Same old Story

Fiscal Policy: Stop us if you’ve heard this one: Republicans propose pro-growth tax reform to boost the economy, and liberals indignantly shout out: “tax cut for the rich.”

Everyone knows the current tax code is a millstone around the neck of our economy. Almost all the Republicans running for president have admirable tax plans, and one of the best is the flat tax proposed by Texas Sen. Ted Cruz that would lower business taxes to 16% on net business income and 10% on personal income — wages, salaries, capital gains and dividends.

The Tax Foundation says it would boost wages, output and net income about 10% over the next decade — which is an extra $2.5 trillion in GDP and millions of new jobs.

Right on cue, the leftwing Tax Policy Center has trashed the plan, calling it a tax cut for the rich and an $8.6 trillion increase in the debt over 10 years. And the lapdogs of the liberal media ate it up.

The TPC has about zero credibility on these issues. Its tax models predicted the Reagan tax cuts would lead to massive revenue losses and that the Clinton-era capital gains cut would blow a hole in the deficit. In both cases revenues didn’t shrink — they swelled. And the share of taxes paid by the rich soared in each case.

But the TPC’s shattered crystal ball doesn’t let history get in the way of a good story — especially if the theme is class warfare.

The center relies on what is called “static analysis.”  It assumes the economy will not grow much if tax rates are lowered and savings and investment are encouraged through a less-punitive tax code. But if the tax rate on working and investing is lowered, then expect more work and more investment. History bears this out again and again.

TPC says high-income taxpayers would get an average tax cut in 2017 of about $6,100, while the poor would save only $46. But most of the poor in the bottom one-third pay almost no income tax at all. How do you cut income taxes for people who don’t pay income taxes?

Nothing could be less fair than our current wreckage of a tax code. The people at the bottom of the income ladder don’t have jobs, don’t have paychecks and don’t have income outside of welfare benefits. The TPC can never seem to figure out what Ted Cruz said when he introduced his flat tax: “The best way to help the poor is with a job — not a government handout.” (IBD)

sowell- liberal caresowell-complain

Happy Tax Increases Everyone!

Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

As part of the fiscal cliff, the top tax rate on dividends is scheduled to nearly triple in 2013.  Here are some questions you might have:

What is a dividend?  A dividend is a cash payment that a company makes to shareholders.
What type of people receive dividends?  Almost everyone benefits from dividends.  If you are covered by a traditional pension or 401(k) plan at work, you almost certainly own dividend-paying stocks and mutual funds that own dividend-paying stocks.  Ditto for your IRA or Roth IRA.  Additionally, the IRS data cited above shows that over 25 million American families choose to receive dividends directly.

Traditional pensions, 401(k)s, and IRAs are accounts for middle class Americans, not rich people.  That’s where many dividends end up.  Additionally, nearly 23 million out of the 25 million American families that get paid dividends directly earn less than $200,000 per year.  Over 40 percent of all taxable dividends are earned in these households.

Not just evil “rich” “angry white guys” or “evil” Corporate America. 🙂

Obamacare contains twenty new or higher taxes. Five of the taxes hit for the first time on January 1.  In total, for the years 2013-2022, Americans face a net $1 trillion tax hike for the years 2013-2022, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

The five major Obamacare taxes taking effect on January are as follows:

The Obamacare Medical Device Tax:  Medical device manufacturers employ 409,000 people in 12,000 plants across the country. Obamacare imposes a new 2.3 percent excise tax on gross sales – even if the company does not earn a profit in a given year.  In addition to killing small business jobs and impacting research and development budgets, this will increase the cost of your health care – making everything from pacemakers to artificial hips more expensive.

The Obamacare Flex Account Tax: The 30-35 million Americans who use a pre-tax Flexible Spending Account (FSA) at work to pay for their family’s basic medical needs will face a new government cap of $2500. This will squeeze $13 billion of tax money from Americans over the ten years. (Currently, the accounts are unlimited under federal law, though employers are allowed to set a cap.)

There is one group of FSA owners for whom this new cap will be particularly cruel and onerous: parents of special needs children.  There are several million families with special needs children in the United States, and many of them use FSAs to pay for special needs education. Tuition rates at one leading school that teaches special needs children in Washington, D.C. (National Child Research Center) can easily exceed $14,000 per year. Under tax rules, FSA dollars can be used to pay for this type of special needs education. This Obamacare tax provision will limit the options available to these families.

The Obamacare Surtax on Investment Income: This is a new, 3.8 percentage point surtax on investment income earned in households making at least $250,000 ($200,000 single).  This would result in the following top tax rates on investment income:

Capital Gains   Dividends  Other*2012
    
15%                     15%             35%2013+ (current law)
    

23.8%                43.4%       43.4%

The table above also incorporates the scheduled hike in the capital gains rate from 15 to 20 percent, and the scheduled hike in dividends rate from 15 to 39.6 percent.

The Obamacare “Haircut” for Medical Itemized Deductions: Currently, those Americans facing high medical expenses are allowed a deduction to the extent that those expenses exceed 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI).  This tax increase imposes a threshold of 10 percent of AGI. By limiting this deduction, Obamacare widens the net of taxable income for the sickest Americans.  This tax provision will most harm near retirees and those with modest incomes but high medical bills.

The Obamacare Medicare Payroll Tax Hike:  The Medicare payroll tax is currently 2.9 percent on all wages and self-employment profits.  Under this tax hike, wages and profits exceeding $200,000 ($250,000 in the case of married couples) will face a 3.8 percent rate instead. This is a direct marginal income tax hike on small business owners, who are liable for self-employment tax in most cases. The table below compares current law vs. the Obamacare Medicare Payroll Tax Hike:
 
First $200,000                 All Remaining Wages
($250,000 Married)        Employer/Employee  
Employer/Employee    
                       
Current Law
1.45%/1.45%                       1.45%/1.45%
2.9% self-employed           2.9% self-employed

Obamacare Tax Hike
   
1.45%/1.45%                       1.45%/2.35%
2.9% self-employed           3.8% self-employed

2012 CBO Report on Revenue Effects of Obamacare
Tax Hike
2013-2022

Tax Penalty Payments by Uninsured Individuals $55 billion

Tax Penalty Payments by Employers $106 billion

Excise Tax on High-Premium Insurance Plans $111 billion

Associated Effects of Coverage Provisions
on Tax Revenues $216 billion

Reinsurance and Risk Adjustment Collections $184 billion

Fees on Manufacturers and Insurers $165 billion

Additional Hospital Insurance Tax $318 billion

Other Revenue Provisions $87 billion

Courtesy of ATR

This won’t hurt everyone, the economy and job “growth” now will it!

But don’t worry,it’s still Bush’s Fault!! That will keep you warm by the fire, until they ban it (bad for the environment, you know) or tax it that is…

Happy New Year. Happy New Tax Increases EVERYONE…. 🙂

Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley

Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

Christmas Day Sing Along

I'll be Broke Fro Christmas


Baracka Claus is comin’ to town
Baracka Claus is comin’ to town

You better not work
You better not try
Get your hand out
I’m telling you why
Source: LYBIO.net

Baracka Claus is comin’ to town
Baracka Claus is comin’ to town
Baracka Claus is comin’ to town

If you’re a success
I’m taxin’ you twice
Gonna reverse who’s naughty and nice

Hey!
Baracka Claus is comin’ to town
Baracka Claus is comin’ to town
Baracka Claus is comin’ to town
I’ll pay you just for sleeping
Don’t work, stay home and play
You will care if you’re bad or good
‘Cause if you’re bad you get more cake

So, Republicans watch out
I’m lookin’ real fly
Media shouts ‘We elected our guy’

Hey!
Baracka Claus is comin’ to town
Baracka Claus is comin’ to town
Baracka Claus is comin’ to town

The market’s goin’ down
Why do you have a frown?

Baracka Claus is comin’ to town

Now the Christmas Sermon….
The whole gospel of Karl Marx can be summed up in a single sentence: Hate the man who is better off than you are. Never under any circumstances admit that his success may be due to his own efforts, to the productive contribution he has made to the whole community. Always attribute his success to the exploitation, the cheating, the more or less open robbery of others. Never
    under any circumstances admit that your own failure may be owing to your own weakness, or that the failure of anyone else may be due to his own defects – his laziness, incompetence, improvidence, or stupidity.”

American economist and philosopher Henry Hazlitt wrote the above.  Hazlitt understood Socialism and its evil foundations.

As we read, “Hate the man who is better off than you are,” our thoughts turn toward President Barack Obama.  Obama’s 2012 Presidential campaign was heavily focused on creating envy and hatred for those who have high incomes and wealth.  Obama promised his supporters that he would reward them by punishing “the rich,” whom he characterized as those in the upper 2% income bracket.

Saul Alinsky said of his book Rules for Radicals,

    “The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away.”

Obama promised a “balanced” approach to taxes and spending. But data from the CBO and OMB show spending will surge 55% over the next 10 years under Obama — nearly $2 trillion in added spending — swamping Obama’s promised “cuts” of $880 billion.

And remember he borrows $5 Billion dollars A DAY. 🙂

Merry Christmas. Enjoy it while you’re allowed to.

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

Over the Cliff

More from “Jar Jar Binks” Boehner:

Under the leadership of House Speaker John Boehner (R.-Ohio), the 112th House of Representatives has thus far approved legislation that has increased the debt of the federal government by approximately $18,944 for per American household.

The 112th House of Representatives has achieved this in a little more than 20 months time—and it may not be done yet enacting laws to approve new federal borrowing and spending.

On March 1, 2011, Boehner and President Barack Obama cut their first short-term federal spending deal. That deal took effect on March 4, 2011. Since then all new borrowing and spending by the federal government has been approved in laws enacted by Boehner’s House consistent with its constitutional power to control the borrowing and spending by the federal government. (KFYI)

Political Cartoons by Robert Ariail

AP
Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY): There’s a lot of talk right now about an impending fiscal cliff. But we already went over a cliff economically in this country a long time ago.The current debate over tax hikes is an empty one built upon a false premise. The debate is whether raising tax rates will address our current crisis. The premise is that it is a lack of taxation that has led to the crisis. Both are hopelessly wrong.President Obama’s proposed tax increases on the top 2% of earners would fund the federal government for about eight days. Even if we taxed Americans earning over $1 million on 100% of their income, we would raise only about $600 billion in revenue.

Taxing citizens at this level is a tyranny even Europe hasn’t reached, and still it would only address about one-third of our deficit.

If one actually does the math, “taxing the rich” turns out to be no real solution at all, only fantasyland rhetoric.

Every dollar the government takes is another dollar used unproductively. Every dollar removed from the private sector and wasted in the hands of bureaucrats is a dollar that will not be used to purchase goods, to pay for services or to meet a payroll.

Every dollar the government ever takes — today, tomorrow and forever — is an attack on jobs and the economy.

Instead of sitting around trying to think of new ways to vote away someone else’s money, Washington leaders should finally begin to address the real crisis that has threatened us long before the current handwringing: spending.

With a $16 trillion national debt and well over $1 trillion annually in deficits, we barreled over the edge of fiscal insolvency long before this month.

Why do we lurch from deadline to deadline with no apparent action on our nation’s problems until the next deadline approaches? I presented Social Security and Medicare reform to the Senate over a year ago. I directly spoke to the president and vice president about my plan. And their response? Absolutely nothing!

Is it any wonder people are fed up with their government? The president announces we have no time for spending reforms, but when the deadline passes I predict not one committee will step into the breach to begin the process of reform.

Why? Because Democratic leadership still insists that Social Security and Medicare are just fine. Meanwhile, Social Security actuaries tell us that Social Security this year will spend $165 billion more than it receives. Medicare will spend $3 for every $1 it collects. Yet, the president says he doesn’t have time for entitlement reform.

The “fiscal cliff” scenario has come and gone. The only question now is: How do we recover?

The only solution is to cut spending. It’s no secret to anyone, except perhaps Washington leaders, that our current levels of spending are not only unsustainable, but the main culprit in our fiscal crisis.

Opponents of spending reductions — whether Democrats who insist on maintaining and expanding current domestic spending, or Republicans who insist on maintaining and expanding current Pentagon spending — make the case that any cuts to their preferred parts of government would be “Draconian” or “devastating.”

Like tax hikes, this too is a false narrative. According to the Congressional Budget Office, nominal spending in 2008 was $2.5 trillion. The outlays for the 2013 budget are an estimated $3.5 trillion.

This means the federal government plans on spending $1 trillion more next year than it did four years ago. By any measure, this is a significant and dramatic growth in spending.

Estimated revenue for 2013 is $2.9 trillion if the Bush tax cuts expire. Our 2012 revenues were $2.4 trillion, which included the Bush tax cuts. The Bush tax cuts would only make a difference of $500 billion this year — about one third of our entire deficit — but would also further harm our economy due to the job market decline that always accompanies any rise in taxes. History has proved this point time and again.

But if we spent only at 2008 levels combined with the revenues of 2012, next year we would have a deficit as small as $89 billion. An $89 billion deficit would represent less than 1% of GDP. The 2012 deficit was as high as 7.3% of GDP.

Did anyone think the size of government we had in 2008 was somehow not enough government? This is how drastically spending has increased in just the last four years.

Those who argue we can’t cut spending are basically saying that our federal government was far too small when Barack Obama entered the White House and that now we can survive only if government continues to spend at its current level. I know few if any Americans who honestly believe this, Republican or Democrat.

It’s also hard to imagine reasonable people actually believing that our government spending this obscene amount of money is somehow what makes our economy tick.

A real plan would extend the tax rates we’ve had for 12 years, reform entitlements and examine any and every way to significantly cut spending. Right now, House GOP leadership seems to want Republicans to be the party that raises taxes just a little less than the Democrats. This will not do.

Republicans are supposed to be the party of limited government and low taxes. These are our most core and basic principles. I don’t think it’s time to change who we are or what we stand for. It will not help our economy. It will also defeat the purpose of even having a Republican Party.

And that’s what Sith Lord Obama wants, By the way… “Those are not the Spending Cuts you are looking for…”:)
Sith Apprentice Harry Reid: “Now is the time to show leadership, not kick the can down the road,” Reid said. “Speaker Boehner should focus his energy on forging a large-scale deficit reduction agreement. It would be a shame if Republicans abandoned productive negotiations due to pressure from the tea party, as they have time and again.” (NBC)
But nothing the Democrats propose actually cuts spending or the deficit in anyway that is actually meaningful. But that’s the trick.
Make the stupid people think that it is meaningful and the Republicans are getting in the way so they take the fall for it when it fails miserably.
It’s tactical. not practical.
Alinksy’s Rules for Radicals: Rule 1: Power is not only what you have, but what an opponent thinks you have.
“The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this that will cause the opposition to react 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.”
So Boehner Proposes and Obama and Reid Dispose, even if it’s a plan that essentially mimics on their own it still is “protecting the rich” and is not “good enough”.
Simple. 🙂

“He (President Barack Obama) is not willing to accept a deal that doesn’t ask enough of the very wealthiest in taxes and instead shifts the burden to the middle class and seniors,” White House spokesman Jay Carney said in a statement. “The president is hopeful that both sides can work out remaining differences and reach a solution so we don’t miss the opportunity in front of us today.”

Boehner’s spokesman said: “The White House’s position defies common sense.”

“After spending months saying we must ask for more from millionaires and billionaires, how can they reject a plan that does exactly that?” spokesman Brendan Buck said. “By once again moving the goal posts, the president is threatening every American family with higher taxes.”

Because that isn’t the goal, Jar Jar. This is Chess not Poker. Simple, really. 🙂
Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert

Political Cartoons by Ken Catalino

Food For the Sowell Chapter III

With all the talk about taxing the rich, we hear very little talk about taxing the poor. Yet the marginal tax rate on someone living in poverty can sometimes be higher than the marginal tax rate on millionaires.

While it is true that nearly half the households in the country pay no income tax at all, the apparently simple word “tax” has many complications that can be a challenge for even professional economists to untangle.

If you define a tax as only those things that the government chooses to call a tax, you get a radically different picture from what you get when you say, “If it looks like a tax, acts like a tax and takes away your resources like a tax, then it’s a tax.”

One of the biggest, and one of the oldest, taxes in this latter sense is inflation. Governments have stolen their people’s resources this way, not just for centuries, but for thousands of years.

Hyperinflation can take virtually your entire life’s savings, without the government having to bother raising the official tax rate at all. The Weimar Republic in Germany in the 1920s had thousands of printing presses turning out vast amounts of money, which the government could then spend to pay for whatever it wanted to pay for.

Of course, prices skyrocketed with vastly more money in circulation. Many people’s life savings would not buy a loaf of bread. For all practical purposes, they had been robbed, big time.

A rising demagogue coined the phrase “starving billionaires,” because even a billion Deutschmarks was not enough to feed your family. That demagogue was Adolf Hitler, and the public’s loss of faith in their irresponsible government may well have contributed toward his Nazi movement’s growth.

Most inflation does not reach that level, but the government can quietly steal a lot of your wealth with much lower rates of inflation. For example a $100 bill at the end of the 20th century would buy less than a $20 bill would buy in 1960.

If you put $1,000 in your piggy bank in 1960 and took it out to spend in 2000, you would discover that your money had, over time, lost 80 percent of its value.

Despite all the political rhetoric today about how nobody’s taxes will be raised, except for “the rich,” inflation transfers a percentage of everybody’s wealth to a government that expands the money supply. Moreover, inflation takes the same percentage from the poorest person in the country as it does from the richest.

That’s not all. Income taxes only transfer money from your current income to the government, but it does not touch whatever money you may have saved over the years. With inflation, the government takes the same cut out of both.

It is bad enough when the poorest have to turn over the same share of their assets to the government as the richest do, but it is grotesque when the government puts a bigger bite on the poorest. This can happen because the rich can more easily convert their assets from money into things like real estate, gold or other assets whose value rises with inflation. But a welfare mother is unlikely to be able to buy real estate or gold. She can put a few dollars aside in a jar somewhere. But wherever she may hide it, inflation can steal value from it without having to lay a hand on it.

No wonder the Federal Reserve uses fancy words like “quantitative easing,” instead of saying in plain English that they are essentially just printing more money.

The biggest and most deadly “tax” rate on the poor comes from a loss of various welfare state benefits– food stamps, housing subsidies and the like– if their income goes up.

Someone who is trying to climb out of poverty by working their way up can easily reach a point where a $10,000 increase in pay can cost them $15,000 in lost benefits that they no longer qualify for. That amounts to a marginal tax rate of 150 percent– far more than millionaires pay. Some government policies help some people at the expense of other people. But some policies can hurt welfare recipients, the taxpayers and others, all at the same time, even though in different ways.

Why? Because we are too easily impressed by lofty political rhetoric and too little interested in the reality behind the words.

AMEN!

Vote for me, the other guy’s an asshole! 🙂

Vote Me, I will grab “free” stuff for you from evil rich bastards! 🙂

John Stossel: Politicians claim they make our lives better by passing laws. But laws rarely improve life. They go wrong. Unintended consequences are inevitable.

I wonder how unintended they are, really…But that’s me I’m much more cynical. 🙂

Most voters don’t pay enough attention to notice. They read headlines. They watch the Rose Garden signing ceremonies and hear the pundits declare that progress was made. Bipartisanship! Something got done. We assume a problem was solved.

Intuition tells us that government is in the problem-solving business, and so the more laws passed, the better off we are. The possibility that fewer laws could leave us better off is hard to grasp. Kids visiting Washington don’t ask their congressmen, “What laws did you repeal?” It’s always, “What did you pass?”

And so they pass and pass — a thousand pages of proposed new rules each week — and for every rule, there’s an unintended consequence, or several.

It’s one reason America has been unusually slow to recover from the Great Recession. After previous recessions, employers quickly resumed hiring. Not this time. The unemployment rate is still near 8 percent. It only fell last month because people stopped looking for jobs.

Dan Mitchell of the Cato Institute understands what’s happening.

“Add up all the regulations and red tape, all the government spending, all the tax increases we’re about to get — you can understand why entrepreneurs think: “Maybe I don’t want to hire people. … I want to keep my company small. I don’t want to give health insurance, because then I’m stuck with all the Obamacare mandates.” We can see our future in Europe — unless we change. Ann Jolis, who covers European labor issues for The Wall Street Journal, watches how government-imposed work rules sabotage economies.

“The minimum guaranteed annual vacation in Europe is 20 days paid vacation a year. … In France, it starts at 25 guaranteed days off. … This summer, the European Court of Justice … gave workers the right to a vacation do-over. … You spend the last eight days of your vacation laid up with a sprained ankle … eight days automatically go into your sick leave. … You get a vacation do-over.”

It’s only “fair”, right? 🙂

Such benefits appeal to workers, who don’t realize that the goodies come out of their wages. The unemployed don’t realize that such rules deter employers from hiring them in the first place.

And the media sure as hell isn’t going to tell them. Those Evil Capitalist bastards!

In Italy, some work rules kick in once a company has more than 10 employees, so companies have an incentive not to hire an 11th employee. Businesses stay small. People stay unemployed.

“European workers have the right … to gainful unemployment,” says Jolis.

Both European central planners and liberal politicians in America are clueless about what really helps workers: a free economy.

Because they want everything to be “fair” which ends up being very authoritarian. The very opposite of free.

Funny how that worked out… 🙂

The record is clear. Central planners failed, in the Soviet Union, in Cuba, at the U.S. Postal Service and in America’s public schools, and now they stifle growth in Europe and America. Central planning stops innovation.

Yet for all that failure, whenever another crisis (real or imagined) hits, the natural instinct is to say, “Politicians must do something.”

In my town, unions and civil rights groups demand a higher minimum wage. That sounds good to people. Everyone will get a raise!

The problem is in what is not seen. I can interview the guy who got a raise. I can’t interview workers who are never offered jobs because the minimum wage or high union pay scales “protected” those jobs out of existence.

The benefit of government (SET ITAL) leaving us alone (END ITAL) is rarely intuitive.

Because companies just want to make a buck, it’s logical to assume that only government rules assure workers’ safety. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration sets safety standards for factories, and OSHA officials proudly point out that workplace deaths have dropped since it opened its doors.

Thank goodness for government, right? Well, not so fast. Go back a few years before OSHA, and we find that workplace deaths were dropping just as fast.

Workers are safer today because we are richer, and richer societies care more about safety. Even greedy employers take safety precautions if only because it’s expensive to replace workers who are hurt!

Government is like the person who gets in front of a parade and pretends to lead it.

In a free society, things get better on their own — if government will only allow it.

And this government most certainly won’t. But that’s what the American people wanted, so let them lie down in that bed of mediocrity and socialist utopias.

Maybe all the bed bugs will finally shock them, but I doubt it.

Unenlightened Narcissism has a way of blind the stupid to reality and that is surely the main focus these days.

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

Political Cartoons by Gary McCoy

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

 

Life is Hard…SNAP

Ah, that “roaring back” Obamanomics…Adding more government dependents  to the Democrats’ Voter rolls.

Participation in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or food stamps, reached another high in September, according to new data released by the United Stated Department of Agriculture.

The most recent data on SNAP participation were released Friday, and showed that 47,710,324 people were enrolled in the program in September, an increase of 607,559 from the 47,102,765 enrolled in August.

The number of households enrolled in the program also increased from 22,684,463 in August to 22,973,698 in September, an increase of 289,235. The average benefit, according to the new data, was $134.29 per person and $278.89 per household.

The new numbers mean that an estimated one in 6.5 people in America were on food stamps in September.

In the 1970s, one out of every 50 Americans was on food stamps. Since 2001, spending on the program has quadrupled and doubled in the last four years.

Well, it’s better than depending on oneself. Let someone else pay for it while I kick back and enjoy it.

Government dependency is so much easier than reality and self-reliance. The money will never run out….

And after all, the unemployment rate is “dropping” according to the Ministry of Truth and out Lord and Master, Big Brother Barack. So how can that be? 🙂

99 weeks of Federal unemployment (on top of what the states pay), is not exactly incentive for the freeloader to get off their butts and get a job.

And besides, “the rich” should pay. The poor are owed their “fair share” after all. So why bother being industrious.

Besides, IF YOU ARE Industrious and successful the government will come looking for you to pay “your fair share” anyhow so best to just lay low and just stay in the shadows and collect other people’s money. So what’s on the “View” today?

Then you have a government  that is borrowing $5 Billion dollars a day is not easy to do, and then want to Spend Even More.

So what is a sloth to do but sit in front of their flat screen TV, tweet on their smart phone  (or make calls on their free Obamaphone) and eat their government food and watch “Judge Judy”.

Life is Hard.

And those “tax cuts” that Obama Claus is promising…Well, since they don’t exist and ObamaCare is TAX (just ask the Supreme Court) you’ll not even get a lump of politically incorrect coal in your Obama approved Stocking.

OBAMACARE UPDATE

As I have said before, look up adverse selection sometime, if you understand that, you know why ObamaCare is going to screw, even the poor into the ground.

As the Times reports, chiropractor lobbyists were “out in force” to have their service “included in every state’s package of essential health benefits.” And acupuncture will be mandated in at least four states.

Other coverage mandates that various states have announced they plan to require under ObamaCare include weight-loss surgery and infertility treatment. These are on top of the federal mandates the Obama administration has already announced, including things like “free” preventive service and contraception coverage.

Since health care dollars don’t fall from trees, each of those mandates will end up adding to the cost of insurance. Worse, these mandates will only grow over time.

State governments know this, since they have a long and sordid history of giving in to lobbyist pressure and imposing increasing coverage mandates on state-regulated insurance plans.

States currently impose 2,262 benefit mandates, up from 2,156 the year before, according to the Council for Affordable Health Insurance. There were just 850 mandates in 1992, when CAHI first started tracking them.

Among the more ridiculous are requirements that insurance cover breast implant removal, circumcision, wigs for chemotherapy patients, smoking-cessation service and varicose vein removal.

CAHI figures state mandates add 10% to 50% to the cost of insurance. A report from the Maryland Health Care Commission figures that around 20% of premiums in that state are the result of its 45 benefit mandates.

In addition to preventive-care rules, ObamaCare bans lifetime limits on coverage and puts caps on out-of-pocket costs, each of which will drive up premiums. Its requirement that insurers cover “children” up to 26 years old has already added as much as 3% to premiums, according to Towers Watson.

Along with mandated benefits, ObamaCare declares war on high-deductible health plans proved to hold costs down.

Individual plans won’t be allowed to have a deductible higher than $2,000. This rule will mean that 1-in-7 workers will be forced to take a lower deductible, then pay higher insurance costs as a result.

When Nebraska tried to make a high-deductible plan its benchmark plan under ObamaCare, the administration turned the state down, saying it didn’t meet the law’s requirements.

Even ObamaCare backers admit its benefit mandates — along with insurance market “reforms” — will add significantly to the cost of coverage. Jonathan Gruber, who helped design ObamaCare, studied the law’s effects on individual insurance policies in several states and concluded it will add 30% to those premiums.

Long ago, Obama promised that his medical overhaul would focus entirely on bringing the cost of insurance down.

But the law he’s busy implementing will have the exact opposite effect.

And we’re all going to pay the price. (IBD)

But the dependent class just has to be kept fat, DUMB, and happy (defined as- envious and willfully dumb) and they then won’t bother to notice the same government they think is so great  is robbing them blind.
Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

Food For The Sowell Chapter 2

Political Cartoons by Robert Ariail

President Obama today issued a stern warning to Republicans in Congress threatening to use the debt ceiling as a bargaining chip in deficit negotiations, saying “it is not a game that I will play.”

“I want to send a very clear message to people here: We are not going to play that game next year. If Congress in any way suggests that they’re going to tie negotiations to debt ceiling votes and take us to the brink of default once again as part of a budget negotiation, which, by the way, we have never done in our history until we did it last year, I will not play that game,” Obama told some of the nation’s top CEOs at the Business Roundtable in Washington. “We’ve got to break that habit before it starts.” (ABC)

Detroit wants expects a bailout.

City Council member JoAnn Watson said Tuesday the citizens support of Obama in last month’s election was enough reason for the president to bailout the struggling the city.

“Our people in an overwhelming way supported the re-election of this president and there ought to be a quid pro quo and you ought to exercise leadership on that,” said Watson. “Of course, not just that, but why not?”

Oh goodness.

“After the election of Jimmy Carter, the honorable Coleman Alexander Young, he went to Washington, D.C. and came home with some bacon,” said Watson. “That’s what you do.” (WP)

Detroit is $1.6 Trillion in debt. Detroit has always been a liberal haven, it’s ruin by Unions mostly (yes that was a Freudian slip :)). But this is nakedly, unashamed liberal narcissism.

Bribe them, and they will come (to vote for you) now they want their Ton of bacon! And they want it now!!!!

So they can spread it to all the little bacon-nippers they’ve bribed.

The Circle of Liberal life!

Thomas Sowell: One of the big advantages that President Obama has, as he plays “chicken” with the Congressional Republicans along the “fiscal cliff,” is that Obama is a master of the plausible lie, which will never be exposed by the mainstream media– nor, apparently, by the Republicans.

A key lie that has been repeated over and over, largely unanswered, is that President Bush’s “tax cuts for the rich” cost the government so much lost tax revenue that this added to the budget deficit– so that the government cannot afford to allow the cost of letting the Bush tax rates continue for “the rich.”

Joseph Goebbels: If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.

The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

And with a  24/7/365 Ministry of Truth it is a LOT easier to do.

It sounds very plausible, and constant repetition without a challenge may well be enough to convince the voting public that, if the Republican-controlled House of Representatives does not go along with Barack Obama’s demands for more spending and higher tax rates on the top 2 percent, it just shows that they care more for “the rich” than for the other 98 percent.

What is remarkable is how easy it is to show how completely false Obama’s argument is. That also makes it completely inexplicable why the Republicans have not done so.

The official statistics which show plainly how wrong Barack Obama is can be found in his own “Economic Report of the President” for 2012, on page 411. You can look it up.

You may be able to find a copy of the “Economic Report of the President” for 2012 at your local public library. Or you can buy a hard copy from the Government Printing Office or download an electronic version from the Internet.

For those who find that “a picture is worth a thousand words,” they need only see the graphs published in the November 30th issue of Investor’s Business Daily.

http://www.nber.org/erp/ERP_2012_Complete.pdf

IBD: Turn to Pages 411-413 of his 2012 Economic Report of the President, published by the Council of Economic Advisers. They show that “the math,” as Obama is wont to say, in fact does add up for tax cuts.

After President Bush in late May 2003 signed the largest tax cut since President Reagan — including dropping the top marginal rate to 35% from 39.6% — government receipts from individual income taxes rose from $793.7 billion to a peak of $1.16 trillion in 2007, when the mortgage crisis began, a 47% jump.

Stronger economic growth expanded the tax base and brought in so much revenue that Bush more than halved the deficit over that period. The budget gap plunged to $160.7 billion from $377.6 billion, according to the president’s report.

Perhaps the most impressive statistic appears on Page 412, one that undercuts Obama’s core argument against continuing the Bush tax cuts.

The post-tax-cut surge in economic growth and tax revenues helped drive down the deficit from 3.5% of gross domestic product in 2004 to 2.6% in 2005, to 1.9% in 2006 and to a manageable 1.2% in 2007.

Based on Bush fiscal policies, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projected budget deficits of 0.7% to 1.5% of GDP for the years 2008 through 2011. The CBO even predicted surpluses for the subsequent years through 2018.

What derailed the forecast was the subprime mortgage crisis of 2008.

This financial anomaly threw the economy into a deep recession, beginning in December 2007, and forced a collapse in federal tax revenues.

As a result, the deficit-to-GDP ratio shot up to 10% in 2009 and has remained around that level, thanks to record Obama spending.

(The recession technically ended in June 2009.)

Obama’s economic report shows that the average deficit-to-GDP ratio during the entire Bush administration — 2001 to 2009 — was 2%, which is well below the 50-year average of 3%.

During the Obama years, in contrast, the same deficit ratio has averaged 9.1%.

The Bush tax cuts did not “cost” the Treasury revenues. Nor did they increase income inequality.

When fully implemented, they increased the portion of the income tax burden that fell on the wealthiest Americans.

The top 1% of taxpayers went from paying 38.4% of overall taxes to 39.1%, while the bottom 50% saw their share drop from 3.4% to 3.1%.

And as a percentage of the economy, deficits shrank to historically low levels.

Record red ink flowed much later as the housing market toppled and government spending shot up.

New spending on welfare programs and Obama’s $1.9 trillion national health care entitlement threaten only to compound the budget crisis.

Yet he proposes backloading any promised spending controls while front-loading “revenue increases” from tax hikes. (IBD)

What both the statistical tables in the “Economic Report of the President” and the graphs in Investor’s Business Daily show is that (1) tax revenues went up– not down– after tax rates were cut during the Bush administration, and (2) the budget deficit declined, year after year, after the cut in tax rates that have been blamed by Obama for increasing the deficit.

Indeed, the New York Times reported in 2006: “An unexpectedly steep rise in tax revenues from corporations and the wealthy is driving down the projected budget deficit this year.”

While the New York Times may not have expected this, there is nothing unprecedented about lower tax rates leading to higher tax revenues, despite automatic assumptions by many in the media and elsewhere that tax rates and tax revenues automatically move in the same direction. They do not.

The Congressional Budget Office has been embarrassed repeatedly by making projections based on the assumption that tax revenues and tax rates move in the same direction.

This has happened as recently as the George W. Bush administration and as far back as the Reagan administration. Moreover, tax revenues went up when tax rates went down, as far back as the Coolidge administration, before there was a Congressional Budget Office to make false predictions.

The bottom line is that Barack Obama’s blaming increased budget deficits on the Bush tax cuts is demonstrably false. What caused the decreasing budget deficits after the Bush tax cuts to suddenly reverse and start increasing was the mortgage crisis. The deficit increased in 2008, followed by a huge increase in 2009.

So it is sheer hogwash that “tax cuts for the rich” caused the government to lose tax revenues. The government gained tax revenues, not lost them. Moreover, “the rich” paid a larger amount of taxes, and a larger share of all taxes, after the tax rates were cut.

That is because people change their economic behavior when tax rates are changed, contrary to what the Congressional Budget Office and others seem to assume, and this can stimulate the economy more than a government “stimulus” has done under either Bush or Obama.

Yet there is no need to assume that Barack Obama is mistaken about the way to get the economy out of the doldrums. His top priority has always been increasing the size and scope of government. If that means sacrificing the economy or the truth, that is no deterrent to Obama. That is why he is willing to play chicken with Republicans along the fiscal cliff.

The end justify the means.  It’s only “fair” 🙂

Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert

Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

 

Mythbusting

For decades, “fairness” has been liberal Democrats’ outcry against demands for lower taxes. The rich, President Obama endlessly contends, don’t pay “their fair share.”

Well, as usual, it’s less than honest. Gee what a shocker…

A new study from the Tax Foundation found the number of those filing tax returns who pay no income taxes now numbers over 58 million, amounting to a staggering 41% of all tax returns. Compare that with 1990, when only about 21% of tax returns were found to have no tax liability.

What’s more, the median income of these nonpayers has increased by 40% in just nine years. “The threshold at which a typical married couple with two children will likely be a nonpayer is now $47,000,” the Tax Foundation found.

The primary reason? Big government’s tentacles, in the form of cash payments via the soaring expansion of refundable tax credits. “In 1990, the combined value of these credits was roughly $20 billion after adjusting for inflation,” the study notes. By 2000, it was $46.5 billion.

“A decade later,” however, “the combined budgetary cost of both the basic and refundable tax credits reached a remarkable $224 billion in 2010.”

As the foundation’s Scott Hodge cautions, “These credits not only have a major budgetary cost — both in terms of the lost revenue and the outlay cost for the refundable portion — they undermine the financial stability of the government by narrowing the tax base, and disconnect people from the basic cost of government.”

A tax-cut-oriented simplification of the IRS code — so urgently needed today — will soon be politically impossible because of so many millions off the income-tax rolls, an increasing number of them middle-class.

People who aren’t paying taxes, yet who are enjoying government dependency in various areas of their lives, aren’t going to give the time of day to politicians who seek to cut taxes. (IBD)

Tax cuts as bad for the economy or bad for the “poor and the middle class”. They are “unfair”. That mantra is already here.

The Government taking less of your money is now a bad thing.

Orwell would be proud.

Fascinating…:)

An affiliate of NBC speaking heresy:

The presidential election has given us two myths about the rich. First, that their incomes, and income inequality, are at all-time highs. Second, that the wealthy pay less in taxes than ever, and lower taxes than the rest of us.

A recent report from the Congressional Budget Office, however, suggests that both may be false. (http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43373)

Let’s consider income first. Between 2007 and 2009, after-tax earnings by Americans in the top one percent for income fell 37 percent. On a pre-tax basis they fell 36 percent in the same period.

That may sound like a minor haircut for One Percenters compared to people who lost their jobs. But when you take into account federal transfers, assistance and taxes paid, the incomes of the bottom 20 percent grew by 3 percent, while it fell a modest 2 percent for the middle 20 percent.

In other words, the incomes of the top one percent fell 18 times more than the incomes for the middle class at the start of the recession.

Change in after-income tax (2007-2009)

The result of this big drop at the top was that their share of the country’s total income also fell. In 2007, the top one percent earned 16.7 percent of all after-tax income. In 2009, that portion fell to 11.5 percent.

Inequality, in other words, fell during those years.  We are now in an age of High-Beta Wealth, where the incomes of the One Percent have become far more manic and prone to wild drops than the rest of the country.

And taxes paid? Despite the oft-repeated fact that tax rates for the wealthy are at an all-time low (which is true), it’s also true that the actual amount paid in taxes by the wealthy is higher than before the recession.

Share of Income

The One Percent paid an average effective tax rate of 28.9 percent on their income — far more than any other group, and more than twice the average effective rate of the middle class, who paid 11 percent on average.

So the rich lost more income and paid more of their money in taxes than the rest of the population.

This is not an argument against taxing the wealthy. And the incomes and tax rates of the wealthy may have jumped back since 2009, with the rebound in financial markets.

But when politicians and pundits talk about the rich just getting richer and paying less taxes, they need to pay closer attention to the actual numbers.

Average Federal Tax Rates, 1979 to 2009

Top 10 Places to find a 1%er:

10. Seattle

9. Boston

8. Atlanta

7. Dallas

6. Houston

5. Washington D.C.

4. Chicago

3. San Francisco

2. Los Angeles

1. New York City

(source CNBC)

Notice anything about the the Top 5?

Government and Liberals. Hmmm…

What a coincidence!! 🙂

But the Left will ignore it and you. They don’t care…

NOVEMBER IS COMING

Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert

 

Woo Hoo! Doughnuts…

Political Cartoon

Woo-Hoo! The Democrats blinked. This time.

Half darn.

We get the pork laden Stimulus II, known as the “Tax Deal”. But we don’t get the 6,488 earmark pork laden Omnibus Bill.

So we get $1 trillion in spending instead of 2. Yipeee….

But I guess it’s a start.

But what is fun is the President went to mat for TAX “CUTS” for “The Rich”. How Bush of him. 🙂

And watching the Democrats rail against Deficit spending is a cynics wet dream of hilarity. Nothing on earth is this funny for a cynic like me.

And their sanctimony about the earmarks was just hilarious.

Obama is telling members of Congress that failure to pass the tax-cut legislation could result in the end of his presidency, Rep. Peter DeFazio (Ore.) said. (remember that from the health care cram down)

“The White House is putting on tremendous pressure, making phone calls, the president is making phone calls saying this is the end of his presidency if he doesn’t get this bad deal,” he told CNN’s Eliot Spitzer.

But the White House shot back late on Wednesday.

“The president hasn’t said anything remotely like that and has never spoken with Mr. DeFazio about the issue,” said White House spokesman Tommy Vietor.

Obama’s push shows that the president is going to the mat in order to push through Congress the compromise brokered with Republicans. (The Hill)

And the 111th Congress has the lowest approval rating since most of them were 60’s hippie radicals. Gallup reports it at 13%.

Even the super liberals over at CBS and The New York Times has it at 17%.

But it’s not like this Congress actually gave a crap about what anyone thought because the Agenda was The Agenda.

Political Cartoon

Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, DREAM Act, and START are much more important to Liberals. They are on The Agenda!

They just didn’t have the votes for the Omnibus Pork bill. Otherwise, Harry Reid was threatening to keep everyone through Christmas hostage until they passed their agenda (and still is because this was only 1 of the items).

“We have a constitutional duty to do congressionally directed spending and I don’t want to give up that responsibility,” Reid told reporters. “I can’t understand why some of our more conservative members here want to give up their power. I don’t understand that.”
So Harry believes that he has a Constitutional duty to pass Pork after Pork after Pork.
To bring home the Bacon.
It’s the Drug Dealer and Drug Addict in him rationalizing his Drug Use.
“But it was only a small amount”… “It’s no big deal”…
These guys needs a 1-step program: Just Say No!
They’ll have delirium tremens that will shake the earth out of orbit. But it would be worth it if we could pull it off.
But We the People who have been hooked on thi money by the Pusher Addicts in Washington also have to stop.
DT Symptoms may get worse rapidly, and can include:

* Body tremors
* Mental status changes
o Agitation, irritability
o Confusion, disorientation
o Decreased attention span
o Decreased mental status
+ Deep sleep that persists for a day or longer
+ Stupor, sleepiness, lethargy
+ Usually occurs after acute symptoms
o Delirium (severe, acute loss of mental functions)
o Excitement
o Fear
o Hallucinations (such as seeing or feeling things that are not present are most common)
o Highly sensitive to light, sound, touch
o Increased activity
o Mood changes rapidly
o Restlessness, excitement

Sounds like the Democrats. Anyone for  rehab? 🙂

Jim Manley, spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, agreed, though with a far less triumphant tone.

“Today’s maneuvers demonstrate that the House and Senate Republican leadership from here on out should be considered a wholly owned subsidiary of the Tea Party,” Manley said.

What’s wrong with that? The People are the Tea Party.

It’s better than the Democrats who are a wholly owned subsidiary of The Marxist Left.

Michelle Malkin: No matter how soothing the White House overtures to business leaders sounded this week, an inconvenient fact remains: Washington is gripped by crab-in-the-bucket syndrome. And there’s no cure in sight.

Put a single crab in an uncovered bucket, and it will find a way to climb up and out on its own. Put a dozen crabs in a bucket, and 11 will fight with all their might to pull down the striver who attempts escape. President Obama sought to reassure 20 CEOs that he wasn’t the king crab holding them down: “I want to dispel any notion we want to inhibit your success,” he cooed. “We want to be boosters because when you do well, America does well.”

Take it all with a huge grain of sea salt.

This is, after all, the same “booster” who in April mused openly about limits on profits, government determinations for what constitutes a “good” product or service, and the expectation that private businesses serve a collective need to goose Washington’s jobs numbers. “I mean, I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money,” the president said. “But, you know, part of the American way is, you know, you can just keep on making it if you’re providing a good product or providing good service. We don’t want people to stop, ah, fulfilling the core responsibilities of the financial system to help grow our economy.”

Our Founding Fathers had quite a different view of “the American way,” of course. In 1816, Thomas Jefferson wrote: “To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.”

But like a success inhibitor injected into the body politic, Obama’s policies have only served to suppress growth, punish ambition and discourage profit-maximizers. He has railed against “fat cats” on Wall Street while protecting his favored financial industry benefactors. He threatened to “kick” the “a**es” of oil industry executives while refusing to punish the scientific lies and distortions of his own job-killing environmental czars and bureaucrats. He inveighed against the U.S. Chamber of Commerce for collecting dues from international affiliates while ignoring the same practices among deep-pocketed unions. And he bemoaned tax relief for “millionaires and billionaires” that would actually benefit wealth-producing couples who annually earn more than $250,000 and individuals who earn $200,000 or more.

Most small-business owners will tell you they don’t want Obama “boosting” them. They just want him to get out of the way. But none of them was represented at his CEO shindig. Instead, among the business “leaders” the White House invited was billionaire Penny Pritzker — a Chicago crony, Democratic fundraiser/bundler and heiress whose family co-owned a failed subprime specialty bank.

While Obama, the olive-branch poseur, has called for a restoration of “civility” in Washington and liberal elites whine and whinny about the need for “no labels,” class-warfare demagoguery has metastasized unchecked.

Socialist Bernie Sanders took to the Senate floor to filibuster tax relief for all Americans last week in a ponderous, eight-and-a-half-hour harangue against “greed,” the “rich,” “richer” and “richest,” and “millionaires and billionaires” he had the audacity to liken to “bandits.” On the House side, N.Y. Democratic Rep. Joe Crowley attacked the GOP as the party of the wealthy and compared all people who earn more than $250,000 a year to the late convicted tax evader Leona Helmsley and her Maltese doggie heir.

The left wastes no opportunity to blame tea party and talk radio rhetoric for violent acts by lone nuts. But when a suspected serial arsonist (still on the loose) burns down expensive homes in an upscale Cape Cod neighborhood and spray-paints “f**k the rich” graffiti at the crime scenes, the “words-have-consequences” crowd is nowhere to be found. Such is the silence of the crabs.

The Silence of The Crabs… 🙂

Political Cartoon

Political Cartoon

 

Predictions

My predictions: The lame Duck Democrats will proclaim victory if- a) They get one or more of their AGENDA items crammed through or b) get the republicans to agree to a “compromise” and put a huge tax increase on “the rich”.

Thus when the economy stalls because of it, it’s “The Republican’s fault”.

I think more likely, the Congress will simply go home in 2 weeks having done nothing as the Democrats will simply punt on the issue. And it will be the “republican’s fault” when they do.

Make no mistake, the hyper-partisan Democrats are the ones left in Congress and they will still press on. Because they don’t believe the elections were about them, specifically. They are far too superior and their faith in their own superiority is too strong.

So when the new Congress is sworn in, I’d give them generously to the end of the month before the liberal media is all over like they were starting in 2003 but really ramped up after it didn’t work in 2004. And that’s being very generous.

The Democrats who have been whining about not having enough time to implement their plans and “lack of communication” will suddenly turn on a dime and the Republicans will not be given time to implement anything because if it it is not an instant success (almost overnight) the  Democrats and the Ministry of Truth 2012 Republican Destruction Machine will kick in again and it will be endlessly bad news.

Oh, and the Republicans won’t have “inherited” the problem from the Democrats, by the way. At least according to them and their liberal media friends.

They will just be blamed for causing it and for being unable to fix it. So fundamentally, we need the Democrats to finish what was so rudely and crudely (and ignorantly) interrupted by the 2010 election.

And even if the Republican do work it, the Democrats will take all the glory for themselves and The Obama 2012 Re-Election Campaign and the media will be happy to jump gleefully on that bandwagon.

If there isn’t instant prosperity, it’s the Republicans fault. And if the economy does improve that’s the Democrats socialist crapola “working” finally and it was just ye of little faith that doubted their superiority.

Damned if they do, damned if they don’t. But at least it won’t be Obama and The Democrats fault! 🙂

It will be  that transparent.

The key is to not let them get away with it like they did from 2005-2010.

That’s what has to happen.

As a side note to the Angelina Jolie, Thanksgiving is “murder” snipet a few days ago and her disgust with the holiday and how she wasn’t going to be in this country for it. I joked to myself, she’ll be in France instead. And sure enough, she was spotted in Paris with her family.

After all, it’s so much more civilized over there… 🙂

And now that Julian Asage, the WikiLeaker has now savaged Obama will the Democrats finally decide that all this leaking of allegedly classified (allegedly only because if it was truly classified security would be better than it is) documents to embarrass and destroy America is actually treasonous and has to be dealt with severely?

Doubt it. They don’t have the backbone for it.

So, my ultimate prediction is Hyper-partisanship and a Liberal Media behind it.

In other words, more of the same.

The wild card could be  foreign policy, a topic that bores our dear President to death, especially since he’s no longer a rock-star, but a weak, ineffective,loser.

His be nice to everyone and hope they like us, they really, really do like us strategy is so tediously silly it’s nauseating, but very liberal and Very, very Politically Correct.

He can also just use the liberal courts, the EPA, The NLRB and other instruments of government to go around the people and the Congress if need be. After all, he is so vastly smarter and more intellectually superior than you simple folk.

The Agenda is the Agenda!

Sad really…Hope I’m wrong. But I doubt it… 😦

 

WE Know Better

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

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

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

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

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

The Truth always threatens liberals.

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please save us from the intellectuals. (David Limbaugh)

AMEN!

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

The Honeymoon

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So instead they will play chicken.

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

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

So there are no “cuts”.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So the honeymoon is over. The abusive relationship resumes.

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

The Agenda is The Agenda!

All Hail the mighty Progressive Liberal Agenda!

Political Cartoon by Chuck Asay
Political Cartoon by Eric Allie

Chicken for The Holidays,Anyone?

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

Thomas Sowell:

Another deficit reduction commission has now made its recommendations. My own recommendation for dealing with deficits would include stopping the appointment of deficit reduction commissions.

It is not the amount of money that these commissions cost that is the issue. It is the escape hatch that they provide for big-spending politicians.

Do you go ahead and spend the rent money and the food money– and then ask somebody else to tell you how to escape the consequences?

If President Obama or the Congress were serious about keeping the deficit down, they could have had this commission’s recommendations before they spent hundreds of billions of dollars, handing out goodies hither and yon to their pet constituencies.

I don’t know why people agree to serve on these bipartisan commissions, which save the political hides of the big spenders after they have run up huge deficits. Back in the 1950s, there was a saying: “If you didn’t invite me to the take-off, don’t invite me to the crash landing.”

Deficit commissions make it politically possible to spend money first and get somebody else to recommend raising taxes later. They are a virtual guarantee of never-ending increases in both spending and taxes.

Why provide political cover? Leave the big spenders out there naked in front of the voters! Either the elected officials will change their ways or the voters can change the officials they elect.

There is no special information or wisdom available to unelected deficit commissions that is not available to elected officials. Nor are they more far-seeing than politicians.

Cutting defense spending to save money? That is one of the oldest moves in the liberal play book. Some soldiers may pay with their lives for this, but that could be years from now– and after the next election, which is as far as most politicians think.

The biggest immediate tax issue is whether the Bush tax cuts will be extended for everyone. Here, as elsewhere in politics, sheer hogwash reigns supreme.

Nancy Pelosi claims that the “tax cuts for the rich” cannot be continued because it would be “too costly.” Although former Republican Majority Leader Dick Armey says, “Demagoguery beats data” in politics, here are some data anyway.

The first big cut in income taxes came in the 1920s, at the urging of Secretary of the Treasury Andrew Mellon. He argued that a reduction of the tax rates would increase the tax revenues. What actually happened?

In 1920, when the top tax rate was 73 percent, for people making over $100,000 a year, the federal government collected just over $700 million in income taxes– and 30 percent of that was paid by people making over $100,000. After a series of tax cuts brought the top rate down to 24 percent, the federal government collected more than a billion dollars in income tax revenue– and people making over $100,000 a year now paid 65 percent of the taxes.

How could that be? The answer is simple: People behave differently when tax rates are high as compared to when they are low. With low tax rates, they take their money out of tax shelters and put it to work in the economy, benefitting themselves, the economy and government, which collects more money in taxes because incomes rise.

High tax rates which very few people are actually paying, because of tax shelters, do not bring in as much revenue as lower tax rates that people are paying. It was much the same story after tax cuts during the Kennedy administration, the Reagan administration and the Bush Administration.

The New York Times reported in 2006: “An unexpectedly steep rise in tax revenues from corporations and the wealthy is driving down the projected budget deficit this year.”

Expectations are in the eyes of the beholder– and in the rhetoric of the demagogues. If class warfare is more important to some politicians than collecting more revenue when there is a deficit, then let the voters know that.

And spare us so-called “deficit reduction commissions.”

Political Cartoon by Bob Gorrell

Or my take, it was “I’m too chicken” so we’ll let someone propose solutions, take the heat, then we can shoot them down as too extreme and then continue doing what we have always done knowing we avoided those “extreme” examples and we can play act at doing something meaningful but not actually do anything for real.

Only, the Tea Partiers like me aren’t that stupid and inattentive. Which is why the media and the Democrats will have to go after them as “extremists” and “lunatics” and “crazy” as they have for since last summer when it all began.

Some in the Republican establishment, the old boys spending club, may join in on the chorus just because they like the way it has been, for them. Think of all that pork. The favors. The graft. The power…

But if you want to know what inflation is truly like see: http://www.westegg.com/inflation/

That $100,000 in 1920 mentioned above in Thomas Sowell’s editorial piece is  $1,061,696.17 in 2009.

That me old mates is 1000% inflation in the 90 years since the Progressive Liberals first dreamed of Obama’s Utopia.

But now instead of Millionaires, their class warfare line in the sand is $250,000.

Below it is, “Middle Class”. Above it ‘evil’ “rich”.

Notice, they don’t say “poor”. 🙂 because they leave that for later when they divide the middle class up over other things.

FYI: by the calculator $250,000 in 2000 when Satan (GWB) was elected and that same amount in 2009 is $308,391.49 which 18% .

So does 250,000 really constitute “rich” or was this just a line the Liberal decided on arbitrarily like throwing a dart, and then it became a mantra so that if you tell it often enough it becomes true?

You decide.

There are hard, nasty, very unpopular choices to be made. And a “commission” is a political game of chicken. Period.

Man up Congress. You made the mess. The people helped you create the mess. Now you have fix it.

Or Else.

Oh, and 1/1/11 is approaching very fast….

Political Cartoon by Lisa Benson
Political Cartoon by Eric Allie

The Opium Den

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

The Ship of State 🙂

“You’ll have to pass the bill to find out what’s in it” -Soon-to-be Ex-Speaker Pelosi.

Sounds a bit like the “Let’s make a Deal” and the Zonk was crammed down your throat because it was the right thing to do! 😦

If you want to know why Washington can’t control entitlement spending, there’s no better example than the regular ritual surrounding Medicare payments to physicians.

It has been going on for more than a decade, and it follows a consistent script. Congress faces a deadline to adjust Medicare reimbursements to a sustainable growth rate (SGR) established in a 1997 law. But Congress has never trimmed payments to anything near the levels demanded by the SGR formula, and it’s too late to play catch-up.

The looming cut is alarmingly large — so large that there’s no way it can stick. The American Medical Association then makes a fuss, raises the specter of doctors fleeing Medicare en masse, scares the seniors and forces Congress to come up with a short-term patch that holds the line on pay for a year or so and maybe even raises it a bit.

So the can gets kicked down the road, and Medicare keeps eating up a larger share of gross domestic product.

More than 60% of yearly spending is devoted to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid and Defense apart from war expenditures. Budgetary discipline is impossible without a no-holds-barred discussion of demography, increased longevity and the national-security perils of unsustainable national debt.(IBD)

And then there’s Social Security, which the government’s main dependency weapon. But also they can’t privatize it because they stole the money decades ago but will never admit it.

Then there are the public sector government unions and their out of control, over the top salaries and lavish Rolls Royce pensions and benefits.

Yet, in California alone, nearly 10,000 retirees will get pension checks totaling at least $100,000 this year (that’s a Billion dollars a year folks in just 1 state! and these people typically can retire in their 50’s so could collect 30-40 BILLION dollars over time!)

And California just re-elected,after 30 years out of office, a massive Liberal, Jerry Brown.

Joshua Rauh, associate professor of finance at at Northwestern University, estimates that 20 states will run out of pension money by 2025.

The pension doomsday clocks in Illinois and New Jersey will strike even sooner, in 2018, he said. (MSNBC)

Social Security and Medicare are also headed for doomsday in the next generation.

In New Jersey, for example, the state is obligated to pay pensions out of the general fund when the pension fund runs dry. In 2018, the state will owe $14 billion in pension payouts, or one-third of the state’s annual tax receipts. To put that in perspective, to plug a budget hole like that this year, the state would have to cut all education spending. That bears repeating: It would have to eliminate spending on every elementary school, high school and college from its budget.

Another common pension abuse is “double-dipping” – a practice in which employees retire and start collecting their pension, then are rehired to perform their old job at their old salary. It’s a common practice for government workers around the country, despite many rules forbidding it.  Workers often argue that they have earned their pension and their right to retire, and if they decide to work during retirement, they’re entitled.  But the logic there is deeply flawed, said Dean.

“Pensions were designed to make sure government workers were allowed to grow old with dignity, not to make them rich,” he said.

And the poster child for that is Phoenix’s own Chief of Police (with help from his good buddy Mayor Phil “flash” Gordon) Jack “The Hack” Harris.

He retired as chief in 2007 and began collecting a $90,000 pension. Two weeks later, he was hired for essentially the same job, retitled “public safety manager,” and granted a salary of $193,000.

And Mayor Phil is a Pro-Illegal, “soak the rich” progressive Liberal!

Liberals love to dip into other people’s pockets and manipulate the system for their own advantage and then blame it on greedy “rich” people and conservatives/republicans.

Well, I guess I wouldn’t be poor either if I had a $90,000 pension and a $193,000 job all at taxpayer expense!!

But undoubtedly I’d be a racist! 🙂

A 30-year government worker with a final salary of $80,000 could expect an annual pension of roughly $55,000, or about $4,600 per month for life, under the current scheme. (And could easily be in their 50’s)

To earn that kind of guaranteed monthly income, a 401(k) saver would need $1 million in their retirement account, assuming $100,000 in savings can generate $400 in monthly income.

While it’s not impossible to grow a 401(k) to those lofty levels, it is rare.  In fact, 50 percent of Americans who have 401(k) accounts have less than $35,000 in them. Contrast that with our 30-year government workers who can all expect predictable pension checks.

So expect a furious battle as state governments attempt to reign in pension costs. (MSNBC)

And you get the Unions “outraged” and etc and that’s why they support the liberals in the Democrat party, because they will just keep paying them out and blaming someone else (“The rich”) for it.

We are on pace to soon owe 100% of our annual gross domestic product in national debt, while compiling the largest annual peacetime deficits in our history.

And what will happen when the pain comes?

Lots of crying and nashing of teeth and blaming “the rich”. But mostly, it will be the new NIMBY Principle. Not in my Back pocket You!

“Someone else” has to pay for my sins. Not Me. “Them”.

Sorry, but it’s YOU. Me. and that Grand Piano of neglected debt, avarice, and delusion staring down at you!

That’s the REAL TRUTH.

You aren’t required to like it.

It just is.

Deal with it.

The Free Ride is over. It’s time to roll up your selves, feel the pain, and get it done.

But first you have to De-tox the patient. And these DT’s are going to be a near stoke.

But as anyone who has ever kicked an addiction knows, you have to want to change first. And there in lies the real problem.

The patient knows he’s very sick, possibly morbidly so, but when the doctor prescribes the cure the patient is going to wail like a banshee and kick and scream and throw a tantrum.

Think I overstate, just wait and see.

And the Liberal Media and The Democrats will play the head drug pusher tempting you back into the opium den.

Think I overstate, just wait and see.

I think not.

And look at it this way: In terms of our collective health and national security, a budget surplus is probably worth more than an expanded federal health care entitlement, another Social Security cost-of-living increase or a new aircraft carrier.

But no pain, no gain!

So do you want another hit of Opium??

Political Cartoon by Michael Ramirez

Putting the *Me* in Mea Culpa

Back in early 2009, President-elect Barack Obama was asked on “Meet the Press” how quickly he could create jobs. Oh, very fast, he said. He’d already consulted with a gaggle of governors, and “all of them have projects that are shovel-ready.” When Obama revealed the members of his energy team, he explained that they were part of his effort to get started on “shovel-ready projects all across the country.” When he unveiled his education secretary, he assured everyone that he was going to get started “helping states and local governments with shovel-ready projects.”

In interviews, job summits and press conferences, it was shovel-ready this, shovel-ready that. Search the White House website for the term “shovel-ready” and you’ll drown in press releases about all the shovels ready to shove shovel-ready projects into the 21st century, where no shovel is left behind.

Only now it turns out that the president was shoveling something all right when he was talking about shovel-ready jobs — a whole pile of steaming something. (Jonah Goldberg)

In the magazine article, Mr. Obama reflects on his presidency, admitting that he let himself look too much like “the same old tax-and-spend Democrat,” realized too late that “there’s no such thing as shovel-ready projects” and perhaps should have “let the Republicans insist on the tax cuts” in the stimulus.

http://www.ihatethemedia.com/obama-no-shovel-ready-jobs-krauthammer-pounces

“Well, that is quite an admission. You know, a year and a half and half a trillion dollars later he says these things that I talked about endlessly don’t exist (“shovel ready jobs”). It’s not actually surprising that he doesn’t know what a shovel ready project is. Having never worked in the private sector he wouldn’t be sure what a project is and there isn’t a lot of shoveling at Harvard Law School.” So I can understand that this was one of the greatest “Oops” in American history. And it’s going to be hard for a democrat when you show one tape against another. They’re goint to say, “So you supported a trillion dollars offered by a president who didn’t even know that this stuff that this stuff is not going to happen?”– Charles Krauthammer

And somehow now, as president, things are messy and they don’t always work as planned and people are mad at us,” Mr. Obama said. (New York Times)

DOH!
It’s not that Obama was lying when he said all that stuff. It’s just that he didn’t know what he was talking about. All it took was nearly a trillion dollars in stimulus money and 20-plus months of on-the-job training for him to discover that he was talking nonsense.
But does he really mean it?
Hell No. it’s just a cynical political ploy to garner sympathy and evoke fake pathos.
How do I know, well…

When the Republicans and the American people thump him, well that just means you’ll have to kiss his ass even more.

In an hour-long interview with the Times’s White House correspondent, Peter Baker, Mr. Obama predicted that his political rivals would either be chastened by falling short of their electoral goals (complete takeover of both House and Senate) or burdened with the new responsibility that comes from achieving them.

“It may be that regardless of what happens after this election, they feel more responsible, either because they didn’t do as well as they anticipated, and so the strategy of just saying no to everything and sitting on the sidelines and throwing bombs didn’t work for them,” Mr. Obama said. “Or they did reasonably well, in which case the American people are going to be looking to them to offer serious proposals and work with me in a serious way.”

Essentially, it comes down to: Remember all the things I said repeatedly on the campaign trail and then as President, well, I guess I didn’t know what the hell I was talking about and I should have been more understanding of Republicans, so don’t vote my party out of office because we are totally incompetent and tone deaf. I’m sorry.

Where’s my barf bag?

“Given how much stuff was coming at us,” Obama explains, “we probably spent much more time trying to get the policy right than trying to get the politics right. There is probably a perverse pride in my administration — and I take responsibility for this; this was blowing from the top — that we were going to do the right thing, even if short-term it was unpopular. And I think anybody who’s occupied this office has to remember that success is determined by an intersection in policy and politics and that you can’t be neglecting of marketing and PR and public opinion.” (New York Times)

So that’s why you were on TV every 5 minutes during the Health care debate and had town halls and press conferences, meet and greets, and now backyard meetings and arena-sized multi-media events, because you weren’t doing enough PR.

Barf bag Alert!

This is an old progressive lament: Our product is perfect, we just didn’t sell it convincingly to the rubes.

I’m sorry you’re too stupid and unenlightened to understand how fantastic I am and how fantastic our Socialist Utopia is.

We don’t want to work with you Mr. President. WE WANT TO STOP YOU!

PERIOD!

But you’re too narcissistic to even see that!

The mea culpa that is more about ME than culpa. 🙂

“Historically, when you look at how America has evolved, typically we make progress on race relations in fits and starts,” President Obama said at a town hall event with young Americans.

The “casted” MTV special that is.

He then suggested that the recession has played a part in driving racial antagonism while he has been in office.

Yeah, Democrats and Liberals calling everyone who disagrees with them a racist at the drop of any hat has nothing to do with it! 🙂

Opposition to the “first black President” must be racist. But that has nothing to do with the rise in racial tensions.

“Often times misunderstandings and antagonisms surface most strongly when times are tough. And that’s not surprising,” Mr. Obama said, arguing that Americans are less worried when things are going well.

How would he know, it’s only gotten worse under his watch.

He added that anxiety over not being able to pay bills – or having lost a job or a home – sometimes “organizes itself around kind of a tribal attitude, and issues of race become more prominent.”

So is that why Democrats, especially Southern Democrats, were against freeing the slaves or Civil Rights or Women’s Sufferage?

No.

But it sounds good. It’s complete diversionary crap. But I sounds good.

If everyone was wonderful and we all lived in the Socialist Utopia that’s in his head there would be no strife.

Kumbuya!

“We’ve got a little bit of everybody in this country,” the president said, arguing that “our strength comes from unity, not division.”

So that’s why I’ve spent the last 2 years dividing people in to “rich” and “poor”, “black”, “white”, “latino” , “Main Street”, Wall Street”, Tea Partiers and Government Union Thugs, Socialists and Capitalists, haves and have nots, the insured and the uninsured, the legal and the illegal (sorry, undocumented).

I want to unite people behind dividing and conquering them.

Orwell would be proud of you my son.

As would your soul brother, Saul Alinsky.

But don’t worry, you’re just a racist if you disagree. 🙂

Veteran Democratic operative Pat Caddell is unloading on the White House, saying he’s had enough with the president whose “hypocrisy” on campaign finance “is just mind-blowing.”

President Obama has made a point while campaigning to call out conservative-leaning groups for hurting the integrity of elections by not voluntarily disclosing donors. Caddell says Obama has no room to talk.

“My problem with Obama started the day he blew up public financing of presidential campaigns,” Caddell said in an interview with The Daily Caller. “He’s the man whose done the most to destroy whatever integrity there was in campaign financing.”

Obama declined public funding of his presidential campaign in 2008.

His entire campaign, some $750 Billion dollars was funded by “private” donations. 🙂

People like Foreign socialist Billionaire and his moveon.org and other tentacles had nothing to do with it.

Caddell, who has worked for a number of presidential campaigns, including Joe Biden’s in 1988, said making outside money an election issue is a risky strategy for the Democrats. “You’re 21 days out from an election and this is what you’ve got? That’s it? Nothing about jobs or the economy?”

It won’t be pretty for his party, Caddell says. “Come the morning of November 2, they’re going to have a cold shower. It’s going to be an Arctic temperature.”

Caddell also took a swing at Obama’s inner circle.

“These are naive idiots who’ve come out of academia and have never done anything real in their lives, and they are actually in power,” he said. “These are the people we never let in the room when we had serious business to do. Now they’re running the country.”

And they will say or do anything to keep it.

And use anyone to keep as much of it as possible.

First Lady Michelle Obama reportedly violated Illinois election laws by encouraging voters to support President Obama at a polling place in Chicago Thursday morning.

Election laws in Illinois prohibit anyone from engaging in “any political discussion within any polling place,” or “within 100 feet of any polling place.”

The first lady was reportedly speaking with other voters in a polling place and urged them to keep President Obama’s agenda going.

“Technical violation, perhaps. But what are mere technical violations of voting laws to the Obama administration!” said Tom Fitton, President of Judicial Watch, a conservative, non-partisan, public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption.

Illinois law has a broad-ban on any person engaging in political discussion within the polling place.

“Even if her conversations didn’t constitute electioneering, they almost certainly violated the broader Sec. 17-29 ban on engaging in ‘any political discussion within any polling place,’” said Charlie Spies, an election attorney with Clark Hill, PLC. (Drudge)

But don’t expect anyone on the Democrat side to care. Hell, they don’t care if you stand outside the polling place with truncheons and yell racial hatred as long as you’re black and a Democrat. So why would this bother them?
After all, it’s all about them. And him, Obama, specifically.
Obama likes to win, too, of course. But he is so ideological, so deeply marinated in leftism (he picked up the false accusation about the Chamber of Commerce, for example, from a left-wing website), that asking him to compromise with Republicans may well cause a system crash. Though he now acknowledges that “there’s no such thing as shovel-ready projects,” he continues to see his presidency in such empyrean terms (and his opponents as so lacking in good faith) that compromise seems remote.–Mona Charen
Maybe it’s unfair for people to think Obama is just another tax-and-spend Democrat. After all, some tax-and-spend Democrats are actually competent at it.-Jonah Goldberg
Or maybe it’s not. After all, he puts the Me in Mea Culpa!
Political Cartoon by Jerry Holbert

It isn’t easy being Liberal

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

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

I love it! 🙂

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

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

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

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

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

*****

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

ETU ORSZAG!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Safety Net

“It’s very sad. I think it’s just illustrating what dire straits our federal government budget is in,” said Sheila Zedlewski, director of the Urban Institute’s Income and Benefits Center. “It’s unprecedented to raid one safety net program to feed another.”

Democrats who reluctantly slashed a food stamp program to fund a state aid bill may have to do so again to pay for a top priority of first lady Michelle Obama.

The House will soon consider an $8 billion child nutrition bill that’s at the center of the first lady’s “Let’s Move” initiative. Before leaving for the summer recess, the Senate passed a smaller version of the legislation that is paid for by trimming the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, commonly known as food stamps.

The proposed cuts would come on top of a 13.6 percent food stamp reduction in the $26 billion Medicaid and education state funding bill that President Obama signed this week.

Food stamps have made multiple appearances on the fiscal chopping block because Democrats have few other places to turn to offset the cost of legislation.

Party leaders raided the budget to find off-setting tax increases and spending cuts to pay for their top legislative priorities, including the roughly $900 billion health care law.

Democrats have turned to the food stamp program because funding increases enacted in the stimulus package last year were already scheduled to phase out over time. The changes proposed in the state aid and nutrition bills would simply cut off that increase early, in March 2014. Because the cuts would not take effect for more than three years, Democratic leaders have voiced the hope that they will be able to stop them in future legislation.

But House liberals are balking now, saying that while they swallowed the food stamp cuts to pay for urgent funding for Medicaid and teachers, they will not vote for more cuts in the child nutrition bill.

A House leadership aide noted that the food stamp decrease approved in the state aid bill will not take effect right away and will leave the program at the same funding level it was at before the stimulus law was signed. “That doesn’t mean many Democrats are not concerned about the issue, but this is a process which gives us time to deal with immediate issues (like jobs) and helping the economy grow, while giving you time to deal with the food stamp issue,” the aide said. (The Hill)

In other words, the card shuffling rob Peter-to-Pay-Paul-Wimpy-I’ll Pay you tomorrow for a hamburger (or food stamp)-today economics may be running a bit thin.

The idea that you can pay for massive spending with cuts 3 years from now in the hope that everything will be fine and and you won’t have to cut them in 3 years is some how saving money now is just wrong.

And these were eliminating increases that that they’d already passed!

Sounds like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic after it’s hit the iceberg! 😦

But when you have The Agenda, and the Agenda must be passed and the end justifies the means, you’ll do and say anything to make it happen.

The deeper food stamp reductions in the Senate version would set an earlier date — in November 2013 — for eliminating the increased benefits passed last year.  A family of four would see their benefit reduced by $59 a month, or about 9 percent. The bill would also cut funding for nutrition education programs aimed at low-income neighborhoods and households.

But don’t worry, It will still be George W Bush’s fault if the cuts actually happen. Or evil rich people. Or Class warfare. It certainly won’t be there fault. And it’s just cutting an increase anyhow so no big deal (unless you’re the Bush Tax cuts where not increasing taxes is bad).

The truth is certainly not endangered. 🙂

I like this comment made on the article, it was suitably sarcastic:

No big deal. Just put a “cancel” on any payments from the treasury to cover charges for the Obama family’s entertainment amd travel budget. It would onlly take a few months of austerity in the White House to jumpstart the economy, balance the budget, and slash the deficit. If that doesn’t do it, garnish Obama’s salary, eliminate his empire of czars, and fire “Bozo” Gibbs. The first two measures would be sacrifices, and the third would be a sign of at least some intelligent life in the White House.

Now why would they want to interrupt their latest lavish vacation to do that? Gee, they are the elites and they are the ruling family why would they want to show any restraint?

They deserve it. They are better than you.

I guess we could always Eat their words… 🙂

Congress’ rationale for eliminating the 2003 Bush tax cuts is deficit reduction. This position would be more credible were congress not teeing-up additional discretionary spending programs in the form of various stimuli packages for union members and favored political allies whom Democrats need to please in order to ensure their re-election in November. The deficit can never be reduced if Congress doesn’t stop non-essential spending. (or this kind of Wimpy-I’ll-pay-tomorrow-for-what-I-spend-today economics).

Currently, it is not clear if the confiscatory tax policies proposed by Democrats are designed to reduce the deficit by increasing the government’s revenue or if they are designed to punish political opponents and those whose don’t share the flawed, Democrat, wealth-redistribution ideology. Increasingly, it’s looking as if the goal is to punish.

Low tax rates incentivize economic growth and investment. This has been proven time after time. But, Democrats prefer to focus, instead, on taxes on the “rich”, using inflammatory rhetoric that plays on our deepest fears and ego, fear that someone might be better than we are, have more than we do, rhetoric that encourages schadenfreude, a smug pleasure that those who have more than we, might be brought low by confiscatory tax policies.

The Democrat leaders in congress advocating against the Bush tax cuts are looking for a bogeyman—the rich—to be blamed for the failed Democrat fiscal and job creation policies. Punishing the “rich” is a campaign strategy that they hope will play well with voters this fall. (Townhall.com)

Let them EAT the “rich”. Meanwhile, the apparatchiks are being porked out of their minds.

And you, get to pay for it either way. 🙂

Oh, and just in case you didn’t know, their was another stimulus (aka bribe) recently also:

WASHINGTON (AP) — A check from Uncle Sam gets your attention, even if the money doesn’t help that much with the bills.

More than 750,000 Medicare recipients with high prescription costs each got a $250 government check this summer, and 3 million-plus more checks are going out to people who land in the program’s anxiety-inducing coverage gap.

Democrats, running scared in an election year, are trying to overcome older people’s mistrust of the new health care law, which expands coverage for younger generations by cutting Medicare payments to hospitals and insurers.

Will the ploy work?

“It’s like a teaser,” says Virginia Brant, 65, of Glendale, Ariz. “You go to Vegas and they give you the free spin on the wheel. We have had our teaser — the $250 — for us to say, ‘Gee, look at what we have coming.’”

Brant spent hers to help pay down a credit card she keeps for medications.

The checks arrive with a letter addressed directly to each beneficiary and signed by Kathleen Sebelius, President Barack Obama’s health secretary.

The money is “to bring you some needed relief on your prescription drug costs … the first step toward closing your coverage gap,” Sebelius says. Then comes the pitch: “Stay tuned for more information … on how this new law will help make Medicare more financially secure and provide you with higher quality and more affordable health care.”

Ooh, $250 bucks! Wow! that makes The Health Care Mandate  and the cuts in Medicare Advantage  (which is used for prescriptions mostly :)) so much more palatable and makes me want to vote for a Democrat so they can continue to pork people without regard to the consequences!

I guess they could always cut food stamps again to pay for it…. 🙂

So The democrats want to demagogue the rich, pay off their apparatchiks with your money and bribe people to vote for them in November.

Well at least some things haven’t changed in the swamp. 🙂

Damn Those Greedy Rich People

AP: About 47 percent will pay no federal income taxes at all for 2009. Either their incomes were too low, or they qualified for enough credits, deductions and exemptions to eliminate their liability. That’s according to projections by the Tax Policy Center, a Washington research organization.

In recent years, credits for low- and middle-income families have grown so much that a family of four making as much as $50,000 will owe no federal income tax for 2009, as long as there are two children younger than 17, according to a separate analysis by the consulting firm Deloitte Tax.

Tax cuts enacted in the past decade have been generous to wealthy taxpayers, too, making them a target for President Barack Obama and Democrats in Congress. Less noticed were tax cuts for low- and middle-income families, which were expanded when Obama signed the massive economic recovery package last year.

The result is a tax system that exempts almost half the country from paying for programs that benefit everyone, including national defense, public safety, infrastructure and education. It is a system in which the top 10 percent of earners — households making an average of $366,400 in 2006 — paid about 73 percent of the income taxes collected by the federal government.

The bottom 40 percent, on average, make a profit from the federal income tax, meaning they get more money in tax credits than they would otherwise owe in taxes. For those people, the government sends them a payment.

“We have 50 percent of people who are getting something for nothing,” said Curtis Dubay, senior tax policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation.

The vast majority of people who escape federal income taxes still pay other taxes, including federal payroll taxes that fund Social Security and Medicare, and excise taxes on gasoline, aviation, alcohol and cigarettes. Many also pay state or local taxes on sales, income and property.

That helps explain the country’s aversion to taxes, said Clint Stretch, a tax policy expert Deloitte Tax. He said many people simply look at the difference between their gross pay and their take-home pay and blame the government for the disparity.

“It’s not uncommon for people to think that their Social Security taxes, their 401(k) contributions, their share of employer health premiums, all of that stuff in their mind gets lumped into income taxes,” Stretch said.

But income tax rates were lowered at every income level. The changes made it relatively easy for families of four making $50,000 to eliminate their income tax liability.

Here’s how they did it, according to Deloitte Tax:

The family was entitled to a standard deduction of $11,400 and four personal exemptions of $3,650 apiece, leaving a taxable income of $24,000. The federal income tax on $24,000 is $2,769.

With two children younger than 17, the family qualified for two $1,000 child tax credits. Its Making Work Pay credit was $800 because the parents were married filing jointly.

The $2,800 in credits exceeds the $2,769 in taxes, so the family makes a $31 profit from the federal income tax. That ought to take the sting out of April 15.(IBD)

Which is why the Stealth Taxes of the Health Care Law, Cap & Trade,  and the end of the “evil” Bush Tax Cuts, and others will likely not be felt until this time next year when it’s too late to “throw the bums out”.

And the people who are most worried about it are the media-dubbed “terrorists”, “racists”, “violent” people.

Funny how that worked out! 😦

And then there’s Finance Reform, also known as Intimidation 101.

You pass a reform where if the Treasury Secretary, aka Turbo Tax Geithner, “deems” (there’s that word again 🙂 ) your company “to big to fail” and on the verge of failure he can seize it. Lock, stock, and shareholder.

With no appeal and no actual reason other than he deems it so.

So He fires the company officers, he breaks up the company and sells it off, he screws the shareholders into the ground and he can do it just because he can. Under the proposals the Democrats want.

Now, you’re a big company that donates to the evil domestic terrorist organization, The Republican Party, would you get a visit from Timmy “the Hammer” Geithner or his subordinates?

Under the proposed rules he can just go in at his discretion without any oversight whatsover.

Add in “The Chicago Way” and you have Intimidation 101.

On April 21st, Congress is going to publicly flog several big companies for announcing the hundreds of billions in cost from  ObamaCare out loud, embarrassing them.

It’s pay back time.

The Liberal want to their hunk of flesh.

How dare they speak the truth to the masses!

EVIL!!!

And they want to make sure you won’t do it again.

So Guido, the Union thug will come by your board room and make sure you are playing ball or you’re company may be “swimmin’ with the fishes”…

Don’t think Liberals are capable of it?

Why not?

They just crammed a massively unpopular Health Care bill down your throat because THEY wanted it.

They plan to take over the Financial Sector.

They will crush you with Cap & Tax and The EPA.

They already have their own Car companies.

They own an Insurance Company.

And, the best reason of all, The End justifies the means.

So why wouldn’t they?

After all, it’s the “greedy” “selfish” rich that they are flogging.

The same “greedy” “selfish” rich that likely give you your job and also pay the vast majority of the taxes in this economy.

They also send lots of money to politicians.

So when faced with a choice of funding the opposition and potentially losing your company or just staying silent, which do you choose?

And for the people, do you stay silent? or do say something and be branded a “racist” and a “terrorist” and a violent anti-american whackjob??

Well, my choice was made a long time ago.

How about you?

Can’t We All Just Get Along?

Just listen to the tone of some of the liberal media on Obama’s trip to the Republican Retreat to meet with them and be on camera being feisty.

It was a great photo-op.

But I’m more interested in the coverage.

NY Post – President Obama slams obstructionist Republicans at GOP issues retreat

WASHINGTON – President Obama dove headfirst into the belly of the GOP beast Friday – and left the not-so-loyal opposition bleeding on a Baltimore ballroom floor.

He skewered Republicans for obstructionist tactics, dubious facts and a lack of civility in opposing his domestic agenda, especially health care reform.

“If you were to listen to the debate and, frankly, how some of you went after this bill, you’d think that this thing was some Bolshevik plot,” Obama told the GOP issues retreat after unveiling a proposal for $33 billion in small-business tax incentives.

No Bias here…. 🙂

MSNBC: Some Republicans prefaced their questions with lengthy recitations of conservative talking points.

“I know there’s a question in there somewhere, because you’re making a whole bunch of assertions, half of which I disagree with,” Obama said to Rep. Jeb Hensarling of Texas, whom he mistakenly called “Jim.”

Or Here… (see a different way of seeing this one later in the piece)

GOP lawmakers pressured him to support a presidential line-item veto for spending bills and to endorse across-the-board tax cuts. Obama said he was ready to talk about the budget proposal, though he disputed accusations that his administration was to blame for big increases in deficit spending. And he demurred on the idea of cutting everyone’s taxes, saying with a smile that billionaires don’t need tax cuts.

This last bit would be the JFK tax cut remark. But you’d never know for this “report”.

Chicago Tribune-BALTIMORE – In an unprecedented town-hall meeting, President Barack Obama went toe to toe Friday with some of his fiercest critics – a ballroom-full of House Republicans – accusing them of trying to derail his health-care overhaul while they complained about being shut out of the political process.

Obama repeatedly defended his policies and accused Republicans of distorting his positions for political gain. He was especially critical of the GOP’s efforts to derail the massive health-care overhaul bill in Congress.

House Republicans, who have little political power because of the large Democratic majority in the chamber, were determined to use the occasion to rebut skeptics who argue that the party offers few ideas and opposes legislation out of political convenience, not principle. They handed Obama a thick document containing Republican policy proposals when he was introduced.

Then you have the New York Times, a Little less in-your-face partisanship for once:

BALTIMORE — President Obama denied he was a Bolshevik, the Republicans denied they were obstructionists and both sides denied they were to blame for the toxic atmosphere clouding the nation’s political leadership.

But if it was at times a wonky clash of ideas, it also seemed to be a virtual marriage-therapy session — with the most pointed exchanges shown again on the evening news — as each side vented grievances pent up after a year of partisan gridlock.

Mr. Obama complained that the Republicans were painting him as a radical, making it harder to compromise. His health care plan, he said, was not “a Bolshevik plot.” The Republicans, for their part, complained that he did not listen to them and instead sat back while the Democratic “attack machine,” as one called it, demonized them.

“I am not an ideologue,” Mr. Obama said at one point, drawing skeptical murmurs from the crowd that seemed to surprise him. “I’m not,” he insisted.

But if he rejected the Republican labels for him, the Republicans rejected his for them.

“I can look you in the eye and tell you we have not been obstructionists,” Representative Jason Chaffetz, a freshman from Utah, told him.

Just to make the point that they have been more than the party of no, Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the House Republican leader, as he introduced the president handed him a booklet called “Better Solutions” compiling a variety of Republican ideas that they said the president had ignored or resisted over the last year.

“We don’t expect you to agree with us on every one of our solutions,” Mr. Boehner said, “but we do hope that you and your administration will consider them.”

See the tonal differences.

BALTIMORE SUN:

The tone was civil, but Obama stood his ground as he parried some of the harshest critics of his performance as president. His Republican hosts, aware that the event was being beamed live from a Baltimore hotel, went out of their way to show deference and largely pulled their punches.

If the session was rare by the standards of American politics – and it was – it didn’t rise to the level of question time in the British House of Commons, where opposition politicians hurl barely disguised insults at the prime minister. In the ballroom of an Inner Harbor hotel, Joe Wilson, the South Carolina congressman who loudly called the president a liar at a joint session of Congress last year, was never heard from.

Obama said that Republicans have attacked his agenda as “some wild-eyed plot to impose huge government in every aspect of our lives.” As a result, he added, “you guys then don’t have a lot of room to negotiate with me.”

Truth hurts, Mr. President. 🙂

In line with his remarks about partisanship in Wednesday night’s State of the Union address, Obama said Democrats and Republicans were both to blame for demonizing the opposition party – typically to satisfy more extreme elements of the left or right. That is one of the reasons, he added, that it has gotten tougher to actually get things done in Washington.

“I think both sides can take some blame for a sour climate on Capitol Hill,” he said, after hearing repeated criticism of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s style of leadership.

At another point, he sought to ally himself with Republicans against a common enemy: the news media. “The problems we have sometimes is a media that responds only to slash-and-burn style politics,” the president said.

You didn’t hear this bit in the more liberal attack pieces. They were too busy slashing-and-burning… 🙂

Rep. Jeb Hensarling of Texas, accused by Obama of posing a dishonest campaign talking point in the form of a question, called the event “an honest conversation. I find myself agreeing with 80 percent of what the president says. I just disagree with 80 percent of what he does.”

Amen to that.

President Obama argued that his health care plan was “pretty centrist” actually.

Yikes!

If this is “centrist” to him we are all doomed.

The president grew more exasperated when Representative Jeb Hensarling of Texas challenged him on the spending plan he will unveil next week. “Will that new budget, like your old budget, triple the national debt and continue to take us down the path of increasing the cost of government to almost 25 percent of our economy?” he asked.

Mr. Obama called the question “an example of how it’s very hard to have the kind of bipartisan work that we’re going to do because the whole question was structured as a talking point for running a campaign.”(NYT)

So was the non-answer, Mr. President. 🙂

When Georgia congressman Tom Price charged that Obama had repeatedly accused Republicans of offering “no ideas and no solutions,” Obama shot back, “I don’t think I said that.”

Should we roll the tape? 🙂

PolitiFact:

Price then said, “Mr. President, multiple times from your administration there have come statements that Republicans have no ideas and no solutions, in spite of the fact that we’ve offered, as demonstrated today, positive solutions to all of the challenges we face, including energy and the economy and health care.”

Because Price appeared to correct himself after Obama’s reply, we decided to focus on the second claim, that people in Obama’s administration have made “statements that Republicans have no ideas and no solutions.” Price spokesman Brendan Buck provided a couple of examples and we found a couple of our own:

• At a picnic with labor officials in Cincinnati, Ohio, on Sept. 7, 2009, Obama complained that the critics of health care reform — he didn’t identify them as Republicans, but it was clear he was referring to them — were not offering their own solutions. He said, “I’ve got a question for all those folks: What are you going to do? What’s your answer? What’s your solution? And you know what? They don’t have one. Their answer is to do nothing. Their answer is to do nothing.”

• A White House blog post attacking the Republican health care plan said it offered “no ideas.” (The posting appears to have a typo. It reads: “The Republican bill offers new no ideas.”)

• White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel on April 19, 2009, described the Republicans as “the party of never . . . the party of no new ideas.” (He was referring not just to health care, but also to fiscal discipline.)

• At a White House briefing April 28, 2009, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs made a very similar comment, saying that, “I think you heard me and others say that you can’t just be the party of no or the party of no new ideas.”

The White House doesn’t dispute that aides have portrayed Republicans that way, but a spokeswoman said the Democratic health care plan includes many amendments that were proposed by Republicans.

Still, Price is right. Obama and his aides have said the Republicans have no ideas on health care and other issues. We rate Price’s statement True.

He says one thing and does the opposite.

So the real question after all this is, will there be bi-partisanship where Democrats honestly work with Republicans and vice versa, or will it be the oft-mentioned liberal definition of “bi-partisan” where you agree to everything they say and shut and sit down as it as been modeled for the last year.

Time will tell.

But you need to watch out for The Ministry of Truth and their spin.

Orwell is alive and well.

And we must be ever vigiliant.

But the best bit I found from the forum was during Rep. Jeb Hensarling’s questions (remember that from earlier):

Obama:  “That’s why I say if we’re going to frame these debates in ways that allow us to solve them, then we can’t start off by figuring out, A, who’s to blame; B, how can we make the American people afraid of the other side.”

You Mean Like it’s GEORGE W. BUSH’s FAULT!! 🙂 🙂 🙂

It’s all Wall Street’s Fault!

It’s Rich People’s Fault!

It’s the Insurance Companies Fault!

D’oh!!  🙂

“And unfortunately, that’s how our politics works right now, and that’s how a lot of our discussion works. That’s how we start off.”

Can you hear the rock crashing through his own Glass House?

I bet he can’t.

And Nancy Pelosi was sound asleep…

%d bloggers like this: