One of our fans on Facebook posted this video on our wall and I wanted to repost it here to share with the rest of you. Listen to what Reagan is saying here and how so little has changed since the early 60's with regard to the Left's desire to subject us all to socialized medicine and how the same rules and calls to action apply today to try to stop this usurpation of our liberty.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRdLpem-AAs
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Monday, August 3, 2009
OMG! Free Health Care! LOL! I LOVE OBAMA!
OMG! Free Health Care sounds so AWESOME! LOL!!!111one! Obama is my home boy! HE'S SO DREAMY! OMG! ROFLMAO! We need health care cUZ people need help and rich people can pay for it. LOL! HOPE FO' SHO'! YES WE CAN! OMG! I LUV IT!
The U.S. Has a More Progresssive Tax Code than France or Sweden...
And our President wants to make it even more progressive. The dishonesty used by politicians regarding how the wealthy "don't pay their fair share" is disgusting. I would venture to bet that most of us reading this piece are not in the top 1% of income earners. In fact we are probably - most of us anyway - probably in those tax brackets that the Left targets with their class war mongering. Yet because we value freedom over "fairness", liberty over slavery and because we believe that government should "not take from the mouth of labor the bread which it has earned" we find these kinds of numbers disturbing even though it is not us who it directly affects.
I once heard a liberal talk show host in Boca Raton, Fl mention that she just didn't understand why people wouldn't vote for their self-interests and just vote to raise taxes on the wealthy in order to pay for programs for those who aren't wealthy. To her the ballot box is a means of "leveling the playing field" and of bringing about social justice through heavily progressive taxation. I suppose the answer to her asinine question goes something like this:
Ma'am, while it may not be in my direct self-interest to oppose the heavy progressive taxation you espouse it is never-the-less in my indirect self-interest to oppose such a view. Why? I know this fact may escape you but these people, with their millions of dollars, provide jobs not only through what they do - athletes, wall street bankers, movie stars, entertainers, business owners etc - but they also provide jobs simply by who they are. The athlete, like Alex Rodriguez, provides jobs to hundreds if not thousands of people at Yankee stadium. Think of the popcorn vendor or the beer guy who sells his food-stuffs to loyal Yankee fans who came to see A-Rod hit another homerun and these fans want a beer or popcorn or a hot dog while watching him do it. Think of the opportunistic t-shirt vendor outside the stadium with A-Rod emblazened t-shirts for sale and the person who made those t-shirts, the person who made the ink for those t-shits, the person who shipped those t-shirts and the list goes on. Do you think that if Alex Rodriguez didn't get paid what he did, that he would even be a Yankee? Would those same jobs be there? Would as many people come out to the park? Would the Yankees win as many games and so attract as many people as they do now? Would that t-shirt guy enjoy more or less sales? Would the t-shirts guy's vendors make the same amount in sales? Who knows. What I do know is that things are the way they are now because, well, A-Rod is good and he gets a handsome compensation for it. I don't want to take that money from him even if doing so benefits me directly. I'm sure that A-Rod spends a great deal of that money as well. Somebody built his house and somebody probably takes care of it. Think of everything that goes into those 2 things alone! The wood, the brick, the concrete, the carpet, the walls, the lights - all of those items are the end result of a long stream of thousands of people working independently to create one simple object that Leftist like you take for granted. Would A-Rod buy all of this stuff if he was taxed more than he is now? Probably not or at least he'd buy less of it and so less people would have less to produce.
Moreover, Ms. Leftist-Talk-Show-Host-in-Boca, what makes you think I have the right to force someone else to pay extremely high taxes just to benefit me? Do I have the right to walk into your house and take you plasma tv or your ipod or whatever? No! So why I should then think that its okay to use the ballot box to essentially do the same thing, i.e. take from you money that you would otherwise use to spend on material goods or some charity or however you please?
This kind of thinking escapes the Left and that is why we have the kind of taxation we do. To them social justice and equality means "we all have the same stuff" as if though people's intrinsic equality and worth comes from how much they have in material goods compared to the rest of society. For those of us who wish to live moral and just lives the 10 commandments give us some good guidelines*. The 10th one says the following: You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's. The Left's version reads more like this: You shall covet your neighbor's house; you shall covet your neighbor's wife, his male servant, his female servant, his ox, his donkey, and anything that is your neighbor's because he probably has more than you and that just ain't fair, and if you have to use the power of government to take it from him. That's the Left's modus operandi in a nutshell and it is the foundation of their ethics and form that foundation flows the kind of "progressive" taxation we see today.
*the 10 commandments are a primarily religious document and while many of us may not be religious there are elements of the 10 commandments by which we do and should live our lives. Like the McManus brothers in Boondock Saints say: Do not kill, do not rape, do not steal, these are principles which every man of every faith can embrace...These are not polite suggestions, these are codes of behavior.
I once heard a liberal talk show host in Boca Raton, Fl mention that she just didn't understand why people wouldn't vote for their self-interests and just vote to raise taxes on the wealthy in order to pay for programs for those who aren't wealthy. To her the ballot box is a means of "leveling the playing field" and of bringing about social justice through heavily progressive taxation. I suppose the answer to her asinine question goes something like this:
Ma'am, while it may not be in my direct self-interest to oppose the heavy progressive taxation you espouse it is never-the-less in my indirect self-interest to oppose such a view. Why? I know this fact may escape you but these people, with their millions of dollars, provide jobs not only through what they do - athletes, wall street bankers, movie stars, entertainers, business owners etc - but they also provide jobs simply by who they are. The athlete, like Alex Rodriguez, provides jobs to hundreds if not thousands of people at Yankee stadium. Think of the popcorn vendor or the beer guy who sells his food-stuffs to loyal Yankee fans who came to see A-Rod hit another homerun and these fans want a beer or popcorn or a hot dog while watching him do it. Think of the opportunistic t-shirt vendor outside the stadium with A-Rod emblazened t-shirts for sale and the person who made those t-shirts, the person who made the ink for those t-shits, the person who shipped those t-shirts and the list goes on. Do you think that if Alex Rodriguez didn't get paid what he did, that he would even be a Yankee? Would those same jobs be there? Would as many people come out to the park? Would the Yankees win as many games and so attract as many people as they do now? Would that t-shirt guy enjoy more or less sales? Would the t-shirts guy's vendors make the same amount in sales? Who knows. What I do know is that things are the way they are now because, well, A-Rod is good and he gets a handsome compensation for it. I don't want to take that money from him even if doing so benefits me directly. I'm sure that A-Rod spends a great deal of that money as well. Somebody built his house and somebody probably takes care of it. Think of everything that goes into those 2 things alone! The wood, the brick, the concrete, the carpet, the walls, the lights - all of those items are the end result of a long stream of thousands of people working independently to create one simple object that Leftist like you take for granted. Would A-Rod buy all of this stuff if he was taxed more than he is now? Probably not or at least he'd buy less of it and so less people would have less to produce.
Moreover, Ms. Leftist-Talk-Show-Host-in-Boca, what makes you think I have the right to force someone else to pay extremely high taxes just to benefit me? Do I have the right to walk into your house and take you plasma tv or your ipod or whatever? No! So why I should then think that its okay to use the ballot box to essentially do the same thing, i.e. take from you money that you would otherwise use to spend on material goods or some charity or however you please?
This kind of thinking escapes the Left and that is why we have the kind of taxation we do. To them social justice and equality means "we all have the same stuff" as if though people's intrinsic equality and worth comes from how much they have in material goods compared to the rest of society. For those of us who wish to live moral and just lives the 10 commandments give us some good guidelines*. The 10th one says the following: You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's. The Left's version reads more like this: You shall covet your neighbor's house; you shall covet your neighbor's wife, his male servant, his female servant, his ox, his donkey, and anything that is your neighbor's because he probably has more than you and that just ain't fair, and if you have to use the power of government to take it from him. That's the Left's modus operandi in a nutshell and it is the foundation of their ethics and form that foundation flows the kind of "progressive" taxation we see today.
Tax Burden of Top 1% Now Exceeds That of Bottom 95%
Newly released data from the IRS clearly debunks the conventional Beltway rhetoric that the "rich" are not paying their fair share of taxes.
Indeed, the IRS data shows that in 2007—the most recent data available—the top 1 percent of taxpayers paid 40.4 percent of the total income taxes collected by the federal government. This is the highest percentage in modern history. By contrast, the top 1 percent paid 24.8 percent of the income tax burden in 1987, the year following the 1986 tax reform act.
Remarkably, the share of the tax burden borne by the top 1 percent now exceeds the share paid by the bottom 95 percent of taxpayers combined. In 2007, the bottom 95 percent paid 39.4 percent of the income tax burden. This is down from the 58 percent of the total income tax burden they paid twenty years ago.
To put this in perspective, the top 1 percent is comprised of just 1.4 million taxpayers and they pay a larger share of the income tax burden now than the bottom 134 million taxpayers combined.
Some in Washington say the tax system is still not progressive enough. However, the recent IRS data bolsters the findings of an OECD study released last year showing that the U.S.—not France or Sweden—has the most progressive income tax system among OECD nations. We rely more heavily on the top 10 percent of taxpayers than does any nation and our poor people have the lowest tax burden of those in any nation.
We are definitely overdue for some honesty in the debate over the progressivity of the nation's tax burden before lawmakers enact any new taxes to pay for expanded health care.
*the 10 commandments are a primarily religious document and while many of us may not be religious there are elements of the 10 commandments by which we do and should live our lives. Like the McManus brothers in Boondock Saints say: Do not kill, do not rape, do not steal, these are principles which every man of every faith can embrace...These are not polite suggestions, these are codes of behavior.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
