Welcome to RiverBend2000Blog.com

This is one of my pet peeves with the Democratic Machine.  Their rhetoric has damaged the war efforts for politican gain.  They rejoice in the misery of people, but decry the hardships wildlife experience in the natural course of life.  They would kill a baby minutes before its born, but not put to death mass murdering, child rapists.  DEMS see the rapists as the victim.  The damage to the children is less important than the rapist’s right to life.

This brings us to Hurricane Gustav.  Former National Chairman of the Democratic National Committee Don Fowler and Congressman John Spratt of South Carolina had this converstation saying it “demonstrated God was on their side“.  He then jokes about the hurricane hitting New Orleans about the time the Republican convention starts.  He finishes with “everything’s cool.”

Michael Moore on Keith Olbermann’s show says “This hurricane is proof that there is a god in heaven….   To have it planned at the same time – that it would actually be on its way to New Orleans for day one of the Republican Convention, up in the Twin Cities – at the top of the Mississippi River.”  Olbermann then jumps in with the tidbit about Reverend Dobson calling for rain prayers during the Obama’s Acceptance Speech.  His manner reinforced Moore’s insinuation that God did not make it rain last week, but made it rain this week in New Orleans. 

Moore then realized what he just said and offered that he hoped no one would get hurt and everyone would get out.  He knows there will be death and destruction.  That is exactly what he wants.  He wants misery on TV during the Republican Convention.

Never mind the emotional toll it will take on the people that are just getting their lives back together after three years, only to have it destroyed again.  Never mind the hundreds of millions of dollars in reconstruction that could be lost.   Never mind the harm to the enitity known as the City of New Orleans.    Never mind the cost to the whole country in terms of energy production.  It’s funny because it messes with  the Republican Convention.

Olbermann is so far out there, a real media hound making outrageous statements to get noticed on the national stage.  Moore will distort reality as long as it suits his own Agenda.  There is no excuse for a Congressman and Frmr. Dem Chairmain to speak the way they did.  And that’s my problem with the DEMs.  YES, it would have been funny to Republicans to see rain fall on Obama during the speech.  I think he could have actually used it to his advantage.  The whole As the rain tonight washes down on us, we shall become reborn and unite to defeat the evil that has taken over our country.  As I look to the sky, I embrace the rain God has blessed us with for I know tomorrow the sun will shine on our shoulder as we bring real change to the United States of America.  But NO ONE GETS HURT!!!!!  It’s just ironic.

In New Orleans, these people know what a hurricane can do the people and their property.  They just witnessed it three years ago.  It was utterly tragic.  And now they laugh, hoping it will happen again at the right time to suit their agenda.  Too many times someone gets hurt at the other end of a Democrat.   It is usually the people they profess to serve.

First, Wesley Clark says riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down isn’t a qualification to be president.  Now it is Jim Webb’s turn.  Senator Webb says we need to take the politics out of service.  He believes Senator McCain needs to “calm down” on that (military credentials as a qualification).  He says, “Let’s get the politics out of the military, take care of our military people, or have our political arguments in other areas.”  What a joke?  The military has been more and more politicized since the Democrats lost power. They ran their whole midterm election campaign on the “Get out of Iraq Now” platform.

Senator Webb wore his sons boots the whole time he was campaigning for the Senate.  He ran on his military service in order to establish his expertise when he condemned the Iraq War. Senator Webb used (and I mean USED)  his own son’s military service to get elected.   What about John Kerry?  All he did was spew exaggerations about his own military service to get elected.

Senator Webb, put your money where your mouth is.  Get the politics out of the military.  The biggest USER of politics in the military is the democrat party.  They use the war in Iraq for political gain every chance they get (at the expense of our country).  The Democrats value their own political power over a military victory. They have made the Iraq mission exponentially more difficult to accomplish all in the name of political gain. What a hypocritical, arrogant ass you are Senator!  Are you still carrying a handgun in your briefcase inside the Capitol?  Was it politics when you said you wanted to punch the President for asking about your sons well being in a (what should have remained) private conversation?  Was it political when that conversation made it into the news? Maybe you want to downplay military service and experience since your freshman Senator candidate HAS NONE.

Speaking of your Candidate…. Senator “He Who Shall Be Present, But Not Vote” Obama, speaking in Missouri said, “I will never question the patriotism of others in this campaign. And I will not stand idly by when I hear others question mine.”  What is missing from this statement?  Senator Obama will stand idly by while his surrogates question someone else’s patriotism.  In typically fashion, Obama turns comments by Wesley Clark around into some sort of statement that no one should question his own patriotism.  He did the same with Pastor Wright.  Straddle that fence until it falls down around you.  Then take a stand once the outcome is so obvious a child could endorse it.  Senator Obama would get a lot more respect if he came right out and said Wesley Clark was way out of line and should never say anything like that again.

If Senator McCain is using his military service so much, why does he never mention his sons in the military. His father and grandfather both served.  Three of his four sons have served the country.  His own son has served in some of the toughest part of Iraq.  Talk about put up or shut up.  He lives with the knowledge that he could lose more than one child in this war.

Senator McCain was shot down.  He broke both legs, one arm, and had a shoulder crushed in captivity.  He had a chance to get out of the Hanoi Hilton via special treatment.  He refused.  He paid a dear price for his service to this country. 

Who do you want making war time decisions?  Senator Obama, the community activist, Harvard Law Review Editor (who couldn’t even muster enough courage to put his name on one editorial during his tenure), friend/neighbor of Tony Resko, and William Ayers (The Weather Underground Bomber that shows no remorse).  Senator Obama wants to leave Iraq immediately.  That is such disingenuous pandering to the Code Pink crowd I am surprised anyone believes it.  Give the Senator credit for making great speeches.  He is an eloquent speaker and probably a good lawyer.  Other than flowery speeches, he offers the worst kind of left wing liberal policies. Can someone please tell me how Senator Obama even gets a security clearance?  If I had these characters in my background, I guarantee the Feds would not grant me a security clearance like Obama.

Or John McCain?  McCain questioned the Iraq War strategy early on.  He pushed for the surge to win the war. I would rather have a man who’s seen the worst side of war and has his own children at risk than a socialist community activist with questionable relationships throughout his life. He has been in the Senate for years.  Senator McCain pays the political price more often than not for his positions on the issues.  He does what he believes is right.  Whether you agree with him or not (and I don’t particularly support him), you know where he stands.

Between the two candidates, the choice is so obvious.   That Obama has done so well in this campaign is just as scary as it was that 4 Supreme Court Justices voted against the right to bear arms.  It probably has to do something with the 40% of the tax filers that have zero or negative income tax liability.

Links referenced in this commentary:
The Private Character of John McCain
Webb: McCain Should ‘Calm Down’ on Using Military Service
Obama disowns critique of McCain’s military record…

Great Vignette from George Carlin on Saving the Planet.  I got the privilege to see him about 5 years ago.  A Great Thinker.  Warning:  Foul language.

Here are some startling facts about the income tax system in America from the Wall Street Journal.  How many Americans pay no income tax?  A full 40% of taxpayers, or should we say non-payers, pay no income tax.  Now, Senator Obama, AKA “He Who Shall Be Present, But Not Vote”, wants to take another 7 million taxpayers off the income-tax rolls.  He is going to do this by eliminating taxes on Seniors earning $50,000 or less. However, he wants to raise the capital gains tax and dividend taxes. Retired seniors invest in dividend and capital gains producing vehicles as a means of income in their golden years.  He wants to go to 20% to 25% on capital gains.  If you are a senior living on investments that produce cap gains, you will lose 10% more of your income to the government under Senator Obama.

The collateral damage of this cap gains plan will be in the value of stocks.  They will drop as the after tax yield takes 10% more of the gain.  In this time of economic woes, this tax increase will cause measurable harm to the markets and the companies. Same goes for dividends. When the taxes on dividends increase, the resulting reduction of after-tax income will decrease the value of the stock yield and the companies that pay them.  Mutual Funds and Investment Bankers will be forced to rebalance their portfolios as the yields decrease. Do we really want to add that shock to the already shaky economy?

Senator Obama also wants to give as much as $1,000 credit per family to help offset the payroll tax (social security tax).  This credit would even be available to families that PAY NO TAX!!!!  Can you say income redistribution welfare plan.  Senator Obama believes this would take an addition 10 million families off the payroll with this credit.

From the WSJ article referenced below, “If you’re providing a tax cut, it’s unfair to say that people who are working deserve one and senior citizens don’t,” said Jason Furman, Obama’s top economic advisor. It does not matter if you are working or not.  It matters if you have income.  If you are providing a tax cut, it’s unfair to say that people who are paying taxes don’t deserve one and those that do not pay taxes do.

This sickening bit of information comes from the Tax Foundation:

During 2006, Tax Foundation economists estimate that roughly 43.4 million tax returns, representing 91 million individuals, will face a zero or negative tax liability. That’s out of a total of 136 million federal tax returns that will be filed. Adding to this figure the 15 million households and individuals who file no tax return at all, roughly 121 million Americans—or 41 percent of the U.S. population—will be completely outside the federal income tax system in 2006.  This total includes those who pay no tax, and those who pay some tax upfront and are later refunded the full amount of the tax paid or more….. One-third of single filers pay nothing in federal income taxes, and almost two-thirds of those who file as head of household pay nothing…….. Married taxpayers pay roughly 75 percent of all federal income taxes, despite filing only 40 percent of returns.

The top five states that pay zero federal income tax as a percentage of returns are Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, New Mexico, Alabama.

Look at the sharp increases in those going off the tax roll under President Bush.  How dare you let the Democrats spew their class warfare sound bites condemning the President for giving tax cuts to his wealthy friends. Bill Clinton took about 3% off the the tax rolls.  George W. Bush took about 7% off the tax rolls. George H. W. Bush (DAD)  took as many off as Clinton did in only half the tenure as President.  President Jimmy Carter, AKA the Worst President of All Eternity, actually added close to 6% back on the tax rolls.  Those have to be the lower income taxpayers.  That was his gift to the poorest Americans.  That is why it is so amazing the Democrats keep getting away with the claim of being the working man’s party.

Source: Internal Revenue Service, Tax Foundation.  

The Tax Foundation and Harris Interactive^® joined forces to conduct a poll showing a majority of U.S. adults think the federal tax system is very complex and they pay too much.  Interesting item - Only 1 in 10 believe they should pay higher taxes to eliminate this year’s federal budget deficit.

• 83% believe the current federal income tax is somewhat or very complex.
• 58% consider the federal income tax  they pay as too high.
• 8% believe the federal tax system needs major changes or a complete overhaul.

Who thinks their tax bills are too high?

1. 65% - Ages 45 to 54.
2. 64% - Top income group of $75,000 and up.
3. 61% - Married couples vs. single (48%).
4. 56% - Those who itemize deductions.

The numbers from the IRS show some interesting trends.  The bottom 50% ($30,121 and under) pay 2.97% of their AGI.  Compare that to the tax of someone in the top 10%.  If you make $99,112 or more, then you are paying around 6.25X the tax those under $30,000.  That 19% of your money does not include payroll tax, Medicare, state income, self employment tax, local income, real estate, and personal property taxes. So a married couple with an AGI of $99,112 pays almost one 1 out of 5 dollars in federal tax alone.  IRS Charts below.

Back to the Tax Foundation Survey now.  They asked what is the maximum percentage of income that should go to all taxes - that is, all taxes, state, federal and local?

1. The average response was 14.7%
2. Women favor lower taxes than men.
3. Lower income earners favor lower taxes than higher income earners.

There are many ways to look at the information. Another question from the survey showed those without high school educations believe the tax rate should be 11.9% while those with graduate degrees or higher felt that 21.5% was about right.  Those numbers indicate the less educated either don’t realize how much it costs the various government entities to function or
maybe they have no idea how much the upper 50% of the incomes (over $99,112) pay in taxes.  The Tax Foundation calculated the actual tax to be around 32% of your income.  The Tax Foundation calculates the government spends just over $12,000 per person for government services.

Look at the chart below if you need evidence the Bush tax cuts were not just for the wealthy.  They are clearly across the board cuts whereas the Clinton tax policy of the nineties increased taxes on every class. Sixty-one percent of those in the survey felt it was unfair for some individuals to pay no tax.  In other words, everyone should pay something.

Chart Information from the IRS.

AVERAGE TAX RATE AS PERCENTAGE OF AGI PAID IN TAX.

DOLLAR CUT OFF OF MINIMUM AGI TO BE IN PERCENTILE

What taxes were viewed as least fair to to taxpayers?  Estate taxes, Federal gas taxes, Income taxes, and Payroll taxes. The number of people who favor estate tax repeal was 66 percent in 2007. Why have our politicians not yielded to the will of the people and repealed this tax?

If you are in the camp that believes the wealthy are not paying their fair share of income taxes, then I suggest you try this little experiment.  Take out eight total strangers to dinner with you.  When the bills comes, you and four of the others pay the bill leaving four people to pay nothing for their dinner.  The four that got free meals come back and expect you to pay for them all the time.  Finally, you say enough is enough, pay for your own meal. See what happens after that. You’ll hear that you owe it to them because you don’t deserve or work for the money you make.  They’ll say you are evil because you won’t provide dinner for them.  Then they will hand you their doctor bills and tell you to pay them.  They tell you they are not going to work anymore, but did not save enough money so you must pay for their retirement too.  Now you know how those making more than $50,000 per year feel every April 15th when the tax bill comes due.

Articles Referenced in this commentary:
Obama Courts Seniors With Tax Break
What Does America Think About Taxes? The 2007 Annual Survey of U.S. Attitudes on Taxes and Wealth by Andrew Chamberlain
Full Poll Results on Taxes
The Tax Foundation

Yesterday’s Supreme Court Ruling concerning the Washington D.C. gun ban is a prime example of the importance of elections. The Supremes ruled 5 to 4 in favor of the individuals right to own guns. The scariest part of the ruling is that four of the justices dissented. One vote the other way and your right to own a gun would be gone. The Wall Street Journal has two good articles that delve into the particulars of the ruling.

Justice Scalia wrote the majority opinion, ruling the individual has the right to bear arms with the caveat that government has the right to limit gun ownership for certain types of weapons. Reasonable limitations can be placed on the individual such as permits and training classes. All fairly common sense. The original intent justices place and protect individual right above government rights. The second amendment was particularly important for those who fought so hard to free themselves in the late 1700’s. The intent was to be able to protect themselves from the government.

The dissent opinion tried to impose a test that weighed the rights of the individual against the interests of the government. These living constitution liberal judges are willing to restrict individual right in favor of government power. Justice Breyer’s “interest-balancing” test to weigh the constitutionality of gun ownership is very troubling. Where was Justice Breyer’s interest-balancing test in last week’s habeas corpus ruling? Did he weigh the interests of a non-citizen against our right to protect ourselves against terrorists? Remember their eminent domain ruling? Your house can be confiscated and given to another private citizen thanks to the liberal judges.

How does the habeas corpus ruling jibe with Amendment X ratified in 1791? It states The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of an Foreign State. I’m not a lawyer (althought I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night - lol), but how does an enemy combatant get extended rights of habeas corpus? I must also say I do not believe the detainees should be held indefinately without reason. However, the number I have read is that 30 former detainees have been recaptured on the battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq.

The Constitution does not grant the right to do anything. It PROTECTS the rights of the Citizen. The framers of the Constitution created the Bill of Rights to specifically include certain civil rights though. Among them freedon of speech, religion, and the right to bear arms. The word militia seems to be the sticking point. However, it seems pretty clear cut the word meant any able bodied male at least 17 years of age. Sidebar - Does that preclude women from Second Amendment protection? Just kidding ladies. The milita is the whole of the people, meaning you and me. The four liberal justices are trying to impose their left wing agenda on the citizens whereas the conservative justices seem to lean toward protecting the individual from the government.

This Presidential Election is probably the most important in our lifetime because the next President will probably appoint two or three justices. The candidates need to be grilled on their judicial preferences like never before. This includes the nominees too.

Obama, the constitutional law professor, believed the gun ban was constitutional although he believes in the individual right to bear arms with common sense limitations. The Professor was wrong according to yesterday’s ruling. Another example of trying to have it both ways from Senator “Present, But Not Voting”. On one hand, he says the Constitution allows the government to strip your right to own a gun. On the other hand, he says the Constitution grants the right to own a gun. This fence straddling refrain is getting all to familiar from Obama.

McCain comes down on the side of gun rights. Do we really want a Democrat President, Senate, and House running roughshod over us for the next eight years? I for one do not want their brand of justice impacting the United States for the next 200 years via liberal activists Supreme Court Justices.

Links referenced in this commentary:
High Court Affirms Gun Rights

Second Amendment Foundation - Second Amendment Primer - Read the gun ownership statistics!

Here’s a real gem from Spain. Let’s see now… apes get the same rights as humans in a country where bulls are brought into a stadium, tortured, and killed for the machismo spectacle of it all.

Is there any doubt this will ripple through the rest of the world with demands for equal rights for animals. This is a good example of why our Supreme Court Justices should not use foreign laws when determining cases in the United States?

This is another reason to make sure activists liberal judges are not allowed to be elevated to the Supreme Court.

Link referenced in this article:

• 
  Spanish parliament to extend rights to apes
• 
  O’Connor: U.S. must rely on foreign law
  
• 
  Judge Roberts Hearing: Use of Foreign Law
  
• 
  Should the Supreme Court care what other countries think?
  

Barack Obama is proud to tell everyone his friend in Omaha, Warren Buffet, believes the tax system is unjust. Barack trumpets the line that Buffet’s secretary’s effective tax rate is 30% while his is only 17.7%. Well, Mr. Buffet, how is it possible that your secretary pays 30% when the top tax bracket for her income level is only 25%?

According to the 2006 Tax Tables (the year Bufu is quoting), his secretary (earning $60,000) would pay $4,220 plus 25% over $30,650. That totals $11,557 in tax liability. The percentage at that point is 19.26%. Point One: Buffet is a cheapskate. She deserves more money than the 60 billion dollar man pays her.  Point Two: This does not include the standard deduction or personal exemption.  The standard deduction was $5,150. The personal exemption is $3,300. That gives his secretary deductions of $8,450. So her taxable income with nothing else taken out is $51,550. Her tax consequence is then $4,220 plus 25% over $30,650. Her total tax liability is then $9,445 on income of $60,000. That equates to a 15.75% effective tax rate.

So Barack and Warren are either too stupid to figure it out or, most probably, don’t want to let the truth and facts get in the way of a nice class warfare soundbite. And for Warren. Don’t kid yourself. He is out to make money plain and simple. Every thing he says must be qualified by that fact. Either way, they are both full of ****.

I’ve been reading Barack Obama plans to remove the $102,000 cap from the social security tax.  When you listen to him preach about it on the campaign trail, he says that it will be reinstated for incomes over $250,000.  To some, that my not sound too bad, but what he is saying is only half the story. 

Here’s the truth of his plan as I read it.  The individual taxpayer pays 6.2% and the employer pays 6.2% up to approximately $102,000.  The plan calls for the tax to reinstate at the $250,000 income level.  But, here’s the rub.  It’s for the household income, not the individual income.  So, for those households with both spouses working, they will both pay the tax on their individual incomes up to $102,000.  They will not pay the tax until their incomes reach $125,000 (assuming they both earn the same amount for this example).  Then at $125,000, they both will pay again. So in effect, they are excluding the tax on the $46,000 gap between $204,000 and $250,000.  Now think about it if you are a single income household.  You pay on the first $102,000 and then nothing until $250,000.  So you get a $148,000 window of payroll tax free income.  Sounds like a marriage penalty to me. Making the program $250,000 per individual would make more sense.  Although, this is a bad idea from the start.

And guess what, your social security will not be increased as a percentage of the amount you pay into the system.  The social security system was designed to provide a stable foundation to build retirement funds, not as a substitute for your own retirement funds.  This program turns social security into more of a welfare program than it is already.  And guess what? Those people at the high end of the income  bracket that pay the bulk of the tax will not get their social security.  Why?  Because the income from their investments will most likely place them above the allowable income to receive their benefits.

Let’s top it off with the reality that the government does not hold this money, they spend and it must be paid back at a later date.  So, what does that mean?  The government will be taxing us again to acquire the money to pay back the social security money they are taking from us now.  A tax to pay for the tax to pay for the income redistribution.

THAT’S BARACK OBAMA’S PLAN FOR SOCIAL SECURITY IN A NUTSHELL, EMPHASIS ON NUT…..

Iraq is the perfect base to set up the jihad to liberate Palestine according to a new video claimed to be made be Osama Bin Laden.  The speaker calls on the Muslims to support  the Iraqi mujahedeen in order to liberate Palestine by force of arms.  Bin Laden blasts the Danish papers for reprinting cartoons of Mohammed with a bomb in his turban.    He also attacks the Pope for the publication of the drawings that came in the framework of a new crusade in which the Pope of the Vatican has played a large, lengthy role.

So the question to the Presidential candidates must be how they could not understand the importance of Iraq after hearing of these statements?  Bin Laden understands the strategic and tactical importance of Iraq to the Middle East.  How could you just pack up and leave Iraq to the likes of Bin Laden and his extremists?  How can the candidates not understand the goal of the radical Islamists is to spread Islam throughout the world by force of violence?  Either convert to Islam or we will kill you pretty much sums it up.

Will the media immediately question the candidates about their positions on an Iraq withdrawal in light of these statements?

Articles referenced in this Commentary:
Purported bin Laden message: Iraq is ‘perfect base’

The situation in which the Democrats find themselves is rather ironic.  The party that decries any and all voter disenfranchisement (mostly where it does not exist) is well on the way to disenfranchising their own members.  The primaries of Florida and Michigan were held in violation of the Democratic National Committee Rules.  Short of holding new primaries, the voters of these two states will be disenfranchised.  How can any solution short of a re-vote be equitable?

The voters were told before the primary their votes would not count. Can you say disenfranchisement?  So why waste time voting in a worthless primary?  Now the candidates are clawing for every delegate they can get.  The Democrats are going to decide for the voters what their intentions are for a candidate.  Seems more often than not the Democrats tend to decide they know what is best for the voters.  The candidates are trying to broker a deal to seat the delegates without another vote.  Can you say disenfranchisement again?  It looks as if the will of the people of Florida and Michigan will be determined by the party leaders, not the voters.Both Obama and Clinton should demand a new vote.  They should be on the campaign trail decrying the disenfranchisement of the voters of Michigan and Florida.  They won’t do that though because when it is all said and done, they don’t really care about the voters of Florida and Michigan.  The candidates just want the delegates.  The message to Florida and Michigan is clear.  The candidates will tell you how you would have voted in the primary.  Disenfranchisement with a capital “D”. Links referenced in the Commentary:
Democrats Debate Mich. Delegate Split