ANOTHER ONE SIDED "COMPROMISE" COMING OUR WAY?...

Mitch McConnell, the Senate Republican leader, said that he "burst into laughter" Thursday when Treasury Secretary Little Timmy 'The Tax Cheat' Geithner outlined the administration's proposal for averting that much talked about fiscal cliff. He wasn’t trying to embarrass Geithner, McConnell says, only responding candidly to his one-sided plan, explicit on tax increases, and more than a little vague on spending cuts. Geithner’s visit to his office left McConnell feeling a bit discouraged about reaching a "balanced" deal on tax hikes and spending reductions designed to prevent a shock to the economy in January. "Nothing good is happening" in the negotiations, McConnell says, because of Obama’s insistence on tax rate hikes for the wealthy but unwillingness to embrace serious spending cuts.

Geithner actually suggested what amounts to $1.6 trillion in tax increases, McConnell says, but showed "minimal or no interest" in making any of the spending cuts that I think anyone with a brain knows are needed. When congressional leaders went to the White House three days after the election, Barry talked of possible curbs on the explosive growth of food stamps and Social Security disability payments. But since Geithner didn’t mention either of them, those reductions appear to be now off the table, at least that's how is appears to McConnell. Barry continues to push the raising of tax rates on couples earning more than $250,000 and individuals earning more than $200,000. But there's simply no way that such cuts would produce revenues anywhere near $1.6 trillion over a decade.

The "guess" of those involved in the negotiations, Politico reported, is that a bipartisan deal "will include a rate hike, higher taxes on carried interest and probably capital gains and dividends, and either a cap on total deductions for rich people or some form of a minimum tax rate for them." However, at this point in time Speaker John Boehner has said that nothing has thus far been agreed to. "No substantive progress has been made." Besides raising taxes, Timmy "The Tax Cheat" was reported to have proposed a one-year delay in scheduled $1.2 trillion spending cuts to defense and domestic, and a $400 billion reduction in Medicare funding. The $1.2 trillion in cuts was mandated after Congress failed to reach an agreement in 2011 on reductions. Point number one, there should be NO delay accepted in making spending cuts!

Barry has talked up what he fondly refers to as being a "balanced" approach to averting the fiscal cliff of tax hikes and spending cuts in January. But he’s offered very few actual specifics on the spending side. I can only guess that that's a little like his "all of the above' approach regarding his nonexistent energy policy that focuses pretty much on 'green energy,' ignoring completely those nasty old fossil fuels. The bottom line here is that this is but one more example of the Democrat's my-way-or-the-highway philosophy when it comes to their understanding of 'compromise'. I assume that the Democrats fully expect that, as usual, Boehner & Co. will simply rollover and allow Barry to do pretty much whatever he wants. But I got a little warning here for the Speaker, DON'T DO IT!

WHAT SAY WE JUST CALL THIS ARROGANT ASSHOLE’S BLUFF?

Look folks, this whole house of cards that Barry has going on here will have completely tumbled down by this time next year, regardless of measure taken, or not taken, regarding the looming 'fiscal cliff'. So what the Republicans might as well do, and right now, is to call Barry's bluff. White House Spokesmoron Jay Carney said just yesterday that no matter what else happens Barry, who is the only modern president other than Franklin Roosevelt to serve in four years when federal spending topped 24 percent of GDP, will not sign a deal to avoid the so-called fiscal cliff that will arrive at the end of this year unless that deal increases taxes. So there you have, another example of how Democrats 'compromise.'

"So the President made clear that he is not wedded to every detail of his plan," said 'Dim Bulb' Carney. "The President has also made categorically and abundantly clear that he will not sign an extension of the Bush-era tax cuts for top earners. It’s bad economic policy and we cannot afford it. He will not sign that." Ok, fine! So what those on our side of this argument need to do, is to also make it "categorically and abundantly clear" that they have no intention, what-so-freakin-ever, of agreeing to anything that does not include some very substantial cuts to our hemorrhaging entitlement programs. And if the Democrats, including Barry, can't bring themselves to agree, then screw 'em, just walk away.

According to 'official calculations' made by folks over in the White House Office of Management and Budget that go all the way back to 1930, Barry and Franklin Roosevelt are the only two presidents who have served in four fiscal years when federal spending exceeded 24 percent of GDP. Roosevelt did so in 1942, 1943, 1944, and 1945 (when he finally did us all a favor by dying in office). Barry did so in 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012. Also since 1930, and again according to the White House, there has been only one year when federal tax revenues went as high as 20 percent of GDP. That was in 2000, the last 'Slick Willie' year, when revenues were 20.6 percent of GDP. This is completely unsustainable folks.

In an effort to put things in term so simple even your average Barry-voter can perhaps understand, it's a fact that no matter what the federal income tax rates have been, at no time since 1930 has the federal government been able to collect as much as 21 percent of GDP in taxes. To balance the budget at a level of spending higher than 20.6 percent of GDP would require an historically unprecedented level of taxation. Which, I'm quite sure, Barry and the current gang of Democrats would have no problem doing. The federal government taxes away the income of Americans through a system of, 'Communist Manifesto" inspired, progressive tax rates, designed to take larger and larger shares of a person's earnings as the person make more money.

In 2000, before President George W. Bush came into office, there were five federal income-tax brackets--a 15-percent bracket, a 28-percent bracket, a 31-percent bracket, a 36-percent bracket, and a 39.6 percent bracket. Bush signed legislation creating six brackets that taxed away a lower percentage of income at progressive rates of 10 percent, 15 percent, 25 percent, 28 percent, 33 percent and 35 percent. Additionally, the Bush legislation also reduced the tax rates on dividends and long-term capital gains, and expanded tax credits including for dependent children. These tax cuts were set to expire in 2010, but Barry agreed to legislation to extend them to the end of this year.

If they are not extended, all tax rates will return to what they were in 2000 under 'BJ' Clinton. If the Bush tax rates expire, income up to $17,000 will get a 50 percent tax increase, going from 10 percent taxation to 15 percent taxation. Income between $17,800 and $60,350 will stay at the 15 percent tax rate. Incomes between $60,350 and $145,900 will get a 12 percent tax hike, with the rate jumping to 28 percent. Income in the $145,000 to $222,300 range will get an 11 percent tax hike, with the rate jumping to 31 percent. Income in the $222,300 to $397,000 range will get a 9 percent tax hike, with the rate climbing to 36 percent. And income above $397,000 will get a 13 percent tax hike, with the rate climbing to 39.6 percent.

"The president is very interested in closing loopholes and capping deductions where sensible both economically and plausible politically," said 'Dim Bulb' Carney, "but the fact remains that the cleanest, simplest way to achieve the kind of revenue target that’s necessary here is to go back to the 'Slick Willie'-era rates for top earners--rates, by the way, that were in place during the longest period of economic growth--peacetime economic expansion in our lifetimes; rates that were in place when the rich got a lot richer and the middle class did really well, too; the rates that were in place during a period that saw deficits disappear and to be replaced by surpluses." Carney ignores the fact that our economy is much, much weaker now!

"The President is willing to look at anything that’s sensible and realistic and that is mathematically sound," or so said Spokesmoron, Carney. "But our point on rates is that they are the sensible, clean, simple way and proven way to achieve the kind of revenue target that we’ve talked about, as you’ve seen in the President’s proposal, a proposal which includes loophole closures and deduction caps, as well, but ones that are realistic." Sensible and clean, what the Hell does that mean? In fiscal 2012, according to the White House, the federal government spent $3.795 trillion, the most in the history of the United States. This year, fiscal 2013, the White House estimates the federal government will increase spending to $3.803 trillion.

And it only continues to get worse, because in fiscal 2014, the White House estimates federal spending will increase to $3.883 trillion. And the year after that, fiscal 2015, the White House estimates federal spending to $4.059 trillion. Ok, so when do any actual spending cuts kick in? Shouldn't spending be going down, especially if we're supposed to agree to take hikes? We're on a suicide mission here, folks! This madness has got to stop and it has to be made to stop NOW! The country simply cannot afford to have the Republicans cave on this issue yet again. It's the spending that needs to be brought under control and this purposeful attempt being made by Barry to bring about a complete financial collapse has to be stopped!

WILL BOEHNER THROW US UNDER THE BUS? MOST LIKELY!!

Recently, ‘Old Stretch’, in reference to current ongoing negotiations regarding that much talked about fiscal cliff and taxes, made the simplistic, and rather idiotic claim that, "the election was held, the people have spoken," in her effort to suggest that Americans support tax hikes for those "people at the high end." In her appearance on NPR, which aired Wednesday evening, Stretch was asked about Congress’ need to address the quickly approaching fiscal cliff. "This is just a decision. There’s no mystery, there’s no new factors that are going to enter into the situation," she said. Adding, "The debate is a clear one. The election was held. The people have spoken." Droning on she continued, "The president campaigned on this balanced and fair, big agreement -- now let’s just get down and write it." Going on to say, "As far as the middle-income tax cut, that’s really the sticking point."

Congress has little time to broker a deal with Barry regarding extending the Bush era tax rates and addressing automatic defense and domestic spending cuts before the end of the year. Much, of not all, of the debate has centered primarily on taxes, because Democrats like Stretch have no interest in discussing spending cuts, because they fully expect the Republican-controlled House to cave on their efforts to keep tax rates down for all Americans. Barry has repeatedly argued for extending the Bush rates only for those Americans who make under $250,000 annually, claiming ad nauseam how it is that the rich need to "pay their fair share." Many small business owners, mom-and-pop operations, as well as dual-income households file annual incomes over $250,000 but they are not all multi-millionaires or billionaires. It’s these folks who are the real job creators in our economy, and the more they pay in taxes the fewer folks they can hire.

NPR Host Robert Siegel asked old ‘Stretch’ about whether she thought that the House Republicans might have a mandate on taxes, given that they maintained their majority. "What do you say to Republican House members who say, ‘the public spoke, they reelected us. They kept us in the majority and sent us back. We’re the same people who rejected the deal the last time the grand bargain was on the table, so we’ve been reaffirmed in our position,’" Seigel asked. "Well, they don’t say they rejected the deal. They say the president rejected the deal," Stretch complained. "But you have it right. But you have it right." Siegel responded saying, "I’m putting words in their mouths." He went on to ask, "What’s wrong with them saying, ‘We have the same position now that we had then and that our voters told us go back to Washington and make those Democrats agree with you’?"

Stretch responded to that in typical gibberish, "I don’t think that their voters told them to go back and make Medicare into a voucher." Adding, "I don’t think that their voters told them to come back to Washington to cut benefits for middle-income people when it comes to Social Security and Medicare. I don’t think that their voters told them that." She then said, "And all the polls will indicate that the voters believe that people at the high end should pay their fair share." Going a little further she claimed, "What they campaigned on was an oath of office to a lobbyist, that they would never raise taxes," Pelosi said, apparently referring to Grover Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform pledge to oppose taxes while in Congress. "To a lobbyist, they took an oath of office. We think their oath of office, as Representative [Tom] Cole [R-Okla.] mentioned, should supersede that." What a load of bullshit from this old hag!

Rep. Cole did say on Tuesday, "I think we ought to take the 98 percent deal right now," and allow taxes to go up for higher income earners. "It doesn’t mean I agree with raising the top 2," said Cole. "I don’t," he said, arguing that Republicans should only debate taxes for the top income earners after the so-called middle-class tax cuts are extended. Cole said he did not consider his position a violation of the Norquist pledge, because Republicans would be voting to lower the rates for the majority of Americans and do nothing for the rest. Speaker of the House John Boehner said Wednesday that he disagreed with Cole, and will seek an agreement to extend all of the Bush tax rates. "He's a wonderful friend of mine and a great supporter of mine, but raising taxes on the so-called top 2 percent, half of those taxpayers are small-business owners that pay their taxes through their personal income tax filing every year," Boehner said.

Boehner added, "The goal here is to grow the economy and control spending. You're not going to grow the economy if you raise tax rates on the top two [percent]." He made the point that, "It'll hurt small businesses. It'll hurt our economy." Look, I’m not in favor of raising anyone’s taxes right now, UNLESS, there are concrete agreements made that result in very substantial cuts being made in entitlement programs NOW, not at some mythical point in the future. We have been down this road before of raising taxes now with promises made of cutting spending later. Democrats lie, that’s just what they do, and it’s all that they do. And old Stretch is very good at it, as is Barry "Almighty." Republicans need not to be agreeing to anything unilaterally. And if they do, I think it very safe to say that they are done as a viable political party. Their priorities have got to be what’s best for the country, not what they think gives them the best chance to get re-elected.

YUP, BY GOLLY, THE MOST TRANSPARENT ADMINISTRATION IN HISTORY…

Conservatives are worried that the negotiations that will begin this week to avoid the so-called "fiscal cliff" will, from their point of view, end in disaster. And in using history as our guide, they're probably right to be worried. Tax increases that will weaken the economy could be combined with spending cuts, that have a tendency to never materialize, in an agreement that will leave many Republicans, especially those who have signed the "no net new taxes" pledge promoted by Americans for Tax Reform, vulnerable to public outrage, and indeed to primary challenges in the midterm elections. And that, my friends, is as it should be. We cannot simply go on raising taxes while at the same time, continuing to spend like there's no tomorrow.

The way to avoid that, much worried, about outcome may be for conservatives to insist on the transparency and openness that Barry "Almighty" has spent so much of his time promoting but has almost never actually delivered on. The White House has asserted false claims of executive privilege to avoid questions on the Justice Department’s Fast and Furious gun-running scandal. The Washington Post reported last year that a large number of requests for public records elicited no material at all from the administration. The same Barry "Almighty" who as a 2008 candidate promised that health-care negotiations would be shown on C-SPAN instead cobbled together the abomination of Obamacare completely behind closed doors.

Those who have been around ling enough can still remember that Republicans agreed on tax-increase-for-spending-cuts deals in 1982 under Ronald Reagan and in 1990 under George H. W. Bush. These deals politically damaged the party in the short run, and also proved to be bad policy. The 1982 budget deal, which promised seven dollars in spending cuts for every three dollars in tax increases, was never honored. Congress agreed to less than 27 cents in spending cuts for every dollar of tax increases, and President Reagan came to bitterly regret his decision to approve the deal. Ed Meese, Reagan’s senior counselor at the time, recalls that the 1982 deal "was the worst domestic-policy mistake of the Reagan administration."

Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the top Republican on the Senate Budget Committee today, has argued that transparency will help conservatives avoid the worst of possible budget outcomes. "Secrecy cements the status quo: more spending, more debt, more runaway government," he said in a recent news release. "It is the enemy of accountability, change, and reform. We cannot simply rush through some secret deal that no one can amend, alter, review, scrutinize, or dispute." He says that Congress needs to take at least a week to debate any deal and offer amendments, and that it needs to make the proposal available on the Internet for public review: "It is time to try the one thing that hasn’t been tried: open, public process on the Senate floor."

Americans for Tax Reform’s founder, Grover Norquist, who originated the anti-tax-increase pledge, says that having an honest, open debate will promote political accountability. "The party that doesn’t want the budget debate to be transparent can be held to account," he said. "The American people should get to see the sausage being made and get to read the contract before it’s signed. They shouldn’t have to wait a year for Bob Woodward to write a book about what really happened behind closed doors." But calling for transparency isn’t enough. Democrats have every incentive not to agree to transparency, but conservatives should not let the issue fall by the wayside. They must insist on an open process as the fiscal cliff approaches.

Meanwhile, everybody's favorite corrupt old slime-bag, 'Dingy' Harry Reid, has now been getting away with flouting the law, the same law that requires the Senate to adopt a budget resolution each year by April 15, for more than 1,300 days. 'Dingy' even went so far as to actually admit back in 2011 that one of his primary motivations for ignoring this law was that it would be politically "foolish" for his party to adopt a budget. Democrats, you just gotta love 'em, right? Barry offered up his own budget plan earlier this year, but it was so unbelievably unrealistic and stuffed with so many questionable accounting gimmicks that not even a single Democrat in Congress supported it when it came to a vote.

And in February, Timmy 'The Tax Cheat' Geithner admitted in congressional testimony that the administration lacks any kind if a long-term plan to deal with the nation’s soaring $16 trillion debt. "We’re not coming before you today to say we have a definitive solution to that long-term problem," is what he told Committee chairman Paul Ryan. And this moron said, "What we do know is, we don’t like yours." Having the budget negotiations out in the open would at least expose such blatant hypocrisy on the part of Barry's clowns or, at best, force it to pony up and negotiate honestly. If negotiations remain in the shadows, Democrats will only follow the precedent they’ve set in years past, pushing for higher taxes with no accompanying spending cuts.

THE RETURN OF THE 'ENEMIES LIST'?

THE GOP CLAIMS TO HAVE THE BACK OF SMALL BUSINESS, BUT DOES IT?

MY SENTIMENTS EXACTLY...

I AGREE, REPUBLICANS SHOULD SIMPLY WALK AWAY...

HOW, EXACTLY, IS IT THE GOP’S FAULT THAT BLACKS JUST CAN’T SEEM TO FIGURE THINGS OUT?

After yet another election is history and it was yet another where it was that we saw the black community vote nearly en masse for the Democrat candidate, who this time around also happened to be black. And now we once again have those who claim to be in the know, and just so much smarter than the rest of us, saying that what the Republican Party needs to do, what it must do to survive, is to work a lot harder at coming up with improved ways to entice blacks to join the GOP. I would argue that instead, we need to be much more aggressive in combating the perception of the GOP that is essentially nothing more that a complete fabrication, created and very loudly disseminated by the true racist who call the Democrat Party home. Because if you listen to these Democrats, the Republican Party is said to possess a very dark history with regard to blacks in American, a history that is steeped in some of the most vicious and vile exhibitions of racism imaginable.

I say fabrication because that's exactly what is it. It's been made up out of whole cloth, and there is not a grain of truth in anything that the Democrat Party says when describing the events of the past especially when it comes to the Republican Party and blacks in America. As always, Democrats attempt to rewrite history in an effort to portray themselves as being something different that what a real examination of their history would revel them to be. So in an effort to shine a little truth on things and to review a little of the history about the Republican Party untainted by Democrat 'interpretation' of the facts, let’s see what we can find out about the GOP’s supposedly sinister preoccupation with racism. And the Democrat fairytale, and that's exactly what it is, is really quite easy to disprove if only one is willing to expend the necessary energy to look at what are the actual facts. So in an effort to put things into their proper perspective let us now depart on a little journey down memory lane, shall we?

What have those acting on behalf of the Republican Party REALLY done? Well let's see:

- Republicans passed the Thirteenth Amendment, ending slavery, with 80 percent of Democrats voting against it.
- Republicans enacted the Fourteenth Amendment, granting freed slaves the rights of citizenship. It was, by the way, unanimously supported by Republicans and just as unanimously opposed by Democrats.
- Republicans also passed the Fifteenth Amendment, giving freedmen the right to vote.
- Republicans passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866, conferring U.S. citizenship on all African Americans and according them "full and equal benefit of all laws", again unanimously supported by Republicans, who had to override Democrat President Andrew Johnson’s veto.
- Republicans passed the Reconstruction Act of 1867.
- Republicans sent federal troops to the Democratic South to enforce the constitutional rights of the newly freed slaves.
- Republicans were the first targets of the Ku Klux Klan during Reconstruction.
- Republicans continued trying to pass federal civil rights laws for a century following the Civil war, most of which Democrats blocked, including a bill banning racial discrimination in public accommodations in 1875; a bill guaranteeing blacks the right to vote in the South in 1890; anti-lynching bills in 1922, 1935, and 1938 and anti-poll tax bills in 1942, 1944 and 1946.
- A Republican president, Theodore Roosevelt, invited Booker T. Washington to dine at the White House in 1901, making him the first black American to do so.
- Republican Party platforms repeatedly called for equal rights, demanding in 1908, for example, equal justice for black Americans and condemning all devices that disenfranchise blacks for their color alone, "as unfair, un-American and repugnant to the Supreme law of the land."
- Republicans called for anti-lynching legislation in their presidential platforms throughout the 1920s while the Democrat platforms did not.
- Republicans demanded integration of the military in civil services in their party platform in 1940; again, the Democrats did not.
- Republicans endorsed Brown v. Board of Education in their 1956 presidential platform, the Democrats did not.
- Republicans sent the 101^st Airborne Division to Little Rock to enforce the Court’s school desegregation ruling to stop Democrat governor from blocking the schoolhouse door.
- Republicans fully implemented the desegregation of the military, left unfinished by a Democrat president.
- Republicans introduced and passed into law the Civil Rights Act of 1957 opposed and watered down by Democrats.
- Republicans reintroduced and passed another civil rights bill in 1960, maneuvering it past Democrat obstructionism, with all votes against the bill coming from Democrats.
- Republicans created the Commission on Civil Rights.
- Republicans voted in far greater numbers for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than the Democrats, though this was the year Democrats finally stopped aggressively opposing civil rights bills.
- Republicans effectively desegregated public schools throughout the nation in the first few years of the Nixon administration.
- Republicans desegregated the building trades, introducing, for the first time, racial quotas and timetables for those doing business with the federal government.
- Republicans appointed the first black secretary of state as well as the first black female secretary of state.
- Republicans appointed one of two black justices ever to sit on the Supreme Court, over the hysterical objections of Democrats.

Well, well, well, so what do we have here? It would seem that truth is a bit stranger than the Democrat fictional account of things. And it would appear that their version of Republican Party history when speaking about race, doesn't quite ring true. Which should reveal quite clearly the lengths Democrats will go to hide their own past, and cause one to ponder just how much worse off blacks would be today, if it had not been for the Republican Party? And what exactly have blacks been the recipient of for their unswerving dedication and devout loyalty to the Democrat Party? Well it would seem not much that could actually be considered as being beneficial, that's for sure. Liberal Democrat policies have had a disastrous effect on the black community today. It is a fact that when the majority of black people were Republican they had strong black families and during that time 90% of homes were headed by two parents. Imagine that!

But sadly, all of that was before that grand illusion that came into being back in the 1960s . Something fondly referred as being the "Great Society", which was a set of domestic programs that was more of a monumental con job, and one that has proven, over time, to be a very costly one. What it was, however, was essentially nothing more than a thinly disguised effort by the Democrats to buy the black vote. It was then that the Democrats came out with welfare, food stamps and government programs that literally crippled black people and made them nearly completely dependent upon government. It was at that point in time that we then started seeing the break down of the black family. Now today most black people reliably vote Democrat, but they may have kind of outsmarted themselves, because they don't seem to have done themselves any favors by deciding to faithfully remain in the Democrat camp over the course of the last 50 or so years. Here's just a little of what they have to show for their unending servitude:

1. 70% of black kids are born to unwed parents.
2. Black women now lead in abortion, for the size of their population.
3. Blacks have one the highest high school drop out rates.
4. Even though blacks are 12% of the population, blacks make up 50% of the prison population.
5. As of now blacks have the highest unemployment rate in America at 14%. Actually it's a lot higher.
6. As of now blacks have the highest poverty rate in America at 27%
7. Black business ownership is the lowest out of every group in America.
8. And the sad part is blacks are still thinking that the government is going to one day save them, and make their lives better.

All that has been suffered by the black community stems from the plight that has been put upon them, and is a direct result of, liberal Democrat Party policies. The Democratic Party in its effort to deny what is its own racist past and to capture the black vote for generations, implemented a carefully crafted plan consisting of various family aid policies the net result of which has been to, quite literally, destroy the black family. Today, well over 70% of black children are born out of wedlock. Democrat family assistance policies, implemented nationwide led to fatherless homes, which led to the ruin of the black community. The absence of a father in the home, or involved at all has been a disaster for the community. Statistics show that when two parent families are used as a basis for comparison, then on education and crime black and white are equal. But, when considered as a group, crime for African Americans is totally out of all proportion to numbers and education achievement is dismal - The one and only reason? Destruction of the black family.

The grandmothers are all gone and the gangs have now moved in to fill in the void created. Like they say, nature abhors a vacuum, and only bad things can happen as a consequence. And as hard as it might be tried, there's simply no way that money, no matter what the amount, can't put this right. In fact, the money spent on the poverty industry by both the government and any number of private foundations more often then not only ends up the pockets of Democrat community 'leaders,' who get wealthy off the misery of those right there in their own community. You know, the typical sleazy characters like the Al "Bull Horn" Sharptons and Jesse "The Extortionist" Jacksons who presume themselves to be the representative voices of the black community. These guys have made careers out of throwing their own people under the proverbial bus in exchange for they're aiding in what has been, and continues to be, nothing more than a massive propaganda campaign designed to prevent blacks from ever managing to escape from the Democrat plantation. And for decades it has worked, and worked very well.

According to an American Community Survey, conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau, the top 10 poorest cities with populations of more than 250,000 are Detroit, with 33 percent of its residents below the poverty line; Buffalo, N.Y., 30 percent; Cincinnati, 28 percent; Cleveland, 27 percent; Miami, 27 percent; St. Louis, 27 percent; El Paso, Texas, 26 percent; Milwaukee, 26 percent; Philadelphia, 25 percent; and Newark, N.J., 24 percent. Now, and I'm sure this comes as real shock to people, there is common thread here that runs through all of these cities and it is that for decades, all of them have been run by Democratic and presumably liberal administrations. Some of them, such as Detroit, Buffalo, Newark and Philadelphia, haven’t elected a Republican mayor for more than a half-century. And the mayors of six of these high-poverty cities have been black Americans, in some cases it has been that way for decades. Personally, I think the most fitting analogy for any of these cities would be to compare them to rat experiments that have gone horribly, horribly wrong. Because that's essentially what they are, experiments in social engineering.

Crime is one of the results of the liberal agenda. Blacks are 13 percent of the population but are more than 50 percent of murder victims. About 95 percent of black homicide victims had a black person as their murderer. Blacks are not only the major victims of murder but also suffer high victimization rates of all categories of serious violent crime. Most often, another black is the perpetrator. But in such cases is it rare to hear from the perpetual race clowns like the previously mentioned Sharpton or Jackson. It was during the 1960s, that academic liberals and hustling politicians told us that to deal with crime, we had to deal with its "root causes," poverty and discrimination. It has been pointed out that in 1960, the total number of murders in the United States was lower than in 1950, 1940 and 1930, even though our population had grown and two new states had been added. The liberal agenda, coupled with courts granting criminals new rights, later caused the murder rate to double, and the rates of other violent crimes also began to skyrocket.

Realistically speaking, it has been the Democrat Party that has managed to do more long-term damage to the black community than the KKK ever did, or would have dreamt was even possible. And when looking back at the Democrat's rather dark, and ominous history when it comes to all matters having to do with racism, it becomes pretty obvious, pretty quickly that the party also played a very significant role in creating this violent little group as well. Because it is also very true that while not every Democrat was a member of the KKK, very member was, in fact, a Democrat. The Democrats created the nanny state where women are rewarded with more welfare money with every child they have as long as the father isn’t living with the mother. Therefore, kids grow up without a positive male role model, drop out of school, get into trouble, end up dead or in prison and some see the welfare state as their only option and the cycle starts all over again. This has destroyed the family unit in the black community.

Look, I think it's pretty obvious what the bottom line here is. And that would be that in order for Democrats to continue their winning ways it is absolutely essential, even imperative, that they work to have as many people as possible totally dependent upon government. What they have done to achieve that is the disgraceful, almost genocidal, using of taxpayer money to promote illegitimacy, broken homes and generational dependency, and all so they can have a reliable pool of very dependable voters come every Election Day. Because we all know everyone getting a government 'paycheck', votes for Democrats. Blacks stubbornly refuse to make a break for the fence. And you would think that they would be doing so in droves if for no other reason than that natural instinct for self-preservation. And because of their continuing refusal to come to grips with the root cause of their continuing to remain in poverty as well as their unwillingness to detach themselves from the government teat, the rest of us are made to suffer the consequences of the policies conceived by very liberal, and dare I say Socialist, Democrats.

I THINK KRAUTHAMMER IS EXACTLY RIGHT ON THIS...

 

 

Sady, though, I think that there will be a significnat number of 'fools' who will do exactly what Krauthammer warns against.  Including our esteemed Speaker of the House.  Just one i wish our guys would play by the same rule that the Democrats play by.  I'm sick and tired of our current team that seems to be primarily made up of a bunch of pussies! 

HANK JOHNSON HARD AT WORK 'EARNING' HIS PAY AS A DEMOCRAT CONGRESSMAN...

TEAM OBAMA "NOT PARTICULARLY CONCERNED" ABOUT LYING OR BEING PURPOSELY DISHONEST...

MORE NOW SEE THE ECONOMY GETTING WEAKER IN COMING MONTHS, AND YET…

Word now comes to us courtesy of Rasmussen that half of the country now believes that the economy will be much worse off in one year, and that's a 27-point increase since Barry "Almighty’s" reelection, just three weeks ago. Ok, I'm curious, just what the Hell did these morons think was going to happen? And how many of them thought that it would be just a jim-dandy idea to vote for him? I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if it turned to that probably most of them voted for him. So now suddenly, what, they're now having second thoughts? There's that old saying, elections have consequences. And in this case those consequences are likely to be quite severe. And those who voted for Barry have no one to blame but themselves, because even a cursory glance over the last four years would prove to be a pretty good indicator of what the next four are likely to be like.

Anyway, it was in a poll released just last week that Rasmussen found that 50 percent of American adults now think the U.S. economy will be weaker in a year’s time. Now keep in mind here, it was as recent as October, that only 23 percent felt the same way. "The increase in pessimism comes primarily from Republicans and those not affiliated with either major political party," Rasmussen said. Adding, "Just before President Obama was reelected, Republicans were evenly divided as to whether the economy would be better or worse a year from now. Today, only 11 percent of Republicans believe the economy will be stronger in a year. An overwhelming 74 percent in the GOP believe it will be worse." I'm curious about something else too, just who is it that comprises that 11 percent of Republican who have managed to convince themselves that things are somehow going to get better?

More independents also hold a somewhat negative view about the economy since Barry’s reelection, rising 31 points from 19 percent to 50 percent who now believe the economy will only continue to get weaker. But something I'm sure comes as absolutely no surprise is the fact that a majority of Democrats still expect the economy to be stronger by next year, remaining virtually unchanged at 60 percent. The reason that a majority of Democrats think the economy will be stronger, I should think would be fairly obvious. This is primarily our parasite class, made up of the very same one who are now out there very loudly supporting the increasing of taxes paid by those who choose not to be parasites. So, from their rather twisted perspective, things probably will get better. But I wonder if these imbeciles have given any thought to what will happen when those currently picking up their tab, have no more money.

But there's an odd little twist here, because while we have 50 percent of Americans who think that the economy will be much weaker one year from now, at the same time, at least according to Gallup, we also have 51 percent of Americans who say that they approve of the way that Barry is doing his job. So, what, do some of the very same people who think the economy will continue to get worse also think that Barry is doing a good job in his making sure that that actually happens? Because for the life of me I can't figure out how it is that one can have an opinion that the economy will be worse in 12 months and still think that Barry is doing a good job as president. It just don't make no sense to me! So please excuse me if I seem more than a bit confused here, but people can't have it both ways. Now I know a majority of Americans aren't too terribly bright, but this seems bizarre even for them.

BEING 'FAIR' ONLY FUNDS THE GOVERNMENT FOR 8 DAYS...

There's been a lot of talk coming from Barry and his fellow Democrats for quite some time now about how those among us who have achieved some level of success in their lives must now be made to pay what's been, and continues to be, described as being, "their fair share." Now other than the scoring of some cheap political points, what's really to be gained here with such an idiotic approach to preventing us from plunging over that much talked about fiscal cliff? Not much really. Because as long as half of all households in this country can continue to get away with paying absolutely no income taxes and remain on the receiving end of out-of-control 'entitlement programs' there isn't much hope that we can avoid going over the edge.

Something not talked about much when speaking about Barry's plan to end the Bush-era tax cuts for families earning more than $250,000 a year is that it would finance the U.S. government for only eight days. That's the charge coming Georgia GOP Rep. Tom Price. "The president's plan to increase taxes on the upper 2 percent (of American earners) covers the spending by this federal government not for eight years, not for eight months – not for eight weeks, but for eight days," Price, the chairman of the House Republican Policy Committee, told Andrea Mitchell, one of the resident morons over at MSNBC. But as Barry has said on any number of occasions, this is nothing more than an effort to guarantee a sense of 'fairness.'

Barry's tax-rate plan would generate only $82.3 billion a year, according to estimates by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), Price said. The Bush-era tax rates expire and massive spending cuts automatically kick under sequestration on Jan. 2. "Eight days only," Price told MSNBC. "It's not a real solution. I’m puzzled by an administration that seems to be more interested in raising tax rates than in gaining economic vitality." A more balanced approach, which includes cuts to federal spending on such programs as Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, is what Barry should be focused on, he said. But again, Rep. Price makes the mistake of assuming that Barry is in any way interested in improving our economy.

Those tax increases and spending cuts would total about $500 billion next year, Fox News reports. In addition, about $1.2 trillion will be cut from the federal budget over 10 years should both sides fail to reach a deal to keep the nation from going over the so-called fiscal cliff, Fox reports. Look, what we're talking about here is over $16 Trillion of accumulated debt. And all where we're doing here amounts to pussyfooting around and talking about making cuts that will have virtually no impact, whatsoever, when it comes to preventing the financial and economic implosion that is now speeding toward us like a runaway freight train. This is a purposeful attempt at sabotage, there's just no other way to explain it.

"LITTLE DICK" DURBIN ALREADY MAKING DEMANDS...

Medicare and Medicaid savings should be part of future debt-reduction efforts, but not on the table in talks regarding the impending "fiscal cliff," so says the second-highest ranking Democrat in the Senate. In the prepared remarks of 'Little Dick' Durbin’s speech today to the ultra-liberal Center for American Progress, he writes that 'progressives' cannot "pretend" the programs can "continue forever" without changes to ensure their solvency. But the majority whip from Illinois insists that any adjustments should come after the immediate budget is passed.  "Progressives should be willing to talk about ways to ensure the long-term viability of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid," it reads. Going on to say, "But those conversations should not be part of a plan to avert the fiscal cliff." This is but one more example of how lying Democrats like 'Little Dick' operate when it comes to defining compromise.

Oddly enough, during the event, the illustrious 'Little Dick' skipped over that section of his notes, which had been released to the media, but he told reporters that he stood by every word. "We can’t be so naive as to believe that just taxing the rich is going to solve our problems," he told the crowd, adding that his caucus needed to be open to issues "painful and hard for us to talk about." 'Little Dick' said he continued to be opposed to some conservative proposals, including voucher programs for Medicare and a block-grant system for Medicaid. But he also maintained he’s wary of raising the eligibility age for the safety-net programs, for fear of creating coverage gaps. It was Barry "Almighty" who floated that same idea last year. The statements offer a window into what might be congressional Democrats’ proverbial "line in the sand" as each party sharpens their negotiating teams.

So how, exactly, is a budget agreement to be reached by Dec. 31, when one side is already busy taking things off the table? It would appear that while some members of Congress see the talks as an opportunity to reduce the national debt, others, like "Little Dick", would rather let things play out in the attempt to achieve some level of a political victory Members of both parties discussed cuts to entitlement programs earlier this month, in a meeting with Barry, as a way to bring about deficit reduction. According to the Office of Management and Budget, the sum total of US entitlement programs, including Social Security, make up a projected 62.4 percent of the entire federal budget in 2012. And yet, we have a dim-bulb Democrat stipulating what can and what cannot be on the table regarding any potential agreement regarding our impending fiscal cliff. Now just how much sense does that make? Ah, that would be, NONE!

CHRIS MATTHEWS AND ALAN SIMPSON = DUMB AND DUMBER-ER...

FRANKLY, I'M AMAZED SHE BELIEVED OBAMA IN THE FIRST PLACE...

'SPOKESMORON' JAY CARNEY DOES THE OLD SOFT SHOE...

NO DOUBT ANOTHER OBAMA VOTER...

GETTING OUR POCKETS PICKED...

Now you may not have noticed it, but last Friday, the day after Thanksgiving, you spent just a little over $200. And thanks to Barry you didn't even need to leave your house to do it. Actually, let me rephrase that, you didn't spend that $200, actually Barry spent 200 of your hard earned dollars, for you. You see, that's because the Treasury increased the net debt of the United States $24,327,048,384.38 on the day after Thanksgiving, which equals approximately $211.69 for each of the nation’s 114,916,000 households.

At the close of business last Wednesday, according to the Treasury, the national debt was $16,283,161,895,179.85. On Thanksgiving, the Treasury took the day off and so, did no borrowing. But on Friday, the Treasury increased the debt of the United States to $16,307,488,943,564.23. That was a one-day increase of $24,327,048,384.38. Now I'm sure even your average brain-dead liberal an manage to do the basic math required here to see just how that all breaks down.

If not, I will attempted to make is so simple even a Barry "Almighty" voter can figure it out. First let's start with the fact that the Census Bureau estimated that as of September there were approximately 114,916,000 households in the United States. Ok, Barry worshippers, you with me so far? So, if you take that mindboggling amount of $24,327,048,384.38 that the Treasury borrowed on Friday and then simply divide it by the number of households, voila, you come up with about $211.69 per household.

Oh, and by the way, Friday was also the first time in the history of the United States that the debt has topped $16.3 trillion. Now to put that little jewel of knowledge into its proper perspective, when Barry "Almighty" first took office on Jan. 20, 2009, he had inherited a national debt that stood at $10,626,877,048,913.08. Since then, it has increased by $5,680,611,894,651.15. That means that since Barry has been president, the national debt has increased by a whopping $49,432.73 per household.

AH, THOSE HARD WORKING FOLKS IN CONGRESS...

How many of you outside of this moron's district have ever heard of Rep. Hank Johnson, who is, what else, a Democrat, and one who happens to be from Georgia? I've mentioned this guy before, only because he's probably one of the least intelligent individuals currently roaming the halls of Congress. But who ever said you gotta be smart to be in Congress? Look at such sterling examples of the brain-trust in Congress, we have folks like Bawny Fwank, John Kerry-Heinz and Chuckie Schumer to name just three. I could go on but in the interest of space, I won't, but you get the idea, I'm sure. Anyway, this dolt Johnson makes the claim that members of Congress actually "earn" their $174,000 per year salary (plus benefits) and that this compensation is "not elaborate." Now some may believe this cockamamie bullshit, but not if they have a brain.

"The benefits and salary that we get, we earn," Johnson said at the Annesbrooks HOA Candidate Forum in Georgia in October. "It’s not elaborate, it’s just a bunch of poppycock that a lot of people have spread around trying to get us to hate our own government and our government representatives." According to a Congressional Research Services report compensation for most representatives and senators is $174,000 a year. Additionally, our hardworking members of Congress are eligible to enroll in health and life insurance plans, can opt into a pension plan and are offered a variety of reimbursements and allowances to support them in their representational duties. So while I don't have the final sum these hardworking folks actually take home, I think it fair to say it's a bit more than the base pay of 174 grand.

The Congressional Research Service has reported that the average annual Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) annuity was $69,420 in 2010. The Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS), which went into effect in 1987, averaged a retirement annuity (not including Social Security) of $38,460 in 2010. Depending on when they began their service former lawmakers may choose to participate in either plan. And what get's me is that scumbags like this Johnson clown get for themselves a nice fat retirement while those in our military continue to get screwed over on their retirements. What exact does this imbecile do that actually makes him think that he earns what we the taxpayers pay him? And not just him, any of these egomaniacs that go on television in the $1000, or more, suits or dresses.

This serving in Congress gig is a pretty good one if you can get it. Of course Barry has them all beat with his million dollar vacations, weekly trips to the nearest high-dollar golf course and date nights in New York City. But that's a topic for another time. But getting back to these schleps in Congress, I really don't see how any of them can justify the money they make, and the entire setup does nothing more than to breed corruption. There should be no salary involved at all, or at least nothing more than an token one and absolutely no retirement benefits. Career politicians are one of those oxymoron's like criminal justice or Great Depression. And there shouldn't be any such thing as benefits for these people who go to Washington and more often that not leave town much richer than they were when they first arrived in town.

SEN. RAND PAUL, HOLDING FAST ON TAXES...

At a time when some Republicans have indicated a willingness to break their no-tax-hike pledge, Sen. Rand Paul, at least for the time being, can be said as being one that's among them: "I made a pledge to the people of Kentucky that I'm not raising taxes. I took a pledge. I signed a statement, an oath that I wouldn't raise taxes, and I'm going to adhere to it," Sen. Paul told Fox New's Greta Van Susteren Monday night. In fact, Paul says that if was able to have things his way, he says he'd lower taxes: "I think you should balance budgets, not spend more than comes in, and I think you should lower taxes, not raise taxes. In fact, if you want to stimulate the economy, I'm for cutting tax revenues. All these Republicans who want to give up their taxpayer pledge and raise taxes, I'm the opposite. I want to lower taxes because that's how we'd get actually more economic growth and maybe more revenue, if you cut tax rates.

Paul says the only way he'd raise tax revenue is through economic growth: "You don't have to raise rates or even close loopholes," he said. "If your economy was growing -- you know, when the economy was growing for four years after the Bush tax cuts, we had plenty of revenue. Revenue went down when the recession came." He went on to say, "The reason we have a lack of revenue in Washington is too much spending and no economic growth. So we don't have economic growth. If the economy were growing at 4 percent right now, we'd have plenty of revenue. But you don't get the economy to grow by raising taxes. That's what they want to do now, and I think it's absolutely the wrong thing to do." Paul says it's a "real problem" that some Republicans are caving in to Democrats on raising taxes without any getting any "concrete proposals" to cut spending.

I agree with his assessment of things in that Republicans shouldn't be trading tax hikes for an opportunity to address entitlements, he said: "We're all Americans. The entitlement programs are broken. Why don't we just fix them instead of saying, 'Oh, we have to give you a tax increase in order for you to think about fixing the entitlements.' Doesn't make any sense to me." Paul said he expects Congress to avoid the so-called fiscal cliff, but he's not happy about the way it may happen: "I think there'll be something really big, some enormous, ugly bill with a lot of stuff in it, including raising the debt ceiling by a couple trillion dollars. They'll squish it into one bill. And sometime before Christmas, they'll pass it." Asked if going off the fiscal cliff "would necessarily be a bad thing," Paul repeated that "it would be a bad thing to raise taxes, but a good thing to lower spending. So I think you have two competing influences in what people are calling the fiscal cliff. That's why it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me."

So it would appear then, that we can currently count on Sen. Paul. Personally, I think it safe to say that the GOP leadership could learn a few lessons from this guy. You may not care for Paul's foreign policy now, but you're going to get it either by acting grown up and cutting the government or when the dollar takes that final plunge. But even there, considering the job that Barry and his sidekick Hitlery are doing in the conducting of our foreign policy, Rand may be a shining star there as well. I'm just so sick and tired of all the Republican weak-kneed senators that surround Rand Paul. I think that the leadership, as a whole, that we have had in Congress since the Reagan years will collectively go down in history as being the worst ever. From the Monica Lewinski days to the Pelosi days of passing the bill to see what's in the bill, to 'Dingy Harry' Reid doing everything possible to avoid getting something accomplished, Congress is doing a disservice to those for whom it is supposed to work.

NO MORE WATCHING AMERICAN IDOL…

With American Idol having now descended into what is essentially the pit of bizarreness, I think it very safe to say that my days of watching it can now be said to be officially over. Believe it or not I was always a fan of Simon Cowell, I thought he provided a much needed dose of reality to some of these would be idols that no one else was willing to offer. When Steven Tyler and Jennifer Lopez came onto the scene, I wasn't sure about things, but Steven proved to be a pretty good judge while with Lopez there was never any doubt about who it was she wanted to win, whether they could sing, or not. Randy was Randy, pretty much the same since day one, way back when.

But with this new group of judges this show that was once an attempt to make someone's dream come true has become nothing more than a silly little freak show that has worn-out it 's welcome. There's really very little entertainment value to be gained and the escapism that it may have at one time provided, is now gone. And now we have this new judge, Nicki Minaj, making nutty accusations that it’s somehow "racist" of old judge, Steven Tyler, to predict that she’d probably send Bob Dylan back to "the cornfield" if he appeared as a contestant on the Fox show. The current judge’s backlash on Twitter against the former Idol judge came after Tyler unfavorably compared the present panel to when he was on the show.

Tyler said: 'These kids, they just got out of a car from the Midwest somewhere and they're in New York City, they're scared to death; you're not going to get the best [out of them]. Tyler told MTV News Monday, "If it was Bob Dylan, Nicki Minaj would have had him sent to the cornfield! Whereas, if it was Bob Dylan with us, we would have brought the best of him out, as we did with Phillip Phillips. Just saying." Tyler said, in reference to rumors of in-fighting on the judge’s panel between Minaj and Mariah Carrey, "I know that they’ve got something going on on the judges’ panel, [and] it shouldn’t be that, it should be just the opposite. They should have something going on, which is called ‘camaraderie.’" .

I guess old Stevie must have hit a nerve because Minaj, who was officially announced as one of the replacements for the departing Tyler and Jennifer Lopez in September, responded with a flurry of tweets today. "You assume that I wouldn’t have liked Bob Dylan??? why? black? rapper? what? go fuck yourself and worry about yourself babe," Minaj added on Twitter. "When Steven 1st went on Idol he was ridiculed by his peers & fans alike. Called a sell out. So what does he do? Ridicule the next judge," she said later this afternoon. Tyler was a judge on American Idol from 2010 to 2012. Both he and Lopez left earlier this year. Minaj, along with country star Keith Urban, joined Carey and long-term judge Randy Jackson this season.

So this little bit of escapism that I used to rather enjoy, has been, like most everything else today, been spoiled in the effort, I guess, to sustain ratings. Bringing in freaks as judges only serves to diminish the reason this show worked for so long. While it once was about these young people trying to make it big, and to some degree about the judges, I think that these new judges are determined to make it ALL about them. And with that I've lost all interest in watching what will surely be nothing more than a circus. So while it was fun while it lasted, I'll now just have to find something else to take my mind off of the fact that Barry is destroying my country and the fact that, apparently, a majority of Americans are choosing to stand with him.

CHUCKIE SCHUMER...A WALKIN', TALKIN' PIECE OF DOG POO...

SO, WHAT PRECENTAGE EQUATES TO BEING SOMEONE’S ‘FAIR SHARE’?

 

 

Ya know, ever since Barry has been talking about all his ‘fair share’ crap, I’ve been more than just a little curious about just what amount that might be. And what it might be, that all of those parasitic malcontents among us who, by the way, pay absolutely nothing in the way of an income tax, think is a fair amount to be paid by those of us who do. And what is it, other than jealously of course, that makes these slugs think that they are somehow entitled to make demands on those who decided to make something of their lives. So with Barry now fresh from his re-election victory and riding what’s been described as being a wave of confidence, he appears to be quite eager to set about doing the bidding of those who pay absolutely nothing and to enthusiastically set about collecting the scalps from the class war that he appears to have won.

Americans, Barry said in his post-election news conference earlier this month, "want to make sure that middle-class folks aren't bearing the entire burden and sacrifice when it comes to some of these big challenges. They expect that folks at the top are doing their fair share as well." The we heard from ‘Old Stretch’ Pelosi as she echoed this same point in a fundraising pitch that was sent out on Monday: "Voters sent a clear message to Republicans in the election: we must stand up for the middle class and ensure the wealthy pay their fair share." Although Barry and his fellow Democrats repeatedly call on wealthier Americans to pay what's referred to as their "fair share," they never really mention what that amount might be, or what percentage of the nation's tax burden the wealthy should be made responsible for covering.

How about we look at where things stand percentage-wise now. Because, you see, the top 1 percent of American households actually paid 39 percent of income taxes in 2009, and that's according to the most recent data compiled by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), also the top 5 percent of taxpayers paid 64 percent. But income taxes don’t really tell the whole story, because lower-income Americans do pay payroll taxes. But even when taking into account all forms of taxation, the top 1 percent still paid 22 percent of federal taxes while earning just 13.4 percent of household income. And the top 5 percent paid 40 percent of all federal taxes, despite earning only 26 percent of all income. And yet, as incredible as it may sound, this is perceived, by Barry and those who pay nothing, as not being their fair share.

No matter how you slice the numbers, it's hard to understand why anyone would think that the wealthy aren't already shouldering a burden commensurate with their blessings. But to be of that opinion one must actually possess a brain and be smart enough to see through all of the class-warfare crap constantly harped on by Barry. And also, I think it fair to say, that it doesn’t hurt to possess the twisted entitlement mentality that Barry succeeded in using to his advantage during his quest for re-election. And in the coming weeks, I'm quite sure we can expect that Barry will keep repeating his campaign "fair share" slogan as a prominent part of his continued call to raise taxes on those earning more than $250,000 per year. Keep in mind here that he also wants to close additional loopholes and limit deductions to increase their tax burden even further.

But these geniuses who insist upon joining with Barry in making these demands that the ‘rich’ pay more, need to bear something else in mind, although I seriously doubt it will evver cross their minds. Because on top of whatever tax rates that actually do go into effect in any deal it is that may be reached to avert plunging over that so-called fiscal cliff, there will be several additional ‘new’, and fairly substantial, taxes due to Barry's national health care law. These include, for instance, a 0.9 percent Medicare tax hike for individuals earning more than $200,000 per year and couples earning more than $250,000 as well as a 3.8 percent surtax on investment income. And one other thing to keep in mind here is, even if Barry gets his way on all of his tax hikes on the wealthy, it still won't make even the slightest dent in our $16.3 Trillion national debt.

And here’s a little question left to be pondered by all of those clamoring for those evil, greedy rich to finally start paying their fair share. Later in his second term, once our ‘Dear Beloved Leader’, has succeeded in blowing through all of this ‘new’ revenue with even more idiotic spending increases, and attempts to again return to this very same well in search of still more revenues, will our illustrious state-controlled media allow Barry get away with once again claiming that the wealthy still aren't paying their "fair share"? And will they permit him to do so without specifying what, exactly, constitutes his idea of fairness? Now, knowing those in the state-controlled media as I think we all do, I think that it can safely be assumed that those in the media will continue to play whatever role they feel they must in order to assist Barry in convincing the American people of any required falsehood.

I think it fair to say that both Warren Buffett, willingly, and Mitt Romney, not so much, were essentially used as a ruse, and quite effectively, to create one of the most enduring myths of our ongoing tax debate: that the rich pay a lower rate than the rest of America. Now while I suppose this can be said to be true, individually, nationally, the tax code is still very broadly progressive. In other words, the more you make, the more taxes you will have to pay as a percentage of your income. According to new data from the IRS, people who make $1 million or more had an average tax rate of 20.4 percent in 2010. Tax filers who earned $30,000 to $50,000 paid an average rate of 4.8 percent, while those who made between $50,000 and $100,000 paid 7.7 percent. Those making under $30,000 had a negative effective rate, meaning they paid no federal income taxes after deductions and credits. One would think that that’s a very fair share.

Put another way, millionaires pay a rate that’s more than four times that of the middle class. However, there is one caveat: Rates go up as income goes up, but only to a point. Once you hit a certain magic number among super-high earners, your tax rates start to fall slightly. According to the IRS, average tax rates increase as income increases, until you get to around $1.5 million in annual income. Once you make $2 million, average tax rates start to decrease. The average tax rate peaks at 25.1 percent for those making between $1.5 million and $2 million. After that it starts to go down, and falls to 20.7 percent for those making $10 million or more. So the millionaires who pay the highest average tax rates in America are those who make between $1.5 million and $2 million. That $2 million could be called the "Top Turning Point" on the income ladder, where rates reverse.

The reasons for this aren’t really all that complicated. Because once you get above $2 million, your share of income from investments increases. Investments are generally taxed at the 15 percent capital-gains rate, compared with the top ordinary-income rate of 35 percent. Those making $10 million or more earned nearly half of their income from capital gains and dividends. Rates don’t fall all that much once you get above $10 million. Even among the top 400 earners in America, whose average income is more than $200 million, the 'average rate' is 18 percent, still more than three times the rate paid by the middle class. Both sides of the current political debate on taxes will no doubt see these data differently. The right will say that the rich already pay more than their fair share, while the left will play politics, pointing to the low rates paid by the wealthy relative to the official tax rates. But the figures show that the more you make, the more you pay.

Which brings us back to what Barry thinks should be one’s "fair share." I think many of us can agree that there is something inherently ‘unfair’ about the fact that half, or nearly half, our population continue to pay absolutely nothing in the way of an income tax, while at the same time demands are made that those who already pay the majority of all taxes paid, pay even more. But such is the basis for Barry’s success at being able to set one half of the country against the other half and thus get re-elected. It’s all propaganda and yet, with the help of our state-controlled media complex, Barry was able to sufficiently convince enough of the American people that the poor in this country have somehow been made that way by those evil ‘rich’ folks, who are the same ones who pay all the taxes. The real reason that most people are poor is because they’re either lazy, unmotivated or have no interest, whatsoever, in doing that which is required to become rich!



DEMOCRATS ALREADY WORKING ON HOW TO BLAME REPUBLICANS...

As members of Congress return to Washington from yet another break, and set about finding a way to tackle the looming "fiscal cliff," the big question that's waiting for an answer is whether, or not, Republicans will ultimately cave to Democrats' demands to raise taxes. And, as usual, it looks like they probably will. And as is always the case, the slimy Democrats will resist making any spending cuts of the size that are actually needed. It's the same old story over and over again, with Democrats the blame for no forward progress ever being made is always placed on the Republicans for their stubborn refusal to raise taxes. Meanwhile we just keep spending more and more money that we don't have and that we could never hope to recoup from tax hikes no matter how massive Democrats would like to make them.

And so it would appear that we will once again be going down that very same road, because the accusations from Democrats have already started flying. Recently we heard from senile old Carl Levin, who said on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday, "The key here is whether or not the Republicans will move away from the ideologically rigid position, which has been the Grover Norquist pledge, which most of them signed, that they will not go for additional revenue (higher taxes)." He went on to say, "When they move away from that pledge -- and they must, as, by the way, all the presidents that I have ever served with, including Reagan, Clinton, and the first George Bush, moved away from a position, no additional taxes. They all added revenues to deficit reduction -- a significant amount of revenues." These guys love throwing Reagan around.

But there is quite a bit about what this lying turd says that just doesn't quite ring true and that doesn't jive with actual history. Because when you look back at the past it takes very little effort to see that it has always been dishonest Democrats like this creep Levin who have been the rigid ideologues. How many times have taxes been raised with there never having been any corresponding spending cuts made at the same time. Ah, that would be NEVER!. This doof Levin insisted that Congress must raise additional revenues by boosting tax rates for the wealthy: "They have to go up -- either real tax rates of effective tax rates," he said. "There's ways of doing that," he added, including closing "significant loopholes." But you'll notice, as usual, Levin makes no mention, nor any commitment to the making, of any spending cuts. Just raise taxes!

And something else that I suppose should come as no surprise to anyone is something that at least appears to be a potential harbinger of things to come. And that's the fact that we already have some Republicans who are willing to abandon the no-tax pledge promoted by fiscal conservative Grover Norquist, founder of Americans for Tax Reform. Sen. Saxby Chambliss said just last week that the no-tax pledge he signed 20 years ago "was valid then" and is "valid now," but he added, "times have changed significantly, and I care more about this country than I do about a 20-year-old pledge." I'd say, and of course this is just between you and me, that Sen. Chambliss is another one of our Republicans badly in need of being sent packing. It would seem to me that the first thing he should be doing would be to demand from Democrats that realistic spending cuts be made

And then we have Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.), who I'm usually a pretty big fan of. He told NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday, "I agree entirely with Saxby Chambliss. A pledge you signed 20 years ago, 18 years ago, is for that Congress. For instance, if I were in Congress in 1941 I would have signed the -- I was for the Declaration of War against Japan. I'm not going to attack Japan today. The world has changed, and the economic situation is different." While what he says is true, what got us into our present fix was not tax cuts, what it was massive amounts of spending. And even a guy like me realizes, and pretty quickly, is that you can't hike taxes high enough to get us out of this mess. And as has been said many times and in many ways, what we have here is not a revenue problem, what we continue to have is a spending problem.

Although King said he is personally opposed to tax increases, "I think everything should be on the table," he told NBC's David Gregory. "The fact is, the speaker (Republican Rep.. John Boehner) and the majority leader (Democratic Sen. Harry Reid) and the president are going to be in a room trying to find the best package. I'm not going to prejudge it, and I'm just saying we should not be taking iron-clad positions. I have faith that John Boehner can put together a good package. I think, so far, he's been pretty conciliatory in his language." And being conciliatory is somehow seen as being a good thing? Sorry, but as far as I'm concerned the only thing that that does is to give the appearance of weakness, and weakness is the absolute last thing that we need right now. What we need to be is resolute, and force spending cuts before any concessions on taxes is made.

Sounding much more confident than I feel, King said he believes Boehner will do all he can to avoid an increase in tax rates. "But as Senator Levin said, you can get the same results by changing deductions, changing exemptions, and that would put more of a tax burden on the rich, but it would not affect marginal tax rates." The bottom line, King said, is to prevent the nation from going over the fiscal cliff. "We have to show the world we're adults, the election is over. We have a speaker, the Democrats have -- oh, they have the president, but the president is the one speaking for the Democratic Party. The Democrats have Harry Reid, we have Mitch McConnell. Get them in the room, and that's what representative government should be about. No one gets all they want." Republicans always come out on the short end. ALWAYS!

King said both tax hikes and spending cuts have to "be on the table." Sounding somewhat idiotic King then proceeded to say, "President Obama won, he won fair and square. We won the House, we won it fair and square. The Democrats will control the Senate, a slight edge to the Democrats. Bottom line is that it's over with. Let's find a way to get it resolved as much as possible between now and the end of the year so both the new Congress and the president in his second term can start off with a clean slate." So Mr. King sees Barry as having won fair and square? Sure thing! Anyway, King added, "We have so many issues around the world, let's resolve what we can here and stop jockeying for position. He concluded by saying, "I have a lot of faith in John Boehner. I'll leave it at that." Well, that makes one of us!

And then on Fox News Sunday, we heard Sen. John 'The Maverick' McCain say that he would "be very much opposed" to raising tax rates, "but I do believe we can close a lot of loopholes." He specifically mentioned limiting the deductions for charitable giving and home mortgages. He also said, "And obviously we are going to have to look at entitlement reform. Entitlement reform is the only way we are going to really get the debt and deficit under control. And we've got to take it on." Now I'm sure everyone is now very familiar with our looming fiscal cliff. To not know that, I think, would require that you have been living under a rock for quite some time now having only recently crawled out to find two competing factions advocating wildly different methods for preventing something described as being a fiscal Armageddon.

To the rational person, or to someone who has been living under that rock, this would be one of those problems that one requires a little commonsense to solve. But, as we all know, in the world of poltics there is no such thing as commonsense. Because whenever you have one side that is never willing to make any concessions whatsoever, while at the same time demanding that it must the other side that's made to essentially surrender its priorities, there is never any forward progress achieved. And that's where we're at right now. You hear one side screaming how it is that tax increases, and only tax increases, on the 'rich' will fix the problem while the other side makes the case that the problem can be fixed through serious spending cuts as well as tax reforms that will result in more revenue without shoving our economy further into the ditch.

MAYBE WE SHOULD ALL DROP THE NEW YORK TIMES IN FAVOR OF PRAVDA...

What does it say about our state-controlled media that we have right here in the good old U. S. of A. when the famed Russian news site "Pravda," which ironically was formed as the official Communist publication of the former Soviet Union, can now be relied upon, and to a much greater extent, to actually tell the truth to the American people. Rather odd, don't you think? And the reason I even bring this up is because a journalist who currently writes for this same organization recently penned a rather scathing opinion column entitled, "Obama’s Soviet Mistake," in which the author unabashedly labels Barry as being a "Communist without question promoting the Communist Manifesto without calling it so."

 

 

The author, someone by the name of Xavier Lerma, goes on to note how Barry’s "cult of personality" has mesmerized the ignorant in America, who will follow the 'hope and change' icon in much the same way as "fools" still praise Lenin and Stalin in Russia. "Obama’s fools and Stalin’s fools share the same drink of illusion," is how Mr. Lerman puts it. Adding an interesting twist to the article, the author juxtaposes Barry "Almighty" with Vladimir Putin, noting that the Russian president has been sounding more and more like "Ronald Reagan" or other "conservatives in America" who seek to promote smaller government and lower taxes. Lerma attributes the following remarks to Putin regarding the country’s taxes and the economy:

 

"…we are reducing taxes on production, investing money in the economy. We are optimizing state expenses.

The second possible mistake would be excessive interference into the economic life of the country and the absolute faith into the all-mightiness of the state.
There are no grounds to suggest that by putting the responsibility over to the state, one can achieve better results.

Unreasonable expansion of the budget deficit, accumulation of the national debt – are as destructive as an adventurous stock market game.

During the time of the Soviet Union the role of the state in economy was made absolute, which eventually lead to the total non-competitiveness of the economy. That lesson cost us very dearly. I am sure no one would want history to repeat itself."

 

 

Reading Putin’s speech "without knowing the author," begins Lerma, "one would think it was written by Reagan or another conservative in America." And with a touch of irony, Lerman writes, "The speech promotes smaller government and less taxes. It comes as no surprise to those who know Putin as a conservative." After referring to liberalism as a "psychosis," Lerma blasts "O’bomber" over Fast and Furious and goes on to state: "He is a Communist without question promoting the Communist Manifesto without calling it so. How shrewd he is in America. His cult of personality mesmerizes those who cannot go beyond their ignorance. They will continue to follow him like those fools who still praise Lenin and Stalin in Russia. Obama’s fools and Stalin’s fools share the same drink of illusion."

The author questions if Americans have ever read history and concludes that American schools have been "conquered by Communists long ago," paving the way for a revisionist history that would only lead to the election of a Communist president in the U.S. "President Vladimir Putin could never have imagined anyone so ignorant or so willing to destroy their people like Obama much less seeing millions vote for someone like Obama," Lerma quips. But the American president wasn’t the only one to draw the author’s ire. He also noted the pervasive influence of the ACLU and the eroding of America’s Christianity, something that was, of course, also a key tenet of the Soviet Union:

"The red, white and blue still flies happily but only in Russia. Russia still has St George defeating the Dragon with the symbol of the cross on its’ flag. The ACLU and other atheist groups in America would never allow the US flag with such religious symbols. Lawsuits a plenty against religious freedom and expression in the land of the free."


In his column Mr. Lerma notes, and quite astutely, that "Christianity in the U.S. is under attack as it was during the early period of the Soviet Union when religious symbols were against the law," And also, in terms of all of the U.S. States that have now filed petitions requesting that they be permitted to secede from the union, Lerma coins these Americans, "hostages to the Communists in power" who will eventually need to rise up in the face of "tyranny." Lerma concludes opinion piece with quite a powerful comparison of the suffering endured for nearly a century under the oppression and brutality that was the USSR and quotes Don Mclean’s famed song, "American Pie":

"Russia lost its’ civil war with the Reds and millions suffered torture and death for almost 75 years under the tyranny of the United Soviet Socialist Republic. Russians survived with a new and stronger faith in God and ever growing Christian Church. The question is how long will the once "Land of the Free" remain the United Socialist States of America? Their suffering has only begun. Bye bye Miss American Pie!"


Those who recall the good old days of the former Soviet Union, or who have friends and family members who fled a life of degradation, will see much truth in Mr. Lerma’s words. Even envisioning the now-famous "Hope and Change" campaign posters, which elevated Barry to a cult of personality, strikes fear and anxiety into the hearts of those who lived through eerily similar propaganda camapigns conducted behind the iron curtain. Isn't it ironic that this opinion column, so scathing of Communism and so keenly perspective of how history repeating itself in Barry "Almighty", comes to us courtesy of the publication that was formed to be the official Communist mouthpiece of the former Soviet Union itself.