Why is this a news story?
Just more evidence that when you have liberals in office your taxes are going to go up..and the more socialist and radical that person is, the more money they will take from you.
Usually it is to fund some failed social program that hurts minorities and the poor, but in this case it is for absolutely nothing....again, NOTHING.
The new religion of the left called global warming, and it can only be called a religion because you have to believe in global warming with blind faith, is costing you billions of dollars and who knows how many jobs.
This hurts the poor more than the rich, since raising energy costs will affect everyone somewhat equally and throwing away almost $2k a year on nothing will hurt the rich and hurt you because they will not be spending that money and creating jobs, but it will really hurt the poor. Where they going to come up with this?
Oh wait, I forgot, they wont pay it. The difference will be made up in even higher prices for those of us who do pay our bills.
You see how socialism/liberalism works? You keep beating down the people at the top to bring them closer to the people at the bottom.
When you keep beating down the people who spend lots of money, the people who pay almost all the taxes you loose jobs and eventually there is no way to squeeze the money you need out of less and less people for the more and more people that have learned that someone else is always supposed to take care of them.
I just wonder how far people are going to let Obama go before we are completely socialist. I guess if a majority of the people want things that way, then so be it.
However I do believe that if conservatives make sure people know that liberalism and socialism do not work and give the long, long, long list of examples of liberal failures then we can knock down support for Obama to a level where he cant transform this entire countries way of life
highlights from the master:
I had no idea how important this week's nationwide anti-tax tea parties were until hearing liberals denounce them with such ferocity. The New York Times' Paul Krugman wrote a column attacking the tea parties, apologizing for making fun of "crazy people." It's OK, Paul, you're allowed to do that for the same reason Jews can make fun of Jews. On MSNBC, hosts Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow have been tittering over the similarity of the name "tea parties" to an obscure homosexual sexual practice known as "tea bagging." Night after night, they sneer at Republicans for being so stupid as to call their rallies "tea bagging." Every host on Air America and every unbathed, basement-dwelling loser on the left wing blogosphere has spent the last week making jokes about tea bagging, a practice they show a surprising degree of familiarity with.
The point of the tea parties is to note the fact that the Democrats' modus operandi is to lead voters to believe they are no more likely to raise taxes than Republicans, get elected and immediately raise taxes.
Apparently, the people who actually pay taxes consider this a bad idea.
Obama's biggest shortcoming is that he believes the things believed by all Democrats, which have had devastating consequences every time they are put into effect. Among these is the Democrats' admiration for raising taxes on the productive.
All Democrats for the last 30 years have tried to stimulate the economy by giving "tax cuts" to people who don't pay taxes. Evidently, offering to expand welfare payments isn't a big vote-getter.
Obama's stimulus bill is the mother of all pork bills for friends of O and of Congressional Democrats.
And all that government spending on the Democrats' constituents will be paid for by raising taxes on the productive. Raise taxes and the productive will work less, adopt tax shelters, barter instead of sell, turn to an underground economy -- and the government will get less money.
The perfect bar bet with a liberal would be to wager that massive government deficits in the '80s were not caused by Reagan's tax cuts. If you casually mentioned that you thought Reagan's tax cuts brought in more revenue to the government -- which they did -- you could get odds in Hollywood and Manhattan.
The lie at the heart of liberals' mantra on taxes -- "tax increases only for the rich" -- is the ineluctable fact that unless taxes are raised across the board, the government won't get its money to fund layers and layers of useless government bureaucrats, none of whom can possibly be laid off. How much would you have to raise taxes before any of Obama's constituents noticed? They don't pay taxes, they engage in "tax-reduction" strategies, they work for the government, or they're too rich to care.
California tried the Obama soak-the-productive "stimulus" plan years ago and was hailed as the perfect exemplar of Democratic governance. In June 2002, the liberal American Prospect magazine called California a "laboratory" for Democratic policies, noting that "California is the only one of the nation's 10 largest states that is uniformly under Democratic control." They said this, mind you, as if it were a good thing. In California, the article proclaimed, "the next new deal is in tryouts." As they say in show biz: "Thanks, we'll call you. Next!" In just a few years, Democrats had turned California into a state -- or as it's now known, a "job-free zone" -- with a $41 billion deficit, a credit rating that was slashed to junk-bond status and a middle class now located in Arizona. Democrats governed California the way Democrats always govern. They bought the votes of government workers with taxpayer-funded jobs, salaries and benefits -- and then turned around and accused the productive class of "greed" for wanting not to have their taxes raised through the roof. Having run out of things to tax, now the California legislature is considering a tax on taxes. Seriously. The only way out now for California is a tax on Botox and steroids. Sure, the governor will protest, but it is the best solution ... California was, in fact, a laboratory of Democratic policies. The rabbit died, so now Obama is trying it on a national level.
So we are going to raise the taxes of the successful and now take away their itemized deductions.
Once again, liberals think they are doing one thing but are actually doing another.
It is what happens when you base all decisions on emotion and not fact.
When you do not allow the "rich" to itemize deductions, that means they can not write off charitable contributions. Therefore, non-profits are going to suffer greatly.
So, the rich are spending less, firing workers because they have less money, and now the very organizations that are trying to help the people liberals pretend to care about will be gone.
So, is Obama doing this because he WANTS the only people able to help the ever growing helpless in society to be the govt?
Actually, I don't think so.
I think he is just a liberal simpleton and he really thinks he is sticking it to the rich, those evil bad people. He doesn't realize they prop up the arts, non-profit organizations that help the poor, create jobs with their spending habits.
Nope, Obama just thinks the rich have too much money and he is going to redistribute it to the poor...its that simple for a socialist like himself.
We are in for a world of hurt.
Posts
All Comments
