News – Politics – Opinion – Podcasts
It has been three years since the Democrat party produced a federal budget. The Democrat Senate has blocked repeated efforts by the Republican controlled House to ‘do something’ about that. President Obama, Senate leader Harry Reid, and the Democrat leaderships contribution (including their media homunculus) has been to demand compromise without giving any.
Update: on from my line below: we refuse to do anything unless we get all the lemmings lined up at the cliff. Well, it seems that the Occupy folks have decided that you WILL be a lemming, or face the consequences: At about 5:09 p.m., the female student was approached by a man at “the … Read more
From today’s Wall Street Journal, Alan Blinder argues against "The Folly of the Flat Tax."
Blinder, a member in good standing of the modern American political class, is a Princeton prof and former vice chairman of the Federal Reserve. He uses the word "progressive" like humans brandish garlic at vampires.
But in fact the real vampires are the members of the parasitic political classes. Blinder’s article should be titled "The Folly of Regressive Progressivism."
After all…
Does Carol SEIU-Porter agree with Nancy, that the reason the Democrats never passed a budget–it has been an historical 927 days–was that the “Republican would have filibustered it?” (Careful now….try to remember how many republicans there actually were before you answer)
The current Democrat class war is like punishing the advantage of literacy to pay for the economic misfortunes of people who refuse to learn how to read or simply do not read well. People whose only fault is having succeeded are somehow responsible for people who have not. And the Professional Left (and their amateur useful idiots) will go to any length to make the point, reinforcing the popular right wing adage, "Democrat’s do say the dumbest things."
Take Merrimack’s political village idiot, Fred Morse. In this mornings Sunday News Morse, who carries the lefts water in the print news at every available opportunity, made the following statement.
If there were any verifiable data that the richest were actually job creators in any substantial sense, that would be the lead story of FOX News every single night of the year. So when someone says that the idle rich are job creators, they are either misinformed or attempting to mislead the public.
I’m not sure if FOX actually uses the words ‘Rich people create jobs’ (I don’t typically watch any television news) but I’m reasonably sure they talk about business, finance, markets, capitalism, investments, and all their productive and beneficial side effects. These are the mechanism for creating wealth and for creating jobs. So not only are they (FOX) talking about it, the very existence of jobs proves the point; that investment of time and money by free people creates jobs and that by extension people who chose to create jobs by starting a business can become wealthy.
He gets right in the middle of the "Occupy Wall Street" kids (of all ages), and just Strikes Them Dumb! Just by asking a few questions! Lenin called liberals "useful idiots." These people are Obama’s "useful occupiers." After seeing Mr. Schiff on the front line of the battle, I pulled out his book published last year "How an Economy … Read more
Defeated Democratic state Senator Maggie Hassan made it official today that she will be running for governor in 2012. In her usual hokum, Hassan touted the typical big government solution to prop up the economy. As reported in the Union Leader, Maggie the Marxist, “stressed the need to create jobs by “investing” in education and job training programs and by fostering a business climate that attracts innovative small businesses and new technologies.” Translation: “investing” equals big-government spending and solutions…equals heavy taxation to raise such revenues. Such notions were brought with her as a carpet-bagging “massplant” to the Granite State.
The Union Leader reported that “Maggie the Marxist” pledged to be a fiscally responsible governor who would veto any sales or income tax and commit herself to a balanced state budget.“ This is laughable given her extensive record as a State Senator. My fellow Blogger Steve MacDonald absolutely nailed it on back October 5th when he wrote:
Hassan is a left wing, government first, spend then tax Democrat who wants socialized medicine, supports abortion from conception to birth (also here), and was more than willing to trample on opponents with the “Sullivan/Hassan Hates Speech (the left can’t control) amendment.” (also here, and here, …) She is also willing to lie about her opponents to get re-elected.
Obama on "effective" taxation:
GIBSON: All right. You have, however, said you would favor an increase in the capital gains tax. As a matter of fact, you said on CNBC, and I quote, "I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton," which was 28 percent. It’s now 15 percent. That’s almost a doubling, if you went to 28 percent.
…
GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased; the government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down.
So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?
OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.
…
GIBSON: But history shows that when you drop the capital gains tax, the revenues go up.
Fairness? A very subjective judgement – another Hope and Change, which is not something on which to base public policy revenues. This is when things go off the rails – when tax policies enforce ideologies instead of their main purpose – to fund the essential functions of government. I’d rather go with something much more objective. To the rescue- Art Laffer on Effective Taxation (Rich States, Poor States, 4th edition, ALEC.ORG):
1. When you tax something more you get less of it, and when you tax something less you get more of it.
2. Individuals work and produce goods and services to earn money for present or future consumption.
3. Taxes create a wedge between the cost of working and the rewards from working.
4. An increase in tax rates will not lead to a dollar-for-dollar increase in tax revenues, and a reduction in tax rates that encourages production will lead to less than a dollar-for-dollar reduction in tax revenues.
5. If tax rates become too high, they may lead to a reduction in tax receipts. The relationship between tax rates and tax receipts has been described by the Laffer Curve.
It is no secret that the Granite State Fair Tax Coalitions (GSFTC) is a hive of left wing Democrat tax and spend socialists trying to hide behind a so-called bi-partisan front group. It is run by leftists (here and here), colludes with leftists, and seeks to advance Democrat party tax policy under the false notion that our current system of taxation in New Hampshire is some how not fair.
But the evidence continues to confound their false narratives.
Despite the GSFTCs misrepresentation of facts and the spinning of data to mislead, whatever our tax system is in New Hampshire, it continues to provide a better quality of opportunity than any other state in the Nation. The US census reports that New Hampshire has the lowest poverty rate in the country.
Well how the hell did that happen? I thought things were so unfair here? How could our "unfair" tax system still allow for the best economic environment for people to thrive in? And in this lousy economy to boot? We have the lowest poverty, one of the highest standards of living, and one of the safest to live in as well. Could it be because our current system also provides one of the lowest overall tax burdens in the country as well? Can we argue that low overall tax burden–the result of our so-called "unfair" system of taxation, is somehow more effective at keeping people above the poverty line than any other state in the country?
Hell yeah.
Let’s say your brother in law, Barry, comes to you for a loan. He needs a little extra money for this big idea he’s got brewing. All he needs is $4500.00 dollars.
How does one become an Occupy Wall Street Protestor? A quest for understanding in a somewhat complicated topic. Why? Because there are some who seem to demonstrate a modicum of intelligence and articulate usage of the language when the camera is rolling. And, there are some who dress reasonably normal (normal meaning, no obvious hygiene challenges, maintaining a groomed appearance). Those folks are in the vast minority. And certainly it would not be an accurate statement to say these slackers are all “youth generational.” The camera has caught some old enough to be peers of my parents.
But the task at hand is an immediate one. How do I blend in? How do I become an OWS protestor. I suppose I should start with something superficial. Ah yes! you say, “Things aren’t always as they appear.” and how right one might be to make such a characterization. But any good leftist will tell you, honesty is a relative term. “Your views are your views.” Kind of akin to calling people racists because they don’t like Obama… Yet, when it is pointed out that these same “racists” like Herman Cain, the argument shifts to, “you only like him because he gives your racism cover.” Rank dishonesty is the domain of the left. And outward appearance is what we first see from our friends in the lame stream media.
As a segue into my OWS protestor journey, I neither shave nor shower for an extended period of time. (if I wish to wholly embrace this slacker look, I don’t brush my teeth, either..If a casual observer spies a chive stuck in my teeth when I smile, I have arrived) It is important to engender that, “rail against the establishment” appearance. Smelling ones’ own smell, is sufficient validation one has achieved parity with the OWS appearance.
“Imagine a political system so radical as to promise to move more of the poorest 20% of the population into the richest 20% than remain in the poorest bracket within the decade? You don’t need to imagine it. It’s called the United States of America.” —Thomas Sowell The collective voice of “Occupy Wall Street” has … Read more
There is a graphic going around, no doubt becasue of the OWS class-warfare hippy-fest, that asks why we wold cut teachers pay 20% instead of asking millionaires to give a little more. This is of course dishonest on several levels.
A few quick observations. No one is asking teachers to give up 20% of their wages and I challenge anyone who pays school taxes to find me an example of it. The job creators already front 70% of all taxes from which teachers are paid so if anyone needs to pony up it is the rest of us. And most importantly, the problem isn’t the wealthy it is the federal government. Since Obama took office the Department of Education’s budget has gone from 35 Billion a year (That’s BILLION), to 70 Billion. ($70,000,000,000.00). That’s 389 million per school day if you run on a 180 day calendar.
The rich bastard that is screwing teachers is not on Wall Street. The richest bastard of all is the US Government’s Department of Education.
There is a major Wind farm project underway in Coos county. The principle players are GraniteWind, which is owned by Brookfield Renewable Power and a company called Freshet Wind Energy. (more on them in a moment)
Brookfield has gotten press recently because Brookfield Properties (same company) owns Zucotti Park where the #OWS hippies are hanging out. Mayor Bloomberg girlfriend sits on Brookfield’s board, and George Soros and some other big Democrat Donors are heavily invested in Brookfield, which has just received a $168 million dollar Federal Green energy loan for the New Hampshire Wind farm project courtesy of the US Department of Energy, which was lobbied by the firm run by Joe Biden’s son, Hunter.
Just about everyone is short stroking that set of circumstances, and it is far too convenient to seem like a random coincidence, but there is a New Hampshire connection that is far more interesting if you just take the time to dig a little bit deeper.
I may be jumping the gun here, but I believe that Mr. Obama will achieve that which he has been calling for for years. Democrats and Republicans will come together today to form a bi-partisan coalition…
As reported in the Union Leader Ray Buckley and the State Democrat party would like people to call members of congress and encourage them to support Mr. Obama’s tax on investors and job creators so Democrats can fund public sector union jobs and keep the dues-donations rolling in. They also support the push to defer millions in social security revenues on to the shoulders of our children, though Buckley words it differently.
The plan would cut the payroll tax that 30,000 New Hampshire small businesses pay, provide tax relief for families, funding for police, firefighters and teachers, school building improvements and transportation projects in the state.
This entire effort is another organized scam to fund unions and Democrat campaigns, in the run up to November 2012, at taxpayer expense. The payroll tax cut is a useless gesture, not a cut but a deferment, so what we have is more of the same catastrophic economic policy that has kept us in a recession and on the brink of collapse for three years now.
Yesterday provided another clear example of President Obama and other Democrats blaming others for their own failings. For a month Democrats have blamed Republicans for not passing President Obama’s “jobs” bill. But, yesterday when Republicans pressed for a vote on the bill, Senate Democrats prevented the vote.
President Obama lies when he blames Republicans for failure to pass a jobs bill. Even Democrats know President Obama’s bill is unacceptable, full of wasteful spending and increased taxes, intended only to give a failing President a campaign tool for fooling ignorant voters.
No, I’m not going to guess how New Hampshire will fare on tax revenue. I am going to predict how democrats will respond to the news of a surplus and business tax revenues over estimate.
The Union Leader has done us a service these past two days by exposing Governor Shaheen for who she is. In back to back staff editorials we see that her priority is to filter money through the hands of distant bureaucrats rather than find ways to keep it in New Hampshire in the first place.
Her supporters will say, as they did with the earmarking debate, that we need these kinds of representatives "to get our money back from Washington." But I have always said, would it not be better if we had representatives who just worked harder to keep it here? Why must it leave in the first place?
It must leave so our former governor can brag on her press page about how she has helped bring money into the state for this or that. And this or that is always from a list of benefactors and favorites of the political left. And that is why she cannot leave the money in state where it belongs.
As I understand it public sector employees pay taxes too. I’m quite sure I’ve heard that somewhere. So if they paid for their benefits and pensions right out of their paychecks, like most of the rest of us have to do. They’d automatically give themselves a tax cut.