I Haven’t Raised Taxes

Here is an interesting article based on President Obama’s interview on 60 Minutes.

“On CBS News’s “60 Minutes” Sunday night, President Obama said, “Taxes are lower on families than they’ve been probably in the last 50 years. So I haven’t raised taxes.”

As of Monday morning, neither the Washington Post’s Pinocchio-awarding Fact-Checker, nor the Annenberg Public Policy Center’sFactCheck.org, nor the Tampa Bay Times’ Pulitzer-Prize-winning Politifact.com had risen to this opportunity, so let us take a stab.

There are a variety of possible ways to measure the tax burden on American “families” over the past 50 years. Fortunately, Mr. Obama’s own White House Office of Management and Budget provides a spreadsheet that summarizes federal tax receipts from 1940 through the present. Fifty years ago, in 1962, federal tax receipts were $99.7 billion. In 2011, they were $2.3 trillion. Far from being at a 50 year low, the taxes extracted from American families last year were about 23 times what they were fifty years ago.

Okay, but aren’t there more families in America now than there were 50 years ago? Sure. The 1960 Census counted about 179 million Americans, while the 2010 Census counted about 309 million. The population hasn’t even doubled, but the federal government’s tax receipts have increased 23 times.

Okay, but what about inflation? President Obama’s own Office of Management and Budget tries to deal with that question by using something called “constant (FY 2005) dollars.” It’s not as trustworthy a measure as, say, the price of gold, but since the White House uses it, it’s worth at least a look. By this measure, federal taxes climbed to nearly $2 trillion in 2011 from about $660 billion in 1962. In other words, the taxes trebled, even as the population didn’t even double.

Remember, too, that 1962 wasn’t some kind of blissful Jeffersonian small-government era to which we can never possibly return. It was the height of the Cold War. President Eisenhower had only shortly before warned of the military-industrial complex. President Kennedy was going around giving speeches about how the tax burden was too high.

Okay, what about tax rates? By that measure, taxes aren’t at a 50-year-low, either. Don’t take my word for it: look at the chart from the Tax Policy Center operated by the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, two center-left think tanks whose work President Obama likes to cite when he claims that a President Romney would raise taxes on the middle class. Sure enough, in 1988 and 1989 the top marginal income tax rate was 28%. In 1990, 1991, and 1992 it was 31%. Today it is 35%.

Okay, that’s the federal income tax rate. But what about the payroll tax rate? Here, too the Brookings-Urban Tax Policy Center has a useful chart. In 1962 the Social Security payroll tax was 6.25%, applied to the first $4,800 in wages. There was no Medicare tax, because Medicare did not yet exist. In 2011 — even after the two percentage point temporary payroll tax “holiday” — the tax was 10.4% applied to the first $106,800 in income, plus a 2.9% Medicare tax that applies to all wage income, with no cap. The tax, in other words, has more than doubled since 1962.

How about the federal gas tax? Fifty years ago, in 1962, it was four cents a gallon, according to the Tax Foundation. It’s now 18.4 cents a gallon. Far from being at a 50-year low, it has more than quadrupled.

There is one measure — federal tax revenues as a percentage of GDP — by which taxes under President Obama have been at a 50-year low, at least according to the Office of Management and Budget. But if that’s Mr. Obama’s yardstick, then it also shows government spending and budget deficits have been at 50-year highs under Mr. Obama.

The second sentence of Mr. Obama’s “60 Minutes” claim — “I haven’t raised taxes” — is similarly slippery. Before Mr. Obama had been in office for a month he signed a law increasing the tobacco tax by $71 billion over 10 years. A 10% tax on tanning salons went into effect on July 1, 2010, a tax increase of $2.7 billion over 10 years. If Mr. Obama hasn’t raised more taxes, it hasn’t been for lack of trying; the only thing stopping him has been the Republican House of Representatives.

It would be a shame if voters fall for Mr. Obama’s misleading claim that their taxes are at a 50-year low. But who can blame the voters, or, for that matter, the fact-checkers, if even Mr. Obama’s opponent, Mitt Romney, buys into the idea. In the same “60 Minutes” program, Mr. Romney said taxes would remain essentially unchanged if he won. “I don’t want a reduction in revenue coming into the government,” Mr. Romney said.

It’s enough to make one nostalgic for George W. Bush, or at least to prompt one to wish for a politician who can articulate the tax issue not in terms of what it means for the government’s revenues but in the language of what it means for the individual.”


Dreamer, University of Maryland, & DREAM Act

Imagine for a moment a Muslim girl from Kosovo named Gordana, who just turned 18 years old, graduated from high school in a new nation after coming from a poor, war torn, nation where she viewed most of her family being killed in a genocidal war. Gordana’s parents brought her over to this country to escape the hardship of their nation of birth, and give their daughter better opportunity in America, where everyone plays by the same rules and are treated as equals to one another. They wanted to escape the genocide, inequality, poor education, and constant fear they experienced. They wanted to be free from fear and give Gordana the chance at quality education and quality life. They wanted to give her the opportunity, just one opportunity, to get a quality college education.

Gordana’s cousin also came over to America with their parents to escape the same trials and tribulations, but they came to America illegally.  Gordana and her cousin Vojin, do not live far from each other. One lives in Alexandria Virginia and the other lives in College Park Maryland. Gordana and Vojin both went to high school at the same time, but in different states. Gordana’s parents choose to live in Virginia and Gordana had no choice in where she went to live in America, or where she went to school in Virginia. She had no choice in the issue. The same with Vojin. Both of them were able to get a 4 year high school education because it was their right to get a public education. Gordana excelled more at academics than Vojin, and was an eager student. She wanted to better her life and develop those skills to be tools to live a good life in America.

Gordana’s parents did not make much in America, or provide much else but the basics for survival. They put a roof over their daughters head, gave her three meals a day, a warm bed to sleep in, clothes to wear, and the tools she needed for school. They broke their backs in this new nation, as new American citizens, to better the life of their daughter. But now Gordana has finished with high school and seeks higher education and going to college. Her cousin Vojin was accepted into the University of Maryland because the DREAM Act was passed, which allows for illegal immigrants to get a public college education in Maryland at resident fees while being listed as non-residents. Vojin goes to a public college that is ranked as one of the top 20 public colleges in the US.

Vojin has to pay around $4,454.46 a semester at resident tuition fees, while the tax paying residents of Maryland would have to pay the  $9,189.50 difference that is occurred by Vojin being recognized non-resident. Gordana, as being labeled as a non-resident, would have to pay $13,643.96 a semester if she went to the University of Maryland. The only problem is that Gordana’s parents do not make much money, and cannot afford the resident tuition fees for the public colleges in Virginia. Nor can they pay the tuition fees at private colleges or other public universities around the US. Gordana’s parents, though, can afford the resident tuition fees at the University of Maryland. She just wants to get the education to better her life, and to be better off than she was when she was living and growing up in Kosovo. She wants to be treated equal like other Americans. Gordana does not feel it is fair that Vojin gets to pay less in tuition fees than Gordana would have to pay, even though both of them are classified as non-residents.

Gordana was taught by her parents to treat all people equally, and to give to those in need. But now Gordana is not being treated equally and not being helped when in a time of need. She also wonders why her cousin has a right to public college education and that same right is denied to Gordana. She left a country from which she was not treated equally in society or in school. Now it is happening to her again when all she wants to do is exercise her right to a public college education. She is being prevented from doing it when the University is already doing it for other people, like her cousin. She worked hard in school, followed the laws, and so did her parents. They followed all the rules, and went through all the legal channels in order to become law abiding citizens of the US.
Gordana has the right to a public college education and the University of Maryland would be denying her the exercise of her right when they make her pay more than other non-residents. Her cousin gets preferential treatment by paying less than she does, even though they are both non-residents and taking the same classes. She notices that the right of a public college education is preferred that some get it more than others, or the rules are being applied differently to the same group of people. It goes against everything that she was told about America and the American Dream. She use to be a Dreamer, she use to dream of the great life she would live in the United States, the way she would be treated just as equally as anyone else, and have the same rights applied to her as others. All she wanted was equality and fairness, she would do the rest and be productive member of the US. But her cousin is still a Dreamer, because he gets to live the Dream while being in the country illegally and not being  citizen or have permanent residency because he only has a temporary visa because he is a Dreamer. It could expire at any time and he would have to worry about being deported for breaking the law.

Gordana does not have the worries of her cousin. She is in the country legally and productive member of society, helping out with local charities and goes to the mosque daily. She helps her parents out any way she can, and studying full time and wants to become a doctor and help those out in life who incur troubled times. She wants to give back to the country that was a save harbor for her and her family, and gave her a free public education in high school. Her cousin, though, wants to become a doctor as well but wants to take that education back home. He wants to use the education that tax payers of Maryland payed for and take it out of the US and back to country that he is a citizen of. He will be able to make more money because his skill set is worth a lot back home. The people of that foreign nation would be able to benefit for the education. Gordana just wants to help herself, so she can help out other Americans with her skill set learned at College, and also help her future children.

If a college education is a right, then the moral thing is to allow both residents of Maryland, Vojin, and non-Residents of Maryland, Godana, to both pay the same in tuition fee to attend the University. Give every person, whether the individual person is a Maryland resident or non-Maryland resident, the same shot and have the same rules apply to both individuals equally. The way things are, it does not give every individual person the same shot at a college education that is their right, or have the same rules apply to them, as Gordana found out.

She is being denied the right to public education, which is open to every person, only because she does not live in Maryland. But she had no choice in that, but she finally exercised her choice for the first time to get a college education. She could not help it that her parents choose to live in Virginia, or that she had to attend a Virginia high school, or that her parents payed income tax in Virginia. Because of her parents choices, she is being denied the one source of a public college education, while her cousin’s parents broke the law and yet her cousin gets to get the public college education and cheaper than what Gordana would have to pay. Her cousin is allowed to have a piece of a pie that is everyone’s right, but she is denied a piece of that cake. She is being denied a piece of the American Dream, of being a Dreamer, while her cousin is allowed to have a piece of that Dream and be a Dreamer.

Vote No on Question 4 on November 6th, 2012. It denies people their right to a public education, prevents them from living the American Dream, prevents the same rules being applied to every person, prevents everyone from having an equal shot. Remember Gordana when you vote, and how she was treated when she just Dreamed of living the American Dream. She was just a Dreamer denied accesses to her Dream because of things she could not control and had no choice in.

47% of Americans are the 99%

Since the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) Movement has started, the old term of 99% and 1% have shown back up. Similar lines of thinking where used by Karl Marx when he mentioned the 9 out of 10. This would turn out to be the 90%, and the 90% would be the 99% that OWS talks about all the time. The 10% would be the 1% that OWS talks about a lot.

Now Mitt Romney brought up some point about the 47% and the 53%. The 47% pay no federal income tax, the 53% pay federal income tax. Interesting part is that Mitt Romney was accused by Harry Reid of being part of the 47%, i.e. was accused of not paying federal income tax. But Mitt Romney is also accused of being part of the 1%, as well. Assuming that all of the 1% are the 53%, but not all of the 53% are the 1%, then some of the 99% make up the 53% as well. All of the 53% are the 1% and some of the 99%. So it follows that all of the 47% are the 99%, though.

So this means that a some of the 99% pay no federal income tax while all of the 1% by the federal income tax. This means that the 1% pay for most of the benefits that the 99% obtain. This means that the 1% have their money taken from them and redistributed to people that do not pay into the system, and those people that do not pay into the system complain about the 1% not paying more. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you. It is like a starving person complaining that a certain individual did not give them more food than they did were given.

But, of course, the 47% and the 53% both pay other taxes than the federal income tax. They both either pay for the gas tax, the cigarette tax, the sales tax, toll tax, or etc. But yet the 53% have to pay more in taxes than the 47%, and the 47% complain that the 53% do not pay more in income taxes. The 53% have more of a burden to bear in losing personal income than the 47%. This means that the 53% pay more to keep the system running, and the entitlements running, than the 47%. This would mean that the 1% pay more to keep the system running, and the entitlements running, than the 99%.

Think of it this way. There are 100 people, and 53 of these people unwillingly supplement the income of 47 people. The 47 people pay no federal income tax, and 53 people pay federal income tax. But both the 47 people and the 53 people pay other taxes besides the federal income tax. Interesting part is that Mitt Romney was accused by Harry Reid of being part of the 47 people, i.e. was accused of not paying federal income tax. But remember that all of the 1% are part of the 53 people, or 53%. This means the one individual has a lot more money, and because federal income tax makes the 1% pay more than the the rest of the 99%, this means that the 1 person is going to pay more to keep the system running than the other 53% or the 99%. One individual will pay more for the entitlements that the other 99 enjoy and want.

Meet the Press: 47% of Americans & Mitt Romney

The Meet the Press episode on 9/23/2012 had some “Surrogates”, and not the type from the Bruce Willis movie, come on to the show. Some interesting points where brought up, and most of the discussion revolved around the idea of the 47% of Americans that do not pay income tax.

Now what is really strange about the 47% of Americans that do not pay federal income tax is that Harry Reid implied that Mitt Romney was part of that 47% of Americans. Of the class of 47% Americans that do not pay federal income tax, it was said that it contains Mitt Romney. But Mitt Romney’s tax returns show that he has paid federal income tax. So Mitt Romney is part of the 53% of Americans that pay federal income tax.

In the line of Mitt Romney and his federal income tax returns, Governor Deal Patrick has some talking points.

Gov. Deval Patrick: I understand people’s interest and curiosity about Mitt Romney’s tax returns. I think it was his dad that said that tax returns for presidential candidates should be produced way back many years. And I think he produced 20 year’s worth of tax returns and more when he was being considered for vice president. But the more I think important issue is what is it he plans to do with my taxes and yours and everybody else’s. He has a tax plan out there where he’s talking about $5 trillion in tax cuts, adding to the deficit. No way to pay for that and no idea about how — what the impact is on the middle class.

Now, I have already talked about Mitt Romney’s tax returns. So I will not deal too much with what Patrick says on the issue of tax returns. What I will bring up is how people consistently go back to Mitt Romney’s father releasing his tax returns. Mitt Romney is his father’s son, and yet somehow people think that what Mitt Romney’s father did means that Romney must do it as well. If Mitt Romney’s father killed a kitten does that mean that Mitt Romney must kill a kitten as well? Mitt Romney’s father did set the precedent of releasing more than 2 years worth of federal income tax returns, likewise Mitt Romney’s father did set the precedent in killing a kitten. So Mitt Romney ought to kill a kitten like he ought to release more than two years of tax returns, all because his father set the precedent by doing these things. Ridiculous type of argument by using precedent, especially when these precedents are not necessary tests to hold the office of Executive of the United States of America. This even holds in cases where people who were not Mitt Romney’s father releasing more than 2 years of federal income tax returns or releasing federal income tax returns at all. Precedent of no gay black woman being President, or candidate for President, means that a gay black woman should not be elected because they do not meet precedent set by previous candidates.

Deval Patrick does make a good point about what does the Candidate for Executive of the United States of America plan to do with your tax dollars, or all American’s tax dollars. But Deval Patrick is wrong that taking in less taxes, i.e. taking less money from individual Americans, does not mean that they you will have a deficit. There will only be a deficit if the government spends more than it takes in. Having 5 trillion less in revenue from income tax does not mean you will have 5 trillion in deficit. You will only have 5 trillion in deficit if you spend that money when you do not have it. You will only have 5 trillion in debt if you spend the money when you do not have it. So Romney would have to spend more money than is obtained by income tax.

Now one obvious impact on all Americans in 5 trillion less revenue taking in federal income tax is that Americans will keep more of their money to use as they desire, especially middle class Americans. They will be able to keep more of their money instead of having the federal government taking more of their money. But it would, supposedly, mean that there is less money for the federal government to use to run federal programs. This means that some federal programs would have to be scaled back in order for Americans to keep more of their money, unless one wants to increase the national debt. So Romney would have to cut back on some federal programs in proportion to the loss of federal revenue.

Now what would Romney use the federal income tax money on? He would have to use it on what the Constitution says that the President must do. If the Constitution said that there must be 25 aircraft carries in the Naval fleet, then Romney would have to use that income tax money to make sure that there are 25 aircraft carries in the Naval fleet, and have to make sure that those 25 aircraft carries can necessarily do what they are suppose to do.

But let us go to this 47% of Americans are “dependent on the federal government”. This main point is based on something. It is based on that 47% of Americans do not give up money in income tax, which means the tax person (or IRS person) is not coming to get your money from you by April 15th. Instead, 53% of Americans will have to give up money to the tax man while 47% do not have to give up the money. But the money that the 53% gave up to the tax man is given to the 47% Americans, while the tax man takes a cut in making that transaction of money from one party to another party. What needs to be realized 47% of Americans make money at the end of the year while 53% of Americans lose money at the end of the year.  What makes this interesting is that a large number of people are not paying into the system while another group is paying into the system, and those that are not paying into the system receive money from those who are paying into the system. You do all the work, if you are part of the 53%, while another person, if part of the 47%, gets all the reward of your work. This is equality, this is redistribution. Giving from the haves to the have nots.

How about, like Gregory David brought up in the debate between George Allen and Tim Kain in the Virgina Senatorial debate, everyone pays federal income tax? This means that the 47% who do not pay federal income tax be forced to pay federal income tax, like those 53% of American’s who payed federal income tax. This way those 47% of Americans are paying into the system like 53% of Americans, and this will make all Americans equal in how the law is executed. One group of people do not have pay federal income tax while another group of people have to pay federal income tax, and now all groups of people will have to pay federal income tax. That way if you receive some of these governments entitlements, which are usually funded by federal income tax revenue, then you are getting what you payed for.

Take this example from Ezra Kelin, the hack “journalist”.

Compare Romney to a single mother of two who works fulltime at Wal-mart who takes the earned income tax credit and whose children get health insurance through medicaid. Romney says she’s not taking personality responsibility. He says he couldn’t get her to take personal responsibility if he tried, yet Romney is someone who doesn’t even have to take personal responsibility for earning money anymore. He’s beyond all of that, and he’s carried that belief into his policy proposals, his policy platform matches his comments. He won’t raise taxes on the rich but wants to cut medicaid by over $1 trillion in the next decade.

Working at Wal-mart meets you will have a personal income that is below the taxable amount. Say that the taxable income level is 25 dollars. If you make 24 dollars then you do not have to pay the income tax, but receive money from the federal government. If you make 25 dollars or over, you have to pay the income tax. Medicade is a program that is funded for by personal income tax, so this person at Wal-mart is not paying into Medicade like the person who pays the income tax does. This person would not be taking personal responsibility if that means paying for the program that you are taking advantage for. In other words, this person would be obtaining something that they did not pay for. But we all know that nothing is free, so who payed for it? The 53% payed for that program.

I really have no clue what the line about “yet Romney is someone who doesn’t even have to take personal responsibility for earning money anymore”. But what should be noticed is that the 53% will have to pay less of their money taken by the personal income tax, and so medicaid will have 1 trillion dollars less than it had a decade ago. This means that 53% of Americans will keep more of their money, and those 47% of Americans would receive less money, within the next decade if Romney were elected.

Entitlements Are Not Rights Opinion Piece

Interesting opinion piece from a newspaper. My slight edits will be in [brackets]

“Some people fail to grasp the simplest of concepts: We have a Bill of Rights. It spells out exactly the rights you have. And guess what? You don’t have a right to a home. You don’t have a right to three meals a day. You don’t have a right to a car. You don’t have a right to a college education. You don’t have a right to credit. And you don’t have the right of cradle to grave health care paid for by somebody else.

If you are disabled, there are already [federal] programs in place, some constitutionally questionable, that will help you out. But the majority of people in this country draw the line when the [federal] government tries to mandate that you have to purchase something or face a fine so they can make sure all people, be it of their own fault or not, are taken care of.

If you want to give to charities to care of everybody in this country, you are free to do so. If you are asked by your religion to give a certain amount of your income to your church, you are free to do so. But you are also free to not be demanded to give to charity if you wish not to.

And finally, if you don’t like the way this country is set up, and would rather pay a mandatory tax to government to make sure all your neighbors are taken care of, you are free to leave at any time. That’s what makes this country great.”

The only thing in the Bill of Rights which would be contrary to this, or even leaves open the possibility, is the 9th amendment.


Mitt Romney’s “Tax Returns” and “Tricky Mitt”

It appears that the Obama campaign for re-election has brought up some interesting talking points, which appear to have garnered wide attention. One of them involves Mitt Romney’s “tax returns” to be released, and for how there might be a felony or criminal action being hidden in his tax returns that have not been released. Now, unless you have been living under the sea with Ariel, there has been this narrative of “class warfare”, which has been brought up of rich American citizens v. non-rich American citizens.

Mitt Romney is placed within the category of rich American citizen, because you have to be an American citizen to run for President of the United States of America. There is even a check done to make sure that you meet the necessary requirements to run for President of the United States of America, and being a US Citizen is one of them. Anyone that tries to run for the office and does not meet these necessary requirements, well be denied that office. Romney  is considered to be a rich, which came about from his work as a private citizen and using his property that where within legal requirements.

Here is an example of an add bringing up Mitt Romney’s tax returns and linking it to be criminal and Mitt Romney is a felon.

Mitt Romney’s individual income tax returns are private information and protected by law from unauthorized disclosure. The IRS is the branch of the federal government that receives your individual income tax returns, and they can only give out your income tax returns to authorized federal branches or authorized individuals. So, for the most part, Mitt Romney’s information is private, unless Romney wants to make it public. You could own this a really great couch in your private home, and keep it private. You could also take your couch out of your private home and put it on public display or you could invite people into your private property and take a look at your really great couch. Not even the federal government is authorized to release that private information. Scary when the IRS even has boundaries that it will not transgress.

The main point would be that it is private information and one may use that private information as they want. Romney does not fell like releasing his tax returns, and Obama has not felt like releasing his college transcripts. Romney has also not released what his first memory was, or Obama has not released what his first memory was. Are both Romney an Obama holding back these things back because they broke some law? Are they criminals that are trying to run for office and be President? Are some criminals in public office now? Maybe federally elected officials are criminals. Could even be like prison in so far as you come out changed from when you went in. You go in as a law abiding person and come out a criminal, just maybe not a convicted criminal.

I really need to know this private information, I love to be all in people’s personal information and living their life for them. I really need to know what was Mitt Romney’s first job after graduate school an what was Barack Obama’s first job after graduate school, it allows me to know their unexplicated  step by step plan to reach their explicated objectives. “I’m going to fly you to the moon, but never mind how I am going to get you there.”

Does anyone know of the IRS having a good reputation of obtaining what is federally allowable by law? Assuming that they are good at obtaining what is legally attainable for them, it would mean that someone who holds back what is legally obtainable would be sought after by the IRS to obtain what is legally theirs. Has there been any information on Mitt Romney actually having been prosecuted by the IRS or Department of Justice for withholding the legally attainable private income of Mitt Romney? All signs point no. But we the public should think that he is hiding that really great couch from us; he is not sharing that really great couch, that is his private property, with us. He chooses not share his private stuff with us, so he must be choosing to do illegal things with his private property.

Romney did, on the other hand, at least release some of his private information. It is strange that he would release some of his private information since it is not necessary in order to hold the office that Romney seeks. He, or any Presidential candidate, must be natural born Citizen,  35 years of age or older, been fourteen year resident within the United States, and receive the majority of electoral votes. So the private information does not affect being a natural born citizen, over 35 years of age, and been a 14 year resident of the United States. He passed those three tests to hold federal office. The only one he is missing is the majority of votes from the electoral college voters. All the electoral college voters have to do is look at a ballot and pick which of the people listed is who they will vote for.

Is it expected that releasing this private information to obtains votes like buying a vote? Is it expected that releasing this private property to obtain votes be similar to buying votes? Without this private property being giving to the electoral college voters, Romney will fail the necessary test of being President. He can only obtain the office if he passes the necessary requirements, and failing one, like getting the majority of electoral college votes, means he is prevented from being Executive of the United States of America. Does Romney have to meet with a majority of the individual electoral college voters, and show them his private information or give up his private property, in order for them to vote for him?

But he did give up this private property to the electoral college voters. Of that, it was found that he placed some of his private property in banks. We also like to place some of our private property into banks. Nothing really strange about this. What is different is that Romney is able to put some of his private property into banks that do not have their headquarters in the United States of America. But there is nothing illegal of where you choose to place it. If this were the case, then that would mean it would even be illegal for you to choose to place it in banks that are headquartered in the United States. Instead, we are free to choose where put our private property. And those banks that Romney chose to put his private property were within federal law of where you can place your private property. This is like other people who place their banks that are headquartered in the United States and also allowable under federal law. The difference is that only those people who can afford to put their private property in this banks are allowed to do so. Romney is one of them, but some other people cannot afford to put their private property where they choose and allowable by federal law. Has anyone heard from the IRS on this issue?

What is the real problem, since he is not breaking any federal law and there is no requirement in holding office of Executive of the United States? It is that he is a rich American trying to become Executive of the United States. He is being discriminated against because of his economic class, or being given a reason to not vote for him. His economic class is trying to be used to get people to not vote for Romney, to not hire Romney. Economic class, in this situation, would be the strict factor in not hiring someone. They are in the class of rich instead of the class of not rich. They are being discriminated against based on class, like some in previous American history were discriminated from being hired in jobs because of their race, or because of their sex, or sexual orientation, or because of physical/mental deficiencies. If those groups of people, who were not hired for the job, could have changed what they were discriminated against for, then they would have been hired.

This is part of the subtle narrative of “Class Warfare”. Trying to turn one class against another, have non-rich American citizens to discriminate against rich American citizens like male American citizens discriminated against female American citizens. One class against another, division instead of equality and unity. Moving back instead of moving forward. Moving back to inequality amongst different classes instead of moving forward to equal treatment of different classes. Precedent has been set with previous elections had majority of electoral college voters not voting another candidate because of the class they belonged to, like being black or a woman. Just continuing it with another class of people after those other groups were eliminated form discrimination for holding a federal job. Precedent had been set by previous generations allowing for the discrimination and so others still follow it with another new class.

The Politically Correct Nature of 21st Century Sherlock Holmes

I have been watching the 21st century incarnation of Sherlock Holmes with the BBC/PBS show called “Sherlock“. I am waiting to observe the new series of another modern day twist on Sherlock Holmes with “Elementary” to come on CBS this fall. Assuming that “Elementary” is going to have a similarity with “Sherlock” being in the 21st century, then one of them is going to be that Sherlock Holmes is PCed. Let is take a look at what PCed in action first.

Sherlock Holmes injected cocaine or morphine into his veins on a regular basis, and would smoke lots of tobacco. This comes from Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s own writing of Sherlock Holmes. In the television show “Sherlock”, Holmes does not smoke cigarettes but uses nicotine patches (around 3-4 at one time). They try to “imply” that Holmes has drugs in his apartment when the police do a drug search. They never found anything in their search of his apartment. So the worst we have is knowing that Holmes uses nicotine patches instead of smoking tobacco and at least implied that Holmes has drugs in apartment, but do not know if he has injectable cocaine and morphine This is the 21st century Sherlock Holmes from “Sherlock”. No doubt, the Sherlock Holmes of the 21st century to appear in “Elementary”, will himself not smoke tobacco or inject cocaine and morphine into him.

The Sherlock Holmes portrayed by Jeremy Brett at least smoke tobacco.  I cannot really say if they did the scenes where he would inject cocaine or morphine into his arms. Might have, though. Assuming that the Holmes of Jeremy Brett did not inject cocaine or morphine, then that late 20th century Holmes at least smoke tobacco. Granted, one less thing of Holmes is taking away in television depictions of Sherlock Holmes.

The 21st century is not much different from the days of Doyle writing of Holmes, or the supposed historical time frame that Holmes is placed. There is still tobacco for smoking, still cocaine for injection, and still morphine for injecting, in  each of those time frames. The 21st century is no different from the 20th century , or the 19th century in this respect. So what is bringing about this difference in which these things that were available to Holmes of the 19th century, 20th century, and 21st century? This is where some Political Correctness comes into play.

The community is like Dr. Watson, they do not approve of Sherlock’s drug use, but it is what helps to make who Sherlock is. “Again and again [Dr. John Watson] had registered a vow that he should deliver his soul upon the subject [of Sherlock Holmes customary use of cocaine and morphine]; but there was that in the cool, nonchalant air of his companion which made him the last man with whom one would care to take anything approaching to a liberty. Sherlock Holmes great powers, his masterly manner, and the experience which Watson had had of his many extraordinary qualities, all made Watson diffident and backward in crossing him.” Dr. Watson did not want to take anything from Holmes that would be approaching to a liberty, of Holmes it would appear.

“I can dispense then with artificial stimulants. But I abhor the dull routine of existence. I crave for mental exaltation.”, says Sherlock. Holmes smokes tobacco and does cocaine and morphine when the dull routine of existence comes about. The dull routine of existence comes about when there is no mental exaltation without the drugs. But Holmes appears to be able to not need any artificial stimulants to achieve mental exaltation. Now the 21st century version of Holmes appears to still come into the dull routine of existence, and so he would be using some artificial stimulant, which happened to be cocaine and morphine, in the 21st century. If nicotine patches are all they have, then something is seriously deficient.

Could this be part of the drug policy, or war on drugs, where trying to run a counter-campaign against the image of doing drugs would bring up to audience members? They do see someone doing them, and they can come to have a strong like for that character. Maybe try to be like them, or similar to that person. Kids are taught to Say No to drugs. Crack is whack. D.A.R.E. to say no. There are even examples of where it has been discussed, seriously, that movies that have characters that smoke a cigarette get a certain higher rating, i.e. Pg-13 to R.

We try to teach the kids, or on tv, that your actions of what you take into your body have costs now or into the far future in some instances. So we have campaigns against cocaine use, morphine use, and tobacco use. Even Dr. Watson brings this up to Holmes, and Watson is a medical doctor and knows what constant use of these products has on a person. When these medical things are described to Holmes, he says, ” Perhaps you are right, Watson. I suppose that its influence is physically a bad one. I find it, however, so transcendently stimulating and clarifying to the mind that its secondary action is a matter of small moment.” This is part of what makes Sherlock Holmes who he is. He does not care about secondary action, it is a matter of matter of small moment to him. A starving person might not have any eatable food and all of a sudden have a serving of eatable food. It matters little whether that eatable food is pork or a pear, or Purdue Chicken Nuggets or Taco Bell burrito. All that matters is that they serve his need, which is being eatable. They lacked something that they wanted and eventually  obtained what they wanted and lacked. The cost of obtaining what Holmes wanted is of little use to him, as he points out.

But hey, someone would have to pull a Helen Lovejoy. Won’t someone please think of the children!?

This is the biggest nonsense ever. Sherlock Holmes is a character who is not like the “average person”. He is cold and unemotional in his analysis of things, and so his interactions with others are of the same. He will say things that hurt other peoples feelings, and Holmes does not intend to. He takes substances to change his dull routine of existence, and they bring about clarifying his thinking or mind. He highly prizes his mental facilities, and even likes to enhance them by any means necessary, and secondary matters of what happens from their being used other than he wants are of little consequence to him. This becomes Holmes own decision, his own liberty on the matter, and even Dr. Watson does not try to approach this liberty of Holmes. But now Holmes is having some of his liberty approached not by Watson, but by production teams and writers of these 21st incarnations of Sherlock Holmes. Holmes cannot be who he is, or act out who he is, without being encroached upon, in the 21st century.

Even fictional characters are not free from being censored, or being directly changed by the political correctness of the 21st century. Fictional characters have rights, too, you know.

Obama’s Finanical Worth

Interesting in that President Obama is worth around 10 million dollars. But what is more interesting is who he has invested in as well. Some people might recall that he railed against these “Too Big to Fail” type of banks on Wall Street around2007-2008. But he has invested in one of these too big to fail banks, which was JP Morgan. Can anyone say hypocrisy?

“He has a hefty stake in JPMorgan Chase, the megabank that just made a bad $2 billion bet. Obama has an account worth between $500,000 and $1 million.”

US Economic Freedom Rating Falling

Here is an interesting article based on findings of the Economic Freedom of the World annual report.

“The annual Economic Freedom of the World report, including an index of country rankings, has just been released, and it should be a wake-up call. The United States was known as the bastion of economic freedom for more than two centuries, and it was because of its economic freedom that the nation became the pre-eminent economic power. However, in just a few short years, the U.S. has fallen from No. 3 in 2000 (behind the city-states of Hong Kong and Singapore) to No. 8 in 2005 and to No. 18 in 2010, the last year for which complete statistics are available. Worse yet, the U.S. decline continues, and in next year’s ranking, it is almost certain to be lower.

The main components of the index include the size of government (taxing and spending), legal systems, property rights, sound money, freedom to trade internationally, and regulation (including credit markets, labor and business regulations). The report says it “uses 42 different variables derived from sources such as the World Bank to measure the degree to which the institutions and policies of 144 countries are consistent with economic freedom.” It is published by the Cato Institute in the United States, the Fraser Institute in Canada and a network of institutes in 78 other countries. The authors of the report are James Gwartney of Florida State University, author of a major economics textbook and former chief economist of the Joint Economic Committee of the U.S. Congress, Robert A. Lawson of Southern Methodist University and Joshua Hall of Beloit College.

The godfather of the Economic Freedom of the World report was Milton Friedman (1912-2006), who said that “if economic freedom could be measured with greater accuracy, it would be possible to isolate its impact on the performance of economies and other factors of interest.” Since the report was first published in 1996, it has provided overwhelming evidence that economic freedom is highly correlated with economic progress, liberty and well-being.

A few facts will help illustrate why economic freedom is so important. The freest quartile of countries had an average per capita income of $37,691, while the least free quartile had a per capita income of just $5,188 in 2010. The freest quartile grew at an average annual rate of 3.6 percent 1990-2010, while the quartile that was least free only grew at an average rate of 1.6 percent over the same period. Life expectancy in the freest quartile was 79.5 years in 2010, as contrasted with 61.6 years in the least free quartile. Those people who are more concerned about the poor than economic growth should take note that the poorest 10 percent in the least-free quartile only had a per capita income of $1,209 in 2010, as contrasted with a per capita income of $11,382 for the poorest 10 percent in the freest quartile. Greater economic freedom is also associated with more political and civil liberties. In sum, by almost any measure of human well-being, a person is far better off being in a country with a high degrees of economic freedom than in one with restricted economic freedoms.


You can read the whole report itself here.

Capitalism v. Crony Capitalism

“Free-market capitalism is a network of free and voluntary exchanges in which producers work, produce, and exchange their products for the products of others through prices voluntarily arrived at. State capitalism consists of one or more groups making use of the coercive apparatus of the government… for themselves by expropriating the production of others by force and violence.

— Murray N. Rothbard, The Logic of Action (1997)

As common as it is to speak of “robber barons,” most who use that term are confused about the role of capitalism in the American economy and fail to make an important distinction — the distinction between what might be called a market entrepreneur and a political entrepreneur. A pure market entrepreneur, or capitalist, succeeds financially by selling a newer, better, or less expensive product on the free market without any government subsidies, direct or indirect. The key to his success as a capitalist is his ability to please the consumer, for in a capitalist society the consumer ultimately calls the economic shots. By contrast, a political entrepreneur succeeds primarily by influencing government to subsidize his business or industry, or to enact legislation or regulation that harms his competitors.

In the mousetrap industry, for instance, you can be a market entrepreneur by making better mousetraps and thereby convincing consumers to buy more of your mousetraps and less of your competitors’, or you can lobby Congress to prohibit the importation of all foreign-made mousetraps. In the former situation the consumer voluntarily hands over his money for the superior mousetrap; in the latter case the consumer, not given anything (better) in return, pays more for existing mousetraps just because the import quota has reduced supply and therefore driven up prices.

The American economy has always included a mix of market and political entrepreneurs — self-made men and women as well as political connivers and manipulators. And sometimes, people who have achieved success as market entrepreneurs in one period of their lives later become political entrepreneurs. But the distinction between the two is critical to make, for market entrepreneurship is a hallmark of genuine capitalism, whereas political entrepreneurship is not — it is neomercantilism.”

Can read the rest here, and comes from this book.