Posts Tagged ‘Claire McCaskill’

Obama Wants To Force You To Surrender ‘Money You Don’t Need’

July 15, 2011

At the center of his tiny, shriveled little cockroach soul, Barack Obama is a Marxist.

Allow me to recite the central tenet of Marxism: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”  And please, PLEASE someone explain to me how Barack Obama and the modern Democrat Party are NOT Marxist given that they believe the SAME garbage.  Liberals constantly huff at the suggestion that they are socialists as though it is the silliest damn thing they have ever heard.  The thing is that they don’t want their ideology identified with socialism merely because it is a bad word.  BUT “IT” IS A BAD WORD FOR A REASON, AND “IT” IS IN FACT PRECISELY WHAT THEY ARE.

The shoe fits, and Obama and his socialist Democrats need to wear it.

Obama Aims for the Money You Don’t “Need”
Mike Brownfield
July 13, 2011 at 9:55 am

Over the past several weeks, America has seen on grand display in Washington a singular mindset emanating from the White House: We must raise taxes so that we can keep on spending. This week, though, America was treated to something different—a glimpse inside President Barack Obama’s mind, a roadmap of his economic worldview. And what was revealed was a philosophy that is fundamentally at odds with America’s job creators.

That insight came during the President’s press conference on Monday in which he broached the subject of raising taxes as part of the debt limit deal:

“And I do not want, and I will not accept, a deal in which I am asked to do nothing, in fact, I’m able to keep hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional income that I don’t need, while a parent out there who is struggling to figure out how to send their kid to college suddenly finds that they’ve got a couple thousand dollars less in grants or student loans.”

If you read between the lines, which doesn’t take much decoding, President Obama effectively believes that any income you have which you don’t “need” belongs to the government, as writer John Steele Gordon explains in Commentary. And, Gordon writes, Obama’s statement “demonstrates an astonishing economic illiteracy”:

To be sure, someone earning a great deal of money has an income greater than what he spends. . . But, unlike Scrooge McDuck, the rich do not put the excess in a vast money bin and frolic about in it. They invest it. What a concept! Where does Obama think new capital comes from, the tooth fairy?

How much income is too much? It’s hard to say, and the President doesn’t put a number on it. But that high-tax policy is so important to the President that he is willing to personalize the issue, offering up the fact that he has made a boatload selling books and can afford to pay taxes on it, as he did in his Twitter town hall when he remarked:

“But what I’ve also said is people like me who have been incredibly fortunate, mainly because a lot of folks bought my book . . . for me to be able to go back to the tax rate that existed under Bill Clinton, to pay a couple of extra percentage points so that I can make sure that seniors still have Medicare or kids still have Head Start, that makes sense to me.”

On top of personalizing the issue, the President is pulling out all the stops in a take-no-prisoners demagoguery campaign, ranging from the subtle to the explicit. His criticisms of tax loopholes for corporate jets and oil and gas companies are legion, his calls for millionaires and billionaires to “pay a little bit more” are anything but subtle, and his threats over the failure to reach a tax-soaked debt limit deal are frightening.

The President’s “your money is the government’s money” mindset is having an impact on the mind’s of America’s job creators. A new survey of small business owners and executives prepared for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce shows how the U.S. political environment has impacted the business environment, and the insights are troubling.

According to the survey, a vast majority of small business owners (84 percent) say the U.S. economy is on the wrong track. Tellingly, the threat of regulation and taxes are the two issues in Washington posing the greatest threat to their business, while economic uncertainty, America’s growing debt and deficit and Obamacare are top challenges as well. And when asked whether they’d like Washington to lend a hand or get out of they, 79 percent choose the latter.

And therein lies the difference. When President Obama sees successful businesses, he sees green. And when they look back, they see red. The President wants to take more so he can spend more and do more, whereas those who are the engine of America’s economy just want the government to do less so they can thrive. Unfortunately, a meeting of the minds seems a long way off.

Democrats are at their hearts Marxists and fascists who believe that you and everything you produce belongs to the government – and that the government should belong entirely to THEM so that they have the power to decide who wins and who loses.  I’ve written about this fact at length before.  Again, this is a central tenet of Marxism and socialism, but for some reason we’re not supposed to be able to call these people what they clearly are.

Mind you, this disgraceful little turd Barry Hussein is a HYPOCRITE Marxist, as the following evidence of what a stingy, selfish, greedy little swine Obama was with his own money just a few short years ago when he was a rich liberal who didn’t think anyone was watching.  Amazingly, the facts show that Obama didn’t seem to think there was such a thing as “money he didn’t need” then:

Did you know, for instance, this about Barack Obama?

Prior to his run for President, Barack and Michelle Obama were in the top 2% of income earners, but actually gave less than the average American in charitable giving.

Obama gave .4% of his income.  In spite of being rich, and being in the top richest 2% of Americans, Obama gave only $1,050 to charity.  When the average American household (that’s mostly us in the bottom 98%) gave $1,872, which was 2.2% of their incomes.

For the record, Barack Obama was 450% more selfish, more stingy, more greedy and more self-centered than the average American.  Even though the average American had nowhere NEAR Obama’s wealth.  And that is a documented fact.  And let’s also consider how much Michelle Obama earned by receiving lavish political patronage because of her husband’s career.

Obama seemed to “need” every penny of his money when he was selfishly refusing to give basically ANYTHING to the poor that he now so hypocritically and self-righteously claims he cares about.  And that is a FACT.  So when this vile little hypocrite weasel self-righteously lectures us on how much we should be willing to give more in taxes to Big Brother, just realize it is coming from the very worst kind of demagogue and liar.

Then there’s the fact that if these rich liberals want to give more money, THEN THEY CAN AND SHOULD GIVE MORE MONEY.  They can give to charity; they can give to a government fund that uses the money to pay down the debt when they do their taxes.  They keep talking about how generous they should be but they never seem to be generous with their own money.

Let me go on quoting from the same article on liberals and “paying their fair share”:

And then you find that as cheap and chintzy and stingy and selfish as the redistribution of wealth president (a.k.a. Barry Hussein) was before he decided to run for president, his vice president was even STINGIER.  Because Joe Biden gave less than one-eighth of one percent of his wealth to charity.

And, of course, Democrats who lecture us on “paying our fair share” while they either welch on their debts, refuse to contribute to charity, cheat on their taxes, or all damn three are a dime a dozen.  Let’s have a few prominent examples: Bill and Hillary Clinton, who have largely welched on Hillary’s campaign debts.  There’s Charlie Rangel, the man who chaired the committee that wrote the tax laws while not bothering to pay his own damn taxes.  There’s “Turbo Tax” Timothy Geithner, the man in charge of the Treasury and I.R.S. who didn’t bother to pay his own taxes.  There’s former Democrat candidate for president John Kerry, a millionaire, who tried to wriggle away like the worm he is from paying the taxes he should have paid on his yacht.  There’s Kerry’s wife and fellow Democrat Teresa Heinz-Kerry, who in spite of inheriting the Heinz fortune actually pays less in taxes than the median American family.  And then there’s a bunch of more garden variety cockroach Democrats such as Eric Holder, Tom Daschle, Bill Richardson, and Claire McCaskill.  And don’t forget the vile putrid bunch of Democrats running Bell, California.

And let me throw in “San Fran Nan” Nancy Pelosi into the mix.  Here’s an already filthy rich woman who increased her wealth by 62% last year while millions of Americans are suffering.  She’d certainly be one who would say, “Screw America, screw the American people and screw the unemployment rate; I’m getting MINE.

These people just make me want to lose my lunch into a bucket.  That’s something I wouldn’t mind donating to the government.

I once quoted Burton Folsom in his great book “New Deal Or Raw Deal?”  It’s time to quote that passage again:

Throughout American history, right from the start, charity had been a state and local function.  Civic leaders, local clergy, and private citizens, evaluated the legitimacy of people’s need in their communities or counties; churches and other organizations could then provide food, shelter, and clothing to help victims of fires or women abandoned by drunken husbands.  Most Americans believed that the face-to-face encounters of givers and receivers of charity benefited both groups.  It created just the right amount of uplift and relief, and discouraged laziness and a poor work ethic.

The Founders saw all relief as local and voluntary, and the Constitution gave no federal role for the government in providing charity.  James Madison, in defending the Constitution, observed, “No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity.”  In other words, if relief, and other areas, were made functions of the federal government, the process would become politicized and politicians and deadbeats could conspire to trade votes for food” (New Deal or Raw Deal, page 76-77).

Prior to FDR, the American people took care of their OWN, family by family, town by town, county by county, state by state.  They had NEVER had welfare, and in fact found the very concept of welfare distasteful.  And I’m going to tell you right now that they were better, stronger people than we are as a result of that moral superiority and that faith in THE PEOPLE and not the GOVERNMENT.

Barack Obama – who gave virtually NOTHING to charity when giving would have demonstrated the character he proved he DIDN’T have – doesn’t trust the American people, or much care about them, for that matter.  He doesn’t want to help people; he wants to grow the size of government.  He wants only to make the state bigger and bigger and more and more powerful and controlling.  Obama is angry because he doesn’t believe people should have the right to decide for themselves how much of their own money they “need”; HE wants to make that decision for them and then impose it on them so he can seize their money and redistribute it to people who will vote for him and for his party.

Whenever a Democrat calls for more taxes, understand that what they are really saying is that they believe that the government is too small and needs to become larger.  And whenever they call for more taxes for the sake of helping people, what they are really saying is that you are a bad and immoral person who can’t and shouldn’t be trusted to help people in need and that it is better to take your money away from you and put it into the coffers of a big government socialist redistributionist agency which will piss it away on boondoggle programs that benefit the politically connected far more than they do the poor.  And the fact that even as Barack Obama and the overwhelming Democrat majority that had dictatorial control of both branches of Congress made government bigger than it has ever been and yet blacks are now worse off than they’ve been for generations and women are being set way back is the icing on the cake of the proof of that fact.  Liberals hurt the people they cynically and falsely claim to be helping – and then demagogically use the misery that they themselves created to accumulate even more power for themselves and their failed agenda.

But let me be even more specific and address Obama directly.  Obama says rich people – who already pay a massive share of the income taxes in America – should have more of their money seized so it can be redistributed in the form of student loans.  What is interesting is that this massively subsidizes the university system that has been almost entirely hijacked by the ideological left.  The more money becomes available in student loans, the more these supposedly “caring” liberals increase the cost of college tuition (the price of which has inflated FAR more than the price of ANY OTHER good or service).  So what happens?  Obama takes money OUT of the private economy, and OUT of the hands of the people who actually create jobs, and puts it into the pockets of liberals in universities who then turn around and raise the cost of tuition to screw college students.  And this “progressive” boondoggle has been going on for YEARS.

THAT’S what liberal compassion looks like: it bascially looks just like the hypocritical, self-righteous face of Barack Obama.

Claire McCaskill Joins the Ranks Of Hypocrite Democrat Tax Cheats

March 22, 2011

How many reasons are there to vote out Claire McCaskill at the first opportunity in 2012?

You really only need one: she was a weasel who voted for ObamaCare and then basically pretended she hadn’t:

It Begins. State-Run Media Whitewashes McCaskill’s Obamacare Voting Record
Posted by Jim Hoft on Tuesday, February 8, 2011, 8:04 PM

Liberal Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill is in big trouble.

(MLive)

Thank goodness Claire can count on the media to help her out.
The press started spreading the rumor this week that McCaskill is questioning Obamacare even though she not only supported the plan, but also traveled the state promoting it at townhall meetings.
Jake Wagman at The St. Louis Post Dispatch reported:

With 2012 Republican opposition already circling, U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill continues to question a key component of the president’s health care plan.

Politico has McCaskill, who’s already attracted two GOP contenders hoping to unseat her, joining a band of moderate Senate Democrats exploring ways to replace the mandate portion of the health care legislation approved by Congress last year.

McCaskill told Politico writer Manu Raju that they are looking for something “less than a mandate,” such as limited enrollment periods with financial penalties for not signing up. (That’s not a mandate?)

“It may be that the mandate is the only way we can do it,” McCaskill said. “But I think we should explore it.”

Under the plan signed into law last year, individuals could eventually face a fine of up to 2.5 percent of their income for not having insurance.

Of course, they forgot to mention this…
When McCaskill had the opportunity to remove the mandate during Senate negotiations in 2010, she refused. Instead, she voted to keep the mandate in the bill by killing a Republican amendment (H.R. 4872, CQ Vote #101: Motion agreed to 58-40: R 0-40; D 56-0; I 2-0, 3/25/10, McCaskill Voted Yea).

Lloyd Smith, Executive Director of the Missouri Republican Party, said this:

“Claire McCaskill voted to keep the unconstitutional individual mandate in the health care bill, she cast the deciding vote in favor of Obamacare, and then she traveled the state in support of the law. McCaskill had plenty of opportunities to seek alternatives to the individual mandate, but instead, she sided with Barack Obama every chance she got and forced costly, burdensome, and unconstitutional regulations on every single Missourian. McCaskill’s sudden election-cycle repentance is too little, too late.”

When ObamaCare was passed via every imaginable shenanigan, it was unpopular with the American people.  And now, having had a chance to see it, to see the huge cost increases its causing, to see the thousand-plus waivers (Constitution “equal treatment under the law alert) as even LABOR UNIONS try to bail out of it, and to see even BLUE STATES trying to weasel out of it, it is more unpopular than ever.

Claire McCaskill voted for an evil and immoral law.  And that alone is enough to kick her butt right out of office.

But if that wasn’t a good enough reason, here’s another damn fine reason to get her stink out of the United States Senate:

Posted at 03:59 PM ET, 03/21/2011
Claire McCaskill admits to $287,000 in unpaid taxes on private plane
By Rachel Weiner

Missouri Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill admitted Monday that she had failed to pay about $287,000 in back taxes and will sell a private plane that has created considerable controversy as she prepares to run for a second term in 2012.

“I have convinced my husband to sell the damn plane,” McCaskill told reporters on a conference call Monday afternoon. “I will not be setting foot on the plane ever again.”

McCaskill and her husband, Joe Shepard, co-own the eight-seat, two-engine plane with other investors. They bought it in July of 2006 through Sunset Cove Associates, an LLC her husband incorporated in 2002.

The tax revelations are the only the latest problem for McCaskill involving the plane,however.

In the wake of a Politico report that had billed the government for her travel on the aircraft, she quickly reimbursed taxpayers for the trips, hoping to avoid a protracted political problem.

But, it was then revealed that she had billed taxpayers for a purely political trip — deepening her potential exposure on the issue.

On the conference call, McCaskill said that after she discovered the political trip on the plane she conducted an extensive audit of all the times she used it. That search turned up the fact that she had not paid personal property taxes on the aircraft totaling $287,273. (Not all states charge these taxes, and because planes are not registered with the state or the county, she was never billed.) The senator said she understood that Missourians would be confused about how this happened, but insisted it was an honest mistake. “I’m being held accountable, like I should be,” she said. “I made this mistake.”

Republicans, not surprisingly, have had a field day with McCaskill’s plane problems. The Missouri Republican Party has filed an ethics complaint against her while the National Republican Senatorial Committee is demanding she release tax records for the company that leases the plane, along with more information on each of the flights she took.

“This raises very serious questions for Senator McCaskill’s re-election bid because if there are two things voters don’t like, it’s a hypocrite and a tax cheat, and Senator McCaskill just admitted to being both,” said NRSC executive director Rob Jesmer. The NRSC is also circulating a web video that features the incumbent saying: “If my walk doesn’t match my talk, then shame on me and don’t ever vote for me again.”

McCaskill, herself, acknowledged the trouble the plane issue has caused her on today’s call. “It sounded like a good idea, but it’s very expensive and its very complicated,” she said. “I think it does complicate things for the public.”

ANY public official who doesn’t pay their income taxes deserves to be hunted down with dogs and then burned alive.

But when that public official is a Democrat who literally makes a living saying other people “need to pay their fair share,” they should be tarred and feathered before they’re let loose so the Rottweilers can hunt them down.

I couldn’t be more sick and tired of self-righteous hypoctire liberal rat bastard filth Democrats making “honest mistakes” as they fail to pay their taxes.  You know what I’d like to see?  A Democrat make an “honest misktake” and finally for once in their lives making an ACTUAL honest mistake and paying TOO MUCH in the taxes they loudly demand everybody else pay.

Charlie Rangel – who sat on the House Ways and Means Committee and in fact was the CHAIRMAN of that committee that writes our damn tax laws - made an “honest mistake” in assuming that he somehow should be REPEATEDLY exempted from the laws he expected everybody else to follow.

John Kerry – who was the 2004 Democrat candidate for president of the United States – made an “honest mistake” when he decided he should screw his state in taxes he owed on his yacht and instead acted exactly like the corporations that move jobs offshore that people like him constantly demonize.  Because he damn sure moved his yacht offshore to avoid paying his taxes.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner is smart enough to run our nations entire financial system, but too damn stupid to avoid making that “honest mistake” that would have meant paying his taxes.

They’re hardly alone.  And they are just two examples of Democrats whose vile party and whose wicked electorates will never hold them accountable for their lies and their frauds.

Hopefully, Claire McCaskill will be different as the people of Missouri say “hell no!” to her kind of weasel politician less than 20 months from now.

Obama’s Vicious ‘Elder Abuse’ Political Attack Against IG Gerald Walpin

June 18, 2009

Last year Congress passed the Inspectors General Reform Act, which was designed to strengthen protections for IGs, who have the responsibility of investigating allegations of waste, fraud and abuse within federal agencies, against interference by political appointees or the White House.  Two things the act provided was 1) that Congress be given 30 days notice before any firing; and 2) that specific cause for firing be given.

Barack Obama co-sponsored that act.  But now that he’s president, he apparently thinks himself to be above such petty limits, given his reaction to an Inspector General whose investigation just concluded that one of Obama’s personal friends had abused nearly $900,000 in government funds.

According to Washington Examiner journalist Byron York, “Walpin was told that he had one hour to either resign or be fired.  Senate sources say Walpin asked why he was being fired and, according to one source, “The answer that was given was that it’s just time to move on.  The president would like to have someone else in that position.”  Walpin declined to resign.”  The White House tried to muscled Walpin out of his job, and only began to follow the law after Walpin refused and public pressure was placed on them.

Sen. Chuck Grassley sent a letter to the White House:

“I was troubled to learn that [last Wednesday] night your staff reportedly issued an ultimatum to the AmeriCorps Inspector General Gerald Walpin that he had one hour to resign or be terminated,” Grassley wrote.  “As you know, Inspectors General were created by Congress as a means to combat waste, fraud, and abuse and to be independent watchdogs ensuring that federal agencies were held accountable for their actions.  Inspectors General were designed to have a dual role reporting to both the President and Congress so that they would be free from undue political pressure.  This independence is the hallmark of all Inspectors General and is essential so they may operate independently, without political pressure or interference from agencies attempting to keep their failings from public scrutiny.”

The Democratic Senator who actually authored the law that mandates that the president give Congress 30 days’ notice before dismissing an Inspector General, along with an explanation of cause, Senator Claire McCaskill, said as of June 16:

The White House has failed to follow the proper procedure in notifying Congress as to the removal of the Inspector General for the Corporation for National and Community Service.  The legislation which was passed last year requires that the president give a reason for the removal. ‘Loss of confidence’ is not a sufficient reason.  I’m hopeful the White House will provide a more substantive rationale, in writing, as quickly as possible.”

When Gerald Walpin was told about the “loss of confidence” explanation, he said, “That’s a conclusion, not a cause.”

And that’s when the White House issued a different reason for removing Inspector General Walpin.  White House special counsel Norman Eisen on June 15 said:

Mr. Walpin was confused, disoriented, unable to answer questions, and exhibited other behavior that led the board to question his capacity to serve.”

Which is essentially an argument that Gerald Walpin is too senile to do his job.  The Washington Times points out that this answer as to cause by the White House “treads on exceedingly shaky ground that raises the specter of improper age discrimination.”

Glenn Beck, during the course of his TV program on June 17, pretty much proves that it is nothing SHORT of a vicious personal attack as well as “improper age discrimination.”

Beck: You had this meeting [the meeting in which Walpin was called ‘confused’ and ‘disoriented’] in May.  And then they asked you to give a 20 minute speech, where you got more time than the head of the corporation, right?

Walpin: That is correct.  That’s what I was told.

Beck: So why would they do that if you were confused?

Walpin: It’s idiotic.

Beck: They’re trying to besmirch this man.  So what I’m going to do is I’m going to give you the test.  This is the state examination.  If Grandpa comes in and he’s like, “Ooh, I’m drooling and I’m – peanuts? Where did I lost my shoes?” That’s when you go to the hospital and they give Grandpa this test.  Let’s do it.  I’m going to do it exactly the way they do it in the hospital.

Beck proceeded to give Walpin the assessment test live on the air.  And Gerald Walpin demonstrated rather conclusively that he was neither ‘confused’ nor ‘disoriented.’

Personally, I think the American people should use the same line of reasoning, citing Obama’s mention of having visited all 57 states as proof that he is too confused and disoriented to do HIS job.

The Washington Times has an article entitled, “IG Witness Blows Up White House Excuse” that reveals the shocking pattern of transparent deceit used to try to destroy a good and honest man.

HotAir offers the following concise account as to what happened prior to Gerald Walpin being dismissed for being older than retarded:

Let’s unwind the timeline a bit to test this new allegation.  Walpin pressed hard to prosecute Sacramento mayor Kevin Johnson for defrauding the government over more than $400,000 in community service grants.  Johnson, an Obama supporter, got a deal from the White House that allowed him to manage federal funds again and avoid paying back at least half of the grant money he used illegally.  The White House cut Walpin out of those negotiations, and Walpin went to Congress about it.

At that point, the White House called Walpin and told him he had an hour to resign or be fired.  Now, if the White House thought that Walpin was somehow incapacitated or disoriented, why bother to make that call at all?  In fact, wouldn’t an employer with an ounce of empathy send the employee to a physician for diagnosis first?  Even without the empathy, the proper course would have been to address the issue with Congress first instead of making an intimidation attempt to someone the White House now paints as all but senile.

This is nothing more than a bare-knuckled smear job, a despicable attempt to use allegations of mental illness to discredit someone who ran afoul of Barack Obama for taking the independence of his job seriously.  That may play in Chicago, and it used to play in Moscow, but it shouldn’t play in Washington DC and America.

Michelle Malkin further unloads on Obama:

Far from being “confused” and “disoriented,” Walpin is clear as day. Anyone who actually reads through his audits and investigative reports knows that. You can, should, and must read Walpin’s reports both on CUNY funding abuse and on the Johnson scandal here.

I also continue to hammer at the Michelle Obama angle. Her vested interest in propping up the government-subsidized volunteer industry stretches back to her days leading the Chicago non-profit Public Allies (scroll down to the end of my column for what the AmeriCorps’ inspector general found while investigating money troubles at Mrs. O’s old friends at Public Allies). And we can’t forget her days working to promote national service — and to set up cozy public chat forums with her husband and Weather Underground Bill Ayers — while at the University of Chicago.

Last week, I said this reeked of the Clintons’ Travelgate. It’s much, much worse.

That’s right.  The “Michelle Obama” angle.  A video that everyone should have watched BEFORE the election (along with a serious consideration of her views and attitudes) comes into play.

Surprise, surprise: the Chicago political power couple know how to play Chicago politics!

Do you remember how Democrats came unglued when George Bush fired seven US Attorneys who served at his pleasure?  In spite of the fact that Bill Clinton had previously fired every single one of NINETY-THREE US Attorneys and replaced them?  The Democrats charged that he singled the seven attorneys may have been singled out.

This is a clear case of singling out and punishing one man who initiated an investigation that DOCUMENTED that Obama friend Kevin Johnson abused $850,000 in AmeriCorps grant money.

This is the height of the politics of personal destruction.  Every American should be outraged; but in particular, every older American should be out in the streets for such a vicious personal attack on a VERY alert and intelligent older man.  If you’re an older worker, and you don’t want some young punk doing to you what Obama is doing to Walpin, you should be flooding the White House with angry phone calls.

This isn’t Bush’s firing of seven US attorneys; this is Nixon’s Midnight Massacre.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 537 other followers