Now my advice for those who die, (taxman)
Declare the pennies on your eyes. (taxman)
'Cause I’m the taxman,
Yeah, I’m the taxman.

And you're working for no one but me.
- The Beatles

The next time you hear a Democratic politician complain about the Bush tax cuts, as Democrats tend to do in about every third or fourth sentence (at this point it's almost like liberal Tourette's Syndrome), think about this:

Accounts Receivable Tax, Building Permit Tax, Capital Gains Tax, CDL License Tax, Cigarette Tax, Corporate Income Tax, Dog License Tax, Federal Income Tax, Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA), Fishing License Tax, Food License Tax, Fuel Permit Tax, Gasoline Tax, Hunting License Tax, Inheritance Tax, Inventory Tax, IRS Interest Charges (tax on top of tax), IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax), Local Income Tax, Liquor Tax, Luxury Tax, Marriage License Tax, Medicare Tax, Property Tax, Real Estate Tax, Service charge taxes, Social Security Tax, Road Usage Tax (Truckers), Sales Taxes, Recreational Vehicle Tax, School Tax, State Income Tax, State Unemployment Tax (SUTA), Telephone Federal Excise Tax, Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax, Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Tax, Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax, Telephone Recurring and Non-recurring Charges Tax, Telephone State and Local Tax, Telephone Usage Charge Tax, Utility Tax, Vehicle License Registration Tax, Vehicle Sales Tax, Watercraft Registration Tax, Well Permit Tax, Workers Compensation Tax…and many, many others

Then ask yourself if MORE taxes is really the right way to go. Combined government at all levels already takes over $5 trillion (that's a five followed by TWELVE ZEROES) out of our pockets each year(and some people wonder why the middle class is shrinking and we're going in debt. Hello).

As if all that isn't bad enough, the Democrats propose more tax increases at every turn. Examples since May, 2008 alone are - the Windfall Profits Tax on the oil companies (which was voted down by the Republicans. Thanks GOP), the Lieberman-Warner Climate Change Tax (which was voted down by the Republicans. Thanks GOP), and the huge subsidies in the Farm Bill (which the Republicans did NOT vote down. Bad GOP. Bush vetoed it, thanks Bush, but Congress will override his veto).

A president Barack Obama, in addition to ending the Bush tax cuts for the rich, lifting the Social Security tax cap, and doubling the capital gains tax, would also like us all to pay a Global Poverty Tax to the United Nations. Obama's huge new spending plans will require taxes to be raised through the roof, so don't be fooled by his misleading rhetoric about a middle class tax cut. The total tax burden trickles down to the middle class and the poor just as sure as the rain falls from the sky. It's the total tax burden that really matters, and Obama would jack it up by another trillion dollars or so. I'm sure you all can afford it, though. It's small change, really. Petty cash, at least to Democrats. Yes we can (take your money).

Or you can vote for John McCain, who promises to scrub every facet of government to reduce spending, who is a hawk against earmarks, and who wants to cut taxes by $300 billion. Your choice. McCain also wants to reduce the corporate income tax rate from 35% to 25% in order to stimulate business, create jobs, and lower prices. Barack Obama called that proposal "catering to the wealthiest americans", in a standard bit of Democratic class warfare rhetoric. What Mr. Obama doesn't understand is that it's the total tax burden that counts when it comes to jobs, wages, prices, and business stimulation. It's a fairly simple concept really: the more government takes away from business, the less money business has to grow, hire new people, or pay higher wages. The more government takes from business, the higher the cost of doing business becomes, and the more goods and services from business cost. In fact, the concept is SO simple that it takes a lot of liberal propaganda to get it all mixed up, as Obama has. Don't be fooled.

Major kudos to USA Today. An American newspaper has finally told the truth about the real economic crisis facing our country, which is the growth of entitlements, mainly with Medicare and that Ponzi scheme hidden income tax ripoff fake trust fund brought to you by the Democratic Party, Social Security (SS). Read the USA today article here.

As a side note about SS, Barack Obama took to using a little "politics of fear" (if I may borrow an Obaman rhetorical device) to falsely scare senior citizens into thinking John McCain was going to take away their SS. (link) Real classsy move from Obama the "new kind of post-partisan politician" (guffaw). Nobody has EVER suggested taking SS away from seniors. Nobody. Certainly not John McCain. To paraphrase some more Obama-style patter - Barack Obama's appalling attacks are the type of divisive, dishonest, and hypocritical partisan rhetoric that has characterized politics for far too long. It's the politics of the past, and the American people are tired of it. Americans want real change they can believe in, not more fearmongering, not more of the same old down and dirty intransigent politics so typical of the Washington D.C. inside power players - There. How did you like my Obama impersonation ? You know, it's really easy to talk like that. I think I'll form an exploratory committee to make a run for the Senate, Libertarian Party, I guess. The GOP has ticked me off, so they're out. They had their chance, and the Democrats are just flat out wrong about almost everything, so they'd be far worse. Thinking the Republican mess will be fixed by the Democrats is like thinking you can set your hair on fire and then put it out with gasoline.

Which leads me back to my intended subject. The entitlement liability, which constitutes the REAL federal deficit. It's over $500,000 PER HOUSEHOLD right now. Forget the credit crisis. Forget the mortgage crisis. Forget the Iraq war. This is the REAL crisis. I don't know about you, but $500,000 sounds like a chunk of change to me. Before long, we could be talking about real money. And every year we don't get a handle on this problem, the problem grows by a couple TRILLION dollars. If you want the "politics of fear", well, here's something to fear:

Taxpayers are on the hook for a record $57.3 trillion in federal liabilities to cover the lifetime benefits of everyone eligible for Medicare, Social Security and other government programs, a USA TODAY analysis found. That's nearly $500,000 per household.

When obligations of state and local governments are added, the total rises to $61.7 trillion, or $531,472 per household. That is more than four times what Americans owe in personal debt such as mortgages.

The $2.5 trillion in federal liabilities dwarfs the $162 billion the government officially announced as last year's deficit, down from $248 billion a year earlier.

"We're running deficits in the trillions of dollars, not the hundreds of billions of dollars we're being told," says Sheila Weinberg, chief executive of the Institute for Truth in Accounting of Chicago.

The Medicare liability alone increased by $1.2 trillion in 2007, but it doesn't appear in our deficit numbers anywhere. We still have to pay for it. The total Medicare UNFUNDED liability is $30.4 trillion.

Now let's talk about some politics we really should fear (if you aren't scared already). Suppose Barack Obama becomes president and the Democrats seize a larger Congressional majority in november. Both are likely possibilities. That would give the Dems almost unfettered power. The Dems would immediately start implementing BRAND NEW HUGE ENTITLEMENT PROGRAMS to add to the enormous entitlement debt tsunami headed our way already. Massive increases in taxes would have to follow, which is another really bad idea when our economy is already slowing and shaky. Add it all together, and the Democrats will create an environment for the PERFECT ECONOMIC STORM (all to help us, of course). Imagine what each American household will be on the hook for then.

You want the truth ? There's the truth. Our politicians can't handle the truth, which is why they hide behind distortions and outright lies. I'm willing to bet you haven't heard any of these numbers being talked about during the presidential campaign (which has been going on for over a year), and I guaran-darn-tee you haven't heard a Democrat mention them probably ever in your lifetime.

I BEG ALL YOU VOTERS TO PAY VERY CLOSE ATTENTION TO THIS PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. IT IS CRITICALLY IMPORTANT FOR THE REASONS I JUST MENTIONED. THE OUTCOME COULD SWAMP THE FINANCIAL VIABILITY OF YOUR CHILDREN FOR TWO DECADES OR MORE.

So liberals, since you are actually in favor of all these entitlements that will bankrupt the country, I beg you to exhibit a little of that alleged liberal compassion and send at least $531,000 to me, Da King. I'm one of those little guys you love to "help". Thank you very much. I knew I could count on you. God bless, er, I mean, dos vedanya.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) made the following statement today after the U.S. Senate passed a provision by a 97-1 bipartisan vote to suspend filling the 97-percent-full Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR). This move will add 77,000 barrels of additional oil to the market daily:

“Democrats today led the charge against one of the root causes of skyrocketing oil and gas prices. Instead of hiding barrels of oil in the nearly full Strategic Petroleum Reserve, we want to put them on the market to increase supply and lower prices. It is a good first step, but with oil and gas prices continuing to break record highs every day, much more needs to be done. Republicans must abandon their shortsighted strategy of ‘drill, drill, drill’ and join us to pass the rest of the Democratic energy bill that puts consumers first, forces Big Oil to pay its fair share and invests in renewable energy.”

This schizophrenic statement by Harry Reid both acknowledges the laws of supply/demand and ignores them. First Reid congratulates himself and Democrats for adding oil to the market to "increase supply and lower prices" (while ignoring the fact that Republicans unanimously agreed), but then he turns around and excoriates Republicans for what he call their "shortsighted strategy of drill, drill, drill".

I'm not sure where Harry Reid thinks the world oil supply comes from, but I'm almost certain that it comes from that "strategy of drill, drill, drill". Perhaps Reid thinks it comes from the Oil Fairy, I can't be sure, but whatever he's thinking, he's out to lunch.

And now for the rest of the story.

Also today, Republican Senators Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Pete Domenici (R-NM) put forth another provision for a vote, one that would have opened up a small part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) for drilling and expanded offshore oil drilling as well. ANWR alone is estimated to produce 1,000,000 barrels of oil per day (for Democrats reading this, 1,000,000 barrels per day is a LOT MORE than the 77,000 that Harry Reid was patting himself on the back for). The Democrats in the Senate shot the McConnell/Domenici proposal down in flames. The vote was 56-42 against, with 41 of the 42 agreeing to the proposal being Republicans. Democrats were almost unanimously opposed, including Harry Reid and that new kind of politician, the post-partisan uniter (LOL), Barack Obama.

Is there any logical reason for Democrats to think adding 77,000 barrels of oil daily to our supply is great and will lower gas prices, but adding millions of barrels daily is no good ?……..Anyone ?…….Anyone ?……Bueller ?

Harry Reid and friends are flat out insane, and they are no friend at all to the american consumer.

Or maybe they aren't insane, but they are putting partisan politics light years ahead of the american people. That is the more likely scenario, because that is how Harry Reid operates every single day of his miserable lying life.

One of the Democrats (I think it was Dorgan) said today on the Senate floor that getting oil from ANWR was 10 years away even if it was approved, so it wasn't really any help. I kept waiting for a bolt of lightning to come down and strike the man dead on the spot for having the nerve to make that statement, since the Democrats have been shooting down ANWR drilling since about 1988 (if memory serves). We could be getting that million barrels of oil per day (actually much more) RIGHT NOW if not for the obstruction of the Dems. That would be a million barrels of oil we didn't have to import from Iran or Venezuela every day. That would be a lot of money that would be staying right here in the USA instead of going to support regimes who hate us.

Democrats, friends to the little guy (retch). Maybe they mean the little guy who runs Iran, Ahmadinejad.

And just for the record, the USA consumes over 20 million barrels of oil per day, with about 12 million of that imported. Harry Reid and his Dem buddies are trying to tell you that another 77,000 barrels is going to drop the gas price. Are any of you naive enough to believe that ? Harry sure thinks you are.

Why do we keep letting these clowns get away with this stuff ? The Dems in Congress today made a show of doing something rather than ACTUALLY doing something about oil, and then they patted themselves on the back for lying to the american public about the whole thing. THAT is politics as usual. I'd like to tell you what I was feeling when I saw Barack Obama on the Senate floor smiling and shaking hands with his friends right after he voted with the Dems to shoot down expanded domestic oil production, but I have a no-profanity rule on this blog, so I'll just stop now.

We are in deep you-kinow-what.

The lies and distortions are coming at us so fast and furious that it's almost hard to keep up. The historic Democratic presidential campaign has deteriorated into a daily discussion of Who's Zoomin' Who ? (my vote goes to Hillary, for Lifetime Achievement In Falsehood).

However, since Congress put on it's annual dog and pony show with the oil company executives yesterday, I want to say a word about one of Obama's distortions. Obama claims that he doesn't take money from the oil companies:

“Since the gas lines of the ’70s, Democrats and Republicans have talked about energy independence, but nothing’s changed — except now Exxon’s making $40 billion a year, and we’re paying $3.50 for gas.
I’m Barack Obama. I don’t take money from oil companies or Washington lobbyists, and I won’t let them block change anymore. They’ll pay a penalty on windfall profits. We’ll invest in alternative energy, create jobs and free ourselves from foreign oil. I approve this message because it’s time that Washington worked for you. Not them.” - Barack Obama

Barry claims he doesn't take money from oil companies, and it's true, he doesn't. The part Barry leaves out is that NONE of the candidates take money from the oil companies. They can't, because it's ILLEGAL. The other part Barry leaves out is that he DOES take money from oil company executives, and two of his largest fundraisers are oil company executives, according to factcheck.org. I'm sure it just slipped his mind. We can call this the Obama Oil Slick.

I'm also growing a little tired of Democrats like Obama talking about taking away the profits of the oil companies, especially since THE GOVERNMENT MAKES MORE MONEY FROM OIL COMPANY SALES THAN THE OIL COMPANIES DO ! If the government truly cares about us little people, why don't they ever talk about removing the 65 cents tax on every gallon of gas ? Why is it immoral for oil companies to make a profit, but perfectly fine for the government, who doesn't drill, refine, or deliver one drop of oil to the pump, to make even bigger profits from oil ? Who IS zoomin' who ? What the Dems are really saying is that THEY want to steal the oil company profits for themselves. That ain't free market capitalism, folks. That's a whole different -ism, one we've fought wars against. One we shouldn't tolerate for a second.

The Democrats also ask why the oil companies should continue to get tax breaks when they are making record profits. That's a valid question, but, do the Dems realize that raising taxes on oil companies won't lower the price of gas, but will instead raise it ? They DO realize that, don't they ? Please tell me they do.

Amid all the blame being doled out to the mean old oil companies by the Democrats, one congressman actually asked a useful question (golf clap):

"What would bring lower prices?" asked Rep. James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin, the committee's ranking Republican

"We need access to all kinds of energy supply," replied Robert Malone, chairman of BP America, adding that 85 percent of the country's coastal waters are off limits to drilling.

Source

What's this ? You mean increasing the supply of gasoline (combined with reducing demand) might reduce the price of gasoline ? Too bad some economist hasn't come along and realized that this supply vs demand thingy might be important, huh ? I think it could even be some kind of economic law, maybe. Perhaps someone should look into it.

And guess which political party has been responsible for restricting the supply of oil in the good old U.S. of A, by restricting drilling, among other things ? If you said "THE DEMOCRATS", the same people bitching about the price of gas now, you win a cigar (just don't try to smoke that cigar. The Dems don't like smoking or oil drilling. They've restricted both).

By the way, since the Democrats took control of Congress following the 2006 elections, the price of gasoline has risen by about $1.00 per gallon. Those SOB's.

The increase in the price of gas isn't the Dems fault, of course, I was the one zoomin' you that time, but since this is election season, and since I've heard Bush blamed for the price of gas about ten billion times by Democrats, I thought I'd throw that in to score a cheap and dishonest political point. It's the Democrat way… Ewww. Suddenly, I feel dirty. This must be what those Dems in Congress would feel like…if they had consciences.

Exxon/Mobil made $40 billion in 2007. I think their net profit margin was about 9 percent. That's not a very large profit margin. It's pretty low when compared to other businesses, even though the absolute profit number is huge. I'm not saying this to defend the oil companies, I'm saying it because it's true. Exxon's profit is due to Exxon's enormous record sales. I couldn't find the exact number, but CNNmoney has some of the numbers here.

If the Democrats would agree to expanded offshore drilling, drilling in ANWR, and new refineries, Exxon could and would use a lot of those profits for new oil exploration to increase the supply of domestic oil and reduce foreign consumption until such time as alternative fuels are ready for mass use and cost effective. That would be sensible and would benefit america, but the Dems are against it, apparently because a polar bear or fish might have to relocate. They'd rather just point the finger and steal Exxon's money instead. Those are some oily politicians, and their policies are providing NO help to americans.

The short answer is…yes, it did. It made the mortgage banking industry much more speculative than it was under the former Depression-era banking regulations. The Depression-era banking regulations were designed to, not surprisingly, protect against severe economic recessions and depressions (like maybe what we are moving into now ?)

Deregulation also resulted in record levels of home ownership for lower and moderate income persons, so the news hasn't always been bad. There are two sides to that coin, and the fact is, to a large extent the government pushed the banking industry into what it has become.

While watching Chris Wallace's sunday morning show last week, I heard Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) talking about the economy, which he referred to as the "Bush-McCain economy". Good old Chucky, ever the partisan. Schumer, an Obama supporter, must not have received the message that Obama is beyond partisanship and into unity.

But regarding financial deregulation, is Schumer correct ? Is this the "Bush-McCain economy" ??? It's certainly not McCain's, at least not any more than it's Schumer's. And for the most part, it's only Bush's in the sense that Bush didn't reverse deregulation, which has been going on for 30 years. In fact, Deregulation was a done deal by the time Bush took office. The last vestige of the Depression-era banking regulations was thrown off in 1999, when Bill Clinton signed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act into law, which repealed the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933. Repeal of Glass-Steagall allowed commercial & investment banks to consolidate, a move that contributed to the 2007 subprime mortgage crisis. The effects of these regulation changes aren't felt the next day, they are felt years later.

Banking deregulation really started with the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) during the Carter era. The CRA was designed to meet the credit needs of low and moderate income neighborhoods. It required banks to offer credit throughout their entire marketing area, rather than only in the wealthier areas (a practice known as 'redlining'). The bankers were almost unanimously opposed, but the measure was put through to increase home ownership and loans to small business. In 1995, Clinton updated the CRA, and the revisions were credited with helping to substantially increase the amount of loans to small businesses and to low to moderate income home loan borrowers. A large part of the increase in home loans was due to secondary mortgage market loans. The revisions also allowed the "securitization" of CRA loans containing subprime mortgages. Public securitization of CRA loans started in 1997. These are the roots of the subprime mortgage situation. So if you ever hear Hillary on the campaign trail blaming it all on Bush (and you surely will), know that she is not being honest with you.

Deregulation resulted in the huge increases in home ownership that we have today, by allowing low and moderate income people to purchase their own homes. This has been a great boon to lower income people for the most part. It also in turn drove up the price of housing (supply and demand). Bankers became more and more creative with these mortgages due to the government mandates, and they also became, as I said before, more and more speculative, and far less conservative than they were under the Depression-era regulations. Now, pols like Chuck Schumer are looking to pass the buck when the dark side of deregulation rears it's head (and there definitely is a dark side. The subprime crisis isn't the first time. Maybe you're old enough to remember the S&L crisis of the 80's that followed Reagan era deregulation manuevers). Guys like Schumer think the public is too stupid to figure out the truth, and the truth is, deregulation is not all bad. Neither is it all good, and both political parties have been involved in it.

But since politicians are politicians, some Democrats will just blame it all on Bush, knowing they are lying the entire time, especially the ones like Chuck Schumer who have been around for a long time. Bush has a lot to answer for, economically speaking, but deregulation isn't really on him. I suppose you can blame Bush for not reregulating the deregulated financial industry, he IS the president after all and he could have tried to do that, but I wonder what guys like Chuck Schumer would be saying when home ownership opportunities for lower and moderate income people dried up following such a move. Never mind, I already know the answer.

Last thursday's Democratic debate on CNN between Hillary and Obama is being called the 'nice debate'. That's nice. Obviously, we don't want candidates arguing during a debate about who the next leader of the world's lone superpower will be. We should be nice. Have a nice day. Make love, not war. You can find a transcript of the nice debate here if you're interested.

I'd like to focus on some of Barack Obama's policy. In his opening statement, Obama said the following:

"And at this moment, the question is: How do we take the country in a new direction? How do we get past the divisions that have prevented us from solving these problems year after year after year?

I don't think the choice is between black and white or it's about gender or religion. I don't think it's about young or old. I think what is at stake right now is whether we are looking backwards or we are looking forwards. I think it is the past versus the future".

Fair enough, Mr. Obama. This election IS definitely about the future, not the past. It's about where we go from here as a nation, and who will lead us in the right direction. It's not about the 90's, and it's not about what Bush did. Bush isn't running. Please tell Hillary. She doesn't seem to know. She utters the phrase 'the failed policies of the Bush administration' in response to practically every question.

So, where does Obama want to take this country ? How DO we get past our divisions ?

Well, as it turns out, it's as easy as pie. We all just have to become uber-liberals and turn everything over to our government Big Brother. See, once we all become uber-liberals, then voila, no more division (no more affluent society or freedom either, but that's a small price to pay, isn't it ?).

Got a problem with health care ? Obama has a government Big Brother solution:

"Let's take health care… set up a government plan that would allow people who otherwise don't have health insurance because of a preexisting condition, like my mother had, or at least what the insurance said was a preexisting condition, let them get health insurance…What they're struggling with is they can't afford the health care. And so I emphasize reducing costs. My belief is that if we make it affordable, if we provide subsidies to those who can't afford it, they will buy it… I want to lower premiums by about an average of $2,500 per family per year, because people right now cannot afford it".

Terrific, but…won't it cost a ton of money to subsidize health care for all those people ? How are you going to reduce costs to offset that hundreds of billions of dollars in new spending you just proposed ?

Here's the answer - Tax increases, expanded government control of business, and nonsense. Now that I think about it, those things are pretty much ALWAYS the answer for liberal Democrats.

"…but they [the drug companies] are making outsized profits on the backs of senior citizens who need those prescription drugs. And that is an argument that the American people have to be involved with, otherwise we're not going to get any plan through.

So I've already said a sizeable portion of my health care plan will be paid for because we emphasize savings. We invest in prevention. So that as I said before, the chronically ill that account for 20 percent — or the 20 percent of chronically ill patients that account for 80 percent of the costs, that they're getting better treatment. We are actually paying for a dietitian for people to lose weight as opposed to paying for the $30,000 foot amputation. That will save us money. We can conservatively save $100 billion to $150 billion a year under my plan. That pays for part of it. Part of it is paid for by rolling back the Bush tax cuts on the top one percent".

Let me deal with the nonsense first. Obama's "prevention" isn't going to save one dime. Unless he has discovered the key to immortality, all humans are going to get sick and die eventually. He can't change that. The additional preventive health care that Obama advocates will only INCREASE medical costs over the long haul. The truth is, the longer people live, the more medical costs they will generate. We'd only save money if we told everybody to start smoking three packs of cigarettes and drink a quart of Jack Daniels every day, so they'd die off early. It's not a fun fact, but it's a fact nonetheless.

So, all Obama is really telling you is that he wants to control what the drug companies and other "special interests" connected to the health care industry charge, and he's also telling you he wants to raise taxes (only on the rich, of course). And here I thought this country was based upon freedom and capitalism. Apparently, not in Obama's futureworld. For a guy who talks about the future, Obama sounds like he wants to return to the year 1848. That's when The Communist Manifesto was written by Marx and Engels. They didn't care much for freedom or capitalism either. The Manifesto suggested a course of action for a proletarian (working class) revolution to overthrow the bourgeois social order and to eventually bring about a classless and stateless society. Sound familiar ?

It isn't only health care where Obama advocates increased federal spending. It's virtually across the board, just like Hillary. What really gets me PO'ed about this is - the liberal Democrats are using the Republicans to justify all this extreme new spending, AND THEY ARE GETTING AWAY WITH IT DUE TO THE REPUBLICANS OWN FAILURE ! Listen to the first words out of Obama's mouth following this question:

MCMANUS: Senator Obama, one other thing both of your health insurance proposals have in common is they would cost billions of dollars in new spending and both of you have proposed raising taxes on a lot on Americans to pay for that and for other proposals.

Well, now, you know what's going to happen this fall in the general election campaign. The Republicans are going to call you "tax-and-spend" liberal Democrats, and that's a charge that's been effective in the past.

How are you going to counter that charge?

OBAMA: Well, first of all, I don't think the Republicans are going to be in a real strong position to argue fiscal responsibility, when they have added $4 trillion or $5 trillion…

(APPLAUSE)

… worth of national debt. I am happy to have that argument.

I guess this election isn't about the future anymore to Obama, because he's going back to the past to say 'it doesn't matter how much money the Democrats spend in the future, because the Republicans abdicated fiscal responsibility'. It's the equivalent of going from the frying pan into the fire. There is no actual connection between what the Republicans did and what the Democrats will do. The issue is, WHO WILL RESTORE FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY IN THE FUTURE. From everything I've seen, you can rank them in the following order, from the most fiscally responsible to the least: Romney, McCain, Hillary, Obama. The two Republicans are close to each other, and the two Democrats are close to each other. The big difference is, the Democrats are advocating enormous spending increases, and the Republicans are advocating controlling federal spending, yet the Democrats are seen as having the most credibility in this area, due to the Bush years. Pretty insane, if you ask me. Remember, Bush isn't running, and the election is about the future, not the past. Obama said so, and I agree completely. That's why you shouldn't elect Barack Obama.

Courtesy of the Patriot Post.

Can I get an amen here ? Don't we also call the following person a "thief" ?:

“A liberal is a man who will give away everything he doesn’t own.” —Frank Dane

Democrats finally admit that tax cuts work (welcome to the light, Dems):

“We’re so used to Democrats pushing tax hikes as the answer to all of America’s problems that we were taken aback to find the following words buried in Pelosi’s release on the stimulus deal: ‘Economists estimate that each dollar of broad tax cuts leads to $1.26 in economic growth.’ Gee, that sort of sounds familiar. It’s almost, though not quite, like what the much-reviled supply-side economists have been saying for, oh, 30 years or so. Pelosi, and other Democrats now suddenly touting tax cuts, may be on to something. We might demur on the notion that all tax cuts must be ‘broad’ to be effective. Evidence really lies more strongly with giving tax cuts to those who would start new businesses or expand old ones. But it’s refreshing to hear a Democrat admit the obvious—that tax cuts work. It’s no secret that high tax rates act as a deadweight on the economy by creating absolute losses from which no one gains. Martin Feldstein, head of the National Bureau of Economic Research, estimates that a $1 tax hike costs the economy 76 cents in output. That explains why the economy jumps each time there’s a tax cut.” —Investor’s Business Daily

Lots of bipartisan guilt to go around here:

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed, and hence clamorous to be led to safety, by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” —H.L. Mencken

I find the following comment very "stimulating":

“Washington, D.C. is a place where delusions go to thrive. That explains why Congress and the president are now agreed on remedies that will not work, expending money they do not have, to fix a problem that may not exist.” —Steve Chapman

Constitution ? You mean that g-d piece of paper ?

“Every candidate who repeats the misleading nonsense that ‘47 million in America have no health care,’ ought to be challenged with hard truth. The number is grossly inflated by including millions who are here illegally and millions of others who have the means to pay for health care insurance but refuse to adjust their budget and lifestyle. And don’t expect any media type to question where in the Constitution Congress derives any authority to dispense health care.” —Janet LaRue

Same as it ever was:

“Some Democratic and Republican presidential hopefuls are preaching economic doom and gloom, disappearing middle class, and failing health care industry. What’s their solution? The short answer is give them more control over our lives.” —Walter Williams

Economic dunce cap wearer:

“How do we stimulate the economy to prevent or shorten a recession? One way would be to repeal the Bush tax cuts two years early, in 2009.” —Len Burman, director of the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, writing in The New York Times

They sure ain't conservatives, honey:

“Hillary Clinton and John Edwards and Barack Obama are not raging liberals.” —former CNN anchor Catherine Crier

This one's for you, Reverend, and your delusion that Chris Matthews is somehow a Republican shil:

“He’s come from a white family and a black family, and he’s married to a black woman, and they’re cool people. They are really cool. They are Jack and Jackie Kennedy when you see them together. They are cool. And they’re great-looking, and they’re cool and they’re young, and they’re—everything seems to be great… [I]f you’re in [a room] with Obama, you feel the spirit. Moving.” —MSNBC’s Chris Matthews

Der-da-der-der-durp:

“I don’t pay much attention to polls.” —Hillary Clinton, who in the next breath claimed that polls also show her ahead in “most of the Super Tuesday states.”

If only he would heed his own advice:

“I think it’s time for [Bill Clinton] to just be quiet. I think it’s time for him to stop. As one of the most outspoken people in America, there’s a time to shut up, and I think that time has come.” —professional race hustler Al Sharpton

Be careful what you ask for:

“Everyone seems to be campaigning as the candidate of change, but what does that mean exactly? Wouldn’t a depression be a change? How about basing our economy on Communism instead of Capitalism?” —John Hawkins

Lib vs Lib (and really funny):

“It’s down to Obama vs. Clinton, and it’s getting nasty. They hate each other, with the kind of passionate hatred that you see only between two people who hold essentially the same positions on everything. Edwards is still running, but at this point they don’t even bother to put a microphone on him for the debates. He just waves his arms to indicate how he’s going to take on the big corporations.” —Dave Barry

What a relief. Where there was pain, there will now be only gain (so they say), as our House Of Representatives, in a rare show of bipartisanship, passed an economic stimulus package today.

It seems like all the pols are at least semi-happy over this package. Bush likes the plan because he says it is about the right size, approximately $150 billion. Republicans like the plan because it gives a tax rebate to taxpayers, $600 to single filers, up to $1200 for families. Democrats like the plan because it gives income tax rebates to people who don't even pay income taxes, in the amount of $300 (not sure how you can call that a "tax rebate". Might as well just call it what it is, a handout, a one-time entitlement program). The proposal still has to pass through the Senate, where several Democrats are promising to add to it's size, but it looks like this package will indeed be passed. Y'all can expect your checks around june or so, just in time to buy that new above ground swimming pool you've had your eye on.

Now, I'm all for taxpayers getting some of their hard earned money back, since the government has been stealing far too much of it for far too long, not to mention robbing you blind on your Social Security "Trust Fund" (wink, wink), but I have to ask whether or not this middle class targeted tax rebate is really going to stimulate the economy. I don't think so, at least not for more than one fiscal quarter of 2008. What the government wants us to do with our newly found rebate money is to go to the mall and immediately spend it like good little consumer-bots, thus pumping up some short term economic numbers, so we will avoid negative growth, aka, a recession. If you're wondering how this deals with our underlying economic problems, i.e. the subprime mortgage crisis, the falling dollar valuation, the massive federal debt, the offshoring of jobs, rising prices, or the credit card crunch, well, I don't know what to tell you. I'm wondering too. It's true that the fed just slashed the interest rate by 3/4 percent. That should help some. There is also a provision in the economic stimulus package to expand the ceiling for FHA loans, allowing more subprime loan holders to refinance. That should help a little. However, it seems to me that all the underlying economic problems are still right where they were before, maybe even a little bit worse. I didn't see $150 billion in spending cuts to offset the cost of this package, so the deficit gets bigger. The tax rebates weren't aimed at the investment class, so I don't see tons of new jobs and new revenue being created here to potentially offset the cost, or even come close to offsetting the cost. I didn't see any slashing of our highest in the world corporate tax rates to make our businesses more competitive (the Dems would NEVER allow anything this sensible). I didn't see any slashing of the capital gains double taxation rate to encourage investment (the Dems would NEVER allow anything this sensible either). I didn't see anything like that, which would REALLY encourage new businesses and new jobs to come to america, that would really make us more competitive in the global economy. I didn't see anything that would address the real reason for most of our economic problems, out of control government spending, that has every man, woman, and child in the country responsible for over $30,000 of government debt, or, counting all the future unfunded liabilities of the federal government, has each family on the hook for about $440,000 over the next few decades. Nope, nothing about all that. I didn't see anything really conducive to long term growth. I just see a shot of temporary painkiller to mask the symptoms of the illness, and very little to deal with the root causes.

So, take your shot of novacaine america, and try not to worry about what happens when the novocaine wears off, and that cavity you had becomes a full blown abscess. We'll let someone else worry about that…namely, your children.

There is one silver lining to this for conservatives - Democrats are now on record admitting that lowering taxes stimulates the economy. Don't forget this conservatives, and don't forget this america. Ever. It's the inviolable rule that reveals the fallacy of nearly all liberal policy.