Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: John who wrote (160972)	10/18/2013 11:26:55 PM
From: lorne	1 Recommendation Recommended By John Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224749

Is Healthcare.gov Designed To Register Dem Voters? Posted 10/17/2013 news.investors.com Corruption: The crash-prone government health-care site asks applicants if they want to register to vote as they try to sign up for ObamaCare. By sheer coincidence, a plurality of the uninsured are likely Democratic voters. Call it Motor Voter on steroids — the piggybacking of voter registration to an otherwise unrelated government function. Those trying to navigate Healthcare.gov, a website that looks and functions as if designed by the department of motor vehicles, are being asked if they want to register to vote just in time for crucial 2014 midterm elections that are likely to be a referendum on ObamaCare. Indeed, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services spokesman Brian Cook cites the Motor Voter law, also known as the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, as justification. The law, he said, "requires states to offer voter registration (at) all offices that provide 'public assistance' (including Medicaid applications). Because people applying on Healthcare.gov could be eligible for either Medicaid or Marketplace coverage, we will be providing info on voter registration to people who request it." It perhaps has not escaped the attention of an administration that used another government agency, the IRS, to harass and intimidate potential political opponents in the Tea Party and other conservative groups that the uninsured are a potential treasure trove of Democratic voters, according to an August 2012 Washington Post-Kaiser Family Foundation poll. It found that uninsured Americans supported Barack Obama over Republican Mitt Romney more than 2-to-1 (62% to 27%). "The (website) launch has not gone well," observed Nick Novak, a spokesman for the John K. MacIver Institute for Public Policy, who noticed the voter-registration question on the Wisconsin site. "Why are they cluttering up the site?" And why, he further wondered, weren't applicants asked to register to vote only after they successfully signed up for ObamaCare? We'd suggest it makes perfect sense to register people to vote at the same time they are being forced to become permanently dependent on government for their health care. We've already seen how those most dependent on government services, such as food stamps, tend to vote for bigger, and more Democratic, government. Thirty-six states are using the federal site and at least five others — California, Connecticut, New York, Vermont and Wisconsin — also are asking or intend to ask customers if they want to register to vote. Deep-blue California was the first to decide to enforce voter registration requirements through the Affordable Care Act.

To: John who wrote (160972)	10/19/2013 7:55:19 AM
From: lorne	1 Recommendation Recommended By TideGlider Respond to of 224749

The International Monetary Fund Lays The Groundwork For Global Wealth Confiscation Bill Frezza, 10/15/2013 forbes.com The International Monetary Fund (IMF) quietly dropped a bomb in its October Fiscal Monitor Report. Titled “Taxing Times,” the report paints a dire picture for advanced economies with high debts that fail to aggressively “mobilize domestic revenue.” It goes on to build a case for drastic measures and recommends a series of escalating income and consumption tax increases culminating in the direct confiscation of assets. Yes, you read that right. But don’t take it from me. The report itself says: "The sharp deterioration of the public finances in many countries has revived interest in a “capital levy”— a one-off tax on private wealth—as an exceptional measure to restore debt sustainability. The appeal is that such a tax, if it is implemented before avoidance is possible and there is a belief that it will never be repeated, does not distort behavior (and may be seen by some as fair). … The conditions for success are strong, but also need to be weighed against the risks of the alternatives, which include repudiating public debt or inflating it away. … The tax rates needed to bring down public debt to precrisis levels, moreover, are sizable: reducing debt ratios to end-2007 levels would require (for a sample of 15 euro area countries) a tax rate of about 10 percent on households with positive net wealth. (page 49)" Note three takeaways. First, IMF economists know there are not enough rich people to fund today’s governments even if 100 percent of the assets of the 1 percent were expropriated. That means that all households with positive net wealth—everyone with retirement savings or home equity—would have their assets plundered under the IMF’s formulation. Second, such a repudiation of private property will not pay off Western governments’ debts or fund budgets going forward. It will merely “restore debt sustainability,” allowing free-spending sovereigns to keep tapping the bond markets until the next crisis comes along—for which stronger measures will be required, of course. Third, should politicians fail to muster the courage to engage in this kind of wholesale robbery, the only alternative scenario the IMF posits is public debt repudiation and hyperinflation. Structural reform proposals for the Ponzi-scheme entitlement programs that are bankrupting us are nowhere to be seen. If ever there were a roadmap for prompting massive capital flight and emigration of productive citizens toward capitalism’s nascent frontiers in Asia, this is it. “The IMF justifies its tax increases by highlighting trends in income inequality along with a claimed decline in the progressivity of most income tax regimes. Using “perceived equity” (otherwise known as “envy”) as the key metric motivating tax policy, the report intentionally conflates tax rates with tax revenue, lamenting a decline in the top marginal income tax rates paid by the highest earners. Never mind that these high earners have been forking over more money, a higher percentage of their gross income, and a larger share of aggregate national tax revenue in recent years. It also ignores the Laffer Curve effects that are clearly visible in the data. As for incentive, the report pays no heed to the idea that wealth and income can only be taxed if someone is motivated to create it.” The report’s most chilling aspect is the clinical manner in which it discusses how to restrict the mobility of the rich, along with the inconvenience of factoring in their “well being.” Again, to quote the report: “ “Financial wealth is mobile, and so, ultimately, are people. … There may be a case for taxing different forms of wealth differently according to their mobility … Substantial progress likely requires enhanced international cooperation to make it harder for the very well-off to evade taxation by placing funds elsewhere. “A revenue-maximizing approach to taxing the rich effectively puts a weight of zero on their well-being—contentious, to say the least. What then if some weight is indeed attached to the well-being of the richest? Figure 19 provides a way to think about the trade-off between equity and efficiency considerations in setting the top marginal rate in that case. … If one attaches less weight to those with the highest incomes, the vote would be to increase the top marginal rate.” Yes, this is where the bankruptcy of the modern entitlement state is taking us—capital controls and exit restrictions so the proverbial four wolves and a lamb can vote on what’s for dinner. That’s the only way to keep citizens worried about ending up on the menu from voting with their feet. Again, straight from the report: “ “There is a surprisingly large amount of experience to draw on, as such levies were widely adopted in Europe after World War I.” And we all know how well that worked out.