A+ A A-

Prof. Maloof offers 1 absurd claim after another with no evidence

To The Daily Sun,

I read Professor Maloof's latest temper tantrum in Thursday's issue of The Daily Sun. As usual, he attempts to defend President Obama by demonizing any and all who don't agree with him. He claims, "They hate Obama, they hate gay people, they hate black people, they hate immigrant Muslims, they hate labor unions, they hate women who want the right to make choices concerning their bodies — they hate them all. And ironically, they hate being called a racist and a bigot." And the professor continues to berate Republican stating that, "Their basic principle is that rich people shouldn't pay taxes and black people shouldn't vote." He said more, but you get the point.

A few years back, I took a pledge to not call people names. I do find that difficult to live up to when some label others as racists and bigots and seem unaware that their own words and actions are the very things they are railing against. They throw one absurd claim after another without a shred of proof to support them. For example, if the professor had done his homework, instead of saying that 51 percent of white America is not "comfortable" with someone in the White House who does not look like them, he might have cited the actual demographics . . . that 37 percent of white people voted for Obama, as did 93 percent of blacks. Further 44 percent of men and 55 percent of women voted for Obama. Is the professor's opinion that whites are racist because only 37 percent of them voted for Obama? If so, what does that make the 93 percent of blacks who did not vote for Romney?

The professor might also seek some learned counsel when he talks about taxes and job creation. A little history would show that lowering taxes actually has increased revenues, not diminished them. Study up on the Laffer curve, professor, and look at the results when John Kennedy lowered tax rates and when George W. Bush also did — in both cases revenues increased. And, consider your callous comment about the "death taxes". Prior to the so-called Bush tax cuts, the government taxed the amount of an estate in excess of $600,000, at the rate of 55 percent. That tax was devastating to owners of relatively small farms and countless small businesses. Those entities were being sold off at fire sale prices just to pay the government's confiscatory taxes.

Perhaps the professor is unaware that people, and their employers, pay into Social Security and Medicare for their entire working life. Those "contributions" are made with money that has already been taxed, and when they are collecting their monthly return on that investment, they are taxed on it yet again. A few years ago, I charted out what a person earning the average wage of $44,000 would have contributed over a 40 year work life, and had put the money in a personal savings account paying 3 percent simple interest. Upon retiring, the person could collect $1,500 a month until the age of ninety nine and a half. If the person passed away before that age, the balance in the account could go into his or her estate. Right now, while the Social Security has in the neighborhood of $3 trillion in that proverbial "lock box", what is actually in that box are IOU's in the form of government securities. However, since there are 10,000 baby boomers retiring every day, and will continue at that rate for the next eighteen plus years, the Social Security monthly payouts are now exceeding monthly income. In order to redeem those IOU's, the government must issue new securities on the open market . . . at an even higher interest rate than the 2 percent being paid on the IOU's.

As to Medicare, perhaps the professor is unaware that the government has acknowledged that Medicare has in excess of $17 trillion in unfunded liabilities. I don't suppose he has considered what the financial impact of bringing the entire population into a single payer system is going to be. I suspect that $17 trillion will get multiplied significantly. Stand in line, professor.

Private industry works because it provides tax paying jobs and is motivated for profit. Government bureaucracies don't work because, if they achieve the goals for which they were created, they would cease to exist. Perhaps the professor is unaware that ever single penny of government revenues come from business enterprises. Not growing businesses but growing government, is the quickest way to bankrupt the country and destroy the nation.

Bob Meade

Laconia

 
The Laconia Daily Sun - All Rights Reserved
Privacy Policy
Powered by BENN a division of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Login or Register

LOG IN