Tag Archives: Eric Cantor

The Sixties Radical on Lies Told by The Media and Government

What did I tell ya? This budget deal was pure crap. John Boehner and his merry band of idiots sold out his country for pure garbage.

The Left and the evil Obama are dancing in the streets.

These evil people have sold the Republicans a bill of goods.

I don’t care how many ways you cut this to Sunday John “ Chicken Shit Boehner caved and sold this country’s birth right for shit.

These evil people screamed from the rooftops that Armageddon would happen if we don’t pass this budget deal are lairs.

I wrote the exact opposite would happen.

Oh I have ESPN. I mean ESP or what.

Guess what.

I am right.

The market is slowly sinking fast.

The USA debt is now 100% of GDP.

Obama lies.

Harry Reid lies.

Nancy Pelosi lies.

The press lies- this includes Fox News too.

They are all liars.

The only place to get the truth is Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin.

You can take that to the bank.

If the USA continues down this path we will be destroyed.

This is the plan by the evil Obama.

Yet those in the media are calling for us Tea Party members to compromise.

We are also called addictive, extreme, cretins, and terrorists by the Joe “Bite Me” Bidden.

How do you compromise with evil?

When good compromises with evil, evil wins.

Why is it that conservatives have to bend over and take in the shorts all the time?

Why is that Republicans never stand up and fight?

Boehner, McCain, McConnell, Cantor, Collins, and the rest are always looking for a deal.

Obama can’t blame this mess on George W. Bush.

It is his.

The evil Obama set this whole puppy in motion when he was elected in 2008.

The Democrat Socialist Party is to blame for the country’s destruction também.

The Republicans have their grimy paws in this mess to. These idiots are to blame for not standing up and fighting for we the people.

Our elected officials think they are the rulers over us all.

The evil Obama is King.

The House and the Senate are the evil Lords who carry out the Kings orders.

We are not your slaves or servants.

Our founding fathers would be proud of you.

They would thank you for the great job you are doing in destroying the country.

Thanks for changing this country into a Marxist Dictatorship.

Thanks from the bottom of my heart.

Here is an email I received from my best friend Harry Chalmers a businessman in Santa Fe, New Mexico-

This Texas lawyer, himself recipient of an Honorary Degree, is obviously opinionated, but to say what he did, in a commencement address, in front of a class of Texas A &M graduates, and especially the faculty, is amazing. I would have loved to have been there just to see the faculty reaction.
>
> Commencement Address (Texas A&M). Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 This should be considered must-reading for every adult in North America. It is extremely rare that anyone speaks the truth like this at any College or High School Commencement Address.
>
> Neal Boortz is a Texan, a lawyer, a Texas AGGIE (Texas A&M), and now a nationally syndicated talk show host from Atlanta. His commencement address to the graduates of this year’s A&M class is far different from what either the students or the faculty expected. His views are thought provoking:
>
> “I am honored by the invitation to address you on this august occasion. It’s about time. Be warned, however, that I am not here to impress you; you’ll have enough smoke blown up your bloomers today. And you can bet your tassels I’m not here to impress the faculty and administration. You may not like much of what I have to say, and that’s fine. You will remember it though. Especially after about 10 years out there in the real world. This, it goes without saying, does not apply to those of you who will seek your careers and your fortunes as government employees.
>
> This gowned gaggle behind me is your faculty. You’ve heard the old saying that those who can – do. Those who can’t – teach. That sounds deliciously insensitive. But there is often raw truth in insensitivity, just as you often find feel-good falsehoods and lies in compassion. Say good-bye to your faculty because now you are getting ready to go out there and do. These folks behind me are going to stay right here and teach.

By the way, just because you are leaving this place with a diploma doesn’t mean the learning is over. When an FAA flight examiner handed me my private pilot’s license many years ago, he said, ‘Here, this is your ticket to learn.’ The same can be said for your diploma. Believe me, the learning has just begun.
>
> Now, I realize that most of you consider yourselves Liberals. In fact, you are probably very proud of your liberal views. You care so much. You feel so much. You want to help so much. After all, you’re a compassionate and caring person, aren’t you now? Well, isn’t that just so extraordinarily special. Now, at this age, is as good a time as any to be a liberal; as good a time as any to know absolutely everything. You have plenty of time, starting tomorrow, for the truth to set in.
>
> Over the next few years, as you begin to feel the cold breath of reality down your neck, things are going to start changing pretty fast… including your own assessment of just how much you really know.
>
> So here are the first assignments for your initial class in reality: Pay attention to the news, read newspapers, and listen to the words and phrases that proud Liberals use to promote their causes. Then, compare the words of the left to the words and phrases you hear from those evil, heartless, greedy conservatives. From the Left you will hear “I feel.” From the Right you will hear “I think.” From the Liberals you will hear references to groups — The Blacks, the Poor, The Rich, The Disadvantaged, The Less Fortunate. From the Right you will hear references to individuals. On the Left you hear talk of group rights; on the Right, individual rights.
>
> That about sums it up, really: Liberals feel. Liberals care. They are pack animals whose identity is tied up in group dynamics. Conservatives think — and, setting aside the theocracy crowd, their identity is centered on the individual.
>
> Liberals feel that their favored groups have enforceable rights to the property and services of productive individuals. Conservatives, I among them I might add, think that individuals have the right to protect their lives and their property from the plunder of the masses.
>
> In college you developed a group mentality, but if you look closely at your diplomas you will see that they have your individual names on them. Not the name of your school mascot, or of your fraternity or sorority, but your name. Your group identity is going away. Your recognition and appreciation of your individual identity starts now.
>
> If, by the time you reach the age of 30, you do not consider yourself to be a conservative, rush right back here as quickly as you can and apply for a faculty position. These people will welcome you with open arms. They will welcome you, that is, so long as you haven’t developed an individual identity. Once again you will have to be willing to sign on to the group mentality you embraced during the past four years.
>
> Something is going to happen soon that is going to really open your eyes. You’re going to actually get a full time job!

You’re also going to get a lifelong work partner. This partner isn’t going to help you do your job. This partner is just going to sit back and wait for payday. This partner doesn’t want to share in your effort, but in your earnings.
>
> Your new lifelong partner is actually an agent; an agent representing a strange and diverse group of people; an agent for every teenager with an illegitimate child; an agent for a research scientist who wanted to make some cash answering the age-old question of why monkeys grind their teeth. An agent for some poor demented hippie who considers herself to be a meaningful and talented artist, but who just can’t manage to sell any of her artwork on the open market.
>
> Your new partner is an agent for every person with limited, if any, job skills, but who wanted a job at City Hall. An agent for tin-horn dictators in fancy military uniforms grasping for American foreign aid. An agent for multi-million dollar companies who want someone else to pay for their overseas advertising. An agent for everybody who wants to use the unimaginable power of this agent’s for their personal enrichment and benefit..
>That agent is our wonderful, caring, compassionate, oppressive government. Believe me, you will be awed by the unimaginable power this agent has.. Power that you do not have. A power that no individual has, or will have. This agent has the legal power to use force, deadly force to accomplish its goals.
>
> You have no choice here. Your new friend is just going to walk up to you, introduce itself rather gruffly, hand you a few forms to fill out, and move right on in. Say hello to your own personal one ton gorilla. It will sleep anywhere it wants to.
>
> Now, let me tell you, this agent is not cheap. As you become successful it will seize about 40% of everything you earn. And no, I’m sorry, there just isn’t any way you can fire this agent of plunder, and you can’t decrease its share of your income. That power rests with him, not you.
>
> So, here I am saying negative things to you about government. Well, be clear on this: It is not wrong to distrust government. It is not wrong to fear government. In certain cases it is not even wrong to despise government for government is inherently evil. Yes … a necessary evil, but dangerous nonetheless…somewhat like a drug. Just as a drug that in the proper dosage can save your life, an overdose of government can be fatal.

Now let’s address a few things that have been crammed into your minds at this university. There are some ideas you need to expunge as soon as possible.. These ideas may work well in academic environment, but they fail miserably out there in the real world.
>
> First is that favorite buzz word of the media and academia: Diversity! You have been taught that the real value of any group of people – be it a social group, an employee group, a management group, whatever – is based on diversity. This is a favored liberal ideal because diversity is based not on an individual’s abilities or character, but on a person’s identity and status as a member of a group. Yes, it’s that liberal group identity thing again.
>
> Within the great diversity movement group identification – be it racial, gender based, or some other minority status – means more than the individual’s integrity, character or other qualifications.
>Brace yourself. You are about to move from this academic atmosphere where diversity rules, to a workplace and a culture where individual achievement and excellence actually count. No matter what your professors have taught you over the last four years, you are about to learn that diversity is absolutely no replacement for excellence, ability, and individual hard work. From this day on every single time you hear the word “diversity” you can rest assured that there is someone close by who is determined to rob you of every vestige of individuality you possess.
>
> We also need to address this thing you seem to have about “rights.” We have witnessed an obscene explosion of so-called “rights” in the last few decades, usually emanating from college campuses.
>
> You know the mantra: You have the right to a job. The right to a place to live. The right to a living wage. The right to health care. The right to an education. You probably even have your own pet right – the right to a Beemer for instance, or the right to have someone else provide for that child you plan on downloading in a year or so.

Forget it. Forget those rights! I’ll tell you what your rights are. You have a right to live free, and to the results of 60% -75% of your labor. I’ll also tell you have no right to any portion of the life or labor of another.
>
> You may, for instance, think that you have a right to health care. After all, Hillary said so, didn’t she? But you cannot receive healthcare unless some doctor or health practitioner surrenders some of his time – his life – to you.. He may be willing to do this for compensation, but that’s his choice. You have no “right” to his time or property.. You have no right to his or any other person’s life or to any portion thereof.
>
>
> You may also think you have some “right” to a job; a job with a living wage, whatever that is. Do you mean to tell me that you have a right to force your services on another person, and then the right to demand that this person compensate you with their money? Sorry, forget it. I am sure you would scream if some urban outdoorsmen (that would be “homeless person” for those of you who don’t want to give these less fortunate people a romantic and adventurous title) came to you and demanded his job and your money.
>The people who have been telling you about all the rights you have are simply exercising one of theirs – the right to be imbeciles. Their being imbeciles didn’t cost anyone else either property or time. It’s their right, and they exercise it brilliantly.
>
> By the way, did you catch my use of the phrase “less fortunate” a bit ago when I was talking about the urban outdoorsmen? That phrase is a favorite of the Left. Think about it, and you’ll understand why.
>
> To imply that one person is homeless, destitute, dirty, drunk, spaced out on drugs, unemployable, and generally miserable because he is “less fortunate” is to imply that a successful person – one with a job, a home and a future – is in that position because he or she was “fortunate.” The dictionary says that fortunate means “having derived good from an unexpected place.” There is nothing unexpected about deriving good from hard work. There is also nothing unexpected about deriving misery from choosing drugs, alcohol, and the street.
>If the Liberal Left can create the common perception that success and failure are simple matters of “fortune” or “luck,” then it is easy to promote and justify their various income redistribution schemes. After all, we are just evening out the odds a little bit. This “success equals luck” idea the liberals like to push is seen everywhere. Former Democratic presidential candidate Richard Gephardt refers to high-achievers as “people who have won life’s lottery.” He wants you to believe they are making the big bucks because they are lucky. It’s not luck, my friends. It’s choice. One of the greatest lessons I ever learned was in a book by Og Mandino, entitled, “The Greatest Secret in the World.” The lesson? Very simple: “Use wisely your power of choice.”
>
> That bum sitting on a heating grate, smelling like a wharf rat? He’s there by choice. He is there because of the sum total of the choices he has made in his life. This truism is absolutely the hardest thing for some people to accept, especially those who consider themselves to be victims of something or other – victims of discrimination, bad luck, the system, capitalism, whatever. After all, nobody really wants to accept the blame for his or her position in life. Not when it is so much easier to point and say, Look! He did this to me!” than it is to look into a mirror and say, “You did this to me!”
>
> The key to accepting responsibility for your life is to accept the fact that your choices, every one of them, are leading you inexorably to either success or failure, however you define those terms.
>Some of the choices are obvious: Whether or not to stay in school Whether or not to get pregnant. Whether or not to hit the bottle. Whether or not to keep this job you hate until you get another better-paying job. Whether or not to save some of your money, or saddle yourself with huge payments for that new car.
>
> Some of the choices are seemingly insignificant: Whom to go to the movies with. Whose car to ride home in. Whether to watch the tube tonight, or read a book on investing. But, and you can be sure of this, each choice counts. Each choice is a building block – some large, some small. But each one is a part of the structure of your life. If you make the right choices, or if you make more right choices than wrong ones, something absolutely terrible may happen to you. Something unthinkable. You, my friend, could become one of the hated, the evil, the ugly, the feared, the filthy, the successful, the rich.
>
> The rich basically serve two purposes in this country. First, they provide the investments, the investment capital, and the brains for the formation of new businesses. Businesses that hire people. Businesses that send millions of paychecks home each week to the un-rich.
>
> Second, the rich are a wonderful object of ridicule, distrust, and hatred. Few things are more valuable to a politician than the envy most Americans feel for the evil rich.
>Envy is a powerful emotion. Even more powerful than the emotional minefield that surrounded Bill Clinton when he reviewed his last batch of White House interns. Politicians use envy to get votes and power. And they keep that power by promising the envious that the envied will be punished: “The rich will pay their fair share of taxes if I have anything to do with it.” The truth is that the top 10% of income earners in this country pays almost 50% of all income taxes collected. I shudder to think what these job producers would be paying if our tax system were any more “fair.”
>
> You have heard, no doubt, that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Interestingly enough, our government’s own numbers show that many of the poor actually get richer, and that quite a few of the rich actually get poorer. But for the rich who do actually get richer, and the poor who remain poor .. there’s an explanation — a reason. The rich, you see, keep doing the things that make them rich; while the poor keep doing the things that make them poor.
>
> Speaking of the poor, during your adult life you are going to hear an endless string of politicians bemoaning the plight of the poor. So, you need to know that under our government’s definition of “poor” you can have a $5 million net worth, a $300,000 home and a new $90,000 Mercedes, all completely paid for. You can also have a maid, cook, and valet, and a million in your checking account, and you can still be officially defined by our government as “living in poverty.” Now there’s something you haven’t seen on the evening news.
>
> How does the government pull this one off? Very simple, really. To determine whether or not some poor soul is “living in poverty,” the government measures one thing — just one thing. Income.

It doesn’t matter one bit how much you have, how much you own, how many cars you drive or how big they are, whether or not your pool is heated, whether you winter in Aspen and spend the summers in the Bahamas, or how much is in your savings account. It only matters how much income you claim in that particular year. This means that if you take a one-year leave of absence from your high-paying job and decide to live off the money in your savings and checking accounts while you write the next great American novel, the government says you are ‘living in poverty.”
>
> This isn’t exactly what you had in mind when you heard these gloomy statistics, is it? Do you need more convincing? Try this. The government’s own statistics show that people who are said to be “living in poverty” spend more than $1.50 for each dollar of income they claim. Something is a bit fishy here. Just remember all this the next time Charles Gibson tells you about some hideous new poverty statistics.
>
> Why has the government concocted this phony poverty scam? Because the government needs an excuse to grow and to expand its social welfare programs, which translates into an expansion of its power. If the government can convince you, in all your compassion, that the number of “poor” is increasing, it will have all the excuse it needs to sway an electorate suffering from the advanced stages of Obsessive-Compulsive Compassion Disorder.

I’m about to be stoned by the faculty here. They’ve already changed their minds about that honorary degree I was going to get. That’s OK, though. I still have my PhD. in Insensitivity from the Neal Boortz Institute for Insensitivity Training. I learned that, in short, sensitivity sucks. It’s a trap. Think about it – the truth knows no sensitivity. Life can be insensitive. Wallow too much in sensitivity and you’ll be unable to deal with life, or the truth, so get over it.
>
> Now, before the dean has me shackled and hauled off, I have a few random thoughts.
>
> * You need to register to vote, unless you are on welfare. If you are living off the efforts of others, please do us the favor of sitting down and shutting up until you are on your own again.
>
> * When you do vote, your votes for the House and the Senate are more important than your vote for President. The House controls the purse strings, so concentrate your awareness there.
>
> * Liars cannot be trusted, even when the liar is the President of the country. If someone can’t deal honestly with you, send them packing.

Don’t bow to the temptation to use the government as an instrument of plunder. If it is wrong for you to take money from someone else who earned it — to take their money by force for your own needs — then it is certainly just as wrong for you to demand that the government step forward and do this dirty work for you.
>
>
>
> * Don’t look in other people’s pockets. You have no business there. What they earn is theirs. What you earn is yours. Keep it that way.. Nobody owes you anything, except to respect your privacy and your rights, and leave you alone.
>
> * Speaking of earning, the revered 40-hour workweek is for losers. Forty hours should be considered the minimum, not the maximum. You don’t see highly successful people clocking out of the office every afternoon at five. The losers are the ones caught up in that afternoon rush hour. The winners drive home in the dark.
>
> * Free speech is meant to protect unpopular speech. Popular speech, by definition, needs no protection.
>Finally (and aren’t you glad to hear that word), as Og Mandino wrote,
>
> “1. Proclaim your rarity. Each of you is a rare and unique human being.
>
> 2. Use wisely your power of choice.
>
> 3. Go the extra mile .. drive home in the dark.

Oh, and put off buying a television set as long as you can. Now, if you have any idea at all what’s good for you, you will get the hell out of here and never come back.
>
> Class dismissed”

The Sixties Radical on The Real Democcrat Socialist Party Agenda

You just gotta love this Bullshit that is coming out of the White House and the Democrat Socialist Party.

Harry Reid, Man Child President, the evil Little Lord Fauntleroy Obama, and the state run media are throwing a hizzy fit over House Majority leader Eric Cantor who after years of taking the shit that these clowns have been dishing out finally said I have a enough of your crap and told them to go pound sand.

This is about time.

Somebody has to do it so why not Eric Cantor.

Harry Reid etal can do this to the Republicans but how dare someone dare turn the tables on us especially a Jew.

Obama is an anti-Semitic prick.

So are Harry Reid and the rest of them.

You fight fire with fire.

Let me quote a line from The Untouchables- they put one of yours in the hospital you send three of theirs to the morgue.

It comes down to this.

If Speaker of the House John Boehner, Eric Cantor, and Mitch McConnell cave our country is screwed.

Will now become a Marxists society.

The lies are coming out.

The evil one has destroyed the housing industry, the auto industry, the banking industry, and the food industry just to name a few.

We have to stop this evil dead in its tracks.

Lyndon Baines Johnson destroyed the black family in 1965 with the war on poverty.

American’s Christian and Jewish roots upon which this country was founded have been destroyed by the Left, the Democrat Socialist Party, the state run media, the elitist Republicans etal have forced this country to turn its back on the God of The Bible, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

When this happens all hell breaks loose in a society.

It all starts with abandoning of  God.

Then social institutions of the family, education, and  political stones upon which a society is built fall apart the society is doomed.

The last to go is the economic.

This is basic Sociology 101.

Here are some definitions 

A social institution is a complex, integrated set of social norms organized around the preservation of a basic societal value. Obviously, the sociologist does not define institutions in the same way as does the person on the street. Lay persons are likely to use the term “institution” very loosely, for churches, hospitals, jails, and many other things as institutions.

Sociologists often reserve the term “institution” to describe normative systems that operate in five basic areas of life, which may be designated as the primary institutions. (1) In determining Kinship; (2) in providing for the legitimate use of power; (3) in regulating the distribution of goods and services; (4) in transmitting knowledge from one generation to the next; and (5) in regulating our relation to the supernatural. In shorthand form, or as concepts, these five basic institutions are called the family, government, economy, education and religion.

The five primary institutions are found among all human groups. They are not always as highly elaborated or as distinct from one another as into the United States, but, in rudimentary form at last, they exist everywhere. Their universality indicates that they are deeply rooted in human nature and that they are essential in the development and maintenance of orders. Sociologists operating in terms of the functionalist model society have provided the clearest explanation of the functions served by social institutions. Apparently there are certain minimum tasks that must be performed in all human groups. Unless these tasks are performed adequately, the group will cease to exist. An analogy may help to make the point. We might hypothesize that cost accounting department is essential to the operation of a large corporation. A company might procure a superior product and distribute it then at the price which is assigned to it, the company will soon go out of business. Perhaps the only way to avoid this is to have a careful accounting of the cost of each step in the production and distribution process.

A social system basically consists of two or more individuals interacting directly or indirectly in a bounded situation. There may be physical or territorial boundaries, but the fundamental sociological point of reference is that the individuals are oriented, in a whole sense, to a common focus or inter-related foci. Thus it is appropriate to regard such diverse sets of relationships as small groups, political parties and whole societies as social systems. Social systems are open systems, exchanging information with, frequently acting with reference to other systems. Modern conceptions of the term can be traced to the leading social analysts of the nineteenth century, notably Auguste Comte, Karl Marx, Herbert Spencer and Emile Durkheim; each of whom elaborated in some form or other conceptions of the major units of social systems (mainly societies) and the relationships between such units- even though the expression social system was not a key one. Thus, in Marx’s theory, the major units or components of the capitalist societies with which he was principally concerned were socio-economic classes, and the major relationships between classes involved economic and political power.

The most influential conceptualization of the term has been that of Talcott Parsons. Parsons’ devotion to this issue has two main aspects. First, what is called the problem of social order; i.e. the nature of the forces giving rise to relatively stable forms of social interaction and organization, and promoting orderly change. Parsons took Thomas Hobbes Leviathan, 1651, as his point of departure in this part of his analysis. Hobbes had maintained that man’s fundamental motivation was the craving for power and that men were always basically in conflict with each other. Thus order could only exist in strong government. To counter this Parsons invoked the work of Max Weber and, in particular, Durkheim, who had placed considerable emphasis on the functions of normative, factors in social life, such as ideals and values. Factors of this kind came to constitute the mainspring in Parsons Delineation of a social system. Thus in his major theoretical work, The Social system, 1951, he defines a social system as consisting in a plurality of individual actors interacting with each other in a situation which has at least a physical or environmental aspect, actors, who are motivated in terms of a tendency to the optimization of gratification and whose relations to their situations, including each other, is defined and mediated in terms of a system of culturally structured and shared symbols.

The major units of a social system are said to be collectivities and roles (i.e. not individuals as such); and the major patterns or relationships linking these units are values (ends or broad guides to action) and norms (rules governing role performance in the context of system values). Parsons second major interest has been to make sociology more scientific and systematic, by developing abstract conceptions of the social system; one of this points being that even though Weber placed much emphasis upon normative factors as guiding action, there was in Weber’s sociology no elaboration of a theoretically integrated total system of action. Hence the attempt to combine in one framework both a conception of actors in social situations and an overall, highly abstract, outside view of the major factors involved in a social system as a going concern. Various points in Parsons’ formulation have been criticized. Notably, objections have been made to the emphasis upon normative regulation, and it has been alleged that Parsons neglected social conflict under the pressure of his systematic perspective; i.e. pre-occupation with system ness and analytical elegance which blinds the sociologist to disconsensus in real life and spurs him to stress integrative phenomena in his analyses. However, it is widely agreed that sociologists should operate with some clearly defined conception of what constitutes a social system. Thus, for many sociologists the term social system is not by any means restricted to those situations where there is binding normative regulation; but in order to qualify as social system it must involve a common focus, or set of foci, or orientations and a shared mode of communication among a majority of actors. Thus, on this basis there can be a system of conflict.

In the end we as a nation have moved away from the grace of God.

Our Founding fathers knew this.

A general dissolution of principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy. While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but when once they lose their virtue then will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader.

Samuel Adams, letter to James Warren, February 12, 1779

A good government implies two things; first, fidelity to the objects of the government; secondly, a knowledge of the means, by which those objects can be best attained.

Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, 1833

All good men wish the entire abolition of slavery, as soon as it can take place with safety to the public, and for the lasting good of the present wretched race of slaves. The only possible step that could be taken towards it by the convention was to fix a period after which they should not be imported.

Oliver Ellsworth, The Landholder, December 10, 1787

Another not unimportant consideration is, that the powers of the general government will be, and indeed must be, principally employed upon external objects, such as war, peace, negotiations with foreign powers, and foreign commerce. In its internal operations it can touch but few objects, except to introduce regulations beneficial to the commerce, intercourse, and other relations, between the states, and to lay taxes for the common good. The powers of the states, on the other hand, extend to all objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, and liberties, and property of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the state.

Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, 1833

The truth is we are borrowing 42 cents out of every dollar. This can’t go on.

WE ARE BROKE.

Eric Cantor, John Boehner, and the rest of you Republicans hold firm. Do not take the deal. Push your budget through the House. Cut taxes and spending.

Do away with The EPA, The Department of Education, The Department of Energy, and all the other departments.

Stop the spending.

Just say no.

The lies are being exposed.

The truth shall set you free.

Here’s a nother diddy. The Democrat Socialist Party are pushing for more spending and if the Republicans want to stop government waste and fraud they must give into new taxes and spending.

Part two- The Democrat Socialist party plan B is Mitch McConnell idiotic plan.

Give me a break.

McConnell you are a joke.

How does one compromise with evil?

If good compromises with evil, evil wins.

Can you say Bye-bye USA.

 

 

The Sixties Radical on The Republicans Selling out the Country for Nothing but a Pittance

I have had with the chicken shit Republican Leadership. These no good for nothing leaders will not stand up to the evil one Barrack Hussein Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Chuck “YOU” Schumer etal.

Speaker of the House John Boehner and Republican leader Mitch McConnell have said that they will not attack the deficit problem.

These two idiots have both blinked.

McConnell and Boehner are in the process of selling us down the river for a slice of the power pie.

The Republicans don’t get it.

They were elected by “We The People” to stop this out of control spending and stop the government take over of our lives.

This country is in the position losing everything.

The evil one is spending trillions of dollars.

He is bankrupting this country and the country of our children and their children.

The straw dog argument is this.

We have to tax the rich. Tax the oil companies. Tax everyone who makes over 250 grand and this will fix our problems.

The real truth is this.

All of us little people will lose everything.

In the end “We The People” lose and get screwed.

The USA takes in enough money to cover its obligations.

We have a spending problem.

Let’s say the government takes all money from all millionaires and billionaires, all the money from the oil companies and big business this would only cover our expenses until mid-October.

The Government would have to take everyone’s income from one dollar to a million dollars and this money would only take care of the expenses until midnight December 31 2011.

The government can’t continue spending money like a bunch of drunken Marxists.

WE ARE BROKE.

WE DON’T HAVE THE BUCKS.

The spending has to stop now.

If the Republicans cave on this issue you are finished.

People like me will never send you a dime.

We will form a third party.

The evil one will win another term and the USA is toast.

This is the sad fact of your actions if you cave and try sell us a bill of goods like you did the last time.

We are sick and tired of this shit.

Hey Boehner the House controls the purse strings.

You have the power.

Stop spending money.

Close the purse strings now.

It is time you stand up for this country instead of the Leftist, the Libs, the Republican Party, and the rest of the political elites in this country.

Beohner you are not a man of principle your are chicken shit who will sell out his country of bowl of porridge.

I have an idea read the Constitution.

Oh yeah, that’s right you did that and January and it went in one ear and out the other.

You still don’t get it.

Read the Bible.

Read a basic ECON 101 book.

You can’t spend more than you take in.

In the bulls eye of the evil Obama is our very way of life.

Our freedom is hanging by a thread.

You have to act now.

Stand up and do the right thing.

Don’t compromise.

Shut this sucker down.

If you Boehner, Mitch McConnell, Eric Cantor and the rest of you Republicans were around at the time our country was formed you would have sold us down the river.

We would still be under the thumb of England.

You are gutless wonder.

The difference between you and Chuck “YOU Schumer is this.

Schumer lies all the time and we know it.

You know what is right and won’t do it because you are scared of what the state run media will say about you.

You lie to us.

You say one thing and do another.

Does the recent Budget bill strike a familiar note?

You said 65 million when in reality it was it was less than that.

You lied.

You and the Democrat Socialist Party are a cut from the same cloth.

Government control of our lives under the guise of doing what is best of us we the people

Once freedom is lost we will never get it back.

You are the idiot. 

Boehner you are part of the problem.

You are part of the cancer that is murdering this country.

Boehner has to go.

Just like the rest of McCain wing of the Republican Party.

Let me ask you this.

How do you compromise between food and poison?

 

 

The Sixties Radical on the Stupid Republicans

Once again the idiot Republican establishment is throwing the Tea Party and real conservatives under the bus. Now it’s Newt Gingrich’s time to attack us “We The People.”  We are the ones that make this country work. Gingrich is now the new attack dog of the Republican Party. His is calling us right wing extremists.

In reality this is what Gingrich, Boehner, Cantor, McCain, McConnell, and the beloved Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels etal think of us the common man.

These idiots do not realize that the only reason why the Republicans have control of the House and increased their numbers in the Senate is that “We The People’ are tired of seeing our country run into the ground by the Left, the evil Prez Obama, and the Democrat Socialist Party.

We voted these clowns in to stop spending money like a bunch of drunken Socialists. We also were tired of seeing this country’s morals and values being run into the ground by the same bunch that believe that the new God is the God of the government.

Back in 1994 Newt baby was the man who was going to change the government. He ran on the contract with America. Gingrich wanted to change welfare, limit government spending, and return to the values of The Constitution.

Fast-forward two year later 1996 and Gingrich and his clowns became the establishment. Gingrich and his merry band of idiots threw away their values and traded it in for power.

Newt baby is just another one of those chicken shit Republicans who talk a good game but when the proof is in the putting he runs for the hills.

We The People are tired of this crap.

Gingrich, Romney, Daniels, if his wife lets him run, and the other limp Republicans that have decided to run are the establishment. These idiots will insure Obama is re-elected.

Obama is destroying this country on purpose.

He and his evil minions are close to changing the very fabric of this country.

The change will destroy our way of life.

Instead of a Constitutional Republic we will become a Socialist Marxists State.

This has been happening rapid fire since Lyndon Baines Johnson was president from 1964-1968.

Johnson was the architect of The Great Society.

The Great Society killed the Black family, took the God of The Bible out of our country, and gave illegals the right to decide whom they can bring into this country.

This was called the Hart-Cellar Act.

Congress passed this in 1965.

The Hart-Cellar Act- The Hart-Cellar Act abolished the national origins quota system that had structured American immigration policy since the 1920s, replacing it with a preference system that focused on immigrants’ skills and family relationships with citizens or residents of the U.S. Numerical restrictions on visas were set at 170,000 per year, not including immediate relatives of U.S. citizens, nor “special immigrants” (including those born in “independent” nations in the Western hemisphere; former citizens; ministers; employees of the U.S. government abroad).[3]

This one single stroke of a pen changed the United States forever.

The Hart-Cellar Act paved the way for illegals to have babies born in this country. Once they reached the age of twenty-one these illegal kids could bring in their families.

This is called chain migration.

Please consider this written by S Jackson- The 1965 Immigration Act: Anatomy of a Disaster-

America’s current mass immigration mess is the result of a change in the laws in 1965. Prior to 1965, despite some changes in the 50’s, America was a low-immigration country basically living under immigration laws written in 1924. Thanks to low immigration, the swamp of cheap labor was largely drained during this period, America became a fundamentally middle-class society, and our many European ethnic groups were brought together into a common national culture. In some ways, this achievement was so complete that we started to take for granted what we had achieved and forgot why it happened. So in a spasm of sentimentality on the Right and lies on the Left, we opened the borders.

Born of liberal ideology, the 1965 bill abolished the national origins quota system that had regulated the ethnic composition of immigration in fair proportion to each group’s existing presence in the population. In a misguided application spirit of the civil rights era, the Kennedy and Johnson Administrations saw these ethnic quotas as an archaic form of chauvinism. Moreover, as Cold Warriors facing charges of “racism” and “imperialism,” they found the system rhetorically embarrassing. The record of debate over this seismic change in immigration policy reveals that left-wingers, in their visceral flight to attack “discrimination,” did not reveal the consequences of their convictions. Instead, their spokesmen set out to assuage concerned traditionalists with a litany of lies and wishful thinking.

Chief among national concerns was total numeric immigration. Senate floor manager and Camelot knight-errant Ted Kennedy, D-Massachusetts, assured jittery senators that “our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually.” Senator Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, further calmed that august body, insisting “the total number of potential immigrants would not be changed very much.” Time has proven otherwise. Average immigration levels before the 1965 amendments took effect hovered around 300,000 per annum. Yet 1,045,000 legal immigrants flooded our cities in 1996 alone.

The 1965 “reform” reoriented policy away from European ethnic groups, yet implemented numbers similar to 1950’s rates in an attempt to keep immigration under control. However, Congressmen managed to miss a loophole large enough to allow a 300 percent in immigration, because they did not take into account two “sentimental” provisions within the bill. Immediate family members of U.S. citizens and political refugees face no quotas. Their likely impact on the nation was ignored, presumably because aiding families and the dispossessed cast the right emotive glow.

Yet leftists could sound like hard-nosed defenders of the national interest when necessary. In urging passage of the 1965 bill, Senator Robert F. Kennedy, D-New York, wrote in a letter to the New York Times, “The time has come for us to insist that the quota system be replaced by the merit system.” As if merit is the operative principle along the Rio Grande today! Similarly, Representative Robert Sweeney, D-Ohio, insisted the bill was “more beneficial to us.” In fact, the 1965 bill made “family reunification” – including extended family members – the key criterion for eligibility. These new citizens may in turn send for their families, creating an endless cycle known to sociologists as the immigration chain. The qualifications of immigrants have predictably fallen. Hispanic immigrants, by far the largest contingent, are eight times more likely than natives to lack a ninth-grade education, and less than half as likely to have a college degree.

The bill did not end discrimination based on what President John F. Kennedy called “the accident of birth.” (This of course begs the question of whether birth within the nation, the basis of common national community, is just an accident, but let that pass for now.) It de facto grossly discriminates in favor of Mexicans and certain other groups.

Not only has the bill failed in its stated purpose, it has realized many of its critics’ worst nightmares. Concern mounted that this bill would radically change the ethnic composition of the United States. Such things were still considered legitimate concerns in 1965, in the same Congress that had just passed the key civil rights legislation of the 1960’s.

Specific influx predictions that were made seem tragicomic today. Senator Robert Kennedy predicted a total of 5,000 immigrants from India; his successor as Attorney General, Nicholas Katzenbach, foresaw a meager 8,000. Actual immigration from India has exceeded by 1,000-times Robert Kennedy’s prediction.

Senator Hiram Fong, R-Hawaii, calculated that “the people from [Asia] will never reach 1 percent of the population.” Even in 1965, people were willing to admit that we have a reasonable interest in not being inundated by culturally alien foreigners, and it was considered acceptable to say so on the floor of the Senate. Try that today, even as a supposed conservative! (Asians currently account for three percent of the population, and will swell to near 10 percent by 2050 if present trends continue.)

The only remaining Congressman who had voted on the 1920s quotas, Representative Emanuel Celler, D-New York, insisted, “There will not be, comparatively speaking, many Asians or Africans entering this country.” Today, the number of Asians and Africans entering this country each year exceeds the annual average total number of immigrants during the 1960s.

Yet the largest ethnic shift has occurred within the ranks of Hispanics. Despite Robert Kennedy’s promise that, “Immigration from any single country would be limited to 10 percent of the total,” Mexico sent 20 percent of last year’s immigrants. Hispanics have made up nearly half of all immigrants since 1968. After a 30-year experiment with open borders, whites no longer constitute a majority of Californians or residents of New York City.

As immigrants pour in, native Americans feel themselves pushed out. In 1965, Senator Hugh Scott, R-Pennsylvania, opined, “I doubt if this bill will really be the cause of crowding the present Americans out of the 50 states.” Yet half-a-million native Californians fled the state in the last decade, while its total population increased by three million, mostly immigrants. This phenomenon also holds true in microcosm. In tiny Ligonier, Indiana, (population 4,357) 914 Hispanics moved in and 216 native Americans departed during the 1990s. Hispanics now outnumber the Amish as the area’s dominant minority.

Thirty-plus years of immigration at historic levels have also had an economic impact on America. In 1965, Ted Kennedy confidently predicted, “No immigrant visa will be issued to a person who is likely to become a public charge.” However, political refugees qualify for public assistance upon setting foot on U.S. soil. The exploding Somali refugee population of Lewiston, Maine, (pop. 36,000) is largely welfare-dependent. Likewise, 2,900 of Wausau, Wisconsin’s 4,200 Hmong refugees receive public assistance. In all, 21 percent of immigrants receive public assistance, whereas 14 percent of natives do so. Immigrants are 50 percent more likely than natives to live in poverty.

Ted Kennedy also claimed the 1965 amendments “will not cause American workers to lose their jobs.” Teddy cannot have it both ways: either the immigrant will remain unemployed and become a public charge, or he will take a job that otherwise could have gone to a native American. What is presently undisputed – except by the same economic analysts at Wired magazine and the Wall Street Journal who gave us dot-com stocks – is that immigrant participation lowers wages.

Despite the overwhelming assurances of the bill’s supporters, the 1965 Immigration Reform Act has remade society into the image its critics most feared. Immigration levels topping a million a year will increase U.S. population to 400 million within 50 years. Meanwhile, exponents of multiculturalism insist new arrivals make no effort to assimilate; to do so would be “genocidal,” a notion that makes a mockery of real genocides. Instead, long-forgotten grudges are nursed against the white populace. Native citizens take to flight as the neighborhoods around them, the norms in their hometowns, are debased for the convenience of low-paid immigrants and well-heeled businessmen. All the while, indigenous paychecks drop through lower wages and higher taxes collected to provide social services for immigrants. And this only takes into account legal immigration.

These results were unforeseen by liberals easily led about by their emotions. Others were not so blind. Jewish organizations had labored since 1924 to unweave national origins quotas by admitting family members on non-quota visas. The B’nai B’rith Women and the American Council for Judaism Philanthropic Fund, among other Jewish organizations, supported this reform legislation while it was yet in subcommittee in the winter of 1965. Roman Catholics had the twin motivations of still-evolving social justice doctrine and the potential windfall of a mass influx of co-religionists from Latin America. Other organized minorities pressured for increased immigration to benefit relatives in their homelands. The ultra-liberal Americans for Democratic Action, the ACLU and the National Lawyers Guild joined the chorus. Further, the Communist Party USA supported higher immigration on the grounds that it destabilizes working Americans.

Americans must realize demographic trends are not inevitable, the product of mysterious forces beyond their control. Today’s population is the result of yesterday’s immigration policy, and that policy is as clearly broken as its backers’ assurances were facetious. A rational policy will only come about when native Americans place the national interest above liberal howls of “prejudice” and “tribalism.”

The Sixties Radical on The Debt Ceiling

This is getting patiently ridiculous. The Republican leadership is a one-note band. This is getting really tiring. John Boehner and his counter part in the Senate Mitch McConnell are blow hards. They talk tough. When push comes to shove these idiots Boehner and McConnell cave like a cheap suit.

Sure, let’s play Monty Hall and lets make a deal.

Let’s compromise our values and let the evil Obama and his socialist Democrat Party dictate the terms.

Boehner you have the majority in the House so act like it.

McConnell you have enough votes in the Senate to stop the Marxist Democrats dead in their tracks.

Maybe you clowns should try this idea.

Have you ever heard of a poker face?

Or in Mafia terms it is called a stone face.

You never show you’re emotions.

Hey, guys here’s a novel idea. Don’t show your full hand. Don’t show your whole card

On the table you have a pair sixes showing while your opponent has a pair of eights.

Your whole card is a six.

Your opponent is doubling down all the time.

You know they are bluffing.

You have the cards in your favour.

The dealer gives you another six while the opponent is dealt a five.

They double down again.

Instead of calling him you thrown in a winning hand.

Why?

Your opponent can read your face.

He knows you are scared and will cave like you always do.

Instead you say I raise you and call.

But no, you clowns are scared of what people will say about you.

The opponent knows this and they will double down again and again knowing that you will cave time and time again.

It is time to act like men.

Our country needs Boehner, Eric Cantor and rest of Republican leadership to stand up for our rights.

If you don’t the country is lost.

The sad fact is this we as a nation cannot afford to raise the debt ceiling. If we do this will only exacerbate the problem and in the end this will cause more harm than good.

What Boehner, Cantor, McConnell, McCain and the rest do not understand this downhill economic is directly tied to our destruction of our countries morals and values.

Read any Sociology book 101.

This is written in plain language.

After the institutions of Marriage, Family, Religion, Education, fall apart the last to go is the Economic.

This is what is happening know.

Our fore fathers knew this. This is way these men based The Constitution on sound Biblical teachings.

We The People know this.

The Sixties Radical

The battle over the budget is looming. Dems are threatening to shut down the government while the brilliant and brave Republicans like John Boehner, Eric Cantor, and the rest are cowering in the corner and telling us lets make a deal with the Prez and his merry band of socialists.

Yep, that’s the answer.

Make a deal cut 61 million bucks from a 1.5 trillion dollar budget.

This is nuts.

The wizards of smart think this is draconian cuts.

Are you freakin crazy.

The country is broke.

We don’t have the money.

Heap more burden on us the taxpayers every year. Right now we pay over 60% in taxes to the state, federal, and local governments.

The only people who are benefiting from this are the state and federal employees and their union thugs.

People like myself struggle to make ends met. We make twice as less as the state and federal workers.

What gives here?

These people expect us the taxpayers to pay for their healthcare and salaries while we pay twice as much for our healthcare.

State and Federal workers make twice as much as the private sector workers make.

This must be some sort of joke.

It is not.

This is robbery.

What part of thou shall not steal don’t these clowns get?

This is stealing.

Charity is reaching into my own pocket to help someone out while it is a felony to reach into someone else’s pocket to give their money away.

Look, folks we are at crossroads.

The train is right at the edge of the cliff.

We can stop this in time if not you can kiss the United States goodbye.

The rest of the free world will be screwed big time.

Please read the following from the Heritage Foundation-

Abstract: President Obama recently unveiled his 2012 budget proposal and the 43 tax hikes it contains. The multitude of—utterly unnecessary—tax hikes will burden Americans to the tune of $1.5 trillion over the next decade. The President is proposing to raise federal tax revenues and federal spending as a percentage of GDP above historic levels, and keep them growing. This plan is a disaster for the economy—slowing down recovery, hurting job creation, making American companies less competitive, and burdening all Americans with higher taxes and consumer costs.

In what is becoming an annual tradition, President Barack Obama’s newest budget proposes a host of unnecessary tax hikes that will slow economic growth. His fiscal year 2012 budget contains 43 tax hikes that will needlessly confiscate an additional $1.5 trillion from Americans over the next decade. That works out to $12,000 per household over that time.

These enormous tax hikes will slow down economic growth because they will transfer resources from the productive hands of the private sector to the wasteful hands of Congress, raise energy prices, and reduce incentives to work, save, and invest.

Tax hikes are not the right solution for Americans—nor are they needed to reduce the deficit. Congress should pass on all of President Obama’s tax increases and instead cut spending and reform the tax code so it inflicts less of a burden on businesses and families and is more conducive to job creation.

Unnecessary Tax Hikes

The unsustainable deficits that President Obama outlines in his budget are exclusively the result of overspending—not a lack of tax revenue. No tax hikes are necessary to fix this problem of deficits and spending.

Historically, federal spending as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) has averaged around 20 percent. Obama’s budget averages almost 23 percent from 2012 through 2021.

Federal tax revenues have averaged about 18 percent of GDP. Although below that mark currently because of the recession, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), federal tax receipts will be above that historical threshold by 2018 if all current tax policies are left in place—including making all 2001 and 2003 tax cuts permanent. If spending were kept to 20 percent of GDP, the deficit would fall below its historical average after 2018 and the national debt would stabilize.

President Obama’s budget calls for racing past the historical level of tax receipts by 2013. His budget calls for tax revenues to reach as high as 20 percent of GDP in 2021. That would be just shy of the federal government’s all-time record high achieved in 2000 and would result in taxes being $493 billion higher than necessary in 2021 alone. If Congress passes President Obama’s tax policies, tax receipts will continue to grow after 2021 and will far surpass their historical record thereafter.

The President’s budget contains almost no tax cuts, and not one of the long-overdue reforms he promised. Most of what he refers to as tax cuts are extensions of current policy. In total, the new tax cuts he proposes amount to less than 3 percent of the tax increases he plans.

Five Types of Obama Tax Hikes

President Obama’s unnecessary tax hikes break down into five categories:

1. Repeal of the 2001 and 2003 Tax Cuts for Upper-Income Families.

President Obama reached an agreement with Congress in late 2010 to extend all 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for two more years, through 2012. After praising that agreement immediately after its passage, the President changed quickly back to his long-held preference of allowing those tax cuts to expire for families and small businesses that earn more than $250,000 a year ($200,000 for single filers).

It comes as no surprise, then, that he calls for the permanent expiration of the tax cuts for those families and small businesses when the deal runs out in 2012. Under President Obama’s budget, the top two tax rates would increase from 35 percent and 33 percent to 39.6 percent and 36 percent, respectively. The tax rates on capital gains and dividends would both rise from 15 percent to 20 percent for high-income earners, and certain deductions and exemptions for these same taxpayers would be phased out.

The budget scores raised tax rates on capital gains and dividends as a tax cut. That is because the rate on dividends before the 2003 tax cut was equal to the taxpayers’ top income tax rate. In President Obama’s world, the failure to raise it back to that level is a cut. In the real world, taxing dividends at the same rate as capital gains has been policy for more than 10 years now. Raising it by any amount is an increase. Not raising it is not a tax cut.

President Obama calls for eliminating the capital gains tax for investments in small business in the budget. This proposal shows that the President understands the tax on capital gains impedes economic growth, yet he insists on raising it for capital gains from all other sources. It would be better for the economy if the President applied his capital gains proposal for small businesses to all capital gains.

In total the tax increases on upper-income families are $709 billion over 10 years.

Raising income taxes on upper-income families will reduce incentives to work and save at the worst possible time. In 2013 the economy will still be getting on its feet and higher tax rates will only slow recovery. Higher taxes on capital gains and dividends will lower the incentives for investment, which will also slow recovery.

2. Higher Death Tax.

As part of the 2010 tax deal, the “death tax” was resurrected from its year-long burial. The estate tax had expired in 2010, but the deal between the President and Congress brought it back to life at 35 percent with a $5 million exemption for 2011 and 2012.

Just like in the case of the upper-income tax-relief provisions, the President was unsatisfied with this compromise. In his budget, he calls for raising the death tax to 45 percent and reducing the exemption amount to $3.5 million starting in 2013.

President Obama also proposes making it more difficult for family-owned businesses to shield portions of their businesses from the devastating impact of the death tax.

Despite its reputation of applying only to the über-wealthy, the death tax is the scourge of family-owned businesses. These businesses cannot afford the extensive planning that larger estates can pay for. As a result, the growth of these businesses is curtailed as families save for the dreaded day when they must fork over the death tax. In the worst-case scenario, family businesses must be broken up to pay the tax.

As a result, the death tax is a tax on capital because families divert resources from productive activities either to pay the tax or prepare for it. With less money allocated to capital formation, these businesses create fewer jobs than they would have otherwise, and economic growth is slowed.

President Obama’s death tax hike will destroy many jobs and raise taxes by $118 billion over 10 years.

3. Limited Deductions for Upper-Income Families.

Congress originally designed the alternative minimum tax (AMT) to prevent a small percentage of high-income families from using the multitude of legal deductions and credits in the tax code to lower their tax liability too much. But the AMT threatens to raise the taxes of middle-income families each year because Congress never indexed for inflation the income threshold above which taxpayers are subject to the AMT.

Congress annually passes an AMT “patch,” which raises the threshold for inflation to prevent the AMT from falling on middle-income families. The patch is not a tax cut. It is the prevention of a steep tax hike on middle-income families that Congress never intended. Since it is not a tax cut, and is long-held policy, there is no need for Congress to “offset” the revenue the AMT would have raised had it applied to middle-income families.

President Obama’s budget would also “patch” the AMT for the next three years so it does not catch middle-income families. The patch raises the income threshold above which families pay the AMT. But then, he proposes a completely unnecessary hike to offset this phantom revenue loss. His proposed tax hike would place a cap on the total amount of deductions that upper-income families could claim by limiting their total deductions to the maximum amount they would be able to deduct if they had paid taxes at the 28 percent income tax rate.

The limit on deductions would raise taxes by $321 billion over 10 years. It would be a permanent tax hike, while the AMT patch would last only the three years.

Capping deductions for high-income taxpayers is a way of reducing “tax expenditures,” the myriad credits and deductions that riddle the federal tax code today.[1] Reducing tax expenditures is currently a popular proposal for reducing the deficit because many argue they are nothing more than surreptitious spending through the tax code and benefit only a narrow minority of varying special interests. To be sure, there are many tax expenditures that are spending through the tax code. However, there are certain provisions currently classified as tax expenditures that are not spending and are economically justifiable.

When addressing the numerous problems in the tax code, eliminating tax expenditures should not be used as an excuse to raise taxes like some bookkeeping exercise. It should be done only through fundamental tax reform where Congress can weigh the efficacy of each provision separately and decide which it wants to keep and those it wants to discard. Tax rates should then be lowered permanently, in order to prevent the government from raising additional revenue by eliminating these tax-reducing policies

5. Miscellaneous Tax Hikes on Businesses.

President Obama also included in his budget an assortment of other tax increases on businesses that total more than $207 billion over 10 years.

The largest tax increase in this group is the repeal of the “last in, first out” (LIFO) method of inventory accounting. This tax increase will cost businesses $53 billion over 10 years. It will hurt retail and wholesale companies the most because it will force them to deduct their least-costly inventory from income first.

The next-largest tax hike in this group falls on energy production. President Obama proposes the elimination of tax-reducing provisions for coal, oil, and gas companies. The provisions the President wants to eliminate are mostly policies that allow energy companies to more quickly deduct the cost of capital investment (called expensing) rather than depreciate those investments over a longer period of time.

Expensing is the proper treatment of capital purchases, so these policies actually improve the tax code. Instead of abolishing these and similar provisions, the President should propose making expensing permanent for all capital purchases. It would be consistent with the provision he pushed in the 2010 tax deal that allows all businesses to expense capital purchases for 2011.

If the President’s budget becomes law, energy companies will pass the tax increases on to consumers—in the form of higher energy prices totaling more than $46 billion over 10 years.

The remaining tax increases in this category include:

  • Higher taxes on financial institutions, including the bank tax that President Obama previously called for ($33 billion over 10 years);
  • Reinstating Superfund taxes ($21 billion);
  • Increasing taxes on insurance companies ($14 billion);
  • Taxing carried interest as regular income ($15 billion); and
  • Assorted other tax increases on businesses ($26 billion).

Focus Should Be on Tax Reform

The country cannot afford the economy-slowing taxes that President Obama calls for in his budget. Congress should ignore the President’s tax increases and keep taxes at their current levels until it can undertake fundamental reform of the entire tax code.

The individual income tax and corporate income tax are both serious drags on the economy and are long overdue for fundamental reform. If the President and Congress worked together to reform the tax code in a revenue-neutral manner—that is, without raising taxes—the resulting simpler tax code would free individuals and businesses to use their time and resources to seek out more promising opportunities.

This, in turn, would strengthen economic recovery in the immediate future, provide the basis for more robust growth in the future, and create more jobs at all points along the way. As an added benefit, a stronger economy will raise tax receipts back to their historical level and will help return the deficit back to an acceptable level more quickly.

Curtis S. Dubay is a Senior Analyst in Tax Policy in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.

The Sixties Radical on The Stop Gap Budget

I am pissed as hell. I am madder than a hornet. I have had it with the Republican Party. They will never get my vote again. No, I am not going for vote for the Dems.

I don’t know what is worse having no morals, core beliefs, or having them and burying them and going against them.

This is what House Speaker John Boehner, House Minority Leader Eric Cantor and the rest of the Republicans did. They are a bunch of chicken shit wimps who have played right into the Democrat hands.

These brave men of honor have thrown their morals and core beliefs out the window because they are scared to stand up to the Dems, the Libs, the state run media, and The Prez.

We elected the new members to House and Senate to do two things stop Obama care and stop spending money.

It wasn’t what you Republicans stand for.

The Tea Party does not have a leader.

It was not formed in Washington DC.

It was formed out of what happened in 2006 when the Dems took control of the House and Senate and then again, when The Messiah Obama was elected in 2008.

The Dems had bulletproof majorities yet we didn’t give up.

We took the bull by the horns and fought back in a legal and sane way.

We are not like the Dem thugs, union thugs, the Left, and those who stormed the state Capital of Madison, Wisconsin and trashed the place.

We will trash you the Republican Party at the ballot box.

John Boehner you are toast.

Eric Cantor you are toast.

Republican Party you are toast.

It is time to form a third party.

People like me won’t call your office to complain.

I will write about you.

Talk about you with my friends.

We will stop giving you money.

My money will now go to some one who will stand up and fight for America instead of selling this country out for a bowl of porridge.

This is not about the fringes.

It is not about six million here ten million there.

This is what the Dems want you to do.

WE ARE BROKE.

WE DON’T HAVE THE MONEY.

WE DON’T HAVE TIME TO SCREW AROUND WITH RULES.

It is time for action.

This is why you John Boehner are the Speaker of the House.

Why do you think the Dems have not written or submitted a budget.

They knew you guys wouldn’t act.

This is a game of chicken.

Yet, the stakes of this game are a matter of life and death of the United States of America.

Let’s look at the numbers.

We are fourteen trillion in debt.

Six million in reduction is like pissing in the wind.

I have a novel idea shut the government down.

Hey John Boehner, you have the numbers.

You and your silly mates were elected with landslide numbers so act like it and govern.

To use an Obama phrase- I won you lost so deal with it.

We will take our country back.

We the people are tired of this bull crap.

Maybe in the end you really don’t want to end Obama care.

These are my thoughts on this fine Tuesday.

More to come.

One final note I am tired of taking it in the shorts by both the Republicans and the Democrats.

You have been warned.