[quote=dtucker300]Enjoy!



It might be time to retire when…

[quote=dtucker300]Enjoy!

Most of us intuitively know that Trump is being persecuted. But let’s take the above case, which is being prosecuted by the state of New York.
The facts: Trump was charged in 2023 with falsifying business records to hide alleged hush money payments made in 2014 or 2015. This indictment was made almost a decade after the alleged crime took place and almost four years after this case could have been brought to trial. The case is weak at best, with no credible witnesses.
The state of NY waited until the p**********l e******n was well underway before conducting their kangaroo court. Timing is everything.

This is what Banana republics do…

Enjoy!

Lefties losing it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cv8EfIKPBXM

Biden to Iran: "Don't"

Iran strikes at Israel

Biden to Israel: "Don't"

Israel strikes back at Iran

But it gets worse…

(The clips with Biden below are almost too embarrassing to watch)

"I Made It Clear To Israelis - Don't Move on Haifa."

(You know, Haifa - that city in Israel...)

Factchecked: True.

God's cruel little joke on old people; you can't fool mother nature.

Day 6: Lower Taxes, Higher Revenue

Welcome to Day 6 of PragerU’s Economics 101. You’re almost one week in!

https://www.prageru.com/video/lower-taxes-higher-revenue



Let’s keep the momentum going with today’s 5-Minute Video on taxes.

The question of what to do with taxes is widely debated.

Do higher taxes create a better society or lead to undesirable outcomes?

Is there a certain point at which higher tax rates actually reduce the amount of revenue the government collects? Tim Groseslose, a prominent economist and professor from George Mason University, has done a lot of research on this topic.

Learn the surprising facts about taxes that he discovered in today’s 5-Minute Video.

Lower Taxes, Higher Revenue
Tim Groseclose
5-Minute Videos
Feb 03, 2014

Should Taxes Be Higher? It's the million dollar question! Up? Down? No change? Where in the world should taxes go? In e******n years, the question of tax rates fills the airwaves. In non-e******n years, the question of tax rates, again, fills the airwaves. So what's the answer? George Mason University Professor of Economics Tim Groseclose explains his research on the topic. Basically, there's a certain point at which higher tax rates actually reduce the amount of revenue the government collects. What's that point? When are tax rates too high? Learn a valuable lesson in economics, and public policy.

Let’s discuss an important concept from economics, the Laffer Curve.

This concept is named after the man who developed it, Arthur Laffer, a major American economist who has taught at the University of Chicago, University of Southern California, and elsewhere.

The Laffer Curve illustrates the two most important things we need to know about taxes: how much money the government can raise from taxes and at what level of taxation the government might start getting less, not more, revenue.

The Laffer Curve is illustrated here by a two-dimensional graph. The horizontal line is the tax rate that the government chooses, and the vertical line is the revenue that the government receives from that tax rate.

First, because zero times any number is zero, if the tax rate is zero, then the government receives zero revenue. Accordingly, zero-zero is our first point on the curve. Now suppose the government chooses a very small tax rate, say 1 percent. The government will then begin to receive some revenue from citizens. This means that another point on the curve must be something like this. Now suppose the government charges a 2 percent tax rate, then everyone would agree that it will receive even more revenue -- which means that another point on the graph must be something like this. And if the government keeps raising the rate, then revenue will continue to go up. at least when we’re in the low-tax-rate part of the graph.

This means that if we fill in the curve, it has an upward slope -- at least when we’re in the low-tax-rate-part of the graph.

Now suppose the government charges a 100% tax rate. If this happens, then no one would work. That is, why would anyone work when the government is going to take all the money that they make? And if no one works, the national income would be zero. This means that government revenue would be 100% of zero, or zero. This means that another point on the curve must be here.

Now let’s complete the curve. When we do, we see that the curve must have a hump. That is, it could look like this, or this, or this, but it has to have a hump. This is simply because the revenue line has to go up in the low tax-rate part of the graph and has to start going down to reach the point we drew at the 100% tax rate.

But if the curve slopes downward it implies something remarkable -- something that few of those who push for higher and higher taxes want to admit. It means that when tax rates are high, if you make them higher, you’ll actually bring in less revenue to the government.

This has in fact occurred in practice. For instance, during the Great Depression, when Congress passed the Hawley-Smoot tariff bill, although the bill raised taxes on imported goods, the revenue that came from those taxes actually decreased. A more recent example occurred in the early 1980s. After President Reagan and Congress drastically reduced the tax rates on the rich, the tax revenue that came from the rich actually increased.

All economists -- even the most leftwing ones -- agree that the true Laffer Curve, the one that reflects real life, has a hump, and that therefore the curve has a downward sloping part, meaning at some point tax revenues start going down when you increase rates. So where, then, do economists disagree? They disagree about exactly where the hump occurs.

When I took my first economics class, in 1984 at Stanford University, the textbook said that the hump occurs somewhere around the 70% tax rate. But apparently was I taught something wrong! New evidence from an unexpected source suggests that the hump occurs at a much lower tax rate, something around 33 percent.

That source is a study by Christina Romer and her husband David Romer. Both are economics professors at the University of California Berkeley. Christina Romer was the chairman of President Barack Obama’s Council of Economic advisors. In other words, the study was written by one of the most influential liberal economists in the United States. And it was published in the American Economic Review, the most widely respected economics journal in the world.

The study examined how national income responds to tax rates. But as far what concerns us here, they key point is, that if you do the math, the results imply that the hump on the Laffer Curve occurs where the tax rate is around 33 percent -- much lower than economists previously thought.

Let’s now put these findings into political terms. They suggest that, no matter what your politics, you should not want tax rates to be above 33 percent. Obviously, conservatives and many moderates think rates should be lower than that. But even if you are an extreme leftwinger and your only goal is to make government as big as possible -- you should still oppose a tax rate higher than 33 percent. The reason is that, as the Romer and Romer study suggests, when taxes go higher than that, the government actually gets less money.

Everyone of every political persuasion should pay attention to the Romer and Romer Study and its important implications. They suggest that if we decrease tax rates, government revenues might actually rise.

I’m Tim Groseclose, professor of political science and economics at UCLA for Prager University.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for Congress




One big reason why the Left doesn’t run primary challenger campaigns as often as Republicans do is because conservative primary challenges have billionaires behind them — and progressive primary challenges do not.

That’s why Alexandria started Courage to Change, her leadership PAC to support people-first progressive candidates who fight tooth and nail for social, racial, economic, and environmental justice. (Nope. They only want absolute power and control over every person in America.)

Moving politics in the direction of the working class requires the working class. (Democrats no longer represent the working class.)

And this November, there are hundreds of e******ns happening. The Left must win as many of them as possible to expand our strength in Congress (to have complete control. They admit this with their very own words.) and chart a path of policy t***sformation.

Will you help power our movement for t***sformative change ("Fundamentally Change America)-B. Obama— from Medicare for All to democratizing fundraising power in politics by splitting a contribution between Alexandria and Courage to Change today?

Progressives have exerted a lot of influence in the past few years, shaping legislation and expanding our grassroots movement by speaking t***h to power. (They are the power and they lie constantly.)

Alexandria knows that it’s now time to assert our influence in larger institutions. That’s also why she just made her first ever contribution to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee — after the D.C.C.C. agreed to dedicate her dues entirely to the V**er Protection Program. (How is this protecting v**ers? By allowing I******s to v**e and sending out absentee-b****ts to everyone, whether registered or not? Not requiring I.D. to v**e?)

Democrats will now have the resources to protect every v**e in every state to halt the immediate threat of f*****m from the MAGA movement. (What is the immediate threat of f*****m from the Maga Movement? They are deathly afraid that Trump will be elected. It's the left that is f*****t.)

Your support between Alexandria and Courage to Change will have an immediate impact on progressive campaigns, their ability to organize, and our movement’s shot at victory.

This is the first time (?) in history that a candidate has specified that their dues be used for v**er protection. (V**er protection? AOC started the group Courage for Change. This is not an independent non-partisan organization.)

None of this would be possible without you.

Our sincerest thanks,

Team AOC

We'll be here when you get back. So. Cal has May Gray and June Gloom at the beaches..

So true! And so few people get this far in life.

We can agree on humor!

High School Reunion

Day 5: Seven Economic T***hs

It’s Day 5 of PragerU’s Economics 101 and we have another amazing 5-Minute Video lined up just for you! 🙌

https://www.prageru.com/video/seven-economic-t***hs

David Bahnsen was one of America’s top financial advisors and in today’s 5-Minute Video, David explains the “seven economic t***hs" that you need to know.

You can learn a lot about basic economics from great quotes.

Here are seven.

1. “…Capitalism is a system that begins not with taking but with giving to others.” — George Gilder

This sounds counter-intuitive, but Gilder is right. The underlying motivation of the entrepreneur is to satisfy not his need, but his customers. That’s his only path to success and profitability.

And once profitable, the entrepreneur invariably puts his new capital to work expanding his business, which in turn creates better products, more jobs, and more wealth for more people.

2. “Nothing contributes so much to the prosperity and happiness of a country as high profits.” — David Ricardo

To judge profits achieved in a free economy without understanding what they mean to the nation at large is a failure to understand economics.

Countries where citizens are generating healthy profits by their individual efforts are countries with a higher tax base, higher research and development, better public services, more robust charity and philanthropy, and ultimately greater happiness and quality of life.

3. “Everyone wants to live at the expense of the state. They forget that the state lives at the expense of everyone.” — Frédéric Bastiat

Our conversations about government spending would be so dramatically different if we first realized that the government has no money to spend that it does not first take from someone else.

Whether it be confiscation (taxation) or debt (future confiscation), government spending, legitimate to the extent that it funds the necessities of government, is always an extraction of wealth from the private sector.

Government needs revenues to function. Everyone agrees on that. But beyond a certain point, who will spend the money more effectively: bureaucrats or the people who worked to earn it?

4. “Differences in habits and attitudes are differences in human capital, just as much as differences in knowledge and sk**ls—and such differences create differences in economic outcomes.” — Thomas Sowell

No attempt to manufacture an equal economic outcome can ever succeed. This quote explains why: differences among people—such as their habits, abilities, attitudes, and goals—always lead to ine******y.

No matter how hard governments may try, they can’t force people to be the same. This is called reality.

5. “If history could teach us anything, it would be that private property is inextricably linked with civilization.” — Ludwig Von Mises

Without property rights freedom can’t exist. If individuals don’t have control over their property, then the state does. If the state owns your property, the state owns you.

One of the notable achievements of the Left has been to correlate private property with greed. This often puts defenders of private property on their heels.

It shouldn’t.

Owning property gives people dignity. And people who own property will be far better stewards of that property than any disinterested third party.

All lovers of freedom should be staunch defenders of private property. Without it, a productive and free society is impossible.

6. “The free market is not a system… It is not something that Washington implements. It does not exist in any legislation, law, bill, regulation, or book. It is what you get when people act on their own, entirely without central direction, and with their own property…” — Jeffrey Tucker

Nobody invented capitalism. It’s what free people do naturally—exchange goods and services for their own benefit.

Before there are interventions, regulations, stipulations, and controls–there are humans acting, associating, cooperating, building, and creating. That economic freedom is what we call capitalism.

When people are free to do what they want—within the bounds of the law, of course—they do their best work. Simple—and wonderful—as that.

7. “Under capitalism, man oppresses man. But under socialism, it’s the other way around.” — Russ Roberts

Human beings are flawed creatures. They will make bad choices no matter what kind of economy they’re operating in.

The Left thinks we can avoid the dark side of human nature if we just get rid of capitalism. But all the Left does is replace one flawed actor, the individual, with another flawed, but more powerful actor: government bureaucracy at best and a totalitarian monster at worst.

Bottom line:

If you want to live a productive, fulfilling, and meaningful life the free market is your best chance. Really, it’s your only chance.

I’m David Bahnsen, author of There’s No Free Lunch: 250 Economic T***hs, for Prager University.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/juror-in-hush-money-trial-dismissed-citing-concerns-over-being-impartial-identity-being-made-public-5632198?src_src=RTNews&src_cmp=rtbreaking-2024-04-18-1&est=AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAceMmcB8NzsTE4LYcnmJUCr12hUABKtX%2F65%2Fk8y%2BoM%2BvE4dIMDYU%3D

Juror in ‘Hush-Money’ Trial Dismissed Citing Concerns Over Being Impartial, Identity Being Made Public
The juror said her family and friends had questioned her about whether or not she was a juror based on media reports.

By Chase Smith
4/18/2024
Updated:
4/18/2024

A juror who was seated on the jury for former President Donald Trump in the Manhattan “Hush-Money” Trial earlier this week was excused on Thursday, saying she had concerns about her ability to be fair and impartial and had concerns about her identity being made public.

New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan called attorneys up to confer shortly after taking the bench on Thursday, April 18, saying that the woman also known as “Juror 2” had slept on the decision overnight and informed the court she wished to be dismissed.

She was sworn in earlier in the week with six others, including one alternate, on the second day of the trial.

She was brought into the room and said after thinking about it, she has friends, colleagues, and family that “push things” and outside influences that would likely affect her impartiality. She added that she had been identified as a juror from news reports.

The juror, an oncology nurse, said her family and friends had questioned her about whether or not she was a juror based on media reports. The judge in turn ordered journalists to refrain from publishing information about the juror’s current and prior jobs.

Justice Merchan said, “as evidenced by what’s happened already, it’s become a problem,” according to the AP. The answers also will be redacted from court transcripts.

Prosecutors additionally asked for the employer question to be removed from the questionnaire asked to jurors, while the judge disagreed with the argument and said it was necessary information.

Twelve jurors must be sworn in, with the judge saying he anticipated opening statements to begin possibly next week.

A second juror was dismissed later in the morning after prosecutors said that someone with the same name was arrested in the 90s for “tearing down political advertisements.”
Trump ‘Hush Money’ Trial Begins With Jury Se******n in New York City Courtroom | Capitol Report

Play Video
The Associated Press also reported that this juror, an IT consultant who previously described Trump as “fascinating and mysterious,” failed to disclose his wife was allegedly a previous participant in a corruption inquiry by the Manhattan district attorney’s office.

Other Developments
Also in court on Thursday, prosecutors asked for the former president to be held in contempt for what they said were social media posts that violated a gag order that bars him from attacking witnesses, according to the Associated Press.

Those posts, prosecutors argued, included an article referring to witness and former Trump attorney Michael Cohen as a serial perjurer and another by a Fox News personality that liberals were disguising their true motives to be seated on the jury.

Mr. Trump’s attorney said that Mr. Cohen had attacked his former boss in public and the president was replying to those attacks.

Trump Speaks Out on Jury Se******n
Mr. Trump was critical of the jury se******n process earlier in the week, claiming the judge should give his defense lawyers more opportunities to strike would-be jurors from the process.
Since Monday, dozens of jurors filed into the Manhattan courtroom where President Trump has been standing trial in the case.

Responding to the jury se******n process, President Trump wrote on T***h Social on Wednesday morning: “I thought STRIKES were supposed to be ‘unlimited’ when we were picking our jury? I was then told we only had 10, not nearly enough when we were purposely given the 2nd Worst Venue in the Country. Don’t worry, we have the First Worst also, as the Witch Hunt continues!”

The former president was likely referring to the v**er base in Manhattan. During the 2020 e******n, v**ers in the city overwhelmingly cast b****ts in favor of President Joe Biden, with only about 12 percent v****g for President Trump.

Some legal analysts have said that it will be difficult for the former president to get a fair trial in New York City due to the Democrat-leaning jury pool.

“I can’t think of another place where he is more loathed than ... New York City,” litigation consultant Alan Tuerkheimer told the Wall Street Journal, referring to the former president.

Last year, retired Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz said there is “no chance” President Trump could be acquitted in Manhattan. “I don’t care if Jesus, Muhammad, Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, and Thurgood Marshall defended Trump in New York, he wouldn’t win this case. Hung jury? Maybe. Acquittal? Never,” Mr. Dershowitz said.

On Monday, when Justice Merchan asked 96 prospective jurors if they couldn’t be fair and impartial in the trial, more than half of them raised their hands. They were then dismissed.

One juror who was dismissed, and who spoke with several news outlets after leaving the courtroom, signaled that she doesn’t like President Trump and claimed he didn’t perform well in handling C****-**. However, she was ultimately dismissed due to her work schedule.

Near the courthouse, a pro-Trump demonstrator, Steve Merczynski of Manhattan, told the Wall Street Journal that it’s unlikely fellow Manhattan residents would give the former president a fair trial. “There is so much peer pressure on the community here,” he noted.

As he entered the court on Tuesday, President Trump described Justice Merchan as a “Trump-hating” judge who “shouldn’t be on this case.” His lawyers have attempted to get the judge to recuse himself from the case, but the judge on Monday said he would not.

Justice Merchan also told President Trump that he will have to show up in court every day and remain under a gag order, which the judge imposed several weeks ago at the prosecution’s behest. The former president was initially banned from making comments about Mr. Cohen, Ms. Clifford, or other potential witnesses under the order before the judge expanded it to include members of his family.

The Case
The legal case against President Trump involves a $130,000 alleged payment made by his former lawyer, Michael Cohen, to pornographic actor Stormy Daniels to keep her claims of having an affair with the president from becoming public.

President Trump has pleaded not guilty to the charges, asserting that it’s part of a longstanding and widespread effort to prevent him from being reelected. Earlier this week, President Trump wrote on T***h Social and told reporters that being in court every day will limit his campaign, noting that he won’t be able to visit potential battleground states with just months to go before the November e******n.

The trial is expected to last upwards of eight weeks. Of that, the jury se******n process could last as long as two weeks, analysts speculate.

The New York case is one of four criminal prosecutions the former president faces. The other cases stem from his alleged mishandling of classified information and activity after the 2020 e******n.

He has pleaded not guilty to those charges, too, although it’s not clear whether the three cases will make it to trial before November.

The federal e******n case was placed on hold by a Washington-based judge as the appeals process plays out. In the documents case in Florida, the federal judge has yet to reschedule a new trial date.

In Georgia, the former president has appealed state e******n-related charges in Fulton County, putting that case on hold. It came amid allegations that the Fulton County district attorney, Fani Willis, engaged in inappropriate behavior that the defendants say should have led to her dismissal.

Murphy’s Other Laws

1. Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.

2. A fine is a tax for doing wrong. A tax is a fine for doing well.

3. He who laughs last, thinks slowest.

4. A day without sunshine is like, well, night.

5. Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine.

6. Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.

8. The 50-50-90 rule: Anytime you have a 50-50 chance of getting something right, there's a 90% probability you'll get it wrong.

9. It is said that if you line up all the cars in the world end-to-end, someone from Florida would be stupid enough to try to pass them.

10. If the shoe fits, get another one just like it.

11. The things that come to those who wait, may be the things left by those who got there first.

12. Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he will sit in a boat all day drinking beer.

13. Flashlight: A case for holding dead batteries.

14. God gave you toes as a device for finding furniture in the dark.

15. When you go into court, you are putting yourself in the hands of twelve people, who weren't smart enough to get out of jury duty.