Well, that didn't take very long. On Tuesday, only hours after House Republicans presented a sweeping budget plan which would balance the budget in 10 years without raising taxes, Barack Obama rejected it categorically saying that it was "the wrong course for America"...because it doesn't raise taxes.
According to presidential spokesweasel Jay Carney, "the president believes that mobs should attack the wealthiest Americans with mortars and rocket-propelled grenades, and their fancy walled estates should be set on fire causing those inside to choke to death like our late Ambassador in Benghazi."
Okay, those weren't his exact words - but it was clearly his meaning. What Carney actually said was "Deficit reduction that asks nothing from the wealthiest Americans has serious consequences for the middle class." Although offhand, the only consequences we can think of would be allowing members of the middle class to get jobs, get off foodstamps, and regain some reason for living.
Of course, the Democrats haven't come to the budget table empty-handed. Stunningly, they've presented their first Senate budget in four years! That means they've had lots of time to work on it and get everything exactly right! Not!
The Democrat's "plan" not only doesn't balance the budget in 10 years, it doesn't balance the budget ever. It does, however, add $1 trillion in new taxes (presumably "the right course for America" in Obama's eyes) and cancel the sequester cuts so schoolkids can once again take tours of the Whitehouse and see where the president stores his golf clubs.
But since neither Paul Ryan's fiscal courage or Barack Obama's socialist plans to redistribute wealth are really news, perhaps we should instead turn our attention to the activities at the Vatican, where the world anxiously awaits the election of a new, infallible Pope.
By longheld tradition, all eyes are trained on a small chimney: black smoke means there's no Pope, white smoke means there's a new Pope.
If, however, the smoke is half-white and half-black, it means that Obama is Pope...and that we should all say a prayer for the Catholics.
If this anti-American, anti-wealth joker with the title POTUS were anything but the half-breed mix he is, the idiot electorate and the Caucasian-guilt suffering lame-stream press would have hounded this clown out of office. This administration is clearly set on destroying the USA while couching its agenda in in phony patriot speak. In addition to that, Congressional Dems such as Patty Murray don't even have the stones to share their middle-class destroying budget with Republicans. Really, how much more will the good people of the USA tolerate this schite?
ReplyDeleteI watched Chris VanHolland with Bill Hemmer discuss the Dem budget plan yesterday, and all VanHolland could do was try and talk over Hemmer. I remember back to my debating days when if all you could do was try and out shout your opponent, you already lost the argument.
ReplyDeletePatty Murray never met a tax hike she didn't like, and if she ever had an intelligent independent thought, it would leave for greener pastures. Then there's good ole Dirty Harry - how does one escape all the Nevada Gaming Commission investigations and become a 1%'er on a Senator's salary - Inquiring minds want to know (but probably never will).
The People, thanks to the MSM & the celebrities, are unaware of the reality behind Obama's strategies.
ReplyDeleteSJ - you always manage to get a laugh or two as I read your cartoons & commentary - that's incredible since the subject matter is repulsive!
@Gang of One- I don't have a thing to add to your excellent comment.
ReplyDelete@Grumpy Curmudgeon- I, too, am sick of shouters in the news. They find bombast a suitable substitute for logic. And it may make for good theater, but rotten legislation.
And I, too, am quite curious about how Harry Reid got so rich as a "public servant." Remember when he attacked Romney and said "I heard he didn't pay any taxes for 10 years" and demanded to see the tax returns? That's when people asked for Harry's tax returns, and suddenly Reid found other things to talk about.
@Irene Peduto- Glad that you're finding a laugh or two amidst the bad news. Some days, they're pretty hard to come by.
No big surprises here, but it sure does get my dander up! Does anybody with functioning synapses believe that this huge piece of condensed owl shit we refer to as "the president" actually, like, READ Ryan's budget?
ReplyDeleteI also wonder (not really) where exactly this trillion dollars is coming from. BO would have you believe this will be covered by those evil rich bastards, but us Hope'n'Changers know even the rich don't have THAT much money. So it's right back on middle class businesses again. Your typical obama voter will not be effected one whit, but maybe they will notice when the corner store closes and they can't buy Blunts anymore.
Quite frankly, I'm surprised the Democrats even bothered. Over the last 4 years, they seem to have suffered little ill effect for not presenting one. Since a budget is really just a written statement of priorities, and the priorities of the Democrats are rather embarrassing and indefensible when actually put down in ink, it has been politically better for them not to do so.
ReplyDeleteBut one of the unexpected consequences of the "sequester" is an exposure of what many of those embarrassing priorities really are.
For example, the White House with near glee points out that women and children are being denied food and education. Travelers will be stranded at airports. The sun will not rise. White House tours are cancelled.
And yet presidential golf trips and vacations continued unabated. The Palestinian Authority will get $20-million.
Military veterans will be denied tuition and homeless aid, but money will continue to flow to illegal aliens.
The list of absurdities continues with near endlessness.
So perhaps it really is in the President's interest to do a deal before people start discovering that they've been used as pawns, enemies of the state are continuing to get funded regardless, and the sun actually does continue to rise without help from Obama.
Oh, and let's not forget that while women and children will continue to starve, the Federal government did feel that it was more important to go ahead and fund a study to find out why 3/4ths of lesbians are fat, while most male homosexuals are not.
ReplyDeleteI'm pretty sure that it will somehow be my fault.
@John the Econ -- No. It is [and always will be] Bush's fault.
ReplyDelete'g' is me, the Gangster.
ReplyDelete*sigh*
@Colby- Of course Barry didn't read the budget. And he's already out there saying that his "charm offensive" may not be enough to close the partisan gap with the evil GOP. He's also describing Ryan's plan as a way to balance the budget "on the backs of the poor and elderly" and blah, blah, blah.
ReplyDeleteObama has no intention of ever seeing the trillions in debt (and promises) paid. He simply wants to redistribute wealth until our nation is destroyed (which is not an unintended consequence). He's already killing the middle class, as you point out - and when they go, the rest will fall too.
@John the Econ- The sequester cuts are insanely maddening; deliberately hurting the American people out of pure malice. But I don't think Obama is interested in making any real deals for any reason. He's only feigning interest in such to remove his intransigence from the conversation, much as the Senate's alleged budget plan was offered up simply to get the Right to stop pointing out that there's been no such budget in years.
Regarding the pricey study which asks why lesbians are fat but male Gays are thin, it would seem they should investigate whether there are positive weight-loss effects associated with fellatio. If true, it could turn out to be the best $1.5 million the government has ever spent.
@Gang of One- Bush is "responsible" for so many of Obama's problems that I'm surprised Malia and Sasha haven't been tested for Bush's DNA.
Oh, what fresh hell is this: 2016 Hillary-Michelle 'Dream Ticket' floated. Strap on a barf-bag - this is going to be a really bumpy ride...
ReplyDelete@Emmentaler Limburger- That "dream ticket" is such an appalling idea that I genuinely have nothing witty to say. I sit here in dumbstruck horror, wondering if I should just spend the last of my retirement savings on a few hundred bottles of whiskey. And a bag of pretzels.
ReplyDeleteThe air in DC must be getting heavy. Now, some Dems are giving Murray and Co. the Whiskey Tango Foxtrot over their intransigence regrading their so-called budget -- ha!
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile, the One lets slip even further the mask of civility and his faux outreach to Repubs that even his staffers are calling Bravo Sierra... it just keeps getting better and better.
"we should all say a prayer for the Catholics"
ReplyDeleteNot just for the Catholics - say a prayer for America while you're at it...
@Emmantaler,
ReplyDeleteGaaa! It's the "Star Wars" ticket; Chewbacca and Jar Jar Binks. Or is it Chewbacca and Count Duku? All I gotta say is, the freaking Republicans better get their shit together in 2016 and run somebody who can beat these bastards! NO MORE RINOS!!
We are being set up by the Dems as usual. They know durn well that Murray's tax and spend "punish rich people and give away free shit" budget will never pass the house, and we'll be right back to the blame game.
I'm with Stilton, invest in whiskey and grow the world's largest liver. Maybe when big bro comes to take my last penny and crust of bread, I'll be able to at least conjure up a good hurl and spew chunks in their black Suburban.
@Colby,
ReplyDeleteProblem is that the "conventional wisdom" amongst the talking heads is that the Republicans need to be even more RINO. Romney was apparently too conservative and "they need to put forward a more moderate candidate" in order to win the office.
You can tell there's some level of truth to this when Chris Christie shows as the highest polling GOP candidate.
This is why I continue to be annoyed when people conflate the words Conservative and Republican. While most Conservatives tend to be Republican as opposed to Democrat... that does not mean that most Republicans are actually Conservative.
The fact that they consider "winning" more important than principles tells me they are not Conservative at all... they're just Politicians.
@Gang of One, you sound like I feel. Well said, with the passion we need to get us over the hump.
ReplyDelete@John the Econ, I stuck on my thinking cap when I heard of that study and concluded that the reason is simply that 3/4 have decided to wreathe themselves in the robes of Ultra-feminist behavior by rejecting utterly the typical female ideal. Show me the money, Gubmint!!! Hell, I'll even write it up and put a fancy cover on it and only charge you $5 million. Cheap at twice the price!!
@Stilton Jarlsberg, seeing as how I had on the 'cap, I took your idea regarding positive weight loss vis-a-vis oral satifaction and patented it...the new name.....
"The De-fellatio diet."
I prayed that the cardinals be guided quickly to find a Pope not just so that the Church was no longer without a leader but selfishly to end the media's non stop reporting on what they thought was the Rome 5000.
ReplyDeleteI don't think the smoke had finished clearing the chimney before the attacks had started. Hillary or rosie are the only selections that would have made them happy.
john true enough- 'raise taxes and spend like drunken sailors' could have been summited on a single paper 4 years ago.
ReplyDeletehillary and the wokIe is bad but vs jeb bush and crisp christi had me searching my very small necktie collection to see if I could find a color to match tall red oak tree limb.
speaking of the wokIe and billary- I want a grant to study the quarter who are not obese.
Chris Christie polls well across the nation, or in New Jersey? Having lived in the People's Republic of New Jersey, I can say there's a distinct difference - but, as the last election so ably demonstrated: I know nothing about the US electorate... (And then, too, the source of this "revelation" was the Anti-American Retired Proletariat (AARP). And, clearly, having a Red Democrat in office is of NO value to AARP and their goals for all of us. And, yes: I believe everything that organ of this administration publishes...)
ReplyDeleteAs far as the Pope goes, it looks like they did abotu as well as could be expected. Seems like kind of a conservative hard ass, w/ a soft spot for the poor (but not all 'social justicey') so in other words, kinda Pope-y....
ReplyDeleteChristie plays a conservative in Jersey, all union busting and stuff (and full points to him for that) but if he tries to go national they're goign to find out he's soft on Islam and weak on 2nd amendment issues, REAL fast...
I hope.
I'd take Christie over crap weasel any day of the week. Can he start tomorrow? Yes, he has shown his true colors, but damn, there is still a night and day difference, and Crispy is NOT McCain.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, I still think Rubio would blow the competition away. He is Conservative, ultra smart, not crooked, and Hispanic to boot. I don't think even Billary can top that.
Could you imagine the uproar had this been a headline 5 years ago?
ReplyDeleteU.S. to let spy agencies scour Americans' finances
The Obama administration is drawing up plans to give all U.S. spy agencies full access to a massive database that contains financial data on American citizens and others who bank in the country, according to a Treasury Department document seen by Reuters.
http://in.reuters.com/article/2013/03/13/usa-banks-spying-idINDEE92C0EH20130313
On the upside, wouldn't it have been nice had all of Obama's private information been so accessible 5 years go?
John the Econ,.
ReplyDeleteThat's where someone (the Repubs, the Media) needs to figuratively smack Obama, over and over again.
He loves the idea of getting everyone ELSE'S information -- where is his? He's been President over four years, and we still don't have Obama's actual medical records, college transcripts, his passport records, etc.
It's truly amazing. I wonder how the Media would spin it if a Repub nominee did the same, and actively cited Media silence on Obama's records as his rationale?
Thanks for posting!
Maybe not the stunning sea change we're hoping for, but a crack in the dam is a crack in the dam; let nature take its course. And, just when the dirty, unwashed hoi poloi get a glimpse of TRVTH™, the sum of all fears -- for the Won. Poor POTUS is just not having a very good second term, is he?
ReplyDeleteWhile it is true that fortunes in politics can turn overnight, things keep getting uglier for this POTUS, and Obama is becoming painfully aware of how painfully aware Americans are becoming regarding him and his corrupt, opaque and obtuse Administration.
ReplyDeletePerhaps you're confused - you fucking lost. Deal with it. That means you don't get to make decisions. How about dealing with it rather than being a bunch of petulant bawling children?
ReplyDeleteOh, and not one reputable economist says Ryans budget would do anything but make the situation astronomically worse.
@Ted Brist,
ReplyDeleteYou are aboslutely correct, sir; we are confused. Please explain in factual terms... in 2008, Senator Barack Obama lambasted George Bush for "Taking a credit card on the bank of China and running up a (gasp!) $4 trillion deficit" in EIGHT years!! It's un-American, he said. It's un-patriotic, he said. Then the very same Barack Obama ran up a SEVEN TRILLION DOLLAR deficit in half the time. You are damn straight we are confusd!
I hate to point this out, but would argue that you are the confused one. My grandkids are likely inheriting a $22,000,000,000,000 debt thanks to people like you who voted for this anti-American, Socialist scumbag. Thanks a lot, asshole!
@ Colby:
ReplyDeleteYou mean the debt that 85% of which came from the Bush Tax Cuts reducing revenue and the Iraq and Afghanistan wars never actually being paid for under Bush? That the debt you're worried about, the one that conveniently wasn't a problem when the idiot you vopted for was actually causing the problem, and is only a problem now when a sensible man who needs to deal with reality is actually fixing problems?
When your grandchildren have to pay off that debt, be sure to tell them it was all worth it so billionaires could continue to pay less than their fair share.
@Gang of One- Barry's "Charm Offensive" was never about charm, and was simply offensive. Interesting that he didn't even bother to keep the pretense up for more than a day or so.
ReplyDelete@CenTexTim- Trust me, I make that prayer (in my own way) every day.
@Colby- Let it never be said that we failed in our patriotic duty to puke in the paddy wagons.
@txGreg- I have no love for anything or anyone "moderate" at this point, as we're way past the point of "moderate" solutions achieving a damn thing.
@Queso Grande- I think there's a popular diet book to be marketed there. Or maybe at least an interesting epilogue for me to add to "Obama Sutra."
@REM1875- The MSM attacks on the Catholic Church were really uncalled for and completely predictable. I've got to admit, though, that Pope Rosie would have been a pretty interesting choice.
@Emmentaler- Information coming from AARP is gaarbage, so I'm ignoring it. And while I like Christie's style, I'm not so keen on his policies and sucking up to Barry.
@Pete D- The early reports I'm seeing suggest that Pope Francis is a pretty cool guy. I sure hope so.
@Colby- Well when you start measuring candidates against B. Hussein, they all look pretty good. But Rubio and Ted Cruz have currently caught my eye (as has Rand Paul).
@John the Econ- I read that story and just shook my head. Suddenly, it seems like a Cayman Islands bank account is a pretty damn good idea. I'm especially concerned because this administration so frequently refers to "potential terrorists" like constitutionalists, military veterans, people who oppose illegal immigration, and people who participate in political gatherings.
Nice to think that the Feds will start examining everything we buy in order to build a more complete picture with which to destroy us if we become "inconvenient."
@Earl Allison- One thing we can all be absolutely sure of: if Obama's records would make him look good, we'd have seen them by now. So I think it's safe to assume that his records either show him to be a dimwit or an imposter. Or both.
@Gang of One- I wish more things were going wrong for Barry. But yes, some stress cracks are starting to show.
@Ted Brist- Clearly you're new here, and not really a proponent of making a good first impression. But lets cool the heated rhetoric for a moment so I can explain how this comment section is intended to work. I value contrary viewpoints and will be happy to discuss them, as long as arguments remain civil and fact-based. So ixnay on the name calling, and let's see if you have the goods - and the class - to actually engage in some reasoned discourse. I'm game if you are!
ReplyDeleteThat being said, let's take a look at the two central points in your comment. You assert that voters on the losing side of an election no longer get to make decisions. However, Republicans held the House of Representatives, which does give our team some decision making ability. Additionally, it is every citizen's right to try to affect decisions by appealing to their elected representatives, whether they voted for them or not.
Per your second point, why not impress us and name even one reputable economist who says Ryan's plan would "make the situation astronomically worse." The CBO doesn't agree with you. The WSJ doesn't agree with you. Even Timothy Geithner said that Ryan's plan would bring the budget under control (while also admitting that Obama's current plan is "unsustainable), but said he just didn't like Ryan's plan.
So sincerely - let's talk about this if you're serious about talking.
@Colby- See? Nice, reasoned discourse. Granted, you mentioned "asshole" at the end of your post, but that's before we'd all enjoyed a big group hug.
@Ted Brist- Oh dear, we're off to a bad start here. George Bush ran up a lot of debt (and members of this forum aren't happy about it), but he was a piker compared to Obama when it comes to running up debt. So you may want to actually look up some facts before you're embarrassed again.
And please tell me that you don't think billionaires are paying "less than their fair share." Those evil millionaires and billionaires are paying MOST of the taxes for the roads you drive on, the military that protects you, the foodstamps and unemployment checks that your fellow Democrats live on, and Sandra Fluke's sockdrawer of rubber novelty items.
And in fact, the GOP just gave Obama the gift of billions of dollars in new revenue which came exclusively from those wealthy people who were already paying the most. So again, you're simply wrong about your facts.
@Stilton Jarlsberg: Funny, can't seem to find a single peep from you complaining about Bush's policies aaaaaaaaanytime between 2000 and 2008. Seems you only began to care the moment you could hold Obama accountable for Bush's screwups.
ReplyDeleteAs for the debt, yes, Bush ran up a huge debt, but most of it was still not paid off - the expenditures for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars were not put on budget, and thus didn't come under the debt until Barrack Obama figured out that someone had to actually pay for it.
Hmm, lets see. The top 1% hold 39% of the wealth in the US, yet pay 29% of the taxes. Purely mathematically, they are not paying their fair share. This is not even accounting for the rate of discretionary income that, freed from needing to take care of living expenses that the bottom 40% struggle to overcome, should leave a truckload more to repay society for all the ways it has helped you.
Letting a terrible law expire is not a gift - it gets us slightly closer back to sanity, its not some kind of a gift to make the laws just slightly less (but still highly) unfairly in favour of the millionaires and billionaires.
@Ted Brist- It's unsurprising you can't seem to find a single peep about Bush's policies for the time period you cite, as this blog has only existed since 2009. However, every cartoon and commentary is archived, including those critical of Bush's fiscal and military policies. So keep digging.
ReplyDeleteI'm not happy about the expenses incurred for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, but Barry is certainly doing nothing to "actually pay for it" and is simultaneously adding crazy, unsustainable new levels of debt and deficit. Again, Barry has run up far more debt than Bush in a shorter time. That's plain math.
Speaking of plain math, we may simply have to disagree on what amounts to a "fair share." You seem to want to equate the share of wealth held with the share of taxes paid - but the aggregate total of wealth distributed amongst the bottom 50% of earners isn't reflected in their "fair share" - because they're not paying anything in Federal Taxes.
And I also don't buy dear leader's "You Didn't Build That" claim which suggests that Apple Computer came into existence because of road repair crews. No, the people who work on the infrastructure of our nation get paid to do their jobs and aren't owed anything beyond that.
Regarding your final point, I've got to admit that I can't follow what you're talking about with gifts, and just which terrible law expiring you're referring to. I'm not baiting you here - I just genuinely couldn't follow your drift.
Which laws do you think unfairly benefit millionaires and billionaires (and while we're on the subject, do you agree with your president that someone earning $250,000 is a "millionaire or billionaire?")
@ Stilton Jarlsberg: Once again, through actually paying off the expenses that Bush racked up but never actually put in the budget, and was thus never counted as a part of the debt.
ReplyDeleteLets play a game - try to find the portion of the debt of the Obama administration that isn't (a) paying off or trying to wind down the two wars Bush started, (b) federal stimulus to try and prevent the recessions brought on by deregulation of the major banks, or (c) clearly related to normal expenditure thats simply unfunded because of the slash in federal revenue due to the Bush tax cuts. Obamas actual debt from his policies, including the killing of Colonel Quadaffi and investment in renewable energy, is roughly $825 billion, which ranks him as more fiscally conservative than Reagan.
The bottom 50% hold 1.2% of the total wealth in the country. So lets see. They owe 1.2% of all taxes, pay 0%. The top 1% owe 39%, pay 29%. Mathematically, the top 1% still pay less of their share than the bottom 50% do. And once again, thats without factoring in how they, unlike the top 1%, have to struggle everyday to not starve.
Because Steve Jobs was entirely self taught - he did not actually ever have teachers, he just spontaneously generated knowledge. Thats sure how things go.
Yes, the people who made the infrastructure get paid to do their jobs. And they get paid from taxes. So, basically, in order to thank the people who built the nations infrastructure, pay your taxes like Jesus said you must do (Mark 12:17).
THe terrible law was the Bush Tax Cuts. You know, the ones that expired new years day 2013?
In Re Bush tax cuts, "paid for" and revenue generation - been there, done that, saved the post. Sorry to slam you w/ facts, but here you go...
ReplyDeletehttp://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals
Not a big W fan, but numbers don't lie. Set the way-back machine for, oh, say 2000. Bill Clinton's president, country's rolling in dough, and the total direct Fed revenue is $3675.57 B (http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/revenue_chart_1997_2017USb_13s1li111lcn_F0t#copypaste)
After the dot.com bubble (which he inherited) and 9/11 (also arguably a Clinton legacy, having failed to accept bin Laden any of the 3 times he was offered up) anyway, after all that the revenue dropped to $3299.19 B - an 11% loss. After his tax cuts, by 2005 it was back up to $4243.60 B - up **28%** from 2002, and up 15% from 2000
Download Data File - Government Taxes and Revenue Chart: United States 1997-2017 - Federal State Loc
www.usgovernmentrevenue.com
Create Custom Charts of Government Tax and Revenue in the United States, includi...See More
By 2007, it was $5170.63 B - up a whopping **40** from 2000 - roughly 15% / year average, INCLUDING the dot.com bust AND 9/11. Yes, I think it's prett damned safe to say that Bush could have handled THIS recession better too.
A recession, may I also point out, directly caused by Democrats. Several times Bush (and others) called for closer inspections / tighter reins on Fanny, Freddy and the whole "Community Reinvestment Act" (the forcing of banks to make loans they KNEW were bad, to people they KNEW could not make the payments) only to be blocked by Barney Franks, Chris Dodd, and Maxine Waters, among others.
The problem w/ the housing bust was NOT lax regulation, as has been claimed, but lacking of enforcement. (Also note, that in 2007 Pelosi and friends took over the house, and monitary policies. Granted, W was trying (foolishly) to buy popularity by going along, but it was Dems trashing things his last two years)
True, W spent in a way that gives drunken sailors a bad name - but he was a piker, compared to Obama. Current president has outspent the revenue (ie, increased the debt) more in 3.5 years than W did in 8. The BIG problem, then as now, is the spending. Period.
A word that seems to be a particular favorite of the Greens is 'unsustainable." What is REALLY unsustainable is the freaking spending. How long can you go on spending $100k / year when you only make $60k? Sooner or later, even the loan sharks will cut you off. And when the Chinese forclose, it's going to make Greek "austerity" look like the party days of Bill Clinton (when the house, under Gingrich actually balanced the freaking budget, for a change).
@Ted Brist- I'm no fan of Bush's wars, or his spendthrift nature. Never have been, and you can comb this blog for all the proof you like.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, you're playing fast and loose with your debt assessment, specifically in the area of "stimulus." Almost a trillion dollars was injected into the system by Obama, but because of bookkeeping jiggery-pokery the amount was added to Bush's record because, even though he was out of office, it was a fiscal year he had budgeted for. But did that huge stimulus bump disappear the next year? Nope - It became the baseline budget, meaning that Obama could overshoot his funds by nearly a trillion a year while claiming not to be raising debt at all. Obama is not a more conservative spender than anyone, anywhere, at any time. And statistical tricks only fool those who aren't paying attention.
Your debate about the "fair share" people owe gets tedious: howzabout a flat tax, with everyone paying 10% across the board? And don't break out the violins talking about the bottom 50% in America "struggling everyday not to starve." Food stamps have become forever stamps, unemployment has become a lifestyle choice for many, and the wealthy are already paying far more than their fair share to support the largest number of unemployed people this nation has ever seen. And no, NOT all of those people are unemployed by choice; many are unemployed by government edict.
Regarding the infrastructure builders, their reward is what they earn. It's true that nobody succeeds in a vacuum, but it's also true that very little innovation comes from having a bunch of people unionize and vote themselves longer coffee breaks.
And while I don't really look to Jesus for tax advice, I do pay my taxes. I'm just not crazy about paying yours, too.
And you say the Bush Tax Cuts were the "terrible law?" I guess I got confused since Barry was telling everyone that they were essential to keep our economy from failing entirely. But maybe the president changed his mind after talking to Jesus.
@Pete(Detroit)- You sir, win "Comment of the Day" and this frosty mug of beer! Great stuff.
By the way, Ted Brist, if you choose to hang around you'll find that HnC readers tend to be unusually well-informed and articulate. Friendly, too, for that matter - and willing to engage in pleasant factual debate. I hope you'll linger and learn; call me a hopeless optimist, but I always try to believe that a person with an open mind can be saved.
I notice that Mr. Brist keeps mentioning the "wealthiest" 1%, and how they're "only" paying 29% of taxes. Is he confusing wealth with income? Have I missed the "wealth tax"? Is anyone taxing the Kennedys for being "wealthy"? Of course, even the wealthy Demo_Rats want to avoid paying more income tax than they absolutely have to. "Taxes for thee, but not for me" and all that...
ReplyDelete@JustaJeepGuy- Excellent point, although I'm sure Mr. Brist would be in favor of a wealth tax (and actually, the recently-raised Obama death taxes come pretty close to qualifying). I have no doubt that asset taxes are on their way, though - because it really is wealth that Obama wants to redistribute and not just income.
ReplyDelete