Posts Tagged ‘small businesses’

Nearly HALF Of All Small Businesses Have Curbed Their Hiring As A Result Of ObamaCare

April 28, 2014

This is the economic equivalent of getting in a fight for your life against a guy with a sword who cuts off your right arm.  And you’re thinking, “Damn, I really needed that arm.”  Only it’s the economy fighting to live and Obama’s socialist takeover of health care is the sword.

The 2014 U.S. Bank Small Business Annual Survey Finds The ACA Is Causing Employers To Cut Staff And Reduce New Hires

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact:
Jenna Weisbord, 202-662-0766
jweisbord@franchise.org
WASHINGTON, April 24-Today, the Wall Street Journal reported that the 2014 U.S. Bank Small Business Annual Survey found that, “In January, nearly half of small-business owners with at least five employees, or 45% of those polled, said they had had to curb their hiring plans because of the health law, and almost a third – 29% – said they had been forced to make staff cuts, according to a U.S. Bancorp survey of 3,173 owners with less than $10 million in annual revenue that will be released Thursday.” (Sarah Needleman & Angus Loten, “Small Businesses Find Benefits, Costs As They Navigate Affordable Care Act,” Wall Street Journal, 4/23/14)

This research aligns with a November 2013 study conducted by Public Opinion Strategies on behalf of the International Franchise Association and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which found that 31 percent of franchise businesses have already reduced worker hours.

Both pieces of research support bi-partisan efforts to return to the traditional definition of full-time employment under the ACA. This month the House of Representatives passed the Save American Workers Act, sponsored by Rep. Todd Young (R-IN). Similar legislation was introduced in the Senate by Senators Susan Collins (R-ME) and Joe Donnelly (D-IN).

Below are highlights of the study:
U.S. Bank Small Business Survey Finds “Owners Remain Skeptical Of The Long-Term Impact Of The Affordable Care Act On Their Business” With More Than 60 Percent Saying It Will Be Negative For Their Business. “The 2014 U.S. Bank Small Business Annual Survey found that “slightly more than six in 10 owners now say the long-term impact of the Affordable Care Act will be negative on their business.” (2014 U.S. Bank Small Business Annual Survey, U.S. Bank, 4/24/14)

Additional Findings:

Nearly half of businesses with at least five employees (45%) say it has forced them to decrease forecasted new hires and almost one-third report it has led to cuts in staff (29%).

Larger businesses are more likely to have cut employee benefits or shifted the cost burden of higher benefits to employees as a result of the legislation.

The smaller the business the more likely they say the implementation of the Affordable Care Act has caused them to postpone or cancel planned investments in their business.

At least three out of five owners with a minimum of $1 million in revenue or five employees say the new healthcare law has resulted in higher premiums for their business.

Local Business Owner Tim Cain Argues That The Health Law Raises Operating Costs And “The Timing Couldn’t Be Worse.” “…if the number of enrollees in his health plans increases to 70 percent of his workforce, Mr. Cain estimates his costs could swell to more than $500,000. That might force him to raise prices, he says, at a time when the impact of this year’s harsh winter—and an extended drought in California—is already pushing up costs for fruit and vegetables. ‘The timing couldn’t be worse, really,’ he says.” (Sarah Needleman & Angus Loten, “Small Businesses Find Benefits, Costs As They Navigate Affordable Care Act,” Wall Street Journal, 4/23/14)
This survey echoes previous research conducted by Public Opinion Strategies on behalf of the IFA and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

According To A Public Opinion Strategies Survey, 31 Percent Of Franchise Businesses Have Already Reduced Worker Hours To Cope With Health Law. “Additionally, 27 percent of franchise and 12 percent of non-franchise businesses have already replaced full-time workers with part-time employees.” (Presentation of Findings From National Research Conducted Among Business Decision-Makers,” Public Opinion Strategies, 10/13)

Further, The POS Survey Found That More Than Half Of Businesses With 40 To 70 Employees Plan To Make Personnel Changes To Mitigate The Impact Of ACA. “Among businesses with 40 to 70 employees, 59 percent of franchise and 52 percent of non-franchise businesses plan to make personnel changes to stay below the 50 full time equivalent employee threshold. This accounts for 23 percent of all franchise and 10 percent of all non-franchise decision-makers surveyed.” (Presentation of Findings From National Research Conducted Among Business Decision-Makers,” Public Opinion Strategies, 10/13)
###

About the International Franchise Association
The International Franchise Association is the world’s oldest and largest organization representing franchising worldwide. Celebrating over 50 years of excellence, education and advocacy, IFA works through its government relations and public policy, media relations and educational programs to protect, enhance and promote franchising. Through its media awareness campaign highlighting the theme, Franchising: Building Local Businesses, One Opportunity at a Time, IFA promotes the economic impact of the more than 825,000 franchise establishments, which support nearly 18 million jobs and $2.1 trillion of economic output for the U.S. economy. IFA members include franchise companies in over 300 different business format categories, individual franchisees and companies that support the industry in marketing, law and business development.

ObamaCare is evil.  It is simply evil.  And evil laws have evil consequences.

Obama keeps assuring us that his fascist takeover of health care has reduced costs.  His evidence?  An idiot study by the CBO that revised a previous idiot study.  (Let’s conveniently forget the fact that the CBO said costs would be lower than previously projected because people will get FAR crappier “health care” under ObamaCare than they had thought).  The problem is that the real world doesn’t march to the goose step of either Obama or the idiots at the CBO.  And actual businesses with actual employees who are on the verge of actually gutting their workforce to pay for this demonic law are screaming as their costs “necessarily skyrocket.”

Democrats are whining about a “war on women” – forget the fact that by their own rationale Obama is warring on women as his own administration pays women cents on the dollar earned by men - to distract people from their party’s WAR ON JOBS.

Obama has created a holocaust on jobs, which is why our labor participation rate – measuring the percentage of working-age adults who actually have a damn job in America – is at a historic low under his regime.  It now stands as the worst it has been in 37 years.  And Obama’s response is that it’s somehow Bush’s fault because it’s racist to hold him responsible.

The liars who gave us ObamaCare lied about EVERYTHING.  Obama lied when he assured us it would get more popular over time; it has become LESS popular.  He lied when he said it would bend the cost curve down (which he’s STILL falsely claiming); ObamaCare is MASSIVELY adding to the cost of healthcare – which is why businesses are faced with cutting hiring to pay the huge costs of this socialist mess.  He lied when he said if you liked your doctor you could keep your doctor.  And he lied when he said if you already had health insurance and you liked your plan you would be able to keep your plan rather than be forced to accept Obama’s damn plan.

This country is going down the toilet.  The liberal socialist elites – who preach “redistribution of wealth” but mean, “redistribute THE PEOPLE’S wealth to US” by means of manipulating markets, interest rates, federal reserve policies and government regulatory burdens – are ensuring it.

 

 

 

Fiscal Cliff Deal Is A Raw Deal For The Rich And For America. And It Sets Up ANOTHER Raw Deal In Sixty Days Over Out-Of-Control Obama Spending.

January 2, 2013

It’s a truly fascinating thing.  Had we “gone over the cliff,” do you know what would have happened?  We would have returned to the Clinton tax rates.

What is truly remarkable is that the Clinton tax rates are now nearly universally viewed by Democrats as having been 98% pure, distilled evil.  Because the Democrat Party has now been saying that Americans can’t afford to pay the stupid and evil tax rates that Democrats once demanded they pay.

But what would have been stupid and evil and harmful to the American economy for 98% of the population is in fact true for 100% of the population.  It is simply a gargantuan lie to try to argue that the laws of economics – that when you tax something you invariably get LESS of it – is true for 98% but is a lie for 100%.

Yes, it is a fact of history that the Republican Party under George W. Bush saved America with the tax cuts that helped the middle class grow more and spend more.  And it is now a fact of history that Democrats are now implicitly saying that the Clinton tax rates were 98% evil and counterproductive to a growing economy.  Democrats were completely wrong about their high tax rates; but Democrats are liars who won’t EVER admit they were wrong.  Instead they merely continually shift their demonization and demagoguery to a different target without ever admitting that it was only a relative few years ago that Democrats were attacking the middle class with high taxes that are suddenly now universally recognized as evil.

Isn’t it amazing how Obama, the Democrats and the mainstream media propaganda actually just claimed credit for 98% of the Bush tax cuts while still blaming Republicans as evil for creating the very thing that Democrats are on record as now being 98% for?  How does this kind of falsehood pass for truth???

Here’s a little bit of fact for you: BILL CLINTON CUT TAXES FAR MORE THAN HE RAISED THEM.  It wasn’t until Clinton CUT the capital gains tax in addition to many other tax reforms that the economy truly took off and the budget deficit shrank.  Versus Barack Obama, who has stratospherically hiked taxes on the rich and on the middle class via massive regulation and the equally massive ObamaCare tax hike.

And keep in mind that Bill Clinton – who largely presided over a good economy with the help of Republicans who controlled both the House and the Senate – said “the era of big government is over.”  Obama reversed that and now America will pay dearly for it.

It is a fact of history that Democrats are now demanding that we keep 98% of Bush’s tax cuts while simultaneously taking credit for them.  While amazingly still saying that the Bush tax cuts – which they now say were 98% good – are still evil.

Democrats claim that their tax hike on the rich, on the other hand, will generate $620 billion in additional revenues.  Here’s the first problem with the deal that Republicans were trapped into: no it won’t.

History is now replete, full, satiated, gluttonously gorged with examples of Democrats’ stupid tax claims doing the very opposite of what they claimed it would do.  The most infamous example is the luxury tax or so-called “yacht tax” on the rich.  Democrats assured Americans that the rich could certainly pay a little more (there’s a line that stupid people keep arguing, isn’t it?) to own luxury items.  Democrats saw the government getting more and the rich paying “more of their fair share” (there’s another stupid line of demagoguery for you).  What in FACT happened was that it turned out that, guess what, rich people AVOID TAXES just like everybody else tends to do.

Falling Tax Would Lift All Yachts
By AGIS SALPUKAS
Published: February 7, 1992

The nation’s luxury-boat builders, many clinging to their businesses after two years of plunging sales, finally got some good news last week.

President Bush, in his budget proposals, asked Congress to repeal the 10 percent luxury tax on yachts priced at more than $100,000 (and also on private planes that cost more than $250,000). The repeal, which Congress is likely to approve, would be retroactive to Feb. 1.

Since the tax took effect in January 1990, hundreds of builders of large and small boats have spoken of it as a stake driven into the heart of an industry already suffering from the recession, tighter bank rules on financing and fallout from the gulf war.

In the last two years, about 100 builders of luxury boats — recreational craft costing more than $100,000 — cut their operations severely and laid off thousands of workers. Some builders filed for protection from creditors under Chapter 11 of the Federal Bankruptcy Code.

Now, sales personnel and owners of marine companies are hoping they will be swamped by buyers who have held off in the expectation that the tax will be repealed.

The 10 percent tax applies to the amount of the cost above $100,000, so that a boat selling for $300,000 carries a $20,000 luxury tax. That tax is in addition to any state and local taxes. [...]

Also, boat prices have dropped as much as 40 to 50 percent, interest rates have fallen and some lenders have begun to offer financing, though on very strict terms.

In 1991, sales of luxury boats dropped 70 percent from 1990’s level, while overall boat sales fell 18 percent. Relies on Foreign Customers

The luxury tax really hurt us,” said William J. Healey, the president of the Viking Yacht Company in New Gretna, N.J.

He gestured toward a few big luxury boats being built there. A 50-foot boat costing $800,000 is bound for Italy; a $1 million yacht may be sold in Japan. A 65-foot motor yacht costing $1.3 million is bound for Greece.

The business from overseas, developed in the last two years, is enabling Viking to limp along, its work force cut to 150 workers from 800. “Very fortunately, it has helped us weather the downturn,” Mr. Healey said as he pointed to two production lines that have been inactive for several years.

Domestic demand fell so sharply that a year ago Viking shut an operation in Tampa, Fla., that employed 800 workers. The plant was built in the boom of the 1980’s, when most boat makers could not keep up with demand.

Yeah, that’s right, stupid liberal.  Raising taxes on the rich a few percent won’t hurt anybody.  They can afford it.

And if you’re either stupid or demon-possessed, you still believe that damn Marxist class warfare lie.  But people who prefer the truth and have a clue about something called “history” sure don’t.

The fact of the matter is simple and straightforward: lower tax rates for EVERYBODY creates more incentive to work harder and invest more because you are allowed to keep more of what you earn.  It is a simple truth of American history that every single time tax rates have been cut, we have had growth that generated MORE revenue than we otherwise would have.

There’s a second and even more harmful reason that Obama won’t raise more revenue as he falsely claims: because he’s going to be targeting and attacking the small businesses that create jobs.  Yes, it’s true on one level that 97% of small businesses won’t see their taxes shoot up and force them to lay off workers and cut back to pay the dictator.  But as is often true, another word for “lie” is “statistic.”  Because here’s the thing: THAT THREE PERCENT OF THE BUSINESSES DO MOST OF THE ACTUAL HIRING.

I documented this back in July:

Please take a look at the US government census information on small businesses.  The latest data they have on file comes from 2008:

Out of 27,281,452 total firms, 21,351,320 are listed as “nonemployer firms.”  Which means that 78.23 percent of all small businesses hire ZERO employees.   So when Obama says that 97% of small businesses won’t be affected by his tax hike, please understand that the whopping majority of those businesses that won’t be affected aren’t hiring anybody.  Another 3,617,764 small businesses have no more than four employees.  Those small businesses that hire zero workers plus those small businesses that hire no more than four workers constitute 91.5% of ALL small businesses.

Here’s a more relevant way to look at it.  When you consider the businesses that employ more than four people, you are looking at businesses that hire 94.97 percent of ALL the workers who work for small businesses.  And while not all of the small businesses that hire between 5-9 employees are going to be paying higher taxes as a result of Obama’s class warfare on small businesses, most of them do.  And virtually none of the businesses that hire more than ten employees are going to earn less than $250,000 a year.

So, yeah, the kid who is an “independent contractor” working his paper route won’t be paying more taxes under Obama’s class warfare plan.  That’s great.  But the overwhelming majority of small businesses (defined as businesses employing 499 or fewer workers) are going to get the crap beat out of them.

So Obama and Democrats like to point out that 97% of small businesses won’t be affected by their tax hikes.  But more than 78% of small businesses in his “97 percent” figure are “nonemployer firms” and hire ZERO workers.  So no jobs.  And when you look at the businesses that hire workers, you are looking overwhelmingly at the businesses that are going to be hit by these new tax hikes.  That is simply a FACT.  And it is simply a FACT that they are going to be forced to raise their prices to accommodate their rising costs of doing business, which will in turn reduce demand for their products or services, which will then in turn force them to lay off workers because of aforementioned reduced demand.

So what Obama and the Democrats just did is savagely attack the only people who have any chance at creating more job opportunities and bringing the US economy off its back and onto its feet again.

Keep in mind that in pimping his ObamaCare, Obama promised that premiums wouldn’t go up; he promised that if you like your doctor, you could keep your doctor; he promised that he wouldn’t tax the middle class.  He lied about EVERYTHING.  And he is lying to you now.  Because he has over and over again demonstrated that he is a liar without shame, without honesty, without decency and without integrity.

But we’re just getting warmed up describing how truly godawful this “deal” is.

Obama – even on his regime’s own calculations – will only get 8 1/2 days of additional tax revenue by attacking the rich and sabotaging the US economy by hurting job creators.  The problem when you consider Obama’s trillion-plus dollar deficits every single year of his entire presidency is that he refused to do a damn thing about the OTHER 356.5 days of the year.

We raised $1.8 trillion in income tax revenue in 2012.  It will be a very interesting thing indeed to see if we raise $2.42 trillion as the Democrats claim.  I bet we won’t be anywhere near that because it was a lie from the beginning.

Obama has the blue-whale-sized balls to claim that he cut the deficit by over $1 trillion.  Even the überliberal Washington Post says he’s a Pinnochio-nosed liar.  But let’s just think like people who AREN’T insane and AREN’T demon-possessed for a second: the US national debt is now over 16.4 trillion and will be well beyond that by January 20 when Obama’s first term ends; it was $10.626 trillion the day Obama took office.

Do you remember when our demon-possessed current president demonized his predecessor by pointing out that the debt had grown by $4 trillion over Bush’s eight years in office?  I pointed out back in September:

If Obama is a one-term president, which he himself by his own rhetoric said he ought to be, he will have added more than $6 trillion to the debt in his four years by the time he leaves office.  The same man who viciously demonized his predecessor for adding less than $5 trillion over EIGHT years.  The national debt is over $16 trillion now, and it’s going to keep piling on and piling on until January 2013.  With at least $500 billion in interest to pay on top of that.

Again, Barack Obama is a liar and a hypocrite without shame, without decency, without honor and without integrity.  He is shameless.  The Democrat Party is shameless.  And the mainstream media which protects both with their propaganda machine are shameless.

And our real debt is actually now considerably over a beyond-insane $222 trillion.  And is growing by about one trillion dollars every single MONTH:

The U.S. fiscal gap, calculated (by us) using theCongressional Budget Office’s realistic long-term budget forecast — the Alternative Fiscal Scenario — is now $222 trillion. Last year, it was $211 trillion. The $11 trillion difference — this year’s true federal deficit — is 10 times larger than the official deficit and roughly as large as the entire stock of official debt in public hands.

And why are we that $222 trillion – and actually that is now more like $227 trillion given the rate of growth of that debt and the five months that have passed since that article documenting the true debt was written - you ask?  Easy, 99.99999 percent of that debt which guarantees the collapse of America came from Democrats, and specifically their boondoggle entitlement programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

It’s funny, in a sad, pathetic, ironic sort of way: Democrats demonize Republicans for trying to protect America and her interests abroad with a strong national defense.  But the only thing the Constitution specifically ordered the federal government to “provide for the common defense.”  And note that word, “provide.”  It means, “pay for to provide.”  The same liberals who demonize us for doing what common sense and the Constitution alike command us to do point to the phrase “promote the general welfare.”  Do you get that difference between “provide” and “promote.”  If you ask me to provide something, I’m on the hook for it in a financial way.  That’s what it means to be a provider.  If you want me to promote something, I’m going to say nice things about it and cheerlead for it.  But that’s all.  And so like everything else, Democrats turned the Constitution, basic morality and true Christianity on its head and made what is wrong right and what is right wrong.

If liberals were actually to “promote the general welfare,” they would cheerlead the private economy and encourage growth by keeping taxes low for those who are willing to work hard so they can keep what they earn.  And then, with the minimum size and minimum amount of regulation, they would get the hell out of the way.

What Democrats “promote” is the general cancer instead.

And that mindset became a rotting cancer that is just about to consume and kill the patient America.

This nation is doomed.  And if you voted for Obama, you are one of the people who doomed it.   We cannot possibly pay these debts that will ultimately bankrupt this country but only after our children and their children are forced to bear the burden and suffer because of your self-righteous and sanctimonious greed a.k.a. “your entitlement mindset.”  And one day you will stand before a holy God and answer for the fact that you are a toxic human being whose soul swims in every kind of lie.  Because that’s what Obama voters are: bad people who hate the truth and who prefer lies.  Aside from your dishonesty, you are greedy and hypocritical – feeling yourself entitled to seize other people’s money when you would scream if your own money were taken from you.  And aside from your dishonesty, greed and hypocrisy you are hurting the poor who ought to be helped.  Because as I pointed out above – and thoroughly document with the article I linked you to stating it – when you seize the wealth of private citizens who overwhelmingly worked hard and then planned well and then worked hard some more to get that wealth, you end up hurting the very poor you falsely profess to be helping.  Because you force businesses large and small alike to reduce their workers.  You rob the poor of dignity by preventing them from being able to find jobs.  And then you cynically exploit their desperation to get them to vote Democrat so they can be on welfare for life as long as they continue voting Democrat.  Oh, you will one day be forced to give an account for all of it, rest assured.  And you will be giving that account to a Someone who knows the truth from all of your lies and your slander.

In sixty days this “fiscal cliff deal” that the mainstream media is so damn giddy about will come boomaranging back in the form of a massive political crisis caused by Obama’s morally insane and fiscally evil out-of-control spending binge.

Further, this stupid deal did nothing to avert the sequestration that Obama’s White House invented that will cripple our economy.  Just for starters, 1.53 million defense industry workers are going to get their 60-day layoff notices that they frankly should have already received according to federal law that Obama abrogated for cynical political purposes.  The defense industry has already began to suffer because everybody knows that Obama is at war with our ability to defend ourselves against war.  Obama has already cut $480 billion from defense; and his sequestration gimmick will soon devastatingly cut the Pentagon by $500 billion more.

Republicans were maneuvered into an impossible rhetorical battle against a master demagogic rhetorician.  They were demonized as “the party who was willing to force everybody’s taxes to go up over the wealthiest two percent of the country.”  When how the hell were the Democrats not “the party who was willing to force everybody’s taxes to go up over the wealthiest two percent of the country”???  Weren’t Democrats threatening to go off the cliff unless they got to attack the top two percent of earners?  How were they not doing the very thing they slandered the Republicans for doing???

This country is going to shut down in sixty days over that “spending issue” that Obama and the Democrats absolutely refused to deal with.  Because this “deal” did nothing to slow down the debt, nothing to slow down Obama’s shocking deficits, nothing to avert a debt ceiling showdown and nothing to avert the REAL fiscal cliff of Obama’s sequestration plan.

The markets that stupidly surged today will just as stupidly collapse then.  Because anybody who isn’t a fool should see this confrontation over insane and immoral debt coming.

Meanwhile, it is God damn America, full speed ahead to ruin.  And then the Antichrist and the Tribulation will come.

What Mitt Romney Said Last Night About Tax Cuts And The Deficit Was Absolutely Right. And What Obama Said Was Absolutely Wrong.

October 4, 2012

Mitt Romney repeatedly said last night that he would not allow tax cuts to add to the deficit.  He repeatedly said it because over and over again Obama blathered the liberal talking point that cutting taxes necessarily increased deficits.

Romney’s exact words: “I want to underline that — no tax cut that adds to the deficit.”

Meanwhile, Obama has promised to cut the deficit in half during his first four years – but instead gave America the highest deficits in the history of the entire human race.

I’ve written about this before.  Let’s replay what has happened every single time we’ve ever cut the income tax rate.

The fact of the matter is that we can go back to Calvin Coolidge who said very nearly THE EXACT SAME THING to his treasury secretary: he too would not allow any tax cuts that added to the debt.  Andrew Mellon – quite possibly the most brilliant economic mind of his day – did a great deal of research and determined what he believed was the best tax rate.  And the Coolidge administration DID cut income taxes and MASSIVELY increased revenues.  Coolidge and Mellon cut the income tax rate 67.12 percent (from 73 to 24 percent); and revenues not only did not go down, but they went UP by at least 42.86 percent (from $700 billion to over $1 billion).

That’s something called a documented fact.  But that wasn’t all that happened: another incredible thing was that the taxes and percentage of taxes paid actually went UP for the rich.  Because as they were allowed to keep more of the profits that they earned by investing in successful business, they significantly increased their investments and therefore paid more in taxes than they otherwise would have had they continued sheltering their money to protect themselves from the higher tax rates.  Liberals ignore reality, but it is simply true.  It is a fact.  It happened.

Then FDR came along and raised the tax rates again and the opposite happened: we collected less and less revenue while the burden of taxation fell increasingly on the poor and middle class again.  Which is exactly what Obama wants to do.

People don’t realize that John F. Kennedy, one of the greatest Democrat presidents, was a TAX CUTTER who believed the conservative economic philosophy that cutting tax rates would in fact increase tax revenues.  He too cut taxes, and he too increased tax revenues.

So we get to Ronald Reagan, who famously cut taxes.  And again, we find that Reagan cut that godawful liberal tax rate during an incredibly godawful liberal-caused economic recession, and he increased tax revenue by 20.71 percent (with revenues increasing from $956 billion to $1.154 trillion).  And again, the taxes were paid primarily by the rich:

“The share of the income tax burden borne by the top 10 percent of taxpayers increased from 48.0 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988. Meanwhile, the share of income taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers dropped from 7.5 percent in 1981 to 5.7 percent in 1988.”

So we get to George Bush and the Bush tax cuts that liberals and in particular Obama have just demonized up one side and demagogued down the other.  And I can simply quote the New York Times AT the time:

Sharp Rise in Tax Revenue to Pare U.S. Deficit By EDMUND L. ANDREWS Published: July 13, 2005

WASHINGTON, July 12 – For the first time since President Bush took office, an unexpected leap in tax revenue is about to shrink the federal budget deficit this year, by nearly $100 billion.

A Jump in Corporate Payments On Wednesday, White House officials plan to announce that the deficit for the 2005 fiscal year, which ends in September, will be far smaller than the $427 billion they estimated in February.

Mr. Bush plans to hail the improvement at a cabinet meeting and to cite it as validation of his argument that tax cuts would stimulate the economy and ultimately help pay for themselves.

Based on revenue and spending data through June, the budget deficit for the first nine months of the fiscal year was $251 billion, $76 billion lower than the $327 billion gap recorded at the corresponding point a year earlier.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated last week that the deficit for the full fiscal year, which reached $412 billion in 2004, could be “significantly less than $350 billion, perhaps below $325 billion.”

The big surprise has been in tax revenue, which is running nearly 15 percent higher than in 2004. Corporate tax revenue has soared about 40 percent, after languishing for four years, and individual tax revenue is up as well
.

And of course the New York Times, as reliable liberals, use the adjective whenever something good happens under conservative policies and whenever something bad happens under liberal policies: “unexpected.”   But it WASN’T “unexpected.”  It was EXACTLY what Republicans had said would happen and in fact it was exactly what HAD IN FACT HAPPENED every single time we’ve EVER cut income tax rates.

The truth is that conservative tax policy has a perfect track record: every single time it has ever been tried, we have INCREASED tax revenues while not only exploding economic activity and creating more jobs, but encouraging the wealthy to pay more in taxes as well.  And liberals simply dishonestly refuse to acknowledge documented history.

Meanwhile, liberals also have a perfect record … of FAILUREThey keep raising taxes and keep not understanding why they don’t get the revenues they predicted.

The following is a section from my article, “Tax Cuts INCREASE Revenues; They Have ALWAYS Increased Revenues“, where I document every single thing I said above:

The Falsehood That Tax Cuts Increase The Deficit

Now let’s take a look at the utterly fallacious view that tax cuts in general create higher deficits.

Let’s take a trip back in time, starting with the 1920s.  From Burton Folsom’s book, New Deal or Raw Deal?:

In 1921, President Harding asked the sixty-five-year-old [Andrew] Mellon to be secretary of the treasury; the national debt [resulting from WWI] had surpassed $20 billion and unemployment had reached 11.7 percent, one of the highest rates in U.S. history.  Harding invited Mellon to tinker with tax rates to encourage investment without incurring more debt. Mellon studied the problem carefully; his solution was what is today called “supply side economics,” the idea of cutting taxes to stimulate investment.  High income tax rates, Mellon argued, “inevitably put pressure upon the taxpayer to withdraw this capital from productive business and invest it in tax-exempt securities. . . . The result is that the sources of taxation are drying up, wealth is failing to carry its share of the tax burden; and capital is being diverted into channels which yield neither revenue to the Government nor profit to the people” (page 128).

Mellon wrote, “It seems difficult for some to understand that high rates of taxation do not necessarily mean large revenue to the Government, and that more revenue may often be obtained by lower taxes.”  And he compared the government setting tax rates on incomes to a businessman setting prices on products: “If a price is fixed too high, sales drop off and with them profits.”

And what happened?

“As secretary of the treasury, Mellon promoted, and Harding and Coolidge backed, a plan that eventually cut taxes on large incomes from 73 to 24 percent and on smaller incomes from 4 to 1/2 of 1 percent.  These tax cuts helped produce an outpouring of economic development – from air conditioning to refrigerators to zippers, Scotch tape to radios and talking movies.  Investors took more risks when they were allowed to keep more of their gains.  President Coolidge, during his six years in office, averaged only 3.3 percent unemployment and 1 percent inflation – the lowest misery index of any president in the twentieth century.

Furthermore, Mellon was also vindicated in his astonishing predictions that cutting taxes across the board would generate more revenue.  In the early 1920s, when the highest tax rate was 73 percent, the total income tax revenue to the U.S. government was a little over $700 million.  In 1928 and 1929, when the top tax rate was slashed to 25 and 24 percent, the total revenue topped the $1 billion mark.  Also remarkable, as Table 3 indicates, is that the burden of paying these taxes fell increasingly upon the wealthy” (page 129-130).

Now, that is incredible upon its face, but it becomes even more incredible when contrasted with FDR’s antibusiness and confiscatory tax policies, which both dramatically shrunk in terms of actual income tax revenues (from $1.096 billion in 1929 to $527 million in 1935), and dramatically shifted the tax burden to the backs of the poor by imposing huge new excise taxes (from $540 million in 1929 to $1.364 billion in 1935).  See Table 1 on page 125 of New Deal or Raw Deal for that information.

FDR both collected far less taxes from the rich, while imposing a far more onerous tax burden upon the poor.

It is simply a matter of empirical fact that tax cuts create increased revenue, and that those [Democrats] who have refused to pay attention to that fact have ended up reducing government revenues even as they increased the burdens on the poorest whom they falsely claim to help.

Let’s move on to John F. Kennedy, one of the most popular Democrat presidents ever.  Few realize that he was also a supply-side tax cutter.

Kennedy said:

“It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now … Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus.”

– John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, president’s news conference


“Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased – not a reduced – flow of revenues to the federal government.”

– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 17, 1963, annual budget message to the Congress, fiscal year 1964

“In today’s economy, fiscal prudence and responsibility call for tax reduction even if it temporarily enlarges the federal deficit – why reducing taxes is the best way open to us to increase revenues.”

– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 21, 1963, annual message to the Congress: “The Economic Report Of The President”


“It is no contradiction – the most important single thing we can do to stimulate investment in today’s economy is to raise consumption by major reduction of individual income tax rates.”

– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 21, 1963, annual message to the Congress: “The Economic Report Of The President”


“Our tax system still siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power and reduces the incentive for risk, investment and effort – thereby aborting our recoveries and stifling our national growth rate.”

– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 24, 1963, message to Congress on tax reduction and reform, House Doc. 43, 88th Congress, 1st Session.


“A tax cut means higher family income and higher business profits and a balanced federal budget. Every taxpayer and his family will have more money left over after taxes for a new car, a new home, new conveniences, education and investment. Every businessman can keep a higher percentage of his profits in his cash register or put it to work expanding or improving his business, and as the national income grows, the federal government will ultimately end up with more revenues.”

– John F. Kennedy, Sept. 18, 1963, radio and television address to the nation on tax-reduction bill

Which is to say that modern Democrats are essentially calling one of their greatest presidents a liar when they demonize tax cuts as a means of increasing government revenues.

So let’s move on to Ronald Reagan.  Reagan had two major tax cutting policies implemented: the Economic Recovery Tax Act (ERTA) of 1981, which was retroactive to 1981, and the Tax Reform Act of 1986.

Did Reagan’s tax cuts decrease federal revenues?  Hardly:

We find that 8 of the following 10 years there was a surplus of revenue from 1980, prior to the Reagan tax cuts.  And, following the Tax Reform Act of 1986, there was a MASSIVE INCREASE of revenue.

So Reagan’s tax cuts increased revenue.  But who paid the increased tax revenue?  The poor?  Opponents of the Reagan tax cuts argued that his policy was a giveaway to the rich (ever heard that one before?) because their tax payments would fall.  But that was exactly wrong.  In reality:

“The share of the income tax burden borne by the top 10 percent of taxpayers increased from 48.0 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988. Meanwhile, the share of income taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers dropped from 7.5 percent in 1981 to 5.7 percent in 1988.”

So Ronald Reagan a) collected more total revenue, b) collected more revenue from the rich, while c) reducing revenue collected by the bottom half of taxpayers, and d) generated an economic powerhouse that lasted – with only minor hiccups – for nearly three decades.  Pretty good achievement considering that his predecessor was forced to describe his own economy as a “malaise,” suffering due to a “crisis of confidence.” Pretty good considering that President Jimmy Carter responded to a reporter’s question as to what he would do about the problem of inflation by answering, “It would be misleading for me to tell any of you that there is a solution to it.”

Reagan whipped inflation.  Just as he whipped that malaise and that crisis of confidence.

This might explain why a Gallup poll showed that Ronald Reagan is regarded as our greatest president, while fellow tax-cutting great John F. Kennedy is tied for second with Abraham Lincoln.  Because, in proving Democrat policies are completely wrongheaded, he helped people.  Including poorer people who benefited from the strong economy he built with his tax policies.

Let’s move on to George Bush and the infamous (to Democrats) Bush tax cuts.  And let me quote none other than the New York Times:

Sharp Rise in Tax Revenue to Pare U.S. Deficit By EDMUND L. ANDREWS Published: July 13, 2005

WASHINGTON, July 12 – For the first time since President Bush took office, an unexpected leap in tax revenue is about to shrink the federal budget deficit this year, by nearly $100 billion.

A Jump in Corporate Payments On Wednesday, White House officials plan to announce that the deficit for the 2005 fiscal year, which ends in September, will be far smaller than the $427 billion they estimated in February.

Mr. Bush plans to hail the improvement at a cabinet meeting and to cite it as validation of his argument that tax cuts would stimulate the economy and ultimately help pay for themselves.

Based on revenue and spending data through June, the budget deficit for the first nine months of the fiscal year was $251 billion, $76 billion lower than the $327 billion gap recorded at the corresponding point a year earlier.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated last week that the deficit for the full fiscal year, which reached $412 billion in 2004, could be “significantly less than $350 billion, perhaps below $325 billion.” The big surprise has been in tax revenue, which is running nearly 15 percent higher than in 2004. Corporate tax revenue has soared about 40 percent, after languishing for four years, and individual tax revenue is up as well.

[Update, September 20: The above NY Times link was scrubbed; the same article, edited differently, appears here.]

Note the newspaper’s use of liberals favorite adjective: “unexpected.” They never expect Republican and conservative polices to work, but they always do if they’re given the chance.  They never expect Democrat and liberal policies to fail, but they always seem to fail every single time they’re tried.

For the record, President George Bush’s 2003 tax cuts:

raised federal tax receipts by $785 billion, the largest four-year revenue increase in U.S. history. In fiscal 2007, which ended last month, the government took in 6.7% more tax revenues than in 2006.

These increases in tax revenue have substantially reduced the federal budget deficits. In 2004 the deficit was $413 billion, or 3.5% of gross domestic product. It narrowed to $318 billion in 2005, $248 billion in 2006 and $163 billion in 2007. That last figure is just 1.2% of GDP, which is half of the average of the past 50 years.

Lower tax rates have be so successful in spurring growth that the percentage of federal income taxes paid by the very wealthy has increased. According to the Treasury Department, the top 1% of income tax filers paid just 19% of income taxes in 1980 (when the top tax rate was 70%), and 36% in 2003, the year the Bush tax cuts took effect (when the top rate became 35%). The top 5% of income taxpayers went from 37% of taxes paid to 56%, and the top 10% from 49% to 68% of taxes paid. And the amount of taxes paid by those earning more than $1 million a year rose to $236 billion in 2005 from $132 billion in 2003, a 78% increase.

Budget deficits are not merely a matter of tax policy; it is a matter of tax policy AND spending policy.  Imagine you have a minimum wage job, but live within your means.  Then you get a job that pays a million dollars a year.  And you go a little nuts, buy a mansion, a yacht, a fancy car, and other assorted big ticket items such that you go into debt.  Are you really so asinine as to argue that you made more money when you earned minimum wage?  But that’s literally the Democrats’ argument when they criticize Reagan (who defeated the Soviet Union and won the Cold War in the aftermath of a recession he inherited from President Carter) and George Bush (who won the Iraq War after suffering the greatest attack on US soil in the midst of a recession he inherited from President Clinton).

[To read that article in its entirety, click here].

When Romney said that the small businesses that create jobs was going to be hurt by Obama’s taxes, he was RIGHT.  In a different article available here, I document the facts from official sources and then say:

Out of 27,281,452 total firms, 21,351,320 are listed as “nonemployer firms.”  Which means that 78.23 percent of all small businesses hire ZERO employees.   So when Obama says that 97% of small businesses won’t be affected by his tax hike, please understand that the whopping majority of those businesses that won’t be affected aren’t hiring anybody.  Another 3,617,764 small businesses have no more than four employees.  Those small businesses that hire zero workers plus those small businesses that hire no more than four workers constitute 91.5% of ALL small businesses.

Here’s a more relevant way to look at it.  When you consider the businesses that employ more than four people, you are looking at businesses that hire 94.97 percent of ALL the workers who work for small businesses.  And while not all of the small businesses that hire between 5-9 employees are going to be paying higher taxes as a result of Obama’s class warfare on small businesses, most of them do.  And virtually none of the businesses that hire more than ten employees are going to earn less than $250,000 a year.

Romney pointed out in the debate that half of all jobs created by small business and a quarter of ALL THE JOBS CREATED IN AMERICA would have their income taxes skyrocket under Barack Obama.

When Romney said that Obama’s taxation was going to destroy 700,000 small business jobs, he was RIGHT.

Which is why 85% of small businesses agree with Romney and disagree with Obama that Obama’s policies have led America down the wrong track.

Which is why 64% of small businesses are saying they plan to simply wait Obama out rather than create jobs while he’s trying to ruin them.

Obama deceitfully talks about giving tax cuts to small businesses when in fact he is actually massively taxing them.

Obama IS helping small businesses … into BANKRUPTCY.  And Obama says the recession is behind us while small businesses are going belly up in droves.

Romney absolutely crushed Obama in the debate last night.  Nobody had EVER won a debate by the margin that Romney won by in the history of CNN.  If you have any decency and care about people who need a job and love this country at all, please cast your vote for Mitt Romney.

An Excellent Short Summary Of Obama’s ‘If You’ve Got A Business, You Didn’t Build That’ View

July 24, 2012

What makes this nice is that it is short and sweet:

7/17/2012 @ 10:43AM
Obama: Small Business Didn’t Build It

President Obama just threw a grenade at small business. He implied that everything is done in a community setting with the government or outside help. He is implying that individualism and individual achievements should not be highlighted, as everyone and everything needs help. In his speech yesterday, President Obama referenced the involvement of the government in the development of the internet and in building roads and bridges. He is correct to say the government did involve themselves in those endeavors. That was the government of the people, by the people and for the people.

If we get into a discussion whether business owners want the government as their partners, the President is on the wrong side of the tracks. What is being debated is the matter of degree. How much government? How big should government be? Small businesses give back through taxes, jobs and charity but not by enlarging government. This is all about an attack on individualism and individual achievement. The implications is clearly is that we need the government and we need big government. Not a great position for capitalism, small business or entrepreneurs.

There’s your short summary of Obama’s rhetoric.  If you’d like to hear a little more, then please keep reading.

The two major groups representing small businesses – the Chamber of Commerce and the National Federation of Independent Businesses – have both publicly decried Obama’s “you didn’t build that” attack against small business owners (I found the link available here).

What do the small businesses that together historically create 3 out of every 4 jobs in America say?  77 percent of small business owners have been saying that the Obama administration has been HURTING them.  And only 1 in 5 small businesses plan to hire any workers under Obama; and nearly 80% of small businesses want Obama to get his government the hell out of their way; and 90% of them are concerned about Obama’s massive social spending and their being demonized to pay for it all.

When both the Chamber of Commerce and the NFIB repeatedly say a president sucks for creating business growth, and when survey after survey of small business owners validate what these two small business organizations are saying, then that president SUCKS.  If you want Marxism, then don’t listen to the Chamber of Commerce or the NFIB.  If you want a job and the opportunity to advance your fortunes in a nation that has historically been better than any other at allowing the opportunity to do do, then get this joker out of the White House.

Obama – the failed president who a short time ago said “the private sector’s doing fine” – has demonstrated that he has no business talking about businesses.  He is simply an ignorant fool who does not understand how a free market functions.  And that is why he has spent the last four years unsuccessfully attempting to “fundamentally transform” America into a centrally planned economic system that has failed wherever it has taken root.

This is what Obama said in context (an expanded section of Obama’s words and a link to Obama’s entire speech is available at that link):

There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me — because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t — look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. (Applause.)

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.

Obama’s fellow liberal Democrat Elizabeth Warren helps us understand what Obama was saying and what he intended to say:

“I hear all this, you know, ‘Well, this is class warfare, this is whatever,’” Warren said. “No. There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody.

“You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear: you moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for; you hired workers the rest of us paid to educate; you were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory, and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did.”

These two doctrinaire liberals couldn’t be more clear – which makes it frankly amazing that the left would now try so hard to twist their words now that their policies are being exposed for what they clearly and truly are: they are saying that businesses do not deserve to take pride and responsibility in their own success because the Government (with a big “G” because that is how they view government) contributed to that success by building roads and bridges and providing schools and other infrastructure.  And they are using that as their justification that business owners therefore owe far more in taxes than they have been paying.  Because the Government is more responsible for their success than they are. 

That is PRECISELY what Obama was saying.

And that is why Jack Gilchrist as a successful small business employer is so pissed off at Obama:

Obama is saying that we should all be worshiping Government and wanting it to expand more and more because it made every “independent” human success possible.  I pointed out that on that reasoning we should really be worshiping the sun because, heck, it made Obama’s Government possible, didn’t it?

In another comment I explained this to a liberal who never has and never will comprehend how the American economy functions:

There is absolutely no question and any honest person knows there is no question that what Barack Obama and Elizabeth Warren are saying is that all people who build businesses are really just pirating off government infrastructure, such that they have no right to take any meaningful credit for the success of their businesses. And therefore business owners ought to be willing to pay their real god the Government what it is due with their sacrificial offering of high taxes.   But that is simply bullcrap because: 1) Given that both successful people and unsuccessful people alike have all benefited equally from schools and roads, how can the schools and roads then possibly be the cause of the successful people’s success? It was those business owners’ hard work, risk, more hard work and good decisions that made them successful, not the public schools and roads that welfare slackers get just as much of as small business owners get.  And 2) Given that these business owners were already forced to pay for this stuff by their already too-high taxes, it is frankly despicable for Obama to suck out business owners’ tax money for services, and then turn around and argue that because the government provided those services that Obama forced the business owners to pay for therefore meant that the business owners who were forced to pay for those services aren’t truly responsible for all the hard work and risks that they took that had nothing to do with the government.

As an example, I went to a public school when I was a kid. Do you know why I went to a public school? Because liberals forced my parents to pay property taxes that went into public schools and ONLY into public schools. My parents wanted us to go to Christian schools, but at that time they couldn’t pay the taxes that funded the government schools AND at the same time pay in addition to those taxes to send us to a Christian school. If my parents had been allowed to use their property tax money to instead send us to Christian schools, then THAT’S where we would have gone. If liberals had any decency they would be for VOUCHERS that allow parents to choose which schools to send their kids to.  Instead, they condemn millions of children to failing government schools.  And then take credit for it.

So what liberals are in fact doing is 1) forcing Americans to contribute to a government system and then 2) saying that since we benefited from the system that we were forced to contribute to, we are therefore not allowed to take any credit for our success that was based on our risks, our initiative, our investments and our time and our work. Instead Government should get all the credit and liberals can then justify their forcing people to pay even higher taxes on the basis of the taxes that they have already been forced to pay.

You can sum Obama’s policies up with three words “Government as God.”

When Karl Marx said that “religion is the opiate of the masses,” the point he was driving home was that God is an illusion that was keeping the people satisfied in their economic misery.  Marx believed that economic reality was the ONLY reality.  And he believed that if his economic and political Marxism replaced God with “the State” (i.e., “the Government”), that the people would find the true happiness they had wrongly been seeking in God.

And of course all they found was misery and death.  Every SINGLE time any form of Marxism was tried.

When Obama says – as a false, heretic “Christian” – that salvation is “collective salvation,”  (see also here) you can understand that in light of Marxist liberation theology (and see also here) that he is referring to “collectivist salvation.”  For Barack Obama, salvation is not related to sin, but rather to poverty, and the solution to poverty is not individuals improving their lot with hard work, but a Utopian redistributive state.

Karl Marx was wrong.  History has proven that his ideas were wrong for the world.  And Barack Obama is wrong and history has proven that his ideas are wrong for America.

Small Business Owner Jack Gilchrist Responds To Obama’s Idiotic ‘If You’ve Got A Business, You Didn’t Build That’ Rhetoric

July 20, 2012

It finally occurred to Homer Simpson:

How about you?

Barack Obama’s Class Warfare Tax Demagoguery On Those Making Over $250,000 Is A Marxist Lie When It Comes To Small Businesses

July 10, 2012

Barack Obama has a trend going.  He gets a lousy jobs report because his economic policies are wildly failing.  So he trots out and suddenly discovers he was lying when he ran for president in 2008 and he’s really FOR gay marriage.  The next month, Obama gets a lousy jobs report because his economic policies are wildly failing.  So he trots out and decides that as emperor he can ignore the law and arbitrarily decide that more Hispanics will vote for him if he abrogates the law and refuses to detain illegal immigrants.  Obama gets a lousy jobs report because his economic policies are wildly failing, so he announces that he will only support the Bush tax cuts be extended for people who make less than $250,000 a year.

Some might begin to see an incredibly cynical and disgraceful pattern here.

Obama is the most genuinely evil man who has ever held the office of president of the United States.  But I’m not here to talk about his incredibly cynical timing for a policy that many DEMOCRATS have publicly opposed.

As an example, here’s what liberal Sen. Charles Schumer said about people earning $250,000 a year:

“They are not rich, and in large parts of the country, that kind of income does not get you a big home or lots of vacations or anything else that’s associated with wealth in America,” Schumer said in October. “They are firmly in the middle class. Same with small-business owners in that level.”

By the way, one of the Democrats who says that Barack Obama is an idiot who is doing the absolute last thing we ought to be doing is a guy named Barack Hussein Obama:

The last thing you want to do is raise taxes in the middle of a recession, because that would just suck up, take more demand out of the economy and put businesses in a further hole.” — Barack Obama, August 5, 2009.  Obama had repeatedly made that argument, in fact.

The next year, in 2010, during a quarter in which GDP growth was actually four times higher than it is now, Obama said this:

I am just listening to the consensus among people who know the economy best. And what they will say is that if you either increased taxes or significantly lowered spending when the economy remains somewhat fragile, that that would have a destimulative effect and potentially you’d see a lot of folks losing business, more folks potentially losing jobs. That would be a mistake when the economy has not fully taken off.” — Barack Obama, January 29, 2010

Barack Obama – in an exchange with ABC anchor Charles Gibson – documented that his taxation has nothing to do with economic growth and everything to do with a Marxist notion of “fairness.”  Because as Karl Marx infamously put it, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”

That was before the before mentioned lousy jobs report for June 2012 because Obama’s economic policies are wildly failing.

I have on several occasions compared government stimulus – which sucks money out of the productive private sector and doles it out to politically connected boondoggles – to giving a diabetic kid sugar.  Sure that diabetic kid will run around for a little bit and it will look like maybe it’s working.  But it isn’t, because that kid is going to fall down and pass out.  And Obama’s answer is to pump more sugar into that poor kid.  Obama has done the largest stimulus in history ($862 billion that will ultimately cost the American people over $3.27 TRILLION); he did the second largest stimulus in history ($447 billion).  Neither did anything but hurt the economy.  As Ronald Reagan put it, “You and I, as individuals, can, by borrowing, live beyond our means, but for only a limited period of time. Why, then, should we think that collectively, as a nation, we are not bound by that same limitation?”  Barack Obama says piss on that.  And now Obama is demanding son of the son of a wildly failed stimulus that is doing nothing more than burdening our children’s children’s children’s children with more debt and guaranteeing the collapse of America in a much shorter timeframe than anyone is talking about.

The economy is going into a diabetic coma because of Obama’s policies.  And Obama wants more sugar.

Obama’s and Democrats’ policies amount to nothing more than a naked government takeover of the private sector.  It has failed miserably, but these people are fools of an astonishing magnitude and after doubling-down and tripling-down they will quadruple-down until this nation collapses.

I’m here to talk about the rape of small businesses under this wicked president.

Please take a look at the US government census information on small businesses.  The latest data they have on file comes from 2008:

Out of 27,281,452 total firms, 21,351,320 are listed as “nonemployer firms.”  Which means that 78.23 percent of all small businesses hire ZERO employees.   So when Obama says that 97% of small businesses won’t be affected by his tax hike, please understand that the whopping majority of those businesses that won’t be affected aren’t hiring anybody.  Another 3,617,764 small businesses have no more than four employees.  Those small businesses that hire zero workers plus those small businesses that hire no more than four workers constitute 91.5% of ALL small businesses.

Here’s a more relevant way to look at it.  When you consider the businesses that employ more than four people, you are looking at businesses that hire 94.97 percent of ALL the workers who work for small businesses.  And while not all of the small businesses that hire between 5-9 employees are going to be paying higher taxes as a result of Obama’s class warfare on small businesses, most of them do.  And virtually none of the businesses that hire more than ten employees are going to earn less than $250,000 a year.

So, yeah, the kid who is an “independent contractor” working his paper route won’t be paying more taxes under Obama’s class warfare plan.  That’s great.  But the overwhelming majority of small businesses (defined as businesses employing 499 or fewer workers) are going to get the crap beat out of them.

And why are they going to get the crap beat out of them?  Because the Hussein got yet another crappy jobs report for the month of June because his economic policy is wildly failing.

So when Obama or fill in the name of your Democrat lying weasel says garbage like “97 percent of small businesses won’t be affected,” realize the bait-and-switch that’s going on and point out that 95% of the small businesses that actually hire workers WILL be affected.  The businesses that actually hire workers are going to get clobbered.  And the fact that those businesses that actually hire workers only account for a few percent of the total number of small businesses – most of which don’t do any hiring at ALL – is utterly irrelevant IF YOU CARE ABOUT JOBS.

If you are one of the half of all American workers who work for small businesses, realize that most of you are basically voting to lose your damn job if you vote for Obama in November.

This is largely how class warfare always works.  All you have to do is demonize “the rich” and get people to hate them and want to attack them and punish them and confiscate and redistribute their stuff.  You don’t get to find out until later that those people you just destroyed were the ones who had given you your job.  Until after it’s too late.

As a final point, Obama is rhetorically going back to the Clinton years when his policies are really the rebirth of the Carter years.  And he is trying to frame Romney as another Bush – never mind that Bush’s overall unemployment at 5.26 percent was as good as Clinton’s – when Mitt Romney ought to be comparing his policies to the Ronald Reagan who saved us from the Carter years.  Obama says he wants the top income tax rate to go back to the Clinton levels.  But Bill Clinton himself recently advised Obama to extend ALL the Bush tax cuts including for the upper brackets.  And when Bill Clinton was president, not only did America not have the curse of ObamaCare, but Clinton had numerous tax cuts such as capital gains tax rate that were considerably lower than where Obama wants them.

Barack Hussein Obama wants to hurt the people who create jobs.  He wants a society in which people have to go to government (i.e. liberals who are the high priests of government) if they want to be able to work or if they want to get welfare benefits.  That’s the bottom line.

REAL State Of The Union: Under Obama, Price of Gas Has Jumped 83 Percent, Ground Beef 24 Percent, Bacon 22 Percent

January 25, 2012

Thought this article was particularly relevant and appropriate following Obama’s State of the Illusion speech:

Under Obama, Price of Gas Has Jumped 83 Percent, Ground Beef 24 Percent, Bacon 22 Percent
By Christopher Goins
January 20, 2012

(CNSNews.com) – So far, during the presidency of Barack Obama, the price of a gallon of gasoline has jumped 83 percent, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

gas(AP Photo)

During the same period, the price of ground beef has gone up 24 percent and price of bacon has gone up 22 percent.

When Obama entered the White House in January 2009, the city average price for one gallon of regular unleaded gasoline was $1.79, according to the BLS. (The figures are in nominal dollars: not adjusted for inflation.) Five months later in June, unleaded gasoline was $2.26 per gallon, an increase of 26 percent. By December 2011, the price of regular unleaded gas per gallon was $3.28, an 83 percent increase from January 2009.

The price of unleaded gasoline never reached the 10-year high of $4.09 back in July 2008 under George W. Bush’s administration, but it did get close.

By May 2011, gas prices hit a high under the Obama administration at $3.93, about four percentage points away from the July 2008 high.

ground beefGround beef. (AP Photo)

The U.S. city average retail price for one pound of 100 percent ground beef was $2.36 in January 2009. As of December 2011, that price had risen to $2.92—a 23.7 percent increase and a new peak. (Ground beef prices have risen every month since November 2009 – 26 months of price increases.)

Whole wheat bread prices from January 2009 to December 2011 increased about five percent (5.02 percent) from $1.97 to $2.07. (The inflation rate in December 2011 was 3.0 percent.)

Among the first 36 months of Obama’s presidency, the last four (September, October, November, December) showed the average price of one pound of whole wheat bread hovering slightly above two dollars.

Other refrigerated items like ice cream and bacon have increased by substantial amounts.

Ice cream prices, for a half-gallon, were $4.44 in January 2009 and $5.25 in December 2011, an increase of 19.1 percent.

One pound of sliced bacon in January 2009 was $3.73 and in December 2011 had climbed $4.55, an increase of 22 percent. The price hit a high in September 2011 at $4.82 per pound.

baconBacon. (AP Photo)

Whole milk prices averaged above three dollars 33 out of the 36 months since Obama took office. In January 2009, the price for one gallon of whole milk was $3.58; but by December 2011, milk prices had slightly declined less than one percent (0.28 percent) to $3.57 per gallon.

The average retail price of Grade A eggs per dozen from January 2009 to December 2011 increased by less than two percent (1.30 percent) from $1.85 to $1.87.

 
 

CNSNews.com is not funded by the government like NPR. CNSNews.com is not funded by the government like PBS.

CNSNews.com relies on individuals like you to help us report the news the liberal media distort and ignore. Please make a tax-deductible gift to CNSNews.com today. Your continued support will ensure that CNSNews.com is here reporting THE TRUTH, for a long time to come. It’s fast, easy and secure.

We recently celebrated Thanksgiving, and because of Obama we all felt like turkeys paying for our groceries due to the shocking inflation of food (that, along with fuel somehow isn’t factored in when “inflation” is calculated).

The above article doesn’t go anywhere NEAR far enough in condemning Obama for the rise of gasoline prices.  Yes, the price of gas spiked temporarily under Bush in 2008 (and Democrats viciously demonized him for that increase); BUT THE PRICE OF GASOLINE THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE YEAR WAS THE HIGHEST IN AMERICAN HISTORY IN 2011 UNDER OBAMA.  And 2012 is going to be even worse.

Here’s the REAL Obama economic record:

Barack Obama is destroying the middle class before our very eyes even as he incessantly claims to be the one standing up for the very middle class that he is destroying.

Under Obama, poverty has soared to its highest rate EVER in the entire 52 years that the Census Bureau has tracked it.

Under Obama, the misery index is at its highest rate EVER.

85% of the small business America depends on to create jobs and build the economy are terrified of Obama and his idiotic policies.

THAT’S the REAL “state of the union.”

Liberalism = Marxism. See The Occupy Movement Shutting Down Ports, Capitalism, Jobs To Get Their Way (Communist Russian Revolution Part Deux)

December 12, 2011

Karl Marx summed up American liberalism better than anyone else (when he was actually writing about communism):

“From each according to his ability, to each according to his need”

I have often challenged Democrats to explain how their philosophy had nothing whatsoever to do with this essence-of-communism on this very blog.  Never once have I had a response.  Rather, I am greeted with the equivalent of the sound of “one hand clapping.”

We can all remember back to how the Obama regime, the Democrat Party and the mainstream media (the propaganda wing of the Obama regime and the Democrat Party) savaged the Tea Party.  Obama went so far as to classify us as “terrorists” via his Department of Homeland Security.  You know, along with combat veterans coming back from fighting for our liberty.  But then there’s the liberal and Democrat-blessed Occupy movement, with all of its rapes, drug overdoses, crime, violence, criminal defacement, mass arrests, contempt for authority and law, destruction of public property, not to mention giant piles of garbage rats and lice and all sorts of other parasites attracted by these parasites.

Journalists and reporters are the worst kind of liars, and fully deserve to “occupy” the lowest level of hell.  They posture themselves as “objective” and “neutral” when in fact they are shameless ideological tools of the left.  And in fact we can look back over history and see how the media has again and again been used to justify the rise of all of the regimes that were the most vile and murderous in human history.

This is the Occupy movement:

Occupy San Diego Holds Communism Seminar
The continuing appeal of history’s worst idea.
by John Hayward
12/05/2011

The San Diego chapter of the “Occupy Wall Street” movement has always been one of its more… colorful outposts.  They’re the ones who held a moment of silence in solidarity with the guy who shot at the White House, after all.  In the twilight of the Occupy saga, when only the hardcore crazies are left, places like San Diego are giving us a closer look at the “core beliefs” of the movement.
 
To that end, Occupy San Diego held a little seminar on the virtues of communism on Sunday.  The fun begins about six minutes into the clip.

[see video posted at Human Events]

There are a few things to be learned here, besides the astonishing historical ignorance and poor critical thinking skills of the Occupiers.  (Remember, a lot of these people are students.)  The enduring romantic appeal of a heavily sanitized communism should not be underestimated.  Communism and fascism were history’s worst ideas, but they experienced very different fates in the postwar era.  Communism evaded the deep grave in which fascism was rightly buried in Western society, and is still credited with marvelous good intentions, not least because it promises to free gullible young people from material concerns… by robbing them blind.
 
Thus, when the introductory speaker in San Diego repeats the hoary old promises that communism “seeks to eliminate the conditions in which the majority of workers live only to increase capital to fulfill the interests of the ruling class,” and “under communism, society’s wealth would be used in the interests of the workers,” she’s making it sound like advanced Obamanomics
 
Those ideas have not been discredited in the public mind, after causing a century of poverty and bloodshed, because Western academics will not allow them to be discredited.  Instead of reviewing the grisly wreckage of communist dungeon states and examining why those glittering visions of “everyone sharing everything” lead directly to gulags and enforced starvation, they ask their students to forget about all the unpleasant “mistakes” of totalitarian rulers who didn’t really understand the true communist genius, and restore full faith and credit in the good intentions of an invariably brutal and squalid system.
 
Later, the featured speaker muses that under socialism and Marxism, “everybody has a say, and all working-class people run society.”  Nothing could be further from the truth, and this delusion lies at the core of everything from the 80-proof Marxism sold at university lectures, to the white-lightning bathtub brew guzzled by the Occupiers… and the watered-down and focus-grouped socialism Barack Obama​ sells on a daily basis.  These people are simply ignoring the staggering amount of compulsive force necessary to make collectivist systems function.  The more “re-distributive” society becomes, the more force it must deploy against its people, and the less of a “say” they have in what occurs.
 
No amount of political activism, during the increasingly rare and ineffectual trips to the ballot box afforded under collectivist systems, can possibly replace the “say” working-class people exercise through the full ownership of their private property, and the accompanying economic liberty this provides.  What a dismal cultural and educational failure it is, to see so many young people who not only fail to understand this, but believe their ignorance makes them morally superior.  The Occupy Wall Street tragedy lies in its loss of appreciation for economic liberty, and the failure to appreciate that all other liberties ultimately spring from it, because if you own nothing, you can refuse nothing
 
Of course, since their defining act is the forcible appropriation of property they don’t own, and the refusal to contribute to its maintenance and repair, that’s not really a surprise.  The approval of compulsion for “righteous” ends is written into this movement’s DNA.

As to the final paragraph, it’s right on the money, fact-wise.  Here is the Occupy Movement leaving a million dollars in damage at just one protest sight; here is the Occupy Movement leaving thirty tons of literally toxic filth at just one sight; here’s the Occupy Movement destroying small businesses (see also here and here) and saying, “You don’t matter; your rights and your property don’t matter.  All that matters is our beloved movement.”

All across the country – in flagrent disregard of government orders – the Occupy movement “occupied” publicly owned areas and demonstrated the fact that they are quintessentially fascist.  When they blockaded streets, they were in effect saying, “We are usurping your rights to public streets that you paid for because we the fascisti trump you.  You have the right to do what we let you do, and nothing more.”

Keep in mind, while Barack Obama and Democrats self-righteously pretend that only they care about jobs that they ENDORSED and BLESSED this Marxist movement:

Occupy Ports: West Coast occupiers unite
For the first time, OWS movements plan a coordinated protest. Will it work?
Stephanie RiceDecember 9, 2011 06:26

OAKLAND — As anti-Wall Street protesters attempt to regroup and settle in for winter after a series of police raids that stripped much of the movement of its signature camps, protesters on the West Coast are staging a comeback.

On Dec. 12, Occupy movements from Seattle to San Diego say they will shut down their local ports, temporarily stopping the flow of capital on the West Coast. Organizers say they aim to disrupt the business of the “1 percent” — in this case, the corporations that own shipping terminals and do business at the ports.

If successful, shutting down the West Coast port system would be a massive show of power for a movement that in some cities seems to have lost some of its momentum along with the camps. It would also mark the first time the loosely organized and very decentralized Occupy movements have coordinated in a major way.

Occupy World: What OWS is really about

The action comes at a pivotal moment for the two-month-old movement, with protesters facing down a chill both from dropping temperatures and authorities who are increasingly losing patience with tents outside City Hall.

In recent weeks, police have cleared large encampments in New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Philadelphia and elsewhere. In Boston, protesters were ordered Thursday to clear out by midnight, although the deadline passed and police did not evict them.

“It’s a really incredible opportunity to build infrastructure for communication between the different movements,” said Jed Johnson, a 26-year-old baker and barista who attended a recent port-shutdown planning meeting in Oakland.

Occupy World: Curtains for Occupy Boston?

“There’s a little bit of a lull right now,” he added. “Stuff like this is important to keep people out here.”

The move has also galvanized Occupy movements in other cities. Texas occupiers have called for protesters to gather in Houston and march on that city’s port. Even landlocked Denver is trying to get in on the action, with plans to protest at a local Wal-Mart distribution center.

In Oakland, protesters like Johnson are hoping for a repeat of Nov. 2, when tens of thousands converged en masse on the Port of Oakland, successfully stopping the flow of goods overnight.

It could be more complicated this time. The powerful International Longshore and Warehouse Union, which represents most of the port workers whom protesters say they are supporting, has publicly rejected the blockade effort.

“It appears here that outside groups intent on driving their own agendas outside of the ILWU and the Coast Longshore Division are attempting to co-opt the Union,” ILWU leaders wrote in a Nov. 21 memo to union locals.

Some protesters say they believe the rank-and-file port workers are with them and that union leaders are simply being careful to avoid legal problems that could arise if it appeared they were endorsing the shutdown.

Others are taking pains to avoid potential conflicts they worry could strain the warm relationship Occupy has shared with labor groups so far.

In Vancouver, Canada, Occupy member Mya Mayhem said protesters are still talking with local ILWU members and haven’t decided whether their demonstration that day will include attempting to halt port business.

“It is definitely our plan to send as much of a message as we can to union busters and environmental polluters but (we) are striving to maintain a good working relationship with our unions at the same time,” Mayhem wrote in an email.

“As soon as we find out what method will best represent the 99 percent we will go ahead,” Mayhem added.

In Oakland, officials are taking the threat of a second shutdown seriously. Port commissioners recently took out a full-page ad in local papers, reading in part:

“Shutting down the Port of Oakland is a bad idea. Another shutdown will only make things worse — diverting cargo, tax revenue, and jobs to other communities. It will hurt working people and harm our community.”

To bring port traffic to a standstill, protesters need to have enough people blocking terminal entrances so that a local arbitrator declares the situation a health and safety hazard, which will effectively stop port activity until the crowds dissipate or are cleared away.

In Oakland, it remains unclear whether protesters can mobilize those numbers the way they did on Nov. 2, when massive crowds streamed into the port and easily shut it down.

Unlike on Nov. 2, these days there is no camp outside City Hall. A small number of protesters — including at least one “tree-sitter” perched in a Sycamore — have been maintaining a vigil at the quiet plaza. But the space no longer provides the sense of community and visible reminder of the movement’s existence it did when there were 180 tents in it.

Numbers have been dwindling at general assemblies, the meetings where protesters discuss and vote on proposals. At several recent general assemblies, protesters have struggled to keep at least 100 — the number required to bring proposals to a vote — in the outdoor amphitheater that at one point swelled with crowds of more than 1,000.

“There is a sense of loss,” said Lucas, a member of Occupy Oakland’s finance committee who, like many protesters, gave only his first name. “What the camp did was provide a sense of place.”

But Lucas said he has faith that protesters will carry on without their tents. “The fact that the camp is not here does not change that we are living in a time of the most radical increase in inequality in history,” he said.

In economically hard-hit California, the movement does appear to have traction with the public. A recent Field Poll of 1,000 Californians found that 58 percent agree with the underlying reasons for the protest. A little less than half — 46 percent — said they personally identify with the movement.

For now, the toughest challenge may be simply building enough momentum to get through the winter, when protest activities — especially those by campus groups — are generally expected to quiet down.

And for those holdout cities still maintaining camps, the dropping temperatures pose a major obstacle.

Reached by phone earlier this week, Occupy Denver member Jeannie Hartley said she had more immediate concerns than her group’s involvement in the port shutdown day — mainly the roughly 50-75 people, a mix of homeless and activists, she said, who remain outside in record-cold temperatures.

“It’s going to be minus-6 degrees tonight,” Hartley said, “and we’ve got people camping.”

Check out GlobalPost’s full coverage on Occupy Wall Street here.

There’s a story that came out in the Associated Press that started like this:

Los Angeles—The Occupy LA protesters are gone, but Susan Hutchinson wonders if her customers will ever come back.

The manager of a downtown farmers market stared toward a barricaded City Hall park Thursday, where vendors until recently sold baskets of plump strawberries and tomatoes, buttery croissants and bunches of fresh-cut roses. The weekly, open-air market was uprooted from the park by the two-month Occupy LA protest, and merchants suffered when relocated across the street from what became a squalid encampment of earnest activists, disenchanted youth, the homeless and drug abusers.

“We were collateral damage,” Hutchinson lamented about the political protest that became “more like a refugee camp.” A quarter of vendors stopped coming and business fell off by as much as 50 percent for those that remained.

Hutchinson’s complaints were among scores heard by City Hall leading up to the decision by Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa to evict hundreds of protesters from the park in a late-night raid, resulting in nearly 300 arrests last week. The behind-the-scenes pressure added weight to more obvious problems, from illegal drug use to seeping portable toilets to lice.

The left is as filthy and parasitic as the lice that inhabit their bodies.

They crush little people in the name of the little people.  And then count on other little people to be too ignorant to understand that fact.

Further down the article, there’s another quote:

Occupy activists are unapologetic and say critics are missing the big picture by focusing on inconveniences instead of the broader problems of society and the camp’s efforts to raise awareness.

You see, under Marxism and under fascism, the ends justify the means.  People who demand that we have more and more and more government power and government control have the right to ignore government power and government control in order to push their agenda.  They have the right to shut down and destroy your business and the livelihoods of your employees to demand more “jobs.”

Hypocrisy is their quintessential essence.

Here’s the cost of just the Occupy L.A. movement alone as estimated by a liberal Democrat mayor:

Last week the park looked like a faded industrial yard—concrete barriers topped with chain-link fencing walled off what was left of the lawn, once popular with sunbathers and tourists. Villaraigosa has said the cleanup and repair to the park might cost more than $1 million.

And somehow they started out with a beautiful park paid for with Other People’s Money and they turned it into a representation of what is truly in their own ugly souls: a Berlin Wall in microcosm.

This is the true soul of liberalism and the true soul of the Democrat Party.  The more power they get, the uglier they become.

These people don’t want jobs and they don’t give one damn about the little guy.  All they want is power and control and the ability to decide who wins and who loses.  The essence of the right is individual liberty based on the principles of free-markets and limited central government.  The essence of the left is totalitarianism.

The Russian people and the German people got what was coming to them, and we’re getting what is coming to us, too.  Because we all made the same mistake; we trusted in leftists to take control of our government and thus take control of our economy and our lives.  The only question as to how long we will suffer and how bad our suffering will be is merely a question as to how long we are willing to allow the people that I describe above to have power.

We Tax Cigarettes To Encourage Smokers To Quit; So Why Do We Tax Investment Again?

September 27, 2011

There is a strange species of vermin otherwise known as liberal rich people.  They keep saying things like “please raise my taxes” even as 1) they can pay more in taxes any time they WANT if they were actually honest or sincere; and 2) even as they are simultaneously trying to welch on the taxes they already OWE that were accrued at a lower rate.

Personally, I have never understood how liberals skulls do not explode from trying to contain all the massive contradictions.  Other than the fact that they are hypocrite liars without shame.

I pointed out the following recently after Warren Buffett deceitfully made a big phony public show claiming “I want to pay more taxes”:

Allow me to add Warren Buffett to the VERY partial list of liberal frauds who inhabit Barack Obama’s orbit of prodigious hypocrisy:

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 the vile putrid bunch of Democrats running Bell, California.

These aren’t rich people who want to pay more in taxes; these are liberal elites who want YOU to pay more in taxes because they want to live off a government that keeps growing in size and in power.

Meanwhile, jobs get treated like cancer in the sense that we tax investment the way we tax cigarettes:

Republicans in Silicon Valley explain why rich guys shouldn’t pay more taxes
Posted By: Joe Garofoli | Sep 26 at 8:20 pm

A key moment in the dueling Obama-House Republican visit to Silicon Valley Monday was when the wealthy, retired-early Google exec told President Obama to raise his taxes. Yes, you read that right.

“I don’t have a job, but that’s because I’ve been lucky enough to live in Silicon Valley for a while and work for a small startup down the street here that did quite well. So I’m unemployed by choice. My question is would you please raise my taxes?

“I would like very much to have the country to continue to invest in things like Pell Grants and infrastructure and job training programs that made it possible for me to get to where I am. And it kills me to see Congress not supporting the expiration of the tax cuts that have been benefiting so many of us for so long. I think that needs to change, and I hope that you will stay strong in doing that.”

After he was done meeting with Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg for an hour Monday after the FB event, we chatted with GOP Whip, Rep. Kevin McCarthy for a bit. Kevin is a self-described Bakersfield guy from the other side of tracks (and a family full of Democrats). So why shouldn’t wealthy guys pay more taxes?

“You know that small businesses are the greatest creators of jobs,” McCarthy said. Between 2001-2007, he said, “if you had a company of 500 people or fewer, you added 7 million jobs. If you had 500 or more, you lost a million. The way that small businesses are run, (those kind of tax increases) punishes them.”

And 60 percent of those small businesses, he said, were five years old or younger. But the former entrepreneur said it is a lot harder to start a small business now.

Plus, McCarthy said, “Would you be willing to give a company more money if they didn’t have a budget? We haven’t had a budget passed out of the Senate in two years.”

On Monday at his LinkedIn event, the President contended that “we’ve cut taxes about 16 times since I’ve been in office for small businesses.”

Rep. Paul Ryan told me Monday he wasn’t sure where Obama was getting those numbers. And the White House hasn’t responded to a question about where he pulled those numbers from.

“They’d probably be small nickel-and-dime policies,” Ryan told us. If Obama was talking about “temporary tax rebates, they are a poor substitute for permanently high taxes….” they give small business owners “tremendous uncertainty.”

Ryan’s a small town Wisconsin guy. (Folks very near and dear to our heart.) But he doesn’t think taxing millionaires is the answer, either.

“The reason we tax cigarettes in this country is to get people to stop smoking,” he told us. “If you tax capital more, you get less capital. If you tax job-creators more, you get fewer jobs.”

If the rich guy at the Obama event was referring to taxing his capital gains income, that’s not economically smart to tax, either, Ryan said. “That’s the seed corn for economy, which gets invested in entrepreneurs and start-ups and small businesses.” Raising taxes would cut that supply off at a critical time — when banks aren’t loaning to small businesses as much.

McCarthy said the Silicon Valley visit wasn’t just a way for the top GOPers to suck up to Valley types — and, more important, their wallets. (A job which Obama and fellow Dems have become quiet adept at.) Even though, yes, Cantor had a fundraiser while in town.

“We’re not going on personality, we’re going on policy,” McCarthy said. “For too long, Obama’s Adminstration has been about politics and not policy. So we have no fear about going in and talking about our policy.”

I’m still searching for the poor guy who creates all the jobs.  So far I haven’t found him yet.  Please let me know if you run into him.

Until then, I’ll continue looking to the men and women Democrats hate and attack for all the job creation.  And I’ll figure that job creation will start occurring shortly after Obama and his liberal thugs in Congress are out of power.

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.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 517 other followers