Majorityrights News > Category: Social liberalism

What did you really expect from Trumpstein?

My personal position with regard to so-called “Hispanics” is that we should first of all differentiate among them. “Hispanic” is an egregious term, auguring to do the very worst thing which we seek to stave-off, i.e., to blend away racial distinctions, as the term covers and then tends to politically coerce the blending of Amerindians, Whites, Jews and blacks.

We need to distinguish them hence. We need to distinguish Marrano “huWhites”. We need to distinguish those who are black and have anything beyond a small amount of black - they should be looked upon as an out group - not our friends: e.g., Puerto Ricans typically have a significant amount of sub-Saharan African, 25%. Whereas Mexicans on average have only small amount, 4% as evaluated by National Geographic Human Genome Project, Gen 2.0. These kinds, Amerindians and Indios (mixed Indian and White) should be looked upon as people to cultivate as allies.

Certain Caribbean mixes should be shown some compassion in an effort to reconstruct as much as possible the now non-existent pure Indian strains which were forcibly bred-away with African slaves by Spanish conquistadors. Similarly, Indos should be allowed protection from furthering of the mongrelization that was visited upon them by the Spanish conquests.

As these historical errors are corrected, “a new dream” act should be enunciated in which the riches and opportunities of the Americas are shared between Whites, Asians and Amerindios in exchange for friendly terms and alliance with Whites against black, Jewish and Muslim imposition.

This must be arranged in accordance with human ecological and resource management - especially population carrying capacity: which tends to be the elephant in the room that liberals overlook in their anti-racist fervor. Make the said kinds friends and hold them accountable to our alliance in pervasive ecology and human ecology of our distinct kinds. We do this deliberately, or we are without a vast alliance, in fact it is arrayed against us as distinct peoples (nationals) and our habitats all…

Haaretz, 6 Sept 2017:

Opinion // Save DACA: We U.S. Jews Won’t Let Trump End the American Dream

On DACA, the president appears unmoved by arguments of compassion, humanity, national interest or common sense. Now is the time to take a stand and take action.

“Dreamers” originally from Ecuador watch Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ remarks on ending the DACA program on a smartphone in Manhattan, September 5, 2017. Credit: Drew Angerer/AFP

●DACA ‘is being rescinded,’ Sessions announces after Trump moves to kill ‘Dreamers’ program

●U.S. Jewish groups blast Trump’s decision to scrap ‘Dreamers’ program as ‘cruel, unnecessary’

●WATCH // Donald Trump vehemently defended ‘Dreamers’ on Fox News in 2011

The Trump administration moved on Tuesday to terminate the legal status of 800,000 immigrant children and young adults. These young people are currently protected by Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. DACA is only available to people who have been in the United States continuously since June 2007, so this decision will exclusively impact kids and young adults who have been in the country for at least 10 years and have impeccably clean records. About three quarters of the so-called “dreamers” have U.S. citizen family members, and one quarter have U.S. citizen children.

DACA is an executive action taken by President Barack Obama in 2012 after decades of failure in Congress to enact any kind of immigration reform. There is broad agreement across party lines that people who were brought to the United States as children by their parents did not make a choice to come here, and therefore should be allowed to stay in the country that they call home. Leaders of both parties, as well as business leaders, faith leaders, and the majority of Americans polled about it, support DACA and have urged President Donald Trump to keep it in place.

>> U.S. Jewish groups blast Trump’s decision to scrap ‘Dreamers’ program as ‘cruel, unnecessary’ 

■ Analysis: Trump’s Cruel and Unusual Punishment of Unsullied Dreamers

Like generations of immigrants before, including millions of Jewish parents and grandparents, the parents of these kids have made enormous sacrifices, not for themselves, but in the hope that their children would have a chance at a real future.

These kids are American in all but paperwork, and they are now living in fear. In just a few months, they may not be able to legally work, and will face arrest, jail and deportation. These are kids who have gone to school, made friends, joined teams, grew up, enlisted in the military, went to college, went to work, volunteered and lived normal, American lives. This moment should feel scary, disturbing and eerily familiar to all Jewish Americans.

Ending DACA serves no legitimate policy purpose and in fact, will hurt the U.S. economy. Particularly as we work to recover from Hurricane Harvey, where many DACA recipients are actively taking part in rescue and rebuilding efforts, the cruelty of this decision is in plain view.

Ending DACA will also make us less safe. As losing legal status causes people to recede into the shadows, they will be afraid to call and cooperate with the police. More parents will be afraid to take their kids to school and to church, to the park and to the doctor. More kids will live in fear of the knock on the door that will take their parents away.

HIAS is the global Jewish organization that protects refugees. We stand for a world in which refugees find welcome, safety and freedom. Guided by our Jewish values and history, we bring more than 135 years of expertise to our work with refugees. But our work is just one piece of the larger culture of equality and welcome we strive to create together with our supporters in the American Jewish community. Threats to the DACA program are not only threats to immigrants, but to justice, fairness and the longstanding values of our country.

This country’s history of accepting refugees and immigrants has offered generations of Jewish Americans the opportunity to recognize our full human potential and become part of the fabric of America. While there are disturbing elements that would deny this, and their voices are louder now, it is still true. It would be a stunning reversal and betrayal of our history to deny this opportunity to others who have already contributed so much.

The president appears unmoved by arguments of compassion, humanity, national interest or common sense. Now is the time for American Jews to take a stand and take action through elected officials in Congress. We can call Congress and insist that our representatives immediately pass a law that will allow these kids and young adults to stay here legally and permanently. This law must include no conditions or trade-offs, or in any way punish other immigrants.

We must restore basic fairness and morality to the way we treat immigrants in this country, and there is no better place to start than with these young Americans.

Melanie Nezer, Haaretz Contributor, is senior vice president of public affairs for HIAS, the global Jewish nonprofit that protects refugees

On the Significance of the Neo in Neo-Reaction - when Jewish victimology turns attention to Jews as the victimizers, Jewish exceptionalism is invoked as “Neo” - “As long as I can remember I’ve been a ‘Neo’-Something: A Neo-Marxist, a Neo-Trotskyist, a Neo-Liberal, a Neo-Conservative and in religion, always, Neo-Orthodox, even while I was a Neo-Trotskyist and a Neo-Marxist….I’m going to end up a Neo, just Neo, that’s all.”

Intersectionality: Jewish ordering and exceptionalism in victimology - the “Neo-exceptions” of victimology in the age of treason:

Tanstaafl usually provides incisive insight into Jewish machinations. As he does here in his observation of “intersectionality”, recognizing that to be the point at which Jewish victimology turns attention back to them as the victimizers - which then requires their interests to propose their exceptionalism to the rule - a rule which might be wiggled-out-of as they don themselves “neo” this or that.

Tan’s incisiveness can, however, cut off important “ambiguities” - “ambiguities” that provide means for learning, creativity and agency in the realm of praxis - Tan accuses me of “jargon” for this word, which outlines the interactivity of the social world and its impossibility to predict 1000% for the human capacity for reflexive agency in responses; e.g., I was surprised by Tan when he wanted me to clearly understand that he had “no problem with Hitler.” I expected him to change that, to observe problems, at least some problems with Hitler’s worldview after a reading on his former network of the chapter in Table-Talk, viz., where Hitler discusses his opinion of Ukrainians, the subservient role he saw for those not killed in resistance to his aspiration for aggrandizement of their land. Tan had, after all, objected to Carolyn’s insulting support of Hitler’s disparagement.

Typically in this post also then, we should look-out for some blind spots in Tan’s analysis for his tacit identification with a right-wing perspective, particularly Nazi apologetics.

The wish to vindicate Hitler can make for an over-focus, even if slightly, on Jews as the problem. If Jews were THAT much of the problem, virtually the only problem, then Hitler is apparently, largely vindicated for his “minor indiscretions”. It is not that there should not be strong focus on on the J.Q. But it becomes an “over-focus” when in that incisive focus it parses-out and does not afford discussion of our part, our agency - where any sort of ambiguity is not allowed-for as it does not follow the “logic” of the J.Q. (us or them) - as was the case where Tan’s logic accused someone like me of trying to distract, minimize or malign those who focus on the J.Q. Whereas I am, in fact, merely calling for the need to also examine the part some of our people play (as if we don’t know that Jews like Alana Mercer try to focus singularly on that side of the equation) in our situation, with Jews and otherwise.

When Tan seeks to vindicate Hitler and unburden guilt and agency among his community of sympathizers - by suggesting rather that I am minimizing the J.Q., the singularly paramount issue, a life and death struggle against Jewish interests, as he expresses it - Tan is pushing Whites in the direction of repeating the same mistake, of headlong and disastrous reaction for wont of sufficiently deep and broad epistemic preparation - a necessary grounding especially in the praxis of European ethno-national coordination (which the motive of Hitler vindication precludes). 

Furthermore, by not allowing for the “ambiguity” of praxis he performs an additional disservice by going along with a Jewish default on left and right - i.e., where they can’t get you to cop to being a right winger or an alt-righter, they want you to say, as Tan does, “left and right is not a useful distinction.” Tan adds cleverly, I am a “White winger.”

While he has criticized Lawrence Auster for making liberalism the problem and not Jews, his overly precise focus has bi-passed the fact that liberalism is the problem in the sense that liberalism unfolds characteristically, in reality, as license against group classificatory interests - a consequent in reality especially given the manicheanism of Jewish interests which exaggerate and instigate that liberal prerogative indeed; though liberalism as it follows consequently of insufficient account to our interests is still the manifest problem, even if Auster complains about it, even if instigated by Auster’s fellow YKW: And particularly if liberalism is hidden beneath titular conservatism, as in neo-conservatism or paleoconservatism, or the mistakenly presumed conservatism of Christianity - as any sort of conservatism that they propose will be under their Noahide control; thus not conservative of our sovereign classificatory interests.

Worse, Tan says that Gottfried wants to blame liberalism as well - and so he does, but even more so does Gottfried want to blame and vilify “The Left” - the unionized accountability to social classification - and to position White identity against it - and has, in the form of the Alternative-Right - everybody is blaming “the left” as a result of the language game Gottfried set in motion. And while it is not always correct to play “opposite day”, in this case, it is - we should be asking why Gottfried et al. want us to do that? What is wrong about a White Right - Alt-Right or otherwise? Even more significantly, what is correct about a White Left perspective such that Gottfried et al. do not want us to identify with it?

I do believe that Tan’s blind spots stem from his starting point in defense of his partial German heritage, partly from his STEM-nerd background as well, which has been overly-reinforced against the helpful ambiguities of praxis by right-wing reactionary communities in The US. Thus, he will gain dubious support, for example by fellow Hitler apologist Wolf Wall Street - who will call Tan “the greatest epistemologist in White Nationalism”. When in fact, epistemology is one of Tanstaafl’s blind spots and weak points.

That doesn’t mean that most of what Tan has to say isn’t good - it is. His amplification of the matter of crypsis is an important contribution. But incisive, good and significant as his citing “anti-racism as a Jewish construct” is, it hardly renders insignificant my observation that “anti-racism is Cartesian, it is prejudice, it is not innocent, it is hurting and killing people.” His statement can be seen as a focus on the major pathogen afflicting European peoples, while my statement focuses on the fundamental element of our systemic immuno-deficiency.

Theresa May confirms white man attacked Muslims leaving mosque after Ramadan prayers

Security at mosques across the UK will be reviewed in the wake of the Finsbury Park terror attack, the Prime Minister has said. More follows…

Independent, 19 June, 2017 - Here is Theresa May’s statement in full:

“This morning, our country woke to news of another terrorist attack on the streets of our capital city: the second this month and every bit as sickening as those which have come before.

“It was an attack that once again targeted the ordinary and the innocent going about their daily lives – this time British Muslims as they left a Mosque having broken their fast and prayed together at this sacred time of year.

“Today we come together - as we have done before – to condemn this act and to state once again that hatred and evil of this kind will never succeed.

“The Government’s Emergency Committee, COBRA, has just met and I can set out what we know about what happened, and the steps that we are taking to respond.

“Just after twenty-past midnight, the Metropolitan Police received reports that a van had been driven into a crowd of people on Seven Sisters Road in Finsbury Park.

“Officers were in the immediate vicinity as the attack unfolded and responded within one minute.

“Police declared it a terrorist incident within eight minutes.

“One man was pronounced dead at the scene; eight injured were taken to three separate hospitals; while two were treated at the scene for more minor injuries.

“The driver of the van - a white man aged 48 - was bravely detained by members of the public at the scene and then arrested by police.

“The early assessment by the police is that the attacker acted alone.

“Our thoughts and prayers this morning are with the family and friends of the man who died and those who were injured.

“On behalf of the people of London – and the whole country – I want to thank the police and the emergency services once again for responding as they always do with great professionalism and courage.

“Extra police resources have already been deployed to reassure communities, and the police will continue to assess the security needs of Mosques and provide any additional resources needed, especially during this final week before Eid Al-Fitr, a particularly important time for the whole Muslim community.

“This was an attack on Muslims near their place of worship. And like all terrorism, in whatever form, it shares the same fundamental goal.

“It seeks to drive us apart; and to break the precious bonds of solidarity and citizenship that we share in this country.

“We will not let this happen.

“When I stood here for the first time as Prime Minister last Summer I spoke about our precious belief in the Union – not just the bond between the four nations of the United Kingdom – but the bond between all our citizens, every one of us, whoever we are and wherever we are from.

“At the heart of that bond is a belief in the fundamental freedoms and liberties that we all cherish; the freedom of speech; the freedom to live how we choose and yes, the freedom to practice religion in peace.

“This morning we have seen a sickening attempt to destroy those freedoms; and to break those bonds of citizenship that define our United Kingdom.

“It is a reminder that terrorism, extremism and hatred take many forms; and our determination to tackle them must be the same whoever is responsible. 

“As I said here two weeks ago, there has been far too much tolerance of extremism in our country over many years – and that means extremism of any kind, including Islamophobia.

“That is why this Government will act to stamp out extremist and hateful ideology – both across society and on the internet, so it is denied a safe space to grow.

“It is why we will be reviewing our Counter-Terrorism strategy and ensuring that police and security services have the powers they need.

“And it is why we will establish a new Commission for Countering Extremism as a statutory body to help fight hatred and extremism in the same way as we have fought racism – because this extremism is every bit as insidious and destructive to our values and our way of life and we will stop at nothing to defeat it.

“Today’s attack falls at a difficult time in the life of this city, following on from the attack on London Bridge two weeks ago – and of course the unimaginable tragedy of Grenfell Tower last week, on which I will chair another meeting of Ministers and officials later today.

“But what we have seen throughout – whether in the heroism of the ordinary citizens who fought off the attackers at London Bridge; the unbreakable resolve of the residents in Kensington; or this morning the spirit of the community that apprehended this attacker – is that this is an extraordinary city of extraordinary people.

“It is home to a multitude of communities that together make London one of the greatest cities on earth.

“Diverse, welcoming, vibrant, compassionate, confident and determined never to give in to hate.

“These are the values that define this city.

“These are the values that define this country.

“These are the values that this government will uphold.

“These are the values that will prevail.”

Symbolically enough, assumes Enoch Powell’s Wolverhampton seat.

Diversity Macht Frei, “Blacks celebrate white genocide: Negress elected to Enoch Powell’s old seat.”

10 June 2017:

LONGSTANDING LABOUR activist Eleanor Smith has made history by becoming the West Midlands’ first African Caribbean MP – but she’s also won a seat which is of enormous historic importance to the black community.

The swing seat of Wolverhampton South West was once the constituency of controversial Tory MP Enoch Powell, the politician behind the notorious Rivers of Blood speech which he gave 49 years ago warning of the consequences of unchecked immigration.

Smith, a hospital theatre nurse, who became the first-ever black woman president of Unison in 2011/2012 took the marginal seat by storm, scooping 49 per cent of the vote and beating Tory hopeful Paul Uppal by more than 2,000 votes.

In victory, after just two hours’ sleep, she was quick to pay tribute to the local people who voted for her, saying: “Our team was built from the community and the trade union movement – Unison – helped me greatly. The trade union movement put me where I am today, along with the community who came out and helped me win this seat.

“Through The Voice I’d like to personally thank everyone who voted for me in what turned out to be the highest ever turnout of 71 percent. We did it together as a community from the grassroots upwards and I certainly won’t let you down.

“We have a wonderfully diverse community here in Wolverhampton, which is a microcosm of the UK and rich in so many different faith groups.

“As a health professional, I am standing up to defend the NHS. From my own experience of being a nurse on the the front line – I was working until only recently doing 12-hour shifts – we can see what’s happening and we don’t like it. I have got to defend this.”

Her other pledge is to move from her home in Northfield, Birmingham, near to where she worked at Birmingham’s Women’s Hospital, to live in the constituency she will serve.

She told The Voice: “You cannot support your constituency if you don’t know what is going on there. I intend to have my finger on the pulse in my own patch.”

Smith also pledged to tackle homelessness in Wolverhampton and youth unemployment which currently stands at 27%.

On the issue of taking over Enoch Powell’s old seat, she told The Voice: “I feel it closes that chapter now for good.”

         

Source

Powell’s full “Rivers of Blood” speech, not read by Powell himself, however.

                   

We should be more eager to suspect Jewish deep state insiders who wanted Trump to win.

‘It takes a lot of work to lose to Donald Trump.’

Indeed, and that is why it looks like she may have gotten some “gentle encouragement” (read, subtle bum steer - part of ‘a lot of work’ from (((insiders)))) to not bother addressing typical White Americans - she would have won if she could have been at all bothered to treat them like normal human beings with legitimate concerns; rather than placing herself exclusively on the side and among an entourage of blacks, liberal feminists, married gay couples, etc. - anything to be in-the-face of Whites about the new, “tolerant”, America; i.e., basically anything to represent a cartoon of the political correctness that is totally intolerant of, and eager to ignore the concerns of White Americans; demonstrating more of the same, not giving a fig about them, as they’ve experienced for decades.

The Hill, “Axelrod on Clinton: ‘It takes a lot of work to lose to Donald Trump”, 3 May 2017:

Democratic strategist David Axelrod says Hillary Clinton would be well served to move on from last year’s presidential election and stop talking about it.

“It takes a lot of work to lose to Donald Trump,” Axelrod told CNN on Wednesday. “Let me tell you, he was the least popular presidential candidate to win in the history of polling.”

Clinton on Tuesday said she takes responsibility for her 2016 presidential election loss, but added she would have won if not for FBI Director James Comey, Russian hackers and WikiLeaks.

“If the election had been on Oct. 27, I would be your president,” she told CNN at a Women for Women event in New York on Tuesday, referencing Comey’s letter informing Congress that the FBI had discovered new emails that appeared pertinent to an investigation into Clinton’s handling of classified material.

“It wasn’t a perfect campaign - there is no such thing - but I was on the way to winning until a combination of Jim Comey’s letter on Oct. 28 and Russian WikiLeaks raised doubts in the minds of people who were inclined to vote for me and got scared off.”

Axelrod called the 2016 race a “miserable slog” and said nobody in America wants to relive it “except the combatants who keep going back to it.”

“She has a legitimate beef because Comey’s letter was instrumental I think in her defeat, so in a narrow sense she is right about it,” Axelrod said.

“But Jim Comey didn’t tell her not to campaign in Wisconsin after the convention. Jim Comey didn’t say don’t put any resources into Michigan until the final week of the campaign,” he continued.

“And one of the things that hindered her in the campaign was a sense that she never fully was willing to take responsibility for her mistakes, particularly that server.”

Axelrod then offered a piece of advice for Clinton.

“If I were her, if I were advising her, I would say, ‘Don’t do this. Don’t go back and appear as if you’re shifting responsibility.’ ... She said the words ‘I’m responsible,’ but the — everything else suggested that she doesn’t really feel that way,” he said.

“And I don’t think that helps her in the long run, so if I were her I would move on.”

Axelrod was chief strategist for both of Barack Obama’s presidential campaigns and worked in the Obama White House as a senior adviser.

Gary tax Asia to pay for black Welfare Cohn and Steve put the goyim to work Mnuchin

The Hill, 27 April 2017:

“Trump officials stage full-court press for tax plan”

The Trump administration on Thursday began a full-court press aimed at generating momentum for President Trump’s tax reform plan.

(((...)))

The Trump administration also made efforts to rally support from influential conservatives. Mnuchin and White House economic adviser Gary Cohn on Thursday met with groups such as Americans for Prosperity (AFP), a group backed by the Republican mega-donors Charles and David Koch.

(((...)))

The White House’s plan came in the form of one-page overview, and set down some significant markers, including lowering the top individual rate from 39.6 percent to 35 percent and the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 15 percent.

(((...)))

Businesses have been excited about the prospects for tax reform since Trump was elected, and groups overall were pleased to see a plan that proposed lower rates for businesses and a move to a “territorial” system that doesn’t tax U.S. companies foreign earnings.

(((...)))

We can be sure these tax proposals are going to run contrary to Jewish interests and their complicit, predatory right wing interests (of course not).

(((...)))

In fact, Gary Cohn’s tax program is going to tax Asia in order to pay for American blacks ..and even to pay for all America’s SSD and SSI, which America’s wealthy should be paying their fair share for (either that, or have Americans come to terms with who they don’t want to live with and be bothered by).

Kumiko, “A view of Brexit from Asia: Britain as a Pacific trading power in the 21st century”, 6 Mar 2017:

I mean let’s be real, the Americans just somehow non-ironically elected a guy who came out with a speech 120 hours ago where he advocated what? This hilarious list:

a. 54 billion more drunkenly spent on defence spending targeted at nothing,
b. 1 trillion more for infrastructure spending for inner city no-go zones which will have pitiable return on investment,
c. More o’ dem social programmes for the poor baby Trayvons in Detroit who lost their jobs – despite them never having had a job – to the allegedly ‘bad bad’ people in Manila or ‘bad bad’ people in Ho Chi Minh City who are apparently ‘ripping’ you, because why? Because of course. Apparently according to Hunter Wallace, African-Americans are now more valuable to the Alt-Right than trade with Asian states is, so what the hell.
d. Free cash-money for Israel. Because Trump just loves Israel. Because his family is married into it. All of them will continue to studiously ignore that tendency.

So there I was, watching that mortifying clown-car of super-horrible policies unpacking itself into the international arena and I was asking – while I was drinking white rum directly from the bottle – a single question. Only one question.

“But Bernie—I mean, Trump, how are you planning to actually pay for any of this stuff, fam?”

The answer arrived shortly thereafter! The ‘answer’ is apparently:

a. Doubling-down on protectionist tariffs and incoherent ‘buy American’ sloganeering to socially reinforce it, a move which depends on the absurd and not-ever-happening idea that Asian economies will passively allow the United States to subject them to a tariff regime designed by Gary Cohn since certain commodities stocks have spiked up since 09 November 2016, and maybe if the markets reorder themselves around that, those positions can continue to grow. People can make instruments which tap into that expansion, and then people and the state itself can borrow against those instruments using some very fancy mathematical formulas to predict their performance. Detroit and other Rust Belt disaster zones will somehow magically be rebuilt, and the African-Americans will somehow crank out billions of widgets while somehow not being at all socially-dysfunctional, so that all of the big spending will totally somehow pay for itself. The formulas may or may not have documentation associated with them. The formulas may or may not even be based in any kind of rational thought. Your children can then repay the money to Goldman Sachs about 35 years from now. And all of that is to be done so that the allegedly heroic America can finally defeat the allegedly undead East Asia.

Wow, right? Really very much wow. I mean the whole Trump-style plan has literally never failed before except for like every single time ever.

I guess you could say that I disagree with the Israel-backed Trumpist manchild plan, because my geopolitical stances are all anti-Semitic in one way or another. You could say that I disagree with the Israel-backed Trumpist manchild plan because I am of course an Asian woman, which is another factor that makes me very scary and perhaps ‘evil’.

Financial Samurai, “Maximum Taxable Income Amount For Social Security (FICA)”

Uncle Sam The Tax ManFICA stands for Federal Insurance Contributions Act and consists of a Social Security tax and a Medicare tax. This tax is very important for everyone to understand because so often we only think about federal tax rates and state income tax rates. The FICA tax is a big percentage of your total tax bill, especially for those making under six figures a year.

When I was making big bucks in finance, the tax bill was equally big bucks. The only saving grace was seeing my after tax paycheck increase after the maximum taxable income threshold for Social Security was breached each year. The tax amounts were jolting based on how inefficient the government was and still is with regards to spending our money.

For 2017, the maximum amount of taxable earnings for Social Security and Medicare is $127,500. In other words, an employee must pay 6.2% of any income up to $127,500 for 2017 = $7,905. But any dollar you make above $127,500 is free of the Social Security tax. Hence, a good goal for everyone is to make as much as they can over $127,500 as possible, right?

Not so fast. Given we have a progressive tax system in America with Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) and deduction phaseouts, I’ve calculated that the optimal Adjusted Gross Income is roughly $250,000, +/- $50,000. At $250,000, $131,500 of the earnings is free from the 6.2% Social Security tax. Meanwhile, you still get most of your mortgage interest deduction, and only have to pay a slight amount of AMT, depending on the person. A $250,000 income is also high enough to live relatively comfortably in any part of the world.

Some might argue that the Social Security tax is regressive because it caps out at $127,500 in 2016. Why shouldn’t rich people pay more? Here’s the thing people might not understand. Social Security benefits cap out based on the maximum amount of Social Security tax contribution as well. It’s not like someone who is making $500,000, and not having to pay the 6.2% Social Security tax on $381,500 of his earnings is getting extra benefits based off his $500,000 income. He’s just getting the maximum Social Security payout amount when it comes time for him to collect based on the maximum taxable income amount he contributes.

The $500,000 income earner is already paying the highest marginal federal tax rate of 39.6% plus state taxes, if applicable.

Former Miss Venezuela, Monica Spear, murdered with her boyfriend in 2014

1   Caracas, Venezuela   119.87
2   San Pedro Sula, Honduras   111.03
3   San Salvador, El Salvador   108.54
4   Acapulco, Mexico   104.73
5   Maturin, Venezuela   86.45
6   Distrito Central, Honduras   73.51
7   Valencia, Venezuela   72.31
8   Palmira, Colombia   70.88
9   Cape Town, South Africa   65.53
10   Cali, Colombia   64.27
11   Ciudad Guayana, Venezuela   62.33
12   Fortaleza, Brazil   60.77
13   Natal, Brazil   60.66
14   Salvador, Brazil   60.63
15   St. Louis, U.S.A.    59.23
16   Joao Pessoa, Brazil   58.4
17   Culiacan, Mexico   56.09
18   Maceio, Brazil   55.63
19   Baltimore, U.S.A.    54.98
20   Barquisimeto, Venezuela   54.96

New Observer, “Race and Crime: The Most Dangerous Cities in the World”, 24 April 2017:

The new list of the 50 most dangerous cities, compiled from official government policing figures, has been published on the Canadian-based Worldatlas news service, and shows that the worst crime rates appear in the cities with the largest racially mixed populations.

Eight of the 50 most dangerous cities—including the top ranked one—are in Venezuela, two are in Honduras, one is in El Salvador, five are in Mexico, three are in Colombia, four are in South Africa, one in Jamaica, 21 in Brazil, four in the USA, and one in Guatemala.

According to the figures, Caracas, Venezuela, has risen to the number one spot with 119.87 murders per 100,000. That city surged ahead of San Pedro Sula in Honduras, which formerly held top place with 171.2 murders per 100,000 people in 2015 (this rate has since dropped to 111.03 in 2016).

The clear link between race and crime has been highlighted once again with the release of the 2016 rankings of the world’s most dangerous cities—and the fact that every single one of them, including those in the U.S.—have majority nonwhite populations.

The report said that “some of the factors that may be to blame” for the murder rates that measure over 100 include illegal drug distribution, extensive poverty, and gangs.

For example, a rise in mass killings and escalating violence between gang members has resulted in the murder rate of San Salvador practically doubling in a year from 61.21 to 108.54, allowing it to take the third spot.

August was the most violent month in San Salvador, with more than 900 killings, including an unprecedented 52 deaths registered in a single day.

The other two cities that complete the top five most dangerous places in the world are Acapulco, Mexico and Maturin, Venezuela.

Four cities in the United States have a place among the top 50 most dangerous cities in the world (on the basis of murder per capita statistics). St. Louis ranks 15th on the list with a murder rate of 59.23 per 100,000 inhabitants, a rise from 2015’s rate of 49.93, making it the most dangerous urban area in the country.

The city is also present in rankings based on considerations for other crimes—the Missouri city has a burglary rate of 606.9 per 100,000 and an aggravated assault rate of 317.7 per 100,000. This has led many to the conclusion that St. Louis is the most dangerous city in the U.S.

Also of note is Baltimore, Maryland’s position on the list. In 2015, it was ranked 40th with a murder rate of 33.92. For 2016, however, it rose to 19th with a murder rate of 54.98 per 100,000 people.

Detroit is the third city included in the 2016 ranking of the world’s most dangerous cities in terms of murder rates. With its 43.89 murders per 100,000 people, it is a bit further down the list than St. Louis, but is still classified a dangerous place. Factoring in all violent crime Detroit tops the list of the most dangerous cities in the United States.

Although Chicago is often cited as the most dangerous urban area in the United States, even with a near record-breaking 762 murders in 2016, the murder rate remains at 28.2, making its position fall further on the list.

New Orleans falls further down with 41.44 murders per 100,000 residents a year.

The most dangerous cities in the world, as listed according to ranking, name, and murder rate per 100,000, are as follows:

1   Caracas, Venezuela   119.87
2   San Pedro Sula, Honduras   111.03
3   San Salvador, El Salvador   108.54
4   Acapulco, Mexico   104.73
5   Maturin, Venezuela   86.45

READ MORE...

RevealNews, “Trump no longer appears sympathetic to student debtors”, by Lance Willams, 14 April 2017:

On the campaign trail, Donald Trump said he sympathized with America’s 44 million student debtors and vowed to make their burdens easier.

The federal government should not be profiteering on the interest students pay on their federal loans, candidate Trump declared. (The U.S. will reap $66 billion in profit from student loans issued between 2007 and 2012, the Government Accounting Office says.)

Trump also promised to ensure that debt loads would be limited by students’ ability to repay. Student loans shouldn’t be “an albatross” hung for life around their necks, he said.

But since the election, the president has been quiet on student debt. And two recent moves suggest the administration is headed in the opposite direction, helping the student loan industry at the expense of borrowers. 

The most recent move came Tuesday, when Education Secretary Betsy DeVos scrapped a set of rules intended to shield borrowers from some of the worst abuses of the student debt collection industry.

Today, America’s student debt load is upward of $1.3 trillion – more than the nation’s credit card debt. As an investigation by Reveal from The Center for Investigative Reporting concluded last year, student loans have become the worst kind of debt for Americans – and the best kind for banks and debt collectors.

READ MORE...