Posts Tagged ‘50%’

No Winning Vs. Liberalism: Gingrich A Racist For Wanting To Give A Minority A Job But Not A Handout; Romney A Racist For Giving A Black Woman Money

January 18, 2012

If you are a conservative and you zig, the mainstream media will pronounce you a racist.  But don’t you dare zag, either, or else the mainstream media will pronounce you a racist.

We cannot win if the most dishonest media since Hitler and Stalin has anything to do with it.  They hate us and they will treat us dishonestly because the very core of their beings are dishonest.

Newt Gingrich, we were assured, was incredibly racist in wanting to give minority kids jobs rather than teach them to accept handouts for life:

Gingrich to Juan Williams: Capitalism Is Not Racist
by AWR Hawkins

A funny thing happened in the GOP debate in South Carolina last night. FOX NEWS’ Juan Williams implied racism in Speaker Newt Gingrich’s defense of capitalism, and Gingrich did not back down:

Williams: Speaker Gingrich, you recently said, “Black Americans should demand jobs, not food stamps.” You also said, “Poor kids lack a strong work ethic,” and proposed having them work as janitors in their schools. Can’t you see that this is viewed, at a minimum, as insulting to all Americans, but particularly to black Americans?

After Williams asked this question, about three people applauded somewhat timidly, but there was mostly silence in anticipation of how Gingrich might dig himself out of this one. He had been put on the spot in front of the world by a media spokesperson who not only opposed Gingrich’s position, but who himself was black, and who views almost everything through the lenses of race.

But Gingrich did not fold. Instead he looked at Williams and responded: “No, I don’t see that.” In other words, Gingrich was saying “No, I don’t see how capitalism is racist nor do I see how a defense of capitalism is racist.” The venue exploded with applause and cheers.

Gingrich then continued by telling the audience his daughter’s first job had been as a janitor in a Baptist church in Georgia when she was thirteen. Said Gingrich: “She liked earning the money, she liked learning that if you worked you got paid, she liked being in charge of her own money, and she thought it was a good start.”

Amid applause, Gingrich continued

What I tried to say [is that] New York City pays their janitors an absurd amount of money because of the unions. You could…hire 30-some kids to work in the school for the price of one janitor and those 30 kids would be a lot less likely to drop out, they would actually have money in their pocket, they would learn to show up for work, they could do light janitorial duty, they could work in the cafeteria, they could work in the front office, and they could work in the library. They’d be getting money, which is a good thing if you’re poor. Only the elites despise earning money.

At this point, the audience rose to their feet and Gingrich received a standing ovation as Williams did everything he could to try to salvage some aspect of the exchange for the left. And the only way he could do this was to try once more to find racism in Gingrich’s words.

Said Williams:

The suggestion you made was about a lack of work ethic. And I’ve got to tell you, my email account and twitter account have been inundated by people of all races who are asking if your comments are not intended to belittle the poor and racial minorities…[People have asked] why you refer to President Obama as the “food stamp President.” It sounds like you’re trying to belittle people.

As the audience booed Williams, Gingrich responded:

Juan, the fact is that more people have been put on food stamps by Barack Obama than any President in American history. I know among the politically correct you are not supposed to use facts that are uncomfortable. Second, you are the one who earlier raised the key point. The area that ought to be I-73 was called by Barack Obama “a corridor of shame” because of unemployment. Has it improved in three years? No. They haven’t built a road, they haven’t helped the people, they haven’t done anything.

As the applause grew to unprecedented levels, Williams retreated. He literally just sat silently, staring straight ahead, while Gingrich rose above the applause to say:

One last thing…I believe every American of every background has been endowed by their Creator with the right to pursue happiness, and if that makes liberals unhappy, I’m going to continue to find ways to help poor people learn how to get a job, learn to get a better job and learn some day to own the job.

Bottom line: Capitalism is not racist, nor is the defense of capitalism racist. Conservatives needn’t be ashamed of offering the world a job instead of a government handout.

The statistics show that 43 percent of black teens are unemployed; but don’t you dare offer them a job or encourage them to begin developing a work ethic, because that would simply be racist, wouldn’t it?

For the record that catastrophically high rate of unemployed young people – and particularly young black people – isn’t a result of Newt Gingrich; it is rather the PREDICTED result of Obamanomics.

Liberalism is wrong 100 percent of the time.  The only things that liberals are good at is lying and demonizing.

Now we’ve got Mitt Romney branded as a racist for giving a black woman in need a $50 handout:

MSNBC: Romney racist for giving $50 to black woman
by Charlie Spiering Commentary Staff Writer

MSNBC commentators were not pleased that Mitt Romney gave a struggling unemployed woman $50 after she told him about her hardships.

MSNBC’s Alex Wagner called it “one of the more uncomfortable moments on the campaign trail,” setting off an angry response from the analysts on the panel.

“As an African American woman it galls me. I don’t even like to watch it. I felt like it plays into every sort of patronizing stereotype of black people,” MSNBC contributor Joy-Ann Reid said. “‘Oh, here is this little lady let me give her 50 bucks’. . . I think it plays into that conservative meme, that you don’t need actual programs that the government puts in place to help people in need, we’ll just give them charity, I’ll just give him 50 bucks.”

“There are a lot of very convenient elements to this story, as you said Joy, it really makes me cringe. We have this black woman who suddenly almost becomes this mascot for the campaign,” said MSNBC contributor Janell Ross. “She is sort of affirming all sorts of Conservative ideas about who is poor and how certain people deal with their poverty and seek out the assistance of a wealthy white man to hand you some form of aid.”

I particularly appreciated the very first comment to this article from Wakeus_com:

The liberals are furious that the money went directly to a struggling woman! They didn’t have a chance to skim some for themselves via one of their “social programs” that have obviously done so much for the poor and minority communities of this great nation. Without the skim, the liberal can’t keep itself in a useless job, therefore it hates.

I despise liberals for one reason; what they have done to hold down poor and minority citizens of this nation. They are modern-day plantation owners … and don’t you dare step out of line.

The unemployment rate for black people is nearly double the national average; which is to say that liberals have black people exactly where they want them: dependent for life on the tit of government.  And anything that would make black people less dependent on the government tit and the Democrat Party that offers it is “racist.”

If a Republican voluntarily gives me money it demeans me.  But nothing could possibly be more honorable than taking money that has been forcibly redistributed from other Americans and handed out to me in the form of a welfare check courtesy of a Democrat Party that wants to buy my vote.

The only thing in this entire universe that isn’t “racist” to a liberal is Marxism.

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.

Advertisements

Scarecrow Alert: Failure-in-Chief Can’t Fill Medium Venue Even With Fire-Sale Discount Seats

September 24, 2010

It’s shocking, how far Obama has fallen.

I remember the world’s most arrogant narcissist puffing himself up on a “Temple of Barack” stage during his acceptance speech.

I knew from the get-go that the man was a failure and a fraud waiting to ruin America.  And even I never dreamed Obama would fall this far, this fast.

Obama’s Fire Sale
by Gail Sheehy Info

Six weeks before the election, President Obama couldn’t fill the ballroom at the Roosevelt Hotel, despite cheap tickets on offer. And then he was met by hecklers.

Who would have thought that six weeks before a cliffhanger election, President Obama would have to reach down to the D list to fill a room to listen to him? Most of us low rollers arrived early to see President Obama up close and personal. Our tickets for the general reception at the Roosevelt Hotel in New York were only $100. Some thought the email invitation was a joke. Some bought tickets for $50 from their desperate Democratic committeeman. Some bought the same day.

“It’s Filene’s,” enthused Sharon Douglas, reliving her heady days as a volunteer in Obama’s 2008 campaign. The doorman beckoned conspiratorially and ushered us out one door and in through another to stand at the back of the $500 line. Their crowd came from Wall Street in car services and killer heels. Our crowd came on subways in flats and scuffed teacher’s shoes.

Only after I received four email invitations and two personal calls imploring me to come did I call Speaker Pelosi’s office to check the admission price. “You mean, to be in the room with the President of the United States is now on fire sale for $100?”

”Yup.”

“How long do we get?”

“Half hour.”

“How many $100 givers have rsvp’d?”

“Mmmm 250.”

“Do we need to line up early to get in?”

“That’s not necessary. Everybody  will get in.”

And everybody did—450 people in a room that holds 650.  Even Obama’s fire sale didn’t sell out.

Obama can’t fill a medium-sized venue with Democrats now.  That’s what an embarrassment he has become.  To his own party.  After only 18 months in office.

Obama was a skyrocketing celebrity just a matter of months ago.  Now he’s a lot more like Pee Wee Herman.  You know, Pee Wee Herman after getting arrested for playing with himself in an adult theater.

By way of analogy, the “adult theater” has been the economic meltdown that has dramatically worsened under Obama’s watch, with the masturbation being the effect his asinine policies have had on the crisis.

Obama is down to the ‘D’ list.  And that ‘D’ aint for ‘Democrat’ in this case.  It’s for ‘near persona non grata.’

But don’t feel too sorry for Barry Hussein.  Pretty soon he’ll have a whole lot of Republicans willing to stand in line to thank him (without shaking his hand, of course) for being the Agent Orange to the tree of the Democrat Party.

Obama In The ‘We Don’t Mind ‘Cause You Don’t Matter’ Sub-50% Polling Range

July 25, 2009

One of the most readily understandable political calculus equations is the presidential poll: as long as a president is above 50% in the polls, he continues to hold a majority; but if he falls below 50%, he becomes increasingly irrelevant.  The nation is no longer behind him.  The lower he gets under 50, the more irrelevant he becomes.

Six months into the Obama presidency, Americans are already starting to say, “You see, Barry, it’s all a question of mind over matter.  We no longer mind because you no longer matter.”

For what it’s worth, the first time President Bush dipped below 50% according to Rasmussen was February 2004.  So Barry has to have set some kind of record for “sucking speed.”

Democrats and liberals feasted on George Bush like a herd of swine feasting on a trough full of carrots.  And in the case of the Barack Obama presidency, suppertime is coming very, very early.

Daily Presidential Tracking Poll

Friday, July 24, 2009

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows that 30% of the nation’s voters now Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Thirty-eight percent (38%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -8 (see trends).

Just 25% believe that the economic stimulus package has helped the economy.

The Presidential Approval Index is calculated by subtracting the number who Strongly Disapprove from the number who Strongly Approve. It is updated daily at 9:30 a.m. Eastern (sign up for free daily e-mail update). Updates also available on Twitter.

Overall, 49% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President’s performance. Today marks the first time his overall approval rating has ever fallen below 50% among Likely Voters nationwide. Fifty-one percent (51%) disapprove.

Eighty-three percent (83%) of Democrats continue to approve of the President’s performance while 80% of Republicans disapprove. Among those not affiliated with either major party, 37% offer a positive assessment. The President earns approval from 51% of women and 47% of men.

These updates are based upon nightly telephone interviews and reported on a three-day rolling average basis. Most of the interviews for today’s update were completed before the President’s nationally televised press conference on Wednesday night. The first update based entirely upon interviews conducted after the press conference will be released on Sunday.

Zogby has Barry Hussein at 48%.

Now, the last paragraph of the article becomes interesting because this means the poll does not take into account Obama’s truly suck performance at his July 22 press conference or the subsequent flap over his racially biased and frankly incredibly stupid comment about the Cambridge police “acting stupidly” in arresting an emotionally out-of-control African-American Studies professor.

So the easy money is betting that Sunday we’re going to see Obama down even more.  And then more.

Hot Air has a couple of insightful paragraphs describing the poll’s nuances on just why Obama is starting to poll as badly as he is:

It marks the first time that Obama has gone underwater since he started his remarkable run for the presidency in early 2007.  Undoubtedly, voters have now put the responsibility for the economy squarely on Obama’s shoulders after six months of worsening indicators.  The steep decline in support for his health-care bill represents in part a lack of confidence in his ability to deliver after the failure of the massive stimulus package, which he promised would put America back to work.

Even the Democratic gender gap has mostly been wiped out for Obama.  Although crosstabs are not available on daily tracking reports, Rasmussen’s poll shows an approval rating of 51% among women, just two points above the overall average.  If Obama had hoped to maintain the traditional Democratic inroads with women with his focus on health care, that appears to have backfired, as the survey on that issue earlier in the week showed women opposing it by a 50%-46% edge, with men more clearly in opposition at 53%-44%.  Why? Pluralities among both genders believe that their personal coverage will get worse under ObamaCare.

Unemployment is at 9.5% – and is expected to rise to 10% and beyond by the end of the year.  That sure isn’t going to help Obama become “Mr. Popular.”  And if that isn’t bad enough for him – and for the country he’s misleading – a new employment forecast by Obama’s own Federal Reserve foresees high unemployment numbers for at least the next five years.

But wait, as they say: there’s more.  Respected Wall Street analyst Meredith Whitney predicts that unemployment will rise to 13% or higher.  She’s the analyst with the nickname, “The woman who called Wall Street’s meltdown,” so right now I’m giving her more credibility than Obama’s people who said that if their stimulus passed unemployment wouldn’t rise above 8%.

And there’s yet even more.  We don’t calculate unemployment the way we used to.  We used to calculate unemployment based on the number of people who would like to have a full time job but don’t have one.  Bill Clinton changed the way unemployment was tabulated.  But if this were in the 1980s, we would be reading about 16.5% unemployment.  And if THAT number doesn’t frighten you enough, how about the possibility of 20% by the end of the year?

Remember all the talk about Barack Obama being compared to FDR?

Time_Obama-cover

Now we’ll get to celebrate Obama-as-FDR right – with Great Depression levels of unemployment, which will likely lead us into another Great Depression.  The first FDR didn’t fare so well with the first Great Depression; and I think the second FDR will do an even lousier job.

It will be fun watching Barry “ride the slide” to political hell.

It won’t be so much fun watching the Late Great U.S.A. sliding into economic hell right along with him.

Tax Increases on ‘Rich’ People Planned by Democrats Would Hit Over A Million Small Businesses

July 17, 2009

Let’s file this under the category, “Yet another stupid Democrat idea”: Let’s finance a socialized medicine plan that Americans don’t want by taxing the owners of small business who create the few jobs we’ve got left.

Tax Increase on ‘Rich’ People Planned by House Democrats Would Strike More Than a Million U.S. Small Businesses
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
By Christopher Neefus

(CNSNews.com) – More than a million small business owners and about two-thirds of the profits earned by U.S. small businesses would be hit by the income tax increase on the “rich” that House Democratic leaders want to enact to pay for the health-care reform plan President Obama wants passed this summer, a taxpayer watchdog say s.

Ryan Ellis, director of tax policy for Americans for Tax Reform, told CNSNews.com he calculated that 1.09 million of 21.5 million small business owners would see a one- to three-percent surtax on their profits in order to fund the House of Representatives’ trillion-dollar health care reform bill.

While only about five percent of small business owners would be exposed to the extra charge, Ellis says two in every three dollars of profit made by small businesses would be subject to it.

Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, announced late Friday that Democrats want to enact  this tax increase.

The plan reportedly would include a one percent increase in the income tax rate paid by individuals earning $280,000 or more and by households earning at least $350,000. Steeper rate increases of up to three percent would be imposed on those earning $500,000 and $1 million or more. The committee hopes these income-tax rate increases will raise about $540 billion for the federal government over a decade.

Small business owners would be subject to the income-tax rate increases because many of them report the profits of their small businesses on individual tax returns. As a result, the roughly five percent who make more than $200,000 a year would be hit with the extra tax.

Ellis said the Obama administration’s claims that only a few small businesses will be affected misses the point. “(T)hat’s what the Obama guys will always tell you. It’s a small, single-digit percentage of small businesses that would be affected by this, and that’s absolutely true. It’s probably somewhere between five and 10 percent … of all small businesses.

“But if you actually look at the small business profits being reported, two-thirds of all small business profits are reported in these households.”

Indeed, IRS figures from 2006, the most recent year reported, show that $479 billion of the $707 billion in small business profits was reported by households in the top two percent of earners, those earning more than $200,000.

Republicans went on the offensive after Rangel’s Friday announcement. A spokesman for House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) said, “In the middle of a serious recession, with unemployment nearing double digits nationwide, the last thing we need is a tax increase on small businesses, which will cost the American economy even more jobs.”

Blue Dog Democrats in the House also voiced some concern. Rep. Jason Altmire (D-Pa.) told CQ Today, “I have a concern with going outside the health care system” when discussing funding options.

“I feel like the House has moved this issue so far to the left we’ve taken ourselves out of the discussion entirely.”

But Ways and Means Committee member Rep. Allyson Schwartz (D-Pa.) told The Washington Post that “if (the bill) works right,” the high earners who pay extra taxes will also see lowered health insurance premiums.

Ellis, however, is skeptical. “If you’re a very successful company and you’re making more than a million dollars a year,” he said, then at “a three percentage point surtax, you basically have to assume that their healthcare costs will go down by 3 percent of their profits in order to even themselves out.”

“That’s just not reasonable to expect,” he told CNSNews.com. “(T)here’s not one example of where the government is going to go in and take over something and start spending money on something and then it saves money.”

Rea Hederman, assistant director of the Center for Data Analysis at the conservative Heritage Foundation, also said small business owners will not see their money back unless they force their employees to take the proposed public health care option.

“The only way they would see reductions in health care,” he said, “is if small businesses just say we’re not going to offer health care to our employees all together, and I don’t think that’s a direction that people want to go,” Hederman said.

While the surtax for small businesses may top out at three percent, Hederman said, “in percentage terms, the tax burden is jumping somewhere between four and a half to five percent, and this is going to be combined with the expiration of some of President Bush’s tax cuts.”

The health care surtax would come in addition to the scheduled expiration of the Bush tax cuts at the end of 2010, which will move the federal top rate from 35 percent to 39.6 percent.

In a statement, Thomas Hodge, president of the nonpartisan Tax Foundation, said total top rates, including federal taxes, could push past the 50 percent mark in some states.

“Combining top federal and state rates, and factoring in all deductions, the government would be taking over half of every additional dollar from high-income taxpayers in two-thirds of the states under this latest funding scheme.”

According to Hederman, “Unfortunately, right now, businesses are going to have trouble pricing in (these) cost increases.

“(So) businesses will continue to try to wring out as much efficiency as they can in the labor force, and that means cutting back hours and cutting back jobs,” he said.

A May 2009 survey performed by the National Federation of Independent Businesses, small business owners identified high taxes as the second biggest problem facing them, trailing only poor sales.

The tax increase, if enacted, would take effect in 2011.

People see the “small number” of small businesses affected by the tax and think it’s no big deal.  But think about it: there’s the difference between small businesses that are truly small and small business that are big enough to actually hire people.

When I was a kid I had a paper route.  I didn’t work directly for the newspaper; rather, I was listed as “an independent contractor.”

I had a small business.  And like the overwhelming majority of small businesses, I didn’t make a ton of money, and I certainly didn’t hire anybody.

The small businesses that are going to be the most impacted – and the most negatively impacted at that – are the ones that hire people.  And given that these small businesses are going to experience the double whammy of having to pay for Obama’s imposed health care burden even as their profits are taxed to pay for everyone else’s health care, there are going to be a lot of job losses, as surely as 1 + 1 = 2.  Only a fool, or a Democrat, would 1) raise a business’ cost while 2) reducing its profits and NOT expect that business to cut back.

The Democrats’ plan imposes an additional 8% payroll tax on businesses unless they meet the Democrats’ health care requirements.

Another (related) factor that needs to be contemplated emerges from thinking about the concern of the blue dog Democrats regarding going outside the health care system to fund the Obama health care system.  If the darn Democrat health care plan is REALLY something that will save money for the health care system, then why do you have to go outside the system to pay for it?  Why impose so much in additional taxes for something that is supposed to cost LESS? The fact of the matter is that this thing is going to cost TRILLIONS.  It will be like Medicare, with its $61.6 trillion unfunded liabilities, and which is expected to go completely bankrupt by 2015.

And a frightening corollary to that is exactly why people like me keep calling Obama’s health care grab “socialized medicine” to begin with.  Because the plan will necessarily push people into the government plan in FAR greater numbers than Democrats claim will go in.  Small business who employ most American workers, squeezed by the double whammy, will have absolutely no choice but to push their workers into the government plan.

Democrats naively argue that a government plan would not be intended to replace private health care plans, but would only reduce costs by “competition.”  They just don’t have enough functioning brain cells to understand that a government system – which does NOT have to depend upon profitability the way private systems do, and which can draw its funding by forcing even its competition to pay for it through taxation – doesn’t “compete.”  It devours.  The way Republican Rep. Mike Pence put it:

But what I heard yesterday at my town hall meeting was profound skepticism about the introduction of a government option to compete with private health insurance companies within this economy. I think most Americans know that the government competes with the private sector the way an alligator competes with a duck. It consumes it.

That, and of course, the fact that every conspiracy theory about government health care is about to come true: Democrats are openly claiming that they are going to use Obama’s health care plan as a backdoor to socialized medicine.

Bottom line: we’re going to tax our producers into non-producers in order to create a socialized medicine boondoggle that is going to be a disaster.

It is long past time we stopped listening to liberals’ Marxist class warfare messages.  The rich aren’t the bourgeoisie, and the rest of us aren’t the proletariat.  Rather than welcoming the government seizing the rich’s wealth to create one social program after another, we seriously need to start demanding that government finally get the hell out of the way and let all the people have the freedom to invest and spend as we see fit.  For it is liberty and freedom, rather than tyranny and big-government control, that made this country great.  And only returning to the fundamental principles of liberty and freedom are going to be able to get us out of the massive crisis that too much government has forced us into.