Archive for the ‘Tax’ Category

…up front. I’m easily amused.

…is what a California school will be paying for a $100 million loan.
Why is this state broke? Don’t ask me. Just listen to David Spady.

…that the media and the Republicans are letting slide.
I’m personally sick of this lying douche bag. I can’t stand listening to him anymore, I know that the majority of what he says is bullshit and the media are kissing his ass and letting him get away with blatant lies.
Let’s look at this most obvious lie.

The President: “President Bush’s “tax cuts for the rich” cost the government so much tax revenue that this added to the budget deficit — so that the government cannot afford to allow the cost of letting the Bush tax rates continue for “the rich.”
First off, whenever the tax rates have been lowered, revenue has gone up. Every time some idiot Democrat raises the taxes on the “rich” revenues go down. The CBO screws this up every time they try to predict the revenue that it expects to get. They think that by raising taxes, revenue also rises. That’s demonstrably false. The Democrats are too stupid to look at the history of this country and how this works. Keynesian economics is a grand failure, each and every time it has been tried, yet the morons in the liberal party continue to try it, with the same resounding failure as the last time it was tried.

Cut taxes, cut spending. That’s the secret to getting America back on track. It’s so simple, yet the 535 idiots in Congress and the head idiot in charge can’t figure it out.

Cries of “racist” in 3, 2, 1…

I’ll let Thomas Sowell tell it.

Obama Plays Chicken
His priority is to increase government, and he’ll sacrifice the economy for it.
By Thomas Sowell

One of the big advantages that President Obama has, as he plays “chicken” with congressional Republicans along the “fiscal cliff,” is that he is a master of the plausible lie, which will never be exposed by the mainstream media — nor, apparently, by the Republicans.

A key lie that has been repeated over and over, largely unanswered, is that President Bush’s “tax cuts for the rich” cost the government so much tax revenue that this added to the budget deficit — so that the government cannot afford to allow the cost of letting the Bush tax rates continue for “the rich.”

It sounds very plausible, and constant repetition without a challenge may well be enough to convince the voting public that, if the Republican-controlled House of Representatives does not go along with Barack Obama’s demands for more spending and higher tax rates on the top 2 percent, it just shows that they care more for “the rich” than for the other 98 percent.


…and this is a video released by the Senate Minority Whip.
Obama and the Democrats will destroy small businesses with their stupid policies.
This is what you morons voted for? Thanks a lot assholes.

…before he was for higher taxes.

Warren Buffet is a douche bag. He’s been wonking about the tax rate and how it should be low since 1963. Now Obama gives him a medal and he starts kissing Obama’s ass by espousing for higher taxes on the rich. Since he’s already a billionaire about 40 times over, that shit doesn’t hurt him, just the rest of America that would like to get there.
Raising taxes on the rich will not solve our deficit problem. In fact, if Buffett gave every penny he had, he couldn’t keep the government running for very  long.

Raising taxes will not fix the deficit problem. It’s never been a ‘revenue’ problem, it’s a spending problem, always has been.

Let’s explore:

Buffett’s Billions Can’t Buy Him Exemption From His Tax-Averse Past
By Daniel Shuchman

Having a net worth over $40 billion may command some authority and attention for one’s views on economics and taxation.  But it should not buy one an exemption from basic logic, intellectual integrity, or consistency.

Such seems to be case with Warren Buffett, who yet again took to the op/ed pages of the New York Times this week to call for higher taxes on citizens earning more than $500,000.  The idea that higher income people should pay more in taxes, whether born of a desire for greater progressivity and/or a desire to raise more revenue, is certainly a legitimate viewpoint.  However, any serious person espousing such an argument should be expected to address several basic questions:  What will the standard of fairness be?  How is it to be determined that any particular income group is paying its “fair share?”  And if taxes are to increase, whether to address the deficit or for “fairness,” what degree of negative impact on economic growth and investment is one willing to tolerate?  Regrettably, the recent presidential campaign featured much demagoguery but few answers.  Mr. Buffett is no more illuminating.

The so-called Oracle of Omaha begins by making the manifestly absurd assertion that tax rates do not influence investment behavior.  Astonishingly, Mr. Buffett claims that when he was a fund manager, “never did anyone mention taxes as a reason to forgo an investment opportunity….”  “Only in Grover Norquist’s imagination,” he derisively contends, do investors adjust their plans based on the prospects for taxation.  Such statements defy economic logic.  The amount and nature of taxation, whether of the income stream generated by a particular investment, or that levied on interim dividends or capital gains realized upon the disposition of an asset, must be among the many complex factors considered by any rational investor in assessing the relative merits of an investment opportunity.  If this proposition is not self-evident to you, you can go straight to the authority himself.


…then anyone who has ever donated to the Republican Party should cease to do so in the future. Not one fucking dime. Since the RINO fever has struck these idiots in the House and Senate, then we as donors should cease all donations to that Party. Invest your money on a Party that will actually represent your interests. The Republicans ain’t it.

Brent Bozell is saying as much:

A prominent conservative activist and fundraiser is reportedly threatening to steer donors away from the Republican Party if GOP lawmakers agree to raise taxes.

Brent Bozell, founder and president of conservative watchdog group Media Research Center, sent a letter to Republican National Committee (RNC) Chairman Reince Priebus on Wednesday promising to advise conservative donors to shun the party if its leaders in Congress sign a deal to raise taxes, The Hill reports.

Bozell — who is also the chairman of ForAmerica Inc., a Virginia-based nonprofit — has been active in conservative political circles for three decades and estimated he has raised hundreds of millions of dollars for a litany conservative causes.

“Reince, it pains me to say this, but if the Republican Party breaks its word to the American people and goes along with President Obama with tax increases, it will have betrayed conservatives for the final time,” Bozell wrote. “I will make it my mission to ensure that every conservative donor to the Republican Party that I have worked with for the last three decades — and there are many and they have given tens of millions to Republican causes — gives not one penny more to the Republican Party or any member of Congress that votes for tax increases.”


…says Mitch McConnel.
We need to hold them to their word.
If the Republicans cave on this, the ones that vote for it need to be shit canned.
Unfortunately, Americans have a shorty memory when it comes to politics. Just look at the recent elections.

Ace has an excellent breakdown of the vote. 12% of voters made up their mind in the last week.

Obama is a failure and Americans failed in their duty to keep America a free republic.

Senate Minority Leader: No Tax Hikes
by Ben Shapiro

With conservatives across the country concerned about a rumored Republican cave-in in Washington, D.C. over tax policy, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) is speaking out. Read his lips: no tax hikes.

McConnell said in an exclusive statement to Breitbart News:

One issue I’ve never been conflicted about is taxes. I wasn’t sent to Washington to raise anybody’s taxes to pay for more wasteful spending and this election doesn’t change my principles. This election was a disappointment, without doubt, but let’s be clear about something: the House is still run by Republicans, and Republicans still maintain a robust minority in the Senate. I know some people out there think Tuesday’s results mean Republicans in Washington are now going to roll over and agree to Democrat demands that we hike tax rates before the end of the year. I’m here to tell them there is no truth to that notion whatsoever.


…he will raise taxes.

You’ve been warned by the SCOAMF himself.

And if you believe that it’s only for the wealthy, I’ve got a bridge in San Fransisco for sale, inquire within.

Obama: Second term would be ‘mandate’ for cuts, tax increases
By David Hill

President Obama said in an interview aired Monday that his first priority if re-elected would be to push for passage of a debt-reduction plan to cut spending and raise taxes on the nation’s highest earners.

Appearing in a taped interview on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” Mr. Obama predicted that Congress can approve a plan to reduce the country’s debt and deficit as soon as during a lame-duck session later this year, or in the early months of next year.

“If we won, then I believe that’s a mandate for doing it in a balanced way,” he said in the interview, which was taped Saturday at a campaign stop in Nashua, N.H. “We can do some more cuts, we could look at how we deal with the health care costs in particular under Medicaid and Medicare in a serious way, but we are also going to need some revenue.”


…and spent, like a drunken sailor on shore leave. Apologies to all drunken sailors.

The money that the government takes in, doesn’t even come close to the money that’s spent.

America’s number one export, is debt.

It’s all about the Benjamins.

The 7-Eleven Presidency | The Weekly Standard.

In the wake of the Treasury Department’s newly released summary of federal spending for 2012, it’s now possible to detail just how profligate the Obama years have been.  Here’s the upshot:  Under Obama, for every $7 we’ve had, we’ve spent nearly $11 (or, to be more exact, $10.95).  That’s like a family that makes $70,000 a year — and is already knee-deep in debt — blowing nearly $110,000 a year.

To illustrate this a bit differently, for every Jackson ($20) we’ve had available to spend under Obama, we’ve also borrowed a Hamilton ($10) and a Washington ($1) and spent those too.  The only thing is that, under Obama, we’ve (literally) spent the equivalent of 342 billion Jacksons, 342 billion Hamiltons, and 342 billion Washingtons — borrowing all of the Hamiltons and Washingtons.


…not really an update, I’m just getting this back up to the top for the next couple days.

..a voter guide happily stolen from KFI. Pass this on.

Proposition 30: VOTE NO

Increases personal income tax on annual earnings over $250,000 for seven years.  Increases sales and use tax by 1Ž4 cent for four years. Allocates temporary tax revenues 89 percent to K-12 schools and 11 percent to community colleges.

John and Ken say:  NO, NO, a thousand times NO.  With the highest tax rates in many key categories, raising the sales tax and income taxes in a weak economy is exactly the WRONG thing to do.  And it’s been proven that relying on income taxes from the “rich” is a budget recipe for disaster.  Plus, holding the “kid’s education” hostage must not be rewarded.  If you only vote on one proposition this year, make sure it’s “NO” on Proposition 30.


Proposition 31: VOTE NO

Establishes two-year state budget cycle. Prohibits Legislature from creating expenditures of more than $25 million unless offsetting revenues or spending cuts are identified. Permits Governor to cut budget unilaterally during declared fiscal emergencies if Legislature fails to act.

John and Ken say:  This oddity is packed with dense language, probably meant to disguise its true intent.  It’s a battle between state and local governments over a pile of tax money and the budgeting process.  When in doubt, throw it out.


Proposition 32: VOTE YES

Restricts union political fundraising by prohibiting use of payroll-deducted funds for political purposes. Same use restriction would apply to payroll deductions, if any, by corporations or government contractors. Permits voluntary employee contributions to employer or union committees if authorized yearly, in writing. Prohibits unions and corporations from contributing directly or indirectly to candidates and candidate-controlled committees.

John and Ken say:  If you are going to vote on only two propositions this year, this should be the other one you vote on and it’s a resounding “YES.”  It could very well destroy the stranglehold public employee unions have on Sacramento politicians, and everywhere else in the state for that matter.  Union members should have a say on how their money is spent, especially if it’s for oils and lotions for political hacks’ messages.


Proposition 33: VOTE YES

Changes current law to permit insurance companies to set prices based on whether the driver previously carried auto insurance with any insurance company. Allows insurance companies to give proportional discounts to drivers with some prior insurance coverage. Will allow insurance companies to increase cost of insurance to drivers who have not maintained continuous coverage.

John and Ken say:  You should be able to be eligible for continuous coverage discounts even if you switch companies.


Proposition 34: VOTE NO

Repeals death penalty as maximum punishment for persons found guilty of murder and replaces it with life imprisonment without possibility of parole. Applies retroactively to persons already sentenced to death. Requires persons found guilty of murder to work while in prison, with their wages to be applied to any victim restitution fines or orders against them.

John and Ken say:  We need to shorten the appeals process which leads to all the money spent on the whole death penalty system.  Don’t be fooled by the argument that sentencing someone to death causes big taxpayer bills.


Proposition 35: VOTE YES

Increases criminal penalties for human trafficking, including prison sentences up to 15-years-to-life and fines up to $1,500,000. Fines collected to be used for victim services and law enforcement. Requires person convicted of trafficking to register as sex offender.

John and Ken say:  This might be a solution in search of a bigger problem, but we are not usually against more penalties for crimes.


Proposition 36: VOTE NO

Revises three strikes law to impose life sentence only when new felony conviction is serious or violent. Authorizes re-sentencing for offenders currently serving life sentences if third strike conviction was not serious or violent and judge determines sentence does not pose unreasonable risk to public safety.

John and Ken say:  The 3 Strikes Law works fine.  It has to be a factor in lowered crime rates.  This idea that the third strike has to be a serious or violent one will cost lives, or at the least, serious injury. Period.


Proposition 37: VOTE NO

Requires labeling on raw or processed food offered for sale to consumers if made from plants or animals with genetic material changed in specified ways. Prohibits labeling or advertising such food as “natural.”

John and Ken say:  Another silly labeling law.  Genetically engineered food is not scary, it’s advanced technology.  This one could result in more lawsuits and higher food prices.


Proposition 38: VOTE NO

Increases personal income tax rates for annual earnings over $7,316 using sliding scale from 0.4% for lowest individual earners to 2.2% for individuals earning over $2.5 million, ending after twelve years. During first four years, 60% of revenues go to K-12 schools, 30% to repaying state debt, and 10% to early childhood programs. Thereafter, allocates 85% of revenues to K-12 schools, 15% to early childhood programs.

John and Ken say:  It’s the other individual tax grab, the one by Molly Munger.  The money might actually go to the schools, but everyone will see their income tax bills go up.


Proposition 39: VOTE NO

Requires multistate businesses to calculate their California income tax liability based on the percentage of their sales in California. Repeals existing law giving multistate businesses an option to choose a tax liability formula that provides favorable tax treatment for businesses with property and payroll outside California.

John and Ken say:  Now it’s a tax grab from business.  With one of the worst business climates in the nation, why give California businesses another reason to leave?


Proposition 40: VOTE YES

State Senate districts are revised every ten years following the federal census. This year, the voter-approved California Citizens Redistricting Commission revised the boundaries of the 40 Senate districts. This referendum petition, if signed by the required number of registered voters and filed with the Secretary of State, will: (1) Place the revised State Senate boundaries on the ballot and prevent them from taking effect unless approved by the voters at the next statewide election; and (2) Require court-appointed officials to set interim boundaries for use in the next statewide election.

John and Ken say:  This is about the new voting districts for the CaliforniaState Senate.  It remains to be seen whether the “Citizen Redistricting Commission” really worked or was just another scam.  A “YES” vote is to keep the Senate districts as the commission drew them up.  The proponents of this initiative (the “NO” side) actually gave up already.

Read more: