Of the sons of Issachar, men who understood the times, with knowledge of what Israel should do, their chiefs were two hundred; and all their kinsmen were at their command — 1 Chronicles 12:32
One of the reasons it took twenty days for Rep. Anthony Weiner to resign when it didn’t take much more than twenty minutes for Speaker Boehner to demand Rep. Chris Lee’s resignation turned out to be the hold-up of some kind of job for him.
Want to know a primary reason that thus far Weiner is refusing to quit despite the calls for him to do so from House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, NY Rep. Steve Israel, chairman of the House Democrats’ campaign committee and others? A big reason is he simply cannot afford to. His world has been turned upside down overnight, and the nation’s politicians are incensed by it – but it really comes down to the fact that his finances don’t lend many options right now.
As The NY Post reported “Weiner doesn’t have a business or even a law degree to fall back on. He made $156,117 in 2010, and owes between $10,000 and $15,000 on his American Express card according to his most recent financial-disclosure forms.” Anthony Weiner, the man, has never had another job since starting in politics at the age of 21 in 1985. The future career possibilities for the 46 year old “object” Anthony Weiner aren’t too bright these days.
We are talking about a man who has never held a private sector job in his entire life.
Last year, the now-jobless Weiner joked on former roommate Jon Stewart’s cable comedy show that he didn’t “have a lot of marketable skills.” It’s one of Weiner’s rare truthful utterances over the past year. A protégé of fossilized New York Sen. Charles Schumer, Weiner has spent the last 20 years in politics – straight out of college to the present. Through seven consecutive congressional terms, he has stridently advocated job-killing policies in the name of the working class. About which this ruling-class elitist knows nothing.
But it turns out Weiner DOES have one highly marketable skill: he is a rarefied pervert. And in a degenerate world of pornography (a gift of liberals and liberal judges who said they couldn’t tell the difference between “art” and “porn” no matter how much of it they watched), being the level of sexual pervert that Weiner clearly is DOES have value:
Anthony Weiner was one of THE leading voices of the Democrat Party and THE voice for liberal values. Bill O’Reilly demonstrated that the real loser in this Weinergate scandal is liberalism; they lost their star voice. He debated with two liberals who couldn’t come up with anybody better than also-utterly-disgraced Rep. Charlie Rangel. Even über über liberal Rachel Maddow says Weiner’s resignation will hurt the Democrat Party “probably for a generation.”
And who is this voice of liberalism? An arrogant perverted punk who has spent his entire life on the taxpayer dole and who has absolutely no redeeming quality whatsoever in the world he demanded to have the power to regulate and then regulate some more.
Which just gets more to the point: if you vote for Democrats, you are a true fool indeed.
Michelle Malkin wrote a brilliant chapter in her book, Culture of Corruption. It details how liberals make incredibly lucrative careeers moving from politics (either in elected office or as staffers) to crony capitalism (as lobbyists or in firms that want to schmooze politicians). Michelle Obama is an example of this, as is Rahm Emanuel, as is Valerie Jarrett. Crony capitalism is nothing more than fascism in waiting. These people get rich gaming the system even as they corrupt and rot the system from within like leeches.
The firing of Juan Williams by government-funded liberal propagandist NPR as a demonstration of leftwing intolerance is getting a lot of attention.
But liberal intolerance is all around us. It crawls around this country like maggots crawling around a rotting carcass.
How about this exhibition of liberal “tolerance”: A union fired one of its own for wearing a hat and sweatshirt bearing the name “Bush” as the stagehand was working to prepare for an Obama rally at a university. Which is to say we’ve got quite an intolerance trifecta going on: union intolerance, Obama intolerance and university intolerance all at once.
The man was wearing the cap and sweatshirt honoring the USS George H.W. Bush, CVN 77, the aircraft carrier which his Navy son was serving upon.
He wasn’t trying to make any political statements. The man was just proud of his son for serving his country. And he wasn’t willing to dishonor his son’s service by treating the U.S.S. George H.W. Bush as though it merited shame.
So I guess it’s not just rabid frothing-at-the-mouth liberal intolerance of the name of Bush, but also of the United States Navy and of our men and women who serve their country, too.
Just remember, if you actually want “tolerance,” you damn well better vote out every single Democrat. Because you’ve got to go to North Korea to find more intolerant people than American liberals.
We’ve got a chance to vote these cockroaches off the island on November 2. Don’t pass it up.
If you don’t have a job, or if you are just pathologically predispositioned to look for a handout, then you likely support Obama with your hand held out.
But what happens if you actually HAVE a job?
In that case, you are likely to realize that if Obama puts money into someone else’s pocket, it’s probably the very same dollars minus the generous cut that end up going into his and his fellow Democrats’ campaign contributions – that he took out of YOUR pocket.
And you are an enemy of the state, as far as your Marxist-in-Chief is concerned.
WASHINGTON – Working-class whites are favoring Republicans in numbers that parallel the GOP tide of 1994 when the party grabbed control of the House after four decades.
The increased GOP tilt by these voters, a major hurdle for Democrats struggling to keep control of Congress in next month’s elections, reflects a mix of two factors, an Associated Press-GfK poll suggests: unhappiness with the Democrats’ stewardship of an ailing economy that has hit this group particularly hard, and a persistent discomfort with President Barack Obama.
“They’re pushing the country toward a larger government, toward too many social programs,” said Wayne Hollis, 38, of Villa Rica, Ga., who works at a home supply store.
The AP-GfK poll shows whites without four-year college degrees preferring GOP House contenders 58 percent to 36 percent. That 22-point bulge is double the edge these voters gave Republican congressional candidates in 2006 and 2008, when Democrats won House control and then padded their majority.
Ominously for Democrats, it resembles the Republicans’ 21-point advantage with working-class whites in 1994, when the GOP captured the House and Senate in a major rebuke to the Democrats and President Bill Clinton. The advantage is about the same as the 18-point margin this group gave Republicans in 2004, when President George W. Bush won re-election and helped give the GOP a modest number of additional House and Senate seats.
“Obama ran as a centrist, and clearly he’s not been that,” said GOP pollster David Winston. “People who have been part of our majority coalition are looking to come back to us.”
Working-class whites have long tilted Republican. Many were dubbed Reagan Democrats in the 1980s, when some in the North and Midwest who had previously preferred Democrats began supporting conservative Republicans.
The Democrats can hardly afford further erosion from a group that comprises about four in 10 voters nationally. […]
In addition, working-class whites are likelier than white college graduates in the poll to say their families are suffering financially and to have a relative who’s recently lost a job. They are less optimistic about the country’s economy and their own financial situations, gloomier about the nation’s overall direction and more critical of how Democrats are handling the economy.
“Democrats are more apt to mess with the middle class and take our money,” said Lawrence Ramsey, 56, a warehouse manager in Winston-Salem, N.C. […]
“The country hasn’t come up the way it should have under Obama,” said Barbara Schwickrath, 64, a clothing store employee from Brooksville, Fla.
Some points occur to me:
1) Of course the idiot mainstream media concludes that working-class whites are racist for abandoning Obama. But if that is the case, Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter clearly must be a black men, because the same working-class whites who are dumping Obama dumped Clinton and Carter in nearly the same numbers.
It could be that these working-class whites are dumping Obama because he is a failed president who is hurting the country with his terrible policies. But that is something that the mainstream media could never bring themselves to consider.
2) It could be that working-class whites recognize that Obama – who got elected presenting himself as a “centrist” – has fundamentally deceived them. The Senator who was “THE most liberal” – even to the left of Bernie Sauders, who ran as a SOCIALIST – has turned out to be the most liberal president of all time. Surprise, surprise.
Thanks to Obama, more Americans of all groups have come to their senses and abandoned the liberalism that has clearly failed. According to a very recent Gallup poll, 54% of Americans now label themselves “conservative,” versus only 18% who drink the Kim Jong Il KoolAid and call themselves “liberal.”
It’s a shame. People with jobs should be seen as the greatest asset to a nation. But to Obama, the people who fund government with their taxes are enemy number one and persona non grata.
Pennsylvania Democrat Governor Ed Rendell had this to say about the Sestak contoversy:
“Stonewalling it for months — yes, not smart. This explanation is perfectly reasonable. They should have put it out there at the beginning.”
So we have an acknowledgment that the White House has been stonewalling for months. That much is correct.
What ISN’T correct is that the “explanation is perfectly reasonable.” It isn’t reasonable at all.
First of all, the White House itself refutes the notion that the Bill Clinton telephone offer of a non-paying position in exchange for Sestak dropping his Senate bid was all there was to this story.
The White House memo uses the plural word “discussions.” As in “discussions between White House staff and Congressman Joe Sestak.” And these discussions took place between June and July. Which means unless Bill Clinton called Joe Sestak in June and hung up the phone two months later, this call clearly wasn’t all there was.
So we’re not just talking about one conversation with Bill Clinton. Nor is Bill Clinton a member of the White House staff. The White House itself acknowledges that a member or members of the White House staff contacted Joe Sestak. Which member of the White House staff? When? And regarding what?
And the memo also says:
“Efforts were made in June and July of 2009 to determine whether Congressman Sestak would be interested in service on a Presidential or other Senior Executive Branch advisory board, which would avoid a divisive Senate primary, allow him to retain his seat in the House, and provide him with an opportunity for additional service to the public in a high level advisory capacity for which he was highly qualified.”
Wow. They really make that advisory position sound like “something of value,” i.e., something which would be illegal to offer in the first place.
But the claim that Sestak could serve on the presidential board and retain his seat in the House of Representatives is simply factually incorrect.
Rep. Joe Sestak would in fact NOT have been able to serve in the House of Representatives and serve on a presidential or “executive” advisory board. Ever hear about a little thing called “the Separation of Powers”?
Crafting a cover story that is consistent with awkward facts is hard. Did the best and the brightest miss this? Sestak was not eligible to serve on the Intelligence Advisory Board. Byron York of the Washington Examiner reports:
In a little-noticed passage Friday, the New York Times reported that Rep. Joe Sestak was not eligible for a place on the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board, the job he was reportedly offered by former President Bill Clinton. And indeed a look at the Board’s website reveals this restriction:
The Board consists of not more than 16 members appointed by the President from among individuals who are not employed by the Federal Government. Members are distinguished citizens selected from the national security, political, academic, and private sectors.
As a sitting member of Congress, Sestak was not eligible for the job. [….]
The statement from White House counsel Robert Bauer did not specifically mention the intelligence board, but speaking to reporters Friday, Sestak said of his conversation with Clinton, “At the time, I heard the words ‘presidential board,’ and that’s all I heard…I heard ‘presidential board,’ and I think it was intel.” In addition, the Times reported that “people briefed on the matter said one option was an appointment” to the intelligence board. But the White House could not legally have placed Sestak on the board.
An already implausible story has become much harder to believe.
How “reasonable” is this story, Governor Rendell? And THIS is the story that justifies what you yourself acknowledge was MONTHS of STONEWALLING???
It is hard to imagine that anyone believed for a second that Joe Sestak would pass up a unique opportunity to become a United States Senator in exchange for such a flimsy offer. It is even more ridiculous to believe that Bill Clinton – a former president – would be called upon to make such a transparently ridiculous offer. And it is even more ridiculous yet that neither the White House, or Bill Clinton, or Rep. Sestak would have been so completely unaware that the very basis of the offer – a position which would allow Sestak to serve in the House AND serve on a presidential board – was in fact completely false.
You want to know what makes a lot more sense? The White House stonewalled for months because they had no legitimate answer to the Joe Sestak bribe offer, and then a White House lawyer thought fast and crafted a transparently false explanation.
For the record, Joe Sestak affirmed several important points: 1) that he was offered a “federal job.” A federal job is the kind of thing that pays. 2) Sestak affirmed that the “federal job” was “high ranking.” 3) Sestak affirms that it was the “White House” that made the “high ranking” “federal job” offer.
The current White House Whitewash fails to deal with all three points. And then on top of that, they acknowledge that “discussions” (plural) took place over a two month period while only releasing an account of only ONE discussion. And that these discussions were between the White House staff and Congressman Sestak. And that the basis of the job offer was something that Sestak could do while retaining his job as Congressman – which has clearly been refuted.
And this was the best thing that the White House could come up with after three months of stonewalling.
Allegations that the White House offered Joe Sestak a job in exchange for dropping out of the Pennsylvania Senate race echo an earlier report of a job offer to candidate Andrew Romanoff in Colorado.
On Sept. 27, 2009, the Denver Post reported that the Obama administration offered Senate candidate Romanoff a position if he canceled plans to run for the Democratic nomination against incumbent Sen. Michael Bennet.
The paper said the job offer, which specified particular jobs, reportedly was delivered by Jim Messina, Obama’s deputy chief of staff. One position the Post cited was a job at USAID, the foreign aid agency.
That Chicago corruption extends right into Obama’s home, by way of his wife Michelle. This is a woman who sat on high-paying boards in direct quid-pro-quo consequences of Obama advancing in public office. And in some of those boards, she participated in the worst kind of hospital patient-dumping.
Here’s a video of Michelle Obama you ought to watch – if you can stand the revelations:
First of all, the idea that a former president like Bill Clinton would be the go-between between the White House and Joe Sestak, bearing an offer that amounted to the equivalent of an unpaid Pez dispenser of a position, doesn’t pass the smell test.
I mean, who on earth seriously thinks a former admiral and current Congressman would take an unpaid intern-level position in exchange for running for the US Senate?
How many of the other members of Obama’s intelligence advisory board can you name off the top of your head without Googling it? ZERO, just like Obama’s nickname, that’s how many.
Sestak waited until the White House announced their “narrative” in this corruption before telling his own version so they could get their stories straight. Joe Sestak’s brother, who is also Joe Sestak’s campaign manager, gets a phone call to better hone the background details of the White House’s “narrative.” Bill Clinton visits the White House yesterday to receive the details of HIS role in the narrative.
And then the “narrative” gets released to the public on the Friday before the Memorial Day recess and weekend.
Nothing slimy there, folks.
Bottom line: Joe Sestak knows if he’s the guy who brings down the Obama administration, that’s it for his liberal Democrat career; he also knows that he needs Obama and the DNC to help back, fund, and support his campaign if he’s going to have any chance of winning going forward. So he’s basically been saying, “I’m not going to say another word about the White House’s role until they tell me what they want me to say they said.”
Every single player in this disgrace of our national political system has an incentive to lie.
Charles Krauthammer pointed this out today: The documents released by the White House indicate a two month effort to persuade Sestak to drop out of the Senate primary against Arlen Specter. Unless the phone call between Clinton and Sestak lasted something like 86,400 minutes, there were other contacts and other offers. Let’s hear about all those, too.
Like I’ve already stated, I have a very hard time believing that the “job” Joe Sestak says the White House offered him in exchange for withdrawing from the Senate race was nothing but a trivial unpaid advisory position. Nevertheless, even if that’s what it was, it nevertheless WAS a “position.”
Whoever, directly or indirectly, promises any employment,
position, compensation, contract, appointment, or other benefit,
provided for or made possible in whole or in part by any Act of
Congress, or any special consideration in obtaining any such
benefit, to any person as consideration, favor, or reward for any
political activity or for the support of or opposition to any
candidate or any political party in connection with any general or
special election to any political office, or in connection with any
primary election or political convention or caucus held to select
candidates for any political office, shall be fined under this
title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
How was that code not violated??? “Any position.” That would encompass even the unpaid position on the president’s intelligence advisory board. Joe Sestak had repeatedly said that he was offered a “job” (which generally involves compensation) in exchange for dropping out of the Senate race so Obama’s guy could win. That’s a quid pro quo exchange, and it is a clear violation of the law.
Is this going away?
When told about Clinton’s involvement, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), who has been leading the charge for more details on the allegation, said, “This is punishable by prison. This is a felony.”
I guess not.
Another question, given the fact that Obama supporters are citing cases involving Bill Clinton and alleging (without any evidence) that Bush did this crap too: Barack Obama promised he’d be a “new politician” who would change the nature of Washington. How has he not just flat-out lied about that in the most cynical way?
One way or another, the law was broken, any claim to the integrity of the Democrat political machine has been demolished, and the Obama White House has been verified to be more Nixonian than “ethical.”
As a final matter, it needs to be pointed out that this corrupt White House now has a PATTERN OF CORRUPTION:
Allegations that the White House offered Joe Sestak a job in exchange for dropping out of the Pennsylvania Senate race echo an earlier report of a job offer to candidate Andrew Romanoff in Colorado.
On Sept. 27, 2009, the Denver Post reported that the Obama administration offered Senate candidate Romanoff a position if he canceled plans to run for the Democratic nomination against incumbent Sen. Michael Bennet.
The paper said the job offer, which specified particular jobs, reportedly was delivered by Jim Messina, Obama’s deputy chief of staff. One position the Post cited was a job at USAID, the foreign aid agency.
And, oh, yeah, that one DEFINITELY violates US Code 600 and a bunch of other laws. Not that the offer to Joe Sestak didn’t, too.
Who would have ever thought we’d see Chicago-style politics from Barack Obama?
Question: what sounds better, “Barack Hussein Nixon” or “Richard Milhous Hussein”?
It’s funny in its own vicious, twisted, psychotic little way. Nancy Pelosi calls American citizens “un-American” and compares them to swastika-toting Nazis as she charges them with being “Astroturf.” And Harry Reid officially added the word “evil mongers” to the English language to describe opponents of the Democrats’ health care agenda.
Who are the real thugs? Democrats attack congressional town hall protesters as “Brown Shirts” — likening taxpayer activists across the country to Hitler’s storm troopers. But it’s the Big Labor hoodlums clad in identical purple shirts — the uniform of Service Employees International Union members — who own the mob label.
Margarida Jorge, a former SEIU organizing director who now serves as national field director for the deep-pocketed, left-wing coalition Health Care for America Now, sent out a memo to her foot soldiers last week on how to counter Obamacare opponents. “You must bring enough people to drown them out and to cover all our bases so as to marginalize their disruptive tactics,” she exhorted.
Local SEIU chapters echoed the call to brass knuckles. “It is critical that our members with real, personal stories about the need for access to quality, affordable care come out in strong numbers to drown out their voices,” urged the leaders of SEIU’s Local 2001 in Connecticut, according to a memo exposed by The Weekly Standard’s Mary Katharine Ham.
At town hall meetings in St. Louis and Tampa, Fla., last week, purple-shirted SEIU members engaged in physical confrontations with critics of the Democrats’ health care takeover plans. Assault victim Kenneth Gladney, beaten while passing out “Don’t Tread on Me” flags, is turning the tables on his SEIU assailants. The black conservative activist announced Tuesday that he’s filing hate crime charges against the union goons in Missouri.
We’ve got ACORN and SEIU footsoldiers being bussed into town halls far from their own districts by the multiple busloads. The bussed-in people from outside the district got in; the ordinary citizens who live in the politically conservative district and wanted to ask their questions and express their opinions found themselves outside.
The nice thing about Astroturf is you can pick it up when you’re through with it at one event and then haul it away to another one.
Need a job? It turns out being “Astroturf” for blatantly hypocritical Democrats pays. Caleb Howe has an article entitled, “Let’s Talk Astroturf” with all kinds of screen saves offering pay-for-protest. Here’s one of them:
The key, of course, is for Democrats to demonize their opposition while they bring their own demons in. By the busload.
You remember that nice and not at all rude lady, Democrat Houston Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, who took a phone call and talked while a woman with cancer was trying to express her concerns about Sheila Jackson Lee’s health care plan?
Somebody pointed out how incredibly rude Sheila was. When she later walked by that person, she hissed, “I am NOT rude. I can multi-task!”
I’ll leave it up to you who is the Astroturf: the health care opponent with cancer trying to ask a question, or the “not rude” representative ignoring her and chatting on her cell phone. My money’s on Sheila Jackson Lee.
But that’s hardly enough to say about Sheila Jackson Lee’s winning ways, or which side of the debate is really doing all the damn “Astroturfing.”
Here’s video of a medical doctor getting up at Sheila J. Lee’s town hall:
On Aug. 11th our own Houston Chronicle displayed a picture of Shelia Jackson Lee hugging a woman who had asked a question at the townhall as well, but her question was in full support of the health care bill. The woman was identified as “Dr. Roxana Mayer, a pediatric primary care physician.” Turns out, she isn’t a doctor at all though. She had identified herself to the Chonicle that way though.
Patterico, a lawyer and LA blogger smelled something fishy, found her on MySpace, saw that she was clearly not a doctor, and e-mailed her to ask her to make sure. She did e-mail back and admit to the lie. It seems she was also an Obama delegate (actually true), which she also told the Chronicle, but the reporter failed to mention that little fact about her.
So, here we have someone asking a question, giving favor in support of the health care bill, posing as a doctor to give more credibility to her support. When in reality she was an Obama delegate and NOT a doctor.
After the plants at Obama’s townhalls, and now this, it’s beyond amusing and ironic that the Democrats accuse the Tea Parties of being “manufactured.”
Yeah, it turns out that “Dr. Roxana Mayer” is “Astroturf” on a level of fraud that even the lying liberals haven’t accused conservatives of being. The Patterico link cited above has the title, “I’m not a doctor but I play one at town hall meetings.” When confronted, Mayer demonstrated nothing but contempt – contempt of the truth.
“Doctor” Roxana Mayer is not just some kook who showed up at a town hall and misrepresented herself. She was chosen as an Obama delegate representing the state of Texas. She is currently a “grass roots organizer” and a lead organizer for “Organizing for America” – which Obama is calling upon to address all the “misinformation” allegedly coming from the other side.
Seriously: Who is the “plant” around here? How truly stupid are we?
Is having a “grass roots organizing” former Obama state delegate pretend to be a doctor in order to fabricate pseudo-credibility not low enough for you? Then I’ve got more. Remember this picture, broadcast all over the mainstream media?
Well, first of all, the mainstream media that is so OUTRAGED by the Obama as Hitler signs didn’t really mind the ones like this that dominated liberal events for the better part of eight years:
When Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and now the president’s own deputy press secretary conjure up images of Nazis at healthcare town halls, they are engaging in one of the oldest tricks in anyone’s book, but an especial favorite of their mentor, Saul Alinsky.
Alinsky himself employed this method, quite deviously. Alinsky biographer, Sanford D. Horwitt provides an anecdote using precisely this same diabolical tactic to deceive the people. From Horwitt’s Let Them Call Me Rebel:
“…in the spring of 1972, at Tulane University…students asked Alinsky to help plan a protest of a scheduled speech by George H. W. Bush, then U.S. representative to the United Nations – a speech likely to include a defense of the Nixon administration’s Vietnam War policies. The students told Alinsky they were thinking about picketing or disrupting Bush’s address. That’s the wrong approach, he rejoined, not very creative – and besides causing a disruption might get them thrown out of school. He told them, instead, to go to hear the speech dressed as members of the Ku Klux Klan, and whenever Bush said something in defense of the Vietnam War, they should cheer and wave placards reading, ‘The KKK supports Bush.’ And that is what they did, with very successful, attention-getting results.”
Planting major falsehoods has been a favorite Alinsky strategy from the start. His acolyte, Barack Obama, learned his Industrial Areas Foundation lessons on deceiving for power while on a side trip during his Harvard years, then taught the Alinsky power tactics at the University of Chicago.
It is almost impossible to believe that, even with near total control of the country, Democrats are resorting to the old myth in portraying themselves as the victim even as they viciously and deceitfully demagogue and demonize increasing numbers of the American people.
But that is precisely what they are doing.
As the left continues to demonize American citizens – many of them elderly – at town hall events, just recognize the source.
There’s quite a bit of confusion about Obama’s tax plan and its effect on small business and American workers.
John McCain stated during Tuesday night’s debate that most small businesses would see their taxes increase due to Barack Obama’s tax plan. Barack Obama corrected him and said that only a small percentage of small businesses would see their taxes go up. Both men are wrong. And both are right.
Obama may or may not be right when he says that only a small percentage of small business would see their taxes go up under his economic plan – as it is written now (in at least its fourth version). He hasn’t specified whether he will tax on the basis of net or gross, whether inventory counts as total part of total income, and so on (because the media will NOT do its job and press a liberal on economic details). But regardless of how the specifics pan out, don’t forget that Bill Clinton similarly campaigned on a tax relief for the middle class economic plan – and he immediately taxes on the middle class early in his first term. Given the high likelihood of a Democrat-controlled Congress that is eager to have massive government social projects, another such “undeclared” tax hike on the middle class is actually quite likely.
John McCain may have been incorrect in how he phrased his objection during the debate, but he is still right enough to win the argument if the facts actually come out. He was probably wrong in saying that most small businesses would see their taxes increase in terms of the total number of businesses. If you earn a living mowing lawns, and have no employees, or you have a business out of your home, you probably won’t be paying any higher taxes. But keep in mind that a small business can have as many as 500 employees (up to a 1,000 in some industries) and be classified as “small.” And such businesses are the real engine of our economy. If a small business even employs a handful of employees, it is likely its revenues easily exceed Obama’s $250,000 figure. It is these businesses which hire the most workers, and it is these businesses that Obama will start taxing. It is also these businesses which will suffer the most even from a modest increase in their operating costs. Many are skating on pretty thin ice as it is. They can’t just sell more stock.
If Barack Obama raises the taxes for these small business owners, there will be layoffs. And as his plan is right now, he is promising to raise their taxes. Realize that we are in a tough economy. It is harder to obtain loans. Fewer people will be buying. Small businesses will be struggling to survive, and if Obama does what he promises to do – particularly when he is going to force businesses to start paying health care as well – you WILL see layoffs.
Meanwhile, Obama is decrying John McCain for wanting to give tax breaks to big oil. John McCain does NOT want just to give tax breaks to big oil (actually it was OBAMA who voted with Bush for the last big energy bill giveaway to big oil); he wants to lower taxes for ALL corporations. Most nations realize that lowering taxes for corporations has resulted in corporations creating more jobs and more tax revenues, and that more corporations will be attracted to their country. But not the United States: we have the second highest corporate tax rate as it is. Obama wants to be “#1.”
Is that good for our struggling economy? Your vote on November 4 will be your answer that question.
Another thing Obama wants to do is impose requirements for businesses to provide comprehensive health care for their employees or pay into a government fund. Small businesses would be ostensibly exempted from the requirement, and would get a 50 percent health-care tax credit to help ease their cost of employee coverage. People with pre-existing conditions – which often impose the largest cost on the health care system – cannot be denied coverage. Businesses who hire such people will be forced to grin and bare it.
I wonder how many older workers will be fired in order to hire new – and less expensive – younger workers? Under Obama’s plan, I’d sure be looking at my older employees as “potential health care time bombs” just waiting to explode.
Do you think that businesses and corporations will begin to pay very close attention to the health of the employees they hire, or do you think they won’t care about how much a new workers’ mandatory health care will cost?
Between raising taxes, and mandating expensive new requirements, many businesses and corporations will experience a genuine double whammy. Do you think American businesses are made of money, or do you think they are vulnerable? You will be answering that question in your vote on November 4.
You need to understand something else that emerged from Tuesday night’s debate: is health care a basic right? Obama answered “yes.” What does that mean? It means that you have a duty to provide me with health care. You have a constitutional, government-imposed duty to give me health care – no matter what – even if it costs you and your family to do so. Am I an alcoholic who needs a liver transplant? You owe me a new liver. Did I sustain a brain injury riding my motorcycle without a helmet because I like to feel the wind in my hair? Doesn’t matter. I have a fundamental constitutional right to that liver, or to that brain surgery and all the long months of incredibly expensive therapy. If I have a right to health care in the sense that Barack Obama believes, nothing else matters.
Do you understand how expensive this can all get?
Do you understand that Barack Obama is essentially talking about socializing a quarter of our economy? Do you trust your government’s track record?
Your vote will be your answer to that question.
Barack Obama’s health care plan is estimated to cost $1.6 trillion in 10 years. But that doesn’t take into account the very sort of cost overruns and cost increases that are even now plaguing the very state that Obama is basing his own plan upon. What is going to happen to our economy given the extremely real likelihood that Obama’s massive national plan runs into similar issues? Do you believe our economy is strong enough to bear the brunt of these massive cost increases?
Your vote will be your answer to that question.
Let me also point out something else: if businesses and corporations are forced to absorb shocking new costs, do you believe they will just swallow their profitability, or do you think they will pass their new costs onto you through higher prices? Barack Obama keeps talking about his “95% of Americans will get a tax break” (which means that 30-40% of Americans who don’t actually pay income taxes will get an IRS-subsidized welfare check). Will that check compensate for the higher prices you are likely to pay across the board for virtually everything you buy?
Again, your vote on November 4 will answer that question.
Don’t be too suprised if you vote yourself right out of a job.
Start Thinking Right 