Re: 84% would pay more under Cain's 9-9-9 plan

This study is very flawed and does not consider that only NEW goods
are subject to tax. It also does not take into account the embedded
taxes in product pricing that no longer have to be charged. These two
factors alone are enough to offset any new or additional taxes on the
truly poor...

On Oct 20, 1:21 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> America's Choice 201284% would pay more under Cain's 9-9-9 planBy Jeanne Sahadi @CNNMoneyOctober 19, 2011: 4:26 PM ET
> NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Under Herman Cain's 9-9-9 tax reform plan, 84% of U.S. households would pay more than they do under current tax policies, according to a report released Tuesday by a nonpartisan research group.
> And the impact would be felt most heavily by the lowest income groups.
> Those are some of the estimates from the Tax Policy Center's analysis of Cain's proposal, which has helped make him a leading contender for the Republican 2012 presidential nomination.
> While some key questions about the 9-9-9 plan remain unanswered, the Tax Policy Center's analysis is one of the first to take a comprehensive look at its potential impact.
> Cain's 9-9-9 plan wouldreplace much of the current tax codewith a flat-rate system: a 9% individual income tax; a 9% corporate income tax and a 9% national sales tax. Estate and gift taxes would be eliminated, as would the payroll tax, and most tax credits, deductions and exemptions.
> In terms of investment taxes, capital gains would be tax-free, while dividends would be deductible to businesses paying them out but taxable at 9% for investors who receive them.Cain's tax plan: More than 9-9-9According to the Tax Policy Center, households with incomes below $30,000 would have, on average, between 16% and 20% less in after-tax income than they do today.
> By contrast, households making more than $200,000 would see their after-tax income grow by between 5% and 22% on average.
> There are two reasons for that discrepancy between the poor and the rich.
> First, while the Cain campaign has said it is working on ways to lessen the tax burden on low-income households, the Tax Policy Center said it didn't have enough detail to assume what that change would be. One way to address regressivity is to offer a rebate to low-income households.
> The second reason has to do with how Cain would restructure taxes.
> Under the current system, most of the lowest income households end up owingno federal income tax. That's because their incomes are so low that they're exempt, or because their tax liability is canceled out by the standard deduction and tax breaks, such as the Earned Income Tax Credit.
> The Cain plan doesn't exempt very low incomes from taxation. And while it would eliminate the payroll tax, which is theheaviest taxfor low-income families, that tax relief would be offset for many by the elimination of the EITC and other tax breaks they qualify for now.
> But the majority of the highest income households would get a tax cut. For instance, 95% of those with more than $1 million in income would receive an average tax cut of $487,300.
> Under Cain, capital gains -- anotable source of incomefor the wealthiest Americans -- would be tax-free. He would also preserve the charitable deduction. And taxing all non-capital gains income at 9% would amount to a considerable break from today's top rate of 35%.
> Cain's plan has been criticized by those on the left, who say it would hurt the poor, and those on the right, who worry a new national sales tax is an invitation for the government toraise taxes over time.
> Cain has said his plan would raise the same amount of revenue as the current system. The Tax Policy Center generally concurs with that assertion.
> In 2013, the group estimates that Cain's plan could raise about $2.55 trillion. That represents 15.4% of expected GDP, well below the historical average for tax receipts.
> But Cain's plan would not raise as much revenue as the current system if he decided to offer a rebate to low-income households to lessen their tax burden.
> The Cain campaign did not immediately reply to a request for comment.http://money.cnn.com/2011/10/18/news/economy/cain_999_plan/

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: US warmongers killed Gadhafi

Of course they won't comment.... a 9mm killed him in a public square.
at best, in conjunction with a french fighter his convoy was
stopped .... nothing more.

On Oct 20, 1:06 pm, plainolamerican <plainolameri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Update: Fox News reports that U.S. Department of Defense official has
> confirmed that an armed U.S. Predator drone fired on Gadhafi's convoy.
>
> The Pentagon's public affairs office won't comment on whether a U.S.
> aircraft killed Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi
>
> Read more:http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/20/pentagon-mum-on-possibility-us-air-...

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Too busy…

New post on Fellowship of the Minds Too busy… by dcgere Remember those that are fighting for our freedoms and keep them in your prayers. DCG dcgere | October 20, 2011 at 2:57 pm | Categories: Military, Occupy Wall Street | URL: http://wp.me/pKuKY-a6A Comment    See all comments Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions. Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2011/10/20/too-busy/

Thanks for flying with WordPress.com

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Illegal Immigrants: The Statist Scapegoats

remember who wrote the article
some people never learn to say no

On Oct 20, 4:52 pm, Sage2 <wisdom...@gmail.com> wrote:
>           What part of " illegal " don't you understand ?  The status
> quo is " illegal immigration " ! What part of " illegal immigration "
> don't you understand ?
>
> On Oct 20, 3:20 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Wednesday, October 20, 2011Illegal Immigrants: The Statist Scapegoatsby Jacob G. Hornberger
> > It really is sad -- no, actually pathetic -- to see Republican presidential candidates competing with each other to show how tough they are on illegal immigrants in order to garner votes from Republican voters. That s not to say, of course, that liberals are any better, as reflected by President Obama s massive number of immigration raids on private businesses and record deportations of illegal immigrants.
> > Meanwhile, the Republicans keep reminding us of how committed they are to free enterprise, private property, and limited government, while Democrats keep reminding us of how much they love the poor, needy, and disadvantaged.
> > What a joke those mantras are!
> > Message to Republicans and Democrats: Illegal immigrants are not the cause of America s economic woes. They are not responsible for America s high unemployment. They are not responsible for the massive drop in home values. They are not responsible for the deep recession.
> > Supplementary message to Republicans and Democrats: You -- yes, you -- are responsible for our nation s economic woes. Specifically, your welfare-state paradigm and your warfare-state paradigm are taking our country down. Your socialism, your interventionism, your militarism, your imperialism. That s the problem.
> > Yes, it s your statism -- the statism that you statists have foisted on our country -- that is the root of our nation s problems. That s the cause of the unemployment. That s the cause of the out-of-control spending and debt. That s the cause of the monetary debasement. That s the cause of the booms, bubbles, and busts.
> > The problem is that you people simply cannot take personal responsibility for what you have wrought with your statism. So, you do what statist regimes have done throughout history. You look for scapegoats when economic conditions go bad. Illegal immigrants are your convenient scapegoat. They re not in a position to defend themselves.
> > Consider the inane personal immigration attack leveled by Rick Perry against Mitt Romney. Perry accused Romney of hiring illegal aliens to do work at his home.
> > If only Romney had replied, Yes, I did. I m a believer in free enterprise, private property, and limited government. I hired them with my own money. They agreed to the deal. That means we were both happy with the arrangement. It s really none of your business. Butt out.
> > Of course, that s not how Romney responded. Instead, he went through the standard contortions that any public official has to go through whenever he s caught hiring illegal immigrants -- that he didn t know that the lawn service he hired was using illegal aliens and when he did learn of it, he terminated their services.
> > And why? To pander to voters, who themselves cannot bring themselves to admit that it is not illegal immigrants that are the cause of American woes but rather the welfare-warfare paradigm that all too many of such voters unfortunately continue to embrace.
> > Additional message to statists: Even if you succeeded in building a solid wall along the Southern border -- one that was better fortified than the Berlin Wall ever was -- and even if it was manned by East German (legal) immigrant sharpshooters -- and even if the entire border was monitored by tens of thousands of CIA assassination drones -- even if millions of military boots were lined up side-by-side along the border -- even if not one single illegal immigrant was able to enter the United States -- your economic problems would still not go away.
> > That s because, again, illegal immigrants are not the cause of America s economic problems. They re just your convenient scapegoat. The cause of America s economic woes is the welfarism, militarism, imperialism, socialism, and interventionism that have pervaded our land for decades. Attacking illegal immigrants is not going to prevent the chickens from coming home to roost after decades of statism.
> > In fact, illegal immigrants actually provide a guide to Americans as to how to extricate our nation from its statist morass. Illegal immigrants are among the hardest-working people you d ever find in life. They have a tremendous work ethic. That s why Mitt Romney s lawn service -- and countless other American employers -- love to hire illegal immigrants -- because they work hard.
> > Have you ever noticed that in the midst of high unemployment, illegal immigrants find their way into the United States and find jobs that don t exist?
> > Yes, I ve heard the old canard: Oh, Jacob, they re just coming here to get on welfare, and welfare should be limited to Americans. That s just projection. It is American statists who love welfare. Both conservatives and liberals embrace the welfare state, adore it, and are firmly committed to saving and reforming it. It s only libertarians who wish to dismantle it.
> > There s a good reason why immigration raids are never on welfare offices and always on private firms. It s because illegal immigrants are hard workers, not welfare lovers, and, deep down, both liberals and conservatives know it. That s what makes statists uncomfortable. They cannot believe that there are actually people in life who still have the traits of self-reliance, independence, courage, family values, and a strong work ethic -- the traits that characterized our American ancestors, who rejected the paradigms of the welfare state and the warfare state. Thus, statists end up projecting their own love of welfare onto hard-working, independent-minded, self-reliant illegal immigrants.
> > If only Republicans and Democrats practiced what they preached -- free enterprise, private property, and limited government and we love the poor, needy, and disadvantaged, immigrants could be left in peace, enabling them to enter into mutually beneficial economic relationships with American employers and sustaining and improving their own lives and the lives of their families through good old-fashioned labor.
> > Alas, we re a long ways from there. Since conservatives and liberals both find the concept of personal responsibility to be anathema, illegal immigrants will continue to be their scapegoat.http://www.fff.org/blog/jghblog2011-10-20.asp

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Illegal Immigrants: The Statist Scapegoats

What part of " illegal " don't you understand ? The status
quo is " illegal immigration " ! What part of " illegal immigration "
don't you understand ?

On Oct 20, 3:20 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> Wednesday, October 20, 2011Illegal Immigrants: The Statist Scapegoatsby Jacob G. Hornberger
> It really is sad -- no, actually pathetic -- to see Republican presidential candidates competing with each other to show how tough they are on illegal immigrants in order to garner votes from Republican voters. That s not to say, of course, that liberals are any better, as reflected by President Obama s massive number of immigration raids on private businesses and record deportations of illegal immigrants.
> Meanwhile, the Republicans keep reminding us of how committed they are to free enterprise, private property, and limited government, while Democrats keep reminding us of how much they love the poor, needy, and disadvantaged.
> What a joke those mantras are!
> Message to Republicans and Democrats: Illegal immigrants are not the cause of America s economic woes. They are not responsible for America s high unemployment. They are not responsible for the massive drop in home values. They are not responsible for the deep recession.
> Supplementary message to Republicans and Democrats: You -- yes, you -- are responsible for our nation s economic woes. Specifically, your welfare-state paradigm and your warfare-state paradigm are taking our country down. Your socialism, your interventionism, your militarism, your imperialism. That s the problem.
> Yes, it s your statism -- the statism that you statists have foisted on our country -- that is the root of our nation s problems. That s the cause of the unemployment. That s the cause of the out-of-control spending and debt. That s the cause of the monetary debasement. That s the cause of the booms, bubbles, and busts.
> The problem is that you people simply cannot take personal responsibility for what you have wrought with your statism. So, you do what statist regimes have done throughout history. You look for scapegoats when economic conditions go bad. Illegal immigrants are your convenient scapegoat. They re not in a position to defend themselves.
> Consider the inane personal immigration attack leveled by Rick Perry against Mitt Romney. Perry accused Romney of hiring illegal aliens to do work at his home.
> If only Romney had replied, Yes, I did. I m a believer in free enterprise, private property, and limited government. I hired them with my own money. They agreed to the deal. That means we were both happy with the arrangement. It s really none of your business. Butt out.
> Of course, that s not how Romney responded. Instead, he went through the standard contortions that any public official has to go through whenever he s caught hiring illegal immigrants -- that he didn t know that the lawn service he hired was using illegal aliens and when he did learn of it, he terminated their services.
> And why? To pander to voters, who themselves cannot bring themselves to admit that it is not illegal immigrants that are the cause of American woes but rather the welfare-warfare paradigm that all too many of such voters unfortunately continue to embrace.
> Additional message to statists: Even if you succeeded in building a solid wall along the Southern border -- one that was better fortified than the Berlin Wall ever was -- and even if it was manned by East German (legal) immigrant sharpshooters -- and even if the entire border was monitored by tens of thousands of CIA assassination drones -- even if millions of military boots were lined up side-by-side along the border -- even if not one single illegal immigrant was able to enter the United States -- your economic problems would still not go away.
> That s because, again, illegal immigrants are not the cause of America s economic problems. They re just your convenient scapegoat. The cause of America s economic woes is the welfarism, militarism, imperialism, socialism, and interventionism that have pervaded our land for decades. Attacking illegal immigrants is not going to prevent the chickens from coming home to roost after decades of statism.
> In fact, illegal immigrants actually provide a guide to Americans as to how to extricate our nation from its statist morass. Illegal immigrants are among the hardest-working people you d ever find in life. They have a tremendous work ethic. That s why Mitt Romney s lawn service -- and countless other American employers -- love to hire illegal immigrants -- because they work hard.
> Have you ever noticed that in the midst of high unemployment, illegal immigrants find their way into the United States and find jobs that don t exist?
> Yes, I ve heard the old canard: Oh, Jacob, they re just coming here to get on welfare, and welfare should be limited to Americans. That s just projection. It is American statists who love welfare. Both conservatives and liberals embrace the welfare state, adore it, and are firmly committed to saving and reforming it. It s only libertarians who wish to dismantle it.
> There s a good reason why immigration raids are never on welfare offices and always on private firms. It s because illegal immigrants are hard workers, not welfare lovers, and, deep down, both liberals and conservatives know it. That s what makes statists uncomfortable. They cannot believe that there are actually people in life who still have the traits of self-reliance, independence, courage, family values, and a strong work ethic -- the traits that characterized our American ancestors, who rejected the paradigms of the welfare state and the warfare state. Thus, statists end up projecting their own love of welfare onto hard-working, independent-minded, self-reliant illegal immigrants.
> If only Republicans and Democrats practiced what they preached -- free enterprise, private property, and limited government and we love the poor, needy, and disadvantaged, immigrants could be left in peace, enabling them to enter into mutually beneficial economic relationships with American employers and sustaining and improving their own lives and the lives of their families through good old-fashioned labor.
> Alas, we re a long ways from there. Since conservatives and liberals both find the concept of personal responsibility to be anathema, illegal immigrants will continue to be their scapegoat.http://www.fff.org/blog/jghblog2011-10-20.asp

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

free speech in jeopardy again

A New Jersey high school teacher is under investigation after she
allegedly posted a message on her private Facebook page that she
opposed homosexuality because of her Christian faith.

The Union Township school district said they are investigating whether
Viki Knox violated school policies when she allegedly posted remarks
saying homosexuality is a sin that "breeds like cancer" and describing
it as "perverted."

Knox also complained, on her private Facebook page, that Union High
School featured a display recognizing October as Lesbian, Gay,
Bisexual and Transgender History month. The display reportedly
featured photos of Harvey Milk, Neil Patrick Harris and Virginia
Woolf.

"The district is taking the matter very seriously," school
superintendent Patrick Martin said. "We are running a thorough
investigation. The board of education will act appropriately based on
the outcome of the investigation."

He declined to confirm or deny reports that Knox was put on leave and
was escorted from the school building by administrators.

Hundreds of people, both supporters and critics turned out at a school
board meeting Tuesday night after a statewide civil rights
organization launched a campaign demanding the firing of Knox.

"I was pleased with the openness of the meeting and the decorum of the
meeting," Martin said. "There was no calling out, no cheering, or
booing. People were listening to what was being said."

Knox has been advised by her union attorney not to talk to the media,
but she was defended by her husband in an interview with WCBS-TV.

"They can persecute her but they can't prosecute her," Gene Knox told
the television station, stating that "everybody's entitled to an
opinion."

But a spokesman for Garden State Equality, a group that advocates gay
rights, said that's not true.

"She should not be teaching in the classroom," said Steven Goldstein,
chair of the gay rights group. He said her "vicious, anti-gay remarks
on Facebook crossed the line."

Goldestein's group launched a statewide campaign to have the Christian
teacher fired – sending hundreds of phone calls and emails to the
school district.

"I find what she wrote on Facebook endangers the learning atmosphere
for students beyond repair and violates the school district's own
policy of a safe and comfortable environment for all," Goldstein said.
"She's no longer in a position to teach in the classroom because she
will make many students fearful of her hatred."

Ada Davis, an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund, attended the
meeting and said she was very alarmed at how the school system is
treating the Christian teacher. The ADF recently represented a Florida
school teacher accused of posting similar anti-gay Facebook messages.

"The problem is they don't want anyone who believes homosexuality is a
sin to be a teacher," Davis said. "Teachers obviously should not be
punished for exercising these kinds of constitutionally protected
rights. She has a right to communicate her religious beliefs."

Davis said the ADF found it necessary to take a stand on behalf of the
teacher because of what they called the massive opposition against her
by New Jersey's homosexual community.

"She is being persecuted for having a belief," Davis said. "It's very
scary – she has a right to communicate her religious beliefs."

Davis reiterated that what Knox did was on her own time, in her own
house, and on her personal computer.

Does she believe the teacher is a victim of a witch hunt?

"That's a very good way to describe it," Davis said. "Any opposition
is just attacked."

Gay rights groups aren't the only ones attacking the teacher. John
Paragano, an attorney and former member of the Union Township
Committee, told The New York Times he was offended by what Knox wrote
on her private Facebook page. He questioned whether she could enforce
the state's anti-bullying law.

"Teachers are at the forefront of that, enforcing that," he told the
newspaper. "My concern is that if this teacher had these feelings, is
she going to call out the bullying of a gay, lesbian, and transgender
person?"

Superintendent Martin was non-committal on how long the investigation
might last.

I think it's a very tough situation for many people," he said. "We're
having a very difficult time working our way through this. It's tough
all around. I don't think anybody is really enjoying this."

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

make your own tombstone

Have fun.  Here is mine.

http://www.jjchandler.com/tombstone/

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: 84% would pay more under Cain's 9-9-9 plan

EVERYONE should be
considering Herman Cain!
---
he has zero foreign policy experience
hell ... he has zero experience in politics

Ron Paul is by far the most intelligent and experienced politician in
the US.
But hey, so did GHWB and he was beaten by a nothing from Arkansas.

On Oct 20, 3:36 pm, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Considering that ALL of these "lower income groups"  that Jeanne Sahadi
> defines and describes currently pay NO FEDERAL INCOME TAXES,  I say GREAT!
> This is a wonderful plan, and all the more reason that EVERYONE should be
> considering Herman Cain!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 9:21 PM, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
>
> > America's Choice 2012
> > *84% would pay more under Cain's 9-9-9 plan
> > *By Jeanne Sahadi @CNNMoney <http://twitter.com/CNNmoney> October 19,
> > 2011: 4:26 PM ET
>
> > NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Under Herman Cain's 9-9-9 tax reform plan, 84% of
> > U.S. households would pay more than they do under current tax policies,
> > according to a report released Tuesday by a nonpartisan research group.
>
> > And the impact would be felt most heavily by the lowest income groups.
>
> > Those are some of the estimates from the Tax Policy Center's analysis of
> > Cain's proposal, which has helped make him a leading contender for the
> > Republican 2012 presidential nomination.
>
> > While some key questions about the 9-9-9 plan remain unanswered, the Tax
> > Policy Center's analysis is one of the first to take a comprehensive look at
> > its potential impact.
>
> > Cain's 9-9-9 plan would replace much of the current tax code<http://money.cnn.com/2011/10/11/news/economy/Herman_Cain_999_tax/inde...>with a flat-rate system: a 9% individual income tax; a 9% corporate income
> > tax and a 9% national sales tax. Estate and gift taxes would be eliminated,
> > as would the payroll tax, and most tax credits, deductions and exemptions.
>
> > In terms of investment taxes, capital gains would be tax-free, while
> > dividends would be deductible to businesses paying them out but taxable at
> > 9% for investors who receive them.
>
> > * Cain's tax plan: More than 9-9-9<http://money.cnn.com/2011/10/17/news/economy/cain_999_plan/index.htm?...>
> > *According to the Tax Policy Center, households with incomes below $30,000
> > would have, on average, between 16% and 20% less in after-tax income than
> > they do today.
>
> > By contrast, households making more than $200,000 would see their after-tax
> > income grow by between 5% and 22% on average.
>
> > There are two reasons for that discrepancy between the poor and the rich.
>
> > First, while the Cain campaign has said it is working on ways to lessen the
> > tax burden on low-income households, the Tax Policy Center said it didn't
> > have enough detail to assume what that change would be. One way to address
> > regressivity is to offer a rebate to low-income households.
>
> > The second reason has to do with how Cain would restructure taxes.
>
> > Under the current system, most of the lowest income households end up owing
> > no federal income tax<http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/14/pf/taxes/who_pays_income_taxes/index....>.
> > That's because their incomes are so low that they're exempt, or because
> > their tax liability is canceled out by the standard deduction and tax
> > breaks, such as the Earned Income Tax Credit.
>
> > The Cain plan doesn't exempt very low incomes from taxation. And while it
> > would eliminate the payroll tax, which is the heaviest tax<http://money.cnn.com/2011/10/12/news/economy/buffett_taxes_2010/index...>for low-income families, that tax relief would be offset for many by the
> > elimination of the EITC and other tax breaks they qualify for now.
>
> > But the majority of the highest income households would get a tax cut. For
> > instance, 95% of those with more than $1 million in income would receive an
> > average tax cut of $487,300.
>
> > Under Cain, capital gains -- a notable source of income<http://money.cnn.com/2011/10/12/news/economy/buffett_taxes_2010/index...>for the wealthiest Americans -- would be tax-free. He would also preserve
> > the charitable deduction. And taxing all non-capital gains income at 9%
> > would amount to a considerable break from today's top rate of 35%.
>
> > Cain's plan has been criticized by those on the left, who say it would hurt
> > the poor, and those on the right, who worry a new national sales tax is an
> > invitation for the government to raise taxes over time<http://money.cnn.com/2011/10/17/news/economy/herman_cain_taxes/index....>
> > .
>
> > Cain has said his plan would raise the same amount of revenue as the
> > current system. The Tax Policy Center generally concurs with that assertion.
>
> > In 2013, the group estimates that Cain's plan could raise about $2.55
> > trillion. That represents 15.4% of expected GDP, well below the historical
> > average for tax receipts.
>
> > But Cain's plan would not raise as much revenue as the current system if he
> > decided to offer a rebate to low-income households to lessen their tax
> > burden.
>
> > The Cain campaign did not immediately reply to a request for comment.
>
> >  http://money.cnn.com/2011/10/18/news/economy/cain_999_plan/
>
> > --
> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Illegal Immigrants: The Statist Scapegoats

Obama s massive number of immigration raids on private businesses
----
the number of immigration raids has been dismal

the courts allow states not to contact ICE about illegals but
overturns state laws that help to enforce immigration laws

know the enemy

On Oct 20, 2:20 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> Wednesday, October 20, 2011Illegal Immigrants: The Statist Scapegoatsby Jacob G. Hornberger
> It really is sad -- no, actually pathetic -- to see Republican presidential candidates competing with each other to show how tough they are on illegal immigrants in order to garner votes from Republican voters. That s not to say, of course, that liberals are any better, as reflected by President Obama s massive number of immigration raids on private businesses and record deportations of illegal immigrants.
> Meanwhile, the Republicans keep reminding us of how committed they are to free enterprise, private property, and limited government, while Democrats keep reminding us of how much they love the poor, needy, and disadvantaged.
> What a joke those mantras are!
> Message to Republicans and Democrats: Illegal immigrants are not the cause of America s economic woes. They are not responsible for America s high unemployment. They are not responsible for the massive drop in home values. They are not responsible for the deep recession.
> Supplementary message to Republicans and Democrats: You -- yes, you -- are responsible for our nation s economic woes. Specifically, your welfare-state paradigm and your warfare-state paradigm are taking our country down. Your socialism, your interventionism, your militarism, your imperialism. That s the problem.
> Yes, it s your statism -- the statism that you statists have foisted on our country -- that is the root of our nation s problems. That s the cause of the unemployment. That s the cause of the out-of-control spending and debt. That s the cause of the monetary debasement. That s the cause of the booms, bubbles, and busts.
> The problem is that you people simply cannot take personal responsibility for what you have wrought with your statism. So, you do what statist regimes have done throughout history. You look for scapegoats when economic conditions go bad. Illegal immigrants are your convenient scapegoat. They re not in a position to defend themselves.
> Consider the inane personal immigration attack leveled by Rick Perry against Mitt Romney. Perry accused Romney of hiring illegal aliens to do work at his home.
> If only Romney had replied, Yes, I did. I m a believer in free enterprise, private property, and limited government. I hired them with my own money. They agreed to the deal. That means we were both happy with the arrangement. It s really none of your business. Butt out.
> Of course, that s not how Romney responded. Instead, he went through the standard contortions that any public official has to go through whenever he s caught hiring illegal immigrants -- that he didn t know that the lawn service he hired was using illegal aliens and when he did learn of it, he terminated their services.
> And why? To pander to voters, who themselves cannot bring themselves to admit that it is not illegal immigrants that are the cause of American woes but rather the welfare-warfare paradigm that all too many of such voters unfortunately continue to embrace.
> Additional message to statists: Even if you succeeded in building a solid wall along the Southern border -- one that was better fortified than the Berlin Wall ever was -- and even if it was manned by East German (legal) immigrant sharpshooters -- and even if the entire border was monitored by tens of thousands of CIA assassination drones -- even if millions of military boots were lined up side-by-side along the border -- even if not one single illegal immigrant was able to enter the United States -- your economic problems would still not go away.
> That s because, again, illegal immigrants are not the cause of America s economic problems. They re just your convenient scapegoat. The cause of America s economic woes is the welfarism, militarism, imperialism, socialism, and interventionism that have pervaded our land for decades. Attacking illegal immigrants is not going to prevent the chickens from coming home to roost after decades of statism.
> In fact, illegal immigrants actually provide a guide to Americans as to how to extricate our nation from its statist morass. Illegal immigrants are among the hardest-working people you d ever find in life. They have a tremendous work ethic. That s why Mitt Romney s lawn service -- and countless other American employers -- love to hire illegal immigrants -- because they work hard.
> Have you ever noticed that in the midst of high unemployment, illegal immigrants find their way into the United States and find jobs that don t exist?
> Yes, I ve heard the old canard: Oh, Jacob, they re just coming here to get on welfare, and welfare should be limited to Americans. That s just projection. It is American statists who love welfare. Both conservatives and liberals embrace the welfare state, adore it, and are firmly committed to saving and reforming it. It s only libertarians who wish to dismantle it.
> There s a good reason why immigration raids are never on welfare offices and always on private firms. It s because illegal immigrants are hard workers, not welfare lovers, and, deep down, both liberals and conservatives know it. That s what makes statists uncomfortable. They cannot believe that there are actually people in life who still have the traits of self-reliance, independence, courage, family values, and a strong work ethic -- the traits that characterized our American ancestors, who rejected the paradigms of the welfare state and the warfare state. Thus, statists end up projecting their own love of welfare onto hard-working, independent-minded, self-reliant illegal immigrants.
> If only Republicans and Democrats practiced what they preached -- free enterprise, private property, and limited government and we love the poor, needy, and disadvantaged, immigrants could be left in peace, enabling them to enter into mutually beneficial economic relationships with American employers and sustaining and improving their own lives and the lives of their families through good old-fashioned labor.
> Alas, we re a long ways from there. Since conservatives and liberals both find the concept of personal responsibility to be anathema, illegal immigrants will continue to be their scapegoat.http://www.fff.org/blog/jghblog2011-10-20.asp

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Would McCain Have Been Any Better?

Fallacy spew -- who couldn't predict it.

Did Bush VETO it? Of course not ... Hell, it is known as Bush legislation just as the Patient Protect and Affordable Care Act is known as Obama legislation.
Senate had 44 Republicans vote in favor.
House had 185 Republicans vote in favor.

As Vance correctly noted "Instead of abolishing the Department of Education, [Bush] gave us the No Child Left Behind Act.

Regard$,
--MJ

Less than a week after Bush announced that he would have endorsed Obama if asked, Obama announces that he will award Bush the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Two-party system, anyone? -- Kevin Gutzman




At 04:36 PM 10/20/2011, you wrote:

Instead of abolishing the Department of Education, he gave us the No
Child Left Behind Act.
-----------------------------------
Written and sponsored by Ted Kennedy.

Vance is a dope

Re: 84% would pay more under Cain's 9-9-9 plan

zing!

On Oct 20, 4:36 pm, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Considering that ALL of these "lower income groups"  that Jeanne Sahadi
> defines and describes currently pay NO FEDERAL INCOME TAXES,  I say GREAT!
> This is a wonderful plan, and all the more reason that EVERYONE should be
> considering Herman Cain!
>
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 9:21 PM, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
>
> > America's Choice 2012
> > *84% would pay more under Cain's 9-9-9 plan
> > *By Jeanne Sahadi @CNNMoney <http://twitter.com/CNNmoney> October 19,
> > 2011: 4:26 PM ET
>
> > NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Under Herman Cain's 9-9-9 tax reform plan, 84% of
> > U.S. households would pay more than they do under current tax policies,
> > according to a report released Tuesday by a nonpartisan research group.
>
> > And the impact would be felt most heavily by the lowest income groups.
>
> > Those are some of the estimates from the Tax Policy Center's analysis of
> > Cain's proposal, which has helped make him a leading contender for the
> > Republican 2012 presidential nomination.
>
> > While some key questions about the 9-9-9 plan remain unanswered, the Tax
> > Policy Center's analysis is one of the first to take a comprehensive look at
> > its potential impact.
>
> > Cain's 9-9-9 plan would replace much of the current tax code<http://money.cnn.com/2011/10/11/news/economy/Herman_Cain_999_tax/inde...>with a flat-rate system: a 9% individual income tax; a 9% corporate income
> > tax and a 9% national sales tax. Estate and gift taxes would be eliminated,
> > as would the payroll tax, and most tax credits, deductions and exemptions.
>
> > In terms of investment taxes, capital gains would be tax-free, while
> > dividends would be deductible to businesses paying them out but taxable at
> > 9% for investors who receive them.
>
> > * Cain's tax plan: More than 9-9-9<http://money.cnn.com/2011/10/17/news/economy/cain_999_plan/index.htm?...>
> > *According to the Tax Policy Center, households with incomes below $30,000
> > would have, on average, between 16% and 20% less in after-tax income than
> > they do today.
>
> > By contrast, households making more than $200,000 would see their after-tax
> > income grow by between 5% and 22% on average.
>
> > There are two reasons for that discrepancy between the poor and the rich.
>
> > First, while the Cain campaign has said it is working on ways to lessen the
> > tax burden on low-income households, the Tax Policy Center said it didn't
> > have enough detail to assume what that change would be. One way to address
> > regressivity is to offer a rebate to low-income households.
>
> > The second reason has to do with how Cain would restructure taxes.
>
> > Under the current system, most of the lowest income households end up owing
> > no federal income tax<http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/14/pf/taxes/who_pays_income_taxes/index....>.
> > That's because their incomes are so low that they're exempt, or because
> > their tax liability is canceled out by the standard deduction and tax
> > breaks, such as the Earned Income Tax Credit.
>
> > The Cain plan doesn't exempt very low incomes from taxation. And while it
> > would eliminate the payroll tax, which is the heaviest tax<http://money.cnn.com/2011/10/12/news/economy/buffett_taxes_2010/index...>for low-income families, that tax relief would be offset for many by the
> > elimination of the EITC and other tax breaks they qualify for now.
>
> > But the majority of the highest income households would get a tax cut. For
> > instance, 95% of those with more than $1 million in income would receive an
> > average tax cut of $487,300.
>
> > Under Cain, capital gains -- a notable source of income<http://money.cnn.com/2011/10/12/news/economy/buffett_taxes_2010/index...>for the wealthiest Americans -- would be tax-free. He would also preserve
> > the charitable deduction. And taxing all non-capital gains income at 9%
> > would amount to a considerable break from today's top rate of 35%.
>
> > Cain's plan has been criticized by those on the left, who say it would hurt
> > the poor, and those on the right, who worry a new national sales tax is an
> > invitation for the government to raise taxes over time<http://money.cnn.com/2011/10/17/news/economy/herman_cain_taxes/index....>
> > .
>
> > Cain has said his plan would raise the same amount of revenue as the
> > current system. The Tax Policy Center generally concurs with that assertion.
>
> > In 2013, the group estimates that Cain's plan could raise about $2.55
> > trillion. That represents 15.4% of expected GDP, well below the historical
> > average for tax receipts.
>
> > But Cain's plan would not raise as much revenue as the current system if he
> > decided to offer a rebate to low-income households to lessen their tax
> > burden.
>
> > The Cain campaign did not immediately reply to a request for comment.
>
> >  http://money.cnn.com/2011/10/18/news/economy/cain_999_plan/
>
> > --
> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: 84% would pay more under Cain's 9-9-9 plan

Considering that ALL of these "lower income groups"  that Jeanne Sahadi defines and describes currently pay NO FEDERAL INCOME TAXES,  I say GREAT!  This is a wonderful plan, and all the more reason that EVERYONE should be considering Herman Cain!

 

 

On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 9:21 PM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:

America's Choice 2012
84% would pay more under Cain's 9-9-9 plan
By Jeanne Sahadi @CNNMoney October 19, 2011: 4:26 PM ET

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Under Herman Cain's 9-9-9 tax reform plan, 84% of U.S. households would pay more than they do under current tax policies, according to a report released Tuesday by a nonpartisan research group.

And the impact would be felt most heavily by the lowest income groups.

Those are some of the estimates from the Tax Policy Center's analysis of Cain's proposal, which has helped make him a leading contender for the Republican 2012 presidential nomination.

While some key questions about the 9-9-9 plan remain unanswered, the Tax Policy Center's analysis is one of the first to take a comprehensive look at its potential impact.

Cain's 9-9-9 plan would replace much of the current tax code with a flat-rate system: a 9% individual income tax; a 9% corporate income tax and a 9% national sales tax. Estate and gift taxes would be eliminated, as would the payroll tax, and most tax credits, deductions and exemptions.

In terms of investment taxes, capital gains would be tax-free, while dividends would be deductible to businesses paying them out but taxable at 9% for investors who receive them.

Cain's tax plan: More than 9-9-9

According to the Tax Policy Center, households with incomes below $30,000 would have, on average, between 16% and 20% less in after-tax income than they do today.

By contrast, households making more than $200,000 would see their after-tax income grow by between 5% and 22% on average.

There are two reasons for that discrepancy between the poor and the rich.

First, while the Cain campaign has said it is working on ways to lessen the tax burden on low-income households, the Tax Policy Center said it didn't have enough detail to assume what that change would be. One way to address regressivity is to offer a rebate to low-income households.

The second reason has to do with how Cain would restructure taxes.

Under the current system, most of the lowest income households end up owing no federal income tax. That's because their incomes are so low that they're exempt, or because their tax liability is canceled out by the standard deduction and tax breaks, such as the Earned Income Tax Credit.

The Cain plan doesn't exempt very low incomes from taxation. And while it would eliminate the payroll tax, which is the heaviest tax for low-income families, that tax relief would be offset for many by the elimination of the EITC and other tax breaks they qualify for now.

But the majority of the highest income households would get a tax cut. For instance, 95% of those with more than $1 million in income would receive an average tax cut of $487,300.

Under Cain, capital gains -- a notable source of income for the wealthiest Americans -- would be tax-free. He would also preserve the charitable deduction. And taxing all non-capital gains income at 9% would amount to a considerable break from today's top rate of 35%.

Cain's plan has been criticized by those on the left, who say it would hurt the poor, and those on the right, who worry a new national sales tax is an invitation for the government to raise taxes over time.

Cain has said his plan would raise the same amount of revenue as the current system. The Tax Policy Center generally concurs with that assertion.

In 2013, the group estimates that Cain's plan could raise about $2.55 trillion. That represents 15.4% of expected GDP, well below the historical average for tax receipts.

But Cain's plan would not raise as much revenue as the current system if he decided to offer a rebate to low-income households to lessen their tax burden.

The Cain campaign did not immediately reply to a request for comment.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/10/18/news/economy/cain_999_plan/

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Would McCain Have Been Any Better?

Instead of abolishing the Department of Education, he gave us the No
Child Left Behind Act.
-----------------------------------
Written and sponsored by Ted Kennedy.

Vance is a dope

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Would McCain Have Been Any Better?

Would McCain Have Been Any Better?
by Laurence M. Vance, October 20, 2011

It has been said that every president makes us nostalgic for his predecessor. But as bad as the presidency of Barack Obama has turned out to be, I still look back on the Bush years with regret rather than longing.

George Bush will go down in history -- at least among proponents of liberty, property, and peace -- as one of the worst presidents ever. Instead of abolishing the Department of Education, he gave us the No Child Left Behind Act. Instead of rolling back the welfare state, he expanded Medicare with a prescription-drug program that Lyndon Johnson himself would have been proud of.

Bush started two immoral and senseless wars against other states, and he declared war on a tactic (terrorism). These wars have lead to perpetual incarceration, torture, and innumerable other violations of civil liberties and human rights.

Bush also "abandoned free-market principles to save the free-market system" with his bailout and stimulus programs "to make sure the economy doesn't collapse."

He doubled the national debt, massively increased government spending, and gave us the first trillion-dollar budget deficit. Bush also crippled corporations with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, destroyed the Fourth Amendment with the Patriot Act, waged war on the Bill of Rights, created the monstrous Department of Homeland Security with its groping TSA goons, and increased farm subsidies and foreign aid.

Being nostalgic for Bush is like being nostalgic for a train wreck.

But now that the equally horrendous presidency of Barack Obama is winding down, the cry is made by Republicans -- oblivious to the fact that Obama's presidency has been indistinguishable from a Bush third term -- that had John McCain the Republican been elected, things would be much different.

As much as I detest what has gone on during Obama's term in office, I'm afraid that's just not so.

On the economy, McCain supported Bush's Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 and the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (the TARP bailout). He voted to raise the debt limit four times during the Bush years (2003, 2004, 2006, and 2008). He opposed the Bush tax cuts in 2001, and he has voted against ending the estate tax.

On civil liberties, his record is no better: McCain is a drug warrior par excellence. He is the coauthor of the horrendous McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act. He once sent letters to all state governors asking them to ban UFC-style fighting. His record on gun control is mixed, which means it is bad. He called the Supreme Court decision affirming habeas corpus for prisoners at Guantanamo "one of the worst decisions in the history of this country." And he supports the Patriot Act.

On environmentalism, McCain accepts anthropogenic global climate change, supports a cap-and-trade system, limits on greenhouse gas emissions, restrictions on carbon emissions from cars, and increased fuel-economy standards. Additionally, he opposes drilling for oil in a portion of the 19-million-acre Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

On the welfare state, McCain wants to save Social Security and Medicare. He loves NASA. And he supports federal funding for education, including vouchers and Pell Grants.

On the warfare state, McCain, ***who rained down death and destruction on the people of Vietnam during twenty-three bombing missions, ***fully supports the U.S. empire of troops and bases that encircles the globe, our interventionist foreign policy, and perpetual war with the Muslim world.

Once, when asked about Bush's comment about the United States staying in Iraq for fifty years, McCain replied: "Make it a hundred." He reasoned, "We've been in Japan for 60 years. We've been in South Korea 50 years or so. That would be fine with me." He even said he would be alright with American forces staying in Iraq for a "thousand years" or "a million years."

In 2011, McCain has supported U.S. military intervention in Libya and opposed withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan.

When all else fails, Republicans always fall back on the abortion issue. But at least McCain would appoint pro-life Supreme Court justices, they say, as if that alone is enough to overcome McCain's horrendous record on the economy, civil liberties, the welfare state, environmentalism, and the warfare state. But why would any pro-lifer trust McCain? After all, as a senator he voted to confirm to the Supreme Court the liberal, pro-choice justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and David Souter.

Although McCain and Obama may disagree on some issues, it is a myth that things would be any better under a McCain presidency. The Republican Party is utterly and hopelessly statist and interventionist -- just like the Democratic Party. As George Wallace famously observed, "There's not a dime's worth of difference between the Republicans and Democrats." Republicans may talk about liberty, free markets, the Constitution, lower taxes, less regulation, and limited government, but their actions show that all such talk is just hot air. Republicans are not the party of small government; they are simply the party of Republican government.

Just look at Republican senator Jim DeMint. The senator from South Carolina recently wrote an article in the Washington Times assailing the Department of Energy for issuing loan guarantees for green energy projects, one of which went to the now-bankrupt Solyndra:

Government officials rushed $535 million to Solyndra because the Obama administration was determined to make the company the centerpiece of its green agenda regardless of the law of supply and demand. Billions more have been wasted by politicians betting on favored companies and making Washington bigger, using the brute force of government to force liberal preferences into the economy. Mr. Obama calls them "investments," but this is really venture socialism.

Yet, DeMint voted for the very Energy Policy Act of 2005 that set up the loan program Solyndra took part in.

And still the myth of small-government Republicans continues, not only among deluded conservatives, but also among liberals. In a recent interview on NPR's Talk of the Nation, liberals Michael Kazin, professor of history at Georgetown and coeditor of Dissent Magazine, and Katrina vanden Heuvel, the editor and publisher of The Nation, talked about the fate of the political Left. Here is a comment from vanden Heuvel,

So I think we do need to create our own institutions. They are under fire because, as Michael I think mentioned, the right has been intent on destroying the very foundations of progressive left political activism as they work to repeal the New Deal, the Great Society, I would argue even going back now to pre-Civil War, to the Enlightenment and to reason and science.

The last thing liberals need to worry about is the Right actually doing anything to repeal the New Deal (Social Security, unemployment insurance, and the minimum wage) or the Great Society (Medicare, Medicaid, and anti-poverty programs).

After Bush was elected in 2000 and Republicans held on to control of the House and Senate, they had the chance to roll back, not only Roosevelt's New Deal and Johnson's Great Society, but also Truman's Fair Deal, Nixon's DEA and EPA, and the many collective blunders of all previous presidents and congresses.

After Republicans gained a majority in the Congress in the third year of Clinton's first term (for the first time since the 83rd Congress of 1953–1955), their first excuse for not doing anything to scale back government was that they needed a larger, veto-proof majority in Congress to get bills past Clinton. Then, after Clinton only vetoed seventeen bills during his eight years in office, another excuse was proffered: we need a Republican in the White House to complete the Republican revolution.

Well, they got their Republican president in 2000 with an absolute Republican majority in the House, a fifty-fifty split in the Senate, and a Republican vice president to break tie votes. But when Republican senator Jim Jeffords switched from Republican to independent on May 24, 2001, the Republican majority fizzled, giving the GOP yet another excuse for not rolling back government.

The midterm elections of 2002 resulted in a new Congress (the 108th, 2003–2005) for the last two years of Bush's first term that was once again solidly Republican. And what did this absolute Republican control of the Congress and the presidency do before its first year was over? It gave us the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act -- the biggest expansion of Medicare and the welfare state since Lyndon Johnson.

When Bush was reelected in 2004, the Republicans increased their majority in Congress and continued to increase the budget, government spending, the deficit, and the national debt.

During the last two years of Bush's presidency, the Republicans continued their downward slide, joining with the Democratic majority to enact stimulus and bailout legislation, and even to pass the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which mandates the phaseout of incandescent light bulbs.

So, after destroying the free market, busting the budget, ignoring the Constitution, violating civil liberties, doubling the debt, and expanding the welfare/warfare/nanny/national-security state, Republicans have the audacity to tell us that things would be better had a Republican like McCain been elected. And now Republicans tell us that things will be better if we just put a Republican back in the White House, give them a Republican majority in the Senate, and keep the Republican majority in the House. This time, say the Republicans, we will do something. We really mean it this time. We really do.

I'm not holding my breath.

http://www.fff.org/comment/com1110r.asp

Re: Feds Order School Dist. To Close Gap Between Minorities

I know.

Forced busing!

It worked so well in Boston.

On Oct 20, 2:06 pm, Travis <baconl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Now all the kids will not know the difference between left-handed and
> right-handed screwdrivers.  I have seen this in the Little Rock public
> schools which I consider to be now the worst on this planet.
>
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 11:59 AM, plainolamerican <plainolameri...@gmail.com
>
>
>
> > wrote:
>
> > 10/18/2011 - 2:49pm
>
> > On a mission to narrow the academic achievement gap between minorities
> > and whites, the Obama Administration has ordered the nation's second-
> > largest public school district to cut back on disciplining black
> > students and develop a special curriculum for those who don't speak
> > English.
>
> > The orders come on the heels of a 19-month federal "civil rights
> > investigation" that concludes the Los Angeles Unified School District
> > (LAUSD) has long failed to provide an equal education to the hundreds
> > of thousands of minorities enrolled in its 730 campuses. How exactly?
> > It's anybody's guess since the most transparent administration in
> > history refuses to disclose details of the lengthy probe, which was
> > conducted by the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil
> > Rights.
>
> > What we do know is that "English learners" and "African-Americans" are
> > being cheated out of a quality education, according to Obama's
> > Education Secretary, Arne Duncan. So his agency is forcing the LAUSD
> > to make sweeping changes because the systematic failure has resulted
> > in huge academic disparities that have created a sort of civil rights
> > crisis.
>
> > In fact, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, an open borders
> > advocate, says the "achievement gap is the civil rights issue of our
> > time." He assures the agreement between the Department of Education
> > and the LAUSD is a step in the right direction toward "ensuring that
> > English learners and African-American students have equal access to
> > the resources they need to graduate high school and get a solid
> > footing on the economic ladder."
>
> > Key among the administration's demands is that the school district
> > "eliminate inequitable and disproportionate discipline practices" for
> > blacks and that it renews its focus on "identifying the academic
> > English needs of African-American students." The LAUSD must also
> > implement a "first-of-its-kind pilot project for a community school in
> > a predominantly African-American neighborhood" that will become a
> > "sustainable and replicable model for promoting African-American
> > student success."
>
> > For the district's 200,000 non English speakers, many of them illegal
> > immigrants, the administration wants a costly English Learner Master
> > Plan that will address the "specific needs" of each pupil. Students
> > who reach high school without mastering English skills required to
> > take college-prep courses will also get extra help and both non
> > English speaking and black students will get "better teachers" as well
> > as other resources.
>
> > No word on how the cash-strapped school district, notorious for its
> > overcrowded campuses and monstrous dropout rate, will pay for all
> > this. The state's largest newspaper puts it mildly when it says the
> > federal mandate "poses a potential financial problem" for a public
> > school district that's "faced multimillion-dollar budget cuts and
> > layoffs over the last few years."
>
> > --
> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> > For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> > * Visit our other community athttp://www.PoliticalForum.com/<http://www.politicalforum.com/>
> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

throwing bundles of marijuana out of the window as he fled

http://www.kansas.com/2011/10/20/2069237/ice-officer-suspected-
of-smuggling.html

PHOENIX — A deportation officer with U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement led Arizona state police and federal agents
on a desert chase in his government vehicle, throwing bundles of
marijuana out of the window as he fled, the Department of Public
Safety said Wednesday.

The deportation officer, identified as Jason Alistair Lowery,
34, had been under surveillance after a smuggler who had been
arrested gave authorities a tip about the officer in an effort
to win lenient treatment, Department of Public Safety Officer
Carrick Cook said.

In a criminal complaint filed Wednesday against Lowery, who also
used to be a Border Patrol agent, a Department of Homeland
Security investigator wrote that he got further information
about Lowery through a confidential informant on Oct. 4.

The informant, whose identity was protected, said that he or she
was involved with Lowery and another man in a "rip" crew in
which Lowery used his status in law enforcement to help steal
marijuana from illegal immigrants, wrote Brian Gamberg-Bonilla,
a special agent with the DPS's Office of Investigations.

The informant agreed to call Lowery and arrange for him to pick
up 500 pounds of pot in the desert on Tuesday, which is how
authorities were able to follow him and begin to make their
case, Gamberg-Bonilla wrote.

DPS and federal agents tried to pull Lowery over after he picked
up the marijuana with his unmarked ICE pickup truck, Cook said.
Lowery fled, leading agents on a 45-minute chase at speeds of up
to 110 mph as he threw 10 of the 14 bundles of pot out of the
window, he said.

"He got pretty desperate," Cook said.

The chase began in the Vekol Valley about 45 miles south of
Phoenix and ended when Lowery's truck rolled over and he gave
himself up.

Lowery, who lives in the Phoenix suburb of Chandler, appeared in
federal court in downtown Phoenix on Wednesday.

Prosecutor John Lopez argued that Lowery should be detained as
his court case proceeds, saying that he poses a risk to the
community and could flee the state.

He also said that Lowery had a non-government-issued gun on him
when he was arrested.

Federal Magistrate Michelle Burns set a hearing in the matter
for Tuesday.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

84% would pay more under Cain's 9-9-9 plan

America's Choice 2012
84% would pay more under Cain's 9-9-9 plan
By Jeanne Sahadi @CNNMoney October 19, 2011: 4:26 PM ET

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Under Herman Cain's 9-9-9 tax reform plan, 84% of U.S. households would pay more than they do under current tax policies, according to a report released Tuesday by a nonpartisan research group.

And the impact would be felt most heavily by the lowest income groups.

Those are some of the estimates from the Tax Policy Center's analysis of Cain's proposal, which has helped make him a leading contender for the Republican 2012 presidential nomination.

While some key questions about the 9-9-9 plan remain unanswered, the Tax Policy Center's analysis is one of the first to take a comprehensive look at its potential impact.

Cain's 9-9-9 plan would replace much of the current tax code with a flat-rate system: a 9% individual income tax; a 9% corporate income tax and a 9% national sales tax. Estate and gift taxes would be eliminated, as would the payroll tax, and most tax credits, deductions and exemptions.

In terms of investment taxes, capital gains would be tax-free, while dividends would be deductible to businesses paying them out but taxable at 9% for investors who receive them.

Cain's tax plan: More than 9-9-9

According to the Tax Policy Center, households with incomes below $30,000 would have, on average, between 16% and 20% less in after-tax income than they do today.

By contrast, households making more than $200,000 would see their after-tax income grow by between 5% and 22% on average.

There are two reasons for that discrepancy between the poor and the rich.

First, while the Cain campaign has said it is working on ways to lessen the tax burden on low-income households, the Tax Policy Center said it didn't have enough detail to assume what that change would be. One way to address regressivity is to offer a rebate to low-income households.

The second reason has to do with how Cain would restructure taxes.

Under the current system, most of the lowest income households end up owing no federal income tax. That's because their incomes are so low that they're exempt, or because their tax liability is canceled out by the standard deduction and tax breaks, such as the Earned Income Tax Credit.

The Cain plan doesn't exempt very low incomes from taxation. And while it would eliminate the payroll tax, which is the heaviest tax for low-income families, that tax relief would be offset for many by the elimination of the EITC and other tax breaks they qualify for now.

But the majority of the highest income households would get a tax cut. For instance, 95% of those with more than $1 million in income would receive an average tax cut of $487,300.

Under Cain, capital gains -- a notable source of income for the wealthiest Americans -- would be tax-free. He would also preserve the charitable deduction. And taxing all non-capital gains income at 9% would amount to a considerable break from today's top rate of 35%.

Cain's plan has been criticized by those on the left, who say it would hurt the poor, and those on the right, who worry a new national sales tax is an invitation for the government to raise taxes over time.

Cain has said his plan would raise the same amount of revenue as the current system. The Tax Policy Center generally concurs with that assertion.

In 2013, the group estimates that Cain's plan could raise about $2.55 trillion. That represents 15.4% of expected GDP, well below the historical average for tax receipts.

But Cain's plan would not raise as much revenue as the current system if he decided to offer a rebate to low-income households to lessen their tax burden.

The Cain campaign did not immediately reply to a request for comment.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/10/18/news/economy/cain_999_plan/

Illegal Immigrants: The Statist Scapegoats

Wednesday, October 20, 2011
Illegal Immigrants: The Statist Scapegoats
by Jacob G. Hornberger

It really is sad -- no, actually pathetic -- to see Republican presidential candidates competing with each other to show how tough they are on illegal immigrants in order to garner votes from Republican voters. That's not to say, of course, that liberals are any better, as reflected by President Obama's massive number of immigration raids on private businesses and record deportations of illegal immigrants.

Meanwhile, the Republicans keep reminding us of how committed they are to "free enterprise, private property, and limited government," while Democrats keep reminding us of how much they love "the poor, needy, and disadvantaged."

What a joke those mantras are!

Message to Republicans and Democrats: Illegal immigrants are not the cause of America's economic woes. They are not responsible for America's high unemployment. They are not responsible for the massive drop in home values. They are not responsible for the deep recession.

Supplementary message to Republicans and Democrats: You -- yes, you -- are responsible for our nation's economic woes. Specifically, your welfare-state paradigm and your warfare-state paradigm are taking our country down. Your socialism, your interventionism, your militarism, your imperialism. That's the problem.

Yes, it's your statism -- the statism that you statists have foisted on our country -- that is the root of our nation's problems. That's the cause of the unemployment. That's the cause of the out-of-control spending and debt. That's the cause of the monetary debasement. That's the cause of the booms, bubbles, and busts.

The problem is that you people simply cannot take personal responsibility for what you have wrought with your statism. So, you do what statist regimes have done throughout history. You look for scapegoats when economic conditions go bad. Illegal immigrants are your convenient scapegoat. They're not in a position to defend themselves.

Consider the inane personal immigration attack leveled by Rick Perry against Mitt Romney. Perry accused Romney of hiring illegal aliens to do work at his home.

If only Romney had replied, "Yes, I did. I'm a believer in free enterprise, private property, and limited government. I hired them with my own money. They agreed to the deal. That means we were both happy with the arrangement. It's really none of your business. Butt out."

Of course, that's not how Romney responded. Instead, he went through the standard contortions that any public official has to go through whenever he's caught hiring illegal immigrants -- that he didn't know that the lawn service he hired was using illegal aliens and when he did learn of it, he terminated their services.

And why? To pander to voters, who themselves cannot bring themselves to admit that it is not illegal immigrants that are the cause of American woes but rather the welfare-warfare paradigm that all too many of such voters unfortunately continue to embrace.

Additional message to statists: Even if you succeeded in building a solid wall along the Southern border -- one that was better fortified than the Berlin Wall ever was -- and even if it was manned by East German (legal) immigrant sharpshooters -- and even if the entire border was monitored by tens of thousands of CIA assassination drones -- even if millions of military boots were lined up side-by-side along the border -- even if not one single illegal immigrant was able to enter the United States -- your economic problems would still not go away.

That's because, again, illegal immigrants are not the cause of America's economic problems. They're just your convenient scapegoat. The cause of America's economic woes is the welfarism, militarism, imperialism, socialism, and interventionism that have pervaded our land for decades. Attacking illegal immigrants is not going to prevent the chickens from coming home to roost after decades of statism.

In fact, illegal immigrants actually provide a guide to Americans as to how to extricate our nation from its statist morass. Illegal immigrants are among the hardest-working people you'd ever find in life. They have a tremendous work ethic. That's why Mitt Romney's lawn service -- and countless other American employers -- love to hire illegal immigrants -- because they work hard.

Have you ever noticed that in the midst of high unemployment, illegal immigrants find their way into the United States and find jobs that don't exist?

Yes, I've heard the old canard: "Oh, Jacob, they're just coming here to get on welfare, and welfare should be limited to Americans." That's just projection. It is American statists who love welfare. Both conservatives and liberals embrace the welfare state, adore it, and are firmly committed to saving and reforming it. It's only libertarians who wish to dismantle it.

There's a good reason why immigration raids are never on welfare offices and always on private firms. It's because illegal immigrants are hard workers, not welfare lovers, and, deep down, both liberals and conservatives know it. That's what makes statists uncomfortable. They cannot believe that there are actually people in life who still have the traits of self-reliance, independence, courage, family values, and a strong work ethic -- the traits that characterized our American ancestors, who rejected the paradigms of the welfare state and the warfare state. Thus, statists end up projecting their own love of welfare onto hard-working, independent-minded, self-reliant illegal immigrants.

If only Republicans and Democrats practiced what they preached -- "free enterprise, private property, and limited government" and "we love the poor, needy, and disadvantaged," immigrants could be left in peace, enabling them to enter into mutually beneficial economic relationships with American employers and sustaining and improving their own lives and the lives of their families through good old-fashioned labor.

Alas, we're a long ways from there. Since conservatives and liberals both find the concept of personal responsibility to be anathema, illegal immigrants will continue to be their scapegoat.


http://www.fff.org/blog/jghblog2011-10-20.asp

US warmongers killed Gadhafi

Update: Fox News reports that U.S. Department of Defense official has
confirmed that an armed U.S. Predator drone fired on Gadhafi's convoy.

The Pentagon's public affairs office won't comment on whether a U.S.
aircraft killed Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi

Read more:
http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/20/pentagon-mum-on-possibility-us-air-strike-killed-gadhafi-or-led-to-his-death/#ixzz1bLn0x82M

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: why show Qaddafi's dead body?

the answer is obvious and not mentt as racist, for those of you that always see that sort of thing. 

Bin Ladin was killed and buried at see by the U.S. . A country who certainly had reason to hate him. 

But, The lybian people have lived in a state of terror. With a regime that had no limits of exploiting it's people or suppressing them at the whim of a loon. 

I can certainly see why the Lybian people would follow something that is in their culture, punishment is public, after all those years. 

The U.S. has a different culture. Respect for the faith of even the most evil on earth. 

Bear

Just your average, Canadian, bear. 

P.S. It also might shut up some of the conspiracy nuts. I doubt it. But it might. 

On 20 October 2011 13:05, plainolamerican <plainolamerican@gmail.com> wrote:

but not Bin Ladin's?

isn't one dead muzzy as good as another to jews and xians?

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.