Arizona

I didn’t vote in yesterday’s Arizona Primary. Not because I didn’t want to. or I was lazy. It was my day off. Not because of the reports of lines taking hours to vote.

Because I couldn’t. I was Not Allowed to Vote!

I’m a registered Independent. I was not welcome at the party.

KPHO-TV: The largest group of registered voters in Arizona cannot vote in Tuesday’s Presidential Preference Election.

Voters registered without a party preference now make up the largest voting bloc in Arizona.

According to the Arizona Secretary of State, more than 3 million people are registered to vote in Arizona.

Of those, 1.2 million are registered as Independent.

“The idea that you should be forced to take part in a party to be able to participate in the system is the most un-American thing I can think of,” said former Phoenix Mayor Paul Johnson. “They system today totally discriminates against Independents.”

Johnson has pushed for Arizona to move to a top-two system that would put all candidates on a single ballot, without party preference.

Arizona is one of 24 states where voters must register with a party to vote in the state’s primary.

So I stayed home.

Trump crushed my candidate Ted Cruz.

But the only satisfaction I got from yesterday was not really good in the long run. That of telling the all the little wide-eyed, rose-colored, almost-hippie like Bernie Zombies that the fix was in and being proven correct as Hillary crushed Uncle Bernie here in AZ.

The problem with a Dishonest Socialist (besides the whole Socialist thing) is that they are Dishonest. Hillary is the Dishonest Socialist. Unlike Uncle Bernie who has been a honest Socialist all his life.

He believes in it. His minions believe in his dream of “free stuff”.

Hillary, on the other hand is just power-mad evil personified.

She’s the Sith Lord of Socialists.

The Bernie Zombies who were all fresh faced and excited yesterday, are silent today.

Maybe they learned a lesson about power, but I doubt it.

While the victory in Arizona was needed, the loss of any delegates in Utah handed a blow to the Trump campaign as he seeks to avoid a contested convention in Cleveland in July. As it stands, Trump has 739 out of the 1,237 delegates needed, according to Real Clear Politics’ count. In comparison, with Utah’s 40 delegates, Cruz will have a total of 465 delegates.

So the Establishment will likely get there Brokered, smoke-filled Backroom, Convention.

And Hillary will benefit greatly from it.

And America will die. Once and For all.

But as Yogi Berra once said, “It ain’t over until it’s over”

And there is still Hope (just not the Obama type Hope, I hope).

Like Trump, Clinton’s luck changed after Arizona as well.

Speaking to his supports after losing in Arizona, Sanders contended that the race wasn’t over yet and predicted that he would pick up a victory later in the night — and in Utah and Idaho he was correct.

“I am enormously grateful to the people of Utah and Idaho for the tremendous voter turnouts that gave us victories with extremely large margins,” Sanders said in a statement following his victories. “The impressive numbers of young people and working-class people who participated in the process are exactly what the political revolution is all about. These decisive victories in Idaho and Utah give me confidence that we will continue to win major victories in the coming contests.”

Idaho’s 23 delegates and Utah’s 33 delegates will be split proportionally between Clinton and Sanders as was Arizona’s 75 delegates.

Idaho’s Democratic caucuses were open to anyone, regardless of party affiliation, who is eligible to vote in November’s general election and didn’t vote in the GOP primary which was held earlier in March.

Amazing hings can happen when you LET people vote.

Would things have been different if Independents like me were allowed to vote?

We’ll never know. There were potentially a million voters who weren’t invited to The Party. 🙂

 

 

 

Planned Dependence

Fiscal Cliff Update: According to the Congressional Budget Office, the last-minute fiscal cliff deal reached by congressional leaders and President Barack Obama cuts only $15 billion in spending while increasing tax revenues by $620 billion—a 41:1 ratio of tax increases to spending cuts. (breitbart)

At the current borrowing rate of $5 Billion a day that saves us from 3 days of overspending! Hurry, we’re saved!!! 🙂

Way to go, Jar Jar…

More than 80 percent of households with incomes between $50,000 and $200,000 would pay higher taxes.(bloomberg)

And the payroll tax holiday expired yesterday for everyone.

So with all that in mind….

The federal government spent enough money on federal means-tested welfare programs to have sent each impoverished household a check for nearly $60,000, according to figures from the Census Bureau and the Congressional Research Service (CRS).

According to a report from the CRS produced for Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), $1 trillion was spent on federal welfare programs during fiscal year 2011 – with $746 billion in federal funds and $254 in state matching funds.

The U.S. Census Bureau reported that there were approximately 16.8 million households living below the federal poverty level of $23,000 per year for a family of four in 2011. ( See:  2011 Households Below Poverty 2011.pdf  –Report)

If each of the estimated 16.8 million households with income below the poverty level were to have received an equal share of the total welfare spending for fiscal year 2011, they each would have received $59,523.

If only the 2011 federal share of welfare spending (no state matching funds) were spent as direct cash payments, each household would have received $44,404, which is nearly double the federal poverty level for a family of four.

This federal welfare spending does not include programs such as Medicare and Social Security, because they are not means-tested programs. Means-tested programs are those that only pay out benefits to people whose incomes fall below a certain threshold, such as food stamps, traditional cash welfare, and Medicaid.

In other words, if the government were to discontinue its myriad federal welfare programs, such as housing vouchers, food stamps, and Medicaid, and instead just wrote every poor household a check, it would nearly quadruple their income: increasing it from at most $23,000 per year to nearly $83,000 per year. (CNS)

“The Poor” would make more than your average middle class person. 🙂

So why don’t they do it if they are so concerned with the poor?

Simple. It’s about THEM, not the poor. The Poor are a means to an end, not an end unto itself.

The Bureaucrats who have a job (millions of them)  suck the life out of it and get their own petty power from it. The self-aggrandizing politicians who “cares” and proposed these things to begin with out of “compassion” and “fairness” so that suckers will vote for them.

After all, if you propose cuts or reforms you hate the poor and you wanna throw grandma off a cliff. You’re mean, heartless and cruel bastards! 🙂

As I have said, The politicians are addicted to the power that money brings them. And so THEY have to be seen as the drug dealer and that they “care” so that the ill-informed, uninformed, don’t-wanna-be-informed will vote for them so they can maintain and/or grow their own power to do even more of it.

And then there’s the dependent class they create. They get them to believe that the only way to survive is to be dependent on their good graces and that they “are fighting for them” and that they and only they can make life “fair” for them.

In fiscal year 2013, more than 8 million people will receive Supplemental Security Income (SSI) payments at a federal cost of about $50 billion. Over the last two decades, participation in SSI among disabled adults (ages 18 to 64) has increased substantially, partly because of the relaxing of eligibility rules. In contrast, the share of the aged (65 or over) who participate has declined steadily.

Temporary unemployment insurance benefits are set to expire at the end of 2012 (but the “fiscal cliff deal” extends them, funny how that happened) Between 2007 and 2010, unemployment benefits expanded nearly five-fold owing to:

  • High unemployment due to the weak economy, and
  • Decisions by policymakers to increase the number of weeks for which eligible unemployed workers could receive benefits. (CBO)

So after something like $15 Trillion dollars on the “War on Poverty” we have EVEN MORE poor people and EVEN MORE dependency than ever before.

Funny how that work out.

Almost as if it was planned. 🙂

Political Cartoons by Nate Beeler

Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley
 Political Cartoons by Chip Bok

 Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

 

Prove The Mayans Wrong

For the Record on upcoming Republican “obstructionist” ads and ads that say Republicans WANT to crush College Students over the loan rates because you surely won’t here this from the Ministry of Truth:

Republicans defied a veto threat and the House voted Friday to prevent federal loan costs from doubling for millions of college students. The vote gave the GOP a momentary election-year triumph on a bill that has become enmeshed in partisan battles over the economy, women’s issues and President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul.

The measure’s 215-195 passage was largely symbolic because the package is going nowhere in the Democratic-dominated Senate. Both parties agree students’ interest costs should not rise, but they are clashing along a familiar fault line over how to cover the $6 billion tab: Republicans want spending cuts and Democrats want higher revenues.(revenues=Taxes).

Democrats wrote a version of the bill, paid for by ending subsidies for oil and gas companies.

Big Oil is, after all, Evil Incarnate.

But this whole created mess is the centerpiece of the President’s strategy to gin up young, naive, stupid people to vote for him. It can’t be over this fast. He can’t have the Republicans being given credit for it. He has so much more fear and loathing to spread!

FEAR IS HOPE!

So they obstruct them, then blame them for not passing a bill that does it there way. After all, it’s their way or the highway!

And the Republicans keep “obstructing” them on that.

Damn them. 🙂

Democrats trained their fire on the Republican plan to pay for the bill by abolishing a preventive health fund created by Obama’s 2010 revamping of the health care system. Democrats said that program especially helped women by allocating money for cancer screening and other initiatives and that eliminating it was only the latest GOP blow against women _ a charge Republicans hotly contested.

“Give me a break,” roared House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, to rousing cheers from Republican lawmakers. “This is the latest plank in the so-called war on women, entirely created by my colleagues across the aisle for political gain.”

Democrats voted solidly earlier this year to take money from the preventive health fund to help keep doctors’ Medicare reimbursements from dropping. Obama’s own budget in February proposed cutting $4 billion from the same fund to pay for some of his priorities.

Since the early days of this year’s GOP presidential contest, Democrats have been accusing Republicans of targeting women by advocating curbs on contraceptives and other policies. Polls show women leaning heavily toward Obama and Democrats would like to stoke that margin.

In its veto message, the White House argued that “women in particular” would be helped by the prevention fund and added, “This is a politically motivated proposal and not the serious response that the problem facing America’s college students deserves.” (Townhall)

Never Let a Crisis Go to Waste! 🙂

2008: The Obama campaign spokesman, Bill Burton, accused the Clinton team of playing “the politics of fear” just like George W. Bush.

Burton, now the head of the Democratic super PAC, Priorities USA (one of the main backers of ObamaCare), said at the time: “When Senator Clinton voted with President Bush to authorize the war in Iraq, she made a tragically bad decision that diverted our military from the terrorists who attacked us, and allowed Osama bin Laden to escape and regenerate his terrorist network. It’s ironic that she would borrow the President’s tactics in her own campaign and invoke bin Laden to score political points. We already have a President who plays the politics of fear, and we don’t need another.

Now: We have Throwing Grandma off a cliff, race-baiting, racial division, and so much more.

FEAR IS HOPE

In a new web video titled “One Chance,” the Obama team features former President Bill Clinton praising Obama for deciding to launch the strike last year. “What path would Mitt Romney have taken?” the clip asks.

Mind you, like the “silver spoon” comments it’s all implied. He wants to led your horse to his kool-aid so you’ll drink it.

While I am not the biggest fan of Romney, I am totally against Obama and these kind of tactics are just the opening salvo in an all-out Nuclear Armageddon that the Democrats and their Liberal Media Minions will launch.

After all, all that they have worked for for 90 years is at stake. ObamaCare is potentially still at stake depending on how it goes with the Supreme Court. And if goes against them then they have to double down to win so they can pass it again!

Don’t doubt that. It’s the Holy Grail of Liberalism. They won’t give up quite so easily. All they have to do is win again, replace at least 1 conservative Justice on the Supreme Court and they are off to the Totalitarian races!

So expect nothing less than total and absolute Nuclear Annihilation.

So you pander to base fears. You pander to Hispanics big time (gotta have that Illegal alien Vote – sorry the Liberal want to ban that phrase to because it’s “inhumane” – perfect crimethink). You get the stupid and the naive to vote for you. You get as many independents as possible to stay home and not vote for anyone as you can so you can get your base+the stupid+ the naive to overwhelm the rational.

Vote for me, The Other Guy’s an Asshole!!!

And it starts with the ludicrous notion that a President presented with info to kill or capture the #1 enemy of the country would pass on it.

I think the only reason Obama went for it is because if it leaked out that he didn’t that it would be bad politiks. After all President Clinton passed on Bin Laden several times in the 1990s (but that didn’t hurt him because the liberal media covered it up and they could have for Obama but the internet is much more pervasive now than than it was and it would have leaked out somehow).

“Thanks to President Obama, bin Laden is dead and General Motors is alive. You have to ask yourself, if Gov. Romney had been president, could he have used the same slogan — in reverse?” Biden said

Yeah, and The UAW thanks you Mr. Vice President. After all, that was what it was all about in the first place– Unions. The Stimulus was also about Unions.
If you aren’t in a Union (which the vast majority of people aren’t) then you don’t have compulsory “donations” to the Democrat Party as part of your salary and that has to change.
Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul said Friday. “It’s now sad to see the Obama campaign seek to use an event that unified our country to once again divide us, in order to try to distract voters’ attention from the failures of his administration.”

But don’t worry, the fear campaign has only begun to ratchet up and the swagger of “I got him and you didn’t” is only just beginning.
Before it’s over the Mayans will be right.

WSJ: Try this thought experiment: You decide to donate money to Mitt Romney. You want change in the Oval Office, so you engage in your democratic right to send a check.

Several days later, President Barack Obama, the most powerful man on the planet, singles you out by name. His campaign brands you a Romney donor, shames you for “betting against America,” and accuses you of having a “less-than-reputable” record. The message from the man who controls the Justice Department (which can indict you), the SEC (which can fine you), and the IRS (which can audit you), is clear: You made a mistake donating that money.

Richard Nixon’s “enemies list” appalled the country for the simple reason that presidents hold a unique trust. Unlike senators or congressmen, presidents alone represent all Americans. Their powers—to jail, to fine, to bankrupt—are also so vast as to require restraint. Any president who targets a private citizen for his politics is de facto engaged in government intimidation and threats. This is why presidents since Nixon have carefully avoided the practice.

Save Mr. Obama, who acknowledges no rules. This past week, one of his campaign websites posted an item entitled “Behind the curtain: A brief history of Romney’s donors.” In the post, the Obama campaign named and shamed eight private citizens who had donated to his opponent. Describing the givers as all having “less-than-reputable records,” the post went on to make the extraordinary accusations that “quite a few” have also been “on the wrong side of the law” and profiting at “the expense of so many Americans.”

These are people like Paul Schorr and Sam and Jeffrey Fox, investors who the site outed for the crime of having “outsourced” jobs. T. Martin Fiorentino is scored for his work for a firm that forecloses on homes. Louis Bacon (a hedge-fund manager), Kent Burton (a “lobbyist”) and Thomas O’Malley (an energy CEO) stand accused of profiting from oil. Frank VanderSloot, the CEO of a home-products firm, is slimed as a “bitter foe of the gay rights movement.”

These are wealthy individuals, to be sure, but private citizens nonetheless. Not one holds elected office. Not one is a criminal. Not one has the barest fraction of the position or the power of the U.S. leader who is publicly assaulting them.

“We don’t tolerate presidents or people of high power to do these things,” says Theodore Olson, the former U.S. solicitor general. “When you have the power of the presidency—the power of the IRS, the INS, the Justice Department, the DEA, the SEC—what you have effectively done is put these guys’ names up on ‘Wanted’ posters in government offices.” Mr. Olson knows these tactics, having demanded that the 44th president cease publicly targeting Charles and David Koch of Koch Industries, which he represents. He’s been ignored.

The real crime of the men, as the website tacitly acknowledges, is that they have given money to Mr. Romney. This fundraiser of a president has shown an acute appreciation for the power of money to win elections, and a cutthroat approach to intimidating those who might give to his opponents.

He’s targeted insurers, oil firms and Wall Street—letting it be known that those who oppose his policies might face political or legislative retribution. He lectured the Supreme Court for giving companies more free speech and (falsely) accused the Chamber of Commerce of using foreign money to bankroll U.S. elections. The White House even ginned up an executive order (yet to be released) to require companies to list political donations as a condition of bidding for government contracts. Companies could bid but lose out for donating to Republicans. Or they could quit donating to the GOP—Mr. Obama’s real aim.

The White House has couched its attacks in the language of “disclosure” and the argument that corporations should not have the same speech rights as individuals. But now, says Rory Cooper of the Heritage Foundation, “he’s doing the same at the individual level, for anyone who opposes his policies.” Any giver, at any level, risks reprisal from the president of the United States.

It’s getting worse because the money game is not going as Team Obama wants. Super PACs are helping the GOP to level the playing field against Democratic super-spenders. Prominent financial players are backing Mr. Romney. The White House’s new strategy is thus to delegitimize Mr. Romney (by attacking his donors) as it seeks to frighten others out of giving.

The Obama campaign has justified any action on the grounds that it has a right to “hold the eventual Republican nominee accountable,” but this is a dodge. Politics is rough, but a president has obligations that transcend those of a candidate. He swore an oath to protect and defend a Constitution that gives every American the right to partake in democracy, free of fear of government intimidation or disfavored treatment. If Mr. Obama isn’t going to act like a president, he bolsters the argument that he doesn’t deserve to be one.

If I can’t get you to vote for me, I can at least try to get you to not vote at all.

But if you vote for the wrong team, expect to feel my wrath if I’m re-elected for I am vengeful God!

We already have a President who plays the politics of fear, that’s why we need to get rid of him.

And the only way is to wade through an all out Nuclear Armageddon of Liberal attacks and vote him out.

Be a Proud Enemy of This State.

And prove the Mayans wrong. 🙂

Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

 Political Cartoons by Chip Bok

On the Wrong Track

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

Arlington, VA – This afternoon the Treasury Department released the Monthly Treasury Statement for November. The report shows the U.S. ran a $137 billion deficit last month. For the second month of the fiscal year, the federal government took in $152 billion, and spent $290 billion.

Gretchen Hamel, Executive Director of Public Notice, said the following:

For the past 38 consecutive months the government has spent more than it brought in. Everyone but Congress knows that Washington has a chronic overspending problem.

“Sadly, in the nation’s capital, this report has become routine.  The American people, however, should be outraged by this latest evidence of Washington’s total lack of accountability and regard for hard-earned taxpayer dollars.

“As the year winds down, Americans will look back and try to see what worked and what didn’t, and resolve to do better in the New Year.  Let’s hope Congress recognizes that 2011 has been a fiscal disaster and that it must do better in 2012.”

For years, Barack Obama has diverted attention from his own economic decisions by blaming his predecessor, George W. Bush, for the nation’s financial woes, from deficits to debts to taxes to Medicare and Medicaid spending.

But that strategy has reached the end of its effectiveness, according to a new poll that reveals more people blame Obama for the failed state of the economy now than blame Bush.

A new poll from the public-opinion research and media consulting company Wenzel Strategies shows that 22.3 percent of registered voters say Obama is the “one person” most responsible for the nation’s continuing economic troubles.

To the same question, 19.1 percent said George W. Bush. But critical to the coming 2012 election will be the fact that of the independents, on whose votes elections often are decided, nearly 23 percent blame Obama and only 15.5 percent blame Bush. The independents put in second place members of Congress, which is half controlled by Democrats, the poll revealed, ahead of Bush.

Pollster Fritz Wenzel pointed out the scenarios that the White House is facing because of the thinking of the American public.

“Because blame of the Congress is split equally between the Democrats who lead the Senate and Republicans who lead the U.S. House, Obama’s efforts to blame Congress for all of the problems facing the country will backfire by at least 50 percent,” Wenzel said.

“Obama’s current campaign strategy could appear to be particularly selfish, having the ironic effect of killing his support among fellow Democrats in Congress, who will no doubt resent his efforts to sell them out to save his own political skin,” he added.

“At the very least, with twice as many Democratic seats than Republican seats up for grabs [in] next year’s Senate elections, this Obama strategy may well assure that Democrats lose control of the Senate, and is unlikely to result in a Democratic takeover in the U.S. House,” he said.

The poll showed that 22.3 percent of registered voters (35.7 percent of Republicans and 22.9 percent of independents) blame Obama as the most responsible for the current economic conditions. A little more than 19 percent blame Bush and 18.3 percent blame Congress.

The poll shows 11.5 percent blame the Democratic Congress of 2009, 11.2 percent blame Wall Street and 10.1 percent blame the U.S. House. Trailing was the Democrat-led U.S. Senate.

“Finally, he is the one now blamed more than any other for the current miserable state of the economy,” Wenzel said.

A full 74.9 percent of independents believe America is on the wrong track, trailing the 85 percent of the Republicans by only a little. Only 12 percent of independents and 7 percent of Republicans think the nation is on the right track.(Wenzel)

Among those who described themselves as “very liberal,” more than one-third (37.3 percent) said the nation is on the wrong track. That opinion rose in every other category (liberal, moderate, conservative, very conservative).

An overwhelming 64 percent of people surveyed said big government was the biggest threat to the country, compared to just 26 percent who said big business is their gravest concern and 8 percent who picked big labor. (Gallup)

But take heart ye of little faith:

The 2012 federal budget deficit is slated to drop by 0.0004 percent following the decision by Vice President Joe Biden to reducing production of surplus Presidential dollar coins to minimal levels.

Baby steps, Joe, Baby steps… 🙂

More than 1.4 billion surplus $1 coins coins have been produced by the U.S. Mint since passage of a 2005 act requiring their production, at an annual cost of roughly $50 million.

Biden announced the news today as part of a high profile effort to curb waste and fraud in government.

“Today’s announcements — from putting an end to the wasteful production of Presidential dollar coins to recovering over $5 billion in fraud — demonstrates the administration’s continued commitment to cutting waste and protecting taxpayers,” Biden said.

By extension, Biden’s announcement also halts production of equally unwanted “Native American $1 coins,” which are mandated by a 2009 law to make up 20 percent of presidential dollar production.

President Obama was unable to attend Biden’s coin-tossing event because he was attending a fundraiser near Capitol Hill.

Isn’t that what he does ever day? It’s not like he’s a Leader of a Country or anything… 🙂

Political Cartoons by Nate Beeler

Political Cartoons by Gary McCoy

 

Political Cartoons by Nate Beeler

 

Washington Shrugged

What’s your political affiliation?

Republican? Democrat?

Or are you an independent?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Video: 41 mins

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

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

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

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

Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley

Blind Man’s Bluff

Well, the Republicans, and some Democrats called the President and the Far Left’s bluff yesterday, voting down the Raise the Taxes on the rich so their base of the loonie left get that message.

But, of course that wouldn’t be the message. Most Democrats said that showed them siding with “millionaires and billionaires” over the middle class. (NYT)

And that was the symbolic gesture they wanted, to toss some red meat to their psychotic base before they allow themselves to be bribed into going along with something else.

Call it the sugar pill before the medicine.

Now, though, comes the bribery. What will it cost us taxpayers to buy off the Democrats and their class warfare this time. It certainly will not go away. It’s all they really have anymore.

“I feel like I am in the twilight zone,” said Senator Claire McCaskill, Democrat of Missouri. “It’s depressing to me that we have gotten to this level of posturing, that they are saying if you do not give people a tax break on their second million, that nobody gets one.”

The Democrats posturing, excluded, of course. 🙂

And let’s not forget the paternal contempt of the Left:

Sen. Schumer, pressing for his proposal (to make the cap $1 million), said: “It’s not that we want to punish wealthy people. We want to praise them. But they’re doing fine, and they’re not going to spend the money and stimulate the economy.”

I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him 🙂 It surely wasn’t the other way around. 🙂

Right now there is little goodwill on the left toward the president. Liberals are up in arms amid talk of compromise on extending the George W. Bush tax cuts for all Americans, rather than allowing rates to rise for the wealthiest. They see Obama today as weak, vacillating and lacking either convictions or the gumption to fight for the principles they believe got him elected. They want a fighter in the White House who will put the Republicans in their place.

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), an unabashed liberal, was quoted last week as saying that if Obama caves on tax cuts, “he’s going to have a lot of swimming upstream” to do. Liberal blogger Jane Hamsher accused Obama of “cynical charades” in his discussions about a compromise on tax cuts and unemployment insurance. New York Times columnist Paul Krugman called Obama’s freeze on federal workers’ pay “transparently cynical.”

But other Democrats see dangers in a strategy of confrontation and argue that an alternative approach can win back the independent Democrats lost last month.

Liberals may be disillusioned, but they still voted for Democrats in the midterms. Independents defected in significant numbers. Many are worried about the president’s policies, and many think he has failed to fulfill his promise to reduce partisanship and change the way Washington works. They want results and expect cooperation between the parties.

What is the right strategy for Obama to regain the political initiative and put his presidency back on track? Should he hold firm, push a liberal agenda and provoke fights with the Republicans, as Truman did? That would reenergize his liberal base and sharpen his profile with the public.

Or should he be a conciliator, as Clinton tried to be, cooperating when possible with congressional Republicans but resisting when he believes they have gone too far right? That might show the Republicans as obstructionists and bring independents back to his side heading toward 2012. (Washington Post)

Well, this independent won’t be back if he plays cynical political games. But at least the left now sees the weakness that we all saw more than 2 years ago.

Only they see it for their own ideology, not reality. As usual.

Political Cartoon by Steve Kelley

It isn’t easy being Liberal

Al Gore will have a school devoted to the Environment (aka Global Warming Indoctrination)  name after him.

It’s built on a former Toxic Waste dump site.

I love it! 🙂

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

As Obama is touting is newest stimulus-that-you-can’t-call-a-stimulus and spending our way out of debt comes Secretary of State Hillary Clinton pees on it:

Clinton, in a speech heralding a new “American moment” in U.S. foreign policy, said the Obama administration’s policy of greater engagement with the world has brought dividends such as a united front against Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

But she again stressed the corrosive effect of the mounting U.S. debt, which she said threatened the United States’ ability to chart its own course in the world and sends “a message of weakness internationally.”

“It poses a national security threat in two ways: it undermines our capacity to act in our own interest, and it does constrain us where constraint may be undesirable,” Clinton said in response to a question after her address to the Council on Foreign Relations think tank.

*****

“In this year of economic uncertainty and critical mid-term elections, the corporate-owned media will not be offering lessons about: our rigged political system; the conservative crusade against Muslims; the phony ‘panic’ over debt; vets abandoned by the VA; taxes and the Tea Party and much, much more,”
The Progressive Left’s magazine The Nation. They want to bring more liberal “education” to the classroom.
More?
Really?
Gee, I guess total domination is the goal then, eh? 😦
********************************************************************
A Gallup survey of registered voters this week had Republicans beating Democrats in a generic ballot by 10 points, 51% to 41%. In the 68-year history of that poll, the GOP had never led by more than five points.
**********************************************************************

ETU ORSZAG!

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs reiterated the Obama administration’s opposition to extending tax cuts for America’s highest earners this afternoon, after former White House Budget Director Peter Orszag, at left, suggested a two year extension of all the Bush-era tax cuts.

Orszag, who left the Obama administration in July, wrote in an op-ed in today’s New York Times that raising taxes would “crimp consumer spending, further depressing the already inadequate demand for what firms are capable of producing at full tilt.” He suggested the administration extend all the Bush tax cuts for two years before ending them altogether in order to lower the deficit. This includes ending the tax cuts for middle and lower-income people that the Obama administration wants to extend permanently.

In his press briefing this afternoon, Gibbs responded to Orszag’s comments, emphasizing that while the White House is committed to extending tax cuts for middle and low-income Americans, it stands firm in its belief that maintaining similar breaks for the nation’s highest earners is fiscally unsustainable.

“Our viewpoint on this is that we should and must pass legislation that extends the tax cuts for middle-class families,” he said. “But we cannot afford, in this environment to — in our budgetary and fiscal environment to extend the tax cuts for those that make more than $250,000 a year.”

“I don’t think the president believes that we are a $100,000 tax cut from a millionaire away from an economy that works for families that are making $40,000 a year,” Gibbs said.

Wealthy Americans aren’t spending so freely anymore. And the rest of us are feeling the squeeze.

The question is whether the rich will cut back so much as to tip the economy back into recession — or if they will spend at least enough to sustain the recovery.

The answer may not be clear for months. But their cutbacks help explain why the rebound could be stalling. The economy grew at just a 2.4 percent rate in the April-June quarter, the government said Friday, much slower than the 3.7 percent rate for the first quarter.

Economists say overall consumer spending has slowed mainly because the richest 5 percent of Americans — those earning at least $207,000 — are buying less. They account for about 14 percent of total spending. These shoppers have retrenched as their investment values have sunk and home values have languished.

In addition, the most sweeping tax cuts in a generation are due to expire in January, and lawmakers are divided over whether the government can afford to make any of them permanent as the federal budget deficit continues to balloon. President Barack Obama wants to allow the top rates to increase next year for individuals making more than $200,000 and couples making more than $250,000. The wealthy may be keeping some money on the sidelines due to uncertainty over whether or not they will soon face higher taxes.

The Standard & Poor’s 500 stock index has tumbled 9.5 percent since its high-water mark in late April. Home values fell 3.2 percent in the first quarter, according to the Standard & Poor’s/Case-Shiller 20-city home price index.

Think of the wealthy as the main engine of the economy: When they buy more, the economy hums. When they cut back, it sputters. The rest of us mainly go along for the ride.

“It isn’t a good omen for the consumer recovery, which cannot exist without the luxury spender,” said Mike Niemira, chief economist at the International Council of Shopping Centers.

At the same time, government reports show shoppers as a whole cut back on their spending in both May and June.

Companies have responded by refusing to step up hiring. The housing market is stalling. And Americans are seeing little or no pay raises. It adds up to a recipe for a grinding recovery to slow further.

And it helps explain why economists expect the rebound to lose momentum in the second half of the year. Especially if the rich don’t resume bigger spending.

“They are the bellwether for the economy,” says Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics. “The fact that they turned more cautious is why the recovery is losing momentum. If they panic again, that would be the fodder for a double-dip recession.”

That’s because whether they’re saving or spending, the wealthy deliver an outsize impact on the economy. (CNS)

So the obvious answer is to tax them even more. So we take it away from them. 🙂
After all, the greedy bastards deserve it!
Mind you, the 47% of the people who don’t even pay taxes to begin with need a good class ware fare motivation to vote for Democrats.
Firedoglake: “For the thousandth time, tax cuts aren’t very effective, and those applied to rich people suck. When the government gives a tax cut — essentially a gift — to the richest Americans, they spend proportionally less to stimulate Mainstreet’s economy and gamble a lot more on Wall Street’s casinos. Everyone should know this by now. Transferring money from the middle class to the rich impoverishes Mainstreet and enriches Wall Street. So retaining lower taxes for the middle class is as much a democratic equity argument to help redress the egregious distribution of wealth to the richest people as it is an economic stimulus plan.”
***
At least five of the 34 House Democrats who voted against their party’s health care reform bill are highlighting their “no” votes in ads back home. By contrast, party officials in Washington can’t identify a single House member who’s running an ad boasting of a “yes” vote — despite the fact that 219 House Democrats voted in favor of final passage in March.

One Democratic strategist said it would be “political malfeasance” to run such an ad now.

Democrats have taken that advice to heart; it appears that no Democratic incumbent — in the House or in the Senate — has run a pro-reform TV ad since April, when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) ran one.

Most of the Democrats running ads highlighting their opposition to the law are in conservative-leaning districts and considered the most endangered. They’re using their vote against the overhaul as proof of their willingness to buck party leadership and their commitment to watching the nation’s debt.

Rep. Glenn Nye (D-Va.) says in an ad that went up last week that he voted against the law “because it cost too much.”

Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (D-S.D.) says she voted against “all the bailouts and the trillion dollar health care plan” because “it wasn’t right for South Dakota” or for children anywhere.

And an ad for Rep. Jason Altmire (D-Pa.) quotes constituents who say, “I like that Jason Altmire is not afraid to stand up to the president … and Nancy Pelosi.”

As for the members who voted yes? A Democratic strategist familiar with the polling on the issue says the most effective approach — when asked — is to highlight that the law provides consumers with the same health care that members of Congress get.

Another method is to tell voters that the law bans insurance companies from denying coverage once a customer gets sick — a provision that would be undone if Republicans repeal the law, as they have promised to do if given the opportunity.

The Kaiser survey found that likely voters listed health care as the third most important factor in determining how they will vote. It’s behind the economy and “dissatisfaction with government.”

About one-third of voters said support for the health reform law would make it more likely that they’d vote for a candidate. But one-third said it would make it less likely, and another third said it wouldn’t make much of a difference. Those figures haven’t changed much since the law passed. (Politico)

Emphasize that the unpopularity is mostly about the messy process, and that when voters appreciate the benefits, they will come around. 🙂
And if that doesn’t work, well, you’re just a racist, a bigot, or just plain stupid! 🙂