Romney Wins Debate, Obama Has a Meltdown

Let me first start off by saying, I truly thought this debate would be a close call. I calculated that if you liked Romney, you would think Romney won and if you liked Obama, you would think Obama won. I can proudly and clearly state with full confidence that Romney kicked Obama's ASS!

So, let's do a recap of what happened tonight...

Jon Lovitz Rips Into Obama

Jon Lovitz goes after Obama and the Occupy Movement.

This is pretty funny stuff but, be warned -- bad language so, NSFW.

For Someone That Claims The Rich Should Pay More Taxes, Buffet Sure is a Hypocrite

Warren Buffet - the quintessential elite liberal. "Do as I say and not as I do," is the motto they live by.

NetJets Inc., the private-plane company owned by Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway Inc. (BRK/B), was countersued by the U.S. over $366 million in taxes and penalties.

Click title of this post for full article and details.

Considering I live in Omaha, I can tell you for a fact that I have heard story after story from either friends or friends of friends who have served Buffet in restaurants, parking lots, golf clubs, etc., and all claim that he either leaves a penny for a tip or nothing at all. He does like to offer quick little comments with his penny tips, "Well, that's a start," and a smirk on his face. I have personally witnessed this man allow his children to be dressed in rags since he refused to help them. Of course that was years ago...but he's still the stingy liberal he's always been.

Buffet does not give a crap about the poor. He delights in treating the lower class like dirt. Just ask about anyone in this city that doesn't make 6 figures and has had to deal with him in one way or another. The stories are never ending.

Remember when Buffet made a big deal about his secretary paying more taxes and how the rich should pay more?

Well, Buffet, it seems as though you cannot even handle the tax obligations you currently have so how is it that you think the rich should pay more? Why not pay what you owe now? This isn't the first time I've heard reports of him avoiding taxes and I'm sure there will be more stories to come. Where's the MSM??? What is this not being reported on the main alphabet channels? Why isn't Obama speaking out against Buffet for being a fraud? Questions I think every liberal should ask.

Tax the Rich!

I keep hearing about Warren Buffet's latest suggestion to the government that we need to tax the super wealthy more. This may be true. After all, they make more, they have more to give so, why doesn't Buffet voluntarily pay more in taxes? I did only a quick search on the internet and didn't find anything to indicate that he does this. I could be wrong but I imagine he donates to charities and such so, I'm sure he doesn't exactly squander his money.

Let me also say that being from Omaha, I have heard nightmare story after nightmare story concerning Warren Buffet and how he treats people who serve him. He is absolutely notorious for stiffing people by not tipping or going so far as to be insulting by leaving people a penny. Now, I have NOT seen this personally but, I have heard different stories from completely different people who all have very similar stories. I personally know the man is not terribly kind to his children but, that was years and years ago so, I won't drudge up old stories for the sake of insulting the man. I guess the point I'm making is, I just don't have a fond or admiring view of Buffet in general. I guess it's really easy for him to lecture others from his metaphorical mountaintop, being old and ready to check out.

Many corporations and extremely wealthy people donate lots of money to a variety of charities, and of course we see year after year that conservatives donate much more than liberals year after year. Yet, for some reason, Buffet seems to be under the impression that only liberals and democrats can help the country.

Check out this article. It's pure gold created by David S. Logan.

The United States currently boasts the most progressive income tax in the industrialized world. Meaning, our wealthy pay a greater share of the tax burden than do the wealthy in any other capitalist nation. Yet in an August 14^th New York Times op-ed, Warren Buffett called for even higher taxes on the rich in order to lower the federal deficit.  He believes that he and his wealthy friends are under-taxed.  However, Mr. Buffett's actions and the facts tell the real story.

• Mr. Buffett chose to leave most of his fortune to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and, thus, avoided an estate tax that could potentially give 55 percent of his wealth to Uncle Sam.  Moreover, keeping that wealth actively working in the private sector would generate deficit reducing tax revenues indefinitely.   

• Mr. Buffett seems to forget that capital gains and dividends taxes are a double tax on corporate income.  Before it gives out a dollar in dividends, Berkshire Hathaway - like all U.S. corporations - must first pay a 35 percent federal corporate income tax, one of the highest in the world.  Then, shareholders pay the individual tax rate of 15 percent on their dividend income or the gains from appreciated stock. As a result, the combined tax rate of 50 percent is the 4^th highest combined dividend rate in the industrialized world. Ironically, we had the 8^th highest combined rate under Bill Clinton.

• In his op-ed, Mr. Buffett suggests that increasing taxes on the rich ensures that they pay their fair share.  Perhaps, but while the top 1 percent of taxpayers earn 20 percent of the nation's income, they currently pay nearly 40 percent of the income taxes. That's a greater share of the burden than the bottom 90 percent combined (that's everyone earning under $100,000 by the way). 

• Let's not forget that when the top marginal income tax rate was 70 percent in 1980, the rich paid 20 percent of all income taxes.  Yet now, when the top marginal rate is 35 percent they pay twice that. 

• Finally, while the tax burden on the rich has been growing, the burden on low and middle-income Americans has been shrinking. By most accounts, roughly 50 percent of American households pay no income tax at all.  Indeed, the IRS will give out roughly $110 billion in "refundable" tax credits this year to households that pay no income taxes.

Contrary to Mr. Buffett's and President Obama's perceptions, America's wealthiest taxpayers are paying a disproportionate share of the income tax burden. Before we ask the rich to pay more, perhaps we should ask those who are paying nothing to contribute at least something to the basic cost of government.

Of course, like any American, Mr. Buffett can voluntarily write a check or make an electronic payment to the Treasury to help reduce the deficit by simply clicking here.  He should keep in mind, however, that donating to the IRS is not tax deductible.  

Of course this is why so many conservatives simply shake their heads wondering what on earth it will take for liberals to stop and recognize their mental disorder?

It's just sort of silly the way they see the economy. Now, we know that the Laffer Curve is accepted as a  major theory among top economists and suggests that 0% and 100% taxes will generate no revenue. If people are taxed 100%, they will not work. If the tax is 0%, there is nothing to take. The government must find a tax rate that will bring in the maximum amount of revenue without impeding upon people so much that they refuse to work or, find means of avoiding taxes all together.

Isn't this what we see very wealthy liberals do all the time? I believe it's John Kerry that docks his yacht in Rhode Island to avoid higher taxes elsewhere? Didn't I read recently about Alec Baldwin claiming he lives in the Hamptons so that he can avoid high taxes yet, clearly he lives in NYC? What about Michael Moore? He's always lecturing people about paying more in taxes but he took a huge tax cut incentive for filming his "docu-fictions" he insists are real. It's called hypocrisy and most of us are hypocrites so, I'm not going to beat these people up too much for falling short of their own ideals -- I do myself. I would just ask that they not act so damn sanctimonious about everything and then turn around and insist that it is others who are being judgmental.

I know those evil, rich people really do such horrible things like buy things that create jobs or employ people so they have jobs. Bastards!

Seriously, I know there are evil people in this world and yes, some are rich, some are poor, and some are in the middle but, the fact remains -- no one has been gainfully employed by a poor person. This isn't about judging someone's character, or is it? It seems every time I speak with a liberal, they have such disdain for people who are wealthy and some are wealthy themselves. They act as if they are supportive of the middle class, but then why do they support all economic policies that ultimately are geared to eat up the middle class altogether and leave only the very rich and the very poor? We have become a society of these two classes and it's not because of our thriving capitalist policies; it's because of our ever-increasing socialist policies.

What kills me is how liberals like Buffet flat out lie in order to make their point. Liberals love the whole "ends justify the means" type of argument. This is their number one tactic. No, excuse me that's denial; denial is their number one tactic, then blame. Buffet claims his secretary pays more of a percentage in taxes overall then he does. Well, this is a total lie and anyone with a brain can figure this out but, if you need help because you still support liberals, I will direct you to Larry Elder's recent article.

Liberals are also known for seeing the world in terms of zero-sum. Essentially they believe if someone gains, someone else MUST lose. Instead of seeing someone succeed and being able to recognize that as success for everyone else as well, they see that as failure for someone else, often themselves. They don't want to share wealth; they don't want others to succeed. They like people remaining poor, remaining on the government doll, being ever increasingly dependent upon the government, claiming victim status, and embracing the idea that everything is limited.

This type of thinking is disturbing, limited, evil, incorrect, and reflective of a severe mental disorder. Any success should be encouraged and supported because, a win for someone is a win for EVERYONE. There is always more and everyone deserves and receives what they put in. The universe works to help you so that you can help others. It's really as simple as that and conservatives embrace and encourage success for everyone! They know that the government will never be able to help. People have to change their mentality and believe in themselves and those around them. If you're in a constant state of coveting what someone else has, this is a sure formula for being miserable and that is exactly what liberals want people to feel. If everyone sees themselves as a victim, how can anyone flourish and develop? I mean, why bother if it's just about genes and luck?

Mr. Buffet doesn't want to pay more taxes and he certainly doesn't want to let anyone know that they too can be successful, except his offspring. No, he'd rather lecture people and talk to us like we are all stupid, by flat out lying to us. This is a man who can't even give more than a penny when someone (a little person), valet parks his car. Oh, but remember, he's all about helping the little guy. He's really looking out for everyone else. Pffft. It's people like this that really disturb me. I can't tell if he's just ignorant or plain evil.

Tax Payer Money Going to Refurbish Mosques

Yes, it's true. I could not embed the video here so, you will have to click on the title of this post to be taken to the news report to see and hear for yourself.

Who in the world thought that this would be a good idea? Could you imagine if money went to refurbishing a Christian church in the United States?

Where is the ACLU or that Newdow guy that's always bitching about G-d? This is just mind blowing. The hypocrisy is true to liberal form. How does anyone defend this?

Comment below.

Again, click title of post to watch the video.

Obama: Corporate Profits "Have To Be Shared By American Workers"

Obama: Corporate Profits "Have To Be Shared By American Workers"

Isn't that lovely? He just wants to help all of us.

We can't have the same economy??? Wow. This guy is a bold face liar. On O'Reilly he said he didn't believe in wealth distribution and here he is in this video advocating it. Click the link to watch the video.

Are Rich Celebs Like Alec Baldwin Dodging Taxes?

Sayles/AP

Actor Alec Baldwin owns a residence in the city, but claims Hamptons is his home base.

Say it ain't so! A rich, liberal celebrity not paying their fair share in taxes? I can't possibly believe this. These are folks that care about the poor and homeless. They work tirelessly telling the American people how Bush and his tax cuts for the wealthy were EVIL. There's just no chance in hell they wouldn't want to pay their taxes. I thought for sure that many of them paid more in taxes, just for the sheer reasons of being generous because, they are liberal. They are also better than everyone.

Obama Moves To The Center - Liberals Implode

It appears as though Obama has moved towards the center by arguing for Bush tax-cuts and, asking Clinton to help provide a case for his decision to work with Republicans concerning taxes.

So what's really going on here? Has Obama fundamentally changed? Is he waking up and realizing that taxing people to death - literally, will cripple the economy further? Or, is he simply looking to move to the center, to throw moderates and conservatives a bone, in order to try and secure his re-election?

Watch Fox News Sunday:

Dems Go NUTS Over Taxes

Isn't it awesome to watch the democrats implode?

The best part is, they are making themselves so clearly intolerant of freedom. They are absolutely against wanting people to decide for themselves what to do with the money they've earned.

The frustration with President Barack Obama over his tax cut compromise was palpable and even profane at Thursday’s House Democratic Caucus meeting.

One unidentified lawmaker went so far as to mutter “f— the president” while Rep. Shelley Berkley was defending the package the president negotiated with Republicans. Berkley confirmed the incident, although she declined to name the specific lawmaker.

“It wasn’t loud,” the Nevada Democrat said. “It was just expressing frustration from a very frustrated Member.”


Rep. Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.) was also overheard saying that “we can’t trust him” not to cave to Republicans and extend the tax cuts again in two years, according to a Democratic source.
The anger aimed at the bill was widespread. As Democrats moved to block the bill from coming up on the floor, chants of “Just say no!” could be heard by reporters outside the room.

Click title of post for source. 

Megyn Kelly Interviews Michael Weiner About Latest Tax Proposal

Obama to Push for Tax Cuts

Obama is expected to push for tax cuts on businesses.

Click title of post for full article.

What's this? Obama wants tax cuts? Haven't the democrats for the past 4 years been telling us how horrible tax cuts are? Gee, I seem to remember them claiming that Bush was evil and ruined our economy due to tax cuts. How odd.

President Barack Obama will tout a proposal on Friday to provide tax relief for businesses, reviving a plan he proposed in September that would encourage companies to make capital investments.

Days before Republicans are expected to make major gains in congressional elections, Obama, a Democrat,  will highlight a plan that has so far gained little political traction despite what the White House sees as having bipartisan appeal.

The proposal would let businesses of all sizes take immediate deductions for certain capital expenses between September of this year and the end of 2011.

Isn't that interesting?

Democrats Divided

AP – FILE - In this Aug. 24, 2010 file photo, House Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio speaks in Cleveland.

Democrats are divided about taxes. Some are wanting to initiate raising taxes on the wealthiest, while others are suggesting waiting until after the elections come November.

This was not the debate Democrats wanted as the midterm election season opened. The plan was to make an extension of the middle-class tax cuts the party's closing argument — against Republicans, not each other — as voters began to focus on whether they trust Democrats to improve the ailing economy enough to reward them with control of Congress for another two years.

Isn't it interesting how many Democrats know the dangers of raising taxes, especially during a recession? Here all this time, they act as if Republicans have always been wrong in fighting for lower taxes. They know what will happen if they raise taxes on people, especially the wealthy.

I am not surprised they are playing politics here. This has nothing to do with helping the American people, it's more about them creating a strategy to maintain power.

Click title of post for full story. 

Taxes and Why I Know Republicans Are Better For Helping the Poor

I was just thinking about this story today and thought I should share it on my blog here.

When I was 16, I was hired at Pizza Hut for $3.85/hour. I was actually hired on my 16th birthday. Bush Sr was president. I probably worked anywhere from 11 to 16 hours a week. I remember I was very excited about getting my refund check. I didn't pay any taxes because, it was all returned to me, in full. Awesome.

So, then Clinton was elected. I didn't like Clinton. I guess you could say I was more liberal at the time but, I never liked Clinton. I did like minimum wage hiking up to $4.25 though. That year I worked about the same amount of hours. My checks were slightly bigger but, they sure took out a lot of money. My refund check was a joke. I barely got anything back.

I had worked out some comparisons from the previous year with a friend and, with all I had earned, including the refund check, I made more money the previous year. I couldn't believe it. My friend had estimated that he made a little more because he worked a few more hours but, overall, the take home pay from the previous year was more, not less, even though the minimum wage had increased.

So, what was going on here? Well, because, I wasn't married and didn't have any tax breaks, I was paying more, much more, in taxes. Clinton did NO favors for the poor by raising minimum wage.

The problem with Democrats is they raise the taxes on everyone. This is always their solution. They want to spend more and they want to tax more.

Democrats also love to raise the minimum wage but, many times when they do, they prevent businesses from hiring more people.

The current minimum wage is $7.25. This became in effect in July of 2009. The problem is, there are many jobs that just aren't worth paying that much, plus benefits. Many times, people just need someone to do some light cleaning or, maybe some filing. These are simple jobs that can be done for the purposes of allowing other employees to do more in their positions, without being bothered doing other tasks that eat away their time. When you raise minimum wage, these jobs are the first ones cut from the economy.

A lot of people that are out of work may not necessarily be looking for high paying jobs. They are people looking for those simple jobs that are cut. People who are college students who need an easy job, moms that mostly stay at home but are looking for a part time job to bring in some extra cash, high school students looking to have some experience in an office setting, ect. These folks do not need $7.25 an hour. They just need a little extra cash to do some simple things.

Another effect that occurs is when those smaller jobs are cut, not only are more people out of a job but, those folks that are working now have much more to do. They cannot simply focus on their main tasks, they are now expected to do the filing, the light cleaning, the extras, that ultimately slow them down, creating less productivity. When the productivity is lower, the customers are less satisfied and that will effect sales.

Then to top all this off, Democrats want to add more taxes to businesses. Even more employees may be cut, along with hiking the prices on the goods and services that the businesses offer. The companies do not pay the taxes, they pass them onto the consumer and the employees. So, the minimum wage worker may make more initially but, the raises are few and far between. The customer is now expected to pay more. Ultimately, we just pay even more in the end.

We pay more for goods and services and, we pay more in the loss of jobs.

In all fairness, just because you lower taxes on businesses, doesn't always mean that the company will hire more people or, that their goods or services will cost less. No, there will always be greedy people out there that try and take advantage of situations, robbing as many folks as they can but, guess what eventually happens? Some other company can come along and offer a better price, and a better service.

Let me share another story.

I used to work for a lab when I was going to college. This was a great company to work for. They gave all kinds of vacation; I got a paid day off for my birthday. The pay was okay. It wasn't terribly high but, we'd get bonuses and, fairly good benefits. All in all, we were treated very well. They were very understanding and, had many incentives.We even got large profit sharing checks at the end of each year.

The reason for all this came about because the owner had originally worked for another major lab. Her and her team had discovered a drug for animals that made the company a fortune. The company was very greedy though and, didn't even share any of the profits with the team of scientists. They claimed the patent and intellectual property as well.

So, the woman that became the owner of the lab I worked for left. She started her own company and brought over some of the other workers. The company has continued to grow and is a success now. When I left, they were growing even larger, moving into another building.

This is how economies grow. Again, greed does exist. It's not that conservatives do not recognize this but, we also know what happens to companies that do that. They eventually fail. Karma comes around and bites them on the butt. If you want to be successful and stay successful, you have to be a company that has morals and ethics. The free economy forces this because, by allowing freedom, you allow more opportunity, more improvement, and more growth.

More taxes restrict all of these things. In the end, it's always the little guy that ends up feeling the repercussions of taxes. Every time you hear someone claim they are here to help the "little guy" it usually means they are going to do something that will ultimately hurt them. So, if you like high unemployment and, more cost on goods and services, then by all means elect a Democrat.

The Top 3 Talking Points Liberals/Democrats Won't Shut Up About

I like to argue. It's no secret. I'm notorious for waging wars with liberals. Inevitably, I have noticed a pattern with them recently. There seem to be three main points that they just cannot get enough of trying to make. I'm not sure if it's directly from Democrat talking point memos or, if it's coming from their various news sources like The Huffington Post, The Daily Kos, ect. I'm not sure but, it's very consistent, which leads me to believe it's most likely coming from a main source.

It doesn't matter what the topic is. It can be about immigration, the economy, abortion, gun control, health care, the war, ect. these three talking points WILL be brought up. So, let's discuss them, shall we? 

1) Sarah Palin. I am pretty baffled by this on. Sarah Palin is best known for being asked to be John McCain's running mate in the 2008 presidential election. The pair did not win. Sarah Palin also stepped down from her gubernatorial position in Alaska. She has since been seen in the media at major Tea Party functions.

Apparently this is all too much for the liberals. There's something about her that they just can't seem to handle. I haven't been able to pin any of them down on why they are obsessed with bringing her into the discussion but, they seem to label anyone that is conservative as an individual that is stupid, "just like Sarah Palin."

The problem is, she's really not a part of the political scene anymore. Sure, she has spoken at Tea Party functions but, is that really such a threat to the American Republic that liberals have to shrill the way they do over her? No. I think it's pure paranoia. I also think they are intimidated by an attractive woman being in politics. For years, their party has only been able to come up with woman like Nancy Pelosi, who lack in the aesthetically pleasing department. 

Bottom line, Sarah hasn't announced running for any future political positions, nor is she currently holding an active political office. Their point is mute and only comes from hatred, due to mommy issues.

2) Fox News. The "I-think-I'm-clever-and-I-hope-you-haven't-noticed-that-other-liberals-have-been-doing-this-for-years" liberal will write, "Faux News." This is somehow supposed to show the conservative reader how witty and free-thinking they are. Irony aside, it's clear that none of them actually have taken the time to watch Fox News.

The liberal will usually bring this up telling you, the conservative, that your opinions come directly from "Faux News," who are owned and operated by the Republican party. They also like to make note of how Fox is not "fair and balanced" yet, somehow CNN and the other alphabet channels are?

The way to shoot this one down is pointing out the fact that they are clearly the ones getting information from someone else because, if they actually watched Fox News, they would know it's not as conservative as they imagine it to be. Furthermore, I always ask them what is so threatening about mentioning the "other side" because, that is what Fox does. They at least try to offer the news from a different mind frame, something the other main stream media outlets never entertain.

Again, pure paranoia. What is it that liberals find so horrible about the news offering a different opinion, one that is not lock in step with theirs? This argument is so easy to refute because, you have all the other stations that don't even attempt to give conservative angles. One station should hardly be a threat to their almost media monopoly. I've never had a liberal begin to answer or, try and explain this.

3) It's Bush's fault. So, now we come to the most absurd but, in the liberal's mind, a genius observation. Well, I don't think anyone is going to argue that Bush did some things that may not have been the best for the country. I think conservatives have been quite critical of him.

Liberals like to mention the tax cuts but, they fail when they accuse them of being something bad or horrible for this country. First, the tax cuts kept the country from going further in recession. Yes, Bush inherited a recession. That is just ONE aspect of the economy. The problem was never the tax cuts. The problem was and, still is spending. Both Bush/Republicans and Democrats have equal blame in this department. To put everything on Bush because, he was trying to reach out across the aisle is absurd.

We had 8 years of Clinton, who absolutely ignored terrorism from the Muslim world. This inaction, inevitably led up to 9/11. I didn't hear these people blaming Clinton. Bush had been in office for 9 months. There were folks that had made the point that Clinton didn't go after Bin Laden, after the '93 WTC bombing. It was a valid point but, no one allowed for passing the blame on Clinton.

Now, these SAME people make the argument that Obama just can't fix in two years what Bush did for 8. Well, isn't that funny? Bush couldn't fix in 9 months what Clinton did to destroy this country in 8 as well. No, what was good for Bush then, is good for Obama now and, there is no blaming Bush when you have Obama tripling the size of our deficit. This is HIS economy now.

I hope the democrats will get the memo that these points are simply useless and, usually have nothing to do with the topics you find yourself talking about with them. I'm not holding my breath. For some reason, whenever a liberal brings up these points, you can tell they feel so intelligent, and so superior.

The sad reality is, many of them don't know much about the issues, and this is why they resort to these irrelevant points. I just wish they wouldn't vote.

Exposing the Self-Hating Liberal

I always make a point of reading "the other side" for various reasons. I want to know what the other side of the argument is, and I'm usually quite amused at the very intolerable, ignorant things that come out of their fingers, through their keyboard, and onto my screen. 

I've seen comments like the one below before but, this one actually inspired me to write this particular blog: 

The reason why the Republicans continue to fight for these tax cuts is that they believe that those who make more money expend more effort ("work harder") and therefor "succeed" in society as a result of all their hard efforts. Of course, this is ludicrous. Those who "succeed" often are privileged to begin with, for one thing, and also often lie, cheat and steal to "get ahead." Republicans believe in ruthlessness as an essential part of human nature, which, makes them, really, not just unfit to rule, but makes them clinically insane.

Why do liberals think this way? We have to get into the mind of a liberal. First of all, many of the richest people in this country are liberal so, it's clear there is a lot of projecting going on.

Psychology always seems to rear it's head in all sciences and, politics is no different. People often project their inner beliefs, thoughts, and persona's upon others with their world views.  If someone is always lying, cheating, and stealing to get ahead, of course they are going to think that others around them constantly engage in that behavior as well. Clearly the writer of this post is someone who is projecting his own behavior upon others.

Liberals are notorious for blaming others for their problems. This is because they ironically believe it's failing, if they have to admit they did something wrong, or brought something bad upon themselves. They don't  want to accept that they create their own world's. They want to believe that everything is just a mistake, that it's all accidental, that some folks are just more lucky than others, that there is no real way of working to get ahead, nope, people are where they are because of who they are, not what they can become.

When you have this outlook, how can you possibly love yourself or, love life? You really can't. The bottom line is, liberals are self hating. They have an enormous amount of envy for others. They can't stand anyone having what they don't have. They truly hate themselves. If they are privileged, the still hate themselves because, they carry a guilt around with them. They think, they are lucky and it's so sad that others aren't lucky like them. So, naturally a self imposed guilt is placed upon their shoulders.

Does anyone question why these people do not really understand G-d? Many of them do not even believe He exists. How can you blame them? G-d is love, after all and, they don't even love themselves.

They have no sense of identity. They don't like to be American because, of what American values represent. They tear down anything that would prop themselves up for the sake of tolerance but, they also despise anyone that doesn't think the way they do. If there is a different opinion given, it's because that person, newspaper, news organization, is obviously funded  by a larger group of evil conservatives - a big vast conspiracy. True paranoia. It's similar to the boogie man. Yes, they are still children that believe in the boogie man, he's just a conservative now, not a shadow under the bed.

With taxes, for example, it's always about the "zero-sum" argument. The argument that suggests if one group is effected in a positive way, the other groups will  fail or, receive zero. The fact that all of us are connected in some way, makes this argument completely null and void. In fact, it's one of the most ridiculous arguments I've ever heard, as it's mathematically impossible. It's possible a different group will not be much affected but, to say that it's always negative or zero is complete ignorance.

For example, if the rich receive tax cuts, the amount they don't have to pay, is the amount the poor will lose. Well, on the surface, it may seem this way, beings the government likes to redistribute money taken from taxes and spending it on programs that mostly do benefit the poor. However, this is not true at all. In fact, cutting taxes has shown that revenues to the government actually increase. This puts more money into the economy and, by doing so, it helps everyone, not just the rich. The problem is, once the government is seeing all the new money come in, they like to spend even more, increasing debt.

Of course, cutting taxes doesn't always work, if the taxes are low already but, by experimenting with the taxes, you can determine the tax percentage, in a free economy, that will provide maximum output, along with maximum intake. If the taxes are at 0% or 100%, you will not see any revenue because, zero is obviously nothing and at 100%, people just won't bother going to work. They will avoid any taxes and, bring no revenue in. A thinking person can deduce that even though taxes may be a necessity, you can't raise them so high that there is no motivation for that person to work nor, can they be too low that they don't bring anything in.

This blog isn't about taxes though but, it is about how liberals will see facts and regardless of what common sense will tell them, they can't stand when someone, even themselves, has a lot of money. They simply don't care what reality may dictate. They want that person taxed, even if it's to their own detriment. If they see something as unfair, they need to be the ones that fix it. They do not believe things work themselves out. They believe in control. Again, irony appears when many of them cannot even control themselves.

Of course they hate themselves and they hate others. They are extremely selfish because of this. The only satisfaction they get in life is joining meaningless causes, that never truly help anyone, nor do they bother to actually donate to charities or, help people directly. No, it's much easier to sign a petition and, then lecture everyone else on the issue.

They absolutely despise the "moral majority" or the "religious right" but, that doesn't stop them from having an even bigger sanctimonious attitude. They will call anyone that doesn't agree with them a form of lower life. Looking down upon people is a huge sign of self-loathing.

It always frustrates me whenever I hear the left distort so many things about the right and what our views are but, when they actually do understand yet, say things like the post above, it just floors me how a person can be so negative. I also have to question just how many successful people this person actually knows. I have had the great fortune of knowing many successful people. Some have been privileged, nothing wrong with that but, most were, indeed, hard-working people who came from nothing.

Most anyone can be successful, evil or good. Oh, yes, there are evil people. No one is denying that but, the reason conservatives view successful people as generally good people is because, that is what is inside of us. We love to see success, we applaud it and want to encourage it for others. We don't want to tear people down. When we enter into business, it's not about ripping the competition apart, we know the market will make room for us, if we have a good product or service to offer.

The reason why the Republicans continue to fight for these tax cuts is that they believe that those who make more money expend more effort ("work harder") and therefor "succeed" in society as a result of all their hard efforts. 

We believe these things because, we ARE these things. Here is what liberals are:

Of course, this is ludicrous. Those who "succeed" often are privileged to begin with, for one thing, and also often lie, cheat and steal to "get ahead." Republicans believe in ruthlessness as an essential part of human nature, which, makes them, really, not just unfit to rule, but makes them clinically insane.

We focus on what we can do, not what others or the government will do for us. We take responsibility for our actions because, we know we create our own world and we love life because of it. We love life because, it's a gift. We love ourselves, and we love others. There is almost no self loathing when one is a conservative and, boy oh boy do liberals hate that.

*Yes, I'm referring to the more far left person, more then I am the general person. I used to be a lefty myself so, I know a lot of what I speak of. It does take one to know one...I've been there personally.

Another Bill - Increase Unemployment Benefits - Tax the Oil Companies

The House is planning on voting on a new bill, next week, that will expand unemployment benefits, and expand various tax cuts that expired in Jan but, will increase taxes on oil companies.

 "This is a bill about creating jobs, preventing outsourcing of jobs overseas, closing loopholes that corporations and wealthy individuals (use for) avoiding U.S. taxes and meeting the needs of those who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said.

The overall cost of the bill will top $150 billion and could approach $200 billion.

Click title of this post to see more details about what is included in this bill. It is truly astonishing. I understand wanting to help people but, this spending by the demoncraps is completely out of hand.

All of this is just going to increase our deficit. Examples include:

-$1 billion for summer jobs programs, for workers ages 16 to 21.

-$4.6 billion to settle long-running class action lawsuits brought by black farmers and American Indians. One lawsuit concerned the government's management and accounting of more than 300,000 trust accounts of American Indians. The other is a discrimination lawsuit brought by black farmers against the Agriculture Department.

What I Mean When I Say, "They Don't 'Get It'"

So, I ran across an article written by, Taylor Marsh. She is clearly a person who is thick-in-the-head.

One thing I would like to point out about anti-Tea Partiers is, they constantly use dramatic rhetoric demonizing people but, never follow through with any examples citing their claims.

If you read the article, she is trying to defend Clinton and his remarks about igniting violence, bringing up the Oklahoma City bombing. She further tries to characterize the Tea Party and their efforts and likens them to "right tactics" that were used during the years Clinton was in office. She even goes so far as to try and justify Clinton's actions when he was impeached!

First of all, I keep hearing folks like her say that the Tea Party members just, "really don't understand taxes."

As we found out last week, many in the Tea Party are wealthy and well above McVeigh’s class. Their anger is splintered and partially misinformed, especially on taxes, though their target of government spending hits the mark.

Excuse me? I am sorry to point out to this moron that most economists are CONSERVATIVE. It is very rare that you run into a "liberal economist." That's pretty much an oxymoron, even on liberal campuses. This is just a FACT.

As a Princeton grad myself, I have full confidence in your teacher. Putting that issue aside, let me address your central question: Does the study of economics tend to make people conservative?

I believe the answer is, to some degree, yes. My experience is that many students find that their views become somewhat more conservative after studying economics. There are at least three, related reasons.

He then goes on to list the reasons why. If you would like, just follow the link to read the full post on his blog.

Putting aside this fact that economists are generally conservative, do you notice how Marsh makes her attack but, then never follows up with what it is that the Tea Party people supposedly don't "understand" concerning taxes? No, she just continues on as if that is fact and her readers shouldn't question her.

Of course, nothing could possibly be written by a liberal about The Tea Party, without mentioning race and, how they hate Obama because he is black. In reality, this is probably the only thing they actually LIKE about him. I think most ALL Americans can come together and say they are quite proud that a minority is in office. This is a wonderful accomplishment for this county. Most people are thrilled because, it PROVES how far this country has come to overcome the problems it once had. It also proves that minorities are not victims! You can work hard and accomplish anything you desire, regardless of your race.

Marsh chooses, instead, to liken The Tea Party members to simpletons who are only mad at government for having a black in office. They are just a bunch of racists, in her eyes, who are stupid and ilinformed. Once again, there is NO evidence for anything she categorically claims to be true. The sheep reading her article are merely supposed to absorb her words without question.

There is a complete lack of understanding when it comes to the people who make up the Tea Party. Not everyone is right-of-center. There are many folks on the left who are also angered by government's expansion within the last several years. Obama has made himself the, "straw on the camels back" with the policies he is pushing through. Many folks have been mad for years and not just at Democrats but, Republicans as well. Reading this article only further shows how completely out of touch many of these liberals are with the people, especially those who make up The Tea Party.

I do not have all the articles in front of me but, I read quite a bit out of several news publications when Clinton was in office. This was mostly due to having to do so for school. While reading out of very liberal publications like Time, and US Weekly, I remember distinctly them saying that Tim McVeigh was a liberal, not a conservative. In one interview, they noted that he loved watching CNN - hardly a center for right wing ideology, even back then. Yet, it's the conservatives that are rewriting history?

We also know that the Clinton administration buried every single report concerning a man, John Dow number 2, that was described as a Middle Eastern man. I'm not going to go off on a tangent here (that would be another topic entirely), but the point is that McVeigh was working with terrorists! The Middle Eastern variety. Ya know? The crisis that Clinton ALWAYS IGNORED! See USS Cole, '93 WTC Bombing, Saddam Hussein - no-fly zone, ect. The list goes on and on. OKC was just one that he was able to somehow try and push on the right, blaming Rush Limbaugh.

Marsh also tries her hardest demonize the members of The Tea Party, by insisting they mostly believe that Obama is an illegal alien but, then the poll she sites for this article says:

This fact was once again proven last week when the CBS/NY Times poll reported that this myth “persists among Tea Partiers,” but also many Americans, with a total of 44% either not knowing or believing Pres. Obama was born in another country.

She words the article to make it sound like birthers are the majority of The Tea Party but, 44 percent is hardly a majority, let alone, it would be less than even that because, the 44 percent cited, also includes folks who say, "they don't know." She combines the numbers to make the number larger.

Bottom line, birthers may be wrong but, don't they have some concern or worry that there is a president who is dead set on not allowing records to be released? Perhaps he was born here, let's say it is a myth. What is it that he's hiding, because it's clearly something. Can she not at least admit that?

At the very end of this poor excuse of an article, Marsh tries to rationalize Clinton:

However, it’s important to remember he was still impeached through the lazy lacing of a thin sexual harassment case with a consensual affair that required the questionable and possibly illegal sequestration of a young woman, never mind that the two cases should never should have been coupled in the first place.

Umm...did this woman even read The Starr Report? You cannot be this ignorant and consider yourself to be an authority on politics. Ms. Marsh should be ashamed of herself! How can a woman support a womanizing, abuser like Bill Clinton? The man had not one complaint of sexual harassment but, I believe the number climbed to SEVEN. That being said, he was NOT impeached because, he had an affair! For crying out loud, the man was impeached because, he had people hide evidence, he tampered with witnesses, AND he LIED under oath! I mean, what is it that these morons do not understand?!?!

Can someone really be this stupid that they don't know the basic facts of the case that involved Clinton? Again, why would you ever defend the actions of a man who is clearly disrespectful of woman? This woman is a disgrace to women everywhere!

People like Taylor Marsh just really confuse me. They just don't "get it!"

Poor = Criminal

Or, so I was told today.

I have quite a knack at getting into post wars on the internet and today was no exception. I guess it's just my witty charm. An obvious liberal, who also claims to be Christian, decided to respond to this quote:


"In my youth I traveled much and I observed in different countries that the more public provisions were made for the poor the less they provided for themselves and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves and became richer.” -Ben Franklin

"I just knew Jesus was wrong. Ben Franklin is bow diety" ...said the man I ended up talking to...(it's actually deity but, I spell things wrong too, I just happen to know how to use spell check). Anyways, I questioned him about this and, ended up telling him that, yes people should help the poor but, they should have a choice and that the government shouldn't be making all those decisions for us.

He replied to me with a comparison of taxes for roads and military, with welfare for the poor. Obviously this is absurd.

What always frustrates me about liberals is their take on taxes. I am not an anarchist. I support giving money for roads, police, fireman, military, and possibly a few other programs but, these are services that are helpful for all citizens. When the government takes from the haves and gives to the have-nots, that is stealing. That is Robin Hood philosophy.

I further explained to this man that I have no problem donating money to the poor. He actually had the nerve to ask me what my figures are for my, "apparent generosity." What a goon.

Because I pointed out the difference, I was accused of talking out both sides of my mouth, as well as interpreting the Bible any way I pleased. I asked this man more than once to tell me where in the Bible it says that stealing is okay, in some circumstances. He has yet to give me an answer on that one.

Instead, he decided to say: I'm the one interpreting it more literal. I'm not trying to belittle you at all. Just pointing out that you speak out of both sides of your mouth. Roads benefit all but food stamps benefit just one so they are not okay. Good luck making converts with that theology.


Apparently this poor man has never heard of conservatives.

Again you are not consistant with what you say which is very typical of right wingnuts. You paying taxes for roads benefits all but so does foudstamps because if people have no food they will steal it and crime would go up. So they benefit all. Sure there is abuse for which I am against, but many need help and as God commands I'm willing all I can

I love this. I'm the one being accused of not being consistent? I'm not the one saying it's okay to steal in some circumstances. The commandment is "Thou shalt not steal," not "Thou shalt not steal but, sometimes it's okay for the government to do so." Last I checked, it's a commandment, not a suggestion.

Now, don't get me wrong, I realize there's not much I can do about all this but, my point isn't about eradicating the system. My point is simply identifying what is right and, what is wrong. I asked this man straight out, "Do you think Jesus would be running around with Robin Hood and his merry men?" Of course, that wasn't answered either. If taking money from one group of people and giving it to another group of people isn't stealing, than I don't know what is.

The part that really made steam come out of every orifice of my body was the part where he said, "if people have no food they will steal it and crime would go up." How can someone have the nerve to say such an ignorant statement? So, if someone is without, according to this guy, they will always resort to stealing and being criminals. Poverty causes crime? It's funny because, I know plenty of rich people that have committed crimes, lots of crimes and, just because they could afford good lawyers doesn't mean that their crimes didn't effect the people around them.

It's also interesting to note that as more money has been funneled into the welfare system, I don't see crime going down anywhere. It's clear this guy has never lived in a big city like, oh say... Baltimore.


Furthermore, if this guy thinks that it is Jesus' will to have the government take from some and give that money to others, then isn't that forcing religion? I thought it was the liberals that were always shouting about "separation of church and state"? The whole idea of being Christian is allowing people the freedom to chose. Forcing people to do certain things is not a Christian value.

I have no problem with government offices having the 10 Commandments displayed. I have no problem with prayer in school (you don't have to participate), I have no problem with many things but, I do have a problem when people claim they are Christian and believe it's okay for the state to control everything.


What it boils down to is that liberals do not have faith in G-d. They believe in the government. The government is their god. This man thinks that if the government didn't provide subsidies for the poor, that no one would ever help the poor. He has NO faith that G-d will take care of them, that G-d will move the hearts and minds of people people to give voluntarily.


I don't think we're necessarily going to get people to agree that no help should be available but, I don't think we should make it easy for people either. I'm okay with helping to a degree. Help. Definitely help but, make it uncomfortable. When I see generation after generation being on welfare, I am bothered by that. We are making people feel comfortable on these programs and that's not a good thing. We keep people victims doing that. I just cannot believe that Jesus would say that's a good thing.

Charlie Rangel Gets Confronted

There's nothing better than seeing a politician get questioned about their piggish behavior and, this video delivers! Jason Mattera does a great job of reeling Rangel in and, confronting him on his abuse of tax payer's money. 

\

What's most appalling is Rangel's response, "Why don't you mind your G-- d--- business"? Excuse me, I believe our tax money is our business.

You, Mr. Rangel work for the people, not the other way around! You pig.

Wisdom: Soros Style

You can click the title for the full article. There's a video of an interview with George Soros as well.

Since the government bailout of the big banks took place, Soros wants the government to also regulate how everyone get's paid. Basically, he supports Obama's decision to determine everyone's salaries.

I suppose I can't much argue with that point. It seems to makes sense. After all, the government is using our money to pay for this. Shouldn't the government be able to say who gets paid what?

My problem began with the bailout in the first place. It should have never happened but, because of this, we are set on a one way ticket to government controlling every single step, every single decision. How can anyone, at this point, justify the government not calling the shots, if they are the ones funding?

I don't like the government getting involved any more than they have already become. We are already in very dangerous waters. If the government can become this involved, why not just take the money back and say, "We screwed up; you may just have to go ahead and fail." Isn't that the only way to assure that these "greedy" folks will get what they deserve?