Tax and Spend

When Democrats talk about taxing the rich, intelligent people reply by quoting statistics to show how much the rich already pay. This misses the point of Democrats. From the Democrat point of view, as long as they are rich, they're not paying enough, so Democrats keep wanting to steal more.

Boortz provides a perfect example of what I mean:

"Fair?  In 1980, the top 1% paid 19% of federal income taxes.  In 2009, they paid 36.7%.  The bottom 50% paid 7% of all income taxes in 1980.  Now they pay just 2.25%."

He thinks this refutes the Democrats' argument, but it only strengthens it. What this says to Democrats and their supporters is the rich still pay too little and the poor still pay too much, and it will be that way until everybody is equally poor.

Reason believes that Obama will not veto a continue of the current tax rates. They may very well be right, but Boehner has already surrendered on new revenues.

Stop the presses: Obama wants more income redistribution. I'm shocked.

After decades of selling out to unions, LA mayor overrun by unions when he tries to introduce pension reform to save them from going bankrupt. You can't put the genie back in the bottle. If this wasn't going to cause so much pain, it would be funny.

Here's a great example of the phony accounting that goes in Washington.

"The last farm bill, which was enacted in 2008, authorized $604 billion in spending.  The current House bill proposed by Lucas (HR 6083) authorizes $957 billion in spending extrapolated over 10 years.  Yet, this 58% increase is considered a cut in ‘Washington speak’ because the phony CBO baseline, which locks in Obama’s food stamp spending, projects $992 billion in spending.  Hence, passage of the farm bill, which locks in the record food stamp spending and creates new farm welfare programs, will be scored as a spending cut – to the extent that it can be used for the spending cut side of the ‘grand bargain.’"

We're the stupidest people in the world, and our rulers know it.