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