Showing posts with label wine. Show all posts
Showing posts with label wine. Show all posts

Wednesday, August 25, 2021

Sean Hannity told a whopper today just after 4pm Eastern: He said Trump's agreement with the Taliban let the US keep Bagram Airfield

This is simply false.

Under the terms of the agreement, the US agreed to withdraw initially from 5 bases, and then from "all remaining bases".

There is no such provision as claimed by Hannity.

Read it for yourself.

Trump would have presided over a complete withdrawal of all US and Coalition forces from Afghanistan had he been re-elected.

Conservative talk radio has been pretending for a week that Donald Trump intended a different outcome than a complete withdrawal.

It's just not true.

Trump not only committed the sin of negotiating with terrorists, he tried to pass them off as new partners in the war on terror, making our continued presence moot, which is utterly absurd.

Ever had Trump Wine? A Trump Steak? A degree from Trump University?

Donald Trump is responsible for the framework leading to the debacle we are witnessing in Afghanistan under Joe Biden.

They are a pair of Pontius Pilates, washing their hands of the country.


Wednesday, September 9, 2020

It's been a bumper crop of stupid lately from the PhDs, from Boston University to Hillsdale College

Ibram Kendi of Boston University for The Atlantic completely slaughters the meaning of the traditional Latin motto of the United States, perhaps the most basic thing everyone used to remember from civics classes, and Ben Winegard of Hillsdale College doesn't have the foggiest idea that "contingency" is a philosophical concept derived from Aristotle by way of St. Thomas Aquinas (contingent being), and that Gould is actually arguing against egalitarianism.

You don't have to be Rush Limbaugh to be a big fat idiot these days.

Could be just about anybody, and too often is.

Beware dumbasses . . . everywhere.






Thursday, September 19, 2019

I quit drinking

Wine.












This morning.








At 11:59.







Saturday, September 7, 2019

Just tried White Claw for the first time tonight: Tastes like it needs alcohol in it, except it's already in there

No "mouth feel" or complexity of flavor and smell like you get from a proper cocktail, glass of wine or beer. A trifle with a kick.


Thursday, May 17, 2018

Already yesterday's news in 2013, "Hitlerwein" gets Austrian man thrown behind bars

We reported on the story in 2013 here, about how "despot" wines at least gave villains a face, unlike today's multinational corporations, whose scope for international fascism the likes of Adolf and Benito only dreamed of.

Now a hapless Austrian gets thrown in the slammer for six months just for owning a bottle or two.

The story, 'Austrian man jailed up for glorifying Nazism after cops found "joke" Hitler-branded wine in his home', is here.

Sunday, August 6, 2017

Like most libertarians, Ben Domenech is a progressive who imagines America began as a tabula rasa on which we wrote "manifest destiny"

I'll bet he's memorized Emma Lazarus' poem, too. Ben is deeply confused about the American founding.

Here, where you might be forgiven for thinking he's talking about Australia:

Once there was a country born without an inheritance. It was a civilization carved by the rejected refuse of the old world, by the religious freaks, criminals, bastards, and orphans. They were the type of men and women willing to risk all to cross the wine-dark sea in search of their fortune. They came from all the corners of the world, and in this land they worked the good earth and made their way. In time they built marketplaces and cities and governments, and threw off the shackles of their far-off, old-world rulers to make their own law. Where other revolutions had been crushed, they prevailed. They risked it all, and won.

Monday, March 6, 2017

Total government spending is well past the point of adding value

Wayne Winegarden, here:

At one-third of the size of the economy, total government spending is well past the point where additional expenditures add value.


Actually, it's higher than one third, as I previously pointed out here. In 2016 total government spending hit 36.1% of GDP. 

Wednesday, May 27, 2015

Hysterical Glenn Beck makes hysterical liberals, well, hysterical

It's hard to keep all the hysteria separate at The Daily Beast, where libertarian hysteria meets liberal hysteria and proves what we knew all along: hysteria is a defining feature of both liberalism and libertarianism.

Glenn Beck:

'“I would open it up to all drugs [potentially being legalized],” and leave it up to the states.'

The Daily Beast:

'In Beck’s telling, the main consequence of this police escalation and the war on drugs was not the mass incarceration of millions . . .."

The one exaggerates what society can stand, the other what it can't.

Beer, wine and liquor have a long record of being more or less controllable while opiates do not. No one with much experience of the latter is clamoring for their wider use.

On the other side 2.3 million adult incarcerates barely qualifies as millions in a society of 321 million people. The only people demanding the release of the duly captive are Democrats and other racists.



Tuesday, May 19, 2015

Libertarianism in Michigan now means smokers and drinkers pay 111% more in taxes than businesses

A fine how-do-you-do from the ménage à trois between Republican libertarianism, Democrat liberalism and the dry Dutch.

The Detroit News reports here:

Revenue from so-called sin taxes on tobacco, beer, wine and liquor totaled $290.5 million in the 2014 fiscal year, more than twice the $137.6 million net income taxes paid by Michigan businesses after receiving $768.8 million in refunds from tax credits, a Detroit News analysis of tax data shows.

Since Gov. Rick Snyder and lawmakers delivered sweeping tax relief for businesses in 2011, net business income taxes dropped 90 percent, depleting the state's main operating fund of $1.33 billion, according to state revenue data.

The percentage of general fund revenue from business income taxes also has plunged as tax credit payouts to companies have soared. Tax data show business income tax receipts declined from 21 percent of the general fund revenue a decade ago to about 2 percent last year. ... Last year, the balance of business income taxes as a share of general revenue began to turn when companies holding tax credits triggered a surge in refunds, from $75.8 million in 2013 to $723.3 million in 2014. The Democratic administration of former Gov. Jennifer Granholm was responsible for most of the state's surge in handing out tax credits to businesses.

Saturday, December 13, 2014

Is the economy up because wine drinkers wake up and can't remember where they left their underwear?

It doesn't say if you can wear these home.
Both indicators are up, wine sales and underwear sales.

Stories here and here and here.

Monday, August 26, 2013

Unlike Past Identifiable Tyrants, Today's Monsters Are Faceless Multinationals

So says Andrea Lunardelli, quoted here at CNBC.com:


"It's history, not propaganda," Andrea Lunardelli insisted during an interview on a warm August morning in his family's modest wine cellar where a lone employee was busy attaching labels — Hitler giving the Nazi salute; a portrait of Hitler with his autograph; another portrait with the motto "Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer" (one people, one nation, one leader) — on bottles waiting to be boxed and shipped. ... Bottles with labels from what Mr. Lunardelli, the son of the company owner, Alessandro Lunardelli, describes as the "historical line of products" occupied a shelf on a wall. The discriminating buyer could choose among Mussolini, Lenin and Stalin, indicating that when it comes to despots, Lunardelli wines are equal-opportunity merchandizers. ... These products "are a way of not forgetting history and the monsters it produced, ensuring that they never return," he said. At least the past had identifiable tyrants, he added. "Today's monsters are faceless multinationals." ... Only Che Guevara popped corks when it came to leftist figures. ... Nazi bottles, he acknowledged, are among the company's best sellers. "Eighty percent of the sales are Hitler," he said, or around 20,000 bottles a year, about a quarter of Lunardelli's total production, which consists mostly of table wines using local variety grapes. ... Despite years of complaints about his labels, Mr. Lunardelli pointed out that the law was on his side. Several lawsuits and investigations by public prosecutors have failed to prove in court that the wines are an apologia for fascism or Nazism, which is against the law in Italy.

Saturday, December 29, 2012

Perhaps The Most Important Argument Against Consumption Taxes

Perhaps the most important argument against consumption taxes is Murray Rothbard's critique of them here, noting their time-preference prejudice:


"The major argument for replacing an income by a consumption tax is that savings would no longer be taxed. A consumption tax, its advocates assert, would tax consumption and not savings. The fact that this argument is generally advanced by free-market economists, in our day mainly by the supply-siders, strikes one immediately as rather peculiar. For individuals on the free market, after all, each decide their own allocation of income to consumption or to savings. This proportion of consumption to savings, as Austrian economics teaches us, is determined by each individual's rate of time preference, the degree by which he prefers present to future goods. For each person is continually allocating his income between consumption now, as against saving to invest in goods that will bring an income in the future. And each person decides the allocation on the basis of his time preference. To say, therefore, that only consumption should be taxed and not savings is to challenge the voluntary preferences and choices of individuals on the free market, and to say that they are saving far too little and consuming too much, and therefore that taxes on savings should be removed and all the burdens placed on present as compared to future consumption. But to do that is to challenge free-market expressions of time preference, and to advocate government coercion to forcibly alter the expression of those preferences, so as to coerce a higher saving-to-consumption ratio than desired by free individuals."

Rothbard goes on to ascribe this prejudice to "Calvinism", which may be entertaining to the libertarian who is interested in wine, women and song now and has a devil may care attitude about present frugality as a defense against want later. But this assumes there is no moral difference between savings and consumption, which there certainly is when the penniless old man turns up on your doorstep, hat in hand. The libertarian has his own time preference prejudice, were he to admit it, which life teaches us has serious consequences, more often than not.

Be that as it may, it is important to recognize that standard measurements of economic activity in the United States have for some time shown, in something like the following formulation, that "70% of GDP consists in consumer spending", and were it not for schemes like Social Security and Medicare there would be far more ringing of the bell going on at the front. This is quite a remarkable fact in a supposedly Calvinist civilization, a fact which argues for the moral superiority of savings over consumption because despite our better natures we in reality live otherwise. This suggests that we still ought to do everything we can to encourage the former and punish the latter, for the simple reason which the observation of human nature teaches. We are mixtures of good and evil, but unfortunately too often it turns out to be a bad mixture.

The ancient Greeks, among other things, notably taught us "nothing too much", by which we may infer that the preponderance of present spendthrifts demonstrates individual and social excess which ought to be remedied by tax policy encouraging the increase of savers. To right the ship would mean achieving a better balance between the two, and to Rothbard's main point, which is that under a consumption tax savings would inevitably be taxed in the long run anyway just as consumption is in the present because that is what savings becomes, we therefore ought to have no compunction about taxing savings in the end. That is what the death tax accomplishes, the final message to an excess of savings.

In the present context this recommends taxation of consumption in some form to encourage marginally less of it, better mechanisms of rewarding savings of which we have too little, and a death tax which approximates the same level as a consumption tax would operate at. This means that draconian schemes of estate confiscation by the government at death are in principle unjust because as consumption taxes we would never think of imposing similar levies on the living.

Unless, of course, we subscribe to The New Republic.

Tuesday, March 13, 2012

The Many Say 'Snuck In', The Few Say 'Sneaked In', But No One Calls It Dishonest

Least of all the sneaker, indeed quite the opposite, here:

Valdez snuck into the U.S., from Mexico, as a teenager and found work picking grapes. He got amnesty during the Reagan administration. Today he owns a vineyard management company and the winery. “This is the beauty of the U.S. --if you’re a hard worker and good and honest you can do it,” he said.

His wine made it to The White House in 2010.

Monday, November 14, 2011

As ObamaCare Goes To The Supremes, Will It Stand Or Fall On Tax Grounds?

The individual mandate which is at the heart of ObamaCare insists that everyone buy health insurance in every state.

Once the mandate was challenged by opponents after passage, however, the Obama regime quickly began defending its penalties as a tax, which it was loathe to do in selling the law to the public for political reasons. While the law contains tax provisions, the penalty associated with not securing coverage is not a tax.

The tax argument raises important constitutional questions of fairness and substance. If the penalties really are taxes, aren't also the premiums, since the penalties take their place? And will everyone in every state pay the same premium tax for coverage? If some pay only the penalty, which is low compared to the premium, doesn't the law enjoin inequity?

Another question is whether anyone can avoid the tax. This in turn touches on the distinction between direct and indirect taxation. If the tax can be avoided, it is an example of indirect taxation which is permissible, but which must still be uniform. If it cannot be avoided, then the tax must be apportioned according to population so that everyone, rich and poor alike, everywhere pays the same tax, which would be easy for the rich, but not for the poor. But presumably under ObamaCare plans will vary from state to state as they do now, with premiums which vary according to coverage, so Americans will be forced to pay, and pay unequally.

Consider the income tax. If you take no ordinary income in the form of salary and wages, you are not liable to pay it. Wealthy individuals regularly take income in the form of capital gains, which is taxed under different rules with lower rates than ordinary income. The same avoidance obtains when taking income from municipal bonds and other tax-free bond investments. In important respects the federal income tax is thus indirect, and therefore does not need to be apportioned according to population.

Similarly with excise taxes. If you choose to drink wine over spirits the tax you pay per bottle will be substantially less for wine. You pay the tax on the wine, but you have avoided the tax on the bourbon. But if you drink neither at all, you avoid the excise taxation altogether. Hence the popularity of stills.

Some of these points get an interesting airing here as they apply to Obamacare:

The legal wrangling over whether a particular tax is direct or indirect, as Willis and Chung discuss, has been complicated and persistent for more than two centuries. In 1794, for example, Congress passed a tax on carriages, which opponents considered a direct tax and thus invalid because it was not apportioned by population. The Supreme Court found it was an indirect tax on the use of carriages, valid so long as it was uniform.

Obamacare imposes an annual penalty of $95 per adult, or 1 percent of income, whichever is greater, in 2014. The annual penalties are the greater of $325 or two percent of income in 2015 and the greater of $695 or 2.5 percent of income in 2016 and subsequent years.

Willis and Chung argue these are not indirect, but instead direct taxes, unconstitutional because they are not apportioned by population. It could also be argued, though, this provision is a mixed bag. The fixed annual penalty portion, for example, could be viewed as indirect and uniform and thus constitutional, while the income percentage amounts could be deemed direct but not apportioned and thus unconstitutional.

The tax could therefore be unconstitutional for those who pay income percentages but constitutional for those who pay a fixed penalty. This may be a ridiculous and unprecedented view, but it does illustrate the complexity of this issue—leaving us with a tangled legal web indeed.

The ruling of the Supreme Court is expected next June after oral arguments in March 2012.

Fireworks are expected.

Tuesday, November 8, 2011

Red State's Erick Erickson Says Romney Will Be The Republican Nominee

Because Perry blew it on immigration and Newt and Cain blew it with women.

There are many money lines in the post, here.

Oh, and Romney will lose to Obama, and conservatism dies.

And that means now we should rethink . . . John Huntsman (!).

Doesn't that mean conservatism is already dead?

The real conservative in the race is Cain, who likes $400 wine and a national sales tax. Therefore the argument is social, that is, with the women, who gave us their opposites: Prohibition and The Income Tax. Real conservatives like Phyliss Schlafly support Cain's ideas to unleash American business.

What we need is more women like Phyliss Schlafly, and fewer like Ann Coulter.  

Wednesday, October 26, 2011

Explaining Property Taxes Then and Now

Critical listeners to recent remarks I made here on The Newsmaker Show with Kevin Doran will have wished that I had done a better job of explaining property taxes in the late 19th century and how their burden on property owners helped create the conditions which led to the tax reform which gave us the Income Tax in 1913.

So do I. Regrettably one can't say everything one needs to when trying to explain something else, especially like Herman Cain's 999 Plan.

If anyone gets the impression that I intended to say that the federal government routinely and directly taxed homeowners then, for example, in the same way homeowners are so taxed today on their property, that would be a mistake, but one which could easily be inferred. The federal government did do that sort of thing three times in the 19th century, but only for very brief periods and only to fund wars: in 1798, 1812 and 1861. Which is not to say there weren't other attempts, notable in the Pollock decision in 1895.

To a considerable extent, however, I have found that the terms "property tax," "excise," "tariff," "ad valorem" and the like get used interchangeably, and confusingly, in discussions about taxes both then and now. We would be better served if we were all more precise in these matters, but even supposed experts talk about this period with such imprecision sometimes that it is difficult to know exactly what people really do mean.

For example, "ad valorem" today gets used, as at usgovernmentrevenue.com, as a category under which to list excise taxes, tariffs, property taxes, etc., as opposed to income taxes, corporate taxes and social insurance taxes. In truth, however, its specific meaning has been more complicated than that.

From that characterization would not know that tax historians often distinguish personal property taxes in the first half of the 19th century as "in rem" from real property taxes in the second half as "ad valorem."

In the case of the former, as in 1798, slaves, for example, were taxed for war preparations with France as personal property. It didn't matter, however, how much one had invested to purchase the slave. Each one was simply taxed at 50 cents. Similarly a tax assessor would count the windows on your house, your horses, your cows, chickens etc. (unless you hid them well) and total them up by kind and assess the appropriate tax, which inhered in the thing, "in rem," not in the value, "ad valorem."

The latter is how the federal government in the 19th century was able to get around the onerous requirements of apportioning direct taxation of property equally according to state population. Instead of the arduous task of trying to tax the whole general sum of an individual's wealth in every state on an equal basis, the value of beer, wine and liquor, for example, produced anywhere could thereby be taxed everywhere the same, proportionally according to its value. In this way there was no need to divide the necessary revenue to be raised according to the population of the individual state, since the basis was the same everywhere beer was sold.

Such taxation is often called an excise, generally understood to fall on domestic produce. We still pay excises to this day, for example everytime we fill up the gas tank, 18 cents on the gallon to the feds. In truth excises are just a special kind of sales tax. A tariff is similar, but taxes foreign imports.

When it comes to the problems of farmers in the late 19th century, who eventually made league with Prohibitionists to install the Income Tax in 1913, theirs was a two-fold problem. Not only did the cost of financing state government fall heavily on them because of property taxation in the state in which they lived, federal excises on their produce represented a double "property tax" whammy. Think tobacco excises.

Viewed from this perspective, government at all levels, it seemed, got them coming and going.

To his credit, Herman Cain is trying to imagine a world in which government gets it for a change, instead of the taxpayer. His way of trying to make that happen is to play human desire to consume off of human desire to avoid paying taxes, by making what we consume each and every day the scene of a skirmish in the battle for limited government, which cannot exist without self-restraint.


Monday, January 24, 2011

Lang Lang Strikes a Chord: "Do Not Forget the American Jackals!"

North Korean War Propaganda





















Lang Lang's choice of music at the White House state dinner for Chinese Paramount Leader Hu Jintao included an extremely popular Chinese patriotic song with these lyrics, in which "jackal" refers to America, which would be recognized by most every Chinese:

Great mountains, great rivers and an amazing place
Every road is flat and wide
When friends are here, there is fine wine
But if the jackal comes
What greets it is the hunting rifle






(source for poster above)