Tag Archives: taxes

Pro-Drug People are So Stoopid

Anyone who knows me knows I’m an idiot.  In fact the win/loss record of debates with my wife is a robust 0 – 84,965.  I know… Why do I even keep score?  But if I think about it, that is why our marriage is successful.  We are both willing to admit when I’m wrong.  Despite my dumbassery, I have listened and thought about the following arguments in favor of drug legalization.

#1  We have lost the Drug War
#2  We spend so much money on drug related crime
#3  Alcohol and cigarettes are just as bad as marijuana
#4  Prohibition failed
#5  Drug use would decrease if it was legal
#6  People should be allowed to do want they want with their own bodies

At first glance all these reasons sound legitimate.   You just have to think about them for a minute to realize they just ain’t.


#1 We have lost the Drug War:
If you look in the Democratic/Liberal handbook under “War” you will see that the official position is “Surrender.”  If there is too much opposition to surrendering then the backup position is to criticize.  If you define success in the war on drugs as complete and total abstinence, then yes, we have lost it.  Hmmmm… I guess we have lost the war on murder too.  People murder because they want to.  People take drugs because they want to.  There are no laws against things people don’t want to do.  Common sense dictates that laws against drug use have reduced drug use, just like laws against murder or robbing a bank have reduced those crimes.

#2  We spend so much money on drug related crime:
My answer: And?
Whenever a liberal starts acting fiscally responsible one of two things should happen.  Your walls of defense should either shoot up, or you should try really hard to keep from giggling.  We spend a lot of money fighting murder and robbery too.  How is it a bad thing to spend money to keep those who have shown their willingness to break laws off the streets?  I know some argue that the prisons are filled with people because of the petty “possession of marijuana” charge, but those people are big fat liars.  It isn’t true.  According to “Rolling Stone” less than 1% of prisoners are in for possession alone.

#3  Alcohol and cigarettes are just as bad as marijuana:
First, we know marijuana smoke is much worse on the respiratory system.  For fun, let’s say it’s true.  Let’s say marijuana is “just as bad as alcohol and cigarettes.”  Here are some of the fun side effects of alcohol and cigarettes.  They can: create dependency, ruin lives, cause fatigue, depression, a gazillion traffic injuries/fatalities, and are factors in the increase of homicide and suicide.  “Alcohol is the cause of 1 million more arrests annually than are all illegal drugs combined. Indeed, alcohol use leads to $180 billion in costs associated with healthcare, the criminal justice system and lost productivity.”  Wow, if pot is “just as bad” as THAT why are we still debating the issue?  It should be legal in all fifty states.


We totally forgot our slogan

# 4 Prohibition failed:
First of all Prohibition was a stupid, progressive idea.  That being said, how do you define “failed”?  Do you mean it didn’t stop alcohol consumption completely?  Guess what, you cute little bugger? Murder has been illegal since the beginning of time and yet somehow people are still killing each other. Prohibition didn’t work because alcohol has been part of the fabric of society for most of recorded history.  Drugs can’t claim that.  Alcohol was never prohibited completely.  There were laws which forbade the sale and distribution, but personal use was never against the law.

#5  Drug use would decrease if it was legal:
That may be the dumbest thing I have ever heard.  The best and most effective way to decrease anything is to make it illegal.  I’ve heard several people say they think it should be legal so the government could tax it.  Anytime you hear a politician say they want to increase taxes on something to encourage people to stop doing it, you should know they are full of crap.  They tax it because they want the money.  That’s it.

# 6  People should be allowed to do want they want with their own bodies:
There is a little piece of me that is just libertarian enough to buy into this.  Until I think about it.  If there was no such thing as the welfare state I could almost buy into this.  Almost.  But the fact of the matter is “No man is an island.”  WE ALL pay for these people’s stupid decisions.  We have to pay for people who freely and knowingly inject drugs into their bodies to the point they can no longer function in society and can’t hold down a job.  We pay for their shelter, clothing and food, and often we end up taking care of their kids.

The problem is that the drug/cannabis culture has been normalized by everyone, that the moral stigma once attached to being a user of pot is gone.   I get that people want to have the liberty to do what they want with their body.  It is ironic that the use and abuse of illegal drugs and other narcotics (and legal drugs) makes it necessary to have a bigger, more oppressive government. Until the day drugs do not create addicts, broken families, poverty, crime (violent and non-violent), homelessness, and general chaos in the lives of those who use their bodies “the way they choose,” they really should remain illegal.  And honestly, they should be socially stigmatized.

I don’t know if any of this made sense.  If it did not it’s because I’m an idiot.  If it did make sense to you…it could be because you’re an idiot.

LIFEZILLA:  5 out of 4 people think I’m a moron.  Screw the other 2!

phoSDto 2(1)


2 + 2 = 5

2 + 2 = 5

Anyone who knows me knows I’m an idiot.  There (whew) it’s been said.  There is no mystery.  It is what it is.  BUT (and that is a big “but”) if here is one thing I do well, I’m a master of dumbing things down. Despite my obvious “dumbassery” I have been reading Paul Krugman a lot the last few months (I recently wrote a little bit about him) and I’m amazed that someone so smoort can be so…off.  He, and his type of cronies, have been going to great lengths to cite data that “proves” America has had times of great economic growth during times of high taxation.  And if you look at what they say it’s true.  Let me give you an example (this is me dumbing it down).  Let’s say I made out with this girl in High School, several years later she announces she is a lesbian.  Based on the data presented you could conclude making out with Danny will drive a woman to lesbianism (or a more politically correct term “a vagetarian”).  That’s what Krugman does every time.  He offers two separate data points and allows the ignorant and gullible to draw an incorrect conclusion.  Was there stronger economic growth under Clinton than under the first George Bush?  Yes.  Were there higher taxes under Clinton than the first George Bush?  Yes.  Did Danny make-out with the girl?  Yes.  Is she now a lesbian?  Yes. Are the two facts necessarily connected?  NO.

“But Danny, (you whine) how can you explain the economic growth under Clinton with higher taxes?”  Pfffffffffffffffffff…okay.  Taxes aren’t the only economic factor.  During the Clinton years the Internet came bursting on the scene, unleashing the most powerful burst of economic innovation since the Industrial Revolution.  There was a new excitement–almost frenzy–of economic activity that Clinton’s high taxes didn’t have the power to squash.  (FYI, I just had the hardest time spelling the word “squash.”)  This is one of my beefs with Krugman.  He lays out his arguments, not-so-subtly, implying that Republicans are idiots for openly acknowledging that taxes stifle economic activity, when he doesn’t have the gonads to suggest higher taxes encourage economic growth.  I guess even he can’t be that intellectually dishonest.  I can prove higher taxes don’t encourage economic growth. This is me dumbing it down.

I give you Dr. Seuss’ “The Lorax”

In the Lorax (I read the book, I have never seen the movie) there was a man called the Once-ler.  The Once-ler made and sold an item called a Thneed.  “I’m being quite useful.  This thing is a Thneed.  A Thneed’s a Fine-Something-That-All-People-Need!  It’s a shirt.  It’s a sock.  It’s a glove.  It’s a hat.  But it has OTHER uses.  Yes, far beyond that.  You can use it for carpets.  For pillows!  For sheets!  Or curtains!  Or covers for bicycle seats!”


For easy math let’s say in today’s economy you could buy a Thneed for $100.  For something so useful a hundred bucks is a screaming deal.  You save until you have the required “Benjamin” and then you remember taxes.  You figure if you go with $108 you should be able to make your coveted purchase.  You go to the store and there you see two Thneeds (a Thneed’s a Fine-Something-That-All-People-Need) one of them for $100 plus tax the other (for whatever reason) is a hundred dollars even.  You look and compare and they are both completely identical.  So the question is which would you buy?

Any idiot would purchase the cheaper item.

Now you have $8.00 burning a hole in your pocket.
You go to Wendy’s and purchase a small chili with cheese and onion, and a baked potato for $3.05.  Then to the local convenience store and purchase a large drink and a pack of gum.  While there you see a bucket with a sign asking for donations to the “Dyslexic Dalmatian Society,” and because Americans are the most generous people in the world, you decide to donate the rest of your Thneed money there.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is a dumbed-down example of how lower taxes encourage economic growth.

Of course there needs to be taxes.  But we really need to get the spending under control. You can argue all day that there can be economic growth with higher taxes; of course you can also argue 2+2=5.

You’re still wrong.


LIFEZILLA:  You really should subscribe to Lifezilla.  What are you waiting for, Christmas?  Ahhh…ya just missed it.




A Change in Our Conversation – Fiscal Responsibility

A Change in Our Conversation – Fiscal Responsibility

by Josh Loveless


 As many of you know (welcome to those who don’t), I am running for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives.  If you’ve been listening to me recently, or over the years, I have loudly proclaimed a need for a “Change in Our Conversation” at the national level.  I wanted to take the time to tell you what I mean by that statement, and fiscal responsibility is a good subject to illustrate the point.

In the 2012 Presidential election cycle we heard many speeches about our national economy and taxes.  Many ideological theories on how to fix our looming financial problems were discussed incessantly.  Most interestingly after all this discussion, we the people voted for the status quo.  We changed neither our President, nor our Congress.  Why?

It is my opinion the outcome was determined by the conversation.  In all the debates and campaigning most Americans found that there was plenty of flowery language, incisive catch phrases, political platitudes and a general pandering tone in the arguments of both sides.  Essentially what we got was a total lack of reason and common sense delivered in a shiny feel-good (or outraging) wrapper.  The inner product contained little substance.

The Democrats would have us believe that the ideas of many Republicans are worn-out, tired, and failed.  The Republicans would have us believe that the Democrats are proposing more reckless policies that lead us to our current predicament in the first place.  But neither side really offered any real solutions.  Instead they repeated the same talking points they’ve been using for years, but with different branding.

An example would be how the Democrats realized that the term “pro-choice” was to some inflammatory and non-inclusive.  They changed the brand; instead they now call pro-choice “reproductive rights”.  Who’s not for the right to control our own sex-lives and ability to make choices around procreation?  At the root however, the substance of the argument did not change.

We need to stop changing our brand or our slogans and instead change the conversation.  We need to return to talking about substance.  We need to talk about the hard truths, roll-up our sleeves and go to work.  We need a return to action.  It’s not enough to offer platitudes and campaign promises.  We require a president and a congress that is willing to concede the root of a problem; who lock themselves in a room until they agree on a tangible solution that is balanced, responsible, and appropriate (even if it isn’t politically expedient).

Take fiscal responsibility for example.  We have spent the last 60 or more years ignoring three immutable facts: 2-1=1, 1-1=0, and 1-2=-1.  You don’t need to read Adam Smith, have a PhD in economics, or be a captain of industry to understand that spending more than you take in leads to bankruptcy.  Math is not an old, tired out political idea. One plus one never equals 11.

This statement is not a philosophical one.  Nor is it one of morality, religion, ideology, or politics.   Our political class however will go to nearly any length to obscure the truth and make it seem so.  They will charge the conversation with rhetoric but they never address the root except in divisive passing acknowledgement.


It’s not enough to acknowledge the problem.  We require a solution, one that is realistic and workable.  We require a return to common sense.  We require a conversation about the root of the problem.  Again, take into consideration our prevailing conversation on taxation.

Listening to either side of the “fiscal cliff” argument one gets a very clear picture: Taxes have nothing to do with revenue.  Our politicians have proved this empirically; if we want a government program or idea bad enough we will find any means to pay for it.  This isn’t something new.  Does anyone else remember the congressional check bouncing scandals of the 1990’s, or the constant acknowledgement that Social-Security is insolvent?

Our politicians instead use taxation as a billy club, a way to influence and control.  The right would have us believe that tax policy should be used to change the economy, i.e. the George Bush tax rebate.  The left would have us believe that taxes should be used to control economic fairness and correct inadequacies in our society.  No doubt, taxes can influence both.  But taxation and tax policy are NOT at the root of our problems.  They neither caused our current economic predicament, nor our social failings.  Using taxes in this way is merely an attempt to shove us around, or force others to “see it our way”.

The conversation around taxation has to change back to: Taxes exist to generate revenue to fund the government, allowing it to provide for the general welfare as guided by the U.S. Constitution.  The conversation needs to change such that we begin to discuss the root causes of our economic and social problems, not all of which are related to policy.  It needs to change such that band aid resolutions, like taxation policy changes, are not considered a permanent solution, or a solution of any kind.

This is only one example of the change needed.  These aren’t new ideas, nor are they old and tired.  Instead, it’s a return to the foundations of any lasting society: economic common sense, balance in powers, cultural responsibility and accountability.

These aren’t minority opinions.  We don’t run our homes this way.  We don’t run our businesses this way.  We don’t run our churches this way.  We don’t run our communities this way.  It is time for the habitually silent majority to speak.  It’s time for America to demand common sense and grounded, principled leadership.

It’s time for a change in the conversation.

You can read more about Josh Loveless as a candidate at www.facebook.com/joshlovelessforcongress



Much to My Annoyance

Much to My Annoyance

I have a friend who sends me articles every once in a while.  A few weeks ago he sent me one from New York Times columnist Paul Krugman.  Krugman, if you don’t know is a Nobel Prize winner. A fact which used to be a huge accomplishment, today doesn’t mean that much.

I’m too lazy to explain why, so I’ll insert this picture:

See what I mean?  I know, it’s sad isn’t it? It is like a Nobel Prize has become the elitist equivalent of a participation metal. “Yeah, for us!!  Everyone gets a trophy.”  Anyway, back to Krugman. Even though I read it a couple of weeks ago, it took this long to fully annoy me.  Keep in mind I’m STILL amazed at how stupid the American people are for re-electing a President who’s done nothing but make the economy worse.  But, the people have spoken.  If the economies of Greece and California are lookin’ OH SO FINE to you, and if Santa Claus is your idea of a President who am I to complain?  But, oh yes, I will complain.

Krugman began spewing his editorial vomit by pointing out that in the 1950’s American survived a 91% income tax rate.  So apparently it’s time to bring back the good ol’ days.  Of course, I’m not surprised by this. The last election confirmed the majority of Americans believe higher taxes somehow create prosperity.  They just ignore the plethora (a word I learned from watching the “Three Amigos” as a kid) of historical evidence and common sense that suggest otherwise.

But that’s not the part that annoyed me.  Here is the paragraph that did:

“There are, let’s face it, some people in our political life who pine for the days when minorities and women knew their place, gays stayed firmly in the closet and congressmen asked, “Are you now or have you ever been?” The rest of us, however, are very glad those days are gone. We are, morally, a much better nation than we were. Oh, and the food has improved a lot, too.”

So, Mr. Krugman (if that’s your real name) just so I’m clear, “some” in our “political life” pine for a more oppressive society based on race, gender, and sexual orientation?  My question is WHO?  Give us a name of one politician who is calling for the oppression of women, minorities and gays.  Enlighten us with the name or number of any Republican bill, in any Committee that calls for these things.  With someone as super smart as Krugman to say “let’s face it,” these people have to be front and center in our “political life,” right?  Or am I missing something?

Remind me, didn’t the recent RNC have more women and minorities giving speeches than the DNC?  OHMIGOSH, it did.  But anyone as super smart as Krugman would be able to see right through that, it’s obviously smoke and mirrors.  Clearly, there is an underlining tone of sexism, racism and homophobia that is the ONLY reason that ANYONE could POSSIBLY be conservative.  Right?

Then there’s the, “We are, morally, a much better nation than we were” thing.

What the hell is he talking about?

Whenever a jackass like Krugman talks about morality, your walls of defense should really shoot up.  Morality isn’t food, where everyone’s opinion is valid.  As long as it tastes good to you, that’s all that matters.  To understand morality you have to have an understanding about standards.  What is right and what is wrong.

Killing someone because they have a nicer car is wrong.  Period.  The state can’t legitimately make laws that say otherwise.  Regardless of societal whims.  Our nation was founded on the idea that all men (including women) are “endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights.”  I hate to break it to you, but rights and morality are linked, all morality originates with God, not government.

If the government is what decides morality, than morality, just like everything else is economical.  How moral is it that more Americans live in poverty than ever before?  If morality is all about the living conditions of women and minorities, how are we more moral now with 72% of black children being born into families without a father?  Doesn’t that all but guarantee a continual cycle of poverty?  Of course we couldn’t POSSIBLY suggest the God-given morality of being married if you’re going to start cranking out babies.  Or, at a bare-ass minimum, suggest that fathers MAN UP and take care of their kids.  No, no, no. It’s more moral to give free contraception.

Well, at least they will all continue to vote Democrat.

I’ll agree with Krugman on one thing.   The food has improved over the past several decades.


LIFEZILLA:  Having more fun then two monkeys in a poo throwing contest.



You Would Think I Would Get Sick of Being Right ALL the Time

You Would Think I Would Get Sick of Being Right ALL the Time

You would thing I would get sick of being right all the time…but I don’t.  I really don’t.  What made me say this was this article. The title “Obama sees executive pay rules as next financial reform” about made my head explode.  At first I thought, the only compensation the government should be setting is government workers.  What business is it of the government to dictate to private industry what should be the job of the board of directors, and stock holders?  And then, in my little right leaning brain, I got thinking about “the rich need to pay their fair share,” and “the rich need to pay a little bit more.”  Now, for the record, I’m not rich.  Once I thought I had $707 in my bank account.  It turned out I was holding the statement upside down and it really was saying LOL.  It’s sad really.  I just want you to know I’m not defending the rich because I am one.

I was remembering back when Romney released his recent tax records, how everyone was FREAKING out that he “only paid14% in taxes.”  I’ll explain it, even though I’m an idiot.

For easy math, let’s say I make a $100,000, and (again for easy math) let’s say I pay half of that in taxes.  I have $50,000 to do with what I want.  Let say after I pay for the house, food, cars, savings, and such I have $10,000 left.  I choose to invest that $10,000 in stocks.  Now, anyone will tell you investing money is a gamble.  I could make the wrong choice and lose it all.  So the government, knowing that investing money is important to the economy and growth, and knowing that the money I’m investing has already been taxed at 50% (easy math) made it so any money I get back from my investments would be taxed at 14%.  So if I earn $1000.00 dollars from my $10,000 dollar investment, I pay $140.00 on that grand.  Really, there is nothing ‘unfair’ about that.

According to Reuters (which is apparently a News organization) Obama paid 20.5% taxes in 2011.  GASP!!!!!  He paid more than Romney!!!  WHY, WHY, WHY?  IT’S SO UNFAIR!!!

Oh, but wait

Mitt Romney’s 2011 Taxes:

Adjusted Gross Income: $13,696,951
Charitable Giving:          $  2,250,772
Total Federal Taxes:       $  1,935,708 (That’s Million with an M)

Let’s compare this to the average American who pays taxes:

Average Income:                  $45.000
Average Taxes Paid:            $5,060
Average Charitable Giving: $900

Average Percent Paid to federal taxes: 11%
Average percent of charitable donations: 2%

Romney’s income is roughly 304 times that of an average American.  Oh yeah, he is doing pretty well.  He is taxed 382 times what the average American pays in taxes.

Percentages are fun, but it is the dollars behind the percentages that matter.

Just for fun, look at this:

The federal government spends about $112,500 a SECOND.


If the federal government taxed every penny Romney made it would cover about 2.03 minutes of one day, in one year.

The truth of the matter, is that there are not enough people in this country who make enough money to cover these costs. NO MATTER WHAT THE RATE IS!!!!

The question we should be debating isn’t, “How much can we tax a millionaire?”  Instead, we should be asking, how we can create MORE Millionaires.

That and cut the spending.


LIFEZILLA:  I decided I no longer need the approval of others.  What do you guys think?

Viva la Idiots!

Viva la Idiots!

 What’s funny, (not funny ha-ha) is I wasn’t planning on writing about this at all.  It really isn’t my compétence, as the French would say, or “expertise” as I would say (not that I really HAVE expertise at all – other than, what has to be, the worlds biggest collection of stolen pens and post-it notes).  So, I’m watching Disney’s “Ratatouille” the other night with my nephews when one of the characters says one of my favorite lines in any movie…EVER.  The line: “I hate to be rude, but we’re French!”  Now to be fair, I have never been to France, (wait a minute, how is that “fair” I wanna go to France).  But I have met people from France and personally know several French Canadians.  I don’t know if it is the pouty-lipped-pansy-language or what, but they’re a unique group of people.

So, I’m watching the movie and I thought to myself, “The French (…eyeroll…)!  If there is a country that couldn’t recognize a correct political decision, even if it fell out of the sky, landed on their face and wiggled, it would be France.”

Why would I say that?  Well, recently the French (…eye roll…) had an election.  And although ousted President Nicholas Sarkozy is an idiot, he isn’t HALF as bad as the new President, François Hollande.

What makes Monsieur Hollande so bad?  Well, he is a hardcore leftist Socialist, whose economic policy plans, according to the Wall Street Journal “have roots in a punitive populism that would make U.S. Congressional class warriors blush.”

His pledge: to tax those who earn €1 million ($1.35 million) a year at a rate of 75%.


Those earning €150,000 a year will be taxed at a mere 45%.  I’m no mathematician but 45% is ALMOST HALF.

I’m not an economist either, but I’m pretty confident the seriously dire economic situation in France will only be helped as those who are earning enough Euro will not leave the country in drones, but will stay and pay, and create new jobs (la sarcasm).

Viva la Idiots! 

We have recently seen something similar in our country.  Recently Facebook co-founder Eduardo Saverin renounced his U.S. citizenship.  He did it before an initial public offering that values the social network at as much as $96 billion.  In other words, he just made a TON of money, but he won’t be on the hook for nearly the tax amount, as he would if he were a US citizen.  Saverin’s move could save him $67 million in federal taxes, according to data compiled by Bloomberg

According to Bloomberg, “Renouncing citizenship is an option chosen by increasing numbers of Americans. A record 1,780 gave up their U.S. passports last year compared with 235 in 2008, according to government records.”  It continues, “Income-tax rates for top U.S. earners will rise to 39.6 percent from 35 percent next year, and rates on capital gains and dividends also are scheduled to rise unless Congress blocks the increases.”

Back to the French (…eye roll…).  When Sarkozy questioned Hollande (we shall call him “La Douche” from now on) about his tax proposals he said, “It’s a message of social cohesion…It’s a matter of patriotism.”  HEY!!!!  That sounds familiar. That’s kinda the same thing Obama said (although I imagine it sounds sexier in French).  English or French is boils down to a whole bunch of “merde.”  As fun as it sounds, you can’t punish the job creators.  Well, I guess you can, that and you can regulate them to death.  It just hurts everyone.

The thing is, you can make the rich the butt end of your class-warmongering, redistributionary, tax-hiking rhetoric all day long.  But don’t be surprised when they pack up and leave.  And guess what?  They’ll take their wealth with ’em.  It’s sad, and a damn shame for American opportunity and economic growth.

If I, with my liiiiiiiiiittle tiny right leaning brain, can see that why can’t the rest of the world?

Vive la Capitalism!

Additional reading

Quotes regarding the French:

“France has neither winter nor summer nor morals. Apart from these drawbacks it is a fine country. France has usually been governed by prostitutes.” —Mark Twain

“I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me.” —General George S. Patton

“Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your accordion.” —Norman Schwartzkopf

“We can stand here like the French, or we can do something about it.” —Marge Simpson

An old saying: Raise your right hand if you like the French…. Raise both hands if you are French.

LIFEZILLA:  With a name like Lifezilla it’s gotta be good.