Friday, February 27, 2009

Saturday, February 21, 2009

This is the first in a series of articles meant to serve as proof that college is little more than a place where Marxists go to masturbate.

The issue of a sales tax-based tax system came up in a class discussion last week. A student who has made much about his political activist past in Cuba mentioned that such a tax was unfair to the poor. I did not understand his point since everyone is a consumer. So, what could be fairer than a tax that hits everyone and not just a select few earners? The professor changed the subject and we did not discuss it further. I was left curious though as to what this guy meant.

I approached the activist during a break. When I asked him to explain his statement he got angry. He said that such a tax would be unfair to the poor since they have to spend a higher percentage of their income on the necessities of life.

I still didn’t get it. So, I asked him, “How about the taxes that the rich will pay on high value items?” This just made him angrier. He answered that the rich don’t buy cars and homes every year. And then it hit me, this guy is not what he claims to be. He is not an anti-communist. So, in order to prove my suspicion, I asked him, “Do you see taxes as a way to punish successful people?” At this point he was practically foaming at the mouth. But, he had no answer. He just started explaining that everyone, including our professor, agreed with his belief that such a tax would be unfair (he is obviously clueless as to my low opinion of the faculty and their intelligence). Then, just because I’m a perverse bastard, I told him, “Well, I could accept your version of a tax that hits the wealthy harder than the poor, but I think that the wealthy should get something in exchange.” He looked at me with a puzzled look on his face. I told him that if someone pays heavier taxes, then that person’s vote should weigh more. His temples flared and he started losing his grip on the English language. He yelled, “What! Do you want a return to what we had 200 years ago?” I was not sure what he meant, but I was content in the fact that my work was done, so I looked at my watch, and headed back to class with a smile on my face.

Mission accomplished: another one of Castro’s infiltrators forced to blow his cover.

Thursday, February 5, 2009

On the way home from school tonight I was awestruck about something I heard on the radio. A recently published article was being discussed by its author Jill Nelson, titled - The Audacity of Whiteness, well, lets just say it kinda reaffirmed me in trying to get this blog off the ground and at the very least an outlet for many of my built up frustrations. I researched the article and read it several times over and was left floored, can't say surprised, but definitely floored. In any case, just about ready to start my rant then I came across a blog Conservative Black Woman who just about summed it up for me. Also, I like a lot of what she has to say. I’ll be trying to hunt her down and see if we can mooch off her success (just kidding). Hopefully when we finally get some more material they’ll come a flocking.

Here is another link to Conservative Black Woman’s site and though I did not vote for McCain this past election, or like him much as a candidate either, I did like Palin. It was terrible to see how she was used a punching bag for no reason other than she is a female conservative i.e. a traitor and therefore enemy # 1 of the liberal agenda.


Hugs-n-Kisses


For the non business types – Keynesian Theory relies on something called aggregate demand (or better yet artificial aggregate demand) it is the demand for the gross domestic product (GDP) of a country, and is represented by this formula: Aggregate Demand (AD) = C + I + G (X-M) C = Consumers' expenditures on goods and services. I = Investment spending by companies on capital goods. G = Government expenditures on publicly provided goods and services. X = Exports of goods and services. M = Imports of goods.
Problem – it’s an ASSUMPTION that monies redistributed will keep demand at equilibrium.

Wednesday, February 4, 2009

The Message