novatownhall blog

Where you are held accountable for your convictions and record

Browsing Posts published by jack

When tuning a radar system, the operator sets a detection threshold. It a signal does not reach that threshold, no detection event occurs. Not wanting to miss any real returns, an operator might increase the sensitivity (decrease the threshold) so that any real radar returns will exceed the threshold and show up on his screen.

The problem with that is that a lot of noise will also exceed that threshold and show up his screen too.

This is exactly the problem with oversensitive progs, who see normal differences in everyday life and their racism, sexism, and poor-poor-pitiful-me-ism detectors go off.

Black people get arrested more than Whites, so it must be racism, not the fact that Blacks commit more crimes. Black people make less money than Whites, so it must be racism, not the fact that Blacks tend to do less well in school. They see women getting paid less than men, so it must be sexism, not the fact that women are less likely to go into engineering, math, and real sciences, and are less likely to work overtime.

On the other side of the coin, I suspect my bullshit detector is too sensitive, since it seems that everything the progs say sets it off.

It’s getting a bit stale now, having been released in January of 2015, but I am sure they will come out with a new steaming pile soon. Anyway, allow me to present Who Pays? (5th Edition) A Distributional Analysis of the Tax Systems in All Fifty States. Even the title is wrong, since they include the District of Columbia, but I digress.

While complaining, as progs are wont to do, that the State tax systems are not “fair,” they never actually bother to define the word FAIR. Be that as it may, when we get down to the section on real estate taxes, we have this:

Renters do not escape property taxes. A portion of the property tax on rental property is passed through to renters in the form of higher rent — and these taxes represent a much larger share of income for poor families than for the wealthy. This adds to the regressivity of the property tax.

This is quite reasonable. If the property-owner is to make a profit, he needs to pass his tax burden on to his renters. But the authors then follow up with this:

The business tax component reduces the regressivity of the property tax as it generally falls on owners of capital….

That’s right. Somehow, one type of business (rental property) is able to pass the cost of taxes to its customers (renters), but other types, such as retailers and manufacturers, cannot. This simply makes no sense.

The authors want to emphasize their assertion that lower-income people pay a higher percentage of their income to State and local taxes than higher-income people do. To do that, they say that property taxes on rental property are passed through to the renters. However, if they admit that retail and manufacturing business can do the same, and pass their property taxes on to their customers, then they must also admit that businesses can also pass on to their customers the cost of corporate income taxes, and thus the corporate income taxes are as regressive as sales taxes are. This they cannot do.

This really is one of the dumbest articles I’ve ever seen from “The Economist”, and that includes the one where they neglected the fact that twice a year one gets THREE bi-weekly paychecks in a month!

Germany has a trade surplus, and according to “The Economist”, this is a Bad Thing:

For a large economy at full employment to run a current-account surplus in excess of 8% of GDP puts unreasonable strain on the global trading system. To offset such surpluses and sustain enough aggregate demand to keep people in work, the rest of the world must borrow and spend with equal abandon. In some countries, notably Italy, Greece and Spain, persistent deficits eventually led to crises. Their subsequent shift towards surplus came at a heavy cost. The enduring savings glut in northern Europe has made the adjustment needlessly painful.

Germany did not force Italy, Greece, and Spain to spend more than they made. Germany did not force Italy, Greece, and Spain to borrow money to buy what they could not afford. They chose to do that all on their own. If one group of people, collectively, spend more than they make, then some other group must make more than they spend.

This article is typical of progs, they have an agenda, and say those who don’t have their agenda have an agenda.

Gorsuch is “biased” in the direction of corporations over employees. That’s totally incorrect. Progressives aren’t saying he’s biased – we’re saying he has a judicial ideology that consistently, statistically leads him to one set of results over another.

Yes, the judicial ideology that the Law and the Constitution mean what they say. Oh, the horror.

What [Senator Leahy (D-VT)] should have asked is this: If you just apply the law as you see it, why do right-wing ideologues all support you so strongly?

Because “right-wing” ideologues want the Law and the Constitution to be applied as written. This prog goes on to provide the perfect example.

For example, when the conversation turned to the Religious Liberty Restoration Act (RFRA), Judge Gorsuch noted how fair-minded he’s been, applying the law to a Muslim prisoner denied a halal meal. There was no discussion of the actual issues: whether RFRA applies to corporations, whether it allows businesses to discriminate against women and LGBT people on the basis of a religious belief, whether it covers harming third parties at all.

And there is it, this progs (indeed, most progs) do not want the law to be applied as it is written. Here is the law in question. It does not redefine the word person, so the definition in 1 U.S. Code § 1 is in force:

the words “person” and “whoever” include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals

And it was then-Representative Charles E. Shumer (D-NY-9) who sponsored H.R.1308 – Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993.

Oh, the irony.

As usual from progs, Jorge Ramos offers up a steaming pile of lies about immigration:

All I want is for new immigrants to enjoy the same opportunities that I — and millions of others throughout American history — have received.

A lie. He wants illegal immigrants to have the same opportunities as those who came here legally. He admits this later:

Trump… refuses to even consider granting undocumented residents a path to citizenship.

Illegal immigrants already have a path to citizenship — the same one taken by the legal immigrants. There is absolutely no reason to give them another just because they broke the law.

Speaking of breaking the law, Ramos whines because

[Immigrants] who have committed “fraud … before a government agency” are to be deported as well — which presumably applies to any noncitizen who has ever used a fake driver’s license or made up a Social Security number in order to work.

Well, that is the law. All Trump wants to do — all the citizens want him to do — is enforce the law.

Señor Ramos, if you want to live in a country that does not enforce its laws, go back to México.

Remember the “Don’t Trust the Government” liberals of the 1960′s?

What the hell happened?

The “Don’t Trust the Government” liberals of the 1960′s have devolved into the “Cradle-to-Grave” liberals of the Twenty-First Century.

These liberals now want the central government in control of our healthcare, our retirement, and our schools. They want the government to tell us what guns we can buy, what cars we can buy, what gasoline we can buy, what light bulbs we can buy, and even what toilets we can buy. Today’s elite so-called “liberals” even move into gated communities and elect Home-Owners’ Associations to tell them what colors of paint they are allowed to use.

What happened?

Progs like to push the Minimum Wage as a way to reduce income inequality:

“It will reduce inequality. The question is how much and for whom. It’s not going to have a huge impact, but that’s because there’s no politically feasible policy that would have a big impact,” said poverty and fiscal expert Isabel Sawhill, co-director of the Center on Children and Families at the Brookings Institution.

As the above article points out, increasing the Minimum Wage would not narrow the gap between the “one-percenters” and those making the Minimum Wage:

Consider the 5-figure paycheck of a janitor versus the 8-figure salary of a CEO. Raising the minimum wage to $10.10 from $7.25, as a leading proposal in Congress would do, wouldn’t narrow that chasm.

There’s also a big gap between those making 6-figures and the bazillionaires at the very top. A higher minimum wage can’t touch that.

What a higher Minimum Wage will do is tilt the balance between labor and automation in favor of automation. If the cost of hiring a teenager to sweep the floor gets too high, the owner will just buy a Roomba. On larger scales, except for Oregon and New Jersey, you just don’t see full-service gasoline stations any more. The Minimum Wage is too high to hire grease-monkeys. There are self-checkouts now in major grocery stores. Baggers? Fuggetaboutit.

The paradox is, the higher Minimum Wage goes, the higher productivity goes. Machines replace manual labor, so the productivity per remaining worker increases. Of course, the remaining workers do not see any commensurate increase in their wages. Why should he? He’s not the one putting his money down to buy the machines. The owners are. If a plowman could plow one acre a day walking behind a mule, and his employer buys a tractor with which he can plow ten acres a day sitting down, will his employer pay him ten times as much? Of course not. He might even pay less, because the work is not as difficult.

The result of a higher Minimum Wage, then, is fewer people employed and higher productivity, with the benefits of the higher productivity going to the owners.

Who are the owners?

The one-percenters.