This blog consists mostly of common sense responses to happenings (news articles, political events, etc) that just cry out for someone to say "WHOA! Hang on a second, here!" Too many people get away with just inventing their own facts as they bull-rush their way through an argument.

Unless you're dodging a taxicab or sidestepping a falling gargoyle, it's usually wise to take what time is available to evaluate and apply actual common sense. Good, old wisdom. It is, of course, my opinion, but I'll try to show why I think it's factual.
Thomas Paine said, "To argue with someone who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead." ... but I argue with drunks, egomaniacs, anti-gun Statists, Socialist/Keynesians and climate-fraud peddlers, too.

**PLEASE share this around. I didn't research, consider, write and post this junk just to have it hidden.
And feel free to comment.**

CONTACT SophosArchaeus: eMail at sophosarchaeus@hushmail.com
NOTE: this page does not endorse violence, racism or threats, nor permit such abuse in any direction.
Though Americans are fully able to end a fight, that is a last-resort, defense-only option.
If you're here for such crap, get the hell off my page!]

Thursday, December 2, 2010

Keep facts sorted and labeled

Reader Jack Berens (“Fable and labels” Dec 2), liked Keynesian statistics presented in favor of unequal, taxes for the “rich” in dealing with tax cut extensions (Perspectives, Nov 28).  He did not like my borrowed story, scaling distribution of tax burden (measured in trillions of dollars) into accurate but everyday terms, or my use of “Leftist”, “Socialist”, “class warfare”, etc.

I wrote “Taxes in Scale” weeks prior as a stand-alone piece and posted it here with a reference to bourgeoisie.  It was selected, edited and re-titled by the editorial board (thank you) for their head-to-head spread along with anti-prosperity writer Brian Setzler.  I would have used a different set of arguments for such a debate.

As to Mr. Setzler’s “reasonable, rational and clear reasons”, statistics (as Benjamin Disraeli so pithily explained) can be, and were, conveniently collected and presented to give false impressions.

I found and reported (as a conscientious conservative) my erroneous quote of the “700 billion [not 700 million] increase in debt” claimed by Leftists in opposing fair extension of Bush’s tax cuts.  In fact, history and the Laffer Curve show that reasonable, across-the-board lower taxes increase revenue by encouraging robust employment, investment and spending, while singling out “rich” employers and investors for unfair tax burdens reduces revenue, thus increasing the debt.  It was just proved again, in Maryland and New York’s “millionaire taxes”.*

Finally, my appellations were used for accuracy, since it is unfair to tar sincere democrats (small ‘d’) and honest liberals (small ‘l’) with the same brush as those that co-opted the DNC (and many Republicans) and now willfully run up disastrous deficit and debt, in violation of the Constitution.  Most of the current administration uses “Progressive” to describe themselves, and “Progressive” only means “Progressive Socialist” (kin to Fabian Socialists of Europe).  Obama appointee Van Jones prefersCommunist revolutionary”.  So, the terms are neither “name calling” nor “meaningless” as Mr. Berens tries to convince readers that don’t watch “Fox News” as he does**.

*Note: a few billionaires (Warren Buffet,  George Soros, etc) shout that “the rich" 5% should pay more than the 70% of all taxes that they currently do.  However, though the government accepts donations beyond tax code minimums, not one of these "philanthropists" contributes.  Their legions of lawyers shelter them from taxes.  Each gives to charity, but many “millionaires” give more (far more by percent of income) to charity than any of them.  Soros profits from collapsing economies, prepositioning his assets and then triggering the event with a doomsday letter (crushing people dependant on those systems), while Beck and O’Reilly donate over 10% of their income to churches and charity, as well as paying their share of taxes.
**Though the Left keeps a very close watch on outlets like FOX themselves, they prefer that only "politically mature" (dedicated Socialists) do the monitoring, as access to factual information would eventually lead to the "masses" becoming too educated to accept their lies easily.  Not that Berens is necessarily a hard Leftist; he may simply be still in denial.


  1. Whether increased or lowered marginal rates increases or decreases government revenue depends where upon the Laffer Curve you sit.

    It is false to claim that cutting marginal tax rates always leads to increased government receipts. If that were the case, why wouldn't the government set rates at 1% while laughing all the way to the bank?

  2. We are currently sitting near the apex of the curve and the Progressive income tax has never descended anywhere near "1%" in the brackets we are talking about, so your argument itself is a false premise. Although I must admit, those looting the treasury are, in fact, laughing all the way to their foreign bankers, Goldman Sachs and Citi brokers, etc.

    In the "evil rich" levels under discussion (everyone earning over $249,999.99 is a millionaire) the facts stand. Over taxing has always had the same ultimate result that under taxing usually does: loss of revenue. New York and Maryland just got done proving it over again.

    Recall that they are not debating increases in only the Progressive income tax, but various business and payroll taxes, the already-taxed-once inheritance tax, et al. It is going to cost millions in extra publishing of tax tables alone, and that only to the taxpayers; business accountants and lawyers will be working overtime to do everything in a rush and/or twice, no matter how the Progressive-engineered fiasco of lame-ducking goes.
    I hope that you are spared that.

    Thanks for writing. Hope you get the Keynesian thing sorted eventually.

    Praying for you,


Please be reasonably polite, but especially be as accurate as you can. Provide sources if you have them. We might as well learn something. [Wikipedia and blogs are usually 'pointers', not authoritative sources; they indicate data that might be confirmed elsewhere (that's how I use them here)].