Uncivil Rights

Liberals are still having a hard time accepting their own philosophy, socialism. Liberals claim to believe in capitalism. They claim they believe in the free market. The problems arise when they talk about their beliefs in areas such as business regulations, labor, and profits.

Liberals believe corporations make too much money. How many times have we heard about the amount of profits made by drug companies? Oil companies? So what do they propose? They want price controls and higher taxes, hardly a capitalistic stance.

Liberals believe most workers are slaves to these corporations, underpaid, overworked. They believe in the minimum wage and the living wage. They want the government to set wages and conditions of employment. One liberal blog wants everyone paid overtime for every hour over 40 worked. Ted Kennedy wants to mandate seven (7) sick days to all employees. Liberals believe the government should legislate employee issues; they want the government to become the HR department for every business. When a business does NOT CONTROL its own workforce, wages and conditions of employment, it doesn’t really run that business, and therefore, doesn’t own that business. This is NOT a capitalistic view of business; it is SOCIALISM.

Government intervention in the labor force is prevalent in Europe, especially in France and Germany, and is a major force in the high unemployment and low productivity these countries are experiencing; to the level that France is rethinking its stance on the 35-hour work week and ample time-off policies.

Before the liberals can start the long road back to a true capitalistic and free market economy philosophy, they must first admit their socialistic philosophy. They must understand the unintended consequences of their business ideas: what would mandatory overtime to everyone, mandatory sick-time to everyone, minimum wage, living wage, price controls, and taxation, do to the business sector and the economy as a whole? It would destroy it. That has been the problem with all socialist economies, the utopian ideal overwhelmed logical thinking, proper strategic planning, and a thorough understanding of the consequences.

It’s time for PRACTICAL APPLICATION. This is a test for all you liberals who believe in the liberal’s ideology I described above. I want you all to start a business under LIBERAL rules, which means wage controls, price controls, taxation, government intervention, legislation, and regulations. I am guessing, it will take less than a year for your transformation, that is, it will take less than a year for you to become a conservative.

I would like to thank the bloggers that have stopped by and commented, and welcome those stopping by just to take a look. I really appreciate it.

I want to introduce you to new blog links, please stop by and check them out:

Stop the ACLU

Michael the Archangel

Bubble Head

Whymrhymer

Is It Just Me?

Give Me liberty

One Man's Thoughts

Where's Your Brain?

Thank you ALL!

A few things from “On the Move” #88, February 2005, from Illinois Council 31 – American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees.

From Henry Bayer – “Taxes, What we need is a fairer system, then it might not be so hard to raise revenues”

The unfairness of our tax system is not confined to the state of Illinois, however. Between 2001 and 2003, the effective federal corporate tax rate was reduced by 20 percent. Corporate taxes have fallen to their lowest level in more than 40 years.

Yes Henry, and those reductions in taxes by the Bush administration did a miraculous job reducing that recession from the dot.com bubble burst to a minimum. Oh, and then we had a small thing called a terrorist attack that cost this country and the economy billions of dollars. Oh, and then we had a small war in Afghanistan and Iraq. Those tax cuts kept this economy rolling; an economy which is gaining speed and strength every day.

If you thought that big business and its political allies would be satisfied by these huge breaks, you'd be wrong. Major corporations pushed a measure through the Congress allowing them to pay taxes on profits earned abroad at one-seventh the normal rate.

Tell me Henry, why should a company pay taxes here in America for the business it does overseas? The normal American tax rate on profits made abroad should be ZERO. The American companies doing business abroad are the ONLY companies that are taxed in their home country (America) AND in the host country. American businesses were unable to compete in foreign markets because the TAX playing field was not level. American companies needed those tax breaks to compete. Under your astute thinking, American companies would pay full taxes, here and abroad and would therefore fail abroad, not only losing jobs there but HERE also. Good thinking Henry.

It's not just giant corporations that complain about their high taxes. Wealthy individuals, who even after getting the biggest chunk of Bush's recent tax cuts, echo the charge that they, too, are being overtaxed.

You'd never know from listening to the howls of the super-rich that much of their income is taxed at a lower rate than most of us pay on most of our income. Capital gains and dividends are taxed at a fraction of the rate of wages — a difference that overwhelmingly benefits high income earners, while we get only crumbs off that table.

Let’s see, why are wealthy people complaining about their taxes? It’s because they PAY THE MOST! It doesn’t matter what the rate is; the fact is the rich pay more taxes. 10% of $500,000 is $50,000; 50% of $50,000 is only $25,000. Rates DON’T MATTER, it’s the AMOUNT OF MONEY PAID IN TAXES!!! Money made from capital gains and dividends are taxed at a lower rate because the money used to earn capital gains and dividends have been taxed once already, and this money invested helps grow the economy and therefore increase taxes as well. Anyone can invest in the market, not just rich people, but I’ve never received a job from a poor person.

I can't see the point. Folks collecting capital gains and dividends certainly don't work harder for their income than those of us whose earnings are mostly wages.

Think again Henry. How did those people earn their money? They worked for it, made the correct decisions on life, saved money, and became able to invest. Don’t blame them for making the right choices in life.

While we continue to drift away from the principle that taxes should be based on one's ability to pay, governments at every level are scrambling to find resources for vital services. It would seem that the time is ripe to reverse the trend and bring greater fairness to the tax system, while making sure we raise enough revenues to fund vital services.

How about the government NOT spending MORE than the amount of taxes it collects? Perhaps we should look at YOUR definition of “vital services”? As you increase taxes on the rich, the rich will reduce their “ability” to pay. We should make the tax system more fair by instituting the Fair Tax Plan.

For starters, the President insists that the tax cuts passed in his first term, which went disproportionately to individuals making more than $300,000 annually, and which are responsible for one half of the $420-billion federal deficit, must be made permanent.

Yes they should be made permanent. Again, I have never received a job from a poor person, but I have received a job from a rich person that was able to KEEP MORE OF HIS OWN MONEY which enabled him to invest in his business, expand that business to the point of HIRING MORE PEOPLE. You may also want to check out how much our country’s SAFETY (as in Homeland Security and the war in Iraq and Afghanistan) is part of that deficit.

Secondly, despite the need for more revenue to fund education, health, and other important programs, the president says that any changes in taxes must not result in any net revenue increase.

More money for schools? How about fixing the problems with schools FIRST then analyze the need for and amount of funding? I don’t believe I should pay for someone else’s health care because they “can’t” afford health insurance. All other entitlement programs should be eliminated.

If we're talking about shifting the tax burden but raising no more money, it means some folks will pay more taxes while others pay less. And guess what? Under all the tax schemes being considered by the administration and its allies, our tax system would become even more skewed in favor of the well-to-do.

Let’s be truthful. The rich and wealthy, though they may have their tax rates cut, will still pay more taxes than the other groups even if the amount the others pay goes up. Remember, it’s not the rate; it’s the AMOUNT paid in taxes that count. Overall, why shouldn’t the MAJORITY of people pay the MAJORITY of taxes? Obviously, the MAJORITY of people will utilize the MAJORITY of these “vital services” you claim we so desperately need?

For instance they're looking most seriously at a national consumption tax. But the less you make, the more of your income is spent on consumer goods, like food, clothing, gasoline or other daily necessities. So the less you make, the higher percentage of your income will go to taxes. In this manner our unfair tax system, in the name of reform, becomes even more unfair.

This is a lie, Henry. It is a lie, or you don’t know what you’re talking about; either one is reprehensible. Either you are trying to deceive your readers, or you haven’t read the proposal for the Fair Tax Plan. Every person working will receive their entire pay check, no deductions. Every family will receive a rebate for the taxes paid for the “necessities of life”. The taxes you actually pay depend on your spending habits; you control the amount of taxes you pay. The wealthy will continue to pay the biggest burden while the poor will their fair share on those expenditures OUTSIDE of the necessities of life.

Every change in the tax code should meet two tests: "Does it raise the revenues needed for essential services?" and "Do those with the most ability to pay bear their fair share of the burden?" The Republican tax plans fail on both accounts.

The Republican tax plan is just fine, thanks.

Cross Posted at Blogger News Network

The labor movement is gaining support from the very liberal media. Here's an article, from MRC, where Katie Couric espouses the virutes of socialist/communist views of labor.

On Monday's Today, Katie Couric conducted a softball interview promoting a Ted Kennedy-sponsored bill to require every employer in America with 15 or more employees to offer a mandatory seven sick days each year. She asked: "So obviously the legislation may be helpful, but the whole mentality of the workplace needs to change as well, right?" Her liberal guest, Linda Meric of the lobbying group 9 to 5, agreed: "The United States is way far behind in terms of the amount of time off that employees get to care for family members, to care for their own health and for other reasons." Couric had no question on the potential cost to employers or any other political or economic objections to the proposal. This wasn't the first time Today promoted European-style regulatory controls on the workplace.

For some reason, liberal believe businesses should be controlled by the government; this is communism, pure and simple. If not complete control, then at the very least, control of the workforce and employee policies. Liberals believe the government should legislate time-off, numbers of hours worked, sick-time, wages and consitions of employment.

If I am wrong, I will surely apologize. However, I believe I am right.

Liberals want government to legislate wages through minimum wage and are now pushing for an arbitrary "living wage." Liberals want government to legislate time-off through the FMLA and are now pushing for mandatory sick-time. Liberals want the government to legislate conditions of employment through the ADA, OSHA, and other agencies and prgrams.

When did our government decide it would be best to become an active partner in every business in this country? What happened to our free market economy, capitalism, and competition?

Now Liberals and unions are pushing for labor rights equal to human rights. How far are we from having government intervene in business decisions such as business closings and mass employee lay-offs? How soon will the government mandate those businesses stay open and those employees stay employed? How far away are we from government controlling or overseeing all aspects of a business? Will we then admit we have become a COMMUNIST COUNTRY?

What happened to a business having the right to succeed or fail on its own merits, management style, and philosophy? When did we lose all respect in the American worker to make the right choices, be responsible for their own actions, and be held accountable for those choices and actions? When did we lose our belief that ANYONE can succeed in this country on their own through hard work and dedication?

We are no longer fostering entreprenuership; we are fostering a society and culture of government entitlements or entitleprenuership or new ways in which to gain government entitlements. We are fostering a government fail-safe plan even though there is no risk to the individual.

When did we start to believe that COMMUNISM will succeed in America? When did Liberals and the Democratic Party become the new American Socialist/Communist Party?

I want EVERYONE to stop by and check out BLOGGER NETWORK NEWS, The Breaking News Source of the Blogoshpere.

Truthout.org has an interesting article called: U.S. Labor Debates Direction By David Bacon

"Workers are going to get a chance to vote no matter what we do," Stern responds. "But the truth is you have to have a certain amount of strength in this economy to deal with global or national employers. The question isn't whether we're going to take away rank-and-file democracy; it's whether we're going to have the strength in which democracy can be exercised."

Unions need strength; strength is in numbers. Therefore, unions must organize and increase membership. This is the ONLY way unions can gain strength.

Both SEIU and AFT proposals agree that organizing is a critical issue, and that it requires more support, but they have different ideas about where that support should come from. SEIU calls on the AFL-CIO to take the $25 million annually that it receives from union credit card royalties, and use it to boost organizing. Wal-Mart should be the target, the union's proposal explains, because it has become a symbol of low-wage, no-benefit employment, affecting millions of workers in other jobs.

Organizing and unionizing Wal-Mart would give unions a much needed increase in membership and geographically cover a much larger area. Union leadership believes that once Wal-Mart succumbs to unionization, employees in other areas will be much easier to organize.

"When we think about auto, steel and rubber workers," Stern says, "before the 1930s and 40s they didn't have high skilled, high wage jobs. But they got a union, and a union job turned out to be a good job, where you could raise a family and enter the middle class. Wal-Mart jobs are not inherently bad jobs. Wal-Mart workers are not inherently unskilled people. They just work for a company that thinks it's more important to give the five Walton family members, who are each worth 20 billion dollars, another billion dollars a year, rather than to give every employee healthcare."

This is the short-sightedness union leadership displays. Workers work for Wal-Mart because they choose to; everyone has a choice. The Wal-Mart leadership, board of directors, and stockholders determine how profits are spent, and they have NO legal or moral obligation to GIVE every employee healthcare at the cost to stockholders. If the employees do not like this arrangement, they can leave and seek a job elsewhere. Contrary to liberal belief, employees are not owed a job, nor do they OWN that job, nor is that the ONLY job they could possibly find or have.

Contention grew much more heated over how unions should engage in politics, in the wake of George Bush's reelection last November. The AFT's proposal contains no specific recommendations for change, but presents A Peoples' Agenda, arguing that "labor's power, legitimacy and appeal are derived from enduring principles rather than from more-effective tactics and efficient structures." The items on the agenda include full employment and fair compensation, dignified work and dignified retirement, healthcare and leisure, quality public education and available child care for all, civil rights and economic opportunity, decent housing and quality public services, participation in the structure, processes and quality of work, and international solidarity upholding labor rights as human rights.

“A Peoples’ Agenda” has the qualities of a socialistic/communistic ideology. Employers will determine if full-time or part-time employment will effectively fulfill the needs of the organization, not the union. Fair compensation will be determined by the free market and supply and demand economics. Wages should NOT be artificially set high by minimum wage/living wage legislation. An employer can only offer a job and cannot force one upon anyone. People have the right NOT to take a job or quit one they feel is not dignified. Retirement is up to the individual worker to make the right choices and plan for their own retirement. Social Security is only a SAFETY NET and should not be relied on as the sole source of retirement funds. Healthcare is NOT a right and is the ultimate responsibility of the individual. Quality public education is the responsibility of government (and the NEA). Child care is a service for which there must be a demand and a price (cost) for those services; it should not be free or government subsidized. The things the U.S. have are civil rights and economic opportunities for all. Housing is what the individual makes of it, and public services depend on the community in which one lives. Participation is up to the individual; people have as much right TO vote as they do NOT to vote.
American unions are looking to European unions to model. This is a dangerous scenario. Unions are tied into government, in the socialistic business model. What unions are not considering is what this tie has done to European economies. European economies do not come close to matching that of the U.S. Worker production and efficiency are much greater in the U.S. than in any country in Europe.
Labor rights should NOT be compared to human rights. There should NOT be labor rights, other than those rights covered by current laws and legislation. If labor rights were to ever include the right to work, it would be just a step away from government controlling a business, company, or corporation. If that business were to shut down, the government could potentially MAKE it stay in business. When government controls business, societal philosophy will have changed from a free market, capitalistic economy to a communistic economy and government.

SEIU calls for reassessing labor's relationship with the Democratic Party. "Workers don't have a party right now that speaks clearly and precisely to their economic interests," Stern asserts. "Workers are looking for leadership on the economic issues that confront them every day, and don't see in either the Democrats or the Republicans the kind they want. It is up to our union and other unions to raise the questions, Where are the organizations that speak for us? Can we change the ones that are there to be more responsive to workers? If not, what do we need to do? We're not going to win elections for workers when you don't have parties that run on platforms that mean much change in their lives."

Democrats have rarely been labor friendly. Promises are made to gain votes then those promises go by the wayside because of the costly economic repercussions. Politicians will not change the basic economic employee business structure, to one closely resembling that of Europe; it is too socialistic/communistic in philosophy, and the majority of Americans would not support such legislation or the legislators that backed it.
It is time for unions to change. Unions will not survive with this old mentality. Unions have become a business and should be run as such. Offer an employer a good or service they want or need, such as human resources, and perhaps unions can survive.

Cross Posted at Blogger Network News.

I guess truth doesn't matter at Truthout.org (or any other liberal media outlet for that matter.)

A couple of examples:

The HEADLINE on the home page of Truthout.org: Swift Boat Vets to Attack A.A.R.P.
The REAL HEADLINE of the article: A New Target for Advisers to Swift Vets

So we go from the Swift Boat Vets attacking AARP to ADVISERS of the Swift Boat Vets now being hired to lobby against AARP on the Social Security issue.

A bit of a difference, I would say.

The HEADLINE on the home page of Truthout.org: U.N.: Afghanistan Becoming Chaotic Terror Haven
The REAL HEADLINE of the article: U.N.: Afghanistan Could Become Terror Haven

Here we go from Afghanistan BECOMING a terror haven to it COULD become a terror haven. A subtle yet deliberate attempt to influence the reader, especially those that peruse headlines.

You gotta love these liberal sites.

The primary is Tuesday, so go vote...for Tom Weisner. He is the best and most qualified candidate. No he is not Republican, he is a Democrat. Richard Irvin and his outside support is making this race one in which political parties are in the forefront. Unfortunately for them, there is no political party agenda issues to be addressed in Aurora, other than making it a stepping stone for Richard Irvin's political career. The majority of Aurora is Democrat even though Kane county has a Republican majority.

So we have people making this a political party issue where none exists. Some Republicans are unwilling to look at the need for Aurora and support a candidate who is most qualified simply because he is not a Republican. If Richard Irvin had the same strategy with the same issues and stances, but he labeled himself a Democrat, would he have these same supporters? Of course not. However, if Tom Weisner had the same ideas , issues and stances and labled himself a Republican, would he have the same supporters? Most likely so, and probably the majority of Wyatt's, Cunningham's, and Irvin's; it would be a runaway election for Weisner.

Another blog, One Man's Thoughts, is right leaning. He is a conservative, and I am sure he and I would normally see things from the same point of view, but he is obviously an Irvin supporter. That's fine if he would give some logical reasoning to his support of Irvin. Mostly he just slants some thing to make Weisner look bad. He mentioned the contributions to Weisner's campaign coming from supporters outside of City, yet he never mentions Irvin's. Most of Irvin's supporters are from outside Aurora. Here are some of the people who have contributed to his campaign recently:

Irvin for Mayor
A1 - $500+ 30 days prior to 2005 CP
Itemized Receipts
________________________________________ ________________________________________
Olson, Rodney
1102 Prairie Ln.
Yorkville, IL 60560 Individual Contribution
$500.00 on 2/16/2005
________________________________________ ________________________________________
T.J.J. Inc. DBA The Courtyard
3 S. 200 H 59
Warrenville, IL 60555 Individual Contribution
$800.00 on 2/16/2005
________________________________________ ________________________________________
The Jeff Diver Group LLC
1749 S. Naperville Road
Suite 102
Wheaton, IL 60107 Individual Contribution
$500.00 on 2/16/2005
________________________________________ ________________________________________
WTRO
23641 W. Andrew
Plainfield, IL 60544 Individual Contribution
$1,000.00 on 2/16/2005


________________________________________ ________________________________________
Association of Professional Police Officers
350 N. River Street
Aurora, IL 60506 Individual Contribution
$500.00 on 2/11/2005
________________________________________ ________________________________________
John Sexton Sand & Gravel Corp.
02/04/2005
Hillside, IL 60162 Individual Contribution
$1,000.00 on 2/11/2005
________________________________________ ________________________________________
Lindahl Brothers Inc.
622 East Green Street
Bensenville, IL 60106 Individual Contribution
$500.00 on 2/11/2005
________________________________________ ________________________________________
PAL Group
321 S. Center St.
Hillside, IL 60162 Individual Contribution
$1,000.00 on 2/11/2005
________________________________________ ________________________________________
Citizens for Ed Petka
P.O. Box 68
Plainfield, IL 60544 Transfer In
$1,000.00 on 2/10/2005

Hillside? Bensenville? What interest do they have in Aurora...or is their interest in the future of Aurora? We know from Beacon News articles that Irvin has talked to private developers about various properties he wants to forcibly take utilizing eminent domain. I guess the resindents of Moecherville can rest easy knowing they're out of the City and cannot be annexed, even forcibly.

Note to Tom Cross: before you back a candidate and make him one of the new premier Republican candidates for the future of Illinois, I suggest you make sure his stance on issues are roughly the same as yours. I would hate to see you guys taken advantage of, but that would be funny.

The AARP is strongly against Social Security PSAa. They claim that putting money in the stock market is as good as throwing it away. They claim that it's not broke, it won't go bust for a long time, any changes will weaken the current system. The fact is, it will go broke in the future. Are we to leave that problem to our kids and grandkids, or fix it now?

The Social Security stystem as we know it is NOT a guarantee. Benefits are NOT guaranteed. Yet all the rhetoric to convince us NOT to change it says these benefits are guaranteed.

The fact is, all the money in the "trust fund" is non-existent. It is in treasury bonds that must be paid, to the tune of $1.6 trillion. Bail out plans are said to cost $2-$3 trillion, this amount for a complete fix, once and for all, and once fixed, individuals will have their own private savings accounts that are out of the reach of Congress. It will be YOUR money.

If one were to peruse the AARP website, you'd find some interesting things. The article on saving social security has some points to consider.

Second, diverting a portion of Social Security money to private accounts means that there would be fewer dollars available to pay Social Security benefits. That would leave the whole system with less of a reserve, as well as less cash on hand to pay beneficiaries. This situation would lead to hard choices: cutting benefits, raising taxes, or doing none of the above and watching the trust fund run out of cash sooner.

According to a letter entitled "The Consequences of Social Security Privatization," signed by Congressmen Charles B. Rangel (D-NY) and the late Robert T. Matsui (D-CA), diverting a portion of workers' current Social Security contributions to private accounts "blows a hole in the Trust Funds…and directly threatens our ability to pay current retirees." They predict that under privatization the trust fund reserves will be wiped out by 2021, a full 20 years sooner than if the system had been left alone.

This is where the $2-$3 trillion comes in. It is to bridge the gap while the PSAs go into effect. There will be no reduction in benefits and no raise in taxes due to the transition costs. But they don't tell you that.

Myth: Individuals will get higher returns with private accounts.

Surely you can do better with your investments than a big bureaucratic government agency can, say those who favor private accounts. Well, the truth is, some people may do better. But who's going to pay for the care and feeding of all those who do worse?

"Under privatization, current workers will have to pay three times," says Certner. "Once to ensure the benefits for those currently at or near retirement, once for themselves, and once more for those whose investments didn't pan out." In the current Social Security system, the risk is near zero. You know it will be there regardless of what the market does. That's because U.S. Treasury bonds don't crash when the stock market does.

Some people will do better? The stocks and bonds available will be conservative to limit liability. Then again, it will be up to the individual to choose those options.

Myth: The Social Security reserves are only on paper.

Well, yes, but that paper is U.S. Treasury bonds, which have been earning a combined interest rate of about 6 percent a year. For more than 200 years, in good times and bad, during wars and depressions, American bonds have always paid off. They're one of the safest investments in the world. In 2003, some $80 billion, about 13 percent of Social Security's total income, came from the interest from these bonds.

First they claim it's a myth, then they say it's true. Then they claim American bonds HAVE ALWAYS PAID OFF! 6% a year is much better than 1.8% that SS is getting now, isn't it?

I guess the argument that really pisses me off is when AARP claims the market is risky. How risky is it? If it is too risky to put your retirement funds, then why is AARP offering THAT service to its mebers?

As the only investment program specifically for investors 50 and over, the AARP Investment Program's information, services, and investment products are designed to help you prepare for whatever may be on the horizon.

The fact to which peole MUST pay attention is that the PSAs are OPTIONAL. You can take the option to put a portion of your payroll taxes into a PSA, or you can continue in the current system as is. The best part is, once you are in a PSA, that money is YOURS, and Congress will NOT be able to spend it.

Minimum wage is not only a talking point for liberals, it is one of their problem areas. They see it as a "value" issue, trying to increase the buying power of those poor people in "poverty". What they continually fail to see and undertsand is the negative affects it has on employment rates and the economy. It does not do what they intend it to do. In fact, the unintended consequences on higher unemployment and not reaching its target audience make this a disasterous policy.

I guess when you're trying to BUY votes with the money of wage earners, the unintended negative consequences don't matter. It's the thought that counts.

Who will really benefit from Maryland's Minimum wage hike?

An analysis of data compiled by the Bureau’s Current Population Survey shows that the average family income of Maryland’s employees who would benefit from a minimum wage increase to $6.15 is over $67,000 a year. Why? Because fully 91% of employees whose wages would be increased by this proposal either live with working parents or another relative, live alone, or have a working spouse.

Just 9% of beneficiaries will be sole earners in families with children, and each of these sole earners has access to supplemental income through the federal and state earned income tax credit (EITC). Research from Michigan State University and the Federal Reserve found that the EITC is far more efficient at actually helping those in poverty than an increase in the minimum wage.

“The proposed minimum wage increase is a poorly targeted attempt to help Maryland’s low income working families,” said EPI’s director of research, Craig Garthwaite. “The vast majority of benefits will not go to poor families and the majority of poor families will not receive a benefit.”

· 41% of minimum wage earners live with a parent or relative · 25% of minimum wage earners are a dual earner in a married couple · 25% of minimum wage earners are a single earner with no kids · Just 9% of minimum wage earners are single parents with kids or a single earner in a couple with kids, and each of these sole earners has access to supplemental income through the EITC.

Do facts and logic have an impact on liberals? Obviously not since they continue to inject bad policies such as minimum wage and the living wage on businesses. All in the name of the common good and helping those that can't help themselves, right?

It's time for liberals to take classes in economics, finance, and business. Maybe then they'll learn that they're doing a disservice to all.

Dictator celebrates as North Koreans starve

Kim Jong-Il celebrated his birthday in exuberant fashion yesterday, despite worsening food rations among his people and international condemnation of his nuclear ambitions.

Here are the websites for Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. I don't see a story or a word about North Korea, why? Oh that's right, it's because Kim jong-Il would kill any reporter condemning him. It is nice to live in America, isn't it?

Reporters Without Borders has a map on its website that is a Press Freedom Barometer; please check it out. I guess if a country doesn't kill reporters for various views, why not rip that country..oh they are...in America. FREE SPEECH RULES, doesn't boys.

Some tough talk over at Daily Kos. Tough talk from wussies.

A Republican Hate Fest
by Armando
Wed Feb 16th, 2005 at 13:06:36 PST

Today is a Republican Hate Fest. First this from Powerline:
Jimmy Carter isn't just misguided or ill-informed. He's on the other side.
Nice piece of hate there from the Republicans, calling a former President of the United States, graduate of the Naval Academy, veteran, a traitor. Why do Republicans have so much hate in them?

Was the word TRAITOR in that quote anywhere? I didn't think so. I think he was referring to the fact that Carter is on the other side of RIGHT, better known as LIBERAL.

Next from the NY State GOP Chair:
[T]he Democrats simply have refused to learn the lessons of the past two election cycles, and now they can be accurately called the party of Barbara Boxer, Lynne Stewart and Howard Dean.
The New McCarthyism, first employed in last year's GOP campaign - by Cheney, Hatch and the GOP in general - is now out front, brazen and ugly. The Party of Hate shows its true face.

Brazen? Ugly? Truth hurts doesn't it? The Dems ARE the party of Boxer, sorry that offends or bruises your self-esteem. The fact is the Dems have REFUSED to accept the obvious, you lost because the majority of people do not like your policies, philosophies, and ideologies. FACE THE FACTS...or go cry about it. There is no hate involved here, only facts and logic.

Dean gives the Dem response:
[T]his is not settled. Mr. Minarik has shown neither regret nor remorse for what he said," Dean added, calling on other New York and national Republican leaders to "follow Governor Pataki's lead and rebuke Minarik."
Demand the President of the United States do so too. Afterall, he is the leader of this hate filled Republican Party.

What do the Republicans have to hate? It makes no sense. The Dems are the party of "NO". The Dems are the party of emotion, devoid of logic and facts. The Dems are the party of fear tactics. If these examples are what the Dems deem "hate", I wouldn't want to see them in front of Simon on American Idol. They'd probably break down and cry like babies...oh, they're doing that now.

Now, how did the commentors take the barrage of hate thrown at Jimmy Carter?


Insulting Jimmy Carter is outrageous (3.88 / 9)
No former President has done more for the cause of human rights, voting rights, promoting peace, and his Homes for Habitat started one of the most worthwhile projects ever created for the working poor.
by wishingwell on Wed Feb 16th, 2005 at 13:05:24 PST

I Fully Agree (none / 1)
The very idea that the Republicans are now attacking a humanitarian, Nobel Prize winner who has stepped so far beyond the line of partisanship to help all people of the world is absolutely outrageous. Republicans must be made to account for these statements, and we must not back down. Get Zenmaster Harry Reid out there to throw a few firebombs at them. We can't sit back any longer. Now is the time to fight.
The New Democrat
Envision the future. Visit The New Democrat -http://www.newdemocrat.blogdrive.com
by demburns on Wed Feb 16th, 2005 at 13:13:19 PST

Didn't Arafat get a peace prize too? (1994)

Like Bill Maher said... (4.00 / 2)
Jimmy Carter was always a christian, not a drunk turned christian. Jimmy Carter still teaches Sunday school at his church in Georgia. My little old great aunt and her church women's group drove out to go to his class one Sunday a few months ago. So cute!!
PS He's my mom's hero allow w/ Bishop Desmund Tutu.
"If you sacrifice liberty for security you get neither"
by lawstudent922 on Wed Feb 16th, 2005 at 13:53:06 PST

That's correct, Ted Kennedy was (and is) the "drunk".

He's the wrong sort of Christian (3.66 / 3)
He's got a silly focus on helping the poor, rather than punishing them for poverty. After all, if they were members of the elect, they'd have the outward signs, like wealth, wouldn't they?
by paperwight on Wed Feb 16th, 2005 at 14:01:56 PST

???????????????????????????

Didn't Howard Dean say he hated Republicans and everything they stood for? Yet the Republicans are the party of hate...I don't get it. Illogical thought confuses me.

I would be afraid of a few old guys too: from MRC: "...ABC's Peter Jennings personalized North Korea's boast that it has nuclear missiles as he asserted Thursday night that the communist regime "says it has manufactured nuclear weapons for self-defense against the Bush administration," not against the U.S."

Do they actually believe in anything?...other than Bush is Satan? From the NYT: The Fighting Moderates: "Howard Dean said in accepting the chairmanship of the Democratic National Committee. "But there is something that this administration and the Republican Party are very afraid of. It is that we may actually begin fighting for what we believe."

HOW DARE HE!?? SELF-SUFFICIET? ARE YOU INSANE!!??? From the Boston Globe: Housing time limit may cut out poorest: "About 4,700 of the poorest individuals and families in Massachusetts would be at risk of losing their state-subsidized housing after three years, and many would be required to work while receiving housing benefits under a proposal buried in Governor Mitt Romney's budget plan.
The administration says that imposing a three-year limit on people who participate in the Massachusetts Rental Voucher Program fits with Romney's emphasis on helping the poor become self-sufficient, a goal he is also pushing for welfare recipients."

Well..uh...now that Bush...uh...is President...well..I guess we can print this: From the Washington Times: Repainting the jobs picture: "New employment data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) revise recent economic history and lend validity to household-collected employment, which has risen faster in this economic recovery than employer-reported payroll jobs."

Oh...and this..I guess... From WSJ: Economy 'in the Zone' . . . "Investors are beginning to suspect that the favorable financial environment may be sustained, despite consensus forecasts suggesting that recent market gains have been too good to last. More than anything else, the key to the outlook is whether low inflation can be maintained through a combination of fundamental forces and Fed resolve. Viewed this way, economic and market prospects are better than the analysts' consensus."

Enjoy.

Special release from the U.S. Department of Defense

“WASHINGTON (NNS) -- The Navy will commission its newest nuclear-powered attack submarine Jimmy Carter on Saturday, Feb. 19, during an 11 a.m. EST ceremony at Naval Submarine Base New London, Groton, Conn.
The attack submarine Jimmy Carter honors the 39th president of the United States.”

The submarine was also built in the “spirit” of former President Carter. It will have no weapons, and, contrary to the press release, it will not be nuclear-powered, but solar-powered, which my cause future problems. It will have a plaque honoring the late “humanitarian” Yasser Arafat. Special seats will be installed for visiting diplomats such as Hugo Chavez and Kim Jong-Il.

This is the second highest honor for the former President. Last year, the 56,000,000-bed President Jimmy Carter Home for the Incurable Pacifist-Liberal was filled to capacity shortly after the November presidential election. Congratulations Jimmy! A well-deserved honor!

We all know Bush screwed up Iraq. We’ve heard about the failure to put the appropriate number of boots on the ground over there. We’ve heard about the failure to safeguard weapons dumps allowing insurgents to help themselves. We’ve heard of the failure of the American Army to stifle the insurgency. We’ve heard about the failure to plan, execute, and exit this war. But it’s the failure we haven’t heard about that concerns me the most.

Bush has failed in the WAR FOR OIL! What happened to the OIL? We were supposed to take over the oil fields. We were supposed to take over the pumping, collection, and distribution of Iraq’s OIL. We were supposed to fund this war with this OIL. We were supposed to have their OIL. Where is it!? MY GOD! Can’t Bush do anything right in this WAR FOR OIL!?

Have you seen the price of gas these days? Bush was supposed to cut a deal with the Saudis to lower the price of oil just before the election to ensure his reelection. John Kerry and the Democrats said so, and Bush couldn’t do that right either! This Iraq war is supposed to be about OIL! Yet, the price of oil is still high! Is it Halliburton? Is that it? It is Halliburton isn’t it? They are keeping the price of oil artificially high aren’t they? They are PROFITTING from this WAR FOR OIL aren’t they!?

Excuse me while I go push my Excursion to the grocery store…I need some aspirin (when is aspirin going to be covered under my insurance plan?).

Before the memories of Bush's win of a SECOND term as President, and before many liberals forget how much they hate America, and before liberals forget their pledge to move to Canada, I am starting a new non-profit organization called "Limos for Liberals."

I am looking for volunteers to drive liberals to the Canadian border. I am offering my Excursion; it can fit eight liberals. If you would like to sign up as a Limo driver, or would just like to donate some gas money, or if you know of any liberals you want to get rid of, please call 1-888-ITS-SOCI-ALIZ-EDMED-ICIN-ETIME (it's a Canadian number) and leave a message. Perhaps you would like to sponsor a Liberal; you can find out about that program, Sponsor a Liberal Team (SALT), at Sticks and Stones.

Remember, this is not just for liberals, but for a better America.

Thank you.

From the Boston Globe: Being Howard Dean

"House and Senate Democratic leaders once again were accusing President Bush of giving "tax cuts to the wealthy," sending jobs overseas and driving budget deficits through the roof." Will this pathetic rhetoric ever cease?

"Politics in both Europe and the United States have unhitched the left from its trusted partner, democracy." The Boston Globe actually has one from the other side.

"...a Saudi official said extremist teachings, not poverty or unemployment, are the root causes of terrorism in the kingdom,..." Finally, someone is telling it like it is.

"Government officials and migrants' rights advocates Thursday criticized an immigration control bill approved by the U.S. House that, among other things, calls for the completion of a wall along America's westernmost border with Mexico.
The measure, which U.S. representatives passed by a 261-161 vote, also calls for denying drivers' licenses to undocumented migrants and limiting political asylum requests."

"Germany's federal prosecutor says the allegations that United States Defense Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and other top Washington brass were responsible for Abu Ghraib must be investigated in the US, not under German war crimes laws. The decision deals a blow to the American group that brought the case, but it could ease German-American tensions." Sorry CCR and ACLU.

"A Pentagon investigation and newly declassified documents confirm detainees' accounts of the use of sexual tactics by female interrogators at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, The Washington Post reported on Thursday.
At least eight detainees, in documents or through their lawyers, have accused female interrogators of violating Muslim taboos about sex and contact with women, including rubbing their bodies against the men and touching them provocatively, the newspaper said." Imagine, we have to pay for stuff like this here!

I hereby offer my blog to be your blog-whore. To use and abuse as you see fit and just as you like it. Do you like it rough, it can be rough? Do you like it quiet, loud, on the side? We can give it to you any way you want it.

The goal of blog whoring is simply to make money, much like some of the liberal blogs receiving money from the left to deliver the left’s propaganda.

Here is a list of services I am offering:

Hand Job- Every post will be hand-typed; no machines (other than a computer) will be used in the propaganda creation. Voice activated software will NOT be tolerated.

Blow Job- You need to blow smoke up someone’s ass? Maybe you want us to divert his attention while you do something else, something you don’t want them to see or notice. Our posting can and will be as eye-catching and as ass-kissing as necessary.

Rim Job- You need propaganda spread around the Pacific Rim? No problem, we have software that can generate any language or dialect from that part of the world.

Around the World- Perhaps you want to spread your “word” around the world in general. We have links and web-hosting services all over the globe. No country is too big or too small.

Snake Bite- Illegal immigration is a hot topic in the Southwest. Would you like to spread propaganda against illegals? In favor of illegals? It doesn’t matter, we have no ethics, as long as the check clears, or you use Paypal. Perhaps you want to go after the white man, whatever you want, whatever you pay for; that’s what you’ll get.

Spanking- We will utilize various resources to come up with adjectives and adverbs to verbally abuse anyone. Just point them out and our rhetoric and abuse knows no bounds. We will give them the verbal spanking and thrashing of their pathetic little lives. Logic, common sense, and debate are out the window. It will be a nonstop spanking.

Humiliation- We also offer humiliation. We will not only humiliate them on their website or blog, but we will humiliate them at every website and blog we can reach. We have a bank of ethnic and socially unacceptable slurs. Political Correctness will be nowhere in sight or mind.

Sadism- We will not only verbally abuse others; we will take pictures of said abuses and send them to you, so that you may enjoy their pain privately in the comfort of your own home (or wherever you go to enjoy such things). It’s all up to you.

Masochism- Perhaps YOU would like us to verbally harass and abuse YOU. It doesn’t matter to us. We would be more than happy to give you a good tongue lashing.

Remember, the more cash you have available, the more we are available to be at your service.

I want you liberals to teach me a lesson in economics.

First, some parameters:

The government does not have any money.
Wage earners (those that work for a living and earn money) pay taxes.
The government collects taxes and uses that money to pay for its operations and programs.
The less taxes collected means the less money the government has to spend.
Definition of cost: 1 a : the amount or equivalent paid or charged for something : PRICE b : the outlay or expenditure (as of effort or sacrifice) made to achieve an object
2 : loss or penalty incurred especially in gaining something

Question #1:

How does a tax cut COST the government money?

Another way to think of this: you get an allowance from your Dad of $5.00 a week, just for being you. One week, your Dad decides to reduce that amount to $3.00 a week. Does this cut COST you $2.00?

A tax cut of 10% across the board goes into effect. Employee A's taxes are reduced for $100,000 to $90,000 a year. Employee B's taxes are reduced from $10,000 to $9,000 a year. Now Employee A is STILL paying the same amount of taxes relative to Employee B. Is this a fair tax cut? Should both Employees receive a tax cut of equal amounts? Does this tax cut BENEFIT one Employee over another?

Let me hear you!

If you don't listen to Michael Medved, you should. I don't know how he does it, but he gets the most obnoxious liberal callers. Today was CLASSIC! In his first hour, he discussed the Democrats upbeat demeanor over having Howard Dean as their new DNC chairman. Dean will, allegedly, take the Dems in a whole new direction and NOT back down from a fight with the Republicans. So MM asked his liberal listeners to state what NEW proposals, issues, or positions the Democrats will have or what they would like to see. The NEW issues they want the Dems to address went as follows:

Caller #1: We HATE George Bush!

Caller #2: Bush shouldn't steal our social security.

Caller #3:

Caller #4: The dems should eliminate welfare and stop illegal immigrants from coming over the border.
Michael Medved: Did you know that those are Republican issues? The Democrats don't want to eliminate welfare and they want to give illegals a driving license and the right to vote.
Caller #4: Nuh-uh
MM: Yes, you seem to have republican ideals.
Caller #4: Nope, no way.

Caller #5 was a friend of MM and author of "Axis of Weasels"

Caller #6: We want SOCIALISM, that's what we want.

It was a classic HOUR of radio, and it took an hour to get a liberal to FINALLY admit what their agenda is all about, SOCIALISM.

The more liberal blogs I see, the more I need to taunt these people. I really don't understand their complete lack of logic and intelligence in the face of facts and evidence.

I was surfing this evening and found this blog: LEFT is RIGHT (blogging against The Bush War)

The blogger had this preface: "Here is a comment I left at this site, in response to remarks by stereotypical Republicans about why people should be allowed to have their own savings/investments rather than the government "forcing" them to put aside $ for retirement."

Followed by the inevitable incompetence: "A comment was made earlier regarding Social Security and a person's right/need/whatever to have their own savings/investment accounts. Well the problem for the majority of Americans, when they retire, is that they will have no savings/investments. I know this is a hard concept for Republicans to fathom since poor Republicans don't actually exist. But a large portion of our working class makes barely enough take-home pay to meet basic needs of food, clothing and shelter. In fact, this portion has been increasing rapidly since 2000 due to cutbacks in federally-subsidized social programs necessitated by tax cuts to the rich with the consequental reduction in tax revenues, and the increased costs of the military and the pre-emptive invasion of a relatively defenseless nation, among other things. Anyway, since so many Americans are unable to save due to lack of disposable income, the Social Security safety net is the only guaranteed source of livelihood for the elderly.

After 4 years we sane people realize that virtually anything that Bush wants to fix is going to end up in far worse shape than if he just left it alone. If you need proof, we have those newly-failing causes known as: Iraq, the U.S. economy, the environment, education, civil rights and liberties, foreign relations, nuclear proliferation, national security and homelessness, to name just a few. Now, if we can just get Bush and his neocon cronies to keep their greedy hands out of the Social Security till, maybe we can at least save one of our socially-advanced and successful institutions."

Now let's look at the FACTS: The majority of Americans WON'T have savings/investments? Wow, someone that sees the future, maybe that's why libs are so smart. The FACT is the majority af Americans CAN have savings for their retirement, it's called fiscal responsibility, and I believe in the individual when that individual knows they don't have the government to look after them.

How about this: "...a large portion of our working class makes barely enough take-home pay to meet basic needs of food, clothing and shelter." The FACT is they do this with FICA taken out. They can save that money if they had it to invest. Of course, I believe in people. I believe people are smart enough to take care of themselves.


How about this gem: "...since 2000 due to cutbacks in federally-subsidized social programs necessitated by tax cuts to the rich with the consequental reduction in tax revenues,..." Tax cuts to the rich lowered tax REVENUES which therefore reduced ENTITLEMENTS. Usually, less taxes collected from wage earners means the government has less to spend, and since the constitution does NOT call for ENTITLEMENT PROGRAMS, they should be the first to be cut. Another FACT, tax cuts were an equal percentage, so mathematically, someone that pays $100,000 in taxes and gets a 10% tax cut, will pay $90,000, compared to someone that pays $10,000 in taxes and gets a 10% cut then pays $9,000. Hmmm, it seems to me the rich guy is paying 10 TIMES THE TAXES AS THE OTHER GUY, YET THE LIBERALS CLAIM IT'S A TAX CUT FOR THE RICH!!! (Liberals always flunked math, finance and economics.)

What about this claim: "Anyway, since so many Americans are unable to save due to lack of disposable income, the Social Security safety net is the only guaranteed source of livelihood for the elderly." The richest group of Americans are over 55 years of age!

And Finally, these pearls of intellectual truth: "we have those newly-failing causes known as: Iraq, the U.S. economy, the environment, education, civil rights and liberties, foreign relations, nuclear proliferation, national security and homelessness, to name just a few." Iraq is a failure? Is that you Ted? PUT THE ALCOHOL DOWN, AND GET OUT OF THE CAR! The economy is a failure? Unemployment at 5.2% and the economy is growing. Where do these people get this stuff? Does Move-on. org have a news site? National Security? I don't believe we've been attacked again IN the U.S. since 9/11, have we? Homelessness? Home ownership is at an all-time high! Although, rent controls (another liberal socialist program) has done major damage to rental units and landlords in general, thereby decreasing rental units in areas that utilize this program. Education? Dems just throw money at it. Schools must be held accountable. Competition will drive performance. Bush wants school vouchers, Dems don't. Blame the libs for bad schools. Foreign relations? Seems that once Iraqis voted, successfully, (Dems didn't think it could happen) and Rice took over for Powell, France and the rest of the Euroweenies want to play nice, hmmm. Nuclear Proliferation? Talk to Clinton and Albright, and they'll tell you how THEY allowed North Korea to build their nuclear weapons program. Again we thank the Dems for that. Name one civil right YOU have had taken away...

Why don't Liberals see the truth? Oh that's right, liberalism is a disease, it make the afflicted think and speak without logic or intelligence.

At least the French recognize the fact that it's socialist labor policies have been a failure. It seemed to work as their economy grew, that was a theoretical given, however, as the economy leveled out and productivity fell, it was a certain failure. It should have been obvious from the start that it was not a long-term solution to unemployment. That is the major problem with socialistic ideas and programs, they fail in the long-term.

Here is an article from Expatica: "Reform of French 35-hour working week sails through".

"Coming shortly after three days of street protests by state sector unions, Saturday's demonstrations suggested growing public discontent at France's sluggish growth and the strains caused by adaptation to the global economy."

Dear People of Massachusetts,

WHY?

Why John Kerry? Why Ted Kennedy? For years you have voted these two morons into the Senate of the greatest country in the world. Why? Is there NO ONE better, more qualified, more logical, more SOBER?

It is time you, the voters of Massachusets, stand up and be accountable for your actions. To continually vote these two into office is either a perverse joke played on the rest of the country, or a serious lack of judgment and good common sense. I ask you now to please make amends to the rest of the country. I believe an apology is in order.

As a show of good faith, I will offer the first olive branch. As a citizen of Illinois, I hereby APOLOGIZE for the election of Dick Durbin to the United States Senate. I would not apologize for Pat Fitzgerald, he was a great Senator and we are sorry to see him retire. We have elected Barak Obama (it's pronounced just as it's spelled Ted) in his stead, and as of now, he is still an unknown. If, in the future, an apology is required, I will use this forum to do so.

I anxiously await your expeditious apology.

Cracker in Illinois

I'm happy that you are all so concerned about social security. I'm happy that you're concerned for my welfare. I'm glad you want to be sure I get my money when I retire.

Therefore, the best way to make SURE I get my Social Security money is NOT TO TAKE IT FROM ME IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

From the New York Times: "Trim Deficit? Only if Bush Uses Magic", By EDMUND L. ANDREWS, Published: February 7, 2005

Please click link for complete article. I have taken excerpts on which to comment.

"On top of that, Mr. Bush's plan to replace part of Social Security with private savings accounts could require additional trillions of dollars in borrowing over the next several decades."

Could require additional trillions? Whether one wants to admit it or not, money must be found somewhere to cover the congressional “IOUs” that have acquired over the years.

"The cornerstone of Mr. Bush's budget strategy is a belief that vigorous economic growth, spurred by supply-side tax cuts that were designed to provide incentives for upper-income Americans to produce more wealth, will generate big jumps in tax revenue that gradually reduce the deficit."

That is correct. As far as I know, no one has EVER received a job from a poor person.

"Through most of the 1990's, government spending grew at a snail's pace. But government spending soared during President Bush's first term and is expected to keep growing rapidly as the nation's baby boomers start to claim old-age benefits."

Gee, a dotcom bubble that BURST and then the country gets attacked by terrorists, not to mention the recession, and a war, but he’s right, it’s all Bush’s fault.

"In the 1990's, the biggest jump in revenues came from high-income taxpayers who made enormous profits in the stock market bubble that ended in 2000. But Mr. Bush's tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 reduced rates on the wealthiest taxpayers and cut in half the taxes on dividends and capital gains, making it all but impossible for revenues to rise at a substantially faster pace than economic growth."

As I recall, those that made ENORMOUS profits, also LOST ENORMOUS AMOUNTS OF MONEY when the bubble BURST. Government revenues = taxes (you’ve got to love the liberal way of thinking.)

"Mr. Bush's own projections leave out the cost of rolling back the alternative minimum tax, a parallel tax that is expected to ensnare tens of millions of middle-income households as incomes rise with inflation. Republicans and Democrats both want to prevent such a trap, but a fix would cost roughly $500 billion over the next 10 years."

There is a COST to a tax rollback? It would COST $500 billion? Does he mean the government would COLLECT $500 billion LESS? Again, the fiscal thought process of the left is astounding.

"When Mr. Bush unveils his budget plan on Monday, White House officials hope to focus public attention on his proposals to cut scores of domestic programs: Medicaid, housing programs and Amtrak subsidies, among others. But while many of those cuts would be severe, their impact on the deficit would be small."

At least it’s a start. Every little bit helps. Even a penny profit is still a profit.

"In all, Mr. Bush has vowed to cut or eliminate 150 government programs. But Republican Congressional analysts predicted on Friday that those cuts would be unlikely to save more than $15 billion. And even those savings may not materialize."

I guess if those programs are cut and still make no difference on the budget, then perhaps we should never have had those programs to begin with.

"Last year, Mr. Bush called for cutting or eliminating 65 programs, for a total projected saving of $4.8 billion. But Congress agreed to eliminate only four of those programs, for a savings of less than $200 million. "

Ahhh, so it’s the fault of Congress and not necessarily Bush’s.

"The other side of Mr. Bush's equation - higher tax revenues that result from faster growth - is unlikely to fill the gap. Despite strong economic growth and soaring corporate profits last year, federal tax revenues amounted to only 16.3 percent of the total economy, comparable with levels in the 1950's and far below the level of 21 percent reached during the stock market bubble in 2000."

Yes, we were overtaxed in the 1990’s. Wasn’t Clinton president then?

"What's unrealistic is that they are trying to fund a government with today's demands on a 1950's stream of revenue," said Robert Bixby, executive director of the Concord Coalition, a research group that advocates fiscal discipline by the government."

No, we’re trying to fund a government that should have fewer demands on it, fewer entitlements.

"Tax revenues soared far beyond expectations during the economic boom and stock market bubble of the late 1990's, but budget analysts say there is little likelihood of repeating that feat in this decade."

Why isn’t he mentioning the BURST of that bubble and its effects on the economy? Oh, that’s right, it’s the New York Times.

"One reason is that Mr. Bush's tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 went largely to the nation's wealthiest taxpayers, the same people who accounted for the unexpected flood of tax revenue last time around. White House officials are already counting on tax revenues to surge by at least $200 billion this year, an increase of about 10 percent, and to climb more gradually after that."

Why do tax cuts always seem to go to the nation’s wealthiest taxpayers? Is it because THEY PAY MOST OF THE TAXES?!!!

"But even Mr. Bush's conservative allies have warned that those inflows will not be enough to cover the continued growth in overall government spending. Brian Riedl, budget analyst at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative research group here, estimated that deficits would remain around $400 billion through 2009 if current spending trends on Iraq and major benefit programs continued."

Perhaps then, we should eliminate major benefit programs.

"For Mr. Bush to fulfill his promise of cutting the deficit in half by 2009, Mr. Riedl said, the president would have to cut $200 billion from domestic programs that now cost less than $500 billion a year."

And?

"There is no way you can reach that goal by cutting only discretionary spending," Mr. Riedl said. "You have to go after entitlements as well."

NOW THERE’S AN IDEA! WOOHOO! SOMEONE GETS IT! CUT THE DAMN ENTITLEMENTS!!!

"About two-thirds of the $2.3 trillion federal budget now goes to entitlement programs. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that costs for Medicare will rise $55 billion in 2005, to $380 billion. Social Security outlays are expected to rise to $540 billion, from $517 billion."

Two-thirds of $2.3 trillion goes to entitlements?! That’s roughly $1.5 trillion to entitlements! Democrats spend 40 years as the majority in Congress, and this is the result.

"You can't get there from here unless you look at entitlements," Mr. Gregg said last Thursday. "It's for the same reason that Willy Sutton said he robbed banks: Because that's where the money is."

AHHH, SOMEONE SAID IT AGAIN! ENTITLEMENTS ARE WHERE OUR MONEY IS GOING!

"For starters, Mr. Bush wants to permanently extend his tax cuts rather than allow them to expire by 2011. That would cost about $1.8 trillion over the next decade, and most of the cost would occur after 2009."

Oh boy, here we go again. Permanent tax cuts would COST $1.8 trillion over the next decade? COST? I believe a tax CUT doesn’t COST a dime! Can someone get these liberals a dictionary and a book on economics?

"If Congress prevents an expansion of the alternative minimum tax, which Mr. Bush has said he wants, the cost would be $500 billion over the next decade and well over half of those costs would in the second five years."

COST of tax cuts would be $500 billion? COST?

"Those blows would be hitting the budget at the same time that the costs of the new Medicare prescription drug programs approach $100 billion a year and as the flood of baby boomers start to claim Social Security and Medicare entitlements."

It doesn’t get clearer than this: “…start to claim Social Security and Medicare
entitlements.”

It is always amusing (and sad) to see how liberals view government, taxes, and the populace. It's always the "government's money", not the taxpayer's money. Big government is revered while the individual and their rights are viewed with disgust. It is the individual and their control and power over their own choices and future that is the biggest threat to liberals tand THEIR government.

From the London Times: "Bin Laden’s film maker sues Michael Moore"

"A FORMER close associate of Osama Bin Laden is to sue the film-maker Michael Moore for using his footage of the Al-Qaeda chief in the documentary Fahrenheit 9/11."

"He said: “Now I find that Mr Moore’s film is being distributed in America and in other countries and I have received nothing.”"

"He filed a petition with the Egyptian public attorney seeking his intellectual property rights and asking for the film to be confiscated until the financial issues are settled. He says the public attorney confirmed his rights after hearing from witnesses and experts."

I wonder what Michael Moore thinks of this.

I just saw a GREAT commercial from Anheuser Busch. It was set in Grand Central Station (I believe). People (waiting commuters) started clapping, a woman looks up to see what's going on, and soldiers are walking in (as if they are coming home). You see some soldiers nod, some say thanks, some get tears in their eyes, and some commuters come up and shake their hands.

What a great commercial. If only Vietnam veterans were treated the same...as they should have been.

Everyone must love liberals. They have fight, determination, and perseverance.

Liberals have compassion: from World Net Daily: "Biden: Consider Iran's 'emotional needs'".
"As Tehran raise fears with its increasing nuclear capability, the world must address Iran's emotional needs and agree to a nonagression pact, says Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del. Greenway wrote yesterday: "Senator Joseph Biden said that even if Iran was a full democracy like India, it would want nuclear capability, like India. What the world needed to address was Iran's emotional needs, he said, with a nonaggression pact." MY GOD, they only want nuclear capability! It's not as if they're asking us to PAY for it. Can we not show a little compassion? Do we always have to be the bully?

Liberals are always looking for change and support for that change: From Media Research Center: "CBS Takes on Bush SS Plan: "Takes the Safety Out of Safety Net".
"He claims it would guarantee future retirees a nest egg," John Roberts relayed before countering that "as the last market crash proved, investments are hardly a sure thing." Change is hard and difficult to begin with, where would we be without the support of liberals during change?

Liberals always use logic and common sense, and will never succumb to conspiracy theories: From MRC: "A Faked Hug? U.S. Coerced Iraqi Voters? MSNBC’s Chris Matthews Pushes Crackpot Conspiracies".
"Unlike Dan Rather, MSNBC’s Chris Matthews at least doesn’t deny that he brings his liberal opinions with him when he anchors the third-place cable news networks live coverage of political events. But in recent days he’s been using his perch to suggest wacky conspiracy theories that might make even Howard Dean blush.
"...the embrace of a mother whose Marine son was killed in Fallujah and an Iraqi human rights activist who braved insurgent threats to vote on Sunday — was cynically engineered by President Bush “to push his numbers on Social Security reform, just to get his general appeal up a bit, a couple of points.” "
"Matthews was also out in far left field a few hours after eight million Iraqis voted in Sunday’s free elections, wondering if our troops had bullied them into making the trip to the polls: “Was there no pushing by American soldiers or coalition forces to make people vote or discourage them from not voting?"

Liberals will never succumb to conspiracy theories, Part II: From Truthout.org: "The Emperor's New Hump", By Dave Lindorff: "The New York Times killed a story that could have changed the election - because it could have changed the election."

"On Thursday, just three days after that first expos'the paper was set to run a second, perhaps more explosive piece, exposing how George W. Bush had worn an electronic cueing device in his ear and probably cheated during the presidential debates. Now, like the mythic weapons of mass destruction that were the raison d'etre for the Iraq War, the Times is thus far claiming that the Bush Bulgegate story never existed in the first place."
"At that point, Dr. Robert M. Nelson, a 30-year Jet Propulsion Laboratory veteran who works on photo imaging for NASA's various space probes and currently is part of a photo enhancement team for the Cassini Saturn space probe, entered the picture. Nelson recounts that after seeing the Salon story on the bulge, professional curiosity prompted him to apply his skills at photo enhancement to a digital image he took from a videotape of the first debate. He says that when he saw the results of his efforts, which clearly revealed a significant T-shaped object in the middle of Bush's back and a wire running up and over his shoulder, he realized it was an important story."

Finally, Liberals know more than our founding fathers ever could. It's a wonder that Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, and the rest of the fathers of our nation did anything right. From Truthout.org: "Feinstein Gathering Co-Sponsors For Bill to Abolish Electoral College", By Matthew Cardinale.
"U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) is currently gathering original co-sponsors for her proposed bill to abolish the Electoral College system for the U.S. Presidential Election, and to replace it with a direct vote for the Presidency, according to Feinstein press secretary, Adam Vogt."
"The Electoral College has been described by critics as confusing, complicated, alienating, diversionary, unnecessary, undemocratic, and moreover, as hypocritical to the fundamental principles of American governance, which has otherwise been a global leader in democracy."
"Far worse, according to 49 state constitutions, the entire sum of Electoral College votes of a particular state goes to the candidate selected by a majority of citizen votes. That is, all the votes do, not just the majority."
"It's because it was set up that way by design. The Electoral College is the institutionalization of the distrust of the majority. No wonder the majority of Americans don't even vote anymore. Is that what Madison wanted? Maybe so."

You have to love liberals...sort of like the retarded uncle you have that nobody talks about...he just drools over in the corner of the room during family get-togethers.

From the New York Times: "Iraqi Police Use Kidnappers' Videos to Fight Crime", does anyone other than liberals see anything wrong with this? What goes around, comes around. "In one scene, the videotape shows three kidnappers with guns and a knife, preparing to behead a helpless man who is gagged and kneeling at their feet.
In the next, it is one of the kidnappers who is in detention, his eyes wide with fear, his lips trembling, as he speaks to his interrogators.
"How do I say this?" says the kidnapper, identified as an Egyptian named Abdel-Qadir Mahmoud, holding back tears. "I am sorry for everything I have done."

From the Independent On-Line: "Dutch unveil new ploy to tackle immigrant issue: a culture exam". "Would-be immigrants into the Netherlands are to face an exam testing their knowledge of everything from Dutch language and history to its laws on topless sunbathing before they can take up residence."

Can you imagine the uproar if someone here in America proposed this? The screams of racisim, nationalism, and ethnocentrism from the liberals would be deafening. I wonder what type of questions we might ask...if anyone has suggestions, feel free to post a comment.

From the New York Times: "Social Security Poker: It's Time for Liberals to Ante Up". He was making sense until this, "But what if we paid for Social Security reform by keeping the inheritance tax? Or by undoing Mr. Bush's tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans? Rescuing Social Security strikes me as a good use for that money - while paying for it with debt would not secure our children's future, but mortgage it." So he is suggesting TAKING wealth from those that have it and give that wealth to those that don't, so they can build wealth...sounds like income re-distribution to me, socialism. Punish the successful because some in this country are not successful. I prefer my Sponsorship program (see post below).

And finally, no post is complete without attacking the socialists.

From FAZ.NET C0744F8695B3E0BE5A30A620/Doc~EB97C00F0846343A281A19C7A50561B3D~ATpl~Ecommon~Scontent.html">FAZ.NET: "German unemployment tops five million". "Official unemployment rose to above five million in January, the highest level since the Second World War." And how is the government handling this? "In January, the government introduced a new form of long-term unemployment benefits for welfare recipients and the long-term jobless. The Federal Labor Office on Tuesday said that 4.09 million Germans had signed up for this new assistance, well above government projections. Long-term jobless aid kicks in after regular benefits from unemployment insurance run out." It pays not to work, thank GOD for socialism.

From Expatica: "French gear up for marches against 35-hour week reform". OK, the French wanted to cut unemployment numbers, so with the help of labor, they devised a policy to cut the number of hours of work per week. What does this do? It means companies had to hire more people to maintain the level of productivity. What an INGENIUS idea to cut unemployment. What this program actually did was to reduce productivity and increase unemployment. This is what happens when government gets involved in labor issues and when labor becomes involved in government policy-making.

So now reform is needed. What does labor think? "However union leaders and opposition Socialist party (PS) politicians accuse the government of trying to turn back the clock, and jeopardising social progress via an ideological obsession with labour market flexibility." HOW DARE MARKET FLEXIBILITY JEOPARDIZE SOCIAL PROGRESS! Good luck to the French.

Janeane Garofalo showed her true colors, those of an unpatriotic, liberal-socialist-democrat that hates her country, freedom, and liberty.



"The inked fingers was disgusting," Air America radio talk show host Janeane Garofalo declared on MSNBC in denouncing Republican lawmakers who, before and after the State of the Union, showed off an inked finger meant to demonstrate solidarity with Iraqi voters who dipped a finger in ink when they voted. To mock the display, Garofalo soon held up her hand in a Nazi salute as she predicted: "The inked fingers and the position of them, which is gonna be a Daily Show photo already, of them signaling in this manner [Nazi salute], as if they have solidarity with the Iraqis who braved physical threats against their lives to vote as if somehow these inked-fingered Republicans have something to do with that."

This is the face and voice of the liberal left, currently creating and fostering the socialistic and progressive views the Democratic Party will be forging into the 2008 elections. I don't think the Republicans have anything to worry about.

The cure for Social Security is simple, involves everyone, will be a caring solution that brings people together. The head of this program will be one who has a history of helping others, selflessly and endlessly; her name is Sally Struthers. The name of this new program will be SPONSORSHIP.

SPONSORSHIP will be quite simple. Instead of working people paying a tax that is then re-destributed as a benefit to the retired, upon retirement, the retiree will be sponsored by a working person. That working person will then be responsible for the finances and welfare of their sponsor. This way, the worker will be able to control the amount of money spent on the retiree.

Cable? I don't think so. Golf? Tennis? Casual Walking? No way, costs are too high. Spam CAN be called steak. I'll give you an allowance if you do some chores around my house. Hey, this is getting better all the time. You missed a spot grandma. It's potted meat. Medication? No thanks.

I have called liberals various names in this blog. From now on, I will consolidate all those names into a neat little acronym. Liberals-socialist-democrats will hereby be called, LSDs (quite appropriate, I think).

WASHINGTON UNDER SEIGE!!!!
Washington D.C. has come under seige from a rogue unit of Islamofascists. This picture shows several terrorsits ready to attack. It is not sure how many of these terrorists are loose in Washington. Authorities say, "If people need to go outside, be careful where you step."


Just a thought on the recent global warming WARNING. Global warming will take a dramatic turn around 2026 according to sources. My experts have decided to propogate the "Democrat Principle" on this potential future disaster: "It's not a problem NOW, so why worry about it?"

I can't think of a group of individuals more upbeat and positive than liberals. Here are a few heart warming stories on the Iraq elections:


Train wreck of an election

By James Carroll | February 1, 2005

"Iraq is a train wreck. The man who caused it is not in trouble. Tomorrow night he will give his State of the Union speech, and the Washington establishment will applaud him. Tens of thousands of Iraqis are dead. More than 1,400 Americans are dead. An Arab nation is humiliated. Islamic hatred of the West is ignited. The American military is emasculated."

US military is the big threat now

By Thomas Oliphant, Globe Columnist | February 1, 2005

"The biggest threat is not an Iran-style theocracy ruthlessly imposed by the majority Shi'ites and triggering civil war. Nor is the biggest threat the continuing violence and havoc wreaked by a dangerous insurgency. The biggest threat stems from the huge, omnipresent, overwhelming presence of the US military as an occupying force "

Triumph and Tragedy for Iraq
By Robert Fisk

"But of course it is also Iraq's loss and the Shi'ites' loss too - and possibly America's loss. For without that vital minority component, who will believe in the new parliament or the constitution it is supposed to produce or the next government it is supposed to create?

I asked a Sunni Muslim security guard what he thought would be the future of his country.

He had not voted - in many Sunni cities only a third of the polling stations opened - but he had thought a lot about this question.

"You cannot give us 'democracy' just like this. This is one of your Western, foreign dreams," he said. "Before, we had Saddam and he was a cruel man and he treated us cruelly. But what will happen after this election is that you will give us lots of little Saddams."

Elections Are Not Democracy
By Fareed Zakaria

"The United States has essentially stopped trying to build a democratic order in Iraq, and is simply trying to gain stability and legitimacy."

Some Just Voted for Food
By Dahr Jamail

"Ra'ad, 23, said he saw the man who distributed monthly food rations in his district at his polling station. "The food dealer, who I know personally of course, took my name and those of my family who were voting," he said. "Only then did I get my ballot and was allowed to vote."