The Difference

The perfect illustration of the problem between Liberals and Conservatives just happened to me yesterday.

I have a job where you have set of performance goals you HAVE TO meet. So I have a job based on my performance of THEIR goals.

And if you meet or exceed those goals every March there is a Bonus if the company was profitable and grew over the last year. (so yes, you can meet the goals and if the company is not profitable your going to get next to bubkiss).

I got my bonus yesterday.

Now a Liberal would mostly go all hardcore anti-capitalist but let’s try make this simpler than that.

Liberal: Is it “Fair” that you get a bonus and others don’t. Gee, why not lower your prices instead of giving the money to your employees so that everyone benefits in this terrible post-Bush economy.

Don’t be so greedy and selfish. Your company is just looking out for profit. 🙂

Actual Conservative: 44% Tax taken out before you even see the check. Man that sucks. Something needs to be done about that!

Liberal: 56% is plenty when you consider no one else around you gets a bonus and they have to struggle blah blah blah…

What? do you want the government to shut down and for poor people to “fend for themselves” and old people to just die in the streets because of the lack of tax money because you just want to be a greedy,selfish bastard!

Conservative: Yeah, but 44%!! Really…

See the difference. 🙂

It’s not like I’m “rich” or anything. Far From it. Solidly middle class. Actually, I make less than everyone else in my family.

But don’t worry, to a Liberal, I just want to screw the poor and the elderly because I think taxes are too high and they don’t think they are high enough.

That’s the difference.

Now “Compromise” on those polar opposites. 🙂

Senator Patty Murray, the Democratic chair of the Senate Budget Committee, finally released a budget today. Year over year, in this proposed budget, spending jumps dramatically. 

SURPRISE! 🙂

For instance, from this year’s budget to next year’s proposed budget, spending would increase by $162 billion. This year, the federal government will spend $3.599 trillion; under Murray’s budget, the federal government would be on track to spend even more.

Over the next decade, spending under Murray’s budget would increase by 62 percent. Here’s a chart from the Republican side of the Senate Budget Committee detailing the increase in spending over the next decade:

As the chart shows, the budget would increase a bit each year, under the Democratic plan.

“Murray’s budget spends $2.2 trillion more in 2023 (the last year of the budget window) than the 2013 levels – a 62% increase (significantly outpacing inflation),” says a staff member on the Republican side of the Senate Budget Committee.

In an interview that aired earlier today, President Obama said, “[W]e don’t have an immediate crisis in terms of debt. In fact, for the next ten years, it’s gonna be in a sustainable place.”

Obama has not released his own budget yet. (WS)

You’d never know that the National Debt is: $16,690,614,000,000

Would you? 🙂

Liberal: When  in Debt Tax More & Spend Even More

Actual Conservative: Cut Spending because we spend too much.

That’s the Difference.

Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez1,307 Days no child left a dime

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

Two Face

The Sky is falling and we’re going to make you suffer for the sequester by ratcheting up the pain and the fear.

BUT…we will give millions to a Nation run by Terrorists that we helped create!!!!

Calling it a “good-faith effort” to help the Egyptian people, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry released $250 million in economic aid.

Oh, and after 4 years and 7,000 comments I was banned from The Huffington post for “offensive” and “abusive” ad hominem attacks.

Ever been there? It’s nothing BUT offensive and abusive ad hominem attacks.

Liberals are so two-faced.

Speaking of the Sky is not Falling…

The White House is retreated from its doomsday predictions about the impact of the $85 billion in federal spending cuts as they enter a second week — with Republican leaders appearing at least satisfied about delivering on their promise to limit government spending and hold down taxes.

Gene Sperling, the White House’s top economic adviser, repeatedly said Sunday the cuts will not hurt as much on “Day One” as they will over the long haul.   

“Nobody ever suggested that this … was going to have all its impact in the first few days,” he told “NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “It is a slow grind.”

His remarks are in contrast to weeks of President Obama and his Cabinet warning that the cuts will result in furloughs or pay cuts for middle-class wage-earners such as teachers, Capitol Hill janitors and air traffic controllers, which they said could cause 90-minutes delays at major U.S. airports.

Sperling declined at least twice to directly answer questions about whether the worst-case-scenario rhetoric has hurt the president’s credibility on the issue. He instead stuck to his argument that independent economists forecast the cuts will result in 750,000 fewer jobs and that corporate executives now anticipate slower economic growth.

“These are not the Sky is Falling! Doomsday Predictions you are looking for….” (ala Star Wars at Mos Eisley).
Oh no! it will be slower than the slowest recovery in 80 years!
Martha, bar the door, the Apocalypse is here!

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell told CNN’s “State of the Union” Americans absorbed similar cuts once already this year.

“This modest reduction of 2.4 percent in spending over the next six months is a little more than the average American experienced just two months ago, when their own pay went down when the payroll tax holiday expired,” the Kentucky Republican said.

Congress agreed to the cuts, known as sequester, in 2011 after failing to agree on more measure reductions — to defense and some domestic spending. However, the cuts were intended to be so drastic that Democrats and Republicans would be forced to compromise before they started.

Still, Sperling rejected several Republican-backed plans and said no compromise would be reached unless the party agrees to tax increases.

My way or the Highway!
“This is not a win for Republicans,” Sperling said. “This cuts into military preparedness.”

BUT liberals hate the military and want to slash it to the bone anyhow! This is EXACTLY what they wanted. Which is why it was in e Sequester to make the Republicans blink in the first place.
“Our hope is as more Republicans start to see this pain in their own districts they will choose bipartisan compromise over this absolutist position,” he said.

Aka, we’ll ratchet up the pain and make them do it our way or ELSE you’ll “Regret it”! 🙂
And our absolutist position on the need for more Tax increases is non-negotiable and not bi-partisan nor a compromise!!
So Two Faced…

DON’T DO AS I DO, DO AS I SAY!

But because the next great Crisis to end civilization is coming….

All of this comes ahead of a new, March 27 deadline that could spell a government shutdown and a debt-ceiling clash coming in May.

And, of course it will be the Republicans fault. The Democrats are perfectly reasonable about their absolutist fear mongering.
And Grandma will out in the cold eating dog food.
Republicans will be stealing candy from babies.
You’ll have no cops or firefighters.
They’ll make you wait an extra 90 minutes at the airport.
More Illegals we wanted to release anyways will be released.
We’ll stop pretending we care about the border.
And you’ll get even more horse in your meat.
AND IT WILL BE ALL YOUR FAULT!
So Blame the Republicans!
Blame the Rich!
Blame Corporate America!
But don’t you Ever dare to blame Obama and The Democrats!
You’ll “regret” that if you do, you racist, homophobic, misogynist, Obstructionist TEA BAGGER idiot. You piece of human filth!
And just imagine what it will be like when they are forced to cut spending?
The billions in cuts apply to the remainder of fiscal 2013, which ends Sept. 30. But without a deal they will continue slashing government spending by about $1 trillion more over a 10-year period.

That’s 100 Billion a year. Obama and Democrats blow through that in 20 days.
So what big deal…
All Hail Armageddon! 🙂
Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert

You’re all Flocked!

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

“You know, the one thing about being president is, after four years, you get pretty humble. You’d think maybe you wouldn’t but actually you become more humble–you realize what you don’t know,” Obama said. 

“You realize all the mistakes you made. But you also realize you can’t do things by yourself.

Says President Fiat, and President Regulations-Will-still-get-me-what-I-want.

I guess he didn’t build that! 🙂

That’s not how our system works. You’ve got to have the help and the goodwill of Congress, and what that means is you’ve got to make sure that constituents of members of Congress are putting some pressure on them, making sure they’re doing the right thing.”

Translation: Pressure the Republicans into caving in yet again to my will and what I want.

This President never actually says what he really means. Don’t Do as I do, Do as I say…Just Translated.

Thomas Sowell: John Stuart Mill’s classic essay “On Liberty” gives reasons why some people should not be taking over other people’s decisions about their own lives. But Professor Cass Sunstein of Harvard has given reasons to the contrary. He cites research showing “that people make a lot of mistakes, and that those mistakes can prove extremely damaging.”

Professor Sunstein is undoubtedly correct that “people make a lot of mistakes.” Most of us can look back over our own lives and see many mistakes, including some that were very damaging.

What Cass Sunstein does not tell us is what sort of creatures, other than people, are going to override our mistaken decisions for us. That is the key flaw in the theory and agenda of the left.

Implicit in the wide range of efforts on the left to get government to take over more of our decisions for us is the assumption that there is some superior class of people who are either wiser or nobler than the rest of us.

And they, the Left, are the superior class, they just don’t want to tell you to your face that they think you’re a moron for not trusting that they know better than you on everything.  Because, it’s simple: Vote For me, The Other Guy’s an Asshole!
Yes, we all make mistakes. But do governments not make bigger and more catastrophic mistakes?

ObamaCare anyone? Community Re-Investment Act Anyone??

Think about the First World War, from which nations on both sides ended up worse off than before, after an unprecedented carnage that killed substantial fractions of whole younger generations and left millions starving amid the rubble of war.

Think about the Holocaust, and about other government slaughters of even more millions of innocent men, women and children under Communist governments in the Soviet Union and China.

Even in the United States, government policies in the 1930s led to crops being plowed under, thousands of little pigs being slaughtered and buried, and milk being poured down sewers, at a time when many Americans were suffering from hunger and diseases caused by malnutrition.

The Great Depression of the 1930s, in which millions of people were plunged into poverty in even the most prosperous nations, was needlessly prolonged by government policies now recognized in retrospect as foolish and irresponsible.

One of the key differences between mistakes that we make in our own lives and mistakes made by governments is that bad consequences force us to correct our own mistakes. But government officials cannot admit to making a mistake without jeopardizing their whole careers.

Can you imagine a President of the United States saying to the mothers of America, “I am sorry your sons were killed in a war I never should have gotten us into”?

No, But the Left constantly raves about Bush and Iraq to the point of foaming at the mouth and veins popping…

What is even more relevant to Professor Sunstein’s desire to have our betters tell us how to live our lives, is that so many oppressive and even catastrophic government policies were cheered on by the intelligentsia.
Back in the 1930s, for example, totalitarianism was considered to be “the wave of the future” by much of the intelligentsia, not only in the totalitarian countries themselves but in democratic nations as well.

The Soviet Union was being praised to the skies by such literary luminaries as George Bernard Shaw in Britain and Edmund Wilson in America, while literally millions of people were being systematically starved to death by Stalin and masses of others were being shipped off to slave labor camps.

Even Hitler and Mussolini had their supporters or apologists among intellectuals in the Western democracies, including at one time Lincoln Steffens and W.E.B. Du Bois.

An even larger array of the intellectual elite in the 1930s opposed the efforts of Western democracies to respond to Hitler’s massive military buildup with offsetting military defense buildups to deter Hitler or to defend themselves if deterrence failed.

“Disarmament” was the mantra of the day among the intelligentsia, often garnished with the suggestion that the Western democracies should “set an example” for other nations — as if Nazi Germany or imperial Japan was likely to follow their example.

Too many among today’s intellectual elite see themselves as our shepherds and us as their sheep. Tragically, too many of us are apparently willing to be sheep, in exchange for being taken care of, being relieved of the burdens of adult responsibility and being supplied with “free” stuff paid for by others.

free stuff

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

 You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

 

But I Can’t Stop Now!

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

“At one point several weeks ago,” Boehner told the Wall Street Journal, “the president said to me, ‘We don’t have a spending problem.'”

That would be news to Obama’s debt commission, which in its final report made clear that spending is the driving force behind the nation’s debt crisis.

Here’s what the report said: “Even after the economy recovers, federal spending is projected to increase faster than revenues, so the government will have to continue borrowing money to spend.”

The panel added, “Over the long run, as the baby boomers retire and health care costs continue to grow, the situation will become far worse.”

And it recommended: “We should cut all excess spending — including defense, domestic programs, entitlement spending, and spending in the tax code.” (IBD)

But the Hard Core leftist meme seems to be that we can’t not pay the bills we already have so let’s ignore the spending problem.
That’s like saying I’m a shop-alcholic and I spend $3000 day (but take in a 300) and puts $10,000 on the credit card and then says “but I can’t stop now because I have bills to pay!!!”
It’s not rational.
So what we get is irrational partisan, protect-the-party at all costs, screw everyone else.
Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

By 2022, federal revenues will top 19% of GDP, which is significantly higher than the post-World War II average. But spending will exceed 22%, and keep climbing.

Meanwhile, a Government Accountability Office report concluded that spending is “on an unsustainable long-term fiscal path” and blamed entitlements.

And countless Congressional Budget Office reports have documented how, left unchecked, federal entitlement programs will soon swamp the entire budget.

Apparently Obama didn’t read any of those, either.

When it comes to federal spending, Obama is like the alcoholic who says that the only drinking problem he has is when he can’t get a drink.

And we all drown in debt because of it.
The Following is from The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry about children of alcoholics.

A child being raised by a parent or caregiver who is suffering from alcohol abuse may have a variety of conflicting emotions that need to be addressed in order to avoid future problems. They are in a difficult position because they cannot go to their own parents for support. Some of the feelings can include the following:

  • Guilt. The child may see himself or herself as the main cause of the mother’s or father’s drinking.
  • Anxiety.  The child may worry constantly about the situation at home.  He or she may fear the alcoholic parent will become sick or injured, and may also fear fights and violence between the parents.
  • Embarrassment.  Parents may give the child the message that there is a terrible secret at home.  The ashamed child does not invite friends home and is afraid to ask anyone for help.
  • Inability to have close relationships.  Because the child has been disappointed by the drinking parent many times, he or she often does not trust others.
  • Confusion.  The alcoholic parent will change suddenly from being loving to angry, regardless of the child’s behavior.  A  regular daily schedule, which is very important for a child, does not exist because bedtimes and mealtimes are constantly changing.
  • Anger.  The child feels anger at the alcoholic parent for drinking, and may be angry at the non-alcoholic parent for lack of support and protection.
  • Depression.  The child feels lonely and helpless to change the situation.

Although the child tries to keep the alcoholism a secret, teachers, relatives, other adults, or friends may sense that something is wrong.  Teachers and caregivers should be aware that the following behaviors may signal a drinking or other problem at home:

  • Failure in school; truancy
  • Lack of friends; withdrawal from classmates
  • Delinquent behavior, such as stealing or violence
  • Frequent physical complaints, such as headaches or stomachaches
  • Abuse of drugs or alcohol; or
  • Aggression towards other children
  • Risk taking behaviors
  • Depression or suicidal thoughts or behavior

Now consider the denial by the left of the problem, the hatred they spew for anyone even mentioning it and wanting to “fix it”. The Guilt trips, the bribes, the fear, the anxiety of yet another Crisis that doesn’t go to waste.

Fear, Guilt, Intimidation, Anger, Irrational Behavior, Denial…sound familiar?

Even though, not all children of alcoholic parents are adversely affected. An overwhelming number of evidence has shown that alcohol dependence runs in families. So, children of alcoholic parents can often time find themselves following in their parents’ footsteps

The one who don’t of course are ridiculed as “morons” “stupid” “violent” “racist” “neo-con” “baggers”  and you don’t want to be one of those now do you! 🙂

So like most authoritarian dictators you educate them young into your ways before they know it, they are drug addicts just like you.

Welcome to the 21st Century drunk on the power of money and the power that money brings. And all we want is another drink…

And what we really need is an Adult Intervention because we are dying of alcohol poisoning and our kids are drowning because of it.

Political Cartoons by Robert Ariail

Political Cartoons by Eric Allie

 Political Cartoons by Steve Breen

Political Cartoons by Steve Breen

FEED ME!!

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

In the coming New Year, 2013, both Groundhog Day and the State of the Union address will occur on the same day!

This is an ironic juxtaposition of events……

One involves a meaningless ritual in which we look to an insignificant creature of little intelligence for prognostication.
The other involves a groundhog. . .

FEED ME!!  Jar Jar FEED ME!!!

(with apologies to “Little Shop of Horrors”)

Jar Jar (as in Jar Jar Binks from “Star Wars”)= John Boehner (for those who haven’t been reading lately)

Feed me! Feed me! Feed me!
Feed me, Jar Jar!
Feed me all night long
That’s right, boy
You can do it
Feed me, Jar Jar!
Feed me all night long
‘Cause if you feed me, Jar Jar
I can grow up big and strong

….Come on, Jar Jar, don’t be a putz
Trust me and your life will surely rival King Tut’s
Take some initiative, work up the guts
And you’ll git it…

So go git it
And if you wanna be profound
If you really gotta justify
Take a breath and look around
A lot of folks deserve to die…

I got killer buds / A power Media/ Nasty pods / And I’m using them! / So better move ’em out / Nature calls / You got my pun? / I’m gonna bust your balls!

I’m just a mean black mother from Chi-Town and I’m bad!

Anyone who thinks the fiscal cliff deal will end President Obama’s soak-the-rich campaign isn’t paying attention. Even before the ink had dried on his $620 billion tax hike, Obama was talking up his desire for more.

Obama hinted at this on Sunday on “Meet the Press,” when he told David Gregory that “you are not only going to cut your way to prosperity” and that “one of the fallacies” was that “deficit reduction is only a matter of cutting programs.”

But as the fiscal cliff agreement looked increasingly likely, Obama started talking more specifically about additional tax hikes. On Monday, he told a White House rally that “revenues have to be part of the equation in turning off the sequester.” (IBD)

FEED ME!!!

Every household in America? Thousands of you eating… that’s what you had in mind all along, isn’t it?
No shit, Sherlock.

FEED ME!!!

Translation: If Republicans want to prevent devastating defense cuts from automatically kicking in two months from now, they’ll have to choke down another round of tax hikes.

And he made it clear any future deficit cuts will have to include still more new taxes. “If Republicans think that I will finish the job of deficit reduction through spending cuts alone,” he said, “then they’ve got another thing coming.”

Then, after the agreement had been signed on Tuesday, he talked about how “cutting spending has to go hand-in-hand with further reforms to our tax code” that take more money from “the wealthiest corporations and individuals.”

So, after getting a deal that includes only tax hikes and no spending cuts, Obama will demand that any future spending cuts come with still more new taxes. (IBD)

FEED ME!!!!
President Obama can call on all sides to please, pretty please, come together for the good of the country. Just before he ignites yet another self-serving, unnecessarily bitter crisis to keep opponents feuding. And then calls on all sides to reject their politics of division.

FEED ME!!

And we’ll all hear more overwhelming sums about the national debt being left for each of today’s children to pay if they manage to find jobs as adults.

How it’s all Bush’s Fault and the Republicans are just mean, granny-killing Bastards!

But by the time those bills come due, Obama will be making millions from his next autobiography.

His pals will be hitting up libs for big-money checks for the Barack H. Obama Presidential Library, which will not likely be located in Streator, Illinois.

And No. 44 will be safely ensconced in his beachfront mansion playing golf with his old buds from the Choom Gang, while the rest of us enjoy the expensive fruits of his labors transforming America into something else. (Andrew Malcolm)

FEED ME!!!

Political Cartoons by Glenn Foden

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

 Political Cartoons by Glenn Foden

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

If Wishes Were Horses…

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

Little noticed in President Obama’s “fiscal cliff” plan is a demand for a huge new stimulus package. Wait! Wasn’t he and everyone in the press telling us just before the election how the economy was gathering steam?

You mean He lied? And the Ministry of Truth went along with it? Nah, perish the thought… 🙂

In addition to the $1.6 trillion in new taxes on “the rich” that Obama demands, he’s also pushing for upward of $255 billion in new stimulus spending for next year — including $50 billion for roads, $30 billion in extended unemployment benefits and various short-term tax breaks.

In other words, more the same things that have failed over the last 4 years but fit in with his ideology.

So, he is certifiably insane. By the definition of doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

If we just wish really hard, and we just keep doing it it will eventually work!! 🙂

According to the New York Times, the administration’s argument is that “the sluggish economy requires a shot in the arm.”And, indeed, the Times paints a rather grim picture of the current economic situation.

But don’t worry, it was Bush’s Fault!

Data show “the recovery once again sputtering,” it reported Tuesday, adding that the “underlying rate of growth (is) too slow to bring down the unemployment rate by much.” Manufacturing and exports are lagging, it noted, while consumers and businesses are “holding back” and “wage growth is weak.”

But lying as means to an end : re-election is ok. Because the “right” emperor was re-elected to do exactly same as he had done before.

That’s what the morons voted for.

What’s more, the Times says, economic data have “come in surprisingly weak,” and forecasters have “slashed their estimates of growth in the fourth quarter.” Macroeconomic Advisers thinks annualized GDP growth will be just 0.8% this quarter.

Now they tell us. In the crucial last few weeks before the election, the mainstream media were falling over themselves painting a rosy economic picture. Every upbeat bit of data made it to the front page; any bad news got buried.

Well, that’s the Ministry of Truth job, to lie for the sake of preserving their Big Brother. Besides, he was up against an Evil Rich White Guy! And he couldn’t be allowed to lose to the like of that!

In fact, one month before the election, the Times ran a story touting all the “signs of growing economic strength” and boasting how the country was in the midst of a “steadier recovery than previously thought.”

That same day, a USA Today story prominently quoted a source as saying “the economy is finally beginning to build some momentum.”

In mid-October, AP reported that new retail sales figures showed that “consumers were shaking off high unemployment” and this “would help the economy emerge from the malaise that clouded the spring.”

Then, just days before the election, the press paraded a consumer confidence survey that showed a strong uptick in the index. AP claimed it was a sign the economy was beginning “to make steady improvement.”

They were just doing their Ministerial duties. And when we go off the cliff, it will be the Republicans and the Rich who are to blame. And the “failing” economy will not be their fault anyhow.

Generally, the press agreed that growth would accelerate after the election, regardless of who won. Two days before Election Day, BusinessWeek proclaimed that “the economy is on course to enjoy faster growth in the next four years as the head winds that have held it back turn into tail winds.”  It added that “consumers are spending more and saving less,” while “home prices are rebounding” and “banks are increasing lending.” It predicted, “The die is cast for a much stronger recovery.”

Now that Obama has won re-election on the claim that the economy is improving, it’s apparently safe for the press to admit what it should have been reporting all along — that after four years of Obamanomics, we’re still in trouble. (IBD)

Surprise…Surprise…Surprise! 🙂
It’s good to be the King!!!

As you know, John F. Kennedy invented the Peace Corps. But did you know (or care), for instance, that Obama issued an actual proclamation on the Corps’ 50th anniversary? The vision and leadership in that news release is astounding!

Maybe you knew Calvin Coolidge was the first presidential voice carried on radio. But did you know (or virtually care) that Obama was the first to speak at a virtual townhall?

Then there was that strange day when the former state senator talked of all “those soldiers or airmen or Marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf.” When so many of us had long thought of the U.S. military as fighting for all Americans.

And then the night Obama admitted to New York donors that he was the most interesting man in the world:

“It is very rare that I come to an event that I am like the fifth or sixth most interesting person. Usually the folks want to take a picture with me, sit next to me, talk with me.

stay jobless

Now comes a fresh sample of the man with a hat size surely at least 11.

It was the anniversary of that day in Montgomery, Alabama when an NAACP worker, a black woman named Rosa Parks, refused a city bus driver’s orders to give up her seat in the colored section to a white.

Last Saturday was the 57th anniversary of the woman’s catalytic act of defiance aboard Montgomery public transportation.

To honor the historic memory of civil rights leader Rosa Parks, Obama’s White House website posted a photo — not of Rosa Parks, but of Barack Obama.

It’s an eerie photo. Obama was four years old and far away when that seminal civil rights event occurred.

But there he is in the staged photo inserting himself into history via a Michigan museum, sitting alone in the Parks bus forlornly looking out the window as if waiting for his stop.

White House blog  (Barack Obama was no civil rights activist in the American South. But he played one in this photo op)
After all, it’s all about HIM!
He is the Most interesting and most important Man in the world!!
And he wishes he was the Emperor of the World and everyone adored and worshipped him like a God.
Maybe he’s looking for his leadership skills…or Maybe he’s wonder why not every human being on the planet doesn’t fall down and worship almighty, all-knowing, all-compassionate, all-fair, all-encompassing, all around super-being that is HIM!
🙂
“If wishes were horses, beggars would ride” is an English proverb which is usually used to suggest that it is useless to wish and that better results will be achieved through action.
But even his actions are insane.
But that’s what the morons voted for, more of the same.
Congrats, you got it!

The Dance

Last week, the White House delivered to Capitol Hill its opening plan: $1.6 trillion in higher taxes over a decade, hundreds of billions of dollars in new spending, a possible extension of the temporary Social Security payroll tax cut and enhancing the president’s power to raise the national debt limit.

In exchange, the president would back $600 billion in spending cuts, including $350 billion from Medicare and other health programs. But he also wants $200 billion in new spending for jobless benefits, public works projects and aid for struggling homeowners. His proposal for raising the ceiling on government borrowing would make it virtually impossible for Congress to block him.

Republicans said they responded in closed-door meetings with laughter and disbelief.

That works out to spending cuts for 3 months of overspending by the Obama wannas for Trillions in new taxes. And he gets more power to boot!

Wow! that’s a bargain!!

No wonder there was laughter.

“It’s welcome that they’re recognizing that revenues are going to have to go up. But they haven’t told us anything about how far rates should go up … (and) who should pay higher taxes,” Geithner said.

So we can roast them alive for it. Notice, the Democrats aren’t saying much at all about their actual plans and their actual specific cuts… 🙂

Political Cartoons by Robert Ariail

 Alinky’s Rules for Radicals: Rule 3: Whenever possible, go outside the experience of an opponent. Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat.
Rule 5: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It’s hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.

According to Alinsky, the main job of the organizer is to bait an opponent into reacting. “The enemy properly goaded and guided in his reaction will be your major strength.”
In an interview with Candy Crowley on CNN’s State of the Union, Geithner claimed that the Obama Administration proposal, which includes various spending provisions intended as economic stimulus, had “huge support in the business community” and that it would be “good for the economy.”The Congressional Budget Office’s analysis of the fiscal cliff projected that up to 300,000 jobs could be lost over the next two years if top tax rates were to rise.

 

“There’s not going to be an agreement without rates going up… If they are going to force higher rates on virtually all Americans because they’re unwilling to let tax rates go up on 2 percent of Americans, then, I mean that’s the choice they’re going to have to make.”

The Congressional Budget Office’s analysis of the fiscal cliff strongly advised against tax rate hikes and recommended that the best way to raise tax revenue is through deduction reform [pdf], not through rate hikes.

 

Increases in marginal tax rates on labor would tend to reduce the amount of labor supplied to the economy, whereas increases in revenues of a similar magnitude from broadening the tax base would probably have a smaller negative impact or even a positive impact in the supply in labor.

What Geithner and the Obama Administration are pushing for will hurt the economy far more than the approach that Speaker John Boehner has advocated. To be fair, Republicans have not been specific enough in their deductions reform proposals, but the Obama Administration’s ideological inflexibility when it comes to tax rates makes it nearly impossible to deal with them.

And they like it that way. You have to do what they want or else face the wrath of the Ministry of Truth.

After all, he has to feed the Class Envy beast. It’s eternally hungry for more.

Thomas Purcell: Team Obama is claiming Americans are not paying their fair share in taxes and has proposed increasing income taxation (albeit of people earning 250k or more) and postponing spending cuts until after the economy recovers more. Furthermore, he has argued that we should return to the ‘Clinton era tax schedules’ when we ran a surplus.

 
I’m all for that, assuming we return to Clinton era spending levels, and if I were the GOP that’s the deal I would argue for.
 
Ultimately though, what defines fair share? Here are some head spinning numbers.
 
There are approximately 114,825,428 households in the US (US Census numbers)
 
The average income of those households is 46,326 dollars. (ed note- using raw data to achieve an average mean result rather than a median result, this number would be closer to 102, 000, resulting in a number similar to the national GDP of about 13 trillion–see below)
 
If you multiply that out, you come to 5,319,402,777,528 – or 5.3 trillion dollars of annual income.
 
However, Team Obama’s proposed spending plan for 2013 is 3.803 trillion dollars to run the federal government.
 
Essentially, he wants to spend 60+ percent of your income next year—and that’s not even counting state and local taxes. A small tax increase will little to no difference on that ridiculously oversized budget, but it could have a dramatic negative impact on the economy. If you take out all the households below the poverty line, the federal government would only run for about 8 months before imploding.
 
It gets worse.
 
Assuming you factor in all the state and local taxes the government takes in, from state income taxes down to the local parking tickets, the GAO reports that as of last year the state and federal government (in total) raked in 5.1 trillion dollars nationally—OR 98% OF THE TOTAL (MEAN) INCOME GENERATED IN THE NATION LAST YEAR! (ed note– or approximately 33-43%– depending on budgetary calculations– of the total nation’s GDP on absolute raw personal income)
 
If you are wondering how that is possible, you have to realize that the GDP (gross domestic product) of the country is 15 trillion dollars and therefore as money exchanges hands taxation takes a hidden bite of it. You don’t directly feel it in your wallet, since income taxes are a small percentage of overall revenue. You feel it indirectly, as jobs are lost, your dollar gets pinched and prices go up while wages go down. It’s one reason why gas is 4 bucks a gallon and your grocery bill has doubled in the last 4 years.
 
Government is soon poised to make more money off of our businesses and labor than we are.
 
As for those ‘Clinton tax rates’ let’s examine that too.
 
In 2007, the national GDP was approximately 14.5 trillion dollars, the same as it is now—no growth in 5 years. The federal government spending plan was an astonishing 2.7 trillion dollars, almost a trillion dollars LESS than we are spending now- but at least Bush was taking in 2.3 trillion in taxes on essentially the same sized economy we have now. Clinton’s GDP numbers?  1.8 trillion in spending—more than half of what Obama was spending – on an 11 trillion dollar economy. As for the median income in 2000 (Clinton’s last year,) it was 42,148 on 106 million households (4.4 trillion in income), so the federal government was only consuming 30% of your tax dollar rather than Obama’s 60%. (ed note– again using mean income averages, that would be about half (15-30%) but the ratio relationship would be essentially the same since mean incomes from that time period were also flat)
 
So please, don’t tell me the government needs more revenues, it has almost entire income of the American people now, double that of ‘Clinton’s tax rates’ and wants more, despite being able to historically run fine on much less. What government needs to do is SPEND less, and get more productivity out of what it spends. 
 
Time for some fiscal belt tightening, and to stop redistributing the wealth of this nation.
Not going to happen. Washington runs on Drug Money. (the addiction to money is the drug). They just have to figure out how to make it look like they care and rob John to pay Paul, George, and Ringo. 🙂
But make it good political theatre so it looks convincing, and not a pantomine.
Too many times during this last Presidential election, an important message about conservatism was lost in the debate due to poorly chosen words. The art of communication has almost been lost in the past few generations and that lost art is being exploited by political opponents and forced politicians into the game of essentially not saying anything important in order to avoid saying the wrong thing.
Unless you’re a Liberal, then the Ministry of Truth will cover for you. But if you’re not, you’ll be hung out to dry for even the merest perceivable hint of the “wrong thing”. Even if it doesn’t exist, if it did exist and was advantageous to the Left they would do it anyways.
And that’s what the Republicans don’t understand, I think.
But then again, as I have said before, I’m just a white “racist” “homophobe” “misogynist” Conservative, what do I know.
And I’m a terrible Dancer. 🙂

 

Give the People What they Want III: The Big Government Happy Meal

Political Cartoons by Robert Ariail

Mark Steyn: Nailed it!

Previously on The Perils of Pauline:

Last year, our plucky heroine, the wholesome apple-cheeked American republic, was trapped in an express elevator hurtling out of control toward the debt ceiling. Would she crash into it? Or would she make some miraculous escape?

Yes! At the very last minute of her white-knuckle thrill ride to her rendezvous with destiny, she was rescued by Congress’s decision to set up . . . a Super Committee! Those who can, do. Those who can’t, form a committee. Those who really can’t, form a Super Committee — and then put John Kerry on it for good measure. The bipartisan Super Committee of Super Friends was supposed to find $1.2 trillion dollars of deficit reduction by last Thanksgiving, or plucky little America would wind up trussed like a turkey and carved up by “automatic sequestration.”

Sequestration sounds like castration, only more so: It would chop off everything in sight. It would be so savage in its dismemberment of poor helpless America that the Congressional Budget Office estimates that over the course of a decade the sequestration cuts would reduce the federal debt by $153 billion. Sorry, I meant to put on my Dr. Evil voice for that: ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY THREE BILLION DOLLARS!!! Which is about what the United States government currently borrows every month. No sane person could willingly countenance brutally saving a month’s worth of debt over the course of a decade.

So now we have the latest cliffhanger: the Fiscal Cliff, below which lies a bottomless abyss of sequestration, tax-cut-extension expiries, Alternative Minimum Tax adjustments, new Obamacare taxes, the expiry of the deferment of the Medicare Sustainable Growth Rate, as well as the expiry of the deferment of the implementation of the adjustment of the correction of the extension of the reduction to the proposed increase of the Alternative Minimum Growth Sustainability Reduction Rate. They don’t call it a yawning chasm for nothing.

As America hangs by its fingernails wiggling its toesies over the vertiginous plummet to oblivion, what can save her now? An Even More Super Committee? A bipartisan agreement in which Republicans agree to cave and Democrats agree not to laugh at them too much? 🙂 (ROTFL!) That could be just the kind of farsighted reach-across-the-aisle compromise that rescues the nation until next week’s thrill-packed episode when America’s strapped into the driver’s seat of a runaway Chevy Volt careering round the hairpin bends on full charge, or trapped in an abandoned subdivision overrun by foreclosure zombies.

I suppose it’s possible to take this recurring melodrama seriously, but there’s no reason to. The problem facing the United States government is that it spends over a trillion dollars a year that it doesn’t have. If you want to make that number go away, you need either to reduce spending or to increase revenue. With the best will in the world, you can’t interpret the election result as a spectacular victory for less spending. Indeed, if nothing else, the unfortunate events of November 6 should have performed the useful task of disabusing us poor conservatives that America is any kind of “center-right nation.” A few months ago, I dined with a (pardon my English) French intellectual who, apropos Mitt Romney’s stump-speech warnings that we were on a one-way ticket to Continental-sized dependency, chortled to me, “Americans love Big Government as much as Europeans. The only difference is that Americans refuse to admit it.”

My Gallic charmer is on to something. According to the most recent (2009) OECD statistics: government expenditures per person in France, $18,866.00; in the United States, $19,266.00. That’s adjusted for purchasing-power parity, and yes, no comparison is perfect, but did you ever think the difference between America and the cheese-eating surrender monkeys would come down to quibbling over the fine print? In that sense, the federal debt might be better understood as an American Self-Delusion Index, measuring the ever widening gap between the national mythology (a republic of limited government and self-reliant citizens) and the reality (a 21st-century cradle-to-grave nanny state in which, as the Democrats’ convention boasted, “government is the only thing we do together”).

Generally speaking, functioning societies make good-faith efforts to raise what they spend, subject to fluctuations in economic fortune: Government spending in Australia is 33.1 percent of GDP, and tax revenues are 27.1 percent. Likewise, government spending in Norway is 46.4 percent and revenues are 41 percent — a shortfall but in the ballpark. Government spending in the United States is 42.2 percent, but revenues are 24 percent — the widest spending/taxing gulf in any major economy.

So all the agonizing over our annual trillion-plus deficits overlooks the obvious solution: Given that we’re spending like Norwegians, why don’t we just pay Norwegian tax rates?

No danger of that. If (in Milton Himmelfarb’s famous formulation) Jews earn like Episcopalians but vote like Puerto Ricans, Americans are taxed like Puerto Ricans but vote like Scandinavians. We already have a more severely redistributive taxation system than Europe in which the wealthiest 20 percent of Americans pay 70 percent of income tax while the poorest 20 percent shoulder just three-fifths of one percent. By comparison, the Norwegian tax burden is relatively equitably distributed. Yet Obama now wishes “the rich” to pay their “fair share” — presumably 80 or 90 percent. After all, as Warren Buffett pointed out in the New York Times this week, the Forbes 400 richest Americans have a combined wealth of $1.7 trillion. That sounds a lot, and once upon a time it was. But today, if you confiscated every penny the Forbes 400 have, it would be enough to cover just over one year’s federal deficit. And after that you’re back to square one. It’s not that “the rich” aren’t paying their “fair share,” it’s that America isn’t. A majority of the electorate has voted itself a size of government it’s not willing to pay for.

A couple of years back, Andrew Biggs of the American Enterprise Institute calculated that, if Washington were to increase every single tax by 30 percent, it would be enough to balance the books — in 25 years. If you were to raise taxes by 50 percent, it would be enough to fund our entitlement liabilities — just our current ones, not our future liabilities, which would require further increases. This is the scale of course correction needed.

If you don’t want that, you need to cut spending — like Harry Reid’s been doing. “Now remember, we’ve already done more than a billion dollars’ worth of cuts,” he bragged the other day. “So we need to get some credit for that.”

Wow! A billion dollars’ worth of cuts! Washington borrows $188 million every hour. So, if Reid took over five hours to negotiate those “cuts,” it was a complete waste of time. So are most of the “plans.” Any “debt-reduction plan” that doesn’t address at least $1.3 trillion a year is, in fact, a debt-increase plan.

So given that the ruling party will not permit spending cuts, what should Republicans do? If I were John Boehner, I’d say: “Clearly there’s no mandate for small government in the election results. So, if you milquetoast pantywaist sad-sack excuses for the sorriest bunch of so-called Americans who ever lived want to vote for Swede-sized statism, it’s time to pony up.”

Okay, he might want to focus-group it first. But that fundamental dishonesty is the heart of the crisis. You cannot simultaneously enjoy American-sized taxes and European-sized government. One or the other has to go.

Bravo!

So you want everything and you want some else to pay for it because you want what you want when you want it because you deserve it?

Time for Mom and Dad to step up and say, so how are you going to pay for it dear?

I’ll take Mr. Smither’s money, he’s rich, he can afford it.

That’s nice dear, then what it’s not sustainable? And what about Mr. Jones wanting to take your money now because YOU have it?

And how does that solve the problem? You can’t have money for nothing?

Uhhh…. 🙂

beach balls

 

What’s Old Is New Again…Again…

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

Andrew Malcolm: Rather than bother with the messy business of face-to-face negotiations with Republicans over the looming fiscal cliff, Barack Obama has chosen to take Air Force One up to the Philadelphia area today to talk at another adoring crowd.

Because no one’s had enough campaigning yet? 🙂

Obama craves speeches to select crowds, as we wrote here. On cue, someone yells they love him. He loves them back. No interruptions. No impertinent House Majority Leader challenging his arrogance. And Obama need make no concessions to them.

The Democrat will just recite the same stuff off the same teleprompter that he’s been saying for months about taxing the rich more, protecting the middle class from the very deal he made to protect them before and let’s talk about spending cuts next year maybe perhaps.

Air Force One costs about $181,000 per flight hour. Much cheaper to send a DVD up there. But that wouldn’t get Obama video clips on cable TV this afternoon and evening, which he thinks puts PR pressure on Republicans to cave on higher tax rates before el presidente takes his three-week Hawaiian vacation.

In other words, four years after Obama so sincerely promised to change the harsh, noisome ways Washington does — and doesn’t — do business, he hasn’t really changed anything.

However, buried deep in a new CNN/ORC International poll this week sits a hopeful statistical inkling that more Americans are now figuring this machine pol out. Too late to avoid extending the White House lease for Obama’s family and mother-in-law.

But encouraging nonetheless.

Question: “Do you think the country will be better off or worse off four years from now?” A pretty simple measure of Americans’ expectations. Results show the country’s expectations about an Obama presidency have changed dramatically in these past 48 months — and not for the better.

Answer: Four years ago the question found an impressive 76% of Americans figured the country would be better off by now. Silly, silly people.

Well, now barely half (56%) expect life in America to get better, a drop of 20 points, or 26%.

How about people who expect things to stay about the same? Four years ago 4%. Today, only half that.

OK then, how about America’s pessimists who expect things to get worse? In 2008, only 19% thought that. How right they were, eh?

But today, 1,487 days after the United States electorate bought Obama’s Hope and Change bill of goods, the percentage expecting worse things before he’s gone has more than doubled — to 40% expecting negative change.

Doesn’t explain why they reelected him. Nothing but ignorance can do that. But it does show they’re much more realistic now about what he’s going to do this time.

Too Little intelligence. Too Late. And it will be gone by the Finale of “Housewives of New Jersey ” anyhow…
Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell
President Obama promised to move the country forward, but his so-called deficit-cutting plan looks a lot like good old fashioned tax-and-spend liberal politics to us.It was just a month ago that Obama campaigned on what he said was a record of cutting taxes for the middle class and small businesses, while promising a “balanced” deficit-reduction plan that he specifically said would rely on $2.50 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax hikes. All he wanted, Obama said, was that the rich pay “a little bit more.”

But when he finally got around to presenting that plan to Congress, it turned into a massive $1.6 trillion tax increase — most of which will hit small businesses and $600 billion of which the White House hasn’t specified.

And he’s combined that with no spending cuts at all.

In fact, Obama wants to put off for a year the $1.2 trillion in spending cuts he’d already agreed to, and add $50 billion in new stimulus spending to the pot today. Plus, he wants to permanently raise the debt ceiling.

All on the promise that sometime next year he’ll get around to talking about how to maybe shave $400 billion from entitlement programs in the distant future.

We’ve seen this game many times before. Democrats always pocket the taxes, and then somehow forget about all those pledges to cut spending. Worse, Obama is just whetting the Democrats’ taxing and spending appetites. Even before Obama has managed to win any actual concessions from Republicans on his job-killing tax rate hikes on the “rich,” Democrats are starting to talk up other taxes they’d like to boost.

Bloomberg reported shortly after the election that Obama might consider a new tax on carbon emissions to “help cut the U.S. budget deficit.”

Since Obama’s spending plans far outstrip the money he could possibly raise from the wealthy, the thinking goes, he’ll soon need to find a permanent source of higher revenues. And what better place to go than to tax all those nasty, greenhouse-causing carbon emissions?

The White House has denied it has any proposals along these lines, but the topic keeps coming up in Washington — which means policy makers are seriously considering it.

Meanwhile, Obama’s former chief economist Larry Summers last week argued not only for a carbon tax, but a new tax on unhealthy food. “Mark my words, this one will come,” he promised. And several liberal House Democrats say the rate hikes on the “rich” are “just the beginning.” Among their ideas is to tax all investment income at regular income rates — something even Obama hasn’t pushed . . . yet.

The only risk to Obama is that if the public sees Democrats slathering over new ways to tax Americans, it will spoil his carefully manicured — if completely bogus — image of a fiscal moderate. Rather than play along, Republicans might be wise to start digging out all those old “tax and spend” ads that worked so well against Democrats in the past. (IBD)

I would argue they never went away, they just blamed Republicans for “obstructing them”. 🙂

Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

Political Cartoons by Glenn Foden

 

Re-runs,Pimps,and Rice Puppets

Overall, the ranks of America’s poor edged up last year to a high of 49.7 million, based on the new census measure.

So let’s vote for Barack “Santa Claus” Obama who’ll take from the rich and give to the poor. Oh, wait, that’s Robin Hood…

But really, he just wants to take from the rich to give to his rich and make the poor dependent on him so that they will vote for his cronies because it’s in their narcissistic drug addicted interest.

Not Robin Hood. Just a common Pimp.

And it ignores reality. But then again, if you’re an ignorant narcissist who cares about reality. What’s in it for me?

Now for the re-run. Heard this all before? Answer: Yes

“As I’ve said before, I’m open to compromise (bwah hahahahahahahaha) and I’m open to new ideas  (bwah hahahahahahahaha). And I’ve been encouraged over the past week to hear Republican after Republican agree  (with me) for the need for more revenue from the wealthiest Americans as part of our arithmetic if we’re going to be serious about reducing the deficit because when it comes to taxes, there are two pathways available. (yeah, cutting spending to my $$ drug addled moronic masses would be a bad idea).

Option one (aka the only one), if Congress fails to act by the end of this year, everybody’s taxes will automatically go up, including the 98 percent of Americans who make less than $250,000 a year and the 97 percent of small businesses who earn less than $250,000 a year. That doesn’t make sense. Our economy can’t afford that right now. Certainly no middle-class family can afford that right now. (NYT)

And it will be the Republicans fault. Oh, and it’s still Bush’s fault for the spending.

Heard it all before? Yep, for the last 4 years. And what happened. He got bored and did what the hell he wanted to and blamed the Republicans for “obstructing” him.

Why would now be any different?  I wouldn’t.

And now Obama is floating having Benghazi Liar face puppet Susan Rice as Secretary of State.

Now that’s a screw you move.

She famously lied her ass off on Different Sunday Talk Shows about Benghazi 5 days after they already knew the actual truth. So she’s either incompetent ,out of touch with reality, or such a complete Toddie that she a virtual puppet.

None of which makes her qualified for the job in reality. But perfect for Obama.

But it’s not like Obama cares. It’s his crony. She deflected the blame away from him long enough for the ignorant masses, too busy watching “Dancing with the Stars” , to re-elect him that he has to give her her reward.

Obama:“I don’t think there’s any debate in this country that when you have four Americans killed, that’s a problem, and we’ve got to get to the bottom of it and there needs to be accountability (Just not from him and his toddies who lied their asses off). We’ve got to bring those who carried it out to justice. They won’t get any debate from me on that,” Obama said sternly.

“But when they go after the U.N. ambassador, apparently because they think she’s an easy target, then they’ve got a problem with me.”

“But for them to go after the U.N. ambassador, who had nothing to do with Benghazi and was simply making a presentation based on intelligence that she had received, and to besmirch her reputation, is outrageous.”

By the time she was on those shows she and the administration knew with absolute certainty that everything she said on those show was complete and absolute bullshit!

Yeah, the whole WE were lying up our asses and doing the bullshit shuffle doesn’t matter. But you pick on my crony and there will be hell to pay!

That reflects badly on ME. And as we all know it is all about HIM!

“My judgment at this time is that four Americans were killed, and the information that our U.N. ambassador conveyed was clearly false,” McCain, R-Ariz., the top GOP senator on the Armed Services Committee, told reporters at a Capitol Hill news conference. “There was overwhelming evidence that it was completely false. And she should have known what the situation and circumstances were and not tell the world on all Sunday morning talk shows.”

But that was part of  array of flack that was deployed to obscure Benghazi until Obama got re-elected.

Now they have the Petraeus to distract the ignorant masses with something they see on Reality TV.

Oh, and Israel and Iran and Syria are about to go to war…Enjoy.

Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert

 

How Goes the War?

The grand plan of Obama is working.

High Gas Prices, low employment and a stagnant economy riddled with inflation is making people use less fossil fuels.

Traffic congestion dropped 30% last year from 2010 in the USA’s 100 largest metropolitan areas, driven largely by higher gas prices and a spotty economic recovery, according to a new study by a Washington-state firm that tracks traffic flows.

But they better off than they were 4 years ago. OF COURSE NOT.

But the Solyndra-Loving, fossil fuel hating Liberals I bet are all over the moon excited.

It’s not like they care WHY the numbers have dropped. Because they don’t.

******

A group of disgruntled stay-at-home moms is fighting back against a 2009 law that limits credit card access to people with proof of income.

The group says the Credit CARD Act of 2009 sets women back half a century, according to an online petition at change.org.

2009? When the Democrats had a majority in both houses. Hmm…

I guess Stay-At-Home Moms along with “never having held a job their lives” and since they don’t “understand” economics after all they just don’t need credit cards. Let that be the Man of The House’s Job! 🙂

Intending to limit irresponsible lending, the law requires credit card applicants to provide proof of income in order to qualify. Stay-at-home moms, with no income, do not qualify for approval, unless their husbands co-sign for the card, which has the group of angered moms fighting back.

“It is 2012, and because I’m a stay at home mom, I can’t get my own credit card,” the petition reads. “My husband has to give me permission to get my own line of credit. This is demeaning and flat out unfair.”

So would this be the Democrats “War on Women”?? 🙂
Bet the Minsitry of Truth will be all over this 24/7/365! 🙂
Or do you have to be a “rich” woman with her own money (like Teresa Hines Kerry) or one that can afford the $38,500 per plate at an Obama Fundraiser?
The group is also asking their members to send a letter to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, claiming “the new rules send a message that stay-at-home parents are not as credit-worthy as young adults still in school without their own income.”
This was the board set up in Dodd-Frank that was going to save us all from the unscrupulous, evil, greedy, bankers and mortgage companies that forced people to take loans they could afford to pay back and then they traded them around as derivatives until they crashed.
Imagine what they can do with Health Care! 🙂

Obama: “As you begin the next stage in your journey, you will encounter greed and selfishness; ignorance and cruelty. …  (and that’s just from Democrats and Unions) You will meet people who try to build themselves up by tearing others down (Liberals); who believe looking after others is only for suckers,” (that’s the governments job after all) he said.

“My deepest hope for all of you … [is that] you can serve as a reminder that we’re not meant to walk this road alone (Government is right at every step to “help” you); that we’re not expected to face down adversity by ourselves,” (You have the government largess to fall back on) he told his audience. “We’re stronger together than we are on our own.”

Yes, Comrade, it Takes a Village!!!
Maybe they need government issued Credit Cards? 🙂
Oh, that’s right, that happened during Katrina and their was massive fraud! 🙂

But don’t worry, he gets a pass on anything he says.

Pelosi: “We know we have to balance the budget.  (1,1,30 Days since the Senate passed a budget at all- so we believe you Nancy!) We have to establish our priorities and make the cuts accordingly (The Military and every other “right wing” program we can get our hands on). We have to have revenue on the table (Screw the rich!) and we have to invest in growth (Spend even more!) because the creation of jobs (and the unemployment over 8% for 3 1/4 years and millions and millions deserting the workforce all together has certainly shown they way) is what will bring revenue to the Treasury (But not like taxing the rich will) and continue our economic recovery which is important to the American people,” (what recovery? where in your liberal fantasies?) Pelosi said Thursday at the Capitol.

“So to toss this into the mix right now, saying we have to have cuts that exceed even the lifting of the extent to which we lift the debt ceiling is really immature, irresponsible, let’s get serious.” (DC)

Who cares if we are spending 50% more than we  take in. All we have to do is tax the rich into oblivion and  submission and then cut the military to two tricycles and a pop-gun and everything will be rosy and wonderful!

It’s the Republicans fault, after all, that we haven’t passed a budget in well over 3 1/4 years and voted down Obama’s budget 2 years running…

Thomas Sowell: The fact that so many successful politicians are such shameless liars is not only a reflection on them, it is also a reflection on us. When the people want the impossible, only liars can satisfy them, and only in the short run. The current outbreaks of riots in Europe show what happens when the truth catches up with both the politicians and the people in the long run.Among the biggest lies of the welfare states on both sides of the Atlantic is the notion that the government can supply the people with things they want but cannot afford. Since the government gets its resources from the people, if the people as a whole cannot afford something, neither can the government.There is, of course, the perennial fallacy that the government can simply raise taxes on “the rich” and use that additional revenue to pay for things that most people cannot afford. What is amazing is the implicit assumption that “the rich” are all such complete fools that they will do nothing to prevent their money from being taxed away. History shows otherwise.

After the Constitution of the United States was amended to permit a federal income tax, in 1916, the number of people reporting taxable incomes of $300,000 a year or more fell from well over a thousand to fewer than three hundred by 1921.

Were the rich all getting poorer? Not at all. They were investing huge sums of money in tax-exempt securities. The amount of money invested in tax-exempt securities was larger than the federal budget, and nearly half as large as the national debt.

This was not unique to the United States or to that era. After the British government raised their income tax on the top income earners in 2010, they discovered that they collected less tax revenue than before. Other countries have had similar experiences. Apparently the rich are not all fools, after all.

In today’s globalized world economy, the rich can simply invest their money in countries where tax rates are lower.

So, if you cannot rely on “the rich” to pick up the slack, what can you rely on? Lies.

Nothing is easier for a politician than promising government benefits that cannot be delivered. Pensions such as Social Security are perfect for this role. The promises that are made are for money to be paid many years from now — and somebody else will be in power then, left with the job of figuring out what to say and do when the money runs out and the riots start.

There are all sorts of ways of postponing the day of reckoning. The government can refuse to pay what it costs to get things done. Cutting what doctors are paid for treating Medicare patients is one obvious example.

That of course leads some doctors to refuse to take on new Medicare patients. But this process takes time to really make its full impact felt — and elections are held in the short run. This is another growing problem that can be left for someone else to try to cope with in future years.

Increasing amounts of paperwork for doctors in welfare states with government-run medical care, and reduced payments to those doctors, in order to stave off the day of bankruptcy, mean that the medical profession is likely to attract fewer of the brightest young people who have other occupations available to them — paying more money and having fewer hassles. But this too is a long-run problem — and elections are still held in the short run.

Eventually, all these long-run problems can catch up with the wonderful-sounding lies that are the lifeblood of welfare state politics. But there can be a lot of elections between now and eventually — and those who are good at political lies can win a lot of those elections.

As the day of reckoning approaches, there are a number of ways of seeming to overcome the crisis. If the government is running out of money, it can print more money. That does not make the country any richer, but it quietly transfers part of the value of existing money from people’s savings and income to the government, whose newly printed money is worth just as much as the money that people worked for and saved.

Printing more money means inflation — and inflation is a quiet lie, by which a government can keep its promises on paper, but with money worth much less than when the promises were made.

Is it so surprising voters with unrealistic hopes elect politicians who lie about being able to fulfill those hopes?

Not Really. And with nearly half the country not paying any income taxes and record levels of food stamps and 99 weeks of unemployment payments will they vote to cut their own throats or yours first?

Political Cartoons by Ken Catalino

Political Cartoons by Glenn Foden

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

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

A History Lesson

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

Ann Coulter: Bored with the Penn State scandal because it didn’t implicate any prominent Republicans, the mainstream media have suddenly become obsessed with Grover Norquist’s “Taxpayer Protection Pledge.” They are monomaniacally fixated on luring Republicans into raising taxes.

And then if they do, it will be a campaign commercial against every Republican 24/7/365 for the next 3,000 years! A Multimedia Sensation! A Divine Revelation!

Just look at how obsessed they are with the Bush Tax Cuts, Reagan, etc.

If Democrats could balance the budget tomorrow and quadruple government spending, they’d refuse the deal unless they could also make Republicans break their tax pledge. That is their single-minded goal.

But the media are trying to turn it around and say that it’s Republicans who are crazy for refusing to consider raising taxes no matter how much they get in spending cuts.

Tell a Lie often enough, especially 24/7/365 on dozens of channels and you tell the people anything you want and it can become “truth”.

At Tuesday night’s Republican presidential debate on foreign policy, for example, CNN’s Wolf Blitzer asked the candidates for the one-millionth time if they would agree to raise taxes in exchange for spending cuts 10 times larger than the tax hikes.

Why are Republican refusing to have anyone but a Liberal as moderator so they can bait them. Are they masochists too?

Terrorism can wait — first, let me try to back you into a corner on raising taxes.

Amazingly, Blitzer cited Ronald Reagan’s statement in his autobiography, “An American Life,” that he would happily compromise with Democrats if he could get 75 or 80 percent of what he wanted — implying that today’s Republicans were nuttier than Reagan if they’d refuse a dollar in tax hikes for $10 in spending cuts.

Wolf should have kept reading. As Reagan explains a little farther in his autobiography: He did accept tax hikes “in return for (the Democrats’) agreement to cut spending by $280 billion,” but, Reagan continues, “the Democrats reneged on their pledge and we never got those cuts.”

Yeah, but that’s not liberal “history”. The one that always favors them. Orwell would be proud.

Maybe that’s why Republicans won’t agree to raise taxes in exchange for Democratic promises to cut spending.

For Americans who are unaware of the Democrats’ history of repeatedly reneging on their promises to cut spending in return for tax hikes, the Republicans’ opposition to tax increases does seem crazy. That’s why Republicans need to remind them.

From the moment President Reagan succeeded in pushing through his historic tax cuts in 1981 — which passed by a vote of 323-107 in the House and 89-11 in the Senate, despite Democrats’ subsequent caterwauling — he came under fantastic pressure to raise taxes from the media and the Democrats.

You will notice it is the same culprits pushing for tax hikes today.

So in 1982, Reagan struck a deal with the Democrats to raise some business and excise taxes — though not income taxes — in exchange for $280 billion in spending cuts over the next six years. As Reagan wrote in his diary at the time: “The tax increase is the price we have to pay to get the budget cuts.”

But, of course, the Democrats were lying. Instead of cutting $280 billion, they spent an additional $450 billion — only $140 billion of which went to the Reagan defense buildup that ended the Evil Empire.

Meanwhile, Reagan’s tax cuts brought in an extra $375 billion in government revenue in the next six years — as that amiable, simple-minded dunce Reagan always said they would. His tax cuts funded the entire $140 billion defense buildup, with $235 billion left over.

If Democrats had lied only a little and merely held spending at the same level, Reagan could have smashed the Russkies, produced the largest peacetime expansion in U.S. history with his tax cuts and produced a $235 billion budget surplus. (Jobs created in September 1983: 1.1 million; jobs created in September 2011: 150,000.)

But the Democrats not only refused to implement any budget cuts, they hiked government spending. To the untrained eye, that appears to be the exact opposite of cutting the budget.

Even the gusher of revenue brought in by Reagan’s tax cuts couldn’t pay for all the additional spending piled up by double-crossing Democrats — more than twice as much as Reagan’s spending on defense.

Reagan’s defense spending crushed the Soviet war machine. What did Tip O’Neill’s domestic spending accomplish? (I mean, besides destroying the black family, increasing single motherhood and creating government bureaucracies that can never be eliminated.)

Unable to learn from the first kick of a mule, President George H.W. Bush made the exact same deal with Democrats just a few years later.

Pretending to care about the deficit — created exclusively by their own profligate spending — Democrats demanded that Bush agree to a “balanced budget” package with both spending cuts and tax increases.

In June 1990, Bush did so, agreeing to tax hikes in defiance of his “read-my-lips, no-new-taxes” campaign pledge.

Again, Democrats, being Democrats, produced no spending cuts, and within two years the increased federal spending had led to a doubling of the deficit.

The Democrats didn’t care: All that mattered was that they had tricked Bush into breaking his tax pledge, which they celebrated all the way to Bush’s defeat in the next election.

On CNN’s “Crossfire,” then-congressman Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., gloated: “All the spin control in the world can’t undo the fact that the president is moving away from (no new) taxes.”

An article on the front page of The New York Times proclaimed that “with his three words, (‘tax revenue increases’) Mr. Bush had broken the central promise of his 1988 campaign.”

As the next presidential campaign got under way, CNN interviewed a “Reagan Democrat,” who said: “Bush says, ‘Read my lips.’ Remember when he said that? We got taxes anyway. Clinton says, I will raise your taxes because we have to do something about that national debt.”

Democrats had effectively taken away the Republican Party’s central defining issue — low taxes — and the Republicans got nothing in return.

(I take that back: We got a stained blue dress for the Smithsonian. So, an OK trade.)

On the campaign trail, Bill Clinton taunted Bush for breaking his tax pledge, saying, “He promised 15 million new jobs, no new taxes, the environmental president, an education presidency. It was a wonderful speech. But now we don’t have to read his lips; we can read his record.”

Apparently, Republicans can read the Democrats’ record, too. They know that Democrats will promise to cut spending in exchange for tax increases and then screw Republicans on the spending cuts.

It’s been 20 years since they pulled that scam, so Democrats figure it’s time to make Republicans break a tax pledge again. As long as no one knows the history of these “deals,” the media can carry on, blithely portraying Republicans as obstructionist nuts for refusing the third kick of a mule.

Good, I hope not.

Who is the bigger fool, the fool or the fool who follows it? Or in this case, whose the bigger fool, the fool who thinks Democrats will keep any promises to cut spending or any Republicans who’d believe them??

And to celebrate the passing of another Turkey day, a real “fish” story to tell your kids about how generous and kind Big Government is.

IT’S THE ONE THAT WAS TAKEN AWAY!

This fish story may lack the epic qualities of Ernest Hemingway’s 1952 classic“The Old Man and the Sea,” but for New Bedford’s Carlos Rafael, the outcome was about the same. In both cases, despite capturing and bringing home a huge fish, powerful circumstances conspired to deprive the luckless fishermen of a potentially huge reward.

Boat owner Rafael, a big player in the local fishing industry, was elated when the crew of his 76-foot steel dragger Apollo told him they had unwittingly captured a giant bluefin tuna in their trawl gear while fishing offshore.

“They didn’t catch that fish on the bottom,” he said. “They probably got it in the midwater when they were setting out and it just got corralled in the net. That only happens once in a blue moon.”

Rafael, who in the last four years purchased 15 tuna permits for his groundfish boats to cover just such an eventuality, immediately called a bluefin tuna hot line maintained by fishery regulators to report the catch.

When the weather offshore deteriorated, the Apollo decided to seek shelter in Provincetown Harbor on Nov. 12. Rafael immediately set off in a truck to meet the boat.
“I wanted to sell the fish while it was fresh instead of letting it age on the boat,”he said.“It was a beautiful fish.”

It was also a lucrative one. Highly prized in Japan, a 754pound specimen fetched a record price at a Tokyo auction in January this year, selling for nearly $396,000. These fish can grow to enormous size. The world record for a bluefin, which has stood since 1979, was set when a 1,496-pound specimen was caught off Nova Scotia.

However, when Rafael rolled down the dock in Provincetown there was an unexpected and unwelcome development. The authorities were waiting. Agents from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Office of Law Enforcement informed him they were confiscating his fish — all 881 pounds of it.

Even though the catch had been declared and the boat had a tuna permit, the rules do not allow fishermen to catch bluefin tuna in a net.

“They said it had to be caught with rod and reel,” a frustrated Rafael said.“We didn’t try to hide anything. We did everything by the book. Nobody ever told me we couldn’t catch it with a net.”
In any case, after being towed for more than two hours in the net, the fish was already dead when the Apollo hauled back its gear, he said.

“What are we supposed to do?” he asked. “They said they were going to give me a warning,” Rafael said. “I think I’m going to surrender all my tuna permits now. What good are they if I can’t catch them?”

No charges have yet been filed in connection with the catch, but a written warning is anticipated, according to Christine Patrick, a public affairs specialist with NOAA who said the fish has been forfeited and will be sold on consignment overseas. Proceeds from the sale of the fish will be held in an account pending final resolution of the case, NOAA said. No information on the value of the fish was available Friday.

“The matter is still under investigation,”said Monica Allen, deputy director with NOAA Fisheries public affairs. “If it’s determined that there has been a violation, the money will go into the asset forfeiture fund.”

Aka, the government’s coffers.

“If you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. If you teach a man to fish, you feed him for a life time”  as long as he abides by everyone of the thousand of petty regulations, fees and permits that will allow the government to tax you and then take it from you because you missed 1. 🙂

“I think I’m going to surrender all my tuna permits now. What good are they if I can’t catch them?” (The Hull Truth)

The Permits were to fund some government bureaucrats fat ass pension. Now they’ll have to raise taxes to make up for it!! 🙂

http://townhall.com/video/fisherman-bags-the-big-one-only-to-lose-it-to-big-government

Be Thankful they are  from the Government and they are here to help you!

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

I Aim to Misbehave

Mark Steyn: “In this case the government of the United States is the gunrunner,” Steyn said. “That is basically what is happening here. There would be no guns running to these Mexican cartels if the United States government hadn’t instituted a program to facilitate it.”

Steyn noted the lack of media outrage compared with other scandals in the past.

“Now real Mexicans are dead,” he continued. “Does the president of the United States, does his attorney general, does CNN, does The New York Times, does NPR — do they not care about dead Mexicans?

“I mean, forget the United States Border Patrol guys that were killed about these ‘Fast & Furious’ guns. Real-live, or previously live, citizens of third world countries — the kind of people that NPR, The New York Times claim to love — are dead because of this.”

“Why isn’t that a national scandal?” he pleaded. “This is absolutely a — Iran-Contra didn’t rack of that kind of body count. Watergate didn’t rack up that kind of body count. Sarah Palin’s daughter’s boyfriend’s mother, or whatever stupid story they were chasing around Wasilla for months, that didn’t rack up a body count. There were hundreds of dead Mexicans from a gun running program run by the United States.”

Precisely because it was done by Liberals. As I have said before, Liberals can do anything they want, it’s you who oppose them that have to live with moral grounds.

Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals: Rule 4:  Make opponents live up to their own book of rules.

But you don’t have to. And thus you handicap your opponent with morals and ethics when you don’t have any. Simple.

And then you have the media on your side willing to do your bidding. And judges who will rule for your ideology rather than the law.

What could be better. 🙂

PASS THE BILL

Here’s the real silliness of all this. The Obama plan would permanently raise tax rates in order to pay for a temporary tax cut.

Kinda like Obamacare’s 10 years of taxes for 6 years of service so as to pay “balance” games.

In other words, taxes are going up, not down, as far as the eye can see under Obama’s program.

And here’s more silliness. The White House and Senate Democrats want a 5.6 percent surtax on millionaires, which is supposed to pay for the entire stimulus package. And don’t forget: The Obama budget would raise the Bush tax rates for people making over $200,000, while the Obamacare budget would substantially increase payroll taxes that apply to investors. On top of that, the Obama budget would lower the value of numerous personal deductions.

So the top personal tax rate would move to nearly 50 percent under the Obama plan. Now do the incentive math. At a 50 percent tax rate, successful earners, investors, and small-business owners would keep only 50 cents on the extra dollar earned. Under current law, however, at the 35 percent top income-tax rate, they would keep 65 cents. So if the plan goes through, it would mean a 23 percent reduction in marginal incentives. This in a stalled economy where job creation doesn’t keep up with a rising population and is less than half the necessary level to shrink the unemployment rate.

Of course, the individuals and families who would suffer the greatest tax-penalty increases are the ones who are most likely to invest and run small businesses. In fact, Treasury data show that over 80 percent of millionaire tax filers reflect small-business income. Why demonize them? This is what Gov. Chris Christie meant when he said President Obama is sending a “demoralizing” message.

This tax attack is the latest assault from a White House that is making a sharp populist shift to the left. It coincides with a president who trashed Bank of America for raising debit-card fees in response to a Dodd-Frank price-control edict, and who suggests that banks do not have an inherent right to profit. It’s in league with a president who is throwing in with the Wall Street protesters. And it’s a sorry sign that the White House doesn’t understand that anti-capitalist nostrums will not solve our economic problems.

How about unleashing a wave of free-market capitalism, which has proven to be the best path to prosperity?

Unfortunately, Team Obama will have none of it. (Larry Kudlow)

Instead, we have communist anarchists “occupying” the news so no one has to talk about this but we can hear the incessant and incestuous drum beat of “corporate greed” and “evil millionaires” and “greedy capitalists”.

Vote for Team Obama, because they will fight “Corporate Greed”! 😦

<<barf bag on standby>>

September 12, 2011 — University of Wisconsin @ Stout

Oh, Mal. This is classic: tough, macho, but also Mal’s way of saying that he is a man who plays fair. It’s also funny, in context, because the character probably didn’t really mean it. In my perfect world, the UW-Stout campus would have been so overwhelmed with the memory of the super-awesomeness of Firefly that the administration would have canceled classes so every student could study the DVD box set.

But that’s not exactly how it worked.

Like overzealous Alliance officers, UW-Stout administration officials just could not let Mal be free. Instead, they called the cops on Professor Miller to tear down the poster. Miller was contacted by Lisa Walter, the chief of police/director of parking services, and informed that “it is unacceptable to have postings such as this that refer to killing.” She also warned the astounded professor that any future such posts would be removed and would cause him to be charged with disorderly conduct.

You don’t have to be a First Amendment lawyer to know that posting Mal’s quote or even that super-scary death-oriented quote from The Princess Bride is a far cry from any legal definition of disorderly conduct. And Miller, like a true browncoat, did not take this lying down. On September 16th he posted this:

2011-09-25-testfascism.JPG

Censor that, Alliance stooges!

Of course, that’s exactly what UW-Stout did. In a feat of intentional misunderstanding of the kind that is unfortunately all too common on campus, the university reinterpreted Professor Miller’s protest as being essentially pro-fascist and advocating violence. The police tore down this poster, too, with Chief Walter claiming this time that the problem was that the poster “depicts violence and mentions violence or death.” She went on to say that “it is believed that this posting also has a reasonable expectation that it will cause a material and/or substantial disruption of school activities and/or be constituted as a threat.” Seriously.

I am frequently impressed by the level of creativity people show in justifying their desire to quell criticism of themselves. This one deserves some kind of Rationalization of the Year award. Essentially, what Walter is saying is this: “I’ve chosen to understand your poster implying that my actions were reminiscent of evil governments that in the past have killed people to mean that you have announced your plan to kill people, as that interpretation works out well for me.”

These days, people are quick to uncritically evaluate any claim that someone else might be a threat for some reason and give leeway to the authorities accordingly.

No one was threatened by the Firefly poster, and no reasonable person would understand the second poster to be anything other than a rebuke of Walter’s heavy-handed action in the first place. The university overreacted to a poster and then decided to double down rather than admit error when the professor decided to make fun of that overreaction.

Professor Miller has twice been censored in a way that the Constitution would never allow, he has been threatened with punishment, and he’s being investigated by the university’s threat assessment team. My organization, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), has written to protest, but so far UW-Stout has refused to back down. Miller faces a meeting on Friday with the dean to discuss the threat assessment team’s “concerns.”

As Patrick Henry once more or less said: “Give Mal liberty or give me death!” Which would have, of course, made him guilty of disorderly conduct at UW-Stout.

Sept 27th: This was not an act of censorship.  This was an act of sensitivity to and care for our shared community, and was intended to maintain a campus climate in which everyone can feel welcome, safe and secure.

September 28, 2011: The chancellor of University of Wisconsin-Stout (UWS) has declared that he will not defend faculty First Amendment rights from censorship.

Oct. 4, 2011—Under pressure from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), national media, and actors Nathan Fillion and Adam Baldwin, the University of Wisconsin-Stout (Stout) has reversed its censorship of theater professor James Miller’s poster featuring a line from Fillion’s character in Joss Whedon’s television series Firefly. Campus police had threatened Miller with criminal disorderly conduct charges, and he was reported to the “threat assessment team.” After Stout censored his second poster, which stated, “Warning: Fascism,” Miller came to FIRE for help.

To understand the importance of this as a First Amendment issue, one needs to closely examine what happened.  A university’s Chief of Police/Parking Enforcement Officer, ignorant of the context of the quote, took it upon herself to remove not one but two posters without ever asking their context or purpose.  The professor honestly expected his First Amendment rights would not be infringed, but the school’s Chancellor cowered behind bureaucratic zero tolerance policies and did just that.

Whether or not you agree with how the professor responded, the police chief clearly overreacted to something she misinterpreted.  You can read the full exchange of those emails at FIRE.  Nothing about the poster of a fictional TV Space Captain is intended to “cause others to fear for their safety”; in fact, it is the opposite of a threat.

Dr. Miller sent the administration the relevant clip from Firefly’s pilot episode Serenity.  The context of the quote is an homage to fair play and a code of honor that obviously prefers non-violence.

Adam Baldwin (“Jayne”): This is precisely the issue with freedom of speech; words are subjective and can be interpreted differently by separate individuals.  Sometimes this is done unintentionally, sometimes with malice, which is why the act of deciding what’s NOT free speech is ripe for abuse.  The UWS administration’s stated desire to “promote a campus environment that is free from threats of any kind—both direct and implied” may be well-meaning, but its meaning amounts to nothing.  How does one set a universal standard to determine what is an implied threat or in what context speech may “refer to violence and/or harm”?  As Dr. Miller pointed out in his email response to police chief Lisa Walter, would this also apply to “a poster from Hamlet? Or a news clipping about Hockey players that commit violent murder?”

When asked if he knew of any other examples of such posters or signs on campus, Dr. Miller replied that while he wasn’t aware of any prior attempts at censorship, a “Kill Bill” poster from the popular Quentin Tarantino film was prevalent on campus earlier in the year.  Some quick research finds the poster was actually a parody of the Kill Bill movie, as part of a campus-wide protest held in February against Governor Scott Walker’s budget bill.

Oddly enough, police chief Walter was not at all concerned with the reference to killing or to the weapon of violence depicted in those posters.  In fact, she was quoted in this article at the time as being rather complimentary of the activities.

“The neat part of working in a university is that folks get to have their voices heard, and we try to make sure that it’s done in a manner that’s orderly and doesn’t disrupt the rest of the operations too much,” she said.

Walter also pointed out that the university’s union officers are not included in the exemption Walker provided to other law enforcement officers, firefighters and the State Patrol.

“He did not exempt UW police, Capitol police and, I believe, DNR wardens,” she said. “They will lose their ability to negotiate and have a union negotiate other work-related — other than salary. If the bill goes through, they will be without a contract — and without a union — on March 15.”

Is this because the police chief was not only overseeing security at the protest but also voicing her vested political interest in the highly controversial issue at hand? It seems clear that she was immersed in the context of that poster.

Words are subjective, indeed.

American Universities and colleges today are now, by design, overwhelmingly leftist in their belief systems and political activities.  Students and faculty alike frequently glorify monstrous leftists like Mao Tse-tung and Che Guevara.  To some, they are socialist revolutionary heroes, while to others their image alone is testimony of mass murder and oppression.

When Ward Churchill was fired from his job as Professor of Ethnic Studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder in 2007 for engaging in research misconduct, scholars insisted that Churchill was singled out for his political views, most notably his statements about 9/11 in which he “referred to the ‘technocrats’ working at the World Trade Center as ‘little Eichmanns.‘” There continues to be an outpouring of support for Churchill from the academic community, many of whom have stressed that Academic Freedom must be staunchly defended.

Whither tolerance and intellectual diversity?

The University of Wisconsin-Madison was recently ordered by the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to pay nearly $500,000 in legal costs to a student group that claimed its First Amendment rights were violated when the student government rejected a portion of its funds because they were earmarked for religious worship. Badger Catholic, a student Catholic group that conducts various religious and spiritual activities on and off campus, sued the university, which claimed that funding some of the group’s activities would “amount to an illegal endorsement of religion.” The Appeals Court disagreed with the University and the Supreme Court recently declined to hear the case. It’s been hailed as a victory for freedom of speech and religious expression on college campuses.  $500K was lost because, rather than protecting the fundamental rights of its students, the school chose to discriminate against their activities purely because of the group’s religious beliefs.

While the flap over the Firefly poster may seem trivial, it is anything but.  This incident and UWS’s ego-driven, bureaucratic response provides a teachable moment.  It should make us pause and think about how easily our freedoms can erode, in the arbitrary name of protecting others’ feelings.

It’s one thing to ensure that students and faculty are physically safe, but when we surrender to the Wordsmiths what may or may not offend someone or make them uncomfortable, we are helping to pave our own Road to Hell.

“Sure as I know anything, I know this – they will try again. Maybe on another world, maybe on this very ground swept clean. A year from now, ten? They’ll swing back to the belief that they can make people… better. And I do not hold to that. So no more runnin’. I aim to misbehave.” – Mal Reynolds, Captain: Space Boat Serenity

The irony of a situation in which the character of Malcolm Reynolds–a man who risked life, limb, and loved ones to fight censorship in the movie Serenity–is at the center of a fight over whether or not something is censorship is not lost on this Firefly fan.

Just remember the Liberal Motto: Don’t do as I do, Do as I say. 🙂

You can’t stop the Signal, but you can try and muddy it up so bad no one can see it easily. That’s the Left in a nutshell.

Browncoats 1 Alliance 0  🙂

http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=mpg&load=6090&mpid=105

The Throw America Under the Bus Tour

Listen to the reason we are so in the dump:

Political Cartoons by Eric Allie

He just finished his “Listening Tour” of campaign first-up state Iowa and his home state of liberals in Illinois (which some liberals in Minnesota). And I bet you thought it was tour like he said it was, to listen to you….Wrong!

It was a tour to LISTEN TO HIM give more speeches about his disapproval of Republicans (euphemism- “Congress”) and finally his new jobs plan that he will revealed after Labor Day.

So, Obama has YET ANOTHER new plan for “creating jobs”. What is this, the 15th one? He goes to it for 5 minutes every time he wants to look like he gives a crap about anything other than his ideology (and it has failed miserably).

But, like the leader he is, you are going to have weeks for it. He has to go on vacation at a $50,000 a day resort in “the rich”s playground of Martha’s Vineyard first. Gotta have your priorities straight.

I wonder how many “corporate jet” owners will be in the area?

But you don’t have to wait for him unveil his new speech (he doesn’t actually have a real plan-he just gives speeches that his minions say are “plans”) because it will be like all the others except he’ll have come up some new euphemism for TAX you to death so he can spend more.

He’s burned through “Investments” and “Infrastructure” and “revenues” already in the last year, so get ready for “Tax Reform”.

Yes, folks, he’s going to “reform” your taxes.  Yes He Can!

HOW CAN YOU POSSIBLY BE AGAINST “TAX REFORM”!?? 🙂

So how’s that “hope and Change” working for you”?

And if “Congress” aka Republicans, won’t pass it he’ll pout all over his teleprompter and get his Liberal Media minions to play Ministry of Truth and whine 24/7/365 while they slag anyone who isn’t him running for president into a radioactive pile of poo because “vote for me, the other guy’s an asshole!”.

So I just can’t wait to find out what is in this latest present all wrapped up under the tree with a pretty bow and puppies and kittens on it…say  do you smell something…it smells like death…

Well, if equality of income is the priority, liberals should be thrilled with the last four years. The recession and weak recovery have been income levelers. Those who make more than $200,000 captured one-quarter of the $7.6 trillion in total income in 2009. In 2007 the over-$200,000 crowd had one-third of reported U.S. taxable income. Those with incomes above $1 million earned 9.5% of total income in 2009, down from 16.1% in 2007.

The President needs to levy his tax increase at such a lower income level because that’s where the money is. In 2009, 237,000 taxpayers reported income above $1 million and they paid $178 billion in taxes. A mere 8,274 filers reported income above $10 million, and they paid only $54 billion in taxes.

But 3.92 million reported income above $200,000 in 2009, and they paid $434 billion in taxes. To put it another way, roughly 90% of the tax filers who would pay more under Mr. Obama’s plan aren’t millionaires, and 99.99% aren’t billionaires.

It’s an old story: The best way to produce income equality is to destroy trillions of dollars of wealth. Everyone loses, but the rich lose relatively more than the poor and the middle class. By that measure, if few others, Obamanomics has been a raging success. (WSJ)

So $200,000 is the new “million”. That’s Obamanomics for you!

BUT HE HAS A NEW CUNNING PLAN! 🙂

The Obama administration has a big idea to bolster employment: a Department of Jobs. This isn’t a South Park episode satirizing the White House but an actual idea floated by an administration official in the New York Times. The irony of a “Department of Jobs” is clearly lost on the hapless president. (WSJ)

The only jobs that will be created will be Government Bureaucrats! And we all need more Bureaucrats!

Rejoice. Don’t be a sourpuss (aka disagree with his speeches and his minions).

Be Happy.

It could have been so much worse! 🙂

“First, I want to echo the sentiments of those who have spoken before me in praising you and thanking you for all of your efforts and all the things that you’ve tried to do during probably one of the most difficult situations faced by any president in the face of unreasonable obstruction and opposition.”–President Obama in Cannon Falls,MN.

Yeah, the 15 months of complete control by Democrats doesn’t count. It’s only the last 7 months of  Republican “obstructionism” is to blame. Yeah, they keep proposing solutions and the Democrats slag them and then the Republicans cave. That’s your obstructionism, folks.

And Vote for Obama, the Other Guy’s an Asshole! 🙂

And a final note from Big Sis on the evils of White people (Not Muslims)

My Objection: Wheres the 97 year old dying grandma with the colostomy bag? or the 18 month old with a diaper?

All’s right with the world… “Blackadder” Obama has a new cunning plan…

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

Political Cartoons by Robert Ariail

Pivoting Talking Points

The Grand Pivot:

Carol E. Lee of the Wall Street Journal asks White House press secretary Jay Carney about creating jobs and the point of the President’s upcoming bus tour in the Midwest. The White House denies this is a campaign event, instead calling it an “official event.” Transcript from today’s briefing below:

Q Sort of to follow on that, why should Americans believe that the White House can create jobs when the unemployment rate has been so stagnant and the record is sort of anemic?

MR. CARNEY: Well, the White House doesn’t create jobs. The government together — White House, Congress — creates policies that allow for greater job creation. And that can be through tax cuts, for example, for working Americans; everyone who works pays a payroll tax. And the tax cut that this President pushed for, for one year, for this calendar year, he’s pushing for to be extended next year.  (which costs $$ and is an evil “tax cut”)

They can — he can work to do the things that I just talked about, in terms of fuel-efficiency standards or clean energy investments. He very much supports the creation of an infrastructure bank, which has bipartisan support, which would leverage very relatively minimal amount of taxpayer dollars to allow private companies to hire folks to rebuild our infrastructure, which in turn will help create a more solid foundation for economic growth and job creation.

Did he not get the latest pivot memo?

Oh, and by the way, “rebuilding the infrastructure” is another liberal code phrase for SPENDING like drunken morons again. Stimulus “jobs” anyone?

Q And then, lastly, Senator Portman has an op-ed today, and he suggests that every other time the debt ceiling needs to be raised that Congress do a dollar-for-dollar decrease in the reduction of the deficit. Is that something that the White House —

MR. CARNEY: So make permanent the arbitrary connection between Congress simply allowing that the government should pay the bills that it rings up and link that to, again, arbitrary numbers to reduce spending. Again, this is not a related issue. I would suspect that we do not think that would be a good idea or particularly helpful to economic growth or job creation. (RCP)

Yeah, all we want is to raise taxes and spend more. That’ll solve everything! 😦

John Harwood, CNBC: “Do you feel that you or the administration’s policies are in any way responsible for this downgrade?”

Sec. Tim Geithner, U.S. Treasury: “Oh, absolutely not. You see, the President worked incredibly hard in making real incredibly progress trying to heal the damage made by this incredible crisis and you saw him work his heart out to try to bring both parties together to reach an agreement on the long-term fiscal deal. He made some progress, didn’t solve it all. But a down payment [and] very strong bipartisan support for that down payment and we got a lot of work still to do.”

Talk about being stuck in a myopic ideological mindset.

It appears the new Democratic talking point on Friday’s S&P downgrade of the U.S. credit rating is to blame on the tea party, by referring to it as a “tea party downgrade.”

On CBS’ “Face the Nation,” Axelrod explained his interpretation of the downgrade. He argued it had more to do with the country’s politics and less to do with its finances.

Yeah,it’s not us, it’s the Tea Party’s fault 😦

It’s not me, it the other guy, he’s an asshole!

“Both political parties are responsible for the mess we have right now,” said Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisconsin) said on Fox News Sunday. “This is not a Republican or Democrat only problem. This is both parties got us to where we are.”

Bu they don’t want to do what’s really necessary because it’s bad politics.

Standard & Poor’s cited “difficulties in bridging the gulf between political parties” as a major reason for the downgrade to AA+, the next level down from AAA. The rating agency has essentially lost faith in Washington’s ability to work together to address its debt.

Gee, I wonder why? 😮

“The action by S&P reaffirms the need for a balanced approach to deficit reduction that combines spending cuts with revenue-raising measures like closing taxpayer-funded giveaways to billionaires, oil companies and corporate jet owners,” <Senate Majority Leader> Reid said.

Gee I wonder why that is? 🙂

They probably have inedible Talking Points stuck in their teeth.

“Let’s do it in a way that is fair to everyone so that the wealthiest Americans are kicking in as well as the middle class and everyone else in the country.”– Axelrod

Yeah, the wealthiest Americans pay the majority of taxes and 47% of  Americans (primarily those “middle class”) pay no taxes whatsoever. So how is that “kicking in”??

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 17% of Likely U.S. Voters think the federal government today has the consent of the governed.  Sixty-nine percent (69%) believe the government does not have that consent. Fourteen percent (14%) are undecided.

So we need to vote like it.

But in fairness, one also has to remember S&P missed the whole Mortgage Securities  mess so they aren’t holy either.

There are no angels in these foxholes.

But we, the citizens are the ones being run across the political minefields.

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

 

It’s the Spending, Stupid!

Ezra Klein recently posted a New York Times graphic supporting his view that the deficit is primarily the fault of former President Bush and his predecessors, rather than President Obama. Interestingly, he makes no attempt to claim that Obama’s policies have reduced the deficit, just that Obama’s deficit increases were smaller than Bush’s.

Leave aside for a moment the fact that Bush’s entire eight-year record is being compared to policies enacted during Obama’s first two and a half years. The fundamental flaw in the New York Times graphic is that it assumes that a president’s fiscal policy is confined to “new” policies enacted under his watch. Every year, the president proposes a budget that contains a mix of new policies and old policies. The result is a comprehensive vision of what federal tax and spending policy ought to be. A president who simply continues the fiscal policy he inherits must bear his share of responsibility for its consequences.

A prime example of this is the “Bush tax cuts,” which the New York Times graphic charges solely to President Bush, conveniently ignoring the fact that President Obama supports making most of the cuts permanent and signed into law a two-year extension of all of them. President Bush also signed a new Medicare drug benefit into law. But President Obama didn’t repeal this new spending, he expanded it.

Below is a graphic that focuses on the results of fiscal policy, not simply on adjustments made on the margins of fiscal policy. If anything, the analysis is overly generous to President Obama because: (1) it assigns full responsibility for Fiscal Year 2009 to President Bush, despite the enactment by Obama of the stimulus, higher domestic appropriations and an expansion of TARP spending during that year; and (2) it gives Obama credit for the policies he intends to enact for the rest of his presidency, since we cannot judge his actual future record. The graphic compares the records of these two presidents based on the deficits, revenues and spending incurred by the federal government on their watch, expressed as a percentage of GDP.

The results show one surprise — thanks in part to the recession and tax stimulus measures which have temporarily lowered federal revenues, Bush and Obama tax policies yield virtually the same amount of revenues on average. But the real story is the comparison of spending. Obama’s policies result in historically high spending as a share of the economy, which in turn results in historically high deficits.

To President Obama’s credit, he has begun to embrace the need for a change in direction, though he was dragged there kicking and screaming by Republicans and continues to insist that significant spending cuts be linked to higher taxes. In contrast, Bush’s initiatives were opposed at every turn by congressional Democrats, who insisted on even higher spending.(DC)

Bush was wrong. Obama IS wrong. Period.

“The fact that we are here today to debate raising  America ‘s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure.  It is a sign that the US Government can not pay its own bills.  It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies.  Increasing  America ‘s debt weakens us domestically and internationally.  Leadership means that, “the buck stops here.’  Instead,  Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren.   America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.”Senator Barack H. Obama, March 2006

Mind you, he only said it to bash Bush, not because he had any convictions on the matter. But it is instructive in how Liberals will say anything to gain power and will say anything not to cede any power thy get.

Highly Recommend:

http://schweikert.house.gov/ByTheNumbers/

  • Slide3.JPG

It’s the Spending, Stupid!

We took in 2.165 Trillion in 2010. Look at the Mandatory Spending. Very close aren’t they… 😦

To Be Fair

After emerging from a lunch meeting on Thursday with members of her party and Jack Lew, the White House budget director, Ms Mikulski said her colleagues were feeling “volcanic” about the prospect of a $3,000bn (aka 3 Trillion) deal to cut deficits and raise the debt ceiling that did not include any higher taxes, adding that it was “like Mount Vesuvius” in the room.

Harry Reid, the US Senate majority leader, added: “This can’t be all cuts, there has to be a balance.”  We have to screw someone!

Facing a possible revolt from within Democratic ranks, White House officials immediately dismissed the notion that the president would strike any agreement with Republicans to implement significant spending cuts – including reform of treasured government programmes such as Medicare and Social Security – without garnering any new revenue in return  (aka TAX INCREASES). They also invited Democratic leaders back to the White House for a second straight day of talks in an effort to shore up their support in the negotiations.

Democrats are still expected to back whatever deal President Barack Obama strikes with congressional Republicans, but Thursday’s discontent highlighted the delicate balancing act facing White House officials as they go back-and-forth between the parties in search of a compromise.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, “compromise” to a Liberal means do exactly as I say, and only what I say,  and shut and sit down you idiot!

Mind you, on Dec 6th, 2010 Obama said raising Taxes in a recession was a bad idea. But that was a politically calculated move of the moment. Now 7 months later he has to forget he ever said and the media will be glad to oblige. Also, he ardent supporters will have forgotten it also. And if you remind the they will blow it off because they are of the moment only. What do we want now is all that matters.

Dec 6,2010 Whitehouse.gov: Make no mistake:  Allowing taxes to go up on all Americans would have raised taxes by $3,000 for a typical American family. And that could cost our economy well over a million jobs.

But now IF WE DON’T RAISE TAXES Armageddon is upon us!!! Run For the Hills!!!

Obama Now, in this moment (trying to appear to be a centrist instead of the left wing ideologue because he’s running for re-coronation):

“Regardless of what you feel about the particular policies — some of you may have supported the wars or opposed the wars; some of you may have agreed with the Recovery Act; some of you may be opposed — regardless of your views on these various actions that were taken, the fact is they all cost money,” he said. “And the result is that there’s simply too much debt on America’s credit card.”

He added, “Neither party (Just the Republicans!) is blameless for the decisions that led to this problem, but both parties have a responsibility to solve it.”

But when the Republican propose, the Democrats dispose. So again, it comes down to kiss the Democrats ass or else. Now that’s a compromise!! 😦

“The one thing we can’t do — cannot do — is decide that we are not going to pay the bills the previous congresses have already racked up,”

But we can threatened and scare seniors with false claims of not paying their bills to stoke up the class warfare and fearmongering.

If you take in $200 billion a month and Social Security cost $50 billion the only reason you’d wouldn’t pay that first is if your try to extort and exploit people.

“We can’t just close our deficit with spending cuts alone, because if we take that route it means that seniors would have to pay a lot more for Medicare, or students would have to pay a lot more for student loans,” he said.

And what will cuts in these programs that have to be made to make any kind of deficit reduction even possible do to them?

Or if you do nothing and they crash and burn on their own in less than 10 years?!

You guessed it!

But don’t tell the President, he’s running for re-coronation so he doesn’t want to say it, even if it is the truth.

He’s trying to look “fair”. 😦

And we have the tried and true Democrat strategy of “Vote for me the other guy’s an asshole!”. The fact that I might be an even bigger asshole doesn’t enter into equation.

“If we only did it with cuts, if we did not get any revenue (TAX INCREASES!!) to help close this gap between how much money is coming in and how much money is going out  (yeah just not spending too much isn’t enough meat for your base is it), then a lot of ordinary people would be hurt and the country as a whole would be hurt. And that doesn’t make any sense. It’s not fair.”  (Oh there’s that word “fair”!!! ooh it makes me all tingly!)

And you morons keep spending more than you take in we ALL get hurt. But that’s not important right now… So says the Guy who was going to be the Great Uniter of the country and govern for all the people, not just Democrats. 😦

“fairness” and “compromise”. Bend over here comes the greatest enema of all time!

Adhering to the standard Democratic talking points, Time managing editor Rick Stengel told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer during the 6 p.m. EDT hour of The Situation Room that if tax rates go up in 2013, it’s “not a tax hike,” demanding that “this is something that Republicans have to get used to.”

On the CNN poll, one thing no one at CNN is mentioning, is that question #23: Do you want Cut, Cap and Balance? Sixty-six percent of the American people want it. Question #25: Do you want a balanced budget amendment? Seventy-four percent! This is CNN’s own poll and they’re not reporting it tonight. (MRC)

So bend over here it comes!!!!

Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley

Known and Unknown

Thomas Sowell: When Donald Rumsfeld was Secretary of Defense, he coined some phrases about knowledge that apply far beyond military matters. Secretary Rumsfeld pointed out that there are some things that we know that we know. He called those “known knowns.” We may, for example, know how many aircraft carriers some other country has. We may also know that they have troops and tanks, without knowing how many. In Rumsfeld’s phrase, that would be an “unknown known” — a gap in our knowledge that we at least know exists. Finally, there are things we don’t even know exist, much less anything about them. These are “unknown unknowns” — and they are the most dangerous. We had no clue, for example, when dawn broke on September 11, 2001, that somebody was going to fly two commercial airliners into the World Trade Center that day. There are similar kinds of gaps in our knowledge in the economy. Unfortunately, our own government creates uncertainties that can paralyze the economy, especially when these uncertainties take the form of “unknown unknowns.” The short-run quick fixes that seem so attractive to so many politicians, and to many in the media, create many unknowns that make investors reluctant to invest and employers reluctant to employ. Politicians may only look as far ahead as the next election, but investors have to look ahead for as many years as it will take for their investments to start bringing in some money. The net result is that both our financial institutions and our businesses have had record amounts of cash sitting idle while millions of people can’t find jobs. Ordinarily these institutions make money by investing money and hiring workers. Why not now? Because numerous and unpredictable government interventions create many unknowns, including “unknown unknowns.” The quick fix that got both Democrats and Republicans off the hook with a temporary bipartisan tax compromise, several months ago, leaves investors uncertain as to what the tax rate will be when any money they invest today starts bringing in a return in another two or three or ten years. It is known that there will be taxes but nobody knows what the tax rate will be then. Some investors can send their investment money to foreign countries, where the tax rate is already known, is often lower than the tax rate in the United States and — perhaps even more important — is not some temporary, quick-fix compromise that is going to expire before their investments start earning a return.

Although more foreign investments were coming into the United States, a few years ago, than there were American investments going to foreign countries, today it is just the reverse. American investors are sending more of their money out of the country than foreign investors are sending here.

Since 2009, according to the Wall Street Journal, “the U.S. has lost more than $200 billion in investment capital.” They add: “That is the equivalent of about two million jobs that don’t exist on these shores and are now located in places like China, Germany and India.”

President Obama’s rhetoric deplores such “outsourcing,” but his administration’s policies make outsourcing an ever more attractive alternative to investing in the United States and creating American jobs.

Blithely piling onto American businesses both known costs like more taxes and unknowable costs — such as the massive ObamaCare mandates that are still evolving — provides more incentives for investors to send their money elsewhere to escape the hassles.

Hardly a month goes by without this administration coming up with a new anti-business policy — whether directed against Boeing, banks or other private enterprises. Neither investors nor employers can know when the next one is coming or what it will be. These are unknown unknowns.

Such anti-business policies would just be business’ problem, except that it is businesses that create jobs.

The biggest losers from creating an adverse business climate may not be businesses themselves — especially not big businesses, which can readily invest more of their money overseas. The biggest losers are likely to be working people in America, who cannot just relocate to Europe or Asia to take the jobs created there by American multinational corporations.

But at least the Class War Fare so loved by Liberals has a target rich environment (in their minds) because any “rich” person should be bludgeoned to the point of death to make up revenues for the Liberals to spend on their Socialism.

Not to cut spending. No paying down the debt. No, never that.

And any hint of doing that get’s them riled up and scare people on Social Security that the government won’t pay them because the Republican Boogieman is coming to get you!!

And I’m still waiting for the Republicans to buckle.

The Democrats have already stepped up the Class Warfare and the Fearmongering.

So all is right with the Political World…. 😦

That is well known. 🙂

Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley

Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert

Political Cartoons by Chip Bok

The Politics of Reality

But First…Mother Nature..Now that’s Cool! 🙂


7000 feet tall 50 miles wide and moving between 4o-50 mph with hurricane force winds!

It’s a Dust Storm!

http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/dpp/weather/big-dust-storm-rolls-into-valley-7-5-2011?CMP=201107_emailshare

<object style=”height: 390px; width: 640px”><param name=”movie” value=”http://www.youtube.com/v/JhEc_1MD1tg?version=3″><param name=”allowFullScreen” value=”true”><param name=”allowScriptAccess” value=”always”></object>

http://www.weather.com/outlook/videos/time-lapse-amazing-phoenix-dust-storm-21209

http://www.weather.com/outlook/videos/time-lapse-amazing-phoenix-dust-storm-21209#21212

My power flickered on and off for a good 30 minutes during the storm.

Dust storm, though dangerous, are Cool! 🙂

But now back to reality… 🙂

It is hard to understand politics if you are hung up on reality. Politicians leave reality to others. What matters in politics is what you can get the voters to believe, whether it bears any resemblance to reality or not.

Not only among politicians, but also among much of the media, and even among some of the public, the quest is not for truth about reality but for talking points that fit a vision or advance an agenda. Some seem to see it as a personal contest about who is best at fencing with words.

The current controversy over whether to deal with our massive national debt by cutting spending, or whether instead to raise tax rates on “the rich,” is a classic example of talking points versus reality.

Most of those who favor simply raising tax rates on “the rich” — or who say that we cannot afford to allow the Bush “tax cuts for the rich” to continue — show not the slightest interest in the history of what has actually happened when tax rates were raised to high levels on “the rich,” as compared to what has actually happened when there have been “tax cuts for the rich.”

As far as such people are concerned, those questions have already been settled by their talking points. Why confuse the issue by digging into empirical evidence about what has actually happened when one policy or the other was followed?

The political battles about whether to have high tax rates on people in high income brackets or to instead have “tax cuts for the rich” have been fought out in at least four different administrations in the 20th century — under Presidents Calvin Coolidge, John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.

The empirical facts are there, but they mean nothing if people don’t look at them, and instead rely on talking points.

The first time this political battle was fought, during the Coolidge administration, the tax-cutters won. The data show that “the rich” supplied less tax revenue to the government when the top income tax rate was 73 percent in 1921 than they supplied after the income tax rate was reduced to 24 percent in 1925.

Because high tax rates can easily be avoided, both then and now, “the rich” were much less affected by high tax rates than was the economy and the people who were looking for jobs. After the Coolidge tax cuts, the increased economic activity led to unemployment rates that ranged from a high of 4.2 percent to a low of 1.8 percent.

But that is only a fact about reality — and, for many, reality has no such appeal as talking points.

The same preference for talking points, and the same lack of interest in digging into the facts about realities, prevails today in discussions of whether to have a government-controlled medical system.
Since there are various countries, such as Canada and Britain, that have the kind of government-controlled medical systems that some Americans advocate, you might think that there would be great interest in the quality of medical care in these countries.

The data are readily available as to how many weeks or months people have to wait to see a primary care physician in such countries, and how many additional weeks or months they have to wait after they are referred to a surgeon or other specialist. There are data on how often their governments allow patients to receive the latest pharmaceutical drugs, as compared to how often Americans use such advanced medications.

But supporters of government medical care show virtually no interest in such realities. Their big talking point is that the life expectancy in the United States is not as long as in those other countries. End of discussion, as far as they are concerned.

They have no interest in the reality that medical care has much less effect on death rates from homicide, obesity, and narcotics addiction than it has on death rates from cancer or other conditions that doctors can do something about. Americans survive various cancers better than people anywhere else. Americans also get to see doctors much sooner for medical treatment in general.

Talking points trump reality in political discussions of many other issues, from gun control to rent control. Reality simply does not have the pizzazz of clever talking points. (Thomas Sowell)

Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

Political Cartoons by Nate Beeler

Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne