How Much Taxation Would Fund Current Spending?
But if we indulged some "static scoring" and assumed a static tax base, what would a zero-deficit, soak-the-rich taxation scheme look like at current spending levels?For example, what would a 100% income tax on all those who earn over $10 million amount to? I'm not taking about a wimpy marginal rate, where one might tax only those dollars of income over $10 million (leaving the taxpayer $10 million). No, I'm saying you find all those who made more than $10 million and take every last penny -- an absolute tax of 100%.
Using 2009 data, the IRS says that 8,274 tax returns were filed with incomes over $10 million. The total amount of income on those returns was $240.1 billion.
Our federal government alone is spending more than $10 billion a day. Thus, a 100% confiscation of all income of those making more than $10 million would amount to less than 24 days of federal spending.
If we drop that "tax" point down to $1 million, the picture changes radically. The IRS says 236,883 Americans filed returns with more than $1 million in income. They reported a total income of $726.91B. While that is a lot of money, it's less than just Medicare and Medicaid, which cost $1 trillion together.
Confiscating 100% of all income from those who made over $1M funds the federal government for 72 days.
Therefore, we have to go farther down the income ladder. Merely taking 100% of what the "millionaires and billionaires" are reporting as income won't do it -- despite the campaign rhetoric from the president.
Let's move the bogey down to $200,000 in income. That's even lower than the $250,000-earners President Obama thinks should pay more. What happens if we confiscate 100% of all the income for people who make more than $200K?
The IRS received 3,924,490 tax returns showing an income over $200K. These returns represent a total income of $1.964 trillion! That's a huge amount of money.
But it's still not enough. The federal government is spending about double that this year.
Confiscating 100% of the income from those who made more than $200K funds the federal government for only about six months.
Even if you think that $200K per year is filthy rich, taking all of the income of such people for an entire year isn't even close to funding our federal government for a full year -- never mind state and local government.
The next step down in the 2009 IRS data is the $100K income point.
There are a lot more taxpayers reporting over $100K income then there are over $200K. The IRS says that only 2.8% of returns reported over $200K in income, but 12.4% of returns reported over $100K in income. So even though the cutoff is half as much income, it represents about five times as many taxpayers.
The data indicate that 17,446,537 tax returns showed an income over $100,000. These returns represented a total income of $3.765 trillion.
Estimated 2012 spending comes in at $3.796 trillion (refer to page 205 here). This is still $30 billion more than a 100% confiscation of the annual income of all Americans that reported more than $100K of income for 2009.
The bottom line is that we cannot fund our current levels of spending even if we make unrealistically charitable assumptions about taxpayer response to confiscatory tax rates and confiscate the entire annual income of every American who made more than $100K in 2009.
QE4-Ever: Fed Announces 4th Round of Quantitative Easing
The Federal Reserve on Wednesday announced that it will launch a fourth round of quantitative easing (“QE4”), this time committing $45 billion a month to the purchase of long-term Treasury securities.You know what this means, right? It means that along with Washington’s open-ended $40 billion a month program to buy up mortgage backed securities (“QE3”), total monthly bond purchases by the Fed will amount to $85 billion.
Yes, $85 billion a month.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/fed-announces-4th-round-of-quantitative-easing/
Canada once again setting the example for America to follow
The Obama administration announced yesterday that it was
officially recognizing Syria’s main opposition group as the “legitimate
representative” of its country’s people. But despite the United States’
recognition of these groups, the Canadian government is taking a more commonsensical approach and placing preconditions on its support:
“Obviously, with that recognition comes responsibilities,” Obama told ABC News. “To make sure that they organize themselves effectively, that they are representative of all the parties, that they commit themselves to a political transition that respects women’s rights and minority rights.”
So, why wouldn’t President Obama withhold U.S. recognition until the Syrian opposition groups rejected extremism? Wouldn’t this be in our best interest as well as theirs? Or would holding such a standard be considered “meddling”?
Canada told the Syrian opposition Tuesday it must reject extremism and embrace minorities before Ottawa will recognize its legitimacy as a successor to President Bashar Al-Assad, according to a federal official.From Obama’s comments, it seems that the president believes extremists within the faction should have an equal seat at the table.
Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird explained Canada’s preconditions for official recognition at a meeting with representatives of the opposition Syrian National Coalition in Morocco on Tuesday, the official said.
“He outlined the importance of rejecting extremism, the inclusion of minorities, and the importance of the role of women in a post-Assad era,” said the official, who did not want to be named.
“Obviously, with that recognition comes responsibilities,” Obama told ABC News. “To make sure that they organize themselves effectively, that they are representative of all the parties, that they commit themselves to a political transition that respects women’s rights and minority rights.”
So, why wouldn’t President Obama withhold U.S. recognition until the Syrian opposition groups rejected extremism? Wouldn’t this be in our best interest as well as theirs? Or would holding such a standard be considered “meddling”?
http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2012/12/12/canada-once-again-setting-the-example-for-america-to-follow/
Alinsky 101: Left Accuses Conservatives of Being Violent Against Themselves in Michigan
Yesterday we brought you news of union members in Michigan becoming violent against conservatives. First, there was the tearing down of a large Americans for Prosperity tent while women and elderly people were inside and then conservative activist Steven Crowder was punched in the face four times and threatened with murder. Now, straight out the Saul Alinsky playbook, the Left, the Teamsters Union and MSNBC's Ed Schultz are accusing AFP of tearing down their own tent down and are accusing Crowder of provoking union workers to attack him. The Teamsters have gone so far as saying the protest in Michigan was peaceful until disruptive right-wingers turned it violent. More from Twitchy and Twitter:
Dubious claims? Right, those four sucker punches Crowder took in the face, resulting in a forehead cut and chipped tooth, sure are dubious. The same goes for the loud cheers from union workers after they ripped down the AFP tent. You be the judge.
Predictably, the Left is also saying the first video above was selectively edited to make union members look bad.
Fox News contributor Steven Crowder is working overtime on the effort to create a violence narrative, claiming to have been punched repeatedly and promoting a video spliced and edited to the point of hilarity—you're not supposed to figure out that in between the obvious cuts, Crowder is provoking people into yelling at him.From the Teamster's blog:
Peaceful protests follow RTW4Less passage; Koch lackeys try to smear protesters; automakers concerned.And here is MSNBC's pathetic attempt to spin the story:
But one eyewitness tells MSNBC.com he thinks there may be more to the story. Thomas Duckworth, a Michigan resident and lifelong union member, said he’d been at the AFP tent earlier in the day, when he noticed a man in an NRA hat. Later, he said, he saw the man deliberately loosening the ropes holding the tent up. Duckworth acknowledged that labor supporters had cheered the tent’s collapse, but suggested that AFP had deliberately helped initiate the it, in order to depict their adversaries as an unruly mob.Right, AFP loosened the ropes so union thugs could cheer at its collapse. It's totally normal for peaceful people to cheer when a massive tent is collapsing with people inside of it......not to mention the videos above show union workers rushing the tent before its collapse. These are Alinsky tactics 101: accuse your opponent of what you're actually doing.
This video shows a union protester of cutting up the collapsed tent and handing out pieces as souvenirs.
ABC, NBC and CBS ignore union thugs' attack on Fox News contributor
It’s a sad day for American TV journalism when The Huffington Post is a more honest news outlet than ABC, CBS or NBC. On Tuesday, after Michigan union protests escalated into violence, HuffPo led with several stories, including one headlined: “Fox News Contributor Punched.”That story was about how Fox News contributor Steven Crowder and others were attacked by union thugs during the protest against the new “right-to-work” law. ABC, CBS and NBC covered the protests but only ABC made mention of police having to deal with protesters. None of them mentioned the attack on Crowder or showed the videos of that attack and the thugs tearing down a tent with people in it, both widely available on the Internet hours before the evening news show broadcast. No network quoted Teamsters head Jimmy Hoffa predicting “civil war” between lawmakers and union members.
Network reporters don’t want to show union thugs and conservative victims, especially anyone connected to Fox News. That doesn’t fit with their world view.
According to The Detroit Free Press, three people were arrested and “Capt. Harold Love of the Michigan State Police confirmed police used pepper spray on at least one demonstrator.” The article added that the union protesters “tore down a tent being occupied by Americans for Prosperity, a pro right-to-work group,” while chanting “Tear it down, tear it down.”
On broadcast news, the best they could all agree on was that the union thugs were some form of “angry.” On CBS “Evening News,” correspondent Elaine Quijano explained, “Union workers from across Michigan and other states voiced their anger at the Michigan capital.”
ABC’s “World News with Diane Sawyer” correspondent Alex Perez did slightly hint at the escalation, but showed nothing at all scary. “The anger boiling over, officers turning to pepper spray to control the crowd, at last 10,000 deep,” he told viewers as one man was shown rubbing his eyes. Anchor Sawyer referred to the law as one that supporters “believe could be an ominous sign for unions and worker paychecks everywhere.”
NBC “Nightly News” mentioned that there were at least police there at the protest, as correspondent Ron Mott admitted protesters operated under the “watchful gaze of police, some in riot gear.”
Even The Washington Post mentioned that “Former Rep. Mark Schauer (D-Mich.) was hit with pepper spray while protesting ‘right to work/ legislation outside the Michigan state capitol on Wednesday.”
None of that appeared on the evening news shows. That’s how reporters can control an agenda. Had journalists’ favorite villain the Tea Partiers beaten a liberal commentator, it would have led every newscast and would be talked about for days. Nor did they want to admit that union leadership was making threats and union thugs were carrying them out in vile and violent fashion.
But network reporters don’t want to show union thugs and conservative victims, especially anyone connected to Fox News. That doesn’t fit with their world view. Ain’t that a punch in the head – or several in Crowder’s case?
Misleader-in-Chief
by Bruce JohnsonOf all the Presidents in my lifetime, I don't recall a Commander in Chief that seems to purposely mislead. Yet this President often orates with well crafted phrases that can only be explained as contrived to this purpose.
The circumstances are virtually always similar. He speaks to a large crowd in which there is no chance for rebuttal or honest questioning. The audience can be as large as a national television audience, as in the State of the Union. The larger the audience, the better. Even if retraction or clarification ensued, which never seems to occur, those given the false impression far out weighs those who possess the accurate explanation. What a game he plays.
We had yet another perfect example yesterday, December 11. The President was addressing a crowd regarding the Michigan right to work issue. Obama said, ""And by the way, what we shouldn't do -- I've just got to say this -- what we shouldn't be doing is trying to take away your rights to bargain for better wages and working conditions," he added to loud applause from the audience. "We shouldn't be doing that. The so-called 'right-to-work' laws -- they don't have to do with economics, they have everything to do with politics. What they're really talking about is giving you the right to work for less money."
The issue at hand has nothing to do with bargaining. Did the crowd know this? Will the people who see this on the national news realize the truth of the matter? Not likely. Sadly, it is improbable the TV news anchors airing the video clip of the speech will make that clarification.
Obama received the applause he sought. The comment and the reaction was irrelevant to the Michigan law in question. The false impression is floated. Audience outrage is fomented. This is an intentional deception or ignorance of the facts. In either case, the words were crafted to evoke a crowd reaction and leave a misrepresentation. A case of intellectual dishonesty, at the very least.
This deceitful tactic is unbecoming of the President of the United States, but certainly in the wheel house of a community organizer or rabble rousing demagogue.
I don't recall a President that seemed to be so often and so intentionally engaged in this activity. Yet, Obama continually escapes scrutiny from these disinformation episodes. There are no questions. There are no honest press conferences. There is only the lap dog media and a large group of people given a false impression.
The State of the Union message to a national audience in which the President misrepresented the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission board decision by the Supreme Court is another example. Judge Alito displayed his annoyance with this ploy with his famous head shake and lip readable response.
There was also the Univision interview in which Obama declared that Fast and Furious began under Bush. This was inherently false as the Bush operation, intended to actually catch gun runners, was ended in 07.
Then there was the Candy Crowley assist on national television where, with the help of the fawning moderator, Obama gave the impression that indeed he had connected the Benghazi incident to terrorism in his Rose Garden address on 9/12, when he clearly had not.
In the days before the Roberts court ruling on the Affordable Healthcare tax or penalty issue, Obama declared that there was something askew with unelected judges having such sway on important matters. He added that a Supreme Court declaring passed legislation as unconstitutional would be unprecedented. The alleged Constitutional scholar was wrong on both counts, but the media and the ivory tower law school experts were mostly silent.
The great enabling device is the main stream media. In the past a confrontational and inquisitive journalistic community would not have allowed such antics. They would seek truth as if it were an integral part of their profession. Now it seems all they crave is a lowered hand from the President and a pat on the head.
It is most distasteful to be witness to this intentional misleading conducted in conjunction with an abetting media. Diogenes, light that candle.
No comments:
Post a Comment