Bernie Sanders Says His Increased Taxation Plan Will Save People Money

The Democrats held a previously un-scheduled town hall type event at Drake University in Iowa ahead of the caucuses, mostly in an attempt to shield Hillary from her falling poll numbers. Bernie Sanders said “We will raise taxes. Yes we will,” an explicit call for raising taxes on all. This was a big soundbite, but, what is the real deal? Hunter Walker at Yahoo News explains

Sanders made the comment when he was asked about his “Medicare for All” national single-payer health care program. Moderator Chris Cuomo that noted critics of Sanders’ health plan point out he will raise taxes to fund expanded social programs. Sanders said he does plan to increase taxes, but argued his health plan will save people more money than they spend on tax hikes.

“That is an unfair criticism for the following reason. If you are paying, now, $10,000 a year to a private health insurance company and I say to you, hypothetically, ‘You’re going to pay $5,000 more in taxes — or actually less than that — but you’re not going to pay any more private health insurance,’” Sanders said. “Are you going to be complaining about the fact that I’ve saved you $5,000 in your total bills? So, it’s demagogic to say, ‘Oh, you’re paying more in taxes.’ Let’s all talk about — we are going to eliminate private health
insurance premiums and payments not only for individuals, but for businesses.”

“Just to be clear, you are going to raise taxes?” Cuomo asked.

“We will raise taxes. Yes we will. But also, let us be clear Chris, because there’s a little bit of disingenuity out there,” Sanders said, adding, “We may raise taxes, but we also are going to eliminate private health insurance premiums for individuals and for businesses.”

Democrats and their minions are forever calling to raise taxes, generally on That Guy. On Someone Else. A small percentage call for raising taxes on themselves, in terms of their earnings class, yet, refuse to write a check to the IRS, checks which the IRS will gladly accept. What we have here is Sanders mixing two things, raising taxes while promising a Single Payer healthcare system, for which he will supposedly save the citizens oodles of money.

In soundbite and talking points form, it sounds reasonable. Pay an extra $5000 in income tax, but since you aren’t paying the $10000 yearly premium, you save $5000. Hooray! Yet, when you dig in, you realize a few things. First, does this ever work out the way government says? Do you ever really save the money? Does this ever really benefit you? Second, the cost of living will spike, since businesses will also be taxed, and they generally tend to pass operating cost increases on to the consumer, especially when it is all business seeing a tax increase. Third, unless Sanders plans on forcing all medical providers to essentially be nationalized, their cost of doing business will also rise thanks to the tax increases, meaning consumers will pay more. Fourth, these providers will provide lesser quality of service if the reimbursement from Government is lower. They aren’t going to lose money providing service. Fifth, many medical providers will simply shut their doors, decreasing availability.

Of course, this is all immaterial to Democrats like Sanders. The main idea is to make the Citizens even more reliant on the federal government. If you look at almost everything Democrats do, it is simply about that notion. Reliance.

Breitbart has a nice “transcript” of the town hall.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Bernie Sanders Says His Increased Taxation Plan Will Save People Money »

What Say To Men Competing As Women In Olympics?

Remember the old jokes about Russian and Bulgarian men competing in the Olympics as women? About the female athletes having great 5 o’clock shadows? Not so much a joke

(Daily Mail) The Olympics are reportedly adopting a new policy that opens the field of competition to transgender athletes.

The International Olympic Committee received proposed guidelines in November from its ‘Consensus Meeting on Sex Reassignment and Hyperandrogenism’, which allow for broader policies that would include transgender athletes.

Olympic officials have not confirmed the new guidelines, which have already been adopted by other regulatory sports organizations, but the policy is available on the organization’s website.

The policy change would be in line with NCAA standards in the United States, which allow male-to-female and female-to-male transgender athletes to compete without having gender reassignment surgery, according to ESPN.

It’s not quite that simple, as the athletes would have to take hormones for a year before competing, but, no surgery would be required. Just more idiocy from the Social Justice Warriors, whereby athletes with dangly bits will compete against those without. I wonder if the same SJWs will have a conniption of the biological men wipe the floor with the biological women?

Read: What Say To Men Competing As Women In Olympics? »

If All You See…

…is methane producing moo cow ice cream causing so much warmth that it snows, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is This ain’t Hell…, with a post on Monday feel good stories.

Read: If All You See… »

Trump Totally Defines “Conservative”

If you’re guessing that his definition is lacking, well, you’d be correct

(CNS News) “What is your definition of conservative?” CBS’s John Dickerson, host of “Face the Nation,” asked Donald Trump on Sunday.

“Well, I think it’s a person that doesn’t want to take overly risks. I think that’s a good thing,” Trump responded.

“I think it’s a person that wants to — in terms of government I’m talking about — a person that wants to conserve, a person that wants to, in a financial sense, balance budgets, a person that feels strongly about the military. And I feel very strongly about the military.

While that certainly has a few thin points, it is not really a definition of an American Conservative, which has its roots in Classic Liberalism. Just yammering on about “conserving” and not taking risks are not correct. In Classical Conservatism, yes, conserving is big. Certainly, though, with it’s focus on unfettered economics, with government having almost no input in what is known as the Economic Core, risk happens.

I’m not going to write a treatise on what it means to be an American Conservative/Classical Liberal, I’ve done it before. But, let’s briefly note a belief in following the provisions of the Constitution, in law and order, in federalism, in limiting the scope and scale of government, particularly the federal government, in government at any level jumping in when it is absolutely necessary, in limiting government’s control of citizens, in freedom of speech and religion, and the primacy of the Citizens and States per the 9th and 10th amendments, among others. It should worry everyone that Trump is unable to answer what should be a simple question

Trump said when political opponents criticize  him for not being a consistent conservative, “I just evoke the name Ronald Reagan.

“I mean, Ronald Reagan was a fairly liberal Democrat, and he evolved over years and he became more and more conservative. And he was not a very conservative person, but he was pretty conservative. And he ended up being a great president.

“And I have evolved on many issues. And there are some issues, I’m very much the same. I have been constant on many issues. But I have evolved on certain issues, and I think evolved through experience and through, as you grow older, you see things, and you watch things, and you study things.

The type of “liberal Democrat” Reagan was in the past is very different from what a liberal Democrat is today. Reagan switched to Republican in 1962. Yes, over 50 years ago. Heck, John F. Kennedy would have almost no idea what happened to his Party. More importantly, Trump is still unable to define conservatism. A good question for the next debate would be “Exactly what are your political beliefs?”

Read: Trump Totally Defines “Conservative” »

Snow Is An Indicator Of Global Warming Or Something

Why yes, the Cult of Climastrology is continuing its drumbeat where a warming world creates more snow. Even if true, it still wouldn’t prove anthropogenic causation

SNOW IS AN INDICATOR OF GLOBAL WARMING

For those of you out there who relished on the snow and starting using it as an example of why climate change theories are wrong, you should know that snow is an indicator of global warming. (snip)

The global warming theory dictates that burning fossil fuels lead to a higher concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. These gases, also called greenhouse gasses, attract more heat than others. This leads to a rise of the temperature worldwide. A warmer planets lead to the accelerated melting of the ice caps which can cause severe natural disasters as a very aggressive El Nino phenomenon or a sudden shift in the seasons, much warmer summers and much colder winters. So snow is an indicator of global warming. (snip)

Snow is an indicator of global warming as much as fever indicates an infection. People who don’t believe in climate change should only take a look at the numbers. 2014 was the hottest summer in history, and then 2015 was the hottest summer in history. A pattern is beginning to form and it doesn’t bring good news.

Again, warming is not proof of anthropogenic causation, especially from the burning of fossil fuels releasing CO2. It just proves warming, which has occurred multiple times through the Holocene, much less throughout the 4.5 billion years the Earth has been around.

Furthermore, by the argument Warmists are making, that would mean that snow would be less prevalent during cool periods, which, of course, is a bunch of mularky. Warmists originally told us that a warming world would see less snowfall. When Mother Nature failed to cooperate with their prognostications via computer models and talking points, they decided to pimp the notion that warming causes cold and snow. Much like with a cult, they blame everything, no matter how contradictory, on their cause.

Read: Snow Is An Indicator Of Global Warming Or Something »

North Carolina Trial On Voter ID Starts Monday

It’s telling that the use of voter ID has made many liberals very unhappy. It’s almost like the use of voter ID and other measures to ensure proper voting is inconvenient for Democrats

(Washington Post) The photo-ID rules — part of one of the strictest voting laws in the country — will go on trial in a federal courthouse Monday in the first battle over the ballot this presidential year.

The ID requirements, set to be used in the March presidential primary, were included in a bill passed by North Carolina’s legislature that also reduced the number of days of early voting, prohibited people from registering and voting on the same day, stopped ballots cast in the wrong precinct from being counted, and ended the practice of preregistering teenagers before they turned 18.

Those same practices occur all over the United States through most of the States. Early voting days are well within the norm of the rest of States. Many states do not allow registering and voting on the same day. They all typically have some sort of registration requirements. Quite frankly, if you haven’t bothered to take the time to properly register till the last second, then you do not really care that much. As for being in the wrong precinct, you can vote early if you’ve moved and not bothered to register properly.

Republican legislators say they imposed the new restrictions to combat voter fraud and to preserve the integrity of the voting system. In court papers filed last week, lawyers for the state said the groups that have challenged the law have found “no evidence that any single voter will be unable to vote under the photo ID law.”

The whole law is based on an assumption that minorities and others, mostly Blacks, will be “disenfranchised”. If you do not have a proper ID, you can get one for free, and there are other options, such as using an absentee ballot or filling out a special provision ballot, explaining why you have no ID. But, let’s face it, most people in this day and age have a proper photo ID issued from the DMV, either a driver’s license or state ID. They are required for so much of the rest of our lives.

Even with the amendment, which allows certain exceptions, civil rights leaders argue that the new rules will disenfranchise minority voters, who are less likely to have one of the required forms of photo ID — and they have compared the fight for voting rights now to the marches in Selma, Ala., during the civil rights movement of the 1960s.

First of all, they haven’t been able to prove that assertion. Second, it seem rather racist to imply that Blacks are less capable than others in obtaining an ID, something that is typically not particularly difficult to do, nor expensive. Democrats should just admit that they want Democrats to vote multiple times and even in multiple states, and also want those ineligible to vote to get away with voting, which usually helps Democrats. There are no high minded principles involved in their opposition to the law, especially since many parts apply in Democratic run states. They want to make fraud easier in the Southern states, whose population is growing by leaps and bounds as Democrats escape the messes they’ve made in Northern states.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: North Carolina Trial On Voter ID Starts Monday »

If All You See…

…is an evil fossil fueled vehicle created heat snow, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is 1389 Blog, with a post wondering about all those peaceful Muslims.

Read: If All You See… »

Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup

Happy Sunday! A rather white day on the east coast, which has folks in the mid-west laughing at the freakout over what they consider to be a tiny bit of snow. This pinup is by Bill Randall, with a wee bit of help.

What is happening in Ye Olde Blogosphere? The Fine 15

  1. Barking Moonbat EWS covers more law abiding refugees
  2. Chicks On The Right get a good laugh out of Bloomberg considering a run for president
  3. Datechguy discusses whether he or she is a true conservative
  4. Evil Blogger Lady has Hillary and Huma’s special (email) snow day
  5. Free North Carolina features migrants calling a reporter slut and whore on air
  6. Jihad Watch notes a Muslim group demanding Germany ban alcohol
  7. Legal Insurrection covers the possibility that Hillary’s server put intelligence assets at risk
  8. Maggie’s Farm comes out in favor of Ted Cruz
  9. Moonbattery notes refugees returning Diphtheria back to Europe
  10. Pamela Geller notes Angela Merkel being surprised by all the anti-Semitism in Germany
  11. Patterico covers Trump saying his supporters are unreasonable fanatics
  12. Powerline comes out in favor of Marco Rubio
  13. Right Wing News features the sister of Benghazi victim speaking out
  14. The Daley Gator notes Trump getting Consistent Inconsistenitis
  15. And last, but not least, The Liberty Zone notes an anti-gun nutter doubling down on stupidity

As always, the full set of pinups can be seen in the Patriotic Pinup category, or over at my Gallery page. While we are on pinups, since it is that time of year, have you gotten your “Pinups for Vets” calendar yet? And don’t forget to check out what I declare to be our War on Women Rule 5 and linky luv posts and things that interest me

Don’t forget to check out all the other great material all the linked blogs have!

Anyone else have a link or hotty-fest going on? Let me know so I can add you to the list. (BTW, since someone asked, the reason I leave links for the previous week up (or you might see a *) is because they are place holders for later in the day or for next weeks. Easier than rewriting all the time. Also, the listing order has to do with how they are added over time, not how good a post is. I just copy and paste from the previous week, then edit. If you see one of the *’s, go ahead and check out the blog anyhow, see if there is an update. I cannot update with my Android during the day.

Read: Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup »

Warmists: Republicans Have Forgotten The Power Of The Free Market Since They Won’t Implement A Carbon Tax

I always get a kick out of Democrats attempting to explain the “free market”, particularly as it applies to ‘climate change’. Their version of the free market is always interesting. Here’s the Editorial Board of the Frederick News-Post, a Maryland paper, who killed lots of trees to publish their paper and use vast amounts of fossil fuels to distribute them

Since when did the Republican Party forget the power of the free market?

Climate-change deniers can close their eyes and turn the page — we’re going to talk today about how and why we need to harness the power of the free market to avert global catastrophe. Let’s start with the basics:

Fact 1: Climate change is real and urgent. Enough already.

Fact 2: Emitting climate-changing gas is a classic economic externality, much like polluting a river. One company or person benefits from spewing cheap carbon, while everyone bears the cost.

Fact 3: Prices change behavior. Just look at what happened to sales of SUVs when gas prices topped $4 a gallon, and look at sales today.

Given these core facts, the Republican rejection of a market-based response to climate change is mystifying.

It’s rejected because climate change caused mostly/solely by Mankind is a fiction. Why would anyone implement anything to solve a non-problem, unless it is for power and/or money? So, what does the Editorial Board propose?

Back in the day when Republicans stood for free markets, they understood that the least onerous way to deal with market externalities such as pollution is to put a fair price on the activity that causes them. That gives polluters a choice — keep polluting and pay those who suffer from their actions, or change their practices. The other alternative is strict regulation and enforcement. Given that choice, many Republicans in 1990 supported successful, market-based solutions to deal with acid rain.

So why not embrace a market-based mechanism such as a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade regime to deal with climate change? It’s hardly radical — even Exxon Mobil has backed the idea.

Except, when it is Government setting the policy via legislation and regulation, then setting the price for the “commodity”, it is no longer a free market exchange, where the price would be established by the parties engaged in commerce. The market Warmists are explaining is a Socialist market, whereby the government is heavily invested in control.

Warmists keep trotting out this trope that a carbon tax and/or cap and trade are somehow part of the free market, yet, how free is it when the government is forcing individuals and private entities to participate?

Perhaps we should put a carbon tax on news organizations, starting at $45 per metric ton, to offset the carbon footprint of operating and distributing the news. All that energy, all that fossil fuel. Newspapers would be fine with this, right? It’s just all part of their “free market”, right? Especially when the government requires compliance and payment.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: Warmists: Republicans Have Forgotten The Power Of The Free Market Since They Won’t Implement A Carbon Tax »

Remember When Snow Was Going To Be A Thing Of The Past?

There have been many dire predictions made about the end of snow. But, with the last 7 years seeing many winters in the eastern and western hemispheres in both the North and South, well, Warmists have to find some way to cover this, as we’ve seen over the past few years. Here we go again

The Future of Epic Blizzards in a Warming World
What does global warming mean for extreme snowfall?

….

Part of the reason this Snowzilla storm is expected to dump so much snow is because it is pulling abundant moisture. As the planet warms because of excess heat trapped by human-emitted greenhouse gases, the atmosphere can hold more moisture. Scientists already expect heavy downpours to increase because of that. But there’s been little research into what that means for “epic blizzards” like this one.

It might seem that more moisture in the atmosphere along with warming temperatures should mean more rain than snow, and that’s true. But, it turns out, that’s only part of the story.

Yeah, the rest is Excusemaking, trying to fit more snow into their Narrative.

Read: Remember When Snow Was Going To Be A Thing Of The Past? »

Pirate's Cove