Crush Liberalism

Liberalism: Why think when you can “feel”?

Ramifications of taxing the rich

The rich don’t get that way by being stupid.  From QandO:

They may be rich, but they’re not dumb:

“When California faced a Mount Everest-sized $14 billion deficit in 2003, one of the major causes for the red ink was the stampede of millionaire households from the state,” says a report called “Rich States, Poor States” by economists Arthur Laffer and Stephen Moore. “Out of the 25,000 or so seven-figure-income families, more than 5,000 left in the early 2000s, and the loss of their tax payments accounted for about half the budget hole.”

They’re not the only ones leaving either. The report, published by the American Legislative Exchange Council points out that not all jobs are leaving the US, but many, if not most lost jobs simply move to other states.

“States are in direct competition with each other for human capital and business investment. State governments that think they can attract jobs and people, and grow their economies, by taxing their citizens at a higher rate than their neighbors are sadly mistaken,” said Democratic Arkansas state Sen. Steve Faris, ALEC’s 2008 national chairman. “Legislators should take a close look at where their state ranks in this book and use it as a tool to help them improve.”

In the meantime, for every loser, there’s a winner:

According to the findings, a record 8 million Americans moved from one state to another in 2006, revealing which states have the most dynamic and desirable economies and which are “has-been” states, according to Laffer and Moore.

And they moved for pretty obvious reasons:

The report provides economic competitiveness rankings for all 50 states based on 16 policy variables with a proven effect on the migration of people and investment capital in and out of states. States with the lowest tax, spending, and regulatory burdens win the competitiveness contest. These are primarily in the South and Southwest regions of the nation.

Huh. Sounds very similar to the reasons given for the British brain drain I noted here. 

States like CA have yet to learn their lesson, though, and their low-tax neighbors like NV have reaped the benefits of their economic ignorance.

February 21, 2008 Posted by | California, economic ignorance, taxes | 3 Comments

Obama voters, part II

When they’re not busy misspelling tough words like “Dream” or passing out like adolescent girls at a Justin Timberlake concert, Barry O’s mind-numbed minions generate loud applause for…his snot.  Yep, it seems that blowing his nose actually registers on the Applause-O-Meter.

Pathetic.

February 21, 2008 Posted by | Obama | 3 Comments

NYT hit piece on McCain, silent on Huma

There’s enough on the various blogs and news sites to where I won’t go over the whole thing, but in a nutshell, the NYT has run a piece that suggests Johnny Mac may have (1) been influenced by a special interest lobbyist (the kind he decries) and (2) may have had an affair with her.  If you’re looking for proof in the article, good luck finding it.  Hell, Dan Rather had more proof in the forged memo on Bush than the Old Gray Hag has here.

Anybody here heard of the name Huma Abedin?  That’s Hilldawg’s lovely female personal assistant and confidante.  There is a plethora of blog posts and columns, with far more sourcing, that suggest Huma and the Hildebeast have been bumping donuts for a while now.  Has the NYT run with that angle?  Of course not.  There’s no “concrete proof” (nothing short of photos would constitute proof, I’m sure).  Sure, there’s no proof that Juan McAmnesty is doing the horizontal hula with this lobbyist chick, but the NYT is showing that proof is only needed when the target of such an accusation is a Democrat.  As expected, McLame is counterattacking the Slimes.

Nope…no liberal media bias!

February 21, 2008 Posted by | hypocrisy, McCain, media bias | 7 Comments

“Scientific consensus” wrong again

From Down Under:

It took just a couple of hours using data available on the internet for University of Sydney scientists to discover that the Milky Way is twice as wide as previously thought.Astrophysicist Professor Bryan Gaensler led a team that has found that our galaxy – a flattened spiral about 100,000 light years across – is 12,000 light years thick, not the 6,000 light years that had been previously thought.

That’s impossible!  After all, “scientific consensus” said the Milky Way was only 6,000 light years thick, and we all know what happens when you defy “scientific consensus”, right?  Expect these scientists to be called “Holocaust deniers” any day now.

February 21, 2008 Posted by | global warming | 1 Comment

Michelle Obama outlines Barack’s authoritarian plans

When she’s not busy being ashamed of her country (and isn’t that just a darling characteristic for a First Lady to have?), Shelly O is letting us in on Barry O’s plans for America.  Those who think Dubya is too authoritarian should (but probably don’t) have a problem with this (from NRO):

Last night I appeared on Hugh’s show, and his producer Duane mentioned a Michelle Obama speech at UCLA. Captain Ed talked about this a bit, but I hadn’t seen anyone transcribe the part of the speech where it gets a little… unnerving. It starts at about 8:41 in the audio.

Barack Obama will require you to work (Now THAT’s gonna freak out his welfare constituents! – Ed.). He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zones. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed.

I’m sorry, nowhere in the Constitution does it authorize the President of the United States to demand anyone shed their cynicism. And I’m all for people pushing themselves to be better, but I don’t think the President demanding it is the way to go about it.

And what if we kind of like our lives as usual? What about Americans’ freedom to be uninvolved and uninformed?

Darleen at Protein Wisdom transcribed what follows:

“You have to stay at the seat at the table of democracy with a man like Barack Obama not just on Tuesday but in a year from now, in four years from now, in eights years from now, you will have to be engaged.”

Ah. Apparently apathy will be criminalized, then?

Does anybody on the left side of the aisle find this rhetoric a little creepy? Isn’t this describing an authoritarian presidency way beyond anything George W. Bush has done or proposed?

Do the powers of the presidency really encompass everything Michelle says Obama wants and plans to do? Based on this rhetoric, isn’t he actually running for messiah? 

Partial-birth bortion legal, apathy illegal.  Got it.  Thanks for the clarification.

February 21, 2008 Posted by | big government, Obama | 3 Comments

   

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 25 other followers