Duped by A Liberal “Joke”

I should have known that such a common sense plan as changing the name of the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America was too good to be true in today’s world, where liberals think the political system is their personal playground.

It turns out that it was another one of their satirical jokes, which is what the liberals say when they’re trying to make fun of we conservatives. If I’d have done a little more research, it would have been obvious that Representative Steve Holland was joking with this good idea–he’s a Democrat. That’s all you need to know.

I still think it’s a good idea, and I hate satire.

I’m depressed again, but I’m going to keep blogging. Maybe a re-run of Cops is on.

Two Percent More Next Time

I was stunned when I heard Representative John Boehner bragging about getting “98% of what we wanted” in the recent debt-ceiling/deficit reduction debate.

He was apparently proud of himself, but he should not have been.

Victory is 100%, not 98%.

Maybe Mr. “Settle for Good Enough” Boehner will do a better job the next time.

Remember, all deficit reduction must come from existing programs (excluding the military). Raising taxes is not an option.

98%–it’s a start.

Can’t Argue with Logic!

I am the first to admit that I don’t know everything there is to know about this whole deficit ceiling, but I do understand good, American logic. And, boy, did John Boehner hit the nail on the head with this one, explaining why House Republicans should support his deficit-reduction plan:

Barack Obama hates it. Harry Reid hates it. Nancy Pelosi hates it.

That’s all I need to know. If they hate it, then I love it.

Of course, the bill won’t pass without the support of and Dumbocrats and Obama, but there are more important things than saving the economy of the United States and the world–and that is standing up for our principles.

If we don’t cut Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security now, then when will we? Through a normal legislative process? Yeah, you’ll get the liberal loonies to sign off on cutting government handouts. We need to do it now, when they’re scared.

God bless America.

Michelle Bachmann, John Boehner Lead on Taxes

Roughly 80% of Americans believe that taxes should be increased on millionaires as part of any debt-reduction package.

This means two things:

• 80% of Americans are wrong. (I don’t know how many times I have to say it, but ALL TAXES ARE EVIL.)
• John Boehner and Michelle Bachmann are true leaders! Any elected officials that take the correct stand (no new taxes for millionaires) regardless of a political risk are the true leaders.

Boehner Finally Stands Tall

Boehner has shown signs of leaning toward the socialist left in this country by initially agreeing to cut/revenue ratio of 4 to 1 in debt-reduction talks with President Obama. That means that a reduction in deficits would be only 75% cuts in expenditures (Social Security, Medicare, etc.) and a whopping 25% in increased revenues (code for raising tax rates for the rich and corporations to levels of 10 years ago–a radical idea).

The good news, however, is that Boehner refused to even talk about going to the truly socialist position of a 3 to 1 ratio by walking away from talks with Obama today. Boehner had already compromised his beliefs by moving 25% toward Obama’s position–how could he be expected to move 33% in Obama’s direction?

Just to be clear: Obama thought that it would be fair to have revenue increases account for a full 1/3 of deficit reduction, while having the rest of the debt reduction (including cuts to handout programs like Social Security and Medicare) represent only 2/3 of deficit reduction.

If Boehner had let Obama get away with that, the next thing you know Obama would want a 50/50 compromise. Can you imagine the uproar from the Tea Party?

Bachmann Has Right Idea: Tax the Poor!!!

I know that I said in the introduction that all taxes were evil, but to clarify, I was talking about all taxes on the rich and corporations. There is absolutely nothing wrong with having the poor pay higher taxes, which is what Michelle Bachmann wants to see.

A significant portion of Americans makes so little money that their standard deductions and deductions on mortgage interest, etc., are high enough that they owe no federal taxes!!

In other words, they work the system by picking jobs with poor pay just so they don’t have to pay taxes.

That is simply not fair. The system should be changed so that they have to pay their taxes first; then, if they have some money left, they can pay for children, food, housing, etc.

Not Popular, But Correct

I know that taxing the poor instead of the rich is not be a popular idea, but it’s the right thing to do.

You never want punish anyone who might possibly someday consider taking a small portion of their money and possibly investing it into a business that might eventually create additional jobs by placing any kind of a tax burden on them. Ask Grover Norquist.

Corporations should be tax free. It’s the same with the rich who might someday want to start a corporation.

Tax the poor instead, especially if they’re going to continue to insist on luxuries like Social Security, Medicare, and public schools.

It’s common sense–and some leaders are bright enough to realize it.

Ronald Reagan on the Debt Ceiling

The Dumbocrats are beside themselves with joy because they found some old tape that they think shows that President Ronald Reagan (hasn’t he been cannonized as a saint yet?) supporting their ridiculous notions about the debt ceiling.

Here’s the Reagan quote most often cited:

Congress consistently brings the Government to the edge of default before facing its responsibility. This brinkmanship threatens the holders of government bonds and those who rely on Social Security and veterans benefits. Interest rates would skyrocket, instability would occur in financial markets, and the Federal deficit would soar. The United States has a special responsibility to itself and the world to meet its obligations. It means we have a well-earned reputation for reliability and credibility – two things that set us apart from much of the world.

But how about some real-life context to bring the quote into today?

First of all, let’s be fair. What Reagan was saying about the dangers to the U.S. and global economy were theoretical, not actual. Economic wizard and noted conservative thought leader Representative Michelle Bachmann doesn’t think it would be that big of a deal if we didn’t raise the debt ceiling, so there’s only one way to find out whether Reagan or Bachmann is right: Don’t raise the debt ceiling.

We’ll know soon enough, and I doubt it would be that bad–certainly not bad enough to sell out my ideological beliefs about taxes. Some things are more important than economic theory.

We can’t let the Democrats win on their ludicrous insistence that tax increases be part of any deficit-reduction proposal. Who in their right mind thinks that a debt problem can be solved by both increasing revenue and decreasing expenditures?

Expenditures are the only things that matter. It’s all about how much you spend, not how much you tax the rich.

I Like John Boehner’s Definition of Balance

Everyone has his own definition of balance when it comes to the debt reduction debate in Washington, but it seems as if Representative John Boehner has it right–again.

The “Cut, Cap, and Balance” legislation, in front of the House, would make huge spending cuts on entitlements and not include one dime in tax increases on the rich (or anyone else).

That’s balance personified.

Boehner puts it well:

“The President said he wanted a balanced plan. That’s what this is–a balanced plan. He gets his increase in the debt ceiling. We get real cuts in spending and real reform that will make sure this doesn’t happen again.”

That seems reasonable to me–major cuts, a balanced budget, and not one dime in new taxes–completely balanced. Republicans get what they want–no increased revenue (code for attacking the rich), and Democrats get what they want–a continuation of government (code for more social programs for the poor and lazy).

What seems completely imbalanced would be a blend of spending cuts and tax increases, especially since the tax increases would include a cancellation of the Bush Tax Cuts and closing tax loopholes for the wealthy. There is nothing balanced about always attacking the rich.

Let the poor (those who have to depend on Social Security, Medicare, and Unemployment Insurance) suffer for a change. They’ve had it way too easy for way too long.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: Thank God that some in Congress are willing to stand up and fight for the rich.

Pray for My TV–I Think He’s Gay!

When I tried to hook up the cable from my television to the cable coming out of the wall, I was stunned to find that they were both “male connectors.” Two male parts trying to connect? Yikes, my tv must be gay.

Since you can’t pray away the gay for a television, I had to go to WalMart to buy a converter to establish my connection. (I need to be able to watch Fox News Channel and NASCAR.)

Too bad it’s not that easy in real life–Marcus Bachmman would have a much easier time making the logical (conservative-mandated family values) changes in the behavior of others.

Senate RepublicanTakes Common Sense Stand: No Tax Increases for Millionaries

Common sense Republicans once again took on the tax-hungry Democrats in a symbolic (non-binding resolution) vote in the U.S. Senate today, with all 49 Republicans voting no to an outrageous (although symbolic) vote on whether to theoretically raise taxes on Americans making over $1,000,000 dollars per year.

Reid used the standard “the rich are getting richer” line of thinking in an attempt to get the symbolic vote passed, citing a few meaningless statistics, such a:

• Median incomes of S&P 500 company financial officers have increased by $2.9 million in the last year while the salaries for the average American has decreased by $2,500 in the past 10 years.
• 20% of the total income in the U.S. is made by the top 1% of wage earners.
• 80% of income grown in the past 25 years has gone to the top 1%.

It’s not about debt reduction or jobs or money. It’s simple:

• Taxes are evil. Period.
• Socialism is socialism. Period.
• The only way to lower the deficit is to cut social programs. Period.

The resolution was non-binding, of course, because Senator “Redistribute the Wealth” Reid knows that an actual bill to reduce the deficit on the backs of millionaires would be filibustered by the Republicans.

He needs 60 votes, not 50. And there aren’t that many Senators willing to attack the rich, who are such an easy target. (I”m no psychologist, but it must have something to do with jealousy.)

The rich have earned their money, and they should keep it all. Thank God that at least one party understands that.

Open Letter to Representative Boehner

Whiny liberals have this annoying habit of appealing to the public’s soft side whenever any issue comes up–talking to the sick whose insurance was just lost or talking to an unemployed mother of three when she can’t afford food because of food stamp cuts.

Dems (and the poor–as if there’s a difference) aren’t the only ones negatively affected by political decisions, and I’m going to share an open letter to Representative Boehner from a devout reader of this blog.

Mr. Thirston J. Worthingon, III, is a devoted reader of the blog and is very concerned about what closing the tax loopholes related to private jets might mean to him.

Representative Boehner:

When I supported your reelection campaign and subsequent election as the speaker of the house, I did so with the understanding that you would continue to support the interests of those who supported you–strict conservatives who believe in the constant lowering of the tax burden, not ideological liberals with a socialist plot to redistribute wealth from the top to the bottom.

Closing the tax loophole on private jets would be a personal hardship for me. In fact, if I had to pay my share of taxes, in addition to the rising cost of fuel (my burns roughly 400 gallons of fuel per hour) and expenses related to storage, maintenance, and flying my Gulfstream 550, I might have to give up my plane altogether.

It’s entirely possible that I would have to go back to my embarrassing former lifestyle (back in the Clinton era) when I could only afford to rent a private jet each time I needed one. On occasion, I would be forced to travel in an 8-person model rather than the 15-person jet that I prefer, or the carpet would be stained with red wine, or my preferred chauffeur pilot might not be available.

Needless to say, I don’t want to go back to those days.

In addition, closing the tax loophole would have a trickle-down effect. My full-time pilot would need to look for work elsewhere, as would my six-person plane maintenance staff, including Pablo (who has been with the family for 20 years and is hoping to apply for legal status soon). Pablo’s large family, many of whom are still in Mexico, depends on my generous cash (also tax free) gifts, especially around the holidays.

I believe that other private jet owners are in a similar situation, and forcing private jet owners to pay their taxes would likely mean a severe reduction in the private jet industry as a whole. Think of the loss of money to oil companies alone if private jet usage was limited.

With all of these things in mind, I do hope that you take the necessary steps to protect my rights as a rich American, even if that means a temporary inability for the U.S. government to pay its bills.

Sincerely,

Mr. Worthington, III

National Football League or Socialist Football League?

The NFL is no NASCAR (as any conservative will tell you), but I’ve always enjoyed the NFL–but as the NFL becomes more like the SFL (Socialist Football League), I think that might be about to change.

Apparently, the owners and players are approaching an end to their several-week lockout, and the solution is  based on pure, unadulterated socialism. It looks like NFL owners are reading out of the Karl Marx playbook.

The agreement will be all about sharing the multi-billion-dollar wealth in the NFL coffers–sharing it with the players union (Where are Ronald Reagan and his union-busting friends when you need them?) and, worse, with other teams!!!!!!!

stock image of football player being tackled

The wealth should belong to the owners who collect it exclusively, to be done with as they please. And it should be tax free as an incentive to spend it, thereby creating more jobs

Yes, the owners will have to pay the players, but once the union is broken, they could be paid less. They will also have to pay for expenses related to running the teams–although the cities and states should have to build massive, expensive venues for them.

The point is that if the owners share the wealth, then they’re sharing in socialism.

The stated reason for sharing the wealth is for the overall benefit of the league, to ensure that all teams can remain competitive and continue to field teams. In other words, the less competitive teams want welfare, and for some reason, the rich teams participate willingly.

I say that the socialism should stop–and the success of teams should depend on the individual owner’s ability to make money.

Let’s take the San Francisco 49’ers as an example.

They were a dominant team in the 1980s, and it resulted in high profits. They’ve fallen on hard times since, and if it weren’t for league-sponsored socialism, the team would have disbanded by now. That’s how it should be.

If we end up with a league with just the Cowboys (who always make money), the Steelers (who win often enough to stay competitive), along with teams in some of the larger market teams who always make money and no one else, then, that’s the way it is.

So what if Green Bay has a couple of bad years and loses its franchise. That’s life in a capitalistic society. We shouldn’t protect individual teams just to protect the league as a whole.

I say shut down the NFL before it becomes the SFL.