…then we on the right are pleased to give you one. From National Review Online:
…While we would prefer no tax increase at all, eliminating this deduction (for State and local taxes) would be a sensible reform of the tax code, and could be paired with tax cuts elsewhere for a fiscally neutral simplification of our byzantine tax code.
Estimates suggest that eliminating this deduction would raise as much as $900 billion over ten years, though it may well turn out to be less as taxpayers modify their behavior in light of the new incentives. That won’t balance the budget with deficits running that much or more every single year, but it is nothing to turn the national nose up at, either: $900 billion would completely offset the estimated deficit for 2013. Progressives should welcome eliminating the deduction in that the new tax burden would fall much more heavily upon those earning $200,000 or more. As Reihan Salam points out, households in the $200,000-and-up range would pay an average of $5,166 more without the deduction, while those in the $30,000-to-$50,000 range would pay only $70 more…
Wouldn’t cost me a penny more, of course, as I live in a no-income-tax State. But it would cost people in New York and California a bundle, especially if they are making more than 250 grand a year and are getting hit with those very high California and New York State income taxes. But, given that those two States voted overwhelmingly for Obama, it stands to reason that they’ll be pleased as punch to fork over a bit more to Uncle Sam. Unless, that is, they were just stupid and thought that Obama was talking about people like Bill Gates when he said “make millionaires and billionaires pay their fair share”. We on the right can’t be blamed if people didn’t bother to actually look past Obama’s rhetoric and examine his concrete proposals.
This is not quite up to the standards I want – I still prefer my “wealth tax”, and I’ve actually come around to turning the screws a little harder on it. While still excluding farms/ranches, mines and factories which are family or individually owned, I’m thinking that a 10% annual tax on all wealth in excess of $2 million should do the trick. Which trick is that? The double trick of both making rich liberals pay for their liberalism and showing lower and middle class Americans just who’s side we’re on. The dirty secret of liberalism is that it is run by rich people and largely for the benefit of rich people – I want to drive that home. Next step is to eliminate charitable deductions for any organization which does not provide direct housing, clothing, food or medical aid to poor people…no more tax write-offs for donating to liberal political groups which have got themselves a tax exemption. Oh, and the group dispensing the help to the poor better have administrative expenses down to no more than, say, 30% of expenditures or it gets reclassified as a very heavily taxed racketeer influenced/corrupt organization.
I’m all set for the class war. Are you?
I think most people would prefer a “class war” to an actual shooting war. The Right has never been good at turning the tables on the Left, and this proposal does just exactly that. The vast majority of middle and low income people, if they pay income taxes at all, generally don’t itemize deductions, so this would, indeed, fall almost exclusively on the wealthy.
The beauty of it is that the left will never agree – and thus we can start re-casting the debate as it starts to dawn on people that for all their “tax the rich”rhetoric, liberals are actually the stoutest defenders of not just the rich, but the idle rich who live on dividends…
Now, in this instance, the NYT is fretting about double taxation. Yet they are in favor of raising taxes on investment income, and the Death Tax, both of which are examples of double taxation.
What???? you say? The New York Times guilty of inconsistency in the pursuit of political goals???? Say it ain’t so……………………
Question here Mark. Just how do you plan on getting the repubs in Congress to act on this idea of yours?
Not easily – we GOPers have been, correctly, the anti-tax party so long that it is hard to do this vision-shift. But, it has to be done: after all, when we became the ant-tax party the highest marginal rate was 91% and it made all kinds of sense to be the anti-tax party. Now we have to be more than that…and steps like this will get us there.
I find Mark’s “wealth tax” very offensive and just a slightly different spin on class warfare.
And on what is this “$2M” based? Net worth? Gross income? Net income?
I say the last thing the country should be doing is poking around in the private lives of citizens, holding every asset up to be evaluated with the goal of squeezing it for money. This kind of tax would be such a breeding ground for abuse and corruption, I just don’t see how it could work.
Well, the second to the last thing. The last thing it should be doing is placing a value judgment on wealth—this much is OK, that much is too much, we will look the other way unless you cross this threshold or that one. I find absolutely nothing in our Constitution that allows for this kind of value judgement or discrimination.
For one thing, if it is based on assets, it has the same fatal flaw that the Death Tax does—-it is based on appraised value of the assets, which means that cash has to be produced to pay a tax on something that is not sold,has not produced revenue, and which the taxpayer may not WANT to be sold.
If I inherit Great-Aunt Mildred’s antique Lalique collection, which has great sentimental value to me and which I intend to donate to a museum upon my death, it could easily be worth more than a million, appraised value, yet provide absolutely no revenue to me. And appraisals are tricky things, subject to all sorts of manipulations and interpretations . The government has no business being involved in something like this, a situation where a citizen could be forced to sell something to come up with cash to pay a tax on that something.
If I gross five million dollars a year, and pay half of that in various taxes—federal, state, sales, property, etc.—-just what do you think I am going to do with the rest?
I am not going to bury it in a coffee can in the back yard. I am either going to spend it, save it, or invest it. But every penny of that remaining, heavily taxed, money is going to be put right back into the economy. It will support the businesses which make what I want to buy—that is, pay the salaries of those employees, who will pay taxes on those salaries, and on everything they buy. Or it will be in banks where it can be loaned to people, to buy homes or build businesses——-that is, support construction companies, furniture and appliance manufacturers, etc, which of course means paying the salaries of THEIR employees who will pay taxes on those salaries and what THEY buy. Or it will be invested, so other companies can grow and develop, paying THEIR employees—-but you see the pattern.
Taking this money out of this dynamic stream of economic activity and putting it in the hands of the government strikes me as not only foolish but antithetical to the very principles upon which the nation was built.
You’ve made a great argument for the Fair Tax.
or national sales tax
Spook, just how will a “fair tax” reduce government spending?
Actually, the Fair Tax IS a national sales tax.
And, GMB, anything we do has to be accompanied by a law saying that the government can’t spend more than it takes in, at least not without a specific bill to allow that specific expenditure for that specific reason, accompanied by a plan to offset this in the future by reducing spending in some other area.
Boehner caves on taxes(the GOP will get nothing and we will get higher taxes now or later)
ALL pay, ALL pay the same rate.
spend a little pay a little
spend a lot pay a lot.
If You Liberals Really Want a Class War…
that is how communism spreads, it is all part of their plan.
Uh, we had that once. It was repealed by the 16th Amendment to the Constitution witch gave Congress the unchecked ability to tax regardless of source derived.
You expect these golf buddys to undo the 16th?
Spook, just how will a “fair tax” reduce government spending?
GMB, see #’s 40 and 41.
“ALL pay, ALL pay the same rate.
spend a little pay a little
spend a lot pay a lot.”
I understand the theory. I understand how it works. Just how does anyone propose to get the progressives, both repub and donkrat”
to go along with it.
Does anyone think that barky and his chief rino stooge will pass any laws that restrict their ability to spend OPM?
I suppose anything is possible.
Armed task force to patrol streets (Paragould, Arkansas)
Paragould Daily Press ^ | December 15, 2012 | Ryan Saylor
In response to a recent increase in crime, Paragould Mayor Mike Gaskill and Police Chief Todd Stovall offered residents at a town hall meeting Thursday night at West View Baptist Church what could be considered an extreme solution — armed officers patrolling the streets on foot.
Stovall told the group of almost 40 residents that beginning in 2013, the department would deploy a new street crimes unit to high crime areas on foot to take back the streets.
“[Police are] going to be in SWAT gear and have AR-15s around their neck,” Stovall said. “If you’re out walking, we’re going to stop you, ask why you’re out walking, check for your ID.”
Stovall said while some people may be offended by the actions of his department, they should not be.
“We’re going to do it to everybody,” he said. “Criminals don’t like being talked to.”
Konstitution? we don needs no steenkin Konstitution……
both partys will fight it to the grave…..it is all about power and the fed exersises these powers through the police state including….especially the IRS
“GMB, see #’s 40 and 41”
Neither paragraph contains anything that would prevent the government from spending more than they take in. Unless I missed something.
We already have the power to vote out of office those that abuse the power. The donkrats keep sending tax and spenders back to D.C., and the repubs send their “best they can do” back more often than not.
How do you propose to get a fair tax implemented in the face of overwhelming active opposition to it?
term limits….most desired
a collapse will re set everything…least desired.
Not sure if you have seen this article from a couple of days ago.
526,421 family farms threatened by new death tax
Even now many families are required to sell off the assets to cover the tax expenses, which were already taxed at least once, in order to please a government that had no money or risk involved during the creation. Not just farms mind you but family farms are hit the hardest.
I, being from Miami, Fla. originally, watched the same thing happen to the Joe Robbie family (Miami Dolphins) and it was the end of an era. He was one of the last owners that purchased the land and paid for the stadium out of his own pocket (no taxpayer money) which was destroyed upon his passing–in part by the survivors and in part by the heavy tax burden. Well, the sell off resulting in the very likelihood that I will never live to see a season like 72′ again–even the “great Tuna” couldn’t help.
Dan M. uncle is one of my best buds…….
Mostly the wealth tax would fall on bonds, hedge funds and things of that nature…plus such items as Kerry’s yacht and vacation homes. Family heirlooms and such aren’t what I’m after…I’m after Bill Gates and George Soros and Warren Buffet and all those bazillionaires who bankroll the left and call for higher income taxes knowing they don’t pay them. Do note that even in my above, very brief description, I’m excluding farms and ranches and factories and mines which are individually or family owned…in other words, productive property in the hands of actual people, I wouldn’t tax, at all (indeed, I’m in favor of abolishing property taxes as well as inheritance taxes).
It is additionally in service of my goal of getting people unconfused about wealth and money – money isn’t wealth. It just represents wealth – making it easily transferable from one person. But real wealth is in what we make, mine and grow…what is Buffet’s wealth? A stack of stocks and bonds which don’t do anything…his wealth is actually a burden to the economy because it is actually locking away the ability to create wealth…keeping it so that Buffet can earn 8% rather than having it where it needs to be in the building and expansion of farms, factories, mines and ranches.
But as you attack hedge fund managers, their funds, etc. you also hit my mom who has her savings (and a great deal of my money) in those very funds. I am selling of my merger crappola to see what happens next year. If the capital gains is going to hit my less than $50,000 investment–it will almost all go to gold.
That is yet another aspect of my plan – a lot of the money invested is “sterile” in my view – it doesn’t really grow the wealth of the economy and thus doesn’t provide the best possible return for the small investor, like your mother. I’d rather your mother’s funds be invested in factories and farms rather than in mere financial instruments designed only to keep slightly ahead of inflation. And I’ believe I’ve mentioned I want hard currency…so a 5% return under my plan will beat the pants off an 8% return under our current usury/fake money economy.
Boener caves and offers the White House a MILLIONAIRES’ tax hike….
…. the White House predictably rejects it. obAMATEUR balks at the spending cuts.
So much for the so-called (and fictional) “balanced approach”.
Has this pathetic excuse of a “leader” offered his DETAILED plan yet?
..why should we be surprised.
tired, was this a capitulation or a tactic?
It seems that if Obama turned it down, it may have been a very well thought out and executed strategy, to show a willingness to compromise on the part of the Right and a stubborn intransigence on the part of the Left—a maneuver to defuse the accusations of the Right being nothing more than obstructionists.
Boener has not exhibited any “strategy” before. The deals worked out to extend the tax cuts and the deals for raising the debt limit. In both cases, he caved in and relented on spending cuts.
If this indeed was his strategy, I would have to ask “what took you so long?”. This should have been done the first utterance of obAMATEUR’s “balanced approach” dumbed down talking point.
Don’t you think the establishment repubs strategy was apparent last week when they removed hard core fiscal conservatives from committee assignments? Hardly the action of a opposition party that wants to oppose anything.
Then there is the oddball chance that it was a vastly superior strategy by the repubs that average folks like me, who just don’t understand how D.C. works, have taken to.
Anything is possible right?
Obama: ‘I will use whatever power this office holds’ to change 2nd Amendment’
Did not take long for this piece of work to start to attack. But the Liberals will say it is a “living document.”
Before you waste your time–this is nothing more than another Hillary (too zonked to answer questions on Benghazi) Clinton’s “It takes a village” style speech when it reality it takes a couple of parents who actually care. Even one, my mother, who raised me will do.
Statistics are all over the place but I will leave this with just one and it did not involve a gun although the “fully automatic assault weapon” of the day was freely available at the time unlike the bogus reporting of today. .45 caliber, very effective and not outlawed (Class III firearms license) until 1935.
Bath School Disaster:
If hard cases make bad laws, it’s even more true that rare crimes make terrible public policy. In a piece for Quartz, journalist Lenore Skenazy recalls that the deadliest school massacre in U.S. history took place in Michigan in 1927, when a disgruntled school-board official blew up 38 people, including himself.
Leave it to the Democrats to once again come up with the wrong answer – this time, more gun control. As if that has worked in the past.
Here’s a story you won’t see reported a whole lot, especially by the liberal media:
Don’t you think that a gun man in a crowded mall during the holidays would have been able to take out more than just two people? Thanks to a responsible armed citizen, that didn’t happen, and had there been a responsible armed citizen or better yet, principle or teacher at Sandy Hook, more lives would have been saved.
No gun law on this planet can take the place of a responsibly armed citizen in terms of safety.
Cluster, what struck me about this story is how the gunman immediately backed off when he saw armed resistance. There is a strong message in this.
These lunatics do not want to be involved in an actual gun battle, where they may be shot. I think it goes deeper than that—they do not want control of the situation to shift from them to someone else. And I think it is about control—about impotent people feeling a desperate need to finally feel they are powerful, and controlling the world around them. Suicide is the ultimate act of personal control, which is why it is the way out for these people—it is the last thing they can do that says they are in charge of what happens.
Knowing that someone else has equal control, equal power, shifts the balance, psychologically, and—to use a beloved Lefty phrase—“levels the playing field”. But a level playing field is not what these people want. If a level playing field had any appeal to them, they would not be using powerful weapons to subdue and eliminate others.
So someone with this pathological need to feel powerful, in control, dominating those around him, is not going to enter into a situation where this is not going to happen, where his effort to be powerful and in control is going to be challenged.
And the Left, in its brilliance, complies with this need. They set up and advertise places which say, in so many words, “This is a place where no one will challenge the control conveyed by being the only armed person. This is a safe place for those who need to know they hold all the cards, control all the power, and can dominate without fear of being met with equal force.”
Average response time of first responders? 21 minutes
Average response time of a Smith & Wesson? 1400 feet per second.
I think Mike Huckabee has hit the nail on the head:
But the cause and effect we see in the dramatic changes of what our children are capable of is a part of a cultural shift from a God-centered culture to a self-centered culture. We have glorified uninhibited self-expression and individualism and are shocked that we have a generation of loners. We have insisted on a society where everyone gets a trophy and no one loses and act surprised that so many kids lack self-esteem and feel like losers. We dismiss the notion of natural law and the notion that there are moral absolutes and seemed amazed when some kids make it their own morality to kill innocent children. We diminish and even hold in contempt the natural family of a father and mother creating and then responsibly raising the next generation and then express dismay that kids feel no real connection to their families or even the concept of a family. We scoff at the need for mothers and fathers to make it their priority to train their children to be strong in spirit and soul and responsible for right and wrong and exalt instead the virtue of having things and providing expensive toys, games, and electronics that substitute for parenting and then don’t understand why our kids would rather have ear buds dangling from their ears, fingers attaching to a smart phone, and face attached to a computer screen than to have an extended conversation with their family at dinner……
The second comment in your linked article says it all:
Sorry, “really, really, really liking” is not the same as doing. Obama may not respect the oath he took to protect and defend the Constitution, but the millions of active-duty military, federal, state and local law enforcement (many of who are members of OathKeepers), who would be the only feasible vehicle for disarming America, do.
As long as Barry sticks to changing the 2nd Amendment, I’m OK with that. It’s when he starts issuing Executive Orders and presidential declarations, making new law and cherry-picking existing law according to his ideology, that I get upset.
Go ahead, Barry—take a whack at carving up the Bill of Rights. Go after the 10th, while you’re at it, and it looks like the 1st is inconvenient for you, too, what with conservatives thinking they can listen to radio shows and call in and talk about their political views and all. And that “freedom of worship” thing? Gotta go, though it was pretty handy when you needed a bogey-man to back up your stupid lies about a “war on women”. You might need to quarter soldiers in private homes—if not actual military, then your citizen “security patrols” who are as well armed and funded as the military.
Go for it. It will be a good show. Just remember, you can’t do a thing till you actually CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION.
As long as Barry sticks to changing the 2nd Amendment, I’m OK with that.
I had to read that a couple times to make sure I was reading it correctly. In what way are you “OK” with Obama changing the 2nd Amendment? Maybe removing “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” part?
Sorry—I didn’t realize it would be read that way.
What I was getting at is, first, I am glad he admits he would NEED to change the 2nd Amendment, and second, that limiting his choices to this will mean he can’t get anything done.
I guess I should have said “As long as Barry sticks to TRYING TO CHANGE the 2nd Amendment, I’m OK with that.” Because I don’t think that he can get any real traction, regarding a gutting of the Bill of Rights. And I think he can do far less damage by trying than he can by implementing various end runs AROUND the Bill of Rights, which would create all sorts of problems, conflicts, etc.
And I think he can do far less damage by trying than he can by implementing various end runs AROUND the Bill of Rights, which would create all sorts of problems, conflicts, etc.
He would be met with force by many.
Jeremiah, you seem quite eager to engage in some sort of violent confrontation. I want to be clear that when I mention conflicts and problems I am not talking about violence.
I think comments like yours lend credence to the lies of the Left, that conservatives are violent and promote violence. There is a big difference between stating a willingness to defend ourselves and our nation if necessary and constantly having force as a default reaction to anything that is said.
You would be wrong in your judgment of what “I want.”
I don’t want any conflict.
I just sayin’ that the intent is there by the administration, whether they are unsuccessful or otherwise. Obama and his administration have made it clear what their desire is.
All I am doing is retorting Obama and the administration’s desires, and saying that they don’t want to try what they want to do. I heard his highly political message at the prayer vigil for the Newtown residents last night, and he came across very clear in his statements. I didn’t have to derive, or come up with anything that I think he “might” have said. No, it was clear in his speech.
I don’t want any sort of violence, the furthest from it. I want peace and tranquility, as does any normal American…to live without fear.
You seem to think that the government can’t take peoples guns away, that they can only “try” … well, many were almost certain that Obama wouldn’t get a second term, and we see how that went.
The big, two letter, operative word here is IF, if Obama tries to take Americans guns, and if he succeeds, which he will be very close to doing, considering the dictator minded person that he is, then it’s not going to go down so well with very many law-abiding, gun-owning citizens of Americans.
Thank you for the clarification
Blackness Gestapo Attack on RGIII Typical
By Lloyd Marcus
View imageRGIII (Robert Griffin III), superstar quarterback of the Washington Redskins, is the latest black under attack by the Blackness Gestapo. The Blackness Gestapo are racists, black and white, who troll the airways keeping blacks in check, faithful to their blackness.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/12/blackness_gestapo_attack_on_rgiii_typical.html#ixzz2FLyNMzit
neo, this is just another example of the truly bizarre concept of race in this country. It is clearly no longer a matter of ethnicity or skin color, not when Bill Clinton can be called “the first black president”, a man who is half white can be called “black” and when true black people are told they are not “really black” if they do not act in certain ways, talk in certain ways,and believe certain things.
All of this nonsense, coupled with the overuse of the word “racism” in so many ways not even remotely connected with race, are contributing to making the very word meaningless. Now the whole thing has become a caricature of situational ethics, or moral relativity, a scenario in which the meaning of a word depends entirely on (1) who says it, and (2) who hears it.
And the race whores who are trying to gain some kind of power or authority by playing the game are only making themselves less credible and less relevant. Which is fine with me. Let them create a whole new plantation in which they are captive, as long as they build it themselves and volunteer to live there.
After decades of white and black people working together to tear down the walls of black ghettos, it is really sad to see them being erected again, but this time by the people who are voluntarily walling themselves in
Jeremiah, as long as you are going only by what Obama actually SAID, and not by what you think he might have meant, please extend the same courtesy to me.
You said: You seem to think that the government can’t take peoples guns away, that they can only “try” yet nothing I said even came close to that. I happen to think that such an effort would be a disaster for Obama and whoever tried, but I did not say that, so please don’t attribute things to me which I did not say.
And there is a HUGE difference between suckering a bunch of gullible lemmings into voting for issues while remaining ignorant of the political system laying out the bait, and going into the homes of armed people to take away their guns. The first is a fairly common occurrence, happening all time when people are lazy and depend on emotion instead of thought, but the latter would be a very different scenario, and one I don’t believe even Obama would try.
No, he has about three and a half years to try to undermine gun ownership, and I suggest he will try to do it by back-door means, such as interfering with availability of ammunition, or trying to impose some sort of special tax on weapons.
I thought I made it very clear that an effort to repeal the 2nd Amendment would be an interesting thing to watch, and preferable from my point of view, as I don’t think it could be done but it would suck up a lot of time and effort from the Left and possibly keep them from messing around too much in other things.
Clinton tried and Obama has pushed to restrict reloading ammunition–in all places– in a treaty with Mexico where he is responsible for the slaughter of over 300 citizens.
You can read more at: Are you licensed to reload that ammo?
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2009/04/95733/#1RDJTb4b4ubhIPFd.99
Even though he hasn’t gotten it all the way through yet he has also proposed the requiring of licensing, taxing on reloading materials. The primary reason I gave up my Class III firearms license was because of the increase of warrant-less searches this administration has already inflicted.
Hate to give these morons any help but there was already a proposal to ban gun stores within 5,000 ft of a school or playground which would eliminate almost all gun shops except in the center of flyover country.
Obama would not have to repeal the 2nd Amendment. All he would have to do is ask the UN to apply sanctions, and he would bring in foreign troops to assist him in declaring martial law, and removing all firearms from homes equipped with them, and creating a police state. That might sound like an unrealistic maneuver, but one that I would not put past the President.
As for my saying “You seem to think that the government can’t take peoples guns away, that they can only “try””…..
I stand by that statement, regardless of your inference that you did “not” say the government could “try” but not be successful in an endeavor to eliminate gun ownership rights (my beginning paragraph points to the opposite…and yes he would be successful, so it is a legitimate concern and/or fear). As that is exactly what you imply in your comment at 11:44 AM Dec, 17, 2012.
And in your 1:50 PM commentary stating that he cannot get “any traction”. No big deal…just bringing it to your attention.
Again, my point, entirely, is that the President shouldn’t even begin to think of any measure of gun control. But, my opinion means little in the larger picture, because, as you have stated, a larger majority of Americans are not keen on the political systems, their differences, rewards and repercussions that each entail.
Speaking of being ignorant of political beliefs….It was just on the news that 54% of Americans are in favor of some type of gun control over 46% who are not, being mostly as an immediate response to last Friday’s tragedy in Newtown.
With that being the case, I say they only bring bondage upon themselves as free Americans.
The one thing (or one of many things) that really peeves me is the talking heads on MSM and at the Capital have no friggin’ idea of what they are even talking about. You have to be a Class III firearms dealer just to handle an assault weapon. There really is no such thing as an assault pistol unless one counts illegally modified Mac-10’s.
Semi-automatic is the best an average citizen can do; nevertheless, the world record holder in speed shooting happens to use a revolver with speed loaders. Six shots at a time. Finally, extended magazines are a fallacy as well. At least since several years ago.
Here’s another potential class warfare scenario.
A Newsmax article about the Domino’s Pizza lawsuit against the federal government states, in part: “The new federal law requires employers to offer insurance including contraception coverage or risk fines.”
The SCOTUS ruling stated that the penalty for not buying insurance can be called a tax and is therefore Constitutional. This penalty is, I believe, for individuals who do not buy insurance. I have to wonder what the Court will say about this, and/or the following, which appears to be a different penalty system for employers who do not buy insurance for employees.
“Employer Penalty for Not Offering Coverage: The law will not require employers to offer health insurance; however, beginning in 2014, employers with more than 50 full-time employees that do not offer coverage will have to pay a penalty of $2,000 per full-time equivalent employee for all full-time employees in excess of 30 if even one employee receives a federal government subsidy and purchases coverage in an exchange.”
When I offered health insurance to employees, it cost me more than $2000 a year per employee. I think if I were to be in the position of the feds ordering me to pay for insurance and also to go against my religious beliefs, I would tell them to go pound sand, write them a check for $2000 for every employee in excess of 30, and tell my employees that this —not having me pay for their health insurance—-is what happens when excruciatingly stupid people vote for issues without knowing, or caring, about the political system behind them.
And don’t you love the weasel words—-you don’t HAVE to provide insurance, you can just get slammed with penalties if you don’t.
I just got home from running errands, and from talking to a business owner who just laid off two people to keep his employee count below 50. He’s not Catholic, doesn’t object to birth control, but strenuously objects to be told what to do by the federal government. We chatted for a while about how it is the sheeple who voted for Obama who are going to end up being hurt the worst. I’ll be OK. I’ll pay a little more in taxes but I can handle that, though every penny will just make me more furious with the utter stupidity of about half of the American public. He’ll be fine—-his remaining employees will get more overtime, so they will make more, and his bottom line will remain the same. He was planning to sell the business and retire in a year or so, and now he may ride it out till we hit rock bottom and people start to catch on that repeating the same mistake is only going to make things worse—and we are both going to be very active in replacing the Dem Senator up for reelection in 2016.
Professor calls for assassination of NRA CEO
Campus Reform ^
A professor of history turned to Twitter over the weekend to call for the death of National Rifle Association (NRA) CEO Wayne LaPierre, branding the gun rights group he heads as a terrorist organization.