rich ruminations

Prior to seeing this report, I had no idea the void you are facing in your life.

Obama Win Causes Obsessive Supporters To Realize How Empty Their Lives Are

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that’s what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. “Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.” Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes, so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his ‘fair share?’ They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant the men began to compare their savings.

“I only got a dollar out of the $20,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, “but he got $10!” “Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man, “I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I!” “That’s true!” shouted the seventh man, “‘Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!” “Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!” The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics, University of Georgia

I don’t understand why Obama wants to censor this ad.

The content is factually correct, not distorted. And the Obama objections have only served to induce more people to watch it, and learn of his connections to his friend of 20 years.

The ad is from the American Issues Project.

Their response to Obama’s censorship demand is posted here.

John Edwards on the Clinton scandal, circa 1999:

I think this President has shown a remarkable disrespect for his office, for the moral dimensions of leadership, for his friends, for his wife, for his precious daughter. It is breathtaking to me the level to which that disrespect has risen.

Lots of fun on the Edwards scandal at Hot Air. Check it out.

Chicago’s gun ban is now the most restrictive in the country.

How effective has it been? Local advocates of gun control are complaining of gun violence. Funny though, the violence is despite the gun ban.

Hmm…

But all the talk about greater freedoms for gun owners doesn’t begin to explain what the ruling means in Chicago, which has seen a recent spate of gun violence.

Nine people were killed in 36 shootings during one weekend this spring. The next week, five people were found shot to death inside a South Side home.

Chicago Public Schools officials say 27 students have been killed by gunfire since September.

Pamela Bosley lost her 18-year-old son two years ago, when a bullet struck him as he helped a fellow student unload instruments outside a South Side Church.

“If you didn’t have the guns, we’d still have our children,” she said.

Annette Nance-Holt, whose 16-year-old son was killed on a city bus last spring when someone sprayed bullets inside it, was livid with the court’s decision.

“I’m still trying to figure out who we are more in love with, our children or our guns,” she said. “It’s crazy. I’m safer being a deer knowing people are hunting you.”

Maybe they can pass a new law and make guns even more illegal!

Naw… he’d rather meet with leaders of countries which sponsor terrorists.

State Supreme Court ruling ends San Francisco gun ban move.

A ruling by the state Supreme Court has brought an end to San Francisco’s attempts to ban handguns in the city.

In a ruling Wednesday, the court unanimously rejected the city’s appeal of a lower-court ruling that sharply limited the ability of localities to regulate firearms.

The ruling deals a final blow to Proposition H, an initiative voters passed in November of 2005.

The ordinance would have forbidden San Francisco residents to possess handguns, as well as prohibit the manufacture, sale or distribution of any type of firearms or ammunition in the city.

Only law enforcement officers and others who needed guns for professional purposes would have been exempted.

The National Rifle Association had opposed the measure, suing on behalf of gun owners and dealers a day after the measure passed.

Via Instapundit.

So, how bad is the economy?

Muslims nations: Defame Islam, get sued

The Yahoo headline has a question mark… I’ve omitted it, as the article itself shows that there is no question that lawsuits are planned to suppress freedom of speech.

The Muslim leaders are attempting to demand redress from nations like Denmark, which allowed the publication of cartoons portraying the Prophet Muhammad in 2006 and again last month, to the fury of the Muslim world.

These folks really need to lighten up. Heck, the cartoons were quite funny! And as many have pointed out, cartoons are not the real problem.

The head poobah makes the intent clear:

“I don’t think freedom of expression should mean freedom from blasphemy,” said Senegal’s President Abdoulaye Wade, the chairman of the 57-member Organization of the Islamic Conference.

Um, no, sir, you are incorrect. And we’ve fought many wars to defend and uphold our cherished freedom of speech. We’re not going to let you sue away our first amendment.

This is yet another confirmation that Islamists have some major ambitions.

Or, “Yes We Can for Grownups.”

This is powerful.

I have a few friends who are Marines. I’m proud to be their friend.

I’d be proud if my young son someday decides to serve.

This is laugh-out-loud funny, and fully bipartisan as well. Safe for work.

What a great story…

Anti-war lawyer keys a Marine’s car just before the Marine was to deploy to Iraq. He got caught. Here’s the background.

And justice was sweet - read thru to the end of the article, and the first few comments…

I just love a happy ending!

Via Instapundit.