Why Not Just End The Bush Tax Cuts?
Jul 24, 2012 Political
In the last decade or so since the “Bush Tax Cuts” were enacted the Democrats and their media wing have portrayed those cuts as tax cuts for the rich. During the campaigns and throughout the years whenever there was a debate about the budget and the deficit the Democrats would say that George Bush gave tax cuts to the rich and that those tax cuts for the rich were hurting the economy.
I, as well as many others, tried to explain that the Bush Cuts helped the middle class and the poor much more than the rich. The rich ended up with more of the burden as the middle class and poor had their taxes lowered by much greater percentages and that the cuts ended up increasing revenue to the Treasury. This is not a matter for debate here and anyone who is willing to invest time can look at the government’s own numbers to see that it is true.
[note]The reason that tax cuts end up costing us more is not because of a decrease in revenue. It is always because politicians spend even more when revenues increase.[/note]
The bottom line is that Democrats always rejected the idea that the Tax Cuts helped those who are not rich. No, they were ALWAYS Bush’s tax cuts for the rich. Listen to any debate and read any transcript and you will see how these tax cuts were defined by the left. For the rich, period…
So if these tax cuts were only for the rich and since Obama and the Democrats want to raise taxes on the rich, why not just let the tax cuts expire and the net effect will be a tax increase on the rich?
Sounds perfectly logical since the tax cuts were ONLY (according to the left of years gone by) for the rich, letting them expire will only affect the rich.
Except it won’t. You see, the Democrats are now forced to admit that the Bush Tax Cuts were not tax cuts solely for the rich and that they were for everyone across the board. Democrats are fighting tooth and nail to remove the wealthy from any extension of the cuts thereby preserving the part that applies to those who are not rich.
You see, if they had been honest back then they might have credibility now but they were not. They played their second favorite game of class warfare (first favorite is using the race card) in order to demonize George Bush and the rest of the Republicans as the party of rich people.
By now recognizing and fighting for the tax cuts that apply to those who are not rich the left has admitted that they were wrong. It has admitted that the Republicans cut taxes for everyone and it has admitted that they were lying in order to win.
If what they said in the past was actually true they would just let the taxes expire but they can’t.
They are caught up in their web of lies regarding taxes and tax cuts.
The Democrats have shown us that they are lairs and that they cannot be trusted with regard to this issue (or any other for that matter) so why should we even listen to what they have to say on the matter?
They lied then and because they did those who are not wealthy are about to see a huge increase in their taxes.
And please, don’t let some liberal tell you that they always meant the part that applied to the rich. They never acknowledged any tax cuts for those who were not rich and always portrayed the cuts as cuts for the rich. They don’t get to change that now just because they got caught up in their lies.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: bush tax cuts, class warfare, democrat lies, middle class, racism, tax cuts for rich
The Other Rich Need To Do Something
Feb 25, 2012 Political
Moochelle Obama was out on the campaign trail, no doubt proud of her country for the first time in her life, and she was talking about how the rich need to do more for the poor. She is likely unaware that the top 50% of wage earners (the rich would be located at the top of that group) pay all the federal income taxes in this country and the bottom 50% get that tax money in the form of social programs. She is also probably not aware that social programs enacted by Democrats have enslaved people to government and kept them from achieving.
Obama asked:
“Will we be a country where success is limited to the few at the top? This country is strongest when we are all better off.” Washington Examiner
Obama is not aware that success is not limited to the few at the top. Anyone in America who has the desire and the education can succeed. What Obama really means is are we going to allow people on welfare to get fewer benefits because the rich are already taxed too much? Yes, the rich pay most of the federal taxes in this country and progressives have redistributed that money for all kinds of unconstitutional and unnecessary programs in the name of social justice.
They do not care that their programs keep people enslaved. Let me rephrase, they care but not for the reasons sane people would. They care because they want, no they NEED, people to be enslaved to government. It is how they continue to get people voting for them and their agenda to rob the rich to pay the poor. Theirs is a plan that has always led to failure. It has taken nearly a century but the failure of Democrat social programs becomes more evident each day. It will only get worse.
The ironic thing is that Obama and her hubby, Barack, are both rich and they also live life high on the hog on taxpayer money. Moochelle goes on expensive vacations (16 in the last three years, some with her husband, some without) that cost the taxpayers lots of money. The argument that it is part of the gig does not hold water. We are in tough economic times and we cannot afford such extravagance. If Obama and her hubby want people to sacrifice (they keep saying we all need to sacrifice – shared sacrifice they call it) they need to lead by example. Every few weeks she is off on another trip with hoards of people and he is on a golf course someplace. Sacrifice, yes for you but not for them. They are American royalty, after all.
Another ironic thing is that Moochelle was saying all of this to people who are very wealthy and who paid a lot of money to hear her talk. The money was raised to help keep her husband in office.
It was probably a drop in the bucket since Barack has been using billions of dollars in taxpayer money to buy votes and get donations. His waste of taxpayer money on green energy companies that end up going out of business and leaving the taxpayer with billions in losses is a scheme to get him more campaign cash. This is also true of his union bailouts and gifts of taxpayer money.
This group of thugs is a criminal enterprise. It is nothing more than Chicago style politics and that means it is corrupt from beginning to end.
Maybe instead of asking the wealthy to sacrifice more than they already have Moochelle could ask unpatriotic folks who pay NO taxes to pony up and get some skin in the game.
And maybe she and hubby could give up those expensive meals they love to stuff in their faces
It is hard to discuss how we are all better off by having the rich sacrifice more when the Obamas routinely eat $150 a POUND Wagyu steak.
Moochelle does not care if we are all better off as long as she is better off.
I guess she is living in one of those two Americas John Edwards used to talk about.
And you can bet your paycheck that it is not the poor one and that she wants to stay there and that she does not care where you are.
It is how progressives work. They use class warfare to pit people against each other. They pretend to worry about the poor while pushing policies that keep people in poverty (or in the case of Barack, put even more people in poverty) and they work hard to make sure they are wealthy and remain that way.
Let’s fire them in November and put some people with class in the White House.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: barack obama, class warfare, democrat, elitist, lies, michelle obama, poor, poverty, progressive, rich, wagyu beef
Obama And Christ, Profit vs. Prophet
Feb 2, 2012 Political
Barack Obama is a religious man of convenience. In other words, he is religious when it suits his purposes. He will quote scripture and tell us how we should all do things according to his incorrect interpretation of a Bible passage and then turn around and ignore the Bible when it suits his political agenda. Today Obama discussed Luke 12:48 (though it is unlikely he knew this is where his paraphrased quote came from). Obama said he did things (like Obamacare and Dodd-Frank) because of Jesus. Obama tells us that government needs to take more money from wealthy people because Jesus says those who have a lot are required to give more:
“And I think to myself, if I’m willing to give something up as somebody who’s been extraordinarily blessed, and give up some of the tax breaks that I enjoy, I actually think that’s going to make economic sense. But for me as a Christian, it also coincides with Jesus’s teaching that ‘for unto whom much is given, much shall be required,‘” Obama said, noting Jewish and Islamic teachings say much the same thing. [bold mine] Buzzfeed
Of course the scripture does not discuss wealth and deals with knowledge. Those who have been given the knowledge are required to do more because they have to teach. Even if we equate this with wealth, nowhere does it say that what is required is to give that wealth away. In fact, if you earned your wealth then it was not given to you but that matters not to Obama. The uninformed will swoon over his words and act as if Jesus was for wealth redistribution.
It is also important to note that nowhere in the scripture Obama mentioned does Jesus require someone else to ensure that those who have give. There is no mandate for Obama to step in and ensure those who have give to those who don’t.
What Obama conveniently igonres are Commandments from the Bible, the Commandments God gave to Moses. Obama is pushing for people who do not have things to be jealous and envious because others have what they do not. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s. [Exodus 20:17].
Obama would take that which belongs to one person and give it to another and he would do so against their will. Thou shalt not steal. [Exodus 20:15]
And since Obama supports murdering unborn children and allowing those born after unsuccessful abortions to die it is obvious that Thou shalt not murder is something he choses to ignore.
I know these things come from the Old Testament and Obama was quoting Jesus because, by golly, Jesus guides Obama’s life.
So let us look at these two passages from the New Testament and use Jesus’ own words to see if Obama is really following the teachings of Christ:
For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies [bold mine] Matthew 15:19
And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, And what shall we do? And he said unto them, Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages. [bold mine] Luke 3:14
Yeah, Obama uses scripture to push a social agenda and acts as if he is guided by the teachings of Jesus but it is obvious that it is a matter of convenience for him.
So as you listen to this so called leader telling you that it is government’s job to take property from one person and give it to another keep in mind that this is the liberal/progressive/Socialist teaching and not the teaching of Jesus.
Or as one of our Founders put it:
“The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If ‘Thou shalt not covet’ and ‘Thou shalt not steal’ were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free.” –John Adams, 1787
Amen!
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: christ, class warfare, commandments, convenience, lies, Obama, scripture
Lackluster Democratic Debate
Nov 16, 2007 Political
Last night the Democrats held a debate in Las Vegas and though supporters will claim their individual candidate won, the reality is that it was a pretty evenly matched contest. Obama and Edwards lost their nerve and refused to continue their attack on Clinton, Clinton played the woman card again (veiled as it might have been) and the entire field promised to give away the country for votes. Richardson will give driver’s licenses to ILLEGALS, Clinton and Edwards will give free health care to everyone and Obama will make health care affordable for everyone which was actually the smartest of any proposal.
The candidates still wavered on Social Security other than to offer the Democratic staple of taxing the rich (note to candidates, that will not solve the problem) and they were elusive on merit pay for teachers. I recorded the event and watched it late last night but could not make it past the first part. It was nothing more than the same old Democratic mantra of raising taxes, class warfare, and promises none of them intend to keep.
Wolf Blitzer was a puppy dog and walked gingerly around Clinton fearing he would be to harsh. He failed to ask follow-up questions of her, legitimate questions, regarding her change of position on driver’s licenses for ILLEGALS. The questions he threw out were so softball that I would not be surprised if they were furnished by the Clinton campaign.
All in all I saw nothing from any candidate that even looked presidential. Leadership requires people to take positions and be firm on them. None of these people takes a firm stance on anything and last night was no difference. With the exception of a few yes or no answers on ILLEGALS and driver’s licenses (the no Clinton gave was not followed up with a question about her change of position) these people nuanced every answer. When they stayed on target their answers were often preceded with some caveat that left a future way out.
I was impressed with Joe Biden’s command of foreign policy but that is all he brings to the table. Richardson sounded like a used car salesman, Edwards a snake oil salesman, Clinton a screeching owl, and Obama a preacher. Kucinich sounded like a raving lunatic and should be fitted with a straight jacket. Other than Biden’s foreign policy strength these candidates were unimpressive.
There was nothing said last night that brings new light on their positions. They regurgitated their talking points and tried to sell us the same bill of goods as they have been peddling all along.
None of these people is worthy of the White House and we will be in trouble if any of them gets elected.
Others with similar items:
Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Perri Nelson’s Website, Rosemary’s Thoughts, guerrilla radio, 123beta, Right Truth, Stix Blog, The Populist, The Pet Haven Blog, Grizzly Groundswell, Leaning Straight Up, Cao’s Blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, The Amboy Times, Conservative Cat, Adeline and Hazel, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, The World According to Carl, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Right Voices, Gone Hollywood, and Church and State, Ron Smith WBAL, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Tags: class warfare, clinton campaign, Democrats, illegals, joe biden, legitimate questions, Obama, presidential leadership, puppy dog, wolf blitzer
More Democratic “Fairness”
Oct 24, 2007 Political
Charlie Rangel has introduced a new tax scheme to extort more money from people making what he considers to be rich people money. The tax increase would offset a reduction in the taxes that corporations pay and it would increase the earned income tax credit. Range’s “fair” plan would charge a surtax of 4% on single people earning $150,000 a year and married people with an income of $200,000. That fairness would increase to 4.6% for those fortunate enough t make $500,000 a year.
I know that people in the lower income brackets will like this idea because they benefit from the labor of others. Democrats love to play class warfare and they love to tax the hell out of people, especially those who make a little money. It is not bad enough that people at these income levels have the same bills as everyone else but in addition to paying for their own expenses they will be paying for the expenses of others. This is not fair, no one will ever convince me this is fair and anyone who thinks this is OK is a socialist thief.
The federal government has no business taking money from us to give it to others. I thought our Constitution gave us equal protection under the law. How can it be equal when those who make more pay a higher percent of income?
People who make more money pay more taxes even when taxed at the same rate as others and that is fair. Making people pay a higher percent of income is wrong, immoral, and unethical. This is especially true when one considers lower income earners consume more of the taxpayer funded services.
Charlie Rangel is another tax increasing liberal Democratic moron. Couple him with the moron who runs Maryland and you have two tax raising morons.
I imagine the wealthy in Maryland are really going to love this double whammy. I guess it is time for folks to start trying to figure out how to reduce their taxable income…
Source:
Nasdaq.com
Tags: charlie rangel, class warfare, earned income tax credit, morons, tax increase, tax scheme, taxable income, unethical