Bernie Sanders is out there plugging for a top marginal rate of 90% – typical socialist nonsense, to be sure, but it just occurred to me: the rate doesn’t matter as much as everyone being treated the same for tax purposes. The problem isn’t in what rate we have, but who is getting special treatment. If it were really true that above a certain income amount everyone pays 90% of that to Uncle Sam, it would probably be bad…but what is worse is when some people at, say, $250,000 a year get hit with it and others making the same amount don’t. Same thing with corporations. The thing is our tax code is riddled with exceptions for various groups – over the years all manner of special favors have been written into it and so while the official rate is X, only some people pay that…others who managed to get the ear of a Congresscritter pay less. Set a rate and stick to it – no one gets a break from it, for anything. That, I think, would create the political will to ensure that all tax rates are set rationally…and, by the way, taxing 90% of someone’s income is irrational….the super rich you are theoretically going after with such a rate don’t pay that tax because they don’t make much taxable income. The extreme example is the Clinton slush fund – a “charity” which is mostly concerned with keeping Bill and Hillary and their hangers-on living a plush life. Make the top marginal rate 100% and you still won’t touch their slush fund…nor the various other slush funds built up by the super-rich to hold on to their money. 25% is probably a reasonable highest marginal rate, if we don’t got for a flat tax.
The “Iraqis” don’t want to fight for Ramadi. There’s a simple reason for that – there are no Iraqis. You see, Iraq was an administrative convenience for the British Empire…some territory they grabbed in the carve-up of the Ottoman Empire after World War One. Keep in mind that the Brits in 1918 never envisioned the end of the British Empire: those people back then fully expected British rule in Iraq to be continuing to this day. Joe Biden took a lot of flack prior to the Iraq War for suggesting a partition of the nation…in my view, it was one of the few sensible things the man ever said. I went along with Bush’s desire for a unified, democratic Iraq because that became the plan and I hoped it would work out. It actually might have, had we not abandoned Iraq under Obama. Be that as it may, the true state of Iraq is now in sharp relief: the people living in the nation of are different nationalities with not too much concern one nationality to another. At this point, trying to keep Iraq together is probably a lost cause…the Shia and the Sunni don’t like each other, the Kurds appear to want no real part of it and there are plenty of other minority peoples who would probably agree to pretty much any other arrangement than current. Whether or not some sort of Iraqi Confederation can be put together is an unknown – but the concept that a unitary Iraqi State governed from Baghdad is in the cards absent massive U.S. military intervention is almost certainly a non-starter.
Why we can’t argue with liberals – this article says that persons of color must have a “safe space” where they can discuss there issues. Such a place must have no white people in it, because that would change the dynamic once those white people are present – which is an assumption that all white people are racists and that all non-white people are fearful of white people. This, of course, would be a racist view to hold – but liberals have their “out” on that in their claim that only people with power can be racist…which is, of course, to make another racist statement that all white people have power and no non-white people have any. There’s no way for us to win this argument – so, let’s just de-fund the left, get rid of them, and go on with a rational society.