2004-10-28

The "I Wish I Said It First" Files

2004-10-22

Luke 22:36

For all you Christians out there, a word on gun control:

Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

Kerry's Records

Can someone please ask Kerry why he has not yet signed the form authorizing the release of all his service records? There are about 100 pages of documents that the public has still not seen, nor we will ever, most likely. What is he hiding? Could it be his four-month mini-tour in Vietnam and subsequent "career" in the Naval Reserve were not all sweetness and light? Could that be part of the reason his entire chain of command from thatera have joined the Swift Vets for Truth? Sadly, we'll probably never kow.

How Taxes Work:

(Apologies for a little editing for dramatic effect.)

Every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. The first four men — the poorest — pay nothing; the fifth pays $1, the sixth pays $3, the seventh $7, the eighth $12, the ninth $18, and the tenth man — the richest — pays $59.

The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement — until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20." So now dinner for the ten only cost $80.00. The first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six — the paying customers? How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share?" The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, Then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being PAID to eat their meal. So the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so the fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $12, leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of his earlier $59. Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man who pointed to the tenth. "But he got $7!" "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man, "I only saved a dollar, too . . . It's unfair that he got seven times more than me!". "That's true!" shouted the seventh man, "why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!" "Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!" The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night he didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill...










they were FIFTY-TWO DOLLARS SHORT.



T. Davies Professor of Accounting & Chair, Division of Accounting and Business Law The University of South Dakota School of Business

2004-10-21

Tax Cuts for the Rich?

I've said for years that it makes no sense for the rich to pay a higher percentage of their income to taxes, since they don't receive more government services. Here's someone who managed to explain it.

2004-10-18

John Kerry continues to insist that he will gather a broader coalition to help us in Iraq, while he also continues to insist that the situation there is getting worse all the time, and France and Germany continue to insist that they won't be sending any troops....

2004-10-15

In His Own Words:

"I want to make sure we have judges who interpret the Constitution of the United States according to the law." --John Kerry, demonstrating absolutely no knowledge of or regard for Article 6 of the Constitution. Now THAT is scary.
For the record, here's the relevant excerpt from Article 6: This Constitution......shall be the supreme law of the land.

2004-10-14

How leftists think:

From a slate piece:

"Is class snobbery a social reality in the United States? Absolutely, and the kind that's codified by meritocracy is probably more toxic than the old-fashioned kind based on bloodlines."

Snobbery codified by meritocracy? That's the kind of doublespeak they specialize in. Meritocracy, for those of you in the great uneducated masses, means a system in which merit (being good at what you do) is rewarded with advancement (getting paid more for doing what you do)

And only a leftist could call that snobbery.

2004-10-08

No Media Bias?

I don't know if I'm the only one who's noticed, but early in the campaign I was constantly hearing the exact figures for how much Bush had spent and how much Kerry had spent. Bush's expenditures were significantly higher than Kerry's, then an odd thing happened: Kerry started to catch up to Bush, spending more and more, then the coverage stopped dead. I haven't heard a word about campaign expenditures in at least 3 months.

No media bias?

2004-10-01

Idiot Celebrities

Just caught a snippit of some Hollywood celebrity-worship show on TV, and there was Leonardo Dicaprio, reading directly from his notecards, telling how bad the Bush administration is on whatever the issue du jour was at whatever the event was.

Bad enough they're uninformed and 99% of the time wrong - now they can't even think for themselves enough to make a two-minute speech, but it's still newsworthy?

The Debate

What I would truly like to see, and the only debate I would pay any real attention to, is for one candidate to simply show up at another's (notice I did not say "the other's) campaign rally, challenge him to a debate there and then, and for the challenge to be accepted.

We have been shown, over the last week, all the way up to the last minute before the actual debate, all the details of the myriad of rules the two major candidates' campaigns negotiated. What they really need is a completely impromptu debate. I'd go a step further and have a spoiler debater - that is, not the actual Libertarian/Green/Whatever candidate, but someone who disagrees equally with both sides, is knowledgeable on the issues, and will call both of them on any inconsistencies/half-truths/outright lies they make.

Then it might all mean something.

Won't happen.