Wednesday, March 16, 2011

Here is the winner of head up the ass for today

Princess Pelosi's quote couldn't top this braindead quote, which illustrates the brilliance of the liberal mentality. Here's the context. Twitter is currently headquartered in San Francisco. But it is thinking of moving its headquarters to a city where its taxes would be lower. As of right now, Twitter has to pay a 1.5% payroll tax in San Francisco. It is considering moving to where it does not have to pay the payroll tax .. unless San Francisco approves a six-year tax break. The vote on that tax break is today.

So this brings us to John Avalos, a member of the Board of Supervisors Budget and Finance Committee. He says that the proposal doesn't seem fair, considering the financial struggles of residents in his district. He says, "Who are the [Twitter] investors? Probably some of the wealthiest people in this country. And we are giving them more wealth."

"We are giving them more wealth." This is a typical theme of liberals. When you allow people to keep more of the money they have earned by lowering taxes, liberals can be depended on to make mindless comments about "giving" to the rich. The liberal philosophy just does not want to recognize the concept of earned income. Why not? You need to remember that liberals are all about redistributing wealth. To support the concept of government mandated wealth redistribution you have to create a false reality where all wealth is owned by government. After all, how are you going to distribute or redistribute something that belongs to someone else? So by operating on the premise that all wealth belongs to the government ... or to "the people," as liberals might prefer phrasing it ... you can make asinine statements about "giving" money to people or companies through tax breaks.

Remember folks, government creates NO wealth. Government SEIZES wealth. The government cannot "give" anything to anyone that it does not first take from someone else. But according to this moonbat in San Francisco, a tax break means that we are "giving them more wealth." Unbelievable. Where do we find these people? Oh that's right .. in San Francisco.


Princess Pelosi came close to winning the award for rectal-cranial inversion moment of the day with this comment ..

"Democrats have long fought for fiscal responsibility as a top priority of this Congress."

It doesn't take a government educated union goon to figure out that she is full of moosesqueeze. Under Nancy Pelosi's 111th Congress, federal spending increased by 21%. That's just in two years! In 2010, Congress spent $3.45 trillion, which was the second largest spending spree on record ... second only to the spending spree of the 111th Congress in 2009. Are you calling this fiscal responsibility? But wait, there's more!

When the Democrats took control of Congress in 2007, the debt held by the public was 36.2% of GDP. It rose to 40.2% the next year. This year it will be about 63.6%, next year 68.6%, then 77% of GDP in 2020. And the Obama administration's budget estimates 218% in 2050.
The deficit in 2007 was $160 billion. In the next year the Pelosi-Reid Congress took it up to $458 billion, and when President Obama came into office in 2009 it hit $1.4 trillion. The current 2010 projected deficit is $1.6 trillion, which will lead to a tripling of our national debt from 2008 to 2020.
Also consider the fact that a Democrat-led Washington has been operating this last year without a budget! As Republican Rep. Mike Simpson says, this is a bunch of horsesqueeze .. or as he calls it, a "pile of crap": "They left the American people in this country with this pile of crap. They should not complain about how we tried to clean this up."

Friday, March 11, 2011

The real reason the unions are suicidal--$$$$$$$$$

It's not necessarily the collective bargaining rights that have union officials so frightened. It's the dues check-off. Dues check-off? What's that? That's a system whereby the employer - in this case the government - deducts union dues from paychecks and pass them directly on to the unions. Unions love this because sometimes union members actually get the idea that perhaps they have better things to spend their money on than union dues ... dues that can reach over $1000 a year in some cases. These dues are a tremendous source of power for union officials. It is the union officials who decide where this money goes ... not the rank-and-file members ... and union officials generally decide that when it comes to campaign contributions that money goes to Democrats. The follow-the-money scenario here is really very simple. Union members pay dues, and union leaders get paid massive salaries from those dues. Usuallly in the six-figure range. The union leaders then arrange for huge union campaign contributions to Democrats. About 95% of union donations go to Democrats. The Democrats then do all that they can to make sure that the dues keep flowing to the unions and the union leaders so that those campaign contributions don't stop. The Democrats do this by promoting forced unionization and other union-friendly policies. In Wisconsin, they failed - and you can imagine the panic. The Democrats and union leaders must do everything in their power to prevent any further erosion of union power. Calling Scott Walker Hitler, destroying taxpayer property and assaulting non-union advocates is just a beginning.

Bad news for unions? The earthquake and tsunami in Japan has sucked all of the air out of the Wisconsin union story ... for now, anyway. Funny how that happens.

Saturday, March 05, 2011

P.J.= Dickwad

So, when I hear of an act of terror, an internal clock starts clicking.

I wonder, how long before we find out the suspect is a radical Islamist.

And then, how long before that affiliation is rejected as vital to the crime.

Witness the murderous acts against our military in Frankfurt: it was only a matter of hours before the killer's links to radical Islam were exposed.

And it was only a few hours later, that we saw an Administration official dismiss that notion.

Here we have P. J. Crowley, bringing back memories - not only of Tucson, but of Ft. Hood, too.

Reporter-Even if somebody is acting alone, it's not a terrorist attack?
Crowley: For example, was the shooting of congresswoman Gabby Giffords a terrorist attack. I mean, you have to look at the evidence, you have to look at the evidence and look at the motivation then you make a judgment and that is a process as far as I know that is ongoing.

Yeah. He went there.

P.J., which must stand for "poor judgment," actually compared a horrible crime linked to radical Islam, to whatever was bubbling in Jared Loughner's damaged head.

So does P.J. actually believe these crimes are alike? Is he that dim?

I mean, with that hypothetical yammer, Crowley not only minimized the nature of the terrorist threat, but also implied he still may believe the attack on Giffords was part of a greater movement.

And so a killer can shout Allahu Akbar - just like at Ft. Hood - and the Administration still won't "commit." They only see a man with no affiliation– because decades of ingrained political correctness have taught them to be fearful of pointing out that affiliation. It's bigotry, after all.

Look, making no mention of terror, won't make terror go away.

All it does is expose the biggest weakness our country has: leaders with spines like spaghetti.

Wednesday, March 02, 2011

FOX News bring Enlightenment

So in a blog post at FrumForum (it's like Penthouse Forum, minus the sex), a writer details a phenomenon called "Fox Geezer Syndrome."

It's when your elderly parents become politically energized, thanks to watching so much Fox News.

Richmond Ramsey, a pseudonym for "wussface," slams his mom, thusly:

I don't know when it happened, exactly, but she began peppering our conversation with red-hot remarks about President Obama. I would try to engage her, but unless I shared her particular judgment, and her outrage, she apparently thought that I was a dupe or a RINO. Even though we're all conservatives, I found myself having to steer our phone conversations away from politics and current events.
...It wasn't that I disagreed with their opinions - though I often did - but rather that I found the vehemence with which they expressed those opinions to be so off-putting.

And so your parents are embarrassing reactionaries, cuz they chose Beck over Oprah.

Look, Ramsey has a point - for many people Beck has been an energizing influence. But he hasn't turned the elderly into pitchfork-waving neanderthals. Some, thanks to Beck, are reading more, and buying more books. And some are investing in food storage. I bought an underground trampoline made of gold.

The gist in this condescending piece: your parents are stupid because they are easily swayed by tv. And because they never had strong opinions before, their current emotional state must be manufactured. Unlike, of course, their more sophisticated offspring - who are young, pragmatic and smart. Pop's just cranky, old and reactionary.

And of course, the blogger must bring up the Tuscon shooting. Yep, maybe you should worry about mom and dad, since, "passion is the enemy of clear thought and...the prerequisite for mob rule."

Man, what a dumb thing to say about the folks who gave you life and raised you.

And who might also drop you from the will.

As an aside---I'm one of those geezers, however my children have been avoiding me their entire lives. It's not that I'm opinionated--I'm just opinionated.