Economics 101: Does raising taxes lower the income gap?

Obama continues to argue that we need to create more fairness between the rich and the poor.  He said it's "unfair" that the rich make so much money while the poor are poor.  He says in order to resolve this problem he must raise taxes on the rich.

However, there is evidence that raising taxes actually makes the income gap between the rich and poor even worse.  Consider a report by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), which released a report 'Pulling Apart: A State-by-State Analysis of Income Trends.

The CBPP used Census Bureau data to determine which states had the largest gap between the bottom fifth of income earners and the top 5% of earners. According to CBPP, the states with highest levels of income inequality are:

1. Arizona
2. New Mexico
3. California (top marginal tax is 13%)
4. Georgia
5. New York

Ironically, all of those states had the highest taxes among states.  In other words, these states were listed by Forbes magazine as death spiral states, or states with the most aggressive tax systems.

If higher taxes improved income inequality, then these states would have the lowest income gap of any other states.  But they don't: they have the greatest income gaps.  This is proof that high taxes does not create equality among the people.  

So, if Obama is aware of this fact, of which we should assume he is (or should be), then we must assume he has some other agenda by raising taxes.  What is this agenda?  Might it be that he wants the system to collapse?  I don't know, but I'm just wondering here.  

Is Obama an Imperial President?

According to the Christian Science Monitor: The president (or his administration) has ignored the Constitution, doing all the following with his pen and paper:

• Unilaterally changed elements of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) (seven times they made changes to this act without the support of Congress)
• Declared an anti-gay-rights law unconstitutional
• Lifted the threat of deportation for an entire class of undocumented immigrants
• Bypassed Senate confirmation of controversial nominees
• Waived compliance requirements in education law
• Altered the work requirements under welfare reform

Also, according to the monitor:

Early in his presidency, Obama also expanded presidential warmaking powers, surveillance of the American public, and extrajudicial drone strikes on alleged terrorists outside the United States, including Americans – going beyond Mr. Bush's own global war on terror following 9/11. But more recently, he has flexed his executive muscle more on domestic policy. In the process, Obama's claims of executive authority have infuriated opponents, while emboldening supporters to demand more on a range of issues, from immigration and gay rights to the minimum wage and Guantánamo Bay prison camp. To critics, Obama is the ultimate "imperial president," willfully violating the Constitution to further his goals, having failed to convince Congress of the merits of his arguments. To others, he is exercising legitimate executive authority in the face of an intransigent Congress and in keeping with the practices of past presidents. The course of Obama's final three years in office, in which he has promised continuing assertive use of executive action, will be shaped by this debate.

In his State of the Union Address last week he promised to act if Congress refuses to act.  To me, this is the scariest thing a president ever said.  If Congress disagrees with him, he doesn't care.  He basically said he has no respect for the Constitution nor the rule of law.

Is defending the Constitution doom and gloom?

A coworker of mine told me I was doom and gloom for saying that Obama has no respect for the U.S. Constitution.  My response was: "So when did defending the Constitution become doom and gloom?" 

I was irritated because Obama said if Congress does not act, he will use his pen and paper to get what he wants anyway.  In other words, he was willing to ignore the Constitution, ignore the rule of law, to get his way.  

She got all mad at me and stomped off into the distance.  We are good friends and all, but she has no facts to back up her argument, so she gets all mad and started calling me a liar.  It's like liberalism is a religion to her.  If you disprove her liberalism, you disprove her religion.  It's too bad.  

Just like dad and Mac, we hug and make up and be happy and get along thereafter.  But, still, it's a sad affair.  I have had this happen so many times now with different liberals, that I consider the debate won as soon as the liberal gets all mad and angry.  It used to bother me, but now it makes me feel happy.  

Ultimately, though, the result of someone like that getting angry is it makes it so no one wants to discuss politics with them anymore.  That, to me, is too bad.  I admire anyone who jumps into the arena and can hold it together.  Life, to me, gets boring and pointless if all you participate in is small talk.  IMO. 

Economics 101: Increasing minimum wage hurts economy

Obama said raising the minimum raise would improve the economy, but he failed to tell people that only 1% of the workforce receives the minimum wage.  That would hardly have a positive effect on the economy. Add into that that for every dollar the minimum wage goes up, the value of the dollar goes down the same. For instance, while $1 might buy a loaf of bread today, once companies raise prices so they can afford the new minimum wage, and give everyone else raises in order to be fair to them, the price of a loaf of bread will be $2.  So even while people will make more money, they will gain zero ground.  Add into that that companies only have so much money for new hires, and once they pay for the new minimum wage, there goes any new jobs.  So, if Obama considered this economics 101 lesson, the last thing he'd want to do right now is raise the minimum wages.  This is a perfect example of "it sounds like a good idea" trumps "facts show it is not a good idea."  Seattle wanted to raise the minimum wage to $18 an hour.  Throw in there free healthcare, and why would anyone go to college and work.  

Is the polar vortex real?

Add caption

It turns out that 2014 is the coldest winter in recorded history in the United States. Where I live in Michigan the most snow we have ever gotten was 106 inches, and we are already there.  If you listen to the weather channel the cause of this bad winter is global warming.  They say it's the polar vortex?

The polar vortex is this thing environmentalists made up to prove to us that global warming is responsible for this cold weather.  They claim that the temperatures are so warm in the north pole that it is melting the polar caps.  Ironically, a bunch of environmentalist wackos went to the north pole recently to prove this, to prove there are fewer icebergs in the north pole, and they get stuck on an iceberg.  They don't get the hypocrisy of their actions.

Anyway, the global warming people created this thing called the polar vortex showing that the ice caps are melting and this is causing waves of cold air to rush across the globe making this the coldest winter in recorded history.  However, they fail to mention that last year was one of the warmest winters in recorded history, with the lowest amount of snow.  None of that matters to them, because facts don't matter.

The truth is, the reason it's cold in the winter time is that same reason it's always cold in the winter: it's winter.  In the inter the earth is closer to the sun, but it is at an angle, thus making it so sun rays take longer to get to the earth, thus causing winter. It has nothing to do with the polar vortex.

The polar vortex surely sounds good, but it's yet another myth created by people who want to convince us to let them tax and regulate us to support their myth. They make it look like a cold jet stream from the north pole is dipping down over the planet like it never did before.

How does it get down here?  That's the mystery.  It used to stay over the north pole, but now it's coming down to us by jet stream?  Why? They have no clue.  So to prove their theory, they made up the idea that we are causing it with all the stuff we do that causes global warming.  It's humans breathing and it's the stuff we let come out of factories. There's no evidence to any of this, but it sounds good to them so it just is.  If you argue with them you are in the wrong.

It's something they just made up.  If there is record cold coming from the north pole because the polar ice caps are melting, that means there is record cold in the north pole.  And if that is happening, how could the polar ice caps be melting.  It makes no sense.

Of course when you tell people there is no such thing as a polar vortex they say things like, "What?  Are you an idiot?"  I ask them to give me proof that there is such a thing, and they never offer any.  They just say, "They say there is, so there is?"  This is yet another reason why progress is so slow.  Even when the facts are ever so present, people choose to ignore them in lieu of myths that sound good.

Now, if you follow my blog, you know that I neither support nor deny theories.  I believe that the purpose of science is to doubt theories, not accept theories that have yet to be proven.  So, on that note, we will respect the myth, but we won't die by it either.

Why does Facebook make people depressed?

A poll recently confirmed that Facebook makes people feel worse about themselves.  I think it's because people are on Facebook to gloat about their kids getting all A's, or getting a new house, or a new car, or a new TV. I see this every single day on Facebook.

So you go on Facebook with the intent of showing off yourself and your kids, and you see all this. You see other people doing things you want to do and can't afford. Well, if you can afford it you one up them by getting a bigger TV.  But if you can't afford it, you feel worse about yourself.  You feel worse because no matter what you do, or how much money you spend, there are people with better stuff than you have. 

I bet about half the people on Facebook schedule these glamorous vacations to the Bahamas, Hawaii, Jamaica, and places like that, just so they can put pictures on Facebook to show off how glamorous a life they have.  Their entire but dans la vie (purpose in life) is to show how much better than they are than everyone else.  Some people call this the high school mentality that never goes away with adulthood, at least in some people.  

I'm not saying that everyone who uses Facebook is a narcissist (obsessed with his or her own self image), but Facebook is the perfect place for them.  It's very easy for people obsessed with themselves to become depressed on Facebook simply because they cannot one-up the other person.  

And, by the comments they leave, I'm sure even the people who continuously one up their friends aren't content nor happy either.  

Then you have people like me, people who aren't much for small talk, people who are looking for a means of having an intelligent discussion.  You put a comment on Facebook, a funny comment, or a fact, and people get all upset in their comments.  They become offended, for instance, if you say something like my brother said today, "Liberals are Socialists are Progressives."  

"That's not true," my cousin said.  Of course then they change the subject, and start joking about the Whig party and how it needs to make a comeback.  Then in lieu of saying anything further on the discussion that started, everyone agrees or likes the Whig Party comment, and the discussion is over.  That, my friends, is as close to an intelligent discussion you get on Facebook.  

And, I suppose, when you consistently see comments, or posts, on Facebook that are the antithesis of your views, or that encourage you to think or rethink your views (something we all should do), people get irritated with you, saying things like, "There's goes Rick bloviating again."   

No, it's not bloviating: it's trying to have an intelligent discussion in the arena of ideas.

So why does Facebook make people depressed anyway?  Perhaps it's because people make comments like this:

• I took my 3 YO Carson and 4 YO Nick to my 10 YO soccer game and it was sooo fun.

Yet when you were with her you saw how she fought with her little kids, and how her 10 YO was refusing to get out of the car and play: she wanted to go home.  Yeah, you had a blast right.  You had a blast according to Facebook.  

So I think Facebook makes people depressed because people (not everyone, and you know I'm not referring to everyone when I say this) go to Facebook to be popular.  They go to Facebook to be like an independent voter, and to create a fake world where you can remake your image.

Yes, I will digress a second here.  Studies show 40% of independent voters are republican and 40% are democrats, yet they lie and say they are independents because they don't want to cause controversy.  They claim to be neutral, but when it comes time to vote they vote for the same party they always did.  Independents, then, are like many Facebookers, they do one thing and say another in order to be popular.

These people are cowards, afraid to show their true selves.  They have a real life, they have opinions, and they are partisan voters.  But because that life, and those opinions, might not be popular, they create this fake image on Facebook.

Facebook is like high school, only worse: it never ends. 

Defending the U.S. Constitution is not doom and gloom!!!!

So I'm having a respectful discussion with my cool bros.  I basically defended the Constitution and some of my bros agree with me and others disagree.

Either way, we have fun with this and none of us gets upset and calls the other liars and that sort of stuff.  We walk away happy, and hug and kiss and stuff like that.  Well, not really, but you know what I mean.

The discussion started when I said Obama's February 28, 2014, speech was scary.  I wrote the following: 

Whether you agree with my political views or not, if you read this you will understand exactly why I fear Obama as our President. You can agree or disagree (and I encourage you to disagree), but this pithy post pretty much hits the nail on the head.

http://www.glennbeck.com/2014/01/29/the-most-frightening-part-of-obama%E2%80%99s-state-of-the-union-was%E2%80%A6/

P.S. I love Glenn Beck

The discussion got off subject, and I won't put any of that stuff on here, as little of it is relevant nor appropriate for this blog.  At some point I wrote the following:

For Obama, and others like him, the Constitution is not a document to be revered, it’s an obstacle to overcome. And his administration has been very creative in devising new ways to bypass it. Any laws passed should be done by following the constitution and the rule of law, not by ignoring it. And I don't care who the president is, nor what he wants to make law

One of my bros said Obama lied in his speech.  Then I wrote:

Anyway, I started this discussion after a coworker of mine told me I was doom and gloom for saying that Obama has no respect for the U.S. Constitution. My response was: "So when did defending the Constitution become doom and gloom?"

She got all mad at me and stomped off into the distance. We are good friends and all, but she has no facts to back up her argument, so she gets all mad and started calling me a liar. It's like liberalism is a religion to her. If you disprove her liberalism, you disprove her religion. It's too bad.

Just like dad and Mac, we hug and make up and be happy and get along thereafter. But, still, it's a sad affair. I have had this happen so many times now with different liberals, that I consider the debate won as soon as the liberal gets all mad and angry. It used to bother me, but now it makes me feel happy.

Ultimately, though, the result of someone like that getting angry is it makes it so no one wants to discuss politics with them anymore. That, to me, is too bad. I admire anyone who jumps into the arena and can hold it together. Life, to me, gets boring and pointless if all you participate in is small talk. IMO.

One of my bros said that Obama basically lied in his speech, telling us he was going to do things and then not giving us the facts.  I'd put that comment here, but I can't seem to find it.  To this, and to my emails, Bro #5 (of whom I truly love and respect) says the following:

Well... Obama was was giving a speech. it was a pep rally - not a fully documented report. Of course he's going to leave out a lot of the facts. Did JFK say "We're going to Land on the moon - though... it'll cost trillions - and likely a few lives along the way..." ?  (good argument he makes here by the way)

(Now to me he wrote this) Your coworker was right. You are all doom and gloom. You've made a hobby out of looking for anything negative about Obama and Democrats since the day you heard his name. You're never going to persuade anyone with that tone - and I'm not sure what good can come from it.

I respect your passion for politics. I just wish you were a little.... nicer about it. Then I might actually listen to what you're saying.

Since this is my blog, I win.  I wrote the following:

I respectfully disagree with you, Bro #5.   Since when did defending the U.S. Constitution become doom and gloom? It has nothing to do with liberal, and nothing to do with democrat. If you read my blog you will see I have criticized republicans just as often as anyone else. I don't care if you're a republican, democrat, liberal, conservative, libertarian, or a member of the peanut butter ferry party, if a person leading our country has no respect for the Constitution and the rule of law, he or she is a scary person. Read what Obama said in his speech. It is a direct defiance to the Constitution and the rule of law:

"I'm eager to work with all of you," Obama said, "But if America does not stand still, and neither will I. So wherever and whenever I can take steps without legislation to expand opportunity for more American families, that's what I'm gonna do."

Basically what he's saying is "I'm gonna break the law." Could you imagine if Bush said that, all hell would have broken loose. Obama says it to cheers. It's scary.

No. I am not doom and gloom. What's gloomy and scary is all these politicians who have no regards for the Constitution.

Think of it this way. In high school a bully came up to me and started a fight. I defended myself. The teacher came along and got me in to trouble. The bully got off Scott free because she did not see (was blind) to what he did. Obama right now is the bully, and the Constitution is the one getting picked on, and people are blind to what he is doing. He is such a good speaker that people are fooled.

I'm just defending the Constitution, because it's that constitution that make our county exceptional. 

So, when does defending the Constitution become doom and gloom? It did on January, 27, 2014, while Obama was giving a speech. I will mark that day on my Calandar as Mr. Beck said (I changes some of the wording here so it's appropriate for this blog).

Well, no one wins this argument.  But I think it's one of the most important arguments we can be having in today's world.  Our Constitution is the best document ever written, and what's scary to me is people sit idly by while our leaders trample on it.  Perhaps it's time we get that old logo out that said: "Don't Tread on me!" 

Regardless, people shouldn't be afraid to discuss opinions, and definitely not afraid to defend the Constitution. It's impossible to have such a discussion without one person thinking the other is negative.  That's just the way arguments go.  If we didn't have such discussions, no progress would ever come; no minds would ever be changed.

And that, by the way, is how you get progress done, by changing minds.  Good intentions don't result in progress, unless you convince people that they are truly good intentions.  The way to do that is by having discussions in the arena of ideas, which is what we are doing here. You don't do it by forcing your good intentions on the people, as Obama said he will do.  That's not what Presidents do, and that's why Obama has been nick named "The Imperial President."

If we don't defend our Constitution, it will become an impotent document.  If it goes, so does our freedom.  Discussions like this can and will only make us smarter.