NO FearMongering Here!

Brilliant Listen: Ted Nugent on KFYI

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

“It is unfair to ask seniors to get less in benefits and wait longer to get onto Medicare — all while Republicans back tax breaks for Big Oil and corporations that ship American jobs overseas,” said House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) “Just like the Republican plan to end Medicare, this proposal is unacceptable, especially for struggling middle-class Americans.”

But don’t worry, it’s all those Republicans fault that we can’t deal with the problem. And let’s throw in some Class Warfare will we are at it!

Do the Democrats ever mention the $500 Billion ObamaCare cut from Medicare and then double-counted it as savings? Naw, why would they when they can just straight for the fear and class warfare.

“A plan that slashes Medicare for vulnerable seniors is a plan that slashes Medicare for vulnerable seniors no matter what co-sponsors you put on it,” said Protect Your Care spokesman Eddie Vale. “This so called ‘plan’ is just as dangerous for seniors as the Republican budget that ends Medicare.”

“We believe the right way to strengthen Medicare is to improve the quality and lower the cost of care throughout the health care system,” said AARP’s Nancy LeaMond. “Simply shifting the bill to seniors does nothing to improve health care quality or combat the real problem of rising costs.”

Yet, the one program that was working, Medicare Advantage will be savaged by Obamacare in favor of the less efficient and more expensive MediGap.

Gee, I wonder which one AARP favors?  Do you even have to ask… 🙂

Debt Ceiling: The president called on Republicans to back off their “stubborn” refusal to compromise on their “sacred cow” (no tax hikes), asserting that everyone else at the table has displayed a willingness to do so.  This is news to me, as Democrats have consistently refused to deal seriously with entitlements, and have shamelessly demagogued Republican reform efforts.  One could also argue that Democrats’ true sacred cow in this debate is their insistence on raising taxes, a stance from which they have not backed down.

And the Democrats only want “revenue increases” the new Orwellian term for TAX INCREASES! And anything else is just stupid in their minds. But don’t worry, it’s the Republican’s fault for being intractable.

“I am the President of the United  States, and I want to make sure I’m not engaged in fear-mongering.”   Republicans should file this quote away and resurrect it whenever the  president feeds his insatiable appetite for precisely the practice he  claims to reject.  In fact, he fear-mongered at today’s press  conference.  He can’t help himself.  Absent tax increases, he warned,  children could go without scholarships, food safety measures could be  loosened, and medical research could dry up, etc, etc.  It’s fat-cat  corporate jet-setters vs. the children, you see.  I’d try to accumulate Obama’s greatest fear-mongering hits, but that task could consume my entire afternoon. (But I am considering starting a blog about it…)

“If we do not have revenues (aka TAX INCREASES!), that means there are a bunch of kids out there who are not getting college scholarships.  If we do not have those revenues, then the kinds of cuts that would be required might compromise the National Weather Service.  It means that we would not be funding critical medical research.  It means that food inspection might be compromised.  And I’ve said to some of the Republican leaders, you go talk to your constituents, the Republican constituents, and ask them are they willing to compromise their kids’ safety so that some corporate jet owner continues to get a tax break.  And I’m pretty sure what the answer would be.”

So it’s Armageddon if we don’t have Tax Increases!! And he’s absolutely not fearmongering!!!! 🙂

But it’s the Republican’s “sacred cows” that are the problem!

And the Left has no “sacred cows” that are a problem. 🙂

DEBT: Obama demanded that legislators “do their job” on the debt crisis.  Um,  Mr. President, the Republican-controlled House did its job on the debt.   It passed Paul Ryan’s budget, which reduces the debt by four trillion  dollars, reforms the tax code, and saves the social safety net by  distrupting its inexorable march toward insolvency.  The Democrat-held  Senate has not done its job.  791 days have passed since Harry Reid’s caucus even introduced a  budget.  Oddly, the president failed to mention these salient facts.   He did, however, demand that Congress make “tough choices.”  Is he  referring to the brand of politically risky leadership he’s deliberately avoided?

July 8th, 2011 will be 800 days since the Democrats passed a budget AT ALL.

“I’m the President of the United States not running off of scare tactics,” Treasury Secretary Geithner.

In a ham-fisted class warfare gambit, Obama took aim at tax breaks for  private jet owners.  His point, presumably, was to highlight an  unpopular tax provision Republicans are “protecting” through their  blanket refusal to entertain any tax increases.  Say, where’d those evil  private jet-related tax breaks come from, anyway?  Clue: The answer may  involve an infamous bill that zero House Republicans supported, and  that Barack Obama signed into law.

The vaulted STIMULUS!

The Liberal giveth, and The Liberal wants to take it away when it benefits them politically. Now doesn’t that feel you with confidence?

Oh, and the tax break will bring in $3 Billion dollars over 10 years. OOOH! That’ll fix a $14,400,000,000,000 budget deficit!

Damn those evil greedy rich people!!

IT’S ALL THEIR FAULT!! 🙂

One Republican Senate aide, however, shot back in an email to The Daily Caller, saying that the White House only recently sent over the agreements for Congress’ approval. The aide also said that when it comes to tax breaks for corporate jets, “Who would really bear the brunt — wealthy corporate jet owners or the workers who build the jets?”

On the president’s call to put construction workers back to work, presumably through government-sponsored projects, the aide said, “He [Obama] said the same thing before the stimulus and it turned out to be a complete hoax. Only a tiny portion of the stimulus went to infrastructure … Also, we simply can’t afford it and the stimulus has proven we can’t spend our way to prosperity.”

But that’s the sacred cow of the Left though so that doesn’t exist. 🙂

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

Political Cartoons by Chip Bok

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

Political Cartoons by Steve Breen

Advertisements

Viability

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

Thomas Sowell: The media have recently been so preoccupied with a Congressman’s photograph of himself in his underwear that there has been scant attention paid to the fact that Iran continues advancing toward creating a nuclear bomb, and nobody is doing anything that is likely to stop them.

Nuclear weapons in the hands of the world’s leading sponsor of international terrorism might seem to be something that would sober up even the most giddy members of the chattering class. But that chilling prospect cannot seem to compete for attention with cheap behavior by an immature Congressman, infatuated with himself.

A society that cannot or will not focus on matters of life and death is a society whose survival as a free nation is at least questionable. Hard as it may be to conceive how the kind of world that one has been used to, and taken for granted, can come to an end, it can happen in the lifetime of today’s generation.

Those who founded the United States of America were keenly aware that they were making a radical departure in the kinds of governments under which human beings had lived over the centuries — and that its success was by no means guaranteed. Monarchies in Europe had lasted for centuries and the Chinese dynasties for thousands of years. But a democratic republic was something else.

While the convention that was writing the Constitution of the United States was still in session, a lady asked Benjamin Franklin what the delegation was creating. “A republic, madam,” he said, “if you can keep it.”

In the middle of the next century, Abraham Lincoln still posed it as a question whether “government of the people, by the people and for the people shall not perish from the earth.” Years earlier, Lincoln had warned of the dangers to a free society from its own designing power-seekers — and how only the vigilance, wisdom and dedication of the public could preserve their freedom.

But, today, few people seem to see such dangers, either internally or internationally.

A recent poll showed that nearly half the American public believes that the government should redistribute wealth. That so many people are so willing to blithely put such an enormous and dangerous arbitrary power in the hands of politicians — risking their own freedom, in hopes of getting what someone else has — is a painful sign of how far many citizens and voters fall short of what is needed to preserve a democratic republic.

The ease with which people with wealth can ship it overseas electronically, or put it in tax shelters at home, means that raising the tax rate on wealthy people is not going to bring in the kind of tax revenue that would enable wealth redistribution to provide the bonanza that some people are expecting.

In other words, people who are willing to give government more arbitrary power can give up their birthright of freedom without even getting the mess of pottage. Worse yet, they can give up their children’s and their grandchildren’s birthright of freedom.

Free and democratic societies have existed for a relatively short time, as history is measured — and their staying power has always been open to question. So much depends on the wisdom of the voters that the franchise was always limited, in one way or another, so that voting would be confined to those with a stake in the viability and progress of the country, and the knowledge to cast their vote intelligently.

In our own times, however, voting has been seen as just one of the many “rights” to which everyone is supposed to be entitled. The emphasis has been on the voter, rather than on the momentous consequences of elections for the nation today and for generations yet unborn.

To those who see voting as more or less just a matter of self-expression, almost a recreational activity, there is no need to inform themselves on both sides of the issues before voting, much less sit down and think beyond the rhetoric to the realities that the rhetoric conceals.

Careless voters may be easily swayed by charisma and rhetoric, oblivious to the monumental disasters created around the world by 20th century leaders with charisma and rhetoric, such as Hitler.

Voters like this represent a danger of terminal frivolity for freedom and democracy.

Here’s another thing to consider: The Valedictorian for Arizona State University this year is an ILLEGAL ALIEN!  Think about that for a moment…

Envy-is best described as an emotion that “occurs when a person lacks another’s (perceived) superior quality, achievement, or possessions and either desires it or wishes that the other lacked it”. It does seem that the left run on emotions more than on facts no?

Oh, and the “fair” Media:

On Sunday’s This Week, ABC’s Christiane Amanpour repeatedly hit Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell with the White House’s plea for “revenue raising” measures, often the new euphemism for tax hikes, but when she talked to Democratic Congressman Jim Clyburn, the Assistant Minority Leader in the House, she failed to press him about agreeing to GOP spending cut proposals and instead only asked him about prospects for a deal.

Amanpour began with how reasonable President Obama and Democrats, who “need revenue,” are acting: “Democrats are saying they’re not putting, for the moment, tax hikes on the table, but they need revenue, they’re talking about closing loopholes, subsidies for wealthy corporations. Is that out of the question for you, or are you willing to entertain that?”

When McConnell wouldn’t agree, with “NEW TAXES OFF THE TABLE?” as her on-screen heading, she followed up by pleading:

Are you willing, I mean this is a negotiation after all, to talk about any kind of revenue raising, for instance, ethanol subsidies, for instance, tax breaks for oil and gas corporations or corporate jets. Is there anywhere where revenue raising can happen without you saying it’s a tax hike?

She wouldn’t let it go, despairing: “Are you now basically saying, all revenue increases off the table?”

But will she ask a Democrat about spending cuts?

Of Course not!

47% of people pay no Income Taxes AT ALL.

So is American Democracy doomed?

Good Question.

Then there’s Eugenics Al (the Global Warming Loonie gone insane) Gore:

‘One of the things we could do about (global warming),” Gore said recently, “is to change the technologies, to put out less of this pollution, to stabilize the population, and one of the principle ways of doing that is to empower and educate girls and women.” That, he said, would cause population “to stabilize and societies begin to make better choices and more balanced choices.” The logic is inescapable: A smaller global carbon footprint means fewer footprints.

But governments around the world have already “empowered” women to make “more balanced choices.” These have often led to something awful: the death of tens of millions of female babies, the very ones Gore wants to “empower.”

FED HAS NO IDEA WHY…

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke says he’s puzzled by the failure of the economy to respond to our government’s many ministrations. Which explains much of why our economy is such a mess.

‘We don’t have a precise read on why this slower pace of growth is persisting,” Bernanke said recently, adding that the growth slowdown was proving to be “more persistent than we thought.”

His remarks came as the Fed dropped its 2011 gross domestic product growth forecast from the range of 3.1% to 3.3%, made just two months earlier, to a much slower 2.7% to 2.9% pace.

Not to be rude, but can the nation’s top banker really be so clueless? Anyone with half a lick of common sense looking at our economy knows what’s wrong: We’ve spent the better part of three years with government making the most extraordinary interventions in the economy in our nation’s history.

Government spending, as a share of the economy, has soared 25%. Regulations, many of them arbitrary and foolish, such as the ban on incandescent light bulbs, have never been more numerous.

Businesses say in survey after survey that, with all the government’s micromanaging of the economy, they are uncertain of what comes next, and therefore are postponing investment and hiring decisions.

But to top economic officials like Bernanke, it’s not clear by now what’s wrong. Really? How about:

• $830 billion in failed, corrupt stimulus efforts?

• A $700 billion TARP program that was promised as a way to stabilize the banks but ended up as a kind of union-crony slush fund?

• The government takeover of GM and Chrysler?

• The punitive re-regulating of Wall Street through a Dodd-Frank bill that affected even those entities that had nothing to do with the financial meltdown?

• Small-business fears about higher taxes and stringent, new green regulations that are making it harder to plan and make profits?

• Soaring oil prices that the government seems not only to tolerate, but also to actively advocate by refusing to permit our oil companies to drill for more?

• The admission by Vice President Joe Biden, put in charge of efforts on the economy, that higher taxes are “most important to us Democrats”?

• And, finally, the Bernanke Fed’s own $1.7 trillion in quantitative easing — a fancy central bankers term for “let’s print more money”? (and devalue what we already have)

Seriously, does Bernanke — and for that matter, all the other policymakers who say they’re “surprised” at the weakness in our economy — really think all this is normal?

Look at what’s transpiring in our markets. After repeated government intervention, no one today knows the real price of food, housing, energy, raw industrial goods, bonds or stocks. The amount of government money distorting these vital parts of our free economy is so great, our markets can’t really function.

Free prices set by buyers and sellers are the way free markets work. Free prices create efficiency. They send vital signals about what to produce — not to mention when and where and at what price.

Absent those price signals, which happen spontaneously between buyers and sellers, a free-market economy can’t work. That’s what’s happening today. And that’s why the USSR, with all of its grand five-year plans and thousands upon thousands of apparatchiks, couldn’t make its command economy fly.

A handful of bureaucrats can never set prices or allocate goods or decide what should be made as efficiently as millions of people acting in their own interest through a free and open market.

Our policymakers seem to have forgotten this. They make statements that indicate they don’t know the damage their policies are doing or they are willfully oblivious to them.

Either way, America needs to change course, and fast. This Keynesian superstimulus is a failed experiment — one that deserves to be cast on the ash heap of history as soon as possible. (IBD)

But don’t expect the Democrats to abandon their dreams or the Media to suddenly understand reality.

So you will have to.

And you will have make sure they do to.

They will kick and scream and yell. But if we succeed your kids will thank you for it.

Otherwise, kiss their asses goodbye.

Simple. 🙂

 

Obsession

Lost Balloonist
A woman in a hot air balloon realized she was lost. She lowered her
altitude and spotted a man in a boat below. She shouted to him,
“Excuse me, can you help me? I promised a friend I would meet him an hour ago, but I don’t know where I am.”

The man consulted his portable GPS and replied, “You’re in a hot air balloon,
approximately 30 feet above ground elevation of 2,346 feet above sea level. You are at 31 degrees, 14.97 minutes north latitude and 100 degrees, 49.09 minutes west longitude.

She rolled her eyes and said, “You must be a Republican.
“I am,” replied the man. “How did you know?”

“Well,” answered the balloonist, “everything you told me is technically correct.
But I have no idea what to do with your information, and I’m still lost.
Frankly, you’ve not been much help to me.”

The man smiled and responded, “You must be an Obama-Democrat.”
“I am,” replied the balloonist. “How did you know?”

“Well,” said the man, “you don’t know where the hell you are — or where the
hell you are going. You’ve risen to where you are, due to a large quantity of
hot air. You made a promise you have no idea how to keep, and you expect me to solve your problem.
You’re in exactly the same position you were in before we met, but somehow, now it’s my fault.” 🙂  — Thanks to one of the readers of this blog for this gem.

P R I C E L E S S !

****************

According to a new study and commentary, the reformed Medicare program under Obama’s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act <http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=316121> amounts to little more than a grand Ponzi scheme to benefit seniors, costing young Americans – who voted overwhelmingly for Obama in 2008 – more than $100,000 apiece over and above benefits received in their lifetimes.

John Goodman, president and founder of the National Center for Policy Analysis <http://www.ncpa.org/>, breaks down the numbers in a blog post <http://healthblog.ncpa.org/is-medicare-a-good-deal/> summarizing a study on the effects <http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/st333.pdf> of the recently passed reform act, often called “Obamacare.”

Goodman explains that even if Medicare avoids the bankruptcy many pundits are predicting, a typical 25-year-old will pay in premiums, payroll taxes and income taxes supporting Medicare an extra $111,000 over and above the cost of benefits he or she would receive from the program. Typical 85-year-olds, however, can expect to receive $55,000 in insurance benefits <http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=316121> over and above what they pay into the system

“A typical 85-year-old is going to get back $2.69 in benefits for every dollar paid into the system in the form of premiums and taxes – a good deal by any measure.

People turning 65 today don’t do nearly as well – they get back $1.25 for every dollar they pay in.

The average worker under age 50 loses under the system – with a 45-year-old getting back only 95 cents on the dollar.

That’s better than the deal 25-year-olds get, however; they can expect to get back 75 cents for every dollar they contribute.

Gee, no one saw that coming…. 🙂

You might recognize the White House talking points some Democrats have borrowed in the debt ceiling negotiations: taxes need to be raised on “millionaires and billionaires” and “oil companies raking in billions in profits.”

And often that means repealing the Bush-era tax cuts. But is that an obsession?

On Monday’s “The Laura Ingraham Show,” CNBC host Larry Kudlow observed that it might be. However, he warned that his crystal ball is telling the outlook isn’t so good.

“You know, we had a bad release this morning, very bad – consumer spending and incomes,” Kudlow said. “Real consumer spending has actually now fallen for the second straight month. And after taxes and after inflation, what’s called ‘real disposable income’ — is falling. What you got here is another 2-percent quarter coming up. This whole first half looks like 2-percent growth, GDP – which is pretty poor, 4 percent inflation, 9.1 percent unemployment. I mean, it really is a dismal picture and Washington policies are not helping.”

Kudlow explained the answer isn’t higher taxes in a weak economy and even those that tout Keynesian economics would agree with that. But he also said high inflation looms.

“I mean look, do I read this right – the Democrats in all the debt negotiations want to raise taxes in this kind of economy,” Kudlow said. “What am I missing here? I don’t care whether you’re a Keynesian or a supply-sider, or whatever. You don’t want to be raising taxes when the economy is completely sputtering and the inflation rate is picking up by the way, thanks to [Federal Reserve Chairman Ben] Bernanke. So it’s not a good picture.”

The best solution “The Kudlow Report” host said was a plan with spending cuts and changing tax rates. But he reiterated a point he had made on his Saturday radio show, which he question the Democratic Party’s seeming obsession over ending the Bush tax cuts.

“I mean, why not – a nice simple plan, significant spending cuts to deal with the debt problem,” Kudlow said. “And then at the same time, slash the business tax rate to 15 percent, with no deductions and stop all of this rhetoric about ending the Bush tax cuts, particularly for the small business owners and the most successful earners. I have never seen — the Democratic Party has an obsession over the Bush tax cuts. It’s like, whatever the problem is they repeal the tax cuts. It’s like they need a 12-step program to deal with their obsession and anger over the Bush tax cuts. So why not just lower spending, lower taxing coming out of these debt talks? That would provide some confidence and some incentives. That would help.” (DC)

Obsession:  It’s not just for Calvin Klein (now that’s and old reference! 🙂 )

ob·ses·sion:  the domination of one’s thoughts or feelings by a persistent idea, image, desire, etc.

I think I would rather have Brooke Shields jeans… 🙂

Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert

Granola Politics

The far Left loves to control people. It loves to push it’s agenda, that always ends in them running your life for you. And if you resist them, they swarm you like angry bees.

They get a buzz off lawsuits.

And Ground Zero for this is California, the Granola State– What isn’t fruit and nuts is flakes! 🙂

Prop 65 originally had its voter-approved heart in the right place, identifying hazardous chemicals in drinking water. But “mission creep” is practically a sacrament among government bureaucrats, and “drinking water” has been expanded to just about everything containing an element on the Periodic Table.

Prop 65 requires warning labels on products containing chemicals “known to the State of California to cause cancer.” Violations are enforceable by private citizens who can reap a hefty bounty for successfully suing (or even for negotiating settlements).

And this the “pro-business” “pro-Job growth” agenda that liberal pursue. I want to hire more people when I have crazed leftist bounty hunters looking for an ridiculous off the wall reason to sue me.

And then the government thinks I’m “rich” and wants to tax me to death so they can spend more on entitlements for people who aren’t working or paying taxes anyhow.

This just increases the price of products, you know.

This sounds like a “good business environment” doesn’t it??

A former California Department of Consumer Affairs director recently noted how “bounty hunter shakedowns of businesses have become the norm.” This spring a snack vending company received a $60,000 legal shakedown warning over the potato chips it sells.

The whole idea of “known … to cause cancer” has become vague and watered-down. For the overzealous (who stand to make just as much money as a principled lawyer), “known” could be as wishy-washy as a single poorly designed study showing a vague link.

A chemical called acrylamide, for example, has long been in Prop 65’s crosshairs. Regulators added it to the law’s initial hit list in 1986 because it sometimes turned up in drinking water. Twenty years later, scientists identified it in cooked vegetables, French fries, potato chips, and even roasted coffee beans.

It’s present in incredibly small amounts, of course. A person of average weight would have to eat 62 pounds of chips every day, for an entire lifetime, to reach the acrylamide dose that causes cancer in lab rats. Still, warning labels are warning labels.

Sadly, Prop 65 is not an anomaly. California is quickly becoming the home of laughingstock initiatives that threaten more than just grocery shoppers’ peace of mind.

In 2008, animal rights activists passed Proposition 2. When it takes effect in a few years, this initiative will ban the keeping of egg-laying hens in conventional cages.

Moneyed interests like the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS, which doesn’t run a single pet shelter) ran slick ads making Prop 2 sound good—who doesn’t want to help chickens?—while concealing their real agenda. In an unguarded moment, a former vice president of HSUS has confessed that her group’s ultimate goal is to “get rid of the [poultry] industry.” One strategy is apparently to force cash-strapped egg farmers to shell out millions for a costly new infrastructure.

Human nature being what it is, much of California’s egg production may eventually move south to Mexico, where food safety and animal welfare standards are anybody’s guess. (How is that “humane”?)

Jobs anyone?

It gets loonier: Organic-only food activists are gearing up for a 2012 California ballot question that would require labels on foods containing genetically modified (GM) ingredients.

Most modern agricultural technology is taboo in the organic utopia. By raising the specter of (non-existent) risks, activists constantly attack biotech techniques that have been used safely for decades. Even Whole Foods now stocks some GM groceries. If they’re not “pure” enough, somebody’s standards are out of whack.

The general principle of a citizen-driven ballot initiative is a good one. But today radical groups are throwing millions into campaigns whose basic premises are deceptive, and whose arguments kick nuance to the curb.

Some state legislatures can amend ballot initiatives after they pass. Missouri is one. In April a bipartisan majority of Show-Me State lawmakers told the animal rights activists at HSUS to take a hike, repealing the more unsavory parts of an HSUS-funded initiative that eked out a slim victory last fall.

In response, the ultra-liberal HSUS is now working with conservative groups to set a “supermajority” standard for Missouri legislators who want to override future ballot initiatives. With all the strange-bedfellows special-interest money already flooding state legislatures and bankrolling carefully manicured ballot questions, it’s hard to imagine that the result will reflect the sentiment of the electorate.

If you vote against a Liberal you just make them madder.

Ultimately, the right remedy for legislative interference with ballot questions may not lie in merely raising the bar. How about a series of state laws requiring ballot initiatives to essentially stand for re-election every ten years? When public mores change, laws should follow suit. Even activist-written laws.

We could start in California. Potato chip lovers of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your warning labels. (Rick Berman)

But won’t you “feel” better and “feel” safer sticking it to “the man”! 🙂

And put down that evil Potato Chip!

And forget about cooking with that Mexican Egg Fatso!

Washington Shrugged

What’s your political affiliation?

Republican? Democrat?

Or are you an independent?

Most said ” independent” when we asked people outside my office.

In their new book, “Declaration of Independents,” Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch from Reason say that independents with libertarian politics are on the rise, and they can fix what’s wrong with America. Why? Because everything in our culture is being democratized, and the parts of America free from government control are getting better.

“Citizen journalists” like Andrew Breitbart break stories the major networks would miss or ignore.

Fewer people are jammed into narrow categories of race, sexual preference, or style…we’re becoming a culture of “mutants,” say Gillespie and Welch.

iPhones…Facebook…YouTube…all of these new innovations are designed to give individuals more choices and ways to express themselves.

And people expressing themselves is a great way to be independent. Music and pop culture liberates people all over the world … and constantly pushes forward tolerance and freedom of speech. Former MTV personalities Kurt Loder and Kennedy say a freer culture means freer people.

Government impedes progress. What government controls — education, health care, entitlements — government messes up. What do they all have in common? Too little choice, and too much regulation. (John Stossel)

Video: 41 mins

youtube=http://www.youtube.com/user/ReasonTV?blend=1&ob=5#p/u/0/fvu8XkV7ho0

In Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand wrote: “There’s no way to rule innocent men… When there aren’t enough criminals, one declares so many things to be a crime… that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws”

In just one year, Washington’s regulators added 80,000 pages of regulations. Additionally, there are state and county regulations. Even worse, the regulations are ambiguous and subject to change. This is why big business is determined to get in bed with big government: it’s a protection racket, akin to the Mafia demanding a “protection fee” from the shop down the corner. They don’t want to pay that fee, so they make their way into government. After getting in bed with government, once big business gets enough power to use government to its advantage at the expense of the people it will do so. People complain about the symptoms of crony capitalism but always overlook the cause: big government.

 Consider this also: IF you raised taxes on only the “rich” (aka <$200,000 a year) to erase the debt each one of them would have to pay approximately $3.4 million dollars EACH.
And that doesn’t even begin to address the real problem in Washington.
They have a SPENDING PROBLEM, Not a Revenue problem.
Oh, and that Stimulus that cost $787,000,000,000 and was alleged to save 2.3 million jobs…That $393,000 per job “saved or created”. And they were primarily from the democrat apparatchik class of Unions (like the UAW and Teachers) to state and bank workers.
But don’t worry, they know what they are doing…. 😦

Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley

Put Down that Potato Chip, Fatso!

food-police

Prepare for the FDA to slap on graphic photos of man boobs on the side of every bag from this point forward.

Blame the potato chip. It’s the biggest demon behind that pound-a-year weight creep that plagues many of us, a major diet study found. Bigger than soda, candy and ice cream.

And the reason is partly that old advertising cliche: You can’t eat just one.

“They’re very tasty and they have a very good texture. People generally don’t take one or two chips. They have a whole bag,” said obesity expert Dr. F. Xavier Pi-Sunyer of the St. Luke’s-Roosevelt Hospital Center in New York.

What we eat and how much of it we consume has far more impact than exercise and most other habits do on long-term weight gain, according to the study by Harvard University scientists. It’s the most comprehensive look yet at the effect of individual foods and lifestyle choices like sleep time and quitting smoking.

The new study finds food choices are key. The message: Eat more fruits, vegetables, whole grains and nuts. Cut back on potatoes, red meat, sweets and soda.

That’s right folks, blame the potato chip rather than personal actions. Also, blame the cigarrettes for cancer instead of the people who smoke them.

The Government must save you from yourself and from evil marketing campaigns.

Then it’s time for for pro-Obama lies about the economy. 🙂

But we are from the Government and we are here to save you! 🙂

For starchy potatoes other than chips, the gain was 1.28 pounds. Within the spud group, french fries were worse for the waist than boiled, baked or mashed potatoes. That’s because a serving of large fries contains between 500 to 600 calories compared with a serving of a large baked potato at 280 calories.

POTATOES ARE EVIL!!!
BAN THE SPUD!
THE POTATO POLICE WILL BE COMING FOR YOU!
FAST FOOD FRIES MUST BE OUTLAWED FOR YOUR OWN GOOD!
🙂
People who slept more or less than six to eight hours a night gained more weight.
Huh? Was that as much nonsense as I thought it was?
Well, as all of us Foodies know, “fat is flavor” so the Government has to do away with that.
Meat is Evil
Salt is Evil
Carbs are evil!
Potatoes are evil!
Can enforced Veganism (especially with ObamaCare’s cost curve) be far behind?
It’s for your own good, Fatso! 🙂
Now were was the Multi-Grain Pringles Can I was just wolfing down… 🙂

YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED! 🙂

Ideological Blindness

Political Cartoons by Nate Beeler

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told the House Small Business Committee on Wednesday that the Obama administration believes taxes on small business must increase so the administration does not have to “shrink the overall size of government programs.”

The administration’s plan to raise the tax rate on small businesses is part of its plan to raise taxes on all Americans who make more than $250,000 per year—including businesses that file taxes the same way individuals and families do.

Wasn’t it Obama and Company that said they weren’t raising taxes on small businesses? 🙂

And shrinking the size of government programs is the whole F*cking point these days, at the people believe.

But not in Washington. They are still trying to get around it. They don’t want to do it. They just want to look like they are.

Which is why I say, the nuclear hot potato they are playing with will go off in our faces before anyone does anything. Guaranteed though, that the liberal will blame it on anyone but themselves.

Geithner’s explanation of the administration’s small-business tax plan came in an exchange with first-term Rep. Renee Ellmers (R.-N.C.). Ellmers, a nurse, decided to run for the U.S. House of Representatives in 2010 after she became active in the grass-roots opposition to President Barack Obama’s proposed health-care reform plan in 2009.

“Overwhelmingly, the businesses back home and across the country continue to tell us that regulation, lack of access to capital, taxation, fear of taxation, and just the overwhelming uncertainties that our businesses face is keeping them from hiring,” Ellmers told Geithner. “They just simply cannot.”

She then challenged Geithner on the administration’s tax plan.

“Looking into the future, you are supporting the idea of taxation, increasing taxes on those who make $250,000 or more. Those are our business owners,” said Ellmers.

Geithner initially responded by saying that the administration’s planned tax increase would hit “three percent of your small businesses.”

Ellmers then said: “Sixty-four percent of jobs that are created in this country are for small business.”

Geithner conceded the point, but then suggested the administration’s planned tax increase on small businesses would be “good for growth.”

Just like the liberal who sight “15 months of private sector job growth” as their way of saying the economy is growing when it’s not. But they want to ignore the burning forest to focus on the one tree that isn’t burning yet and say, “see, I told you it wasn’t on fire!

Raising Taxes during a near-depression is always a good idea. Liberals just don’t get it, and more importantly, don’t WANT to get it. They just want to do what they want to do because they want to do. And they fantasize that it will all work out because in their heads it make so much sense to them. Reality is not their strong suit.

“No, that’s right. I agree with that,” said Geithner. “But just to put it in perspective, it’s important to recognize why are we doing this. You know, our deficits are 10 percent of GDP, higher than they’ve been since any time in the postwar period really. We have a big hole to dig out of, and we have to figure out how to do that in a way that’s balanced, good for growth, fair to people as a whole.”

Geithner, continuing, argued that if the administration did not extract a trillion dollars in new revenue from its plan to increase taxes on people earning more than $250,000, including small businesses, the government would in effect “finance” what he called a “tax benefit” for those people.

What they hell do you call ObamaCare for godsake?

“We’re not doing it because we want to do it, we’re doing it because if we don’t do it, then, again, I have to go out and borrow a trillion dollars over the next 10 years to finance those tax benefits for the top 2 percent, and I don’t think I can justify doing that,” said Geithner.

Ah, there’s the Class WarFare mantra. it always rears it’s ugly head because it’s at the heart of Liberalism.

By the way, the top 1% pay 40% of ALL TAXES. 47% of the American people pay NO TAXES AT ALL!

The top 5% pay 60% of all taxes! (which by the way is well below the $250,000 threshold).

So half the people who pay taxes would be taxed more and the half that doesn’t pay now anyhow wouldn’t. Gee, that sounds like a great idea! 😦

So let’s make them pay more because Liberals want to be “fair” and appease their burning desire for Class Warfare and ‘peasant’ resentment!

Hey, Mr Geithner GOVERNMENT DOES NOT HAVE A REVENUE PROBLEM IT HAS A SPENDING PROBLEM!!!!

And you’re it, buddy!

Not only that, he argued, but cutting spending by as much as the “modest change in revenue” (i.e. $1 trillion) the administration expects from raising taxes on small business would likely have more of a “negative economic impact” than the tax increases themselves would.

“And if we were to cut spending by that magnitude to do it, you’d be putting a huge additional burden on the economy, probably greater negative economic impact than that modest change in revenue,” said Geithner.

Yeah, Over $14,000,000,000,000 in debt is not a worry at all.

Tax and Spend!

Spend and Tax!

When Ellmers finally told Geithner that “the point is we need jobs,” he responded that the administration felt it had “no alternative” but to raise taxes on small businesses because otherwise “you have to shrink the overall size of government programs”—including federal education spending.

Ah, poor baby… 🙂 (This would be the education spending where 12% of students could pass a basic history test after 12 years of it, right?)

https://indyfromaz.wordpress.com/2011/06/18/are-you-smarter-than-a-12th-grader/

“We’re not doing it because we want to do it, we’re doing it because we see no alternative to a balanced approach to reduce our fiscal deficits,” said Geithner.

Yeah, like cutting spending. The myopic Liberal view only sees Keynesian economics and nothing else.

Tax and Spend. Spend and Tax. Class Warfare. That’s it.

“If you don’t touch revenues and you leave in place the tax cuts for the top 2 percent that were put in place by President Bush, if you leave those in place and you’re trying to bring our deficits down over time, then you have to do exceptionally deep cuts in benefits for middle-class Americans and you have to shrink the overall size of government programs, things like education, to levels that we could not accept as a country,” said Geithner.

So you have to grow the size and scope of government and taxes to shrink a deficit?

Elections have consequences people!

“So to do a balanced approach to reduce our deficits you have to make modest changes in revenues,” he said. “There’s no realistic opportunity to do alternatives to doing that.”(CNS)

What we need is a drastic CUT in SPENDING. The revenues will follow.

But since Liberals can’t even fathom that concept this is what you get.

Now that’s you’re Hope & Change! 🙂

More recently we’ve witnessed the creation of new historical narrative about the financial crisis of 2008. The perceived history, eagerly peddled by liberals and Democrats, is that the crash of 2008 was the result of Wall Street greed. It was unregulated capitalism that brought us to the brink of financial meltdown, the Democrats insisted. And they codified their manufactured history in a law, the Dodd-Frank Act, that completely avoided the true problem.

It’s both surprising and gratifying, therefore, to report that a great revisionist history has just been published by none other than a New York Times reporter, Gretchen Morgenson, and a financial analyst, Joshua Rosner.

In “Reckless Endangerment,” Morgenson and Rosner offer considerable censure for reckless bankers, lax rating agencies, captured regulators and unscrupulous businessmen. But the greatest responsibility for the collapse of the housing market and the near “Armageddon” of the American economy belongs to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and to the politicians who created and protected them. With a couple of prominent exceptions, the politicians were Democrats claiming to do good for the poor. Along the way, they enriched themselves and their friends, stuffed their campaign coffers, and resisted all attempts to enforce market discipline. When the inevitable collapse arrived, the entire economy suffered, but no one more than the poor.

Jim Johnson, adviser to Walter Mondale and John Kerry, amassed a personal fortune estimated at $100 million during his nine years as CEO of Fannie Mae. “Under Johnson,” Morgenson and Rosner write, “Fannie Mae led the way in encouraging loose lending practices among the banks whose loans the company bought. A Pied Piper of the financial sector, Johnson led both the private and public sectors down a path that led directly to the credit crisis of 2008.”

Fannie Mae lied about its profits, intimidated adversaries, bought off members of Congress with lavish contributions, hired (and thereby co-opted) academics, purchased political ads (through its foundation) and stacked congressional hearings with friendly bankers, community activists and advocacy groups (including ACORN). Fannie Mae also hired the friends and relations of key members of Congress (including Rep. Barney Frank’s partner).

“Reckless Endangerment” includes the Clinton administration’s contribution to the home-ownership catastrophe. Clinton had claimed that dramatically increasing homeownership would boost the economy, instead “in just a few short years, all of the venerable rules governing the relationship between borrower and lender went out the window, starting with … the requirement that a borrower put down a substantial amount of cash in a property, verify his income, and demonstrate an ability to service his debts.”

“Reckless Endangerment” utterly deflates the perceived history of the 2008 crash. Yes, there was greed — when is there not? But it was government distortions of markets — not “unregulated capitalism” — that led the economy to disaster. (Mona Charen)

But I’m sure the liberals will CUT that out of the education they are so desperate to preserve. 🙂

Just Spend More Money!

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay