9-9-9 For Dummies

AJ Strata breaks Cain’s 9-9-9 plan down to the basics:

OK, the simple wrap up then is;

  • Under the current system the $82,250 in taxable income results in $59,209 in actual take home pay, giving the government $23,042 of your hard earned money
  • Under Cain’s 9-9-9 (from the perspective of the tax payer), that $82,250 in income results in $71,430 in take home pay, giving the giving the government only $10,820 of your hard earned money,

Anyone can see this middle class taxpayer is walking away with a LOT more disposable income. Which means they will be buying goods and services in greater quantities and energizing the economy.

Too Cool: Quantum Levitation

No, it’s not a trick.

H/T Theo Spark

Update. For more information on the physics behind this phenomena, check out this link.

It’s come to this

It’s come to this.  Ask me again why I oppose adoptions by gay or lesbian couples.  The little tyke on the left is Tommy Lobel… before his lesbian “parents” began giving him hormone blockers.  On the right is 11 year old Tammy Lobel, on the way to being the little girl they want him to be.   

Tammy Lobel 1  Tammy Lobel 3

Another reason Drudge remains at the top



Instapundit covers this a bit better than I have time for.

Conservatives and Science

Original_picPart of the responsibility of calling yourself a conservative is to do the research and get the facts right.  Rep. Bob Inglis (R-SC) cannot make that claim, and as such has no right to call himself a conservative, let alone speak on behalf of the movement. 

If he had done the research, he would have found that global warming science a lot less settled than he is claiming.  Declaring consensus is not a way to conduct science, nor does the declaration mean the science is settled.  Especially when consensus was reached out of non-scientific motivations such as funding and other political gains.

For that matter, what is “settled science”?  Frankly, we thought Einstein settled a lot of science last century, with greater than 95% acceptance among physicists regarding the Theory of Relativity, and yet I note that there is a group out of CERN asking the community to scrutinize their work over recent findings that there might be faster-than-light neutrinos. Note that they are asking the scientific community help reviewing their findings, because their results do not make sense according to the consensus.  Note also that no one is calling them deniers for having the temerity to question the foundation of much of modern physics.

The global warming controversy is just that: controversy.  It is not a reasoned scientific debate, and challengers to the theory are silenced.  Not since the Galileo has so much effort been made to shut down opposing points of view.  Not since Columbus has such poorly conceived “science” been accepted as “settled”. 

This is not science, it is politics.   

Ask your self this…  When someone tries to control the language, invokes political correctness, are they making a scientific argument, or a political one?  Is it Anthropogenic Global Warming, Global Warming, Climate Change, or (gasp) natural cycles of the sun. Is CO2 a pollutant?  Is CO2 cause or an effect of generalized warming—in other words, does the greenhouse effect work outside of computer models?

If you think this post is a bit over-linked, that was intentional.  Liberals can make outrageous claims while offering no proof.  Who cares?  They have no credibility as a result.  Conservatives should not.  Especially not when they are attempting to speak on behalf of the movement.  So this post is for you, Bob Inglis.  It’s time to stop playing politics and do your homework.  Then maybe you won’t sound so stupid.  Then, maybe, you can try and claim to be a conservative without embarrassing us.



Copyright 2012 by Chip Meyer Terms Of Use | Privacy Statement