Posts Tagged ‘requirements’

For Liberals, ‘Productive’ Politics Equals FASCIST Politics

July 5, 2011

It’s interesting.

I came across this headline and subheading yesterday in the Los Angeles Times: “112th Congress is one of the least productive in years: Fervent partisanship and the standoff over the debt limit are partly to blame for lack of action in the Senate and House.”

I thought about the implications of that.  And the sheer moral stupidity.

Imagine my friends and I are running your family’s lives.  And I assure you, “Don’t worry.  Every single hour we’re going to come out with new laws and new regulations and new requirements for you.  Every hour, on the hour, we’ll make it so you’ve got to do something you haven’t been doing, or you’ve got to quit doing something that you have been doing, or else we’ll punish you.  Because, after all, we want to be productive.”

I can hear you liberals cheering now: “Yay!  Ya!  Someone else is going to take over my useless idiot life!  I don’t have to think or be responsible for myself any more!  Thank you, Big Brother!  Thank you!”

As for those of you with moral intelligence, you would be appalled.

But that’s exactly what “being productive” means to the Los Angeles Times and to the cockroach army of liberalism.

As for me, my usual thought is this: “All we need is one more stupid law.”

As of the last count I could find, the U.S. tax code had ballooned to 71,684 pages in length.  Now THAT is productivity!!!

Rush Limbaugh had the following to say in his radio program.  I want you to note that it’s the same exact liberal script being applied:

Democrat Policies Aim to Shut Down America’s Private Sector
July 1, 2011

RUSH: Minnesota state government is closed. The Minnesota state government shut down at midnight last night, the victim “of an ongoing dispute over taxes and spending between Democratic Gov. Mark Dayton and Republican legislative majorities. Talks fell apart well before the deadline, leaving state parks closed on the brink of the Fourth of July weekend.” Oh, the tears.  You see how this works? Evil Republicans, state parks are closed, the little kiddies don’t get to have their snow cones and the sleigh rides, oh, no, no Fourth of July, evil Republicans.

The AP says that the shutdown in Minnesota puts road projects at a standstill, forcing thousands of state worker layoffs, and, of course, all of which we’re supposed see as a taste of the horrors the nation will face if the federal debt ceiling is not raised by Congress. That’s how all of this works.  For the record the AP has already rewritten this article and they’ve given it a new headline. The first headline was: “Some Noticeable Casualties After Minnesota Shutdown.” The new headline: “Minnesota Shutdown Prompts Political Blame Game.” And naturally the blame falls on the Republicans.

But the whole purpose of this story is to set the stage for what will happen if we don’t raise the debt ceiling in the whole country. The whole federal government will shut down, oh, the horrors of it all. And again, note what the AP highlights here as the things that are gonna suffer: funding for the state zoo, the Capitol, child care assistance for the poor.  Meanwhile, critical functions like state troopers, prison guards, the courts and disaster responses will continue, which should give the Minnesota legislature a pretty good idea what can be safely cut. But the newly elected Democrat governor insists on defying the newly elected Republican majority. It’s historic, by the way, in Minnesota, in both houses, the Minnesota legislature, Governor Dayton would rather shut down that state than consider any spending cuts.

What he wants to do is raise taxes on all those rich people who make more than $180,000 a year, meaning just about every small business owner in the state. And as usual, the AP hopes that Republican moderates will come forward to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Never mind that a record 600 statehouse seats went from Democrat to Republican in the midterm election last November precisely because most people decided their taxed enough already. TEA: taxed enough already. You couldn’t have a greater contrast.  Virginia is one of the highest performing states in the country, a Republican governor. What do you have here in Minnesota? A Democrat governor says achievers in his state are not paying their fair share. A Democrat governor, a Democrat president have reached the same conclusion. Job creators should do with less. It’s gotta be tough living in a blue state if you experience success. You got a governor, you got a president reaching into your pocket.

If these guys get their way, America is Greece, only much, much bigger. But here’s the thing. The Minnesota government may have shut down, but Minnesota hasn’t. Minnesota has not shut down. The private sector is gonna be open for business. The private sector is going to be making sales, paying taxes. If you really want to shut down a state, have the private sector go on strike. That’s when a state shuts down. That’s when the tax revenues begin to shut off.  If you want to shut down a state, if you want to shut down a country, then you take direct aim at the producers and the achievers, and that’s what liberal Democrats are doing. Barack Obama and these blue state governors treat the private sector like indentured servants. They’re parasites. As if they won’t pick up and move and leave to avoid all these onerous taxes and regulations. Every tax increase is an incentive to relocate or move assets. Ask Amazon.com.

California said, “You know what, we’re gonna start demanding sales tax on anything Amazon sells in California.” Amazon said, “Okay, bye-bye, California.” Again, the dynamic reaction to an onerous policy. Now, what do the achievers get for paying more taxes at the state and federal level? What do they get?  The people who make the golden goose golden, what do they get? Food stamps, public sector union salaries, benefits, dues, and pensions that far exceed anything seen in the private sector. That’s what they end up paying for and people have had it. They don’t want anymore of it.

If you want the “productivity” of fascism, vote Democrat.  When Obama, Nancy Pelosi and the overwhelmingly Democrat House of Representatives and Harry Reid and the filibuster-proof Senate were marching in goose-step, we got ALL KINDS of productivity.  We got a stimulus costing Americans and their progeny $3.27 TRILLION that was promised to dramatically reduce unemployment.  2 1/2 years later, it is higher than it was (7.6%) when George Bush left office.  Oh, and they socialized 1/6th of the economy and brought it under “productive” government control.

And, yes, that naked fascist power grab is the quintessence of “productivity” to a liberal.

Until Obama is driven out of office as the disgrace he is, the best possible thing the American people can hope for is a government that can’t hurt us the way it already has.

Until then, “productivity” will be measured in terms of how many new food stamp recipients we’ve added.

 

Advertisements

Obama’s Tax and Health Plans WILL Hurt Businesses – And Ultimately American Workers

October 9, 2008

There’s quite a bit of confusion about Obama’s tax plan and its effect on small business and American workers.

John McCain stated during Tuesday night’s debate that most small businesses would see their taxes increase due to Barack Obama’s tax plan.  Barack Obama corrected him and said that only a small percentage of small businesses would see their taxes go up.  Both men are wrong.  And both are right.

Obama may or may not be right when he says that only a small percentage of small business would see their taxes go up under his economic plan – as it is written now (in at least its fourth version).  He hasn’t specified whether he will tax on the basis of net or gross, whether inventory counts as total part of total income, and so on (because the media will NOT do its job and press a liberal on economic details).  But regardless of how the specifics pan out, don’t forget that Bill Clinton similarly campaigned on a tax relief for the middle class economic plan – and he immediately taxes on the middle class early in his first term.  Given the high likelihood of a Democrat-controlled Congress that is eager to have massive government social projects, another such “undeclared” tax hike on the middle class is actually quite likely.

John McCain may have been incorrect in how he phrased his objection during the debate, but he is still right enough to win the argument if the facts actually come out.  He was probably wrong in saying that most small businesses would see their taxes increase in terms of the total number of businesses.  If you earn a living mowing lawns, and have no employees, or you have a business out of your home, you probably won’t be paying any higher taxes.  But keep in mind that a small business can have as many as 500 employees (up to a 1,000 in some industries) and be classified as “small.”  And such businesses are the real engine of our economy.  If a small business even employs a handful of employees, it is likely its revenues easily exceed Obama’s $250,000 figure.  It is these businesses which hire the most workers, and it is these businesses that Obama will start taxing.  It is also these businesses which will suffer the most even from a modest increase in their operating costs.  Many are skating on pretty thin ice as it is.  They can’t just sell more stock.

If Barack Obama raises the taxes for these small business owners, there will be layoffs.  And as his plan is right now, he is promising to raise their taxes.  Realize that we are in a tough economy.  It is harder to obtain loans.  Fewer people will be buying.  Small businesses will be struggling to survive, and if Obama does what he promises to do – particularly when he is going to force businesses to start paying health care as well – you WILL see layoffs.

Meanwhile, Obama is decrying John McCain for wanting to give tax breaks to big oil.  John McCain does NOT want just to give tax breaks to big oil (actually it was OBAMA who voted with Bush for the last big energy bill giveaway to big oil); he wants to lower taxes for ALL corporations.  Most nations realize that lowering taxes for corporations has resulted in corporations creating more jobs and more tax revenues, and that more corporations will be attracted to their country.  But not the United States: we have the second highest corporate tax rate as it is.  Obama wants to be “#1.”

Is that good for our struggling economy?  Your vote on November 4 will be your answer that question.

Another thing Obama wants to do is impose requirements for businesses to provide comprehensive health care for their employees or pay into a government fund.  Small businesses would be ostensibly exempted from the requirement, and would get a 50 percent health-care tax credit to help ease their cost of employee coverage.  People with pre-existing conditions – which often impose the largest cost on the health care system – cannot be denied coverage.  Businesses who hire such people will be forced to grin and bare it.

I wonder how many older workers will be fired in order to hire new – and less expensive – younger workers?  Under Obama’s plan, I’d sure be looking at my older employees as “potential health care time bombs” just waiting to explode.

Do you think that businesses and corporations will begin to pay very close attention to the health of the employees they hire, or do you think they won’t care about how much a new workers’ mandatory health care will cost?

Between raising taxes, and mandating expensive new requirements, many businesses and corporations will experience a genuine double whammy.  Do you think American businesses are made of money, or do you think they are vulnerable?  You will be answering that question in your vote on November 4.

One thing is extremely important to understand: Obama’s health care plan is modeled on the Massachusetts plan.  How are things going there?  Well, in the three years of the program’s existence, the tiny state is now already facing cost overruns of over $400 million.  Does that sound like a rousing success?  Massachusetts is facing a projected 85% increase in its costs by 2009 – which should set up a serious red flag that such programs are MASSIVELY underfunded.

You need to understand something else that emerged from Tuesday night’s debate: is health care a basic right?  Obama answered “yes.”  What does that mean?  It means that you have a duty to provide me with health care.  You have a constitutional, government-imposed duty to give me health care – no matter what – even if it costs you and your family to do so.  Am I an alcoholic who needs a liver transplant?  You owe me a new liver.   Did I sustain a brain injury riding my motorcycle without a helmet because I like to feel the wind in my hair?  Doesn’t matter.  I have a fundamental constitutional right to that liver, or to that brain surgery and all the long months of incredibly expensive therapy.  If I have a right to health care in the sense that Barack Obama believes, nothing else matters.

Do you understand how expensive this can all get?

Do you understand that Barack Obama is essentially talking about socializing a quarter of our economy?  Do you trust your government’s track record?

Your vote will be your answer to that question.

Barack Obama’s health care plan is estimated to cost $1.6 trillion in 10 years.  But that doesn’t take into account the very sort of cost overruns and cost increases that are even now plaguing the very state that Obama is basing his own plan upon.  What is going to happen to our economy given the extremely real likelihood that Obama’s massive national plan runs into similar issues?  Do you believe our economy is strong enough to bear the brunt of these massive cost increases?

Your vote will be your answer to that question.

Let me also point out something else: if businesses and corporations are forced to absorb shocking new costs, do you believe they will just swallow their profitability, or do you think they will pass their new costs onto you through higher prices?  Barack Obama keeps talking about his “95% of Americans will get a tax break” (which means that 30-40% of Americans who don’t actually pay income taxes will get an IRS-subsidized welfare check).  Will that check compensate for the higher prices you are likely to pay across the board for virtually everything you buy?

Again, your vote on November 4 will answer that question.

Don’t be too suprised if you vote yourself right out of a job.