Why You Should Vote Democrat

demWhat you are about to read is the best political comment I have EVER read on a website. It was written by someone who uses the moniker, “The Fall of America.”

The comment was posted on Wednesday morning, March 19, in response to a piece in The Hill.  If you are unfamiliar, this is a Washington “insider’s site” covering the nitty-gritty of what goes on within the hallowed halls of Capitol Hill.

The title of the piece was “O-Care premiums to skyrocket,” although this comment could have been in response to any topic in Washington today.

So thank-you, “The Fall of America,” whoever you are, for writing such brilliant truth and I hope that the re-posting of your comment here on RedState finds its way back to you after it goes viral. (Hint-hint to our readers.)

Why I vote Democrat    
(comment by TheFallofAmerica on March 19, 2014) 

I vote Democrat because I believe it’s okay if our federal government borrows $85 Billion every single month.

And has taken in more in Taxes in the last 18 months than anytime in American History.

When in Debt, SPEND EVEN MORE!

I vote Democrat because I care about the children … but saddling them with trillions of dollars of debt to pay for my bloated leftist government is okay.

That is if the survive Planned Parenthood.

I vote Democrat because I believe it’s better to pay billions of dollars to people who hate us rather than drill for our own oil, because it might upset some endangered beetle or gopher.

I vote Democrat because I believe it is okay if liberal activist judges rewrite the Constitution to suit some fringe kooks, who would otherwise never get their agenda past the voters.

skip

I vote Democrat because I believe that corporate America should not be allowed to make profits for themselves or their shareholders. They need to break even and give the rest to the federal government for redistribution.

I vote Democrat because I’m not concerned about millions of babies being aborted, so long as we keep all of the murderers on death row alive.

And news of Fetal baby parts selling out of the news.

I vote Democrat because I believe it’s okay if my Nobel Peace Prize winning President uses drones to assassinate people, as long as we don’t use torture.

And “Muslim Terrorists” don’t exist, you islamophobe!

I vote Democrat because I believe people, who can’t accurately tell us if it will rain on Friday, can predict the polar ice caps will melt away in ten years if I don’t start driving a Chevy Volt.

And do everything they tell us regardless of how much it costs. Who cares if it “works”. It make me “feel good” about “doing something”.

I vote Democrat because Freedom of Speech is not as important as preventing people from being offended.

Gotta have my “safe space”. Those people who disagree with me are morons anyways… 🙂

I vote Democrat because I believe the oil companies’ profit of 3% on a gallon of gas is obscene, but the federal government taxing that same gallon of gas at 15% isn’t obscene.

And Obama is responsible for the lowering of Gas Prices in 2016 but it’s the Republicans fault for the $4 Gas.

I vote Democrat because I believe a moment of silent prayer at the beginning of the school day constitutes government indoctrination and an intrusion on parental authority ….. but sex education, condom distribution and multiculturalism are all values-neutral.

And Showing R-Rated Michael Moore Films is good “education”.

I vote Democrat because I agonize over threats to the natural environment from CO2, acid rain and toxic waste ….. but I am totally oblivious of the threats to our social environment from pornography, promiscuity and family dissolution.

I vote Democrat because I believe lazy, uneducated stoners should have just as big a say in running our country as entrepreneurs who risk everything and work 70 hours per week.

And those stoners should make $15/hr if they bother to work at all.

I vote Democrat because I don’t like guns ….. so no one else should be allowed to own one.

Especially not Cops, they just kill minorities. But when someone breaks into my house I call the..whoops…

I vote Democrat because I see absolutely no correlation between welfare and the rise of illegitimacy.

fish1

I vote Democrat because I see absolutely no correlation between judicial leniency and surging crime rates.

Nor “Strict Gun laws” and rising crime.

I vote Democrat because I believe you don’t need an ID to vote but you do to buy beer.

California alone created 605,000 Illegal Immigrant Voters!

I vote Democrat because I believe marriage is obsolete, except for homosexuals.

I vote Democrat because I think “fairness” is far more important than freedom.

I vote Democrat because I think an “equal outcome” is far more important than equal opportunity.

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY.

I vote democrat because I would rather hide in a class room while others fight for my freedom.

And don’t even think of challenging my beliefs, I need my “safe space”.

I vote democrat because I’m not smart enough to own a gun and I need someone else to protect me.

But Cops are evil and they kill people wantonly and the Military is just a bunch of PTSD Psychos.

I vote democrat because I would rather have free stuff than freedom.

And lastly, I vote Democrat because I’m convinced that government programs are the solution to the human condition, NOT freedom.

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.

bernie-free-college-750

THE LAND OF THE IGNORANT AND THE HOME OF THE SLAVE.

Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley

 

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

Purple People Eater

Pro golfer Phil Mickelson has gotten a lot of flak for his recent comments about threatening to make “drastic changes” in his life due to state and federal tax increases. Never mind that he later backed off, saying he should have kept his thoughts to himself and apologized to those he “upset or insulted.”

He was cowed into being Politically Correct.

Mickelson was telling the truth. If there’s anything that should upset or insult Americans, it’s just how much of their money the government takes. Mickelson estimates that more than 60% of his earnings are snatched in federal and state taxes (he lives in California). Should a private citizen, no matter how successful, really owe the government more than half of what he or she makes? Intuitively, this cannot make sense to anyone who believes in the principles of hard work and personal responsibility.

Which a Liberal does not. Blame someone else first and always. You do hard work and the rich guy gets all the rewards, the bastard!

But Mickelson’s comments reveal something far more profound. He was talking about an increasingly complex tax code (nearly 74,000 pages!) that also reserves special punishment for small businesses, working families and even the little guys. The rich, like Mickelson, can hire high-priced lawyers and accountants to compute their taxes and take advantage of loopholes. Or, they can pick up and move. The middle class is not quite so fortunate; most cannot simply pick up and move to a better economic climate.

And that’s the rich people’s fault. So hate them. 🙂

A high income-tax state like California is not just driving away successful men and women like Mickelson, but driving businesses out, too. This ultimately results in even less tax revenue, which sinks California’s economy even more.

So they have to raises taxes even more.

The wealthy were already paying a significant portion of California state income tax.  Based on 2010 tax figures, those earning over $250,000 per year were accounting for 62 percent of state income tax revenue.  Those earning over $450,000 were paying 46 percent of state income tax. (TaxLawhome)

The Top 10% pay consistently from 66-70% of all Income Taxes. But it’s “unfair”.

But it’s not fair! They have to pay more! Scream the Left and their class warfare rhetoric.

Get the peasant to revolt. Gin up this class hatred.

“If you have excessive regulations and excessive tax, that’s just not where you want to be,” said Peter Farrell, president of ResMed a medical-device maker in San Diego that employs 600 workers and is considering moving its offices out of state. “California is unfriendly. It’s become an unfriendly business environment.”

One possibility is Texas, where the personal income-tax rate is zero, compared to 13.3 percent for top California earners.(end time news)

Farrell said November’s election results, including the passage of tax increases, made California less hospitable for ResMed.

“The whole place is very Democratic, very union-friendly and tax-unfriendly,” Farrell said. “And we just see the costs going up, and the benefits going down. We see more regulation and more taxes, and more of an anti-business kind of environment.”

Another San Diego-based company, Fallbrook Technologies, a maker of variable speed transmissions, recently announced it is leaving for Texas.

Nevada tax accountant George Ashley said he’s received more than 100 inquiries from higher-earning Californians about the possible tax advantages and feasibility of relocating to a state with lower taxes.

California has played the role of piñata for years among national business leaders because of its anti-business reputation. Chief Executive magazine has put Texas on top as the most business-friendly state and California at or near the bottom for eight consecutive years. (UTSD)

Now back to Fran…

Massive state government spending leads to higher taxes. More taxes lead to less government revenue because overtaxed businesses and higher income individuals depart for more business-friendly states. This vicious cycle hurts average citizens and the most vulnerable alike.

From the payroll tax hike surprise that most workers found in their first paycheck of 2013 to Medicare tax increases to raising top tax rates to nearly 40%, Washington has made life more difficult for most Americans. When companies raise prices to pass the cost of the corporate income tax — now the highest in the developed world — on to consumers, these “hidden taxes” hit fixed-income families the hardest.

I have never seen it quite so bad for job creators. Today, many are being punished for just doing business. Confiscatory taxes. Suffocating regulations. Stifling energy costs. There is only one way to create the jobs we need: we must put our fiscal house in order. Our nation must lower tax rates to be more competitive and to incentivize businesses to invest and job creators to grow their businesses. Pro-growth policies will lead to more businesses and more jobs; these jobs will create more taxpayers and government revenue.

After the unfair treatment Mickelson received from partisans and the press, we won’t likely hear from him again soon on economic policy. That’s unfortunate, because his frank talk on taxation is the kind of discussion America needs.

Fran Tarkenton is founder and CEO of OneMoreCustomer.com, NFL Hall of Fame quarterback, and member of the Job Creators Alliance.

Dr. Benjamin Carson at the National Prayer Breakfast (via Townhall.com)

CARSON:  Well, some people say, they say, “Well, that’s not fair because it doesn’t hurt the guy who made $10 billion as much as the guy who made ten.” Where does it say you have to hurt the guy?  He just put a billion dollars in the pot! You know, we don’t need to hurt him.  It’s that kind of thinking that has resulted in 602 banks in the Cayman Islands.  That money needs to be back here, building our infrastructure and creating jobs.

And there’s more:

CARSON: Here’s my solution: When a person is born, give him a birth certificate, an electronic medical record, and a health savings account to which money can be contributed — pretax — from the time you’re born ’til the time you die.  When you die, you can pass it on to your family members, so that when you’re 85 years old and you got six diseases, you’re not trying to spend up everything. You’re happy to pass it on and there’s nobody talking about death panels.

Number one.  And also, for the people who were indigent who don’t have any money we can make contributions to their HSA each month because we already have this huge pot of money. Instead of sending it to some bureaucracy, let’s put it in their HSAs.  Now they have some control over their own health care.

What’s most effective about Dr. Carson’s remarks is that they make the case for free enterprise medicine — based not on economics, or efficiency — but based on morality.  Kudos to him for that — hope the GOP was taking note.

And the fact that Obamacare targets HSAs to be eliminated by lowering their benefits and increasing their costs is particularly telling.

We are From the Government and We know what’s good for you better than you do. 🙂

 

Trapped

Tell Me, this isn’t the same here and one reason why we have such an increase in “disability” and people just giving up looking.

And the new “dependent” voter.

The Sun (London UK): A SKIVING couple told last night how they claim £17,680 a year in benefits — and don’t even bother looking for work because it would leave them worse off.

FYI: Skiving is British for lay about gold-bricking person, aka Lazy.

Danny Creamer, 21, and Gina Allan, 18, spend each day watching their 47in flatscreen TV and smoking 40 cigarettes between them in their comfy two-bedroom flat.

I looked it up, the average apparently for a 47″ flat screen is about £1900-2000 British pounds.

1.00 British Pound = 1.57 U.S. Dollars currently

Do the Math.

It is all funded by the taxpayer, yet the couple say they deserve sympathy because they are “trapped”.

They even claim they are entitled to their generous handouts because their hard-working parents have been paying tax for years.

 

pahe 10 graphic

The couple, who have a four-month-old daughter Tullulah-Rose, say they can’t go out to work as they could not survive on less than their £1,473-a-month benefits.

1.00 British Pound = 1.57 U.S. Dollars currently

So that’s $2,312,61. Per month or $27,751.32 a year. That”s well above minimum wage in this country. Of course, they have a flat 17.5% VAT tax on everything and Inland Revenue (think IRS) but still I have had many jobs that paid less than that.

The pair left school with no qualifications, and say there is no point looking for jobs because they will never be able to earn as much as they get in handouts.

Gina admits: “We could easily get a job but why would we want to work — we would be worse off.”

Tell Me, Liberals aren’t thinking the same thing!

Danny’s father, 46, even offered him a job with his bowling alley servicing company — but could not pay him enough.

Danny’s mum, 45, works as a carer, while Gina’s mum, 46, is a teacher and her dad, 53, is a manager with a security company.

Yet their parents’ work ethic has not rubbed off on Danny and Gina. Instead, they claim they are entitled to benefits because of their parents’ tax contributions — and even complain they should be given MORE.

Gina, flaunting fake tan and perfectly manicured nails, said: “I don’t see that we’re living off the taxpayers, we’re entitled to the money our parents paid all their lives.

“They’ve worked so hard since they left school and I’m sure they’d rather it went to us than see us struggle. They pay a lot of tax, and although they’d rather we weren’t in this situation and one of us had a job, they understand why we are where we are. We can’t help it, we’re stuck like it.”

Danny, who quit his job as a supermarket shelf-stacker after eight months, admitted: “I could easily go and work for my dad. He’s got a job for me, but could only afford to pay for my travel and accommodation because I’d be going around the country.

“After that he wouldn’t be able to afford to pay me a wage, so I’d be worse off.

“The same would happen if I was to work somewhere like a supermarket. If I was earning less than £26,000 a year, there wouldn’t be any point. I’d be no better off. Who in their right mind would do that?” The pair spoke after we revealed last Sunday that Lithuanian Natalija Belova, 33, branded Britain “a soft touch” for giving her £14,408 annual benefits. Mum-of-one Belova told how she lives a life of luxury in Watford, Herts, thanks to our “strange system”, adding: “I am not going to work like a dog on minimum wage.”

British Minimum wage : £6.08 to £6.19 an hour on October 1 2012

And yesterday Gina agreed. She said: “The only way we’d ever be better off is by both working. But then childcare would probably be one of our wages gone, and put us back in a more difficult position.

“We don’t feel ashamed for being on benefits. Neither of us have the slightest bit of guilt towards the taxpayers as both of our parents have been paying into the tax system for the last 30 years.

“So we are just getting back our parents’ huge contributions. My dad earns £65,000 a year so he’s paid more than his fair share of tax, so I don’t see what the problem is. The fault lies with the system, not us. There’s just no incentive to find work when we’ve got a better lifestyle than if we were to go out and work for 35-40 hours every week. Why would we give this up?”

The couple, who live in Hants (Southern England), receive £340 a week, made up of £150 housing benefit, £60 child tax credit, £20 child benefit and £110 in Job Seeker’s Allowance. They pay just £25 towards their spacious £625-a-month home.

Their lounge is dominated by the huge TV and a leather sofa. A laptop and Tullulah-Rose’s toys are scattered around the room.

The couple’s monthly outgoings are £240 on food, £40 phone bill for their shared Nokia and an £80 payment towards their TV. They spend the same on tobacco as they do on their daughter’s milk and nappies.

The pair, who want another child, say they would need to earn at least £2,200 a month before tax to make working worth their while.

Danny said: “We’ve thought about a lot of things we wouldn’t normally have considered. Gina looked up escorting and saw you can make £110 an hour, but we decided we wouldn’t go down that route.

“We simply want the best for our daughter, which means even shoplifting becomes a temptation. We’d never do it, but being in this situation and feeling trapped changes you.

“We would work, but it’s just not worth our while because without qualifications we’ll only earn about £14,000 a year. That’s a lot less than what we get now. We need more money so we can maintain the way we live now but have a few extras, like holidays.

“People don’t understand — we’re actually stuck on benefits. In fact, we feel trapped.” Danny and Gina thought about going to college, but could not decide which course to take.

Gina said: “We have discussed getting more qualifications but just thought there’s no point when we don’t know what we want to do in the future. We wouldn’t know where to start.”

The couple are adamant that whatever they do in future, they want to enjoy the same luxuries as now. Gina said: “We spend £40 a month on clothes for Tullulah-Rose. It’s important she looks nice.

“We like a takeaway (Take out) too, Why shouldn’t we? It isn’t like I’m some scrounging single mum trying to cash in. It’s silly to think I’d actually be better off financially if Danny walked out on me and my daughter than if one of us got a job.

“Anyone else would do exactly the same if they were in our shoes. It’s actually really hard for us. We’re in a lose-lose situation here.”

And with reports out that the Birth rate in the US has been falling just as the largest population is retiring is going to make this kind of “trapped” dependence very, very, very costly to everyone.

But, he it’s better than working hard. 🙂

Every job in the last 25+ years I’ve had prior to my current one has paid me less than this a year. And I’m still not “rich”.

Makes you wonder I even bother…But at least I’m not “trapped”…Yet… 🙂

 

New York State of Mind

Political Cartoons by Eric Allie

New Food Police alert : Slurpies are Evil!

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is planning to ban the sale of large sugary drinks known to most Americans as big gulps and smaller drinks such as Snapples. Why the need for the ban? To save people from themselves combat obesity of course.

The proposed first-in-the-nation ban would impose a 16-ounce limit on the size of sweetened drinks sold at restaurants, movie theaters, sports venues and street carts. It would apply to bottled drinks as well as fountain sodas.

The ban, which could take effect as soon as March, wouldn’t apply to diet sodas, fruit juices, dairy-based drinks or alcoholic beverages.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg said Wednesday that he “thinks it’s what the public wants the mayor to do.”

Hmm….considering Diet soda has been shown to also cause people to gain weight and that fruit juice has just as much sugar as soda, this is clearly drink discrimination. But, there’s a loophole!

But there’s speculation that customers will just buy two 16-ounce bottles instead of one 20-ounce drink. (Townhall)

Maybe while getting a little weed and a little blow on the street you can get a black market 20 oz Mountain Dew!! 🙂

Flee THE  Tax Man

New York thinks of itself as the place to be, but its high taxes have made it a place to flee. Those who have escaped the Empire State tax man could fill a major city.

The state of New York, with about 19.5 million people, has no known plans to erect concrete barriers or barbed wire fences. But from 2000 to 2010 it suffered an exodus of some 3.4 million New Yorkers — nearly a million more people than in Germany’s post-war experience and more than that of any other state.

And the outflow hasn’t stopped. The income loss for the state is $45.6 billion, the Tax Foundation says.

Granted, it’s not just one-way traffic. New York has plenty of immigration from abroad; its more than 4 million foreign-born residents give it the second-biggest immigrant population in America.

So net outward migration is about 1.3 million.

Most New York refugees are in sunny, zero-income-tax Florida. The Sunshine State, along with its rays, offer big relief from New York’s state tax on income, which starts at almost 6.5% and reaches nearly 9% for the overly successful.

On top of that are high sales taxes that approach 9% in New York City, but 7% in some other areas.

Heritage Foundation analyst Nick Kasprak said taxes play a role in people’s decisions to relocate.

“You generally see people moving from higher-tax states to lower-tax states,” he said. “Certainly, taxes are one way that states compete with one another.”

Florida wins that competition with New York hands down. It has no income tax and no estate tax.

http://interactive.taxfoundation.org/migration/

New Yorkers who leave an estate of more than $1 million to their loved ones get hit with a state death tax reaching 16%, bringing billions into state coffers.

Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo admits that “working families can’t afford to pay the ever-increasing tax burden … and this state has no future if it is going to be the tax capital of the nation.”

But like a long line of New York politicians from both parties, what he dangles is relief from the state’s high property taxes, which are tied to state government spending mandates on localities — a longtime shell game showing no real signs of ending.

Cuomo’s predecessor, Eliot Spitzer (aka the Emperor’s Club escort agency’s Client No. 9), actually attained the governorship as a tax crusader of sorts, suing H&R Block for $250 million on fraud charges as state attorney general while simultaneously seeking the governor’s mansion.

But Spitzer didn’t, and Cuomo hasn’t, threatened New York’s status as “tax capital of the nation” with any substantive reform that changes the status quo.

Like those formerly enslaved behind the Iron Curtain, New Yorkers’ choice is a wrenching one: either escape by leaving home, or spend years waiting for a liberator to arrive.

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

 Political Cartoons by Chip Bok

Is That Cooked Gander I Smell?

More than three months of your hard-earned wages are going straight to your tax bill this year.

Americans will spend an average of 29% of their income on federal, state and local taxes in 2012, the Tax Foundation announced Monday. That’s more than the average family spends on food, clothing and housing combined, the organization said.

And it means that most Americans are going to need to work 107 days just to be able to earn enough money to pay their taxes.

“Tax Freedom Day,” as the Tax Foundation calls the date that the average American is finally free of its tax burdens, arrives on April 17 this year, coincidentally the same day taxes are due . That’s four days later than last year.

Reminder though, 47% of Americans are paying no income taxes anyways (yes I know the liberal attack this by saying everyone pays “taxes” so the fact that they don’t pay “income taxes” is ok with them because it doesn’t fit their class warfare otherwise).

Thus all this tax burden falls on the other 53%.

Those paying making $112,000 or more paid 70% of all taxes in 2009. Hardly the $250,000 “rich”.

Now that’s “fair” . 🙂

The Wonders of Government Run Health Care

The United States Postal Service (USPS) is currently working towards delivering a private health insurance plan to its employees and wants to opt out of the Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan (FEHBP.)

“If provided the authority to do so, we believe that we can provide our employees and retirees with the same or better health coverage for significantly less cost, ” said Postmaster General and CEO Patrick Donahoe during his testimony to the House Oversight Committee.

“In response to this fiscal crisis, the US Postal Service recently presented its five year business plan to profitability…the centerpiece of this plan involves shifting USPS employees and their retirees from the Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan (FEHBP) to a new USPS run health plan.”

Donahoe claimed a private health plan for the USPS will result in annual savings of approximately $7 billion and will function like any other health insurance plan in the private sector.

‘Health Care expert’ Walton Francis (Center for Public Program Evaluation):“A lot of those people are elderly—don’t want any change. They’re going to be faced with massive change,” he added.

“There are tens of thousands of 80-year-old widows, postal service widows … The premium cost for one of those widows to join [Medicare] parts A and B right now under current law in the Social Security Act is over $8,000 a year – that’s what it would cost to mandate that that widow leave the postal plan she’s now in and sign up for [Medicare] A and B,” said Francis.(CNS)

But Mandating that everyone MUST buy health care or else is ok. 🙂

The Liberal meme lives!

Swimming with the Fishes

US President Barack Obama on Monday challenged the “unelected” Supreme Court not to take the “extraordinary” and “unprecedented” step of overturning his landmark health reform law.

Has he never heard of the confirmation process? Oh that’s right he likes RECESS appointments where there is no oversight of any kind. Now, that’s “unelected”.

“Ultimately, I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress,” Obama said.

Yeah, a 100% partisan vote and 15 month of political maneuvering and backroom deals by a The Democrats is “democratically elected” and that had nothing do with the Democrats worst electoral defeat in 70 years in 2010 and the fact that Obama has never ever had a majority of Americans in favor it even to this day.

Oh, and Mr. president, many of the laws-like about slaves and blacks and abortion and the like were “democratically” passed too. But never let the truth get in the way of a sound bite for your base and the liberal lapdog slobbering media.

But then again, we are talking about self-obsessed Liberals.

If you don’t want this person who was nominated for the Supreme Court (Elena Kagan) then you have oppose them. If you don’t oppose them, then they are “elected” by the process and that’s too bad (Bork anyone?).

Obama noted that for years, conservatives had been arguing that the “unelected” Supreme Court should not adopt an activist approach by making rather than interpreting law, and held up the health legislation as an example.

“I am pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step,” Obama said during a press conference in the White House Rose Garden.

Yeah, the Conservatives have been complaining about LIBERAL ACTIVIST Judges (like Susan Bolton and others) in the courts. Nice try.

The fact that the individual mandate is unconstitutional on it’s face matters not to politics.

So instead he goes for the touchy-feely, aren’t conservatives so “mean” throw-grandma-off-a-cliff approach:

Obama also argued there was a “human element” to the health care battle, as well as legal and political dimensions.

He said that without the law, passed after a fierce battle with Republicans in 2010, several million children would not have health care, and millions more adults with pre-existing conditions would also be deprived of treatment.

Do it for the Children! The Elderly! The Sick!

Don’t be “mean”, “heartless” etc.

Where’s my barf bag….

Opponents of the health care law argue that the government has overreached its powers by requiring all Americans to purchase health insurance.

But supporters say that the government is within its rights to regulate the health industry as it has the power to oversee commerce across state borders.

Only problem there is, in the arguments before the court the Obama Administration went nowhere near the commerce argument. They expressly stayed away from it!

“I think it’s important… to remind people that this is not an abstract argument,” Obama said.

“The law that’s already in place has already given 2.5 million young people health care that wouldn’t otherwise have it.

“There are tens of thousands of adults with preexisting conditions who have health care right now because of this law.” (yahoo)

The fact that you’d be giving government can control anything dictator-wanna be’s the power to decided not only life and death but exactly what the government can mandate that you do to control your life in general is not an issue.

If they can mandate you buy health insurance what’s next?

Obesity affects Health Care, so we need to mandate what you can and cannot eat so as to “prevent” and/or “cure” obesity for the good of all.

That car you’re driving is a gas guzzling nightmare, you must replace it with a Chevy Volt. 🙂

You can’t say that on the internet, that’s “insensitive”.

If the government can mandate you must buy a service and if you don’t have the IRS fine you, what can’t they do?

But I’m just a “mean”, “nasty”, “insensitive” lout who wants to take the candy from babies, kick grandma out on the street and throw her off a cliff after all!

Who needs personal liberty and personal responsibility when you have the government to tell you want you can and can’t do, can and can’t say, and how to live your life the politically correct way.

Big Brother Cares about you. Rejoice and bask in the glow of righteousness Citizen.

“I am very disappointed by our President,” Rep. Lamar Smith told FOX News Radio. “That comes very close to trying to intimidate the Supreme Court of the United States and I’m not sure that’s appropriate,” he added.

But it is the Chicago Way! 🙂

Oh, and Vote For Me, The Supreme Court is fully of Radical Right Wing Nutjobs! 🙂

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

 

 

 

Is it Fair?

Stephen Moore: President Obama has frequently justified his policies—and judged their outcomes—in terms of equity, justice and fairness. That raises an obvious question: How does our existing system—and his own policy record—stack up according to those criteria?

Is it fair that the richest 1% of Americans pay nearly 40% of all federal income taxes, and the richest 10% pay two-thirds of the tax?

Is it fair that the richest 10% of Americans shoulder a higher share of their country’s income-tax burden than do the richest 10% in every other industrialized nation, including socialist Sweden?

Is it fair that American corporations pay the highest statutory corporate tax rate of all other industrialized nations but Japan, which cuts its rate on April 1?

Is it fair that President Obama sends his two daughters to elite private schools that are safer, better-run, and produce higher test scores than public schools in Washington, D.C.—but millions of other families across America are denied that free choice and forced to send their kids to rotten schools?

Remember Liberals are “Pro-Choice”. Just not about anything other than abortion, especially not Education,Unions, or Health Care.

Is it fair that Americans who build a family business, hire workers, reinvest and save their money—paying a lifetime of federal, state and local taxes often climbing into the millions of dollars—must then pay an additional estate tax of 35% (and as much as 55% when the law changes next year) when they die, rather than passing that money onto their loved ones?

Damn those evil rich people! The only thing you should pay along to your kids is fealty to the government and DEBT.

Is it fair that Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, former Democratic Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, former Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel and other leading Democrats who preach tax fairness underpaid their own taxes?

Or “Job Creation Czar”‘s GE who paid no corporate taxes at all. And speaking of “rich” people who’s giving Obama $38,500 a pop at his copious fundraisers, the guy who says “Do you want Fries with that?”.

Oh, right, as I said yesterday, when you have no standards you can be a doubletalking, double-dealing, hypocrite in your mind and no one on ‘your side’ will care and the people who do care should just shut up.

Is it fair that after the first three years of Obamanomics, the poor are poorer, the poverty rate is rising, the middle class is losing income, and some 5.5 million fewer Americans have jobs today than in 2007?

8%+ unemployment for more than 3 years. Oh, and the CBO just projected what everyone with a brain cell and some integrity said was going to happen, The Price of ObamaCare doubled BEFORE 2014 already!

Is it fair that roughly 88% of political contributions from supposedly impartial network television reporters, producers and other employees in 2008 went to Democrats?

But they are FAIR and Unbiased. 🙂

And that Public Sector Unions (government employees) are one of the biggest contributors. And in most of them, you have mandatory due that are collected and given to the Democrats. Now that’s “pro-choice”.

Is it fair that the three counties with America’s highest median family income just happen to be located in the Washington, D.C., metro area?

A coincidence. Nothing more, move along…nothing to see here…:)

Is it fair that wind, solar and ethanol producers get billions of dollars of subsidies each year and pay virtually no taxes, while the oil and gas industry—which provides at least 10 times as much energy—pays tens of billions of dollars of taxes while the president complains that it is “subsidized”?

Big Bad Oil is so Evil! 🙂

Solyndra, Beyond Solar, and all the others that have gotten fat checks from the government and then given fat bonus to their execs just before they went bankrupt (usually with an year or so of getting the money) is the fault of the Chinese after all, so nothing to see here…more along… 🙂

Is it fair that those who work full-time jobs (and sometimes more) to make ends meet have to pay taxes to support up to 99 weeks of unemployment benefits for those who don’t work?

You don’t want to be “mean” and “heartless” now do you? 🙂

Is it fair that those who took out responsible mortgages and pay them each month have to see their tax dollars used to subsidize those who acted recklessly, greedily and sometimes deceitfully in taking out mortgages they now can’t afford to repay?

Well, that was the “predatory” banks and mortgage companies fault. The fact that they were pushed by the Democrats in that direction forcefully and then the SEC was too busy watching Porn at work to notice is not relevant. 🙂

Is it fair that thousands of workers won’t have jobs because the president sided with environmentalists and blocked the shovel-ready Keystone XL oil pipeline?

Oil is evil. We only want Politically correct jobs.

Is it fair that some of Mr. Obama’s largest campaign contributors received federal loan guarantees on their investments in renewable energy projects that went bust?

Crony Capitalism is so Washington.

Is it fair that federal employees receive benefits that are nearly 50% higher than those of private-sector workers whose taxes pay their salaries, according to the Congressional Budget Office?

They think so. And no, they aren’t “greedy”. 🙂

Is it fair that soon almost half the federal budget will take income from young working people and redistribute it to old non-working people, even though those over age 65 are already among the wealthiest Americans?

Yeah, but the old people vote! 🙂

Is it fair that in 27 states workers can be compelled to join a union in order to keep their jobs?

The Unions and The Democrats certainly think so. That’s their #1 $$$ gravy train.

Is it fair that nearly four out of 10 (47%) American households now pay no federal income tax at all—a number that has risen every year under Mr. Obama?

Yes, because the more dependent on the government you are the more you’ll vote to continue porking yourself with other people’s money. Hey, it’s free! 🙂

And you don’t want to be “mean”,”Heartless”, or “racist” now do you? 🙂

Is it fair that Boeing, a private company, was threatened by a federal agency when it sought to add jobs in a right-to-work state rather than in a forced-union state?

Yeah, the Liberals have to stick up for their cronies in the Unions. 🙂

Is it fair that if you want to enforce Federal Laws about immigration you get sued by that same Federal government and are branded as racists?

Is it fair that our kids and grandkids and great-grandkids—who never voted for Mr. Obama—will have to pay off the $5 trillion of debt accumulated over the past four years, without any benefits to them?

Better than the people who spent it paying for it! 🙂

Is it fair The Congressional Budget Office said Friday that President Barack Obama’s tax and spending policies will yield $6.4 trillion in deficits over the next decade, more than double the shortfall in CBO’s own fiscal baseline — even after taking credit for reduced war costs. (Politico)

Is it fair: While HHS under the Obama administration does everything in its power to force religions employers to pick up the cost of providing birth control against their religious conscience, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is allowing an Indian tribe an exemption to kill two bald eagles a year … for religious purposes:

The AP reports: “A federal government decision to allow a Wyoming tribe to kill two bald eagles for a religious ceremony is a victory for American Indian sovereignty as well as for long-suppressed religious freedoms, the tribe says.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service granted a permit March 9 to the Northern Arapaho Tribe allowing it either to kill or capture and release two bald eagles this year.” (Townhall.com)

‘African Americans for Obama’

The program urges black Americans to volunteer their time by making calls, organizing events and going door to door in their neighborhoods encouraging other African Americans to vote for Obama.

Again, imagine what the reaction would be any of the Republican candidates launched a ‘Whites for Romney’, ‘Whites for Santorum’ (Christian Conservatives for Santorum) or ‘Whites for Gingrich’ campaign. There would be non-stop uproar. But Obama does the equivalent and gets a free pass.

Now that’s fair, isn’t it? 🙂

Well, when Liberals have no standards…is it fair to judge them then? 🙂

Now doesn’t that just make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside as to how “fair” everything thing is…

Mission Possible: Deception

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Gretchen Carlson, FOX News: Unemployment has gone up precipitously since he took office.

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, DNC Chair: That is simply not true. In fact, unemployment has now dropped below 9%. It’s continuing to drop. He’s been focused on —

Carlson: It’s higher than when they promised the stimulus would lower it to 8%.

Wasserman Schultz: You see, that narrative doesn’t work for you anymore, though, because —

Carlson: It’s not my narrative. I’m just talking about facts.

Wasserman Schultz: You just said the unemployment rate is going up since Obama took office, and it hasn’t.

Carlson: Is unemployment higher since President Obama took office?

Wasserman Schultz: What’s happened since President Obama took office —

Carlson: Is unemployment higher than when he took office?

Wasserman Schultz: Unemployment is nearing right around where it was when President Obama took office and it’s dropping. You just said it’s been increasing and that’s not true.

New narrative and Talking Points from the Orwellian Ministry of Truth Minister. 🙂

Deny reality. Repeatedly. And by the way, we are at war with Oceania and always have been… (1984 reference).

Now, it’s Harry Reid’s turn: Reid: “Millionaire Job Creators Are Like Unicorns” … They “Don’t Exist

Reid: “The Republicans say the richest of the rich in our country, even those who make millions every year, shouldn’t contribute more to get our economy back on track. They call our plan, time after time, a tax on job creators, and I say so-called “job creators.” Because I say that, Mr. President, every shred of evidence contradicts this red herring. For example, there have been many outlets, but I’ll concentrate on one. National Public Radio went looking for one of these fictitious millionaire job creators. A reporter reached out to the business groups and a tax lobby in the Republican Congress hoping to interview one of these millionaires. Days ticked by with no luck. Many of our job creators are like unicorns, they’re impossible to find and don’t exist. That’s because only a tiny fraction of people making more than a million dollars, probably less than one percent, are actually small business owners and only a tiny fraction of that tiny fraction is a traditional job creator.”

Yeah, they might be Bill Gates (Microsoft), or the Late Steve Jobs (Apple). Or even JEFFREY IMHELT (Job Creation Czar) – Jeffrey Immelt’s net worth is $60 million dollars and annual salary of $22 million.

And, of course they don’t employ anyone. 🙂

The Orwellian smoke being blown up your ass is that that the millionaire aren’t “small business” people.

So, since millionaires aren’t “small business” job creators (they are BIG business job creators) it’s ok to tax the hell out of them!!!

Oh, and by the way the “millionaires” tax goes all the way down to $250,000 a year WHICH CAN BE A “SMALL BUSINESS” Job Creator. But we won’t talk about that because it interferes with our class warfare narrative.

So it’s all word games and misdirection and manipulation, as usual.

It’s meant to confuse you.

And you think, dear reader, you’re safe…

What began as an attempt to restrain foreign piracy on the Internet has morphed into a domestic “kill switch” on First Amendment freedom in the fastest-growing corner of the marketplace of ideas.

Proposed federal legislation purporting to protect online intellectual property would also impose sweeping new government mandates on internet service providers – a positively Orwellian power grab that would permit the U.S. Justice Department to shut down any internet site it doesn’t like (and cut off its sources of income) on nothing more than a whim.

Under the so-called “Stop Online Piracy Act” (SOPA) the federal government – which is prohibited constitutionally from abridging free speech or depriving its citizens of their property without due process – would engage in both practices on an unprecedented scale. And in establishing the precursor to a taxpayer-funded “thought police,” it would dramatically curtail technology investment and innovation – wreaking havoc on our economy.

Consider this: Under the proposed legislation all that’s required for government to shutdown a specific website is the mere accusation that the site unlawfully featured copyrighted content.  Such an accusation need not be proven – or even accompanied by probable cause. All that an accuser (or competitor) needs to do in order to obtain injunctive relief is point the finger at a website.

Additionally, SOPA would grant regulators the ability to choke off revenue to the owners of these newly classified “rogue” websites by accusing their online advertisers and payment providers as co-conspirators in the alleged “piracy.” Again, no finding of fact would be required – the mere allegation of impropriety is all that’s needed to cut the website’s purse strings.

Who’s vulnerable to this legislation?

“Any website that features user-generated content or that enables cloud-based data storage could end up in its crosshairs,” writes David Sohn, senior policy council at the Center on Democracy and Technology. “(Internet Service Providers) would face new and open-ended obligations to monitor and police user behavior. Payment processors and ad networks would be required to cut off business with any website that rights-holders allege hasn’t done enough to police infringement.” (The Hill)

But if Congress does pass these laws, it will be a testament to the enormous power and influence of two Democratic special interest groups—the Hollywood lobby, comprised of the Motion Picture Association of America and the Recording Industry Association of America, and the trial lawyers.

If you’re wondering why lawyers and Hollywood folks would get behind legislation to censor the Internet, you only need to listen to former Senator Chris Dodd (of Dodd-Frank fame), now the head of the MPAA, who last week explained to Variety that the lobby is only asking for the same kind of power to censor the Internet as the government has in the People’s Republic of China:

“When the Chinese told Google that they had to block sites or they couldn’t do [business] in their country, they managed to figure out how to block sites.”

And one thing Liberal really want to to do is make sure there’s no one to contradict their Big Brother vision of controlling everyone and everything.

But Dodd calls such alarms “exaggerated hyperbole.”

Just like unemployment that has been above 8% since February 2009 means the rate has dropped to 8.6% (which was a politically motivated number that didn’t count the massive number of people who just gave up!)

Remember that the unemployment rate is not “how many people don’t have jobs?”, but “how many people don’t have jobs and are actively looking for them”

Since 2007, the percent of the population that either has a job or is actively looking for one has fallen from 62.7 percent to 58.5 percent. That’s millions of workers leaving the workforce, and it’s not because they’ve become sick or old or infirm. It’s because they can’t find a job, and so they’ve stopped trying. (WP)

So the more people who give up entirely, the better the Unemployment rate looks.

Now that’s government in action! 🙂

And the Debt hasn’t gone up under Obama, that was the fault of George W. Bush, and they just haven’t had enough time to fix it yet. It’s been tougher than they thought (yeah spending $5 Trillion dollar in less than 3 years will do that).

These are all Democrat/Liberal Talking Points. they are all mean to deceive.

And deception is the only game in town these days.

Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez