Here’s a case of bitter personal experience vs. naïve theoretical dreaming. These geniuses with the Workers World Party sure are confident, aren’t they?
North Korea is a glowing example of success at, uh, something. I suppose. Let’s check the NASA nighttime satellite imagery of Eastern Asia, shall we?
Wait, I’ve got it. When the sun goes down in North Korea, every hour is Earth Hour. Yeah, that’s the ticket.
Gee, these are really nice folks occupying Portland, huh?
Yep. They’re an independent, young, spontaneous, focused example of the good old-fashioned American mainstream. Why, I often gather with my family and friends in our sweaty, unwashed glory so we can pound on buckets and scream “F*** the U.S.A.” at the top of our lungs. Doesn’t everybody?
This is your Democrat Party, my progressive friends. I’m sure you’re proud.
The Democrat base echoes this guy’s call: “Long live socialism.”
Oh, and long live bestiality, too.
This is the modern Democrat Party. These degenerates actively hate the middle class, though they claim to love them. The middle class is the evil “bourgeoisie” of 21st Century America, where the lion’s share of income goes.
I finally understand the leftist mindset. It’s objectively true that there’s no such thing as objective truth!
I’m ready to be escorted to Room 101 now, O’Brien.
You can see and hear Nancy Pelosi’s envy of — and hatred for — individualism, success and hard work in this clip.
Is it much of a stretch to imagine a progressive agenda that includes the following?
- Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
- A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
- Abolition of all right of inheritance.
- Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
- Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
- Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
- Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
- Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
- Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.
- Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.
I didn’t draft this list, nor did FDR, LBJ, or BHO. Here’s the original.
Federal tax revenue went down after the Bush Tax Cuts, and raising taxes is now regrettably the only way to close the giant hole in our budget.
This was written about the economic wasteland of early 1980s England when it was mired in socialism’s failures.
Matt Yglesias, whose popularity on the left appears to be inversely proportional to his understanding of the real world, repeats the age old lefty solution to deficits:
[We] used to have a debate in which the left said redistributive taxation might be a good idea and then the right replied that it might sound good, but actually the consequences would be bad. Lower taxes on the rich would lead to more growth and faster increase in incomes.
Now that idea seems to be so unsupportable that the talking point is switched. It’s not that higher taxes on our Galtian Overlords would backfire and make us worse off. It’s just that it would be immoral of us to ask them to pay more taxes even if doing so would, in fact, improve overall human welfare.
This chart shows — in 2005 dollars — the average American’s share of individual federal income tax revenue from 1940 to 2011. This is how much Uncle Sam takes every year from each of us:
This chart shows — in 2005 dollars — the average American’s share of federal spending from 1940 to 2011. This is the tab Uncle Sam sticks us with every year:
Some very intelligent friends of mine focus so intently on whether “the rich” are paying “their fair share” of taxes that they end up missing the big picture. Both taxes and spending are ridiculously high and getting higher.
We must reverse course, and Barack Obama is lying when he says he intends to do just that.
Take a good look at where the taxable money is. Click on the image:
President Obama and the Democrats in Washington, DC are lying to you. It is impossible to pay for their insane levels of spending by taxing “the rich.” The rich don’t have enough money to pay for that spending binge, even if the federal government confiscated their every last dime. The IRS data is beyond dispute. If he insists on the current insane level of spending, Barack Obama will have to raise massive amounts of taxes on the middle class to pay for it.
He’s lying and he knows it. Standard & Poor’s just downgraded the U.S. Government’s credit outlook to “negative” for the first time in history, and it’s all because the fools in Washington won’t stop spending. This is awful, awful news.
As I said before, it’s too late to fix our enormous deficit without pain. We can either feel some pain now and fix the problem, or we can keep living in Obama’s fantasy land until we experience incredible pain a little bit later. Take your pick.
During his 2008 campaign, Barack Obama usually identified “the rich” as families earning income of $250,000 a year and up. He swore he’d never ever ever raise taxes one dime on anybody making less yearly income than that, and he swore he’d rein in federal spending.
After he took office in 2009, President Obama — and his fellow Democrats who controlled Congress from 2007 to 2011 — sent government spending rocketing upward so far that he’s on track to add as much debt in one term as all 43 previous presidents combined.
Since the recent release of two detailed and comprehensive Republican plans to cut spending — one by The Republican Study Committee and another by Representative Paul Ryan — President Obama has apparently been shamed into responding with something slightly less insane than his original binge-spending 2012 budget.
This is what passes for an Obama plan for closing the deficit (emphasis mine):
The fourth step in our approach is to reduce spending in the tax code, so-called tax expenditures. In December, I agreed to extend the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans because it was the only way I could prevent a tax hike on middle-class Americans. But we cannot afford $1 trillion worth of tax cuts for every millionaire and billionaire in our society. We can’t afford it. And I refuse to renew them again.
Beyond that, the tax code is also loaded up with spending on things like itemized deductions. And while I agree with the goals of many of these deductions, from homeownership to charitable giving, we can’t ignore the fact that they provide millionaires an average tax break of $75,000 but do nothing for the typical middle-class family that doesn’t itemize. So my budget calls for limiting itemized deductions for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans — a reform that would reduce the deficit by $320 billion over 10 years.
But to reduce the deficit, I believe we should go further. And that’s why I’m calling on Congress to reform our individual tax code so that it is fair and simple — so that the amount of taxes you pay isn’t determined by what kind of accountant you can afford.
Tax the rich, tax the rich, tax the rich. All of our problems will be solved if we only tax the rich. Right?
Wrong. As shown by the Wall Street Journal, the “rich” haven’t got enough money:
Under the Obama tax plan, the Bush rates would be repealed for the top brackets. Yet the “cost” of extending all the Bush rates in 2011 over 10 years was about $3.7 trillion. Some $3 trillion of that was for everything but the top brackets — and Mr. Obama says he wants to extend those rates forever. According to Internal Revenue Service data, the entire taxable income of everyone earning over $100,000 in 2008 was about $1.582 trillion. Even if all these Americans — most of whom are far from wealthy — were taxed at 100%, it wouldn’t cover Mr. Obama’s deficit for this year.
For the sake of argument, let’s go with President Obama’s “plan” and seize every last bit of money from any family making $100,000 a year or more. What next?
It’s. Not. Enough.
Barack Obama is offering you a false choice: A) do nothing and watch Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security collapse our entire economy into hyperinflation, government default and another Great Depression; or B) make no changes in Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, and pay for it all by massively raising taxes on the middle class (after redefining them as “the rich”). According to him, there are no other options.
Wouldn’t you rather avoid raising middle class taxes, put reasonable restraints on spending for Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, and preserve those programs for those who truly need them?
It’s too late to fix our enormous deficit without pain. We can either feel some pain now and fix the problem, or we can keep living in Obama’s fantasy land until we experience incredible pain a little bit later.
Which do you prefer?
You’ve no doubt heard the well-known story of the first Thanksgiving in Plymouth, Massachusetts. But did you know that what you’ve heard is drastically inaccurate?
According to the writings of William Bradford, the colony’s first governor, the hardships and near-starvation of the entire population occurred because the colonists turned their backs on capitalism. They believed the old lie that an economy based on the concept of “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs” can actually work. They instituted a socialist system, and found out that socialism causes disaster:
The harvest of 1623 was different. Suddenly, “instead of famine now God gave them plenty,” Bradford wrote, “and the face of things was changed, to the rejoicing of the hearts of many, for which they blessed God.” Thereafter, he wrote, “any general want or famine hath not been amongst them since to this day.” In fact, in 1624, so much food was produced that the colonists were able to begin exporting corn.
After the poor harvest of 1622, writes Bradford, “they began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop.” They began to question their form of economic organization.
This had required that “all profits & benefits that are got by trade, working, fishing, or any other means” were to be placed in the common stock of the colony, and that, “all such persons as are of this colony, are to have their meat, drink, apparel, and all provisions out of the common stock.” A person was to put into the common stock all he could, and take out only what he needed.
This “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” was an early form of socialism, and it is why the Pilgrims were starving. Bradford writes that “young men that are most able and fit for labor and service” complained about being forced to “spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children.” Also, “the strong, or man of parts, had no more in division of victuals and clothes, than he that was weak.” So the young and strong refused to work and the total amount of food produced was never adequate.
To rectify this situation, in 1623 Bradford abolished socialism. He gave each household a parcel of land and told them they could keep what they produced, or trade it away as they saw fit. In other words, he replaced socialism with a free market, and that was the end of famines.
For more on the lessons the pilgrims learned, see this piece by Rick Williams, Jr.
Representative Jan Schakowsky hails from Illinois’ 9th Congressional District, where the answer to the above question has long been “yes.” Her district has been represented by a Democrat since Sidney Yates took office on January 3, 1949.
She’s a member of the U.S. House of Representatives’ hard left Progressive Caucus, and she drinks Left Wing Kool-Aid by the gallon. For example, she voted not to accept Ohio’s Electoral College votes in the 2004 Presidential election, and wants to tax your IRA and 401k retirement funds.
Does Jan Schakowsky support Obamacare? That’s putting it mildly. She wants a complete government takeover of your health care (even though she’s ignorant of the Obamacare bill’s contents). Despite her denials that this footage exists, here she is preaching the universal health care gospel:
She’s married to Robert Creamer, a convicted felon, disciple of Saul Alinsky, and author of the Democrat blueprint for enacting Obamacare. At her husband’s sentencing, Schakowsy announced that she was proud of Creamer:
She said she was proud that her husband “has for his entire adult life devoted himself to fighting for a better future for others — he has been a constant crusader for social and economic justice in this country and beyond.”
Schakowsky is so reflexively supportive of anyone with a pulse and a (D) tacked onto their last name that she gave $28,000 to disgraced former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich.
Jan Schakowsky thinks Republicans are, like, crazy extremist nutballs because they, like, quote the Constitution and stuff. Because they’re rich people. Or something. Listen:
Ask for suggestions online and you’ll get suggestions:
Here’s a fun way to screw with the Democrats’ internal polling and brand management — and hopefully convince them to stay the course and keep doing crazy things voters hate instead of pulling towards the middle and trying to put their mask back on before 2012.
The Democrats rely heavily on polling…with an upper tier that is dead-set against moving the party back to the middle. This is suicide for the party, but the Leftists who now control the DNC don’t want to believe that. Instead, they want to see polls that tell them the public LOVES what the Democrats have been doing and want them to commit more of this madness between November 3rd, 2010 and November 2012.
It should be our mission to screw with as many Democrat internal polls as possible…to give these nuts the data they want to keep Obama on the wrong track for the party. This will guarantee the Democrats will keep making people furious for the next two years, so the public can wipe even more of them out in the next election (including people like Claire McCaskill in the Senate, and Obama himself in the White House).
For each one, we tried to answer while keeping in mind what would do the most damage to the Democrat Party in the long term. So, for questions that asked if we thought the party was on the right track, we said it definitely was. For questions about what issues we wanted Democrats to push, we answered the ones that would alienate Democrats from the most voters. Ie, healthcare, immigration, etc. This is counterintuitive to what YOU personally want to see, so you need to think strategically. Democrats are hurt most when they are talking about things like healthcare, immigration, the environment, etc. So, that’s what they need to be encouraged to keep talking about.
Americans really want to deal exclusively with jobs…so the LAST THING we want them to actually ever talk about is jobs. Let the survey indicate Democrats need to talk nonstop about healthcare, immigration, and the environment just to keep making people mad for the next two years. That will greatly benefit conservatives.
Brilliant. You can see the HillBuzz submission at their site.
Two years ago, Betty Sutton jumped aboard that express train to socialism without much thought at all.
Betty may claim that she made her decision after careful consideration of the economic circumstances, but don’t you believe her. She’s an economic ignoramus who follows Nancy Pelosi’s lead in lockstep, and that’s all there is to it. There’s no critical thinking involved.