Based on this Gallup poll, 57% of Americans believe wealth in the U.S. should be more evenly distributed among the people, but less than half think it's right to use Federal taxes to do it. That seems to indicate that even if people would love to have extra cash, obtaining it from others through legislation is not the proper solution.
I would not mind a little bump myself, but I don't expect it to come by any other means than my own hard work or that of my family. To that end, both my wife and I have started our own businesses over the last year. Those who earn more than me, good for them. They work for it, they deserve it, and government should keep their grubbies off of it.
Some of the graphs are surprising to me. For example, this first chart shows a shift beginning in mid 2007 indicating the number of those who think using taxes to redistribute wealth is not the way to go. That's a 4% change from 2007 and exactly opposite of how people polled at that time.
In chart two, no surprises. Democrats want higher taxes, especially on the wealthy, and Republicans do not. Women are for it, men are not. Ethnically and financially I think the split is also to be expected due to the common political orientation of each.
The 1st Amendment reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
I don't see anything in there that could legitimately be used as a defense of the ruling this judge handed down.
A federal judge has ordered a Texas school district to prohibit public prayer at a high school graduation ceremony.
Chief U.S. District Judge Fred Biery’s order against the Medina Valley Independent School District also forbids students from using specific religious words including “prayer” and “amen.”
The ruling was in response to a lawsuit filed by Christa and Danny Schultz. Their son is among those scheduled to participate in Saturday’s graduation ceremony. The judge declared that the Schultz family and their son would “suffer irreparable harm” if anyone prayed at the ceremony.
Sure wish I knew what kind of "irreparable harm" this would cause, I'm very curious what the judge thought was so crucial to protect them from that he felt "prohibiting the free speech" of students was the only option.
These transit police are so wrong about almost everything in this conversation that it boggles the mind. From a different source, I read that the ACLU has been trying to work with the MTA for five years with no appreciable results. This is not a hard concept to grasp, so I have to believe that they are not ignorant and choose to exercise their power in this way. This is a really good example of knowing your rights, standing firm, and not being bullied into forfeiting them.
Excerpted from the video description:
While waiting for my train, I snapped a photo or two of passing trains, and was immediately inundated with police officers confronting me about my photography. I also had a video camera on hand, so this entire incident, except for the last bit at Penn Station, was recorded.
MTA Police finally gave back my farecard and ordered me to "cease and desist," but continued to surround and bother me until I boarded the next Penn Station train. They followed me to Penn Station and got Amtrak Police involved. I felt at that point I had no choice but to give Amtrak Police my ID so they could conduct a warrant check.
Wow. Blago thought he was in the right because everyone in politics takes bribes and he was following the advice of his advisers. If everyone was jumping off of Clark Bridge and his trusted advisers said it was OK...? "They told me to" and "everyone does it" does not make it legal, right, or smart, my friend.
Trading a U.S. Senate appointment for a personal benefit is perfectly legal and politicians throughout history have committed similar acts, according toRod Blagojevich, who took the stand for a fourth day Wednesday in his corruption retrial.
As a recent example the impeached Illinois governor offered a deal brokered between Barack Obama and his then-rival Hillary Clinton during the 2008 presidential election. Obama offered to appoint Clinton Secretary of State in exchange for pulling out of the presidential race and gave her $10 million to settle her campaign debt.
This according to Blagojevich, who is charged with 20 crimes including attempted extortion, conspiracy to commit bribery and wire fraud. The most explosive charge involves a scheme to sell the senate seat left vacant when Obama got elected president.
The Obama administration has been on a full-court press to sell the American public on the automaker bailouts started by its predecessor but amplified into politically-machinated bankruptcies by the current White House. Last week, Barack Obama hailed Chrysler’s announcement that it had repaid the bailout loans — without mentioning that the payoff came from another government loan to Fiat, and that the Obama administration has already forgiven $4 billion in loans to the automaker. Yesterday, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner did more spinning in an essay for the Washington Post, claiming that the bailouts have led to a renaissance of jobs in Detroit:
While it remains unacceptably high, Detroit’s unemployment has fallen nearly one-third over the past two years. The car companies are leading a comeback in American manufacturing. And while we will not get back all of our investments in the industry, we will recover much more than most predicted, and far sooner.
Readers take note: defending your life while in Oklahoma can land you in jail.
South Oklahoma City pharmacist Jerome Ersland was the intended victim of armed robbery. After having a gun pointed at his head, he defended himself, his customers, and his property. For this he was sentanced to life in prison for 1st degree murder.
In most states, first-degree murder is defined as an unlawful killing that is both willful and premeditated, meaning that it was committed after planning or "lying in wait" for the victim. My guess is that while working at his store, Mr. Ersland was neither planning or lying in wait for the thief.
Acting in self-defense or in defense of another person is generally accepted as legal justification for killing a person in situations that would otherwise have been murder. However, a self-defense killing might be considered manslaughter if the killer established control of the situation before the killing took place.
A controversial decision to send a pharmacist to jail for life for shooting dead a young man who tried to rob his store has caused a storm of protest.
Jerome Ersland was given a life sentence for the first-degree murder of 16-year-old Antwun Parker at an Oklahoma court last week.
Bolstered by support from the Obama Administration, the OECD now is taking its campaign to the next level. At its Global Tax Forum in Bermuda, which ends later today, the bureaucrats unveiled a new scheme that effectively would result in the creation of something akin to a World Tax Organization.
From the same article, here are some of the more immediate concerns: