POLITICAL: Same old, same old; different sides of the same coin


October 22, 2011
Congressional Welfare Statists
Posted by Laurence Vance on October 22, 2011 11:08 AM

*** begin quote ***

The Senate recently voted, 84-15, to approve an amendment to an agriculture bill that would discontinue certain farm subsidies for people who have more than $1 million a year in adjusted gross income. The current limit is $1.2 million. Better, of course, to cut all the farm subsidies.

*** and ***

Why didn’t Republicans get rid of farm subsidies when the controlled the Congress under Clinton for six years? Why didn’t Republicans get rid of farm subsidies when they controlled the Congress for over four years under Bush the Republican? Why aren’t Republicans trying to get rid of all farm subsidies now? And you thought only Democrats were welfare statists.

*** end quote ***

Why are we subsidizing rich people? Could there be campaign contributions or plain old graft involved?


# # # # #

MONEY: The consequences of the new “Snooki” tax


The Laffer Curve Wins Again: Snooki 1, IRS 0
by Dan Mitchell

*** begin quote ***

I don’t know if that’s true, but let’s give it a try. I now have an example of the Laffer Curve for the MTV audience. Best of all, the story is from USA Today.

The IRS got red-faced trying to collect the new tanning tax, burning a hole in estimates on how much the levy would bring in to federal coffers, a new report said Thursday. …Tanning tax receipts for that nine-month period totaled $54.4 million, the report found. That was below projections by the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation, which had estimated the tax would raise $50 million in the last three months of fiscal year 2010 and $200 million for the full 2011 fiscal year.

Let’s deconstruct the numbers from the article. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that this new “Snooki” tax (part of the awful Obamacare legislation) was going to raise about $50 million every three months.

Yet during the first nine months, the tax raised just $54.4 million, not $150 million.

*** end quote ***

The fancy name for this behavior is “dynamic scoring”.

Bottom line is that everyone adapts their behavior to the conditions. Conditions change; behaviors change.

For politicians and bureaucrats to make predictions, that assume “static” behavior, demonstrates stupidity.

But then doesn’t that perfectly describe ALL Gooferment actions?

# # # # #

GUNS: A real life tool in action




Posted on October 22, 2011 at 7:20pm by Christopher Santarelli

*** begin quote ***

An elderly Northern California-woman woke early Friday morning to hear an intruder attempting to break into her home. CBS 12 reports that the 66-year-old Donna Hopper is still shaken after shooting the 37-year-old intruder dead:

*** and ***

Hopper says she was terrified when she heard the intruder at her her door, firing two warning shots through her window to scare the man away. When 37-year-old Jesse Edward Theis persisted, attempting to come back in, Hopper fired a fatal shot in his abdomen, killing Theis on the scene.

*** end quote ***

I feel bad for this poor woman. To have that on your mind for the rest of your life, it’s a burden.

On a humorous note, after two warning shots, the fellow didn’t move along to an easier target.

Serendipity, a few hours ago, I posted about women and guns. About what fool would want to be down range from even a crazy woman sending lead in your direction!

So what happens if you’re in that situation. Do you, as the popular bumper sticker says, “dial 911 and die”?

Or do you reach over to your “safe”, cycle the action, and put two warning shots down range.

(I am rethinking using my 1911 and 45ACP as being too powerful for “home defense use”. But if it’s a bear or a druggie on speed, then it’s just right. Assuming I can hit what I aim at.)

Of course, my favorite for home defense is the old shotgun. It makes such a distinctive sound when you cycle the action. Like that favorite old joke about the Quaker who says to the intruder in a darkened room: “I mean thee no harm, but thou are standing where I plan to shoot. LOL! Dumb. The few Quakers I know would never shoot at any human under any circumstances. Us Libertarians would be carefully considering the balance. To use deadly force, one must be facing a deadly threat.

# # # # #