Understanding the primaries may be a bit difficult for some. The primaries used to be put on and paid for by the different parties and in some states that is still true. But now, most states pay for the primaries to be held.
You can't vote for the local Sheriff in the Democratic primary and the County Judge in the Republican primary. When you go to vote you are either registered as one party or the other . . . or Independent, Green, Libertarian or one of the many other parties or in some states, there is no party registration and they will ask you what ballot you want. Arkansas, where I live, is one of those states. In states where they have open Primaries you can vote in any political party and I'll explain how that may be good for everyone.
In an open primary, even though you may be a registered Republican you can vote in a Democratic primary. The Republicans did that in South Carolina in 2010 and a fellow the Republicans paid money to in order to run him against Jim DeMint was put on the ballot. His name was Alvin Greene. The Republicans voted, in mass, in the Democratic primary for Alvin Greene who defeated the guy that could have defeated DeMint. Greene became the nominee but he was retarded and couldn't even make a speech. So Jim DeMint beat Greene in the General election 63% to 19% with 8% going to another candidate and 10% undecided.
I'll attempt to fill you in on the upcoming Primaries state by state. This is Feb. 19, 2012 and the next GOP Primary will be on Feb. 28.
February 28, 2012:
1. Arizona has a closed primary system and to get a ballot you must be a registered party voter.
2. Michigan is an open primary state so that Democrats can vote in the Republican primary but then you have to vote only in the Republican primary, no cross voting.
March 3, 2012:
1. Washington has a system that is similar to the California system of "Top Two." The top two vote getters have to run against each other.
March 6, 2010, "Super Tuesday":
1. Alaska Republicans have a closed CAUCUS system and you must be a registered Republican for 30 days to participate.
2. Idaho Republicans have a closed CAUCUS system.
3. Georgia has a semi-closed PRIMARY system; you must be registered in the party to vote.
4. Massachusetts has a semi-closed PRIMARY system.
5. North Dakota has a closed CAUCUS system.
6. Ohio has a closed PRIMARY system but there is no party registration and a voter can be challenged as not being affiliated. (I'm not sure what this means. If you live in Ohio, let me know)
7. Oklahoma has a closed PRIMARY system.
8. Tennessee has a closed PRIMARY system but you can change parties on the day of election then back the next day.
9. Vermont has an open PRIMARY system.
10. Virginia has an open PRIMARY system but the Republicans in Vermont require you sign a "Loyalty Oath" to the Republicans.
March 6-10, 2012:
1. Wyoming has a closed CAUCUS system but you can change party affiliation any day.
March 10, 2012:
1. Kansas has a closed PRIMARY system but allows "unaffiliated" voters to participate.
March 13, 2012:
1. Alabama has an open PRIMARY system. Anyone can vote on any ballot.
2. Hawaii has an open CAUCUS system with not party affiliation.
3. Mississippi has an open PRIMARY system, but you must support the nominee? (Not sure how that is enforced)
I'll have information on the rest of the primaries in the next post.
Showing posts with label History. Show all posts
Showing posts with label History. Show all posts
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Friday, February 17, 2012
Doing The Math, the GOP Primaries so far
I keep seeing the GOP primaries and the percentages for each of the contestants and wonder if anyone else notes the real problem.
For instance, in Iowa Santorum won with 24.6%. That means that 75.4% preferred someone else, and that was for the winner! Three quarters of those involved didn't like Santorum and he was the winner.
Now, let's go on to the next one, that would be New Hampshire. In N.H. Romney received 39.3% and won but that just means that 60.7% voted against him, and he was the winner.
How about South Carolina? Gingrich won S.C. with 40.4% of the vote which means that 59.6 preferred someone else.
Let's stop here for a second and observe that there have been no repeats in the winners and the average winner only received 34.8% of the votes, which again means that 65.2% of the voters didn't like the winner . . . on average.
Now we will be seeing what happens to the numbers when the list shortens to just 4 contestants.
At the end of January, everyone went to Florida, which seems like a good place to go on January 31. There we had a repeat, Romney. He got 46.4% of the votes and 53.6% went for someone else and this was without the dilution of having 7 people in the race.
Next, we went to the Nevada caucuses on February 4. There Romney won with the first ever 50.0% majority.
On Feb. 7, we had the three caucuses in Missouri, Colorado and Minnesota. Rick Santorum won all three by 55.2%, 40.3% and 44.8% respectively. That was the highest percentage(55.2%) so far and it was in Missouri where no delegates were at stake.
In Maine on February 11, Romney won again but by only 39.2%. Again, lots of folks voted another way.
So far, on average, the winner of the various GOP primaries have won with only 42.2% on average. That means the vast majority of participants voted for someone other than the winner.
What you have just seen is only a small part of the real story. The number of actual voters is the big story. Normally about 25% of the voters participating in the general election for President show up for the primaries/caucuses. But this time only 17.7% showed up in Iowa and NO PREFERENCE beat out two of the participants. In Maine, less than 2% of the normal number of voters from 2008 showed up to vote in the primaries.
I just don't see a lot of enthusiasm for any of the GOP roster.
Sources:
Associated Press via Google
http://www.2012presidentialelectionnews.com/
For instance, in Iowa Santorum won with 24.6%. That means that 75.4% preferred someone else, and that was for the winner! Three quarters of those involved didn't like Santorum and he was the winner.
Now, let's go on to the next one, that would be New Hampshire. In N.H. Romney received 39.3% and won but that just means that 60.7% voted against him, and he was the winner.
How about South Carolina? Gingrich won S.C. with 40.4% of the vote which means that 59.6 preferred someone else.
Let's stop here for a second and observe that there have been no repeats in the winners and the average winner only received 34.8% of the votes, which again means that 65.2% of the voters didn't like the winner . . . on average.
Now we will be seeing what happens to the numbers when the list shortens to just 4 contestants.
At the end of January, everyone went to Florida, which seems like a good place to go on January 31. There we had a repeat, Romney. He got 46.4% of the votes and 53.6% went for someone else and this was without the dilution of having 7 people in the race.
Next, we went to the Nevada caucuses on February 4. There Romney won with the first ever 50.0% majority.
On Feb. 7, we had the three caucuses in Missouri, Colorado and Minnesota. Rick Santorum won all three by 55.2%, 40.3% and 44.8% respectively. That was the highest percentage(55.2%) so far and it was in Missouri where no delegates were at stake.
In Maine on February 11, Romney won again but by only 39.2%. Again, lots of folks voted another way.
So far, on average, the winner of the various GOP primaries have won with only 42.2% on average. That means the vast majority of participants voted for someone other than the winner.
What you have just seen is only a small part of the real story. The number of actual voters is the big story. Normally about 25% of the voters participating in the general election for President show up for the primaries/caucuses. But this time only 17.7% showed up in Iowa and NO PREFERENCE beat out two of the participants. In Maine, less than 2% of the normal number of voters from 2008 showed up to vote in the primaries.
I just don't see a lot of enthusiasm for any of the GOP roster.
Sources:
Associated Press via Google
http://www.2012presidentialelectionnews.com/
Saturday, February 11, 2012
On A Recent Recess Appointment
The first recess appointment by a President was made by President George Washington in 1795 and that practice has continued since.
More recently, President Bill Clinton made 139 recess appointments. President George W. Bush made 171 recess appointments, and as of January 5, 2012, President Barack Obama had made 32 recess appointments.
Sources:
Henry B. Hogue; Richard S. Beth. "Recess Appointments: Frequently Asked Questions" (pdf). Congressional Research Service.
http://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-publish.cfm?pid='0DP%2BP%5CW%3B%20P%20%20%0A. Retrieved 4 January 2012
The question arises from the fact that the present “Do Nothing” Congress, with an approval rating in the single digits, had failed to approve a head for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau after several months. Exposing the Republican’s desire to NOT have consumer’s finances protected from banks, loan associations or any other group out to cheat the public. The Republicans didn’t even want that bureau to exist so the best bet was for them to continue to filibuster any appointments to head it. To try to thwart any appointments, the Republicans did a pro forma opening of the Senate. They opened it and left it open with no business being done and no one there to perform any business or to give “Advise and Consent.” They had to do this every three days to make it work. President Obama appointed John Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau anyway. The Republicans have objected ever since but none have taken him to court on it. More “Sound and fury . . . signifying nothing.”
On January 6th, 2012, the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel issued an opinion regarding recess appointments and pro forma sessions, stating that "The convening of periodic pro forma sessions in which no business is to be conducted does not have the legal effect of interrupting an intrasession recess otherwise long enough to qualify as a "Recess of the Senate" under the Recess Appointments Clause. In this context, the President therefore has discretion to conclude that the Senate is unavailable to perform its advise-and-consent function and to exercise his power to make recess appointments."
Sources:
http://www.justice.gov/olc/memoranda-opinions.html
http://www.justice.gov/olc/2012/pro-forma-sessions-opinion.pdf
In case anyone is interested, President Barack Obama knows the Constitution, he was a Professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago.
More recently, President Bill Clinton made 139 recess appointments. President George W. Bush made 171 recess appointments, and as of January 5, 2012, President Barack Obama had made 32 recess appointments.
Sources:
Henry B. Hogue; Richard S. Beth. "Recess Appointments: Frequently Asked Questions" (pdf). Congressional Research Service.
http://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-publish.cfm?pid='0DP%2BP%5CW%3B%20P%20%20%0A. Retrieved 4 January 2012
The question arises from the fact that the present “Do Nothing” Congress, with an approval rating in the single digits, had failed to approve a head for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau after several months. Exposing the Republican’s desire to NOT have consumer’s finances protected from banks, loan associations or any other group out to cheat the public. The Republicans didn’t even want that bureau to exist so the best bet was for them to continue to filibuster any appointments to head it. To try to thwart any appointments, the Republicans did a pro forma opening of the Senate. They opened it and left it open with no business being done and no one there to perform any business or to give “Advise and Consent.” They had to do this every three days to make it work. President Obama appointed John Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau anyway. The Republicans have objected ever since but none have taken him to court on it. More “Sound and fury . . . signifying nothing.”
On January 6th, 2012, the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel issued an opinion regarding recess appointments and pro forma sessions, stating that "The convening of periodic pro forma sessions in which no business is to be conducted does not have the legal effect of interrupting an intrasession recess otherwise long enough to qualify as a "Recess of the Senate" under the Recess Appointments Clause. In this context, the President therefore has discretion to conclude that the Senate is unavailable to perform its advise-and-consent function and to exercise his power to make recess appointments."
Sources:
http://www.justice.gov/olc/memoranda-opinions.html
http://www.justice.gov/olc/2012/pro-forma-sessions-opinion.pdf
In case anyone is interested, President Barack Obama knows the Constitution, he was a Professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago.
Saturday, November 6, 2010
Senate Election Analysis
Remember back on October 26, I gave an analysis of the upcoming Senate election and what I thought it might mean.
http://swoopsfromsnowyowl.blogspot.com/2010/10/senate-races-to-watch-on-november-2nd.html
Well, the election commission in Washington State can finally put their shoes and socks back on now that they have used all their fingers and toes to add up the result of their Senate race between Dino Rossi (R) and Patty Murray (D) the incumbent.
In that post I listed six races and I felt the Democrats needed to win at least half to take the Senate. Well, what happened is the Democrats won four of the six and did indeed hold the Senate . . . not by much but a good hold.
The winners were;
In Nevada, Harry Reid (D) over Sharron Angle (Mars). There were actually nine people in that race which diluted the votes down to where it might have been hard for one person to win a majority. But Harry finally pulled it out.
In Washington, Patty Murray (D) over Dino Rossi (R). It took several days to hand count the ballots which were, by all appearances, written in Sanskrit and being read by a visually impaired election commission.
In Colorado, Michael Bennet (D) over Ken Buck (R). Buck was ahead for several hours at the beginning but Bennet held the lead once he got it.
In West Virginia, Joe Manchin (D) over John Raese (R). This again was a nail biter in that Raese had a lead for a long time at the beginning.
The two Democrats that lost were Joe Sestak to Pat Toomey in Pennsylvania and Alan Giannoulias lost Barack Obama's old seat in Illinois to Mark Kirk.
Now, if the President wants anything done in the Senate, he'll have to do it with reconciliation from the get go. That is what "W" did most of his terms in office and that is how Obama will have to do it, too.
http://swoopsfromsnowyowl.blogspot.com/2010/10/senate-races-to-watch-on-november-2nd.html
Well, the election commission in Washington State can finally put their shoes and socks back on now that they have used all their fingers and toes to add up the result of their Senate race between Dino Rossi (R) and Patty Murray (D) the incumbent.
In that post I listed six races and I felt the Democrats needed to win at least half to take the Senate. Well, what happened is the Democrats won four of the six and did indeed hold the Senate . . . not by much but a good hold.
The winners were;
In Nevada, Harry Reid (D) over Sharron Angle (Mars). There were actually nine people in that race which diluted the votes down to where it might have been hard for one person to win a majority. But Harry finally pulled it out.
In Washington, Patty Murray (D) over Dino Rossi (R). It took several days to hand count the ballots which were, by all appearances, written in Sanskrit and being read by a visually impaired election commission.
In Colorado, Michael Bennet (D) over Ken Buck (R). Buck was ahead for several hours at the beginning but Bennet held the lead once he got it.
In West Virginia, Joe Manchin (D) over John Raese (R). This again was a nail biter in that Raese had a lead for a long time at the beginning.
The two Democrats that lost were Joe Sestak to Pat Toomey in Pennsylvania and Alan Giannoulias lost Barack Obama's old seat in Illinois to Mark Kirk.
Now, if the President wants anything done in the Senate, he'll have to do it with reconciliation from the get go. That is what "W" did most of his terms in office and that is how Obama will have to do it, too.
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Is a Gerrymander An Amphibian?
Way back in 1812, Elbridge Gerry, then the Governor of Massachusetts, was in charge of redividing the districts of his state after the census of 1810. Governor Gerry decided to reshape districts to gain political advantage. When he did, one came out with a strange shape that looked like a salamander. That was renamed by the local newspaper into a "Gerry" mander and has stuck for the past hundred and eighty eight years. So to "Gerrymander" is to redistrict for political advantage making strange shapes out of districts.
That is why electing a Governor from your party is important in the years after a census is taken. That Governor can dictate the way your state is represented for the next ten years. He/She can give his opposition a funny shaped district and confine all those against him into one district while giving his compatriots five districts or more. In some cases a Governor can put all his opposition into a minority in several districts.
In Arkansas, we have a strong Democrat as Governor, but in some other states the voters don't realize yet that the future of their state and their representation for the next ten years rests with who they elect Governor.
Only two states, Arkansas and New York, have strong Democrats that should be re-elected. The Republican in New York is Carl Paladino, the guy that Andrew Coumo should beat easily. Those two states plus seven holdovers will give the Democrats only nine states for sure.
The Republicans, on the other hand, have six holdovers and eleven solidly going to them. That will give the Republicans a solid seventeen states to redistrict. The leaning states are six for the Democrats and ten for the Republicans. If that stays accurate, that will give the Democrats fifteen states and the Republicans twenty seven states to redistrict to their advantage. The tossup states for Governor number eight. If the Democrats take all of them, and they won't, they can't catch the Republicans in number of states they can redistrict.
No one has really brought this to the attention of the voters this year and it is very important that people know. Unfortunately this blog is about a week late and reaches far too few to make a difference, but be aware, those Governors we elect this year are important, not only now but for the next ten years.
That's just another reason to be well informed.
(For more on this subject, go to;
www.redistrictingthenation.com/
That is why electing a Governor from your party is important in the years after a census is taken. That Governor can dictate the way your state is represented for the next ten years. He/She can give his opposition a funny shaped district and confine all those against him into one district while giving his compatriots five districts or more. In some cases a Governor can put all his opposition into a minority in several districts.
In Arkansas, we have a strong Democrat as Governor, but in some other states the voters don't realize yet that the future of their state and their representation for the next ten years rests with who they elect Governor.
Only two states, Arkansas and New York, have strong Democrats that should be re-elected. The Republican in New York is Carl Paladino, the guy that Andrew Coumo should beat easily. Those two states plus seven holdovers will give the Democrats only nine states for sure.
The Republicans, on the other hand, have six holdovers and eleven solidly going to them. That will give the Republicans a solid seventeen states to redistrict. The leaning states are six for the Democrats and ten for the Republicans. If that stays accurate, that will give the Democrats fifteen states and the Republicans twenty seven states to redistrict to their advantage. The tossup states for Governor number eight. If the Democrats take all of them, and they won't, they can't catch the Republicans in number of states they can redistrict.
No one has really brought this to the attention of the voters this year and it is very important that people know. Unfortunately this blog is about a week late and reaches far too few to make a difference, but be aware, those Governors we elect this year are important, not only now but for the next ten years.
That's just another reason to be well informed.
(For more on this subject, go to;
www.redistrictingthenation.com/
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Getting The Word Out
Now that the Supreme Court has ruled that everybody is allowed to give as much money as they desire, to anybody they choose and absolutely nobody needs to know about it, we are finding ourselves up to our butts in crap passed down to us as truth.
First, I'd like you to read my blog post on the lies we endure during campaigns by clicking this URL:
www.swoopsfromsnowyowl.blogspot.com/2010/06/isnt-there-law-against-that.html
Now you will understand that all restraints are off when it comes to politics and political advertising. If that is the case, why doesn't more truth come out? Why is it that only the false stuff makes the headlines? Isn't the truth believable? Or, isn't there any truth out there to be believed?
I'm not sure I can answer any of these questions to the comfort of everyone, but here is my analysis on what has happened, is happening and will happen in the future.
You have to understand that a good part of politics is getting the word out. Letting people know what you are going to do and why, then actually doing it and again explaining why it is good for the country, then reinforcing what you did with again explaining it so that there will be few if any questions. Anticipating objections and overcoming those objections up front will help eliminate problems that might arise later.
The White House is not very good at this! Obama's advisers don't understand good salesmanship and that is what politics is all about. Winning an election is one thing, keeping the post to which you are elected, is another. In order to keep your position, you must explain your actions and why those actions were good for the country. If the White House doesn't do this then everyone that hears the lies, which will inevitably come from the other side, will only believe them to be true because no one has refuted them.
Here are some of those lies that have been recently passed around and need to be put to rest.
1. "Government spending takes money out of the economy." The REALITY is that Government is you and I, the "People" and the money it spends is on you and me. The citizens of the U. S. are a gathering of people who pool their money to do the good we need to have done for us because we can't afford to do them as individuals. Some consider this a Socialist leaning country and what would they do without those Socialist Roads, Socialist highways, Socialist airports, Socialist harbors, Socialist courts, Socialist schools, Socialist police, Socialist Firemen and Socialist Armed Forces. Government doesn't just spend on the unemployed, welfare recipients and foreign aid.
2. ""Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme that is going broke." The REALITY is that Social Security has run a surplus since it began and has Trillions in a trust fund. It is completely sound for at least 25 more years. It cannot borrow so it will never contribute to the deficit, unlike the military and most other agencies. Life expectancy is longer because infant mortality has improved over the years. Back in the 30s the average life expectancy was shorter because more children died of TB, Polio, Whooping Cough, Mumps, Measles, Chicken Pox, Scarlet Fever and various other diseases that don't kill people any more. If you reach the age of 60 your future life expectancy is about the same as it was back in the 30s.
3. "Health Care Reform costs $1 Trillion." The REALITY is that Health Care Reform will reduce government deficits by $138 Billion over the next 10 years.
4. "Small businesses will hire if they get Tax Cuts." The REALITY is that Small businesses hire according to DEMAND. Demand creates jobs. Having extra money on hand does not cause Small Businesses to hire. On the other hand, if there is demand for their product or service, a business will find the money to hire workers to create products to satisfy that demand.
5. "The Stimulus was a bust and didn't work at all." The REALITY is that the stimulus worked but was not enough by itself. The Congressional Budget Office says the stimulus raised employment by between 1.5 and 3.5 million jobs. The fact is that we were in a deeper depression than we had known about. We needed a larger stimulus to get us all the way out.
6. "Obama Bailed out the banks." The REALITY is that while most people confuse the "Stimulus" with the bank bailouts, the Bank Bailouts were requested by President George W. Bush and his Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson. The bailouts passed and began before the 2008 election of President Obama.
7. "President Obama raised taxes, which hurt the economy." The REALITY is that President Obama actually cut taxes. 40% of the ""Stimulus" was wasted on tax cuts which only create debt. That is why the stimulus was so much less effective than it could have been.
8. "President Obama tripled the deficit." The REALITY is that President George W. Bush's last budget had a $1.416 Trillion deficit. Obama's first budget reduced that to $1.29 Trillion.
Until the White House learns how to communicate President Obama's programs and how to best do a quality PR job, they will continue to lose the information battle and it may cost Obama re-election in 2012.
Doing a good job is only half the battle, communicating it is the other half and some say the important half. Senior Obama advisor David Axelrod has to do a better job. Recently he stated, "Two years ago I could have told you this was going to be a tough year." He knew then and had plenty of time to work on PR and quality communication about Obama's plans. But, unlike the master Karl Rove, Axelrod has really done very little or nothing. Axelrod also stated, "Our mission is to get people energized and understanding there are real stakes in the election." But what he failed to understand is, that is an ongoing job, not something you only do a few months every two years. His job should be to stay out in front of those objections and anticipate those questions before they are asked.
First, I'd like you to read my blog post on the lies we endure during campaigns by clicking this URL:
www.swoopsfromsnowyowl.blogspot.com/2010/06/isnt-there-law-against-that.html
Now you will understand that all restraints are off when it comes to politics and political advertising. If that is the case, why doesn't more truth come out? Why is it that only the false stuff makes the headlines? Isn't the truth believable? Or, isn't there any truth out there to be believed?
I'm not sure I can answer any of these questions to the comfort of everyone, but here is my analysis on what has happened, is happening and will happen in the future.
You have to understand that a good part of politics is getting the word out. Letting people know what you are going to do and why, then actually doing it and again explaining why it is good for the country, then reinforcing what you did with again explaining it so that there will be few if any questions. Anticipating objections and overcoming those objections up front will help eliminate problems that might arise later.
The White House is not very good at this! Obama's advisers don't understand good salesmanship and that is what politics is all about. Winning an election is one thing, keeping the post to which you are elected, is another. In order to keep your position, you must explain your actions and why those actions were good for the country. If the White House doesn't do this then everyone that hears the lies, which will inevitably come from the other side, will only believe them to be true because no one has refuted them.
Here are some of those lies that have been recently passed around and need to be put to rest.
1. "Government spending takes money out of the economy." The REALITY is that Government is you and I, the "People" and the money it spends is on you and me. The citizens of the U. S. are a gathering of people who pool their money to do the good we need to have done for us because we can't afford to do them as individuals. Some consider this a Socialist leaning country and what would they do without those Socialist Roads, Socialist highways, Socialist airports, Socialist harbors, Socialist courts, Socialist schools, Socialist police, Socialist Firemen and Socialist Armed Forces. Government doesn't just spend on the unemployed, welfare recipients and foreign aid.
2. ""Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme that is going broke." The REALITY is that Social Security has run a surplus since it began and has Trillions in a trust fund. It is completely sound for at least 25 more years. It cannot borrow so it will never contribute to the deficit, unlike the military and most other agencies. Life expectancy is longer because infant mortality has improved over the years. Back in the 30s the average life expectancy was shorter because more children died of TB, Polio, Whooping Cough, Mumps, Measles, Chicken Pox, Scarlet Fever and various other diseases that don't kill people any more. If you reach the age of 60 your future life expectancy is about the same as it was back in the 30s.
3. "Health Care Reform costs $1 Trillion." The REALITY is that Health Care Reform will reduce government deficits by $138 Billion over the next 10 years.
4. "Small businesses will hire if they get Tax Cuts." The REALITY is that Small businesses hire according to DEMAND. Demand creates jobs. Having extra money on hand does not cause Small Businesses to hire. On the other hand, if there is demand for their product or service, a business will find the money to hire workers to create products to satisfy that demand.
5. "The Stimulus was a bust and didn't work at all." The REALITY is that the stimulus worked but was not enough by itself. The Congressional Budget Office says the stimulus raised employment by between 1.5 and 3.5 million jobs. The fact is that we were in a deeper depression than we had known about. We needed a larger stimulus to get us all the way out.
6. "Obama Bailed out the banks." The REALITY is that while most people confuse the "Stimulus" with the bank bailouts, the Bank Bailouts were requested by President George W. Bush and his Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson. The bailouts passed and began before the 2008 election of President Obama.
7. "President Obama raised taxes, which hurt the economy." The REALITY is that President Obama actually cut taxes. 40% of the ""Stimulus" was wasted on tax cuts which only create debt. That is why the stimulus was so much less effective than it could have been.
8. "President Obama tripled the deficit." The REALITY is that President George W. Bush's last budget had a $1.416 Trillion deficit. Obama's first budget reduced that to $1.29 Trillion.
Until the White House learns how to communicate President Obama's programs and how to best do a quality PR job, they will continue to lose the information battle and it may cost Obama re-election in 2012.
Doing a good job is only half the battle, communicating it is the other half and some say the important half. Senior Obama advisor David Axelrod has to do a better job. Recently he stated, "Two years ago I could have told you this was going to be a tough year." He knew then and had plenty of time to work on PR and quality communication about Obama's plans. But, unlike the master Karl Rove, Axelrod has really done very little or nothing. Axelrod also stated, "Our mission is to get people energized and understanding there are real stakes in the election." But what he failed to understand is, that is an ongoing job, not something you only do a few months every two years. His job should be to stay out in front of those objections and anticipate those questions before they are asked.
Friday, September 24, 2010
The "I" of Newt!
Newton Leroy McPhearson, born June 17, 1943 in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania into a family with a nineteen year old father and a sixteen year old mother. The McPhearson Family didn't last very long and his mother married again to Robert Gingrich who adopted Newt. The Gingrich family was military and moved frequently. Newt graduated from High School in Georgia and went to college at Emory University in Atlanta where he graduated with a BA, then later he received an MA, then went to Tulane for a PhD in modern European history.
Newt Gingrich was first elected to the House of Representatives in 1978 after two previous unsuccessful attempts. He was then reelected six times to that position until he decided to not take his final reelection and left the House and his office as Speaker, under pressure from his own party.
To retrace, in 1995, Newt and a small group of powerful Republicans decided to bring the government to its knees by stopping all funding of vital programs. He said he wanted to "Slow the growth of Government Spending." That was a great Republican thought and garnered him great praise among fellow Republicans. Later however, it was revealed by Newt himself, that it was to spite President Clinton for snubbing him on Air Force One and making him stay in the back of the plane with Bob Dole. Tom Delay wrote in his book, "No Retreat, No Surrender;"
"He told a room full of reporters that he forced the shutdown because Clinton had rudely made him and Bob Dole sit at the back of Air Force One . . . Newt had been careless to say such a thing and now the whole moral tone of the shutdown had been lost. What had been a noble battle for fiscal sanity began to look like the tirade of a spoiled child . . . The Revolution was never the same." But Hillary Clinton, in her book "Living History" shows a picture of that flight with Bill Clinton, Bob Dole and Newt Gingrich laughing on that flight together and having a good time.
In 1997, the House voted overwhelmingly to reprimand Gingrich for ethics violations going back as far as late 1994. Gingrich had to pay a $300,000 penalty. That was the first time in history that a Speaker was disciplined for an ethics violation. Also in 1997, a few Republicans saw that Gingirich was becoming a liability and tried to replace him as Speaker. Tom Delay, Dick Armey, John Boehner and Bill Paxon along with lesser House Members Steve Largent, Lindsey Graham and Mark Souder plotted against Gingrich and held secret meetings to capture the leadership of the party. They were going to hand Gingrich an ultimatum, that Gingrich resign or they would vote him out. But Dick Armey got cold feet and warned Gingrich about he coup.
In 1998, Newt became a heavy liability with his approval rating below 50% among Republicans and the Republicans had lost seats in the worst showing in 64 years for the party that didn't hold the Presidency. Gingrich faced yet another rebellion and held most of the blame for the losses. After being reelected in November 1998 Newt Gingrich quit as Speaker and left the House. His reasoning was, "I'm willing to lead but I'm not willing to preside over people who are cannibals."
Gingrich has been married three times . . . so far. Gingrich was married when he started dating his second wife. He told his first wife and they planned the divorce while his first wife was recovering from cancer in the hospital. He married his second wife six months later. Gingrich began an affair with house staffer Callist Bisek, 23 years younger than he, in the mid 90s. That continued during the Congressional investigation of Bill Clinton and the Monica Lewinsky scandal. He married her in 2000 shortly after his divorce from his second wife.
Some of his present quotes:
"When the United States 'first created the federal income tax, frankly, nobody below a million dollars a year paid anything.'" That of course is totally FALSE. (See my previous posts on the history of the income tax.) The first income tax was in 1913, those brackets were:
$0-$20,000 paid 1%
$20,000-$50,000 paid 2%
$50,000-$75,000 paid 3%
$75,000-$100,000 paid 4%
$100,000-$250,000 paid 5%
$250,000-$500,000 paid 6%
Over $500,000 paid 7%
(From http://www.taxfoundation.org/)
In January of this year on the O'Reilly Factor Newt said:
"The President recently signed, very quietly, an executive order that basically releases Interpol from all American Constraints. Freedom of Information Acts don't apply. All the constraints that you as a citizen could use against an American police force, based on a recent Obama-signed executive order, give Interpol, which has relationships with Syria, with Libya, with Iran, it give them all sorts of extralegality in the United States in a way that has never ever before been offered to Interpol. And I'm very curious as to why the President is doing this . . . What I'm told is that it could lead to a number of investigations by Interpol in the United States, potentially aimed at American officials. And the question I would raise is, why would the President of the United States give that kind of extralegal protection to an international police force?" This was rated by http://www.politifact.com/ as "Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire." The key problem with this notion is that Interpol couldn't investigate CIA or American officials because Interpol doesn't do investigations. It doesn't arrest anyone, and doesn't even have it own officers. It helps police organizations in different countries communicate and coordinate actions, provides databases of crime information (fingerprints, stolen artwork, names of suspected terrorists), training and does other support services.
In late May of last year, Newt said: Inside the stimulus package "is anti-Christian legislation that will stop churches from using public schools for meeting on Sundays, as well as Boy Scouts and student Bible study groups." Again, politifact rated this one as a "Pants on fire" lie. And what is really bad about this one is that a fund raising mail out that contained it also stated, "Bring moral leadership back to our nation." I guess morality includes telling lies as far as Newt is concerned. When this one is passed to you, ask, "Could you cite the location of that for me?" It ain't there and never was.
In May of 2009, Newt said, "Democrats in Congress had control since January of 2007. They haven't passed a law making waterboarding illegal. They haven't gone into any of these things and changed law." That, of course, is FALSE. In 2008, Democrats did pass legislation that would have had the effect of outlawing waterboarding by restricting U. S. agents to interrogation methods outlined in the Army Field Manual. The Manual specifically forbids waterboarding. But President George W. Bush VETOED the bill and Democrats were not able to muster the two-thirds majority necessary to override the veto.
If you get notes and emails promoting Newt Gingrich, copy and paste this to the one that sent it to you. He is not a plus for the Republican Party or for Conservatism in general . . . after you look a bit deeper.
Newt Gingrich holds truth as high as he holds his marriage vows. He'll do what it takes to promote Newt . . . the Big "I," and he'll squash whatever is in his way. Don't get taken in!
Newt Gingrich was first elected to the House of Representatives in 1978 after two previous unsuccessful attempts. He was then reelected six times to that position until he decided to not take his final reelection and left the House and his office as Speaker, under pressure from his own party.
To retrace, in 1995, Newt and a small group of powerful Republicans decided to bring the government to its knees by stopping all funding of vital programs. He said he wanted to "Slow the growth of Government Spending." That was a great Republican thought and garnered him great praise among fellow Republicans. Later however, it was revealed by Newt himself, that it was to spite President Clinton for snubbing him on Air Force One and making him stay in the back of the plane with Bob Dole. Tom Delay wrote in his book, "No Retreat, No Surrender;"
"He told a room full of reporters that he forced the shutdown because Clinton had rudely made him and Bob Dole sit at the back of Air Force One . . . Newt had been careless to say such a thing and now the whole moral tone of the shutdown had been lost. What had been a noble battle for fiscal sanity began to look like the tirade of a spoiled child . . . The Revolution was never the same." But Hillary Clinton, in her book "Living History" shows a picture of that flight with Bill Clinton, Bob Dole and Newt Gingrich laughing on that flight together and having a good time.
In 1997, the House voted overwhelmingly to reprimand Gingrich for ethics violations going back as far as late 1994. Gingrich had to pay a $300,000 penalty. That was the first time in history that a Speaker was disciplined for an ethics violation. Also in 1997, a few Republicans saw that Gingirich was becoming a liability and tried to replace him as Speaker. Tom Delay, Dick Armey, John Boehner and Bill Paxon along with lesser House Members Steve Largent, Lindsey Graham and Mark Souder plotted against Gingrich and held secret meetings to capture the leadership of the party. They were going to hand Gingrich an ultimatum, that Gingrich resign or they would vote him out. But Dick Armey got cold feet and warned Gingrich about he coup.
In 1998, Newt became a heavy liability with his approval rating below 50% among Republicans and the Republicans had lost seats in the worst showing in 64 years for the party that didn't hold the Presidency. Gingrich faced yet another rebellion and held most of the blame for the losses. After being reelected in November 1998 Newt Gingrich quit as Speaker and left the House. His reasoning was, "I'm willing to lead but I'm not willing to preside over people who are cannibals."
Gingrich has been married three times . . . so far. Gingrich was married when he started dating his second wife. He told his first wife and they planned the divorce while his first wife was recovering from cancer in the hospital. He married his second wife six months later. Gingrich began an affair with house staffer Callist Bisek, 23 years younger than he, in the mid 90s. That continued during the Congressional investigation of Bill Clinton and the Monica Lewinsky scandal. He married her in 2000 shortly after his divorce from his second wife.
Some of his present quotes:
"When the United States 'first created the federal income tax, frankly, nobody below a million dollars a year paid anything.'" That of course is totally FALSE. (See my previous posts on the history of the income tax.) The first income tax was in 1913, those brackets were:
$0-$20,000 paid 1%
$20,000-$50,000 paid 2%
$50,000-$75,000 paid 3%
$75,000-$100,000 paid 4%
$100,000-$250,000 paid 5%
$250,000-$500,000 paid 6%
Over $500,000 paid 7%
(From http://www.taxfoundation.org/)
In January of this year on the O'Reilly Factor Newt said:
"The President recently signed, very quietly, an executive order that basically releases Interpol from all American Constraints. Freedom of Information Acts don't apply. All the constraints that you as a citizen could use against an American police force, based on a recent Obama-signed executive order, give Interpol, which has relationships with Syria, with Libya, with Iran, it give them all sorts of extralegality in the United States in a way that has never ever before been offered to Interpol. And I'm very curious as to why the President is doing this . . . What I'm told is that it could lead to a number of investigations by Interpol in the United States, potentially aimed at American officials. And the question I would raise is, why would the President of the United States give that kind of extralegal protection to an international police force?" This was rated by http://www.politifact.com/ as "Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire." The key problem with this notion is that Interpol couldn't investigate CIA or American officials because Interpol doesn't do investigations. It doesn't arrest anyone, and doesn't even have it own officers. It helps police organizations in different countries communicate and coordinate actions, provides databases of crime information (fingerprints, stolen artwork, names of suspected terrorists), training and does other support services.
In late May of last year, Newt said: Inside the stimulus package "is anti-Christian legislation that will stop churches from using public schools for meeting on Sundays, as well as Boy Scouts and student Bible study groups." Again, politifact rated this one as a "Pants on fire" lie. And what is really bad about this one is that a fund raising mail out that contained it also stated, "Bring moral leadership back to our nation." I guess morality includes telling lies as far as Newt is concerned. When this one is passed to you, ask, "Could you cite the location of that for me?" It ain't there and never was.
In May of 2009, Newt said, "Democrats in Congress had control since January of 2007. They haven't passed a law making waterboarding illegal. They haven't gone into any of these things and changed law." That, of course, is FALSE. In 2008, Democrats did pass legislation that would have had the effect of outlawing waterboarding by restricting U. S. agents to interrogation methods outlined in the Army Field Manual. The Manual specifically forbids waterboarding. But President George W. Bush VETOED the bill and Democrats were not able to muster the two-thirds majority necessary to override the veto.
If you get notes and emails promoting Newt Gingrich, copy and paste this to the one that sent it to you. He is not a plus for the Republican Party or for Conservatism in general . . . after you look a bit deeper.
Newt Gingrich holds truth as high as he holds his marriage vows. He'll do what it takes to promote Newt . . . the Big "I," and he'll squash whatever is in his way. Don't get taken in!
Thursday, September 16, 2010
The History of the Federal Income Tax, Conclusion
As we have seen, since the beginning in 1913, the Federal Income Tax has been and rightfully so, a progressive tax. By 1918 they realized that the "Progression" should run higher . . . a lot higher. So, it went all the way from a top rate of 7% to a top rate of 77%, and the brackets went from 7 to 56.
The poorer pay a lower percentage and the wealthy pay a higher percentage. Why you ask? A person that pays 10% tax on an income of $15,000, pays 100% of their discretionary income on taxes and have nothing left for retirement or anything else, like a new refrigerator or furniture. That's not good for the refrigerator and furniture manufacturers. A person that pays 10% on $100,000 pays about 25% of their discretionary income on taxes and they have lots more means to acquire deductions to lower their taxable income. But, since the middle class doesn't have any money to spend on clothes and refrigerators and furniture, investments in those areas don't draw any income. In fact, our economy requires that middle income people to have spendable income to make everything work, otherwise the rich don't have anyone to sell their products. Without demand, there are no jobs in industry. Demand creates jobs.
Let's get back to where we were in our history of the Federal Income Tax.
As stated, the income tax brackets stayed pretty stable from 1965 through 1982. There was some small variance, but mostly it was the same. The top rate for 17 years was 70%.
That all changed when Ronald Reagan became President. He cut the top rate by almost 30% from a 70% rate down to a 50% rate and he cut the highest income bracket that started at $215,000, down to $85,000. This was massive for the guy that had a taxable income of $225,000. That guy or gal paid $45,000 less in taxes in one year than in the previous. It was a gift to the wealthy. Now let's look at the guy that made $50,000. He went from 49% to 44%. Wow! he paid $2,000 less. So, with Reagan the middle class got screwed when it came to taxes. Now, let's look at the brackets.
1981 taxes:
$5,001 paid 14%
$50,001 paid 49%
$225,001 paid 77%
All changed in 1982, the rich got richer:
$5,001 paid 12%
$50,000 paid 44%
$225,000 paid 50% (look at this and tell me who made out)
In the next 5 years nothing changed except the upper range income got higher and drove the top earners in 1982 of $85,600 to a lower bracket of 42%. That guy went down 8% but the $5,001 guy only went down one percentage point to 11%.
In 1987, also under Reagan, the top dropped down again. It went from 50% down to 38.5%. Now let's see what Reagan did for the rich. Under Reagan the top tax rate went from 77% down to 38.5%. That is a total decrease of 38.5 points or a 50% decrease. Reagan cut the taxes for the in HALF, and he considered the rich s anyone with a taxable income of over $45,000.
In 1988 the top rate went down again to 28% and it started at $113,300. That means the top tax bracket has now gone down, under Reagan, by 49 points. That is a total decrease for the rich of 64% in taxes.
So, in 1988, the taxes were:
$5,001 paid 15%
$50,001 paid 38.5%
$225,001 paid 38.5%
In 1989:
$5,001 paid 15%
$50,001 paid 33%
$225,001 paid 28% (A 15% rate bubble allowed a recapture from the
middle class of the discount to the rich)
Except for that rate bubble that expired in 1991, everything stayed close to the same till 1993. Under Clinton the three brackets went up a bit to five brackets and the top rate went back to 39.6%. The top bracket was 39.6% until 2001 when it went , under George W. Bush, to 39.1%, then in '02 to 38.6, and in '03 to 35%, where it has been until now.
In 2013 we will be celebrating the one hundredth birthday of the Federal Income Tax system. In the past 97 years the average top income tax bracket was 60.1%. For twenty years the top rate was 90% or higher. For forty nine years the top rate was 70% or higher. For sixty three of the past ninety seven years the top tax bracket has been 50% or higher.
Right now the top bracket is 35% and the wealthy is pissed off and they aren't going to put up with it any more! BULL! The rich are getting off lightly and they know it but have convinced the middle class that the rich are responsible for inventing jobs. Believe me, they are not. Demand creates jobs! Without demand for products, thee is no reason to manufacture those products. Demand comes from the people who use those products. If those people are unemployed, there is no demand.
I agree, the rich should pay 90% to income tax, but that almost never happened. That 90% rate was only on taxable income and with deductions, amortization, and reinvestment, the rich never paid much. In some cases the rich paid nothing after deductions.
Remember, just because some people are in a particular bracket doesn't mean that their taxable income will make them remain in that bracket. Warren Buffet has stated that his tax rate is less than his secretary's.
Don't let them fool you. They, the rich, are now paying less than they have paid in 90% of the life of the Federal Income Tax.
The poorer pay a lower percentage and the wealthy pay a higher percentage. Why you ask? A person that pays 10% tax on an income of $15,000, pays 100% of their discretionary income on taxes and have nothing left for retirement or anything else, like a new refrigerator or furniture. That's not good for the refrigerator and furniture manufacturers. A person that pays 10% on $100,000 pays about 25% of their discretionary income on taxes and they have lots more means to acquire deductions to lower their taxable income. But, since the middle class doesn't have any money to spend on clothes and refrigerators and furniture, investments in those areas don't draw any income. In fact, our economy requires that middle income people to have spendable income to make everything work, otherwise the rich don't have anyone to sell their products. Without demand, there are no jobs in industry. Demand creates jobs.
Let's get back to where we were in our history of the Federal Income Tax.
As stated, the income tax brackets stayed pretty stable from 1965 through 1982. There was some small variance, but mostly it was the same. The top rate for 17 years was 70%.
That all changed when Ronald Reagan became President. He cut the top rate by almost 30% from a 70% rate down to a 50% rate and he cut the highest income bracket that started at $215,000, down to $85,000. This was massive for the guy that had a taxable income of $225,000. That guy or gal paid $45,000 less in taxes in one year than in the previous. It was a gift to the wealthy. Now let's look at the guy that made $50,000. He went from 49% to 44%. Wow! he paid $2,000 less. So, with Reagan the middle class got screwed when it came to taxes. Now, let's look at the brackets.
1981 taxes:
$5,001 paid 14%
$50,001 paid 49%
$225,001 paid 77%
All changed in 1982, the rich got richer:
$5,001 paid 12%
$50,000 paid 44%
$225,000 paid 50% (look at this and tell me who made out)
In the next 5 years nothing changed except the upper range income got higher and drove the top earners in 1982 of $85,600 to a lower bracket of 42%. That guy went down 8% but the $5,001 guy only went down one percentage point to 11%.
In 1987, also under Reagan, the top dropped down again. It went from 50% down to 38.5%. Now let's see what Reagan did for the rich. Under Reagan the top tax rate went from 77% down to 38.5%. That is a total decrease of 38.5 points or a 50% decrease. Reagan cut the taxes for the in HALF, and he considered the rich s anyone with a taxable income of over $45,000.
In 1988 the top rate went down again to 28% and it started at $113,300. That means the top tax bracket has now gone down, under Reagan, by 49 points. That is a total decrease for the rich of 64% in taxes.
So, in 1988, the taxes were:
$5,001 paid 15%
$50,001 paid 38.5%
$225,001 paid 38.5%
In 1989:
$5,001 paid 15%
$50,001 paid 33%
$225,001 paid 28% (A 15% rate bubble allowed a recapture from the
middle class of the discount to the rich)
Except for that rate bubble that expired in 1991, everything stayed close to the same till 1993. Under Clinton the three brackets went up a bit to five brackets and the top rate went back to 39.6%. The top bracket was 39.6% until 2001 when it went , under George W. Bush, to 39.1%, then in '02 to 38.6, and in '03 to 35%, where it has been until now.
In 2013 we will be celebrating the one hundredth birthday of the Federal Income Tax system. In the past 97 years the average top income tax bracket was 60.1%. For twenty years the top rate was 90% or higher. For forty nine years the top rate was 70% or higher. For sixty three of the past ninety seven years the top tax bracket has been 50% or higher.
Right now the top bracket is 35% and the wealthy is pissed off and they aren't going to put up with it any more! BULL! The rich are getting off lightly and they know it but have convinced the middle class that the rich are responsible for inventing jobs. Believe me, they are not. Demand creates jobs! Without demand for products, thee is no reason to manufacture those products. Demand comes from the people who use those products. If those people are unemployed, there is no demand.
I agree, the rich should pay 90% to income tax, but that almost never happened. That 90% rate was only on taxable income and with deductions, amortization, and reinvestment, the rich never paid much. In some cases the rich paid nothing after deductions.
Remember, just because some people are in a particular bracket doesn't mean that their taxable income will make them remain in that bracket. Warren Buffet has stated that his tax rate is less than his secretary's.
Don't let them fool you. They, the rich, are now paying less than they have paid in 90% of the life of the Federal Income Tax.
Sunday, September 12, 2010
The History of the Federal Income Tax, Part 2
Now, to catch us up to where the last post left off in 1928, you must remember the price of things then as compared to now. In 1928, $20,000 was about the same as $245,000 is now. The inflation calculator is at:
www.westegg.com/inflation/infl.cgi
So, a loaf of bread cost 10¢, eggs were 20¢/doz. and milk was about 30¢ a gallon. Go to:
www.thepeoplehistory.com/20sfood.html
My three monetary categories of $5,001, $50,001 and $225,001 which would be very reasonable now were then equivalent to $62,000, $620,000 and $2,800,000. You have to remember that to break even with the income of 1928 you would now have to be making $74,000. If you are not then you have lost ground to inflation.
www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,738618,00.html
Now, on to the next few decades of tax brackets. The great stock market plunge happened in late 1929 and Republican President, Herbert Hoover, decided that we could come out of it on our own without any help from the government so he and congress didn't change the tax brackets in the first few years of the depression. When Hoover lost to Roosevelt in 1932 those brackets began to move some. In 1932 there were 55 tax brackets and the top earners paid 63% to income tax.
in 1933, things changed:
$5,001 paid 8%
$50,001 paid 31%
$225,001 paid 58%
(This was the first step to getting us out of a debilitating depression)
In 1934, the number of brackets shrank from 55 down to 30 but the top earners still paid 63%. What they did was combine most of the brackets with the one just above it and about half of us paid a percentage point or two more than the previous year.
1934 brackets:
$5,001 paid 9%
$50,001 paid 34%
$225,000 paid 58%
By 1936, the wealthy still weren't creating jobs so the Federal Government started with CCC programs and various other job creating plans. Along with this, Congress decided to punish the wealthy by raising the rate the top earners had to pay.
in 1936:
$5,001 paid 8%
$50,001 paid 45%
$225,000 paid 66%
(the top bracket paid 79% which jumped up from 63%)
In 1940, knowing full well that war was coming, a defense tax was imposed. An additional 10% surtax was levied to help with the war effort.
By 1942, we were in the war on two fronts. We declared war against Japan on December 8, 1941 and against Germany on December 11, 1941. We didn't declare war against the rest of the Axis powers till June 5, 1942. The top wage earner rate in 1942 jumped again from 79% to 88% and that was for anyone making over $200,000. So, what they did was raise the top rates and lower the bracket incomes so that everyone got a hike.
In 1942, these were the rates:
$5,001 paid 26% (this was over triple the '36 rate)
$50,001 paid 72% (almost double the '36 rate)
$225,001 paid 88% (about a 35% increase)
The brackets rose only slightly in 1944 with the top bracket paying 94% income tax. In 1946, the income tax brackets were passed and then reduced by about 5% to help spur the economy. The top bracket was originally 91% but was reduced to 85.5% along with a proportionate reduction in the other brackets. Even higher reductions were made in '47, '48, '49 and '50.
In June of 1950, we entered the U. N. Police Action against North Korea and had lots of war obligations but the tax rate was about as high as it could get. Even the lowest bracket was in excess of 20%. The government started reducing the discount on taxes, which originally brought the tax rates down and now made the rates what they were originally.
In 1954, the government tweaked the tax brackets and they stayed the same for several years.
In 1954:
$5,001 paid 26%
$50,001 paid 75%
$225,001 paid 91%
Remember, this was during the Eisenhower years.
This stayed the same till the revenue act of 1964 was passed. This was a substantial reduction in all brackets.
In 1964:
$5,001 paid 23.5% (a 10% reduction)
$50,001 paid 66% (a 12% reduction)
$225,000 paid 77% (a 15% reduction)
The revenue tax rates of 1964 stayed in effect, except for surtaxes, till 1969 when the Marriage Penalty came into effect. Those surtaxes were 7.5% in '68, 10% in'69 and 2.5% in '70.
Tax rates and tax brackets stayed pretty stable till 1982. That's where we'll pick this up in my next post. Ronald Reagan really brought the tax for the upper crust down . . . all the way to 50%! WOW . . . 50%
I think you are beginning to see where we are going here. The rich and super rich are pissing and moaning about the high tax rates now but most of them have so many reductions and expenses to deduct that they pay about half their rates and lots of them pay nothing. Individuals don't have the business expenses to deduct that small business owners have.
Wait till you see what's coming next!
The conclusion and whole point of this is at:
http://swoopsfromsnowyowl.blogspot.com/2010/09/history-of-federal-income-tax_16.html
www.westegg.com/inflation/infl.cgi
So, a loaf of bread cost 10¢, eggs were 20¢/doz. and milk was about 30¢ a gallon. Go to:
www.thepeoplehistory.com/20sfood.html
My three monetary categories of $5,001, $50,001 and $225,001 which would be very reasonable now were then equivalent to $62,000, $620,000 and $2,800,000. You have to remember that to break even with the income of 1928 you would now have to be making $74,000. If you are not then you have lost ground to inflation.
www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,738618,00.html
Now, on to the next few decades of tax brackets. The great stock market plunge happened in late 1929 and Republican President, Herbert Hoover, decided that we could come out of it on our own without any help from the government so he and congress didn't change the tax brackets in the first few years of the depression. When Hoover lost to Roosevelt in 1932 those brackets began to move some. In 1932 there were 55 tax brackets and the top earners paid 63% to income tax.
in 1933, things changed:
$5,001 paid 8%
$50,001 paid 31%
$225,001 paid 58%
(This was the first step to getting us out of a debilitating depression)
In 1934, the number of brackets shrank from 55 down to 30 but the top earners still paid 63%. What they did was combine most of the brackets with the one just above it and about half of us paid a percentage point or two more than the previous year.
1934 brackets:
$5,001 paid 9%
$50,001 paid 34%
$225,000 paid 58%
By 1936, the wealthy still weren't creating jobs so the Federal Government started with CCC programs and various other job creating plans. Along with this, Congress decided to punish the wealthy by raising the rate the top earners had to pay.
in 1936:
$5,001 paid 8%
$50,001 paid 45%
$225,000 paid 66%
(the top bracket paid 79% which jumped up from 63%)
In 1940, knowing full well that war was coming, a defense tax was imposed. An additional 10% surtax was levied to help with the war effort.
By 1942, we were in the war on two fronts. We declared war against Japan on December 8, 1941 and against Germany on December 11, 1941. We didn't declare war against the rest of the Axis powers till June 5, 1942. The top wage earner rate in 1942 jumped again from 79% to 88% and that was for anyone making over $200,000. So, what they did was raise the top rates and lower the bracket incomes so that everyone got a hike.
In 1942, these were the rates:
$5,001 paid 26% (this was over triple the '36 rate)
$50,001 paid 72% (almost double the '36 rate)
$225,001 paid 88% (about a 35% increase)
The brackets rose only slightly in 1944 with the top bracket paying 94% income tax. In 1946, the income tax brackets were passed and then reduced by about 5% to help spur the economy. The top bracket was originally 91% but was reduced to 85.5% along with a proportionate reduction in the other brackets. Even higher reductions were made in '47, '48, '49 and '50.
In June of 1950, we entered the U. N. Police Action against North Korea and had lots of war obligations but the tax rate was about as high as it could get. Even the lowest bracket was in excess of 20%. The government started reducing the discount on taxes, which originally brought the tax rates down and now made the rates what they were originally.
In 1954, the government tweaked the tax brackets and they stayed the same for several years.
In 1954:
$5,001 paid 26%
$50,001 paid 75%
$225,001 paid 91%
Remember, this was during the Eisenhower years.
This stayed the same till the revenue act of 1964 was passed. This was a substantial reduction in all brackets.
In 1964:
$5,001 paid 23.5% (a 10% reduction)
$50,001 paid 66% (a 12% reduction)
$225,000 paid 77% (a 15% reduction)
The revenue tax rates of 1964 stayed in effect, except for surtaxes, till 1969 when the Marriage Penalty came into effect. Those surtaxes were 7.5% in '68, 10% in'69 and 2.5% in '70.
Tax rates and tax brackets stayed pretty stable till 1982. That's where we'll pick this up in my next post. Ronald Reagan really brought the tax for the upper crust down . . . all the way to 50%! WOW . . . 50%
I think you are beginning to see where we are going here. The rich and super rich are pissing and moaning about the high tax rates now but most of them have so many reductions and expenses to deduct that they pay about half their rates and lots of them pay nothing. Individuals don't have the business expenses to deduct that small business owners have.
Wait till you see what's coming next!
The conclusion and whole point of this is at:
http://swoopsfromsnowyowl.blogspot.com/2010/09/history-of-federal-income-tax_16.html
Friday, September 10, 2010
The History of the Federal Income Tax
You might want to have a secondary title for this of "How The Rich Keep Getting Richer."
Recently I decided to go back and see what has happened to the income tax brackets in the past, especially the bracket for the upper income area. You are going to be surprised at what I found.
First a bit of history; Federal Income Tax took effect after the 16th Amendment to the Constitution was passed and ratified in February of 1913. The Republican President , William Howard Taft, in an address to Congress in 1909, proposed a 2% income tax on corporations. The Congress took up the gauntlet and went all the way with an income tax on Corporations and Individuals. It was ratified by the necessary ¾ of the states and was enacted just before Woodrow Wilson took office in March 1913. As a sidebar; Arkansas and New Hampshire first rejected it and then came back and ratified it later. Connecticut, Rhode Island and Utah considered it but have never ratified the 16th Amendment. On the other hand; Florida, Virginia and Pennsylvania not only have never ratified it but they never even considered it.
I would like to take a look at various income brackets for the following amounts of income; $5,001/year, $50,001/year, and $225,001/year. I am not going to figure for inflation but you can figure that in 1913 $5,000/year went a lot farther than it does today, in fact it was a good sum of money. You might want to figure also that $50,000/year was more than 98% of the population made and that $225,001 was a fortune that only the top .01% were capable of making. Those are the three incomes I'll be looking at in this essay. I will not be looking at the deductions that people qualified for but you must remember that the more people make the more deductions they qualify for and the income tax is only on income after deductions. The top earners had lots of deductions to bring their taxable income down and the lower income had few.
I will most likely have to do this post in two editions (maybe more) because it will be longer than most.
Let's go back to the beginning, here is 1913;
$5,001 paid 1%
$50,001 paid 2%
$225,001 paid 5%
In 1916, with war on the way, the brackets were expanded a bit and most paid double what they paid earlier;
$5,001 paid 2%
$50,001 paid 4%
$225,001 paid 9%
The very next year, 1917, we were in war and things changed;
$5,001 paid 5%
$50,001 paid 16%
$225,001 paid 41%
In 1918, Congress found a gold mine in the income tax and they needed it to pay off the mounting debt the war brought on and the original 7 brackets had now expanded to 56 brackets and the top earners were paying through the nose;
$5,001 paid 13%
$50,001 paid 36%
$225,001 paid 72%
(The top bracket was at 77%)
In 1924, the war had been substantially paid off but the money was flowing and who could resist? The brackets have now shrunk to only 43 from the 56 in 1918;
$5,001 paid 4%
$50,001 paid 24%
$225,001 paid 44%
In 1928, the roaring '20s were in full swing and income taxes had now gone down to a very low rate compared to what it was in the early '20s. The U. S. at this time had a Republican President since 1921 and the rich were rolling in the dough;
$5,001 paid 3%
$50,001 paid 18%
$225,000 paid 25%
As you can see, just prior to the great depression, the wealthy had it made. That didn't bring on the depression but it didn't help either. It just shows that a low income tax rate for the rich doesn't create wealth in any class but the already rich. It also shows that without regulations, the wealthy will let the economy go to hell. Deregulation brings on unbridled greed and the end of a positive economy.
(The next issue of this post will come in about 2 days. There are some amazing things that you will not beleive in that post.)
I got the history of the income tax and the bracket history at:
www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html
www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/taxes/ustax.shtml
The second part of this post is at:
http://swoopsfromsnowyowl.blogspot.com/2010/09/history-of-federal-income-tax-part-2.html
Recently I decided to go back and see what has happened to the income tax brackets in the past, especially the bracket for the upper income area. You are going to be surprised at what I found.
First a bit of history; Federal Income Tax took effect after the 16th Amendment to the Constitution was passed and ratified in February of 1913. The Republican President , William Howard Taft, in an address to Congress in 1909, proposed a 2% income tax on corporations. The Congress took up the gauntlet and went all the way with an income tax on Corporations and Individuals. It was ratified by the necessary ¾ of the states and was enacted just before Woodrow Wilson took office in March 1913. As a sidebar; Arkansas and New Hampshire first rejected it and then came back and ratified it later. Connecticut, Rhode Island and Utah considered it but have never ratified the 16th Amendment. On the other hand; Florida, Virginia and Pennsylvania not only have never ratified it but they never even considered it.
I would like to take a look at various income brackets for the following amounts of income; $5,001/year, $50,001/year, and $225,001/year. I am not going to figure for inflation but you can figure that in 1913 $5,000/year went a lot farther than it does today, in fact it was a good sum of money. You might want to figure also that $50,000/year was more than 98% of the population made and that $225,001 was a fortune that only the top .01% were capable of making. Those are the three incomes I'll be looking at in this essay. I will not be looking at the deductions that people qualified for but you must remember that the more people make the more deductions they qualify for and the income tax is only on income after deductions. The top earners had lots of deductions to bring their taxable income down and the lower income had few.
I will most likely have to do this post in two editions (maybe more) because it will be longer than most.
Let's go back to the beginning, here is 1913;
$5,001 paid 1%
$50,001 paid 2%
$225,001 paid 5%
In 1916, with war on the way, the brackets were expanded a bit and most paid double what they paid earlier;
$5,001 paid 2%
$50,001 paid 4%
$225,001 paid 9%
The very next year, 1917, we were in war and things changed;
$5,001 paid 5%
$50,001 paid 16%
$225,001 paid 41%
In 1918, Congress found a gold mine in the income tax and they needed it to pay off the mounting debt the war brought on and the original 7 brackets had now expanded to 56 brackets and the top earners were paying through the nose;
$5,001 paid 13%
$50,001 paid 36%
$225,001 paid 72%
(The top bracket was at 77%)
In 1924, the war had been substantially paid off but the money was flowing and who could resist? The brackets have now shrunk to only 43 from the 56 in 1918;
$5,001 paid 4%
$50,001 paid 24%
$225,001 paid 44%
In 1928, the roaring '20s were in full swing and income taxes had now gone down to a very low rate compared to what it was in the early '20s. The U. S. at this time had a Republican President since 1921 and the rich were rolling in the dough;
$5,001 paid 3%
$50,001 paid 18%
$225,000 paid 25%
As you can see, just prior to the great depression, the wealthy had it made. That didn't bring on the depression but it didn't help either. It just shows that a low income tax rate for the rich doesn't create wealth in any class but the already rich. It also shows that without regulations, the wealthy will let the economy go to hell. Deregulation brings on unbridled greed and the end of a positive economy.
(The next issue of this post will come in about 2 days. There are some amazing things that you will not beleive in that post.)
I got the history of the income tax and the bracket history at:
www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html
www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/taxes/ustax.shtml
The second part of this post is at:
http://swoopsfromsnowyowl.blogspot.com/2010/09/history-of-federal-income-tax-part-2.html
Friday, August 20, 2010
The Victory? Mosque
I have never heard such an uproar by a group of people trying to circumvent the Constitution. They, the GOP, have campaigned for years on upholding that same Constitution and promoted the strict interpretation of it.
Here is an example of the GOP's thoughts on the Constitution. I present an excerpt from a speech given by Charlton Heston to the NRA upon Protests by citizens of Denver against the NRA holding their convention in Denver a few weeks after the Columbine shootings in a Suburb of Denver.
Mr Heston Said:
(My insertions in parenthesis to show how similar things really are)
"This cycle of tragedy-driven hatred must stop because so much more connects us than that which divides us, because tragedy has been, and will always be, with us. Somewhere right now, evil people are planning evil things. All of us will do everything meaningful, everything we can do to prevent it, but each horrible act can't become an axe for opportunists to cleave the very Bill of Rights that binds us. America must stop this predictable pattern of reaction. When an isolated, terrible event occurs (9/11), our phones ring, demanding that the NRA (Muslims) explain the inexplicable. Why us(Muslims), because their (The GOP) story needs a villain. They (the GOP) want us (Muslims) to play the heavy in their (The GOP) drama of packaged grief (9/11), to provide riveting programming to run between commercials for cars and cat food."
That is what Charlton Heston, a devout Conservative had to say about discrimination against the NRA. How does that not apply to the Muslims and their Community Center 2½ blocks and several porn shops away from the WTC's "Sacred Ground" in New York City?
Christians, Jews, Muslims, Pagans, Agnostics and Atheists were all killed on 9/11. They all have claim and deserve a place of worship in the area . . . not because of those deaths, but because we have a Constitution that says they have that right if they can afford putting one there. Protesting that Muslim Community Center is protesting the Bill of Rights.
Building the "Victory" Mosque will represent the victory of the Bill of Rights, the victory of the Constitution and the victory of all the American people.
For more, go to:
www.factcheck.org/2010/08/questions-about-the-ground-zero-mosque/
Here is an example of the GOP's thoughts on the Constitution. I present an excerpt from a speech given by Charlton Heston to the NRA upon Protests by citizens of Denver against the NRA holding their convention in Denver a few weeks after the Columbine shootings in a Suburb of Denver.
Mr Heston Said:
(My insertions in parenthesis to show how similar things really are)
"This cycle of tragedy-driven hatred must stop because so much more connects us than that which divides us, because tragedy has been, and will always be, with us. Somewhere right now, evil people are planning evil things. All of us will do everything meaningful, everything we can do to prevent it, but each horrible act can't become an axe for opportunists to cleave the very Bill of Rights that binds us. America must stop this predictable pattern of reaction. When an isolated, terrible event occurs (9/11), our phones ring, demanding that the NRA (Muslims) explain the inexplicable. Why us(Muslims), because their (The GOP) story needs a villain. They (the GOP) want us (Muslims) to play the heavy in their (The GOP) drama of packaged grief (9/11), to provide riveting programming to run between commercials for cars and cat food."
That is what Charlton Heston, a devout Conservative had to say about discrimination against the NRA. How does that not apply to the Muslims and their Community Center 2½ blocks and several porn shops away from the WTC's "Sacred Ground" in New York City?
Christians, Jews, Muslims, Pagans, Agnostics and Atheists were all killed on 9/11. They all have claim and deserve a place of worship in the area . . . not because of those deaths, but because we have a Constitution that says they have that right if they can afford putting one there. Protesting that Muslim Community Center is protesting the Bill of Rights.
Building the "Victory" Mosque will represent the victory of the Bill of Rights, the victory of the Constitution and the victory of all the American people.
For more, go to:
www.factcheck.org/2010/08/questions-about-the-ground-zero-mosque/
Sunday, August 1, 2010
Did You Know . . .
Did you know that no matter how long you have voted and no matter for whom you voted, you have never voted for a President . . . never! Presidents are not elected by the citizens of the United States of America. They are elected by an Electoral College (shudder). All we do as citizens is elect people into that Electoral College, then they vote for a President and Vice President. Each state has a total number of Electoral College delegates equal to the number of Representatives plus Senators that state has. Arkansas has 6, California has 55, New Mexico has 5, Alabama has 9, Maryland has 10, Missouri has 11 and Texas has 34. I think that covers most of my readers.
What is distressing is that there have been four Presidents elected that were not elected by the popular vote. That is right, we have had people in the presidency that most of the people in the U. S. voted against. In 1824 most of the people voted for Andrew Jackson but the Electoral College voted for John Quincey Adams. In 1876 the majority of Americans voted for Samuel Tilden but Rutherford B. Hayes was elected instead. A few years later in 1888 President Grover Cleveland was not reelected, it went to Benjamin Harrison instead. The fourth person to be elected to the Presidency that didn't get the majority of the popular vote was George W. Bush in 2000 when the Supreme Court awarded Florida to Bush. That gave the Electoral College to Bush and the Popular Vote to Gore.
Maine and Nebraska do it slightly differently, but their combined votes are just 17, so no one protests.
There are several movements to change that and one day it might change but don't be fooled, your vote for the President doesn't count, except to elect a member to the Electoral College. Please don't let that keep you from voting. Unless you vote you will be allowing others to tell you who will be President. Remember . . . get informed . . . stay informed . . . and vote with good information on the best person you can find.
What is distressing is that there have been four Presidents elected that were not elected by the popular vote. That is right, we have had people in the presidency that most of the people in the U. S. voted against. In 1824 most of the people voted for Andrew Jackson but the Electoral College voted for John Quincey Adams. In 1876 the majority of Americans voted for Samuel Tilden but Rutherford B. Hayes was elected instead. A few years later in 1888 President Grover Cleveland was not reelected, it went to Benjamin Harrison instead. The fourth person to be elected to the Presidency that didn't get the majority of the popular vote was George W. Bush in 2000 when the Supreme Court awarded Florida to Bush. That gave the Electoral College to Bush and the Popular Vote to Gore.
Maine and Nebraska do it slightly differently, but their combined votes are just 17, so no one protests.
There are several movements to change that and one day it might change but don't be fooled, your vote for the President doesn't count, except to elect a member to the Electoral College. Please don't let that keep you from voting. Unless you vote you will be allowing others to tell you who will be President. Remember . . . get informed . . . stay informed . . . and vote with good information on the best person you can find.
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Fox News Reality!
Unlike most of my friends, I have to watch Fox News. I need to do that because I have friends that are conservative and I have discussions with them. In Basic Training to be a salesman (Shudder), I learned to anticipate objections and overcome them before they are brought up. To this end, I need to know what those conservatives are watching and what forms their opinions. So, I get a lot of Fox Propaganda. One of the things I've heard time and again is that Fox has the biggest audience in Cable News. I've wondered about that.
When I checked it out . . . I found it to be correct . . . Sorta!
Fox Cable News is the only Ultra Conservative News on either Cable or Broadcast. Fox does not have a regular broadcast News. So, if you are a Conservative and want slanted news, you gotta watch Fox Cable News. That gives Fox Cable News the TOTAL of all the viewers that want Conservative Viewpoint News. Whereas, if you are Normal? Sensible? Realistic? or Middle of the Road, you have several News networks from which to choose, including Fox. So we have the Conservatives with one News source and the rest of us with many choices. That is why Fox News has so many viewers, or do they?
On a day this week the ratings for the various news channels in Prime Time were:
Fox News= 2.35 million
Other Cable News=2.25 million
But that is not the whole story. There are other news in broadcast. This is how that breaks out:
All Fox News= 2.35 million
All NBC News= 8.13 million
All CBS News= 5.52 million
All ABC News= 7.14 million
All CNN News= 1.82 million
That means that of the Prime Time Viewer of the news, 22.61 million TV sets were on a sane news source and 2.35 million were on Fox News.
That means that about 9.42% of the news viewer were watching Fox News. Now don't get me wrong, those are loud and obnoxious people and they want their way, no matter what. But, they are a minority, a vicious minority, but a minority none the less.
Fox News is a great source of bull shit. If you believe it, that is to their credit. If you don't believe it, let your friends know you don't and call them on their "FACTS."
Fox News Represents less than 10% of the people. You need to be louder than that 10%. You need to be smarter than that 10%. It is up to you to bring this group to task for their insanity.
Jump on in . . . the oily water is fine!
When I checked it out . . . I found it to be correct . . . Sorta!
Fox Cable News is the only Ultra Conservative News on either Cable or Broadcast. Fox does not have a regular broadcast News. So, if you are a Conservative and want slanted news, you gotta watch Fox Cable News. That gives Fox Cable News the TOTAL of all the viewers that want Conservative Viewpoint News. Whereas, if you are Normal? Sensible? Realistic? or Middle of the Road, you have several News networks from which to choose, including Fox. So we have the Conservatives with one News source and the rest of us with many choices. That is why Fox News has so many viewers, or do they?
On a day this week the ratings for the various news channels in Prime Time were:
Fox News= 2.35 million
Other Cable News=2.25 million
But that is not the whole story. There are other news in broadcast. This is how that breaks out:
All Fox News= 2.35 million
All NBC News= 8.13 million
All CBS News= 5.52 million
All ABC News= 7.14 million
All CNN News= 1.82 million
That means that of the Prime Time Viewer of the news, 22.61 million TV sets were on a sane news source and 2.35 million were on Fox News.
That means that about 9.42% of the news viewer were watching Fox News. Now don't get me wrong, those are loud and obnoxious people and they want their way, no matter what. But, they are a minority, a vicious minority, but a minority none the less.
Fox News is a great source of bull shit. If you believe it, that is to their credit. If you don't believe it, let your friends know you don't and call them on their "FACTS."
Fox News Represents less than 10% of the people. You need to be louder than that 10%. You need to be smarter than that 10%. It is up to you to bring this group to task for their insanity.
Jump on in . . . the oily water is fine!
Saturday, July 17, 2010
The Truth of Politics
I've always wondered if any time a human aspires to government office, does his brain really turn to crap? Do people really think that they have to cater to everyone on everything? Do people think that they are pulling the wool over the eyes of all who listen . . . really listen?
If you really think about it, you will know that it's true that working for the government changes the way your brain works and that ain't for the good. And, the point here is that it isn't just the Republicans or just the Democrats who are at fault here. They are equally guilty of almost any crime known to man . . . but . . .!
My point here is that the Republicans are the true villains. A Republican will preach to you about family values and then get caught soliciting sex in a public bathroom, or with a prostitute in a cheap motel room, or molesting little boys near a playground.
A Republican will harp on individual liberties then tap your phone or hack your computer or track your library records.
A Republican will talk to you about the evils of homosexuality then take a vacation with a male hooker at government expense.
Now, let me explain that Democrats do the same things but don't preach to you about the evils of it. if you trace the history of a Democrat who is caught with a prostitute, you will probably find that he has a record saying that prostitution should be legalized. A Democrat probably has recorded votes for gay rights and against demonizing those who are openly gay.
A Republican will say, "Read my lips; NO NEW TAXES!" Then we will get new taxes. Democrats have more trouble getting elected and then staying in office because they have more of a tendency of telling it like it is, no matter how bad it is.
Most Democrats want to think about it and analyze it, then take it apart and see how it works before making a decision. That is why most Democrats come to a decision that will most likely be slightly different than their compatriots. That is why Democrats are less cohesive than Republicans. A group of Democrats are going to come up with lots of different conclusions at the end of a caucus.
I am of the firm belief that the Republicans in office today don't think about their decisions . . . they just react. Republicans, almost to a person, are against abortion and Democrats are split on the issue. Democrats think too much and it makes them look weak. They need to find a way to make thoughtfulness look wise and sexy.
If you really think about it, you will know that it's true that working for the government changes the way your brain works and that ain't for the good. And, the point here is that it isn't just the Republicans or just the Democrats who are at fault here. They are equally guilty of almost any crime known to man . . . but . . .!
My point here is that the Republicans are the true villains. A Republican will preach to you about family values and then get caught soliciting sex in a public bathroom, or with a prostitute in a cheap motel room, or molesting little boys near a playground.
A Republican will harp on individual liberties then tap your phone or hack your computer or track your library records.
A Republican will talk to you about the evils of homosexuality then take a vacation with a male hooker at government expense.
Now, let me explain that Democrats do the same things but don't preach to you about the evils of it. if you trace the history of a Democrat who is caught with a prostitute, you will probably find that he has a record saying that prostitution should be legalized. A Democrat probably has recorded votes for gay rights and against demonizing those who are openly gay.
A Republican will say, "Read my lips; NO NEW TAXES!" Then we will get new taxes. Democrats have more trouble getting elected and then staying in office because they have more of a tendency of telling it like it is, no matter how bad it is.
Most Democrats want to think about it and analyze it, then take it apart and see how it works before making a decision. That is why most Democrats come to a decision that will most likely be slightly different than their compatriots. That is why Democrats are less cohesive than Republicans. A group of Democrats are going to come up with lots of different conclusions at the end of a caucus.
I am of the firm belief that the Republicans in office today don't think about their decisions . . . they just react. Republicans, almost to a person, are against abortion and Democrats are split on the issue. Democrats think too much and it makes them look weak. They need to find a way to make thoughtfulness look wise and sexy.
Monday, May 31, 2010
'Tis the Season for . . . Political E-Mails
Well it has already started and I'm getting E-Mails from friends and just people that want me to think the way they think. Most of these E-Mails are dubious at best and they are coming from many sides (I'd say BOTH sides, but with the TEA Party's advance, there are more than just two sides and in some cases there are more than three sides).
First of all, check out E-Mails that seem far fetched, you might even want to check out the ones that don't seem to be false. Most of these have an element of truth in them but that is small and is not the point of the E-Mail. Less than 10% of the E-Mails I've checked out were totally true, about half of them were only partially true, but the majority were totally false. If the E-Mail you receive is hard to believe, there is probably a reason for that. I don't call these E-Mails . . . I call them E-Mauls because they either MAUL the truth or they MAUL a person.
Here are some places that you can check out the veracity of the next E-Mail/E-Maul you get. Go to:
http://www.factcheck.org/
http://www.politifact.com/
http://www.truthorfiction.com/
http://www.snopes.com/
http://www.ask.com/
There is an E-Maul out there that states the Mikkelsons, the couple behind snopes.com, are liberals and that Snopes is biased. It also states that the Mikkelsons are avid about their privacy and doesn't want anyone to know who they really are. This is, of course, not true. Go to:
www.factcheck.org/2009/04/snopescom/
There you will find that David Mikkelson was a registered Republican as of 2000 and re-registered as a "No Preference" in order to not show any bias. Barbara Mikkelson is a Canadian citizen and can't vote or contribute to any candidate. All records show that David has never contributed any money to any candidate or any political party. Their privacy was given up long ago and they have done TV appearances as well as Magazine articles and given interviews to the media. In 2009 there was a Reader's Digest article about them complete with where they lived and a total background on them. So they are not shy or reclusive.
Here are some of the E-Mauls I have checked out as being totally false:
1. The new health care bill will provide free health care for illegal aliens.=FALSE
2. "In God We Trust" isn't on the new Dollar Coins. =FALSE (on the edge of the coin)
3. Abortions will be provided free on demand and all Doctors will be forced to provide them to their clients.=FALSE & FALSE
4. "Cap and Trade" would cost the American Family $6,800 per year, says the CBO. =FALSE (That estimate came from the Conservative think tank, The Heritage Foundation, not the Congressional Budget Office)
5. You have to have a Microchip inserted into you body if you go on the public health care plan.=FALSE
6. You must list all your guns on your 2010 income tax return.=FALSE
7. The Obama White House is renaming all Christmas Trees to Holiday Trees.=FALSE
8. Congress is 100% exempt from the new Health Care Bill.=FALSE
9. Hillary Clinton recently signed a treaty with the U. N. and Congress passed legislation that by passed the second amendment and we all have to turn in our guns or face prosecution.=FALSE (nothing supersedes the Constitution, and it is otherwise false, too)
And the list goes on! And, new ones will show up tomorrow. Check these out yourself, you now have the resources to do your own research. It's fun to be able to not be taken by one of these gross lies or even the subtle ones.
If you get something you just can't sort out, send it to me and I'll do what I can to check it out. Some are so new that they have not yet been checked or are in the "Undetermined" stage. But don't pass them on unless you are sure they are real E-Mails and not just E-Mauls.
First of all, check out E-Mails that seem far fetched, you might even want to check out the ones that don't seem to be false. Most of these have an element of truth in them but that is small and is not the point of the E-Mail. Less than 10% of the E-Mails I've checked out were totally true, about half of them were only partially true, but the majority were totally false. If the E-Mail you receive is hard to believe, there is probably a reason for that. I don't call these E-Mails . . . I call them E-Mauls because they either MAUL the truth or they MAUL a person.
Here are some places that you can check out the veracity of the next E-Mail/E-Maul you get. Go to:
http://www.factcheck.org/
http://www.politifact.com/
http://www.truthorfiction.com/
http://www.snopes.com/
http://www.ask.com/
There is an E-Maul out there that states the Mikkelsons, the couple behind snopes.com, are liberals and that Snopes is biased. It also states that the Mikkelsons are avid about their privacy and doesn't want anyone to know who they really are. This is, of course, not true. Go to:
www.factcheck.org/2009/04/snopescom/
There you will find that David Mikkelson was a registered Republican as of 2000 and re-registered as a "No Preference" in order to not show any bias. Barbara Mikkelson is a Canadian citizen and can't vote or contribute to any candidate. All records show that David has never contributed any money to any candidate or any political party. Their privacy was given up long ago and they have done TV appearances as well as Magazine articles and given interviews to the media. In 2009 there was a Reader's Digest article about them complete with where they lived and a total background on them. So they are not shy or reclusive.
Here are some of the E-Mauls I have checked out as being totally false:
1. The new health care bill will provide free health care for illegal aliens.=FALSE
2. "In God We Trust" isn't on the new Dollar Coins. =FALSE (on the edge of the coin)
3. Abortions will be provided free on demand and all Doctors will be forced to provide them to their clients.=FALSE & FALSE
4. "Cap and Trade" would cost the American Family $6,800 per year, says the CBO. =FALSE (That estimate came from the Conservative think tank, The Heritage Foundation, not the Congressional Budget Office)
5. You have to have a Microchip inserted into you body if you go on the public health care plan.=FALSE
6. You must list all your guns on your 2010 income tax return.=FALSE
7. The Obama White House is renaming all Christmas Trees to Holiday Trees.=FALSE
8. Congress is 100% exempt from the new Health Care Bill.=FALSE
9. Hillary Clinton recently signed a treaty with the U. N. and Congress passed legislation that by passed the second amendment and we all have to turn in our guns or face prosecution.=FALSE (nothing supersedes the Constitution, and it is otherwise false, too)
And the list goes on! And, new ones will show up tomorrow. Check these out yourself, you now have the resources to do your own research. It's fun to be able to not be taken by one of these gross lies or even the subtle ones.
If you get something you just can't sort out, send it to me and I'll do what I can to check it out. Some are so new that they have not yet been checked or are in the "Undetermined" stage. But don't pass them on unless you are sure they are real E-Mails and not just E-Mauls.
Sunday, May 23, 2010
On Negative Campaign Ads . . .
This will be for information purposes only, their is no political message in it, just information you can use.
Have you noticed in the recent and surely in the upcoming political campaigns, there is a lot of negative advertising going on. This is coming from all sides, not just one. I recently received in the mail seven campaign "Flyers/Cards," for lack of a better description, in one day. All of these were about two candidates in one race. Three of them were asking me to vote for a candidate and had a very positive message, four were giving me disparaging information about an opponent.
If you will remember back to the 2004 election, there were a lot of negativism in that campaign, too. From both sides came information about the other side, so this has been going on full force for several years now, and it's getting worse. If you'll notice the return address for these negative "Flyer/Cards," you will notice they are not from the other candidate, they are from a group such as, The Committee for the Truth, or Real Information You Need.
These groups or organizations are called 527 organizations. That is just a short nick name given them from the U. S. tax code of 26 U. S. C. § 527, you can go to www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/527.html for more detailed information on 527 organizations and PACs which also fall under this tax code but have different rules and different limits.
What is real good/bad about these 527 groups is that they can collect and spend as they wish in almost any amounts they wish, for information purposes. This can be done as long as they do not coordinate their efforts with a candidate or a party. The high courts have ruled it is just "Freedom of Speech." They also do not come under the jurisdiction of the U. S. Election Commission or the State and Local Election Commissions.
It is very difficult to discern a 527's affiliation by its name. For instance Progress for America is not a "Progressive/Liberal organization and the League of Conservation Voters is not a Conservative Organization.
In 2004, 527s spent just shy of $440 million dollars on various campaigns and in the mid-term elections of 2006 they spent over $170 million.
I must point out that these organizations are from both sides of the aisle, but some of the most effective were the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" in 2004. MoveOn.org originally started out as a 527 organization and in 2004 spent over $21 million for various Liberal candidates and issues. MoveOn.org is no longer a 527 organization and now has to follow different rules.
Not all 527s are candidate oriented, some are Pro-Life, some are Pro-Choice, some are for Women's Rights, Gay Rights, Gun Control, Retirees, Immigration Policies, The Environment, etc.
Next time you get an "Anti" whatever or whoever card in the mail, check out the return address. Chances are that it will not be from the candidate's opponent, it'll be from one of these 527s. That way a candidate can truthfully say, "That wasn't from my campaign, I didn't have anything to do with that." Yeah, right!
Have you noticed in the recent and surely in the upcoming political campaigns, there is a lot of negative advertising going on. This is coming from all sides, not just one. I recently received in the mail seven campaign "Flyers/Cards," for lack of a better description, in one day. All of these were about two candidates in one race. Three of them were asking me to vote for a candidate and had a very positive message, four were giving me disparaging information about an opponent.
If you will remember back to the 2004 election, there were a lot of negativism in that campaign, too. From both sides came information about the other side, so this has been going on full force for several years now, and it's getting worse. If you'll notice the return address for these negative "Flyer/Cards," you will notice they are not from the other candidate, they are from a group such as, The Committee for the Truth, or Real Information You Need.
These groups or organizations are called 527 organizations. That is just a short nick name given them from the U. S. tax code of 26 U. S. C. § 527, you can go to www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/527.html for more detailed information on 527 organizations and PACs which also fall under this tax code but have different rules and different limits.
What is real good/bad about these 527 groups is that they can collect and spend as they wish in almost any amounts they wish, for information purposes. This can be done as long as they do not coordinate their efforts with a candidate or a party. The high courts have ruled it is just "Freedom of Speech." They also do not come under the jurisdiction of the U. S. Election Commission or the State and Local Election Commissions.
It is very difficult to discern a 527's affiliation by its name. For instance Progress for America is not a "Progressive/Liberal organization and the League of Conservation Voters is not a Conservative Organization.
In 2004, 527s spent just shy of $440 million dollars on various campaigns and in the mid-term elections of 2006 they spent over $170 million.
I must point out that these organizations are from both sides of the aisle, but some of the most effective were the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" in 2004. MoveOn.org originally started out as a 527 organization and in 2004 spent over $21 million for various Liberal candidates and issues. MoveOn.org is no longer a 527 organization and now has to follow different rules.
Not all 527s are candidate oriented, some are Pro-Life, some are Pro-Choice, some are for Women's Rights, Gay Rights, Gun Control, Retirees, Immigration Policies, The Environment, etc.
Next time you get an "Anti" whatever or whoever card in the mail, check out the return address. Chances are that it will not be from the candidate's opponent, it'll be from one of these 527s. That way a candidate can truthfully say, "That wasn't from my campaign, I didn't have anything to do with that." Yeah, right!
Friday, May 7, 2010
WARNING-WARNING-WARNING!
There is a lot going on today in the political fabric of the country. Some of it is out in the open, but some of it is down deep in the tufts of that fabric, almost hidden.
Exposed to the light of day already have been "Oath Keepers." Be very careful, they sound right but they forget to tell you about those "Orders We Will Not Obey." They don't tell you who it is that determines what qualifies as an order they will obey. In the Real America the Supreme Court says what is constitutional and what isn't. In the Oath Keepers, that court doesn't exist. And, to top it all off these people have been trained in weapons, in most cases, by the same government they want to disobey. In the Oath Keepers, the individual determines what orders they will obey. Can you imagine what would happen during a war or other armed conflict if the individual soldier determined what orders he or she would obey?
More recently there has been a rise in a couple of new "Militia" type organizations. One is called "American Grand Jury." This seems to be a loosely organized group of citizens that want to take the law into their own hands. Citizen's arrest and "Common Law" juries are their trademark and mostly they are an older group. On the other hand we are starting to see more of the "Council of Conservative Citizens." This is and outgrowth of the old "White Citizens Council," a white supremacy group. Be careful of all these groups. Any group that puts one group above another, or one group below another, are people of which you should be cautious.
Here are some other organizations in Arkansas of which you need to be aware:
National Socialist Movement, Aryan Nations Revival, the Nation of Islam, and the Aryan Terror Brigade have groups all over Arkansas.
In the Ozarks we have:
--Heritage Connection, Christian Books and Things, Kingdom Identity Ministries, Knights of the KKK, and Ozark Craft LC all of Harrison.
--The Church of Jesus Christ and White Pride Home School Resource Center in Bergman.
--League of the South in Hot Springs, Mammoth Springs and Alpena.
--White Revolution and The Natural State Skinheads of Russelville.
--Tightrope of Calico Rock.
To my friends out in California, you also have several groups that are statewide. Some of those are the Aryan Nations Revival, Knights of the Nordic Order, KKK, Black Panthers, League of the South, Nation of Islam, and the Volksfront.
To my New Mexico Friends:
--The Front Line Aryans work throughout the state.
To my family in Maryland:
--You have everything under the sun in your state. If they hate, or if they love too much or too hard . . . they probably need to be avoided.
To my family in Texas:
--Texas is so large that it has everything under the sun going after it. The biggies in the Ft. Worth area are groups calling themselves "European-American Unity and Rights Organizations." You also have League of the South, The National Alliance as well as the obvious ones like the KKK, and various Skinhead groups.
In Southern California you have:
--American Renaissance, American Third Position, Biblical Family Advocates, Freedom 14, Golden State Party, Institute for Historical Review, the Noontide Press, OMNI Christian Book Club and White Revolution.
If you are aware of any of these organizations or if one of your friends has become involved in one, this is your warning. They are very seductive and very dangerous.
Exposed to the light of day already have been "Oath Keepers." Be very careful, they sound right but they forget to tell you about those "Orders We Will Not Obey." They don't tell you who it is that determines what qualifies as an order they will obey. In the Real America the Supreme Court says what is constitutional and what isn't. In the Oath Keepers, that court doesn't exist. And, to top it all off these people have been trained in weapons, in most cases, by the same government they want to disobey. In the Oath Keepers, the individual determines what orders they will obey. Can you imagine what would happen during a war or other armed conflict if the individual soldier determined what orders he or she would obey?
More recently there has been a rise in a couple of new "Militia" type organizations. One is called "American Grand Jury." This seems to be a loosely organized group of citizens that want to take the law into their own hands. Citizen's arrest and "Common Law" juries are their trademark and mostly they are an older group. On the other hand we are starting to see more of the "Council of Conservative Citizens." This is and outgrowth of the old "White Citizens Council," a white supremacy group. Be careful of all these groups. Any group that puts one group above another, or one group below another, are people of which you should be cautious.
Here are some other organizations in Arkansas of which you need to be aware:
National Socialist Movement, Aryan Nations Revival, the Nation of Islam, and the Aryan Terror Brigade have groups all over Arkansas.
In the Ozarks we have:
--Heritage Connection, Christian Books and Things, Kingdom Identity Ministries, Knights of the KKK, and Ozark Craft LC all of Harrison.
--The Church of Jesus Christ and White Pride Home School Resource Center in Bergman.
--League of the South in Hot Springs, Mammoth Springs and Alpena.
--White Revolution and The Natural State Skinheads of Russelville.
--Tightrope of Calico Rock.
To my friends out in California, you also have several groups that are statewide. Some of those are the Aryan Nations Revival, Knights of the Nordic Order, KKK, Black Panthers, League of the South, Nation of Islam, and the Volksfront.
To my New Mexico Friends:
--The Front Line Aryans work throughout the state.
To my family in Maryland:
--You have everything under the sun in your state. If they hate, or if they love too much or too hard . . . they probably need to be avoided.
To my family in Texas:
--Texas is so large that it has everything under the sun going after it. The biggies in the Ft. Worth area are groups calling themselves "European-American Unity and Rights Organizations." You also have League of the South, The National Alliance as well as the obvious ones like the KKK, and various Skinhead groups.
In Southern California you have:
--American Renaissance, American Third Position, Biblical Family Advocates, Freedom 14, Golden State Party, Institute for Historical Review, the Noontide Press, OMNI Christian Book Club and White Revolution.
If you are aware of any of these organizations or if one of your friends has become involved in one, this is your warning. They are very seductive and very dangerous.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)