Cliff Diving

Whenever conservatives bring up the s-word in political discourse, indignant liberals recoil at the term.  How dare you call us Socialists?  Fine.  Let’s make a deal.  We’ll abide by a self-imposed cease and desist order on the socialism label just as soon as you guys explain this to the rest of us (see the final line item):

Political Cartoons by Nate Beeler

Geithner suggested $1.6 trillion in tax increases, McConnell says, but showed “minimal or no interest” in spending cuts. When congressional leaders went to the White House three days after the election, Obama talked of possible curbs on the explosive growth of food stamps and Social Security disability payments. But since Geithner didn’t mention them, those reductions appear to be off the table now, McConnell says.

Obama is pushing to raise the tax rates on couples earning more than $250,000 and individuals earning more than $200,000. But those wouldn’t produce revenues anywhere near $1.6 trillion over a decade.

It’s a TRAP!

And Obama can promise anything he likes, but since he leads from behind and lets his minions do his dirty work they don’t have to follow through and it’s not his fault if they don’t. 🙂

And the media sure as hell won’t remember or care if he does. It is, after all, entirely the Republicans fault no matter what. 🙂

President Obama is insisting that any deal reached to avoid the fiscal cliff — a blend of across-the-board tax increases and massive federal spending cuts set to begin in January — should also include an increase in the nation’s debt ceiling, the amount the government can borrow to maintain its operations. The government is set to reach its current $16 trillion limit in a matter of months.

Spend NOW, talk about cuts later, much later, like 4 years from now when the debt is over $20 Trillion and that will be the Republicans fault (oh, and they raised taxes too!). The 2014-16 strategy is coming into place nicely.

House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, who battled with Obama last year over raising the debt ceiling, said Republicans won’t agree to another hike without corresponding spending cuts at least equal to the increased borrowing authority. The White House called Boehner “deeply irresponsible” for insisting on deeper cuts in programs that will already be reduced by any deal on the fiscal cliff.

“Asking that a political price be paid in order for Congress to do its job to ensure that the United States of America pays its bills and does not default for the first time in its history is deeply irresponsible,” said White House press secretary Jay Carney.

Gee, I thought that price was tax increases and no real spending cuts? 🙂

But the strategy is working. The Ministry of Truth is out in force.

Neither side wants to be blamed for allowing tax increases and sweeping budget cuts to hit Americans still reeling from the recession in the New Year. A recent CNN poll shows 45 percent are ready to blame Republicans if a compromise isn’t reached; 34 percent would blame Obama.

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

ObamaCare Update: Food Tax Increase (and not on just over $200,000)

New Obamacare regulations targeting the fast food and grocery store market that require signs detailing calorie and nutritional information on every product will force pizza makers like Domino’s to post up to 34 million different signs in every store: One for every possible pizza order.

“It’s not like a Big Mac. Pizza is customizable, there are options to factor in,” said Jenny Fouracre-Petko, legislative director for Domino’s and a member of the trade group American Pizza Community. “There are 34 million pizza combinations. We’ve done the math.”

Ditto for the grocery stores, which are shifting to providing more fresh made and baked goods, said Erik Lieberman, counsel for the Food Marketing Institute. “Consider just one fresh-baked blueberry muffin. If one is sold, you need a nutrition sign or sticker. If a half dozen are sold, a different one is required. Same if you sell a dozen.”

Lieberman predicted that the new regulations being finalized by the Food and Drug Administration for chains with 20 stores or more will cost the grocery industry $1 billion. He said stores average 1,500 fresh made items each.

Fouracre-Petko said that just posting generic nutrition signs in Domino’s will cost $4,700 per location, senseless, she said, because virtually all Domino’s customers order by phone and get their food delivered, so most will never seen them. She said that 10 percent of pizza customers enter a Domino’s store. “Coughing up almost $5,000 for something like this will hurt,” she said.

Lieberman said that consumers will get stuck with the bill. “It’s one more cost consumers are going to have to pay for,” he said. (examiner)

But at least you’ll have Health Care and will have “fairness” in class envy and stuck it to the rich!!!… 😉

But how many will lose their jobs over it?

Elections have consequences! (and these were not unintended). 🙂

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

 Political Cartoons by Glenn Foden

 

Advertisements

The Game is a Foot

But with talks to avert the so-called fiscal cliff in full swing, Democrats are resisting proposals championed by Republicans to hit the rich on the spending side by curtailing their government health and pension benefits.
This is called compromise, something the modern Democrat is completely unfamiliar with and completely unwilling to do.
It is you who have to compromise NOT THEM.
As I have said many a time, compromise to a Democrat means you give them everything THEY want and you compromise and get a little to nothing of what you want.
Because if you don’t, then THEY blame YOU for it.
Look at the Budget. The US Senate has not passed a Budget since 2009. It’s nearly 4 flipping years later and they still aren’t interested.
And how’s fault is that? The Republicans!!
They keep “obstructing” them by passing a budget they don’t like and the idea of a Conference committee to work out a deal where everyone gets something but not everything they want is an alien concept to these Democrats.
Look at how they and the media are hammering the Republicans on “tax increases” for the rich, but bring up entitlement reform and they get indignant and stubborn.
They want what THEY want, when THEY want it, and you don’t matter other than to cave in and give them what they want when they want it because they want it!!
Like bratty 2 years with a Ministry of Truth to back them up.
Bob Corker (R) recently put forth a $4.5tn deficit reduction plan that included raising the cost of health coverage for retirees earning more than $50,000, saving about $50bn over a decade, and he is also proposing to make Social Security benefit distribution more progressive. “Especially when Democrats want wealthy citizens to pay more, this is a place hopefully where we would have common ground,” says Mr Corker.
But entitlements are how the Democrats both Bribe and Fearmonger their way into office so no one touches their golden egg!

“Progressives should be willing to talk about ways to ensure the long-term viability of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid,” said Dick Durbin, the second-highest ranking Democratic senator, in a speech at the Center for American Progress, a left-leaning think-tank, this week. “But those conversations should not be part of a plan to avert the fiscal cliff.”

Aka, we’re not going to talk about them at all. Not now. Not seriously at least. But when this latest “get the rich” scheme fails maybe we will go after their entitlements so we can get the money to spend on…you guessed it entitlements like ObamaCare. 🙂

Other Democrats say that some new spending cuts will have to be part of any deal. But they believe that reductions in entitlement programmes should only be considered once Republicans have made a big concession on taxes, which has not occurred yet. (FT)

It’s a game of Chicken. You blink first, then we’ll roast you. Then we won’t have any incentive to do anything later.
I’ll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today” as Wimpy used to say in the Popeye comics.
And then never does.
So you give me Tax increases, and I give you…NOTHING but grief about it. It’s a matter of childish pride to Liberals to make the Republicans crack.
Then like the schoolyard bullies they are, they’ll laugh and mock you for it.
Then they’ll ignore you please, “but you promised…”
They’ll just laugh.
Just wait and see.

It can’t be stressed strongly enough: What President Obama is now up to seeks to destroy the Republican Party as it has existed since the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980. (IBD)

Exactly. Why fight them when you can humiliate and destroy them and make them cow-tow to you.

A majority of Americans will never vote for the 21st century version of Tom Dewey “Dime Store Democrat” Republicans.

But the Democrats, who controlled Congress for 40 years straight from 1956-1996 who gladly and gleefully welcome them back.
A weaker, less adversarial, morally dubious, mish-mash of nothing is much easier to manipulate and get what you want when you want it because you want it.
Just like the American people.
Give your soul up the Government Devil and They will eat you alive.
And Obama, as usual is leading from Behind. He says he’ll do anything to get this done.“I’ll go anywhere and I’ll do whatever it takes to get this done,” President Barack Obama said as he sought to build pressure on Republicans to accept his terms — a swift renewal of expiring tax cuts for all but the highest income earners. “It’s too important for Washington to screw this up,” he declared.
He’ll do anything, except lead the charge himself. He has minions to do his bidding instead. The best Leadership is from Behind, you know.
Michael Ramirez Cartoon

ObamaCare Update

For the first time in Gallup trends since 2000, a majority of Americans say it is not the federal government’s responsibility to make sure all Americans have healthcare coverage.

THEN WHY DID YOU MORONS VOTE FOR OBAMA!

Damn these people are stupid sheeple!!!

Of course it comes out that it’s less Republicans and less Independents really that are less interested. 71% of Democrats are still there.
But if a Majority of Americans say overall that it shouldn’t happen then voting for Obama was exactly the wrong way to express it, you morons!
But it’s too late now, you get to sleep in that bed now!!
There’s not taking it back or “just kidding”. You sold the country down the Progressive toilet. Now you get to swim with the poo!

What’s Fair?

DC: Wall Street Journal’s Stephen Moore: ‘Obama wants to make everyone equally poor’

Economics writer Stephen Moore says President Barack Obama’s obsession with fairness will make everyone poor.

“Fairness is a good principle but should not be put ahead of growth,” Moore said in an interview with The Daily Caller about his new book, “Who’s the Fairest of Them All?: The Truth about Opportunity, Taxes, and Wealth in America,” released Tuesday. “There’s nothing fair about making everyone poor.”

What’s wrong with fairness?

Fairness is a good principle but should not be put ahead of growth. There’s nothing fair about making everyone poor.

When the president talks about fairness, what does he mean? And what would the consequences of his conception of fairness be?

Obama wants to make everyone equally poor. You have to create wealth before you can redistribute it.

What do you say to those who say that America boomed in the 1950s when the top tax rate was 90 percent, so therefore raising taxes on the rich won’t inhibit strong growth?

In the 1950s we were the only game in town and overall taxes were much lower. Now we are in a competitive world where everyone is cutting tax rates except for us. This is a reason businesses outsource jobs.

This is not a “Leave it to Beaver” fantasy 1950’s anymore. And Obama is not Ward Cleaver and Michelle is not June Cleaver.

But there is an Eddie Haskell, Timothy “The Tax Cheat” Geithner. He’s out front on the “tax fairness”.
But don’t worry, Obama is already leading from behind on this one too and all I want to do is hide BEHIND the sofa from the terror that awaits… 🙂

Thomas Sowell: If everyone in America had read Stephen Moore’s new book, “Who’s The Fairest of Them All?”, Barack Obama would have lost the election in a landslide.

The point here is not to ask where Stephen Moore was when we needed him. A more apt question might be:

Where was the whole economics profession when we needed it?

Where were the media?

For that matter, where were the Republicans?

Since “Who’s The Fairest of Them All?” was published in October, there was little chance that it would affect this year’s election.

But this little gem of a book exposes, in plain language and with easily understood facts, the whole house of cards of assumptions, fallacies and falsehoods which constitute the liberal vision of the economy.

Yet that vision triumphed on election day, thanks to misinformation that was artfully presented and seldom challenged.

The title “Who’s The Fairest of Them All?” is an obvious response to liberals’ claim that their policies are aimed at creating “fairness” by, among other things, making sure that “the rich” pay their “fair share” of taxes.

If you want a brief but thorough education on that, just read Chapter 4, which by itself is well worth the price of the book.

A couple of graphs on Pages 104 and 108 are enough to annihilate the argument about “tax cuts for the rich.”

Hidden Money

These graphs show that, under both Republican President Calvin Coolidge and Democratic President John F. Kennedy, high-income people paid more tax revenues into the federal treasury after tax rates went down than they did before.

There is nothing mysterious about this. At high tax rates, vast sums of money disappear into tax shelters at home or is shipped overseas.

At lower tax rates, that money comes out of hiding and goes into the American economy, creating jobs, rising output and rising incomes.

Under these conditions, higher tax revenues can be collected by the government, even though tax rates are lower.

Indeed, high income people not only end up paying more taxes, but a higher share of all taxes, under these conditions.

This is not just a theory. It is what hard evidence shows happened under both Democratic and Republican administrations, from the days of Calvin Coolidge to John F. Kennedy to Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.

That hard evidence is presented in clear and unmistakable terms in “Who’s The Fairest of Us All?”

Another surprising fact brought out in this book is that the Democrats and Republicans both took positions during the Kennedy administration that were the direct opposite of the positions they take today.

As Stephen Moore points out, “the Republicans almost universally opposed and the Democrats almost universally favored” the cuts in tax rates that President Kennedy proposed.

Such Republican Senate stalwarts as Barry Goldwater and Bob Dole voted against reducing the top tax rate from 91% to 70%. Democratic Congressman Wilbur Mills led the charge for lower tax rates.

Fear Of Facts

Unlike the Republicans today, John F. Kennedy had an answer when critics tried to portray his tax cut proposal as just a “tax cut for the rich.”

President Kennedy argued that it was a tax cut for the economy, that changed incentives meant a faster growing economy and that “a rising tide lifts all boats.”

If Republicans today cannot seem to come up with their own answer when critics cry out “tax cuts for the rich,” maybe they can just go back and read John F. Kennedy’s answer.

A truly optimistic person might even hope that media pundits would go back and check out the facts before arguing as if the only way to reduce the deficit is to raise tax rates on “the rich.”

If they are afraid that they would be stigmatized as conservatives if they favored cuts in tax rates, they might take heart from the fact that not only John F. Kennedy, but even John Maynard Keynes as well, argued that cutting tax rates could increase tax revenues and thereby help reduce the deficit.

Because so few people bother to check the facts, Barack Obama can get away with statements about how “tax cuts for the rich” have “cost” the government money that now needs to be recouped.

Such statements not only promote class warfare, to Obama’s benefit on election day, they also distract attention from his own runaway spending behind unprecedented trillion-dollar deficits.

http://www.amazon.com/Whos-Fairest-Them-All-Opportunity/dp/1594036845

Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert

Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert
Political Cartoons by Ken Catalino

The Lie that Keeps on Giving

Others can comment on the entirely of the Sunday New York Times story by Serge F. Kovaleski and Brooks Barnes (used in Monday’s print edition) about Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, the maker of the infamous “Innocence of Muslims” YouTube trailer the authors characterize as a “film” a dozen times in their write-up. Nakoula has now been in jail for two months.

The write up begins:

There is a dispute about how important the video was in provoking the terrorist assault on the American diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, that killed the United States ambassador and three other Americans. Militants interviewed at the scene said they were unaware of the video until a protest in Cairo called it to their attention.The two sentences together don’t even makes sense unless one believes that “militants” (i.e., terrorists) decided within hours to prepare and orchestrate from scratch an assault on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya because they became aware of a video and protests supposedly related to it. Give me break.

Though it only reported the news directly one time, the Associated Press ran a story on October 10 (noted at the time by yours truly at NewsBusters and Daniel Halper at the Weekly Standard) relaying the following:

The State Department now says it never believed the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, was a film protest gone awry

… The State Department’s extraordinary break with other administration offices came in a department briefing Tuesday, where officials said “others” in the executive branch concluded initially that the protest was based, like others in the Middle East, on a film that ridiculed the Prophet Muhammad.

That was never the department’s conclusion, a senior official told reporters.

Everyone else has subsequently backed off the idea that a “film protest” or any kind of “protest” had anything to with Benghazi. In the real world, there is no doubt that it was a long-planned, straight-out terrorist attack. Yet two guys at the New York Times want to pretend that there still is some kind of “dispute,” which only exists in their dissembling, confusion-sowing imaginations.

So Susan Rice Said it was a Film’s fault Repeatedly. But now if you bring that up you’re…you guessed it…a RACIST!

Obama said it was film, and apologized for it at the UN.

Hilary said it was film. Then weeks later through herself on the sword for Obama when it was clear it wasn’t.

Then It was the Intelligence communities fault. They blamed the CIA and the FBI.

But Petreaus’s scandal ruined that too.

So Al-Jazeera West, Better known as the New York Times, is back to pushing the Film months after everyone with a brain cell knows its so much bovine fecal matter.

Given the election results, that just might work. 🙂

Evidence for the Prosecution:

On Libya, 54% of the country is dissatisfied with the administration’s response to the Benghazi attack, with only four in ten saying they’re satisfied with the way the White House handled the matter.

“But that dissatisfaction is not because Americans see a cover-up,” said CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. “Only 40% believe that the inaccurate statements that administration officials initially made about the Benghazi attack were an attempt to deliberately mislead the public. Fifty-four percent think those inaccurate statements reflected what the White House believed to be true at the time.”

Amerika, what a Country!

Walk and Talk Like an Egyptian

Update on Obama’s “Arab Spring” and how great at foreign policy he is. How many Egyptian will die this time around but he’ll avoid the issue completely because there is no political advantage any more.(from IBD):

Cairo’s streets are filled with demonstrations against Egypt’s president. It sounds awfully familiar, but since the grievances are against an Islamist this time around, don’t expect “the people” to enjoy U.S. support.

After Morsi’s announcement, the US State Department merely observed that Morsi’s moves “raise concerns for many Egyptians and for the international community”, hardly a resounding US denunciation.

A very tepid, ah who cares, so what, we’re so done with you…more like.

Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi, who came to power as leader of the “civilizational jihadist” Muslim Brotherhood, is besieged with protests from his people after giving himself Pharaoh-like powers that include a ban on challenges to his decrees and the weakening of Egypt’s judiciary.

Crowds torched Brotherhood offices in cities across the land of the pyramids, and they jammed Cairo’s Tahrir Square with shouts of “Out! Out!”

Gee, isn’t Morsi a man of the people, personifying the “new beginning” of President Obama’s 2009 Cairo University “apology to Muslims” speech? And didn’t Morsi, just a day before his power grab, become the Peacemaker of Palestine by joining with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in forging an Israeli-Hamas cease-fire?

How could Morsi be corrupt, and how could the people turn against their liberator? As the rock singer says, “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.”

Morsi has become just as tyrannical as his predecessor, Hosni Mubarak — except Mubarak was a staunch U.S. ally who maintained peace with Israelis and kept the Mideast powder keg stable for decades, while Morsi so reviles the Jewish homeland he won’t let the word “Israel” pass his lips.

The seriousness of Morsi’s coup, as many Egyptians are fearlessly calling it, is indicated by the posture of Mohamed ElBaradei, the longtime head of the U.N.’s atomic weapons oversight body and critic of the U.S., who on Friday called on Egyptians to “save the nation,” charging Morsi “blasted the concept of the state and the legitimacy and appointed himself ruler by divine decree.”

The left-leaning Nobel Peace Prize winner also declared: “The revolution is aborted until further notice.”

Just don’t expect White House press secretary Jay Carney to announce that the Egyptian people’s “grievances have reached a boiling point, and they have to be addressed,” as his predecessor Robert Gibbs did when Mubarak was on the ropes.

And don’t hold your breath for Clinton — or whoever her successor is at the State Department — to call for “an orderly, peaceful transition to real democracy, not faux democracy” in which “the people just keep staying in power and become less and less responsive,” as she said two years ago during street demos against Mubarak.

It took 24 hours for Morsi to take advantage of the prestige Obama and his secretary of state handed him. Now he’s using America’s stamp of approval to oppress his own people.

Some “new beginning.”

We swept a vicious dictator who at least listened to us for a new one that won’t. Now that’s Progress!!

And I bet the Ministry of Truth will avoid it like the plague and Jay Carney will dodge faster than “Fast and Furious” or “Benghazi”.

Morsi says it’s “temporary”. Yeah, right. I want to be a dictator , but only temporarily! And I have bridge in Brooklyn I want to sell you. Or better yet another Obama “Arab Spring” The Sequel that will never happen.
Mustapha Kamel Al Sayyid, a political science professor at the American University in Cairo.“I think that the fact that the Muslim Brotherhood is planning a big demonstration … on Tuesday suggests that they are not inclined to accept a compromise,” he says. “I think they are planning to send a message that they have more support in the country than the secularists, and they will not change their position.”…

Just Like the Democrats (except it’s the reverse, Democrats are the Secularists and everyone else is “clinging to their guns and religion”)… 🙂

As evidenced by the Gun Store owner in Pinetop, AZ who had the anti-Obama sign up in his window (as mentioned in a previous blog):

Mr. Reynolds, owner of Southwest Shooting Authority says “business is booming” after his sign and newspaper ad caught the attention of various media outlets. The sign read: “If you voted for Barack Obama, your business is not welcome at Southwest Shooting Authority. You have proven you’re not responsible enough to own a firearm.”

Reynolds says he has been inundated with hundreds of calls and emails from media types and supporters. When asked about business, he replied, “I’ve been busier than a cat covering up poop on a marble floor.” (KFYI)

Obamacare Update:

Menu-Labeling that is meant to prevent obesity by making people read how evil their non-vegetarian, non-vegan food is.

And what about the research showing menu labeling helps reduce obesity rates and increase overall health? FMI’s Erik Lieberman writes:

“It has been estimated by industry that the costs of extending menu labeling to supermarkets will exceed $1 billion in the first year of compliance alone, and hundreds of million of dollars annually thereafter. Meanwhile, the evidence that menu labeling has any significant impact on public health is scant. Indeed, of the studies FDA cites in the rule, most demonstrate that menu labeling has little to no effect on purchasing habits. Furthermore, no study shows any link to reduction of obesity rates, the purported benefit which FDA used to justify the menu labeling regulation.”

Amerika, What a Country.

 

Give The People What They Want Chapter II

A Psalm of Obama
(To be sung by children, K-12, every morning of their seven-day school week.)*

The State is my shepherd,

I shall not want.

It makes me lie down in federally owned pastures.

It leads me beside quiet waters in banned fishing areas.

It restores my soul through its control.

It guides me in the path of dependency for its namesake.

Even though our nation plunges into the valley of the shadow of debt,

I will fear no evil,

For Barack will be with me.

The Affordable Care Act and food stamps,

They comfort me.

You prepare a table of Michelle Obama approved foods before me in the presence of my Conservative and Libertarian enemies.

You anoint my head with hemp oil;

My government regulated 16-ounce cup overflows.

Surely mediocrity and an entitlement mentality will follow me

All the days of my life,

And I will dwell in a low-rent HUD home forever and ever.

Amen.

*Special Note: For union workers teaching their subjects this psalm in government schools, it is to be regarded as a psalm of exquisite beauty. The main subject is the watchful care that the Government extends over its dependents and the consequent faux assurance that you must make them feel that the State will supply all their needs. The leading thought—the essential idea—is to get gullible Americans to fully believe that Big Government will provide for them and that they will never be left to want. Make certain the dumb bastards get that message, okay? (Doug Giles)

BRAVO! BRAVO BRAVO!

And speaking of entitlements…

Riding a wave of confidence after his re-election victory, President Obama is eager to collect scalps from the class war he appears to have won. Americans, Obama said in his postelection news conference earlier this month, “want to make sure that middle-class folks aren’t bearing the entire burden and sacrifice when it comes to some of these big challenges. They expect that folks at the top are doing their fair share as well.” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., echoed this point in a fundraising pitch sent out on Monday: “Voters sent a clear message to Republicans in the election: we must stand up for the middle class and ensure the wealthy pay their fair share.”

Although Obama and his fellow Democrats repeatedly call on wealthier Americans to pay their “fair share,” they never specify what percentage of the nation’s tax burden the wealthy would have to bear. As matters stand, the top 1 percent of American households paid 39 percent of income taxes in 2009, according to the most recent data compiled by the Congressional Budget Office, and the top 5 percent of taxpayers paid 64 percent.

But income taxes, taken in isolation, do not tell the whole story, because lower-income Americans do pay payroll taxes. But even taking into account all forms of taxation, the top 1 percent still paid 22 percent of federal taxes while earning just 13.4 percent of household income. The top 5 percent paid 40 percent of all federal taxes, despite earning only 26 percent of all income. No matter how you slice the numbers, it’s hard to understand why anyone would think the wealthy aren’t already shouldering a burden commensurate with their blessings.

In the next few weeks, Obama will keep repeating this “fair share” language as part of his call to raise taxes on those earning more than $250,000 per year. He also wants to close additional loopholes and limit deductions to increase their tax burden further. But bear this in mind: On top of whatever new taxes go into effect in the deal to avert the so-called fiscal cliff, there will be additional new taxes due to Obama’s national health care law. These include a 0.9 percent Medicare tax hike for individuals earning more than $200,000 per year and couples earning more than $250,000 as well as a 3.8 percent surtax on investment income.

Moreover, even if Obama gets his way on all of his tax hikes on the wealthy, it still won’t make a dent in the $16.3 trillion national debt. Later in his term, once he has blown all of the new revenue with spending increases and goes back to this well for still more revenues, will the media let Obama get away with claiming the wealthy aren’t paying their “fair share” once again, without specifying what constitutes fairness? (WE)

Unequivocally, Yes, they will. They are drinking from the same poisoned well.

They are The Ministry of Truth. They cannot commit heresy upon their God.

For they are with God, The Almighty, and none shall pass unless they are of The Body (yes, that’s a Star Trek Reference) and you will be Assimilated (another one) or you will be EXTERMINATED! (Doctor Who) Figurative, for now.

It’s what they voted for, after all.

Big Brother is Watching You. 🙂

 

Give The People What They Want

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

After his party’s devastating setback in the 2010 midterm elections, Barack Obama was reelected earlier this month by painting his Republican opponents as heartless in favoring lower taxes for the rich. They were portrayed as nativists for opposing the DREAM Act amnesty for illegal immigrants, and as callous in battling the federal takeover of health care.

Republicans countered with arguments that higher taxes on the employer class hurt the economy in general. They assumed most voters knew that amnesties are euphemisms for undermining federal law and in the past have had the effect of promoting more illegal immigration. They tried to point out that there is no such thing as free universal health care, since Obamacare will only shift responsibility from health-care practitioners and patients to inefficient government bureaucracies and hide the true costs with higher taxes.

And they utterly failed to convince the American people of any of that.

Why doesn’t the Republican-controlled House of Representatives give both voters and President Obama what they wished for?

The current battle over the budget hinges on whether to return to the Clinton-era income-tax rates, at least for those who make more than $250,000 a year. Allowing federal income rates to climb to near 40 percent on that cohort would bring in only about $80 billion in revenue a year — a drop in the bucket when set against the $1.3 trillion annual deficit that grew almost entirely from out-of-control spending since 2009.

Instead, why not agree to hike federal-income-tax rates only on the true “millionaires and billionaires,” “fat cats,” and “corporate jet owners” whom Obama has so constantly demonized? In other words, skip over the tire-store owner or dentist, and tax those, for example, who make $1 million or more in annual income. Eight out of the ten wealthiest counties in the United States voted for Obama. Corporate lawyers and the affluent in Hollywood and on Wall Street should all not mind “paying their fair share.”

Upping federal tax rates to well over 40 percent on incomes of more than $1 million a year would also offer a compromise: shielding most of the small businesspeople Republicans wish to protect while allowing Obama to tax the 1-percenters whom he believes have so far escaped paying what they owe, and then putting responsibility on the president to keep his part of the bargain in making needed cuts in spending.

Likewise, instead of hiking death taxes on small businesspeople, why not close loopholes for billion-dollar estates by taxing their gargantuan bequests to pet foundations that avoid estate taxes? Why should a Warren Buffett or Bill Gates act as if he built his own business and can solely determine how his fat-cat fortune is spent for the next century — meanwhile robbing the government of billions of dollars in lost estate taxes along with any federal say in how such fortunes are put to public use?

The president flipped in an election year on the DREAM Act. Suddenly, in 2012, Obama decided that he indeed did have the executive power to order amnesty without congressional approval for those who came illegally as children, stayed in school or joined the military, avoided arrest and thus deserved citizenship. In response, Republicans supposedly lost Latino support by insisting that federal immigration law be enforced across the board, regardless of race, class, gender, or national origin.

But why not make the president’s DREAM Act part of the envisioned grand bargain on immigration? Once it is agreed upon that we have the ability to distinguish those foreign nationals deserving of amnesty, then surely we also have the ability to determine who does not meet those agreed-upon criteria.

Why, then, cannot conservatives allow a pathway to citizenship for the play-by-the-rules millions who qualify, while regrettably enforcing an un-DREAM Act for others who just recently arrived illegally; enrolled in, and have remained on, public assistance; or have been convicted of a crime? Who could object to that fair compromise?

Finally, Obamacare will be imposed on all Americans by 2014. But so far the Obama administration has granted more than 1,200 exemptions to favored corporations and unions, covering about 4 million Americans. Shouldn’t Republicans seek to end all exemptions rather than tackle the improbable task of overturning Obamacare itself? Their motto should be: “Equality for all; special treatment for no one!”

One of the brilliant themes of the 2012 Obama campaign was forcing Republicans, on principle, to systematically oppose most of the things that the administration wanted them to oppose — thereby shielding itself from the unwelcome consequences of its own ideology while winning political points. Now, in defeat, Republicans should agree to let the chips lie where they fall: Tax only the truly rich; reward only the truly deserving illegal immigrants; and exempt no one from Obamacare.

Nothing could be fairer or more equal than that. (Victor Davis Hanson)

So when it all goes to hell, at least you can say, “we gave you everything you wanted” and look what happened.

Fascinating…