DANA LOESCH and ELIOT SPITZER Discuss Taxes, Social Security and Defense Spending

.

BACHMANN: SENATE TAX BILL UNCONSTITUTIONAL

Funny but true: she seems very serious about her intention to give congressmen classes on the constitution.

Lawrence O'Donnell, Alan Grayson and A Few Other Democrats Snipe at Each Other over Taxes

.

Suddenly Anthony Weiner Says He Cares About the Ballooning Debt?

.

Michael Reagan, Megyn Kelly discuss Obama's cave in to Republicans “He doesn’t know where the center is.”

.

Krauthammer on Obama's Televised Tax Announcement: He Was Addressing Daily Kos, NYT and MoveOn

.

Comment of the Day

Example, I own my own business and have the following:
1) Take 100K of income
2) 100K of profit that I would like to reinvest.
3) Paid down 100K of principal on my buildings
To the government I have 300K of income and I am taxed as such. If my effective rate is 33%, I have to pay 100K of taxes. There goes my profit, and I have no money to reinvest in my business. Do you understand crr6 and your ilk???
WashJeff on December 3, 2010 at 10:38 AM

from Hot Air.com

Dana Loesch Smacks Down Liberal Comedian

DL is yet another of our smart and principled conservative women. I love them.

Leno on Obama's Birthday: "He didn't blow the candles out. He just taxed them until they gave up and went out on their own."

.

Comment Of the Day

Thu, 08/12/2010 - 16:50 ET by sawing batta
Earth to Chuck.

i run a small business and have spent the last 24 mos. (yes, we planned ahead, hedged our bets against an obama victory) to outsource non key functions (didnt want the healthcare and unemployment exposure), automated (fewer employees for reasons above), minimized pay increases (so we could afford future tax increases), pulled out of a few states (too difficult to do business with), terminated a commercial lease (still un rented, btw).

my household income has suffered, our home value is way down (but our property tax is UP!) - and is getting materially worse on Jan 1 (remember, we plan ahead and are spending accordingly today). my workload is increasing (read up on healthcare 1099 filings...that alone is a killer), regulations and costs are going up. War on the "rich" is war on my customers and bc i own the business, on me. This president is not giving me a single reason to want to invest in my own business. He continues to give me every incentive to clam up, fire everyone, and run it all myself out of my basement.

this guy is TRAGIC for business. what planet are you on?

from NewsBusters

The Tax-the-Rich Vote and Civil Servants Fight the 401k from WSJ

.

h/t: WSJ

The Rahn Curve: How Much Government Spending Is Too Much for Economic Health

.

h/t: Hot Air.com

Political Rorschach: If You Think Tax Cuts Are a Major Cause of Present Economic Crisis Then You're a Democrat (or of that Ilk)

.

Chris Cheistie Vetos More Tax Increases and Advises That NJ Gov't Spend What They Have Wisely

.

'Millionaires tax' bills pass both houses, but are vetoed by Gov. Christie

h/t: Pundit and Pundette

Ben Bernanke Has Suddenly Discovered We Have An Incredibly Large Amount of Debt

I guess he just didn't see this developing until a couple of days ago. On April 15 his boss was telling us that we should be thanking him for lowering taxes. And now, out of nowhere, Bernanke is telling us why we need to raise taxes. In a relatively small piece that covers the genesis of our mind bogglingly large debt as well as some of its psychological and sociological aspects, the PJTV column Roger's Rules looks at the debt situation. Here's one long quote from the post:
". . . Ben Bernanke, chairman of the Federal Reserve, is warning about the deficit. The man we pay to preside over the country’s money supply has had the amazing revelation that a $1.6 trillion deficit might impede economic recovery. Amazing!
ow do you suppose Mr. Bernanke’s testimony fits into the narrative being woven by the Obama administration? Try this on: the President embarks on a spending spree the dimensions of which are unprecedented in U.S., indeed, in world history, committing us to trillions—that’s “trillions” with an “s”—in “stimulus” packages, bailouts, cash-for-clunkers, cash for socialized medicine, etc., etc. Then he and his minions turn around and point out we are deep, deep, deep in debt. How’d that happen? No one seems to remember. The bottom line, however, is that now you—i.e., we—must pay. And pay. And pay.
"It’s really a breathtaking performance. They rack up several trillion dollars in debt. Then, like the rat who invites you to lunch and then announces he has forgotten his wallet, they stick us with the bill. (The analogy is imperfect and unfair to the rat: at least with him you did get lunch.) “So sorry, we hate to raise taxes, but we just discovered this gigantic deficit and unless we take more of your money, we won’t be able to go on spending, spending, spending like there’s no tomorrow mad that wouldn’t be fair would it?”
“But,” you point out, “taxes haven’t really risen yet.”
"Precisely. And yet even so here’s an ordinary slob like me feeling like Boxer in Animal Farm. What happens when the taxer-in-chief really gets going?
"It was at this point in my musings that I thought about the 19th-century English essayist William Hazlitt: “those who lack delicacy,” he pointed out, “hold us in their power.” Early on in the Obama administration, Governor Mitch Daniels spoke about Obama’s “shock and awe statism.” The staggering spending programs. The government takeover of health care. The cap-’n-trade initiative. The destruction of thousands of perfectly good automobiles for the sake of a “green economy.” It has been difficult to keep up. It’s been a veritable Blitz: the spending, the world tyrants tour, the sudden coolness to Israel and Great Britain, the announcement that our nuclear arsenal is basically just for show, the coddling of terrorists: we now see just how much in earnest Obama was when, a few days before the election, he told his followers that they were on the threshold of “fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”"

h/t: Pundit and Pundette

The Laughing Congressman Or the Democrats Are Delusional If They Think People Will Believe Their Silly Claim to Have Cut Taxes

***


h/t: Breitbart TV

Zo Explains Why the Republicans Did Not Applaud When Obama Said He Expected Them To Have

"Bill Clinton knew al-Quida was an active and hostile enemy and he did nothing. And you still want to blame Bush?"


h/t: JAWA Report

Barney Frank Is Obnoxious and Loves Taxes

*************************************************


This is old but I didn't see it when it first aired. I don't completely understand why but I am always very amused when I see Frank and his bad manners in action.

No Bizarre Sexual Acts Were Observed In The Crowd Of Ten Thousand People

Lunch Room Economics

July 15, 2009 - 09:44 ET by vrwc13
Lunch Room Economics
Suppose that every day ten men go out for lunch and the tab for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
All for the same meal.
So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men ate lunch every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. He said, "Since you are all such good customers, I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily lunches by $20. Food for the ten will now cost just $80."
The group still wanted to pay their bill the same way we pay our taxes, so the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six men -- the actual 'paying' customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share"? They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being "paid" to eat his lunch. So the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same formula based on what was paid, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay!
And so: The first four continued to eat lunch for free (no change)
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $50 instead of $59 (15% savings).
Each of the six who had been paying was now better off than before, and they all still ate the same meal. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar back out of the $20 savings," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $9"! "Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got back nine times more than I!" "That's true!!"shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $9 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!" "Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. This payment system exploits the poor!"
So the nine men surrounded the tenth guy and beat him up. The next day the tenth man didn't show up for lunch, but the other men sat down and ate without him, anyway. When it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something interesting. Between them all they didn't even have enough money to pay half the bill!

And that, boys and girls, presidential candidates and economic pundits, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much or attack them for being wealthy and they might not show up to eat with us any more. In fact, they could start eating lunch some other place where the atmosphere turns out to be a lot friendlier.

[The above is taken in whole and exactly from a comments thread at NewsBusters.]