The Social Justice Pope

social-justice-warrior-doll-09-14-14-1.png

The Vatican is currently being ruled by someone who is as close to a social justice warrior as you can get and still belong to the catholic leadership. This is in stark contrast to the previous Popes who have acted much more closely with Catholic orthodoxy and people are wondering why.

The reason is fairly simple. To paraphrase Bannon, the Catholic church needs more kneelers to fill their pews. There may be some of my readers who consider themselves to be true believers of whatever religion they follow and to them I want to say this is by no means a knock on your faith. I understand you truly believe but you must also acknowledge that an organization like the Catholic Church loses its prestige without funding and followers. If you belong to any church then they would have probably asked you to donate money at some point in time.

Catholic leaders know that their religion is in decline. The problem they face is that the solution they have chosen would fundamentally alter Catholicism as we know it and they have not realize it yet. Worse it would not be effective in revitalizing their fortunes.

South America

The social justice warrior masquerading as a pope comes from South America. This is not a coincidence. This is the last stronghold of Catholicism on Earth. They chose a Pope from here to shore up the region and to see if they could replicate their success here in other regions. What they forget is that the strain of Catholicism practiced in this area is different from anywhere else. Religion in this part of the world has been influenced by liberation theology. Leaders like Castro or Che used it to spread the revolutionary message to the masses so that they would join in on their revolts. This has not stopped and liberation theology which paints Christ more in the role of communist fighter rather than spiritual savior still exists today. Religion was used as a means to promote communism.

By modeling the entire church after this area the entire religion becomes a tool to promote the socialist agenda which seeks to eliminate religion in the end. Or at the very least turn it into an arm of the state which answers to the government and not to God.

Wealthy Countries

It is not difficult to see how the Catholics found themselves in this predicament. In North America, East Asia and Europe they face pressure in two directions. On the left people are becoming increasingly agnostic or atheist. Seeing no value in religion as a whole they just leave it. On the right they increasingly turn to other branches of Christianity which does not have the burden of having leaders in the Vatican.

By becoming a church for social justice warriors they alienate the right and appeal to the left. Since the people in the left they appeal to would have no problem not having a religion in their lives at all they make the Church weakens their position in these countries.

Poor Countries

In Southeast Asia, Africa, and the Middle East the Catholics face pressure from Islam. There is no hope for revival in the Middle East of course where Christians from any branch are regularly killed or discriminated against by Muslims so we can discount that area entirely. Theoretically their message of liberation theology should increase their appeal to the poorer areas of Africa and Southeast Asia.

The Catholic Church misses that Islam is not just a religion. It is a complete package. It offers economic assistance as well as spiritual. The only reason they have not been able to do this in South America is they have not had time to establish their roots there yet, but this will be developed over time. Let us take the markets of the Philippines or Malaysia for example. It is common knowledge that areas like this are havens for the sale of pirated materials. What happens when the Muslim vendor in the stall next to yours gets the new Thor movie and you as the Catholic have to wait for two weeks to get yours? What happens when the devout Muslim who pays the daily collector the money for the fund to build the local mosque gets their stock before you who have not paid have to wait for weeks? Islam rewards those who follow it with economic benefits. Even Halal product requirements which most likely need to employ Islamic workers operate under this system.

In essence it does not even matter what Islam teaches. As long as the Catholic church cannot match its political, economic, and theological integration they will continue to lose ground against it. By focusing on the content of their message the Catholic Church is attempting to combat Islam where Islam is least vulnerable.

Death of Catholicism

The social justice pope alienates the faithful in the first world countries, whose money it needs to combat Islam in the third world, in order to increase its presence in the third world countries. Which it cannot do because there are economic benefits to Islam that it cannot match. Leading to a retreat of the religion on both fronts.

The Catholic church must wake up and depose of its head social justice warrior. Modify your religion to be attractive to those on the right in the wealthy countries and use that money to provide the same level of economic integration in the poorer countries. Only then can there be a revival.

Advertisements

The New Korean War

download.jpg

For the record I fully support an armed intervention in North Korea. In my opinion the US has tried every other option and all of them have failed. Bill Clinton tried complete and total submission. Offering a yearly tribute in oil to North Korea as well as offering to build their nuclear program with American aid. Undisclosed provisions in the deal suggest that the North Korean leaders could have personally gotten something as well. It did not work. Bush Jr tried belligerence with economic sanctions. Stopping the tribute provided by the Clintons and then using the UN to contain North Korea. The regime did not care. Obama tried ignoring North Korea. That did not work. Now it is very likely that they have nuclear weapons as well as the means to deliver them.

Equally important is that I am confident Trump is the best man for the job. In my opinion Bush made two very critical mistakes in the Iraq war which could have changed the flow of history.

Preparation

This is the first mistake. When Bush was making his case for the war in Iraq he led the public to believe that it would have been an easy task. The US military would overwhelm the Iraqi army and their resistance would crumble. Even if this was the case he should not have said so. One of the most important strategies to managing expectations is to underpromise and overdeliver. This allows you to have a margin of error in case things turn out worse than you expect. In case things work out better than you expect then you can always congratulate the troops for doing a good job and keeping casualties to a minimum.

At this point I would like to direct you to the tweets of President Trump during hurricane Harvey.  At all times he was pointing out how big and terrible the storm was while praising the capability of Texas and the American people to get through the disaster. If you think that the storm is huge then you mentally prepare yourself for lots of damage and suffering. When things turn out to be less damaging than you expect then you can always give credit and praise the first responders.

When we finally go into North Korea Trump will be using this tactic.

Nation Building

This is the second and most critical mistake from Iraq. The US army is actually very good at conventional warfare. I divide the Iraq adventure into two episodes. The first is when we actually had an Iraqi army to fight and the second was when we were fighting the insurgency. The US was actually very successful during the first phase. In fact it was so successful and so widely covered that the entire thing felt like a video game instead of an actual invasion.

Things went south went we stayed instead of pulling out right after. As a nation the US is not equipped to handle insurgencies. We just do not have the moral fortitude to do the things required to defeat an insurgency or to sustain a campaign of attrition. Part of being able to implement successful operations is understanding your own limitations. If we pulled out right after unseating the Iraqi then we would have been able to declare victory. What ever happened to Iraq after would have been a thing for the foreign section of the nightly news instead of a national concern.

I am very confident that President Trump will not make this mistake. Nation building seems to be the last thing in his mind nor is sacrificing military efficiency for humanitarian concerns which is another good thing.

I am fully aware that leaving Iraq or in this case North Korea right away may cause a humanitarian crisis. I would rather the world deal with a humanitarian crisis there, after having achieved the downfall of the Kim regime, than have the United States deal with a humanitarian crisis here after LA gets nuked.

4-D Chess: Charlottesville

18254373_1517009374986555_1890372091_n-1.jpg

The other day Ben Shapiro was explaining that it was a major political mistake for President Trump to keep bringing the conversation back to Charlottesville. He mentioned that Trump already got past the issue and keeps returning the conversation to it by relitigating it. This shows that while Ben is able to defend principles on the right well he has very little political instinct.

There is a reason that President Trump wants these events in the news. The more this is in the news the more exposure groups like Anti-fa get to mainstream Americans. It would not be a surprise to anyone to see that before these events very few people knew they existed. The mistake Ben and the media on the left make is that they assume people will view the events of Charlottesville in isolation. The CNN panel with the Trump supporters the other day got heated when the supporters said they did not have a problem with the response of Trump to Charlottesville. They specifically cited violence in other places where Anti-fa was involved while the moderator kept trying to limit the conversation to the events of that day. The mistake that Shapiro and the liberal media both make is that people do not look at these events in isolation. When they look at the KKK and neo-nazis they remember their history. When they look up Anti-fa they will see everything they participated in. From the riots in Illinois that prevented a Trump rally in the primaries to blocking Ben Shapiro from giving his speech in Berkeley. They may even see the rally in California where they used pepper spray on the child of a Trump supporter.

Democrats

Every single Republican has denounced the KKK and Anti-fa. In contrast most major Democrats have defended the actions of Anti-fa. The longer Anti-fa is in the news the more Democrat politicians have to defend them. The Republicans are actively dissociating itself from extremists on the right while the Democrats are embracing them. It is important to note that the only reason Democrats are forced to defend Anti-fa because Trump has taken a stance that both sides are to blame for the violence. If they were to condemn Anti-fa then they would be in agreement with Trump and that is something they cannot do.

In short this issue forces the Democrats to tie themselves with Anti-fa. I would wager that most mainstream Americans would be horrified at their antics.

Republicans

For Republicans the issue is very similar. Anti-fa has attempted to shut down free speech on the right many times. Charlottesville is only the most famous attempt and the one the media will focus on the most because they were up against identifiable neo-nazis. Republican politicians have a choice. They can either side with Trump and condemn the organization that have been targeting every gathering of conservatives with violence or side with the left in defending Anti-fa. Even silence will be taken as a stance for Anti-fa as it is the Republican voter that they have been going after.

In essence the Republican establishment have been given a chance to defend their base from those wanting to restrict their right to free speech or not. Come primary time who do you think the voters will side with?

Misconception

Shapiro and the mainstream media can never understand Trump because in their mind he is nothing more than a buffoon who got lucky by beating Clinton. Suppose Shapiro was advising Trump during this period of time and his advice was taken. Trump condemns the KKK and Neo-Nazis exclusively and keeps silent about Anti-fa. At worse the media would still have blamed Trump for having emboldened them just by his very existence and at best we would have the status quo maintained. Instead because of his response we are now in a situation where the left is being forced to tie their brand closer to their very worst members every day.

The Brilliance of Bannon

bannon

When I first heard Steve Bannon was fired from the Trump administration I could not believe my ears. Politically speaking it made no sense. It handed a great victory to the Democrats and their allies in the media, which only further emboldens them, and plants a wedge in between the new economic populists in the GOP and its traditional conservative base. There does not seem to be any benefit to the decision. The story currently being given where Bannon is leaving the administration to fight its enemies at the head of Breitbart does not sound logical either. There is nothing Bannon could have done outside the administration that he could not have done inside it. I sincerely doubt he gave up all ties to Breitbart when he left just as I doubt Podesta or other political operators still have ties to the Washington Post and other organizations they used to have leadership roles in.

If you have been reading my articles it should be no secret that my views closely align with Bannon and I am deeply disappointed by his termination. I will pause now to cue the autistic screeching about racism from any liberal readers I may have. Over and above politics Bannon leaving the White House should be of concern to everyone. Out of every major political figure in America today Bannon is the only one who grasps the true state of the country and its vulnerabilities. It may offend some of my readers but I include President Trump in this statement. Trump understands that things are bad but in my opinion he does not fully understand how bad things are and how close to the brink we are.

I encourage everyone to read Steve Bannon’s latest interview if you have not already. In it he speaks of an all out economic war with China and about the United States being in a unique inflection point in history. He says that we are currently fighting a war to see if the hegemony of the United States will continue on to the next half of this century. He mentions that the next five years is critical as if we don’t act now we will have passed the point of no return and Chinese victory will have been assured. This is not alarmism. History is full of these inflection points. Some of them violent such as in the case of Islam and Persia or Rome and Greece. Some of them non-violent as in the case of the transition from the hegemony of the British Empire to the American one. Historically speaking America has not even been in charge for that long. Rome had a thousand years, Britain had a few centuries, America is barely completing its first.

Economic Advantage

This is the heart of the issue and one that needs to be understood the most. If you ask people, even nobel-prize winning economists, where the economic advantage of America lies you would get many different answers. Most will say something along the line of technology. Silicon Valley and the various other places computers and the programs that go along with it are developed. Others will say in the military hardware. After all more than half of America’s exports have to do with the military industrial complex which provides jobs for hundreds of thousands of Americans. Still others will say in the service sector or management. They are all wrong.

The primary advantage America has over its competitors is consumer spending. If America and China were to stop trading tomorrow America would still be able to find cheap goods. It is no secret that Vietnam, Malaysia, and other south east Asian countries already have the capability to produce goods at much lower prices than China. Companies are just kept in China because the Chinese government makes access to its market contingent on providing employment for its people. The US seems to have the opposite policy. On the other hand the Chinese would not be able to find a market that could purchase their goods at the price the US can. They have already expanded into the EU and other places that could have done it.

The reasoning behind this is simple. Americans are paid more than their counterparts and on top of this there is a well-developed financial system where almost everyone has access to a credit card. This allows people to have more purchasing power than their wage level would suggest. This may surprise some people but in less developed economies like China, India, the Philippines, and other places like that less than half the populace has access to a credit card. This means that they can only spend what their wages and savings will allow which is not a great amount to begin with. Couple this with the fact that there is social security and other forms of assistance that is lacking in other countries and Americans have more money to spend than anyone else.

This allows America to impose trade rules that are supposed to work to its advantage as a condition for access to its markets. Similar to what I described with China in the previous paragraphs. Unfortunately this is not the case as everything we have done in the economic sphere leads to the erosion of this advantage.

There may be some readers who have realized this already but wonder what this has to do with the inflection point I discussed earlier. What far fewer people realize is the system is collapsing. Consumer debt is rising at unprecedented levels. Last I checked the level of consumer debt is already past the entire GDP of China. Banks have announced record numbers of charged off accounts and have projected increasing numbers of charged off accounts for 2017. A charged off account is in essence an account that can no longer afford to pay and is sold to a collections agency. Consequently this has also tightened the eagerness of banks to increase existing credit limits or lines of credit or approve new ones. Banks will never provide data for this but I encourage you to ask people around you when the last time their bank increased their credit or approved a new card. Not to mention lowered interest rates. In the quest of our politicians to provide the cheapest goods possible for the people they have allowed the outsourcing of jobs at record pace and the replacement of onshore jobs with illegals and H1-B visa holders. Ensuring that the people who have access to these cheap goods can no longer afford them.

Military

At this point you may be thinking well what about the military? Surely American hegemony would still continue even when the Chinese beat the US in the economic field. You would be wrong. A huge military is nothing without a strong economy to back it up. Carriers need to be maintained, new technology developed, and most importantly troops need to be paid. Russia or North Korea is a great case study on what happens when there is an expensive military to sustain without an economy to support it. This is also the reason why I supported an alliance with Russia as a means to contain China. Similar to how China was used in the past to contain Russia. At its current state Russia will never be in a position to threaten American hegemony but China will.

Historically speaking Rome did not last a thousand years because it had an outstanding military. In fact in most of its battles with Persia it ended up on the losing side. Rome lasted because they had an economy that could lose a fully equipped army of 50000 men one day and turn out another fully equipped 50000 men the next. This may offend some people but it also needs to be said that America did not win World War 2 through superior generalship. It won because it massively outproduced its opponents. Japan produced a total of 2 new carriers for the entire duration of World War 2. I will leave it to the reader to find out how many America produced.

The next level of analysis is even more disturbing. What happens when a nation finds it can no longer afford its military? Does it disband it? Or does it use that military to seize resources from other nations to keep its system going?

Racism

It always comes down to this. I have already provided you with data as to why I believe the choice is binary. We either proceed with the agenda of economic nationalism with Trump and Bannon at the helm paving the way for a new century of American hegemony or we end up living under Chinese hegemony instead.

If you believe America is a racist country and Bannon is a white supremacist then you do. Nothing I say will change that. The only thing I will say in defense of America is I have not seen any other countries with active jurisprudence effectively saying that it is acceptable to discriminate against asians and whites in favor of blacks and latinos in some matters.

If you believe America is racist then you are in for a shock once China becomes the dominant power. I have seen beloved children cast out of the family for the sole reason that the person they chose to love was not ethnically Chinese. I have seen hard and talented workers denied promotions because people who were not Chinese could not rise above a certain level in some companies. This does not stop there. Criminal Justice, economic opportunities, bullying in school, and others. I will repeat people who believe America is racist have no idea what the next superpower is capable of.

I will continue trying to fight the good fight but with Bannon’s ouster I have lost any hope that America will continue its hegemony into the later half of this century. After all it is very hard to solve a problem if you fire the only person who actually knows what it is. My only consolation is that millennials who have screeched so hard about racism will live long enough to experience a world dominated by China.

The Truth About Minimum Wage

th (3).jpg

Republicans, both nationalists and conservatives, have been crowing about the recent failure of the minimum wage increase in Seattle. While it is always nice for our world view to be validated I feel this article is necessary so that we will not be misunderstood. After all Democrats are always eager to paint conservatives as the tools of big business even while they passed Dodd-Frank which concentrated 43% of the banking industry in 4 banks and Obamacare which doubled the profits of the insurance industry at the cost of rising premiums and deductibles for the middle class. Republicans, like everyone else, do want wages to go up. We just believe that raising the minimum wage particularly the federal minimum wage is the wrong way to go about it.

Democrats

Before I give our view I will debunk the points made by Democrats first. Whenever any policies are discussed the left will always bring up Denmark, Norway, and Sweden as their perfect utopias. Ask them point-blank if these countries have a federal minimum wage. As small as these countries are they have realized that a nationwide minimum wage might be apt for one location but would not work for another. In the context of the US a federal minimum wage designed for New York would price rural businesses out of the market but a minimum designed for rural areas would not be livable in New York. This is why these countries have minimum wage negotiated per industry instead of for the entire country.

Arbitrarily raising the minimum wage does not work either. A variant of that was tried in Venezuela in Petroleos de Venezuela, their national oil company. You may recall that just prior to their crisis they were also hailed as a model socialist country that the US should follow. Venezuela eventually nationalized the oil company. When they did they hired more people and increased their wages. The problem was they did not produce more oil nor did they sell it at a higher price. You just had more people doing the same amount of work at higher wages. This was not a problem while oil prices were high. When they bottomed out this became part of the reason we see the chaos we do in Venezuela today. Incidentally this is also why Trump is dangerous to Putin. More production by the US of oil and natural gas could cause a glut in the market which would cause worldwide prices to drop and ruin the Russian economy.

Republicans

As Republicans we do believe in the free market. Even nationalists believe in a free market just one bound within the nation. Labor like anything else is a commodity and follows the rules of supply and demand. When the supply of available labor is high then the price is low. In addition when the demand for available labor is high then the price for labor will increase as well.

We believe that instead of setting random numbers as the minimum wage the government should instead set policies that will help lower supply of labor and increase demand for it. This way the change to wages will be organic and something the companies themselves would have to do in order to get the best of the available labor. We think this will be safer as in leaner times companies will not be forced out or forced into bankruptcy by wage levels it can no longer afford.

On a related note this is why the people don’t believe the Democrats and media when they tell them we are at full employment. If we are at full employment wages are supposed to go up but they are stagnant. The Trump administration is doing things that we believe are necessary to change this. The best example is addressing illegal immigration. The slave labor provided by illegals and those provided by those with work visas such as H1-b increase the amount of labor in the pool. With more labor available potential employees have less power to bargain for higher wages. Removing regulations and providing tax reform also increases the amount of businesses in the US increasing the demand for labor therefore making each individual worker more negotiating power.

To sum everything up Democrats believe in legislating wage increases no matter what conditions on the ground dictate while Republicans believe in creating conditions necessary for the wages to increase.

 

The Truth About the Trump Budget

budgettoon09.jpg

The Democrats are up in arms about the Trump budget. Cruel, Barbaric, Mean are some of the nicest words they have used to describe it and it just goes downhill from there. As usual the spokespeople of the Trump administration have not been able to defend the budget effectively so it falls upon independent bloggers like me to get the truth out the best I can. On a side note I am convinced Trump would be better served if he outsourced his messaging to independents , 4chan, and reddit. We would do a better job than his current team.

The primary line of attack the democrats are using is that President Trump is cutting 800 billion dollars from Medicaid therefore he is throwing grandma off a cliff. This is not true. The budget actually adds more money to medicaid and other entitlements every year. This is what is actually happening. There is a projection of how many people would be enrolled for Medicaid in the future and that medicaid would need a certain amount of money in the future. If you allocate less than that then the democrats deem it as a cut. If you are on medicaid this year and next this will not affect you.

Philosophy

The philosophy behind the budget plays a major part in the conflict here. When democrats and republicans make a budget they expect that the amount of people seeking entitlements will increase or stay at the same pace that they are now. When Trump and sane republicans make a budget they expect that this budget will help people earn more money and therefore this will reduce the number of people who rely on entitlements or at the very least slows the growth of the enrollees.

The budget is the blueprint of your plan for the economy. It is what you would like the economy to achieve. With the plans they present if the democrats are successful then you would have more people enrolled via welfare than ever. If the Trump plan is succesful then you would have fewer people enrolled for entitlements. Remember the budget is only supposed to be for one year. If it turns out the projections are not working then you can always add more money in the future. In essence the democrats want people mired in poverty and living of entitlements while Trump and sane republicans are taking a risk to lift them out of it.

Debt

At this point in the conversation it is usually the Republicans that cry out. What about the debt? If the plans to remove more people from entitlements fail then the deficit will be higher than ever. This is true, but then so what?

One thing that republicans don’t like to admit is that if Romney had won the debt would still have gone up. It may not have doubled like it did under Obama but it would still have gone up. If you put the most committed deficit hawk in power during the time of Obama the debt would have still gone up. At the end of the day any meaningful attempts to tackle the debt and deficits will have to go through entitlement reform. That is only possible if people are earning enough that they get out of it and are able to look at it objectively. Presiding over 8 years of supposedly massive growth while ordinary people have the same income they did when your massive growth started will not help it. If we have budgets that promote the status quo where we add more and more people to welfare then nothing will change and the problem will get worse. At some point we have to take the risk and try to lift people off poverty so they no longer need entitlements. Only then will they agree to change it.

Stimulus vs Tax Cut

Everyone democrat who was wildly applauding the stimulus by Obama is now staunchly opposed to the tax cuts by President Trump. The tax cuts and stimulus achieve the same thing. They stimulate the economy by making more money available to people. In the stimulus companies were able to stay open and keep paying their employees while others were able to expand and with tax cuts the same results are achieved.

There is one major difference that has to be pointed out. With the stimulus you gave all the benefits up front. Each company was handed a sack of money from the Obama administration. If the companies did not live up to their end of the deal then there was nothing Obama could do. Incidentally this is also the problem a lot of people have with the Iran deal. Tax cuts are different. They are not sacks of money to be handed out but rather promises that we will not take as much of their income in the future. It is implied that we are doing this so they can employ more Americans and offer higher wages. If this does not materialize then we can always remove the tax cuts.

In the past tax cuts were given but America was not a competitive place to invest in. Companies instead invested in India, China, and other countries. In effect our tax cuts funded their growth. To be completely fair with the corporations it is very hard to invest in a place that says on paper it will take 39.1% of your profits when other places say they will only take 15-20% sometimes less. It is time we used tax cuts to fund our growth.

The Trump budget is good enough. Something needs to be done to attempt to lift people up from poverty. If we keep doing what we have done before we will only achieve the same results.

Cultural Privilege

main-qimg-2f59c72889146a5f1b0c1d106dcbbb3b.png

Whenever you discuss anything with a liberal the conversation always devolves down to privilege. This is ironic as this is exactly the reason why they cannot handle the Trump presidency. Loosely defined privilege is the advantage someone has in life because of the circumstances of his birth.

The right may hate me for saying this but some privileges do exist. I firmly believe that there is an American Privilege, if you are born an American you can expect a much higher quality of life than someone born in Syria. A genius born in Syria could still very well end up sold by Uncle Mohammed for 5 goats or be sent to bomb the local police station to claim your 99 virgins. There are of course some privileges that are bogus. White privilege being one of them. People of all colors can succeed in America. If hard pressed I would even say that Asians may succeed at higher rates than white people do. It may even be harder to be a poor white person in America than a poor black or brown one as there are support structures that exist for them that do not for the poor white person.

I am not saying we should feel guilty about this. Some people are born stronger, faster, smarter, prettier, more athletic, or a whole host of other advantages than others. Different people get different advantages and it is all about making the best out of the hand we are dealt.

Liberal Privilege

Liberals have cultural privilege. Since they were born liberals have been told by society that their ideas are correct. While you are growing up most of the things that you interact with come from a liberal perspective. If you watch tv or a movie it would most likely have been made by a liberal. Chances are the teachers you have for lower and middle school are liberals as well. Even comic books are coming with a liberal flavor now. Although that may change as marvel says their profits have cratered after catering to social justice warriors. Nuanced arguments like how adding more labor to the pool without available jobs makes it harder for wages to go up or how we creating a new slave class with illegal immigrants come much later. This is not random. Liberals exert a lot of effort to keep these institutions pure. Conservatives are routinely hunted down in Hollywood and teachers who don’t conform to the standard viewpoints are removed.

This goes above being taught that they are right. Liberals are taught a very simple formula. If you dislike something all you have to do is declare that it is racist, sexist, fascist, or any other ist and society will rally behind you to exterminate the threat. Companies will get boycotted, professors will get fired tenure or no tenure, and people lose their jobs. I urge you to look for articles about Mccain, Romney, Bush, or any other Republican running for president at the time they were running and compare it with articles after. It would be far kinder to be labelled a murderer than a racist. Do you ever wonder why there are so many accusations of faux racism happening recently? You cannot give people the power of life and death over someone and not expect them to use it. Republicans are complicit in this as well. Instead of standing up to the system they have gone along with it and the greatest fear for most of them is to be labelled an ist.

Trump

For most liberals Trump is a breakdown of the system. They were supposed to be correct. They labeled Trump all the proper things and the labels did not produce the desired result. It would have been the same with any other presidential candidate. Liberals ran their campaign like they always do based on how evil Trump was. He was not America. He is sexist. He is racist. He is a fascist. America chose him anyway. Not only that they gave him majorities in both the house and the senate. There are two options liberals can choose from. Either the rest of the country does not define racism, sexism, and fascism the way they do or Russians. They chose Russians.

To the intellectual liberals Trump represents are far greater threat. Not only did the system malfunction Trump did not participate in it. Atlas Shrugged has some questionable assumptions regarding the economy and the value of the capitalist but it is spot on morality. Trump is like Hank Rearden in his trial. The system is set up so that everybody has an original sin. In Atlas Shrugged it was making a profit. In Trumps case he was white, male, and rich. Trump never downplayed any of that. In fact one of the central themes of his campaign was I am rich. Trump did not play the racism game either. When a reporter called him out on the Pocahontas comment he just repeated it. When they said his ads were anti-semetic he didn’t care. He ran on illegal immigration reform and did not care that he was called racist. The intellectuals know that all it takes is one person with great reach to show that the system is a mirage for the entire system to break down. Losing their cultural privilege is the greatest fear of these intellectuals.

The Trump Tax Plan and You

download (3)

In my previous article I broke down the major changes to the tax code that Trump is proposing and showed that the major beneficiaries would be the poor and the middle class. One of the difficulties with tax is that sometimes abstract arguments do not work and we have to see how it benefits us directly. For today I will try to list some scenarios to show how it would benefit people at different income levels.

Before I begin I realize that every person is different so it is very unlikely the scenarios I offer will match your situation directly. You may have some additional credits or deductions I do not list. There are two facts that I want you to keep in mind as you go thru this. First in 2016 75% of all people who filed income tax opted for standardized deduction not itemized ones. Second in 2016 almost half of Americans working made 30000 or less.

Scenario 1: Single Making 30000

This would most likely describe a younger person starting out. Under President Obama the standardized deduction was 6300. You would subtract that from 30000 giving you a taxable income of 23700. This puts you in the 15% tax bracket. Your first 10350 would be untaxed. The next 9275 at 10% and everything else at 15%. Under Obama your tax liability would be 1538.75.

Under President Trump your standardized deduction would be 15000 giving you a taxable income of 15000. This would place you in the 15000 tax bracket which means you pay 0%. Your tax liability would be 0 under President Trump.

Scenario 2: Joint making 45000

This would most likely describe a struggling family. Under President Obama the standardized deduction for joint filers was 12600. If you subtract this from 45000 you get a taxable income of 32400. The first 10350 would be untaxed. The next 9275 would be at 10%. Everything else at 15%. Under Obama your liability would be 2843.75.

Under President Trump the standardized deduction for joint filers is 30000. Subtract that and it leaves you with a taxable income of 15000. This puts you in the 0 tax bracket which means you pay 0 under President Trump.

Scenario 3: Single making 60000

Estimates for what make you middle class vary by city. The average I got is 60000. Depending on where you live this could be higher or lower. Under President Obama your standardized deduction would be 6300 leaving you with taxable income of 53700. Like earlier the first 10350 is untaxed. The next 9275 at 10%. The next 28375 at 15%. The rest of the 5700 at 25%. This gives you a total liability of 6608.75 under President Obama.

Under President Trump you would have a standardized deduction of 15000. Leaving you with a taxable income of 45000. The first 15000 is untaxed. Everything else is at 12%. Under President Trump the liability of a single middle class person would be 3600. Almost half.

Scenario 4: Joint Making 100000

The average for a middle class family seems to be 100000. Under President Obama you would have a standard deduction of 12600 leaving you with a taxable income of 87400. As always the first 10350 is untaxed. The next at 9275 at 10%. The following 28375 at 15% and the remaining 39400 at 25%. Under President Obama the liability of this middle class family is 15033.75.

The same family under President Trump would have a deductible of 30000 leaving taxable income of 70000. The first 15000 is not taxed. The next 37500 gets taxed at 12% and the rest at 25%. Under President Trump the liability of the same middle class family would be 8875.

As you can see for most people earning 30000 and below they would find themselves paying no taxes and for the middle class would have their tax burden halved.

The Tremendous Tax Plan

e5040ea6e793fc468b2b089336fc23ef.gif

We have the next piece of major legislation coming out of the administration and that is centered around tax reform. I did not fully support the healthcare bill as it did not contain any provisions to control the price of drugs but I fully support this tax bill. From what I can see it does everything you can ever ask for in tax reform. One of the difficulties with bills like this is that very few people know what is exactly in it but everyone discusses it. As best I can I will go over what is in the bill and then I will go over the complaints people have against it.

Contents

  • Lower tax rates overall. The top rate is lowered to 33% from almost 40% and most deductions are removed. Standard deduction of 30000 for joint and 15000 for single. Incomes up to 15000 pay 0. New childcare related deductions. Maximum deduction is 100000 for single and 200000 for joint. Carried interest is taxed as labor and not capital gains.
  • Estate tax is gone. Capital gains held at death are taxed.
  • Corporate taxes get cut from 35% to 15%. Owners of S corps, single props, and partnerships can have their income taxed at 15% instead of income tax. Limiting the number of things that can be claimed as expenses.
  • Tax on unrepatriated earnings. 4% for most 10% for cash.

Commentary

The 4 bullet points summarize the entire tax plan. I left of the commentary until now so you could see and judge the plan for yourself. If there are any points I missed feel free to reach out.

  • Estate Tax – I could write volumes on this alone. Instead I ask you to do one thing. Google how much Steve Jobs paid in estate taxes when he died. The number rhymes with hero. The truly wealthy do not pay estate taxes. You have an entire industry of people who are wealthy and well-connected in their own right who make sure that they do not pay this tax.
  • Tax for Repatriation – If there is any part of the tax reform bill that has universal support this is it. Everyone knows we have unreported income for our corporations abroad. There is literally no other way to get this money.
  • Corporate Taxes– The democrats are going after this hard and spinning this as a tax cut for the rich. On paper it would be true. 35 percent to 15 percent halves their tax bill. The democrats don’t want to tell you that no one actually pays 35%. If corporations actually had to pay this amount we would lost businesses to inversions at a faster rate that we are losing now. Studies differ on what businesses are actually paying. Some say that it is 12% others go as high as 16%. None of them are anywhere in the neighborhood of 35%. Even with our current real tax rate we are already losing businesses to inversion. Apple being the most famous one. If the corporate tax code is not fixed we will continue losing them. The most frustrating part of this whole ordeal is the people who are against fixing the corporate tax code are also against any nationalist or protectionist policies to keep businesses in America which leaves us with exactly zero options to deal with the problem.
  • Income Taxes– This is where the whole tax cut for the rich angle falls apart and it is understandable that democrats do not mention this. First off the floor for income taxes has been raised to 15000. That means a lot more people will not be paying taxes at all. Remember we have a progressive tax system. Keeping 15000 means a whole lot more to someone earning 50000 a year than it does to someone earning 300000 a year. More importantly a lot of the deductions are going away and there is a major push to get everyone to use standardized deductions by raising them. Who do you think benefits when you push standardized deductions? The people with lower-income who can barely make ends meet or the people with more money to spend? Higher standardized deductions are a massive benefit to the poor and middle class and may actually cause the highest earners to pay more. Lastly the carried interest loophole. For the longest time investment managers, among the wealthiest in the population, have gotten away with paying capital gains instead of income tax. The tax plan ends this and classifies it as income tax instead. Has anyone ever brought this up when they say it is a massive tax cut to the rich?

There is a lot of talk about whether the tax plan is supply side or demand side. The descriptions do not fit the plan best. It is a realist plan. It takes the portion of the tax code which is the most often and aggressively exploited and removes them pushing for standardized deductions instead. There are two main benefits of this plan. First the standardized deductions and the higher floor let the middle and lower-income families keep more of their income and it levels the playing field between the huge corporations and the small businesses. Rich corporations like GE can afford to hire the best tax attorneys and accountants to make sure they pay no taxes while smaller business cannot do this and have to muddle along the best way they can. Simplifying everything means that both of them will pay an equal percentage.

Complaints

There are two major complaints with the tax plan and they both stem from the same idiocy. First that the tax plan will lower revenues and increase the debt and second that it is a massive tax cut for the rich. The “experts” who claim this do present a lot of figures to back them up. The only problem with these figures is that they assume that people actually pay the tax rate on paper. After all if studies show the tax rate that people corporations actually pay is 12-15% and you lower the rate to 15% how is it a tax cut? If the government is only collecting this much now how will collections go lower if you collect the same amount?

The most insidious thing about these “analysis” is that almost to a man the people doing them are tax lawyers and accountants. The people who make their living making sure that companies and wealthy individuals pay next to no taxes  are claiming that this tax plan is bad because they do. It is hard to blame them. If you simplify the tax code then their industry will be in danger.

Milo Did Nothing Wrong

images-13

Everything Milo said in that interview is perfectly reasonable and anyone who thinks otherwise is wrong. In fact anyone who thinks otherwise should get off the internet as you will see a lot more unspeakable things which will offend your delicate sensibilities. I would advise skipping any liberal comedians as well as they routinely say worse things. I encourage everyone to actually watch the video for themselves. One of the best things about this time is that the original source material is almost always available online.

Legal Age vs Emotional Age

In the interview Milo was very clear that he believed the current legal ages are apt and should not be changed. In fact towards the later part of the interview he shows disgust and gravity when discussing the young boys involved in the parties in Hollywood. He clearly shows he does not approve of those things in that portion of the interview.

On to what he did say. It is perfectly reasonable to think that people evolve emotionally at different rates. Some people may be ready for sex at a younger age and some people may not be ready for sex even when they hit the age of majority. I hate to break it to everyone but teens have sex all the time. A quick google search will show you that in 2013 46% of high school students were sexually active. Those people obviously felt that they were mature enough to have sex before 18. Granted they most likely had sex with people their own age but Milo felt different. He felt that he was mature enough to handle a relationship with a 29 year old. According to Milo in his recent press conference he was a 17 year old having a relationship with a 29 year old man. Would this still have been illegal according to the letter of the law? Yes. If Milo complained about it at the time he would have been perfectly within his rights to have the 29 year old man arrested. Yet he didn’t because he felt he was mature enough to handle the relationship. I specifically point this out to show that other people who were forced into these relationships when they felt they werent ready can and should complain.

Underage Attraction

In his interview Milo pointed out that some men or women may be sexually attracted to teenagers. His host argued that only perverts would do that and that has been the media interpretation as well. Just as people develop emotionally at different rates people develop physically at different rates as well. It is absolutely possible to think a teenager would be over the age of consent just by looking at her alone. It is also possible to think that they would be sexually desirable. Milo makes a clear distinction between people whose bodies have not yet matured emotionally and physically and those who have.

Food for thought on this subject. Hustler videos has 140 videos in their barely legal series. 140. If there was no market for it there would not even be 5.

Support Relationships

Milo brought up that in the gay community there are relationships between homosexuals of different generations. Relationships are not purely about sex and according to Milo the older gays help the younger ones cope with their new identities. He says this is important as the younger gays may be repressed in their own communities as they may have parents who do not understand their identity and the partner in the relationship ends up being the only person the other one is able to rely on.

Having your identity repressed is one of the issues the left has been bringing up for decades. This is the reason why they say they have to identify whether or not your a tranny at grade one. In fact the gay muslim democrat who shot up the night club in Orlando was only supposed to have done it because his religion repressed his sexuality. If the gay community has found a way to deal with this between two consenting people then more power to them.

Victimhood 

One of the major critiques against Milo is that he is treating the relationship he had at a young age as something that was beneficial to him and something that he wanted instead of something that harmed him. In other words he was expected to act like a victim and when he did not the left got mad.

The way you react to situations in life is the only thing you really control. If Milo felt that the relationship was beneficial to him then he is the only one who can make that call. The left should not force Milo and other people into a box to fit their narratives. I do stress again that other people will have different experiences and if they were forced to have sex without their consent by older people then they should absolutely file charges.

Why go after Milo?

Milo is not alone at being targeted. Ben Shapiro, Pewdiepie, any person who expresses a conservative or in this case libertarian viewpoint to the youth and is successful at it is being systematically silenced by the left. The left has long believed that students should only be able to hear liberal viewpoints and are counting on this for future elections. Anything that threatens this is met with instant hostility. The left not only tries to silence opposing viewpoints but rather tries to destroy the careers of the people who would threaten their monopoly.

Milo and others like him are finally making inroads into territory that have previously been exclusively held by liberals. Republicans should listen to the actual conversations and rally around these figures instead of falling for the fake outrage generated by the left. If we abandon Milo and others like him to liberals when they are attacked, or worse help them do it then no one would provide the valuable services they do. Remember they are only singled out because what they are doing is actually working.