Henry Ford built a Strong Middle Class with Nonunion Labor

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 9th, 2014

Week in Review

President Obama’s new message is the horror of income inequality.  As his friends on Wall Street and in Hollywood make so much more money than the ‘folks’ do.  Of course, if it weren’t for his abysmal economic policies the ‘folks’ would be able to get a better-paying job.  Since he’s been president his policies have destroyed some 11,301,000 jobs (see The BLS Employment Situation Summary for December 2013 posted 1/13/2014 on PITHOCRATES).  The Affordable Care Act, new taxation, costly regulatory policies and his support for union labor all help to kill jobs.  Forcing a lot of people to work a couple of low-paying part-time jobs to pay the bills.  While his friends on Wall Street and in Hollywood have never been richer.

The economy wouldn’t as bad as it is if President Obama didn’t attack business so much.  And, instead, embraced it.  Like Henry Ford (see The Internet Is the Greatest Legal Facilitator of Inequality in Human History by Bill Davidow posted 1/28/2014 on The Atlantic).

In the past, the most efficient businesses created lots of middle class jobs. In 1914, Henry Ford shocked the industrial world by doubling the pay of assembly line workers to $5 a day. Ford wasn’t merely being generous. He helped to create the middle class, by reasoning that a higher paid workforce would be able them to buy more cars and thus would grow his business.

Yes, Henry Ford did want to pay people enough so they could afford to buy his cars.  But this did something else.  It attracted the best workers to his company.  Because of the incentive of the higher pay.  And if they were lucky enough to have gotten hired in they busted their butts so they could keep those high-paying jobs.  It was a meritocracy.  If a worker wasn’t performing they got rid of that worker.  And offered that job to another person willing to bust their butt to keep that job.

Of course, the unions changed all of that.  The Keynesians will point to Ford to justify their consumption policies (putting more money into consumers’ pockets as the be-all and end-all of their economic policies).  And NOT on how attracting the best workers with the best pay helped make Ford the most efficient.  Allowing Ford to produce cars at prices working people could afford.  Once the unions came in they decreased efficiencies.  Slowed down those assembly lines.  And raised the cost of cars.  So only unionized working people could afford them.  While most other working people had to settle on used cars.  Unless they had a relative that worked for one of the automotive companies that could give them a car at an automotive worker’s discounted price.

Surprisingly, the much-vilified Walmart probably does more to help middle class families raise their median income than the more productive Amazon. Walmart hires about one employee for every $200,000 in sales, which translates to roughly three times more jobs per dollar of sales than Amazon.

Why do some vilify Wal-Mart?  Because like Henry Ford was in the beginning they are nonunion.  Helping them not only to hire the best workers but to provide goods at a lower price so those not in a union can afford to buy them.  So Wal-Mart helps middle class families in two ways.  They help to raise the median family income.  And they allow that median family income go further.  Perhaps the greatest weapon in the arsenal to fight income inequality.  As they help those not in privileged jobs (such as a UAW job or a government job) to live as well as someone in those privileged jobs.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Hollywood to hurt Middle Class and export more American Jobs

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 15th, 2013

Week in Review

James Cameron is going to make 3 Avatar sequels.  Three big block buster movies.  Generating a lot of economic activity.  Something the United States can generate a lot of tax revenue from.  To fund all those programs that liberals love so much.  Especially Hollywood liberals.  For those in the movie industry tend to be far left.  Cameron himself was applying for U.S. citizenship.  But when Republican George W. Bush won reelection in 2004 he chose to remain a Canadian.  You just can’t get much further left than that.  But how can you fault him?  Just look at all the taxable income he will create for the IRS with those three Avatar sequels (see James Cameron says he will shoot 3 ‘Avatar’ sequels in New Zealand by the Associated Press posted 12/15/2013 on CP24).

Director James Cameron says he plans to make three sequels to his 2009 sci-fi blockbuster movie “Avatar” in New Zealand…

Cameron says he plans to complete principal shooting on the three movies at one time, perhaps over a period of about nine months.

New Zealand’s government has agreed to a 25 per cent financial rebate. Cameron didn’t disclose an exact budget although he says he expects economies of scale will help the three movies together cost less than $1 billion.

Guess there will be no taxable income generated from filming these movies.  Forcing the IRS to squeeze more from those who don’t export American jobs.

Filming in New Zealand?  Shooting three movies at one time for economies of scale?  A 25% financial rebate?  Amazing, isn’t it?  The left does everything within their power NOT to use costly union labor or work in locations with costly regulations in the United States.  Yet they champion union labor and costly regulatory policies.  They are all for them.  As long as they can escape their costs by filming in a foreign country.  To satiate their greed.  Putting more money into their pockets instead of paying a living wage to an American.

And it’s the Republicans who have a war on the middle class?  Go figure.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Hollywood may hate Law-Abiding Gun Owners but they love Gun Violence

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 17th, 2013

Week in Review

Liberals win elections because they have friends in powerful places.  Our public schools.  Our universities.  The main street media.  Television.  And, of course, Hollywood.  As a percentage of the population we’re only talking about 21% of the people.  But these friends have powerful soapboxes.  Making their minority views sound like majority opinion.  Such as their hatred of gun ownership.  And their desire for gun control legislation.  Despite their love of guns.  And gun violence (see Blame Washington, Not Hollywood, For R-Rated Violence In PG-13 Films by Scott Mendelson posted 11/14/2013 on Forbes).

“If (studios) are prevented from freely advertising R-rated films, they will simply find ways to allow more and more “objectionable” material into PG-13 rated films.” – Me, in May, 2001

Well, it’s finally happened.  After over a decade of studios stuffing more and more R-rated content, specifically R-rated violence, into PG-13 movies, we’ve reached the point where PG-13 films actually have more gun violence than R-rated films. There has been a lot of hand-wringing about the study which will be published in the December issue of Pediatrics, but almost none of them are looking at the real issue. This isn’t some conspiracy by Hollywood to fill our kids’ heads with images of no-harm/no-foul gun play. It’s the logical end-result of a 2001 bill spearheaded by Joe Leiberman and nearly passed into law that would have given the Federal Trade Commission the power to regulate how R-rated films were marketed. And frankly I tried to warn anyone who would listen nearly thirteen years ago.

They may want to take away guns from law-abiding gun owners but they sure love to play with them in the movies.  A lot.  For there is nothing more fun than shooting up people.  Apparently.  And their gun fun on screen has inspired videogames where kids can mimic what they see in the movies.  And go on shooting sprees of their own.   Sometimes, though, they do it in real life.  Why?  Is it because law-abiding people can buy and own guns?  Or is it because they like what they see in the movies so much that they want to do the same in their videogames?  And when that bores them, a few of them want to do it for real?  To bring that movie or videogame to life?

Those who do typically suffer from some mental health issues.  But that doesn’t stop them from enjoying those gory movies.  And those gory videogames.  For many of our mass shooters were avid gamers.  Hollywood and videogames may not be totally to blame.  But they are probably more to blame than law-abiding gun owners.  So if they really want to end gun violence perhaps they should look at what they’re doing more and at responsible gun owners less.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Jane Fonda didn’t like Seth MacFarlane’s Boob Song during the Academy Awards

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 2nd, 2013

Week in Review

The Academy Awards was a success.  The Academy wanted to appeal to a younger demographic.  So they picked Seth MacFarlane.  In the promos for the Academy Awards MacFarlane said he was Seth MacFarlane.  And to ask your kids to explain who that was.  And that he was hosting the Academy Awards.  And to ask your parents what that was.  Indicating that he was a new young hip host for the old stodgy awards program.  Exactly what the Academy wanted to bring in more viewers.  And it worked.  For Seth MacFarlane delivered exactly want the Academy wanted.  But not everyone was happy with his hosting (see Jane Fonda Slams Seth MacFarlane’s “We Saw Your Boobs” Oscars Song by Us Weekly posted 2/28/2013 on Yahoo! Movies).

Lena Dunham isn’t the only celebrity who was offended by Seth MacFarlane’s musical number during the 85th Annual Academy Awards, in which the first-time host saluted actresses who went topless on film. Jane Fonda, who presented the Best Director award with Michael Douglas, slammed the Family Guy creator in a Feb. 27 blog post on her official website.

During MacFarlane’s original song, which he performed with the Gay Men’s Chorus of Los Angeles, the 39-year-old comic referenced everyone from Halle Berry to Kate Winslet. What the song failed to mention, however, was that several of the actress’ topless moments occurred during rape scenes.

That is not the only reason women go nude in the movies.  Some do so simply to get a part.  There’s a general rule of thumb that the more nudity in a film the worse the film is.  Such as low-budget B movies that aren’t Oscar bound.  That titillate the viewing audience.  But a movie that titillates is still a movie.  And it can go on an actress’ resume.  Helping her to get discovered.  As long as she looks good in the nude.  Which is a requirement to get a part with a nude scene in a titillating B movie.  For they use nudity to spark interest in a film when the characters and plot don’t.  Such as almost any Russ Meyer film.  A man who had a thing for large breasted women.  Or any of those Friday the 13th movies with a gratuitous nude scene to break up the predictable plot, poor character development and bad acting.  Whereas some of the greatest films of all time were rated G.  Such as Gone with the Wind.  A movie where no women went topless.

Some women go topless to try and redefine themselves.  Such as teen stars trying to lose their ‘good girl’ image.  So they can transition to grownup roles.  And few things kill that ‘good girl’ image more than a good girl letting the girls out on the big screen.

Some bigger names go topless for the big payday that going topless provides.  It was big news, and even bigger money, when Halle Berry and Jennifer Aniston let the girls out.  For let’s face it, it’s the beautiful people in Hollywood movies.  Feminists have long complained that older and less beautiful actresses don’t get the parts that the more attractive ones do.  Even when they are superior actors.  For apparently people want to see beautiful women on the big screen.  And there is only one thing that the people want to see more.  The breasts of beautiful women.  And Hollywood being a business likes to give the people want they want.  Even if it exploits women.  As it exploited a young Jane Fonda.  For Barbarella was little more than sexploitation.  And a far cry from her work in The China Syndrome.

“What I really didn’t like was the song and dance number about seeing actresses boobs. I agree with someone who said, ‘If they want to stoop to that, why not list all the penises we’ve seen?’ Better yet, remember that this is a telecast seen around the world watched by families with their children and to many this is neither appropriate or funny,” Fonda wrote.

What, did Fonda become a Republican?  For years Republicans have been complaining about the growing vulgarity of American television.  That television today is “neither appropriate or funny” for families with children.  But the liberals just call these Republicans a bunch of old prudes.  Saying that they need to lighten up.  To get with the times.  To be more progressive.  Guess you cross the line when you mention how many actresses have shown their boobs on screen.  For that is true vulgarity.

Yes, MacFarlane’s humor was a bit crude at times.  But one thing you cannot deny.  Seth MacFarlane is talented.  He could sing and dance.  Be funny.  And he was nimble on his feet even when a joke bombed.  If you took the vulgarity out you’d think you were watching someone from the Golden Age of Hollywood.  While adding in the vulgarity helped introduce it to an audience that would probably never have watched a musical in their life.  But they may now.  Even if it’s only the musical episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer.  Once More, with Feeling.  Or Monty Python’s Spamalot.  Or Trey Parker and Matt Stone’s South Park: Bigger Louder and Uncut.  Or their The Book of Mormon.  Musicals that are a bit more accessible.  As they are written for a younger, hipper crowd.  Macfarlane may have dissed America’s leading ladies but he may have regenerated interest in song and dance.  Perhaps even getting more people to see the blockbuster Hollywood musical Les Misérables.  Which Anne Hathaway won best supporting actress for her portrayal of poor, tragic Fantine.  A lady that has let the girls out a time or two in her professional career.  And it took her to an Academy Award.

Which is more offensive?  Women taking off their clothes on screen?  Or identifying the women who took off their clothes on screen?  It seems if you’re offended by one you must be offended by the other.  If so these ladies should lighten up.  Get with the times.  And be more progressive.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

FT154: “If you have wealth these days you better act like a liberal on the outside of the voting booth even if you don’t on the inside.” —Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 25th, 2013

Fundamental Truth

Narcissistic Celebrities enjoy the Adoration but they still want the Obscene Wealth

Being rich.  It’s what everyone wants to be.  To be rich.  From the women that go to Hollywood to become rich actresses.  And the men who try to become rich actors.  To the musicians who try to make it big and become rich musicians.  It’s why people become a better athlete than anyone else.  To get a fat paycheck.  And endorsements.  So they can be rich.  And why women want to break the glass ceiling in corporations.  And get their face on the cover of Forbes.  So they can become richer.  Everyone wants to be rich.  For the expression is ‘rich and famous’.  Not just famous.  It’s the reason why ordinary people buy lotto tickets.  So they, too, can be rich.  For apparently being rich is where it’s at.  As everyone is trying to get there.

Being famous is one thing.  Having everyone know who they are and shower them with adoration is nice.  It’s why celebrities take to Twitter.  So everyone can read their pearls of wisdom.  For it strokes their narcissistic egos.  But they still want the Hollywood mansions, vacation homes throughout the country, the luxury cars, luxury yachts and the private jets.  In short they want to be able to afford anything that tickles their fancy.  So they can live lives better than the average schmuck out there.  They want to live like royalty.  And they want to be treated as royalty.

That said there is a war on the rich in the country.  The Democrats have demonized the so-called 1%.  Which would include all of the above.  In an effort to raise tax rates on those who can afford to pay more.  To make the 1% pay their ‘fair share’.  And the people are so in favor of this that they reelected President Obama.  So he can continue to right past wrongs.  And make the rich pay their fair share.  So they gather in support of their president.  With their torches and pitchforks.  Figuratively, of course.  And woe to anyone with a lot of money.

The First Rule about being Rich is Don’t Complain about your Taxes even if you pay Confiscatory Tax Rates

And they will do that right up until the day they come into money.  Then it’s, “Guess I didn’t hate the rich as much as I thought I did.  I mean, here I am.  I’m rich.  And I’m a pretty nice guy.  Nothing to hate here.  So let’s leave these good people alone.  At least, let’s leave me alone.  Put down those torches and pitchforks.  And let me enjoy my obscene wealth.  Because being filthy stinking rich is awesome.  My only regret is that I wasn’t filthy stinking rich sooner.”

Ah, yes, here’s the quandary.  How do I enjoy being everything that’s wrong with this country?  Being someone who is filthy stinking rich?  While not having people attack me for enjoying it?  For being filthy stinking rich?  How do I enjoy such great wealth inequality while being all for equality?  In theory at least.  Not in reality.  For equality is okay for the poor people.  But not for us filthy stinking rich actresses, actors, musicians and athletes.  I mean, one of the reasons of becoming so rich was to get away from the poor people.  Because who wants to live next door to one of them?

Well, first of all here’s what you don’t do.  You don’t complain about the taxes you pay.  Phil Mickelson (professional golfer) learned that lesson quickly.  After expressing a certain discontent that he can only keep about 37 cents of every dollar he earns he quickly issued an apology.  Because the sports media went ballistic when this rich guy complained.  So the first rule about being rich?  Don’t complain about your taxes.  Even if you pay confiscatory tax rates.  Because that will only invite people to get out the torches and pitchforks.  Figuratively, of course.

Celebrities are Openly Devout Liberals so they are Free to Enjoy their Filthy Stinking Wealth

That may be enough for some.  But if you want to be really rich as in filthy stinking rich you have to do more.  Not only do you NOT complain about your high tax rates you campaign to raise them even higher.  All while hiring some good tax accountants to figure out how not to pay your taxes.  Because you want to keep what’s yours.  Warren Buffet is one of the richest men in the world and yet no one picks on him.  Why?  Because he says we should raise taxes on rich people like him.  People like rich people that attack rich people.  So they will give this rich person a pass.  And reserve their hate for other rich people.

But if you really want to enjoy conspicuous levels of wealth you have to do more.  If you want to show off your mansions.  Your cars.  If you want to go to the finest restaurants and eat the finest foods.  Drink the finest wine.  The finest liquors.  Smoke the finest Cuban cigars.  Hang out with the most beautiful people in the world.  At the most beautiful resorts.  On the most beautiful yachts.  If you want to gamble at the big boy tables and get the red carpet treatment from the casinos.  If you really want to flaunt your wealth you have to do more than just support high tax rates.  You have to go all the way.  And be a liberal.  And support all the liberal causes.  And campaign for them in public.  Even campaign for liberal Democrats.  You do this and no one will attack you for your conspicuous displays of wealth.  Even while they’re attacking other rich people for their conspicuous displays of wealth.

So if you’ve ever wondered why so many rich actresses, actors, musicians and athletes are such devout liberals this is part of the reason why.  They just want to be left alone.  So they can enjoy their filthy stinking wealth.  And even though they’re richer than most we leave them alone.  Because they support liberal causes.  Even if they don’t believe in them.  Even if they’re Republicans.  Or closet-conservatives.  Even if they vote Republican once they enter the voting booth.  For as long as they act like a liberal on the outside of the voting booth people will leave them alone.  And they will be free to enjoy their filthy stinking wealth.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

California goes Too Far and a Long-Time Californian Business may leave for Friendlier Climes

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 11th, 2012

Week in Review

California loves intrusive government.  They have environmental regulations that are more demanding than the rest of the nation.  And more costly to business.  It is why gasoline prices are the highest in California.  It’s also why a lot of businesses are leaving California.  Even Hollywood is feeling the high cost of doing business.  And are shooting more and more movies on location where there are lower costs.  But Californians are okay with all of this.  They even just voted a massive tax hike to help pay for this intrusive government.  But along with these new tax hikes Californians did something else.  Something that goes beyond the pale.  Something that businesses may respond to with their feet.  And leave this governmental overreach into the private sector economy (see Porn stars angry at condom requirement, threaten to leave L.A. posted 11/7/2012 on the Los Angeles Times).

AIDS activists called a requirement that porn performers wear condoms while filming a “referendum on the subject of safer sex.”

But with almost all the votes tallied and Measure B winning passage, many in the adult film industry were wondering what’s next for the industry — and whether they must now take their business out of Los Angeles County.

During its campaign against the condom requirement, the industry said 10,000 jobs would be at stake and that film companies might be forced to leave Los Angeles County, taking away an industry worth hundreds of millions of dollars…

“It’s a dark day for porn…somehow measure b passed.” tweeted @FetishMoviesCom.

Under the measure, the cost of the law would be paid for by porn producers, who would have to purchase a public health permit, much like tattoo parlors. Violators would be subject to fines and misdemeanor criminal charges.

This is where they draw the line.  Porn industry jobs.  Probably because of that war on women thing.  Even though this is more a product of the political left.   Normally defenders of free speech and women’s rights.  And here they are.  Acting like Republicans.  Doing something that is not porn-friendly.  And possibly putting thousands of women out of work.  Talk about your war on women.

It’s a pity people didn’t feel this impassioned for all of those other anti-business policies of the state of California.  For they are killing a lot more jobs then will be lost if the porn industry leaves town.  But I guess some jobs are more important than others.  At least, to those in California.  Who seem to understand the porn industry better than business in general.  Then again, California is a blue state.  A Democrat state.  Who prefer regulating businesses instead of helping businesses.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

In California 54% of the People voted to have 1% of the People pay $6 Billion more in Annual Taxes

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 10th, 2012

Week in Review

The Left is applauding California for voting to raise taxes on the rich.  Saying that California is choosing to be responsible.  While the federal government continually chooses to be irresponsible.  But is this democracy?  Or mob rule?  We can find the answer to these questions easily by understanding what this vote really did (see Californians approve massive tax hike on the wealthy by Tami Luhby posted 11/7/2012 on CNN Money).

Californians approved a measure Tuesday that raises taxes on the wealthy and hikes the state sales tax. It is expected to bring in $6 billion a year, on average, over five years.

Proposition 30, which Governor Jerry Brown has lobbied heavily for, captured 54% of the vote. Its approval prevents massive budget cuts to the state’s public schools and universities…

The wealthiest 1% of Californians — those with annual incomes of $533,000 or more — will shoulder nearly 79% of the tax increase, according to the California Budget Project, a research group that endorsed the proposition. They will see their taxes rise by 1.1% of their income, while the bottom four-fifths of the state’s residents will see an increase of between 0.1% and 0.2% of their incomes…

The measure is expected to raise $8.5 billion in new revenue, according to the Department of Finance. Some $2.9 billion will go to schools, while the remaining $5.6 billion can go toward closing budget gaps.

But the Legislative Analyst’s Office warns that the measure depends heavily on the income of the wealthiest residents, which is volatile and difficult to predict.

So a mob of 54% of the electorate voted to have 1% of the population pay more in taxes.  Who are already paying the lion’s share of taxes.  Problem solved.  Or so they think.  For will these rich people stay in California where a mob can shake them down to pay for more free stuff for those who don’t pay taxes?

Oh, it’s easy to get the mob to increase taxes on others.  Especially if it’s for education.  So students can go to college and get their degrees in film and gender studies.  Degrees that won’t help them get high paying jobs.  But will leave them with more student loan debt.  So why do it?  Because if they didn’t subsidize education more in California how else would they pay for those high university pay and benefits packages?  Which is what is really driving up the cost of education.  For what is education but some books and a lot of people on a university campus?  There is no manufacturing equipment.  No raw material costs.  Education is nothing but overhead.  And an expensive overhead at that.  Just look at the housing the senior professors and administrators live in.  And the lives they enjoy.  They’re the same kind of lives that the so-called 99% demonize business owners and Wall Street types for living.  But because they are on a university campus they get a pass.

A lot of Hollywood moving-making business is leaving California.  Look at the closing titles of some current movies and you will see a lot of them are filmed on location.  Where they can escape the high cost of movie-making in Hollywood, California.  And if the movie-makers are fleeing the high cost of California it would be foolish to think that the richest 1% will not find more agreeable tax locales to invest their money.  And to live.  So don’t count on that additional $6 billion a year yet California.  Because these new tax rates will probably bring in a whole lot less revenue than that.  As increased tax rates always do.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

FT128: “Democrats use class warfare to attack and tax the rich while taking money from the working poor by selling them lottery tickets.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - July 27th, 2012

Fundamental Truth

The Inherent Contradiction of Class Warfare is that you can’t Hate the Rich while wanting to be Rich

You hear it in the news.  You can hear it in the streets.  You can feel it in the air.  It’s another election season.  And the Democrats are ramping up their class warfare to assail anyone who did what everyone in the country wants to do.  Make money and live well.  President Obama even told successful small business owners the reason for their success.  Not the 80+ hours a week they put into their business.  But because their previous taxes built roads and bridges.  Which is a puzzler.  Because there are a lot of roads and bridges across America.  So you’d think there would be no business failures.  But there are.  A lot of them.  Despite all those roads and bridges.  Like I said, it’s a puzzler.

I guess the sad truth is that it’s not only rich people who hate the poor.  But it would appear our roads and bridges hate the poor, too.  Otherwise everyone would be making money and living well.  Not just those lucky few the roads and bridges favor.  Damn roads and bridges and their hateful ways.  Then again, roads and bridges are inanimate objects.  And can’t pick winners and losers.  So perhaps it’s the government that taxes us to pay for those roads and bridges that have hateful ways.  Perhaps they’re not building them special enough to spread their magic of success to those they come into contact with.  Perhaps our government officials don’t like poor people either.  That is to say, poor people who don’t remain poor.

But that’s neither here nor there.  It’s more around the corner and down the stairs.  No, what’s at issue here is the inherent contradiction of the Democrats’ class warfare.  Namely, if having more money than others is so evil why is it that everyone wants to have more money than others?  Isn’t that the whole point of unions?  To give their members more money and better benefits than those outside their membership?  It’s why the teachers go on strike.  For more money.  And more benefits.  Including health care and pension benefits that few teachers have ever contributed to.  Which is a lot better than most poor and middle class workers.  So here is a large group of people who have more money than others and yet the president never tells the teachers that they didn’t earn their pay and benefits.  So it’s okay to elevate some people above others even though we all use the same roads and bridges.  Odd.  For that seems like the definition of class warfare.  Granting special privilege to some so they can have more money than others.

Thanks to Roads and Bridges Movie Stars and Musicians make Obscene amounts of Money

To further see the inherent contradiction in class warfare consider Hollywood.  And the young and aspiring actors who go to Hollywood.  Why do they go there?  To become rich and famous.  To have more money than other people.  So they can live in their Hollywood mansions.  And in other mansions around the world where the rich and famous like to call home.  For a few weeks out of the year at least.  Those who make it became obscenely wealthy.  And make far more in a day than regular working people earn in a lifetime.  Not only do they want more money than others.  They have more money than others.  Yet the president doesn’t tell them that they didn’t make that happen.  Or that their success was due not to talent but those roads and bridges.

Consider, too, those who enter the music industry.  Rock, pop, hip hop and rap stars.  Why do these people enter the music industry?  To become rich and famous.  To have more money than other people.  Like the Hollywood stars they, too, want mansions.  Private jets.  Boats.  And all the other toys that money can buy.  They want to eat in the finest restaurants.  And party with famous celebrities from around the world.  These musicians don’t make music for the greater good.  For the poor.  For sick children.  No.  They make music to make as much money as they possibly can.  Some even begin legal action to protect what’s theirs in the digital age.  Fighting piracy abroad and illegal downloads at home.  Because they may have a lot of money.  But more money is better.  So they sue.  Yet the president doesn’t single these people out, telling them that they didn’t make their success.  It was those roads and bridges.  And that their illegally downloaded music is due to the people downloading it.  Who paid for those roads and bridges that made their talent possible.

How about lawyers?  They’re some of the richest people in the world.  And how do they make their money?  By taking it away from others who earn it.  By suing these wealth creators.  Or insurance companies.  Especially medical malpractice attorneys.  Who earned the unflattering moniker ‘ambulance chaser’.  Because they are willing to sue anyone to make a buck.  To have more money than others.  Lawyers are in part responsible for the high cost of health care because of their fraudulent lawsuits raising the cost of medical malpractice insurance.  And the class action lawsuit raises the cost of businesses (and the price of everything we buy) while bringing in obscene amounts of money for them.  While the people they represent make a fraction of what they collect.  But the president doesn’t tell these people that they owe their success to roads and bridges.  No.  He never says a word about lawyers.  Probably because he is a lawyer.  So rich lawyers get a pass.

Being Rich can’t be Bad when the Poor Spend so Much on Lottery Tickets trying to become Rich

The Democrats use class warfare to take more money away from those who they think don’t deserve it.  Those who have more money than others.  Other than teachers, movie stars, music stars, lawyers and anyone else with more money than others who typically vote Democrat.  Which seems to make it okay to have more money than other people.  If you vote Democrat you can have as much money as the roads and bridges can make for you.  But if you’re a small business owner trying to navigate the labyrinth of regulations just so you can pay a high tax rate, well, then it’s a different story.  Because these small business owners may vote Republican.  So whatever they make they were just lucky to make.  Even undeserving.  Because they didn’t build their business.  They weren’t smarter than anyone else.  They just used our roads and bridges to an unfair advantage.  So these leeches now owe us.  The people.  And should pay a higher tax rate.  And when they try to use legal tax shelters we should change the law so they can’t.  While turning a blind eye whenever those who vote Democrat hide their income to avoid paying those high tax rates.

So they attack the successful. To help those who have less than them.  But do they really care for those who make less?  The good, decent, poor people?  Or do they try to take their money, too?  Well, it turns out they don’t.  Care for the good, decent, poor people.  And they try to take back whatever they give them.  By encouraging them to spend as much of their disposable income on lottery tickets as possible.  So the poor can be, wait for it, rich.  That’s why governments sell lottery tickets.  To give people the chance to be rich.  So they, too, can have more money than others.  So they can live well.  Even though they have a better chance of getting struck by lightning than winning a big jackpot.  Because when it comes to the lottery it’s little different than it is in Las Vegas.  The house ultimately wins.  As does the government.

Who’s buying the majority of lottery tickets?  The working poor.  So they can become what the Democrats hate.  People who have more than others.  So they can live well.  Again showing the inherent defect in class warfare.  Having more money than others can’t be bad.  Being rich can’t be bad.  Because if being rich and having more money than others was bad everyone wouldn’t be trying to be rich.  For teachers, movie stars, music stars, lawyers and anyone else with more money than others know that having money is good.  But having more money is better.  Especially when you have more than others.  And you can live a comfortable life away from those who have less than you.  While enjoying a disproportionally large share of that wealth created by all those roads and bridges.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

California’s Actual Budget Deficit to Exceed their Highly Skilled Bureaucrats’ Projection by 74%

Posted by PITHOCRATES - May 12th, 2012

Week in Review

Since President Obama came out in favor of same-sex marriage he received a boon in campaign donations.  Especially from those connected to Hollywood.  So there is a lot of money in California.  But apparently that Hollywood money isn’t making it to the state’s coffers (see California budget hole deepens to $16 billion: governor by Tiziana Barghini posted 5/12/2012 on Reuters).

California is facing a much deeper budget deficit than expected due to weak tax revenues and slow progress in cutting budgets, Governor Jerry Brown said on Saturday.

Brown said the shortfall for the fiscal year ending on June 30 now stood at $16 billion, up from a previous estimate of $9.2 billion made in January…

The state is still recovering from the 2008-2009 financial crisis that induced the worst recession since the 1930s. In April, California’s tax revenues came in $2.44 billion below the state’s estimate, largely due to weaker-than-expected revenue from personal income taxes…

California is expected to raise $7 billion in new revenue if voters approve a ballot measure in November that would increase the state tax rate on earnings above $250,000 and the state sales tax.

So the deficit will be $16 billion instead of the projected $9.2 billion.  That’s only a mistake of 74% or so.  By government standards that’s pretty good.  It’d get you fired in the private sector.  But not in the government.  Where they treat gross mismanagement and incompetence of government bureaucrats in the usual way.  By raising our taxes.

Interesting.  The solution they want the voters to approve will take more money out of the private sector economy.  Leaving people with less money to spend in the private sector.  Meaning businesses will have to cut back to reduce their output to match this decrease in demand.  And businesses do this by laying off workers.  Which will further decrease the collected tax revenue from personal income taxes.  The very problem they cite for their budget deficit woes.

This logic reminds me of an episode of The Three Stooges.  Where they were in a rowboat.  They accidentally drilled a hole in the bottom of the boat.  Water began to leak into the boat.  To get rid of this water one of them, I think Curly, drilled a second hole in the bottom of the boat.  When asked why he did this he said to let the water drain out.  Of course that didn’t happen.  Instead, water leaked into the boat through two holes.  Sinking it quicker.

I need to tell my mother that I used something I learned from watching The Three Stooges when I wish her a happy Mother’s Day.  To let her know that all that time she said I ‘wasted in front of that television set’ was not time wasted after all.  She’ll be happy to hear that.  And enjoy her Mother’s Day.  Of course it’ll help that she doesn’t live in California.  For no amount of sunshine and perfect weather can make up for the hell of the tax bomb coming in The Golden State.  (Unless you live in Hollywood, of course.)  Which is a microcosm of the tax bomb coming to the United States.  Which will be ugly.  And painful.

Gee.  I’d sure hate to be in our shoes.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,