Friday, October 12, 2007

Shabbat Shalom 30 Tishrei 5768

Trillion Dollar Tax Increase
Charlie Rangel (D-NY) wants your money and your way of life

He is honest, principled and a no nonsense kind of guy. New York congressman Charlie Rangel is always happy and eager to tell you whats on his mind without the sugar-coating. I first learned this a few years back when he proudly proclaimed during an interview on Hannity and Colmes that he believes that the Federal government should tax most Americans at the rate of 50%. That was just Uncle Sam. In a rare showing of states rights he then added that each state should decide their own tax-rate on top of the 50%.

Even Charlie knows that won't fly in congress, especially if you want to be re-elected, but he still loves high taxes and he is about to introduce the “mother” of all tax reforms, the biggest and most expensive tax code overhaul in over twenty years.

It is uncertain at this moment how big the tax increase proposal will be. The argument Democrats will make is that we must get rid of the alternative minimum tax, which unfairly treats too many middle-income families. Both sides of the aisle hold that view and rightfully so, but tax and spend liberals are poised to use the 800 million revenue loss from AMT as their excuse to raise taxes.

One suggestion according to Politico is that a 4% increase will be placed on unmarried folks making over 100k and married couples making over 200k. Families living in high cost of living areas such as New York, Chicago and most of California view these figures as being in the middle class. Try paying your mortage and property taxes with this increase.

Others routes Rangel may suggest is raising the capital gains tax rate, which has been decreased under both the Clinton and Bush administrations. Another train of thought will be to find an appropriate mix of tax-code loopholes to be closed, which may make the most sense with an upcoming election year.

What boggles the mind is the rationale for a tax increase. The idea of course is to raise more money for the government. However from Kennedy to Reagan to Bush we see how decreasing tax rates increase consumer spending, which ultimately raises more tax revenue for Uncle Sam.

Under the current administration, taxes have decreased while the amount of tax revenue collected by the government has significantly increased, reaching record figures. A tax increase will have the opposite affect. Less money for people to spend the less money the government collects. It's just that simple. Rangel and many of his fellow Democrats are to stubborn to admit this reality. They simply believe we can tax and tax and buying habits won't change. They are wrong and in the long run they hurt the poor and middle class, who they supposedly champion.

Carter continues to be an embarrassment
President Disaster points finger at V.P. Cheney

Former President Jimmy Carter told the BBC that Vice President Dick Cheney is a "disaster" and a "militant." The Peanut farmer from Georgia has right to his opinion, but criticizing a sitting V.P. to a foreign news agency, especially one that is blatantly anti-America is borderline treason.

The very idea that Jimmy Carter, who's Presidency created the Islamic extremism we are fighting world-wide today, calling anyone a "disaster" is like Joseph Stalin calling anyone a homicidal maniac.

Carter is what I refer to as a backseat President. As a one-termer who was decimated by Ronald Reagan in 1980, he is a man with unresolved issues. As an ex-President he personally brought down the old protocol that former Presidents never criticize the current administration.

Besides his personal attacks, Carter has a history of working behind the scenes to work against a sitting administration. In 1990 he feverishly fought the first President Bush when the U.S. went to the United Nations asking for a resolution condemning Iraq for invading Kuwait. Carter wrote to world leaders as a former U.S. President, insisting they instruct their delegates to vote against the resolution.

Today Carter keeps himself on the world stage downplaying terrorism, criticizing Israel and of course publicly condemning the current administration. His life has become a plague on decency and his existence in an embarrassment to this great nation. To bad when he was building homes he didn't find a closet to stay in.

The anti-George Bush Prize
Gore gets default Nobel Peace Prize?

Does former Vice President Al Gore deserve the Nobel Peace Prize? That would depend on your definition of Peace. If it means to selflessly give of yourself to bring people together and or to resolve conflict or harm toward humanity, then the answer is no. However if your definition is to work tirelessly against the vital interests of the United States and or President George Bush as well as to propagandize threats against mankind without substantial evidence or undisputed proof, then Gore should win the award without question.

What was once arguably the greatest honor bestowed upon any citizen of the world has become a tool to make a political statement by a group of cowardice schmucks in Norway.

Don't get me wrong, many recent winners made great contributions to their fellow man. Last years recipient MUHAMMAD YUNUS and GRAMEEN BANK were undeniably well-deserving of the prize for their economic support of the poor in Bangladesh. However other recipients within the past 15 years include Jimmy Carter, Kofi Annan, Yasser Arafat and the United Nations. Need I say more!

Gore does not deserve to be grouped in with a murderer like Yasser Arafat, but as far as Carter, Annan and the UN, he fits in perfectly. These people or organizations appear on the surface as individuals fighting to make this a better world. However the truth is they have done much more harm than good. In Gore's case he refuses to acknowledge all the scientific evidence that repudiates his global warming fears. His movie An Inconvenient Truth is riddled with falsehood and scare tactics. Recently a British judge ruled that some of the claims were wrong and had arisen in “the context of alarmism and exaggeration”. When the film is showed to school kids in Britain it will be accompanied by guidance notes for teachers to balance Mr Gore’s “one-sided” views.

It should be noted that as this post is being written, Gore has not been awarded the prize. However, his actions and speculation from Oslo as well as European oddsmakers have all but confirmed his prize, which will be announced later this morning.

Let me be the first to congratulate you on your anti-Bush award, I mean Nobel Prize for Peace? or should I say propaganda?

Paulie

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Add to Technorati Favorites