Mediaboss Marketing

|

Posted: Apr 29, 2017 12:01 AM

THE GOOD (ACTUALLY GREAT)

A fifteen percent top tax rate for business and the repatriation of trillions of dollars of untaxed funds stuffed overseas is beyond good. And if there is a single President Trump tax proposal that should be embraced by progressives, this is the proposal they should embrace.

If corporate income is going to be taxed at 15% instead of 35%, corporate profits will explode. If corporate profits explode, the stock market should explode. Who are the largest holders of U.S. stocks?

Today, virtually every government pension plan is dramatically underfunded. These pensions have begun to squeeze state and municipal budgets and ultimately the required funding of these pensions will strangle the ability to provide public services in virtually every governmental organization in the United States. All services will be reduced including every public service, including police and fire. The thought of the tax dollars necessary to fund these pensions is absolutely mind boggling. The staggering amount of taxes needed would have to be paid through regressive taxes, sales taxes. There is no other source of funds that could make a dent in the state/municipal pension fund deficits.

Perhaps a reduction in the Federal corporate tax rate is the only way to right the governmental pension ship; those public companies are about fifty percent owned by the pension plans. A lower tax rate will increase the value of those stock portfolios and provide a onetime increase in the value for every pension plan in the United States.

The most monstrous and unforgivable legacy of progressive state and municipal governments is the unfunded government pensions that they have created. A fifteen percent corporate tax rate and return of trillions of dollars currently overseas may be the only possible solution to the progressive created problem of underfunded pensions.

And if there is anything wrong with the rest of America catching a break from higher stock prices, this author has no idea what it is.

And yes, a 15% corporate tax rate will keep more jobs and more business in the United States.

Winner, Winner, Winner.

"Climate Change" PageRemoved From EPA Website

Original post:
Progressives Should Love and, in fact, Embrace the 15% Corporate Rate - Townhall

MiloYiannopoulos has seemingly laid low in the months following his departure from far-right onlinepublication Breitbart amid his comments on pedophiles, but in the time since, he says hes already bankrolled millionsoff his provocative (leaning toward offensive) conservativestances.

On Friday,Yiannopoulos announced the launch of hismedia startup venture geared toward promoting conservativism and free speech while bashing anyone to the left of his far-right views. The business, MILOInc., will be based in Miami with a staff of 30, and itll act as a conservative talentpool of libertarian and conservative comedians, writers, stand-up comics, intellectuals, and more, YiannopoulostoldVanity Fairs the Hive.

And the best part? Yiannopouloss goal of thecompany, which has already raised $12 million from anonymous donors, is to contribute to his newfound pledge to use every waking moment of the rest of [his]life making the lives of journalists, professors, politicians, feminists, Black Lives Matter activists, and other professional victims a living hell.

This isnt some vanity nameplate on a personal blog, Yiannopolous saidin the press release. This is a fully tooled-up talent factory and management company dedicated to the destruction of political correctness and the progressive left.

MILOInc. will kick off its dive into conservative media with a livestreamed party dedicated to promoting Yiannopolouss new book on May 5, the event offensively named Cinco de Milo, a parody of the Mexican holiday.

MILO Inc. will also congregateatU.C. Berkeley, where its foundersspeech from earlier this year led tomassive rioting,for what Yiannopolous calls a week-long celebration of free speech. At the event, theyll hand out their inaugural Mario Savio Award for Free Speech, named after one of the leaders of Berkeleys Free Speech movement in the 1960s. Savios son has called the award some kind of sick joke.

Currently Yiannopoulos is MILO Inc.s main talent, basically meaning that the right-wing provocateur talkedinvestors intogiving himmillions to continue spreadinghis own progressive-hating rhetoric. But he told the Hive that he has access to an undiscovered talent pipeline of YouTubers and other bashers of political correctness, and he plans to expand MILO Inc. to include other of these personalities.

Essentially, it sounds like Yiannopoulos is looking to pump MILO Inc. withTomi Lahrens to his Glenn Beck (pre-pro-choice comments, of course)someone who is young, opinionated, and parrots his own set of ideals better than he does.

This generation thats coming up now have very different politics than most other generations. They love us. They love me, and Im going to be actively hunting around for the next Milo, Yiannopoulos said.

H/T Mediaite

See original here:
Milo Yiannopoulos's latest online venture will make lives of progressives 'a living hell' - The Daily Dot

The Liberal government is moving to break a month-old deadlock over parliamentary reform, dropping some proposals that had raised opposition concerns, but nonetheless seeming readyto make changes to the way the House of Commons works, with or without oppositionsupport.

The government's intention is outlined in a letter from Government House leaderBardishChaggerto her Conservative and New Democrat counterparts that was delivered on Sunday.

In the letter, Chagger says the government will introduce amotion in the House that includes a set of reforms that were promised in the last Liberal campaign platform, including changes to question period,the consideration of omnibus legislation,and the process through which MPs approve government spending.

Other proposals, some of them controversial, will be dropped and a committee study, which was being filibustered by the opposition, will be abandoned.

The new motion is to be introduced before the House adjourns for the summer in June.

The Liberals, with a majority of seats in the House, would be able to approve the changes without the support of MPs in other parties, a possibility that has been at the heart of a messy dispute between the government and opposition.

"In the last election, Canadians were tired of how Stephen Harper's Conservatives had abused Parliament, so we really offered them real change and that's where some of our campaign commitments came from," Chagger said in an interview on Sunday.

"We have a mandate to really advance those changes and we really do want to deliver on the commitments that we've made to Canadians."

Repeating an argument the government has made on this issue, she said the Liberals "will not give the Conservatives a veto over any of our campaign commitments."

Chagger says she is interested in a "meaningful debate" and argues that the changes included in the motion will make the government more accountable to Parliament. But she suggests the government is committed to delivering on its promises of reform, regardless of opposition support.

Conservative House leader Candice Bergen said the motion will not be warmly received.

"I think what's happened is the Liberals have been hearing ... from Canadians that Canadians are not impressed with the arrogance of this government, the arrogance of this prime minister, that he thinks he can ram these changes through. And so they are scrambling and trying to do something," Bergen said in an interview on Sunday.

They are doing exactly the same thing though and it's not going to work. It's certainly not going to be a positive reception from us and the NDP, and I don't think overall Canadians will be receptive."

Bergen maintains that the rules of Parliament should only be changed with all-party consensus.

NDP House leader Murray Rankin was similarly unimpressed.

"For the past few weeks, the Liberals have tried to claim that all they've wanted was a discussion," Rankin said in a statement. "Well, they have just announced that they will be unilaterally forcing through changes to the way our Parliament works, largely just to suit themselves. Discussion was always just a pretence it just took them a while to admit it. It's clear now that the emperor has no clothes."

The parties have been at odds for more than a month, since the Liberals released a discussion paper on reform and proposed that the House committee on procedure take up a study of possible changes.

Conservatives and New Democrats expressed concerns about some of the ideas raised by the Liberals, including a new procedure to schedule debate in the House and limits onthe ability of MPs to delay committee business.

The opposition alsoalleged that the government was preparing to force the changes on MPs anddemanded that the government agree in advance to only implement reforms if all-party agreement could be found.

The Liberals refused and Conservatives and New Democrats responded by filibustering the proceedings at the committee, preventing a study from starting.

That protest spread to the House of Commons, where Conservatives used procedural maneuvres to delay business. Two weeks ago, an unrelated debate in the House became a filibuster that tied up the chamber and could continue when the House resumes sitting on Monday.

In deciding to move a motion that puts their platform commitments to a vote, the Liberals will drop their pursuit of a larger committee study.

The new government motion has not yet been tabled, but the Liberal platform proposed:

The Liberals also said they would not abuse prorogation and have since proposed a new procedure for proroguing Parliament.

On Sunday, Bergen said the Conservatives are concerned that changing question period could result in the prime minister appearing only once per week. The Liberals have said that that is not their intention.

The Conservatives are also concerned that changes to the estimates process for reviewing spending could make it harder for the opposition to scrutinize the government.

Liberal MPs are generally expected to support the government on votes in the House that relate to platform commitments.

The government isabandoning itssuggestion of a new mechanism for scheduling House business (known as "programming.")But Chagger warns that, instead, the government will be relying more often on a procedure known as time allocation, which allows the government to cap the time for debate.

"We believe in the role Parliament plays to have constructive debate of legislation and I will always strive to find out from the opposition how much time is needed for debate," Chagger says. "But if there is no agreement, we will have to use time allocation more often."

The Liberal motion will also not include a proposal to eliminate the abbreviated sittings of the House that take place on Fridays and reapportionthat time to other days, a suggestion that opposition parties have criticized.

The Liberals believe it would be better for MPs to be able to be in their ridings on Friday. Opposition MPs have complained that doing away with the Friday sitting would deprive the opposition of a day to question the government (though sparsely attended, a session of question period is conducted on Friday mornings).

The Liberals say they will discuss the proposal within their caucus and ask that the Conservatives and New Democrats do likewise.

Read the original here:
Liberals drop some proposals, but seem ready to move ahead with reform to Parliament - CBC.ca

AP Photo/Charles Rex Arbogast

Former President Barack Obama hosts a conversation on civic engagement and community organizing, Monday, April 24, 2017, at the University of Chicago.

In a decision that launched a thousand Hot Takes, former President Barack Obama has accepted a $400,000 fee to give a speech at a health-care conference sponsored by the Wall Street firm Cantor Fitzgerald. Given the intensity of the reaction from liberals (sample headline: "Obama's $400,000 Wall Street speaking fee will undermine everything he believes in"), you'd almost think Obama had begun lobbying for the repeal of Dodd-Frank, or maybe gone on a seal-clubbing expedition. While he had some defenders, the dominant sentiment from his supporters seemed to be either disappointment or anger.

I'm not going to make an argument for why Obama should or shouldn't give paid speeches, and to whom (though I will say that by today's standards, $400,000 is pretty modestit'll cost you a lot more to get Kim Kardashian to make an appearance at your nightclub). What's more interesting is the reaction, and what it says about the place Obama will occupy in the liberal imagination from this point on.

To understand why so many liberals would care so muchas opposed to just saying that Obama can take Wall Street's money if they're offering it, since as a former president it's not like he can be corrupted at this pointyou have to go all the way back to 2008. Or more precisely, you have to understand what made Obama's 2008 candidacy so extraordinary, and so different from those that came before it. Even as we lived through eight complex, exciting, maddening, exhilarating, disappointing years, liberals' views of what Barack Obama represented will always be shaped by how he made them feel back then.

For nearly half a century after John F. Kennedy got elected, Democrats endured one underwhelming presidential nominee after another. Most of them were politicians with long records of public service, but not the kind of guys you'd name your baby after or see in a framed picture on the wall in your grandmother's house. They were often admirable, but almost never inspiringthe prevailing sentiment upon the nomination of candidates like Michael Dukakis, Al Gore, or John Kerry was, "This guy? OK, I guess."

And the two Democrats who became president since the 1960s produced profound ambivalence: Jimmy Carter was personally admirable but a professional failure, while Bill Clinton was the reverse.

Then came 2008. In contrast to the dull candidates Democrats had so often resigned themselves to, Barack Obama was someone they would literally write songs about. Not only was he an extraordinary political talent, he was the living embodiment of liberal values. He was smart, thoughtful, eloquent, cosmopolitan, urban and urbane. In both his rhetoric and the way he built his campaign with brand-new social media tools, he told them a story of their own empowerment, that instead of watching history on TV they could make it with their hands and their will.

To liberals who had largely internalized the right's long insistence that this is a conservative country and if you live in a city or believe that knowing things is worthwhile then you aren't a "real" American, it was absolutely intoxicating.

Even though Obama's years in the White House were full of compromises and setbacks, that emotional connection lived on. If you're a liberal, he might have made decisions you disagreed with, but he was still the kind of guy you wanted to be: the one who displayed equanimity in the face of vicious personal attacks, who had a seemingly perfect family, who could bring Stevie Wonder and Prince to the White House for a secret concert or talk literature with Marilynne Robinson, who never lost his cool or stopped being cool.

And unlike every two-term president in recent history, he finished out his tenure without any significant scandals, and not even the whiff of inappropriate conduct of any sort by the man himself. That powerful feeling of 2008 may not have been sustained, but it was never betrayed.

And then came 2016 and Donald Trump, which both highlighted Obama's virtues and made liberals question what he had made them believe eight years earlier.

In 2008, liberals told themselves that everything was going to be all right. Their values and the change they wanted to see would triumph. The country was moving in their directionbecoming more inclusive, more tolerant, more progressive in a hundred ways. Despite the powerful resistance of the Republicans and their voters, they'd win in the end.

If that's what you believed, the 2016 election was a punch to the gut. The countryor at least an electoral college majoritysaid in a guttural growl, "No." It put on its "Trump That Bitch" t-shirt and said, "We want that guy. The charlatan, the con man, the phony, the clown, the ignoramus, the petulant, vindictive man-child, the bigot who cozies up to white supremacists, the xenophobe who scapegoats immigrants and wants to build walls, the guy who's on tape bragging about sexually assaulting women. That's the guy we want." This country, the election result said to liberals, is not what you thought it was. It's not moving in your direction. You were fooling yourself.

And then we watched as Barack Obama, who had comported himself with such dignity and grace, handed the keys to the Oval Office to Donald frigging Trump.

In that history and that remarkable contrast lies the key to understanding liberals' current displeasure with Obama. If Hillary Clinton was now president, I doubt we'd be seeing a tenth of the concern about him giving speeches for money as there is now. But in a moment where everything in our politics is being sullied by the current president, we want Obama to be pure. We want him not just to do what's perfectly defensible, but to exist on some higher plane of virtue. Perhaps, in some irrational little corner of our minds, we want him to come back and save us. But of course, he can't.

I say this all not to defend Obama's decision to take some easy money. Had he asked my opinion, I'd have said he might want to take a passbut I'd have also said that it doesn't matter much either way. What does matter is what he did with his time as president. That's a complex story, full of both successes and shortcomings. But liberals' view of him, and what he does with the rest of his life, will always be colored by the way he made them feel.

Continued here:
Why Liberals Are So Worked Up About Barack Obama Giving a Paid Speech to Wall Street - The American Prospect

Subscribe today for full access on your desktop, tablet, and mobile device.

Let friends in your social network know what you are reading about

Letter to the editor: As a Democrat, I agree with Republicans who've sued UC Berkeley over Ann Coulter's planned speech.

Try Another

Audio CAPTCHA

Image CAPTCHA

Help

CancelSend

A link has been sent to your friend's email address.

A link has been posted to your Facebook feed.

Jo Schwenckert 9:26 p.m. MT April 30, 2017

After several days of back-and-forth between Ann Coulter and UC Berkeley, the conservative speaker just canceled her planned April 27 speech. USA TODAY

FILE - In this Friday, April 21, 2017, file photo, a leaflet is seen stapled to a message board near Sproul Hall on the University of California at Berkeley in Berkeley, Calif. The University of California, Berkeley says it's preparing for possible violence on campus whether Ann Coulter comes to speak or not.(Photo: Ben Margot, AP)

As a die-hard liberal and Democrat, it might seem strange to some that I agree with conservatives that Ann Coulter, with whom I passionately disagree, has a constitutional right to speak at UC Berkeley.

Two conservative groups, UC Berkeley College Republicans and the national Young Americas Foundation, have rightly filed a lawsuit against the university.

I am saddened that these so-called liberal students have no concept of what true liberals understand: freedom of speech must be defended, even the speech we hate.

Jo Schwenckert, Scottsdale

Read or Share this story: http://azc.cc/2pyxsCb

1:28

0:35

1:12

1:04

1:16

0:53

0:46

1:20

2:45

3:08

0:35

1:40

0:41

0:54

1:08

1:11

0:55

0:30

0:14

1:01

0:38

1:02

0:29

0:34

0:59

0:30

1:01

1:27

2:33

1:45

0) { %>

0) { %>

See the original post here:
Liberals don't understand freedom of speech - AZCentral.com (satire)