At 7:48 AM Hawaii time, December 7, 1941, began the events of that day which according to Franklin Roosevelt, would live in infamy, as Japan excecuted a suprise attack, that maybe wasn't, on the United States naval base at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii.
One hundred eighty-eight U.S. aircraft were destroyed; 2,403 Americans were killed and 1,178 others were wounded.
Eight U.S. Navy battleships were damaged. Four were sunk. All but the USS Arizona were later raised. Six were returned to service and went on to fight in the war. The Japanese also sank or damaged three cruisers, three destroyers, and one minelayer.
An exaggerated or abnormal fear of strangers or foreigners.
A strong antipathy or aversion to strangers or foreigners.
From the Greek words oikos meaning a “house,” “family,” “people,” or “nation” and phobos.
An abnormal fear of the home, or of a house.
Recently expanded to mean an extreme or irrational fear or dislike for one's own people, home, nation and culture.
So you know; there is a strong liklihood that anyone you encounter making accusations of Xenophobia is simply suffering from Oikophobia.
Since we are rife with discussion lately about the nature of the Republican tax plan, I thought I'd break out an old post.
Consider a system of taxation wherein:
Everybody files as an individual (no joint filing)
The first $20,000 of income is exempted from taxation.
All payroll taxes are abolished (FICA et. al.).
All deductions from taxable income are abolished.
All of em ......... quit your whining ......... no exceptions!
The one and only, universal rate is 20%.
God himself only asked for 10%.
So, if you make $20,001.00, you pay 20 cents in taxes, or 0.001% of your total income in taxes.
If you are a couple, regardless of your status and each of you are making $20,001.00 a year, your total taxes will be 40 cents and your rate will still be 0.001%.
If you make $25,000, you pay $1000.00 in taxes or 4% of your total income in taxes.
Notice here that $1000,00 is more than 20 cents.
4% is more than 0.001%.
Let's say you make $50,000.00, you pay $6000.00 in taxes, or 12% of your total income.
$6000.00 is more than $1000.00 and way more that 20 cents.
12% is more than 4% and much, much higher than 0.001%.
Let's say you attain that magical number of $250,000 and are now "Rich".
You pay $46,000 in federal income taxes, or 18.4% of your total income.
Which is, I am sure you know by now, more than .......... etc.
How bout a cool million?
You pay $196,000 in federal income taxes, which represents 19.6% of your total income.
What if you are Tiger Woods and you used to make $80,000,000 a year?
Under this system you would have paid $15,996,000.00 in federal taxes or 19.9955% of you total income in taxes.
What I've described here is what is typically described as "The Flat Tax".
But, as far as I'm concerned, it ain't flat at all.
The more you make, the more you pay in taxes, which is as it should be if you're gonna tax income.
And ..... the more you make, the higher your tax rate.
Although, not by much and it does flatten out at the very top.
Still, it is "progressive".
The gravy here is that you can now fire your accountant.
(Sorry Doug, Willy, Loris. This isn't personal, and I still love you all very much) and most of the IRS.
And here is the most elegant part, regardless if you make $20,001.00 ... $25,000 ... $50,000 ... $250,000 ... a cool million ... or $80,000,000, you are secure in the knowledge that every single American anywhere in this glorious land who made the identical amount of income, paid the identical amount in federal income taxes, regardless of place of residence, fertility, charitable and religious proclivities or anything at all.
Now, wouldn't that be a nice feeling?
"This isn't enough income to fund the government." You might say.
The system we have now doesn't provide sufficient income to fund the government, nobody seems overly concerned about that.
Despite obscene increases in the cost of health insurance,
The number of bankruptcy filings among health care companies is "surging".
Because the geniuses who designed the "Affordable Care Act", "Obamacare" were so certain their legislation would completely eliminate uninsured citizens in the U.S., that they decided to offset the costs of the "Obamacare" by eliminating subsidy payments to hospitals that had previously been used to cover losses from treating uninsured patients.
These struggling health care providers primarily provide care within America's poorest communities in our inner cities and rural areas.
Now, right here is where your Uncle Roany explains ... as opposed to, predicts ... the future.
As inner city and rural healthcare providers fail, well financed investors will step in and acquire the assets of these failed institutions.
You will be told that this is a great thing that these people have done because poor people in this country will not have to face life without their local hospitals.
Then, the new owners of these "assets" will succesfully lobby Congress for the reinstatement of the former subsidies in order to guarantee that nobody, regardless of means should go without healthcare.
Then these now "viable" healthcare companies will be offered and sold at a significant profit.
These profits will be taxed as capital gains and as such at a reduced rate.
Congratulations all around.
Oh yeah, and as an aside, here's the Q3 2017 US personal consumption totals.
Your goverment at work.
But not getting around to posting until much later.
Here's al little something from the Financial Times.
As always, clicking on the map will take you to the article from which this image was taken.
My favorite sentence from this piece reads as follows:
"US officials acknowledge that its record is mixed and calibrating the extent to which they get involved will remain a delicate balancing act."
The stock in trade explanation for the practice of stationing American military personel for all practical purposes the length and width of Africa is nicely summarized by this piece by Republican United States Representative Will Hurd of Texas on CNBC in the winter of 2016 and in response to the atrocity at the Pulse night club in Orlando, Florida.
"The unfortunate reality is that the terrorist threat is not going away any time soon, and increased dramatically when countries like Iraq, Syria, and Libya destabilized. This was a direct result of the U.S.'s decision to slowly pull away from our global responsibilities over the past eight years.
ISIS took advantage of a crumbling Syria, which we did little to stop. They took over the city of Fallujah in Iraq in January 2014, and President Obama discounted the threat they posed. If there's anything we should take away from the Obama administration's tenure, it is that disengagement is positively correlated with the rise of the terrorist threat. The U.S. must lead a broad coalition of countries to uproot terrorist groups from wherever they control territory. Radical Islamic extremism is a global phenomenon and it will require a global strategy to mitigate.
The U.S. has not kept up with the rapidly changing nature of the threat environment. While our military is more likely to continue engaging in nonconventional conflicts, the structure of the Department of Defense (DoD), the way our forces are trained, and the types of equipment the department purchases all reflect preparation for conventional warfare. Insurgent groups discovered quickly the advantages of fighting this kind of asymmetric conflict. There is a need to reexamine the way the DoD operates to ensure it is the most flexible and efficient military force in the world. As the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have demonstrated, raw power does not determine military victory — flexibility and efficiency does.
America is the country people around the world look to as the shining example of liberty. They consider us the global champion for human rights and to act when those rights have been violated. Shirking from this responsibility has damaged our international credibility immensely.
We must restore American leadership by speaking up when countries violate the principles of international order. We must demonstrate our commitment to make this world a more free and prosperous place by upholding the promises we have made to our allies."
Forgetting, for the moment, questions having to do with how is it that stationing our military in harm's way all over the globe keeps Americans safe, particularly if the complaint about terrorism begins with the shooting at the Pulse. Which, if you think it through is prima facie evidence that troops abroad do not protect us from terrorist acts here at home.
Let's examine that "shining city" thing for just a minute.
Click on some headlines which link to the original site of their publication.
As America Gives Thanks, Homelessness Continues To Set New Records In Major Cities All Over The Nation
That oughta keep you busy for a minute.