Mar
30
I was over at the Crapperty File at CNN looking for some blog bait, and one of Jackie Boy’s questions was “How would you change income tax laws?“ There’s no question that Cafferty himself is a statist moonbat, and his audience is usually a bunch of incoherent, class-warfare morons. However, the answers to this question were overwhelmingly not what I expected. While there were a plenty of responses such as this from Bob:
Changes that should be made include returning to a 39% top tax rate, having hedge fund managers’ compensation taxed as regular income instead of being taxed at the 15% capital gains rate, taxing adjusted gross income under $200,000 at a 10% rate and to top it off, remove the income “cap” on wages taxed for Social Security.
And this from Kenny:
Anything over $5 million a year, I would impose a 90% tax on. Simply put, if you can’t live on five million each and every year, you’re doing something so incredibly stupid you don’t deserve that kind of money anyway!
Many of the responses took a very level headed, equal-treatment tone. Libertarian Neal Boortz somehow managed to infiltrate this group quite a bit. Take this from Anna:
That’s an easy one. Set a percentage – say 10%. Set that percentage for EVERYONE. No loopholes. No deductions. Straight percentage. No matter what your income, everyone pays the same percentage. No one should complain. And the taxes can be collected on a rotating basis. Like getting a yearly inspection. That way, you always have money coming in.
… this from Stan:
I would create a Federal Sales Tax. The benefits are that it would be easy to administer, streamline the IRS, encourage savings, eliminate the underground economy, and be fair to all. Some will argue it penalizes the poor/lower income because they spend 100% of their economy out of necessity. However, the benefits far outweigh the downside.
Or this outright endorsement of the Fair Tax from Micehlle[sic]:
This is such a no-brainer to me. Do away with the IRS and implement the Fair Tax. This will tax people based upon what they spend, not what they make. If every American citizen had the money the IRS withholds from their paycheck, talk about an economic stimulus. Plus, this would significantly broaden the tax base as it will force people to stop living under the radar and pay their fair share.
If Geithner and many, many others in Washington can’t figure out the 67,000 pages of our Tax Code, how should any average Joe be expeceted[sic] to?
The Fair Tax was an official proposal by Libertarian radio host Neal Boortz and Georgia Congressman John Linder, and outlined in The Fair Tax Book. In a nutshell, the Fair Tax as proposed by Boortz and Linder would replace all federal taxes with a national sales tax of 23% of the final bill of sale, equivalent to a 30% conventional sales tax. The Fair Tax’s biggest advantages are that it treats everyone equally, is much easier to file and predict, and does not feature loopholes and deductions that politicians can use to control your behavior and help their buddies save money. It is a knife in the heart of class politics, and makes the cost of government very transparent in everyday life, as opposed to some figure on your paycheck stub, or an expense to be paid by “other people” or “the rich.”
What does such an outcry say about the American populace? First of all, we are not nearly as liberal as the past two elections would suggest. Call me crazy, but somehow Obama running on tax cuts and bombing Pakistan doesn’t suggest a liberal mandate to me.
Nor is the American public strictly conservative. What I do think are viable positions in American politics are a simplification of the tax code and equal liability. Sure, there are nuts out there that demand that everyone making over a certain amount is “too rich for their own good” or “too greedy,” but most people will be willing to have inequality in exchange for prosperity. The key for fiscal conservatives and libertarians is to show how harmful progressive taxation is on business and jobs. I think it is already clear that complicated tax rules favor the political elite and those that can afford the best lawyers.
Another winning point that fiscal conservatism needs to champion is America’s disgust with deficits. We have allowed the fallacious belief to persist that budget deficits are a result of tax cuts cutting federal revenue too short. As I have shown earlier with a nifty chart, revenue is not the problem. Spending is. However, the Republicans lost the ability to attack spending as an issue when they wasted money like sailors in port in the six years they were in power.
The national debt and federal budget deficit is a result of rampant spending that far outpaces a healthy revenue stream. The liberals know the best way to make higher taxes palatable for the average voter is to use deficit reduction as an excuse. The Democrat mantra is not tax-and-spend; it is spend-and-tax.
The fiscally conservative/libertarian/Republican agenda can win again if it can demonstrate to America that progressive income taxes don’t work and that spending and deficits are only excuses to confiscate more of our income. Success is staring us in the face.
Mar
20
Thoughts on Ownership
Filed Under Environment | Leave a Comment
Down here in Florida, we are currently saddled with one of the more severe droughts in recent memory. The city of Tampa banned watering lawns with sprinklers starting in April, and the Republican governor of Florida, Charlie Crist, is considering activating a tax on water bottling companies to pump water for drinking. This could have a significant effect on Nestle-owned Zephyrhills Water, pumped near the city of Zephrhills, Florida (not far from my home).
What is a state to do when faced with a severe shortage of such a necessary item like water? Companies cannot be allowed to simply pump out as much as their machines can handle, and sell it for a profit all over the world. But is putting government in charge the best alternative? Of course not.
The case of drinking water shows the absolute necessity of private property rights. That which is owned by everyone is valued by no one. Especially in terms of aquifer (underground) water, the rights to such a commodity must be part of the property as much as the timber on the land or the building raised upon it. When water is owned by private individuals, they will charge a price for it to be sold, extracted, and used. In droughts, when the supply is short, prices will trigger conservation better than public awareness campaigns, and will be fairer than water taxes and utility hikes that will usually favor political allies of those in power. When water is owned by by all, there is no incentive to conserve. When prices rise, the incentive is easily utilized, without the expense and control of government.
Mar
19
On the Obama ‘Town Hall’ (Rally)
Filed Under Economics | 2 Comments
Yesterday, President Obama held a rally in California (he called it a town hall) to garner support for his budget. While a lot of topics were covered, I want to focus on one important part:
Let’s talk tax policy for a second, because, again, some on the other side have said, oh, Obama, he’s a tax-and-spend Democrat — tax and spend. Well, it turns out, yes. You know, what I’ve said is we should return to the tax rates that we had under Bill Clinton, which means — which means this: which means that for people who are making more than $250,000 a year, they would pay instead of 36 percent, they’d pay 39 percent. Like, a 3 percent increase on their tax rate.
Now, these folks can afford it. They were rich — they were rich back in the ’90s. It’s not like suddenly they’re going to have to go to the poor house. But what that does is it allows us to pay for health care reform for a lot of people who are out there working every day but are just one illness away from bankruptcy.
Now, that’s — I don’t think that’s unreasonable. I don’t think that’s socialism. I think that’s part of understanding that we’re all in this together and that if the middle class is working well, if working people are doing well, then everybody does well. (Applause.) Then they can buy products and services, and businesses will succeed. That’s the philosophy that we are pursuing in this budget; that’s why I need your support.
This is where The One shows that class-envy is at the center of his politics. “These folks can afford it,” he says. Is affordability the qualifier we look at when determining tax policy? If I happen to have an extra $10 at the end of the week, does that mean I have any less claim to it than if I needed it?
Then Obama tries to pass the fallacy that if we tax one individual and give to another, it will stimulate the economy. How does this make sense? If Jack is buying $500 worth of goods and Jill is buying $100 worth of goods, does that make any difference than if they were both buying $300 worth of goods? No. Progressives and Socialists care little about economic growth. They care about shared misery. In a capitalist society, some folks are more adept at finding new products and services, and get richer than others. If we try to ’spread the wealth around,’ these producers will have less capital and incentive to drive this innovation and prosperity. Is equality (if it could be achieved) worth sacrificing all of the benefits we reap from the innovations of the “rich”? Yes, Bill Gates is ridiculously wealthy, but aren’t our lives much better off because of the PC revolution (Mac fans can substitute Jobs for Gates and the iPod for PC)?
Mar
19
It’s Called A Correction
Filed Under Economics | 2 Comments
You can call the economic quagmire the world is in right now a “recession,” “downturn,” or even a “depression.” However, in the world of professional finance and economics, especially when dealing with stocks, a downfall is referred to as a “correction.” What is being corrected are the poor investments and behaviors of agents in the economy. When the government conspired to fuel an unsustainable housing bubble, that was incorrect. When banks made loans to people who couldn’t pay them back, that was incorrect. When these people took these loans to achieve the “American Dream” or whatever else kind of excuse they can think of to become the next Carlton Sheets, that was incorrect.
So naturally we should welcome a correction, correct? Not exactly. As Moonbattery reports:
Anyone who doubts that our current economic crisis was largely brought on by liberals forcing banks to apply Affirmative Action to mortgages under the deranged Community Reinvestment Act is referred to one small bank that resisted pressure to make bad loans, the East Bridgewater Savings Bank in Boston. From the Boston Business Journal, via Capital Commerce:
Bad or delinquent loans? Zero. Foreclosures? None. Money set aside in 2008 for anticipated loan losses? Nothing. … The bank even squeaked out a profit of $87,000. And its Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio was 31.6 percent, or more than three times higher than many community banks in Massachusetts. “We’re paranoid about credit quality,” [CEO Joseph] Petrucelli said.
Companies that make bad loans are showered by the government will $billions stolen from us, our children, and our grandchildren. Responsible banks that only make loans that might be repaid are treated very differently. The FDIC is crawling all over Petrucelli’s bank, accusing it of “not advertising and marketing its loan products enough” and giving it a “needs to improve rating” under the disastrous and still operative CRA.
For those unfamiliar, the CRA refers to the Community Reinvestment Act, signed by President Jimmy Carter in 1977. It gave the government authority to pressure banks to make loans in areas they otherwise would not, in the interest of ending perceived discrimination. As usual, the government solution to a problem turned out to be much worse than the problem in the first place. It also set a dangerous precedent for the federal government to make lending decisions based on lofty social goals instead of realities in the housing and credit markets. This led to some very incorrect lending practices.
As the above post shows, even when a correction is trying to take place through the free market, government is there to make sure this doesn’t happen. As I said here, the Obama administration would much rather repeat the mistakes of the past.
What about other efforts to stimulate the economy? From the Conspiracy to Keep You Poor and Stupid:
THAT WAS THE WHOLE POINT! Even the Wall Street Journal doesn’t get it:
Troubled insurer American International Group Inc., now 80% owned by U.S. taxpayers, spent the weekend deflecting mounting criticism of how government funds have been funneled to various banks…After calls for more transparency, AIG disclosed Sunday that roughly two-thirds of the $173.3 billion in federal aid it received has been paid out to trading partners such as banks and municipalities in the U.S. and abroad.
But that’s what it means for a company to be “systemically important” — that it has obligations to third parties, the failure of which would set off a domino effect of continuing collapse. When it is said that these “funds” are “funneled,” that’s just provocative language for saying that AIG was able to pay its debts, which was the whole purpose of the bail-out.
So it turns out that not only is the free market not allowed to work out our obvious missteps, neither are government initiatives, which were poor ideas to begin with.
Mar
18
Happy Belated St. Patty’s Day!
Filed Under Uncategorized | Leave a Comment
I first found this video three years ago when Youtube was a fairly new phenomenon. Enjoy!
Mar
17
Foundations of Freedom…
Filed Under Uncategorized | Leave a Comment
For any new readers (I certainly hope you exist!) to Zoominac.com, you may enjoy the story I put on this blog of how I Crossed Over To The Dark Side And Became A Conservative Republican:
If you think it could make inroads with some of your liberal friends, pass it on, link to it, email it, whatever. Spread the word!
Mar
16
Communist Homework
Filed Under Education | Leave a Comment
Last month, Moonbattery linked to An Englishman’s Castle post about his child being assigned to read Trees Belong To Everyone by Diana Noonan. Follow the link to see some pages. They’re infuriating.
The synopsis of this cute little story is a woman named Miss Brooks who uses her hard-earned money to buy a home, and then the government forces her to cede ownership of it to be used by the community. Government officals directly occupy the domicile on the land. The worst character in the story is Mr. Pennyfeather, who not only takes Ms. Brooks’ money for the land, but then demands that it is still used in a manner of his choosing.
The book is a little frightening if you ask me. How would you feel about a county commissioner demanding he use your home for an office and that the townfolk climb in your tree? I’m sure if one of those little eco-thugs fell out of that tree your homeowner’s insurance would have to pay any and all damages, huh?
This is communism, plain and simple. The community owns the property. If my child were sent home with this Marxist propoganda, I would make the school famous, and probably start homeschooling my children. Then again, maybe that’s why the commie libs have such a problem with homeschooling.
Mar
16
Health Benefits May Be Taxed
Filed Under Healthcare | 1 Comment
It appears the “change” we will be getting from President Obama is change from his own campaign rhetoric.
From GOP 4 Liberty:
Remember back to the October 8th Presidential debate. The one where Barack Obama chided John McCain’s health care plan by saying what John McCain ““doesn’t tell you he’s going to tax your employer-based health-care benefits for the first time ever.” Obama argued that this would lead to ““the largest middle-class tax increase in history.”
Today, March 15th, four months after Barack Obama won the election and almost two months after taking the oath office, the administration seems to be considering that idea themselves.
Jackie Calmes and Robert Pear of the NY Times tells us,
“At a recent Congressional hearing, Senator Ron Wyden , an Oregon Democrat whose own health plan would make benefits taxable, asked Peter R. Orszag, the president’s budget director, about the issue. Mr. Orszag replied that it “most firmly should remain on the table.”
Mr. Orszag, an economist who has served as director of the Congressional Budget Office, has written favorably of taxing some employer-provided health benefits and using the revenue savings for other health-related incentives. So has another Obama adviser, Jason Furman, the deputy director of the White House National Economic Council.”…
…When Senator Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana, advocated taxing benefits at a recent hearing of the Finance Committee, which he leads, Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner assured him that the administration was open to all ideas from Congress. Mr. Geithner did, however, allude to the position that Mr. Obama had taken as a candidate.
The Congressional Budget Office says that including health benefits in taxable income could mean $246 billion in additional revenue for a single year. Stopping short of full taxation, as Mr. Baucus and others suggest, would mean less new revenue.
During the campaign, Senator McCain’s plan was to indeed tax employer-paid health benefits, but raise the deduction of private health insurance premiums to a greater rate than previously allowed. This lowered the total tax liability of dollars used to fund health insurance, and gave the individual the deduction as opposed to the corporation. This would mean the individuals who are making decisions about health care costs are the ones actually receiving it. As we have seen in almost every other area of consumption, a competitive free market allows individuals to demand better products at lower prices. Yet with employer paid health insurance, incentivized by the tax deduction, the consumer (the patient) could to a limited degree make a choice in regards to quality of service, but was unaware of the price. Medical professionals would oftentimes refuse to discuss costs with the patient, as the insurer would be the one paying, and provider would get the money. Naturally, prices began to rise to a point where millions of Americans can not afford health insurance.
So why not be in favor of the presidents plan? Unlike McCain’s plan, President Obama will not be offsetting the tax increase on health benefits with an expanded deduction on private insurance premiums. The government will be pocketing the money, which will be used to fund an enourmous federal beuracracy that will create millions more consumers who make decisions with no heed to price, rasing costs for everyone. Private insurers will be forced to raise premiums, making health insurance unnaffordable for many more people, which will be used as an excuse to add to the government largesse. This is nothing but a concerted effort to force citizens into poverty, and to use it as an excuse for government control.
I included the following on my Quotes page that relates to the effects of government spending on costs:
There are four ways in which you can spend money. You can spend your own money on yourself. When you do that, why then you really watch out what you’re doing, and you try to get the most for your money. Then you can spend your own money on somebody else. For example, I buy a birthday present for someone. Well, then I’m not so careful about the content of the present, but I’m very careful about the cost. Then, I can spend somebody else’s money on myself. And if I spend somebody else’s money on myself, then I’m sure going to have a good lunch! Finally, I can spend somebody else’s money on somebody else. And if I spend somebody else’s money on somebody else, I’m not concerned about how much it is, and I’m not concerned about what I get. And that’s government. And that’s close to 40% of our national income.
-Milton Friedman
This article from 2005 also highlights a lot of the issues I discussed.
Mar
13
Earlier this week, increasingly oft-mentioned on Zoominac, liberal radio show Communism Now! hosted economist Ha-Joon Chang, who was promoting a lovely tome entitled Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of Capitalism.
While Chang and host Amy Goodman were disparaging the system built on voluntary choice and prosperity, the topic came up of what solution exists for government aid to banks. Chang’s response was chilling, but echoed a sentiment that is becoming increasingly and dangerously common. From the transcript (emphasis mine):
AMY GOODMAN: What do you think needs to be done right now?
HA-JOON CHANG: Well, I think one important thing that this country needs to do is basically to abandon this obsession with private ownership and go for nationalizing the banks.
Silly Americans and our stupid obsession with private ownership! Where do we get such silly ideas! Places where folks don’t share this obsession, like sub-Saharan Africa and Eastern Europe are doing so well!
Earlier in the conversation, Chang voiced his disapproval with some of Obama’s economic advisers:
Right. Well, no, I mean, I agree with this sentiment, but the people he put in charge of the economy, like Paul Volcker and Larry Summers, I mean, these are people who actually created this problem. You know, Volcker is, if you like, the godfather of monetarism in this country.
First off, I believe the title of “godfather of monetarism” should be bestowed on the late Milton Friedman. And while I’m not Paul Volcker cheerleader, his opposition to inflation, along with the Reagan tax agenda, saw one of the greatest economic turnarounds in American history in the early 1980’s.
Chang also voiced his support for American protectionist economic policy, citing its frequent use in the past. While protectionism has unfortunately shown its ugly and destructive face many times, the record of results is clear: It doesn’t work! I dabbled a bit in this subject here.
Folks, its important to know where liberal economic policy will lead us, and what we’re up against. If you’re not ready to “abandon this obsession with private ownership,” then you need to keep a close eye on the communists in our midst.
Mar
9
A Not So Looney Toon
Filed Under Economics | Leave a Comment
LibertarianRepublican featured the following video from 1948 about a salesman peddling a little “Ism” to some American groups:
As the video shows, this “Ism” could be socialism, communism, or just collectivism in general. This is one of the better and more straightforward videos explaining the difference between individualism and collectivism, and the supreme dangers of the latter. The main points of the video were:
- It is very hard to define “American.” Whether it is a teenager, a senior citizen, mothers, fathers, blacks, whites, and everything in between, an “American” can best be described at an individual level instead of as a member of a group.
- Someone seeking power, like the hat-wearing politician or the snake oil salesman, will often employ a strategy of lumping people in groups (labor, management, farmers) and prescribing collectivist solutions rather than allowing individual decisions. Such practices are especially effective in a time of duress.
- Visions of “utopia” will come at the cost of freedom, and any attempts to slow or stop utopian programs will be met with charges from interest groups of slowing progress (much like what happened with the bailout and stimulus bills).
Regarding capitalism specifically:
- “Capitalists,” “investors,” and “speculators” are very often regular, hard working people who use their hard earned savings to fund further growth.
- This capitalist-fueled growth provides jobs and prosperity for many new generations of people.
- Like in the case of Doakes Motors in the video, entrepreneurs, capitalists, workers, and consumers are all better off by having the freedom to voluntarily cooperate with each other motivated by their own self-interest.
- Society is better off collectively by allowing individuals to experiment and take on risk to develop new products and services for a profit. Socialism may say they support the masses, but what system is built on the premise that everyone, even a lowly mechanic like Joe Doakes (or Henry Ford, or Michael Dell, or Eli Whitney, or Oprah Winfrey) may be the next innovator who changes the world?
Nowadays, we can see how prophetic a cartoon like this is. As “John Q. Public” warned:
“When anybody preaches disunity, tries to pit one of us against the other, through class warfare, race hatred, or religious intolerance, you know that person seeks to rob us of our freedom and destroy our very lives.”
See anything like that here?
It is true that from 250 up – from 250 – 300 or so, so for that additional amount, you’d go from 36 to 39%, which is what it was under Bill Clinton. And the reason why we’re doing that is because 95% of small businesses make less than 250. So what I want to do is give them a tax cut. I want to give all these folks who are bus drivers, teachers, auto workers who make less, I want to give them a tax cut. And so what we’re doing is, we are saying that folks who make more than 250 that that marginal amount above 250 – they’re gonna be taxed at a 39 instead of a 36% rate.
Step 1: Divide the public (business owners vs. workers like bus drivers, teachers, auto workers). Step 2: Make promises (”tax cuts,” healthcare, “green jobs). Step 3: Go after the villians (entrepreneurs, the wealthy).
Mar
8
Buffalo Bills Sign Terrell Owens
Filed Under Sports | Leave a Comment
So yesterday the Bills signed former 49er’s, Eagles, and Cowboys WR Terrell Owens with a one-year deal. What is a hardcore Bills fan such as myself to think? Personally, I am very excited! Yes, T.O. comes with a lot of baggage, and is very cocky. But the Bills have really been missing character, and haven’t made the playoffs this millennium. We could use a little spunk, and what do we have to lose? Since 1999, our best year has been a 9-7 finish in 2004 with no playoffs. Even if T.O. is a bust and him and Trent Edwards have it out and Lee Evans gets upset, we’re still in the place we started. I’m looking foward to a very interesting, and hopefully improved, 2009 Bills team. Getcha popcorn ready!
Mar
6
Government = Force
Filed Under Libertarianism | 3 Comments
This story on CNN highlights the largest knowledge gap about government that is so dangerously prevalent today:
WASHINGTON (CNN) — President Obama will ask wealthy Americans to deal with a tax increase and pay higher Medicare premiums to help fund a $634 billion health care “reserve fund” aimed at reforming the system, according to senior administration officials familiar with the budget being unveiled Thursday.
President Obama will not “ask” anyone about higher taxes. He will force them to pay it. The founding fathers understood this concept very well when designing our government, yet we have seem to thrown it aside. Every action undertaken by government is through the use of force. No exceptions. Even if the action is good, even if it is just, even if it benefits literally every single human being, it is still a mechanism of force.
Force is the very reason free people decide to institute a legitimate government. In an anarchist society, there are people that would use force and fraud against their fellow humans. We use government to use force against them. If someone is trying to rob me, the government’s duty is to force that person to stop. If I sign a contract with someone and they violate the terms, it is the government’s duty to force them to comply with the agreed-upon terms.
If people were doing things by their own free will, force (and therefore government) would not be necessary. However, this is not the case in the real world, and the government must be present to force some people to do things. People exchange goods voluntarily through business. People help each other voluntarily through charity. People spread values voluntarily through families and community. People force others to do things involuntarily through government.
Every time action is proposed by the government, it is an act of force and should be treated as such. That is why it bothers me so much when, like the story above, it is suggested that the government is “asking” something. Nonsense. They are telling us what to do. As I illustrated in the paragraph before last, this force can be justified when someone is also using force against me. But to do anything other than this on the part of the government is a clear violation of one’s rights and against the charter of government decided upon when free men instituted the organization. This charter is the constitution.
I also hate it when politicians express a “vision” they have for America. Republican visions often include Judeo-Christian values and a strong America abroad. Communist … ahem, Democrat visions involve mass charity and communal values. In and of themselves, these points may have merit. Western culture (of which Judeo-Christian religion is a large component) is CLEARLY superior to most other cultures. Western culture values property, the rule of law, and individuality. These tenants, as history has shown, lead to increased prosperity and human rights, unlike other parts of the world where forced abortions, beheadings, and female circumcision are the norm. Conversely, charity is a value that is and should be encouraged in society. People are largely a product of their own decisions, however everyone at some point needs a helping hand, including your humble blogger. I have been on the giving and receiving end of kindness towards others regardless of compensation, and it is something I believe America excels at.
But can we, let alone should we, use the force of government to achieve these ends? Are we winning hearts and minds for Western culture by dispersing our military all over the world? Can we legislate morality? Is it really “charity” when we force someone to redistribute their earnings to those who didn’t create the wealth? No. The difference between taxes and charity is the difference between rape and making love. The ends are similar, but he means are in no way congruent.
The only “vision” a politician should have is a list of things which they will force people to do. After all, a politician is essentially auditioning for a job as the operator of the force machine. What should they use this machine for? All of the government’s funding comes from taxes taken by force (I sure don’t know anyone who just writes checks to the Treasury out of the goodness of their own heart). Every action and regulation perpetrated by the government is forcing someone to do something they would not otherwise do (if they would, the government would then not be necessary). Therefore, in true libertarian form, I suggest the government should only use this force to prevent other, illegitimate force.
The “vision” of a politician may involve spreading a religion, or cultural values, or having the wealthy help pay for the expenses of the poor, but these actions should all be voluntary. If these are the ends the person wants to achieve, then perhaps they should join the clergy or the Red Cross. There is a line between thinking something should be accomplished, and using force to make it so. Once we allow a segment of our lives to be under the jurisdiction of force, it will be up to whoever is in power at the particular moment to decide the standards by which force will be implemented.
I would like to finish with a quote from one of our founding fathers:
“Government is not reason, it is not eloquence — it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.”
-George Washington
Mar
4
Guilty As Charged
Filed Under Libertarianism | 5 Comments
| You are a Social Liberal (71% permissive) and an… You are best described as a: Libertarian
Link: The Politics Test on Ok Cupid |
Found on Nobrainer.
Mar
4
Reason: Real Man of Genius, VP Biden
Filed Under Uncategorized | Leave a Comment
From Reason.tv:
“When you’re not creating the Drug Czar’s office, you’re talking crazy as all shit.”
Mar
4
Get Ready to Vomit In …3…2…1…
Filed Under Media | Leave a Comment
Many on the political right howl about the liberal bias in the media. There are obviously some very liberal journalists, commentators, and editors out there, but I always felt the MSM was more a group of ignorant tabloid artists than explicitly biased.
But what do you get when you mix a liberal bias with ignorance and stupidity?
Crapperty File author Jack Cafferty literally has a crush on Michelle Obama:
I think I am developing a crush on America’s first lady. Michelle Obama is more compelling than her husband. He’s good, but she’s utterly fascinating.
Mrs. Obama has blown away the stale air in a White House musty from eight years of the Bushes. It’s like the sun came out and a fresh spring breeze began wafting through the open windows.
Does anyone else see the supreme danger of this kind of worship of politicians and their families by members of the media?
And Cafferty says the stale air has been there for only the last eight years? Oh that’s right, because Hillary was so cute and charming. Hell, after Slick Willy’s white house exploits, the place could use a little stale air.
It’s the people’s house, and Michelle Obama totally gets it. So much so that she has taken to inviting people in from the streets to see her home. Nice touch — one completely lacking in her recent predecessors.
Yeah, for some reason the Bushes got all touchy just because a couple guys flew planes into the nearby Pentagon and the WTC (with a third plane reportedly on its way to the capitol building) and killed 3,000 people. What a couple of buzz-kills, ya know?
Watch her when she visits a local school and you see the warmth and affection she instantly triggers in people. Kids are pretty much totally honest with very good BS-detectors. If they sense you’re a phony, forget it. But around the first lady, they want to hug her and laugh with her and tell her stories.
Now that’s change, because that dumb old Laura Bush avoided schools like the plague. For some strange reason, Laura’s “charity” relies on private, voluntary donations of money and books, not demanding the earnings of taxpayers. Where did she learn such nonsense?
Cafferty nearly has a wet dream when he gets to the first lady’s arms:
Her arms are becoming the stuff of legend. Who appears sleeveless on the cover of Vogue, let alone in front of a joint session of Congress while her husband delivers one of the most important speeches of his life? And the reviews were rave.
Cindi Leive, the editor of Glamour magazine gushed, “Oh my god! The first lady has bare arms in Congress in February at night!” If she keeps it up, Seventh Avenue will soon stop making women’s clothes with sleeves.
Ok, I admit it. When it comes to the first lady, I’m smitten.
I can feel my gag reflex coming on….
Michelle Obama’s unassuming, but dead-on, sense of style has the fashion press gushing all over itself.
I wouldn’t limit the gushing to the “fashion press” Jackie boy.
