Posts Tagged ‘report’

Liberals Lying To Liberals: More Than Half Of All Lawyers From Libturd Law Schools Can’t Find The Jobs They Were Promised They’d Be Able To Find

April 3, 2013

There was that funny joke: what do you call a million lawyers rotting on the bottom of the ocean?  A good start.

Millions of lawyers rotting in the bottom of their parents’ basements would be an even better joke – other than the fact that many of them took out federal school loans and will never pay them back.  That takes some of the haw-haw factor out of this story.

Liberals OWN the law schools.  The bar associations overwhelmingly lean to the left.  That, on top of the fact that liberals dominate the university system in general, kind of makes the issue facing these law school graduates liberals’ fault, doesn’t it?

Given the fact that lawyers give over 90 percent of their political contributions to Democrats, what this pretty much is is institutional liberals lying to young liberals.

Only when liberals get screwed, they do what most other liberals do and sue.

One of the things that surprised me is that the legal profession apparently JUST discovered that there was something called “computers” or “the internet.”  Most of us, of course, have been aware of this stuff for twenty years or so.  So either lawyers seriously need to update their understanding of the actual world, or the excuse you see below is a version of Obama’s “the bad economy isn’t my fault; it’s everybody and everything else’s fault.”

Class action: Law school grads claim misleading reports of success
By Maura Dolan
April 2, 2013, 11:16 a.m.

SAN FRANCISCO — Dozens of law graduates across the nation have joined class-action lawsuits alleging that law schools lured them in with misleading reports of their graduates’ success.

Instead of working in the law, some of the graduates were toiling at hourly jobs in department stores and restaurants and struggling to pay back more than $100,000 in loans used to finance their education. Others were in temporary or part-time legal positions.

Michael D. Lieberman decided to enroll at Southwestern Law School after reading that 97% of its graduates were employed within nine months. He graduated in 2009, passed the bar on his first try but could not find a job as a lawyer. He worked for a while as a software tester, then a technical writer, and now serves as a field representative for an elected official.

Lieberman, who earned his undergraduate degree at UC San Diego, believes his law degree may still be a “useful tool,” but he and other graduates said a suit they filed was intended to combat “systemic, ongoing fraud prevalent in the legal education industry” that could “leave a generation of law students in dire financial straits,” according to the complaint.

Nearly 20 lawsuits — five of them against California schools — are being litigated at a time of dim employment prospects for lawyers. Much of the work once done by lawyers can now be done more quickly by computers.

Online services have made law libraries largely unnecessary, allowing corporations to do more work in-house. Software has sped the hunt for information needed in discovery and other legal tasks, and Web-based companies offer litigants legal documents and help in filling them out. Even after the economy improves, some experts believe the supply of lawyers will outstrip jobs for years to come.

Although lawyer gluts come and go, “I don’t think any of them rival the situation we are seeing today,” said Joseph Dunn, chief executive of the State Bar of California, which regulates the state’s 230,000 attorneys. “The legal community in all 50 states is being dramatically impacted.”

New and inexperienced lawyers, unable to find jobs at law firms, are opening private practices, potentially putting clients at risk, according to a California bar report issued in February. To confront “serious issues of public protection,” a bar task force has recommended requiring practical experience as a condition of a license. The California Supreme Court would eventually have to approve the new rules.

Besides Southwestern, alumni have sued San Francisco’s Golden Gate University, the University of San Francisco and San Diego’s Thomas Jefferson and California Western schools of law. Each school charges about $40,000 a year in tuition.

But not everyone shares the dismal outlook. Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of UC Irvine Law School, said his students are finding full-time jobs as lawyers even during this slow economy.  “It is not the same across all law schools when you look at employment prospects,” he said.

Rudy Hasl, dean of the Thomas Jefferson School of Law, said the retirement of baby boomers also would open up jobs.

Both deans said there was huge unmet demand for legal services for the poor and middle class, and the next generation of practitioners might be able to fill that demand. The state bar agrees.

“Across the country, the need for legal services among those who cannot pay or have limited ability to pay has never been higher,” the bar report said.

We’re starting to find out what liberals truly think about education, aren’t we?  It’s called “How to exploit stupid people.”  And Democrats are masters in that art.

I submit that “the law” has degenerated into a system whereby cowards get to harass, intimidate and destroy people with virtually no risk to themselves.  Just as “higher education” has degenerated into a system whereby leftist professors get to harass, intimidate and bully students with propaganda in place of where the truth ought to be.  The “legal services for the poor and middle class,” of course, include cars filled with people working for trial lawyers who cut off helpless drivers and then slam on the brakes so they can sue, and disabled people who work for attorneys by going to business after business hoping to find one that isn’t fully enough complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act so they can sue.  It’s not a shame at all that these liberal cockroach predators upon society have overbred themselves.  The problem is that after eating their own, the surviving lawyers will keep feeding on the rest of us.

Advertisements

CBO Warns ‘Fiscal Cliff’ Looms If Bush Tax Cuts Aren’t Continued And Automatic Cuts Gutting Defense Aren’t DIScontinued (Democrats On Wrong Side Of BOTH Issues)

May 24, 2012

Bush tax cuts good, Democrats bad.  And the automatic cuts that will gut defense bad, Democrats trying to prevent their suspension worse.  That according to the CBO.

The CBO says if the Bush tax cuts aren’t extended – i.e., Bush was right, Democrats and Obama were wrong – and if the automatic cuts that resulted from the last budget impasse aren’t suspended, the U.S. economy will go down the toilet starting January 1st of next year.

The funny thing – at least the funny thing if you can see humor in the Democrat Party destroying America – is that Democrats are on the wrong side of both of these issues.  We all know the Democrat Party’s histrionics over the Bush tax cuts from the day Bush cut taxes in 2003; but you should also know that Obama is not only in favor of the automatic cuts that the CBO is warning are a bad thing, but Obama has in fact promised to veto any bill that would overturn them.  And this in spite of the fact that Obama’s own Secretary of Defense has stated that the cuts Obama is demanding would utterly gut the US military and take America back to pre-World War II levels when we were weak and ripe for a devastating attack.

House Republicans are trying to avert the disaster that both the CBO and Secretary of Defense Panetta have warned us about.  Just as they’re trying to keep the Bush tax cuts in place for every single American and for the overall American economy.

Basically, the CBO is warning you that if Democrats get power in 2012, we’re all pretty much screwed:

May 23, 2012 2:00pm
‘Fiscal Cliff’ Looms for U.S. Economy, CBO Warns

Allowing Bush-era tax cuts to expire coupled with a scheduled round of automatic spending cuts would probably throw the U.S. economy into a tailspin. That’s the dire warning from a new Congressional Budget Office report that says the economy would contract by 1.3 percent in the first half 2013, pushing off a ”fiscal cliff” on Jan. 1.

That’s when a higher tax rate would kick in if the Bush-era tax cuts aren’t extended and more than $100 billion in automatic cuts in domestic spending for agencies such as the Pentagon are kept in place.

“Simply extending all of our current tax and spending policies will produce unsustainable deficits and debt, which will also send the economy into decline,” Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., the top Democrat on the Budget Committee, told the Associated Press. “We need to act and we must do so in a balanced way.”

Though lawmakers are expected to head off a shift in the government’s financial situation later this year or in early 2013, the CBO says if nothing is done it would likely push the US economy into recession and wring hundreds of billions of dollars from the budget deficit. That would “represent an additional drag on the weak economic expansion,” the CBO says.

The CBO is a nonpartisan agency of Congress that produces economic analysis and estimates of the cost of legislation.

Last summer’s debt and budget agreement imposed almost $1 trillion in cuts to agency budgets over the coming decade and required automatic cuts of another $1 trillion or so.

The CBO study comes as Congress is gridlocked over spending and taxes in advance of the fall elections. The White House and top Democrats are refusing to act on the expiring tax cuts and automatic spending cuts unless Republicans show greater flexibility on raising taxes.

If no deal is reached, the CBO projects that the economy would shrink by 1.3 percent in the first half of 2013, which would meet the definition of a recession, which is when the economy shrinks for two consecutive quarters.

“Such a contraction in output in the first half of 2013 would probably be judged to be a recession,” CBO said.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

The “Bush tax cuts” are named after BUSH for good reason.  He was the one who got them through with the help of Republicans against bitter Democrat opposition.  Those tax cuts helped get America out of one hell of a hell-hole as a result of the Clinton DotCom bust and the 9/11 attacks that were likewise principally the fault of Bill Clinton.  In the DotCom bubble collapse, America lost over $7.1 TRILLION in wealth that was just vaporized; and the Nasdaq valuation saw 78% of its portfolio wiped out as a result of a giant recession that Bill Clinton handed to George Bush.  And the 9/11 attack was the result of Clinton’s gutting both the military and the intelligence budgets leaving America both weak and blind.  And after the humiliating “Blackhawk Down” retreat from Somalia, it was inevitable that under Bill Clinton al Qaeda “realized that the American soldier was just a paper tiger” as a terrorist named Osama bin Laden said.  Al Qaeda attacked America because Bill Clinton opened the door for them to attack America.

Contrary to what the Democrats have always wrongly believed, tax rate cuts have ALWAYS increased U.S. tax revenues every single time we have ever cut our tax rates.  It worked when Calvin Coolidge did it; it worked when John F. Kennedy did it; it worked when Ronald Reagan did it; and yes, it worked when George W. Bush did it.

When you allow the American people to keep more of what they earned, they simply make better decisions that improve their own lives and the overall health of the economy far more than when the government taxes and redistributes.  Everybody understands that middle class Americans with more purchasing power is a good thing; but it is equally true that when wealthier Americans are allowed to invest and be rewarded for their investment risks, the net result is economic growth and job growth for everybody.

Mayor Cory Booker – a prominent Democrat and Obama ally – said this of the unrelenting attack on private equity in general and Bain Capital in particular:

“As far as that stuff, I have to just say from a very personal level, I’m not about to sit here and indict private equity. To me, it’s just this–we’re getting to a ridiculous point in America, especially that I know. I live in a state where pension funds, unions and other people are investing in companies like Bain Capital. If you look at the totality of Bain Capital’s record, it ain’t–they’ve done a lot to support businesses, to grow businesses, And this, to me, I’m very uncomfortable with.“

Booker is openly acknowledging that private equity is a good thing; that it has an enormous net benefit for cities and for states and for the nation.  As do a growing list of Democrats, from Gov. Ed Rendell to Harold Ford to Obama auto czar Steven Rattner to Gov. Deval Patrick to several prominent Democrat US Senators.

Bain Capital points out the fact that:

Despite political attacks that emphasize the few companies that have struggled, the facts are that during Bain Capital’s ownership, revenues grew in 80 percent of the more than 350 companies in which we have invested.

Eight out of ten times Mitt Romney stepped up to the plate he hit a home run and grew the businesses he rescued from bankruptcy.  But Obama deceitfully tries to only allow discussion of the two out of ten times that he didn’t.

And then you further find out the sheer duplicity that is Barack Obama: the man who has demonized private equity is at the same time gobbling up MORE MONEY from these firms than Mitt Romney!!!!  And that is primarily because of another profound act of cynical Obama dishonesty: because in blatant contradiction to his promise to reign in lobbyists and special interest pacs, Obama has in fact opened the floodgates to both.

Barack Obama has attended FIVE TIMES more fundraisers THAN THE PREVIOUS FIVE PRESIDENTS COMBINED.  And a lot of corrupt investors are realizing that the most corrupt money-grubbing whore that has ever infested the White House has opened the doors to crony capitalist boondoggles in which you give Obama a few thousand dollars in campaign contributions and rake in millions or even HUNDREDS of millions of dollars in taxpayer money for the next soon-to-be-bankrupt-boondoggle

EIGHTY PERCENT of green energy loans somehow ended up in the pockets of OBAMA DONORSHere’s a list of who got money.  It is utterly bankrupt.  You can’t find this level of corruption in the entire history of the republic.

It’s implicit from the CBO report: Democrats are the problem and Republicans are the solution to preventing America from going over the “fiscal cliff” that Obama and the Democrats have in store for America.

The Intentionally False Picture In The Latest Employment Report

February 4, 2012

The hype over the lastest unemployment report is bizarre given that it followed the CBO annual report by just one day.  Here are a few pointers from that report:

Has Obama created or destroyed jobs since taking office?

That prompted this exchange between Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Calif., and the CBO director. “Let me ask you, are there more people working today or fewer people working today than at the — on inauguration day of 2009?” McClintock asked.

“I believe the answer to that,” said Elmendorf, “is there are fewer people, congressman.”

Is Obama’s economic plan succeeding or wildly failing to create jobs?

The [CBO] office says that will leave the unemployment rate at 8.9 percent at the end of this year, well above current the current rate of 8.5 percent, meaning the jobless rate would be increasing at election time.

[…]

And in 2013, CBO estimates unemployment will be even higher — at 9.2 percent.

And here is a more detailed contemplation of that report.

That CBO report got little play from leftist birdcage liners such as the LA Times (I paid $20 for a one-year weekend subscription – to get the coupons rather than the “reporting” – and actually got a $25 gift card from a major retailer followed by the Times upgrading me to daily delivery for free without my even wanting it.  So that should tell you what the paper is actually worth), but the unemployment report is being so breathlessly hyped it is positively UNREAL.

But there’s something even more disturbing that that about the unemployment report:

Employment Report: Blatant And Outrageous Lies
by the Market Ticker

There are times when one questions a report as possibly being wrong or in error, and then there are times when one has to raise a flag and say “This is an intentionally false picture being presented by a government agency.”

I’m in the latter camp with this one, and it is rare for me to brand something as not possibly wrong and in error, but intentionally fraudulent.

Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 243,000 in January, and the unemployment rate decreased to 8.3 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Job growth was widespread in the private sector, with large employment gains in professional and business services, leisure and hospitality, and manufacturing. Government employment changed little over the month.

This looks really good; here’s the chart that is on the front page:

I wish I could take this report, pick it apart at the household level, and find confirmation. Remember that last month the alleged 200,000 jobs that were gained were a phantom; when one looked inside the household data we found instead deterioration in both the employment participation rate and a decline in the absolute number of employed persons, while population rose. That is, the actual counts (as opposed to black-box statements) said that the labor picture deteriorated in December, contrary to the reported numbers.

This month it was worse. Far worse.

Let’s start with the “base picture” that is causing the cheering:

That nice red line looks good, right? Well……

“Not in labor force” numbers leaped upward on an annualized basis (seasonally adjusted the “right way”) and what’s worse on a raw basis 1.572 million people exited the labor force last month.

This is reflected in the percentage of those not in the labor force as a percentage of the working-age population, which hit an all-time high going back to the initiation of the data series I’ve tracked since 1999:

That’s 0.6% of the entire labor force that departed the working population in one month, three times the alleged drop in the unemployment rate. This means that internally, the numbers were even worse than they first appear!

Indeed, the total number of employed persons fell. A lot. To put a number on it, the total number of employed persons fell by 737,000 by actual count.

Now the cheerleaders will state that this is a common thing in January, and indeed it is. But the correct adjustment is to look at the population increase and subtract that back off as well. In other words, we take the loss of employment and add the population growth. When we do this we get a whopping 2.422 million in the wrong direction which was bested only by the -2.618 million in January of 2009 through the process of this downturn!

In fact other than January 2009 there has never been a single month in my table, which dates back to 1999, that put up a worse combined number. This “performance” rates a literal “second from utter despair and disaster”, and the employment rate shows it:

This is not a strong report folks, and in fact documents an actual and ongoing collapse in the US labor force, despite the crooning on the mainstream media disinformation channels!

We live in an age in which the most dishonest administration relies on the  most dishonest media propaganda in American history.

At least Hitler had the intellectual integrity to CALL his “news” propaganda.

At Least HALF Of All Employers Will Likely Shove Workers Into ObamaCare. The Beast Is Coming.

June 22, 2011

At a town hall meeting in New Hampshire on Aug. 11, 2009, President Barack Obama repeated a line he’s used many times in describing his health care proposal: “If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan.”

Politifact says that claim was “half true” on their truth-o-meter.  But half truths quite often amount to whole lies.

What was it that Nancy Pelosi said before Democrats rammed through ObamaCare using every deceitful trick and tactic available?  Oh, yeah: “But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.”

Well, here are just some of the increasingly bleak truths that we are learning:

A report by Price Waterhouse Coopers (PWC) on medical cost trends for 2012 provides a dismal forecast of continued increases that consumers will see in their health care costs.
Key findings of the PWC report indicate:

  • The Democrats’ health care law has done little to ease the compliance burdens facing employers – as the PWC report points out, “employers have had their hands full complying with the avalanche of new regulations under PPACA.”
  • Medical costs are expected to increase:  PWC expects medical costs to increase 8.5% in 2012, up from 8% in 2011.
  • More Americans will NOT be able to keep the health care coverage they have and like, with the report noting that “some employers are becoming less confident in their ability to offer health benefits on a long term basis.”

Of note:

  • 84% of employers are likely to make changes to offset the costs associated with the Democrats’ health care law,
  • 86% are likely to re-evaluate their overall benefits strategy, and
  • 50% are considering significantly changing or eliminating company subsidies for dependent medical coverage.

Well, THAT sure sucks.  Sorry for all you schmucks who worked so hard in your personal lives – went to college, stayed on the straight and narrow, scrimped and saved when others bought the latest fad items, showed up on time every day and worked hard while others slacked off around you – just so you could get a job with DECENT BENEFITS.  But those days are gone now because Democrats imposed their will to create a massive boondoggle.  And now, as a result of Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid – and of course the now-famous Anthony Weiner – you get to be tossed into a bad, smelly place where you won’t be able to get a doctor to save your life.  And if you get thrown into Medicaid, where Obama most wants you, then God help you, because Obama sure won’t.

The “fog of controversy” is lifting.  Now we’re starting to see that the FACT that Democrats have created a monster that will eat us alive.

I think of fellow communist country North Korea.  You’d think leftists would care about their people, but they don’t.  Back in 2004, the New York Times wrote of fellow socialist traveller North Korea – “that claims to follow the world’s purest brand of communism” – “almost 10 percent of the population is believed to have starved to death.”  And nothing has changed since then.

Let’s consider the attitudes of leftists.  Take Chairman Mao – who has been publicly praised by top Obama officials.

“The atom bomb is nothing to be afraid of,” Mao told Nehru, “China has many people. . . . The deaths of ten or twenty million people is nothing to be afraid of.” A witness said Nehru showed shock. Later, speaking in Moscow, Mao displayed yet more generosity: he boasted that he was willing to lose 300 million people, half of China’s population.” [Annie Dillard, “The Wreck of Time” in Harper’s from January 1998].

Here’s a little more of Chairman Mao’s attitude for his people:

LEE EDWARDS, CHAIRMAN, VICTIMS OF COMMUNISM MEMORIAL FOUNDATION: In 1959 to 1961 was the so-called “great leap forward” which was actually a gigantic leap backwards in which he tried to collectivize and communize agriculture.

And they came to him after the first year and they said, “Chairman, five million people have died of famine.” He said, “No matter, keep going.” In the second year, they came back and they said, “Ten million Chinese have died.” He said, “No matter, continue.” The third year, 20 million Chinese have died. And he said finally, “Well, perhaps this is not the best idea that I’ve ever had.”

CHANG: When he was told that, you know, his people were dying of starvation, Mao said, “Educate the peasants to eat less. Thus they can benefit – they can fertilize the land.”

With liberals, One death is a tragedy; one million is a statistic.”

Think of energy.  Liberals have demonized oil, gas, coal, nuclear and everything else that actually produces energy.  They want to leave us with “renewable energy” which produces about 8% of our energy needs.  What are we going to do for the rest?  Obama says he plans to bankrupt the coal energy which supplies half of America’s electricity.  Obama has continued to pursue this reckless policy with regulations that are crippling us.  What are we going to do?  And the shocking secret is it doesn’t matter to them.

And the reason that the Kim Jong Ils and the Chairman Maos and the Joseph Stalins and the Barack Obamas stay in power is that people simply can’t believe that their leaders are truly that depraved.

I’ve been a voice shouting in the wilderness that the mantras of the Democrat Party are virtually identical with the mantras of Marxism.

They don’t care about your LIFE, let alone about your health care.  These people hate God, and they want to create massive government in place of God, and they want to be the high priests of that government, and they want you to come hat in hand and bow down before them such that they get to decide who the winners and losers are.

Liberals want to crash the system and impose the Marxism they have always dreamed of.  Think Cloward and Piven.  Think of the liberal strategy to crash the US economy.

The beast is coming.  He too will be a leftist.  He will actually be able to create what the left have been dreaming of for a generation and beyond: a one-world government.  He will be a big government totalitarian who will promise to take care of everybody just as every leftist has done from Karl Marx to Stalin to Hitler to Chairman Mao to Kim Il Sung Pol Pot Mao to Kim Jong Il.  He will produce a government system in place of God, and then he will declare himself as god over that government (Daniel 9:27; Matthew 24:15-21; 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4; Revelation chapter 13.

People who truly value individuals value the individual freedoms inherent in a free market economy.  What we are now seeing in these last days are people who DON’T value individual human lives.  They have snuffed out more than 53 million human lives in America alone through the Holocaust of the abortion mills.  And they have transported their hell with them to Asian countries that have created an unnatural and monstrous imbalance as “a woman’s right to choose” has murdered millions upon millions upon millions more WOMEN.  They have been working and laboring to bring the hell of the Antichrist to this world and to this very country for decades.

And this hell is now at our very doorstep.

D. James Kennedy issued a prophetic warning: “Watch out, Grandpa!  Because the generation that survived abortion will one day come after YOU!”

Senior citizens – and those close to being senior citizens – are going to find out that they aren’t working anymore, which means they are no longer productive.  Their going to find out that aging people consume vastly more medical resources than younger, healthier people.  They’re going to find out that Obama has already spent America into staggering debt that it cannot possibly repay.  And they’re going to find out that liberals think they’ve already lived their “complete lives.”

And the left WILL come after you, Grandma and Grandpa.  They’re going to come after you through socialized medicine and the ObamaCare monster that created it.  They’re going to kill you by the tens of millions.  They’ve done it before; they’re literally doing it right now.  And you aint seen nothing of the HELL that these people are laboring to create yet.

 

Obama Ambassador Cynthia Stroum A Self-Aggrandizing Tyrant (In Other Words The Perfect Liberal)

February 8, 2011

One might argue that every president plays political games.  But Barack Obama ran with such a dogmatic self-righteousness that he would be “The One” to transcend this crap that his total pathetic failure to do so amounts to a major scandal.

Big Obama donor quits envoy job amid criticism
Posted: Feb 04, 2011 1:10 AM PST
Updated: Feb 05, 2011 1:10 AM PST
By MATTHEW LEE
Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) – As a supporter of presidential candidate Barack Obama, Cynthia Stroum was a superstar whose financial backing of the campaign landed her a plum diplomatic posting in Europe.

As America’s ambassador to Luxembourg, the wealthy Seattle-based businesswoman was a disaster.

According to an internal State Department report released Thursday, less than a week after she quit, Stroum’s management of the U.S. Embassy in the tiny country was abysmal. The report says her tenure of about one year was fraught with personality conflicts, verbal abuse and questionable expenditures on travel, wine and liquor.

Stroum’s case illustrates the pitfalls that presidents can face when they appoint non-career diplomats to ambassadorships as a reward for their political support.

The Luxembourg embassy “has underperformed for the entirety of the current ambassador’s tenure,” said the report, which was prepared last fall before she resigned abruptly. “At present, due to internal problems, it plays no significant role in policy advocacy or reporting, though developments in Luxembourg are certainly of interest to Washington clients and other U.S. missions in the NATO and EU communities.”

Stroum resigned effective Jan. 31, just days before the scathing report from the State Department’s inspector general was made public. A message left with a person who answered the phone at her Seattle home said she was unavailable for comment. The call was not returned.

In a farewell message published in the Luxembourg press, Stroum said she was leaving the job because she wanted to return to private life. “The reality is that I now need to focus on my family and personal business,” she said.

At the State Department, her departure was not announced. Spokesman Mark Toner gave no hint of problems when asked about the situation. “We are grateful for her service to the United States and wish her all the best in her new endeavors,” he said.

But the report paints a picture of a corrosive atmosphere at the small embassy, with the ambassador running roughshod over staff, threatening to read their e-mails, largely concerned about job-related perks and involved in improper purchases.

The situation was so bad that the inspector general recommended that the State Department dispatch medical personnel to Luxembourg to test the stress levels of embassy employees. It said at least four staffers quit or sought transfers to Iraq and Afghanistan during her tenure, unusual steps for diplomats assigned to a modern, Western European capital.

“The bulk of the mission’s internal problems are linked to her leadership deficiencies, the most damaging of which is an abusive management style,” the report said. “She has followed a pattern of public criticism of colleagues, including (deputies), who have not performed to her satisfaction.”

“Those who have questioned or challenged some of the ambassador’s actions state that they have paid a heavy price in the form of verbal abuse and been threatened with dismissal,” it said.

The report said the State Department was aware of the situation and that a perceived lack of action in dealing with it could be harmful. “It is unfortunate that an impression is being created among officers and local employees at this mission that this kind of behavior may be routinely tolerated by Department of State leadership, particularly for non-career ambassadors.”

Stroum began her short diplomatic career in 2009 when Obama nominated her to the cushy position of U.S. ambassador to the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, a tiny nation of 500,000 people about the size of Rhode Island and surrounded by France, Belgium and Germany.

Aside from her business experience as an investor, entertainment producer and philanthropist active in numerous charities, Stroum’s major qualification for the post appeared to be her generous contributions to Democratic politicians and causes, particularly Obama’s campaign.

Financial reports say Stroum donated the maximum personal amount to Obama’s campaign. She also donated $2,300 to the failed presidential campaign of former Sen. John Edwards.

As a fundraiser, the records show she was responsible for ginning up at least $500,000 for Obama, putting her near the top of the campaign’s money generators.

The inspector general said it had learned in interviews with embassy staffers that Stroum, shortly after her arrival in Luxembourg, discussed with them “the importance she attaches to the perquisites of” being an ambassador. As such, she was particularly concerned about the state of the ambassador’s residence, which was being renovated, it said.

Because of the renovation, Stroum sought temporary housing. An embassy official spent six weeks searching for an appropriate property and, using contacts in Luxembourg, Belgium, Germany and France along with two officials from the U.S. Embassy in Brussels, screened 200 properties and visited 30 to 40.

They found only four that met the ambassador’s requirements and she rejected all of them, according to the report, before an acceptable residence finally was found.

Apart from those difficulties and management problems, the report identified several improprieties while Stroum was in charge in Luxembourg. Among them:

Stroum spent $2,400 to fly with an aide to a Swiss “professional school” whose graduates have gone on to work for Buckingham Palace and similar places to interview candidates to replace a retired property caretaker and a fired chef. The purpose of the trip was listed as “management meetings.” Although no one from the school was hired, such recruitment is allowed only if there are no qualified local employees. In addition, they did not get proper authorization for the trip.

The embassy purchased $3,400 in wine and liquor a day before the 2010 budget year ended in an effort spend as much of its annual entertainment funds as possible. The booze did not arrive until the next fiscal year and State Department rules say embassies are not allowed “to use excess year-end funds” to buy items unless they are used in that year.

Stroum was reimbursed for the purchase of a new bed because she “preferred a queen bed to the king-size bed already provided.” The embassy twice asked Washington to reimburse the amount but was denied because it was a personal choice. Despite the refusals, the No. 2 at the embassy signed off on a voucher “reimbursing the ambassador for the cost of the mattress out of program funds.” The report said the voucher needs to be repaid.

Liberalism = Abuse of Other People’s Money.

Cynthia Stroum ought to be held up as a quintessential liberal, as she is a total hypocrite who talks about how much she cares for the little people while running roughshod over them.  And her selection for an ambassadorship ought to be held up as a quintessential Obama appointment.  It is the paradigm of liberal hypocrisy.

John Edwards, John Kerry, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Charlie Rangel, and every single Democrat in Bell, California are other recent examples of the complete disgustingness of liberalism.  And let’s not forget the pork emperor Barack Obama AND his empress wife Michelle, either.  These and many other Democrats personify the type of people who claim that private citizens aren’t entitled to keep their own money.

Liberals endlessly lecture Republicans as being “hypocrites” when they preach good moral values and then fail to live up to those good values with immoral personal conduct.  And, of course, that IS hypocrisy, no question about it.

But Democrats don’t just preach garbage that they themseleves don’t bother to live up to; they seize other people’s money and routinely hypocritically betray their own stated values using other people’s money to do it.

Just keep in mind that Republicans can’t steal your morality and spend it on their mistresses the way Democrats routinely do in their hypocrisy.

She shouldn’t resign; Obama should look for MORE self-absorbed and self-aggrandizing tyrants JUST LIKE HER so we can better see what Democrat rule is really like.

Meet Michelle Obama, Mass-Murdering Liberal

January 23, 2011

Let’s start out with the story as told by uberlib Kate Sheppard:

A new report from the Governor’s Highway Safety Association is getting lots of press today because some reporters, rather bizarrely, have tried to blame the increase in pedestrian deaths in 2010 on First Lady Michelle Obama’s anti-obesity campaign.

Yes, you read that right. See the original piece in The Examiner and the followup in the Daily Caller.

The reporters in question posit that perhaps the increase in the number of pedestrians struck by cars last year, after four years of decline, is because people are out exercising more, choosing to walk when possible instead of hopping in the car. TBD has a good post in which the GHSA’s executive director, Barbara Harsha, explaining that she never said that at all. The group isn’t sure exactly what caused the uptick in deaths—and they certainly can’t pin it on Michelle Obama’s “Let’s Move” initiative.

Now, do I think for a single second that Michelle Obama’s initiative should be blamed for the spike in pedestrian deaths?

No.

Then again, I don’t think like a liberal.

Sarah Palin got widely blamed for Jared Loughner’s shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and many others in Tucson Arizona for no other reason than that she had a map that “targeted” vulnerable Democrats – Giffords included – for political defeat.

It wasn’t just the far-left that did this; even supposed “mainstream” journalists were all over themselves denouncing Sarah Palin for her inciting violence.

They didn’t really give a damn that Democrats themselves routinely used the same sort of maps to “target” Republicans:

Nor did they think it worthwhile to mention that Bob Beckel – the Democrat strategist who ran Walter Mondale’s campaign – claimed that he invented “targeting” maps.  And that, therefore, the worse thing Republicans did was respond to this act of hate and violence by fighting back.

Nor did they decide it was worthwhile to mention the fact that not only did a leftwing group “target” Gabrielle Giffords for defeat because she wasn’t liberal enough for them, but they actually used the word “dead” in reference to her:

The website Daily Kos has also deleted a diary about Rep. Gabrielle Giffords entitled “My Congresswoman Voted Against Pelosi, Now She’s Dead To Me,” but so far has not deleted a post by founder Markos Moulitsas that lists Giffords’ district among those on their “target list,” and noted that “Not all of these people will get or even deserve primaries, but this vote certainly puts a bulls eye on their district.”

We have since learned that there is absolutely no connection whatsoever between Sarah Palin and anything that Sarah Palin said or did or posted and Tucson gunman Jared Loughner.

But that didn’t stop the rabid left, did it?

But allow me to think like a liberal, for a second…

Okay, I’m back from the sudden urge to vomit that overcame me.  My stomach is now as devoid of its contents as my mind of rationality.  I now return to my experiment of thinking like a liberal.

If we apply the left’s “guilty until proven innocent” tactic on Michelle Obama, where do we end up?

With all due respect, there is FAR more evidence linking Michelle Obama to the traffic deaths of pedestrians (after all, she did encourage people to get out there and walk, and she should have known that many people who were stupid enough to take advice from her in the first place would be too stupid to survive an encounter with the real world).

It seems obvious that, applying liberal methodology, we should immediately brand Michelle Obama a mass-murderer.  And we should continue to denounce her until we do a study and determine that every single pedestrian killed had never once heard her instruction to “move.”

And, of course, if so much as one pedestrian causality ever heard Michelle Obama say “let’s move,” then obviously Michelle Obama as much as killed that poor victim.

And all we need to condemn Michelle Obama for her “Let’s Murder” initiative is to apply the same standard that the left applied to Sarah Palin.

Tax Cuts INCREASE Revenues; They Have ALWAYS Increased Revenues

September 8, 2010

We keep seeing the same liberal argument being played over and over again.  As the mainstream media seek to make their case to the American people that the Bush tax cuts should expire, one of the primary strategies being employed is to claim that Republicans are refusing to “pay for” their extension of the tax cuts.  And that therefore the Republicans will hike the deficit.  The problem is that it’s a false premise, based on a static conception of human behavior that refuses to take into account the fact that people’s behavior changes depending upon how much of their money they are allowed to keep, and how much of their money is seized from them in taxation.

As bizarre as it might seem, it is seen as perverse these days to suggest that allowing someone to keep more of the money he or she invests would stimulate people to take more risks by investing in businesses and products, and that such increased investment in business and products would in turn stimulate more economic growth.  Common sense has become akin to rocket science these days.

Then again, liberals aren’t doing much for rocket science, either.

Let’s take a look at the current facts, and then examine the history of our greatest tax-cutting presidents.

The Falsehood That Democrats Are ‘Cutting’ Taxes

Democrats say they are cutting taxes on “95% of Americans, but argue that giving the same tax cut benefits to the remaining 5% would hike the deficit and be fiscally irresponsible.

Well, for one thing, the Democrats are flat-out lying when they say they are cutting taxes for 95% of Americans.  That can’t possibly be true, because as a matter of simple fact a whopping 47% of American households pay no federal income taxes whatsoever.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Tax Day is a dreaded deadline for millions, but for nearly half of U.S. households it’s simply somebody else’s problem.

About 47 percent will pay no federal income taxes at all for 2009. Either their incomes were too low, or they qualified for enough credits, deductions and exemptions to eliminate their liability. That’s according to projections by the Tax Policy Center, a Washington research organization. […]

The result is a tax system that exempts almost half the country from paying for programs that benefit everyone, including national defense, public safety, infrastructure and education. It is a system in which the top 10 percent of earners — households making an average of $366,400 in 2006 — paid about 73 percent of the income taxes collected by the federal government.

What Democrats are doing – deceitful liars that they are – is giving Americans “tax credits” and calling them “tax cuts.”

tax cut is a reduction in the percentage or amount of taxes that is being imposed on a citizen.  The government is cutting the amount it had been collecting from taxpayers.  A government cannot “cut” a citizen’s taxes unless that citizen had been paying taxes in the first place.

A tax credit is when you give someone money that has been collected from another taxpayer.  It is redistribution of wealth.  It is what Karl Marx described as “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”  Do you notice that “to” in the middle?  It means, “transferring the wealth from one government-penalized group of people TO another government-privileged group of people.”  It is what Obama described as “spreading the wealth around.”

What Obama and the Democrats in Congress propose is NOT a “tax cut.”  And it is nothing but a lie to call it that.  And every single journalist who has suggested that it is a tax cut is as much of a liar as the Democrats are.

That’s the first point.  Democrats are advancing a central tenet of Marxism and deceitfully and even demagogically relabeling it as “capitalism.”  And the media helps them get away with it.

The Falsehood That Cutting Taxes For the Rich – But NOT The Other Classes – Contributes To the Deficit

Next comes the idea Democrats argue that tax cuts for the rich contribute to the deficit.

Let’s say for the sake of argument (just for the moment; I’ll prove it’s wrong below) that tax cuts for the rich raise the deficit.  Let me ask you one question: how then do tax cuts for the rest of us not ALSO raise the deficit???

Why wouldn’t raising taxes on the middle class and the poor not correspondingly lower the deficit?  So why aren’t Democrats going after them?

Are Democrats too stupid to realize that there just aren’t enough rich people to pay off our deficit, especially when this president and this Congress have raised said deficit tenfold over the last Republican-passed budget deficit?  The last budget produced by congressional Republicans was in 2007.  That year, the deficit was approximately $160 billion; now under Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid it is $1.6 TRILLION a year as far as the eye can see.

Wouldn’t ANY tax cuts raise the deficit?  And shouldn’t we therefore tax the bejeezus out of EVERYBODY to lower the deficit?  Wouldn’t every single dollar collected reduce the deficit correspondingly?

Let me put it concretely: say I took a $100 bill out of the wallet of a millionaire.  And then say I took a $100 bill out of the wallet of a poor person.  If I took both bills to a Democrat, would he or she be able to tell the difference?  Would he say, “Ah, THIS bill will lower the deficit because it comes from a rich person; but THIS one clearly won’t because it clearly came from a poor person.”

Update, Sep. 10: A study by the Joint Tax Committee, using the same static methodology that I refer to in my opening paragraph, calculate that the government will lose $700 billion in revenue if the tax cuts for the top income brackets are extended.  And that sounds bad.  But they also conclude that the Bush tax cuts on the middle class will cost the Treasury $3 TRILLION over the same period.  If we can’t afford $700 billion, then how on earth can we afford $3 trillion?  And then you’ve got to ask how much the Treasury is losing by not taxing the poor first into the poorhouse, and then into the street?  And how much more revenue could we collect if we then imposed a “street” tax? [end update].

Hopefully you get the point: if tax cuts for the rich are bad because they increase the deficit, then they are equally bad for everyone else for the same exact reason.  And so we should either tax the hell out of everyone, or cut taxes for everyone.  And a consistent Democrat opposed to “deficit-hiking tax cuts for the rich” should be for raising YOUR taxes as much as possible.

Republicans don’t fall into this fundamental contradiction (see below), because they don’t believe that tax cuts create deficits.  Democrats do.  Which means they are perfectly content with shockingly supermassive deficits – as long as its 95% of Americans who are creating those deficits, rather than 100%.

Joe Biden said it was a patriotic duty to pay higher taxes.  And yet Democrats are trying to make 95% of Americans unpatriotic traitors who don’t care about their country?

Now, Democrats will at this point repudiate logic and punt to the issue of “fairness.”  But “fairness” is a very subjective thing, when one group of people decide it’s “fair” for another group of people to hand over their money while the first group pays nothing.  Even George Bernard Shaw – a socialist, mind you – understood this.  He pointed out the fact that “A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.”

Which is to say it’s NOT fair at all.  Paul may think it’s fair, but poor Peter gets screwed year after year.

And it is a fundamental act of hypocrisy – not to mention advancing yet ANOTHER central tenet of Marxist class warfare – to claim to oppose tax cuts for the rich in the name of the deficit, but not to oppose tax cuts for everyone else.

And for the record, I despise both hypocrisy AND central tenets of Marxism.  Which is why I despise the Democrat Party, which is both hypocritical and basically Marxist.

[Update, September 20] Brit Hume demolished the Obama-Democrat argument regarding the Bush tax cuts being a “cost” to the government, saying:

But the very language used in discussing these issues tells you something as well. In Washington, letting people keep more of their own money is considered a cost. As if all the money really belongs to the government in the first place in which what you get to keep is an expenditure.”

And, again, that mindset about government control and in fact government ownership over people’s wealth represents a profoundly Marxist view of the world. [End update].

For what it’s worth, Democrats will only maintain the massive contradiction of “tax cuts for the rich raising the deficit” for so long.  Obama already admitted he was willing to go back on his promise to raise taxes on the middle class.  And his people are already looking to tee off on middle class tax hikes.  In addition, if you have any private retirement funds, they may well be coming after you soon.

The Falsehood That Tax Cuts Increase The Deficit

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

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

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

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

And what happened?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kennedy said:

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As a result of the Clinton-era Dot-com bubble bursting, the Nasdaq lost a whopping 78% of its value, and $6 trillion dollars of wealth was simply vaporized.  We don’t tend to remember how bad that economic disaster was, because the 9/11 attack was such a huge experience, and because instead of endlessly blaming his predecessor, George Bush simply took responsibility for the economy, cut taxes, and fixed the problem.  The result, besides the above tax revenue gains, was an incredible and unprecedented 52 consecutive months of job growth.

Update September 12: Did somebody say something about “jobs”?  Another fact to recognize is the horrendous damage that will be done to small businesses and the jobs they create if the tax cuts for the “rich” aren’t continued.  As found in the Wall Street Journal, “According to IRS data, fully 48% of the net income of sole proprietorships, partnerships, and S corporations reported on tax returns went to households with incomes above $200,000 in 2007.” Further, the Tax Policy Center found that basically a third of taxpayers who are expected to be in the top tax bracket in 2011 generate more than half their income from a business ownership.  And while Democrats love to point out that their tax hikes on the so-called rich only impact 3% of small businesses, the National Federation of Independent Business reports that that three percent employs about 25 percent of the nation’s total workforce.  “Small businesses that employ 20 to 250 workers are the most likely to be hit by an increase in the top two tax rates, according to NFIB research. Businesses of this size employ more than 25 percent of the U.S. workforce.”  So if you want jobs and an economic recovery, you simply don’t pile more punishing taxes on those “rich” people.  Especially during a recession [End update].

We’re not arguing theories here; we’re talking about the actual, empirical numbers, literally dollars and cents, which confirms Andrew Mellon’s thesis, and Warren Harding’s and Calvin Coolidge’s, John F. Kennedy’s, Ronald Reagan’s, and George W. Bush’s, economic policies.

Harding and Coolidge, Reagan and Bush, with Democrat JFK right smack in the middle: great tax cutters all.

The notion that small- and limited-government conservatives who want ALL Americans to pay less to a freedom-encroaching government are somehow “beholden to the rich” for doing so is just a lie.  And a Marxist-based lie at that.

[Update, 12/15/10]: Check out these numbers as to how the Reagan tax cuts INCREASED the taxes paid by the wealthy, and REDUCED the taxes paid by the middle class and the bottom 50% of tax payers:

Income tax burdens (from the Joint Economic Committee for the US Congress report, 1996):
1981: top 1% of earners paid 17.6% of all personal income taxes
1988: top 1% of earners paid 27.5% of all personal income taxes (+ 10%).

1981: top 10% of earners paid 48% of all personal income taxes
1988: top 10% of earners paid 57.2% of all personal income taxes (+ 9%).

So rich clearly paid MORE of the tax burden when their tax rates were LOWERED.

For the middle class:
1981: middle class paid 57.5% of all personal income taxes
1988: middle class paid 48.7% of all personal income taxes (- 9%).

The middle class’ tax burden went DOWN by 9%.  They paid almost 10% LESS than what they had been paying before the Reagan cuts.

For the bottom 50%:
1981: bottom 50% paid 7.5% of all personal income taxes
1988: bottom 50% paid 5.7% of all personal income taxes (- 2%).

So the Joint Economic Economic Committee concludes that if you lower the tax rates on the rich, the rich wind up paying MORE of the tax burden and the poor end up paying LESS.  When you enact confiscatory taxation policies, the people who can afford it invariably end up protecting their money.  They do everything they can to NOT pay taxes because they are getting screwed.  When the rates drop to reasonable rates, they don’t shelter their money; rather, they take advantage of their ability to earn more – and improve the economy by doing so – by investing.  If you take away their profit, you take away their incentive to improve the economy and create jobs.

Some articles to read:

The Reagan Tax Cuts: Lessons for Tax Reform

The Historical Lessons of Lower Tax Rates

Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenues and Help Low Income Families

[End Update, 12/15/10]

Obama Massively Underestimates His Deficit; And By The Way, Federal Debt Will Raise To 90% Of GDP

March 26, 2010

Good afternoon, America.  You each owe $10,000 more than the government thought you did yesterday.  Hope that doesn’t bother anybody.

Barack Obama is leading the United States of America straight down to hell.  And it will be completely broke and massively in debt when we get there:

CBO report: Debt will rise to 90% of GDP
Friday, March 26, 2010
By David M. Dickson

President Obama’s fiscal 2011 budget will generate nearly $10 trillion in cumulative budget deficits over the next 10 years, $1.2 trillion more than the administration projected, and raise the federal debt to 90 percent of the nation’s economic output by 2020, the Congressional Budget Office reported Thursday.

In its 2011 budget, which the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) released Feb. 1, the administration projected a 10-year deficit total of $8.53 trillion. After looking it over, CBO said in its final analysis, released Thursday, that the president’s budget would generate a combined $9.75 trillion in deficits over the next decade
.

“An additional $1.2 trillion in debt dumped on [GDP] to our children makes a huge difference,” said Brian Riedl, a budget analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation. “That represents an additional debt of $10,000 per household above and beyond the federal debt they are already carrying.”

The federal public debt, which was $6.3 trillion ($56,000 per household) when Mr. Obama entered office amid an economic crisis, totals $8.2 trillion ($72,000 per household) today, and it’s headed toward $20.3 trillion (more than $170,000 per household) in 2020, according to CBO’s deficit estimates.

That figure would equal 90 percent of the estimated gross domestic product in 2020, up from 40 percent at the end of fiscal 2008. By comparison, America’s debt-to-GDP ratio peaked at 109 percent at the end of World War II, while the ratio for economically troubled Greece hit 115 percent last year.

“That level of debt is extremely problematic, particularly given the upward debt path beyond the 10-year budget window,” said Maya MacGuineas, president of the bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.

For countries with debt-to-GDP ratios “above 90 percent, median growth rates fall by 1 percent, and average growth falls considerably more,” according to a recent research paper by economists Kenneth S. Rogoff of Harvard and Carmen M. Reinhart of the University of Maryland.

CBO projected the 2011 deficit will be $1.34 trillion, not much different from the administration’s estimate of $1.27 trillion. However, CBO’s estimate of the 2020 deficit at $1.25 trillion significantly exceeds the administration’s $1 trillion estimate.

Just so you know, a few things were different at the end of World War II than they are now.  For one thing, who held the U.S. debt back then?  The American people, who had purchased savings bonds, war bonds, and the like.  When the government began paying those debts with interest, it was paying American citizens who invested that money back in the U.S. economy.

Not so now.  Now we owe China and Japan and other foreign countries.  It’s foreign investment; and foreigners will reap the rewards at our children’s expense.

A second thing is a corollary to the first.  We used to be a nation of savers.  Now we’re a nation of spenders.  We’ve got no resources saved up for tough times.  The moment we have an economic slowdown, people can’t pay their mortgages or their bills and everything goes to hell.

Third, we actually PRODUCED something at the end of WW II.  In fact, we were the most productive nation with the most powerful industrial base in the history of the world back then.  Now?  We basically don’t build anything any more.  Now our economy is based primarily on consuming what others build.

And fourth, that apex of debt at the end of WWII occurred BECAUSE of WWII.  We went into debt because of a war against the most evil regimes in the history of the planet.  And after we won that war, we went back to normal, and started quickly bringing our debt level down.

Now it’s just the opposite.  Our debt level is skyrocketing, but it isn’t do to a historic event; it’s just do to the fact that our government consists of spending addicts and we’re spending and spending and spending with no responsibility to the present or foresight for the future.

We are so screwed.  We WILL have a Great Depression that will make the last one look like a Love Boat cruise.  The only question is how far we can string our insanity along until reality takes over and we implode.

And what does our current administration have to say about it?

How ’bout if we spend a few trillion more taking over the health care system?

Climate Change Alarmists: ‘The Sky Is Falling! The Sea Is Rising!’ Oops. Never Mind

February 22, 2010

I wonder if the global warming “climate change” alarmists get as tired of being wrong as the skeptics are with being right?

I mean, day after day, we keep getting “snowmageddons” on the global warmers’ parade.

And the global warmers are forced to tell us obvious self-referentially absurd nonsense such as, “It’s only freezing cold outside because it’s actually so damn hot.”

And the media engages in yet another never-ceasing campaign to make sure the pseudo-scientific drivel that helps justify their leftwing socialist agenda appears legitimate to the gullible unwashed masses.

But cold water is being thrown everywhere on the crap they are peddling.

Climate scientists withdraw journal claims of rising sea levels
Study claimed in 2009 that sea levels would rise by up to 82cm by the end of century – but the report’s author now says true estimate is still unknown

David Adam
guardian.co.uk, Sunday 21 February 2010 18.00 GMT

Scientists have been forced to withdraw a study on projected sea level rise due to global warming after finding mistakes that undermined the findings.

The study, published in 2009 in Nature Geoscience, one of the top journals in its field, confirmed the conclusions of the 2007 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It used data over the last 22,000 years to predict that sea level would rise by between 7cm and 82cm by the end of the century.

At the time, Mark Siddall, from the Earth Sciences Department at the University of Bristol, said the study “strengthens the confidence with which one may interpret the IPCC results. The IPCC said that sea level would probably rise by 18cm-59cm by 2100, though stressed this was based on incomplete information about ice sheet melting and that the true rise could be higher.

Many scientists criticised the IPCC approach as too conservative, and several papers since have suggested that sea level could rise more. Martin Vermeer of the Helsinki University of Technology, Finland and Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany published a study in December that projected a rise of 0.75m to 1.9m by 2100.

Siddall said that he did not know whether the retracted paper’s estimate of sea level rise was an overestimate or an underestimate.

Announcing the formal retraction of the paper from the journal, Siddall said: “It’s one of those things that happens. People make mistakes and mistakes happen in science.” He said there were two separate technical mistakes in the paper, which were pointed out by other scientists after it was published. A formal retraction was required, rather than a correction, because the errors undermined the study’s conclusion.

“Retraction is a regular part of the publication process,” he said. “Science is a complicated game and there are set procedures in place that act as checks and balances.”

Nature Publishing Group, which publishes Nature Geoscience, said this was the first paper retracted from the journal since it was launched in 2007.

The paper – entitled “Constraints on future sea-level rise from past sea-level change” – used fossil coral data and temperature records derived from ice-core measurements to reconstruct how sea level has fluctuated with temperature since the peak of the last ice age, and to project how it would rise with warming over the next few decades.

In a statement the authors of the paper said: “Since publication of our paper we have become aware of two mistakes which impact the detailed estimation of future sea level rise. This means that we can no longer draw firm conclusions regarding 21st century sea level rise from this study without further work.

“One mistake was a miscalculation; the other was not to allow fully for temperature change over the past 2,000 years. Because of these issues we have retracted the paper and will now invest in the further work needed to correct these mistakes.”

In the Nature Geoscience retraction, in which Siddall and his colleagues explain their errors, Vermeer and Rahmstorf are thanked for “bringing these issues to our attention”.

Confirmed the conclusions.”  “Strengthens the confidence.”  Only it was a giant load of rotting baloney all along.

The “scientists” are trying to tell us that they don’t know whether the “error” (make that “propaganda”) was an overestimation or an underestimation of a sea level rise.  Bullcrap.  These are the same people who told us that the Amazon rain forest was being destroyed by global warming when there’s no evidence that it is even being affected at all.  These are the people who assured us that the Himalayan glacier would melt by 2035, when the “conclusion” wasn’t even based on science.

And when it comes to sea levels, these are the same people who made the following massive screw-up because it suited their ideology:

MPs have reacted angrily to a second mistake in an international climate panel report, this time focusing on the Netherlands itself, the Volkskrant reports on Friday.

According to the last IPCC report, published in 2007, some 55% of the Netherlands is below sea level and 65% of gross national product is produced in that area.

But according to the national statistics office CBS, just 20% of the country is below sea level and 19% of GDP is earned there.

‘I am very disturbed,’ environment minister Jacqueline Cramer told MPs. ‘I do not wish to accept any more mistakes.’

Last week Cramer said a mistake in the same report about melting glaciers is ‘extremely worrying’.

The science and the facts aren’t on the global warmers’ side, so they just make up their own.  Or, to put it another way, “The IPCC didn’t even get their data from scientific studies, but used anecdotal information from advocacy groups such as the WWF and from mountain climbing magazines.”

How do you not conclude these people weren’t “data shopping” to find the best deal for their propaganda?

At some point – I don’t know when – enough people are going to realize that global warming by any other name is not at all about science, and is all about a socialist redistributionist political ideology.

Give me and my military-industrial complex special interests all your money so I can save the planet from an impending attack by evil space aliens.  You’ll be sorry if you don’t because you’ll be lobotomized and transformed into a worker drone.

What’s that you say?  Liberals have already lobotomized themselves, and welcome being enslaved by aliens?  Oops.  Never mind.

OK, then let me frighten you this way: the aliens will ruin the climate and the sea levels will rise.

Obama’s Demonic Czars: Obama ‘Safe Schools Czar’ Supported Pedophile Molestation Of Student

October 7, 2009

No, no, no!  Not God bless America!  God damn America!” – Reverend Wright, Barack Obama’s pastor and spiritual mentor for 23 years.

During the 2008 Presidential campaign Barack Obama told audiences, “Judge me by the people with whom I surround myself.”

And he has surrounded himself with demons.

He surrounded himself with Van Jones – a communist; a supporter of cop murderers; a man who took the terrorists’ side on 9/11; a man who signed a “truther” statement demonizing President Bush for secretly attacking the World Trade Center Twin Towers on September 11; a racist who accused even white liberals of being murderers who deliberately poisoned people of color; etc. etc. etc.

He surrounded himself with men like Cass Sunstein and Ezekiel Emanuel, who have said things like:

– “When implemented, the Complete Lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuatedThe Complete Lives system justifies preference to younger people because of priority to the worst-off rather than instrumental value.” – Ezekiel Emanuel, Obama’s handpicked health policy adviser at the Office of Management and Budget, and appointed by Obama to serve on the Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Resarch

– “I urge that the government should indeed focus on life-years rather than lives. A program that saves young people produces more welfare than one that saves old people.” – Cass Sunstein, Obama’s Regulatory Czar.

And Dr. Mengele couldn’t have put it much better.

Barack Obama has surrounded himself with men like his science czar, John Holdren, who has stated:

– Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.

– It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society.

Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock.

And now we are learning that he has surrounded himself with a teacher who refused to protect a child under his counseling from being sodomized by a pedophile.

Kevin Jennings, appointed as the Director of the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools, is another Obama buddy out of ultra-corrupt Chicago.

In 1997, according to a transcript put together by Brian J. Burt, managing editor of the student-run Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, Jennings said he hoped that promoting homosexuality in schools would be considered fine in the future.

“One of our board members” was called to testify before Congress when they had hearings on the promotion of homosexuality in schools,” Jennings said. “And we were busy putting out press releases, and saying, “We’re not promoting homosexuality, that’s not what our program’s about. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah…. ‘

“Being finished might someday mean that most straight people, when they would hear that someone was promoting homosexuality, would say ‘Yeah, who cares?’ because they wouldn’t necessarily equate homosexuality with something bad that you would not want to promote.”

The group Jennings founded has also been accused of promoting homosexuality in schools. At a GLSEN conference in 2000, co-sponsored with the Massachusetts Department of Education, the group landed in hot water when it was revealed that it had included an educational seminar for kids that graphically described some unorthodox sex techniques.

A state official who spoke to teens at the conference said:

“Fisting (forcing one’s entire hand into another person’s rectum or vagina) often gets a bad rap….[It’s] an experience of letting somebody into your body that you want to be that close and intimate with…[and] to put you into an exploratory mode.”

You see, I think most parents would rather teachers and public schools teach their kids to be in “exploratory mode” of damn near anything else than their children’s rectums.  Am I wrong?

And then we have Kevin Jennings sharing how he provided advice to a fifteen year-old sophomore:

Another controversy from Jennings’ past concerns an account in his 1994 book, “One Teacher In 10,” about how, as a teacher, he knew a high school sophomore named Brewster who was “involved” with an “older man”:

“Out spilled a story about his involvement with an older man he had met in Boston. I listened, sympathized, and offered advice. He left my office with a smile on his face that I would see every time I saw him on the campus for the next two years, until he graduated.”

The account led Diane Lenning, head of the National Education Association’s Republican Educators Caucus, to criticize Jennings in 2004 for not alerting school and state authorities about the boy’s situation, calling Jennings’ failure to do so an “unethical practice.”

Jennings threatened to sue Lenning for libel, saying she had no evidence that he knew the student in question was sexually active, or that he failed to report the situation.

But a professor at Grove City College in Pennsylvania, Warren Throckmorton, has produced an audio recording of a speech Jennings gave in 2000 at a GLSEN rally in Iowa, in which Jennings made it clear that he believed the student was sexually active:

“I said, ‘What were you doing in Boston on a school night, Brewster?’ He got very quiet, and he finally looked at me and said, ‘Well I met someone in the bus station bathroom and I went home with him.’ High school sophomore, 15 years old’ I looked at Brewster and said, ‘You know, I hope you knew to use a condom.’”  [Audio is available here via Youtube, and the professor’s website contains a transcript of Jenning’s account with Brewster].

The Washington Times reported in 2004 that “state authorities said Mr. Jennings filed no report in 1988.” A spokeswoman for the Massachusetts Department for Children and Families, the department to which Jennings — as a Massachusetts teacher — would have been legally obliged to report the situation, did not return calls from FOXNews.com.

Kevin Jennings is an advocate for homosexual pedophilia.  He has in his past openly supported the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) by way of praising Harry Hay.  Jennings wrote the forward to a book entitled, The Queering of American Education.  For what it’s worth, fellow Chicago Obama buddy and terrorist Bill Ayers wrote a note endorsing the book on its cover jacket.

This is the man that Obama “entrusted” with ultimate care over your children.  But he is a demon in masquerade.

The despicable personal conduct, followed by the threat of a lawsuit when it was revealed, reminds me of another organization that Obama chose to surround himself with — ACORN.

Contrary to the left’s dismissal, Obama’s ties with ACORN are deep, and go back more than 20 years.

Two kids who were sick of the lefts’ corruption, hypocrisy, and vileness decided to see if ACORN would fall for the most horrendous scenario they could imagine: a prostitute and her pimp seeking to commit federal income tax fraud so they could purchase a house with the intent of importing child sex slaves from El Salvador so they could start a brothel.

And Obama’s ACORN fell for it – on film – on at least five separate occasions in five separate ACORN offices.

Let us judge Obama by the people with whom he has surrounded himself.  Because he has surrounded himself with the devil – and demons are doing his bidding.

And let us finally begin to think about how God will judge these demons – and the president who surrounded himself with them.  And, yes, the nation that elected that president.

Galatians 6:7 makes it clear, “Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap.”  And it is not just individuals who fall under God’s judgment, but nations.  As Psalm 110:6 says, “He will judge the nations, heaping up the dead and crushing the rulers of the whole earth.”

“No, no, no! Not God bless America!  God damn America!”