Posts Tagged ‘charitable giving’

The Hypocrite Chutzpah Of Hillary Clinton And Every Fascist Who Supports Her

April 21, 2016

Came across an article that just made me start laughing.  Here’s how it ends:

The speech in 2013 was one of three Clinton made on behalf of Goldman Sachs. According to public records, Clinton gave 92 speeches between 2013 and 2015. Her standard fee is $225,000, and she collected $21.6 million dollars in just under two years. Clinton made 8 speeches to big banks, netting $1.8 million, according to a CNN analysis.

There is nothing illegal or unethical about former Secretaries of State earning money on the speaking circuit. And according to sources in the industry, there is nothing unusual about someone with the name value of Hillary Clinton being able to charge so much.

The standard fee and her demands are outlined in a memo from the Harry Walker Agency in New York.

According to the memo, Clinton requires travel by private jet, and even specifies that she prefers a Gulfstream 450 or larger. Her staff requires first class and business class tickets. And two members of her staff require up to three days on site to prepare, with all local transportation and meals included.

The memo states Clinton should be booked into a presidential suite with up to three separate rooms attached.

Clinton also requires a flat fee of $1,000 to pay for an onsite stenographer to record everything she says. However, Clinton is not required to provide the host with a copy, according to the memo.

Costs associated with her demands are on top of her speaking fee.

The speeches have been shrouded in privacy. Her staff has limited photographs and at times even confiscated cell phones. Attendees of some Clinton speeches complained vocally on social media that they were told to turn their phones off — no photos, no live tweeting.

In the summer of 2013, Clinton spoke before a major convention of human resources executives. The group had previously hosted speeches of Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, both former Secretaries of State. John Hollon, an editor for an online trade journal attended both, and tried to attend Clinton’s speech. He says he was kicked out due to Clinton’s request for no media.

“This is the only time in 10 or 11 years of going to to the annual event, which is the biggest human resource event of the year, the only time they have banned press from any speaker,” said Hollon.

There was no reason given, he says. The Society for Human Resource Management, the host of the event, told CNN: “All keynote speakers come with some requirements.”

—————————————————

There’s nothing on any of those transcripts that would ever get Hillary in any trouble.  As long as nobody who has a shred of integrity is never allowed to ever see them.

And strangely enough the same media that sent reporters to fly to Alaska to dig through Sarah Palin’s trash and published all of her emails and begged readers to help them find any dirt they could use to demonize her; the same media that has steadfastly refused to try to produce Obama’s college records that Obama for some reason spent $2 million to suppress (that prove he applied as a foreign exchange student) or the video of his evening celebrating terrorist Rashid Khalidi (that document Obama is a terrorist sympathizer); that same media somehow oh-so-strangely can’t find any trace of any of Hillary’s 92 speeches.

So 92 Shakespearean oratories for which she received about twenty-two million bucks and the mainstream media can tell you what Sarah Palin had for lunch because they have the contents of her garbage can to prove it.

They can’t find a single one of those speeches that would make Hillary Clinton unelectable when the same damn media INVENTED records when they needed to in order to falsely demonize George W. Bush.

You’re not going to know the truth about what this wicked liar said.  The media have already circled the wagons.

And for the record, even when it is a documented FACT that Hillary lied to the level of outright treason against the American people over a foreign policy scandal, the dishonest left couldn’t give less of a damn.  Truth only matters to a people capable of valuing the truth.  Which is why we’re in the mess we’re in today – and why that mess is going to get so much worse.

Okay, so let’s rephrase this in terms that liberals would instantly understand if they weren’t THE WORST HYPOCRITES WHO EVER ROACH-CRAWLED ACROSS PLANET EARTH:

She betrayed everything she publicly professes to believe in 92 times, which at least means she didn’t completely sell out a hundred times.  So you can’t say with complete accuracy that she’s a sell-out a hundred times over, unless you factor in all the OTHER damn ways she sold out, such as all the financial shenanigans of the Clinton Foundation (see here and here for example).  In which case she’s a sell-out fraud about a billion times over.  There was Haiti, where the Clinton Foundation fraud began practically from the moment the earthquake shook.  They exploited the sheer appalling incompetence of the United Nations that Chelsea described in an email in order to push THE MOST wasteful of projects to line their pockets and of course in order to line the pockets of their circle of crooks.  And let’s not even mention those absolutely and utterly detestable foreign governments that bribed the Clintons.  There’s nothing to say because there’s absolutely no possible defense other than shameless corrupt greed.

It’s just a FACT: Hillary Clinton is CORRUPT.  Hillary Clinton IS FOR SALE:

WASHINGTON — It’s not just Wall Street banks. Most companies and groups that paid Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton to speak between 2013 and 2015 have lobbied federal agencies in recent years, and more than one-third are government contractors, an Associated Press review has found. Their interests are sprawling and would follow Clinton to the White House should she win election this fall.

The AP’s review of federal records, regulatory filings and correspondence showed that almost all the 82 corporations, trade associations and other groups that paid for or sponsored Clinton’s speeches have actively sought to sway the government — lobbying, bidding for contracts, commenting on federal policy and in some cases contacting State Department officials or Clinton herself during her tenure as secretary of stat

Corporations are evil, liberals tell us.  Unless, of course, the corporation is something like Solyndra (and see also here).  Even as it takes half a billion dollars of Obama money and produces nothing and leaves us with nothing but even more giant debt for the people to repay as the executives fly off with Hillary in her Gulfstream and bribe her by paying for a “speech.”  Liberalism is crony capitalism, which is another term for “fascism.”  Liberalism is using the raw force of government to pick who wins and who loses, pure and simple.

Don’t expect anything but hate from a Democrat if you actually produce a damn product that people truly NEED.  I used to see people driving around in cars with idiotic slogans demonizing the oil that actually makes them go and I just wish I had a rocket launcher on me.  Now, of course, instead I see these self-righteous turds driving electric cars that require more than TWICE the carbon pollution to build than a gas car, run on energy that came from polluting sources, and end up contaminating dumps with toxic-chemical-oozing batteries.  And I STILL want that rocket launcher.

Hillary demands a private jet because she truly despises planet earth.  She demands a Gulfstream 450 or larger, because it will murder Mother Earth more quickly.  You simply need to understand: these fascists don’t give ONE FLYING DAMN about climate change, other than the fact that they can exploit it and demagogue it and make a lot of millions of dollars demonizing people who don’t spew one TRILLIONTH as much global warming gasses as these pompous pollution bags do.

And she needs all those millions of dollars explaining at secretive coven-gatherings how she’ll help the filthiest of the filthy-rich because that’s how she can afford to turn every light on and run every appliance at all of her giant palatial mansions.

Because little people need to live miserable, deprived lives so liberal elites can have everything and feel good about their service to the environment.  You know, the way Obama and Biden welched on charitable giving because they prefer to force OTHER people to have their incomes seized by taxes imposed by people who don’t give SQUAT of their own money.

It’s kind of funny: at his VERY BEST, Obama gave about HALF of what the hated George W. Bush gave as a percentage of income; AND THEN LO AND BEHOLD THAT MEASELY HALF WENT TO NEXT TO NOTHING AFTER OBAMA GOT RE-ELECTED.  But liberalism is all about the celebration over forcing other people to do, never in actually doing their damn selves.

So we reminisce on how Romney got savagely demonized for the effective tax rate that he paid; and the same people who demonized him don’t even bother to cover their mouths as they yawn at the fact that the tyrant king of all other-people’s-wealth-redistributionists pays a LOWER RATE THAN THE GUY THEY DEMONIZED.  Because being a liberal means “It’s NEVER fascist when WE do what we demonize YOU for doing!”

Moral Standards-Hypocrite

Hillary and her staff of lesbian Satanists receive presidential suite accommodations whenever they board their climate-killing private jets to sell-out to Wall Street greed merchants.  Because to flaming-hot-fiery HELL with this “we represent the little guy” crap, at least until we speak our platitudes to propagandists masquerading as “journalists” who will spread the lies to the unwashed, ignorant masses.  It’s actually kind of laughable to consider that four yeas ago Mitt Romney ran for president and his wealth was used against him like a baseball bat smashing his face by people who are completely lacking in honor or honesty or decency or sincerity or virtue or integrity whatsoever.  And the same kind of people voted out their hypocrisy.  And yeah, it’s always amazing how money somehow doesn’t matter when a John Kerry marries a billionaire heiress because it only matters when a John McCain marries a millionaire heiress.

Watch Hillary make Trump’s wealth a campaign issue in spite of her her multi-million dollar mansions in Georgetown and Chappaqua and her jet-setting lifestyle of the rich and shameless.  Because to be a Democrat is to live in the perpetual state of Orwellian Two Minutes Hate for whoever you’re told to hate.  And it doesn’t matter to you that the people you’re told to hate are frankly better than the people who tell you to hate them.

The speeches are shrouded in privacy.  Because Hillary Clinton is a worse fascist than Hitler was.  Her staff limits photographs.  Because a) Hillary Clinton is a worse fascist than Hitler was and b) it requires special techniques for vampires to appear on film.  Her staff confiscates cell phones.  Because a) Hillary Clinton is a worse fascist than Hitler and b) her unaltered voice murders puppies.

In order to hear a Hillary Clinton speech you must take the mark of the beast on your right hand or on your forehead.  Oh, and fork over $225,000 check payable to “Lucifer.”

And yeah, as often as Hillary tries to weasel out of providing the transcripts of her speeches [that she charged the filthy-rich Wall Street oppressors $225,000 a pop plus lavish expenses] under the pathetic excuse that lots of other Secretaries of State who HAVE NEVER RUN FOR PRESIDENT should first pose naked so the leftist propaganda can bait-and-switch change the subject to what somebody WHO HAS NEVER RUN FOR PRESIDENT SAID, this fact remains: Hillary Clinton is a demonstrably more paranoid, manipulative, secretive Nazi fascist than all of the other ex-officials who ever gave a speech COMBINED.

So please vote for Hellery. Because you need to do that to “upgrade” yourselves to a hotter place in hell.

Advertisements

‘Liberalism’ Is A Synonym For ‘Hypocrisy.’ Or To Put It Another Way, Saying ‘Liberal Hypocrite’ Is Redundant.

April 2, 2013

There is a rather stunning admission of liberal hypocrisy in the following Los Angeles Times article.  Basically, if you go to the most liberal and wealthy county in überliberal California, what you will find there is a bunch of leftwing turds who are only too happy to have programs for the poor as long as a) somebody ELSE pays for it; and b) somebody ELSE has to suffer the effects of the programs that they love to impose on everybody else.

This is Nancy Pelosi’s county, boys and girls.

Do you want to know what Democrats true views of Hispanics are?  It boils down to, “I’m all for illegal immigrants.  I think everybody should own at least one.”

Affordable housing is again a red flag in ‘green’ Marin County
The issue has long produced conflict in the eco-friendly county, California’s wealthiest. Officials are being urged to help workers find housing in a place where the median home price is $650,000.
March 31, 2013|By Maria L. La Ganga, Los Angeles Times

  • Advocates for affordable housing in Marin County protest before a meeting in San Rafael to discuss the issue. The push for affordable housing in California’s wealthiest county has always brought its “green” lifestyle and liberal social leanings into conflict. No Bay Area county has more protected open space — or fewer workers who can afford to live anywhere near their jobs.
Advocates for affordable housing in Marin County protest before a meeting… (Sherry LaVars / Marin Independent…)

SAN RAFAEL, Calif. — After George Lucas abandoned plans to build a movie studio along a woodsy road in Marin County, he complained about the permitting process in a place so environmentally friendly that hybrid-car ownership is four times the state average.

His next move, some here say, was payback for what Lucas described in a written statement as the “bitterness and anger” expressed by his neighbors.

The creator of “Star Wars” and “Indiana Jones” is working with a local foundation that hopes to build hundreds of units of affordable housing on a former dairy farm called Grady Ranch, where his studio would have risen.

Now Marin County is squirming at that prospect — and it is not a pretty sight.

The issue of affordable housing in California’s wealthiest county has always brought its “green” lifestyle and liberal social leanings into conflict. No Bay Area county has more protected open space — or fewer workers who can afford to live anywhere near their jobs.

At a recent planning commission hearing, where possible sites for subsidized housing were discussed, nearly all the heated testimony had some version of: “I’m all for affordable housing, but …”

Nine days later, protesters wearing “End Apartheid in Marin County” buttons demanded that officials do something to help low-income workers find housing in a place where the median home price is $650,000 and 60% of the workforce lives somewhere else.

The irony is not lost on Thomas Peters, president of the Marin Community Foundation, the philanthropy that is collaborating with the filmmaker to build along Lucas Valley Road. The region’s environmentally conscious lifestyle, he said, is built on the long commutes of low-paid workers whose cars choke Highway 101 to the point that “you can literally see the CO2 rising.”

“The community, to some degree, has been lulled by success in its 40-year-old determination to really protect the open spaces,” Peters said. But “it is not sustainable to hold that kind of misperception that this is all beautiful and everything can stay as it is.”

With the Golden Gate Bridge as its front door and Point Reyes National Seashore in the backyard, Marin County is blessed with some of California’s most breathtaking vistas. Indeed, 84% of its land is protected as tideland, open space, parkland, agricultural preserves and watershed.

In an effort to address climate change and cut greenhouse gas emissions, the county in 2010 launched California’s first so-called community choice energy program. Marin Clean Energy purchases power for its customers from renewable sources such as wind, solar and hydroelectric projects.

But Marin is near the back of the pack in the nine-county Bay Area region when it comes to absorbing predicted population growth — and is the most unwilling, said Ezra Rapport, executive director of the Assn. of Bay Area Governments.

Every eight years, California’s 58 counties are required to come up with a “housing element.” The documents are not guarantees that units will be built, but simply a demonstration that the county is zoned so growth could happen.

After the Department of Housing and Community Development produces growth estimates for each part of the state, regional governmental agencies negotiate with their cities and counties to divide up the responsibility to zone for possible future home building.

Currently, the Bay Area must plan for 187,000 new housing units by 2022, of which 110,000 must be affordable to very low-, low- and moderate-income families.

So how much of that burden is Marin County’s?

A total of 2,292 units, of which 1,400 must be affordable. In other words, 1.2% of the total homes and 1.4% of the affordable ones.

“It’s really a small amount of the Bay Area’s housing needs …[which are] pretty enormous,” Rapport said. “I don’t think anyone’s expecting them to rezone parkland. … But Marin should be somewhat responsible for its own growth.”

The difficulty was plain to see during the March planning commission hearing in the county’s graceful civic center designed by Frank Lloyd Wright. Under discussion were 16 sites that could be zoned for 30 units per acre — high density for a county that has fewer than 500 people per square mile, compared with Los Angeles County’s nearly 2,500.

Although residents were dissatisfied with all the options, Grady Ranch and a project called Marinwood Plaza near Highway 101 were among the most controversial. They also paint a stark picture of Marin County’s reluctance to build housing for its low- and moderately paid workers.

Marinwood Plaza’s location — within sight, sound and smell of the 101 — was a stumbling block for several residents who worried it would be unfair for low-income people to have to live near a source of pollution that could increase asthma rates.

“This is NOT a safe environment for humans,” said Steve and Sharon Johnson in a letter to the planning commission. “The proximity to the freeway and the particles of brake that float in the air when people put on their brakes to come down the hill will hit right where this proposed development is.”

Grady Ranch is about 31/2 miles from the 101, but that’s a problem too, said Nancy Lowry, a real estate agent who lives in the Lucas Valley area.

“There’s no public transportation,” Lowry said. “It’s 51/2 miles to the nearest grocery store, seven or eight miles from the high school. There are no buses. …You’re trying to bring in people so they can have a workforce that lives locally. But there are no services, no sewer lines, no electricity. It just doesn’t seem like the place that it should go.”

But Peters argues that the site is more than feasible. It already is zoned for housing, he said, and contentions that it is in the middle of nowhere are “laughable.”

Grady Ranch is made up of about 1,000 acres of rolling hills and bright green grassland, studded with oak trees and patrolled by wild turkeys. In the stretch separating the ranch from Highway 101, there are several subdivisions with hundreds of houses.

More than a decade ago, Lucas donated an estimated 800 acres of the ranch property to the Marin County Open Space District. Of the remaining land, only 20 to 30 acres is “actual, buildable space,” Peters said.

County planners peg the site as appropriate for around 240 units, although no plans for construction have been submitted. That, Peters said, could happen by summer.

Grady Ranch is “a grand opportunity to address a long-standing issue,” Peters said, and anyone who thinks this is payback has never spoken to the filmmaker.

“This is George Lucas. He doesn’t need to engage in small-town pique.”

That’s right.  No rich person EVER held a grudge in his life.  Rich people are your betters, and above such petty “piques” that plague the unwashed masses.  But that isn’t my axe to grind.

Note that the liberal Democrat überrich Marin County whining hypocrites literally state that they haven’t done jack diddly to create “public transportation” for the poor as their grounds for permanently zoning the poor out of their lovely but cockroach-souled leftwing hypocrite world.  We shouldn’t build the poor the homes that we force everybody else to build because we have never built the public transportation for them that we force everybody else to build.  And so being a double-hypocrite actually cancels out our hypocrisy, you see.

George Lucas is probably a hypocrite, too.  The difference is that he is so fantastically rich he will never once in his life have to mingle with these dirty poor people unless he wants to stage a photo-op to bask in their worship of him.  All the other liberals would probably have to stand in line behind these filthy unwashed Hispanics at the grocery store.  And they don’t want to do that because they are liberals and therefore turds without shame, without integrity and without honor.

This is so damn typical of liberal Democrats.  I remember Ted Kennedy – the champion of alternative energy “solutions” – as long as it didn’t block his damn view.  But of course, if it even theoretically affected him in any way, shape or form, it was whatever the current elite libspeak for “let them eat cake” turns out to be.

Let’s call it NIMLBY: Not In My Liberal Backyard.  Liberals do dishonest abject moral hypocrisy quite nimbly, it turns out.  Or maybe PIIRB: Put It In Republicans’ Backyards.  While demonizing them with every breath, of course.

This reminds me of Al Gore, who as he was pimping his green agenda – and become a billionaire convincing others to sacrifice for the environment – flew around on the WORST pollution-emitting private jet on the planet while occupying mansions that all had gigantic carbon footprints.  Oh, and then he sold his television network to a terrorist “news” company called Al Jazeera which is largely owned by oil emirates.  And tried to structure the sale to avoid paying the higher taxes he believed others should be forced to pay.  Because Al Gore is a good person for wanting other people to pay higher fascist taxes; so he shouldn’t be expected to pay the taxes himself.

It reminds me of Warren Buffet, who – in spite of the fact that he owed the federal government over a billion in back taxes (see also here)- came out with a “tax plan” that would have made life more expensive for other rich people, but – contrary to his dishonest claims – wouldn’t have affected his OWN taxes.  It only would have grabbed “other peoples’ money.”  And he deceitfully pimped this plan (along with his greedy rich selfish buddy Barack Hussein Obama who gave virtually NOTHING to charity until he decided he wanted to be president) on the basis of a false claim that he paid more in taxes than his secretary.  As usual, liberals sold their lies by telling MORE lies.

And of course the Obamas and the Bidens go on massively expensive vacations only to return (between massively expensive vacations) to hypocritically claim that we can’t afford ANY budget cuts or they’ll gut poor people’s police and fire protection.  These are people who know damn well that they’ll never be willing to pay this kind of largesse on their own tab.  But hey, they can force other people to pay for their extravagance, and so “let them eat cake.”

Obama is a man who has personally racked up more debt – and more reckelss and immoral and unsustainable debt – than any human being in the entire history of the world.  His last four budgets were so insane and so evil he couldn’t even get a single Democrat to vote for them.  The Democrat-controlled Senate under his control went four damn years without ever bothering to even TRY to pass a budget.  But that doesn’t stop him from getting another massive dose of free air time to “teach young people how to budget resonsibly.”

I could go on and on and on and on and on, ad nauseam.  These are incredibly wicked and dishonest people.  And they are hypocrites right down to the cores of their shriveled little souls.

Charlie Rangel’s Bogus Attack On Mitt Romney As Some Kind Of Tax Cheat Qualifies Him As A Poster Boy For Abject Democrat Hypocrisy

September 21, 2012

The Democrat Party is THE party of dishonesty, hypocrisy and moral idiocy.  From Hot Air:

Congressionally censured tax cheat tells Romney ‘Americans pay their taxes, unlike you.’
posted at 12:01 pm on September 20, 2012 by Mary Katharine Ham

Chutzpah, thy name is Charlie Rangel:

“Nothing can be further from the truth than Gov. Romney’s ridiculous remarks that nearly half of American people do not pay federal income taxes, they pay other federal and state taxes. The 47 percent figure cited by the Republican presidential candidate covers only the federal income tax and ignores the fact that people may pay a higher percentage of their income on a wide variety of taxes.

Everyone pays taxes. Lower income persons pay state and local, property, excise and sales taxes. In fact, when all federal, state, and local taxes are taken into account, the bottom fifth of households pays about 16 percent of their incomes in taxes, on average. The second-poorest fifth pays about 21 percent. This is higher than what the Governor has paid in income taxes. He has absolutely no moral authority to accuse nearly half of the American people of being irresponsible and freeloaders.”

Speaking of “absolutely no moral authority,” let’s go over Rangel’s record, who was censured by the House of Representatives for a multitude of tax and ethics violations made while he was in charge of writing the nation’s tax policy as Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee.

Rep. Charlie Rangel amended his financial disclosure forms under pressure in 2009 to show “that he had omitted an array of assets, business transactions and sources of income. They include a Merrill Lynch Global account valued between $250,000 and $500,000; tens of thousands of dollars in municipal bonds; and $30,000 to $100,000 in rent from a multifamily brownstone building he owned on West 132nd Street.” That wasn’t all. “The latest filings come on top of an amendment to Mr. Rangel’s 2007 disclosure form reported this week showing that he had failed to list at least $500,000 in assets.” The new disclosures doubled Rangel’s net worth.

Rep. Charlie Rangel rented several apartments in Harlem at suspiciously below-market rates from a big campaign donor, combining several to create his home while using one of them as a campaign office. That was a violation of rent-control laws, which require rent-controlled apartments to be used as residences.

Rep. Charlie Rangel parked his Mercedes for free in a Congressional parking space for about five years, never declaring the approximate $300 monthly fee on his taxes, as IRS rules require. Luckily, the House Ethics committee determined that he didn’t violate any rules because they only apply rules about parking to staff, not members.

Rep. Charlie Rangel used Congressional letterhead to solicit donations for the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service at the City College of New York from companies that might have significant interests in the policy making of his committee, a move ethicists said “crossed the line.” He’d already funneled federal earmarks for the center.

Later, one of the big donors to the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service benefitted richly when Rangel changed his position on closing a tax loophole.

Rep. Charlie Rangel failed to report $75,000 in rental income or pay taxes on a Dominican villa he owned, causing the New York Times to call for him to step down from his Ways and Means Chairmanship.

In 2008, Rep. Charlie Rangel was forced to pay back taxes on rental income on his villa in the Dominican Republic— a property he was advised to buy by one of his donors and for which he later received preferential treatment when the interest rate on his mortgage was waived.

Rep. Charlie Rangel took the “Property Homestead Deduction Act” tax break on his Washington, D.C. residence for five years, despite the fact that he maintained his primary residence in New York for electoral reasons. Lawmakers who maintain a residence in D.C. but must also maintain a primary residence in their districts are not eligible for the homestead break, tax lawyers told the NY Post.

Rangel is one of the most demonstrably corrupt manipulators of the tax code in Washington, and his longtime position as the guy who wrote tax code for the rest of us makes the corruption all the more despicable.

The headline on his press release should have been, “Americans pay their fair share in taxes, unlike me.”

H/t Village Voice.

Well, little people and Republicans.

If you take away Mitt Romney’s considerable charitable giving, he’s actually paying a tax rate of 42%.  But it doesn’t matter to Democrats that Mitt Romney has given 15% of his income to charity versus Obama who is the most caring man who ever lived but gave less than one measly percent of his wealth to charity.

There is ZERO evidence that Mitt Romney has failed to pay so much as a DIME of taxes that he has owed.  Versus dishonest cockroach liars like Charlie Rangel.

But being the party of rabid dishonesty and hypocrisy, it is no wonder that the Democrat Party would allow Rangel to make such a complete hypocrite ass out of himself.

Why Do Depraved Democrats Deceitfully Distort Jesus To Demagogue Republicans???

August 29, 2012

This is so par for the course it’s simply beyond unreal:

Look up the term “socialist” in ANY reasonably legitimate source and tell me that a socialist is somebody who wants to force people to give all of their money to the Judeo-Christian God of the Holy Bible. No. Rather, a socialist is somebody who wants to create an all-powerful State in PLACE of God and give that all-powerful State the power to confiscate and redistribute wealth and resources as it wills.

I would first like you to consider what Jesus actually said about taxes, God and government as found in Matthew 22:15-22.  Allow me to set the stage for you.  The Pharisees who DESPISE Jesus are trying to entrap Him.  The come upon a great plan to force Jesus into an impossible dilemma; force Jesus to either say that Jews should pay taxes to Caesar, making Him a religious heretic, or force Him to say that Jews should NOT pay taxes to Caesar, making him a full-fledge traitor against Rome.  Here is the story:

Then the Pharisees went and plotted together how they might trap Him in what He said.  And they sent their disciples to Him, along with the Herodians, saying, “Teacher, we know that You are truthful and teach the way of God in truth, and defer to no one; for You are not partial to any.  “Tell us then, what do You think? Is it lawful to give a poll-tax to Caesar, or not?”  But Jesus perceived their malice, and said, “Why are you testing Me, you hypocrites?  “Show Me the coin used for the poll-tax.” And they brought Him a denarius.  And He said to them, “Whose likeness and inscription is this?”  They said to Him, “Caesar’s.” Then He said to them, “Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and to God the things that are God’s.”  And hearing this, they were amazed, and leaving Him, they went away.

It’s too damn bad we can’t make Democrats go away the same way.

Does Jesus endorse socialism here?  Does Jesus answer the Pharisees by saying, “There is no difference between giving unto Caesar and giving unto God, for God and the State are one and the same such that when you give to Caesar you ARE giving to God”???  Does Jesus say that?

Does Jesus EVER say anything remotely CLOSE to that???

Jesus is telling us that whatever money you give – or are forced to give – to Obama’s regime doesn’t do your soul one tiny bit of good.  Because there is a very real distinction between giving to the State and giving to God according to Jesus.  And it is a wicked, despicable state indeed that forces people to give so much damn money to their government that they don’t have enough left to give to their God.

Liberal states such as New York and California expect you to pay more than HALF of everything you earn to the state if you are in the top income bracket.  And that is immoral.

Let’s look at the passage of Scripture the Democrat alludes to in the cartoon above (Matthew 19:16-21):

And someone came to Him and said, “Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may obtain eternal life?”  And He said to him, “Why are you asking Me about what is good? There is only One who is good; but if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.”  Then he said to Him, “Which ones?” And Jesus said, “YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER; YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY; YOU SHALL NOT STEAL; YOU SHALL NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS;  HONOR YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER; and YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.”  The young man said to Him, “All these things I have kept; what am I still lacking?”  Jesus said to him, “If you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.”

A couple of things follow from this passage: first of all, is it not the Democrat Party that appoints the judges and holds that the Ten Commandments that Jesus says from the first we need to inherit eternal life should be BANISHED from our schools and from all public discourse???  It most certainly is – which is already one gigantic strike against any hypocrite Democrat who wants to claim this passage.  But let us go on to the second point: does Jesus instruct this man to go, be taxed for all of his possessions and give it to Obama??? 

Obama and the Democrat Party are wailing in sheer unmitigated RAGE at what Jesus tells the man to do: DON’T give it to Obama; DON’T give it to the government; DON”T give it to the socialist regime.  Whatever you do, do not allow Obama to have one red stinking cent of it; rather, give it to the poor people.  Give it not to the State, but to the CHURCH.

Democrats have so utterly perverted this passage that it is insane.  It is for this reason I point out what “Democrat” truly means: it means, “Demonic Bureaucrat.”

Let’s look at what God thinks about big government as found in 1 Samuel 8:5-19:

and they said to him, “Behold, you have grown old, and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now appoint a king for us to judge us like all the nations.”  But the thing was displeasing in the sight of Samuel when they said, “Give us a king to judge us.” And Samuel prayed to the LORD.  The LORD said to Samuel, “Listen to the voice of the people in regard to all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me from being king over them.  “Like all the deeds which they have done since the day that I brought them up from Egypt even to this day– in that they have forsaken Me and served other gods– so they are doing to you also.  “Now then, listen to their voice; however, you shall solemnly warn them and tell them of the procedure of the king who will reign over them.”

So Samuel spoke all the words of the LORD to the people who had asked of him a king.  He said, “This will be the procedure of the king who will reign over you: he will take your sons and place them for himself in his chariots and among his horsemen and they will run before his chariots.  “He will appoint for himself commanders of thousands and of fifties, and some to do his plowing and to reap his harvest and to make his weapons of war and equipment for his chariots.  “He will also take your daughters for perfumers and cooks and bakers.  “He will take the best of your fields and your vineyards and your olive groves and give them to his servants.  “He will take a tenth of your seed and of your vineyards and give to his officers and to his servants.  “He will also take your male servants and your female servants and your best young men and your donkeys and use them for his work.  “He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his servants.  “Then you will cry out in that day because of your king whom you have chosen for yourselves, but the LORD will not answer you in that day.”

Nevertheless, the people refused to listen to the voice of Samuel, and they said, “No, but there shall be a king over us…

Now, after reading this, if you still actually believe that high taxation and a king who would take and take and take was what God actually wanted, you are a genuine fool.  Which is another way of saying, “You are a Democrat.”

That king who takes and takes and takes – that’s King Obama.

Jews in Old Testament times paid no more than 25% a year in taxes.  And that was in the perverted system that God had explicitly condemned.

Professor of Old Testament Studies Dr. Claude Mariottini noted about the 1 Samuel passage above:

In the Old Testament, the people had to pay their taxes to the state. In the history of Israel it seems that it was with the establishment of the monarchy that taxation became a permanent obligation for every citizen. With the establishment of the monarchy in Israel, the people were required to pay for the extravagances of the government and many people did not like the demands imposed upon them by the state. There is evidence in the Bible that the people resisted taxation and the compulsory exaction of revenues.

After the return from Babylon, the Jews were required to pay an annual payment of one third of a shekel (Nehemiah 10:32). Soon, the third became a half, an amount of money that was paid by every Jew, in whatever part of the world he might be living.

Under the monarchy, a centralized government was established and with it came luxurious living and a large bureaucracy, two things that required a larger expenditure, and therefore a heavier taxation.

Samuel warned the people about how the king and his government would operate. He told the people that the king would take their sons and make them soldiers. The king would put some of the people to forced labor to work on his farms, plowing and harvesting his crops. The king would conscript some of the people to make either weapons of war or chariots in which he could ride in luxury.

Samuel also said that the kings would conscript some women to work as beauticians and waitresses and cooks. He would conscript their best fields, vineyards, and orchards and give them over to his officials. He would tax their harvests and vintage to support his extensive bureaucracy. He would take their prize workers and best animals for his own use. He also would lay a tax on their flocks and all their property and in the end the people would be no better than slaves. Then Samuel warned the people that the day would come when they would cry in desperation because of the oppressive burden imposed upon them by their king (1 Samuel 8:10-18). The day came, the people cried, but it was too late.

He also notes a number of Democrats who hypocritically didn’t pay the very high taxes that they themselves demagogued that others be forced to pay – such as Obama appointees Tom Daschle, Nancy Killefer and Tim Geithner.

H.W. Crocker noted in his book Triumph (page 240):

“The tinder had been laid by the rising nationalism in Europe. That nationalism set out to subordinate the Church—in the eyes of some, an Italian Church (as it had been a French Church while in Avignon)—to the state. This would lead, two hundred years later, to the Protestant doctrine of separation of church and state, and two hundred years after that to the irrelevance of church to state. There was also the resentment of papal taxation, corruption, and luxury. Christendom’s kings followed a low-tax-regimen. No monarchy, from the Middle Ages until the democratic age, ever taxed its subjects by more than 10 percent. Often, as in Catholic England, it taxed them not at all. High taxes are an inventionof democratic, republican, and socialist governments to pay for such services as schools, hospitals, and caring for the poor that under the Catholic monarchies had been the province of the Church, and to pay for things like armies, which had been paid for by the royal families and noblemen out of their own pockets. But the absence of royal taxes meant that the Catholic Church’s demands for money to pay for its social services, or for the monasteries, or for cathedrals, or for rebuilding Rome, or for assembling Crusades, stood out as a burden imposed by a power centered in Italy—a burden that increasingly nationalist nobles and people resented.”

In the Old Testament it was GOD through His Temple who took care of the poor, not the government.  In the New Testament age and the Christendom that followed it, it was GOD through His Church who took care of the poor, not the government.  Now it is Government that takes care of the poor while Obama literally tries to force the Church out of its God-appointed role while Democrats try to marginalize the Church and religion more and more and more.

If in fact you are a Democrat who actually wants to enter the Kingdom of Heaven – which is in HEAVEN and not in Obama’s damn White House, for what it’s worth – the first thing you need to do is fall on your face and confess your sin of throwing out the Ten Commandments which you have thrown out of public life only to then pervert with lies.  And the second thing you need to do is confess your wickedness for your part in erecting a giant State in PLACE of God.  For you have usurped the role of God in caring for the poor and said, “We shall have no God over us!  We shall have a king!  We shall replace God with Government!”

Because the Bible is crystal clear: that is EXACTLY what you Democrats have done.

You depraved people have twisted and perverted and degenerated and warped the Bible even as you have rejected it and banned it from public discourse.  And you DARE to lecture us about your demonic straw man???

I’ve dealt with these themes before.  Note the title of the article I quote from below:  “Democrats’ War On Poverty Has Been A War On America That Has Done NOTHING To Help The Poor“:

So when liberals demand the expansion of government they are not being “pro-God”; they are being ANTI-God. And it also turns out to be the case that they are tragically anti-poor, too.

In another article, I wrote the following to document how Democrats have undermined charity in favor of socialism – while being anything butcharitable” in their own lives – while hurting the people they claimed they were helping:

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.

Please note carefully that prior to FDR’s socialist New Deal, “Government as God” did NOT exist in America.  Americans took care of their own and they most certainly did NOT rely on wicked Government masquerading as God to do it.

I also want you to note as we enter the end of August and Obama’s convention that the facts reveal Obama has been an abject and unmitigated DISASTER for the middle class and for black people.  The so-called “Great Recession” that Obama has demagogically laid entirely on George Bush lasted from June 2007 until June 2009; and during that period households lost an average of 2.6% of their wealth.  Well, under Obama’s “wreckovery,” those same households have lost nearly DOUBLE what they lost in the actual recession – 4.8%.  And blacks during that same “wreckovery” have lost a staggering 11.1% of their wealth under Obama’s demonically failed leadership.

Don’t tell me that Barack Obama cares about the poor.  If he gave one damn about the poor he would resign from office.

Democrats demonize conservatives as “greedy” all the time because they are liars.  But the fact of the matter is conservatives are more “liberal” giversConservatives are the ones who are more generousConservatives are more generous givers than liberals.

The year before he announced he was running for president, Barack and Michelle Obama were among the wealthiest two percent in the entire nation.  And how much of their huge wealth did they give?  A stunningly pathetic 0.4 percent of their income.  The filthy rich Obamas gave $1,050 to charity when the AVERAGE AMERICAN HOUSEHOLD with nowhere near the Obamas’ resources gave away $1,872.

Here’s a fact:

“[D]uring a comparable period before Obama and Romney were running for president, Romney’s giving probably was at least ten times Obama’s as a percentage of their incomes, and possibly much more.”

Mitt Romney has given at least 10 percent of his wealth every year to charity.  Which means that Romney’s 10 percent amounts to 2,400 percent more giving out of his wealth than Obama gave out of his wealth at .4%.  And yet this greedy, stingy, wicked, deceitful hypocrite liberal Obama has actually demonized Mitt Romney for his “greed.”  And that is demonic.

I am beyond sick of the demonic lies of the Democrat Party and Barack Obama.  And nothing makes me more sick than when they deprave the Bible and Jesus to sell their lies.

If you are interested in the political left and its abject hostility toward God and religion, you should read this article as well: “Where Economic Marxism – And LIBERALISM -Truly Comes From: Hostility Toward God And Religion

Punishing The Rich Punishes The Poor By Punishing Economic Growth

July 15, 2009

I don’t know about you, but I have never gotten a single job – or even a single job offer – from a poor person.  And even when I’ve applied for a job at a company, there was always a rich person or persons up the food chain who had made that job possible.  We “ordinary people” don’t stop and think about how much we have actually depended upon the rich.  But as our economy tanks, maybe it’s time we did.

How the Mighty Have Fallen

The rich really aren’t like you and me–: They’re historically recession-proof. But this time they’ve been hit hard—and we may all be the poorer for it.

By Robert J. Samuelson | NEWSWEEK
Published Jul 11, 2009
From the magazine issue dated Jul 20, 2009

Just who is “rich” in America is a matter of considerable disagreement. No one disputes that Bill Gates (No. 1 on last year’s Forbes400 list with a net worth of $57 billion) and Warren Buffett (No. 2 at $50 billion) are wealthy or, indeed, that everyone on the Forbes list qualifies (the poorest had a net worth of $1.3 billion). But as you move from billions in net worth to the mere hundreds or many tens of millions, and then to annual incomes of the mere hundreds of thousands, the arguing begins.

In April, The Wall Street Journal ran an article sympathetically portraying families with incomes around $250,000, the level that President Obama has targeted for tax increases. By most measures, these families rank in the top 2 percent to 4 percent of the income spectrum. But many—possibly most—see themselves as “upper middle class” and not “rich,” the paper reported.

“I’m not after sympathy,” said the wife of a surgeon who makes about $260,000. “What I want is a reality check on what rich means. I can pay my mortgage and can buy some clothes. I’m not going without, but I’m not living a life of luxury.” The mayor of San Jose scoffed at $250,000. That’s what a two-engineer couple might make, he said. It put them in “the upper working class” and wasn’t enough to “buy a home in Silicon Valley.”

The article triggered an outpouring of e-mails—many applauding that someone had finally described their harried plight; others sarcastically wondering what planet the whiners lived on. But so much angst among the affluent—however defined—attests to something else: the present recession, unlike any other since World War II, has deeply shaken the nation’s economic elite.

With secure jobs and ample incomes, the rich and the near rich are supposed to be insulated from economic slumps. Well, not this time. Many feel fearful, threatened, and impoverished. In a recent Unity Marketing survey of consumers with incomes exceeding $250,000, 60 percent said their financial situation had deteriorated; 39 percent said bonuses or commissions had been cut; 29 percent said their regular income had been reduced; 8 percent said they’d lost their jobs; and 4 percent said their hours had been reduced. Even with a partial stock-market rebound, many of America’s most affluent feel vulnerable to layoffs and lost income, just like other Americans. “This has been an equal-opportunity recession,” argues Pam Danziger of Unity Marketing.

Collateral damage is widespread. Sales at luxury chains have fallen sharply; same-store revenues for Saks Fifth Avenue and Neiman Marcus dropped about 25 percent in recent quarters. Many country clubs are struggling to hold members. In New York’s Hamptons, unsold homes reached a 34-month supply early this year at the prevailing sales pace; buyers had hibernated. Economist Susan Sterne, a specialist in consumer spending, calls it “the demise of luxury… the people who buy $3,000 Gucci handbags. You see it in the luxury-car market and housing.”

Some causes are obvious. With the recession’s epicenter on Wall Street, layoffs and bonus reductions among highly paid investment bankers, traders, and money managers have thinned the ranks of the rich. The plunge in share prices has especially hurt the wealthy, because they disproportionately own stocks.

But something bigger may also be happening. In a new study, economists Jonathan Parker and Annette Vissing–Jorgensen of Northwestern University find that—contrary to conventional wisdom—income losses in recessions are proportionately greater for the well-to-do than for middle-income households. By their estimates, the relative income loss for the top 10 percent of the population is 26 percent larger than for the average household. For the top 1 percent, the contrast is even starker. Their proportionate loss is more than double—that is, if the average household had an income loss of 10 percent, the top 1 percent would lose more than 20 percent.

That doesn’t mean they suffer more hardship. It’s almost certainly tougher for a family with an income of $50,000 to adjust to a $5,000 loss (10 percent) than it is for a family with $1 million to compensate for a $200,000 drop (20 percent). And the poor experience the highest joblessness. Still, the increased economic vulnerability of the upper classes is a change from the past. Before the 1980s, the conventional wisdom was true, Parker and Vissing–Jorgensen say. Higher income conferred more stability.

It’s not entirely clear what changed. Parker thinks that “one cause is the dramatic increase in pay for performance.” In the past quarter century, salaries for top executives and managers have increasingly consisted of stock options, year-end bonuses, and sales incentives, he says. When the economy thrives, pay rises; when it sours, pay falls. Parker also cites the growth of professionals (lawyers, doctors, accountants, consultants) among the economic elite. “When the demand for elective surgery or legal services or consulting services goes down, so do their incomes,” he says. Even among the top one tenth of 1 percent, wages represent half their income, and “proprietors’ income” (essentially profits from a business or partnership) accounts for another quarter. The stereo-type of the rich living mainly off dividends and interest income is increasingly outdated. Many of the wealthy are owners of small businesses whose well- being is—to some extent—hostage to the business cycle.

It will strike many, no doubt, that the setbacks and anxieties for the country-club set are just deserts. Some will correctly note that well-paid CEOs and investment bankers helped bring about the economic crisis. They’re just getting their comeuppance—and it’s about time. Others will point out that countless studies have shown that, in recent decades, the gap between the rich and the rest has widened. From 1990 to 2006, for instance, the share of pretax income received by the top 1 percent grew from 12 percent to 19 percent, says the Congressional Budget Office. The present reverses are a healthy correction. So goes the argument.

All this is understandable, but incomplete. The criticism usually presumes that if the rich and near rich get less, someone else will get more. Redistribution achieves a better social balance. Sometimes that happens. But sometimes when the rich get less, no one else gets more. Regardless of how the rich earned their money—trading bonds, performing surgery, starting new companies, providing legal work—it’s no longer so lucrative. The rich get poorer, but no one else gets richer. Society is worse off.

“Trickle-down economics” is a despised phrase and concept to many, but it also embodies a harsh reality. The rich often play a pivotal role in U.S. economic growth, and if they are enfeebled, then the consequences are widespread. Consider:

Consumption spending, the economy’s main engine, is skewed toward the upper classes, because they have most of the income. In 2009, households with more than $200,000 in income account for 3.4 percent of the total but will generate almost 14 percent of consumer spending, estimates economist Sterne. Households with incomes between $100,000 and $200,000 represent about 14 percent of the population and 34 percent of spending. Together, these groups generate nearly half of U.S. consumption, although they’re only a sixth of the population.

Similarly, the rich pay most of the taxes. In 2006, the richest 1 percent paid 28 percent of all federal taxes, estimates the CBO. The richest 10 percent (including the top 1 percent) paid 55 percent. The system is progressive—that is, the richer people get, the more of their income they pay in taxes. In 2006, the effective rate for the top 1 percent was 31 percent, reflecting all federal taxes. By contrast, the poorest fifth paid an effective rate of 4 percent. (State and local taxes are less progressive, because they rely more heavily on regressive sales taxes.)

The wealthy dominate charitable giving. In 2004, families with a net worth exceeding $5 million made up about 1.5 percent of all U.S. families but accounted for 27 percent of contributions, according to the Center on Wealth and Philanthropy at Boston College. Those with a net worth between $1 million and $5 million, about 7 percent of all families, represented another 20 percent of contributions. So, a tenth of American families made nearly half of all gifts.

Wealthy individuals are an important source of money for venture capital—funds invested in startup companies. Individuals and families represent about 10 percent of VC money (most of the rest comes from pension funds, college endowments, and insurance companies).

When the affluent retrench, they drag a lot with them. For example, the financial crisis led to a 44 percent fall in year-end bonuses at Wall Street firms, to $18.4 billion in 2008 from $32.9 billion in 2007, according to the New York state comptroller. No doubt that struck many as overdue and insufficient. Bankers were overpaid, and huge year-end bonuses encouraged excessive risk-taking. The trouble is that the loss of taxes on the bonuses blew a $1 billion hole in the state’s budget and made it harder to pay for schools, health care, and prisons.

It’s the same story with consumption. In late 2008, spending declined at about a 4 percent annual rate, and, in the first quarter of this year, rose slightly. But Danziger’s surveys show steeper cutbacks at the top. From 2007 to 2008, consumers with incomes from $150,000 to $249,000 reduced spending by about 8 percent, while those above $250,000 cut almost 15 percent. Similarly, charitable giving decreased to $308 billion in 2008, a drop of 5.7 percent after adjustment for inflation, says the Giving USA Foundation, a nonprofit group. Donations may fall further this year. The stock market is a strong predictor of giving. A 100-point rise in the S&P 500 stock index increases charitable contributions by $1.7 billion, says the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University.

Not all charities have suffered. “Our funding is up 42 percent over last year,” says Ross Fraser of Feeding America, an umbrella group that channels cash and groceries to 206 food banks around the country. “Charities such as ours do well when times are hard. If you have to choose between giving to the ballet and feeding a hungry child, who’s going to win?” But that compounds the pressure on other nonprofits: colleges, hospitals, and environmental groups.

It’s probably true that being rich is more a state of mind than an explicit level of income or wealth. It’s feeling of having enough money so that money is no longer a worry. For many, that sense of security is gone. Michael Silverstein of the Boston Consulting Group reckons there are about 100,000 households with a net worth—counting their homes, stocks, bonds, and businesses—of at least $20 million. Even at these rarefied levels, he thinks, many are rattled. “They’ve seen up to a 30 to 40 percent drop in their net worth from peak to trough.  Some have friends at blue-chip companies like General Electric, AIG, or Citigroup who have lost fortunes invested in company stock,” he says.

What’s unclear is whether the trauma will permanently change behavior. Silverstein is skeptical. “The nice thing about Americans is that they have short-term memories,” he says. “We’ll get out of this—and then the rich will realize they’re rich again and start to spend.” But Danziger, the marketing researcher, thinks the shopping culture has taken heavy hits. Americans have “been on an extended buying spree for the past 20 years. They’ve got stuff—and they don’t need a lot of it,” she says. There’s a growing realization “that material wealth doesn’t make people happy.” Striving to replenish their savings, Americans—even the rich—will skimp on spending.

Once way or another, it’s doubtful that trickle-down economics will soon regain the power of recent decades, when exploding stock and real-estate values and rising salaries were compounded by George W. Bush’s favorable tax changes. But cheering at its eclipse may be premature and misguided. The contradiction is that many of the large gains at the top that are routinely deplored also provide the economic fuel for desired spending at the bottom. If the rich—however defined—remain stuck in neutral, the overall economy may not do much better.

Think about some of the “filthy rich” such as doctors and small business owners.  Ask yourself this: if there wasn’t the promise of high pay at the end of the road, do you think we’d have as many doctors?  Would you spend tens of thousands of hours in study, and thousands of more hours in stressful and sleep-deprived residency, if you weren’t going to be well-paid in the end?  How about small businesspeople?  Would you risk all your savings and years of your time developing a business if you didn’t have the right to expect a real reward if you actually succeeded?

What’s wrong with us for hating such people for their hard work and their success?  Why on earth would we wish them anything but success when we benefit from their succeeding with better health, better jobs, and better lives than we could otherwise ever have apart from them?

There has long been a movement by the political left in America to be more like sophisticated Europe.  Liberals say, “What Europeans do with government is pretty good.  And what they do with civil rights is pretty good.  And what they do with health care is pretty good.”  And there’s this constant movement on the part of the left to be more like Europe.  In our Surpreme Court liberal justices have been quoting what Europeans do in their law.  The fact is, 200 years ago there was the same kind of intellectual elitest movement going on – “Let’s be like Europe.”  Thomas Jefferson made a statement that is applicable today:

“The comparisons of our government with those of Europe are like a comparison of heaven and hell.”

That’s the thing.  As Europe has dived into socialism, fascism, communism, and just about every other “-ism,” what should have been obvious is that Americans shouldn’t be more like Europeans; it should be the other way around.  And socialist redistribution of wealth is neither American nor successful.

There’s a joke that compares the attitudes of Americans with the attitudes of Europeans.  An American rides the bus, sees an expensive sports car, and says, “Some day I’m going to own a car like that.”  And there’s a European who rides the bus, sees an expensive sports car, and says, “Some day that son of a bitch will be riding the bus just like me.”  What makes that joke so sad is that we have too many American liberals who are thinking like the Europeans even as the Europeans are beginning to think more like Americans used to.

As we speak, Democrats are devising more and more ways to fund their massive and frankly European-style socialist spending programs by punishing the rich for their success.  They are going to lift the successful Bush tax cuts and raise taxes on “the rich.”  They are going to impose additional taxes in the form of “surcharges” on “the rich” to try to pay for their socialist-style health care agenda.  As a result the rich – who already pay a shockingly high share of the taxes – will begin to see more taxes than they have seen in decades.  And they will keep coming after “the rich” as long as Marxist-style class-warfare politics pitting the proletariat against the bourgeousie continue to work for them.

Obama-Biden Generous With Other Peoples’ Money; Chintzy With Their Own

September 16, 2008

Conservatives would still disagree with tax-hungry liberals even if they gave generously of their own money, but at least they would respect the consistency.

As it is, we have nothing but utter contempt for liberals who claim to be working so tirelessly in the name of “the poor” even as they demonstrate a contemptuous disregard for the poor in their own charitable giving.

Sadly, Barack Obama and Joe Biden continue in the liberal tradition of demanding that other people pay for their massive socialist wealth-transfer programs, while being incredibly stingy with their own money.

Barack Obama’s chintziness has been known for awhile.  But the rather shocking lack of generosity of Joe Biden is just now becoming known.

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:

In 2002, the year before Obama launched his campaign for U.S. Senate, the Obamas reported income of $259,394, ranking them in the top 2 percent of U.S. households, according to Census Bureau statistics. That year the Obamas claimed $1,050 in deductions for gifts to charity, or 0.4 percent of their income. The average U.S. household totaled $1,872 in gifts to charity in 2002, according to the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University.

The national average for charitable giving has long hovered at 2.2 percent of household income, according to the Glenview-based Giving USA Foundation, which tracks trends in philanthropy. Obama tax returns dating to 1997 show he fell well below that benchmark until 2005, the year he arrived in Washington.

Both Obama and his wife, Michelle, declined to respond to questions about their charitable donations.

Pathetic?  Of course it is, until you consider the records of Joe Biden.  An article by the National Review publishes Biden’s “giving” (if you can call it that), and the results are incredibly unflattering:

Looking at the ten-year total of Biden’s giving, one percent would have been $24,500. One half of one percent would have been $12,250. One quarter of one percent would have been $6,125. And one eighth of one percent would have been $3,062 — just below what Biden actually contributed.

“The average American household gives about two percent of adjusted gross income,” says Arthur Brooks, the Syracuse University scholar, soon to take over as head of the American Enterprise Institute, who has done extensive research on American giving. “On average, [Biden] is not giving more than one tenth as much as the average American household, and that is evidence that he doesn’t share charitable values with the average American.”

The plain fact of the matter is that conservatives – who are routinely demonized as “greedy” and “uncaring” – are actually FAR more generous than the liberals who demonize them.

You want to see the difference?  Dick Cheney, the ultimate symbol of greed to many liberals, gave away $6.87 million in charity from a total income of about $8.8 millionmore than 78% of their wealth to charity.

As for John McCain, during the same years that Barack Obama was only giving between .4 and 6.1% of his net income to charity, John McCain was giving about 28% of his net income to charity.

And it’s not just John McCain and Dick Cheney who are personally generous as conservatives, and it’s not just Barack Obama and Joe Biden who are chintzy as liberals.  Conservatives are overwhelmingly more generous than liberals with not only their money, but their time and even their blood:

Sixteen months ago, Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, published “Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism.” The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than conservatives.

If many conservatives are liberals who have been mugged by reality, Brooks, a registered independent, is, as a reviewer of his book said, a social scientist who has been mugged by data. They include these findings:

— Although liberal families’ incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

— Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

— Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.

— Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.

— In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.

— People who reject the idea that “government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality” give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.

Brooks demonstrates a correlation between charitable behavior and “the values that lie beneath” liberal and conservative labels. Two influences on charitable behavior are religion and attitudes about the proper role of government.

The single biggest predictor of someone’s altruism, Willett says, is religion. It increasingly correlates with conservative political affiliations because, as Brooks’ book says, “the percentage of self-described Democrats who say they have ‘no religion’ has more than quadrupled since the early 1970s.” America is largely divided between religious givers and secular nongivers, and the former are disproportionately conservative. One demonstration that religion is a strong determinant of charitable behavior is that the least charitable cohort is a relatively small one — secular conservatives.

I despise liberals because they are quintessentially defined by their abject hypocrisy on issue after issue.  But nowhere do I despise them more than on the issue of taxation and giving.  The simple fact of the matter is that the more people want to take other peoples’ money, the less generous they are with their own; and the more people object to having other peoples’ money seized without their consent, the more generous they are with their own money.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it, liberals.