“In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act.” – British author George Orwell (1903-1950)
As a stout member of the Society of Overweight Pundits I was amused that two liberal columnists, Eugene Robinson and Michael Kinsley wrote articles suggesting the Chris Christie was too fat to become President.
Naturally, they claimed their intention where of an honorable concern and all they were doing is vetting a potential Republican Candidate (?) on behalf of the Democratic National Committee, I would say.
If the question is of obesity and presidential health is their true concerns then why do not show any concern about Obama who is a heavy smoker running for reelection? Their whole argument becomes irrelevant at this point and shows it to be nothing more than political biased.
You would think that serious publications would be more interested in what a candidate would do if elected, policy positions on taxes, spending and foreign wars but instead they offer us nothing more than garbage in and garbage out. Have not they lost their credibility to the claim they that they are the country’s watchdog of the political establishment? Looking at a fat man’s scale is hardly my idea of serious journalism.
As one who writes more than a few columns I know there are times when the lights go dim and subject matter evades you, the best thing you can do, is say nothing at all. These two should have followed this advice but of course as a extended arm of the DNC that have earned a few more brownie points by starting the ‘demonizing’ of Christie.
It will be interesting to see how many of the parrots on the alphabet channels pick up on this theme, claiming they are only interested in what is best for the country. That claim rings hallow to the informed reader because if they properly vetted the community organizer they would have found that he is the most unqualified man in our history to hold the highest office in the land.
The best acronym to what these two scribes wrote ….it was a waste of paper and ink.
As a country we show great concerns for the mental and physical qualifications of individuals and a whole processes put in place to vet individuals; for example: policemen and firemen but when it comes to candidates for high office the vetting process of elected officials has become a national joke.
There is no better example of what I speak of than Congress itself. We have a collection of ego driven self indulging misfits that have exhibited every deficiency known to man from drunks, crooks, philanderers and pedophiles that could fill up a very large psycho ward. We even have a Congressman who has spent many decades in Washington, whose roommate ran a gay escort service from their apartment for boys who paid to play with boys.
Add to this we have an administration full of leftists radicals, Socialists, Marxists, Communists and Progressives who are hell bent on destroying this country.
These are the people who dictate our national policy, the very policy that turned a wealthy America into a debtor nation. These are the very people who find the American Flag offensive, who ban naivety scenes and deny that this is a Christian country but have no problem with building a Mosque next to the 9-11 site.
Is it any wonder why the country is in trouble?
There are many small towns and Villages in America that are missing their local idiot, I would suggest that they look no farther than Washington to find them.
Abraham Lincoln once said:
“America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves from within.”
In the current racial circus, the president of the United States, in addressing an assembly of upscale black professionals and political leaders, adopts the style of a Southern Baptist preacher of the 1960s. He alters his cadences and delivery to both berate and gin up the large audience — posing as a messianic figure who will “march” them out to speak truth to power. In response, the omnipresent Rep. Maxine Waters goes public yet again, to object that the president has no right to rally blacks in this way, when he does not adopt similar tones of admonishment with Jews and gays. (Should Obama try to emulate the way he thinks gays and Jews talk in his next address to them?)
Hope-and-change has now sunk into little more than a tawdry spectacle of racial spoils, as the president of the United States desperately cobbles together squabbling special-interest racial, ethnic, and gender groups in lieu of restoring the nation’s prosperity. Before the age of Obama, I don’t recall that some members of the Black Caucus were so ready to invite political opponents to “go straight to hell,” or to allege that they were veritable murderers eager to lynch blacks and restore slavery.
Unspoken, of course, is the truth that Obama’s statism, deficits, interferences in the private sector, and spread-the-wealth rhetoric have frightened business owners into stasis — and the resulting slowdown hurts blacks most of all. But in this fantasy world of racial spoils, Obama’s profligate spending and borrowing can be faulted only for not being profligate enough. To suggest any other diagnosis would be to call into question the entire federal racial industry of the last 50 years — and those who have benefited the most by administering it.
Warren Buffett says he is willing to pay more taxes. Here’s why that’s not relevant.
I really like bananas. Great way to start the day. Tasty and nutritious.
Wegman’s sells them for 49¢ a pound, but I would pay more than that. At 99¢ a pound, I’d still get them. I’m happier paying less, but I could afford the higher price.
So why doesn’t my grocery store take advantage of this? It could double the price of bananas and still keep my business. One reason might be that the nearby Safeway would start flaunting its lower prices and lure me away. But another argument is that I am not typical in my passion for the fruit. There are certainly other customers who are much nearer to indifference. At 49¢, they’ll pick up a few bananas; at 59¢, they’ll go with the melon. In economic parlance, the folks most likely to switch away when the price goes up are the marginal buyers. I, with my ardour, am an inframarginal buyer. For price setting, it’s the marginal buyers that grocery stores think about. At 99¢ a pound, I’d still be buying, but the store’s overall banana sales would fall sharply.
I bring all this up because of billionaire Warren Buffett and his friend President Obama. Buffett likes the investing work he does and he has been very successful at it. He has argued that he would keep doing that work even if he were taxed more heavily. I believe him. He already chooses to pay himself far less than he might—reportedly $100,000 per year, a large part of the reason he is not in a higher tax bracket. But it is unlikely that Buffett is typical—others might work less if taxed more.
The recent widespread discussion of Buffett has created confusion between wealth (which we do not tax) and income (which we do). Buffet is a rare case of a very wealthy man with relatively small income, and his case illustrates that our income tax is not really a wealth tax. Buffett is also unusual because he is one of those inframarginal taxpayers—or banana fanatics, in my example above—who would keep working or starting businesses even at a higher tax rate.
When it comes to setting policy, however, those taxpayers are not the ones to be concerned about. The ones we ought to worry about are the ones at the margin, those who feel conflicted about whether to undertake an additional project, expand their business, or put in a few more hours.