Not sure who can take credit for his gem of tax analogies, but much of it rings true, yet the statists and their uneducated masses who sustain them, champion such plans:

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20. "Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33.

But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before.
And the first four continued to drink for free.
But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
"I only got a dollar out of the $20,"declared the sixth man.
He pointed to the tenth man," but he got $10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got TEN times more than I!"
"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works.
The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction.

Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore.
In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

http://moneyshaker.blogspot.com/2007/04/how-tax-system-really-works.html

If presumptive Democratic Nominee, Hillary Clinton has her way, a new era of government control is at hand. Hillary Clinton, has increasingly called for a much more activist role for the federal government, particularly in regard to the US economy. One hall mark of Clinton’s plans are to address the mortgage crisis, to address this Clinton class for a return to 1970s era price control. In a clear sign that the Senator from New York has no understanding or knowledge of history she remarked: “If you go back and look at our history, we were most successful when we had that balance between an effective, vigorous government and a dynamic, appropriately regulated market.”

And in a sign of incredibly shoddy reporting the New York Times essential endorses the statist plans of Mrs. Clinton.

Many analysts say that plan played a role in the Democrats’ loss of Congress the next year, but it is also widely credited with helping lay the groundwork for the 1990s boom.

Are there truly analyst who believe the economic boom of the mid to late 90s can be attributed to Clintonian economic policy, or in spite of it. If true, it would be perhaps the only instance in recorded history where increased taxes and government regulation led to increased economic prosperity. Indeed the economic boom of the 90s is likely more attributed to Democratic loss of Congress than any policy of Hillary Clinton.

Nonetheless, this is the reality we may all soon awake to next January, if the paternalistic, patronizing race batting Clinton brigade retakes Washington.

Link to NYT article

Well of course Clinton’s rhetoric has racial overtones as the Gang of Two seek to eclipse the upstart candidacy of Sen. Obama. Clinton would strike whatever tone necessary in order to win, be it anti-Semitic, anti-gay, anti-Christian or whatever gets the job done, such is the characteristic of a quintessential politician like Clinton. Some in the black community have expressed shock at the nation’s “first black president” making such presumably insensitive statements, but perhaps finally those on the left will awaken to the reality of the farce of Democratic party and its support for civil rights.

The Democratic Party is a paternalistic party that sees blacks, minorities, or anyone for that matter, as little more than wards of the state, pawns in the game of power politics, to be manipulated by smooth talking demagogues who care nothing about civil rights and everything about power.

And if there could be any doubt of this inescapable reality, one need only look at the Clinton record, far from being a champion of empowerment or civil rights, Clinton was no different than any other paternalistic Democrat, indeed Clinton failed to appoint any blacks to high level government positions in the executive or judicial branch, unlike his much maligned successor, George W. Bush, yet Clinton is perceived as the great hero of black America. Indeed, under Clinton, the Democratic party went to great links to keep blacks as little more than serfs of the Democratic Plantation.

Dos anyone remember the late Maynard Jackson the former mayor of Atlanta was the first black person elected to that position. In the late 1990s he sought to become Democratic Party Chairman and as expected the Clinton machine maneuvered quickly to supplant Jackson candidacy and appoint Clinton crony Terry McAuliffe.

Whether Clinton is a racist (she probably isn’t) is of no consequence, the fact is she is just another hack politicians willing to do anything to gain the precious power she seeks. This is only the latest move.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0108/7845.html

Related Posts:
http://www.thephalanx.com/2005/10/democrats-show-their-true-colors-or.html

Well New Hampshire and Iowa are now behind us and what can we say about the election shaping up before our eyes? Not much, after Iowa it appeared Hillary Clinton was in for trouble but then Senator Clinton cranked up the water works and all of a sudden she's a contender.

But apparently it worked. She cried and according to polling data...women flocked to her campaign. Some respondents indicated they voted for Hillary simply because she was a woman. Are these the people who should be allowed to participate in the electoral process.

Not that there is much difference between Clinton and Obama but one thing is for certain if the people of New Hampshire were looking to elect the most unprincipled of politicians they couldn't have made a better choice than the unscrupulous phony, waffling Hillary Clinton...
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/01/new_hampshire_primary_winners.html