What’s In A Name?

Make no mistake. They are no longer the “Bush tax cuts.” They were tax cuts when they were enacted in 2001 and 2003. They have been the going tax rate for the past 9 years. They are the Bush tax rates. Any move to increase the current tax rates amounts to a TAX INCREASE. The Bill passed in the Senate today was NOT A TAX CUT BILL. It would simply maintain CURRENT TAX RATES for those making 250K or less. 

And for some reason known but to God, Harry Reid thinks that if you make $250,000 (many small businesses fall into this category) that you’re magically a millionaire! (Liberals were never very good at math, were they?). 

Not only that, they think that taking resources from those who have the ability to create jobs during this economy will somehow help the economy. 

Moronic thinking such as this deserves no quarter. These clowns MUST GO.

articles.chicagotribune.com

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Barack Obama’s fellow Democrats in the Senate on Wednesday won passage of a bill to renew tax cuts for tens of millions of Americans, while 
Advertisements

43 thoughts on “What’s In A Name?

  1. Brooke July 26, 2012 / 3:22 pm

    leo,

    no matter what spin you want to put on it…people that make more than 250k a year would not stop hiring because their marginal rate goes up to 39.6 from 36. the fact that you actually carry water for people that are in favor of laws AGAINST your interest says a lot about you.

    Educate yourself please.

    • neocon1 July 26, 2012 / 6:27 pm

      brook
      Educate yourself please.

      how many people do the 47% who pay NO federal taxes hire?

      is the 47% who pay NO federal taxes the ones who built the roads schools, police and fire departments for those of us who have businesses?

      educate your self please.

  2. Cluster July 26, 2012 / 4:43 pm

    Thank you Brooke for your insight on what people will, and will not do, based on tax rate increases. It’s so refreshing to hear from some all-knowing liberal who sets the record straight. We just don’t have enough of that in today’s world.

    So liberals think that increasing the top marginal tax rate, increasing capital gains taxes, increasing the Medicare payroll tax increase, and leveling penalties on them depending on their employee count and health insurance provisions wont effect employment?

    Add to that, Obama’s lack of knowledge and respect towards small business, and increasing everyone’s taxes via Obamacare, even those making less than $250K, of which he lied about, and I would say that we wont have to put up with ignorant people like you for very much longer.

    Have a nice day.

    • James July 26, 2012 / 5:39 pm

      James you are still not allowed to post here. //Moderator

      • Cluster July 26, 2012 / 6:08 pm

        how much knowledge would you consider enough?

        How about someone who has simply managed a private business? Obama? Not so much.

        Also, how did EVERYONE’s taxes go up under the Health Care Act?

        The personal mandate is a tax, right? Of course a little known fact is a lot of people are exempt from that, specifically unions, so again liberals are picking winners and losers, which is typical. But the fact remains that many people earning less than $250K will either pay the tax, or increased premiums, which is the hidden tax, and that is a promise that Obama has broken. Much like his promise to keep unemployment under 8%, closing Gitmo, trying jihadists in civilian courts, protecting DOMA, etc, etc.

        The economy is certainly humming along right now isn’t it James? So more of the same old liberal garbage should really help, right?

        I also get a kick out of the rest of your juvenile rant. Why are you so angry all the time James? Did the fry machine break down?

      • Cluster July 26, 2012 / 6:37 pm

        Hey Jimmy – here’s another little something something for you to let rattle around that empty head of yours:

        When Medicare, the government’s health care system for the elderly and disabled, was first enacted in 1965, lawmakers predicted it would cost $9 billion by 1990. In fact, it cost $67 billion that year.

        You don’t suppose the cost of Obamacare is underestimated do you?

      • James July 26, 2012 / 9:04 pm

        James you are still not allowed to post here. //Moderator

      • Cluster July 26, 2012 / 9:19 pm

        i just hate ignorant conservatives like you and wish to throw you and your ideology right out of the country – James

        LOL. Oh I am with you on that. So let the best ideology win and again I like my chances. But still can’t figure out why you have so much inner hatred – its not healthy. I also see that you have low expectations, aren’t too concerned about how legislation is passed, and can’t seem to stay from a blog you find reprehensible.

        You have issues James.

      • tiredoflibbs July 26, 2012 / 9:31 pm

        wow, tommy-boy, you think the mandate is the only tax?

        You have to remember, you have to get QUALIFIED health insurance. For those young people who only had a catastrophic policies or none at all *because they were very healthy), those days are over! They have to purchase a larger comprehensive and, of course, more expensive health policy.

        Plus, excise taxes, lower medical expenses deduction on your individual tax return plus higher medicare taxes and others – RESULT, higher costs and taxes for everyone – not to mention the price increases by companies to pay for all this.

        You need to stop listening to sound bites and examine the BIG PICTURE – something you proggies rarely do.

        “I’d say growth of 1.5% to 2.5% is better than no growth.”

        BTW, Bush’s >3% growth was labeled anemic by proggies and their mindless drones and stated the only jobs Bush was creating were “hamburger flipper” jobs. But I guess, you mindless proggy drones will take ANYTHING for this pathetic excuse of a failure.

  3. Cluster July 26, 2012 / 6:25 pm

    Off topic, but is it just me, or does everyone else get a little sentimental when reading of selfless liberals who are only looking out for those “disenfranchised” folks. Zero indictments, or prosecutions of Wall Streeters on behalf of the Obama regime, but God forbid if you deny contraception coverage. That’s the real crime.

    Those wondering why the Department of Justice has refused to go after Jon Corzine for the vaporization of $1.6 billion in MF Global client funds need look no further than the documents uncovered by the Government Accountability Institute that reveal that the now-defunct MF Global was a client of Attorney General Eric Holder and Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer’s former law firm, Covington & Burling.

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/07/26/REVEALED-Corzine-s-MF-Global-Was-a-Client-of-Eric%20Holder-s-Law-Firm

    • neocon1 July 26, 2012 / 6:35 pm

      Why are you so angry all the time James? Did the fry machine break down?

      the boy wouldn’t know one from a door knob…LOL

    • GMB July 26, 2012 / 6:48 pm

      $1.6 billion? I believe the rumor is that money bought the nation of Belize and barky turned it into one giant choom farm. Got to have something after Jan 21, 2013 don’t ya know.

  4. Cluster July 26, 2012 / 8:50 pm

    Just an aside – how many days now have liberals been trying to put in context what Obama meant about his “you didn’t build that comment”? It’s fun to watch.

    • James July 26, 2012 / 9:06 pm

      James you are still not allowed to post here. //Moderator

      • Cluster July 26, 2012 / 9:10 pm

        See you in November, James. I like my chances.

      • GMB July 26, 2012 / 9:45 pm

        Give Thomas a break. He is still disappointed the donkrats lost control of the Wisconsin Senate. All that union money down the tubes for a few weeks majority.

        Bummer there right?

      • dbschmidt July 26, 2012 / 11:00 pm

        Wonder if that is from the D+11 pooll that showed the “Chosen One” up by 6. Wonder if James can do simple math or find a reasonable poll–you know LV (Likely Voters).

        His earlier diatribe was just too much crap to deal with without puttin’ my boots on.

      • dbschmidt July 26, 2012 / 11:13 pm

        Since James mentions NC (which interests me I took a look at RCP which it appears James also used. Let’s take a peek;

        RCP Average 6/24 – 7/18 — 47.0 46.6 Romney +0.4
        Civitas (R) 7/16 – 7/18 600 LV 49 48 Romney +1
        PPP (D) 7/5 – 7/8 775 RV 46 47 Obama +1
        Project New America/Myers (D) 7/1 – 7/8 500 LV 49 48 Romney +1
        NBC News/Marist 6/24 – 6/25 1019 RV 44 46 Obama +2
        Rasmussen Reports 6/25 – 6/25 500 LV 47 44 Romney +3

        Well, that looks like James’s “prediction”; however, if we look at Likely Voters (LV) that make up not only the poll but the majority of voters–it appears that Romney is up anywhere from +1 to +3 including a heavily left leaning polling group (Project New America) which could be another source for the D+11 but could not pull it out of their collective … for Obama.

        Just in case James has issue with me naming them far left–from their website;
        “Our research, message and strategic-planning services are used to conduct voter education, persuasion and mobilization programs, defeat/win ballot measures, move the progressive policy agenda of our subscribers and shape the overall frame of the key issues of our time.”

        If the far left has Romney up by a full point ~ what do you think are the real numbers?

      • tiredoflibbs July 26, 2012 / 11:26 pm

        tommy-boy’s, aka james’, polls many of which are at or within the margin of error are as meaningless as tommy-boy himself.

        I guess he believes that the snapshot of today will last until and past November. But as these liberal drones love to bring up TRENDS – the pResident is TRENDING DOWN while Romney is TRENDING UP.

        Many are not buying obAMATEUR’s line of BS, well with the exception of the ignorant masses.

  5. GMB the worlds most huggable anti-communist July 27, 2012 / 9:14 am

    How dare you!!! There is not one single racist bone in my body. I hate communists no matter what their skin color is.

    😛

    • mitchethekid July 27, 2012 / 10:20 am

      Explain communism. Explain socialism and explain what Marx (who, btw was considered one of the greatest economists of his time) proposed.
      Then contrast your findings with capitalism. (But leave Ayn Rand out please as well as your opinion about which model is better.)

      • Amazona July 27, 2012 / 10:59 am

        “…one of the greatest economists of his time…” came up with a political/economic plan which has never worked and which, when implemented, drove nations into death spirals of economic misery, deprivation of personal liberty, oppression, tyranny, and too often mass slaughter of the populace.

        Nice to see how you define “great”, mitch.

        Set aside your infantile efforts at gotchas and do your own homework. After all, YOU claim Marx was “…one of the greatest economists of his time..” so you must be quite familiar with his work right? Surely you would not just parrot some CPUSA crap, would you?

        Why don’t you give us your definition of communism, then compare it to that of Marx, and explain how, when and why it has been successful. You can base your evaluation of its success on economic growth and vitality, on the standard of living of those living under the system, or the freedoms afforded to those people thanks to the system. Your choice. I am trying to make it easier for you.

      • Amazona July 27, 2012 / 11:06 am

        But, you see, Marx is revered as an “intellectual”. That is, as a person whose sole product was his ideas. And it doesn’t matter how wrong the ideas are.

      • Count d'Haricots July 27, 2012 / 1:24 pm

        Amazona,

        By “great” he means Marx was really fat.

  6. GMB the worlds most huggable anti-communist July 27, 2012 / 9:43 am

    The department of Commerce says the recession ended three years ago. When did they take over publication of Der Panzer Bär?

  7. GMB the worlds most huggable anti-communist July 27, 2012 / 10:32 am

    You need it explained? That does figure. Dictionary, buy one. Karl Marx, wrote about the plight of the working man. Never put in a honest day of labor in his life. Typical collectivist, big ideas that led to deaths of a couple hundred million people. Some hero you have there.

    Tail number, remember it yet?

    • Retired Spook July 27, 2012 / 12:00 pm

      I vote for Congressman Kelly for Vice President

  8. mitchethekid July 27, 2012 / 12:18 pm

    You’re projecting again Ama. And I’m the one asking the questions. Quit your whirling dervish imitation and provide some answers, instead of your typical snide and condescending diatribes.
    GMB: I want your understanding of these economic models, not what you assume mine are. And just so you know, Marx is no hero of mine, but Chuck Yeager is.

      • Amazona July 27, 2012 / 2:37 pm

        I believe we can agree that Russia, and then the Soviet Union, was the first and most enthusiastic proponent of the Marxist ideal of communism. Its enthusiasm for the economic and political reality of communism is shown in many ways—its economic misery, its lack of personal freedom (going so far as to forcibly restrain its citizens from leaving the country) and most of all by its Draconian efforts to quell opposition and use force to try to make the system work.

        From neo’s excellent link:

        “….the Soviet Union appears the greatest megamurderer of all, apparently killing near 61,000,000 people. Stalin himself is responsible for almost 43,000,000 of these. Most of the deaths, perhaps around 39,000,000 are due to lethal forced labor in gulag and transit thereto. Communist China up to 1987, but mainly from 1949 through the cultural revolution, which alone may have seen over 1,000,000 murdered, is the second worst megamurderer. Then there are the lesser megamurderers, such as North Korea and Tito’s Yugoslavia.

        Obviously the population that is available to kill will make a big difference in the total democide, and thus the annual percentage rate of democide is revealing. By far, the most deadly of all communist countries and, indeed, in this century by far, has been Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. Pol Pot and his crew likely killed some 2,000,000 Cambodians from April 1975 through December 1978 out of a population of around 7,000,000. This is an annual rate of over 8 percent of the population murdered, or odds of an average Cambodian surviving Pol Pot’s rule of slightly over just over 2 to 1.

        In sum the communist probably have murdered something like 110,000,000, or near two-thirds of all those killed by all governments, quasi-governments, and guerrillas from 1900 to 1987. Of course, the world total itself it shocking. It is several times the 38,000,000 battle-dead that have been killed in all this century’s international and domestic wars. Yet the probable number of murders by the Soviet Union alone–one communist country– well surpasses this cost of war. And those murders of communist China almost equal it. ”

    • neocon1 July 27, 2012 / 1:03 pm

      but Chuck Yeager is.

      see him in a movie boy?

    • Retired Spook July 27, 2012 / 1:40 pm

      And I’m the one asking the questions.

      Sorry, Mitche, someone of your limited intellect is not allowed to ask questions, heh.

    • Amazona July 27, 2012 / 2:22 pm

      mitche, give it a rest. Yes, you love to call names and insult. Based on what we have seen of your posts, this is pretty much all you have to offer. But at least you might try to relate your insults to what has been said. My comment to your post was calm and the farthest thing possible from being a “whirling dervish” response. I am sure you had worked really really hard on that comment and were eager to use it, no doubt finding it devastating and witty, worthy of one of your gleeful little titters, but it fell far short.

      Your silly question is too vague to engender a response. What do you mean by “Communism”? Do you mean the purely economic model of communal ownership of all means of production and, assumedly, all profits? Do you mean the socio-economic model which includes the abolition of the family and religion? Do you mean the 21st Century practiced form of Communism, or the pure Marxist philosophy?

      As Leftist terms are infinitely malleable, changing to fit the needs of the moment and too squirmy to pin down, allowing petty nitpickers like you to demand a specific definition so you can leap upon it in assumed triumph and bellow “WRONG!!!” it is hard to define “socialism”. Marx wrote his manifesto as a response to and answer to the socialism of the day. Socialism, Marxism, Communism, Fascism, are all markers along a spectrum of general Leftist philosophy, and not even the Left can agree on a definition for any of them.

      This is why I usually choose to avoid labels such as “socialist” and “communist” (and “Democrat” and “Republican”) and stick with defining terms such as “collectivist” and “redistributionist” and “Constitutional” as they are less subject to manipulation.

      But the classic, Marxist, definition of Communism includes revolution, the abolishing of private property, elimination of all class differences, rejection of religion, and communal or state ownership of all means of production (including labor).

      From an article on Marx, in my archives without attribution. I will copy part of it here and see if I can find the source to include in a later post.

      “He says the modern family is based on capital and private gain. Thus he writes, the Communists “plead guilty” to wanting to do away with present familial relations, in that they want to stop the exploitation of children by their parents. Similarly, they do not want to altogether abolish the education of children, but simply to free it from the control of the ruling class. Marx complains that the bourgeois “clap-trap” about family and education is particularly “disgusting” as Industry increasingly destroys the family ties of the proletarians; thus it renders family and education as means for the transformation of children into articles of commerce.

      We see then that the first step in the working class’ revolution is to make the proletariat the ruling class. It will use its political power to seize all capital from the bourgeoisie and to centralize all instruments of production under the auspices of the State.

      Of course, in the beginning this will not be possible without “despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production.” Probable steps in the revolution will include: the abolition of ownership of land; the institution of a heavy progressive or graduated income tax; the abolition of all inheritance rights; the confiscation of emigrants’ and rebels’ property, making all people liable to labor; State centralization of credit; State centralization of communication and transportation; State appropriation of factories, the gradual combination of agriculture and manufacturing industries, the elimination of the distinctions between town and country, and the establishment of free education for children.

      When class distinctions have disappeared, public power will lose its political character. This is because political power is nothing more than “the organized power of one class for oppressing another.” When the proletariat eliminate the old conditions for production, they will render class antagonism impossible, and thereby eliminate their own class supremacy. Bourgeois society will be replaced by an “association” in which “the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.”

      In the most general terms, “capitalist” refers to the ownership of property, or “capital” and in general use refers to the use of this capital within a free market system for the purpose of production and profit.

      Your turn.

      • Amazona July 27, 2012 / 2:24 pm

        As far as my comments being “snide” and “condescending” , well, I tailor them to the post to which I am responding, and some posts demand only scorn and condescension. Guess it sucks to be you, eh, as I am sure you get a lot of this.

      • dbschmidt July 27, 2012 / 4:31 pm

        While reading your post including Of course, in the beginning this will not be possible without “despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production.” Probable steps in the revolution will include: the abolition of ownership of land; the institution of a heavy progressive or graduated income tax; the abolition of all inheritance rights; the confiscation of emigrants’ and rebels’ property, making all people liable to labor; State centralization of credit; State centralization of communication and transportation; State appropriation of factories, the gradual combination of agriculture and manufacturing industries, the elimination of the distinctions between town and country, and the establishment of free education for children it sure sounded familiar.

        Sounds like the road America has been traveling since the early 1960s’ (actually 1913 onwards) Time to change course back towards Constitutional governance.

      • Amazona July 27, 2012 / 4:40 pm

        db, that was my reaction as well. Aside from “…the confiscation of emigrants’ and rebels’ property, making all people liable to labor…” and “….the elimination of the distinctions between town and country…” it does sound an awful lot like the direction we have, as a nation, been going for quite a while, doesn’t it?

        So far we have no rebels, we have not yet confiscated the property of Americans who have emigrated, and we sure haven’t done anything to make all people liable to labor. On the contrary, we have told people they do not need to labor to get money from the state.

      • Amazona July 29, 2012 / 1:20 pm

        Have you noticed mitche’s silence? He thought he was getting quite a tasty gotcha, asking for a definition of communism, but it appears he got more than he bargained for, so had to scurry off till—he hopes—we have forgotten this and he can slink back with more inane personal attacks and irrelevant snipes.

        I’m thinking he might not have known that Marx’s own words talked about eliminating the family and religion, about revolution and “despotic inroads on the rights of property..” among other infringements upon liberty.

        He and his equally ignorant fellow travelers are so clueless about the reality of the system they protect and defend through their attacks on its opposition, I think they believe that when we talk about the evils of communism, about the ugly reality of the system, we are just inventing hyperbole, as they do, to try to overwhelm the other side with an avalanche of invented accusations.

        I think they may actually believe that communism is a benign system, unrelated to socialism which is even more benign, and that opposition to the entire Leftist spectrum of political philosophy is based on whatever eeeeeeevil motivations their minders have told them drive this opposition.

        The very IDEA of an educated, informed, objective and analytical opposition to a system which has been proved, every time it has been put to the test, to be brutal, dehumanizing, oppressive, economically disasterous and a complete failure, serving only to enrich a very small ruling elite, is simply alien to them.

        And it is alien to them because THEIR ‘political’ position is completely absent any education, any information, any analysis, any actual awareness of its underlying dogma and reality. They assume that we, like them, have just had brain farts of clueless emotion, and so this is how they approach what they think is political discourse.

        It’s a hard lesson to learn, and it takes a lot more intellectual honesty and integrity than I have seen from any of these PL dupes. I have yet to see one who is simply misled, and serious about finding out the truth. All I see is hyper-emotional lemmings, led to false conclusions by false information, and hooked on the gratification of being able to be as vicious and virulent and hostile and irrational as possible because these personality disorders have been validated by their minders as “political commentary”.

  9. Raging Bull July 27, 2012 / 2:35 pm

    OT but….

    Zerobama said the other day that his ideas have worked. okay, if you’re ideas have worked, why are you still blaming bush for all things that are bad? it’s either, things are bad and your ideas haven’t worked, or they have worked and things are good. you don’t get it both ways.

    zerobama said that zerobama care should pass because it’s a tax, under the commerce clause. his lawyers argued it’s constitutionality on the basis that it was a tax. and judge roberts confirmed that it was a tax. then he goes out and says, IT’S CONSTITUTIONAL!!!! see we told you it was…oh, and by the way, it’s not a tax. you don’t get it both ways!

    zerobama said that he didnt’ spend as much money as the GOP is trying to claim he spent. it was bush who spent that money. zerobama basically tried to claim that he was a penny pincher. but he also goes out and says that the economy has turned around due to his government spending. so the economy has turned around on government spending, but bush was the one who did the spending, so i guess the economy has turned around because of bush? you don’t get it both ways.

    this man is not a leader. this man couldn’t even run a bake sale to help the high school band get new uniforms.

    GTFO 2012

  10. GMB the worlds most huggable anti-communist July 27, 2012 / 3:08 pm

    Beg pardon there bomber. I was out in the fields practicing pure capitalism. Myself and my two eldest daughters were bringing in the first of the wheat. Those seeds are worth a lot of dead presidents. 🙂

    Capitalism. I grow, I profit.
    Communism. I grow, you take.

    See how easy it is to define stuff?

    • neocon1 July 27, 2012 / 4:57 pm

      bomber Bmitch

      communism
      you bitch you die,
      you work or you die
      get out of line you die
      insult the grand pubah you die
      you produce or you die
      capice?

Comments are closed.