A group of state government regulators and attorneys general are whining that lenders aren't modifying their loan agreements fast enough for their liking and are resorting to threats.
"If loan mitigation and modification don't produce fruitful results for homeowners, I, for one, would be inclined to look at litigation possibilities to secure help for homeowners," said Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller.
He says that because the constitution prevents him from "impairing the Obligation of Contracts", so he'll do an end run and punish lenders that won't toe the line.
The group also has a lot of unsolicited advice on how lenders should be handling these delinquent loans, as if they know more about the subject than those who do this full time and have the most to lose if they do it wrong.
They don't realize or don't care that their intervention and threats will in the long run, do more harm than good and make the rest of us pay for the mistakes of others. If investors see that the government will arbitrarily pressure or intimidate them into modify these securities when things go south, then they'll either put their money elsewhere or demand higher interest as compensation for the additional risk. That punishes future borrowers and everyone else as money becomes less available for construction and real estate investment in general.
These homeowners never would have shared the profits with anyone if their timing had been better and they hadn't been so reckless. And I don't want to hear that they were pressured into these loans. They knew what they were signing and if they didn't then they shouldn't have borrowed the money in the first place. Or borrowed less.
What to do? Let the market take it's course and don't prolong the pain by propping up loans that deserve to fail. It's a mess, but fiddling around with private contract rights just prolongs and exacerbates the problem while eroding freedom.
Side Note: The article quotes someone from Acorn Housing Corp., a "nonprofit housing counselor." No, they're an affiliate of ACORN, a radical anti-capitalist group that has been implicated in numerous voter fraud scandals, among other things. The fifth column keeps rolling along, using journalists as willing dupes.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
The Crimes Government Inspires
Two landlords in San Francisco have been arrested for terrorizing a tenant after failing to evict him under that city's statist rent control laws. Now, I'm not defending their actions. They knew or should have known the rules when they bought the building. Given that this is San Francisco, they also should have known that those rules would only be bent in favor of the tenant. But this kind of thing could only happen when government interferes in private contracts and free markets.
As Chris Rock said of O.J. Simpson: "I'm not saying he should of killed her. But I understand"
The tenant in question was the last holdout in the owner's unsuccessful attempt to empty the building under what's known as the Ellis Act. Under this byzantine law, the landlord could only evict if they were "going out of business" and paid the tenant $4,500 in relocation costs. An additional $3,000 is required if the tenant is a senior or disabled. I suspect the tenant was holding out for more by exercising property rights he never deserved in the first place. The landlords nevertheless still had to pay their mortgage, taxes and other bills without their government mandated income because the courts allowed one tenant out of six to remain on their property.
It's easy to do good things for the most voters with others property by forcibly inserting yourself as a third party to a contract. It's even easier when you assume none of the risk or cost of this forced charity.
As with most liberal policies, these laws end up hurting the very people they were supposed to protect. It is axiomatic that when you restrict the cost of anything, you will have less of it. That is glaringly obvious with rent control. The cities and states with the lowest vacancies and highest rents are those with these laws. And where they've been repealed, as in the Boston area, availability has skyrocketed and rents have dropped. That's what profit driven competition does if it's allowed to do it.
But the proponents of these policies are concerned only with intentions, not results. The damage they do is an unfortunate but necessary consequence of their Utopian ideals. Whether they actually work isn't the point. To them it's not fair that some own property and others must rent it. So rather than encourage more ownership, they devalue it while handing more power to themselves.
So who won here? No one but the government. The other two parties lost and are miserable, but equally so. That's how socialists define success.
As Chris Rock said of O.J. Simpson: "I'm not saying he should of killed her. But I understand"
The tenant in question was the last holdout in the owner's unsuccessful attempt to empty the building under what's known as the Ellis Act. Under this byzantine law, the landlord could only evict if they were "going out of business" and paid the tenant $4,500 in relocation costs. An additional $3,000 is required if the tenant is a senior or disabled. I suspect the tenant was holding out for more by exercising property rights he never deserved in the first place. The landlords nevertheless still had to pay their mortgage, taxes and other bills without their government mandated income because the courts allowed one tenant out of six to remain on their property.
It's easy to do good things for the most voters with others property by forcibly inserting yourself as a third party to a contract. It's even easier when you assume none of the risk or cost of this forced charity.
As with most liberal policies, these laws end up hurting the very people they were supposed to protect. It is axiomatic that when you restrict the cost of anything, you will have less of it. That is glaringly obvious with rent control. The cities and states with the lowest vacancies and highest rents are those with these laws. And where they've been repealed, as in the Boston area, availability has skyrocketed and rents have dropped. That's what profit driven competition does if it's allowed to do it.
But the proponents of these policies are concerned only with intentions, not results. The damage they do is an unfortunate but necessary consequence of their Utopian ideals. Whether they actually work isn't the point. To them it's not fair that some own property and others must rent it. So rather than encourage more ownership, they devalue it while handing more power to themselves.
So who won here? No one but the government. The other two parties lost and are miserable, but equally so. That's how socialists define success.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Happy Earth Day Vladimir!
Today is Earth Day and also Vladimir Lenin's birthday.
Coincidence? Probably not. Unsurprisingly, the US Communist Party blames capitalism for the global warming hoax and every other problem in the world. And their rhetoric is so close to Democrats in general and Al Gore in particular that it's impossible to ignore. Indeed, they've given a ringing endorsement to whatever ticket Democrats eventually nominate, saying among other things: "Global warming has to be examined within a larger context of capitalism and other environmental problems... Capitalists are to blame for the crisis" As former leftist David Horowitz once said: "Green is the new red".
Coincidence? Probably not. Unsurprisingly, the US Communist Party blames capitalism for the global warming hoax and every other problem in the world. And their rhetoric is so close to Democrats in general and Al Gore in particular that it's impossible to ignore. Indeed, they've given a ringing endorsement to whatever ticket Democrats eventually nominate, saying among other things: "Global warming has to be examined within a larger context of capitalism and other environmental problems... Capitalists are to blame for the crisis" As former leftist David Horowitz once said: "Green is the new red".
As a wholly owned subsidiary of the Democrat Party, the environmental movement is a favorite hideout for communists displaced after the fall of the Soviet Union and it's used to undermine American liberty by exploiting the good natured ignorance of its people. This is just a new tactic however, in the slow but successful effort to increase the power of government and reduce the freedom of individuals that has been going on for over a hundred years. So successful that 35% of voting age adults agree with this statement: Does the Constitution include the following statement about the proper role of government: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"?
That so many Americans think a concept that was the catalyst for the slaughter of 100 million (and counting) people is part of our founding document is a frightening consequence of allowing the infiltration of our education system by this fifth column.
The Democrat candidates, were they to be honest, would tell you they really don't have a problem with any of this since they find more common ground with Marx than Jefferson.
So happy Earth Day. I for one will cook a steak on my charcoal grill, while smoking a fat cigar as I imbibe strong drink from a styrofoam cup in celebration of what's left of my freedom.
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Florida Government Looks at Bull Testicles
A state legislator wants to outlaw those bull nuts you see on the back of trucks. Explaining his position, Carey Baker said "he fears the bumper displays could become more graphic in the future. 'I think this is the proper place to draw the line' " I know this whole thing is stupid, but it brings up a larger point. Mr. Baker and the government have no moral authority to draw any line on private behavior that doesn't forcibly or fraudulently infringe on the rights of others.
This nonsense stems from the same intrusive philosophy that government uses to dictate when you can smoke on private property, eat transfats or what kind of light bulb you're allowed to buy. It's a zero-sum game. The more power government has, the less freedom you have and vice versa.
If passed, this would go down with all the other dumb laws low rent tyrants have passed over the years to micro-manage what individuals choose to do. It's also illegal in Florida to fart in public after 6 P.M. If that law were enforced, every mexican restaurant in the state would have to close down.
Side Note: In the same article we have this nugget:
"This may be more a reaction to a worsening economy than an expression of manliness, said cultural anthropologist Allan Burns, who teaches at the University of Florida in Gainesville.
"In these times when people are not having fun and houses are being foreclosed upon and the economy is so bad," Burns said, "the fact that people can be a little cheerful may be a good thing."
Only a pinhead who's been sheltered his whole life in the hothouse of academia could make a reach like that. It's so stupid on so many levels my head hurts just thinking about it. That my tax dollars pay this dope's salary just makes it worse.
This nonsense stems from the same intrusive philosophy that government uses to dictate when you can smoke on private property, eat transfats or what kind of light bulb you're allowed to buy. It's a zero-sum game. The more power government has, the less freedom you have and vice versa.
If passed, this would go down with all the other dumb laws low rent tyrants have passed over the years to micro-manage what individuals choose to do. It's also illegal in Florida to fart in public after 6 P.M. If that law were enforced, every mexican restaurant in the state would have to close down.
Side Note: In the same article we have this nugget:
"This may be more a reaction to a worsening economy than an expression of manliness, said cultural anthropologist Allan Burns, who teaches at the University of Florida in Gainesville.
"In these times when people are not having fun and houses are being foreclosed upon and the economy is so bad," Burns said, "the fact that people can be a little cheerful may be a good thing."
Only a pinhead who's been sheltered his whole life in the hothouse of academia could make a reach like that. It's so stupid on so many levels my head hurts just thinking about it. That my tax dollars pay this dope's salary just makes it worse.
I Agree With Barney Frank?
Proving that even a stopped clock is right twice a day, Rep. Barney Frank along with Ron Paul introduced legislation last week to decriminalize the personal use of marijuana. This country wastes billions every year enforcing these stupid laws while cruelly disrupting and destroying the lives of thousands of decent people. Republicans and conservatives like to rightly point out the liberal propensity for arguing issues based on emotions rather than facts. They should take their own advice on this one.
Opponents of marijuana decriminalization will never be able to reconcile their position while alcohol, a far more dangerous and addictive drug, is legal. Prohibition of that drug didn't work either and served only as a source of income for organized crime. The prohibiton of Marijuana has been doing the same for far longer and has caused much more damage. It's time to end this insanity.
Opponents of marijuana decriminalization will never be able to reconcile their position while alcohol, a far more dangerous and addictive drug, is legal. Prohibition of that drug didn't work either and served only as a source of income for organized crime. The prohibiton of Marijuana has been doing the same for far longer and has caused much more damage. It's time to end this insanity.
The Angry White Man Explained
The concerns of the largest voting block in the country are all too often dismissed, mocked, ignored or just misinterpreted. Here's an explanation of who these guys are.
Hat Tip to Nietzsche is Dead
Hat Tip to Nietzsche is Dead
Saturday, April 19, 2008
Why Are Home Prices Still Unaffordable?
Median home prices have fallen, but not enough to match income growth. Which means homes are still less affordable than they were seven years ago. If the real estate bubble has truly burst, then what's causing it? The main culprit is land use, environmental and planning regulations that take large swaths of land and either prohibits development or makes it prohibitively expensive. Much of it in places where housing demand is highest. The price of existing housing skyrockets as the supply is restricted. These regulations mostly benefit current homeowners who demand policies that price the less fortunate out of the market and trample on the property rights of others. To add insult to injury, liberals then demand developers set aside "affordable housing" as yet another condition in order to ameliorate the problems they created.
Chanting that they must "preserve the character" of the community or protect "environmentally sensitive" land, they can feed their sense of moral superiority and wallets by forcing others to pay the bill as they lock them out. They believe their ownership of property gives them the right to dictate the terms of other's ownership in order to benefit themselves. Ironically, many of these regulations wouldn't allow the current resident's homes to be built either had they existed at the time.
It comes as no surprise that the most expensive markets are the ones with the most strict and byzantine regulatory structures. Nowhere is this fact more striking than in California, the state with the greatest hostility to new development and by far the most expensive markets in the country.
Any study of home prices needs to adjust for the distortions these markets cause.
Chanting that they must "preserve the character" of the community or protect "environmentally sensitive" land, they can feed their sense of moral superiority and wallets by forcing others to pay the bill as they lock them out. They believe their ownership of property gives them the right to dictate the terms of other's ownership in order to benefit themselves. Ironically, many of these regulations wouldn't allow the current resident's homes to be built either had they existed at the time.
It comes as no surprise that the most expensive markets are the ones with the most strict and byzantine regulatory structures. Nowhere is this fact more striking than in California, the state with the greatest hostility to new development and by far the most expensive markets in the country.
Any study of home prices needs to adjust for the distortions these markets cause.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Calling Obama an Elitist Means You're a Racist
Allahpundit reports on an LA Times piece by David Shipler that essentially tells us that any criticism of Obama is inherently racist.
Basically, Shipler's moronic thesis is that:
"[W]hen his opponents branded him an elitist and an outsider, his race made it easier to drive a wedge between him and the white, rural voters he has courted. As an African American, he was supposedly looking down from a place he didn’t belong and looking in from a distance he could not cross.
This could not happen as dramatically were it not for embedded racial attitudes. “Elitist” is another word for “arrogant,” which is another word for “uppity,” that old calumny applied to blacks who stood up for themselves…"
This is straight from the Reverend Wright's Perpetual Grievance 101 class which says that Jesus (who was black) was killed by the Romans, who were Italians, which meant they were European, which means they were....WHITE!! And that of course means the white race should be subjected to unending scorn and hostility for this sin.
Shipler apparently believes that any criticisms we may have of a black man is obviously a product of the inherent racism that resides in every white person. Gee. And all along I thought I was being fair by applying the same standards to everyone. Little did I know that if I call John Kerry an elitist (which I have and he is) it's cool, but that I'm keeping the black man down when I apply the term to America's Savior.
I also think Obama is a condescending, marxist snot who childishly believes his college mental masturbation sessions are a blueprint for something that can actually work in the real world. One wonders what awful racist beliefs that reveals.
Basically, Shipler's moronic thesis is that:
"[W]hen his opponents branded him an elitist and an outsider, his race made it easier to drive a wedge between him and the white, rural voters he has courted. As an African American, he was supposedly looking down from a place he didn’t belong and looking in from a distance he could not cross.
This could not happen as dramatically were it not for embedded racial attitudes. “Elitist” is another word for “arrogant,” which is another word for “uppity,” that old calumny applied to blacks who stood up for themselves…"
This is straight from the Reverend Wright's Perpetual Grievance 101 class which says that Jesus (who was black) was killed by the Romans, who were Italians, which meant they were European, which means they were....WHITE!! And that of course means the white race should be subjected to unending scorn and hostility for this sin.
Shipler apparently believes that any criticisms we may have of a black man is obviously a product of the inherent racism that resides in every white person. Gee. And all along I thought I was being fair by applying the same standards to everyone. Little did I know that if I call John Kerry an elitist (which I have and he is) it's cool, but that I'm keeping the black man down when I apply the term to America's Savior.
I also think Obama is a condescending, marxist snot who childishly believes his college mental masturbation sessions are a blueprint for something that can actually work in the real world. One wonders what awful racist beliefs that reveals.
Democrat Debate: McCain Wins
The infants on the Democrat far left are apoplectic that an MSM network would dare to ask their messiah hard questions about his true political leanings. They should be angry at themselves for putting up a little league liar when they had Barry Bonds ready to go.
Hillary has already been vetted and even her supporters know she and her husband are world class grifters. Now the playing field is being leveled as Obama's Marxist and anti-American philosophy is being exposed as this rookie strikes out on anything other than grooved pitches.
At least ABC finally realized this and decided to throw him a couple of curve balls.
Lets's look at some highlights of the presumptive nominee.
On Bitter People:
"And so the point I was making was that when people feel like Washington's not listening to them, when they're promised year after year, decade after decade, that their economic situation is going to change, and it doesn't, then politically they end up focusing on those things that are constant, like religion."
You weren't talking about "people". You were talking about rural blue-collar white people that are too stupid, superstitious and violent to see how much better their lives would be if they allowed themselves to be re-educated by you and your San Francisco comrades. You're the one who is frustrated that people actually believe they can run and defend their lives without your scary intellect. If you're going to appeal to middle class mores in order to destroy them, then try harder in hiding your contempt for them.
On Reverend Wright:
"Reverend Wright is somebody who made controversial statements but they were not of the sort that we saw that offended so many Americans. And that's why I specifically said that these comments were objectionable; they're not comments that I believe in."
Do you hear yourself? What the hell are you talking about?
"What I also said was, the church and the body of Reverend Wright's work, over the course of 30 years, were not represented in those snippets that were shown on television, and that the church has done outstanding work in ministries on HIV/AIDS, prison ministries, providing people with the kind of comfort that we expect in our churches."
You're still hanging onto that "snippet" thing? Didn't you want Imus out on the street for "nappy headed ho's'? That's a snippet. Wright's comments can fill up an entire radio segment, not to mention his racist Black Theology that you have supported for twenty years. And Wright's "outstanding work" is no more relevant here than the fact that Hitler loved dogs, Mussolini made the trains run on time and Jeffrey Dahmer was nice to his mother.
"Absolutely many of these remarks were objectionable. I've already said that I didn't hear them, because I wasn't in church that day."
That's the type of lie Hillary makes look easy. You don't have the chops to pull it off. And even we were to believe that tripe, it's impossible to imagine that a guy you called your mentor for twenty years never expressed those sentiments to you outside of the pulpit. And your wife is obviously a devoted and attentive parishioner. Has she just been leading you around by the nose all these years?
On terrorist buddy William Ayers:
"This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who's a professor of English in Chicago, who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from. He's not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis.
And the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and my values, doesn't make much sense, George."
If it were just about a guy in your neighborhood then I'd be sympathetic. I don't want to be associated with the nut next door just because I had a beer with him once. But if I also served on a board with him and accepted his contributions while he was publicly defending his past nuttiness and wishing he'd been nuttier, then I'm either a supporter of his insanity or a clueless knucklehead. Which one are you?
I was only ten when William Calley committed the My Lai Massacre. But even though he's now a fellow Floridian, it doesn't mean I'm going to hang with him just because I was too ignorant in 1968 to appreciate the evil of his crimes. Especially if he was now saying he wished he'd done more as Ayers has.
And your nyah, nyah Hillary pardoned terrorists defense is just plain childish and only highlights the fact that neither of you can be trusted.
On economy and taxes:
MR. GIBSON: Senator Obama, you both have now just taken this pledge on people under $250,000 and 200-and-what, 250,000.
SENATOR OBAMA: Well, it depends on how you calculate it. But it would be between 200 and 250,000.
MR. GIBSON: All right.
...SENATOR OBAMA: ...What I have proposed is that we raise the cap on the payroll tax, because right now millionaires and billionaires don't have to pay beyond $97,000 a year.
MR. GIBSON: Those are a heck of a lot of people between $97,000 and $200(,000) and $250,000. If you raise the payroll taxes, that's going to raise taxes on them.
SENATOR OBAMA: And that's -- and that's -- and that's why I've said, Charlie, that I would look at potentially exempting those who are in between.
Yikes!! What a mess. When did say anything about exemptions other than the maybe, sort of (won't happen) way you just did?
MR. GIBSON: And in each instance, when the (capital gains) rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased. The government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?
SENATOR OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness. We saw an article today which showed that the top 50 hedge fund managers made $29 billion last year -- $29 billion for 50 individuals. And part of what has happened is that those who are able to work the stock market and amass huge fortunes on capital gains are paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries. That's not fair.
Well, I have to give you credit for being honest about your belief that the tax system is primarily a tool for utopian social engineering and not to fund the legitimate constitutional functions of government. It does however, reveal your typically leftist ignorance in perpetuating the lie that economics, wealth and income is a zero-sum game. You really do believe that wealthy people produce no value for others, especially ordinary Americans in return for their compensation, don't you? Unless it's you or racist con men like Rev. Wright of course.
On guns:
MR. GIBSON: Senator Obama, the District of Columbia has a law, it's had a law since 1976, it's now before the United States Supreme Court, that prohibits ownership of handguns, a sawed-off shotgun, a machine gun or a short-barreled rifle. Is that law consistent with an individual's right to bear arms?
SENATOR OBAMA: Well, Charlie, I confess I obviously haven't listened to the briefs and looked at all the evidence.
As a former professor of constitutional law, are you telling us you know nothing of what will probably be the most significant second amendment case of our lifetimes? Look, I'm not even going to bother with your other quotes on this subject because you're so obviously full of it as are most Democrats, that it's not even worth discussing.
This was a huge but inevitable loss for Obama as at some point he was going to have to put some substance behind his charismatic but vapid rhetoric. Fortunately for McCain it's happening now and he is being spared as Democrats assemble their circular firing squad. His True Believers are angry that their savior has been betrayed by other Democrats and their sympathizers for bringing up pesky facts. A Cult of Personality exists best in a vaccuum and free societies are not a hospitable environment. His fanatical followers don't know how to reconcile that and they're lashing out. Make some popcorn. The convention promises to be a riot.
Obama'a loss doesn't mean Hillary won. She lost too as Obama's ineptitude reminded us that the alternative is just a polished version of the same turd. Actually, she's the same turd that's been stinking up the place for almost twenty years and many Democrats would like someone, anyone to come in and throw it out. Obama's not up to the job but everyone else hit the bricks when he said he could and Democrats were dumb enough to believe him.
Winner: McCain
Hillary has already been vetted and even her supporters know she and her husband are world class grifters. Now the playing field is being leveled as Obama's Marxist and anti-American philosophy is being exposed as this rookie strikes out on anything other than grooved pitches.
At least ABC finally realized this and decided to throw him a couple of curve balls.
Lets's look at some highlights of the presumptive nominee.
On Bitter People:
"And so the point I was making was that when people feel like Washington's not listening to them, when they're promised year after year, decade after decade, that their economic situation is going to change, and it doesn't, then politically they end up focusing on those things that are constant, like religion."
You weren't talking about "people". You were talking about rural blue-collar white people that are too stupid, superstitious and violent to see how much better their lives would be if they allowed themselves to be re-educated by you and your San Francisco comrades. You're the one who is frustrated that people actually believe they can run and defend their lives without your scary intellect. If you're going to appeal to middle class mores in order to destroy them, then try harder in hiding your contempt for them.
On Reverend Wright:
"Reverend Wright is somebody who made controversial statements but they were not of the sort that we saw that offended so many Americans. And that's why I specifically said that these comments were objectionable; they're not comments that I believe in."
Do you hear yourself? What the hell are you talking about?
"What I also said was, the church and the body of Reverend Wright's work, over the course of 30 years, were not represented in those snippets that were shown on television, and that the church has done outstanding work in ministries on HIV/AIDS, prison ministries, providing people with the kind of comfort that we expect in our churches."
You're still hanging onto that "snippet" thing? Didn't you want Imus out on the street for "nappy headed ho's'? That's a snippet. Wright's comments can fill up an entire radio segment, not to mention his racist Black Theology that you have supported for twenty years. And Wright's "outstanding work" is no more relevant here than the fact that Hitler loved dogs, Mussolini made the trains run on time and Jeffrey Dahmer was nice to his mother.
"Absolutely many of these remarks were objectionable. I've already said that I didn't hear them, because I wasn't in church that day."
That's the type of lie Hillary makes look easy. You don't have the chops to pull it off. And even we were to believe that tripe, it's impossible to imagine that a guy you called your mentor for twenty years never expressed those sentiments to you outside of the pulpit. And your wife is obviously a devoted and attentive parishioner. Has she just been leading you around by the nose all these years?
On terrorist buddy William Ayers:
"This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who's a professor of English in Chicago, who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from. He's not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis.
And the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and my values, doesn't make much sense, George."
If it were just about a guy in your neighborhood then I'd be sympathetic. I don't want to be associated with the nut next door just because I had a beer with him once. But if I also served on a board with him and accepted his contributions while he was publicly defending his past nuttiness and wishing he'd been nuttier, then I'm either a supporter of his insanity or a clueless knucklehead. Which one are you?
I was only ten when William Calley committed the My Lai Massacre. But even though he's now a fellow Floridian, it doesn't mean I'm going to hang with him just because I was too ignorant in 1968 to appreciate the evil of his crimes. Especially if he was now saying he wished he'd done more as Ayers has.
And your nyah, nyah Hillary pardoned terrorists defense is just plain childish and only highlights the fact that neither of you can be trusted.
On economy and taxes:
MR. GIBSON: Senator Obama, you both have now just taken this pledge on people under $250,000 and 200-and-what, 250,000.
SENATOR OBAMA: Well, it depends on how you calculate it. But it would be between 200 and 250,000.
MR. GIBSON: All right.
...SENATOR OBAMA: ...What I have proposed is that we raise the cap on the payroll tax, because right now millionaires and billionaires don't have to pay beyond $97,000 a year.
MR. GIBSON: Those are a heck of a lot of people between $97,000 and $200(,000) and $250,000. If you raise the payroll taxes, that's going to raise taxes on them.
SENATOR OBAMA: And that's -- and that's -- and that's why I've said, Charlie, that I would look at potentially exempting those who are in between.
Yikes!! What a mess. When did say anything about exemptions other than the maybe, sort of (won't happen) way you just did?
MR. GIBSON: And in each instance, when the (capital gains) rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased. The government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?
SENATOR OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness. We saw an article today which showed that the top 50 hedge fund managers made $29 billion last year -- $29 billion for 50 individuals. And part of what has happened is that those who are able to work the stock market and amass huge fortunes on capital gains are paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries. That's not fair.
Well, I have to give you credit for being honest about your belief that the tax system is primarily a tool for utopian social engineering and not to fund the legitimate constitutional functions of government. It does however, reveal your typically leftist ignorance in perpetuating the lie that economics, wealth and income is a zero-sum game. You really do believe that wealthy people produce no value for others, especially ordinary Americans in return for their compensation, don't you? Unless it's you or racist con men like Rev. Wright of course.
On guns:
MR. GIBSON: Senator Obama, the District of Columbia has a law, it's had a law since 1976, it's now before the United States Supreme Court, that prohibits ownership of handguns, a sawed-off shotgun, a machine gun or a short-barreled rifle. Is that law consistent with an individual's right to bear arms?
SENATOR OBAMA: Well, Charlie, I confess I obviously haven't listened to the briefs and looked at all the evidence.
As a former professor of constitutional law, are you telling us you know nothing of what will probably be the most significant second amendment case of our lifetimes? Look, I'm not even going to bother with your other quotes on this subject because you're so obviously full of it as are most Democrats, that it's not even worth discussing.
This was a huge but inevitable loss for Obama as at some point he was going to have to put some substance behind his charismatic but vapid rhetoric. Fortunately for McCain it's happening now and he is being spared as Democrats assemble their circular firing squad. His True Believers are angry that their savior has been betrayed by other Democrats and their sympathizers for bringing up pesky facts. A Cult of Personality exists best in a vaccuum and free societies are not a hospitable environment. His fanatical followers don't know how to reconcile that and they're lashing out. Make some popcorn. The convention promises to be a riot.
Obama'a loss doesn't mean Hillary won. She lost too as Obama's ineptitude reminded us that the alternative is just a polished version of the same turd. Actually, she's the same turd that's been stinking up the place for almost twenty years and many Democrats would like someone, anyone to come in and throw it out. Obama's not up to the job but everyone else hit the bricks when he said he could and Democrats were dumb enough to believe him.
Winner: McCain
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Maryland passes new "millionaire" tax
High end real estate brokers in Florida and elsewhere should start targeting the 6,000 taxpayers in Maryland who will now pay higher taxes for the sin of success.
"Howard Rensin, a successful Howard County businessman and developer, thinks many Maryland millionaires will decamp for less taxing locales."There's already been a substantial migration of people of high income out of Maryland," Rensin said. "I think you're going to see an increase in that type of flight."
Well, of course. Remember that the wealthier people are, the easier it is for them to move. All the revenues estimates that governments use in justifying tax increases are predicated on the assumption that the taxpayer will just stand there and take it in the shorts. It never happens and never will.
Meanwhile, New York passed yet another budget with an increase of twice the inflation rate. They almost imposed their own version of the millionaire tax but dropped it at the last minute, instead raising taxes and fees on everything from internet sales to manicures. And now New York cigarette taxes will be the highest in the country. They should call that the "Smugglers Full Employment Act"
"Howard Rensin, a successful Howard County businessman and developer, thinks many Maryland millionaires will decamp for less taxing locales."There's already been a substantial migration of people of high income out of Maryland," Rensin said. "I think you're going to see an increase in that type of flight."
Well, of course. Remember that the wealthier people are, the easier it is for them to move. All the revenues estimates that governments use in justifying tax increases are predicated on the assumption that the taxpayer will just stand there and take it in the shorts. It never happens and never will.
Meanwhile, New York passed yet another budget with an increase of twice the inflation rate. They almost imposed their own version of the millionaire tax but dropped it at the last minute, instead raising taxes and fees on everything from internet sales to manicures. And now New York cigarette taxes will be the highest in the country. They should call that the "Smugglers Full Employment Act"
Friday, April 4, 2008
Illinois Legislator Supports Mob Rule
State Rep. Mike Smith wants to double income taxes on 5% of the state's taxpayers by allowing the other 95% to vote it into law. Beyond the fact that this would drive even more of the productive from that state, Mr Smith obviously thinks democracy is about two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
Actually, this guy seems to think way too much about dinner and would probably eat all three of them. Maybe we should vote to tax him and his corpulent brethren for eating more than their fair share of food and endangering the planet with the massive amounts of paint-peeling greenhouse gasses they expel every day.
Speaking in support of his plan to take with threat of state force, the property of 107,000 residents for the crime of being successful and productive, Smith said: "I'm not sure who would campaign against this other than those 107,000," And that's why this country was set up as a representative republic and not a direct democracy. To prevent tyranny by the majority. Mr. Smith should ask for a refund on his poly-sci degree.
Or maybe he should just quit and get a real job for once in his life. Perhaps he'll realize how hard it is to make money when you can't put a gun to people's heads.
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
The Cities (and states) that Liberalism Ruins
NRO's Rich Lowry comments that "Detroit is a stark statement on the failure of urban liberalism". Now we learn that Detroit has earned the distinction of having the lowest high school graduation rate of the fifty largest cities in the country, coming in at a disgraceful 24.9%.
It goes beyond that. Looking at domestic migration rates i.e. how many people move from one state to another, a pattern emerges that is an illustration of why the Berlin Wall was built. People are moving from high tax and regulation states to lower ones. It comes as no surprise to anyone but the left that states like Michigan, Illinois, New York and New Jersey have the highest amount of residents leaving for greener pastures. When the Hawaiian government can chase out 12% more residents than it gained in less than fifteen years, you would think a light bulb would go off in someone's head. The Tax Foundation posted a great April Fools send up of clueless governors on this subject.
These people are moving to places like Florida, Texas, Nevada and New Hampshire. Those four states are some of the few that have no income tax, among other benefits to the productive. And many of them aren't moving that far. New Hampshire gained 6.1% in net domestic migration from 2000-2004 while Massachusetts lost 6.6%. Visit the fast growing town of Nashua that sits on the northern border of Massachusetts and is within commuting distance of Boston and the high-tech I-128 corridor to see how incentives matter. The same trend can be seen in Nevada and Arizona as they accept more and more California refugees.
Unfortunately a lot of liberals are moving too and taking their bad ideas with them. They're also oblivious of what caused them to move in the first place.
It took Rudy Guilani, a conservative by New York standards, to repair some of the damage done by his predecessors. But even he couldn't solve the city's systemic problems that cause taxpaying citizens and businesses to flee, leaving behind an even higher percentage of New Yorkers living off of the public teat. Detroit is just the latest and most glaring example of liberal failure. Conservatives and Libertarians need to spend more time pointing out the empirical evidence that's right in front of everyone's nose.
It goes beyond that. Looking at domestic migration rates i.e. how many people move from one state to another, a pattern emerges that is an illustration of why the Berlin Wall was built. People are moving from high tax and regulation states to lower ones. It comes as no surprise to anyone but the left that states like Michigan, Illinois, New York and New Jersey have the highest amount of residents leaving for greener pastures. When the Hawaiian government can chase out 12% more residents than it gained in less than fifteen years, you would think a light bulb would go off in someone's head. The Tax Foundation posted a great April Fools send up of clueless governors on this subject.
These people are moving to places like Florida, Texas, Nevada and New Hampshire. Those four states are some of the few that have no income tax, among other benefits to the productive. And many of them aren't moving that far. New Hampshire gained 6.1% in net domestic migration from 2000-2004 while Massachusetts lost 6.6%. Visit the fast growing town of Nashua that sits on the northern border of Massachusetts and is within commuting distance of Boston and the high-tech I-128 corridor to see how incentives matter. The same trend can be seen in Nevada and Arizona as they accept more and more California refugees.
Unfortunately a lot of liberals are moving too and taking their bad ideas with them. They're also oblivious of what caused them to move in the first place.
It took Rudy Guilani, a conservative by New York standards, to repair some of the damage done by his predecessors. But even he couldn't solve the city's systemic problems that cause taxpaying citizens and businesses to flee, leaving behind an even higher percentage of New Yorkers living off of the public teat. Detroit is just the latest and most glaring example of liberal failure. Conservatives and Libertarians need to spend more time pointing out the empirical evidence that's right in front of everyone's nose.
WalMart the latest victim of Mob Rule
Free enterprise and the rule of law took a hit today as WalMart caved to public outcry generated by the anti-business trial bar and the usual socialist suspects. Actually, the trial bar does like business as long as it's them doing it by producing nothing through publicly funded courts.
Typical of this attitude is John Cummings, a Texas personal injury lawyer who was "seething" in December that WalMart would have the gall to enforce its contractual rights in court. Mr. Cummings apparently believes that some are more equal than others under the law. One wonders how much he and other WalMart critics donated to the Shank family.
I dont know Mr. Cummings and I'm sure he thinks he means well, but the notion that success and productivity is prima facie evidence of evil intent unless you bow to the extortionist left is an assault on basic fairness and common sense. In short, it's Un-American.
The crux of this case was Subrogation. Something that Cummings and others believe "screw the little guy" No, it's a concept that prevents double dipping in insurance claims and protects all of us. That's exactly what happened here. WalMart paid Mrs. Shank over $400,000 for medical expenses which were reimbursed to her by a third party. WalMart then wanted their money back. Not too hard to figure out, is it? This is the kind of thing Judge Judy disposes of in about fifteen minutes in $500 auto accident cases with no complaints because it's fair and equitable. But because WalMart is a big bad corporation that has committed crimes like employing 1.3 million people and offering low priced products to average Americans, then fairness be damned.
The fact that Mrs. Shank contractually agreed to this and that the courts sided with WalMart matters not to left wing demagogues and if you bring it up, then you're obviously a heartless bastard.
One of the more nonsensical arguments I've heard is that WalMart should pay because if they don't, then taxpayers would have to through Medicaid. First of all, since when is it incumbent on a private concern to mitigate the losses of the federal government? And where do people think this money is coming from? The employees, customers and most important, the shareholders of WalMart. Most of those shares are owned by individuals, pension and mutual funds which are owned by...you guessed it. You and me.
Typical of this attitude is John Cummings, a Texas personal injury lawyer who was "seething" in December that WalMart would have the gall to enforce its contractual rights in court. Mr. Cummings apparently believes that some are more equal than others under the law. One wonders how much he and other WalMart critics donated to the Shank family.
I dont know Mr. Cummings and I'm sure he thinks he means well, but the notion that success and productivity is prima facie evidence of evil intent unless you bow to the extortionist left is an assault on basic fairness and common sense. In short, it's Un-American.
The crux of this case was Subrogation. Something that Cummings and others believe "screw the little guy" No, it's a concept that prevents double dipping in insurance claims and protects all of us. That's exactly what happened here. WalMart paid Mrs. Shank over $400,000 for medical expenses which were reimbursed to her by a third party. WalMart then wanted their money back. Not too hard to figure out, is it? This is the kind of thing Judge Judy disposes of in about fifteen minutes in $500 auto accident cases with no complaints because it's fair and equitable. But because WalMart is a big bad corporation that has committed crimes like employing 1.3 million people and offering low priced products to average Americans, then fairness be damned.
The fact that Mrs. Shank contractually agreed to this and that the courts sided with WalMart matters not to left wing demagogues and if you bring it up, then you're obviously a heartless bastard.
One of the more nonsensical arguments I've heard is that WalMart should pay because if they don't, then taxpayers would have to through Medicaid. First of all, since when is it incumbent on a private concern to mitigate the losses of the federal government? And where do people think this money is coming from? The employees, customers and most important, the shareholders of WalMart. Most of those shares are owned by individuals, pension and mutual funds which are owned by...you guessed it. You and me.
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Congress Demagogues Capitalism Again
Last month it was CEO pay. Now we're back to demonizing profits as congressional leftists call oil company CEO's on the carpet again to appease their Marxist base and exploit the economic ignorance of the American public. Even more frightening, I think some of them actually believe the crap they spout.
I'm still trying to found out where in the constitution the government has the right to question how much money any private enterprise makes, much less dictate how they should spend their profits. Most oil company shares are owned either directly or indirectly by ordinary Americans. Democrats know this and it betrays their motive as just another attempt to undermine the free enterprise system.
Having said that, I'm all for eliminating subsidies to oil companies and everyone else, including farmers, third world kleptocracies et al.
BTW- I didn't notice anyone from Chavez' Citgo hauled in front of this kangaroo court.
I'm still trying to found out where in the constitution the government has the right to question how much money any private enterprise makes, much less dictate how they should spend their profits. Most oil company shares are owned either directly or indirectly by ordinary Americans. Democrats know this and it betrays their motive as just another attempt to undermine the free enterprise system.
Having said that, I'm all for eliminating subsidies to oil companies and everyone else, including farmers, third world kleptocracies et al.
BTW- I didn't notice anyone from Chavez' Citgo hauled in front of this kangaroo court.
More Muslim Whining
We're engaged in a malicious indictment of Islam according to this champion of imbelicity. I only post this because this has become a frequent and tiresome complaint by the Islamo-Fascist fifth column. Terrorist front group CAIR is saying the same crap.
A little fisking:
"For seven horrendous years a religion has been demonized, it's over one billion followers held globally hostage for the actions of a few."
If there hadn't also been around 10,000 terrorist attacks perpetrated since then, you might have a point. When there's a 100 million strong death cult within your ranks, you'd think there would better things for you to worry about than what I and other westerners think of you. And that genital mutilation and honor killing stuff isn't helping much either. Actions of a few my ass.
"Nowhere in the Muslim world, do we see such a collective, concerted denunciation of a religion or culture."
OK. Now you just sound like an idiot.
A little fisking:
"For seven horrendous years a religion has been demonized, it's over one billion followers held globally hostage for the actions of a few."
If there hadn't also been around 10,000 terrorist attacks perpetrated since then, you might have a point. When there's a 100 million strong death cult within your ranks, you'd think there would better things for you to worry about than what I and other westerners think of you. And that genital mutilation and honor killing stuff isn't helping much either. Actions of a few my ass.
"Nowhere in the Muslim world, do we see such a collective, concerted denunciation of a religion or culture."
OK. Now you just sound like an idiot.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)