HARRY REID TALKS ABOUT UNICORNS

Harry Reid is growing more senile before our very eyes. On the Senate floor yesterday, this is what he had to say about millionaires and job creation:

“Millionaire job creators are like unicorns. They are impossible to find and don’t exist.”

Here, Harry … this is for you.

Using 2007 data, there were 392,000 Americans who filed tax returns with an adjusted gross income above $1 million. Of those Americans, 273,000 were defined as “small business owners.” This means that close to 70% of millionaires meet the broad definition of small business people. And consider the fact that small businesses employ half of American workers and account for 65% of net new jobs created.

And these are just the small business owners. This isn’t counting the millionaires at the tippy top who run corporations, which employ thousands of Americans themselves. This also doesn’t consider the fact that these millionaires often times act as angel investors for entrepreneurs looking to start businesses. Without this money, many innovators would see their dreams die in a Democrat wasteland of equality and fairness.

PREDICTIONS FOR 2012

1. Israel will attack Iran
2. More Middle East countries will come under radical Islamic control. (Caliphate)
3. Several European countries will experience a financial default
4. There will be widespread racial and class strife / riots in America (The Occupy Movement and class warfare stoking during the Presidential campaign)
5. The U.S. Economy will slip back into a recession and move rapidly to a depression state
6. America, through Obama, will not provide strong support to Israel in it’s decision to attack Iran
7. Newt Gingrich will win the Republican Presidential nomination due to Middle Eastern turmoil
8. Christians worldwide will come under widespread attack
9. There will be several successful terrorist attacks in America
10. There will be limited restrictions on American civil liberties in the wake of civil unrest and terrorist attacks
11. U.S. unemployment will rise to 10.0%
12. Inflation will rise to roughly 10%
13. There will be several attempted political assignations in America
14. President Obama will remain President through 2013 via the suspension of the November 2012 elections

TAX CUTS FOR THE WEALTHY

One of the most exasperating qualities of a libtard is their penchant for obfuscating speech. Anyone who is not aware of what the Bush tax cuts actually were would assume, after years and years of the left’s inaccurate mantra, that the Bush tax cuts were for the wealthy ONLY.
If Bush stood at the edge of a cliff and pushed back a bus in peril, a bus that had every economic class in it, the progfart headline the next day would be “Bush Saves His Rich Cronies From Dying.”
Obama repeats this lie in his hysteric speech in Kansas.
“I mean, understand, it’s not as if we haven’t tried this theory. Remember in those years, in 2001 and 2003, Congress passed two of the most expensive tax cuts for the wealthy in history. And what did they get us? The slowest job growth in half a century. Massive deficits that have made it much harder to pay for the investments that built this country and provided the basic security that helped millions of Americans reach and stay in the middle class: things like education and infrastructure, science and technology, Medicare and Social Security.”
Wrong.
From Wapo -
The bulk of the 2001 tax cuts were marginal rate cuts, which extended to all taxpayers, while the 2003 tax cuts included a reduction in taxes on dividends and capital gains.
But the 2001 tax cuts also included tax changes that benefited the middle class, such as a reduced marriage penalty and expanded tax credits, along with an instant tax rebate. Still, it is correct that most of the benefits of the tax cuts flowed to the wealthy (who, let’s not forget, pay the largest share of income taxes).
Obama has said repeatedly he wants to keep the Bush tax cuts for people making less than $250,000; he wants to reinstate higher tax rates only for the wealthy. (In fact, he would retain about 70 percent of the overall tax cut.) But he should not suggest that the Bush tax cuts were aimed only at the wealthy, since that is not correct.

In the end ... it's the idiot voters destroying the country

Let’s look at the scorecard for yesterday:

• The voters of Ohio voted to reinstate collective bargaining rights for government employee unions.
• The voters of Arizona recalled a Senator who introduced a law simply aimed at enforcing immigration laws already on the books.
• The voters in Georgia voted to increase their own taxes to reward spendthrift government education bureaucrats with billions of dollars more to spend.

Consider the Ohio voters. Ohio has a failing economy with one of the nation’s highest state income tax rates and forced unionization – Ohio private sector workers can be forced to join a union in order to work. By a narrow margin they elected a governor, John Kasich, who promised to bring government employee unions under control. Kasich ushered a law through the Ohio legislature that restricted collective bargaining rights for government employee unions.
OK … let’s stop here for a moment and consider government unions engaging in collective bargaining. Would you like to know two prominent people in American history who steadfastly opposed government union collective bargaining? That would be Franklin D. Roosevelt and labor giant George Meany, the former president of the AFL-CIO. That’s not to say these men didn’t support the growth of unions! Come on! FDR and George Meany? Of course they were pro-union. But they recognized that while private sector unions were bargaining for a share of the profits they produced through their work, government sector unions didn’t generate profits. They were merely negotiating for taxpayer money … negotiating with politicians they put in office with their campaign contributions and volunteer efforts on election day.
So now the uninformed and often flat-out ignorant voters of Ohio have handed these collective bargaining rights back to the government sector unions. They will not resume negotiations with the very officials they put into office for the money in the pockets of the people who gave them that power. The only way Ohio government entities will have to handle the rising costs will be to raise taxes, cut services or fire workers.
Yes --- I understand. The question on the ballot for Ohio voters was poorly worded. Worded, in fact, to favor the union organizers who got that question put on the ballot through a petition process. That doesn’t excuse the voters. This is their money, their economy, their future and the future of their children. They owed it to themselves and their children to become informed the issues. They didn’t. Ohio will suffer. They will suffer. Their children will suffer if they don’t get the hell out of Ohio and move to Wisconsin or some other state with right-to-work laws where government sector unions don’t have collective bargaining rights.Now .. the Georgia Voters.    … BUT once again, as pretty much everybody knew they wood, these voters cast votes to raise their own taxes. But they had to do it, right? It was for the chilllllllllllldren. Spending on government education has increased by almost 400% since I Ggraduated. Per-pupil expenditures have increased from about $5,600 per pupil to almost $13,000. The administrator to teacher ratio used to be over two-to-one. Now it’s almost one-to-one. But school administrators and politicians knew they didn’t have to streamline their operations to reduce costs. They knew they didn’t have to get rid of the administrative bloat. They knew they didn’t need to stop building education palaces instead of schools. All they had to do was go to the voters and ask them to raise their own taxes …. For the chillllllldren. They did, and it worked.
Democracy is ugly. Majority rule can be a disaster. There is a reason our founding fathers thought it to be a good idea to limit who had the privilege (not the right) of going to the polls and selecting our leaders. There was a reason our founding fathers did not include a right to vote in a federal election – including voting for our president – in the constitution. They didn’t trust mobs. They didn’t want to see the “mindless whims of the masses” translated into law. They were right … but to no avail. Now the masses are taking their ignorance to the polls. We live in a country where over half of the people get some kind of a check from the government every month without working for it … and they vote. Now you tell me how we’re supposed to survive that.

CAN AMERICA SURVIVE???

The people receiving the free stuff, don't like the folks who are paying for the free stuff, because the folks who are paying for the free stuff can no longer afford to pay for both the free stuff and their own stuff.

The folks who are paying for the free stuff want the free stuff to stop, and the folks who are getting the free stuff want even more free stuff on top of the free stuff they are already getting!

Now... The people who are forcing the people who pay for the free stuff have told the people who are RECEIVING the free stuff, that the people who are PAYING for the free stuff, are being mean, prejudiced, and racist.

So... The people who are GETTING the free stuff have been convinced they need to hate the people who are paying for the free stuff by the people who are forcing some people to pay for their free stuff, and giving them the free stuff in the first place.

We have let the free stuff giving go on for so long that there are now more people getting free stuff than paying for the free stuff.

Now understand this. All great democracies have committed financial suicide somewhere between 200 and 250 years after being founded. The reason? The voters figured out they could vote themselves money from the treasury by electing people who promised to give them money from the treasury in exchange for electing them.

The United States officially became a Republic in 1776, 235 years ago. The number of people now getting free stuff outnumbers the people paying for the free stuff. We have one chance to change that. 2012. Failure to change that spells the end of the United States as we know it.

ELECTION 2012 IS COMING

PRESIDENT OBAMA'S COMPLETE LIST OF HISTORIC FIRSTS

Yes, he's historic, alright.

• First President to Preside Over a Cut to the Credit Rating of the United States Government

• First President to Violate the War Powers Act

• First President to Orchestrate the Sale of Murder Weapons to Mexican Drug Cartels

• First President to be Held in Contempt of Court for Illegally Obstructing Oil Drilling in the Gulf of Mexico

• First President to Defy a Federal Judge's Court Order to Cease Implementing the 'Health Care Reform' Law

• First President to Require All Americans to Purchase a Product From a Third Party

• First President to Spend a Trillion Dollars on 'Shovel-Ready' Jobs -- and Later Admit There Was No Such Thing as Shovel-Ready Jobs

• First President to Abrogate Bankruptcy Law to Turn Over Control of Companies to His Union Supporters

• First President to Bypass Congress and Implement the DREAM Act Through Executive Fiat

• First President to Threaten Insurance Companies After They Publicly Spoke out on How Obamacare Helped Cause their Rate Increases

• First President to Threaten an Auto Company (Ford) After It Publicly Mocked Bailouts of GM and Chrysler

• First President to "Order a Secret Amnesty Program that Stopped the Deportations of Illegal Immigrants Across the U.S., Including Those With Criminal Convictions"

• First President to Demand a Company Hand Over $20 Billion to One of His Political Appointees

• First President to Terminate America's Ability to Put a Man into Space.

• First President to Encourage Racial Discrimination and Intimidation at Polling Places

• First President to Have a Law Signed By an 'Auto-pen' Without Being "Present"

• First President to Arbitrarily Declare an Existing Law Unconstitutional and Refuse to Enforce It

• First President to Tell a Major Manufacturing Company In Which State They Are Allowed to Locate a Factory

• First President to refuse to comply with a House Oversight Committee subpoena.

• First President to File Lawsuits Against the States He Swore an Oath to Protect (AZ, WI, OH, IN, etc.)

• First President to Withdraw an Existing Coal Permit That Had Been Properly Issued Years Ago

• First President to Fire an Inspector General of Americorps for Catching One of His Friends in a Corruption Case

• First President to Propose an Executive Order Demanding Companies Disclose Their Political Contributions to Bid on Government Contracts

• First President to allow Mexican police to conduct law enforcement activities on American soil

• First President to Golf 80 or More Times in His First Two-and-a-Half Years in Office

But remember: he will not rest until all Americans have jobs, affordable homes, green-energy vehicles, and the environment is repaired, etc., etc., etc.

Either Obama is bad at math or a liar

Dear Ruler has been caught. You know that I take the label of “liar” pretty seriously. A person can only tell a lie if they know the fact to be untrue at the time they utter it. And that brings us to an unctuous utterance from Dear Ruler. Is he merely demonstrating his ignorance (he has an adequate supply, after all) or was he lying. You be the judge. Here’s the situation …
On multiple occasions, Barack Obama has stated that he should not be paying a lower effective tax rate than a teacher. Here’s just one specific example (though there are many): At a recent town hall meeting in Mountain View, California, Obama said, "Somebody who's making $50,000 a year as a teacher shouldn't be paying a higher effective tax rate than somebody like myself.”
That’s a pretty bold claim on the part of our Dear Ruler, wouldn’t you say? So FactCheck.org did the math, and you can guess what they found … Obama’s claim that he pays a lower tax rate than a teacher earning $50,000 a year is false. Here are the details from FactCheck.org.

A single taxpayer with $50,000 of income would have paid 11.9% in federal income taxes for 2010, while the Obamas paid more than twice that rate — 25.3% (and higher rates than that in 2009 and 2008). And if the $50,000-a-year teacher were in Obama's tax situation — supporting a spouse and two children — he or she would have paid no federal income taxes at all.
The outcome is the same whether we count payroll taxes or not, and even if we look at what the $50,000 earner will pay on 2011 income. Whatever the assumption, the rates Obama paid were higher — and usually much higher.

Obama has made it crystal clear that his 2012 reelection campaign is going to be based on the exploitation of wealth envy. If you’re paying attention you now know that he will resort to flat-out falsehoods in order to pander to the dumb-masses who don’t know any better. Obama is creating his own reality – a reality where the rich don’t pay their “fair share” and he pays taxes at a lower rate than middle-class Americans. Neither of these are true, yet he will continue to push these ideas until people actually believe that they are true.
Know what? I go with liar. These statements are untrue, he knows them to be untrue, and he knows them to be untrue at the moment he makes them. That makes him a liar.
Obama’s own campaign team has acknowledged this strategy of focusing on wealth envy, because he has zero accomplishments when it comes to the economy. His advisors say, “He needs to shift the focus from his stewardship of the economy to the stark choice confronting voters about the nation's political leadership.” Well no $4it, Sherlock So now jobs are no longer the focus for Obama. Screw jobs, because Obama knows that he doesn’t know how to solve that problem. Instead, let’s focus on leadership. An Obama campaign advisor says, "Most Americans are very concerned about the future and the direction we're going to take.” I don’t understand why the Obama administration thinks that this is going to work in their favor considering the latest Rasmussen polls show that just 17% of Americans say the country is heading in the right direction. So what direction does Obama want to take this country? Toward a redistributive society where the government seizes money from the Haves and gives it to the Have-Nots; toward a society where political leaders, not the private sector, decide where new economic growth will and will not be, and where new jobs will be created and where they will be eliminated. The LATimes reports, “Obama is tapping into resentment over the growing concentration of wealth in fewer and fewer hands.” They say this “helps the president forge an emotional connection with his base, especially minorities and working-class voters who have been falling behind.”
Does this re-election strategy inspire you to work hard or risk your savings to start the business of your dreams? If Obama manages to pull this thing off based on a re-election campaign of wealth envy, then the achievers in this country better bend over.

OBAMA AND FACISM

First you must understand fascism, as described by the Concise Encyclopedia of Economics:

As an economic system, fascism is socialism with a capitalistic veneer. In its day (the 1920's and 1930's), fascism was seen as the happy medium between boom-and-bust-prone capitalism, with its alleged class conflict, wasteful competition, and profit-oriented egoism, and Marxism, with its violent socially divisive prosecution of the bourgeoisie.

Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices; fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically.

Under fascism, the state, through official agencies, controlled all aspects of manufacturing, commerce, finance, and agriculture. Licensing was ubiquitous; no economic activity could be undertaken without government permission. Levels of consumption were dictated by the state, and "excess" incomes had to be surrendered as taxes or "loans".

To maintain high employment and minimize popular discontent, fascist governments also undertook massive public-works programs financed by steep taxes, borrowing and fiat money creation.

I’m sure you can already see the similarities to the Obama economy

A LESSON FOR THE TAX THE RICH CROWD

Here’s more ammo for you when discussing taxes with your lib and prog friends or co-workers. Most of them cannot seem to wrap their brains around the idea that if you lower taxes, you actually generate MORE revenue. Instead, they preach this “tax the rich!” mantra because it sounds cool and it satisfies a primeval quest for revenge . Unfortunately for them, the numbers are not on their side.
Now, let’s talk about capital gains taxes. These evil taxes have come to the forefront of debate as of late because of Warren Buffett. I’ve explained how Warren Buffett does not pay a lower income tax rate than his secretary; he pays an entirely different tax – capital gains tax. And yes, the rate of capital gains is lower (for some) than income tax rates. But all that might change, if Democrats get their way. It will be just another way for them to nail those evil rich investors! From Forbes …

In 1997, Congress was considering a cut in the capital gains rate from 28% back down to 20%. The Joint Tax Committee (JTC) estimated that as a result revenues would increase by $7.8 billion from 1997 to 1999, but the tax cut would produce a loss of $28.8 billion over the following 7 years, for a net loss of $21 billion over the 10 year period.
The actual numbers after the tax cut was passed showed an increase of $84 billion over the pre-tax cut projections for 1997 to 2000. Despite an almost 30% cut in the rate, capital gains revenues rose from $62 billion in 1996 to $109 billion in 1999.
Similarly, when Congress considered cutting the capital gains rate again in 2003, from 20% to 15%, the JTC estimated that this would cause a loss of revenue of $5.4 billion from 2003 to 2006. But after Congress passed the tax cut, capital gains revenues increased by $133 billion during those years, as compared to the pre-tax cut projections. As Dan Clifton of the American Shareholders Association said, “There is no excuse for this $138 billion error.” Capital gains tax revenue doubled from 2003 to 2005 despite a 25% cut in the tax rate.

Wealth envy is a political scheme used to buy votes. It should not be dictating economic policy.

A telling stat about government workers

You want to understand why government is so darn inefficient?  This stat should explain it all … a USA Today analysis has found that federal government workers are more likely to die than get laid off or fired.  USA Today says, “Death — rather than poor performance, misconduct or layoffs — is the primary threat to job security at the Environmental Protection Agency, the Small Business Administration, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Office of Management and Budget and a dozen other federal operations.”  When it comes down to it, 0.55% of government hacks were fired last year for poor performance in the workplace.  Their job security is so solid, that there is almost nothing they can do to get fired.  So what’s the incentive for them to do well?  There is none.  Imagine how much better off we would be if more government services were privatized.  Make people accountable for their performance and it is amazing how they will suddenly work a little bit harder.  If they don’t, there is always someone else there who IS willing to work harder and do better .. so long as there is incentive to do so.

Now .. the McConnell idea

Speaking of being gutless … the Republicans are so worried about being blamed for any sort of government default that they are actually toying with the idea of giving the president the power to automatically increase the debt limit.
Now a lot of people are having a bit of a struggle trying to figure out just what Phineas T. Bluster (Mitch McConnell) is proposing.  Let me try to boil it down for you step-by-step:

1.  The Republicans agree to a plan that allows Obama to raise the debt ceiling by as much as $2.3 trillion (that’s right, TRILLION) in three installments within the  next year.
2. Obama would be required to submit to the congress a list of proposed spending cuts equaling the amount of the debt ceiling increase.  Apparently these would not have to be REAL spending cuts --- they could simply be cuts in spending increases.  That’s how Washington usually proposes spending cuts. 
3. There would be no requirement whatsoever that congress even consider any of Obama’s proposed spending cuts.
4. Once Obama raises the debt ceiling the congress could vote to disapprove the increase.
5. Obama would then veto the resolution of disapproval.
6. Neither house would be able to come up with the two-thirds vote necessary to override Obama’s veto, so the debt ceiling increase would take effect.
7. Since the veto override would fail principally due to a lack of Democrat votes, the Republicans believe that they would be able to blame Obama and the Democrats for the increases in the debt ceiling.

There … does that work for you?  Not for me.  It’s a GOP cave all the way.  The McConnell plan is to just back off, hold your hands up into the air and say “Just go ahead and do it.  We’re washing our hands of this.  The voters will hold you responsible.”  Are you kidding me?  Do you think for one moment that the voters --- these voters --- the very same voters who put Obama into office --- are going to hold the Democrats responsible for raising the debt ceiling without cutting spending?  Won’t happen.  The Democrats will walk away with a victory here and Republican voters will just walk away.

WHERE ARE HIS GIRLFRIENDS? AND JUST WHO THE HELL IS BARACK OBAMA?

Obama: Where are his girl friends?????

Where are his girl friends????? Strange that none have popped up!!!!
Strange to the point of being down right WEIRD!

OK... this is past the birthers questions.... this is just plain old
common sense, no political agendas for either side.

Just common knowledge for citizens of a country, especially American
citizens, who even know that Andrew Jackson and his wife smoked a corn cob pipe
and was accused of adultery, or that Lincoln never went to school or
Kennedy wore a back brace or Truman played the piano.

We are Americans! We are known for our humanitarian interests and caring
for our fellow man  We care, but none of us know one single humanizing
fact about the history of our own president.

Honestly, and this is a personal thing...but it has niggled at me for ages
that no one who ever dated him ever showed up. The simple fact of his
charisma, which caused the women to be drawn to him so obviously during
his campaign, looks like some lady would not have missed the opportunity....

We all know about JFK s magnetism, McCain was no monk, Palin s courtship
and even her athletic prowess were probed. Biden's aneurisms are no
secret. Look at Cheney and Clinton--we all know about their heart
problems. How could I have left out Wild Bill before or during the White House?

Nope... not one lady has stepped up and said, "He was soooo shy," or
"What a great dancer!" Now look at the rest of this.... no classmates,
not even the recorder for the Columbia class notes ever heard of him.

I just don't know about this fellow.

Who was the best man at his wedding? Start there. Then check groomsmen.
Then get the footage of the graduation ceremony.

Has anyone talked to the professors? It is odd that no one is bragging
that they knew him or taught him or lived with him.

When did he meet Michele and how? Are there photos? Every president
gives to the public all their photos, etc. for their library. What has
he released?

And who in hell voted for him to be the most popular man in 2010?????

Does this make you wonder?

Ever wonder why no one ever came forward from Obama's past, saying they
knew him, attended school with him, was his friend, etc. ? Not one person
has ever come forward from his past.

VERY, VERY STRANGE… This should really be a cause for great concern. To
those who voted for him, you may have elected an unqualified, inexperienced
shadow man.

Did you see a picture called The Manchurian Candidate?

Let's face it. As insignificant as we all are... someone whom we went to
school with remembers our name or face ... someone remembers we were the
clown or the dork or the brain or the quiet one or the bully or something
about us.

George Stephanopoulos of ABC News said the same thing during the 2008
campaign. He questions why no one has acknowledged the president was in
their classroom or ate in the same cafeteria or made impromptu speeches
on campus. Stephanopoulos also was a classmate of Obama at Columbia--the
class of 1984. He says he never had a single class with him.

While he is such a great orator, why doesn't anyone in Obama's college
class remember him? And, why won't he allow Columbia to release his
records?

NOBODY REMEMBERS OBAMA AT COLUMBIA

Looking for evidence of Obama's past, Fox News contacted 400 Columbia
University students from the period when Obama claims to have been there,
but none remembered him. For example, Wayne Allyn Root was, like Obama,
a political science major at Columbia, who also graduated in 1983. In
2008, Root says of Obama, "I don't know a single person at Columbia that
knew him, and they all know me. I don't have a classmate who ever knew
Barack Obama at Columbia ... EVER!

Nobody recalls him. Root adds that he was also, like Obama, "Class of  83
political science, pre-law" and says, "You don't get more exact or closer
than that. Never met him in my life, don't know anyone who ever met him."

At the class reunion, our 20th reunion five years ago, who was asked to
be the speaker of the class? Me. No one ever heard of Barack! And five
years ago, nobody even knew who he was. The guy who writes the class
notes, who 's kind of the, as we say in New York,  the macha  who knows
everybody, has yet to find a person, a human who ever met him."

Obama's photograph does not appear in the school's yearbook, and Obama
consistently declines requests to talk about his years at Columbia ,
provide school records, or provide the name of any former classmates or
friends while at Columbia ...

NOTE: Root graduated as valedictorian from his high school,
Thornton-Donovan School , then graduated from Columbia University in 1983
as a political science major in the same class in which Barack Hussein
Obama states he was.

Some other interesting questions…

Why was Obama's law license inactivated in 2002?

Why was Michelle's law license inactivated by court order?

It is circulating that according to the U.S. Census, there is only one
Barack Obama but 27 Social Security numbers and over 80 aliases.

WHAT!?

The Social Security number he uses now originated in Connecticut where he
is never reported to have lived.

No wonder all his records are sealed!

Is the American Dream dead?

Forty percent of Americans think that our economy is in a permanent state of decline and will never get better.  Five out of ten Americans, one out of two, think that there is virtually no chance that their children will have better lives than they did.  That has been the American dream for generations.  For generations that has been the American dream – that I’ll work hard, I’ll care for my children, I’ll nurture them, I’ll see that they are educated, and they will have a better life than their parents had.  That dream is gone.  It is going. 

At this point, to be completely honest and absolutely honest with you, my disgust and contempt for Barack Obama grows every time I see his picture, every single time I see that face and every time I hear him speak. 

I’m 58 years old and I love this county, and I thank God every day that I was born in this country.    Every one of  my father's his kids … he had three … their standard of living rose above what he enjoyed, and I’m hoping it will be the same for my daughters.  But it stops there.  Americans have lost that confidence. 

This standard of living we have in this country was not brought to us by government; it was brought to us by free people working in an economic system of capitalism and free enterprise, where every individual out there was empowered to pursue their dreams as far as their dreams would take them … with the rule of law always out there to protect them from predators – the economic predators, the criminal predators – always out there ready to protect them.  It was the free enterprise system that created a standard of living unsurpassed by any other economic system anywhere in the world in the history of civilized man, and then the people of this country put a man dedicated to the destruction of capitalism and free enterprise in the White House. 

As late as the 1980s, this man, Barack Obama, was a dedicated Marxist revolutionary.  Then his zeal was tempered somewhat because he finally figured out that there wasn’t going to be a Communist revolution in the United States.  His father was a Communist.  His mother was a Communist, and when his father disappeared from his life, his mother took on a lover who was a Communist.  He hung out with Communists in college.  He gravitated toward Communist professors in college.  And now he is president of the United States? 

This is a man who, when he decided that he was going to finally enter the political realm, decided that he would make that announcement in the home of two dedicated Communist revolutionaries: Bernadine Dohrn and Bill Ayers.  Everything about this man -- from his childhood, through college and his entry into politics -- everything about him is infused in Marxism and anti-capitalism and a hatred for the private sector and free enterprise and a love of government.   And he becomes president of the United States.  And now people think the American dream is over … that our free market economy is in permanent decline and will never get better.  Surprised?  Not me.

Weiner pull out

Sorry for the obvious headline there .. but I’m going in a direction you might not expect, so I needed that to maintain my reputation for insensitivity.

First – I think that Anthony Weiner is actually emotionally disturbed.  I would have seen nothing wrong with allowing him to seek therapy and continue with his job.  The one factor that speaks against this would be his blatant lying to the media and his attempt to hang the whole thing on Andrew Breitbart.

Another thing … I thought Tony the Bone showed some class yesterday when those idiotic hecklers showed up at his announcement.  This is a man who lost his career and is fighting to save his marriage, and these fools are yelling insults at him.  Weiner showed far more courage and class with his stoic demeanor than these ignoranuses did with their attacks on him.  

THIS AIN'T A DAMN JOKE, PREZBO

Yesterday PrezBo went to North Carolina to meet with his Council on Jobs and Competiveness.  I know what you are thinking .. Barack Obama is the last guy that I would associate with job creation or competitiveness .. these businessmen must be insulted when he gets up to talk about the issue.  But when asked about the bureaucratic red tape that can delay projects or put a stop to them completely, Obama jokingly says:  "Shovel-ready was not as ... uh .. shovel-ready as we expected." 
Gee, ya think?  And it was nice of you to have a little chuckle at your own cleverness, PrezBo …. But the people who have been out of work for six months weren’t laughing with you. 
Barack Obama said that if we implemented his grand stimulus plan, it would provide for hundreds of thousands of “shovel-ready” projects that will bring our unemployment rate below 8%.  We HAD to do this, otherwise our country would not recover.  Remember?  So $821 billion later, what do we have to show for it?
“Unemployment is now 25 percent higher than when the president took office, the deficit is 35 percent higher, and gas prices have more than doubled,” according to Commentary Magazine.
Obama’s stimulus included $28 billion in new highway money, which he said would "create or save" 150,000 jobs by the end of 2010.  These are the quintessential “shovel-ready” jobs that Obama jokes turned out to be not so shovel ready. 
From Investors Business Daily:

A new study by economists Timothy Conley of the University of Western Ontario and Bill Dupor of Ohio State found that despite the influx of all that federal money, highway construction jobs actually plunged by nearly 70,000 between 2008 and 2010.
As the authors explain, many states simply took the free federal money and shifted their own highway funds to meet other needs.  Examples:

• Texas got $700 million in highway stimulus funds last year, but spent $560 million less on its roads in 2010 than it did in 2009.
• New York's highway spending was basically unchanged between 2009 and 2010, despite getting $522 million more in federal highway bucks.
• Michigan boosted its highway spending just $17.4 million, far below the $189 million extra the feds handed the state for highway improvements.

These jobs and our economy, Mr. President, are not a joke.  This stimulus bill was your great plan at turning the tide of this nation.  This was it!  When others, like yours truly, were telling you that MORE government spending on “shovel-ready” projects were not going to be the way to save this nation and grow our economy, you passed the gargantuan bill, continued to pass other bills (like ObamaCare) that increased the size of government and then refused to do anything to actually tackle our entitlement crisis.
According to government figures: When you add up all of the money that we owe in order to cover our future liabilities in entitlements, our country is now in worse financial shape than Greece.  Greece!  While Obama has nearly doubled our debt to $14.3 trillion, that doesn’t even compare to the $50 trillion that we owe when you include Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.
This is not a laughing matter.  Americans are not impressed that you “have a better plane” than three years ago or you now travel “with a bigger entourage.”  What Americans DO know is that your stimulus plans were a big fat freaking failure and their families are paying the price for it and will continue to pay the price for your policies for decades.

Separation of church and state

The concept of separation of church and state refers to the distance in the relationship between organized religion and the nation state. The term is an offshoot of the phrase, "wall of separation between church and state," as written in Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists Association in 1802. The original text reads: "...I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State." Jefferson reflected his frequent speaking theme that the government is not to interfere with religion.^[1] The phrase was quoted by the United States Supreme Court first in 1878, and then in a series of cases starting in 1947. Like many other governing principles, the phrase "separation of church and state" itself does not appear in the United States Constitution. The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
The concept of separation has since been adopted in a number of countries, to varying degrees depending on the applicable legal structures and prevalent views toward the proper role of religion in society. A similar principle of laïcité has been applied in France and Turkey, while some socially secularized countries such as Norway have maintained constitutional recognition of an official state religion. The concept parallels various other international social and political ideas, including secularism, disestablishment, religious liberty, and religious pluralism. Whitman (2009) observes that in many European countries, the state has, over the centuries, taken over the social roles of the church, leading to a generally secularized public sphere.

FALLING OFF A CLIFF

And, of course, it just has to be Bush’s fault, doesn’t it?  Well come on!  Obama now knows that everything thing he’s tried; his moronic and economically destructive Pelosi-designed stimulus plan, his hire-more-government-workers jobs programs, his promoting of jobs-killing unions, his animosity toward private enterprise … none of it is working.  So of course he’s going to blame Bush.  We’ll keep hearing phrases from the Obamajahadeen about “turning the corner” and “moving in the right direction” as Barry begs for another term so that he can continue his “fundamental transformation” of the United States. 
When the people look at our economy there are two things that really stand out right now.  One is jobs, the other is housing.  And just how are we doing on the jobs front?  In January, February and March we added about 200,000 private sector jobs every month.  That fell to 180,000 in April.  In may it looks like the numbers may be around 40,000.  That’s “turning the corner?”  That’s “moving in the right direction?”  For people looking for work, I don’t think so.  It takes about 150,000 new private sector jobs every month just to keep up with population growth.
Housing?  I don’t know about where you stays (or “live,” if you don’t live in the city center) but in Atlanta home values now are around their 1999 value.  Many Americans, perhaps most Americans, have the bulk of their wealth tied up in home equity … and now that equity has turned to vapor for many.  People are seeing their retirements disappear! 
Simply put, Obama has no plan to bring our private sector economy back.  He has grand plans to expand the size of government and to improve the economic lives of those who work for government however.  What is the one place in this country where home prices are holding their own?  That would be around Washington DC.  The one economically secure area of our country – the seat of the Imperial Federal Government of the United States. 
Many experts think we’re heading back into another recession.  Inflation is up.  In fact, if we measured inflation with the same metrics that were in use when Jimmy Carter was in office the inflation rate would be around 10%.  Reelecting Obama would be like strapping on an economic suicide vest and giving the trigger to your worst enemy.

A FEW SIMPLE TRUTHS

As we approach the 2012 elections, there are a few truisms that you need to understand about our current political climate. 

• Obama will campaign on a platform of wealth envy because he knows the people of this country are too ignorant and lazy to understand they’re being manipulated.

• Creating wealth is greedy and people who have wealth got in by cheating or scamming the system.  Therefore, stealing their wealth and giving it to those who did not work for it is justified.

• There are two types of ObamaMedia coverage: Defending Barack Obama and demonizing conservatives.

• To Democrats seeking re-election, facts about the fiscal crisis our country faces are about as useless as the Constitution.

• The unions WILL support Barack Obama and the Democrats.  Big time.
  
• Any utterance in opposition to Obama or any Obama idea or proposal is racist.

• The average college student will support Obama because it is the “cool” thing to do.
  
• The vast majority of black voters will support Obama because he looks like them. 

• If nothing happens with entitlement reform in 2011, you can bet your buns that it ain’t gonna happen in 2012, an election year. 

• If the tea parties re-emerge in a big way, their efforts will be painted as “violent” or “hate-filled” or “raaaaacist.”

And finally …

• Make Sarah Palin the GOP nominee and you can guarantee another four years of President Barack Obama.

This certainly isn’t the end of this list .. just having a bit of fun this morning.  It will get longer.  Much longer. 

Obama Gives Israel to Hamas

No long rant here on Obama’s speech on the Middle East yesterday.  Frankly, I have never taken the time to really study the situation between Israel and the so-called Palestinians.   Here are some thoughts.  Some are certainties – the others are rebuttable presumptions:  

•  Obama gave Egypt one billion dollars which he will subsequently have to take away from the people in this country who worked for and earned it.

•  Obama now has essentially taken credit for the so-called “Arab Spring.”  He had nothing to say when the people of Iran rose up against their Islamic masters.  Now he’s the man who brought it all about.

•  The real Palestinian homeland is now known as Jordan.

•  Remember that Yassir Arafat was an Egyptian, not a Palestinian.  

•  Those we call “Palestinians” are essentially cannon fodder for Arab Countries that want to destroy the State of Israel.  

• If Israel is forced back to its 1967 boundaries the country may well become indefensible.  Several larger Israeli cities will be in range of rocket fire, and you can bet the ranch that Hamas, Hezbollah or some other anti-Israeli Muslim faction will load up the rocket launchers sooner or later.

• Jews in the United States can generally be counted on to vote for Democrats.  The Jewish vote will still go to Obama and the Democrats in 2012.  Obama could propose that Israel be divided up between Egypt and Lebanon and all Jews sent to Greenland, and the Jewish vote would still go to Obama. 

• Perhaps the principal point here is that under Obama countries who are generally not friendly to America are in much better shape than countries who clearly love us.   

SOME RANDOM THOUGHTS ON OBAMA AND bin LADEN

Trust me, after a solid week of wall-to-wall coverage of the Royal wedding, I am beyond thrilled to have wall-to-wall coverage of the death of radical Islamic murderer Osama bin Laden.  Just like much of the country, and the world, I’m trying to piece together the details of how we got here and how the operation went down.  One thing is for sure … our intelligence community should be praised for its diligent work in tracking him down, our intelligence and military must be praised for crafting this targeted mission and the Navy Seals who carried out the mission should be awarded the highest possible honor for their skill and heroism. 
And that brings us to Barack Obama ……
Have you heard?  I’m not exactly a fan of our current president.  I feel that he’s dangerous to the cause of liberty, and I earnestly hope that every single day I’ll manage to say something – to put across one small point somewhere – that will cause someone out there who supports Obama to pause for a minute and to say to themselves  “maybe, just maybe, there are some things about this man I haven’t considered.”  In order for that to happen, listeners – whether friendly or unfriendly – have to believe that I’m trying to be honest with them.  And just how will listeners believe I’m trying to be objective and honest if I am completely unable to give credit where credit is due, or if I have to grudgingly give credit laced with sarcasm.  So you’re now going to see hear me (or see me) use a phrase I generally try to avoid.  That phrase?  President Barack Obama.  When considering the operation that turned bin Laden into fish food Obama showed himself to be presidential.  Maybe it’s early in this particular game, but I can’t think of one single area in this entire scenario where Obama comes in for any legitimate criticism.  That may change tomorrow or next week as we learn more ... but for now it’s “job well done, Mr. President.” 
So yesterday we had Baba Wawa saying on The View that she “would hate to be a Republican running against Obama.”  There you go, my friends.  That’s going to be spin from the left.  We’re going to be told time and time again over that Obama has been made electorally bulletproof by virtue of two bullets in Osama’s head.  This is more the progressive dream than it is the American reality.  The progs think that those who believe in personal responsibility, freedom and economic liberty are the dark underside of America.  They also know in their hearts that Obama has been a miserable (and utterly predictable) failure as president – bin Laden’s death notwithstanding – and they are grasping at anything that will give them hope for 2012. 
So .. will this bump in Obama’s popularity vanquish that pesky little pro- liberty cabal next year?  Sorry … I don’t think so; and I certainly pray that it doesn’t turn out that way.  Remember, if you will, that Bush 43’s approval rating after the liberation of Kuwait was in the 90s.  Barbara Walters wasn’t grinning like someone had stuffed a coat hanger in her mouth then.  Not many presidents ever see approval ratings in the 90s, and Bush 43 found himself a one-term president in short order.  Sure, Obama is going to get a boost in his approval ratings, but they won’t carry him through next year’s election.  And why not?  Consider, if you will ………….

• The death of Osama bin Laden isn’t going to pay off a dollar of our national debt, nor is it going to result in any significant lowering of our deficit.

• Two bullets in Osama’s head aren’t going to create jobs in America or help Americans save their homes from foreclosure.

• Osama’s burial at sea isn’t magically going to lead to a discovery vast new undersea oil reserves that will ease the pain of record-high gas prices. 

Obama’s failure to find and deal with Osama (has)bin Laden wasn’t what brought him these negative approval numbers, and sending bin Laden to his eternal celestial waterbed is not going to permanently raise those numbers.  The economy still sucks, the dollar continues to fall, business start-ups continue to be slow (or non-existent) due to the tax and regulatory burdens they face in this country.  Obama continues in his belief that America’s greatness comes from government and that it is his role as our Dear Ruler to seize wealth from those who have produced it and give it to those who have not because that’s “fair”.  Obama’s proposed budgets still call for increased spending in a nation that has spent itself to the brink of insolvency.  In other words … the things that made Obama dangerous to the cause of liberty and our economic future haven’t changed one iota with the death of bin Laden.
Yes … Barack Obama should be praised for making the final call to carry out the mission.  He filled the role of Commander in Chief admirably doing what a good CIC does … telling his team to “go get ‘em.”   
But there are still some looming questions and new debates that have stemmed from the news of Osama’s death.  Let’s see if we can tackle a few of these … shall we?

The Gitmo/torture debate

As the story unfolds, we are learning that our intelligence community found Osama bin Laden’s compound by tracking his most trusted courier.  This was the guy whom Osama trusted to carry his messages out to the world.  But the controversy is how our intelligence found this guy to begin with … apparently through “harsh interrogation tactics” of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed  and others in secret CIA prisons in Poland and Romania.  It was in these secret prisons where KSM and his successor gave up the nom de guerre of the courier who eventually led the CIA to Osama’s compound.  I’m also led to believe that these names were given up by KSM, perhaps during a nice cozy little waterboarding session, during the presidency of George W. Bush.  Now once the CIA had the nickname for this guy, actually finding him proved to be tough but eventually did happen because of one phone call he took last year.  I highly suggest reading the details of that story, as they are very interesting and commendable.  But the point of all this is that it brings into question the gathering of intelligence material in secret prisons or places like Guantanamo Bay.  Do the ends (killing bin Laden) justify the means (“torture”)?  Up until Sunday night, the Left would tell you absolutely not.  That was until their guy – Barack Obama – used information from these tactics to end the decade-long manhunt for bin Laden. 
A quick word about what the left just loves to rant about --- torture.  A question:  Would you torture someone in order to obtain information that you knew would be absolutely necessary to save the lives of your family?  My answer?  Not only yes, but hell yes.  If your answer is any different then might I suggest that you have a little family meeting and tell them how you feel on this issue?  Then sit back and accept their love and understanding for your great stand on human rights. 

Should we really have shot the SOB?

At first I was disappointed with the news that Osama bin Laden was shot and killed.  But this is another “not only yes, but hell yes” question.  I was hoping that the SOB would have a little bit of suffering to do before visiting his 72 virgins.  But the more I thought about it, I was OK with the idea that the last thing this goon saw was a muzzle flash.  But some people are questioning the “Obama Doctrine: Better dead than Gitmo.”  Should we have captured the SOB for the purposes of gathering more valuable intelligence on this war with radical Islam?
Osama dead and feeding Arabian Sea lobsters is the best possible end to this.  If Obama had been captured he would be the focal point of protests and demands from the Islamic world.  It doesn’t take a brilliant intelligence and political operation to understand that if Osama were taken alive the very least we could expect would be that by now some Islamic goons would have kidnapped an American family touring some part of the world, and would be demanding the release of bin Laden in return for the lives of those Americans.  What president would like to see a video of some American tourist’s head being cut off while he refuses to release a murdering Islamic monster? 

What to do about Pakistan

Perhaps the biggest red flag in the wake of all of this has been Pakistan.  The fact that Osama was able to reside just outside of its nation’s capital and just meters from its main military training facility should make anybody’s spidey senses go on alert.  Something ain’t right.  Are you telling me that NOBODY in Pakistan or in Abbottabad noticed this compound, eight times larger than other structures in the area with high walls, security doors and barbed wire?
Come on, folks.  Of course Pakistan knew Osama was there.  They knew he was there and they wanted him gone BAD.  So here’s your probable scenario:  Pakistani officials make it clear to American intelligence operatives that they want bin Laden dealt with.  “Look .. you send your helicopters in here and take this guy out.  We will not interfere.  We will scramble some of our jet fighters at the last minute and chase your helicopters back to the Afghan border .. but they won’t shoot at your men.  Then when this is over we’re going to issue a few little mild complaints about you violating our sovereignty and how we had no idea that Osama bin Laden was hiding 100 yards from our principle military academy … and everybody is happy.” 

Osama’s wife used as a shield

What a coward.  When it came down to it, Osama bin Laden hid behind one of his wives in order to shield himself from the Navy SEAL team.  She died in the attack.  This is pretty much what you would expect from a brave warrior of Islam.  Muslim radicals are not exactly warm and fuzzy (beards notwithstanding) when it comes to respecting and honoring women. 

Should Bush get credit?

I’ve said this from the beginning … I have nothing negative to say about Obama’s handling of the bin Laden situation.  At the end of the day, it was Obama who gave the OK for the operation to take place.  He deserves all the praise for making the final call.  But how much of the credit should George W. Bush get in this situation?  Remember .. much of the intelligence information that was used to locate bin Laden was gathered either during or using techniques developed under Bush.  Would Obama have engaged in those “enhanced interrogation techniques?”  Hard to say, but you would have to guess that the answer is no. 

BIN LADEN D.E.A.D.

Really the only bad news here is that he died of a head shot.  That’s too quick.  Not enough suffering.  But our Navy Seal Team 6 ended a decade-long manhunt this morning in Pakistan in a brief firefight that ended with Osama bin Laden and one of his sons dead.  More good news?  Not one of our Seals was lost in the operation.  And just as Muslims celebrated the attacks of 9/11, flag-waving Americans gathered outside the White House to cheer the news last night.
We’re going to be hearing more details of last night’s raid as the day goes on.  I was particularly heartened by the news that bin Laden was given the chance to surrender to the Navy Seals.  He refused, and was promptly shot in the head.  I’m hoping that the gun was pointed to his head when the invitation was issued and declined, and that the last thing bin Laden saw was a muzzle flash.
While were celebrating the death of this Muslim goon, and as the details of the raid continue to come in, there are a few things to consider:  The threat of revenge and opportunities to advance the cause of peace with the Islamic world.
Revenge?  Of course!  Amid the celebration it doesn’t take long to realize that various factions of radical Islam are going to want to respond to the death of bin Laden with attacks on America and Americans.  The State Department has already issued a warning to Americans traveling around the world … telling them, in essence, to watch their backs.  Homeland Security forces will be on high alert for any threats or attacks domestically.  Radical Islamists are going to want to exact revenge … and they know they need to strike quickly.  Why quickly?  Because they know that our Navy Seals came out of that bin Laden compound in Pakistan with boatloads of intelligence in the form of documents and computers.  Al Qaeda operatives around the world know that they may well have been identified and located through the intelligence gathered during the raid.  They are all now targets.  In fact, my guess is that there are operations going on around the world right now to take these people out.  Perhaps they feel that they need to strike while they’re still able.
And what’s this about an opportunity for peace?  I haven’t heard this thought from anyone else, but perhaps this might be the time to reach out to the Islamic world with a message that the United States has achieved its goal of bringing Osama bin Laden to justice … and that now would be a good time to try to move toward peace and cooperation.  Who knows … it’s just a thought.  Perhaps the bigger question here is whether or not this particular president is capable of pulling this off.


Now … conspiracy theories?  I already heard a few.  Some are suggesting that bin Laden was actually captured some time ago and the announcement is just now being made.  Others will make a big deal out of the fact that there is no body.  Give us a break, folks.  First of all … do you think our military and every military man involved is going to go along with this type of a ruse?  No chance.  And a body?  That’s all we need right now is a body … a focal point for Islamic protests.  The word is that bin Laden was buried at sea.  If so, this was a brilliant move.  If he was captured and held, or if he was buried in a grave anywhere, then the place of his detainment or burial would become a focal point for radical Islam for years to come.  I’m sure there are pictures – and it would be great to see them.  Osama bin Laden with a nice round little red dot in his forehead.
Pakistan?  Bin Laden was discovered in a military town in Pakistan.  He was located less than a quarter-mile from a Pakistani army training facility.  I think we know that Pakistan knew where he was all along … now we find out just how helpful Pakistan was in bringing him to justice. 
By the way … I just loved the chants of USA USA USA from the midshipmen at the U.S. Naval Academy.

Let's just say it was entirely predictable

Now before we begin this discussion … let's point out that there is only one political party in Washington pushing for any spending cuts. Only one. And that is the Republican party. Obummer's budget even calls for spending increases. The only reason the Democrats are even willing to address spending cuts is because the Republicans – and the tea parties – have dragged them kicking and screaming to the issue. In Washington DC money equals power. When you take money away from politicians you take away their power. There are some politicians in Washington who will jeopardize the future of this country in order to maintain their power … and there are some who actually take their responsibilities to our children and future generations seriously. You figure out which is which.
Sadly, there are far too many Americans who believe that all we really have to do in order to balance our budget is to cut foreign aid and make the evil rich pay their "fair share" in taxes. More on that coming up …
The reality is that even if the federal government got rid of all foreign aid and earmarks, "we'd still have a huge problem, because most of our budget goes to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and defense spending, about 70 percent of the budget. Everything else we do is only about 30 percent of the budget." That's not a quote from Rep. Paul Ryan who just proposed his budget plan. That's not even a quote from a Republican. That's a quote from Barack Obama, our esteemed Community Organizer. I bring this up to show that Democrats, including Obama, are aware that entitlement spending is perhaps THE issue we are facing fiscally.
Now we have someone who has actually faced reality and come forth with a plan to do something about our debt and spending crisis … and a crisis it is! So somebody actually stands up and proposes we do something about it. That person was Rep. Paul Ryan. He suggests changing the way Medicaid and Medicare are funded and administered, putting more power back into the hands of the states. Uh oh. There's that power thing again. Taking power away from Washington and sending it back to your local government? Takes a rare breed of Washington politician to go along with that idea. Ryan doesn't even touch Social Security. But based on the reaction from Democrats and the media, you would think that he wanted to completely scrap entitlements in this country and "give" all of that money to rich people and corporations.
I'm serious, folks. Have you seen some of the reaction over the last 24 hours? Well let me give you a few of the highlights .. just in case.
- Princess Pelosi tweeted that Rep. Paul Ryan's budget proposal "is a path to poverty for America's seniors and children and a road to riches for big oil."
How childish – and how typically Pelosian. How absolutely ignorant must she believe her Twitter followers to be. "A path to poverty?" Letting the states administer these programs instead of the federal government leads us to poverty? Just because the federal government would play less of a role in Medicare and Medicaid doesn't mean that millions of Americans are going to be left destitute. It means that programs like Medicaid will be allowed to function more efficiently by spending money based on its states needs. It would give seniors under Medicare the freedom to purchase their own health insurance with a premium-support program. Choice! What an amazing concept! A retired person would be able to look at their own financial and health situation and select a program that best suits their needs! Democrats hate this, of course, because only Democrats can determine what these Seniors need. Giving people the power to chose leads them to poverty. Yeah .. right.
This country was founded on the principles of freedom and individual choice, and based on these ideals has created more wealth and opportunity than any other nation on the free planet. I don't buy this "Americans will end up poor if the federal government doesn't provide and make their choices for them" yak squeeze. And as for the "road to riches for big oil" .. I can only assume that Pelosi is referring to Ryan's plan to cap corporate tax rates at 25%. Understand something about Nancy Pelosi .. any money earned by a corporation does not belong to that corporation but belongs to the government and the government then decides how much of that money the corporation can keep. If the corporation is "allowed" to keep more of its money, this means .. in the bizarro liberal world according to Nancy Pelosi .. that we are "giving" money to these corporations. Got it?
- Illinois Democrat Senator Dick Durbin says, "When he doesn't address savings in the Department of Defense and doesn't deal with revenue, it results in dramatic cuts in Medicare benefits and Medicaid services."
In part, I agree; Ryan's plan does little to tackle defense spending (which has doubled over the last ten years) except to adopt Defense Secretary Robert Gates's plan to target inefficiencies at the Pentagon. There's plenty of excess in the Pentagon budget and military spending should not be treated as a sacred cow (no offense meant to the computer tech support industry.) But let's address this "doesn't deal with revenue" comment. When Dick Durbin says "deal with revenue," this is a code phrase for: "Ryan's plan doesn't increase taxes on the filthy, disgusting rich." On Meet the Press this week Durbin said that he was upset that the impending GOP budget, does "not imposing any new sacrifice on the wealthiest Americans." Remember … and I'll repeat this a few times today … the top 50% of Americans pay all of the individual income taxes, and the top 1% pay 40% of those taxes. When the top 1% of income earners are paying 40% of all personal income taxes I would say that the level of sacrifice is getting on up there. Doesn't matter to Democrats though .. .there's always more blood that can be drawn.
Democrats don't like to hear it .. but we have a spending problem, not a taxing problem. You'll see what I mean elsewhere in the Nuze. You generate more revenue for government by growing and expanding the economy .. and under Rep. Paul Ryan's plan, the Heritage Foundation estimates that we would see $1.1 trillion in higher wages and an average of $1,000 in additional family income each year. Could you use that $1000?
- Maryland Rep. Chris Van Hollen, the top Democrat on the Budget Committee:
"it is not courageous to protect tax breaks for millionaires, oil companies and other big-money special interests while slashing our investment in education, ending the current health care guarantees for seniors on Medicare, and denying health care coverage to tens of millions of Americans."
Again, note the language: "tax breaks for millionaires, oil companies and other big-money special interests." Tax breaks for millionaires? What is he talking about? Oh .. I remember! Not raising taxes on households and small businesses with over $250,000 in taxable income. Those people are "millionaires." At least Van Hollen didn't say "millionaires and billionaires." That's the new Democrat line, you know. I've made it clear that I do not support corporate welfare, but I also don't support the highest corporate tax rates in the industrialized world. But what Ryan's budget does address are these asinine ethanol subsidies .. that charade would end. Oh and as for "slashing out investment in education," that should read: losing our re-election campaign funds from the teachers unions.
- Democrat Sen. Debbie Stabenow: (I'm sorry, but this insipid woman puts a new definition to "idiot.") "Pulling the rug out from under seniors who have paid into Medicare and Social Security their entire lives is wrong, and extreme plans that dismantle benefits seniors have earned will not pass the Senate."
Did this woman even read the proposal .. a summary .. anything? Or is it one of those things where we would have to pass the budget in order to find out what's in it? That seemed to work for Princess Pelosi. But Ryan's plan doesn't even touch Social Security and Medicare would still exist but would allow for seniors to have more choice over their health insurance options. Wow, talk about "extreme!"
- Democrat Senator Tom Harkin:"House Republicans are taking a meat ax to programs for the middle class, and especially our senior citizens – everything from cancer research to Pell Grants to Medicare. It's the same game plan: Give huge tax cuts to the wealthy, and give budget cuts to the middle class and the most vulnerable people in our society, including seniors and people with disabilities."
The Democrats will not be able to get over the fact that Paul Ryan's budget caps the top corporate and income tax rates at 25%. Let me remind you of these three historical lessons of lowering tax rates. In each case - the tax cuts of the 1920s, the Kennedy tax cuts, and the Reagan tax cuts – the top tax brackets were slashed and revenues increased big time.
- Democrat Senator Tom Harkin, again … "This new tea party budget proposal gives new meaning to the term extreme and it represents an assault on the middle class in Iowa and around the country that is breathtaking both in both scope and depth. It could not come at a worse time for working Americans, who are already under enormous strain.
There it is again! "Extreme." Oh, that's right. Almost forgot. Chuckie Schumer did instruct Democrats that they're supposed to use the word "extreme" in referring to Republican budget cut ideas. Other talking points to look out for in this debate: assault, draconian and pull the rug out.
- Iowa Democrat Congressman Bruce Braley:"What really got us into this fiscal mess was letting Wall Street run wild, fighting multiple wars for a decade at a time, and giving the very wealthiest Americans every possible break. Iowans didn't create this deficit or double the debt – but politicians want them to be on the hook for the all of it. That's just not right."
Actually …. you people in Iowa, and every other person who votes in this country, are responsible. You DID create this deficit. You created it because you continued to elect people into office who spent this money, grew the size of government and looted for the purposes of wealth redistribution. You helped to create it by Democrats to Washington who protected Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from Bush 41s reform efforts. Nobody told you that you had to keep putting these people in office. You could have held them accountable. But you didn't and now you will pay the consequences.
- Democrat Rep. Emanuel Cleaver already managed to make this budget about .. you guessed it .. race! He says, "It's clearly a nervous breakdown on paper and it will do enormous damage, I think, to the vulnerable populations of this country. I'm not suggesting that Mr. Ryan wants to do damage but it is doing damage nonetheless. And when you consider the unemployment rate for African Americans is reaching a 25-year high, it's 15.5 percent and rising, and that means that the people who are going to be impacted by layoffs, for example, particularly in the public sector, are going to be minorities. Minorities make up one-fourth of the federal workforce. They did that because they figured if they can work for the federal government there will be less opportunity for somebody to discriminate against them."
So now we can't cut the size of our government because it will negatively impact blacks in this country. Rep. Emanuel Cleaver seems to hold a rather low opinion of blacks in this country to suggest that they need the federal government to provide them jobs, otherwise they will not be able to make something of themselves in the private sector. Two words: "Work ethic."