Showing posts with label No Hope No Change. The Vast Left Wing Culture of Corruption. Show all posts
Showing posts with label No Hope No Change. The Vast Left Wing Culture of Corruption. Show all posts
Saturday, October 09, 2010
A typical conversation these days among Democrat politicians
More context here:
"Have you seen the interview with President Obama in the current issue of Rolling Stone magazine? In it, President Obama proves why he’s one of the most polarizing figures in politics today, and how deep his disconnect is with voters."
Wednesday, October 06, 2010
The current state of "Blame Bush-Foreign Policy Dept."
"As the antithesis of Bush is learning, foreign dictators are likely to bite the hand that strokes them."
VDH:
"But suddenly Barack Obama’s brief tenure has reminded us that, in fact, almost all the world’s crises arose before the Bush presidency and continued during and after it.
Examine current American foreign policy toward every region, and one of three general patterns emerges: Either things are no better since the end of 2008, or they are much worse, or the Obama administration has reverted to the Bush way of doing things — despite constant assurances to the world that Bush was at fault, American foreign policy was now reset, and global animosity arose out of past misunderstanding, insensitivity, and American hubris."
Imagine that!
We are less secure as a nation with Obama as President, enabled by partisan fools both inside and outside of Congress and the tank media.
VDH:
"But suddenly Barack Obama’s brief tenure has reminded us that, in fact, almost all the world’s crises arose before the Bush presidency and continued during and after it.
Examine current American foreign policy toward every region, and one of three general patterns emerges: Either things are no better since the end of 2008, or they are much worse, or the Obama administration has reverted to the Bush way of doing things — despite constant assurances to the world that Bush was at fault, American foreign policy was now reset, and global animosity arose out of past misunderstanding, insensitivity, and American hubris."
Imagine that!
We are less secure as a nation with Obama as President, enabled by partisan fools both inside and outside of Congress and the tank media.
Tuesday, October 05, 2010
"Bernanke : Defict threats are 'real and growing' "
Ya think?:
Still, Bernanke doesn't get it. He doesn't think Obamaland needs to stop the on-going crony capitalism spending campaign:
"Bernanke, in a speech prepared for delivery, reiterated his belief that the government shouldn't raise taxes or slash spending now because the economic recovery is still too fragile."
It could be worse. He could be advocating for massive tax increases (over and above the expiration of the Bush tax cuts), and massive increases in spending, as advocated by leftist agenda clowns who masquerade as economists, like Paul Krugman.
Still, Bernanke doesn't get it. He doesn't think Obamaland needs to stop the on-going crony capitalism spending campaign:
"Bernanke, in a speech prepared for delivery, reiterated his belief that the government shouldn't raise taxes or slash spending now because the economic recovery is still too fragile."
It could be worse. He could be advocating for massive tax increases (over and above the expiration of the Bush tax cuts), and massive increases in spending, as advocated by leftist agenda clowns who masquerade as economists, like Paul Krugman.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
The noxious effects of Obama's proposed tax hikes
And this stuff doesn't even consider the VAT he and his cronies are gleefully expecting to additionally impose.
Summary:
"Since 1996, Congress after Congress has voted to lighten the tax burden on Americans. The current Congress will decide this fall whether to continue this policy or to significantly raise personal income taxes. President Obama has advanced a plan that reverses the long-standing successful policy: The President and his supporters are calling for tax increases, primarily on upper-income taxpayers and businesses— including small businesses, the primary job creators in the country.
Those who will be most burdened if this plan becomes law are the millions of Americans just starting their economic lives and the millions more trying to find work after the worst recession in 60 years. The rest, whose lives are affected by the investments and business decisions of those taxpayers in the high-income classes, will share the burden. No income earner will be unscathed.
Instead of extracting more income from the private economy, Congress should immediately reduce its spending and enact fundamental entitlement reform that supports strong economic growth. Heritage Foundation economists explain why employment and the economy cannot be made to grow through higher taxes—and how crucial it is for Congress to recognize this fact."
Summary:
"Since 1996, Congress after Congress has voted to lighten the tax burden on Americans. The current Congress will decide this fall whether to continue this policy or to significantly raise personal income taxes. President Obama has advanced a plan that reverses the long-standing successful policy: The President and his supporters are calling for tax increases, primarily on upper-income taxpayers and businesses— including small businesses, the primary job creators in the country.
Those who will be most burdened if this plan becomes law are the millions of Americans just starting their economic lives and the millions more trying to find work after the worst recession in 60 years. The rest, whose lives are affected by the investments and business decisions of those taxpayers in the high-income classes, will share the burden. No income earner will be unscathed.
Instead of extracting more income from the private economy, Congress should immediately reduce its spending and enact fundamental entitlement reform that supports strong economic growth. Heritage Foundation economists explain why employment and the economy cannot be made to grow through higher taxes—and how crucial it is for Congress to recognize this fact."
More effects of the marvelous Obamacare program
McDonald's Says It May Drop Health Plan
Noteworthy:
"The move is one of the clearest indications that new rules may disrupt workers' health plans as the law ripples through the real world.
Trade groups representing restaurants and retailers say low-wage employers might halt their coverage if the government doesn't loosen a requirement for 'mini-med' plans, which offer limited benefits to some 1.4 million Americans.
....McDonald's move is the latest indication of possible unintended consequences from the health overhaul. Dozens of companies have taken charges against earnings—totaling more than $1 billion—over a tax change in prescription-drug benefits for retirees."
We haven't even begun to see the incredibly wide extent of the noxious effects of this outrage known as Obamacare.
Noteworthy:
"The move is one of the clearest indications that new rules may disrupt workers' health plans as the law ripples through the real world.
Trade groups representing restaurants and retailers say low-wage employers might halt their coverage if the government doesn't loosen a requirement for 'mini-med' plans, which offer limited benefits to some 1.4 million Americans.
....McDonald's move is the latest indication of possible unintended consequences from the health overhaul. Dozens of companies have taken charges against earnings—totaling more than $1 billion—over a tax change in prescription-drug benefits for retirees."
We haven't even begun to see the incredibly wide extent of the noxious effects of this outrage known as Obamacare.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
"Cafeteria Constitutionalists", and the coming rejection of relativism
Lisa Fabrizio, at Intellectual Conservative:
" America is now experiencing this inclination of a large number of citizens to disregard the founding principles that underpin our nation in favor of their own ideas of what our government is and should do; all the while insisting that they support and defend our Constitution. It is at times like these that non-Catholics share with us our frustration when reading the opinions of our brethren who pick and choose which, if any, precepts of the Faith they might respect.
...Those who do not understand how liberals can claim to love America while disdaining the simple and direct strictures of the Constitution, need only look to so-called Christian sects that support and even employ as preachers, practicing homosexuals and others living in direct contravention of specific biblical admonitions against same. In the case of the Anglican Church, this fact alone is driving many true believers into the arms of Rome; in much the same way as the deliberate flaunting of our Constitution by the Obama Administration is fattening the membership of the Tea Parties with otherwise non-political Americans.
The reason is the same: there remain in this world people who cling to eternal principles as rock-solid and worthy of adherence, while there are others who proceed from the nauseating viewpoint that all progress is good and we must therefore change with the times. Contrary to the views expressed in the 1960s, this way of life is not liberating, but is every bit as stifling as the chains of any tyrant. As Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger warned shortly before his election as Vicar of Rome, 'We are building a dictatorship of relativism that does not recognize anything as definitive and whose ultimate goal consists solely of one's own ego and desires. '"
Indeed.
Read the whole thing.
" America is now experiencing this inclination of a large number of citizens to disregard the founding principles that underpin our nation in favor of their own ideas of what our government is and should do; all the while insisting that they support and defend our Constitution. It is at times like these that non-Catholics share with us our frustration when reading the opinions of our brethren who pick and choose which, if any, precepts of the Faith they might respect.
...Those who do not understand how liberals can claim to love America while disdaining the simple and direct strictures of the Constitution, need only look to so-called Christian sects that support and even employ as preachers, practicing homosexuals and others living in direct contravention of specific biblical admonitions against same. In the case of the Anglican Church, this fact alone is driving many true believers into the arms of Rome; in much the same way as the deliberate flaunting of our Constitution by the Obama Administration is fattening the membership of the Tea Parties with otherwise non-political Americans.
The reason is the same: there remain in this world people who cling to eternal principles as rock-solid and worthy of adherence, while there are others who proceed from the nauseating viewpoint that all progress is good and we must therefore change with the times. Contrary to the views expressed in the 1960s, this way of life is not liberating, but is every bit as stifling as the chains of any tyrant. As Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger warned shortly before his election as Vicar of Rome, 'We are building a dictatorship of relativism that does not recognize anything as definitive and whose ultimate goal consists solely of one's own ego and desires. '"
Indeed.
Read the whole thing.
Monday, September 13, 2010
Friday, September 10, 2010
A new "Progressive" meme: Muslim Outrage, 24-7
Never mind the hypocrisy, never mind the fabrications, the Muslim right to be offended is now permanently enshrined into the "progressive" agenda talking points.
Noteworthy:
"Shhhhhhh, we’re told. Don’t protest the Ground Zero mosque. Don’t burn a Koran. It’ll imperil the troops. It’ll inflame tensions. The 'Muslim world' will 'explode' if it does not get its way, warns sharia-peddling imam Feisal Abdul Rauf. Pardon my national-security-threatening impudence, but when is the 'Muslim world' not ready to 'explode'?
.....When everything from sneakers to stuffed animals to comics to frescos to beauty queens to fast-food packaging to undies serves as dry tinder for Allah’s avengers, it’s a grand farce to feign concern about the recruitment effect of a few burnt Korans in the hands of a two-bit attention-seeker in Florida. The eternal flame of Muslim outrage was lit a long, long time ago."
Monday, September 06, 2010
A Labor Day notice to our American entrepreneurs from your helpful government
"I'd like to make you a business offer.
Seriously. This is a real offer. In fact, you really can't turn me down, as you'll come to understand in a moment...
Here's the deal. You're going to start a business or expand the one you've got now. It doesn't really matter what you do or what you're going to do. I'll partner with you no matter what business you're in - as long as it's legal.
But I can't give you any capital - you have to come up with that on your own. I won't give you any labor - that's definitely up to you. What I will do, however, is demand you follow all sorts of rules about what products and services you can offer, how much (and how often) you pay your employees, and where and when you're allowed to operate your business. That's my role in the affair: to tell you what to do.
Now in return for my rules, I'm going to take roughly half of whatever you make in the business each year. Half seems fair, doesn't it? I think so. Of course, that's half of your profits.
You're also going to have to pay me about 12 percent of whatever you decide to pay your employees because you've got to cover my expenses for promulgating all of the rules about who you can employ, when, where, and how. Come on, you're my partner. It's only "fair."
Now ... after you've put your hard-earned savings at risk to start this business, and after you've worked hard at it for a few decades (paying me my 50 percent or a bit more along the way each year), you might decide you'd like to cash out - to finally live the good life.
Whether or not this is 'fair' - some people never can afford to retire - is a different argument. As your partner, I'm happy for you to sell whenever you'd like ... because our agreement says, if you sell, you have to pay me an additional 20 percent of whatever the capitalized value of the business is at that time.
I know, I know. You put up all the original capital. You took all the risks. You put in all of the labor. That's all true. But I've done my part, too. I've collected 50 percent of the profits each year. And I've always come up with more rules for you to follow each year. Therefore, I deserve another, final 20 percent slice of the business.
Oh ... and one more thing.
Even after you've sold the business and paid all of my fees, I'd recommend buying lots of life insurance. You see, even after you've been retired for years, when you die, you'll have to pay me 50 percent of whatever your estate is worth.
After all, I've got lots of partners and not all of them are as successful as you and your family. We don't think it's 'fair' for your kids to have such a big advantage. But if you buy enough life insurance, you can finance this expense for your children.
All in all, if you're a very if you're one of the rare, lucky, and hard-working people who can create a new company, employ lots of people, and satisfy the public, you'll end up paying me more than 75 percent of your income over your life. Thanks so much.
I'm sure you'll think my offer is reasonable and happily partner with me, but it doesn't really matter how you feel about it because if you ever try to stiff me - or cheat me on any of my fees or rules - I'll break down your door in the middle of the night, threaten you and your family with heavy, automatic weapons, and throw you in jail.
That's how civil society is supposed to work, right? This is America, isn't it?"
That's the offer America gives its entrepreneurs. And the idiots in Washington (and in the "progressive" media and on the "progressive" blogs) wonder why there are no new jobs.
Seriously. This is a real offer. In fact, you really can't turn me down, as you'll come to understand in a moment...
Here's the deal. You're going to start a business or expand the one you've got now. It doesn't really matter what you do or what you're going to do. I'll partner with you no matter what business you're in - as long as it's legal.
But I can't give you any capital - you have to come up with that on your own. I won't give you any labor - that's definitely up to you. What I will do, however, is demand you follow all sorts of rules about what products and services you can offer, how much (and how often) you pay your employees, and where and when you're allowed to operate your business. That's my role in the affair: to tell you what to do.
Now in return for my rules, I'm going to take roughly half of whatever you make in the business each year. Half seems fair, doesn't it? I think so. Of course, that's half of your profits.
You're also going to have to pay me about 12 percent of whatever you decide to pay your employees because you've got to cover my expenses for promulgating all of the rules about who you can employ, when, where, and how. Come on, you're my partner. It's only "fair."
Now ... after you've put your hard-earned savings at risk to start this business, and after you've worked hard at it for a few decades (paying me my 50 percent or a bit more along the way each year), you might decide you'd like to cash out - to finally live the good life.
Whether or not this is 'fair' - some people never can afford to retire - is a different argument. As your partner, I'm happy for you to sell whenever you'd like ... because our agreement says, if you sell, you have to pay me an additional 20 percent of whatever the capitalized value of the business is at that time.
I know, I know. You put up all the original capital. You took all the risks. You put in all of the labor. That's all true. But I've done my part, too. I've collected 50 percent of the profits each year. And I've always come up with more rules for you to follow each year. Therefore, I deserve another, final 20 percent slice of the business.
Oh ... and one more thing.
Even after you've sold the business and paid all of my fees, I'd recommend buying lots of life insurance. You see, even after you've been retired for years, when you die, you'll have to pay me 50 percent of whatever your estate is worth.
After all, I've got lots of partners and not all of them are as successful as you and your family. We don't think it's 'fair' for your kids to have such a big advantage. But if you buy enough life insurance, you can finance this expense for your children.
All in all, if you're a very if you're one of the rare, lucky, and hard-working people who can create a new company, employ lots of people, and satisfy the public, you'll end up paying me more than 75 percent of your income over your life. Thanks so much.
I'm sure you'll think my offer is reasonable and happily partner with me, but it doesn't really matter how you feel about it because if you ever try to stiff me - or cheat me on any of my fees or rules - I'll break down your door in the middle of the night, threaten you and your family with heavy, automatic weapons, and throw you in jail.
That's how civil society is supposed to work, right? This is America, isn't it?"
That's the offer America gives its entrepreneurs. And the idiots in Washington (and in the "progressive" media and on the "progressive" blogs) wonder why there are no new jobs.
Wednesday, September 01, 2010
Did Obama say anything of note last night?
Apparently not. And no one is really surprised.
Charles Krauthammer:
"I thought the speech was both flat and odd."
Jennifer Rubins:
"Obama is still candidate Obama, never tiring of reminding us that he kept his campaign pledge and ever eager to push aside foreign policy challenges so he can get on with the business of remaking America. All in all, it was what we were promised it would not be — self-serving, disingenuous, ungracious, and unreassuring."
NRO:
"If we still don’t know how the Iraq war is going to end, an engaged, strategically far-sighted commander-in-chief is essential."
...which we most certainly do not currently have by ANY stretch of the imagination, in ANY area of national concern foreign or domestic.
We won't even begin to talk about the hypocrisy of candidate-turned President Obama on the entire Iraq issue.
Charles Krauthammer:
"I thought the speech was both flat and odd."
Jennifer Rubins:
"Obama is still candidate Obama, never tiring of reminding us that he kept his campaign pledge and ever eager to push aside foreign policy challenges so he can get on with the business of remaking America. All in all, it was what we were promised it would not be — self-serving, disingenuous, ungracious, and unreassuring."
NRO:
"If we still don’t know how the Iraq war is going to end, an engaged, strategically far-sighted commander-in-chief is essential."
...which we most certainly do not currently have by ANY stretch of the imagination, in ANY area of national concern foreign or domestic.
We won't even begin to talk about the hypocrisy of candidate-turned President Obama on the entire Iraq issue.
Friday, August 27, 2010
The last resort for Dems this election season
Does anyone really think the Demagouges Democrats are not desperate enough to try this worn out tactic?
Key points:
"Now we know why the country has become 'ungovernable,' last year's excuse for the Democrats' failure of governance: Who can possibly govern a nation of racist, nativist, homophobic Islamophobes?
Note what connects these issues. In every one, liberals have lost the argument in the court of public opinion. Majorities -- often lopsided majorities -- oppose President Obama's social-democratic agenda (e.g., the stimulus, Obamacare), support the Arizona law, oppose gay marriage and reject a mosque near Ground Zero.
What's a liberal to do? Pull out the bigotry charge, the trump that preempts debate and gives no credit to the seriousness and substance of the contrary argument. The most venerable of these trumps is, of course, the race card. When the Tea Party arose, a spontaneous, leaderless and perfectly natural (and traditionally American) reaction to the vast expansion of government intrinsic to the president's proudly proclaimed transformational agenda, the liberal commentariat cast it as a mob of angry white yahoos disguising their antipathy to a black president by cleverly speaking in economic terms."
Does that remind you of a particular group of people who comment on a particular local "progressive" blog?
Key points:
"Now we know why the country has become 'ungovernable,' last year's excuse for the Democrats' failure of governance: Who can possibly govern a nation of racist, nativist, homophobic Islamophobes?
Note what connects these issues. In every one, liberals have lost the argument in the court of public opinion. Majorities -- often lopsided majorities -- oppose President Obama's social-democratic agenda (e.g., the stimulus, Obamacare), support the Arizona law, oppose gay marriage and reject a mosque near Ground Zero.
What's a liberal to do? Pull out the bigotry charge, the trump that preempts debate and gives no credit to the seriousness and substance of the contrary argument. The most venerable of these trumps is, of course, the race card. When the Tea Party arose, a spontaneous, leaderless and perfectly natural (and traditionally American) reaction to the vast expansion of government intrinsic to the president's proudly proclaimed transformational agenda, the liberal commentariat cast it as a mob of angry white yahoos disguising their antipathy to a black president by cleverly speaking in economic terms."
Does that remind you of a particular group of people who comment on a particular local "progressive" blog?
Wednesday, August 04, 2010
Health Care "Reform" flow chart
As you can see, it's real simple.
From Congressman Kevin Brady's web page:
"In addition to capturing the massive expansion of government and the overwhelming complexity of new regulations and taxes, the chart portrays:
* $569 billion in higher taxes;
* $529 billion in cuts to Medicare;
* Swelling of the ranks of Medicaid by 16 million;
* 17 major insurance mandates; and
* The creation of two new bureaucracies with powers to impose future rationing: the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute and the Independent Payments Advisory Board.
Brady admits committee analysts could not fit the entire health care bill on one chart. 'This portrays only about one-third of the complexity of the final bill. It’s actually worse than this.' "
From Congressman Kevin Brady's web page:
"In addition to capturing the massive expansion of government and the overwhelming complexity of new regulations and taxes, the chart portrays:
* $569 billion in higher taxes;
* $529 billion in cuts to Medicare;
* Swelling of the ranks of Medicaid by 16 million;
* 17 major insurance mandates; and
* The creation of two new bureaucracies with powers to impose future rationing: the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute and the Independent Payments Advisory Board.
Brady admits committee analysts could not fit the entire health care bill on one chart. 'This portrays only about one-third of the complexity of the final bill. It’s actually worse than this.' "
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)