A Secular USA--NOT

America Was Meant to Be Free, Not Secular
By Dennis Prager
FrontPageMagazine.com | January 3, 2007

Contrary to what you learned at college, America from its inception has been a religious country, and was designed to be one.

As the greatest foreign observer of America, the Frenchman Alexis de Tocqueville, noted in his Democracy in America, "Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits flame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power." Or, as the great British historian Paul Johnson has just written: "In [George] Washington's eyes, at least, America was in no sense a secular state," and "the American Revolution was in essence the political and military expression of a religious movement."

In fact, the Founders regarded America as a Second Israel, in Abraham Lincoln's words, the "Almost Chosen" People. This self-identification was so deep that Thomas Jefferson, today often described as not even a Christian, wanted the seal of the United States to depict the Jews leaving Egypt at the splitting of the sea. Just as the Jews left Egypt, Americans left Europe.

There has been a concerted, and successful, attempt over the last generations to depict America as always having been a secular country and many of its Founders as deists, a term misleadingly defined as irreligious people who believed in an impersonal god.

It is also argued that the values that animated the founding of America were the values of the secular Enlightenment, not those of the Bible -- even for most of the Founders who were religious Christians.

This new version of American history reminds me of the old Soviet dissident joke: "In the Soviet Union, the future is known; it's the past that is always changing."

Once almost universally acknowledged to be founded by religious men whose values were grounded in the Jewish and Christian Scriptures, the average college graduate is now ignorant of the religious bases of this society, and certain that it was founded to be, and has always been, a secular society that happens to have many individual Christians living in it.

That explains the attempts by activists to erase whatever public vestiges of religiosity remain -- any cross on a county or city seal, the replacement of "Merry Christmas" with "Happy Holidays," the Supreme Court's rulings against school prayer even of the most non-denominational type, etc.

This country was founded overwhelmingly by men and women steeped in the Bible. Their moral values emanated from the Bible, and they regarded liberty as possible only if understood as given by God. That is why the Liberty Bell's inscription is from the Old Testament, and why Thomas Jefferson, the allegedly non-religious deist, wrote (as carved into the Jefferson Memorial): "God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God?"

The evidence is overwhelming that the Founders were religious people who wanted a religious country that enshrined liberty for all its citizens, including those of different religions and those of no faith. But our educational institutions, especially the universities, are populated almost exclusively by secular individuals and books who seek to cast America's past and present in their image.

Are we a Judeo-Christian country with liberty for people of every, and of no, faith? Or are we a secular country that happens to have within it a large number of individuals who hold Judeo-Christian values?

If you are undecided which side to fight for, perhaps this will help: Western Europe has already become a secular society with secular values. If you think Western Europe is a better place than America and that it has a robust future, you should be working to remove Judeo-Christian influence from American life. On the other hand, if you look at Europe and see a continent adrift, with no identity and no strong values beyond economic equality and possessing little capacity to identify evil, let alone a will to fight it, then you need to start fighting against the secularization of America.

Or, if you think that the university, the most secular American institution, is largely a place where wisdom, character and a discerning ability to distinguish between right and wrong prevail, you should be working to remove Judeo-Christian values from American life. But if you believe that the university is largely a place of moral foolishness, then you need to start worrying about the secularization of America.

If America abandons its Judeo-Christian values basis and the central role of the Jewish and Christian Bibles, its founders' guiding text, we are all in big trouble, including, most especially, America's non-Christians. Just ask the Jews of secular Europe.

Click Here to support Frontpagemag.com.

Monday, January 01, 2007

NUMBERS---And Generations

Some have made a great deal out of the fact that our service dead in Iraq have now exceeded the losses inflicted by Islamic terrorists on that infamous 9/11. Some neither study history nor learn from it. (Blacks should also remember the huge number of White Union troops who suffered and died to insure that the South stayed in the Union and subject to its laws--Which resulted in the freeing of slaves held by Whites, Native Americans and other Blacks.)

They and you might wish to consider (And remember as you elect those who make and pass our laws) the losses on that other day-of-infamy, 12-7-1941, and the cost in American lives needed to defeat the then truly evil Japanese Empire, the worse Nazi killing machine and foolish Italy. It does appear that the Americans of 1941-1945 were our Greatest Generation as they knew any price was worth defeating such evil. The Me-Generation of today lacks historical knowledge, any sense of the Common Good and, most of all, moral courage.