Democrat Leaders: We Aren’t Done Taxing Americans

Leave a comment

This is from Freedom Outpost.

DemocRats and tax increases are like the heroin addict they need more and more.

These radical tax scams will stifle economic growth.

The millionaires and billionaires will stop investing in companies.

Then when the companies do not have capital to grow their businesses .

Workers see their hours reduced or they get terminated.

After the fiscal cliff deal was done, imposing higher taxes this year on all those making $40,000 per year or more, three different Democrats took to three different Sunday shows to push for more taxation on the American people.

First up was Democrat House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). She appeared on CBS’ Face the Nation and Bob Schieffer asked her if the “revenue side” of the fiscal cliff is complete. For Democrats, revenue means taxes.


Limbaugh: Republicans Do Have Leverage; Use It!

Leave a comment

This is by David Limbaugh in GOP USA.

We need another Ronald Reagan to lead the Republican Party.

We also need to purge all RINO‘s and Gutless Moderates from the party.

We also need to stop the establishment Republicans from picking our nominee.

If you can not Loudly and Proudly say I am a Conservative you’re not wanted.

At this stage of the fiscal cliff pseudo negotiations, do the American people have any idea what the Republicans stand for other than to protect the wealthy and cut Medicare and Social Security to harm the sick and aged?

People constantly invoke Ronald Reagan, but one thing is certain and very relevant: If Reagan were on the national stage today, the public would not be confused about what the Republican Party stands for and why it matters.

The GOP is having difficulty even consolidating around a central message, much less selling it to the public. There is no excuse for that.

Though following its election defeat the party has all the confidence of an abandoned stepchild, it needs to shake the dust off, stand up and begin fighting like it truly believes the nation is worth fighting for.

It is automatically assumed in virtually all corners that President Obama has all the leverage in these budget talks. But is that necessarily true?

Let’s look briefly at our current economic and fiscal condition and then compare the outcomes of going over the cliff versus reaching a deal and avoiding the cliff.

We have nation-threatening debt, and it’s overwhelmingly because our spending is out of control. To the extent that revenues are contributing, it is not because tax rates on the rich are too low. It is because we have an anemic economy.

We have the worst recovery and the longest sustained period of high unemployment in 50 years because of Obama’s anti-growth, private sector-smothering taxing, spending and regulatory policies. These policies ensure an endless circular pattern of debt explosion by destroying jobs, which shrinks the tax base and reduces revenues but also increases spending as the unemployed move to the welfare rolls.

Obama has jacked up federal spending across the board, save defense spending. Though he didn’t cause the demographic changes leading to runaway entitlements — except for adding Obamacare — he is single-handedly standing in the way of reforming these programs.

This is Obama’s economy and his financial crisis.

That’s where we are. How about where we’re headed?

If negotiations fail, we’ll end up with automatic spending cuts, which, except for defense, would be a step in the right direction, and tax increases for everyone, not just the rich. Forget whether this is the result Obama wants. The question is whether it’s better for the country than what the GOP would have to agree to for Obama to sign a deal averting the cliff.

Obama won’t agree to serious spending cuts or entitlement reform, and he’s demanding punitive, revenue-negligible tax increases (and elimination of deductions) for the wealthy. Further, he insists Republicans unconstitutionally delegate to him unilateral authority over future spending ceilings and thus abandon any future leverage they would have to force him to cut spending.

Why is it just assumed by Republicans and even conservative commentators that Republicans can’t make their case against a reckless president who is primarily to blame for our problems and for any budget breakdowns?

Why, indeed? Fox News just released a poll showing that 89 percent of Americans believe that if taxes go up on the wealthy the president should agree to major spending cuts.

Polls also show the public fears the reduction of entitlement benefits more than it fears an economic collapse mostly caused by entitlements. So Republicans must explain clearly that entitlement reform is what ensures they will keep their benefits and that without reform we will have an economic collapse in which everyone will lose their benefits or receive substantially less.

Republicans appear feckless, unconfident and tongue-tied. They need to go on the offensive and show that Obama is causing these problems and preventing their solution. They need to refuse any deal that doesn’t include major spending reductions and substantial entitlement reform, because such a deal would accelerate the bankruptcy of America, while tax increases on the rich won’t help at all.

Even going over the cliff would be preferable to accepting Obama’s unreasonable demands, which would be destructive to the economy and our financial situation and pointless, except to punish the rich and damage the Republican brand. While the automatic tax increases would be anti-growth, at least we’d have spending cuts, and Republicans will have stood on principle.

Thus, if the negotiations break down and we go over the cliff, it will mostly be Obama’s fault. Obama refuses to address the financial crisis. Republicans insist we do. And we can’t win this argument? Are we 2-year-olds who can’t complete a simple sentence?

It’s time for Republicans to draw their line in the sand and spell this out with a strong, unified, articulate voice. And while they’re at it, perhaps they could make their case for a pro-growth society rife with opportunity, as contrasted to a future of ever-increasing economic malaise and government dependency.

LA Times Demonstrates Liberals Cluelessness About Basic Economics

Leave a comment

This is from Town Hall.

Ronald Reagan summed  up the liberals the best.

The trouble with our Liberal friends is not that they’re ignorant; it’s just that they know so much that isn’t so.

There are a few irrefutable laws of basic economics that are understood by practically everyone. When the price of a good rises, people will buy less of it. This is common knowledge to anyone who has bought anything ever. There is also the law of unintended consequences which states that actions, laws, and policies often have secondary effects that differ from the original actions intentions. We have seen this inevitably played out in most laws passed by Congress. Both of these ideas have been around for thousands of years and the father of economics, Adam Smith, articulated them himself back in the eighteenth century.

However, an article in Tuesday’s Los Angeles Times demonstrates how little of these truths liberals understand. “Study offers new support for taxing soda and other junk foods,” written by Karen Kaplan, expressed surprise that foundational building blocks of economic thought were at play in our world. Kaplan looked at various studies done recently on the effects of taxing junk food on the public’s health to find that taxes on sugary drinks resulted in less sugary drinks being bought.

Kaplan’s article references a study that discovered, “Overall… consumers buy less of something when the price goes up and they buy more of it when the price goes down.” The fact that consumers base decisions on what to buy off of the price of the good is completely foreign to many on the left.

Granted, Kaplan did say this was “not exactly a new idea.” But then she continued to treat other findings as if they were earth shattering realizations rather than concrete facts that have been proven hundreds of years ago.

Discussing the merits of a tax on sugary foods, Kaplan was surprised research found that taxing fatty foods led to consumption of less expensive, but not necessarily healthier, foods. “But there was a twist,” she remarked, astounded that anything could have happened beyond the intended consequence, “the tax would prompt people to switch from fatty dairy foods to foods that were higher in salt, sugar and total calories, undermining the reason for the tax in the first place.”

This article actually explains a lot about the mentality that guides liberal policies. The fact that it seems ridiculous for them to even consider what the unintended consequences of their actions might be shows a lack of foresight present in all discussions of policy.

We see this unwillingness to think ahead present in today’s debates. With negotiations regarding the fiscal cliff, liberals fail to pay attention to, or even consider, the detriments their politically popular plan to “tax the rich” might have on the economy. They have no problem heading over the fiscal cliff, demonstrating their lack of concern for consequences and inability to see beyond immediate results of their actions.

At least Kaplan, unlike Washington Democrats, learned something about what needs to be done to achieve her goal. After discovering economics, Kaplan found that to influence consumer’s diets to be healthier, you need to “make vegetables cheaper and soda more expensive.”


Sandy-Ravaged New Jersey Families Face $6,933 Tax Hike in Fiscal Cliff Stalemate

Leave a comment

This is from CNSNews.

Elections have consequences.

Hey New Jersey how is Governor Krispy Creams photo op work out for you?

Sounds like your going to catch it in your wallets.

christie – Families in Hurricane Sandy-ravaged New Jersey will face the highest tax increase as a percentage of their income – 6.82%  or about $6,933 more in taxes — if Congress does not reach an agreement on the fiscal cliff tax issues during the lame-duck session, according to an analysis by the Tax Foundation.

In its study of how the fiscal cliff would affect typical families in each state, the Tax Foundation reports that if the numerous tax provisions that are due to expire on Dec. 31 are not changed, a four-person family in New Jersey with a median income of $101,682 will see its taxes go up at a rate 6.82 percent of its income, which translates into about $6,933.

The tax issues in question are the expiration of the Bush tax rates, which also include the elimination of the 10 percent tax bracket and the reduced deduction for married filers; ending the 2 percent cut to employee-side Social Security taxes; and the Alternative Minimum Tax.

Maryland was ranked second by the Tax Foundation because a four-person family there, with a median income of $106,707, would see its taxes go up 6.74 percent as a percentage of income, or about $7,194.

Connecticut, ranked third, would see taxes for a family of four go up by 6.62 percent, or $6,653.

All five states with the top tax increases are “blue states,” which President Obama won in the 2012 presidential election. But so are four out of the bottom five states with the exception of Kansas.

Top Five Tax Increases Tax Increases as % of Income

#1 – New Jersey $6,933                                6.82%

#2 – Maryland    $7,194                                 6.74%

#3 – Connecticut $6,653                                6.62%

#4 – Massachusetts $6,632                           6.53%

#5 – New Hampshire $5,660                          5.81%

Forty states would see tax increases between $3,000 and $3,999. Six states would see an increase between $4,000 and $4,999 and three would see increases between $6,000 and $6,999.

New Hampshire would be the only state to see a tax increase between $5,000 and $5,999 and Maryland would be the only state to see a tax increase over $7,000.

Bottom Five Tax Increases Tax Increases as % of Income

#50 – Washington $3,362                                4.12%

#49 – Hawaii    $3,453                                    4.16%

#48 – Colorado $3,646                                    4.29%

#47 – Kansas $3,227                                      4.31%

#46 – Illinois $3,417                                        4.32%

The potential for tax increases on millions of U.S. taxpayers is still possible, the Tax Foundation explains, and would be especially devastating for lower-income families because of the changes to the child tax credit; the elimination of the 10 percent bracket, which would go back to 15 percent; and the reduced standard deduction for married filers — all of which are provisions in the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts.

Paul Krugman Says It’s OK for Governments to Steal

Leave a comment

This is from Political Outcast.

 Paul Krugman  is an idiot.

It is not ok for the government to steal.

How ever the government does steal.

We can not steal because the government hates the competition.


Paul Krugman, a regular commentator for The New York Times, wants to return to the good old days of high tax rates. He’s trying to make the case that high tax rates on the nation’s wealthiest income earners was good for the economy in the 1950s:

“[I]n the 1950s incomes in the top bracket faced a marginal tax rate of 91, that’s right, 91 percent, while taxes on corporate profits were twice as large, relative to national income, as in recent years. The best estimates suggest that circa 1960 the top 0.01 percent of Americans paid an effective federal tax rate of more than 70 percent, twice what they pay today.”

It’s too bad that conservatives don’t know how to argue their case for lower taxes. Krugman also misses the real reason why all people should be opposed to high or even medium taxes on anybody. By what authority do elected representatives have the right to tax some people at a higher rate than other people? Is it because a majority of people want to (1) punish high income earners because of envy or (2) is it because they want some of what prosperous people earn by way of wealth transfer? Either way, the rationale and practice are immoral.

It’s irrelevant what the tax rate was in the 1950s as compared to today. The more pressing question is the taxing power of the State. A few hundred people and a cadre of judges determine how much money you and I get to keep. This is not the system of government that our elected officials took an oath to uphold.

It’s staggering that anyone can argue, even in theory or for the sake of nostalgia, for taking 91 percent of someone’s income. Why would anyone work hard and long hours, risk capital over a long period of time, pay insurance, hire employees, struggle with competition, hire lawyers and accountants to satisfy increasing government regulations for nine percent of the profits?

In addition to the moral issue that almost no one wants to talk about, there are differences in the way taxes were calculated and expenses indexed for deductions in the 1950s. There were many more write offs for expenses. Coupled with inflation and income-tax bracket creep upward, there has been a steady devaluation and deduction creep downward. Consider the generational differences:

“The high income tax rates in the 1950s were paired with a corporate tax system that allowed companies much more generous deductions for things like business lunches, business-travel-with-spouse, and so forth. . . . Descriptions of 1960′s expense account procedures for even entry-level management are enough to make this journalist rather faint with envy.”

What’s also different is the exponential increase in entitlements that drive the call for higher taxes on the wealthy: school loan programs, subsidized mortgages, expansion of Social Security, Medicare, and Disability payouts, to name just five.

In 1955, there were 8.6 workers paying into Social Security for each beneficiary. Multiply this over all so-called entitlement programs. By 2005 the ratio dropped to about 2 to 1. When Social Security was first proposed, not everybody was in the program. Most government workers, including Congress, were exempt. The worker to beneficiary ratio was around 30 to 1.

There is no way to tax our way out of this fiscal crisis. “According to the figures in the president’s own budget, the debt will jump to a staggering 102 percent of GDP at the end of fiscal 2011. It will grow to 105 percent in the year following and remain at that level as long as the eye can see.”

None of the new revenue raised by taxing the rich at ever higher levels will be used to reduce any debt. It will be spent on more government programs because that’s how Democrats get elected.

Read more:


Ranchers, farmers brace for ‘death tax’ impact

Leave a comment

This is from Fox News Politics.


More victims in the war on the rich.

It is obvious the moochers are winning.

The DemocRats promise to punish the greedy wealthy.

How many DemocRats are poor?

The answer is none of them are poor they are multimillionaires.

Yet they have convinced their sheeple they are looking out for them.

The Russians and the Chicoms have eliminated the death tax.


Rancher Kevin Kester works dawn to dusk, drives a 12-year-old pick-up truck and earns less than a typical bureaucrat in Washington D.C., yet the federal government considers him rich enough to pay the estate tax — also known as the “death tax.”

And with that tax set to soar at the beginning of 2013 without some kind of intervention from Congress, farmers and ranchers like Kester are waiting anxiously.

“There is no way financially my kids can pay what the IRS is going to demand from them nine months after death and keep this ranch intact for their generation and future generations,” said Kester, of the Bear Valley Ranch in Central California.

Two decades ago, Kester paid the IRS $2 million when he inherited a 22,000-acre cattle ranch from his grandfather. Come January, the tax burden on his children will be more than $13 million.

For supporters of a high estate tax, which is imposed on somebody’s estate after death, Kester is the kind of person they rarely mention. He doesn’t own a mansion. He’s not the CEO of a multi-national. But because of his line of work, he owns a lot of property that would be subject to a lot of tax.

“Our number one goal is to repeal the estate tax, to get rid of it, not have it for every generation, when I die and my kids die and so on,” he told Fox News. “For everyone to have to re-purchase the ranch or farm over and over for each generation, that’s inherently unjust. So what we’re doing is asking our politicians to understand that and repeal the estate tax.”

That, however, is unlikely. Currently, the federal government taxes estates worth $5 million dollars and up at 35 percent. When the Bush-era tax rates expire in January, rates increase to 55 percent on estates of $1 million or more. While some Republicans want to eliminate the death tax entirely, President Obama has proposed a 45 percent rate on estates of $3.5 million and up.

“The idea behind the estate tax is to prevent the very wealthy among us from accumulating vast fortunes that they can pass along to the next generation,” said Patrick Lester, director of Federal Fiscal Policy with the progressive think tank — OMB Watch. “The poster child for the estate tax is Paris Hilton — the celebrity and hotel heiress. That’s who this is targeted at, not ordinary Americans.”

But according to the American Farm Bureau, up to 97 percent of American farms and ranches will be subject to an estate tax where the exemption is set at $1 million. At that rate, the federal government will pocket $40 billion in 2013 and up to $86 million in 2021. That contrasts with just $12 billion this year.

Many Democrats argue the tax promotes equality among classes, especially in capital gains — or stocks passed from one generation to another. Since stocks are only taxed when they are sold, the government can’t profit from long-term investments without the estate tax.

“Very large portions of very wealthy estates are tied up in stocks and they have never been taxed,” said Lester. “The estate tax is one of the ways we make sure the wealthy pay a little bit more as an overall share of their wealth and income compared to low-income individuals.”

Many Republicans argue the opposite. Because the estate tax falls on assets, they say it hampers investment by reducing incentives to save and invest. A pending estate tax could become a disincentive to invest in an otherwise viable business, forcing older people to liquidate or shift resources out of an ongoing business and into a trust or tax-free investment.

“We’re not millionaires in the terms of making a million dollars a year,” said Kester who lives in a modest home and whose family — not outsiders or a corporation — runs his ranch. “I have a half-a-million dollars in soil.”

Kester can’t spend it, without selling land. But by selling the land, each year the ranch would become less viable.

The estate tax dates back to 1916 when then-President Woodrow Wilson imposed the tax of 1 to 10 percent on the wealthy because World War I reduced federal government revenues. Under Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the tax rose to 77 percent, as Congress tried to prevent wealth from becoming concentrated among a few powerful and super-rich families.

Ironically, many nations historically more concerned with class and wealth — namely Russia and China — have since abandoned their estate taxes.

Read more:


New Obamacare Tax Form Mandates Americans Report Personal Health ID Info to IRS

Leave a comment

This is from Americans For Tax Reform.

One more reason to elect Mitt Romney.

One of many reasons to repeal Obamacare.

This monster will only grow and grow.


Here’s why the IRS will require Americans to disclose their personal health ID information starting in 2014

When Obamacare’s individual mandate takes effect in 2014, all Americans who file income tax returns must complete an additional IRS tax form. The new form will require disclosure of a taxpayer’s personal identifying health information in order to determine compliance with the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate.

As confirmed by IRS testimony to the tax-writing House Committee on Ways and Means, “taxpayers will file their tax returns reporting their health insurance coverage, and/or making a payment”.

So why will the Obama IRS require your personal identifying health information?

Simply put, there is no way for the IRS to enforce Obamacare’s individual mandate without such an invasive reporting scheme.  Every January, health insurance companies across America will send out tax documents to each insured individual.  This tax document—a copy of which will be furnished to the IRS—must contain sufficient information for taxpayers to prove that they purchased qualifying health insurance under Obamacare.

This new tax information document must, at a minimum, contain: the name and health insurance identification number of the taxpayer; the name and tax identification number of the health insurance company; the number of months the taxpayer was covered by this insurance plan; and whether or not the plan was purchased in one of Obamacare’s “exchanges.”

This will involve millions of new tax documents landing in mailboxes across America every January, along with the usual raft of W-2s, 1099s, and 1098s.  At tax time, the 140 million families who file a tax return will have to get acquainted with a brand new tax filing form.  Six million of these families will end up paying Obamacare’s individual mandate non-compliance tax penalty.

As a service to the public, Americans for Tax Reform has released a projected version of this tax form to help families and tax specialists prepare for this additional filing requirement. Taxpayers may view the projected IRS form at  On the form, lines 3-4 show where taxpayers will disclose their personal identifying health information.


Read more:


IRS: Obama tax hike threatens one million small businesses

Leave a comment


This is from Human Events.

My friends the tax increases will destroy a lot of small businesses.

I am talking about the used car lot my father-in-laws works for.

The local mom and pop hardware store of the mom and pop gas station.

The small lawn services the small auto repair shop.

I could go on and on but you get my point.

These places are part of the backbone of Americas businesses.


Over and over again we hear Democrats claim that raising tax rates on the rich won’t dampen economic recovery.  They also claim it would only affect a fraction of small business owners. In yesterday’s debate, the president asserted, as he has often, that 97 percent of businesses who pay individual rates would not see a tax increase.

Well, judging from this new study by Internal Revenue Service,  allowing Bush-era tax rates for high earners to expire, the centerpiece of President Obama’s tax plan and a big part of his campaign rhetoric, would mean that 1 million companies would be hit with new taxes. According to the IRS, which goes to great lengths to define a small business,  high-income earners make up 24 percent of all small businesses that have employees.

Other studies (and pundits) have grossly underestimated the impact that a tax hike on high earners might take on small business, discounting owners of small C corporations and others. Wealthy earners with small businesses account for 923,000 businesses with employees. There are many more in business for themselves.

“No matter how you slice it and dice it, it’s hard to avoid that this is a tax increase on a significant share of small business owners,” said Raymond Keating, chief economist of the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council told CNNMoney.

Democrats also argue that a tax on “millionaires and billionaires” — or, what in the real world means anyone making more than $200,000 and married couples pulling in more than $250,000 — could  actually spur growth. How, is still a mystery.



Biden: ‘Yes, We Do’ Want to Raise Taxes By a Trillion Dollars

1 Comment

This is from The Weekly Standard.

Slow Joe is becoming one of the best campaigners four Mitt Romney.

Slow Joe needs to keep talking the more he talks the Better for Romney/Ryan.

Vice President Joe Biden, speaking earlier today in Iowa said, “Yes, we do” want to raise taxes by a trillion dollars:

“On top of the trillions of dollars of spending that we have already cut, we’re gonna ask – yes – we’re gonna ask the wealthy to pay more,” said Biden. “My heart breaks, come on man. You know the phrase they always use? Obama and Biden want to raise taxes by a trillion dollars. Guess what? Yes we do in one regard. We want to let that trillion-dollar tax cut expire so the middle class doesn’t have to bear the burden of all that money going to the super wealthy. That’s not a tax raise, that’s called fairness where I come from.”


Biden Admits Middle Class ‘Buried the Last Four Years’

Leave a comment


This is from Breitbart Big Government.

While Slow Joe is the nations village idiot he is right.

Under this administration has buried the middle class.

If they get reelected the nation will get buried.

Slow Joe Biden got “deadly earnest” at a rally today and in trying to tell a lie (Romney will raise middle class taxes) accidentally told two truths.

1. The middle class have been buried for the last four years.

2. While referencing Romney’s tax policies, Biden says “with these tax cuts.”

Romney’s plan is to cut tax rates across the board for everyone, including the middle class. This is how Ronald Reagan turned a devastating recession into a vibrant economy that doubled treasury revenues — so we know it will work. You know, unlike a near-trillion dollar stimulus we now have nothing to show for except higher unemployment, increased poverty, $6 trillion in additional debt, and a GDP headed towards a second recession.

As is the case with almost everything involving the Obama campaign (Libya, Bain, outsourcing, etc.), the President is brazenly lying about Romney’s plans to increase taxes on the middle class.

But when the media only enables and backs up your lies, why not?

The Hill reports:

Republicans quickly seized on the remarks, accusing the Obama administration of implementing policies that have hurt the middle class.

“We agree, the middle class has been buried the past four years by Obama’s failed policies from higher taxes to more debt, which is why he doesn’t deserve another term in the White House to make it worse,” Kirsten Kukowski, spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee.

It’s also worth adding that Obama’s inability to lead has put us all on the path to a tax hike, and a massive one:

A new study from the Brookings Institution’s Tax Policy Center finds that the expiration of the Bush-era tax cuts at the end of the year will hit Americans with a $500 billion tax hike. While liberal talking points suggest that only the wealthy received a tax cut under Bush, in fact every income group saw their taxes reduced. The rich got “more” tax cuts for the simple reason that they pay more in taxes. The expiration of the Bush tax cuts will hit everybody.

Well, in the end, it’s good to know that at least one person in the Obama administration knows this president has buried the middle class.

And what’s the prescription for digging them out? Four more years of the same.


Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: