Wednesday, January 18, 2012

Cruising the Web

Over at Red State, they're having some fun photoshopping their own Newsweek covers. This is my favorite.
Meanwhile, Niles Gardiner flips Andrew Sullivan's story title and asks "Why are Obama's Critics So Smart?"

Along the same lines, over at the NYT, Thomas Edsall talks to some liberal academics and intellectuals to ask them what they like about conservative thought. And Andy Stern even has some nice things to say. It almost makes one hopeful about finding common ground. Of course, there is a big difference between what an academic is willing to concede and what a politician will acknowledge.

And with Romney admitting that he probably pays a 15% rate on his taxes, we know now the basic information we'd get from his releasing his tax forms. But is the real scandal that Romney takes advantage of the tax laws since most of his income is in capital gains or that we have those loopholes in the first place? Would you expect a smart man not to take advantage of what the law provides?

Thomas Sowell reminds us of the sorts of disparities that don't seem to earn public attention and national whining as the disparities in wealth do.

Investors still aren't investing. Unfortunately, the Democrats don't realize how their policies discourage the very sorts of investment that we need for the economy to come back fully. If those policies were to change, we'd see an amazing jump-start to the economy once investors take their money out from their mattresses.

So the new guy that Obama just put in as the head of the OMB once worked for Bain. That sorta clutters up the whole demonization of Bain that the Obama campaign is gearing up to unleash.

It's embarrassing that Canada is going so ahead of us when it comes to the economic growth possible from exploiting energy resources.

John Steele Gordon gives us a short history
of private equity investment and how such firms have been intricately involved in our nation's history going back to the join-stock companies that helped fund the Jamestown and Massachusetts Bay colonies.

Jonah Goldberg recommends
having some fun with kids today as Wikipedia goes dark.

Jay Cost analyzes the recent uptick in Obama's polls
. Most of it is coming from Democrats liking him more now than they did a couple of months ago. That makes sense. He's campaigning for their affections. And they are seeing him in contrast to the Republicans and their criticisms of Obama. No surprise that they're rallying around their guy. But while Obama consolidates his support in his own party, he's still underwater among independents. That is his real problem.

Victor Davis Hanson has a great essay on the Obamas' racial politics. For a politician who was supposed to be a post-racial candidate, he and his allies certainly do spend a lot of time emphasizing race. The list of those sorts of racial appeals that Obama has made go on and on. Expect more and more as the campaign unfolds.

This is nice: Spud Webb can still dunk a ball at age 47.

6 comments:

LarryD said...

I believe that envy among the progressives is rooted in their fear that people willing to work hard will outdo them. Specifically, achieve higher status than they have.

All the whining about inequality is just a front to conceal their desire to freeze society, so that their status is locked in.

They'd much prefer an aristocracy, as long as they're the aristocrats. A meritocracy is actually the last thing they want.

ic said...

Why are Obamabots so bought?

mark said...

No, actually we don't necessarily "know now the basic information" we'd be getting. It is very likely he's been socking away may overseas to avoid taxes. Legal? Probably. Ethical? We'll see.

I don't mind paying a bit more in taxes than someone at my salary who has kids to support (despite it being socialism). I do mind paying a higher percentage in taxes than a multi-millionaire. I suspect millions of hard-working Americans like me will feel likewise.

tfhr said...

mark,

With guys like Charles Rangel writing tax law while he illegally skips paying his taxes and Tim Geithner interpreting said laws to the extent that he did not pay his taxes properly before being appointed by Obama to run, by extension, the IRS, I wonder why you've suddenly developed this critical eye on taxes. Or is this just a situational adjustment?

If you want changes made in tax policy you should drop Mr. Hope & Change in favor of candidates that promote a flat tax or even the "Fair Tax". Instead you've put yourself in attack mode to suggest wrong doing by Romney even though you admit you don't have any proof. It just goes to show that you don't care about fixing our ridiculous tax codes, you just want to see Obama reelected. It's that simple.

equitus said...

mark, the Treasury Dept. is awaiting your supplemental check. It's your money to do with whatever you wish.

tfhr said...

equitus,

As it should be. As it should be.

In addition to holding back as much of his earning as he can, mark also plays the "fair share" card with a side of "millions of Americans" when he comments above but all that is really clear in his remarks is a glaring lack of basic economics education on his part.

The fact that most of Romney's income is derived from the capital gains made on investments is precisely why he's probably looking at 15%. This infuriates mark because he either is too stupid to take advantage of the same tax laws that benefit all investors or he cannot allow himself to understand that most pensions - even those of school teachers - are heavily based on investment funds that generate capital gains. That's right mark, even us little people out here benefit from a lower rate on capital gains, just as we gain when the businesses we invest in make "obscene" profits.

We don't know where mark stands on HR 3784, a bill being pushed by Progressive lunatic Dennis Kucinich, but since that gem is all about establishing just what constitutes a "reasonable profit", I'd be surprised to hear our favorite troll tell us that he thinks that the market should be left to make such a determination.

Maybe mark wants to eliminate the lower rate for capital gains. He complains about what he sees as "unfair" but does not say what is "fair" or exactly who should get to determine that for the rest of us. All I know is that the US already has just about the highest corporate tax rate of any advanced nation and it hurts us immeasurably.

As consumers we get to pay higher prices that are passed along to us and as investors we get to see a greater share of our investments in corporations confiscated by the government. While mark wants Romney to be more "fair", he forgets that Romney's investments are already hit at about 50% when you combine the capital gains tax rate and the 35% corporate rate that sucks the life out of the businesses that the rest of depend on for our retirement investments.

For reasons I've never heard explained, Progressives (The "New Coke" of the liberal world) don't understand why our high corporate tax rates make it cheaper to set up businesses - offices and manufacturing plants - overseas. They also don't seem to grasp the simple fact that corporations merely transfer money taken from customers (that's us, mark) to the government when they are paying their taxes.

Then again, maybe he does understand these simple concepts but has chosen to ignore the reality in favor of cynical class warfare. When you candidate cannot run on his record, as is the case for this President, you do what you can to cultivate envy and hatred to motivate your base.

If I'm wrong, I'm sure mark will come along and tell us why, based on Obama's accomplishments, he should be reelected. Or maybe he can tell us why 15% is not enough or 35% is not high enough for those respective targets. What is enough? Why wouldn't 100% work, mark?