Category Archives: Taxes

Fisking Hillary

Here’s Hillary Clinton’s op-ed for USA Today on why people should vote for her. It’s really kind of simplistic. An intern probably write it. I’ve added a few comments.

In January, America is going to have a new president. Things are going to change — that much is certain. [But, Hill, I thought things under you and O were great. Why do they need to change?] The question is, what kind of change are we going to have?

We can build an economy that works for everyone, or stack the deck even more for those at the top. [Which is exactly how Hillary wants it since she’s at the top.]

We can keep America safe through strength and smarts [Smartpower! How’s that worked out? It hasn’t.] — or turn our backs on our allies, and cozy up to our adversaries. [All of which is a perfect description of the Obama foreign policy, much of which you’ve been involved with intimately.]

We can come together to build a stronger, fairer America, or fear the future and fear each other. [Aren’t you the candidate telling every minority you can find that if you aren’t elected they’ll be in chains or pregnant and without an abortion mill within a stone’s throw?]

Everything I’ve done, as first lady, senator, or secretary of State, I’ve done by listening to people and looking for common ground, even with people who disagree with me. [Seriously, you said that with a straight face?] And if you elect me on Tuesday, that’s the kind of president I’ll be. [Lady, you must have the face of a stone if you didn’t break out into laugh after that howler.]

Here are four priorities for my first 100 days — issues I’ve heard about from Americans all over our country. [Is this ‘hearing from Americans’ meme poll-tested. You seem to be hitting it like a drunk hits the bottle.]

First, we will put forward the biggest investment in new jobs since World War II. [Wait, we gotta start a World War to get the economy moving? Isn’t Trump supposed to be the warmonger?] We’ll invest in infrastructure and manufacturing to grow our economy for years to come. [Is this ‘investment’ going to be bigger than Obama’s ‘Stimulus’? How’d that work out?] We’ll produce enough renewable energy to power every home in America within a decade. [Are you drunk right now? Who told you anything like that was remotely possible?] We’ll cut red tape for small businesses and make it easier for entrepreneurs to get the credit they need to grow and hire — because in America, if you can dream it, you should be able to build it. [How can you cut red tape if you are going to expand the administrative state? And where are these loans coming from?] We’ll pay for it all by asking the wealthy, Wall Street and big corporations to finally pay their fair share. [Oh, I see. Soak the rich. You are aware that the rich already pay a disproportionate amount of taxes? Of course you are. You’re just cynically manipulating the unintelligent but very envious supporters now.] And this commitment will go far beyond the first 100 days. Creating more good jobs with rising incomes will be a central mission of my presidency. [Um, you do understand that you can no more command that than King Canute could command the sea?]

Second, we will introduce comprehensive immigration reform legislation. [Why does ‘immigration’ need to be reformed? There’s nothing wrong with the laws we have that enforcing them wouldn’t fix.] The last president to sign comprehensive immigration reform was Ronald Reagan, and it was a priority for George W. Bush. I’m confident that we can work across the aisle to pass comprehensive reform that keeps families together and creates a path to citizenship, secures our border, and focuses our enforcement resources on violent criminals. [There’s nothing listed here that wouldn’t be enabled by simply enforcing the current laws.] This is the right thing to do, and it will also grow our economy. [What, it doesn’t cure cancer too? Lay off the hallucinogens.]

Third, to break the gridlock in Washington, we need to get secret, unaccountable money out of our politics. [Like the money that has enriched you and the Democratic Party?] It’s drowning out the voices of the American people. [How?] So within my first 30 days, I will introduce a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United. [Because you want all political speech to be approved by a government that you and your bureaucratic minions control? The First Amendment is very clear.] We should be protecting citizens’ rights to vote, not corporations’ rights to buy elections.[So you admit that corporations are buying the presidency for you?]

Fourth, we need to get started on end-to-end criminal justice reform. Too many people have been sent away for far too long for non-violent offenses. [No, many if not most of those people also had weapons charges against them but they pleaded to lesser charges. You’re just lying to get more felons sprung so they can vote for Democrats.] I believe our country will be stronger and safer when everyone has respect for the law and everyone is respected by the law.[‘Everyone has respect for the law.’ Does that include you? Your husband? Cheryl Mills? Heather Samuelson? David Kendall? Jake Sullivan? Jimmy the Weasel Comey? Et al.]

There’s so much more we need to do together, and we certainly won’t get it all done in the first 100 days. But we’re going to roll up our sleeves and get to work for American families — and I’ll never, ever quit. [I’m pretty sure you’ll quit when you’re dead. And why families? What about us single people?]

I want to be president for all Americans — Democrats, Republicans and independents; Americans of every race, faith and background. [Is this going to be like Obama’s everyone? Where some everyones are more equal than other everyones?]

My opponent has run his campaign on divisiveness, fear and insults, and spent months pitting Americans against each other. [Holy cow! Did you not read what you just wrote above? Oh, nevermind, I forgot, you’re a liberal so hypocrisy is your middle name and self-awareness is a concept to you like grasping the 47th dimension is to the average human being.] I’ve said many times that Donald Trump has shown us who he is. Now we have to decide who we are. [Admit it, that last sentence is a nod to Obama.]

Because it’s not just our names on the ballot this year. Every issue we care about is on the ballot, too. This is about who we are as a country — and whether we are going to have change that makes us stronger together, or change that pushes us further apart. [That whole self-awareness thing really is hard for you, isn’t it?]

It all comes down to this. I love our country. [So why are you so eager to turn into a socialist hellhole?] I believe in our people. [Actual Americans or your little clique of entitled elites? I’m thinking you are really referring to the latter.] And I think there’s nothing we can’t achieve if we work together and invest in each other. [Always have to work in that money angle…]

Taxing the Fizz Out of Us

Perhaps you’ve heard on the news about one of the latest bright ideas from our wise, Ivy League-educated governing mandarins — a tax on sodas.

Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg popularized the idea a couple of years ago and now the idea seems to be spreading to other locales. It might even be on the ballot in a couple of cities.

The one I heard about was a one cent tax on a soda (or “soda pop” as we said when we were young). It didn’t specify what size this soda was but the news reporter said it was being enacted to combat the “obesity epidemic.” This would categorize this tax as an old-fashioned sin tax.

So, a one cent tax is going to somehow discourage people from drinking sodas.

Seriously?

Think about that for a moment.

Now, draw an imaginary circle of say five miles from where you live. You’ll probably know half-a-dozen grocery stores within that range. If you are a soda purchaser you’ll know immediately that the price variance within those half-dozen stores can be 25 cents or more. Between sales and specials it can balloon even more. The difference between brand name and store brand can be almost 50%.

A one cent tax?

That will have the same affect as blowing against a stiff breeze. None at all.

And the people behind the tax know this. I should say, the cynical power-hungry fascist liberals behind this know that.

The tax isn’t about curbing behavior or even raising money (that’s a side-benefit) but it’s about control.

First the tax will seem low. Then it will be raised. It will be continuously raised to the point where it begins to somewhat affect sales, wherein it will settle.

Likely soda companies will push to get waivers or carve outs — adding in a certain percentage of a sugar substitute or dropping the sugar level to possibly avoid the tax or some of it. Of course they’ll be able to do this because they’ll be pumping large amounts of campaign dollars into politicians’ campaigns — mostly Democrats because they are the ones pushing the tax campaigns and they are the ones running the cities and counties where most of these taxes are enacted.

The large corporations making most of the sodas — notable Coca-Cola and Pepsi — will also be donating tons of money to “civic” projects (almost always run by Democrat cronies) in those locales in what are really passive bribes. There might even be replays of activities like Jesse Jackson’s famous shakedown of Coca-Cola wherein Jackson’s brother suddenly became a new distributor with a very lucrative and exclusive Chicago market segment. Cha-ching!

Anyone not playing along will find themselves under investigation by various authorities, have permits or whatnot denied by those same authorities and be under attack by media entities and Democrat activists and their auxiliaries such as unions and NGO/nonprofits.

And this is how businesses are captured and turned into tools for Democrats.

Is There Nothing the Kochs Can’t Do?

As a prime example of just how deranged the modern liberal movement is, check out this recent story — “Did the Koch Brothers Just Kill the Film and TV Business in Florida?

Is there nothing the Koch Brothers can’t do? (Or can’t be blamed for?) They even get blamed for being against tax breaks for the rich! (Assuming that they were actually behind any of this, which they weren’t beyond providing a lot of initial funding for a deregulation/taxpayer watchdog group many years ago and supporting like-minded politicians.)

Wait, a minute, according to smart people like Hillary Clinton, tax breaks for the rich have no trickle down effects. They only benefit the rich. But the union goons in the article talk about all the little who were helped by these tax breaks… I’m confused.

The article, clearly coordinated with the Democratic Party, liberal groups and unions, tries to argue several contradictory points — the tax incentives are small yet vast creating employment for thousands; very few projects actually used them yet without them all filming dries up instantly; and if there are no incentives no one would have any reason to film in Florida yet the incentives aren’t why people are coming to film in Florida.

Not surprisingly, the Florida legislature’s decision that giving taxpayer money to wealthy filmmakers (or betting on less-than-wealthy filmmakers) is a bad use of that money, is portrayed as a terrible idea. And it is implied that every Florida legislator that voted that way is a puppet of the Kochs and their group. They were incapable of making that decision otherwise.

So why are the Kochs doing this? The article doesn’t venture any theory beyond implying the Kochs are bad. It doesn’t even try to make a hypertenuous attempt to nebulously connect them to the film & TV industry.

Deadline just provided nothing more than Democratic Party propaganda. It’s just another tool of the party and no longer a legitimate journalistic venture. Treat it as hostile.

A Bite Out of the Apple

Are you chuckling as much as I am about the European Union socking it to Apple for unpaid/back taxes on its European operations?

It couldn’t happen to a more politically correct liberal poster child than Apple.

Instead of saying, “Oops, our bad. We’re good liberals so we’ll just reach into our pocket and happily pony up the amount…,” Apple squealed like a stuck pig.

Don’tcha luv it when liberals are hoist by their own petard?

Hey, Timmy! You’re a big-time supporter of every liberal cause that rolls down the hill. You’re a supporter of Hillary Clinton, the Democratic Party and probably Bernie Sanders too. You wanted these things like big taxes and governmental micromanagement, but are they just for other people or are you willing to live by them?

Apparently not…

Now, are you a liberal who’s being mugged by reality? Are you going to learn the lesson? Do you understand that the Eurocrats view you and your company as little more than a servant of their enterprise. You are a sheep to be shorn and provide them with wool. It might be really cool wool but you’re still a sheep in their eyes. Baaaaaah!

Are you going to join us or is your liberal fealty, possibly driven by your boastful homosexuality, your greatest concern? Is your sexual upside-down cake so important to you that you’d piss away $13 billion of other people’s money (and much more year after year if you knuckle under to the Eurofascists)?

Culture Wars – Next Move

No sooner had I predicted that the response by Los Angeles and California to a drop in TV/film production would be to continue the policies that discourage such production than this came out.

Film/LA – the city’s film permit office announced it was increasing its fees. Yes, to hire the guy/gal that is required to stand around the set is going up. Admittedly it’s going up much but it’s just the beginning.

Liberals will never admit that their policies cause problems or exacerbate the problems they are supposed to solve.

Do You Feel “Lucky,” Punk?

You might have heard about King Barry’s commencement speech last weekend at Howard University. If not you can read about it here or here.

In it The One was his typical nauseating, lecturing, self-congratulating self. To send the kids out into the world he told them that they didn’t get where they were by their own effort but they had simply gotten lucky in life’s lottery.

It’s a theme Obama has worked in various formats before — “You didn’t build that” (therefore I’m taking some of it from you) being one of his favorite.

As one can see by the links I referenced this dung-heap of a president was called out — though it means nothing to him — so I won’t replow that field.

What I will note is that I think one reason Obama thinks that all people who are “successful” got there by luck is that he himself has succeeded through luck and not much skill.

Think about it. Obama ran in 2008 against the incompetent candidate Hillary Clinton and he caught the Millennial Hyper-PC low-info voter wave to victory. John McCain’s unusually daft campaign helped immensely as well.

But more to the point, if Obama wasn’t black (half black), succeeding through copious amounts of affirmative action, reverse discrimination, low expectations and patronage deployed because of his color, he’d likely be a used car dealer, some mid-level government worker or business bureaucrat or political advisor to an anonymous state senator. He’d have never gotten into Harvard. He’d have never snagged a sweetheart book deal. He’d have never been elected to anything. If he were white and he’d had to survive on his wit — not insubstantial but overrated due to his color — no one but his immediate circle would ever have heard of him.

The man hasn’t really built anything in his life. He’s been a politician in one way or another most of his adult life — somehow effortlessly sucked forward, thanks to his color and ability to BS very well. Politicians don’t build things.

Most of the people hanging around him haven’t built anything or they come from wealth to begin with. The few that have “built” something are often amoral tech or entertainment executives for whom their sudden wealth from a single idea has a “winning the lottery” feel to it.

Much of his time has also been spent around academics, not exactly a den of up-by-their-bootstraps types. Academia has become a world of con men like Obama. Babblers who traffic in sophistry wherein they try to convince impressionable people that something like applying post-colonial queer theory to “The Vampire Diaries” is a worthwhile effort for which they should be permanently employed and nicely compensated.

He’s traveled in racist huckster circles for decades. They build nothing but grievance-monger machines, shakedown rackets and government money siphon devices. It’s all the life of the parasite.

Then there are all those lawyers populating his inner circle. The “law” is often a scam frequently deployed against successful people (the ones who have money). Lawyers build nothing, and then have the arrogance to pat themselves on the back for it.

And he’s hung around many government folks, elected and bureaucratic, along with NGOs and nonprofit groups. All these people want to do is control people, take their money and shakedown other people. None of these people build things. They take things.

Builders are the victims and prey of those I’ve previously mentioned. They are the sheep to be shorn.

In King Barry’s kingdom businessmen are a source of money — electoral funds, taxes and “gifts”; people to be regulated; people that must provide jobs; and lately, a force to be deployed for “social justice” against political enemies. Businessmen are also tools of the government. The government lets them survive in exchange for their submission. The government tolerates businessmen as long as they do the government’s bidding. Businessmen “succeed” and are allowed to keep some of their money (if they make any) at the magnanimous indulgence of that government. They should be grateful, in the eyes of The One.

Obama simply hasn’t spent much time around people who have worked hard and slowly built up a business. Those people aren’t part of the bubble he’s inhabited all of his life. He has no concept of their lives or their efforts so he assumes they don’t really exist or they are mistaken or lying about their situation. Like most things, he figures he knows more about their lives than they do. And he can sleep at night by convincing himself that no one built anything so therefore Obama’s not stealing anything. He’s just directing it where it really belongs. (Of course with a small handling fee extracted.)

He simply assumes that everyone is as duplicitous and superficial as he is.

And don’t even get me started on Michelle Obama…

What I just said also applies to everyone from Elizabeth Warren to Bernie Sanders to Martin O’Malley. It is the belief system of the media, the low-information voter and all the members of the modern Democratic Party.

More Free Stuff!

This little item popped up last week, somewhat under the radar — a free Internet (for some people — AKA regular Democrat voters) proposal from the modern Santa Claus, the Obama White House and its puppet, the Federal Communications Commission.

As I’ve been telling people for some time, the “free phone” “entitlement” would morph into free Internet and here we see the first step. This is also related to the designation of the Internet and related entities as “Title II,” i.e. a utility that can be heavily regulated by government. Liberals will not rest until the Internet is part of the government’s portfolio and under its oversight and control. Eventually there will be a Dept. of Communication with a cabinet-level secretary. Bank on it.

Unless it is stopped.

The acorn of this mighty oak was a Reagan-era program. Reagan had a soft spot for Social Security and old folks (he philosophically knew better but couldn’t resist the sad stories). His idea was that no old person would be trapped without some kind of basic phone service, at least for emergencies. Immediately an income rider was attached so that “the poor,” no matter their age, would also be eligible. You knew then that it would be expanded and expanded. And so it was, slowly at first. Then, a few decades letter, it exploded with the Obamaphone program for getting wireless phones to those who might not have them. And now Internet “access” is being folded in, because, well, it’s just not “fair” that some people have Internet and some don’t.

I’m going to say something that has become controversial as liberalism has become increasingly more dominant in our culture. There needs to be a penalty for being poor. There needs to be some impetus, reason, encouragement for people to make themselves unpoor.

But the left likes people to be poor. It likes them to become dependent upon the government — for a few things at first, but increasingly more and more of the creature comforts. After awhile — a few years, a few generations they don’t mind being poor. It’s not so bad to be poor because everyone has enough to eat (except when it’s time to make hay about ‘hunger); everybody has shelter (other than those voluntarily homeless or mentally disturbed and when it comes time to make hay about ‘homelessness’); everybody is getting health care (except when it comes time make hay about ‘health care’); everybody has educational opportunities and increasingly a free or heavily subsidized college (except when it time to make hay about ‘education’); and so on.

In many ways they aren’t really poor — certainly in not any traditional and historical sense. Nor are they poor in any comparison to the actual poor in the rest of the world. Most of our “poor” would rate as middle class in most parts of the globe.

They have enough to get by but certainly not enough to actually become no longer dependent upon the government. After a few generations of this, people no longer are capable of taking care of themselves. And why should they, they reason — that’s what the government is for! Big Daddy/Big Mommy/Big Sister/Big Brother and Big Baby.

And they don’t have to pay a nickle for any of it because that wouldn’t be “fair” and they are poor!

Witness life in any Democrat-controlled city. Everything that comes out of the mouths of the local poor is “gimme” and their look is to the government (and the politicians are happy to abide). In their minds the government provides all. They are married to the government. The concept of taking care of themselves or looking to building a private sector is mostly foreign to them. In the rare occasions when it is addressed it is treated with contempt or denounced by politicoes and “stakeholding” activists as a conspiracy by Republicans, conservatives, corporations, enslavers to control them. Those “stakeholders” have a stake in keeping the poor poor.

The poor become completely incapable of understanding that they have already sold their souls to a master — the Democratic Party and its various flying monkey organizations.