Month: January 2012
Judge Napolitano Explains Roe vs Wade on its Anniversary
No Clue! Rachel maddow FAIL
This Teacher Is A Disgrace! Putting MLK`s Mission in a Class Warfare/Liberation Theological/`Social` Justice Manner is how Crazy the Left has Gotten
Rush Limbaugh Says Attacks Against Newt Gingrich Do Not Fit His Recollection (Full Segment)
Via The Blaze
Pentagon shooter records video while firing shots (and praying `Allahu Akbar`) at the Pentagon
From Video Description:
Jihad in America. Pentagon shooter records video while firing shots Ex-marine Yonathan Melaku pleaded guilty Thursday to shooting at the Pentagon and the Marine Corps museum and other military buildings. Melaku recorded himself firing the shots.
To read more on it, see JihadWatch:
Yonathan Melaku was sneaking through Fort Myer and Arlington National Cemetery, his backpack filled with plastic bags of ammonium nitrate, a notebook containing jihadist messages, and a can of black spray paint. The 23-year-old former Marine was heading to the graves of the nation’s most recent heroes, aiming to desecrate the stones with Arabic statements and leave handfuls of explosive material nearby as a message.
Before police foiled the plan in June, the vandalism was to be Melaku’s sixth attack, months after he went on a mysterious shooting spree that targeted the Pentagon, the National Museum of the Marine Corps and two other military buildings in Northern Virginia. A video found after Melaku’s arrest showed him wearing a black mask and shooting a 9mm handgun out of his Acura’s passenger window as he drove along Interstate 95, shouting “Allahu Akbar!”
Glenn Beck Responds to Al `not so sharp` Sharpton`s Tax Challenge
(The “play” button is in the upper left of the video.) You can watch the entire Al Sharpton debate HERE:
Rush Limbaugh Explains that Nancy Pelosi Has Nothing On Newt
George Soros Admits He is a `Useful Idiot` of Lenin
What is it with these admissions as of late? Rachel Maddow and now Soros.
Al `not so sharp` Sharpton Showing His Lack of Knowledge on MSNBC (Plus: Congressman John Campbell)
Forbes explains the gig
…[Romney’s] low rate is due to the fact that almost all of his income was in the form of dividends and capital gains, which are currently taxed at only 15%. (As he pointed out in the last debate, he would have paid almost nothing under his opponent Newt Gingrich’s proposal to not tax investment income at all.) He then used large charitable contributions and other deductions to further reduce his taxable income.
While this doesn’t apply much to those of us with earned income (which is taxed at higher ordinary income tax rates plus the FICA tax), there are lessons for how we can similarly minimize our taxes on our investments. Specifically, we can take advantage of the differences in how various investments are taxed. Qualified dividends and long-term capital gains are taxed at a maximum 15% rate while cash and bond interest are taxed at ordinary income tax rates, which can be as high as 35%. By keeping as many of our tax-inefficient investments like bonds and cash in retirement accounts as possible, we can pay more of our investment taxes at the 15% capital gains and dividend rate and less at the higher ordinary income tax rate.
Let’s take an example. Imagine you have a total investment portfolio of $500k and you want to have $300k of that in stocks and $200k in bonds and cash. Let’s say that you have a pre-tax 401(k) with $300k. To minimize your taxes, you would have the entire $200k of bonds and cash in the 401(k) plus an additional $100k of the money in the stocks. The remaining $200k in taxable investments would all be in stock so that most of your taxable investment income would be at the 15% rate for long-term capital gains and qualified dividends.
There’s another advantage of having stocks and stock funds outside of retirement plans. In this case, you can actually make the volatility of the stock market work for you. That’s because when we have an investment that loses value (and who didn’t have at least one over these last few years) we can sell it at the end of the year and write the loss off of our taxes. These capital gain losses can offset gains we have that year or even better, up to $3k of regular income tax if we don’t have any capital gains. You can carry losses over $3k to future years.
Sen. John Campbell explains the issue with how the press twists Romney’s tax return info to suit their needs:
History vs. Romney ~ Taking Drudge Report to Task
Take note I have posted smears from the Gingrich side that are also just as untrue. This from Gateway Pundit:
It should be clear by now that the elites in the Republican Party will do and say anything to destroy Newt Gingrich or anyone else who challenges the Romney machine. Drudge, Coulter, Britt Hume, the folks at National Review, Jen Rubin etc. are just a few of the prominent conservatives trying to not only persuade you that Romney is some sort of conservative, but that Newt Gingrich, Reagan’s Young Lieutenant, is some kind of squish.
Legal Insurrection today sets the record straight on the Gingrich record. Professor Jacobson dug up this video from 1995 where Nancy Reagan tells a conservative audience that,
You’ll have to decide for yourself how much of the latest Romney smear campaign you’re going to believe but as Jeffrey Lord writes, “Quite to the contrary of the Romney message, Newt Gingrich was in fact one of Reagan’s Young Lieutenants.“
The linked article of Jeffrey Lord in the Gateway post ends like this:
… This utterly dumb line of attack for Romney is as bad if not worse than Gingrich’s flirtation with attacking Bain Capital. It raises exactly all the questions of Romney’s vulnerabilities. Why, for example, did Romney deliberately play the wimp when it comes to defending Ronald Reagan in Massachusetts? At precisely the time in the fall of 1994, it should be noted, when Newt Gingrich was leading Chapter 2 in the Reagan Revolution? Is Romney really trying to draw attention to the fact that while Gingrich and hundreds of Republicans were on the verge of a historic landslide retaking the House by attaching themselves to the Reagan legacy… Romney ran from Reagan… and got clobbered?
If even those simple political basics can’t be learned, which in Romney’s case now include not just the broader inability to defend either Reagan or free markets but the quite specific inability to use the general principle of free markets and capitalism to defend himself over the inevitable “Mr. 1%” accusations — this should be a red flag for conservatives.
Who knows why Romney gets tongue tied? Or, as our friends at the Wall Street Journal note, “befuddled.”
This guy is not so befuddled:
Legal Insurrection has been the leader on dealing with this topic of bashing Newt with false ideas, and is even bringing the fight (and rightfully so) between “cousins” to the DrudgeReport with history and facts, LI has this:
…For several days Drudge has been running almost around-the-clock negative banners against Newt, hyping negatives and burying news which contradicts the Romney campaign narrative that Newt was anti-Reagan.
Against the anti-Newt crusade stands a wealth of counter-viewpoints of people who were in a position to know and who share very differenct recollections of Newt and Reagan, via Josh Painter in the comments:
Reagan Nat’l Security Advisor Bud McFarlane: http://bit.ly/zd9eAF
Reagan Economist Art Laffer: http://bit.ly/xEDETi
Reagan WH political director Jeffrey Lord: http://bit.ly/zw2ZMb
Reagan Policy Analyst Peter Ferrara http://bit.ly/zq1QxI
Reagan media consultant Richard Quinn: http://on.msnbc.com/y2sPM2
Reagan’s Speechwriting Dir. Bently Elliott: http://thedc.com/xOkDvA
Reagan’s older son Michael Reagan: http://bit.ly/yYVy7L
Reagan’s beloved wife Nancy: http://bit.ly/zrWvAw
I’ll add to that Peter Robinson, former Reagan speechwriter, who wrote the historic Berlin Wall address in which President Reagan urged Mikhail Gorbachev to “tear down this wall!”:
Newt shared the frustrations of many conservatives, including, from time to time, me, that the President permitted the bureaucracy to prove persistently feckless, undermining his program–as you’ll recall if you’re of a certain age, conservatives were always insisting that the President’s staff should “let Reagan be Reagan.” If Newt mouthed off, giving vent to these frustrations, so be it. He was in Congress. That was, in a sense, his job. And at one time or another, every conservative of any standing felt exasperated or worried–and urged the President not to go soft either on Communism or on our own bureaucracy. Newt’s comments here place him in the company of William F. Buckley, Jr.–WFB vented his frustrations more artfully, but he vented them–and I’d have thought that for our friends at NR that would be quite good enough.
Drudge has 30 million visits a day on his side. We have history on our side. Make it known.
Warren buffets Secretary makes $200,000 dollars or MORE! Rush Limbaugh Weighs In (plus: Ronald Reagan Acknowledging Lenny Skutnik-1982)
This nugget is from Forbes Magazine:
Warren Buffett’s secretary, Debbie Bosanek, served as a stage prop for President Obama’s State of the Union speech. She was the president’s chief display of the alleged unfairness of our tax system – a little person paying a higher tax rate than her billionaire boss.
Bosanek’s prominent role in Obama’s “fairness” campaign piqued my curiosity, and I imagine the curiosity of others. How much does her boss pay this downtrodden woman? So far, no one has volunteered this information.
We can get an approximate answer by consulting IRS data on tax rates by adjusted gross income, which would approximate her salary, assuming she does not have significant dividend, interest or capital-gains income (like her boss). I assume Buffett keeps her too busy for her to hold a second job. I also do not know if she is married and filing jointly. If so, it is deceptive for Obama to use her as an example. The higher rate may be due to her husband’s income. So I assume the tax rate Obama refers to is from her own earnings.
Insofar as Buffett (like Mitt Romney) earns income primarily from capital gains, which are taxed at 15 percent (and according to Obama need to be raised for reasons of fairness), we need to determine how much income a taxpayer like Bosanek must earn in order to pay an average tax rate above fifteen percent. This is easy to do.
The IRS publishes detailed tax tables by income level. The latest results are for 2009. They show that taxpayers earning an adjusted gross income between $100,000 and $200,000 pay an average rate of twelve percent. This is below Buffett’s rate; so she must earn more than that. Taxpayers earning adjusted gross incomes of $200,000 to $500,000, pay an average tax rate of nineteen percent. Therefore Buffett must pay Debbie Bosanke a salary above two hundred thousand.
We must wait for further details to learn how much more than $200,000 she earns. The tax tables tell us about average ranges. For all we know she earns closer to a half million each year, but that is pure speculation.
I have nothing against Debbie Bosanke earning a half million or even more. Buffett is a major player in the world economy. His secretary deserves good compensation. At her income, however, she is scarcely the symbol of injustice that Obama wishes her to project.