Tag Archives: 2020

What will the Republican and Democrat plans for the economy mean for you?

Pretty soon, our mandatory expenses will consume all of our tax revenues
Pretty soon, our mandatory expenses will consume all of our tax revenues

I found two very good articles about the Republican and Democrat plans for taxing and spending. On the one hand, there’s an article about the effects of the Trump tax cuts, posted at the Washington Times. On the other hand, there’s an article posted at the radically leftist Vox, about the cost of Democrat party spending plans. I wonder which one is better for you and your family?

First, let’s look at the effects of the Trump tax cuts:

Almost immediately, numerous employers — including Boeing, AT&T, FedEx, CVS, and others — began offering bonuses to their employees. Nearly 200 companies, including Walmart, announced wage hikes due to the 2017 tax cut. Still others enjoyed higher contributions to their retirement plans.

The benefits soon went beyond that, however. The tax cut contributed to the strong economy we’ve been enjoying, leading many businesses to hire more and more workers. The United States added more than 2.6 million new jobs in the year following the passage of the tax cut — nearly a 25 percent increase from the previous year.

Unemployment is way down, with jobless claims at their lowest since 1969, thanks in large part to the tax cut.

[…]The Heritage Foundation used IRS data to produce a special report last year that shows how widespread the tax benefits truly are.

They found that in 2018 taxpayers would save an average of $1,400. Even better, married couples with two children would save more than twice that: $2,917.

So, that sounds pretty good if you’re a taxpayer. You got to keep more of the money you earned, and spend it on the things you wanted for yourself and your loved ones. If that money had gone to government, then government employees would have taken half for their own salaries and benefits, and then the rest might have been spent in a wasteful way by someone who never earned it.

By the way, you might think that taking less money from the people who earn it would cause tax revenues to go down. But that’s not the case. Whenever you allow job creators and workers to keep more of what they earn, they work harder and take more risks developing better products and services. This naturally results in more revenue to the government from increased economic activity. In Feburary of 2018, after the tax cuts were in effect a whole year, federal revenues were $1.4 billion HIGHER than the previous year.

But let’s see what the Democrats can do for the taxpayer, by looking at this article in the far-left Vox.

It says:

Sanders has proposed a Social Security expansion, including higher cost-of-living adjustments and higher minimum benefit levels, that the liberal Tax Policy Center estimates will cost $188 billion over the next decade.

The Tax Policy Center also scores the Sanders “free college” proposal at $807 billion over the next decade. (Note that free college benefits students from wealthy families and those whose tuition is currently affordable.)

Next, the center estimates that Sanders’s proposal of up to 12 weeks of paid family leave for new parents and for people with serious health conditions would cost another $270 billion.

Those costs, however, pale beside the cost of replacing private insurance, including copayments, with a Medicare-for-all plan. The liberal Urban Institute estimates that Sanders’s single-payer health plan would add $32 trillion in federal costs over the decade.

[…]Ocasio-Cortez and Senate Democrats also want to guarantee a job for anyone who wants one, at $15 per hour plus benefits. The liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, commissioned a report by outside scholars Darrick Hamilton, William Darity, and Mark Paul that estimates the cost of a more modest proposal along these lines (with a lower wage, for example). It suggested the cost would be $56,000 apiece for 9.7 million enrollees, for a total of $6.8 trillion over the next decade.

[…]Finally, Senate Democrats have promised $1 trillion for new infrastructure, and House Democrats are rallying around legislation to pay off all $1.4 trillion in student loan debt — both of which the far left generally supports. I will exclude vague promises such as universal pre-K and expanded special education funding.

Total cost: $42.5 trillion in new proposals over the next decade, on top of the $12.4 trillion baseline deficit.

OK, that does sound like a lot of money, but the rich are just sitting on trillions and trillions of dollars that they aren’t even using, right? So the total cost of all this spending is only $42.5 trillion of new spending and $12.4 trillion of existing spending, for  a total of about $55 trillion dollars over the next 10 years. I’m sure that if we just raised taxes by 5% on the rich, we could easily raise 10 times that amount, right?

Not quite.

In 2011, the Tax Foundation explained that even if you taxed ALL THE INCOME from all the people who make $200,000 or more, you would only raise $1.53 trillion dollars:

So taking half of the yearly income from every person making between one and ten million dollars would only decrease the nation’s debt by 1%. Even taking every last penny from every individual making more than $10 million per year would only reduce the nation’s deficit by 12 percent and the debt by 2 percent. There’s simply not enough wealth in the community of the rich to erase this country’s problems by waving some magic tax wand.

Finally, to put everything in perspective, think about what would need to be done to erase the federal deficit this year: After everyone making more than $200,000/year has paid taxes, the IRS would need to take every single penny of disposable income they have left. Such an act would raise approximately $1.53 trillion. It may be economically ruinous, but at least this proposal would actually solve the problem.

Now, if I were a rich person making over $200,000 a year, and someone came along and told me they would take all of it, I would not continue to work. And I doubt they would either. But taking all this money from “the rich” would just barely cover the BASELINE deficit of $12.4 trillion over the next 10 years. It would not cover the new $42.5 trillion of Democrat spending plans.

Think about that. What that means is that can’t pay for their spending even if they take every penny from “the rich”. Do you know what that means? It means they’re going to have to take money from YOU, the ordinary middle class American taxpayer. Something to keep in mind.

Twitter locks GOP senator’s account for posting the death threats he received from Democrats

Donations / Political contributions by employees of Big Technology companies
Political donations / contributions by employees of Big Tech companies

Twitter is concerned that their Democrat party allies will look bad if Republicans are allowed to post the death threats they receive from them. Twitter locked the account for Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell re-election campaign. Their goal is to prevent American voters from seeing the truth about the Democrat party, so that Trump loses in 2020.

Here’s the story from the Fox News:

A group of protesters supporting gun control gathered outside the home of Sen. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. where one expressed that someone should “stab the motherf—er in the heart.”

[…]Approximately 25 demonstrators stood on the sidewalk near McConnell’s Louisville home, shouting “No Trump, no KKK, no Fascist USA!” while others called him names like “Murder Turtle” and made loud noises by banging objects and dragging a shovel back and forth on the ground as a group of security personnel stood between the protestors and the home, WLKY reported.

“The b—- is home — we keep seeing the lights go on and off,” another protester can be heard shouting. “This h– really thought he was going to get ready to be at home after he hurt his little punk ass shoulder. B—-, don’t nobody give a f—! F–k your thoughts and prayers, Mitch. F— you, f— your wife, f— everything you stand for. ”

A video of the protesters threatening violence against McConnell went viral, until it was taken down by Twitter. The video made Democrats look like violent fascists, and Twitter felt that this was bad for their Democrat party allies in the 2020 election. Twitter did allow the hashtag #MassacreMitch to trend on their platform earlier in the week. Not a single leftist was locked out of their account for inciting violence on Twitter. Twitter didn’t care about Mitch McConnell’s safety at all.

I noticed that a journalist from the Daily Wire also tweeted the video, and his account was also locked by Twitter. Because that’s what fascists do with a free press – they censor them.

Twitter doesn’t censor tweets by violent Democrats

He had a long series of tweets telling the story of what happened to him. I’ve got them all in one place here. What I thought was interesting was how Twitter ignored a tweet from Democrat Reza Aslan, a former CNN contributor, who called for Republican Kellyanne Conway “a depraved evil” that needed to be “eradicated”. Aslan’s account is still unlocked, and he still has his blue check mark. Twitter also left up tweets by a Democrat activist named Louis Farrakhan, who compared Jews to “termites”. Another Democrat named Peter Fonda “called for women in the Trump administration to stripped naked and physically beaten” and for “Trump admin officials to have their kids taken from them and thrown in cages with pedophiles”. Twitter’s response? It was all fine with them – Fonda’s account remained unlocked, and his blue check mark remains. Because the censorship on Twitter only goes one way – against Republicans.

The Daily Wire journalist concludes:

By suspending McConnell’s re-election campaign for exposing the violent rhetoric directed at McConnell, which was allowed to foment on Twitter for days, Twitter is interfering in the 2020 elections in a manner to help Democrats and hurt Republicans
mentions.

By suspending me for telling the truth, Twitter is making it clear that they seek to control the news media and only allow content on their platform that does not expose the evil, projection, and hypocrisy of the political Left.

Do not be surprised if they permanently ban me.

If you’re looking for collusion designed to throw an election, you just found it.

Are there any non-violent Democrats?

We’re seeing a lot of violence from members of the Democrat party, aren’t we? Just last week we saw attacks by mainstream Democrats who were concerned about advancing socialism and stopping global warming. But electing Democrats was too slow for them, so they decided to take matters into their own hands – with guns. Just like so many Democrat shooters have before them.

There’s actually a nationwide movement of secular left fascists in America now called “antifa”. They are similar to armed militias in other socialist regimes, such as Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. And look – they have guns.

These secular left fascists are the allies of Big Technology
These secular left fascists are the brown shirts of the Democrat party

If you don’t like the idea of someone coming to your house in the night with guns and threatening your life, then you’d better start making a plan NOW to make persuasive arguments supported by evidence to the people around you. Make sure that they understand what progressives believe, and what progressives would do to dissenters from their Communist agenda, if they ever took power.

All six Democrat senators running for president in 2020 vote against bill to ban infanticide

Wil Trump remember how Democrats voted during his re-election campaign?
Wil Trump remember how Democrats voted during his re-election campaign?

Republicans introduced a bill in the Senate to require that doctors must provide medical care to babies BORN ALIVE during an abortion. There were 50 Republicans present for the vote. All 50 supported the bill. But 44 out 47 Democrats present voted for infanticide, including 6 who are running for President in 2020.

Here’s how McConnell introduced the bill: (H/T Pulpit & Pen)

But first, in a few hours the Senate will vote on advancing a straight-forward piece of legislation to protect newborn babies.

This legislation is simple. It would simply require that medical professionals give the standard care and treatment to newborn babies who have survived an attempted abortion as any other newborn baby would receive in any other circumstances.

It isnt about new restrictions on abortion. It isn’t about changing options available to women. It’s just about recognizing that a newborn baby is a newborn baby, period.

This Bill would make clear that in the United States of American, in the year 2019, the medical professionals on-hand when a baby is born alive need to maintain their basic ethical and professional responsibilities to that newborn.

It would make sure our laws reflect the fact that the human rights of newborn boys and girls are innate. They don’t come and go based on whatever the circumstances. If that medical professional comes face-to-face with a baby who’s been born alive, they are looking at a human being with human rights, period.

So how did it go? Well, all the Republicans in the Senate voted for it. And none of them voted against it. The bill failed, though. It failed because 44 Democrat senators voted against it, and it needs 60 votes to pass.

What I think is interesting from a strategic point of view is that 6 of the 44 senators who voted against it are running for President.

Here are the 6, maybe 7, Democrat senators running for President:

  • Cory Booker
  • Kirsten Gillibrand
  • Kamala Harris
  • Amy Klobuchar
  • Elizabeth Warren
  • Bernie Sanders
  • Sherrod Brown (maybe)

If one of those candidates ends up being the Democrat nominee, Trump will be able to use their vote on this infanticide bill in debates and in election ads.

And it’s not just these Democrat Presidential candidates – infanticide is now the mainstream view of most Democrat politicians.

Life News reports that more states are introducing legislation to remove all restrictions on abortion:

New York, Vermont, New Mexico and now Rhode Island politicians are pushing radical pro-abortion legislation that could legalize the killing of unborn babies for basically any reason up to birth in their states.

Earlier this week, Rhode Island lawmakers introduced legislation to keep abortion legal and unrestricted if the U.S. Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, the AP reports.

It was just New York, Virginia, Rhode Island, New Mexico and Vermont at the end of January.

But in February, Illinois can be added to the list:

“The Democratic supermajority’s proposals now pending in the Illinois General Assembly are the most pro-abortion legislative measures of their type in the country,” said Peter Breen, Vice President and Senior Counsel for the Thomas More Society, and former Illinois House Minority Floor Leader. “The barbaric procedures promoted by this legislation are nothing short of infanticide. These bills go well beyond the recent New York law and would turn Illinois into a third-trimester abortion destination and an underage abortion haven.”

Will Democrat voters get on board with infanticide? I think some of their liberal special interest groups will. But think about how independents supported Trump’s opposition to infanticide in his State of the Union speech. I think that the Democrats are being forced to move their party too far to the left to win another election. All it takes is for pro-lifers to introduce legislation, have them vote on it, and then make the appropriate election ads.

No one can win a presidential by appealing only to their base. It comes down to who wins the independents. Trump is now the moderate candidate on social issues. The Democrats are pro-abortion extremists. They won’t win a majority of independents in a general election. They’ve just slid too far to the left.

Keith Hennessey explains the looming crisis of entitlement spending

This is the best post I have ever seen on the problem of demographics and entitlement spending, which is due to explode in about a few years. I’ll summarize so that you will click through and read this post for yourself. There is almost no text in the post, it is all graphs, and they are self explanatory. It will take your about 5 minutes to scare yourself into a coma.

Summary of the post:

  • There are 3 entitlement programs: social security, medicare and medicaid
  • These programs are funded by taxes on young people who are still working
  • These 3 programs currently cost 9% of GDP.
  • By 2050, the costs will have doubled to 18% GDP.
  • Some of this increase will be due to excess growth in health costs
  • And some of this increase will be due to demographics

Let me talk more about the demographics problem:

  • More people are living longer
  • That means that benefits are being paid out over more years, per person
  • A huge group of babies from the Baby Boom started retiring in 2008
  • But the number of younger workers who pay their benefits is not growing fast enough
  • The number of workers needed to pay each retiree’s benefits is shrinking
  • Taxes will have to increase, or benefits will have to decrease

Please read the article. It will help you to put Obama’s massive spending and tax hikes in perspective. By the way, this is a great post to forward to your friends and neighbor’s who voted for Obama who do not like to read about economics and finance.