Purple People Eater

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

He was cowed into being Politically Correct.

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

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

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

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

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

So they have to raises taxes even more.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now back to Fran…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And there’s more:

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

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

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

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

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

 

Inspiration Village

“If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that,” Obama said. “Somebody else made that happen.”

Prisoner sm.jpg

There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me, because they want to give something back.  They know they didn’t -look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own.  You didn’t get there on your own.  I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart.  There are a lot of smart people out there.  It must be because I worked harder than everybody else.  Let me tell you something – there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help.  There was a great teacher somewhere in your life.  Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive.  Somebody invested in roads and bridges.  If you’ve got a business. you didn’t build that.  Somebody else made that happen.  The Internet didn’t get invented on its own.  Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. 

And that someone is Government. YOU CAN’T DO ANYTHING without some government person either allowing you ton do it or guiding you, or inspiring you to do it.

Government is the ultimate Parent! And you can’t do anything without your Big Brother! 🙂

You succeeding despite bureaucracy, choking regulations, and the highest corporate tax in the world is not your success. It belongs to the village.

It takes a village to raise a business! 🙂

And if you’re TOO successful you’re just an evil mustache twirling bastard!!

So you owe your success to government but if you are too successful the evil is all yours. And the government needs to come and take it away from you for the good of the village.

Rep. Jan Schakowsky: “You Don’t Deserve To Keep All Your Money”

“I’ll put it this way, you don’t deserve to keep all of it. It’s not a question of deserving, because what government is, is those things that we decide to do together.”

“There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me, because they want to give something back.  They know they didn’t -look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own.  You didn’t get there on your own.”

Microsoft, for instance, wasn’t built by 3 teenage geeks in a garage in Seattle. No sir. It was government public sector union Teachers who help them do it!

And if you disagree with this government, you’re likely a “terrorist”, a “racist”, “stupid”, “ignorant”, or “foolish”.

Kevin Hassett, an economist with the conservative American Enterprise Institute, said Obama’s comments are “so far from the current debate,” but setting the stage for the administration’s tax argument. 

“Obama is trying to create the intellectual space to take money away from people. He’s trying to say, ‘What you do on the playing field would never be possible without the help of the government,'” he said.

Elisabeth Warren (you know, the 1/32 “Native American” professor at Harvard running for  Congress in Massachusetts: “There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own, nobody,” she said at the time. “You built a factory out there — good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate.”

You can’t possible succeed in live with government help or intervention.

And in order to succeed we must steal from “the rich” (which it turns out to be the very same small business people) and give to the poor! (who are growing faster than ever).

You are NOT an individual. You are a member of a Collective village and as such all things come from and all things go to the Village.

Obama doesn’t want us to be free. He wants us to be under the government’s control. Even our hard work and achievements don’t really belong to us.

Everything comes from the government and everything goes to the government!

Now doesn’t that make you feel inspired. 🙂

I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own …  I am not a number, I am a free man. (The Prisoner)

Be seeing you. 🙂

Political Cartoons by Steve KelleyPolitical Cartoons by Glenn Foden

Political Cartoons by Eric Allie

Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

 Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

Political Cartoons by Nate Beeler

 Political Cartoons by Gary McCoy

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

 Political Cartoons by Gary McCoy

The Shell Game

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

President Obama’s proposed 2013 budget will forecast a $901 billion deficit for next year, falling far short of his goal to halve the deficit in four years.

The budget, an outline of which was released by the White House Friday night, will show a higher deficit this year than in 2011, up from $1.3 trillion to $1.33 trillion.

So that’s 3 strikes and hopefully he’s out! What a Turkey!

Wonder if this one will go down 96-0 like last years.

Mind you the US Senate that hasn’t passed a Budget in 1, 018 days has already telegraphed that it has no intention of passing a budget this year anyhow.

So this is largely an exercise in campaign BS. Which is all we’ve gotten since January 20th, 2009 anyhow.

The full blown still-born cow of a budget comes out Monday. I’m sure it will bloated, class envious, have lots of flashy fake or useless “cuts”, and totally political. What else would you expect.

“We will talk more before the end of the month on what corporate tax reform would look like,” the official said on Friday, confirming that it would include a call for “lower rates.”

Facing a potentially tough presidential re-election challenge this November, Obama will propose cutting the rate following the release of his 2013 budget plan on Monday, February 13, according to the sources, who were not authorized to speak on the record.

While he spent a big part of his January speech to Congress criticizing businesses for moving jobs overseas, Obama said that “companies that choose to stay in America get hit with one of the highest tax rates in the world.”

So what do you wanna bet it’s going to be very selective and very “democratic”. 🙂

You do it my way or else. Or he’ll propose all new taxes to make up for it, disguised as something else or some other Orwellian turn of phrase.

Typically with this White House “tax reform” means bend over you’re about to get a massive enema!

Gene Sperling, director of Obama’s National Economic Council, has told reporters that the president will be laying out “principles” for corporate tax reform close to the budget release.

Obama’s corporate plan will also include a new minimum tax on foreign profits earned in low tax countries – an unpopular idea in the corporate community. (yahoo)

“principles” eh…This should be good… 😦

Ann Coulter:Having given up on pillorying Mitt Romney for plundering his way to vast wealth — because, unfortunately, it isn’t true — the Non-Fox Media seem to have settled on denouncing him as a rich jerk.

Liberals are disgusted by people who made their own money, as Romney did at Bain Capital. But they admire ill-gotten gains, which is how John Kerry, John Edwards, Jon Corzine, John F. Kennedy, Franklin D. Roosevelt and innumerable other spokesmen for the downtrodden amassed their fortunes.

Democrats are very proud of the rich, patrician FDR — who inherited all of his money and then launched a series of federal entitlements designed to bankrupt America 60 years later.

JFK also inherited his wealth, from a father who made his money as a bootlegger and stock manipulator. (In their defense, both went on to create jobs for bartenders and prostitutes.)

Kerry is in a special category of the gigolo. He acquired his fortune by marrying someone, who married someone, who inherited the money — leading Kerry’s children to refer to Teresa Heinz Kerry as their “step-money.” In what can only be described as luck, Kerry’s first wife was also an heiress.

I’ve been diligently searching for the shrieks of horror from the media over John Kerry’s tax returns when he ran for president eight years ago, but I can’t find anything. (Although I did find a reference to Kerry’s having served in Vietnam. Anybody else hear about that?)

Even when Kerry refused to release his wife’s tax returns in order to avoid the humiliation of revealing his allowance, the press was demurely silent.

John Edwards made well over $50 million by shaking down hardworking doctors with junk science lawsuits — as the New York Times has since admitted. The highlight of his sideshows was when he channeled unborn children in front of illiterate jurors.

(In the Democrats’ moral universe, the unborn have no right to life, but they’re perfectly acceptable as witnesses for the plaintiff in a malpractice suit.)

Democrats were overjoyed with Wall Street financier-turned Democratic politician Jon Corzine. It was just three years ago, in 2009, when President Obama was hailing Corzine as one of the “best partners I have in the White House.” Today, prosecutors are trying to find out what Corzine did with hundreds of millions of his customers’ money.

The media do everything they can to avoid looking into these mountebanks when they are active politicians. Then, when they’re out of office, the NFM summarily announce that they always knew the Democrats were sleazeballs, and why are we still talking about them?
It’s never a good time to talk about Democrat plutocrats until it’s way too late to talk about them. With Corzine, we’ll have a window of three seconds to talk about his financial shenanigans. He’s innocent until proved gui — Convicted! — What? You’re still burbling about that guy?

Liberals will be carrying on about Richard Nixon until we’re all long dead. Why has the time passed for them to really examine the man who was their vice presidential candidate only eight years ago and was desperately seeking the presidential slot four years ago?

Until we hear ferocious denunciations of FDR, JFK, Kerry, Edwards and Corzine, liberals have no business criticizing Bain Capital.

Maybe some people are irrationally offended by the rich, but Democrats aren’t. It’s the party of George Soros, Goldman Sachs and Nancy Pelosi!

The six wealthiest senators are all Democrats, half of whom married or inherited their money. Some other multimillionaire Democrats are:

• Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, the second-richest senator after Kerry, who inherited his money.

• Dianne Feinstein of California, the sixth-richest senator, who married her money.

• Maria Cantwell of Washington, a bogus dot-com multimillionaire who cashed out before the stock crashed.

• Claire McCaskill of Missouri, the ninth-richest senator, who failed to pay taxes on her private plane until she was caught last year, and who married her money.

Meanwhile, with few exceptions, Republicans either made money on their own or they don’t have it. It’s no accident Democrats oppose a tax on wealth, of which they have boatloads, but strongly support taxes on income, which they typically do not have.

Democrats don’t hate the rich; they are the rich, luxuriating in fortunes acquired by inheritance or marriage, fleecing the taxpayer, trial lawyer hucksterism or disreputable money manipulation. Their contempt is reserved for those who engage in honest work for a living, whom they accuse of “greed” for wanting to pay the government a little less.

As I have said many times before, I believe the greediest people in this country are Liberals. Period.

See: https://indyfromaz.wordpress.com/2010/10/18/greed/

So get out your Salt Mine, because here comes another Budget from Dear Leader! Can you take it?

Political Cartoon by Mike Lester
Political Cartoon by Eric Allie
Political Cartoon by Lisa Benson

 

The New Class

The Obama Justice Department has created a secret group within the bloated civil rights division to monitor laws passed by states and local municipalities to control illegal immigration.

Because the measures are viewed as discriminatory and anti-immigrant by the administration, the Justice Department is spending valuable taxpayer dollars to track them and legally challenge them as it did in Arizona. The mission is being carried out by an undercover “National Origin Working Group” set up by Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez, a renowned illegal immigrant advocate who once ran a taxpayer-funded day laborer center in Maryland.

This week the “National Origin Working Group” will hold a special training session at the agency’s Washington D.C. headquarters.

Laws prohibiting national origin discrimination will also be addressed at the powwow and so will discrimination against Muslims in the ever-so-hostile, post 9/11 era.

The most “transparent” administration in history doesn’t want the public to know about this special taskforce.

And if you mention this, you will have to be investigated, ruined and labelled as a RACIST! 🙂

Wanna know how that could be?

“I said over a year ago that this was going to be, this presidential race, Lawrence, was going to be the ugliest, the nastiest, the most divisive, and the most racist in the history of this Republic,” PBS host Tavis Smiley said on MSNBC.

So get ready for it. It’s going to be all out!

Many aspects of President Obama’s policies and approach give me indigestion. His reckless spending, economically destructive and unconstitutional Obamacare, deceit with respect to Paul Ryan’s “Path to Prosperity,” perpetual arrogance, and love affair with an EPA that repeatedly jeopardizes our ability to become energy independent, are just a few examples.

However, there’s one facet of the Obama ideology that turns my stomach with particular force — that of class warfare. Not only is it profoundly un-American, but it pins one citizen against another in order to promote the idea that the federal government should step in and equalize for the common good. The candidate who once advocated spreading the wealth around is determined to do just that.

President Obama has repeatedly taken jabs at those who meet his definition of wealthy. That includes hard-working individuals, families, and small and large business owners who hire employees, pay salaries, and invest in our economy. Obama ignores the fact that when you increase taxes on a business owner, you stymie the ability of that individual to help grow our economy, create jobs, and generate opportunity for others based on his/her own success and expansion. He also ignores the fact that despite what he and his liberal comrades might think, the success of individuals, families, and/or businesses is not an invitation for the federal government to seize more of their hard-earned cash.

In order to promote his class warfare-driven policies, Obama repeatedly extols a notion of “shared sacrifice.” (Translation: The “rich” aren’t funneling enough of their cash to the federal government.) As noted by The Heritage Foundation, “The top 1 percent of income earners paid 38 percent of all federal income taxes in 2008, while the bottom 50 percent paid only 3 percent. Forty-nine percent of U.S. households paid no federal income tax at all.”

In April of 2010, the AP reported, “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.”

Does that sound like a system in which the top earners haven’t been sharing the sacrifice?

2012 conservative contenders, watch closely as President Obama advocates taking from one person to give to another. Provide a stark contrast to his divisive rhetoric. Be his opposite by upholding an America in which free-market principles, limited government, and a decrease in tax rates for all would incentivize business, unleash entrepreneurial spirits, and yield greater opportunities for people of all shapes, sizes, colors, and incomes.

President Obama, keep your class warfare and the policies through which you’ve added more to our national debt than any president from Washington through Reagan combined. When it comes to 2012, getting this country back on track, and reawakening everything that makes America exceptional, conservatives have it covered. (Jedidiah Bila)

Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

Behind The Words

Brad Fitzpatrick Cartoon

OMG WTF Anti-Obama Sticker (Bumper)

Years after implementing a costly passenger screening program, the Homeland Security agency responsible for protecting the nation’s transportation system failed to detect terrorists at U.S. airports on nearly two dozen occasions.

As a result the terrorists slipped right through “security” checkpoints and boarded commercial airplanes, according to a government report <http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11461t.pdf> that’s difficult to swallow nearly a decade after the worst terrorist attacks in U.S. history.

Known as Screening of Passengers by Observation Techniques (SPOT), the innovative project was implemented with great fanfare to enhance aviation security after Islamic terrorist slammed commercial jets into the World Trade Center and Pentagon. In 2010 SPOT cost taxpayers nearly $212 million and the Obama Administration wants $232 million for it this year.

But on at least 23 occasions its highly specialized Behavior Detection Officers failed to stop terrorists from boarding planes, investigators found. At least 16 people who were later charged or pleaded guilty to terrorism charges slipped through eight different U.S. airports with SPOT programs, according to the GAO’s findings.

But don’t worry, the TSA is doing a good job and The Border is more secure than ever.
Oh and…

Special Parole Pushed For Illegal Immigrants With Kids

The  Illinois congressman charged with crafting President Obama’s amnesty bill has embarked on a national tour to promote a special program that allows illegal immigrants with children to remain in the United States.

Launched by Democrat Luis Gutierrez, the “Campaign For American Children and Families” aims to grant a special parole to illegal aliens who have relatives in the U.S. so that families can remain together in the land of opportunity. The measure is essential to help those “whose lives are being turned upside down by deportation,” according to the veteran lawmaker who authored a bill to give the nation’s estimated 12 million illegal immigrants amnesty.

His national tour will visit at least 20 cities and feature heartbreaking testimony from illegal immigrant families torn apart by deportation. Children and spouses of removed illegal aliens will take the microphone to tell their sob stories at the various rallies, Gutierrez promises.

The goal is to pressure Obama into using his executive power to halt deportations while a broader amnesty bill is being considered by Congress. Immigration reform is necessary in the long run, Gutierrez says, but in the meantime the government must ensure that it doesn’t “needlessly deport” those who are working, raising families and “contributing to our nation and economic recovery.” Obama must “provide relief” from deportation, the congressman asserts. (Judical Watch)

THE FOLLOWER-IN-CHIEF

President Barack Obama will lay out his plan for reducing the nation’s deficit Wednesday, belatedly entering a fight over the nation’s long-term financial future. But in addition to suggesting cuts—the current focus of debate—the White House looks set to aim its firepower on a more divisive topic: taxes.

In a speech Wednesday, Mr. Obama will propose cuts to entitlement programs, including Medicare and Medicaid, and changes to Social Security, a discussion he has largely left to Democrats and Republicans in Congress. He also will call for tax increases for people making over $250,000 a year, a proposal contained in his 2012 budget, and changing parts of the tax code he thinks benefit the wealthy.

“Every corner of the federal government has to be looked at here,” David Plouffe, a senior White House adviser, said Sunday in one of multiple television appearances. “Revenues are going to have to be part of this,” he said, referring to tax increases.

Until now, Mr. Obama has been largely absent from the raging debate over the long-term deficit. The White House has done little with the recommendations of its own bipartisan deficit commission. And Mr. Obama’s 2012 budget didn’t offer many new ideas for tackling entitlement spending, among the biggest long-term drains on the federal budget.

That’s kind, he made absolutely no mention of entitlements and advocated  increased spending in his own budget he put out 3 months ago.

But that was a tactical maneuver, so we should just forget it and move on. 🙂

The president stayed out of the long-term deficit debate in an apparent effort to see whether Republicans would move first in offering long-term deficit-reduction ideas—something House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan did with an ambitious plan last week to trim spending now and in the future.

And what do you bet it will be the Class Warfare repackaged. More taxes on “wealthy” people (not “rich” that’s passe’) and the magic $250,000.
Give the impression that he care about cutting spending.
But he has to do it so the Orwellian “proposals” are done in such a way that when the Republican object it’s because “they don’t want to compromise”.
That will be the mantra.
And of course as I have said, “compromise” with a liberal means “do as I say and shut up!”
It’s all about perception and Ministry of Truth mantras.
It’s not like he really wants to do anything about spending. He just wants to LOOK like it and cast the Republicans as “extreme” (2011 version of “obstructionist”).
Oh and the new buzz phrase is “shared sacrifice”.
The evil “rich” get to share more (aka taxes increases) and you get to “sacrifice” for his greater good.
You can trust Mr “extreme” himself, Sen. ‘Up’Chuck Schumer:

Schumer argued that Ryan’s 2012 budget proposal for reducing the deficit – which the Republican Party unveiled last week – placed a disproportionately heavy burden on the middle-class, and said the president’s plan would instead emphasize a “shared sacrifice” among the American people.

“The Ryan budget focuses on the middle class,” Schumer argued. “You need to share sacrifice. And we believe that, for instance, defense cuts should be greater than Ryan proposed. There’s waste there like everywhere else.

“Even more importantly, there has to be revenues. If you’re going to reduce the deficit, how do you allow the oil companies to get huge subsidies based on a time when oil was $17 a barrel, not $100? How do you give tax breaks for multimillionaires and companies that send jobs overseas, and yet decimate middle class programs?

“It’s got to be fair and across the board,” Schumer insisted.

It’s all politics. 😦 But it’s “fair” 🙂
Oh and that “civility” thing:

Here is Rep. Slaughter telling people that Republicans want to kill women and are like the Nazis because they want to stop taxpayer money from funding Planned Parenthood.  You just can’t make this stuff up.  By the way, weren’t the Nazis pro-abortion, especially among minority communities?  Hmmm… it seems that the Nazis’ view on abortion is much closer to the Democrat view and the actual practices of Planned Parenthood.

http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/checker.aspx?v=hdaG6U6U6U

Just remember, Democrats will say anything to get an emotional response and decision out of people so said people are less likely to look at actual facts.

You aren’t against “compromise” and “fairness” are you? 🙂

And the hyperbole, fear, and emotional appeals will be sickening.

But Orwell will be proud of his son Barack. Of that there is no doubt!

And neither will the Ministry of Truth’s cheerleading of their favorite son.

The build up by them to Wednesday’s speech will undoubtedly be something just under Messianic and the after glow will last for months…

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

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! 🙂