Obama’s 2011 State of the Union speech
The Biggest Loser was interrupted by Obama’s speech. Savor the irony. 
Some takeaways:
He said “This is our generation’s Sputnik moment.” Sweet Lord, I pray not. Sputnik failed the first time, and there were subsequent failures.
His vow: “If a bill comes to my desk with earmarks inside, I will veto it.” This promise is not to be confused with his 2009 statement that “Done right, earmarks have given legislators the opportunity to direct federal money to worthy projects that benefit people in their districts, and that’s why I’ve opposed their outright elimination.” Every bill that has had earmarks over the last two years has been signed into law by him.
A rather shameless lie: “Thanks to the tax cuts we passed, Americans’ paychecks are a little bigger today.” He fought extending the Bush tax rates tooth and nail, surrendering only when it became clear he couldn’t win. And now he wants credit for caving in on tax rates that he said were harming our economy?
According to the AP‘s fact check, Chairman O’s plans to decrease the deficit by increasing spending (he and his party prefer to use the term “investments”) don’t really add up. Go figure.
House passes Bush tax code bill, and this was a big win for…Obama?
Listening to Politico, you would think that the “Hostage Negotiator-in-Chief” was validated with the House vote. Just to make sure I’m understanding this correctly…
The passed bill extended the current tax code for the middle income group. Obama wanted this. Pass.
The passed bill extended the current tax code for, and did not raise taxes on, the upper income group. Obama opposed this. Fail.
The passed bill extended the current tax code for, and did not raise taxes on, capital gains. Obama opposed this. Fail.
The passed bill extended the current tax code for, and did not raise taxes on, estates (i.e. the death tax). Obama opposed this. Fail.
So naturally, a 25% success rate constitutes a win for Obama. Man, that must be one helluva curve that liberals grade on, huh?
Look at the bigger picture, though. Oba-Mao argued for all of 2008 (and before) that the Bush tax structure was bad for the economy. It was so bad for the economy that…um…he had to keep it going, so as not to harm the economy. Got it. Thanks for the clarification.
The Economic Illiterate-in-Chief says he’ll be happy to fight on this issue again in two years. That makes two of us. He’ll have to argue, with a straight face, that he believes raising taxes on a group of people (business owners, the evil rich, people who die and have estates, and investors) will improve the economy. I look forward to having that argument in an election year.
Additionally, by Obama signing off on Bush’s signature achievement (the tax code), he won’t be able to blame Bush (or, at least, he won’t be able to do so and have it stick) if the economy fails to improve…and it will be brought to America’s attention that Bush was right and Obama was wrong if the economy does improve after extending these current tax rates.
Republican Senator to Andrea Mitchell: You don’t “pay for tax cuts”, because “it’s not the government’s money”, it’s YOUR money!
Retiring Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH) gives a brief but illustrating basic economics lesson to Andrea Mitchell (hat tip to Radio Vice Online):
Considering she’s married to Alan Greenspan, she should be ashamed of herself for being such an economic illiterate. Gregg took her to school.
That’s one leftist talking point that is more worn out than Monica Lewinsky’s kneepads.
It is beyond maddening to hear these dolts utter the phrase “pay for tax cuts”. Gregg is correct that these imbeciles feel that America is this big pot of money sitting around, waiting for the government to distribute it. When you get a paycheck from your job or earn money from your business, the money belongs to you. Government then comes along and confiscates a portion of it in the form of taxes. In a rather perverse thought process, the left believes that whatever is left over in your check after the government has seized its portion is money that the government “paid” you, rather than money that your boss or your customers paid you.
Here’s an analogy: Let’s say you’re walking along and a mugger jumps you. He takes your wallet/purse (which has $100), removes $20 from it, and leaves $80. Now let me ask you: Did the mugger just “pay for” the $80 in your wallet/purse?
If you’re a liberal, then the answer to my question is “Yes, the mugger paid for the $80 in your wallet/purse.” You earned $100, the mugger took $20, and you now have $80.
What if the mugger said “I can’t afford to pay you $80, but I can afford to pay you $20″, and instead kept $80 of your $100? According to the left’s line of thinking, the mugger “paid for” your $20.
Do you see how absolutely insane this thought process is? Only in Liberalville can a person earn money, and the government considers an act of NOT mugging you for your money as “paying for” your money!
Oh, and another thing…
I don’t see keeping the current tax rates in place as it being a “tax cut”. I see it as, well, keeping the current tax rates in place. If the current tax rates expired, then the higher tax rates from 2001 will return, which by definition constitutes a tax increase. For everyone.
When it comes to economics, “libruls iz dum!”
Pelosi uses dirty trick to ram through bill that raises taxes on Americans
From CNN:
Congressional Democrats rammed a bill through the House of Representatives Thursday permanently extending the Bush-era tax cuts only for families making $250,000 a year or less.
It would maintain the current Alternative Minimum Tax limit for two years.
The measure, which passed on a sharply polarized 234-188 vote, would allow the Bush tax cuts to expire after December 31 for the wealthiest Americans. Most Democrats backed the bill, while most Republicans opposed it.
When the left and the MSM (pardon the redundancy) say “the wealthiest Americans”, they are referring to small business owners. Small business owners provide about 3/4 of the jobs in America today, and the overwhelming majority of small business owners are LLC’s or Sub-Chapter S corporations that report business income on their personal tax returns. Whenever Democrats demean and demonize the “evil rich”, it is the small business owner that they attack.
Naturally, the small business owner will not expend capital or hire anyone when they know that they are about to get “shellacked” (to use President Kick#ss’ term) in their pocketbooks. They will lay off employees to keep their expenses low and minimize the impending tax hike as much as possible. “Sorry, Jane, I need to let you go so I can send your salary to Uncle Sam. He thinks I’m rich, so the government having your salary is more important than you having your salary. Sucks for you. But hey, San Fran Nan says that the unemployment check and food stamps you receive will stimulate the economy. Now don’t you just feel totally stimulated, Jane?”
John Boehner called the move “chicken crap“, and he’s right when you consider that the House’s tax hike bill is DOA in the Senate (all 42 Republicans have promised to filibuster it). In other words, Pe-loser is telling the American people “Screw you!” on her way out the door. You stay classy, Speaker Botox.
Philly requiring bloggers to obtain $300 business license
Note to self: “Don’t move to Philly! Not only will you be greeted by a Black Panther wanting to club you and your children to death on Election Day, you will have to pony up $300 to keep writing Crush Liberalism.”
Kerry: Taxes for thee, but not for me
Jean-François Heinz-Kerry, who is rumored to have served in Vietnam, has spent his entire legislative career in pursuit of higher taxes on all Americans. Well, apparently his tolerance for high taxes doesn’t extend to himself. Details:
Sen. John Kerry, who has repeatedly voted to raise taxes while in Congress, dodged a whopping six-figure state tax bill on his new multimillion-dollar yacht by mooring her in Newport, R.I.
Isabel – Kerry’s luxe, 76-foot New Zealand-built Friendship sloop with an Edwardian-style, glossy varnished teak interior, two VIP main cabins and a pilothouse fitted with a wet bar and cold wine storage – was designed by Rhode Island boat designer Ted Fontaine.
But instead of berthing the vessel in Nantucket, where the senator summers with the missus, Teresa Heinz, Isabel’s hailing port is listed as “Newport” on her stern.
Could the reason be that the Ocean State repealed its Boat Sales and Use Tax back in 1993, making the tiny state to the south a haven – like the Cayman Islands, Bermuda and Nassau – for tax-skirting luxury yacht owners?
Cash-strapped Massachusetts still collects a 6.25 percent sales tax and an annual excise tax on yachts. Sources say Isabel sold for something in the neighborhood of $7 million, meaning Kerry saved approximately $437,500 in sales tax and an annual excise tax of about $70,000.
He was actually for paying those taxes…before he wasn’t.
Yet another Obama lie: He’s now saying the individual mandate IS a tax!
This guy has accomplished something I didn’t think I would ever see in my lifetime: He’s proven himself to be a bigger liar than Bill Clinton ever was. And in a scant 19 months in office, no less. Bubba, you’re a rank amateur compared to President Kick#ss. Details:
In order to protect the new national health care law from legal challenges, the Obama administration has been forced to argue that the individual mandate represents a tax — even though Obama himself argued the exact opposite while campaigning to pass the legislation.
Late last night, the Obama Department of Justice filed a motion to dismiss the Florida-based lawsuit against the health care law, arguing that the court lacks jurisdiction and that the State of Florida and fellow plaintiffs haven’t presented a claim for which the court can grant relief. To bolster its case, the DOJ cited the Anti-Injunction Act, which restricts courts from interfering with the government’s ability to collect taxes.
Well, it’s not as if Sir Golfsalot tried doing the Clinton Shuffle on the meaning of the word “tax” or anything. Actually, it’s a lot like that:
OBAMA: George, the fact that you looked up Merriam’s Dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you’re stretching a little bit right now. Otherwise, you wouldn’t have gone to the dictionary to check on the definition. I mean what…
STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, no, but…
OBAMA: …what you’re saying is…
STEPHANOPOULOS: I wanted to check for myself. But your critics say it is a tax increase.
OBAMA: My critics say everything is a tax increase. My critics say that I’m taking over every sector of the economy. You know that. Look, we can have a legitimate debate about whether or not we’re going to have an individual mandate or not, but…
STEPHANOPOULOS: But you reject that it’s a tax increase?
OBAMA: I absolutely reject that notion.
So the DOJ is trying to argue that the individual mandate in the Senate law is a tax, though the Senate law says it’s not a tax but is instead interstate commerce (and thus within the feds’ jurisdiction)? Granted, it IS a tax and forcing citizens to purchase a product in order to legally exist in this country is unconstitutional, as is the fact that if this IS a tax, then the law originated in the Senate, which violates the constitutional stipulation that all tax bills originate in the House. Either way, this is an amazing predicament in which B.O. finds himself: either he lied, or his AG is an incompetent and illiterate boob. Or both.
In closing:
Put another way, the administration is now arguing in federal court that Obama signed a massive middle-class tax increase, in violation of his campaign pledge.
For those of you who were supremely stupid enough to believe Hopenchange when he said he would lower your taxes, I’ve got some swampland I’d like you to see. Sweetheart deal you’ll get. Pinkie-swear.
Report says ObamaCare will encourage small businesses not to grow or hire
Oh, goodie! Yet another surprise that we needed to pass ObamaCare to find out what would happen! Details:
A study by the National Center for Policy Analysis shows that tax credits in the new healthcare law could negatively impact small-business hiring decisions.
The new law provides a 50 percent tax credit to companies offering health coverage that have fewer than 10 workers who, on average, earn $25,000 a year. The tax credit is reduced as more employees are added to the payroll.
The NCPA study finds the reduction in tax relief to be a cost concern for companies looking to hire additional workers, but operate on slim profit margin yet still provide employee health coverage.
“You wouldn’t think this would have an impact, but at the margins, when they [business owners] decide to hire an extra worker, they’re not only going to be paying that worker’s salary, they’re going to have to absorb the cost of losing the tax credit,” Pamela Villarreal, NCPA Senior Policy Analyst and co-author of the report, told The Hill.
…
After the 13th worker the economics surrounding the credit change, the study says.
For employers with 15 workers, taking on an additional hire will reduce the credit by $1,400. For a company looking to expand from 20 to 21 workers, the credit will shrink by $3,733. And businesses will take a $5,600 reduction on the credit when hiring the 25th worker.
The credit phases out for companies with at least 26 employees.
Bill Rys, tax counsel at the National Federation of Independent Businesses, told The Hill that while demand is the primary driver for hiring decisions, costs related to new hires is a key factor.
“To the extent that a tax credit is related to the benefits that you’re paying your employees, it is going to be a factor in determining what is the cost of the employee,” he said. “The fact that you’re losing a portion of the credit because you brought in a new employee is going to have to factor into the cost of who you’re hiring.”
You know, it’s almost as if liberals were a bunch of drooling economic illiterates with no real comprehension on how things work in the real world! Almost, that is.
Shocker: MA medical device companies laying off workers to pay for ObamaCare tax
You mean businesses won’t eat costs imposed on them by Big Government? Huh. Who knew? I mean, aside from me and everyone who isn’t a functional economic illiterate, who could have seen this coming?
Massachusetts medical-device companies say they’ll cut back on operational costs – and jobs – after a planned 2.3 percent tax on their products is implemented in 2013, according to a new survey.
The Massachusetts Medical Device Industry Council, which held its annual meeting yesterday in Boston, said about 90 percent of the 100 medical-device firms said they would reduce costs due to the new tax tucked into the recently passed health-care reform bill.
The tax – imposed to help pay for the massive health-care industry overhaul and expansion – is “of the greatest concern” to a majority of its members, the survey found.
About 70 percent of the survey respondents said future innovation will be hurt by a new federal “physician sunshine bill.” The bill will require medical-device firms to report their marketing expenditures on physicians, and a recently passed gift-ban law in Massachusetts.
About 41 percent of the council’s members said the new health-care bill will help the industry by expanding the number of people getting health-care insurance.
But 42 percent said the new health-care reform bill won’t increase their business, the survey found.
Awesome. Nothing encourages innovation in medical technology quite like taxing the companies that produce said innovation.
Democrats on Obama’s fiscal commission: Hey, how’s about some “pro-growth” tax increases?
Oh. My. (Insert politically correct deity here). Details:
Two immovable facts face Democrats on President Obama’s fiscal commission: They don’t see any way to alleviate the country’s debt without raising taxes, and they know most voters hate the thought of any tax increase.
Leading Democrats on the commission tried during the first week of meetings to finesse their way toward a discussion of what they consider inevitable — by arguing that any tax hikes would be “pro-growth.”
“If we can put forward some practical proposals that control the rate of spending in the future and that raise revenues in a pro-growth way, I think we’ll get a hearing in the Congress,” said Alice Rivlin, a former White House budget director for President Jimmy Carter, who is one of 18 commission members.
The “pro-growth” tax increases can be found on Aisle 9, between the dry water and the sober Kennedys. Pixies that fart calorie-free chocolate are on the next aisle.
The only growth that tax increases spur is the growth of government. Eventually, though, the government runs out of other people’s money. But the more that taxes are put onto society, the more money that exits the hands of the private sector. And for those of you who are economic illiterates or liberals (pardon the redundancy), it is the private sector that fuels the economy, not the federal government.
You know why B.O.’s commission is doing this, don’t you? See, Oprompter promised in 2008 that none of your taxes of any kind would be raised (a promise he has repeatedly violated since then). He’s since tried to be Clintonesque by saying that he was talking about income taxes, not any other kind of taxes (which, of course, is a d#mned lie). By having this “fiscal commission” dedicated to trimming the deficit saying that tax increases are needed (because cutting spending is apparently never an option with the left), President Training Wheels can say “Well, I wasn’t going to raise taxes, but Bush’s economy sucked far worse than I thought, so I’m gonna have to take the advice of this commission and raise your taxes. Sorry about that.” You know, it’s not his idea, but the idea of the “non-partisan” fiscal commission.
How’s that Obama Kool-Aid tasting now, you libfools?
NJ Governor Christie lays down the law on state liberals
When deep blue NJ elected Republican Chris Christie over incumbent Democrat (and BFF of B.O.) Jon Corzine, many wondered if he would stick to his conservative principles in cleaning up NJ’s bloated and overtaxing government.
…Budgets are serious business, but it’s been a long time since anyone in New Jersey has been serious about the budget. This year, gross mismanagement and accumulated fictions have left state taxpayers a $10.7 billion gap on a total state budget of $29.3 billion. Mr. Christie’s answer is simple: “a smaller government that lives within its means.”
However quaint that may sound, when you have to cut nearly $11 billion in state spending to get there, you are going to get a lot of yelling and screaming. Most comes from the New Jersey Education Association, hollering that “the children” will be hurt by Mr. Christie’s proposals for teachers to accept a one-year wage freeze and begin contributing something toward their health plans. What makes the battle interesting is the way Mr. Christie is throwing the old chestnuts back at his critics.
Here are a few examples, culled from his budget address, public meetings and radio appearances:
The children will be the ones to suffer from your education cuts. “The real question is, who’s for the kids, and who’s for their raises? This isn’t about the kids. Let’s dispense with that portion of the argument. Don’t let them tell you that ever again while they are reaching into your pockets.”
Your policies favor the rich. “We have the worst unemployment in the region and the highest taxes in America, and that’s no coincidence.”
Why not renew the ‘millionaire’s tax’? “The top 1% of taxpayers in New Jersey pay 40% of the income tax. In addition, we’ve got a situation where that tax applies to small businesses. I’m simply not going to put my foot on the back of the neck of small business while I want them to try to grow jobs by giving more revenue to New Jersey.”
Budget cuts are unfair. “The special interests have already begun to scream their favorite word—which, coincidentally, is my 9-year-old son’s favorite word when we are making him do something he knows is right but does not want to do—’unfair.’ . . . One state retiree, 49 years old, paid, over the course of his entire career, a total of $124,000 towards his retirement pension and health benefits. What will we pay him? $3.3 million in pension payments over his life, and nearly $500,000 for health care benefits—a total of $3.8 million on a $120,000 investment. Is that fair?”
State budget cuts only shift the pain to our towns. “[L]et’s remember this, in 2009 the private sector in New Jersey lost 121,000 jobs. In 2009, municipalities and school boards added 11,300 jobs. Now that’s just outrageous. And they’re going to have to start to lay some people off, not continue to hire at the pace they hired in 2009 in the middle of a recession.”
Isn’t your talk of ‘stopping the tax madness’ just another ‘Read My Lips’ promise? “[Mine is] much better than ‘Read my lips.’ I’m sorry, it’s just much better. Much stronger. . . . It’s gonna be how my governorship will rise or fall. I’m not signing a tax increase.”
In some ways, Mr. Christie can speak bluntly precisely because the state is such a mess. Indeed, that’s one reason he won election in a blue state. The challenge remains daunting: No governor has yet succeeded in turning around a state as overtaxed and overspent as New Jersey. Indiana under Gov. Mitch Daniels probably comes closest, but Indiana was not nearly as bad as New Jersey.
If he is to survive the headlines about budget cuts and pull New Jersey back to prosperity, Mr. Christie knows he needs to put the hard choices before the state’s citizens, and to speak to them as adults. He’s doing just that. One reporter for the Newark Star-Ledger summed up Mr. Christie’s rhetoric this way: “[F]inally we have a governor who is as teed off as the rest of us at how government spending and taxes have skyrocketed over the past decade.”
It’s far too early to declare Mr. Christie’s Jersey-style Reaganism a success. But it’s the one reality show truly worth watching.
I abso-freakin’-lutely love it! He takes leftist talking points, and blasts each one individually. Even throws in a little snark with analogies to a petulant 9-yr-old. I luvs me some snark!
When I went into the treasurer’s off in the first two weeks of my term, there was no happy meetings. They presented me with 378 possible freezes and lapses to be able to balance the budget. I accepted 375 of them.
There is a great deal of discussion about me doing that by executive action. Every day that went by was a day where money was going out the door such that the $6 billion pool was getting less and less. So something needed to be done.
People did not send me here to talk, the people sent me here to do. So we took the executive action we did to stop the bleeding.
…
You know, at some point there has to be parity. There has to be parity between what is happening in the real world, and what is happening in the public sector world. The money does not grow on trees outside this building or outside your municipal building. It comes from the hard working people of our communities who are suffering and are hurting right now.
Oblamer could take notes here. While OblameOthers and his ilk bellyache about how they inherited a messed-up economy, Christie did inherit a Dem-caused economic disaster in Joisy…yet he’s decided that taking action is better than blameshifting. What a novel concept, huh?
He’s fighting with the state teachers union, which makes me like him even more. He’s being honest with the citizens of NJ. In short: Gov. Christie is da man!
Chris Matthews just called to ask how my leg is doing.
Liberal Congresswoman: No, there is no “requirement” that you buy health insurance under ObamaCare
If you’re going to go all out for Chairman O’s health care “reform”, is it too much to ask that you be a little honest about what’s in the friggin’ plan? From CNS News:
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D.-Fla.) is insisting that the new health care law she voted for last month does not mandate that individuals buy health insurance, despite language in the law that plainly says otherwise.
At an April 5 town hall meeting in Fort Lauderdale (see video below), a constituent asked Wasserman Shultz where the Constitution authorized Congress to mandate that individuals buy health insurance. She responded that the new health care law did not require individuals to buy health insurance.
In a written statement to CNSNews.com on Wednesday, her press secretary, Jonathan Beeton, said it was true that the health care law did not mandate that individuals buy health insurance and that Wasserman Schultz stood by her assertion at the townhall meeting.
“We actually have not required in this law that you carry health insurance,” Wasserman Schultz said at the townhall meeting.
“Yes, this is accurate,” Beeton said in his statement to CNSNews.com. “You have a choice of insuring yourself with affordable coverage, or paying an assessment that will offset the burden you place on other insured Americans and taxpayers by not being insured.”
There’s just one little problem with that statement…it’s patently and provably false:
The actual law she voted for says otherwise. It contains a requirement that each person have health insurance, and assesses a penalty if they do not.
The bill amends the Internal Revenue Code, the nation’s tax law, adding a section entitled, “Requirement to maintain minimum essential coverage,” section 5000A.
“Subtitle D of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new chapter: ‘‘CHAPTER 48—MAINTENANCE OF MINIMUM ESSENTIAL COVERAGE ‘‘Sec. 5000A. Requirement to maintain minimum essential coverage.”Contrary to Rep. Wasserman Schultz’s claim, this section of the law requires that every individual certify to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) that they have a government-approved level of health insurance coverage.
“REQUIREMENT TO MAINTAIN MINIMUM ESSENTIAL COVERAGE.—An applicable individual shall for each month beginning after 2013 ensure that the individual, and any dependent of the individual who is an applicable individual, is covered under minimum essential coverage for such month,” the law reads.
Individuals who fail to compy with this “requirement” are assessed a “shared responsibility payment”–a fine collected by the IRS.
“SHARED RESPONSIBILITY PAYMENT.— ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—If an applicable individual fails to meet the requirement of subsection (a) for 1 or more months during any calendar year beginning after 2013…there is hereby imposed a penalty with respect to the individual in the amount determined under subsection (c).”
But yeah, if you just ignore Webster’s definition of the word “requirement”, and if you just ignore that the word “requirement” is actually used in multiple places in the law, then there is no requirement! Up is down, yes is no, black is white, etc.
But hey, it’s not like she read the bill she voted for, so how could she possibly know what was in it?
Obama’s chief financial adviser: You know what causes business owners to hire more people? Increasing their taxes, that’s what!
How does it feel to have a functional economic illiterate advising President Ideologue on such matters as these? From Business and Media Institute:
Obama’s chief economic adviser Larry Summers appeared Feb. 9 on the Fox Business Channel to discuss the administration’s economic agenda and defended proposed rate-hikes for those making over $250,000. “Almost all economists who studied these things have that kind of view,” he told Fox’s Liz Claman. (Show me an economist who says that increasing the tax burden on business owners will spurn job growth and I will show you an economist who got his degree from a Cracker Jack box…or from UF. Same diff.
Perplexed, Fox News contributor Gary B. Smith replied: “it’s the biggest bunch of B.S. I ever heard … this is such a political game. Larry Summers thinks everyone is Rockefeller living in their Newport, Rhode Island mansion. These are guys that are starting businesses, investing. You can’t give people business money to hire people, they have to have a reason for hiring these people and that’s because they see sales increasing or costs decreasing. You can’t just say ‘go hire these five people’ because the businesses will go ‘What for? I don’t have the demand!’”
Oh, if I had a nickel for everytime I heard a business owner say “Now that my taxes have gone up, I’ll use the monetary shortfall to…um, hire more people“, I…well, I wouldn’t have a nickel.
Night and Day, “Obama on raising taxes on the middle class” edition
B.O. and Plugs both told us during the campaign in 2008 they wouldn’t raise taxes of any kind (cigarette, energy, income, etc.) on those making $200k $250k dollar-amount-du-jour-pulled-from-their-nether-regions, didn’t they? Yes, they did:
Obama made a firm tax pledge during the presidential campaign, repeating it numerous times in the weeks and months leading up to Election Day: no tax increases for individuals making less than $200,000 a year or couples making less than $250,000.
“Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes,” Obama told a crowd in Dover, N.H., last year.
Even today’s story reminds people of that:
Obama repeatedly vowed during the 2008 presidential election campaign that he would not raise taxes on individuals making less than $200,000 and households earning less than $250,000 a year. When senior White House economic adviser Lawrence H. Summers and Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner suggested in August that the administration might be open to going back on that pledge, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs quickly reiterated the president’s promise.
What sayeth President Training Wheels now?
President Barack Obama said he is “agnostic” about raising taxes on households making less than $250,000 as part of a broad effort to rein in the budget deficit.
Obama, in a Feb. 9 Oval Office interview, said that a presidential commission on the budget needs to consider all options for reducing the deficit, including tax increases and cuts in spending on entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare.
“The whole point of it is to make sure that all ideas are on the table,” the president said in the interview with Bloomberg BusinessWeek, which will appear on newsstands Friday. “So what I want to do is to be completely agnostic, in terms of solutions.”
It’s almost as if he’s a big government statist who’d rather raise our taxes than rein in spending or something. Actually, it’s exactly like that.
You know, if I didn’t know any better, I’d swear that B.O. is a shameless liar who will say anything to get elected and then totally ignore his own words after doping the electorate!
Obama “slashes” budget, which results in…$1.6 trillion deficit
My head hurts. Excerpt:
The $3.8 trillion budget blueprint President Obama plans to submit to Congress on Monday calls for billions of dollars in new spending to combat persistently high unemployment and bolster a battered middle class. But it also would slash funding for hundreds of programs and raise taxes on banks and the wealthy to help rein in soaring budget deficits.
To put people back to work, Obama proposes to spend about $100 billion immediately on a jobs bill that would include tax cuts for small businesses, social-safety-net programs, and aid to state and local governments. To reduce deficits, he would impose new fees on some of the nation’s largest banks and permit a range of tax cuts to expire for families earning more than $250,000 a year, in addition to freezing non-security spending for three years.
Despite those efforts, the White House expects the annual gap between spending and revenue to approach a record $1.6 trillion this year as the government continues to dig out from the worst recession in more than a generation, according to budget documents released Sunday by the White House. The red ink would recede to $1.3 trillion in 2011 but remain persistently high for years to come under Obama’s policies.
Look at the comPost: O’s “slashing” his way to ballooning deficits. Nope…no liberal media bias!
So President Deficit Tackler’s idea of “spending freezes” and “deficit reduction” plans will result in a bigger budget deficit than this country’s ever experienced?
OK, I see how that works: I will “slash” 20 lbs. off my frame by adding 5 Big Macs a day to my caloric intake. That oughta work the same way as B.O.’s deficit strategy. My approach will flat-out taste better, too, no?
Another Obama campaign promise expires
Aren’t you feeling all Hopeychangey with Turbo Tax Timmeh running the show?
Obama’s already broken a ton of campaign promises, especially that “95% of Americans will get a tax cut” thingy that many naive Americans foolishly believed. Well, here’s a question for you middle-class Americans who voted for The One because, in part, you actually believed that a Democrat (especially of the Marxist brand) who had never voted for a tax cut would finally do it: how does his butt taste now?
To get the economy back on track, will President Barack Obama have to break his pledge not to raise taxes on 95 percent of Americans? In a “This Week” exclusive, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner told me, “We’re going to have to do what’s necessary.”
Geithner was clear that he believes a key component of economic recovery is deficit reduction. When I gave him several opportunities to rule out a middle class tax hike, he wouldn’t do it.
“We have to bring these deficits down very dramatically,” Geithner told me. “And that’s going to require some very hard choices.”
Heh…”95%”, huh? Breaking a campaign promise in the first six months: brilliant!
BTW, isn’t it cute that ABC’s piece opens with the assumption (masquerading as fact) that increasing taxes leads to economic prosperity? “To get the economy” corrected, B.O. may “have to” raise taxes? I don’t know of a country that has ever taxed itself into prosperity. After all, taxes are, by nature, disincentives to productivity.
Hell freezes over: AP reports Obama’s tax lies
What’s the over/under on how long it will take this soon-to-be-former AP writer to lose his job? Excerpt:
President Barack Obama promised to fix health care and trim the federal budget deficit, all without raising taxes on anyone but the wealthiest Americans. It’s a promise he’s already broken and will likely have to break again. Obama and the Democratic-controlled Congress have already increased tobacco taxes — which disproportionately hit the poor — to pay for extending health coverage to 4 million children in working low-income families.
Now, lawmakers are looking for more revenues to help pay for providing medical insurance to millions more who lack it at a projected cost of $1 trillion over the next decade.
The floated proposals include increasing taxes on alcohol, which could raise $62 billion over the next decade, and a new tax on sugary drinks such as soda, which could raise $52 billion. …
Obama made a firm tax pledge during the presidential campaign, repeating it numerous times in the weeks and months leading up to Election Day: no tax increases for individuals making less than $200,000 a year or couples making less than $250,000.
“Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes,” Obama told a crowd in Dover, N.H., last year.
How this one escaped the passing of the Kool-Aid cup is beyond me.
No way…another Obama appointee with tax troubles?
Is there some special tax evader magnet over the White House these days? Details:
President Obama’s choice as chief of protocol for the State Department, a position that carries the status of an ambassadorship, did not file tax returns for 2005 and 2006, errors she corrected last November.
The nominee, Capricia Penavic Marshall, has placed blame for the problem on the Postal Service and on miscommunication between her husband and their accountant.
…
In her written answers and in accounts she gave to government officials, Ms. Marshall has said the errors were unintentional. She has said that her husband failed to recognize that the couple’s accountant had included the tax returns for 2005 in a binder he provided with copies of the returns, and that the actual paperwork was never mailed.The couple learned something was awry, Ms. Marshall has said, when the Internal Revenue Service notified them last fall that their 2006 return had never arrived. She wrote that an agent “advised us that there were a large number of tax returns misplaced by the D.C. post office for the 2006 tax year.”
That call led the couple to the discovery that the authorities had no record of their returns for 2005 and 2006. No late fees or penalties were assessed when they later submitted the returns.
Two years in a row? Notes Ed:
Does the dog eat her homework, too?
It seems awfully convenient that the one post office that lost “a large number of tax returns” was the one that would handle returns for most federal officeholders and their staffs, too. Isn’t it a little remarkable that the IRS didn’t penalize the Marshalls for late returns? Those of us who don’t work on Hillary Clinton’s staff would not get treated so kindly. Besides, If the DC post office lost “a large number of tax returns” in 2006, why did that let them off the hook for 2005?
If you voted for Obama, do you still pay your taxes…and if so, why? His appointees don’t, and apparently, there’s no fallout for failing to do so.
Midweek news bytes
The One’s promises should come with expiration dates, because he is once again leaning towards breaking his “no one under $250k will pay any new taxes of any kind” line. It appears that a national sales tax is being considered. Not like the Fair Tax, which would replace the income tax with a retail sales tax. No, this “value-added” sales tax would be in addition to the federal income tax! Hey, socialism doesn’t pay for itself, folks! Exit question: how crazy do those tea party people look now, MSM?
In what amounts to a huge coinkidink, all of the closed Chrysler dealerships (so ordered by the administration…er, Chrysler) just so happened to be Republican-owned dealerships, while Dem dealerships owned by big donors just so happened to be left open to operate. Heck, even 5-star money-making dealerships were closed, if the owner happened to be Republican. But I’m sure B.O. isn’t a petty “I won” Chicago-style thug politician or anything! Are you liberals content with that kind of shameful corruption, so long as it comes from your boy?
Arlen Specter (D-PA) left the GOP because he didn’t want to be defeated in the GOP primary, which he would have. So in a delicious exhibition of karma, he finds himself with a Democrat primary challenger! Heck, I’m almost tempted to send in a donation to a liberal for once in my life!
It looks like Roland Burris did buy that Senate seat from the impeached Democrat governor from IL. If Burris survives until the 2010 election, the GOP will actually do the unthinkable: pick up a Senate seat…and in a blue state, no less! I doubt the Dems will let Burris get that far.
Oprompter’s SCOTUS nominee ruled recently, along with her appealate court colleagues, that New Haven, CT, can discriminate against white firefighters. The SCOTUS will hear the appeal and rule on it by the end of their term, and possibly before her confirmation hearing. If she has her ruling overturned, will it hurt her confirmation process? After all, there are some red-state Dems in the Senate (both Senators from AR, MT, ND, as well as Senators from NE, LA, and SD) who will have to answer to their constituents on why they voted to confirm a racist anti-Second Amendment leftist ideologue to the court.
MD raised tax rates on millionaires. In a totally unforseen development, the rich said “Enough!” and got the hell out of MD, leaving MD with a shortfall that only an economic illiterate wouldn’t see coming. Hey, who knew? (For those of you on the left, the prior sentence was both rhetorical and sarcastic.)
Bill “Just Some Dude In My Neighborhood” Ayers ghost wrote B.O.’s Dreams From My Father. What an honor! It’s not everyday you can get a domestic terrorist to pen your bestseller, right?
Obama’s bad week
The week’s a little more than halfway over, and let’s see what our illustrious Genius In Chief has had to endure, shall we? Te recap:
He doesn’t know his own Secretary of Defense’s name. We know, we know…you inherited him from Bush.
He’s fighting with his own party to close Gitmo. For some really weird reason, a lot of people don’t think it’s a good idea to close a terrorist Alcatraz and bring bloodthirsty jihadist camelhumpers to America where they might try to blow up NY synagogues. Go figure. Especially when 1 in 7 freed Gitmo detainees return to terrorism (the administration was trying to keep that factoid on the “down-low”, so as not to undermine his stupid, heavy-on-emotion-but-light-on-fact case for closing Gitmo unduly alarming anyone).
Jobless claims are on the rise at a record pace. Oil prices are up. The CBO says unemployment will keep going up through next year. We’ve quadrupled our deficit from last year. The dollar is teetering on collapse. Yet the MSM tries to sell us on how the economy has turned around?
The Gilded One has been caught in a lie about the “transparency” we were going to see from the Porkulus bill he signed into law.
Thanks to Uhhh-bama’s unholy alliance with unions, union-based companies are going to find it tough to get loans for their businesses.
Oprompter’s vice-president isn’t exactly the shiniest light on the Christmas tree, and it’s proving to be very “distracting”, according to a new book. When he plagiarizes Hillary’s Tuzla moment as something that really happened to him (forgetting that we’ve heard the story before, and from/to someone else), it’s easy to see how Quayle…er, Biden…can be such a “distraction”, no?
Remember Team Obama’s promise that “no one earning under $250k will see their taxes go up a dime”? Well, the Senate is bringing up a federal beer tax to fund Omarxist’s socialized medicine plan. I had no idea that the only people who drank beer were folks who earned a quarter million dollars and higher.
On the positive front for him:
He still has the NYT in his pocket, so much so that they’ve opened their very own NYT Obama merchandise store. But no, no liberal media bias or anything!
Obamanomics already working to destroy American economy
Don’t blame me: I didn’t vote for Comrade Omarxist.
Ace’s post is entitled “Prophet of Doom: Social Security is Hemorrhaging Red, T-Bills Won’t Sell, America’s Bond Rating May Be Cut”. That says it all.
Martin Feldstein, Harvard economics professor and WSJ contributor, has an outstanding column on how Oprompter’s tax increases are going to kill any recovery we hope to have. Increasing capital gains taxes, implementing a “cap-and-trade” taxe that will hit everyone, hiking income taxes on small businesses and people making over $(fill in whatever number Joe Biden pulls out of his keister this week right here), and raising corporate taxes on foreign-source income will result in higher priced goods and in less tax revenue than the Economic Illiterate-in-Chief expects. As Ed notes:
This is a recurring theme with Obama and tax policy. He and his advisors use static analysis to predict results from tax increase, ignoring the effect that tax changes have on revenue. He assumes that a 7% increase in the capital-gains tax, to use one example, will result in a 7% increase in revenue from the previous year, but that’s simply not the case. The tax hike will cause people to change behaviors to avoid paying higher taxes, either by cashing out this year (resulting in a loss of capital to the marketplace) or not selling off stakes in companies and investing the profit elsewhere. The effect of the change will itself limit revenues, probably more than the increased percentage will capture, making the policy a net loss to the government.
Then again, Uhhh-bama has said that he knows tax increases are harmful but he’ll eventually do it anyway.
Elections have consequences. Unfortunately, the consequences affect even those of us who were smart enough not to vote for a socialist.
Exit question: How will the American Idol…er, President…spin his tax increases as something he inherited from Bush?
Journalists: We KNOW that Obama will RAISE taxes on the middle class, but we’re going to keep lying and say he won’t
Read this excellent exposé by Ace, and then keep telling yourself:
Nope…no liberal media bias!
Night and Day, “Obama lies about taxes” edition
Something tells me that this is going to be a regular feature here at Crush Liberalism. Anywho, here’s Oprompter and the Vice-Plagiarist on the campaign trail:
“Listen now,” he said in his widely watched nomination acceptance speech, “I will cut taxes—cut taxes—for 95 percent of all working families, because, in an economy like this, the last thing we should do is raise taxes on the middle class.”
An unequivocal “any tax” pledge also was heard in the vice presidential debate, another prominent forum.
“No one making less than $250,000 under Barack Obama’s plan will see one single penny of their tax raised,” Joe Biden said, “whether it’s their capital gains tax, their income tax, investment tax, any tax.”
And here’s today:
One of President Barack Obama’s campaign pledges on taxes went up in puffs of smoke Wednesday.
The largest increase in tobacco taxes took effect despite Obama’s promise not to raise taxes of any kind on families earning under $250,000 or individuals under $200,000.
This is one tax that disproportionately affects the poor, who are more likely to smoke than the rich.
It’s kinda like he’s a lying tax-and-spend liberal or something. Actually, it’s a lot like that. Didn’t we grown-ups warn you Kool-Aid drinkers this would happen?
Face it: Democrats just don’t like to cut taxes. They like to raise them, and as this lie shows, they like to raise them on anyone…not just the “rich”!
The week in review
Let’s recap the prior week’s news nuggets, shall we?
That brilliant foreign policy expert veep we have, the gaffe-tastic Joe Biden, thanked Spanish prime minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero for his help in Iraq. Someone forgot to let the Vice-Plagiarist know that Zap was elected right after the Madrid train bombing by al Qaeda in 2004, promising immediate withdrawal in response to the bombing. As soon as Zap took office, he made good on his cowardly promise. Brilliant, Joe. Boy, it sure is a good thing we finally have people with brains running the show!
President Oprompter feels that “I think it’s important to engage your critics … because not only will you occasionally change their mind but, more importantly, sometimes they will change your mind”. Of course…which would explain why the five people the prez called upon during this town hall meeting just so happened to be, miracle of all miracles, avid Obama supporters!
In 2006, Rahm Emmanuel made a compelling case for opposing corporate welfare and for taking pride in welfare reform that took place during the Clinton years. Now the same man thinks that corporate bailouts (same diff as corporate welfare, aren’t they?) are an awesome idea, as is his boss’ Porkulus bill that dismantles welfare reform. It’s like the man says one thing and does another or something! I know, I know…paranoid of me to conclude that, huh?
Uhhh-bama hits the late night talk show circuit, 60 Minutes, and several other televised appearances in order to sell his socialist crap sandwich to America. As a result of the smooth brutha’s sermons, support for said crap sandwich has…dropped an additional 5%. Keep talking, sir! You can defeat this thing yet.
Add The Economist to the list of right-of-center pundits/publications who should have consulted with Coach Dennis Green before endorsing The One, because they’re now finding out that Obama is who we thought he was! They now have buyer’s remorse. Q and O asks them “What leadership position of any importance has the man ever held that would indicate he had what it took to lead as President? And why didn’t you explore that question, its answer and ramifications before you jumped on the Hope and Change bandwagon?”
Candidate O promised us that whole “95% of working families” tax cut thingy. We adults warned the Kool-Aid drinkers and economic illiterates that (ignoring the reality that 95% of Americans don’t pay taxes) he, like other Democrats, don’t cut taxes…they raise them. Clinton did the same thing in 1992, running on a “middle class tax cut” then promptly reneging on the deal (some would say “lied”, but why quibble over semantics?) and raising our taxes. The Obamessiah is now doing the same thing. Awesome video montage here. The last two Democrat presidents have been pathological liars, saying whatever the sheeple want to hear. It’s like they’re so hopelessly dishonest they can’t help themselves.
Like I said before: elections have consequences.
Obama fumbling on the economy
President Hopenchange is off to a rocky start in his reign…er, term…on many fronts. When he’s not busy ticking off our staunch allies, he likes to spend his time putting on a public exhibition of economic numbskullery. Just for excrements and giggles, let’s take a look at some of President Teleprompter’s greatest hits thus far, shall we?
- You would think that with the economy being the supposed #1 priority of the country right now, we’d have more than one pick in the Treasury Dept. confirmed in two months.
- Is there anyone that the new administration can pick from who doesn’t have tax cheat or corruption problems?
- Remember how “out of touch” Old Man Mac was during the campaign for saying that despite the economic downturn, the overall fundamentals of the economy were strong? Well, Uhhh-bama’s own economic adviser is touting her boss’ message that the overall fundamentals of the economy are strong. A dash of Hope, but a little light on the Change, no?
- Remember how “out of touch” Old Man Mac was during the campaign for laying out a health care plan that would supposedly tax the benefits of workers? Well, guess who thinks that sounds like a mighty fine idea now?
- How many of you believed that load of bovine feces during the campaign that Uhhh-bama was going to cut taxes for 95% of Americans (despite the fact that nowhere near 95% of Americans pay income taxes)? If you did believe that are you surprised to know that taxes are going to increase for everyone…and the administration admits it? How are you Rust Belt Obama supporters feeling now about your boy, knowing that he’s going to further decimate your local economy, all in the name of the junk science fad known as global “warming”?
- If O wants to wait until 2011 to raise income taxes because raising them now would hurt the already battered economy, why won’t he acknowledge that this is a tacit admission that tax increases are bad for the economy? “Hey, I don’t want to hurt the economy now, but I don’t mind hurting it in two years!”
- A reporter asks The One if he’s a socialist. He at first dismisses the question, then feels compelled to answer “No.” A reporter then asks “Is there anything wrong with saying, ‘Yes’?”. Instead of saying “Heck yes, there’s something wrong with that! Socialism is a bad thing!”, he avoids answering “Yes” or “No”. But hey, why would anyone think Mr. Spread The Wealth Around is a socialist?
Let’s face it: O’s in over his head, and even many Democrats are beginning to come to that conclusion. Sure, Obama voters will continue to get defensive, like the man who buys a $2000 plasma TV only to find out that it doesn’t get HD and that it was on sale across town for $1000…if you just suspend common sense for a moment, you’ll see the decision was a really good one, in a roundabout sort of way. After all, admitting to such a colossal purchasing (and electoral) mistake so soon after the transaction will make you question your own decision-making process and make you feel that people will think you’re an idiot. Therefore, though deep down inside you know the truth, the fact is that you must maintain, in the face of all evidence to the contrary, that your decision to buy an overpriced and underpowered TV (and president) was the correct decision.
For a man whom the MSM told us takes his spirituality seriously (don’t make me laugh!), one would think that he would spend a little more time in church for proper guidance in this stormy season and in his new position. But, as Allahpundit puts it, “What church could possibly be good enough for a man at the center of his own religion?”
Obama: I lied about hiking taxes on the rich
The Obamaliar…lying again? Who knew? Details:
President-elect Barack Obama may consider delaying a campaign promise – to roll back tax cuts on high-income Americans – as part of his economic recovery strategy, two aides said on Sunday.
David Axelrod, the Obama campaign strategist who was chosen to be a senior White House adviser, was asked if the tax cuts could be allowed to expire on schedule after tax year 2010 rather than being rolled back by legislation earlier. “Those considerations will be made,” he said on “Fox News Sunday.”
Bill Daley, an adviser to Obama and commerce secretary under former President Bill Clinton, said on NBC’s “Meet the Press” that the 2010 scenario “looks more likely than not.”
President George W. Bush’s tax cuts are set to expire at the end of 2010. After that they would revert to 2001 levels, when the top individual tax rate was 39.6 percent.
Obama has called for reducing taxes for the middle class, but requiring the wealthiest Americans to pay more than the current top rate of 35 percent.
His aides’ comments suggest Obama may be wary of imposing any additional tax burden at a time of deep crisis, despite the outlook for record budget deficits and mounting national debt. He may also be seeking to bolster Republican support for his recovery measures.
Let’s look at what he’s saying here, shall we?
“Tax increases, even on the rich, are bad for the economy. Our economy is in the crapper right now. It would be foolish to increase taxes, especially on the producers, right now. If we did, unemployment would rise even higher, and tax shelters would see their deposits skyrocket.
“Therefore, I won’t be increasing taxes any time soon. Once the economy has recovered, then I will damage the economy with tax increases. After all, I just acknowledged that tax increases are bad for the economy…but it’s OK to damage the economy if it’s in better shape than it is right now. Got it?”
So, to those of you stupid enough to vote for such an unrepentant liar in the hopes that he would stick it to those evil rich folks: sucks for you, huh?
Republican Congressman: It’s Congress’ money, not taxpayers’ money
As one can see, “spread the wealth around” redistributionism is a sentiment that isn’t exclusive to Democrats. Corrupt Republicans can feel the same way. From Michelle Malkin:
Behold the hubris of an entrenched Republican congressman shilling for the auto bailout. His name is Rep. Joe Knollenberg (R-Michigan) and you’ll be happy to know that he lost his re-election bid.
Attention, Republicans obsessed with “re-branding” the party and crafting appealing messages to win back voters. Here’s your textbook example of how not to act and what not to say if you want to restore credibility to conservatism.
[video clip here]
If there’s any silver lining, this guy just lost his re-election bid, so he can take his perverted economic theories back home.
The dude is from Michigan and supports a bailout of the auto industry. OK, fine…he’s just serving his constituents. But the breath-taking gall of this man to say that the money I earn isn’t really mine is simply stunning. I guess I’m not stunned that he feels this way, but that he’s actually publicly admitting it.
Obama’s “rich” ceiling getting lower and lower
The Obamaliar told us that everyone making under $250k gets a tax cut, and everyone over that gets a tax hike. So that means $250k is “rich”. But that’s OK, because you won’t get the tax increase unless you make over $200k.
Joe Biden agrees. Anyone making over $150k is rich and subject to a tax hit.
Bill Richardson thinks that’s a great idea: hit those evil “rich” folks making over $120k.
See a pattern? And with even the Uhhh-bama shills at CBS noting that there’s no way to pay for The One’s $1 trillion in new spending, even with a tax hike on those making over $250k, this lowering of the “rich” ceiling would certainly explain how they plan on covering the shortfall: they’re going to raise middle class taxes, too.
Obama: Opposing socialism is “selfish”
Nuance, ladies and germs…nuance.
1992 deja vu?
Found at Ace:
Ahhhh, 1992.
The LA riots, a VP candidate misspells potato, Nirvana is top of the charts, Sinead O’Connor rips up the Pope’s pic on SNL, Spike Lee gives Obama some of his favorite lines in Malcolm X, the economy slides into the clammy embrace of recession.
And a young presidential candidate puts a big bear hug around the electorate’s largest demographic by repeatedly promising a middle class tax cut.
Now there are campaign promises and there are Campaign Promises. This one is historic because not only was it quickly broken, but within months it was replaced by the Largest Tax Increase In American History. Quite a switch — did I mention that The Crying Game came out in 1992 as well?
Broken promises of middle class tax cuts? We’ll meet again.
Democrats haven’t done a tax cut since JFK almost a half-century ago.
-
Archives
- May 2012 (15)
- April 2012 (20)
- March 2012 (11)
- February 2012 (17)
- January 2012 (19)
- December 2011 (25)
- November 2011 (41)
- October 2011 (38)
- September 2011 (32)
- August 2011 (39)
- July 2011 (28)
- June 2011 (43)
-
Categories
- "art"
- "hate crimes"
- 9/11 Commission
- abortion
- ACLU
- ACORN
- affirmative action
- Afghanistan
- Ahmanutjob
- Air America
- al franken
- Al Sharpton
- ambulance chasers
- Andrew Sullivan
- animal rights wackos
- Ann Coulter
- Anthony Weiner
- anti-Semitism
- Arizona shooting
- Arlen Specter
- atheists
- Australia
- autism
- Barney Frank
- Beeb
- Biden
- big government
- bigotry
- Bill Clinton
- Bill Richardson
- bizarre
- Blagojevich
- Blog Talk Radio
- Bloomberg
- Bobby Jindal
- CAIR
- California
- Canada
- Canucks
- capital punishment
- capitalism
- Caroline Kennedy
- Carter
- Castro
- Catholics
- Charlie Crist
- Cheney
- Chicago
- China
- Chris Christie
- Christianity
- Chuck Schumer
- CLOWNS
- CNN
- conservatism
- Constitution
- corruption
- Cuba
- D.C.
- Dan Rather
- Darfur
- Debbie Wasserman Schultz
- defeatism
- Detroit
- dhimmitude
- Dodd
- drugs
- Duke lacrosse
- economic ignorance
- Egypt
- eminent domain
- energy
- environuts
- Episcopalians
- Eric Cantor
- Euros
- Fair Tax
- Fairness Doctrine
- Farrakhan
- fauxtography
- feminism
- Florida
- Fort Dix Six
- Fox News
- France
- freaky deaky
- Fred Thompson
- Ft. Hood
- gay
- Germany
- global warming
- Godwin's Law
- Gore
- Grayson
- gun rights
- Halliburton
- headlines
- health care
- Herman Cain
- Hillary
- Holder
- Hollyweirdos
- homeless
- Howard Dean
- Huckabee
- Hugo Chavez
- humor
- hurricanes
- hypocrisy
- illegal immigration
- Imus
- intelligence
- Iran
- Iraq
- irony
- Israel
- Janet Napolitano
- Japan
- Jena
- Jesse Jackson
- John Boehner
- John Edwards
- Jose Padilla
- judiciary
- karma
- Kennedrunk
- Kerry
- Larry Craig
- Leahy
- Libby
- libertarian
- Libya
- Lieberman
- Lindsey Graham
- Lott
- Louisiana
- Marco Rubio
- Mark Sanford
- Massachusetts
- McCain
- McClellan
- media bias
- Mel Martinez
- Memphis
- Mexico
- Michael Moore
- Michael Steele
- Michelle Bachmann
- military
- minimum wage
- Minnesota
- moonbats
- MSNBC
- Mugabe
- Murtha
- NAACP
- New Jersey
- New York
- news bytes
- Newt Gingrich
- Night and Day
- Ninth Circus Court
- non-political
- North Korea
- Obama
- Occupy Wall Street
- oil
- Olbermann
- Operation Fast and Furious
- Osama bin Laden
- Palin
- Pelosi
- photoshop
- Plamegate
- political correctness
- polls
- Pope
- pork
- privacy
- property rights
- public education
- public service announcement
- Putin
- quote of the day
- Reid
- religion of peace
- Rick Perry
- Rick Santorum
- Rick Scott
- Robert Byrd
- Roman Polanski
- Romney
- Ron Paul
- Rudy
- Rush
- Russia
- San Francisco
- satire
- Seattle
- separated at birth
- shameful
- Shehag
- smoking
- Social Security
- socialism
- Solyndra
- Soros
- Spitzer
- Supreme Court
- swine flu
- taxes
- Tea Party
- Texas
- The Memphis Posse
- Tim Geithner
- Tim Pawlenty
- tolerance
- TOTUS
- treason
- Uncategorized
- unions
- United Nations
- vandalism
- Vermont
- vote fraud
- Wal-Mart
- Wall Street
- Ward Churchill
- Warren Buffett
- Webb
- wingnuts
- Wisconsin
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
