Intolerance in the classroom

1 Reply

As the media keeps gushing on about how America has finally adopted tolerance as the great virtue, and that we’re all united now, let’s consider the Brave Catherine Vogt Experiment.

Catherine Vogt, 14, is an Illinois 8th grader, the daughter of a liberal mom and a conservative dad. She wanted to conduct an experiment in political tolerance and diversity of opinion at her school in the liberal suburb of Oak Park.

She noticed that fellow students at Gwendolyn Brooks Middle School overwhelmingly supported Barack Obama for president. His campaign kept preaching “inclusion,” and she decided to see how included she could be.

So just before the election, Catherine consulted with her history teacher, then bravely wore a unique T-shirt to school and recorded the comments of teachers and students in her journal. The T-shirt bore the simple yet quite subversive words drawn with a red marker:

“McCain Girl.”

“I was just really curious how they’d react to something that different, because a lot of people at my school wore Obama shirts and they are big Obama supporters,” Catherine told us. “I just really wanted to see what their reaction would be.”

Immediately, Catherine learned she was stupid for wearing a shirt with Republican John McCain’s name. Not merely stupid. Very stupid.

“People were upset. But they started saying things, calling me very stupid, telling me my shirt was stupid and I shouldn’t be wearing it,” Catherine said.

Then it got worse. …

Continue reading, Tolerance fails T-shirt test.

She ultimately turned her experience in as a history report. And then as a class they discussed the issues of intolerance:

… she turned her journal into a report for her history teacher, earning Catherine extra credit. We asked the teacher, Norma Cassin-Pountney, whether it was ironic that Catherine would be subject to such intolerance from pro-Obama supporters in a community that prides itself on its liberal outlook.

“That’s what we discussed,” Cassin-Pountney said about the debate in the classroom when the experiment was revealed. “I said, here you are, promoting this person [Obama] that believes we are all equal and included, and look what you’ve done? The students were kind of like, ‘Oh, yeah.’ I think they got it.”

In order to be more scientific, this would have needed to be a coordinated effort throughout the country. For example, with this single test, we don’t know what the reaction would have been had Catherine worn the Obama t-shirt first. An interesting experiment still.

Google Flu Trends

Leave a reply

Google has analyzed their billions of searches and discovered that flu-related searches correlate with actual CDC epidemiological data. From their FAQ,

We have found a close relationship between how many people search for flu-related topics and how many people actually have flu symptoms. Of course, not every person who searches for “flu” is actually sick, but a pattern emerges when all the flu-related search queries from each state and region are added together. We compared our query counts with data from a surveillance system managed by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and discovered that some search queries tend to be popular exactly when flu season is happening. By counting how often we see these search queries, we can estimate how much flu is circulating in various regions of the United States.

During the 2007-2008 flu season, an early version of Google Flu Trends was used to share results each week with the Epidemiology and Prevention Branch of the Influenza Division at CDC. Across each of the nine surveillance regions of the United States, we were able to accurately estimate current flu levels one to two weeks faster than published CDC reports.

This year Google has released their flu trends data to the public. Epidemiologists hope that early outbreaks of influenza may be detected with this method vs. relying on traditional CDC data.

Middle Class Would Pay Less Under McCain Tax Plan

Leave a reply

A closer look at the Obama and McCain tax plans for the reveals that it is not just the “rich” taxpayers earning more than $200,000 that would face higher rates under Obama than under McCain’s tax proposal.

The reason for this is simple: McCain expands the exemptions families can take under both the regular and alternative minimum tax schedules. Obama offers nothing new to this group. Our analysis shows that for an Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) of $50,000 or more, a household would face a higher rate under Obama’s tax plan than under McCain’s. That is hardly a “rich” household. Adjusted Gross Income is the pre-exemptions and deductions income reported on tax forms, and many middle class households would have AGI of at least $50,000.

Continue reading on The Foundry.

Wisdom Dispenser

Leave a reply

During this election year let’s be reminded of these words:

* You cannot help the poor, by destroying the rich.

* You cannot strengthen the weak, by weakening the strong.

* You cannot bring about prosperity, by discouraging thrift.

* You cannot lift the wage earner up, by pulling the wage payer down.

* You cannot further the brotherhood of man, by inciting class hatred.

* You cannot build character and courage, by taking away people’s initiative and independence.

* You cannot help people permanently, by doing for them what they could and should, do for themselves.

Do you recognize the author?

It was Abraham Lincoln

Very, very wise words, written years ago and we still don’t get it…..

My Worry This Election Season

Leave a reply

I’m really worried that too many young people will look at the superficial Obama, the well-spoken man who promises much, and yet fail to understand that taxing and creating a larger central government are not ways to improve the economy. If Obama does win, I’ll at least be fortunate enough to be earning a small salary as a resident for his single four-year term and, therefore, not have to distribute as much of my hard work to the large number of Americans that contribute little but expect the government to provide everything for them. One can only hope that he is promising this redistribution only to get elected and then back down to a moderate view. Unfortunately, that may not be the case and it may take four years for the American people to realize the fallacy of their ways. Hopefully, McCain will be able to get the message out on the drastic difference between him and Obama on health care, the economy, and the military.

Sadly, here’s a YouTube video of a typical starry eyed Obama supporter, saying “I won’t have to worry about putting gas in my car. I won’t have to worry about paying my mortgage. If I help him, he’s gonna help me.” Just what does she think Obama will do? Give her free money, free health care, free gas? The money has to come from somewhere. What slippery slope towards socialism are we being led down?

Sacrifice and Big Promises

Leave a reply

One of the most interesting questions at last week’s debate was from a woman asking what sacrifices John McCain and Barack Obama would ask of Americans “to get out of the economic morass.”

The questioner alluded to World War II, the hallmark usually cited by people miffed that the war on terror doesn’t involve meatless days. Of course, our troops do not lack for meat and, what with blue bins, every day’s a mandatory scrap-metal drive, so WW II’s hardly a relevant template.

McCain’s answer, then, was encouragingly blunt: “There are some programs we may have to eliminate.”

The federal budget has become a $2.9 trillion buffet with delicacies for everyone — the nonpartisan Tax Foundation last year estimated that 67% of American households are treated to more in government spending than they ever pay in taxes. If you’re talking shared sacrifice, the only realistic starting point is government spending.

Obama, meanwhile, said that maybe you should get a higher-mileage car. Any ex-Hummer dealer could tell you that most people did that without Obama’s help.

Then Obama went on to say this shared sacrifice would entail a tax cut for 95% of us.

Bluntly: No. First, it’s not a tax cut if you’re already paying nothing, net, to the feds, as 40% of households do. It’s a refundable credit, which means Uncle Sam takes money from someone else and gives it to you. The old-fashioned word for this is “welfare.”

More practically, you’re not going to get even that. The nonpartisan U.S. Budget Watch calculates that Obama has proposed $990 billion in new spending for his first term. The equally nonpartisan National Taxpayers Union pegs Obama’s promises at $293 billion a year, three times its estimate for McCain. None of this accounts for the cost of rescuing our economy. So, no, 95% of us won’t get a nicer cut of federal pelf. …

Continue reading on JSOnline, Sacrifice and big promises.

Obama’s Economic Agenda

Leave a reply

Presidential candidate Barack Obama’s mantra for change in economic policies amounts to this: a huge increase in redistribution of income at the hands of the federal government. While Obama refers to this as a “net” tax cut, raising taxes on the top 5 percent and lowering taxes or increasing outright benefits for the other 95 percent simply amounts to an indisputably massive increase in redistribution and ultimately very little meaningful change.

To hear Obama and other Democrats describe our current policies, one might think that we do very little to help the poor and disadvantaged. But Americans already transfer more than a trillion dollars a year to low-income households. That’s a lot of money. Before we endorse Obama’s agenda of more of the same, shouldn’t we ask him what benefits a trillion dollars a year have yielded so far? Has that money reduced dependency? Has it solved the problems associated with poverty and inequality? Are more disadvantaged children being raised in stable two-parent families today than 50 years ago?

…

Since Obama believes that “in America, prosperity has always risen from the bottom up,” he should be genuinely concerned with imposing higher marginal tax rates on non-rich Americans. But economists will be more concerned with the higher rates on that top 5 percent because we know that the “rich” play a crucial role in financing the economy’s investments and new business start-ups and in producing the technological innovations so critical to improving our prosperity. Higher marginal tax rates on the “rich” are certain to reduce the contributions they make to the well being of all Americans.

Increasing marginal tax rates as Obama proposes may in the short run improve the material well-being of lower income Americans (at the expense of higher income Americans), but in the long run it will lead to slower economic growth and lower incomes for most people in the future. Economic research suggests that our current redistributive policies have already reduced the average American’s before-tax income by 25 percent. This is the hidden cost of redistribution that is well documented in economics literature, but rarely acknowledged in media discussions. That cost will become larger in the future if Obama’s economic agenda is put into place.

Continue reading, Obama’s Economic Agenda: This Is Change?

Buy American Stocks

Leave a reply

Below is a snippet from an Op-Ed piece that Warren Buffett wrote:

THE financial world is a mess, both in the United States and abroad. Its problems, moreover, have been leaking into the general economy, and the leaks are now turning into a gusher. In the near term, unemployment will rise, business activity will falter and headlines will continue to be scary.

So … I’ve been buying American stocks. This is my personal account I’m talking about, in which I previously owned nothing but United States government bonds. (This description leaves aside my Berkshire Hathaway holdings, which are all committed to philanthropy.) If prices keep looking attractive, my non-Berkshire net worth will soon be 100 percent in United States equities.

Why?

A simple rule dictates my buying: Be fearful when others are greedy, and be greedy when others are fearful. And most certainly, fear is now widespread, gripping even seasoned investors. To be sure, investors are right to be wary of highly leveraged entities or businesses in weak competitive positions. But fears regarding the long-term prosperity of the nation’s many sound companies make no sense. These businesses will indeed suffer earnings hiccups, as they always have. But most major companies will be setting new profit records 5, 10 and 20 years from now. …

Continue reading Warren Buffett’s opinion editorial, Buy American. I Am.

Different Tax Plans, Different Futures

2 Replies

Obama has a bad record when it comes to taxes:

1.

It looks more and more like Joe the Plumber was on to something about taxes, though you wouldn’t know if from most of the polls and media. The Heritage Foundation has the details in our new study: If a President McCain got his way on tax reform, Americans could expect to see jobs, the economy and their own disposable income grow much faster than if a President Obama were to push through his proposals.

As this chart shows, the economy would grow by $320 billion more in 10 years under John McCain’s tax plan than under Barack Obama’s, adjusted for inflation. More than twice as many jobs would be created by the McCain plan — 3.43 million, compared with 1.58 million under the Obama plan…

Continue reading on Cato-at-liberty…

2. Transcript of Democratic Debate

MR. GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased. The government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?

SENATOR OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness. We saw an article today which showed that the top 50 hedge fund managers made $29 billion last year — $29 billion for 50 individuals. And part of what has happened is that those who are able to work the stock market and amass huge fortunes on capital gains are paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries. That’s not fair. [. . . .]

MR. GIBSON: But history shows that when you drop the capital gains tax, the revenues go up.

SENATOR OBAMA: Well, that might happen or it might not. It depends on what’s happening on Wall Street and how business is going.

Marching Towards Socialism

Leave a reply

Quote of the week from a liberal caller that I heard on talk radio: “It is the government’s job to create equality through taxation.”

Wow! What a horrible idea. With less incentive to work hard, this equality would drop to the least common denominator and the economy would crumble. Kind of like Obama’s idea of taxing the profitable companies that support this country and distributing the wealth to the people that don’t even pay taxes. This isn’t even a tax cut for them but simply a handout by redistribution.

Here’s John McCain’s take on this in one of his radio addresses:

Joe explained that he works for a small plumbing and heating company. He’s been thinking about maybe taking over the business when his boss retires. Problem is, that would make Joe one of millions of small business owners who face a sudden increase in taxes under my opponent’s tax plan.

That didn’t seem fair to Joe. He wanted to know why Barack Obama plans to raise taxes on folks who are trying to start or grow a business and create jobs for others. And fairness aside, at a time of serious economic crisis, punishing job creators didn’t seem like a real good way to kick-start a recovery.

My opponent’s answer showed that economic recovery isn’t even his top priority. His goal, as Senator Obama put it, is to “spread the wealth around.”

You see, he believes in redistributing wealth, not in policies that help us all make more of it. Joe, in his plainspoken way, said this sounded a lot like socialism. And a lot of Americans are thinking along those same lines. In the best case, “spreading the wealth around” is a familiar idea from the American left. And that kind of class warfare sure doesn’t sound like a “new kind of politics.”

This would also explain some big problems with my opponent’s claim that he will cut income taxes for 95 percent of Americans. You might ask: How do you cut income taxes for 95 percent of Americans, when more than 40 percent pay no income taxes right now? How do you reduce the number zero?

Well, that’s the key to Barack Obama’s whole plan: Since you can’t reduce taxes on those who pay zero, the government will write them all checks called a tax credit. And the Treasury will cover those checks by taxing other people, including a lot of folks just like Joe.

In other words, Barack Obama’s tax plan would convert the IRS into a giant welfare agency, redistributing massive amounts of wealth at the direction of politicians in Washington. I suppose when you’ve voted against lowering taxes 94 times, as Senator Obama has done, a new definition of the term “tax credit” comes in handy.

At least in Europe, the Socialist leaders who so admire my opponent are upfront about their objectives. They use real numbers and honest language. And we should demand equal candor from Senator Obama. Raising taxes on some in order to give checks to others is not a tax cut it’s just another government giveaway.

What’s more, the Obama tax increase would come at the worst possible time for America, and especially for small businesses like the one Joe dreams of owning. Small businesses provide 16 million jobs in America. And a sudden tax hike will kill those jobs at a time when need to be creating more jobs.

Fortunately, America has an alternative to the phony tax cut my opponent started talking about only months ago. The McCain-Palin tax cut is the real thing. Among our other serious tax reforms, we’re going to reduce every income tax bill in America, and double the child deduction for every family. We will cut the capital gains tax. And we will cut business taxes to help create jobs, and keep American businesses in America.