Uncle Sam’s Haul

The federal government raked in a record of approximately $2,446,920,000,000 in tax revenues through the first nine months of fiscal 2015 (Oct. 1, 2014 through the end of June), according to the Monthly Treasury Statement released today.

That equaled approximately $16,451 for every person in the country who had either a full-time or part-time job in June.

Are these just the jobs Americans “will do”? 🙂

The percentage of Americans working or looking for work fell to 62.6 percent in June, after 432,000 people dropped out of the labor force. That’s the lowest rate since October, 1977, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

It is also up about $178,156,270,000 in constant 2015 dollars from the $2,268,763,730,000 in revenue (in inflation-adjusted 2015 dollars) that the Treasury raked in during the first nine months of fiscal 2014.

Despite the record tax revenues of $2,446,920,000,000 in the first nine months of this fiscal year, the government spent $2,760,301,000,000 during those nine months, and, thus, ran up a deficit of $313,381,000,000 during the period.

So they have record tax collection but yet they still run a deficit! (but Obama would say that they run less of a deficit than when he started so that’s ‘progress’).

Anyone else see the flaw in the tax slaw?

The debt is now 18.3 Trillion and climbing.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, total seasonally adjusted employment in the United States in June (including both full and part-time workers) was 148,739,000. That means that the federal tax haul so far this fiscal year has equaled $16,451 for every person in the United States with a job.

In 2012, President Barack Obama struck a deal with Republicans in Congress to enact legislation that increased taxes. That included increasing the top income tax rate from 35 percent to 39.6 percent, increasing the top tax rate on dividends and capital gains from 15 percent to 20 percent, and phasing out personal exemptions and deductions starting at an annual income level of $250,000.

An additional 3.8 percent tax on dividends, interests, capital gains and royalties–that was embedded in the Obamacare law–also took effect in 2013.

The largest share of this year’s record-setting October-through-June tax haul came from the individual income tax. That yielded the Treasury $1,167,500,000,000. Payroll taxes for “social insurance and retirement receipts” took in another $771,048,000,000. The corporate income tax brought in $255,453,000,000.

But don’t worry, if you take this seriously, you have to be a “hater” of Obama, right?

The truth doesn’t matter any more, remember. 🙂

irony  government assistance

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

Going Up

Being a “bigot” by Leftist lack of standards pays off.

A fundraiser for the owners of an Indiana pizzeria that became the target of widespread animosity after they said they wouldn’t cater a same-sex wedding reception has collected more than $828,000 from anonymous donors.

Grand total of $842,387 in 2 days.

A GoFundMe page started by a producer from The Blaze, a conservative news network founded by Glenn Beck, has drawn more than 28,500 donors.

“The intent was to help the family stave off the burdensome cost of having the media parked out front, activists tearing them down, and no customers coming in. Our goal was simply to help take one thing off this family’s plate as the strangers sought to destroy them,” wrote Lawrence Jones, a producer who works for Blaze personality Dana Loesch. “But other strangers came to the rescue and the total just keeps going up.”

But since the state Legislature caved and gutted the law anyhow it appears the all-out nuclear bombardment by the “tolerant” and  “compassionate” Left has ended.

They have moved on to other targets.

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

But they aren’t they only things going up…

The number of Americans 16 years and older who did not participate in the labor force–meaning they neither had a job nor actively sought one in the last four weeks–rose from 92,898,000 in February to 93,175,000 in March, according to data released today by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

That is the first time the number of Americans out of the labor force has exceeded 93 million.

Also from February to March, the labor force participation rate dropped from 62.8 percent to 62.7 percent, matching a 37-year low.

Five times in the last twelve months, the participation rate has been as low as 62.8 percent; but March’s 62.7 percent, which matches the participation rate seen in September and December of 2014, is the lowest since February of 1978.

A record 12,202,000 black people were not in the labor force in March, as the participation rate for this group declined over the month to 61.0 percent, according to data released from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).

According to the BLS, the more than 12 million black people not in the labor force in March means that they did not have a job or actively seek one in the past four weeks. The number climbed from 12,122,000 in February to 12,202,000 in March, an increase of 80,000.

According to data released Friday by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 56,131,000 million women were not in the labor force last month, an increase of more than 100,000 from February when 56,023,000 women were not in the workforce.

The level is a record high, and the labor force participation for the month of March at 56.6 percent is a 27-year low, according to CNS News. In February that rate for women was 56.7 percent.

But all you’re likely to here from the Left is that the unemployment rate was unchanged from last month at 5.5% because that’s as rosy as they can get.

Or you could be The New York Times: The yearlong streak of robust monthly job creation was broken on Friday with the Labor Department’s report that employers added just 126,000 workers in March, a marked slowdown in hiring that echoed earlier signs that sluggish business investment and punishing weather were exacting a toll on the economy.

Damn that Global Warming! 🙂

But at least the workers at McDonald’s are mad about getting a raise because it’s less than what they wanted. 🙂

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez
Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel
Political Cartoons by Nate Beeler
Political Cartoons by Robert Ariail
Political Cartoons by Larry Wright

The Ponzi Debt

The Daily Treasury Statement that was released Wednesday afternoon as Americans were preparing to celebrate Thanksgiving revealed that the U.S. Treasury has been forced to issue $1,040,965,000,000 in new debt since fiscal 2015 started just eight weeks ago in order to raise the money to pay off Treasury securities that were maturing and to cover new deficit spending by the government.

During those eight weeks, Treasury took in $341,591,000,000 in revenues. That was a record for the period between Oct. 1 and Nov. 25. But that record $341,591,000,000 in revenues was not enough to finance ongoing government spending let alone pay off old debt that matured.

 

The Treasury also drew down its cash balance by $45.057 billion during the period, starting with $126,568,000,000 in cash and ending with $81,511,000,000.

The only way the Treasury could handle the $942,103,000,000 in old debt that matured during the period plus finance the new deficit spending the government engaged in was to roll over the old debt into new debt and issue enough additional new debt to cover the new deficit spending.

This mode of financing the federal government resembles what the Securities and Exchange Commission calls a Ponzi scheme. “A Ponzi scheme,” says the Securities and Exchange Commission, “is an investment fraud that involves the payment of purported returns to existing investors from funds contributed by new investors,” says the Securities and Exchange Commission.

“With little or no legitimate earnings, the schemes require a consistent flow of money from new investors to continue,” explains the SEC. “Ponzi schemes tend to collapse when it becomes difficult to recruit new investors or when a large number of investors ask to cash out.”

In testimony before the Senate Finance Committee in October 2013, Lew explained why he wanted the Congress to agree to increase the federal debt limit—and why the Treasury has no choice but to constantly issue new debt.

“Every week we roll over approximately $100 billion in U.S. bills,” Lew told the committee. “If U.S. bondholders decided that they wanted to be repaid rather than continuing to roll over their investments, we could unexpectedly dissipate our entire cash balance.”

“There is no plan other than raising the debt limit that permits us to meet all of our obligations,” Lew said.

“Let me remind everyone,” Lew said, “principal on the debt is not something we pay out of our cash flow of revenues. Principal on the debt is something that is a function of the markets rolling over.”

The vast amount of debt that the Treasury must roll over in such a short time frame is driven by the fact the Treasury has put most of the debt into short-term “bills” and mid-term “notes”—on which it can pay lower interest rates—rather than into long-term bonds, which demand significantly higher interest rates.

At the end of October, according to the Treasury’s Monthly Statement of the Public Debt, the total debt of the federal government was $17,937,160,000,000.

Of this, $5,080,104,000,000 was what the Treasury calls “intragovernmental” debt, which is money the Treasury has borrowed and spent out of trust funds theoretically set aside for other purposes—such as the Social Security Trust Fund.

The remaining $12,857,056,000,000 was “debt held by the public.” This part of the debt included $517,029,000,000 “nonmarketable” Treasury securities (such as savings bonds) and $12,340,028,000,000 in “marketable” Treasury securities, including bills, notes, bonds and Treasuring Inflation-Protected Securities.

But only $1,547,073,000,000 of the $12,857,056,000,000 in marketable debt was in long-term Treasury bonds that mature in 30 years. These bonds carried an average interest rate of 4.919 percent as of the end of October, according to the Treasury.

The largest share of the marketable debt–$8,192,466,000,000—was in notes that mature in 2,3,5,7 or 10 years, and which have an average interest rate of 1.807 percent as of the end of October.

Another $1,412,388,000,000 of the marketable debt was in Treasury bills, which carry “maturities ranging from a few days to 52 weeks,” says the Treasury. These $1.4 trillion in short-term Treasury bills had an average interest rate of 0.056 percent as of the end of October, according to the Treasury.

The continual rolling over of these short-term, low-interest bills helped drive over the $1-trillion mark the new debt the Treasury had to issue in the first eight weeks of this fiscal year.

The Treasury has taken out what amounts to an adjustable-rate mortgage on our ever-growing national debt.

If the Treasury were forced to convert the $1.4 trillion in short-term bills (on which it now pays an average interest rate of 0.056 percent) into 30-year bonds at the average rate it is now paying on such bonds (4.919 percent) the interest on that $1.4 trillion in debt would increase 88-fold.

But if we don’t spend more we’re going to hurt the poor, crush the middle class , steal candy from babiesand we’re racists! 🙂

Peter:  look up in the sky, what is it?

Paul: It’s $18 Trillion (16 ton weight)

and we’re Wile E. Coyote!

Beep Beep! 🙂

A New Record

The federal government has started fiscal 2015 by setting yet another record for inflation-adjusted tax revenue, while running a monthly deficit of $121.7 billion, which works out to $1050.78 in deficit spending per household in the United States.

For each $1.00 the Treasury brought in during October as it set the new record for taxes collection for that month, the federal government spent $1.57.

This continues a trend seen through fiscal 2014, which ended on Sept. 30, when the federal government took in a record $3,020,809,000,000 in revenue but still ran a deficit of $483,336,000,000.

Federal spending was 334,432,000,000 for the month. That left a deficit of $121,713,000,000.

The federal government’s $121,713,000,000 deficit for the month equals $1,050.78 per each of those households.

And that’s just in October. Imagine if YOU ran a thousand dollar deficit every single month….

The biggest source of federal tax revenue during October was the individual income tax. During the month, taxpayers forked over $106,661,000,000 in these taxes to the Treasury. Taxpayers also handed over $73,581,000,000 in payroll taxes to cover Social Security, Medicare, and unemployment insurance. (CNS)

So you’re paying more than ever in taxes, but yet the Government Beast is gorging on it like it was an appetizer before the main meal.

So When in Debt Spend Even more!

Oh, but you can’t cut even a toenail on this beast without someone (usually a Leftist) howling that your killing kids, starving grandma or just a racist!

Meanwhile, those uber rich that have been the target of so much of the class warfare from the Left (which are ignoring them anyhow):

The wealthy now have a wealth gap of their own, as economic gains become more highly concentrated at the very top. As the top one-hundredth of the 1 percent pulls away from the rest of that group, the superrich are leaving the merely very rich behind. That has created two markets in the upper reaches of the economy: one for the haves and one for the have-mores. (NYT)

So it’s having no effect on them, only you, the poor middle class schlub who is lied to constantly and manipulated every day.

Congrats, you’re a vassal and the feudal Lords demand more an more of your money just because ita what they want and what you have been manipulated into demanding.

The Sheriff  will see you know, peasant.

156325 600 Race cartoons

 

Thou Shalt Not…Part II

Bacon, the Devil’s Food!

After Being Fined and Forced to Host Gay Weddings, Christian Farm Owners Make Drastic Decision That ‘Will Likely Hurt Their Business’

I want to thank the Egotistical Liberals for their “tolerance” and “sensitivity” for ruining the “choice” for everyone because they have to feel powerful and stroke their egos!

They go looking for people to sue and be “offended” by. It gives them power.

Yeah, they stuck it to those “hateful” “right wing Christians”! And I’m sure they are damn proud of themselves!

Congrats, you spoiled it for everyone. Your “discrimination” has hurt our “choice”. Your “freedom” to have your Lawyer-on-Speed-Dial crush anyone anytime some uppity non-Gay Liberal dares to get in your way is very “diverse” and loving of you.

Some are just more “equal” than others…. 🙂

Should the government be in the business of “re-educating” its citizens to change their moral beliefs?

No. But don’t tell that to the Sanctimonious Left!

A husband and wife who were fined $13,000 and told they could not discriminate against same-sex couples after refusing to allow a gay wedding on their New York farm have announced that they will “no longer host any wedding ceremonies on their property.”

“Going forward, [Cynthia and Robert Gifford] have decided to no longer host any wedding ceremonies on their property (other than the ones already under contract),” Alliance Defending Freedom attorney James Trainor told TheBlaze in a statement.

A judge ruled earlier this month that the Giffords’ farm is a public accommodation because they rent their space out, and they therefore must abide by New York anti-discrimination law.

“Since the order essentially compelled them to do all ceremonies or none at all, they have chosen the latter in order to stay true to their religious convictions, even though it will likely hurt their business in the short run,” Trainor said.

The family will continue hosting wedding receptions, but ceremonies — which have traditionally been hosted inside the Giffords’ home on the property or at another nearby location — will immediately cease. Same-sex receptions will be allowed on the grounds.

The move comes after Jennifer McCarthy and Melisa Erwin, a lesbian couple, approached Cynthia and Robert Giffords in 2012 and inquired about holding their nuptials at the Liberty Ridge Farm in Schaghticoke, New York.

The Giffordses, who are Christian and hold the belief that marriage is restricted to one man and one woman, said the couple was welcome to hold their reception on the property, but not the actual ceremony.

McCarthy and Erwin complained to New York’s Division of Human Rights, claiming they had been discriminated against as a result of their sexual orientation.

A judge subsequently ruled in their favor, rejecting the Giffords’ argument that the family owns a private business that is legally permitted to issue such refusals.

Judge Migdalia Pares ruled that Liberty Ridge Farm is a public accommodation because it rents its space and regularly collects fees from the public. The judge said the fact that the owners live on the premises does not mean that their business is private in nature.

Pares ordered that the Giffordses must abide by anti-discrimination regulations under New York’s Human Rights Law and must pay a $10,000 fine, as well as an additional $1,500 each to McCarthy and Erwin, Religion News Service reported.

A representative for the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative legal firm, told TheBlaze that in addition to the fines, New York State is forcing the Giffordses to” teach classes to their employees that impose the state’s view of marriage.” Gay marriage was legalized in the state in 2011.

The Alliance Defending Freedom said the Giffordses should have the right to hold and exercise their religious views without the “threat of government punishment.”

The Giffordses and their attorneys believe that the family has been punished for taking a biblical position and for exercising their First Amendment rights.

“The government should not force anyone to participate in or celebrate an event that violates their faith and beliefs. However, that’s exactly what the state of New York has done to the Giffords,” the firm said. “The Giffords serve all people with respect and care. They have hired homosexual employees and have hosted events for same-sex couples.”

The family has not yet decided if it will appeal the judge’s decision. (The Blaze)

The Giffords must pay a $1,500 mental anguish fine to each of the women and pay $10,000 in civil damages penalty to New York State. If they can’t pay in 60 days, a nine percent interest rate will be added to that total. Like Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cakeshop, the Giffords must also institute anti-discrimination re-education classes and procedures for their staff. (Daily Signal)

But what do I know…I’m just a “hater”…:)

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley

 

 

 

 

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. 🙂

 

Giveaway

Still smarting from his “you didn’t build that” comment, President Obama opened another window into his far-left thinking. According to his world view, Americans keeping more of what’s theirs is a “giveaway.”

Speaking last Wednesday in New Orleans at a campaign event, Obama talked about “another trillion-dollar giveaway for millionaires” in reference to an extension of the Bush-era tax cuts.

A day later, White House spokesman Jay Carney did the same thing. He called the extension “another $1 trillion giveaway to the wealthiest Americans.”

What they are talking about is the House Republicans’ opposition to legislation approved in the Senate that would raise taxes on those earning more than $250,000 a year, a sum less than the president makes yet is somehow considered to be the mark of wealth.

As a president who has done a good job of insulating himself from anyone who would challenge him, Obama wasn’t asked to explain his statement.

But Carney was.

ABC’s Jake Tapper wanted to know what he would “say to a small-business owner who says that’s not a giveaway, that’s my money, and by the way, I’m going to need some of that money in order to help pay the health care of individuals that I’m now mandated to do?”

Tapper further said, “It’s not giving anything away; it’s allowing me to keep my money.”

It’s a straightforward question that deserves a straightforward answer.

But it didn’t get one. Carney prattled on in response, but he would not address the point, which is:

How can government officials make a moral claim on money earned by others?

Jake Tapper:

TAPPER: You used the word “giveaway,” and President Obama, in his statement yesterday, used the word “giveaway,” referring to the extension of the Bush — lower — the lower Bush tax cut rates for the — I guess, the top 1 or 2 percent of the country, people making over $200,000 a year or couples making 250. What do you say to a small-business owner who says, that’s not a giveaway; that’s my money, and by the way, I’m going to need some of that money in order to help pay for health care of individuals that I’m now mandated to do; it’s not giving anything away; it’s allowing me to keep my money?

CARNEY: Well, the phrasing of the question leaves out a few things, which is, one, this tax cut that the Senate passed and that the president supports would go to 97 percent of small businesses in America, 97 percent. Further, this president has cut the taxes of small businesses in America 18 times, independent of this. So he’s — his focus on assisting small businesses, which he considers the engine of economic growth in this country, the engine of job creation in this country, has been intense and will continue to be.

The Earth’s rotation just stopped because of the Spin… But hey, if you tell a lie often enough it become the Truth. 🙂

TAPPER: Yes, I left out people I wasn’t talking about.

CARNEY: Well, no, but I mean, your — but your question framed it around the — so you’re talking about the 3 percent here. And as we’ve noted, under the definition of small businesses that Republicans trot out when they’re insisting on these tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires means that –

TAPPER: I wasn’t talking about millionaires and billionaires.

CARNEY: No, but it means –

TAPPER: I was talking about somebody making over $200,000 a year.

CARNEY: Sure. But I mean, again, that’s 97 percent of people who file — small businesses that file taxes under the individual tax code will receive this tax cut. Many of the remaining, you know, self-described small businesses that we’re talking about, we’re talking about hedge fund managers often, and law firm partners.

And addressing those small businesses that fall in the remaining category — this tax cut goes to everybody. This is an often- misunderstood fact in reporting and, I think, just in general that giving this tax cut — extending this tax cut to 98 percent of Americans, those who make up to $250,000, means that everyone gets it, even those who make millions and billions, up to the first $250,000 of income, so that for a family — that includes everyone, OK, and including small businesses that file in this manner.

Secondly, the president — the president believes that small businesses are so important that he has dedicated a lot of energy and focus on providing tax credits and tax incentives and tax cuts to small businesses throughout his three and a half years in office.

Beyond that, he believes that extending the high-end Bush tax cuts again is something we simply cannot afford. We — you know, we’re talking about a trillion dollars over a decade. We’ve seen what happened when these tax cuts, which you may recall — you and I were covering it — were sold initially as a payback from the budget surpluses that were achieved under the Clinton administration. And then when the economy ran into trouble and those surpluses were beginning to erode, it was sold as an economic stimulus measure. And what we got was middle-class income stagnating, the slowest expansion in 50 years and an economic crisis the likes of which we haven’t seen in more than 70 years. So –

TAPPER: I’m not — the question is this: Why is it a “giveaway”? Why are you guys using — you and President Obama — using the term “giveaway” when even if you support the Senate Democrats’ bill, it’s not technically a giveaway; it is allowing people to keep the tax cut that they got in 2001 and 2002?

CARNEY: Right, but these are tax cuts that we cannot afford, that do not, by — as — by the estimates of credible, independent economists do not measurably help the economy and do not — in the way that tax cuts to working and middle-class Americans help the economy.

And you know, we have to make choices. And it is a — it is a tax cut for the wealthiest Americans that we simply can’t afford.

And the — and those who say that, oh, well, it — you know, that it’s terrible for the economy — remember, again, you and I were there and covered it. There were proclamations of gloom and doom, of economic crisis and stagnation and recession that were promised by Republicans when President Clinton instituted the tax rates that existed throughout the ’90s. And instead of everything that Republicans predicted, we got the longest peacetime expansion — economic expansion in our history. We got 24 million jobs created, so — and plenty — as the president says, plenty of millionaires and billionaires created as well.

So it’s a matter –

TAPPER: You can feel free to run on President Clinton’s record, but that’s –

CARNEY: — it’s a matter of choices. I mean, that’s what the — I think the president makes clear. We can’t afford this tax cut for the wealthiest Americans. It is a giveaway that we cannot afford. Middle-class Americans need that tax cut. Our economy needs it for 98 percent of the country.

TAPPER: Okay, I’m going to change the subject. Vice President Biden issued a rather strong statement yesterday about an unattributed quote or unattributed quotes from unnamed Romney advisers in a British newspaper. The Romney campaign’s response was that unattributed quotes should not merit a response from the vice president of the United States. And I wondered if you had any response to that.

CARNEY: Well, I’ll leave specific campaign questions to the — for the campaign to answer. I find it a little ironic, given some of the attention paid to quotes from unnamed — alleged unnamed Obama campaign advisers that have been the focus of attention on the — of the Romney campaign.

What I can say is that the record here is what matters. When this president came into office, our alliances were under strain and frayed; our standing in the world had been diminished. In the three and a half years that President Obama has been in office, he has strengthened our alliances around the world, including and in particular with NATO countries and including and in particular with the United Kingdom, with whom we have a remarkably strong bond, a special relationship that has never been stronger. And you know, I’ll leave the back-and-forth to the campaign.

But let’s talk about policy and fact here. And I would note that in that article in question, again, as a matter of policy, the only difference that I could tell, aside from the quote that’s gotten a lot of attention that was focused on, was the need to — you know, that the only difference in policy proposals that seemed apparent were that we should move a bust from one room to another in the White House. And that was a principal policy difference, which is pretty preposterous.

This president has strengthened our alliances; he has built up American credibility around the globe; he has kept his commitments to end the war in Iraq, to take the fight to al-Qaida, to wind down our war in Afghanistan, to rebalance our focus towards Asia, which was neglected in the eight years prior to President Obama coming into office. And he is meeting all those commitments.

BS OVERLOAD!

The public needs to be clear about how this administration and many Democrats think. It’s more than a big-government mindset. It’s a government-is-god mentality.

The idea that government owns all and has the authority to manage everyone’s life is corrosive. The president doesn’t think that individuals should be recognized and compensated for their business success.

He wants to take them down a few notches and diminish and socialize their achievements. That’s neither a plan for prosperity nor an advancement of human dignity.

The language is as disturbing as it sounds. It is not consistent with deeply cherished ideals of American freedom. It is not democratic. It is not republican. It is primitive, tribal, backward, regressive. It hearkens back to an earlier age in which monarchs ruled absolutely and, as well, a more recent era of totalitarian governments.

The language itself is also dangerous. What kind of society would we have if the government indeed owned everything? What sort of economy would that produce? Imagine the quality of life under such an arrangement.

Actually, we don’t have to use our imaginations. All we have to do is look at Cuba. North Korea. The Soviet Union. East Germany. Maoist China. Murderous failures all.

No, we’re not saying that the administration wants to use those nations as models for a transformed U.S. We’re merely pointing out that, taken to its logical conclusion, the idea that government owns all will produce a totalitarian system.

It can’t be any other way.

Americans should be deeply offended that anyone would categorize the act of keeping one’s own money as a giveaway. And they should be profoundly alarmed when policymakers and their aides hold that view because they can turn their beliefs into oppressive law.

Remember, government creates neither wealth nor jobs. It has to take everything that it owns, and that requires force — real or implied.

Obama was elected in 2008 on a platform of hope and change. The promises sounded good to many even if they were not defined.

Now those terms have taken shape — unmistakably and unsettlingly so.

If a government that owns all is the change Obama promised in 2008, and it becomes the dominant governing philosophy of this country, then there’s not much hope left. (IBD)

Giveaway. That’s your Money. And you need to give it away to the government. After all, they are so vastly better and morally righteous in spending it than you are. 🙂

So give it up!

 

 

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

WE Know Better

Some Liberals are feeling the heat of their spending binge. They have a banned a commercial because they don’t like it.

A new television ad about the U.S. national debt produced by Citizens Against Government Waste has been deemed “too controversial” by major networks including ABC, A&E and The History Channel and will not be shown on those channels. The commercial is a homage to a 1986 ad that was entitled “The Deficit Trials” that was also banned by the major networks. Apparently telling the truth about the national debt is a little too “hot” for the major networks to handle. But perhaps it is time to tell the American people the truth. In 1986, the U.S. national debt was around 2 trillion dollars. Today, it is rapidly approaching 14 trillion dollars. The American Dream is being ripped apart right in front of our eyes, but apparently some of the major networks don’t want the American people to really understand what is going on.

The truth is that the ad does not even have anything in it that should be offensive. The commercial is set in the year 2030, and the main character is a Chinese professor that is seen lecturing his students on the fall of great empires. As images of the United States are shown on a screen behind him, the Chinese professor tells his students the following about the behavior of great empires: “They all make the same mistakes. Turning their backs on the principles that made them great. America tried to spend and tax itself out of a great recession. Enormous so-called “stimulus” spending, massive changes to health care, government takeover of private industries, and crushing debt.”

Perhaps it is what the Chinese Professor says next that is alarming the big television networks: “Of course, we owned most of their debt, so now they work for us”.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOpyggmTmeE&feature=player_embedded#!

I think it’s one of the best, most accurate commercials ever. That must be why it threatens liberals.

The Truth always threatens liberals.

 

Super-genius political science professor Charles H. Franklin of the University of Wisconsin, Madison recently gave loud voice to a widely held liberal belief: Ordinary Americans, especially conservative ones, are stupid.

At a conference by the Society of Professional Journalists, alternative newspaper editor Bill Lueders asked Franklin why “the public seemed to vote against its own interests and stated desires, for instance by electing candidates who’ll drive up the deficit with fiscally reckless giveaways to the rich.”

Franklin responded: “I’m not endorsing the American voter. They’re pretty damn stupid.” (Excuse my impertinence, but is there a grammatical glitch in the genius’s formulation?)

First, we should note that Franklin implicitly accepted Lueders’ premise as fact: The voters who claim to be motivated by a passion to end reckless Washington spending had just elected candidates who will be fiscally irresponsible because they support “reckless giveaways to the rich.”

But how smart is it to mischaracterize a policy, misrepresent its likely consequences and ignore other relevant data to arrive at an ideologically preordained conclusion?
Extending Bush tax cuts for those making $250,000 or more would not be a giveaway. We’re not talking about the government’s money, but money earned by individuals. Only leftists believe that all income is the property of the state and that the amount remaining after income taxes is a gift from the government to the individual.

Moreover, the tax rates we’re discussing have been in place since 2003. To extend those rates would not be a cut. To fail to extend them would constitute a tax increase. I suppose “intelligence” doesn’t require the honest use of terminology.

In addition, the premise is overly simplistic because it suggests that extending the Bush rates for the highest income bracket would cost the government revenues dollar for dollar, as if we have a completely static economy. The mentally gifted simply refuse to acknowledge the empirical evidence showing that reductions in marginal income tax rates during the Kennedy years, the Reagan years and the George W. Bush years resulted in increases in revenue. They also fail to factor in the economic truism that tax increases during bad economic times retard growth and thus constitute a drag on tax revenues.

Finally, the premise ignores that voters were rejecting Obama’s big spending across the board and that the extension of the Bush rates would be only one small part of the equation. Those voting out the Democrats were overwhelmingly repudiating Obama’s reckless spending in virtually every other category — save defense. That is, they voted not against their interests, Mr. Lueders and Professor Franklin, but consistent with them.

You might be interested in some other pronouncements by Professor Erudition. One example: In an article in Politico about a year ago, Franklin wrote, “The issue that has dominated the summer and fall, health care reform, will most likely not remain high on voters’ list of the most important problems in 12 months regardless of the outcome of legislation.” Well, exit polls showed that 20 percent of voters believed health care was not only important but the most important issue. Doubtless, a full majority of voters believed it was among the most important problems, even if not the most important.

The liberal intelligentsia’s contempt for the American people is well-established. Franklin’s snarky outburst is little different from then-ABC anchorman Peter Jennings’ statement that American voters had a temper tantrum when they delivered a congressional majority to Republicans in 1994, Obama’s assessment that voters are irrational because they are scared, or the Bush haters bitterly decrying the 2000 and 2004 elections with their observation that red-state voters were “reality-challenged.” And it’s no different from liberals’ perpetual characterization of Republican political figures as stupid, from Reagan to George W. Bush to Sarah Palin.

I’ll tell you what is rather silly; I don’t want to say “stupid.” It’s this repeated assertion that one’s political viewpoint is based on intelligence, when it is far more related to one’s worldview and disposition. For every brilliant, average or unintelligent liberal, I’ll show you a brilliant, average or unintelligent conservative. Ideology is not a function of IQ, and political allegiances and policy preferences are often unrelated to facts.

If you want an example of “stupid” — or at least intellectual negligence — consider the childish willingness on the part of so many intellectuals, on the left and the right, to deify candidate Obama during the 2008 presidential campaign.

Then again, hasn’t it always been axiomatic that “intellectuals” lack common sense? In their minds, Jimmy Carter was going to make the ideal president.

What’s worse, many of them think he did.

Please save us from the intellectuals. (David Limbaugh)

AMEN!

Political Cartoon by Chuck Asay
Political Cartoon by Michael Ramirez
Happy Black Friday ( until Al Sharpton calls it racist that is). Enjoy the stampede of the greedy. I wonder if any of them are liberals… 🙂

The Honeymoon

Political Cartoon by Michael Ramirez
With just 43 days to go, it looks like Americans may be hit with the largest tax hike in history. If so, blame it on the Democrats. It’s their ideological rigidity that’s costing the country its economic growth President Obama and congressional Democrats are battling with Republicans over the fate of the one bright spot in our economy over the past six years: Bush’s tax cuts.

Obama and his Democratic allies want a temporary extension of the 2001 and 2003 Bush cuts for the middle class (the poor already pay no income taxes), but not for individuals earning more than $200,000 or families earning more than $250,000.

Problem is, even Democrats are split over this. And Republicans are in no mood to let Democrats play class politics with our nation’s economy. They want all the tax cuts extended or nothing.

When asked Wednesday if the Republicans would agree to a deal that would permanently cut rates on the middle class, but for only two years on those with upper incomes, Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah replied, “Are you kidding?”

Good answer. With Bush’s cuts set to expire at year-end, Democrats, who control Congress until January, can’t agree among themselves what to do — much less cut a deal with Republicans.

“I don’t even know what the options are at this moment,” said Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash. And she’s on the Finance Committee, which will write any new tax law.

By their unwillingness to compromise and inability to even agree among themselves, the Democrats deserve blame if the tax cuts expire. And if you think these tax hikes won’t matter, think again.

Even raising taxes just on the rich, as Democrats propose, would cripple the economy. As American Enterprise Institute economist Alan Viard notes, households with incomes over $200,000 in 2007 took 47% of all taxable interest income, 60% of the dividends and 84% of net capital gains.

These highly productive investors drive the economy and create most of our jobs. Yet they’re the ones the Democrats want to tax. If they do, it will lower income for all groups.

While we support keeping rates low on high incomes, other taxes are also slated to go up sharply at year-end. Republicans shouldn’t forget to keep other Bush tax cuts in place too. They include:

The estate tax. It will jump from the current zero to 55% at the end of the year on estates larger than $1 million. That will force many families to liquidate businesses to pay taxes, killing jobs.

The corporate tax. Now at a top rate of 39%, it’s way above the 26% average for the OECD. It’s a big reason for outsourcing. It should be cut to the OECD average.

Capital gains. Slated to jump from 15% to 20%, the cap-gains tax will hurt stock investors and capital formation. Fewer businesses plus less investment equals a permanent loss of jobs.

Dividends. Dividend tax rates are set to surge from 15% to a top rate of 39.6% — decimating seniors’ incomes and further hitting investment markets. Dividends should be taxed like cap gains.

These are things that will restore growth — something that the Obama-led Democrats seem to have forgotten.

I would argue that they haven’t forgotten it. Since it’s not in their ideology they don’t believe in it to begin with.

Remember, many a Democrat and Liberal think tax INCREASES are good for you. That making less money is a good thing.

And besides they can’t let evil, satanic, greedy, capitalist pig “rich” off the hook.

The truly loonie left would have a conniption and then stroke out if they did.

So instead they will play chicken.

And were the ones who will have our economic heads lopped off and be running around trying to figure out how deal with it.

Remember, these “tax cuts” are not actually cuts at all. Tax rates would remain the same, but if not kept then Taxes WOULD INCREASE FOR EVERYBODY!

So there are no “cuts”.

But don’t tell the Left this. They hear the phrase “tax cut” and they go into a epileptic fit, turn beet red, and steam comes out their ears!

Expiration of the Bush tax cuts will impose a job-killing, $3 trillion tax increase on a beleaguered economy reeling from near-double-digit unemployment. The necessity of finding a solution is paramount.

So what’s atop President Obama’s agenda? Meeting with leaders of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus to discuss passing the Dream (development, relief and education for alien minors) Act, a bill that has nothing to do with jobs and taxes, but a great deal to do with rewarding Obama’s political base and ensuring an unending stream of Democratic voters.

And we all know that his 2012 re-election and much more voter fraud and democrat voter slaves to overturn the slapdown they got is FAR MORE IMPORTANT after all.

Obama’s 5 minutes of “laser-like focus” on jobs and the economy are up, time to get back to the Agenda!

A top advocate of the Dream Act is Rep. Luis Gutierrez of Illinois. After meeting with the president, he issued a statement saying it would be “a down payment on comprehensive reform, and we will continue working towards comprehensive immigration reform today, tomorrow and until it passes.” “Comprehensive immigration” is liberal-speak for open borders and amnesty.

Gutierrez crowed that three re-elected U.S. senators — Harry Reid, Barbara Boxer and Michael Bennet — “and many other Democratic candidates in state and federal races, owe their jobs to the support of Latino and immigrant voters” who expect payback. As they say, elections have consequences.

So the honeymoon is over. The abusive relationship resumes.

Jobs and tax cuts may have to wait. Americans and legal immigrants are beginning to wonder what benefits accrue to being an American citizen when illegal aliens and their offspring are treated better than law-abiding citizens. So are we. (IBD)

The Agenda is The Agenda!

All Hail the mighty Progressive Liberal Agenda!

Political Cartoon by Chuck Asay
Political Cartoon by Eric Allie

A Dead Plan Walking

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

Remember the “Debt Commission” that early on was rumored to be just an excuse for the VAT tax to be proposed? And still might…

Then November 2, 2010 rolled around and the Democrats were handed their heads on a platter.

So now the Debt Commission is proposing a whole bunch of ACTUAL Cuts.

Which means it’s a dead plan walking.

I will admit to having no faith in Washington elites. They can talk a good game, but in the end they will vote to save their own ass before the country, the future, or your kids.

[Deficit]
But many of these, like the Social Security is in 2050. THAT’S 40 years from now. The first people effected by it would 25 now.
If you can’t plan for 4 extra years 40 years out, you must be a Liberal!
Speaking of the Left:

“The chairmen of the Deficit Commission just told working Americans to ‘Drop Dead,’” said Richard Trumka, president of the AFL-CIO, referring to proposed changes in how Social Security is administered. “Some people are saying this is plan is just a ‘starting point.’ Let me be clear, it is not.”

Mind you, Mr Trumpka heads a union were many, many of his members can retire in their 50s with outrageously extravagant pensions that are bankrupting states all over the nation. But don’t mention that to him, you’ll just make him mad. 🙂

House Speaker (soon-to-be Minority Leader) Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, called the proposal “simply unacceptable.”

Self-Admitted Socialist  Bernie Sanders (I-VT) blasted, “It is reprehensible to ask working people, including many who do physically-demanding labor, to work until they are 69 years of age. It also is totally impractical. As they compete for jobs with 25-year-olds, many older workers will go unemployed and have virtually no income. Frankly, there will not be too much demand within the construction industry for 69-year-old bricklayers.”

A non-starter. A gift to the rich.

The giant flushing sound you heard Wednesday on Capitol Hill was the reaction of Congressional Democrats to the initial recommendations of President Obama’s bipartisan deficit reduction commission.

And so the Left is going to fight any spending cuts, and any repeals of their Utopian vision of a European America.

They will be the “obstructionists” that they have railed agasinst for the last number of years. And proudly so.

Isn’t politics grand. 🙂

Which is why it will never happen.

It has to happen.

But it won’t.

The Political elite don’t have the guts.

I’m hoping I’m wrong about the Republicans.

But the American people are the co-dependent drug addicts in this equation.

Because, who is more like to vote, the 25 year old who will actually be hit by the plan or the over 50 person who’s going to get it very soon or already addicted to it?

Forgetaboutit.

Sure they turned out to toss the Democrats (at least most of them, Jerry Brown and Harry Reid aside) on their asses. But when it’s their ass on the line and their ox is being goured, forgetaboutit.

The new NIBY principle. From Not in My Backyard to Not in my Backpocket.

It will be cut “Them” not “Me”. With the Democrats getting holier-than-thou about “the poor” and “the rich” even more so than the last few years. And all for political calculations.

The evil republicans who want to cut off grandma and force her eat dog food, etc.

Just for political advantage. Nothing else.

I hope I’m wrong. But I’m a cynic, after all.

Meanwhile…

The number of federal workers earning $150,000 or more a year has soared tenfold in the past five years and doubled since President Obama took office, a USA TODAY analysis finds.

The fast-growing pay of federal employees has captured the attention of fiscally conservative Republicans who won control of the U.S. House of Representatives in last week’s elections. Already, some lawmakers are planning to use the lame-duck session that starts Monday to challenge the president’s plan to give a 1.4% across-the-board pay raise to 2.1 million federal workers.

Government-wide raises. Top-paid staff have increased in every department and agency. The Defense Department had nine civilians earning $170,000 or more in 2005, 214 when Obama took office and 994 in June.

•Long-time workers thrive. The biggest pay hikes have gone to employees who have been with the government for 15 to 24 years. Since 2005, average salaries for this group climbed 25% compared with a 9% inflation rate.

•Physicians rewarded. Medical doctors at veterans hospitals, prisons and elsewhere earn an average of $179,500, up from $111,000 in 2005.

Federal workers earning $150,000 or more make up 3.9% of the workforce, up from 0.4% in 2005.

Since 2000, federal pay and benefits have increased 3% annually above inflation compared with 0.8% for private workers, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Members of Congress earn $174,000, up from $141,300 in 2000, an increase below the rate of inflation.

That’s insulting to ordinary Americans, who are struggling mightily every week to pay the mortgage and health care and college costs, only to see their increasingly scarce tax dollars go straight into the pockets of public workers. That shouldn’t be happening in hard times – not whether those public sector employees work on health care, education, agriculture, homeland security or defense. Shared sacrifice must be more than an empty slogan. (The  Very Liberal NY Daily News)
I learned a hard lesson earlier in this decade: The Truth is truth and you don’t have to like it. As a matter of fact, it doesn’t matter if  you like it, it’s still the truth.
And the truth is that the way thinks have been done for the last several generations is now unsustainable.Period.
Deal with it.
The truth doesn’t care if you like it or not.
The often-comedic co-chairman Alan Simpson sheepishly exited the meeting, telling reporters, “We’re entering the witness protection program,” referring to his fellow co-chairman and proposal author Erskine Bowles.
But some members cautioned against snap judgments. Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., a member of the panel, said, “The greatest national security threat facing America today is our national debt and a Congress that has avoided tough choices for decades. The discussion draft describes some of the tough choices facing Congress and the nation,” and warned, “I would encourage taxpayers to view with great suspicion the beltway, interest group culture that often prefers demagoguery over honest debate. In the real world, no family facing tough economic times has the luxury of treating portions of their budget as sacrosanct. Neither should Congress.”(FOX)
But Washington D.C. is not in touch with reality. And the American people want to stop the spending, just not their spending.
Sigh…
Political Cartoon by Chip Bok
Political Cartoon by Jerry Holbert
Political Cartoon by Robert Ariail