Saturday, December 20, 2008

A Nation in Crisis--Hand Control

Dear America,

Fact: 100% of all child abusers, murderers, pedophiles, rapists, and lawyers have hands.

Fact: 100% of all cities where citizens possess hands have had a crime.

Fact: Possession of hands turns responsible citizens into maniacs.

Fact: That the victims also had hands just goes to show that hand possession is irrelevant in stopping crime.

Fact: If a law against hand possession is enacted, everyone, criminals and law-abiding citizens alike, will come and turn in their hands, just like they did with crack and heroin.

Fact: Once the criminals turn in their hands (which they will), they will have no other weapons with which to attack innocent people, such as teeth.

Fact: Those who wish to keep their hands for themselves obviously have some sinister motive. Obviously.

Fact: If you are attacked by a homicidal maniac, you will die a very dignified death without your hands, but will live in shame forever if you use your hands to survive.

Fact: Hands are useless for defense, but the military and police will be allowed to keep theirs.

Fact: Hands require so much training to use in defense that they are useless, but are easy enough to use that criminal who keeps their hands can easily beat the first random person they come across.

Fact: You don't need hands to protect you! That's what the police are for! (Why do you think they're allowed to keep theirs?)

Fact: Hands make no-knock searches, martial law, and complete control over the sheeple next to impossible. Which is why we should ban them.

Fact: Hands have no use outside of killing people. You will never, ever use your hands outside of the act of committing a crime.

Fact: Hands are weapons of mass destruction and must be banned.

I have proposed a ban on hands of all sorts, with special attention paid to hands possessing more than three fingers. This tool of hate and suffering must not go unchecked! Hand collectors will soon be coming door-to-door with axes to collect all hands not turned in at collecting stations. If that does not work, those no-knock raids we discussed will soon be coming to theaters near you.

Put our children first, my loyal subjects. Please do not dismiss this imminent threat.

Signing out,

Nate

Wednesday, November 12, 2008

Obamanomics- Income Tax

The next part of my case against President-Elect Obama's policies regarding the economy. Now up: the income tax.

Obama's tax plan is a strange cocktail of welfare, raised income tax, and less overall income. Using the Wall Street Journal and the IRS as sources, let's break it down piece by piece. This report by the IRS shows projected 2009 income tax, shown as a division of different income levels.

First, note that those with higher income pay not only a higher base amount, but also a much higher percentage of the income above the lowest amount of income for that level. If Obama's plan involves cutting taxes for the lowest 95% of America's population (income-wise) and involves getting at least the same amount of revenue, what does that mean for the remaining 5%? Yes, that puts an incredible burden on 5% of the American population: the richest, who despite claims to the contrary, are critical to the economy. You take money from the catalysts of the economy, and you take jobs away from the rest of the country.

Also, as pointed out in this article by the Wall Street Journal, more than a third of Americans already pay no income tax at all. What does a "tax break" mean for them, then? That's right. Something that used to be called "welfare" in a less politically correct time. If you bothered to read down further, you would see that this journalist estimates that the cost of these tax credit increases would amount to $1.054 trillion annually by 2018, being paid from the pockets of taxpayers. To put it simply: taxpayers paying non-taxpayers.

Also, while CNN points out that Obama's plan would involve an $80 billion tax cut across America overall, and other sources that I'm too lazy to google search for point out that lower tax rates do not always lead to lower revenue, taxes are not just being cut, money is being given from one group to the other. Does it matter that there are some hard-working men and women that will slyly be pickpocketed from in this plan? Does it matter that the Roman Empire's attempts to create a welfare state eventually led to its downfall? Does it matter that everywhere you look, the kind of socialist state Obama's plan calls for fails miserably through history? Apparently not.

I repeat the number: $1.054 trillion. Over 1,000,000,000,000 dollars just for tax credit. That's a lot of zeroes. Do you know America's annual gross domestic product for the year 2007? Approximately $13 billion dollars. Do you know the rate of inflation for the American dollar? According to InflationData.com, about 5%, as of September 2008. That means that the value of what we give in the form of this disguised welfare will will decrease approxmiately five percent, and the value of the government's revenue will have decreased approximately five percent as well.

In my mind, this leads to an educated question: who in their right mind would even think of voting in such an absolutely terrible plan? Obama will be president this January, but please let him know what you think about his "hope" for "change" in the economy. Well, economy will change, but not in the way Barack Obama intended it to.

Sources for historical welfare states.
http://www.fff.org/freedom/0690c.asp
http://www.unrv.com/decline-of-empire/decline-of-empire.php

Monday, November 10, 2008

Obamanomics- Revenue and Spending

Sorry that I've posted twice in the same day--actually within about half an hour of the last post--but I really felt I had to post this.

As I said in my last post, Obama's policies regarding taxes, no matter how well intentioned, are misguided. His policies will only slow the economy and decrease revenue. Let's see how Obama will do with the spare change that will be left in his pockets afterwards? Here are some respected sources regarding the spending policies of Obama and his Republican former-opponent, McCain.

National Taxpayer's Union
http://www.ntu.org/pdf/P080603Obama_SpendingAnalysis.pdf
http://www.ntu.org/pdf/P080925_McCainAgendaCostUpdate.pdf
Washington Post's Fact Checker by Michael Dobbs
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/10/obamas_spending_cuts.html

Now tell me this...where is Obama going to get $342 Billion to pay for his new programs, plus current government costs? What school of economics does the president-elect subscribe to? How is the American economy going to cope with adding to its already massive debt? What informed voter with understanding of third-grade math would vote for Obama?

The way a real economy works: Revenue - spending = balanced budget
The way Obama's economy works:
-(federal debt + interest) - upkeep costs - current programs - $342 billion in new programs - revenue lost from tax cuts in the wrong places and tax hikes in even worse places = balanced budget

Obamanomics- Capital Gains Tax

As you will definitely have guessed by the end of this post, I have reversed my opinion on Barack Obama. Much as I hate to hurt the cause of our new president-elect, I think the American people need to know the kind of principles they voted for and petition their leader for real, positive change, not more of the same like Obama is actually offering. I repeat: this is not an attack on Obama--I think he is a decent person with the wrong ideas--this is only a source for people to become informed on what will really happen if President-Elect Barack Obama follows through on his campaign promises.

Throughout his campaigning, Obama couldn't seem to decide his position on several tax issues, and when he did make up his mind, it was the wrong decision. Here are a few.

Capital Gains Tax




As you can see in this video, Barack's plan for the capital gains tax is clearly faulty. The capital gains tax, which taxes income made on the buying of low-priced "capital" (stocks, property, etc.) and selling of it at a higher price, would be raised significantly under Obama's plan. Why? For fairness, that's why. Even though it will only bring down upper, middle, and lower class to the same level, a level below what everyone was at before, Obama believes it is the best thing to do.
His overarching purpose for raising the capital gains tax is to gain more revenue with which to finance healthcare, infrastructure, education. His way of doing so will raise the tax to gain more money. But that will actually, as seen before, decrease the revenue gained from the tax.

Also note that Charlie Gibson points out that 100 million Americans own stock. If Obama plans to raise this tax from 15 percent to 28 percent, that is 13 percent more money kept from a major source of income for almost a third of our nation's population, in which I include the numbers of minors and seniors.

Tax breaks? Not likely, at least for the capital gains tax.