Why Rich Liberals Want Tax Increases
Oct 12, 2011 Political
All liberals want people to be taxed more. That is, of course, except them. Liberals love to discuss raising tax rates and forcing more people to pay more of their hard earned cash to the government so that the government can take that money and waste it on programs that support liberals. Welfare, bailouts, union payoffs, all done with tax dollars to keep the liberal base down and dependent on government while forcing others to pay.
Even very wealthy liberals say that the wealthy should pay more in taxes. Bill Clinton says he should be paying more, Michael Moore thinks the wealthy should be paying more and Warren Buffett says the wealthy should be paying more. Buffett is so revered in the Obama regime that a new tax plan is named after him. It matters not that the new tax is based upon a lie (that Buffett pays less in taxes than his secretary) what matters is that the man is advocating more taxes for the rich.
He and other rich liberals like to discuss raising taxes because they do not pay their taxes. John Kerry wants more taxes but docks his yacht in another state to avoid taxes. Charlie Rangel finds ways (mostly illegal ones) to avoid paying taxes. Buffett is no different. Last year Buffett made $62,955,038, making him very rich, but instead of paying his fair share Buffett has been fighting with the IRS for ten years to avoid paying about ONE BILLION dollars in taxes.
Mr. I need to pay more in taxes is fighting the IRS to avoid paying taxes. All liberals who advocate higher taxes (but only on the rich as we define them at any given moment) work very, very hard to avoid paying their own taxes.
Buffett is not different and neither are all the mush brained morons from Hollywood who claim they need to pay more. All of these rich people employ accountants to ensure they pay the IRS as little as possible. Here is a great summation of Buffett’s hypocrisy:
On top of this tax bill, figure the value of the time IRS agents have invested trying to collect it – they don’t work cheap, and we pay their salaries – and the resources Buffett’s people have invested fighting back. All of which would have been saved if Buffett simply practiced what he preached, and willingly handed over his fortune to the brilliant and compassionate “leaders” he commands the rest of us to support without resistance. Human Events
Buffett did not practice what he preaches for the same reason all liberals do not practice what they preach; because they believe the rules do not apply to them.
Buffett is no different…
Do as I say and not as I do, the mantra of the liberal left.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: buffett, democrat, illegal, liberal, lies, Obama, tax avoidance, taxes
Schakowsky Says That You Don’t Deserve To Keep All Your Money
Sep 14, 2011 Political
Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky was interviewed on WLS Radio and she said that we do not deserve to keep all of our money because government is those things we decide to do together. She then talked about national security, police, and firefighters. She did not mention those things government decided that had no togetherness to them such as the many social welfare programs. She failed to mention Social Security and how it was enacted and mismanaged.
First of all, government is not those things we decide to do together. Government in this country is the collection of folks We the People have sent to represent us. Government does not decide together with us what we want to do. Government is limited in its power by the Constitution, the Supreme Law of the land. Neither government nor the people, (alone or together) have the authority to do as we please. We have a Constitution that says what the people allow government to do and government is not allowed to work outside of those rules. If we want to change things there is a mechanism to do just that.
Second of all, who is this Congresswoman to decide whether or not we deserve to keep OUR money? What gives her or any other politician the right to tell us how much of OUR property we are allowed to keep? The reality is government does not deserve to have any of our money and only gets it under the authority we allow it.
I know that this woman is one of the typical liberal/Socialists who thinks that it is OK to confiscate property from citizens. She believes that it is perfectly OK so much so that she will decide what you DESERVE to keep.
Here is something that is true. Schakowsky does not deserve to keep here seat in Congress and the Constitution allows the people she represents to decide that issue.
You see Congresswoman, WE get to decide what you deserve (and you do not merit your seat) but you do not have that luxury with regard to us.
Having the authority to tax us (that we gave you) gives you NO authority to decide how much of our property we are worthy of keeping.
Our Founders would be shooting by now…
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: deserve, jan schakowsky, liberal, socialist, taxes, your money
Perhaps Maureen Dowd Was In A Coma
Oct 18, 2010 Political
Leave it to the ever increasingly irrelevant Maureen Dowd of The New York Times to write a piece that is nothing more than mindless prattle. Ms. Dowd is a frustrated old maid who has trouble seeing the real America from high atop her ivory tower. She is a liberal and loves to extol the virtues of liberalism while berating anyone who is not in line with her thinking.
All well and good but at least this shrew could demonstrate some professionalism. She is, after all, supposed to be a journalist.
Case in point. Dowd has a new article this weekend at the NYT (you find it, no linky love here). In it she discusses all the Republican women and how mean they are. She mischaracterizes the Arizona immigration law while taking a shot at the mean ole meanie Jan Brewer. Yes, to Dowd, Brewer is mean because she was elected to protect the citizens of Arizona and that is what she is doing. And Dowd does not stop at Brewer. She also has it in for Sharron Angle, Christine O’Donnell, Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann and a handful of other conservative women.
Dowd is upset with these strong women and describes them as mean simply because they are out playing hardball in the field of politics. There was once a time when women like Dowd fought for the rights of all women and told us that women are just as tough as men. Now it seems that sentiment is only reserved for liberal women. Conservative women who are in the game are mean. Sharron Angle tells Harry Reid to man up and she is a horrible, mean woman.
Has Dowd ever called Hillary Clinton such things? Clinton uses the F word more than a platoon of special forces soldiers and has been known to throw a few things in the White House (confirmed by a Secret Service acquaintance) and Dowd ignores her meanness.
No, she has to reserve her disgust for the conservative women who are supposed to act like June Cleaver while the MSM, the political pundits, and their opponents ravage them. Can anyone honestly say that Sarah Palin got a fair shake and was treated with respect? Hell no, she was attacked, her family was attacked, and the left treated her like a bastard at a family reunion.
I think Dowd herself has had a few nasty things to say about some or all of the women she mentions but she conveniently ignores that while excoriating them for being mean.
Dowd’s writing is acerbic and it has been said that she is writing to her mother. Seems to me her mother should straighten that girl out. Perhaps a note like, hey Maureen, for goodness sake will you finally get yourself a man who will treat you like a cheap gong so you won’t feel so testy anymore.
Either that or she needs to see Doc Johnson and buy an aid.
We are not going to cure Dowd’s mental issues here so let’s move on.
She claims conservative women are mean. I guess this has something to do with the fact that many of them are WINNING and beating the pants off her liberal buddies. Yes, when conservatives win it is a mean thing, boo hoo.
I also cannot discount the bit of jealousy that must be at play here. Dowd is not too terribly famous and is a boor. She is a has been who has never wielded power.
It has to eat her up that conservative women have better name recognition and are contributing much more to society.
Don’t worry Maureen, your articles provide great value to millions of bird owners and guys who run the fish markets.
I guess Maureen has a right to be mad. The women she hates are influencing politics and the direction of this country. Some of them are beating Dowd’s candidates like they are red headed step children.
And that can’t sit too well with the Queen of boor.
Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: liberal, maureen dowd, mean conservatives, moron
Actor, Obama Adviser, Fakes Robbery In PR Move
Apr 21, 2010 Satire
It has been reported that Obama adviser and actor Kal Penn (Kalpen Suresh Modi) was robbed at gunpoint in Washington DC near Dupont Circle sometime after midnight. Penn, who starred in House and the Harold and Kumar movies has obviously staged this to gain attention as he intends to leave DC and resume his acting career in a new Harold and Kumar Christmas movie.
Penn reports that the gunman got his wallet, cell phones, and other belongings but this must be fabricated.
Washington DC has a gun ban so a person with a gun could not have robbed him. Gun control laws, we are told, work so this could not have happened. If he wanted to be believed he should have left the part about the gun out. Everyone knows that people do not carry guns in DC. If they did Penn might have had a chance against the supposed gunman. Then again, maybe not. Liberals don’t carry guns, they negotiate…
Interestingly, there was a rally consisting of a bunch of gun owners who showed up near DC (in Virginia where carrying guns is legal) and despite all those loaded weapons and “angry” people, not a single shot was fired.
Penn is obviously well off so if this happened maybe he should not look at it as a robbery. He should look at it as the manifestation of his political beliefs. It was redistribution of wealth. The person who allegedly robbed him had less money so he just leveled the playing field.
The only difference between what happened to Penn and what happens to the rest of us is that the IRS does not use guns to steal our money and they do it in broad daylight.
Source:
Yahoo News
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Barney Frank Agrees With Evan Bayh
Feb 17, 2010 Commentary
Barney Frank agrees with Evan Bayh that the climate in the Congress is not operating as it should and that there is too much partisanship. Frank thinks it would be better if Senator Bayh stays on and helps to end the filibuster, a procedure that allows bills to be stalled or killed.
Both parties have used the filibuster and both have threatened to kill it in order to pass their agendas. The filibuster is only good when one is in the minority and bad when one is in the majority. Minorities love using it.
The filibuster is a thorn in the side of the majority because invoking it requires a 3/5 (60 vote) cloture to end it. This means that each time the filibuster is used it requires more than a simple majority to get things passed.
The Constitution describes a quorum as a majority of a particular chamber present. This suggests that a majority is all that is needed to conduct business and to get things done. However, the Constitution also allows each chamber to make its own rules and the rules of the Senate allow for the filibuster and requires 3/5 to end it. They can change those rules but that would require 2/3 (67 votes) to vote for the change. It is unlikely that the Senate could get 67 people to vote on ending the filibuster as a rule change.
If Democrats were to succeed then it is likely they would ask for the filibuster in the future and would want a rule change to get it. Remember, the minority party loves the filibuster. If they could get 67 votes they might get satisfaction now but regret it later when a Republican Congress and President could do what it wanted with no opposition from Democrats.
Another option is the Nuclear or Constitutional option. This is a procedure where the filibuster is declared unconstitutional and then must be voted on. In order to pass, a simple majority of 51 votes is needed. In other words, the Democrats could declare the filibuster unconstitutional and then use 51 votes to end it (Republicans do not have enough votes to stop it).
This is what Bill Frist threatened to do when Bush nominees were being denied an up or down vote. The Democrats threatened to shut down the Senate if Frist invoked the nuclear option. The filibuster was obviously important to them at that time and they were willing to shut down the Senate to keep it.
I am not sure how they could have shut down the Senate but one would have to assume the Republicans could do the same thing.
If the Democrats declare the filibuster unconstitutional then it would likely be lost forever. How could any Congress later state that it was not unconstitutional after all? Of course, how can they declare it unconstitutional when they have been using it since the mid 1800s?
As for Barney Frank, he is not part of the Senate so his input really matters little since he cannot vote on the Matter. Besides, he has been one of the most partisan people in Congress.
His idea of partisanship is when Republicans do what the Democrats want. Frank has little concern for the ideas of the other side.
I did not like Ted Kennedy but he knew how to broker a deal and to reach across the aisle on occasion. He worked with Republicans and Republicans worked with him to get legislation passed.
Was it always good legislation? No but they did work together.
We do not need to end the filibuster, we need to end the tenure of the people in Congress. It is time to sweep out the people who have been there for way too long.
In the last election the youth of America embraced Barack Obama as young and in tune. They discounted McCain, in part, because of his age and length of service.
It is time they did the same to the people in Congress by embracing younger people who are not career politicians.
Most Americans are not far left or far right. I am conservative on some things and moderate on others. Adam and Darrel, who comment here, are liberal on some things and moderate on others. We can have the debates about policy and what we think is good for America and we can either agree or agree to disagree. In the end we have more in common than not though we differ on how to get to where we need to be as a country (and where we need to be). One thing is certain though, we cannot get anywhere as long as we allow people to take up residence in DC and have decades long careers. We need fresh blood.
Vote for the new person in the primary and then let the parties fight it out in the general election. Let us show them who they work for and let us hold them accountable.
I will not vote for any incumbent in November. I urge everyone else to do the same.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: barney frank, conservative, evan bayh, incumbent, liberal, Obama