Posts Tagged ‘middle-class’

The World’s Tragedy: The Consequences of Godless Secular Humanist Liberalism Upon A Rapidly Deteriorating World

January 19, 2015

He said, “Go and tell this people: “‘Be ever hearing, but never understanding; be ever seeing, but never perceiving.’  Make the heart of this people calloused; make their ears dull and close their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed.” — Isaiah 6:9-10

I spotted a liberal op-ed that basically tells us that the tragedy otherwise known as progressive liberalism is as old as the 18th century and quite likely as old as time.

The article is about the “intellectuals'” disappointment with and in Barack Obama.  It begins:

When Barack Obama ran for president in 2008, intellectuals everywhere hailed him as one of their own. So closely was he identified with this elite that many Democrats worried, and Republicans hoped, that voters would reject him: As Richard Hofstadter noted long ago, a strong current of anti-intellectualism has long coursed through American history.

But his pointy head in no way proved an insurmountable obstacle in 2008. Maybe because it wasn’t all that inclined toward pointiness to begin with.

Since he was first elected, Obama has distanced himself from progressive intellectuals. You can expect to hear a few of them sadly critiquing his penultimate State of the Union speech this week.

Translation: We’re completely responsible for campaigning  for this pathetic turd and getting him elected and getting his policies passed.  But you can’t blame us.  Because if he’d just been even more “liberal” than this leftist turd turned out to be, everything would have worked out wonderful.

Mind you, Obama didn’t actually present himself as a far leftist; he presented himself as someone who would “transcend the starkly red-and-blue politics of the last 15 years, end the partisan and ideological wars and build a new governing majority.”  Which is another way of saying Obama lied and the “intellectuals” wish he’d been an even BIGGER liar than he turned out to be and do even MORE to tear the fabric of this nation apart by waging an even more vicious political war against the right than he has.  But “honesty” is no more a virtue of “intellectuals” than objectivity or common sense for that matter.

I won’t bore you with the whole boring piece (you can read it yourself if you’d like by clicking the link); but here is the portion that caught my eye:

In early 1765, Diderot was desperate. Thanks to his herculean efforts as editor of the Encyclopédie, the 17th and final volume of this monument to the Enlightenment was then rolling off the press. Yet the celebrated thinker was in serious financial straits. When Catherine learned of the situation, she made Diderot an offer he couldn’t refuse. She would purchase his personal library of 3,000 books and manuscripts for the then-vast sum of 50,000 livres. Not only would Diderot be allowed to keep his books until his death, but he would also be paid a yearly salary as the collection’s librarian.

The magnanimity of Catherine’s deal struck the imagination of intellectuals across Europe, who believed that true and lasting social reform could be made only from above. Since the great mass of people was mired in superstition and ignorance, enlightened decrees, not popular democracy, was called for. With Voltaire in the lead, the great minds of the age invested their hopes in well-intentioned kings and queens and saw themselves as qualified investment advisors.

Few intellectual ventures seemed as promising as Russia. Catherine had ascended to the throne in 1762 — in a coup d’etat and over the body of her husband, Peter III — determined to haul her vast country from its primitive conditions via Enlightenment ideals. She wrote the Nakaz, or Instruction, translating Montesquieu’s case for a rational and humane legal system into Russian. Her early enthusiasm for such progressive ideas, though sincere, would prove unequal to the challenges presented by her empire.

Okay, so let’s see: the “intellectuals” had an a priori rejection of God, the Bible and anything whatsoever to do with the supernatural.  Anybody who believed otherwise didn’t get to join the “intellectual club.”  They might claim otherwise, but they LOVE their dictators and tyrants because they keep rubbing their own faces into the fecal matter of totalitarianism, which is why they always HAVE loved Russia and totalitarianism and communism and socialism and every form of government control.  In their utter rejection of God, SOMETHING has to take God’s place – and so they worship government with a big ‘G’ and worship the power of the human State and its ability to control and dictate and bypass the democracy the despise and always have despised.  Oh, they’ll cynically use “democracy” long enough to garner the power to bypass the will of the people so they can impose their agenda with the raw force of totalitarianism and sweeping executive orders.

I mean, when Obama said

You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.

And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

– He wasn’t saying anything that hadn’t been said by his sort many times before.  The stupid unwashed masses.  One of the great books about wisdom in the Bible states that there is nothing new under the sun and that what has been will be again and what was done will be done again.  And so we have the same moral idiocy we’ve had before because we keep turning to the same sort of fools and the same sort of fool ideas that have failed us before when they weren’t killing us by the millions before.

I mean, listen to liberalism in the words of the LA Times piece that describes the same sort of thinking we see today only near three hundred damn years ago: “the great mass of people was mired in superstition and ignorance”…. “true and lasting social reform could be made only from above”… “enlightened decrees, not popular democracy, was called for.”  And so with the famous atheist Voltaire in the lead, the left charged into Stalinism and has been full-throttle Stalinist ever since.

Leftist “intellectuals” have a pathological naked contempt of the people, whom they see and always have seen as inferior and beneath them.  And so they can lie to the people without shame because the people are stupid sheep and what does it matter if you lie to a farm animal as long as you get the farm animal to do what you want it to do and what you’ve convinced yourself is in the best interest of the farm animal to do.  So the left has its Grubers and yeah, got its Obama’s who with a straight face has claimed he issued far fewer executive orders than any other president when in fact he was issuing MASSIVELY SWEEPING executive orders by another name (executive memoranda).

It’s who these people are.

Before I keep going with this, let me begin with another quote about the nature of intellectuals:

“George Orwell said that some ideas are so foolish that only an intellectual could believe them, for no ordinary man could be such a fool. The record of twentieth century intellectuals was especially appalling in this regard. Scarcely a mass-murdering dictator of the twentieth century was without his intellectual supporters, not simply in his own country, but also in foreign democracies, where people were free to say whatever they wished.  Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Hitler all had their admirers, defenders, and apologists among the intelligentsia in Western democratic nations, despite the fact that these dictators ended up killing people of their own country on a scale unprecedented even by despotic regimes that preceded them” – Thomas Sowell, Intellectuals and Society, p. 2.

That’s right, folks.  The “intellectuals” from the left have ALWAYS loved Russia and Russia has ALWAYS been near and dear to their hearts.  They loved Hitler and his Nazi fascism, too.  They choose the most wicked side in every argument.

“Intellectual” is another word for “fool.”  This is a fact that is stated in the Bible:

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools… Romans 1:22

And we’re warned about these fools and their fool ideas:

Don’t let anyone capture you with empty philosophies and high-sounding nonsense that come from human thinking and from the spiritual powers of this world, rather than from Christ. — Colossians 2:8

Three of the greatest scientists who ever lived were Sir Francis Bacon, the discoverer of the scientific method and founder of modern science, Sir Isaac Newton, whose physics transformed science and Blaise Pascal, the great mathematician and inventor of the first practical computer.  The man who discovered modern science by devising the scientific method rather than relying upon speculation and opinion wrote:

“There was never law, or sect, or opinion did so much magnify goodness, as the Christian religion doth.”

It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism; but depth in philosophy brings about man’s mind to religion: for while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them confederate and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity. — Sir Francis Bacon

“They that deny a God destroy man’s nobility; for certainly man is of kin to the beasts in his body; and, if he be not of kin to God by his spirit, he is a base and ignoble creature.” — Sir Francis Bacon

Sir Isaac Newton has widely been called the greatest scientist who ever lived.  Albert Einstein credited Newton with his own work and claimed he’d stood on the backs of giants.  He wrote more about Christian theology than he did about science.

And Blaise Pascal – and please think about this while you’re playing games on your smart phone – wrote:

There is a God shaped vacuum in the heart of every man which cannot be filled by any created thing, but only by God, the Creator, made known through Jesus. — Blaise Pascal

Pascal was pointing out something Bacon clearly understood that the left has tried to pervert ever since.  It comes from Ecclesiastes 3:11 that God set eternity in the human heart.  It comes from Genesis 1:27 that humans were created in God’s image as His image bearers.  And the next verse describes God as having given man sovereignty over the world He created for humankind.  Which is why great scientist Johannes Kepler described science as “thinking God’s thoughts after Him.”

G.K. Chesterton put it even better in terms of my point when he wrote:

“For when we cease to worship God, we do not worship nothing, we worship anything.”

In rejecting God as their source for a worldview and for ideas, they believe in utter foolishness.  It may be high-sounding foolishness, but it is all the more foolish to be expressed in lofty words.  The left fills their minds with foolishness.  And that is why their ideas don’t work.

Leftist intellectuals are pure fools whose ideas have no contact with reality.  They have absolutely no understanding whatsoever how power works or how government truly functions or how to achieve peace or how to do anything that is truly meaningful or significant.  All they can do is mock and then mimic and then point fingers for their failures to try to blame others for their failures.

And a leftist like Obama has two choices: he can either reject the foolish and failed liberalism and try a different approach, which the leftist intellectuals claim he is at least partly doing.  Or he can keep trying to apply liberalism and keep failing, as he is very clearly also doing.

Obama is a joke.  And it would have been a funny joke if he had afflicted another country that wasn’t urgently needed in this time as the leader of the free world.  But here he is, plaguing this formerly great nation.  And so the joke is on America and it is on the whole human race.

Barack Obama has failed America and he has failed the world.  No one on earth is more responsible for the vicious wave or resurgent Islamic terrorism than Barack Hussein Obama who STILL insanely continues to reject the notion that he is in a war or that the war is against Islamic terrorism.  No one did more to underestimate the threat of terror and falsely and stupidly claim he had defeated it than Obama, no one did more to gut the resources needed to defeat Islamic terrorism while that threat metastasized into a deadly cancer all around him while he selfishly focused on his own personal politics.

And Obama failed America.  He keeps trying to play class warfare when HE is the man who widened the gap between the richest and the poorest beyond any human being who ever lived.  He dishonestly talks about his policies being exactly what the middle class needs when it was HIS policies that have crushed the middle class more than ANYONE’S in history.  Which is why all the day back in August of last year conservative writers RIGHTLY predicted the outcome of November’s election in which Republicans massively kicked Democrat and Obama ass and pointing out it was Obama’s war on the middle class come boomeranging back at his face.  That writer who predicted the result of the election called it “The Murder of the Middle Class.”  By the man who is now about to give a dishonest State of the Union speech claiming once again he is the savior of the very thing he is in fact murdering.

Obama has spent more money on government than any human being in all of human history.  And he is about to have spent more than every American president in all of human history combined from George Washington to George W. Bush.  And his policies have failed unless it was his goal to weaken America abroad and to weaken every American except the very wealthiest.  As even the LEFT that backed Obama is now pointing out.

And Barack Obama – without any question unless you ask the fool “intellectuals” – has done more to destroy democracy and more to destroy the American Constitution than any president who ever lived.  Because he is now the same totalitarian that the left has ALWAYS ended up worshiping whether some of them came to rue the object of their worship or not.

Pretty soon, because of Obama’s spectacular failure, the world will accept the coming Antichrist and worship him as their savior and take his mark of big-socialist-government domination on their right hands or on their foreheads.  And Barack Hussein Obama will have been the Antichrist’s Most Useful Idiot.

And don’t think for one second that the same intellectuals who couldn’t wait to support Stalin before they couldn’t wait to support Hitler before they couldn’t wait to support murderous communist dictator Chairman Mao before they couldn’t wait to support Obama won’t rush to support the Antichrist, too.

Advertisements

Obama Gives 95% of Wealth Increase To Top 1% During His Regime Even As He Dishonestly Demagogues ‘Income Inequality’

January 24, 2014

Do you understand this, you stupid liberals???  Obama handed 95% of the wealth gains in America to the very richest one percenters.  Even as he publicly railed against the very thing he was doing in private:

But since the recession officially ended in June 2009, the top 1 percent have enjoyed the benefits of rising corporate profits and stock prices: 95 percent of the income gains reported since 2009 have gone to the top 1 percent.

That compares with a 45 percent share for the top 1 percent in the economic expansion of the 1990s and a 65 percent share from the expansion that followed the 2001 recession.

The top 10 percent haven’t done badly, either. Last year, they captured 48.2 percent of income, another record. Their biggest previous take was 46.3 percent in 1932.

So let’s see: 65 percent under Bush vs. 95 percent under Obama.  That means that the income gap rose by 46.15% under the very same dishonest slandering demagogue who is now trying to distract the public from his colossal ObamaCare failure and all the lies he told about that fiasco.

My gosh.  It sounds like Obama demonizing Bush over national security abuses only to commit far worse abuses himself (yes he did SO do that!).  Under our fascist-in-chief, we are now a police state and Big Brother status (the Bible prophesied the coming of this Antichrist beast) is just around the corner.  It sounds like Obama demonizing Bush over the national debt only to explode the national debt at three times the rate that Bush did.  It sounds like Obama demonizing Republicans over refusing to raise the debt ceiling just like Obama refused to raise it when HE was a Senator and Bush was the president.

The decidedly leftist Huffington Post had this headline and began thus:

Income Inequality Worse Under Obama Than George W. Bush
The Huffington Post  |  By Alexander Eichler
Posted: 04/11/2012 6:19 pm Updated: 04/11/2012 6:19 pm

President Obama may talk a big game about economic fairness, but his record on the issue doesn’t quite match up.

There are lots of reasons to think so — and we’ll touch on several in just a minute — but the most recent comes from Matt Stoller, blogging at Naked Capitalism, who points us toward a recent bit of number-crunching from Emmanuel Saez, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley.

Saez, who’s known for his work on the income gap, has highlighted a surprising and discouraging fact: during the post-recession period of 2009 and 2010, the rich snagged a greater share of total income growth than they did during the boom years of 2002 to 2007.

In other words, inequality has been even more pronounced under Obama than it was under George W. Bush.

So how does the man who made the wealth gap worse than EVER and certainly worse than BUSH demonize Republicans and claim to be a voice for the very people he most hurt (and at a time when OBAMA’S DEMOCRATS had lock-step control over all three branches of government)???  It’s easy: Obama is a liar without shame, without honesty, without decency, without virtue and without integrity of any kind.  He just keeps on making dishonest promises – and when reality exposes one of his dishonest promises, he just lies again and then again as he slanders his opponents as being responsible for what HE as president did and led.

Meanwhile, of course, the rabid slanderer-in-chief has destroyed the American middle class.  Under Obama’s crony capitalist fascism where he rewarded his friends and punished his enemies, workers are taking home the smallest slice of U.S. income – EVER.  Inequality has WIDENED.  The job market is a gaping hole (with a record 100 million Americans not working).  The poverty rate hasn’t budged under Obama and is the worst since LBJ’s bogus “war on poverty” in the early 1960s.  More Americans are reduced to food stamps under Obama than EVER.  Obama’s war on business has forced business and particularly manufacturing business to move out of the country.  And we’re losing ground in global trade.

The labor participation rate has plunged like an anvil in a duck pond under Obama.  Every single year of his presidency fewer and fewer and fewer Americans have jobs.  And it keeps getting worse and worse.  You deserve this, America.  And you are going to get worse if you don’t get a whole lot smarter real quick in time to utterly reject fascist Democrats in 2014 and then resoundingly reject them again in 2016.  Because otherwise President Hillary Clinton will be saying, “What DIFFERENCE does it make?” to a  whole lot more tragic government incompetence and incredibly cynical political cover-ups.

It is now a documented FACT that the Pentagon knew within fifteen minutes of the Benghazi attack that it was a TERRORIST attack.  And yet for WEEKS afterward a dishonest President Obama and his dishonest administration and a dishonest Hillary Clinton and her dishonest State Department perpetuated an outright lie and fraud in order to cover-up for their failure.  For Obama, he had deceitfully boasted to the American people that he had decimated al Qaeda and that it was no longer a threat because of his policies.  That was a lie.  And Hillary Clinton had to cover-up for one of the worst acts of incompetence imaginable.  So they both lied to the American people.  Period.  End of story, to quote the liar-in-chief.

If you are a Democrat today, you are a liar, you are a hypocrite, you are a fascist.  You give giant rewards to rich liberal crony capitalist fascist boondoggles even as you demonize your opposition – in frankly the most intolerant and most race-baiting and most fascist way possible – for doing the very thing YOU’RE DOING WORSE.

You Democrat mass-murdering genocidal baby-killing sodomite worshipers are nothing short of pure evil in absolutely every single thing you stand for.  It’s all a bunch of lies intended to fool the gullible and the depraved so you can steal more power and use it to punish your enemies and reward your friends.  All you have to do to see that is watch how Obama used power to either criminally attack his enemies that he wanted or used the IRS as a weapon to punish them for him.

Barack Obama is a cynical, dishonest slandering demagogue.  His core promise – according to the liberal New York Times – was to “transcend the political divide.”  But no president in American history has EVER been so nakedly partisan or has dived more deeply into the sewer of political division than Barack Obama.

The Fiscal Generation Gap Fiasco And Everything That’s Racist And Hypocrite With Liberalism In One Smarmy Liberal Editorial

October 28, 2013

Ronald Brownstein, liberal ideologue from the überliberal National Journal wrote an editorial that also appeared in the also überliberal Los Angeles Times.  Brownstein begins:

One reason a serious budget negotiation seems unlikely this fall is that any meaningful assault on the federal deficit would require each party to confront the contradictions between its fiscal agenda and its electoral coalition.

Two long-term trends are creating this tension. One is an electoral reshuffling: Republicans increasingly depend on support from older whites, even as Democrats rely more on the youthful-tilting minority population. The second is the federal budget’s shift in focus from children (almost half of whom are now nonwhite) to seniors (about four-fifths of whom remain white). The intersection of these dynamics has left each party advancing budget blueprints that collide with the self-interest of their core supporters.

Heading into budget negotiations, the top priority for many Republicans remains limiting Medicare, Medicaid, and maybe Social Security, the Big Three senior entitlements. The contradiction they face is that the people benefiting from those programs now comprise the core of their electoral coalition.

The GOP presidential nominee has carried most white seniors in four consecutive presidential elections, and by greater margins each time. In 2012, whites over 45 supplied Mitt Romney with nearly three-fifths of his votes, even though they made up about only two-fifths of all voters. Census figures show that children constitute about the same share of the population (just under one-fourth) in House districts represented by Republicans and Democrats. Yet whites 55 and older are nearly 22 percent of the population in Republican-held districts, compared with less than 15 percent in those Democrats control. Even more strikingly, 164 House Republicans represent districts where the share of 55-plus whites exceeds the national average. That’s true for only 74 House Democrats.

These older whites deeply resist any changes in Social Security and Medicare, which most consider insurance they have paid for, not a government benefit (although studies show older Americans receive much more in lifetime benefits than they pay in taxes). In United Technologies/National Journal Congressional Connection polling this month, fully four-fifths of whites over 50 opposed any reductions in either Social Security or Medicare. These older white voters are much more passionate about cutting programs that transfer resources to the poor, such as food stamps (three-fifths of older whites would cut the program at least somewhat) and President Obama’s health care law.

The GOP’s fiscal agenda has partly reflected these priorities. The party continues scorched-earth opposition to Obamacare, and House Republicans recently voted for deep cuts in food stamps (almost half of whose benefits flow toward children). The plan from Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., to convert Medicare into a voucher, or “premium support,” system would shelter the staunchest GOP voters by exempting anyone over 55.

Three things immediately jumped out at me as I scanned over his drivel:

Fact 1) Do you know why these middle-class whites are such bad people (in liberal’s wicked minds)?  Because they believed the lying, demon-possessed bovine feces that is the promise of liberalism.

Tell me: did Democrats sell Social Security and Medicare as something that they would yank away from middle class whites?  Tell you what: you show me FDR with Social Security or LBJ with Medicare telling the American people that they were going to demand a clawback on these programs for white middle class families, and I’ll buy you a Ferrari.  You show me where Democrats said, “As soon as white middle class people have nothing else to fall back on because we seized control of retirement benefits (Social Security) and medical insurance for retired people (Medicare), we’re going to lower the boom on them and call them racist if they refuse to give back what we PROMISED them.”  You show me.

The fact of the matter stands as this: Democrats are dishonest liars.  And the only way you can be truly evil is if you believe the lies in the next fascist hijack attempt (e.g. ObamaCare) by the federal government to impose still MORE control over benefits that it will later denounce and try to claw back after Democrats made still more bullcrap promises.

That was the first thing that shot through my mind as I read the product of a truly demon-possessed brain.

Fact 2) The vicious, racist, anti-white bigotry of liberalism is once again on display.  And just as Karl Marx was a self-hating Jew who despised Jews, Brownstein is a self-hating white person – and very likely a self-hating Jew akin to Karl Marx for that matter – who KNOWS as a liberal that he is a truly terrible human being, but BEING a truly terrible human being he wrongly concludes that he’s a terrible human being because of the color of his skin rather than because his ideology is depraved and evil.  Let me demonstrate that fact this way: I’m going to replace the word “white” with “black” in Brownstein’s paragraph, and you tell me if it’s still just as true or not:

These older blacks deeply resist any changes in Social Security and Medicare, which most consider insurance they have paid for, not a government benefit (although studies show older Americans receive much more in lifetime benefits than they pay in taxes). In United Technologies/National Journal Congressional Connection polling this month, fully four-fifths of blacks over 50 opposed any reductions in either Social Security or Medicare.

For the record, the only poll I found was “generational” and did NOT cite differences in race.  I welcome Brownstein to show me that “older blacks” would be perfectly happy – in marked contrast to “older whites” – to have THEIR benefits that they were promised over their entire working lifetimes suddenly seized away by a government that wanted to take back its lie to them after their earning years are behind them so it could hoodwink an entirely new generation on a whopping lie from the same liars who lied to the (now) elderly.

So, Democrat who wants to racebait, YOU SHOW ME THE POLLS THAT DOCUMENT BLACKS BEING HAPPY TO HAVE THEIR PROMISED BENEFITS – AGAIN PROMISED TO THEM OVER THEIR ENTIRE WORKING LIFETIMES – GUTTED SO YOU CAN DEMONIZE “OLDER WHITE PEOPLE.”  YOU SHOW ME, YOU DEMON-POSSESSED LIARS.

Fact 3) Liberals are hypocrites who ONLY have the ability to see the speck in their opponent’s eye WHILE IGNORING THE GIANT MULTI-TRILLION DOLLAR LOG IN THEIR OWN.  Again, I’ll document this fact in Brownstein’s own words:

These older whites deeply resist any changes in Social Security and Medicare …  These older white voters are much more passionate about cutting programs that transfer resources to the poor.

How has EVERY Democrat tax and entitlement program been sold?  One and the same way every time: don’t you worry: we’ll raise somebody ELSE’S taxes and force SOMEBODY ELSE to pay for your new entitlement program.

When was the last time Democrats said, “This is a government takeover that will benefit the poor, so let’s force the poor to bear the burden of paying for it”???  Try “NEVER.”

But, oh holy hell, “older middle class white people” who are in fact not one tiny bit different than “older middle class BLACK people” are evil because they want to keep the entitlement that they were promised and – for the record – were promised that it wasn’t even an “entitlement” but that they had EARNED it with all those payroll tax deductions that the federal government seized from them over the course of their entire lifetimes.

I’m also trying to think of the last time the people who were collecting welfare and food stamps ever voted to have their welfare and food stamp benefits – you know, which unlike those middle class whites they DIDN’T pay for every couple of weeks for going on fifty years – yanked away from them.  Again, try “NEVER.”

Don’t you DARE act like a Democrat and expect to keep what your Democrat federal government promised you and taxed out of you your entire life to pay for.  Don’t you DARE want to hold on to YOUR program.  Because, you see, that’s fascist and it’s only “fascist” when Republicans do it.

The appalling ObamaCare fiasco ought to be all the proof that any carbon-based life form with an IQ above a stinkbug needs to know to realize that liberalism is truly evil.  But if you DON’T think so, all you have to do is understand that the very programs that Brownstein now condemns (at least for white people) were Democrat creations that were GUARANTEED to run up giant deficits just as ObamaCare is guaranteed to run up giant deficits.

Do you know what our actual fiscal gap truly is?  That’s okay.  Because thanks to liberal shenanigans and accounting dishonesty NOBODY ELSE DOES EITHER.

The debt we keep hearing about is $17 trillion.  Barack Hussein Obama – quintessential liar that he is – demonized George W. Bush as “unpatriotic” and “a failed leader” when that debt was $9 trillion.  Now, slandering hypocrite demagogue liar that he is, he sings a different tune even though by the end of his presidency, HE will have led America to higher and insanely unsustainable debt than every previous president (including George W. Bush) COMBINED.

But your share as an “American household” of that $17 trillion debt is $140,000.  And if you can’t pay your share, then America is in deep doo-doo which it keeps shoveling itself more deeply into every fraction of a second.  In point of fact, it is going up $2.28 billion per day, or $86,400 every single second.

But the International Monetary Fund published the academic article in its peer-reviewed journal by one of its members stating that it was in excess of $200 trillion back in 2011.  And our real debt is going up by about one trillion dollars every single MONTH.

Democrats and the lies they sold to impose their lies are ENTIRELY responsible for this guaranteed collapse of the United States of America.  A vote for the Democrat Party is not merely a vote for the murder of 55 million innocent babies and counting, and it’s not just a vote for bringing the wrath of God according to Romans chapter one: it is a vote for dodo-bird EXTINCTION.

We cannot even theoretically pay these debts that Democrats and NO ONE BUT DEMOCRATS saddled us with.  And who is Brownstein blaming for that?  Republican older white people because they are callously demanding that Democrats actually HONOR one of their wicked demonic lies.

And what is it that liberals want to do now?  They want to claw back on their previous lies on the basis of their self-serving racism and they want to now issue a whole NEW package of lies that will DWARF THE COST of their last load of demonic lies.  That’s what they want to do.

That leads me to:

Fact 4) Brownstein implies that Republicans who have spent their lives opposed to Social Security and Medicare are somehow hypocritical for now demanding they get their benefits.  He says “the [white Republican] people benefiting from those programs now comprise the core of their electoral coalition.”

Think about it: when the government seizes retirement insurance and retirement medicine, and forces you to pay into their Ponzi scheme year after year after year, what the hell are you supposed to do when you retire BUT take your Social Security and Medicare benefit that you were forced to buy into your entire life even though you didn’t want to???

The notion from Brownstein is that these “white” Republicans are somehow bad people for taking a benefit they were forced to purchase their entire lives so that freeloading welfare couch potatoes might have a harder time collecting the benefits they never paid so much as a damn DIME into.  Who are the bad people here?  The people who want the benefits they were promised and were forced to buy one paycheck at a time for fifty freaking years or the people who want somebody else’s money???

Medicare and Social Security are and always WERE truly evil programs.  Like I’ve said many times – and like Brownstein openly acknowledges in his attack against white middle class people that “studies show older Americans receive much more in lifetime benefits than they pay in taxes.”  Here’s my question: WHEN THE HELL WASN’T THAT THE CASE???  Is Brownstein actually trying to claim that it isn’t EQUALLY TRUE FOR BLACK MIDDLE CLASS PEOPLE???  Only WHITE people collect more than they pay into this stupid system???  Seriously???  And for the damn record, CONSERVATIVES HAVE BEEN POINTING OUT THAT FACT AND CALLING SSI AND MEDICARE THE PONZI SCHEME THAT IT IS PRECISELY BECAUSE OF THAT FACT FOR DECADES.  And here’s a liberal moral idiot now finally acknowledging it just so he can say it’s whitey’s fault???

These two Democrat programs have run America into certain bankruptcy and financial implosion and an end to the American way of life and frankly the mark of the beast and the worship of the Antichrist.  We are so many trillions of dollars in debt because of these two unfunded mandates that it is beyond insane.

I have ALWAYS been opposed to Social Security.  My parents were also opposed to a system that they were FORCED to “contribute” to over their entire working careers.  Social Security crowded out every private alternative that would have been able to pay out HIGHER returns than SSI.  My parents were also opposed to Medicare because they didn’t want to be force-fed socialized medicine.  In both cases, there could have been and should have been private sector programs, but the government forced them out of business.  The private market could have done better for less on both fronts (as was proven by Chile’s highly successful privatized social security system) – but when the government crowded everybody else out and forced itself in, those options were as aborted as an innocent little baby by Democrats.  Liberals say that if you don’t like SSI or Medicare, don’t use it.  But an analogy would be for a liberal to be opposed to having a strong military; the only way that liberal could actually ACT on his or her opposition would be to move forever away from the United States.  Because otherwise you are covered by the protection of that strong military you are opposed to whether you oppose it or not.  To demand that somebody be forced to “contribute” to a system their entire lives and then to brand that person a hypocrite because they use the benefits that they were forced to pay for is literally demon-possessed EVIL.  There is no other way to put it.

There are also no other options for this generation of retired middle class “white people” after the Democrats imposed government on what should have been private systems.  That’s the dilemma for aforementioned “white” people.

And Brownstein’s answer to the dilemma that Democrats and ONLY DEMOCRATS created is to screw white people, renege on the promise that was made to them over the course of their entire working lives, and leave them to die while Democrats now repeat the same sort of pandering politics through the even BIGGER BOONDOGGLE of ObamaCare.

If you’re going to take away or reduce Social Security and Medicare benefits, take them away from the depraved idiot fools who were stupid enough and evil enough to have bought all the lies and set America up for this fiscal gap fiasco: take them away from DEMOCRATS.

Personally, I would be willing to forego my full Social Security benefits THAT I WAS FORCED TO PAY FOR BY DEMOCRATS if and only if: if Democrats officially admitted that they had destroyed America with their idiot socialism; if the Democrat Party were criminalized, such that anybody EVER AGAIN suggesting ANY FORM of socialism immediately be hauled away to either prison or to the looney bin; and if we passed the “hunt every Democrat down with dogs and burn them alive Act.”  Until then, don’t you DARE suggest I give up one nickel of the benefits that Democrats swore up and down (the same damn dishonest lying way that Barack Obama swore that if you liked your insurance plan and your doctor you could keep them.  PERIOD. by the way).

Obama’s exact words:

“No matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what.”

History now proves that Barack Obama to be the most documented liar in the entire history of the entire human race.  He said that over and over again to millions of people as thousands of cameras rolled.  And he told a thousand other socialist lies that were every bit as blatant.

And no one can argue that Obama didn’t know about this: THE VERY NATURE OF OBAMACARE MADE MILLIONS OF AMERICAN’S HEALTHCARE PLANS “ILLEGAL.”  The man sold his “signature legislative accomplishment” under an ocean of lies, pure and simple.  You want proof?  Here it is: the White House knew at least as early as July of 2010 that what Obama had repeatedly said and CONTINUED TO SAY AFTERWARD was a demon-possessed lie.  I quote:

In a June 2009 speech to the American Medical Association, Obama said that “no matter how we reform healthcare, we will keep  this promise to the American people: If you like your doctor, you will be able  to keep your doctor, period. If you like your healthcare plan, you’ll be able to  keep your healthcare plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter  what.”

Don Stewart, spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Mitch  McConnell’s, R-Ky., questioned whether that promise had been kept.

“Remember: The President didn’t say if you like your plan and we approve it you  can keep it,” Stewart wrote, the Post reported. “He promised that if you like  your plan, you can keep it, period— “no matter what.”

Yet the NBC report  said the government knew that wasn’t true, saying that buried in regulations  from the July 2010 law was an estimate that because of normal turnover in the  individual insurance market, “40 to 67 percent” of customers will not be able to  keep their policy.

And because many policies will have been changed  since the key date, “the percentage of individual market policies losing  grandfather status in a given year exceeds the 40 to 67 percent range.”

“This says that when they made the promise, they knew half the people  in this market outright couldn’t keep what they had and then they wrote the  rules so that others couldn’t make it either,” Robert Laszewski of Health Policy  and Strategy Associates, told NBC.

He estimated 80 percent of those in  the individual market will not be able to keep their current policies and will  have to buy insurance that meets requirements of the new law, which generally  requires a richer package of benefits than most policies today.

George  Schwab, 62, of North Carolina, told NBC he was “perfectly happy” with his plan  from Blue Cross Blue Shield, which also insured his wife for a $228 monthly  premium. But this past September, he got a letter saying his policy was no  longer available.

The “comparable” plan the insurance company offered  him carried a $1,208 monthly premium and a $5,500 deductible. And the best  option he’s found on the exchange so far offered a 415 percent jump in premium,  to $948 a month.

“The deductible is less,” he said, “But the plan  doesn’t meet my needs. It’s unaffordable.”

See also here for more on that story.  The bottom line is that the White House KNEW they were lying but continued to deceive the American people.

We’ve seen these demon-possessed lies from these same demon-possessed socialist liars before.  And we have proven that we are damn-fool and depraved enough to fall for the same lies from the same liars all over again.

As I write, the comics are absolutely SHREDDING ObamaCare.  NO ONE can access the colossally failed ObamaCare website, but millions of young people have seen Kathleen Sabelious mocked (whom everyone on earth holds responsible for this failure BUT Obama).  Trust me that ObamaCare is no longer cool and young people will NOT be enrolling in something that they don’t need but would have to pay up the whazoo to have.  ObamaCare needed to have nearly 3 million “young invincibles” sign up to avoid an “actuarial death spiral” as only the sick and uninsurable enrolled in ObamaCare which would quickly send premiums through the stratosphere.  The Obama administration touted the half that half a million had “applied” for ObamaCare; but that isn’t the same as “enrolling” and we’re learning that the numbers are a sick joke.  And what we’re finding is that across the states that are providing ObamaCare enrollment figures, those who are enrolling in “free” Medicaid (i.e., overwhelming the system with people who are NOT paying in) outnumbers those who will be paying anything at all by three- and even FOUR-to-one.  As many as over 80% of enrollees are applying for “free” Medicaid rather than paying for the system as the system requires to not plunge America off the fiscal cliff.

Again, FAR MORE people are getting termination/cancellation notices from their insurance companies – proving that Barack Obama is an abject LIAR who BETRAYED the American people – than are paying for insurance through ObamaCare.  The vast majority of the people who are “enrolling” are signing up for the taxpayer-funded Medicaid expansion that will cost the nation untold TRILLIONS.

Obama lied to you.  Democrats lied to you.  The Democrat Party is a moral disease that is killing America.

As an example, the Obama regime and the Democrat Party are saying that the ObamaCare web site crashed because nearly three million people tried to access it the first day.  Well, how the hell do they know how many people tried to access a site that CRASHED when they’re at the same time telling us that they have no idea how many people actually ENROLLED???  (and see here)???  How could you EVEN POSSIBLY know the former but not the latter???  These people are pure, distilled LIARS without shame, without integrity, without virtue and without honor.

This is a nation that is at – and probably past – a crossroad: we either need to vote conservative Republican or we need to vote Democrat so we can collapse and accept the mark of the beast and burn in hell for all eternity.  It is just as simple as that at this point.

Middle Class Wages Are Going DOWN Under Obama, Gas Prices Are Going UP And The Real Jobless Rate Is More Like 19 Percent

October 3, 2012

Hey, don’t forget to get out there and vote for Obama so you can have more of this:

September 7, 2012, 7:38 p.m. ET.
Those Jobless Numbers Are Even Worse Than They Look
Still above 8%—and closer to 19% in a truer accounting. Here’s a plan for improvement.
By MORTIMER ZUCKERMAN

Don’t be fooled by the headline unemployment number of 8.1% announced on Friday. The reason the number dropped to 8.1% from 8.3% in July was not because more jobs were created, but because more people quit looking for work.

The number for August reflects only people who have actively applied for a job in the past four weeks, either by interview or by filling an application form. But when the average period of unemployment is nearly 40 weeks, it is unrealistic to expect everyone who needs a job to keep seeking work consistently for months on end. You don’t have to be lazy to recoil from the heartbreaking futility of knocking, week after week, on closed doors.

How many people are out of work but not counted as unemployed because they hadn’t sought work in the past four weeks? Eight million. This is the sort of distressing number that turns up when you look beyond the headline number.

Here’s another one: 96,000—that’s how many new jobs were added last month, well short of the anemic 125,000 predicted by analysts, and dramatically less than the (still paltry) 139,000 the economy had been averaging in 2012.

The alarming numbers proliferate the deeper you look: 40.7% of the people counted as unemployed have been out of work for 27 weeks or more—that’s 5.2 million “long-term” unemployed. Fewer Americans are at work today than in April 2000, even though the population since then has grown by 31 million.

We are still almost five million payrolls shy of where we were at the end of 2007, when the recession began. Think about that when you hear the Obama administration’s talk of an economic recovery.

The key indicator of our employment health, in all the statistics, is what the government calls U-6. This is the number who have applied for work in the past six months and includes people who are involuntary part-time workers—government-speak for those individuals whose jobs have been cut back to two or three days a week.

They are working part-time only because they’ve been unable to find full-time work. This involuntary army of what’s called “underutilized labor” has been hovering for months at about 15% of the workforce. Include the eight million who have simply given up looking, and the real unemployment rate is closer to 19%.

In short, the president’s ill-designed stimulus program was a failure. For all our other national concerns, and the red herrings that typically swim in electoral waters, American voters refuse to be distracted from the No. 1 issue: the economy. And even many of those who have jobs are hurting, because annual wage increases have dropped to an average of 1.6%, the lowest in the past 30 years. Adjusting for inflation, wages are contracting.

The best single indicator of how confident workers are about their jobs is reflected in how they cling to them. The so-called quit rate has sagged to the lowest in years.

Older Americans can’t afford to quit. Ironically, since the recession began, employment in the age group of 55 and older is up 3.9 million, even as total employment is down by five million. These citizens hope to retire with dignity, but they feel the need to bolster savings as a salve for the stomach-churning decline in their net worth, 75% of which has come from the fall in the value of their home equity.

The baby-boomer population postponing its exit from the workforce in a recession creates a huge bottleneck that blocks youth employment. Displaced young workers now face double-digit unemployment and more life at home with their parents.

Many young couples decide that they can’t afford to start a family, and as a consequence the birthrate has just hit a 25-year low of 1.87%. Nor are young workers’ prospects very good. Layoff announcements have risen from year-ago levels and hiring plans have dropped sharply. People are not going to swallow talk of recovery until hiring is occurring at a pace to bring at least 300,000 more hires per month than the economy has been averaging for the past two years.

Furthermore, the jobs that are available are mostly not good ones. More than 40% of the new private-sector jobs are in low-paying categories such as health care, leisure activities, bars and restaurants.

We are experiencing, in effect, a modern-day depression. Consider two indicators: First, food stamps: More than 45 million Americans are in the program! An almost incredible record. It’s 15% of the population compared with the 7.9% participation from 1970-2000. Food-stamp enrollment has been rising at a rate of 400,000 per month over the past four years.

Second, Social Security disability—another record. More than 11 million Americans are collecting federal disability checks. Half of these beneficiaries have signed on since President Obama took office more than three years ago.

These dependent millions are the invisible counterparts of the soup kitchens and bread lines of the 1930s, invisible because they get their checks in the mail. But it doesn’t take away from the fact that millions of people who had good private-sector jobs now have to rely on welfare for life support.

This shameful situation, intolerable for a nation as wealthy as the United States, is not going to go away on Nov. 7. No matter who wins, the next president will betray the country if he doesn’t swiftly fashion policies to address the specific needs of the unemployed, especially the long-term unemployed.

Five actions are critical:

1. Find the money to spur an expansion of public and private training programs with proven track records.

2. Increase access to financing for small businesses and thus expand entrepreneurial opportunities.

3. Lower government hurdles to the formation of new businesses.

4. Explore special subsidies for private employers who hire the long-term unemployed.

5. Get serious about the long decay in public works and infrastructure, which poses a dramatic national threat. Infrastructure projects should be tolled so that the users ultimately pay for them.

It’s zero hour. Policy makers need to understand that the most important family program, the most important social program and the most important economic program in America all go by the same name: jobs.

Mr. Zuckerman is chairman and editor in chief of U.S. News & World Report.

A version of this article appeared September 8, 2012, on page A15 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: Those Jobless Numbers Are Even Worse Than They Look.

We’re a slight breeze away from the entire house of cards collapsing America into a depression that will make the one that started in 1929 look like a walk on a sunny beach.

Joe Biden Says Middle Class Buried Last Four Years. He’s Right: Under Obama, Gas Prices Double, Incomes Plunge, Food Prices Soar And Jobs Vanish.

October 3, 2012

From the mouths of drooling babes comes wisdom?  The words of Joe Biden:

“This is deadly earnest,” Biden said. “How they can justify — how they can  justify raising taxes on the middle class that’s been buried the last four  years.”

Whoever the hell has been president and vice president ought o be fired.  Hell, they ought to be criminally prosecuted and then executed.  What’s that?  Ooops.  That’s me and Obama, isn’t it?  Well, never mind, then!”

Here’s the story:

Biden says middle class ‘buried’ the last 4 years, Republicans pounce
Published October 02, 2012
FoxNews.com

Vice President Biden said Tuesday that the middle class has been “buried the  last four years” — a practically gift-wrapped gaffe that Republicans  immediately grabbed to hammer President Obama on the eve of the first  presidential debate.

Biden made the remark at a campaign stop in Charlotte, N.C., in the course of  slamming Republican tax policies which Democrats claim would cut taxes for the  rich and hike them for the middle class.

“This is deadly earnest,” Biden said. “How they can justify — how they can  justify raising taxes on the middle class that’s been buried the last four  years. How in the lord’s name can they justify raising their taxes with these  tax cuts?”

Mitt Romney, it turns out, couldn’t agree more with the first part.

He tweeted: “Agree with @JoeBiden, the middle class has been buried the last  4 years, which is why we need a change in November #CantAfford4More.”

Running mate Paul Ryan echoed, saying at a rally in Iowa that “we need to  stop digging” and elect Romney.

Both the Romney campaign and The Republican National Committee got to work  blasting out a clip of the comment Tuesday  afternoon, in what the Obama campaign decried as a “desperate and out-of-context  attack.”

But Republicans used the remark to hammer home claims that Obama’s economic  policies have hurt the middle class, in advance of a debate where the economy is  sure to feature prominently.

An RNC official told FoxNews.com: “Joe Biden said what so many Americans are  feeling every day. For four years, the middle class has been buried by Obama’s  failed policies from higher taxes to more debt which is why he has a difficult  time explaining why he deserves another term in the White House.”

A Romney campaign email also included numerous examples of the middle class  being “buried” during Obama’s term — by debt, by high unemployment and by  falling incomes.

An Obama campaign official countered, blaming Republican policies for  crushing the middle class — well before Obama took office.

“As the Vice President has been saying all year and again in his remarks  today, the middle class was punished by the failed Bush policies that crashed  our economy — and a vote for Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan is a return to those  failed policies. With more than five million private-sector jobs created since  2010, the Vice President and President Obama will continue to help the middle  class recover and move the nation forward,” the official said.

The first presidential debate will be held Wednesday in Denver and will focus  on domestic policy.

Fox News’ Nick Kalman contributed to this report.

For the record, ObamaCare is not only a tax hike on the middle class, but in fact the LARGEST tax hike on the middle class in the history of the republic, with 21 new taxes that will disproportionately fall on middle class families.  So, yeah, it’s a valid question.  Given that Obama has “buried the middle class during his four-year regime,” how the hell can he justify imposing all these taxes when he looked the American people in the eye and repeatedly told them he wouldn’t increase their taxes so much as one dime???

But Obama has done far more damage to the middle class than that:

Obama’s War on the Middle Class: Gas Prices Double – Incomes Drop – Jobs Killed
Posted by Jim Hoft on Monday, October 1, 2012, 12:38 PM

Barack Obama hates the poor and middle class. (RSG)

Thanks to Barack Obama gas prices doubled, incomes dropped, unemployment soared and the deficit nearly tripled in less than four years. The poor and middle class suffered the most.

The Republican Study Group released this information.

A few points about the chart above, which visualizes these trends all too well. **  According to analysts at Sentier Research, median household income has dropped $4,520, or about one month’s average wages, since President Obama took office. **  The average price for a gallon of gas has more than doubled since January 2009, from under $2 to now almost $4.

More… Obama is a net jobs killer

If that damn chart above were a hail Mary football play, the two wide receivers would have run smack into each other and knock each other silly.  Which is pretty much a metaphor for the entire Obama presidency.

Oh, yeah, by the way, food prices have skyrocketed since Biden’s boss took over (see more here).  Sooo, I guess that kind of sucks for the middle class, too.

And the median household income has plunged by 8.2 percent since Barack Obama and Joe Biden took office.  That can’t be good for the middle class.

And the labor force participation rate has gone down more dramatically under Obama’s failed presidency than any president’s in the history of the republic, and it is now at the lowest level in well over thirty years.  How’s that working for the middle class?  How’s it working for the middle class that if we calcuated the unemployment rate by the same labor participation rate that Bush handed to Obama, unemployment would be measured at 11.6 percent  now???

For every job Obama “adds,” there are FOUR workers who drop out of the workforce.  How’s that working for the middle class?  How is it working for the middle class that there are four million fewer jobs today than there were when Obama took office?

 Last year new start-up businesses were at the lowest level EVER measured in the 25-year history of recording that statistic; this year new start-up businesses plunged by another 24%.  I’m sure the middle class isn’t too happy about that, given that those jobs Obama has destroyed by demonizing the people who create those jobs are the very jobs that the middle class most depends on.

If you’re a middle class retired person, it’s even suckier for you in this “No, no, no, NOT God bless America!  God DAMN America” administration: when Bush left office, a person could put their retirement nest egg of $300,000 into a secure bond and live off of the $1,500 a month interest.  And if things went well, why, you’d leave your children and grandchildren a nice sum to remember you by in fulfillment of the American Dream to give your children better off than you were.  Now, thanks to Obama’s QE1, QE2, Operation Twist and then let’s do QE3, that same nest egg gives you $200 a month and you’re pretty well screwed, aren’t you?

Finally, Biden screwed up so badly trying to demonize Romney for increasing taxes on the middle class, which is an outright lie.  Name the Republican who has offered a plan to increase taxes on the middle class.  Versus Obama-Biden, who in fact have passed the largest tax increase on the middle class in the history of the republic.  Obama and Biden have both slandered Republican policies by asserting that tax cuts result in low revenues and therefore according to some liberal think tank that used radically leftist presuppositions, if the rich didn’t get their taxes hiked the middle class wold therefore have to somehow pay more taxes.  That is a lie.  That is a provable lie.  If you go back to the Bush tax cuts, you will find that tax revenues increased massively.  Even the New York Times was forced to acknowledge that tax revenues increased just as Republicans said they would.  If you go back to the Reagan tax cuts, you will see that tax revenues increased massively.  If you go back to John F. Kennedy’s tax cuts, you will see that tax revenues increased massively; and if you go all the way back to Calvin Coolidge’s tax cuts, you will see that tax revenues increased massively.  Liberals deny reality.  They cannot even begin to comprehend the real world.

It’s stuff like this that makes the REAL middle class want Obama and Biden to get the hell out of Washington.  Middle class voters favor Romney by 14 points (55 to 41 percent).  And Democrats trying to say that middle class voters favor Obama would be like Republicans saying that female grad students who demand that government pay for all their birth control favor Romney.

(Women Are That Stupid Alert): Obama Deputy Campaign Manager Says ‘Women Are Not Really Concerned About What’s Happened Over The Last Four Years’

September 26, 2012

I thought the piece on Michelle Malkin’s blog spiked this laugher best:

Stephanie Cutter: Women aren’t concerned what’s happened over the last 4 years, only what’s going to happen in the next 4 years
By Doug Powers  •  September 24, 2012 10:32 PM

Guys, test the theory of Obama’s deputy campaign manager this week. Come home at three o’clock in the morning, broke and looking rough after being gone for a full day, and when your wife asks what you’ve been up to in the last 24 hours, reply “you’re not concerned about that honey — you only want to know what’s going to happen in the next 24 hours.” Good luck.

Transcript from Real Clear Politics (audio below):

“We’ll continue doing what we have been doing, trying to get the president’s message out on the ground. Whether it’s in the suburban areas of Northern Virginia, or Denver, Ohio, to talk about what the president wants to do in the future. That’s the other thing that you find most often with women. They’re not really concerned about what’s happened over the last four years, they really want to know what’s going to happen in the next four years,” Obama deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter said to guest host Susan Page on the Diane Rehm Show today.

Cutter has gone out of her way to prove her point that women aren’t worried about the recent past, especially as it concerns remembering what happened on conference calls:

(h/t Freedom’s Lighthouse)

**Written by Doug Powers

Twitter @ThePowersThatBe

Obama thinks women are that idiotic.  Women can’t comprehend things like “history” and “cause and effect.”  They’re just not intelligent enough to be able to consider that the last four years of Obama might somehow inform them on the next four years of Obama.

The thing is, many women ARE this stupid.  As the example provided by Doug Powers indicates, there are a plenty of single women out there who float from abusive cheating loser to abusive cheating loser because they simply cannot understand that if you ignore the lessons of history you are doomed to repeat them.

And the polls are very clearly showing that it is precisely those women who are supporting Obama: the single psycho women with dysfunctional lives who constantly look to find somebody or something to parasitically leech off of.

Middle class women don’t vote for Obama, the polls show; married women don’t vote for Obama, the polls show.

It’s the psycho dysfunctional idiotic bimbos who vote for Obama because they can’t fathom this whole “last four years” thing.

“Women” aren’t stupid; only liberal women are stupid.  But that said, liberal women are the truly stupidest people of all.

The Media Propaganda And Obama Class Warfare LIE That Romney Pays Less Tax Than Middle Class. And The Reason And Proof Why Low Capital Gains Taxes Are GOOD.

September 26, 2012

The degeneration of the media is astonishing.  Yes, the media always had a liberal bias; you could count on it.  But there was a time when we had journalists who fact checked.  Then we got journalism PLUS fact checking to correct the lies of the journalists.  And now we’ve  fact checkers correcting the lies of the fact checkers.

If I meet somebody who tells me, “I’m a journalist,” I know that there is an overwhelmingly statistical likelihood that that person is a) a doctrinaire liberal; and b) a biased doctrinaire liberal who insinuates his or her ideology, bias and prejudices into most of his or her reporting.

You need to understand how pathologically dishonest and biased the mainstream news media have become.  A couple of recent examples:

So this really isn’t that surprising.  Journalists are professional liars.  You can trust them to be dishonest.

And so here we go again:

ABC’s Karl Dissembles on Romney’s Tax Rate, But NBC Points Out He Pays Higher Percent Than Middle Class
By Brent Baker | September 22, 2012 | 14:09

Repeating a common mythology that a person’s federal income tax rate equals the effective tax rate they actually pay after deductions, ABC’s Jonathan Karl on Friday night forwarded the canard that Mitt Romney’s 14.1 percent rate is lower than what a $75,000 earner pays. NBC’s Peter Alexander, however, correctly noted “the average middle class American family pays roughly 13 percent.”

On World News, Karl reported that Mitt Romney “made $13.7 million last year and paid nearly $2 million in taxes. His effective tax rate, 14.1 percent.” Then, without citing any source, Karl asserted: “That’s a lower rate than an auto mechanic who made $75,000 in pay.”

Wrong. As USA Today noted in January, Romney’s 14 percent income tax rate is “a higher tax rate than the majority of taxpayers” pay and “the average effective tax rate for taxpayers with AGI of $1 million or more is 25%, according to the Tax Foundation analysis.”

In “Tax bracket vs. tax rate: They’re two different things,” reporter Sandra Block explained: “The average effective federal tax rate for American taxpayers is 11%, according to an analysis of 2009 IRS data by the Tax Foundation, a non-profit research organization. For individuals with adjusted gross income of $50,000 or less, the average effective tax rate is less than 5%, according to the Tax Foundation….”

More in my NB post: “Nets Use Romney’s Taxes to Advance Obama’s False ‘Fairness’ Narrative,” which included a table showing those earning between $50,000 and $75,000 pay an average effective income tax rate of 7 percent, 8 percent for those taking in $75,000 to $100,000 and 12 percent for those between $100,000 and $200,000.

From the start of Karl’s September 21 story, closed captioning corrected against the video by the MRC’s Brad Wilmouth:

The most interesting thing about these tax returns are that even though Mitt Romney paid a low tax rate, he actually voluntarily paid more in taxes than he had to. The bottom line on Mitt Romney’s taxes: He made $13.7 million last year and paid nearly $2 million in taxes. His effective tax rate, 14.1 percent. That’s a lower rate than an auto mechanic who made $75,000 in pay. Although he made almost $14 million, not one penny came from wages or salary. Instead, his money came largely from investments, which are taxed at the much lower capital gains tax rate…

Peter Alexander on Friday’s NBC Nightly News:

It has been a rough couple of weeks for the Romney campaign, now trailing in the polls. And by putting out Romney’s tax returns today, the campaign is hoping it can put this issue to bed so it doesn’t have to deal with any more negative headlines closer to the election.

Campaigning in Las Vegas today and under pressure for months to be more transparent about his personal finances, Mitt Romney released his 2011 tax returns, revealing that he and his wife Ann paid nearly $2 million in federal taxes, on income of nearly $14 million, largely from investments, a tax rate of 14.1 percent. That’s slightly more than the 13.9 rate the couple paid in 2010. The average middle class American family pays roughly 13 percent…

So on top of the dishonesty that we saw from the rest of the mainstream media, CBS’s 60 Minutes piled on with the dishonesty in its interview with Mitt Romney:

Pelley: Now, you made on your investments, personally, about $20 million last year. And you paid 14 percent in federal taxes. That’s the capital gains rate. Is that fair to the guy who makes $50,000 and paid a higher rate than you did?

Romney: It is a low rate. And one of the reasons why the capital gains tax rate is lower is because capital has already been taxed once at the corporate level, as high as 35 percent.

Pelley: So you think it is fair?

Romney: Yeah, I think it’s the right way to encourage economic growth, to get people to invest, to start businesses, to put people to work.

Scott Pelley’s question was a) biased and b) based entirely on a false premise.  Because he gets his “facts” COMPLETELY wrong and proceeds to beat Romney over the head with a dishonest conclusion from those false “facts.”  In fact, Mitt Romney does NOT pay a lower rate than the guy who earned $50,000.  In FACT Romney pays more than TWICE as high of a rate – 14.1 percent versus 7 percent – as the guy who earns $50,000 a year in the adjusted income tax rate that actually matters (as the rate you actually pay taxes at).

There are so many ways that the media lies: they lie in deciding which stories to cover and deciding which stories will not get any coverage; they lie about what aspects of those stories they cover will get covered or ignored; they lie in salad picking their “experts” or witnesses in order to cherry pick the point or conclusion they want the audience to draw.  They further lie in how they edit and package the story.  And there are other ways they lie in production.  But now we’re to the point where the media lies by simply dishonestly inventing “facts.”

The fact that Pelley lied and made up bogus “facts” gave Barack Obama to exploit those lies in his own demonization of Mitt Romney.

The question “is it fair” about low capital gains taxes is as naive as it is idiotic.  Keeping capital gains taxes low encourages investment and encouraging investment increases jobs.  How is it “fair” to gut job creation?

I would ask if it’s fair for journalists and for the current president of the United States to make up their own facts and attack Mitt Romney with lies.

The best way to document that fact is to point out that Bill Clinton was the man who cut capital gains taxes and benefitted enormously from doing so:

American Thinker points out that the Clinton income tax hike of 1993 did NOT bring in ANYWHERE NEAR the revenue Democrats had predicted:

The Clinton years provide lessons on the effects of tax increases and decreases. The American left attributes the successful economy of the Clinton years to the former and ignores the impact of the latter in order to justify their appetite for the increases they would have us believe will provide additional tax revenues today.
 
The effects of increasing taxes on Treasury receipts can be seen in the Clinton and Democrat-controlled congressional tax increase of 1993, one of the largest in history. Despite a more robust job market following a recession, the 1993 tax increase didn’t accomplish what Democrats expected. The tax increases added very little to treasury receipts despite their magnitude. Reports from the Congressional Budget Office, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Internal Revenue Service all agree.

In fact, the balanced budgets of the Clinton years didn’t occur until after a Republican Congress passed and the president reluctantly signed a 1997 tax bill that lowered the capital gains rate from 28% to 20%, added a child tax credit, and established higher limits on tax exclusion for IRAs and estates.

So what did both Clinton’s and later George Bush’s capital gains rate cuts do?  Let’s pick up where the article left off:

The Clinton tax policies of the early ’90s were based on rate increases and luck — the luck provided by a normal growth cycle that began in 1992 as America emerged from a mild recession and a communications revolution. It was tax relief that improved receipts following the disappointing outcome of the 1993 tax hikes and made the Clinton economy successful. The 1997 rate reduction on capital gains unleashed the economy, causing capital investment to more than triple by 1998 and double again in 1999. Treasury receipts for this category of tax obligation increased dramatically. Without tax relief and the internet/communications revolution, the second Clinton term would likely have seen tax revenues decline in a lagging economy.

There is no reason to believe that tax increases will perform any differently this time under a different aggregation of hopeful Democrats.

To find a pure, easily illustrated example of tax decreases boosting the economy and Treasury receipts, one need only look at the current rates on capital gains and dividends. When Congress passed the 15-percent tax rate on capital gains in 2003, and again following the 2006 extension, Democrats protested that large deficits would result.

The new leadership in Washington and those who support them would allow this tax cut to expire to “generate revenue” for the federal government. Based on data from Congress’s own budgetary agency, they should consider whether expiration will have the effect they desire.

For anyone willing to read it, the January 2007 Congressional Budget Office annual report settles any debate. Citing the original CBO forecasts of capital gains tax revenue of $42 billion in 2003, $46 billion in 2004, $52 billion in 2005, and $57 billion in 2006, Democrats who opposed the rate reduction in 2003 claimed that the capital gains tax cut would “cost” the federal treasury $5.4 billion in fiscal years 2003-2006.

Those forecasts were embarrassingly wrong. The 2007 CBO report revealed that capital gains and dividends tax collections were actually $51 billion in 2003, $72 billion in 2004, $97 billion in 2005, and $110 billion in 2006, the last two years nearly doubling initial forecasts.

In other words, forecasts in earlier CBO reports were low by a total of $133 billion for the four-year period. This tax rate reduction stimulated enough additional economic activity to more than offset forecasted losses.

Reductions in tax rates for capital gains were arguably the most successful fiscal initiatives of the past thirty years.

You will find that when George W. Bush cut the tax rates across the board, TAX REVENUES SHOT UP DRAMATICALLY.  And even the uberliberal New York Times was forced to acknowledge that Bush INCREASED tax revenues following his tax cut:

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

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

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

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

Here are the numbers following Clinton’s signing the Republican-sponsored and passed capital gains tax rate cut in 1997:

Capital gains taxation revenues collected by the federal government:

1996  –  $66 billion
1997  –  (capital gains tax rate cut goes into effect)
1997  –  $79.3 billion
1998  –  $89.1 billion
1999  –  $111.8 billion
2000  –  $127.3 billion

Dick Morris – who was Bill Clinton’s primary political adviser at the time and engineered Clinton’s successful triangulation strategy that won him reelection – wrote it up this way:

When Clinton took office he did all the wrong things. He raised taxes sharply, hiking the top bracket from 35% to 39.6% and raised taxes on gasoline. The result was that the economy, which had been recovering, staggered. GDP growth dropped to 0.7% in Clinton’s first quarter (down from 4.3% in Bush’s last quarter) and stayed around 2% for the rest of 1993. Personal income rose 6.3% in 1992 under Bush but slowed to 4.1% under Clinton in 1993.

The tax increases Clinton passed failed to generate the revenue he had expected. The tax paradox set in. Martin Feldstein, former Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors, summed it up in his Wall Street Journal article, “What the ’93 Tax Increase Really Did,” published on October 26, 1995. He said taxpayers reduced their incomes when they saw the tax hikes coming. Feldstein writes that “the Treasury lost two-thirds of the extra revenue that would have been collected if taxpayers had not changed their behavior.” Because of Clinton’s tax hikes, real personal income fell by $25 billion. High income taxpayers, facing the prospect of a tax increase reported 8.5% less taxable income in 1993 than they would have if their tax rates had not changed. The tax paradox!

Then Clinton got wiped out in the Congressional elections of 1994, losing control of the Senate and the House – the first time the Republicans had run the House in forty years!

Clinton suddenly saw the error of his ways and began to hold down spending and push for a tax cut. In 1997, he and the Republican Congress combined to cut capital gains taxes from 28% (the rate to which Bush had increased it) to 20%. The result was electrifying! Real wage growth was 6.5% in the four years after the tax cut compared to minuscule wage growth of 0.8% over the four years after Clinton’s tax increase!

And the tax paradox was again evident: lower rates produced higher revenues! In 1996, the year before the capital gains cut, the tax collected revenues of only $66 billion. In the four years after the cut, they averaged $100 billion a year. But, what was more important was the surge in economic activity that the capital gains tax cut generated. In 1996, before the tax cut, there were $261 billion in capital gains in America. In the three years after the cut, capital gains rose to an average of $440 billion. The increased tax collections and the greater economic activity were such that they pushed the budget into a surplus for the first time since the 1950s.

Is it “fair” that I’m not as handsome as Brad Pitt?  Is it “fair” that I’m not as good of a swimmer as Michael Phelps or as fast a runner as Usain Bolt?  Is it “fair” that I’m not as smart as Albert Einstein?  Is it “fair” that I’m not as creative or talented as Robert Plant or Jimmy Page?  Obviously (and rather unfortunately!) I could go on and on and on with this ad naseum.  Instead, read this on the danger of “fairness.”

I’m sorry to be the one to break your bubble of idiocy, liberal: NOBODY SAID LIFE WAS FAIR.

And I just wish that evil demagogues would quit trying to stir up bitterness and envy by constantly trying to artificially and frankly cynically trying to impose a radical and Marxist doctrine of “fairness” on the world.  Because it does the exact OPPOSITE of what they say it will do.

The bottom line is patently obvious to anyone but a fool: keeping low capital gains rates means that more people will invest more money because they will have the obvious incentive of actually being able to keep what they risk their money to earn – A PROFIT.  If there is more investment, there will be more economic activity and in turn more job creation.

An interesting exchange between ABC News anchor Charles Gibson and Barack Obama during a debate shows us where Obama is:

You have however said you would favor an increase in the capital gains tax. As a matter of fact, you said on CNBC, and I quote, “I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton, which was 28 percent.”

It’s now 15 percent. That’s almost a doubling if you went to 28 percent. But actually Bill Clinton in 1997 signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20 percent.

SENATOR OBAMA: Right.

MR. GIBSON: And George Bush has taken it down to 15 percent.

SENATOR OBAMA: Right.

MR. GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased. The government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?

SENATOR OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.

You can reward wise practices or you can punish them. You can reward individual initiative or you can punish it. Obama is the latter even though the former is far and away the best for society.

If you think it’s “fair” to punish society – including the poor who benefit from the jobs that are created for them so that they can take care of themselves and their families and move up the economic ladder to a better life – just to punish rich people, you are the one with a huge mental and frankly moral problem.

But that mentally and morally deranged form of Marxist psychosis is exactly where Barack Obama and the radical left is.

What is interesting is that the middle class that Obama keeps pretending he’s helping KNOW that he and his media propaganda machine are liars.  Which is why Obama is getting crushed by the middle class vote which favors Romney by FOURTEEN POINTS.  Obama and the media liars aren’t trying to appeal to the middle class who know better; they’re trying to persuade the unfortunately ignorant that their lies are the truth and that the truth is actually a lie.

If The Presidential Election Was Up To The American Middle Class, Mitt Romney Would DESTROY Obama By 14 Points (55 percent to 41 percent!)

September 25, 2012

Mitt Romney is heavily winning the middle class vote.  Which might just be why Obama is working so hard to destroy the middle class.

Given all the demonization of Mitt Romney as a greedy rich bastard who would attack the middle class by Obama and his roaches and the Democrat Party and all their roaches and the mainstream media (who are pretty much all roaches), this is actually pretty amazing; but Mitt Romney utterly ANNIHILATES Barack Obama with the middle class vote.

The money portions of the following article:

The past several weeks have been filled with news stories, editorials and columns heaping criticism on the tactics and strategy of the Romney campaign. Many of these opinion pieces even suggested that Romney’s only hope for winning is to make substantial changes to his campaign. Much of this analysis is based on the premise that Romney is out of touch and has not been making an affirmative case to middle-class voters. His comments at a private fundraiser in May were pointed to as an illustration that he could never identify with and win the support of many middle-class voters. We took a special look at middle-class voters, and middle-class families in particular, in this latest POLITICO-George Washington University Battleground Poll and found that not to be the case. In fact, on every measure it is Romney who is winning the battle for the support of middle-class families.

[…]

 In our latest POLITICO-George Washington University Battleground Poll with middle-class families, which comprise about 54 percent of the total American electorate and usually split in their vote behavior between Republicans and Democrats, Romney holds a 14-point advantage (55 percent to 41 percent). Middle-class families are more inclined to believe the country is on the wrong track (34 percent right direction, 62 percent wrong track), are more likely to hold an unfavorable view of Obama (48 percent favorable, 51 percent unfavorable), and hold a more favorable view of Romney (51 percent favorable, 44 percent unfavorable) and Paul Ryan (46 percent favorable, 35 percent unfavorable) than the overall electorate. These middle-class families also hold a majority disapproval rating on the job Obama is doing as president (45 percent approve, 54 percent disapprove), and turn even more negative toward Obama on specific areas; the economy 56 percent disapprove; spending 61 percent disapprove; taxes, 53 percent disapprove; Medicare 48 percent disapprove; and even foreign policy 50 percent disapprove.

Who speaks for the middle class?  It is Mitt Romney and it is very much NOT Barack Obama.

And that pretty much utterly destroys most of the Obama campaign and Democrat Party and mainstream media talking points (which for the record are pretty much lies).

Republican poll analysis: Romney winning with middle-class families
By: Ed Goeas and Brian Nienaber
September 24, 2012 04:34 AM EDT

In early August, with our Republican analysis of the POLITICO-George Washington University Battleground Poll, we wrote “… this election will remain close until the final weeks of the campaign.  There will be ups and downs for both campaigns throughout the next 13 weeks, but the basic dynamics that are driving this electorate and framing this election remain well in place.”   Two conventions, and tens of millions of campaign dollars later, we continue to hold that belief.  While there have been dozens of polls released during the past six weeks that have had Mitt Romney up by as much as 4 points and Barack Obama up by as much 8 or 9, those variations have had more to do with sampling variations than with real movement in the campaign.

Yes, there have been gaffes on both sides that have been the focus of both the news media and opposing campaigns, but the dynamics that have been the real drivers of the campaign, the economy and deeply negative feelings about the direction of the country, have not changed.  There have also been negative stories about the internal operations, messaging and strategy of both presidential campaigns.  In August, leading into the Republican convention, there were multiple stories about the Obama campaign operation and internal fights about both message and strategic direction that led one to believe the wheels were coming off.  Now it is the Romney campaign’s turn.

(Also on POLITICO: Sheldon Adelson: Inside the mind of the mega-donor)

The past several weeks have been filled with news stories, editorials and columns heaping criticism on the tactics and strategy of the Romney campaign.  Many of these opinion pieces even suggested that Romney’s only hope for winning is to make substantial changes to his campaign.  Much of this analysis is based on the premise that Romney is out of touch and has not been making an affirmative case to middle-class voters. His comments at a private fundraiser in May were pointed to as an illustration that he could never identify with and win the support of many middle-class voters.  We took a special look at middle-class voters, and middle-class families in particular, in this latest POLITICO-George Washington University Battleground Poll and found that not to be the case. In fact, on every measure it is Romney who is winning the battle for the support of middle-class families.

Overall, Obama leads Romney by just 3 points on the ballot (50 percent to 47 percent) – which before we rounded up, is actually a 2.6 point lead and only up a half-a-percentage point from the 2.1 point lead for Obama in our last Battleground poll in early August.  In our latest POLITICO-George Washington University Battleground Poll with middle-class families, which comprise about 54 percent of the total American electorate and usually split in their vote behavior between Republicans and Democrats, Romney holds a 14-point advantage (55 percent to 41 percent).  Middle-class families are more inclined to believe the country is on the wrong track (34 percent right direction, 62 percent wrong track), are more likely to hold an unfavorable view of Obama (48 percent favorable, 51 percent unfavorable), and hold a more favorable view of Romney (51 percent favorable, 44 percent unfavorable) and Paul Ryan (46 percent favorable, 35 percent unfavorable) than the overall electorate.  These middle-class families also hold a majority disapproval rating on the job Obama is doing as president (45 percent approve, 54 percent disapprove), and turn even more negative toward  Obama on specific areas; the economy 56 percent disapprove; spending 61 percent disapprove; taxes, 53 percent disapprove; Medicare 48 percent disapprove; and even foreign policy 50 percent disapprove.

(Also on POLITICO: Mitt: Fundraising focus Obama’s fault)

All of this data make clear that Romney has won the strong support of middle-class families and is leading the president on an overwhelming majority of key measurements beyond just the ballot.  In fact, when respondents were asked who, Obama or Romney, would best handle a variety of issues, Romney led on all but one including the economy (+9 percent), foreign policy (+3 percent), spending (+15 percent), taxes (+7 percent), Medicare (+2 percent), and jobs (+10 percent).  Ironically, the one measurement Obama led Romney on was “standing up for the middle class” (+8 Obama), reinforcing that often the Democrats win the message war with the middle class, but not their hearts and souls.

Looking at this presidential election overall, intensity among voters is high with Republicans, Democrats, and now independents, and is at levels more comparable with the final days of a presidential election than six weeks out from Election Day.  In fact, fully 80 percent of voters now say that they are extremely likely to vote.  Even with the past few weeks containing some of the toughest days of earned media for the Romney campaign, and perhaps as a surprise to Washington insiders, Romney continues to win Republicans (Romney by a net +87 percent) by the same margin Obama is winning with Democrats (Obama by a net +88 percent), and is still winning with independents (+2 percent).  Romney has majority support with voters over the age of 45 (+7 percent), with men (+6 percent), with white women (+9 percent), and with married voters (+14 percent).  In addition, Romney has solidified his base.  Support among conservative voters exceeds 70 percent (73 percent), his support among very conservative voters exceeds 80 percent (83 percent), and his support among Republicans exceeds 90 percent (91 percent).  Romney is also receiving a higher level of support among Hispanics (40 percent), which is driven by higher support from Hispanic men.   

(PHOTOS: 13 who won’t quit Mitt)
Democratic pollster Celinda Lake has often made the point that Democratic voters are becoming more secular and Republicans more faith based.  That certainly appears to be holding up in this election.  Digging a little deeper on the presidential ballot, Romney has majority support (51 percent) among Catholics, which in past presidential elections has been one of the most predictive demographic groups of the eventual outcome.  Even further, Romney is a winning majority across all religions amongst those who attend services at least weekly (59 percent) or monthly (52 percent), while Obama is winning among those who attend less frequently, never, or are nonbelievers.

(PHOTOS: Romney through the years)

For most voters, however, this election is still about pocketbook issues.  Fully 66 percent of voters select a pocketbook issue as their top concern.  The Romney camp should feel good going into the three presidential debates knowing he has majority support (Romney 53 percent/Obama 44 percent) from these economically focused voters.

In fact, even with all of the misleading partisan attacks on the proposals from Ryan to reform Medicare, a majority of seniors (61 percent) select a pocketbook issue and not Medicare as their top issue of concern and nearly 6 in 10 seniors (58 percent) are voting for the Romney-Ryan ticket.

In addition to their high level of intensity about casting a ballot, many voters are already notably engaged in the campaign.  A strong majority of voters (60 percent) say they watched both the Republican and the Democratic national conventions.  The ballot among these highly attentive voters is tied with 3 percent undecided.  The conventions took a race that was a statistical tie, and simply drove up the vote intensity of all voters.  At the same time, there are enough undecided and soft voters remaining for either candidate to win. In fact, even at this stage of the campaign, 13 percent of those making a choice on the presidential ballot indicate that they would consider voting for the other candidate.

A significant number of voters report that the upcoming presidential and vice presidential debates will be extremely (11 percent) or very (12 percent) important to their vote decision.  (Twenty-six percent of Obama’s supporters currently place this high level of importance on the debates as does 20 percent of Romney supporters.)  This means the debates are one of the best opportunities available for Romney to take votes from Obama.  If Romney can continue to make a solid case about turning around the economy and the direction of the country in contrast to the president’s failed economic policies, these voters will be watching and many of them are currently Obama supporters.

Presidential reelection races are almost always about the incumbent and whether or not they should be given an additional four years in office.  This race looks to be no different.  There is no sign of any good economic news on the horizon and two-thirds of the American electorate is focused on pocketbook issues as their top concern.  Fifty-seven percent of these voters disapprove of the job the president is doing on the economy, 62 percent disapprove in his handling of the budget and federal spending, and 54 percent believe that Romney would be better at job creation. Yes, Romney has the issue advantage with these pocketbook-focused voters, and is winning their support by 53 percent to Obama’s 44 percent.

More important, in this latest set of data in the POLITICO-George Washington University Battleground Poll, is the fact that Romney is also winning by a strong 14-point margin over Obama with middle-class families, a group of voters that is not only a majority of the American electorate, but is usually seen as the ultimate target group in any presidential election.

Romney has particularly been demonized by the axis of evil (Obama camp, Democrat Party and mainstream media) over his “47%” quote. 

Romney was obviously trying to simplify something that is more complex and committed the sin of oversimplifying.  The Obama who can do no wrong with the mainstream media can get away with a thousand of those, but Romney can count on the media “reminding” voters of that remark at least 20 times a day every single day until the election.  Basically, there are obviously two groups who will vote heavily for Obama: the lazy class and the elite class.

Hollywood is so massively in Obama’s corner you’re going to be seeing desperate appeals supporting ObamaCare even in primetime network dramas.  And what is Hollywood?  It’s a bunch of greedy liberal hypocrites who make buttloads of money while pursuing tax credits for the richest people ( hiring lobbyists to do it, btw) and outsourcing to foreign countries so they can make even MORE money.  Uberliberal Michael Moore is a particularly loathsome specimin of Hollywood hypocrite, for the record.

They’re rich.  They pay taxes (well, some of them do, excluding the ones like Marc Anthony who most fervently support Obama while thinking they’re above paying taxes).  Just like some of Obama’s staff actually stoop to pay the taxes they owe.

And then there are all the lazy little low class bottom feeders who do exactly what Mitt Romney said they do.

And the axis of evil deliberately misrepresented that “47 percent” statement to try to demonize Romney with the middle class.

But apparently a whopping majority of the middle class know full damn well who the malicious deceitful hypocrites Obama, Democrats and their media propagandists are.

There are a lot of despicable people undermining the once great and powerful America.  But by a wide margin – and completely contrary to the false narratives the Democrats and their media allies keep telling us – the middle class are not among them.

That fact makes me feel better about the American people than I have felt for quite a while.

Just yesterday, I documented how pathologically dishonest the mainstream media are in a microcosm with their blatant overestimation of how many people showed up at an Obama event.  That same day I also documented that Obama has destroyed 4 million jobs and gutted labor participation in America.  And if that wasn’t enough, I also documented how truly un-American Obama is with this “Obama States of America flag” garbage.

That’s why NOBODY in the middle class ought to be voting for Obama.

Obama: ‘My Biggest Mistake Was Not Being A Good Enough Liar, I Mean Storyteller.’

July 16, 2012

You need to know what the “Storyteller-in-Chief” said before I can start expose the demon-possession behind the words.  So here it is:

Obama: Biggest mistake was failing to ‘tell a story’ to American public
Posted by David Nakamuraat 05:27 PM ET, 07/12/2012

As he campaigns for re-election, President Obama is ruminating over the biggest mistake of his first term — and it might surprise supporters and critics alike.

In the president’s view, he has not been a good enough storyteller, putting policy goals ahead of laying out a clear narrative for the American public.

“The mistake of my first term. . .was thinking that this job was just about getting the policy right. And that’s important,” Obama told “CBS This Morning” anchor Charlie Rose in a White House interview that will be broadcast Sunday and Monday.

“But the nature of this office,” the president added, “is also to tell a story to the American people that gives them a sense of unity and purpose and optimism, especially during tough times.”

Mitt Romney made sure Obama’s chin was at precisely the correct angle when he responded:

“President Obama believes that millions of Americans have lost their homes, their jobs and their livelihood because he failed to tell a good story. Being president is not about telling stories. Being president is about leading, and President Obama has failed to lead. No wonder Americans are losing faith in his presidency.”

Even to cast Obama’s latest “storytelling” in its very best possible light, what Obama is really saying is that his policies are wonderful, but the American people are simply too damn stupid to understand it.

Give me a little time to warm up as I provide my own response to Obama, because I’ve got a lot to say on my way to past-the-boiling-point.

It’s amazing.  This is a man who will never understand that his policies have failed.  He has already doubled-down – having first rammed through his $862 stimulus (which will actually cost the American people $3.27 TRILLION) and then doubled-down with his $447 billion son of stimulus – and now he wants to triple-down, quadruple down, quintuple down, until America is utterly bankrupt.

Obama demonized Republicans for refusing to vote for his massive stimulus.  He called them “obstructionists” who dared to resist the will of messiah who would lower the oceans and heal the planet

Consider this from The Hill, 02/15/10:

Republicans are keen to tie any new jobs efforts to a stimulus bill that has become unpopular. A New York Times/CBS poll found that just 6 percent of Americans believe that it created jobs, even though independent economists estimate that it has saved or created more than 1 million jobs.

What The Hill refuses to tell you is that plenty of “independent economists” predicted it would wildly fail:

Cato has just published a full-page ad in the New York Times with the names of some 200 economists, including some Nobel laureates and other highly respected scholars, who “do not believe that more government spending is a way to improve economic performance” — contrary to widespread claims that “Economists from across the political spectrum agree” on a massive fiscal stimulus package.

But let’s get back to the fact that only 6% of Americans believed the $3.27 trillion Stimulus actually created any jobs.  Understand, that comes from a CBS/New York Times Poll that featured the following:

Obama was a “storyteller,” all right.  But the thing was his stories were lies.  Obama’s economic plan has wildly failed.  According to Obama’s “storytelling,” unemployment ought to be 5.6 percent now because that’s what he said it would be by this time if we passed his stimulus.  That was his “story.”

Obama, of course, once started on the “storytelling” that the Republicans were “obstructionists” never quit telling that story.  It didn’t matter that Democrats COMPLETELY OWNED ALL THREE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT FOR THE ENTIRE FIRST TWO YEARS OF THE OBAMA REGIME.  It didn’t matter that in fact Democrats had owned two of the three branches – both the House and the Senate – since November 2006 when Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid took over Congress.  It didn’t matter that since Democrats took over Congress food stamp dependency has soared 70 percent and under Obama crippling poverty and food stamp dependency has skyrocketed 53 percent (3o million in 2008 to 46 million now).  If the Republican Party didn’t go along with the Democrat Party’s and messiah Obama’s radical failure and misery they were “obstructionists” even when their “obstructionism” clearly did not prevent the Obama agenda from being implemented.

Obama had previously sold a different “story,” mind you.  Prior to his being the most demagogic and hatemongering president in American history, Obama’s “storytelling” had been of a president whose “core promise” –  instead of constant fingerpointing and demonizing – would be to “transcend the starkly red-and-blue politics of the last 15 years, end the partisan and ideological wars and build a new governing majority.”  But again, as we found immediately, Obama’s “storytelling” was a complete and utter lie from hell.  We see that particularly now, as Obama relies more on negative ads to demonize and attack and “frame” Mitt Romney with lies and hate than ANY president in American history by far and away (see also here).  In fact, Obama is shattering his own record for negative demagogic demonic attack ads that he himself set in 2008.  And that is, of course, because of his wildly failed presidency and his wildly failing record.

That solemn promise that Obama made to the American people that he would rise above the negativity and bitterness and partisanship and hate was itself nothing but the most hateful “story” ever told by the most cynical demagogue ever to hold office.

Obama had PLENTY of “storytelling” with his ObamaCare takeover of the American health care system.

Obama told the “story” over and over again that ObamaCare was NOT a tax no matter what the facts said at the time:

STEPHANOPOULOS: I wanted to check for myself. But your critics say it is a tax increase.

OBAMA: My critics say everything is a tax increase. My critics say that I’m taking over every sector of the economy. You know that. Look, we can have a legitimate debate about whether or not we’re going to have an individual mandate or not, but…

STEPHANOPOULOS: But you reject that it’s a tax increase?

OBAMA: I absolutely reject that notion.

[….]

STEPHANOPOULOS: “Under this mandate, the government is forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don’t. How is that not a tax?”

PRESIDENT OBAMA: “No. That’s not true, George. The — for us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase.

The Supreme Court literally rewrote ObamaCare to replace the word “tax” with Obama’s cynical and dishonest political “storytelling” of “mandate” and ruled that ObamaCare could ONLY be seen as “constitutional” if and ONLY if it was in fact a TAX.  From the Supreme Court majority decision:

The Federal Government does not have the power to order people to buy health insurance. Section 5000A would therefore be unconstitutional if read as a command. The Federal Government does have the power to impose a tax on those without health insurance. Section 5000A is therefore constitutional, because it can reasonably be read as a tax.”

Obama has – after “storytelling” that ObamaCare was NOT a tax and then demanding his lawyers argue before the Supreme Court that it WAS a tax – now returned to his “storytelling” that it isn’t a tax no matter what the hell the Supreme Court said.  I mean, after all, they’re not “constitutional scholars” the way messiah Obama is.  And the Supreme Court Justices certainly aren’t “storytellers” the way Obama is.  Few people can ever become that rabidly personally dishonest.

Obama as “storyteller” promised the American people over and over and over again that he would not raise taxes on the American people:

But let me perfectly clear, because I know you’ll hear the same old claims that rolling back these tax breaks means a massive tax increase on the American people: if your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime. I repeat: not one single dime.

But here is the fact according to the CBO: Seventy-five percent of ObamaCare TAXES will fall on those making less than $120,000 a year:

There are actually TWENTY-TWO new taxes created by ObamaCare that add up to $670 BILLION. The mandate/penaty TAX is actually not a big deal when compared to the rest of this monstrosity.

Obama also did his best “storytelling” to assure the American people that:

 “no matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what. My view is that health care reform should be guided by a simple principle: fix what’s broken and build on what works.”

That was, of course, quite a story.  It was also quite a demonic lie.  Fully 83% of doctors are seriously considering quitting medicine because of demonic Obama’s “fixing what’s broken and building on what works.”

83 Percent of Doctors have Considered Quitting over Obamacare
by SALLY NELSON July 10, 2012

Eighty-three percent of American physicians have considered leaving their practices over President Barack Obama’s health care reform law, according to a survey released by the Doctor Patient Medical Association.

The DPMA, a non-partisan association of doctors and patients, surveyed a random selection of 699 doctors nationwide. The survey found that the majority have thought about bailing out of their careers over the legislation, which was upheld last month by the Supreme Court.

And Obama’s “storytelling” wasn’t just a lie about doctors. He lied about being able to keep your health care plan, too:

Now, even the Administration admits that this isn’t the case, stating that “as a practical matter, a majority of group health plans will lose their grandfather status by 2013.”

Another “story,” another damn lie.  I guess Obama’s “storytelling” didn’t include things as silly as “practical matters.”

I can go on and on and on and on with this demon-possessed liar and his demonic “storytelling.”  He demonized Bush over Gitmo and promised the American people that he would close it down within one year of the start of his presidency.  But his “storytelling” was an abject lie and Gitmo is still open because Bush was right in opening Gitmo and Obama is from hell.  Obama demonized Bush with “storytelling” about Bush’s use of rendition to deal with terrorists.  But four years later, guess what?  Bush was right about rendition and Obama was a “storyteller.”  Obama slandered Bush with “storytelling” about Bush “air raiding villages and killing civilians.”  He has air-raided more villages and killed more civilians than Bush could have waved a stick at.  Obama told “stories” about how Bush messed up the world and all the terrorism and violence were Bush’s fault.  Four years later I yearn for the world that Bush created, with Syria in flames and the regime getting their WMD ready for use while Egypt turns to the Islamic Brotherhood for leadership and Iran will have a nuclear damn bomb any day now.  Obama gave us one “story” after another on how he was going to win the war in Afghanistan and that Afghanistan was where Bush should have been fighting all along.  Now we’re doing everything possible to crawl out of that country with our tails between our legs in a way that won’t interfere with Obama’s re-election.  On the domestic front, Obama gave us “storytelling” about how Bush was a failed leader for raising the debt ceiling and literally un-American for increasing the debt when he’s blown Bush away on both categories.  Obama offered “storytelling” about how he would cut the deficit in HALF by now when he has now produced FOUR budgets – the first four budgets in the history of the entire human race – that exceeded $1 trillion.  Obama offered us “storytelling” that his ObamaCare would only cost $900 billion; now the CBO is saying the damn demonic turd will cost three times that much at $2.6 TRILLION and the criminally insane boondoggle STILL HASN’T EVEN BEEN IMPLEMENTED YETObama told Hispanic groups the “story” of how giving them what they wanted would be un-American, anti-democratic and unconstitutional to give them what they demanded only to literally do what he had previously said was un-American, anti-democratic and unconstitutional.

Because storytelling = lying to this dishonorable weasel. 

And for Obama to tell you the damn STORY that he hasn’t told you enough “stories” amounts to his saying that he failed to understand how pathologically stupid you people were.  BECAUSE HE SHOULD HAVE LIED TO YOU MORE THAN HE ALREADY HAS.

We are going on four years into God damn America now.  And God will surely continue to damn this nation that was once “under God” more and more and more until Obama is either driven out of office or until we simply collapse under the weight of our failed and demonic policies.

Democrats’ Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT): Because Whether They Have ‘Good Intentions’ Or Not, Theirs Truly IS The Road To Hell

February 10, 2012

Democrats cursed Americans with the AMT tax that has been a kick in the butt that has kept becoming a harder and harder kick in the butt every year since.

But keep in mind as we point a finger at the Democrat Party for taxing the bejesus out of middle class Americans with the AMT that it is only ONE of the many taxes Democrats are hiking on us.  From the article:

There are plenty of other tax issues to worry about for 2012.

Says Weltman, “More than 50 different tax breaks expired at the end of 2011. Unless those are extended, many people will be adversely affected.” As one example, she cites the tax break that applied to people filing in states without an income tax: Last year they could deduct local sales tax in lieu of state income tax.

This year they can’t—unless the break is restored. “They’ll be hit hard,” she warns.

Democrats are the party that hits decent people HARD.

Income Taxes: 30 Million May Be Hit by AMT This Year
By ALAN FARNHAM | Good Morning America – Wed, Feb 8, 2012 12:07 PM EST

Get ready to start paying higher taxes—$3,900 to $8,000 more a year on average. Unless Congress acts, some 30 million Americans will have to pay the dreaded Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), whose rates, depending on your income, are either 26 percent or 28 percent.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, “Nearly every married taxpayer with income between $100,000 and $500,000 will owe some alternative tax.”

Like many awful things, the AMT is the result of good intentions.

It was created by Congress in the 1960s to help ensure that even the most tax-savvy rich paid some minimum amount. Congress, however, did not index its definition of “rich” to inflation. The result is that an income that qualified you as rich 30 years ago subjects you to the AMT—or would, if Congress didn’t authorize, every year, a “patch”—a specified amount of money a filer can deduct from his adjusted gross to stay below the AMT’s threshold.

If Congress failed to approve a new patch, the permissible amount for married couples filing jointly would fall, for example, from the current $74,450 to $45,000. “A lot more people would start paying a lot more money,” says Andrew Schwartz, founder of Schwartz & Schwartz, P.C., a CPA firm specializing in the tax and financial planning issues applicable to young professionals.

Right now uncertainty over when and whether Congress will approve a new patch makes tax planning difficult, he says. “For seven or eight years now,” he explains, “Congress has been passing these one or two-year patches, rather than make a more permanent fix.” According to him, tax planning software now in use assumes the worst: That Congress won’t act.

If no new patch were approved, says Barbara Weltman, a tax and business attorney and author of J.K. Lasser’s Tax Deduction for Small Business, 20 million to 30 million taxpayers not previously subject to the AMT would have to pay it.

The likelihood that you’ll be hit, says Schwartz, increases if you:

Have a large family

Have high real estate taxes and/or high state and local income taxes

-Claim significant miscellaneous itemized deductions

-Exercise and hold incentive stock options

-Realize significant long-term capital gains

Figuring out if the AMT applies to you isn’t easy. You start by going to the IRS’ website and using the “AMT Assistant,” a tool that will determine if you must file Form 6251, an AMT worksheet.

Persons who fail to make the effort (or who misjudge their eligibility) will have to pay not just the higher tax but penalties and interest as well.

You can reduce AMT exposure by reducing your adjusted gross income. For example, you can increase the contributions you make to your 401(k) or IRA. The self-employed can claim a home office deduction. Persons with substantial portfolio can move money from taxable investments into tax-exempt bonds or bond funds.

“With the AMT,” says Schwartz, “It’s all about timing.” Try to pay, for example, your real estate and state and local income taxes in years where your income falls outside AMT range, he advises.

There are plenty of other tax issues to worry about for 2012.

Says Weltman, “More than 50 different tax breaks expired at the end of 2011. Unless those are extended, many people will be adversely affected.” As one example, she cites the tax break that applied to people filing in states without an income tax: Last year they could deduct local sales tax in lieu of state income tax.

This year they can’t—unless the break is restored. “They’ll be hit hard,” she warns.

Heritage released the fact that Democrats seize $2.3 trillion from the MAKERS who create jobs and invest in our economy and then they “redistribute” $2.5 trilion it to the TAKERS in exchange for voting Democrat.

The top 10 percent of American “makers” pay 46% of all federal income taxes – a greater burden than ANYWHERE else on earth.  But they aren’t paying their “fair share” because Democrats are Marxists.

Obama and Democrats say that they haven’t raised taxes on the middle class.  But Obama and the Democrats are also proven liars.

We’re all of us getting taxed up to our necks due to Democrats’ taxes – whether those taxes are publicly demagogued (“make the rick pay their ‘fair’ share“) or are hidden:

Time to Tackle the Hidden Tax of Regulation
by Human Events
05/10/2011

Republicans are hitting President Obama on his idiotic call for tax hikes as well as his avaricious appetite for increased government spending, as they should.  But here’s a new target for them: The hidden tax of regulation.

A new report from the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) titled “Ten Thousand Commandments” reveals the vast amount of private-sector capital drowned in the sea of government regulations.

The report’s conclusion is mind-boggling.  The cost of complying with federal regulations has hit the $1.7 trillion dollar mark.

That’s trillion, with a T.

To put that number in perspective, it’s larger than the President’s own anticipated 2011 budget deficit of $1.6 trillion.  In fact, the current regulatory burden imposed on businesses across America now amounts to 50% of total government spending in one year alone.

That’s nuts!

But guess what?  We can top it.

As the CEI report underscores, the compliance cost of regulation is larger than all corporate pretax profits in 2008 and dwarfs the estimated 2010 individual income tax receipts by nearly 50%.

That last point is worth repeating:  The cost of abiding by all the government regulations tallies up to $1.7 trillion, which towers over the revenue brought in by all income taxes, in every bracket.

We can also add that the compliance costs amount to more than $8,000 per American employee, but we’ll have to stop the comparisons there or else this editorial would rival Atlas Shrugged? in length—but with statistics.  Yikes!

So every time you hear some Democrat bemoan the ill-informed view that America is an underregulated society, tell them to put the above numbers in a pipe and smoke them.

Seriously.  America is hamstrung by onerous regulation.  That anyone can say otherwise defies belief.  CEI notes that the Federal Register, which spells out all the government’s proposed and confirmed regulations, runs practically 25,000 pages—an increase of 26% over the last decade.

And thousands more rules are being proposed each year.

A true “stimulus” to the economy would be to relax much of these regulations and allow entrepreneurs and business owners to spend their capital on expansion and product innovation, rather than conforming to the obligations of some bureaucratic scheme.  That’s not to say scrap all federal oversight, but the way things operate now, agencies are encouraged to brainstorm new policies without taking into account how they would negatively impact the economy.

I’ve asked the question: “If Raising Taxes Would Get America Out Of Trouble, WHY IS THE EURO ZONE IN SUCH DEEP SH!T???

I’ve asked the question: “Hey Democrats, Why Is It That States With The Highest Tax Rates Have The Highest Debt???

And seriously, why is it???

Greece is on the verge of complete collapse because it basically pursued the exact same policies that American Democrats have demanded.

We have one last chance to take a different path than “the road to hell.”