Friday, August 31, 2012

In Case You Were Wondering
If Clint's 'Empty Chair Obama'
Skit Hit Home

Obama For America tweeted this out less than 2 1/2 hours later:

Remember this as you listen to the MSM & Progressives try to convince everybody that watched him that Eastwood is a senile old dumbass who just embarrassed himself.  

Eastwood's full speech here: 

Thursday, August 30, 2012

Chris Matthews Is 
Gettin' Upset About
The Republicans 
Constant Use Of
'Racist Code Words'! 

Latest Republican 
Racist Code Word?

"They keep saying Chicago by the way, have you noticed? They keep saying Chicago. That's another thing that sends that message - this guy's helping the poor people in the bad neighborhoods, screwing us in the 'burbs." 
Hielemann helpfully interpreted Matthews statement, presumably for those too challenged to understand basic words (or as we in the business refer to them - Hardball viewers), by making this jaw-dropping statement: 
"There's a lot of black people in Chicago."
As I said on Twitter last night: [start at bottom & read upward]

Somebody needs to ask Matthews: if you're the one that keeps hearing the dog whistle, who's the dog?  This is nothing more than projection, race-obsessed Progressives turning around and accusing their political opponents of being.....race-obsessed.  

As Ace of Spades opined:
Chris Matthews, Lawrence O'Donnell, and the whole brain trust at MSNBC seem to be playing some warped version of Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon called Six Degrees of Racial Dog Whistle. Give them any word a Republican says, and they will free associated it with other words to get to the "racist" claim they want to make.
Pretty much.

Expect this to get more blatant - and comical - over the next 2 months as it slowly....oh so slowly....dawns on most of Obama's base that he's actually going to lose.  After over a year of being told by their Collective Hive Mind that the mere HINT that any of those Republican candidates in the primaries stood even a ghost of a chance of beating Obama was a stupid thought, and having been reflexively taught to laugh loudly at the idea of MITT ROMNEY being the one to usher Obama out of the White House, the Progressive base is confused.

All of a sudden, their leaders have done a 180 and the panic is palpable.  Carville, Michael Moore, David Axelrod & Jim Messina grow more and more strident screaming at the base to get up off their asses and send in $ and 'get in their faces' and for the past 3 months the only response they got was a fuzzy, just-woken-up-from-sleep "Huh....what?  But....Obama's got this, man. It's in the bag.  Romney? No WAY, dude!"

Nice going there, Hive Mind. Good luck turning that ship around.

Gonna be awesome to see what the next couple of words will be that Matthews & Co. decide are new racist dog whistles.


To help everybody keep track of those new racist dog whistles Republicans are constantly using to send secret racist messages to each other, Michelle Malkin has compiled a list with examples:

You know, words like 'jobs', 'economy', 'Constitution', 'Chicago', 'golf'.  There are so many.  Hard to keep track, isn't it? So thanks to Michelle for the legwork here! 


Watch how artfully Ed Schultz on MSNBC 'discovers' a NEW code word Republicans are using to communicate surreptitiously between themselves: 

"American".  No, really. That's the new code word for 'birther'.  Watch the lunacy unfold:

Damn you , Ed Schultz & your brilliant dog-whistle detectin' ears!  Now we gotta go find a whole new word to substitute for birther! This is even more depressing than Buzzfeed exposing our plans for the coming RAAAAAAACEWAAAAAR! I may have to start drinking.

Over 60 more days of this high comedy to go!

Really awesome how MSNBC hosts can so quickly discover all the new code words us Republicans are using to secretly communicate our racist/birther beliefs with each other.

It's almost as if they are so obsessed with race/birtherism themselves as a way of dismissing any Republican statement on the issues that they're INVENTING these dog whistles they claim to keep hearing.

But I admit that could just be me. I'm not a dog, so I never hear these supposed whistles when they go off.
Yep, That's Some Powerful
War On Women & Minorities
That Racist  White Male GOP
Has Going There, Huh? 

Yep. Every 4 years at the RNC Convention Libs somehow manage to miss the fact women account for over 50% of the Republican Party.  

But hey, keep trying the whole identity politics thingy.  And saying stupid crap like Republican women aren't 'real' women.  Or something.  Morons.  

Tuesday, August 28, 2012

My Downfall Parody:
Hitler Is Told Mitt Romney 
Won The 2012 
Presidential Election 
By A Landslide

Saturday, August 25, 2012

Latest Obama Ad Fail:
Woman Who Claims 
To Be Republican Who
Will Vote For Obama 
This Time Around
Has Been A Registered
Democrat Since....2006

Are we used to this by now?  I think we're used to this by now.  It's clear that this is not a fact-checking problem with Team Obama and the PAC's out there shilling for him.  They're simply making stuff up and desperately trying to find something that will stick.

Here's the new Obama ad in which we hear several women who self-identify as Republicans claim they are going to vote for Obama in November: 

Yes, one of them actually says "Obama" and "small government" in the same sentence. 

Used to be by the time everyone figured out the deception, the issue was over, so why not get all clever and put out propaganda like this.  Amazing how fast the internet is now blowing up these attempts, isn't it?  

Zeke Miller at Buzzfeed was the 1st to call BS:

One of the women in the Obama campaign's new video of Republicans supporting the president because of GOP positions on women's rights appears not to be a Republican at all. 
Maria Ciano who is featured in the web video has been a registered Democrat since October 2006 according to voter registration records. 
"People like me and my family have realized that the Republican Party once was inline with our views, but are no longer," the Colorado resident says in the video.
Ed Morrissey at Hot Air opines:

It’s certainly possible that Ms. Ciano had at one time been Republican. Her conversion to Democrat had nothing to do with Mitt Romney, or even Barack Obama, however. And it’s difficult to ascertain exactly what about Romney would have driven the rest of them off, either. One woman cites Romney’s desire to see Roe overturned, as if she’s never heard that argument in the fourdecades that Republicans have been making it. George W. Bush made it just as much of an issue when running for President, if not more; every Republican nominee for President since Reagan has taken that position, as have most of the candidates who failed to get the nomination. This must be one of the most low-information groups of voters ever featured in a national campaign. 
It’s easy to understand why Team Obama wants to run a Republican Women for Obama ad. Is it too much to ask that they check first to see if the women are actually Republican first?

Ace at Ace of Spades HQ bluntly puts it this way:
Team Obama has cut another ad. This one features Republican women showing their support for Obama. Not only does it bizarrely claim that "if you're a woman that favors small government, you should vote for Obama", but naturally it turns out they lied and the ad features a registered Democrat posing as a Republican.
Naturally the MSM is trotting out it's old 'both sides do it' moral equivalency defense.  Right - Mitt's run ads in which he demands to see Obama's tax returns, hints he's a felon, accuses him of causing people to die, and proffered fake Democrats who will vote for him.  

Obama's campaign is getting so nasty & dirty to distract from jobs & the economy even some of his usual MSM defenders are starting to getting uncomfortable with providing him with cover.  

Fact-checking has already proven that the Obama claim that Mitt's tax plan will raise taxes on the middle class - by $2,000 or any other figure - is completely bogus.  Romney's plan calls for an across the board tax CUT for all income classes.  Yet the ad that ominously claims Mitt will raise taxes on the middle class continues to run: 

Here's Peter Ferrera at The American Spectator breaking down Obama's claims & demonstrating their falsity: 

After this election is over, & Obama's lost by a landslide, there are going to be plenty of people pontificating about their own explanation as to why this happened.  

My take is it won't have been just the lousy job Obama did with the economy; it'll also be the way the way he bungled his reelection campaign by consistently & repeatedly getting caught telling huge whoppers.  

Wednesday, August 22, 2012

At Last Democrats Find The Mother of All Distractions That Will Carry Them To Victory On November 6:


No really.

Democrats think Akin has handed them the issue that will decide the 2012 election.  And it's ABORTION!   THAT'S the big issue they hope to use to swing the election their way? Uh, yeah go ahead, DNC. Be my guest.

They're serious.  They are trying to turn Akin's gaffe into THE issue that will drive the 2012 election and decide it in their favor:

Why yes, after 3 1/2 years of unemployment over 8% and a 'recovery' that is the weakest & shallowest since the end of WWII, this is exactly what Americans want to see for 2 nights in a row at the DNC next month in North Carolina:

A big fat celebration of abortion.
Just as the Akin crisis was reaching a crescendo, the Democrats on Wednesday announced that three starlets of the pro-choice movement will be featured at the convention, an event that will now drive the liberal charge that the Republicans are anti-women. 
Democrats said that they will feature Cecile Richards, president of the Planned Parent Action Fund, Nancy Keenan, president of the NARAL Pro-Choice America and Sandra Fluke, the Georgetown University student whose plea for federal birth control funding drew the ire--and a subsequent apology--from Rush Limbaugh. 
What's more, the Democrats are expanding their list of women ready to assail the GOP on women's issue, adding Maryland Sen. Barbara Mikulski and actress Eva Longoria to the list that already includes Sen. John Kerry and Massachusetts Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren.

I admit when I first heard this, I didn't believe it.  Even they couldn't POSSIBLY be this stupid.

They really have no idea how this totally ideological DNC on abortion will look to normal Americans looking at jobs, economy, do they?

I'm more confident than ever of that landslide in Romney's favor now.  

Now let's not have anybody ruining this, all right? NOBODY tell the Dem's abortion only got 1% in Gallup's latest poll of voter concerns this election, m'kay?

As I said on Twitter today:

Tuesday, August 21, 2012

They're Still Wasting Your
Tax Money On 
Green Tech Companies
That Collapse The 
They Have To Stand 
On Their Own

Sharyl Attkisson of CBS News reported this today: 

That's right. An electric car company that had gone through THREE previous bankruptcies was somehow awarded big contracts using taxpayer cash to startup a facility in Indiana.  And is now entering it's 4th bankruptcy after squandering $17 million tax dollars.  

From a news story last year on a similar Green Car tech company folding in the exact same manner in Salinas, CA.: 

A Salinas car manufacturing company that was expected to build environmentally friendly electric cars and create new jobs folded before almost any vehicles could run off the assembly line.

The city of Salinas had invested more than half a million dollars in Green Vehicles, an electric car start-up company.

All of that money is now gone, according to Green Vehicles President and Co-Founder Mike Ryan.

The start-up company set up shop in Salinas in the summer of 2009, after the city gave Ryan a $300,000 community development grant.

[Wait - anyone want to bet this was stimulus money? So they started this thing up with taxpayer money. There was no private sector involvement at the start.]

When the company still ran into financial trouble last year, the city of Salinas handed Ryan an additional $240,000. Green Vehicles also received $187,000 from the California Energy Commission.

[Ah, yeah. More government money to prop this thing up and keep it going. Still no private sector demand or involvement.]

Salinas Mayor Dennis Donohue said he was "surprised and disappointed" by the news. City officials were equally irked that Ryan notified them through an email that his company had crashed and burned.

[Yes, this is exactly how some green jobs pioneer who took over $500,000 of your city's money should inform you it's all gone and he's closing shop.]

Salinas Economic Development Director Jeff Weir said Green Vehicles flopped because of a lack of investors.

[From the beginning he never had any private sector investors. He had government money handed to him to 'start up' and when the government money ran out, the business folded.]

Donohue said he will work with the state to try to get at least $240,000 back from the now-defunct company.

Last year, Salinas city officials said they were excited about Green Vehicles moving from San Jose to Salinas because they wanted to turn Salinas into a hub for alternative energy production.

City leaders wooed Green Vehicles to jump-start the sputtering local company and turn Salinas into an "electric valley." Donohue and Weir both voiced their high hopes for Green Vehicles.

[Oh boy. You mean you went out to court a business that was starting up with no funds of it's own, so you gave them over $300,000 to move to your city? Followed by another $240,000 when the initial funds ran out? There was no private money involved, no private investors coming in? Now I don't feel so sorry for these guys.]

The start-up company promised city leaders that it would create 70 new jobs and pay $700,000 in taxes a year to Salinas.

[I'm sure they were very big on the vision thing, envisioning a never ending supply of government money to keep them afloat.]

Green Vehicles was supposed to be up and running by March 2010 inside their 80,000-square-foot space at Firestone Business Park off of Abbot Street.

Ryan had lofty goals, listing his company's mission as: "To make the best clean commuter vehicles in the world; To manufacture with a radical sense of responsibility; To engage in deep transparency as an inspiration for new ways of doing business."

[But apparently making sure there was a demand for the ugly looking 3-wheeled vehicles he wanted to make wasn't part of his mission. No demand = no private investors looking to put their money into this.]

Green Vehicles designed two vehicles, the TRIAC 2.0 and the MOOSE, which it planned to manufacture.

[Take a look at the 'clean commuter vehicles' Mike Ryan wanted to make:

No wonder he couldn't attract any private investors.]

On July 12, Ryan wrote a blog post announcing that his company was closing.

"The truth is that not realizing the vision for this company is a huge disappointment," Ryan wrote.

[I'm sure the disappointment of the people who gave you over $600,000 is greater.]

Ryan outlined three mistakes he made while steering his company into a brick wall. All three reasons boiled down failing to generate enough capital.
Actually looks like he had little trouble getting START UP capital as long as government bureaucrats in LOVE with this 'green car' vision were handing him $540,000 of the taxpayer's money. When it was time to make that big shift to running his company on profits instead of government handouts, he discovered nobody wanted to invest in what he was making.

From dz at the Ann Coulter forum:

You notice he was unable to attract real investors (ie - private money) but he scored over 1/2 million tax dollars by saying he'd generate $700K in tax revenues for the city.
But of course. It wasn't the Salinas bureaucrat's money, it was just the taxpayer's money.

Tuesday, August 14, 2012

An Angry Open Letter To
Anonymous Leakers,
Both Past & Future:

Not even one full day had passed following Presidential candidate Mitt Romney selecting Paul Ryan as his running mate that it began:

A reporter from Buzzfeed claimed he got anonymous sources in the Romney camp to speak to him off the record.  He then spun what was said to him into an attack narrative, and bristled on being called out on this by both the Romney campaign and Breitbart editor/contributor Dana Loesch.  

I'm going on the assumption here these leakers actually exist, though I do admit to the possibility that this reporter simply invented them.  

This is all from my Twitter rant this morning: 

Hey you anonymous Romney/Ryan campaign staffers that are leaking to the MSM: pay attention. You're stupid & you need to shut up.

This is not a level playing field and you folks in Romney/Ryan's camp right down to the lowest staffer had better realize this. 

You had better learn this.  You are NOT as smart as you think you are, anonymous-leaking campaign staffers.

Whatever you tell them will be spun to fit the reporter's agenda.  No matter how CAREFULLY you try to parse your anonymous statements to them.

They are simply going to repeat the SAME PLAYBOOK from 2008.  Take whatever any anonymous sources in the campaign tell them and spin it to make it look like Romney is at war with Ryan & vice versa.

It worked like a charm in 2008 because McCain had leakers in his campaign and he knew who they were & he DID NOTHING TO STOP IT.  Nicole Wallace & Steve Schmidt leaked to their hearts content, especially after the campaign started to struggle following Schmidt's stupid advice to McCain to suspend his campaign and rush back to Washington, where he stood around like a doofus for a few weeks, accomplishing nothing.  

Looking for a scapegoat to offer up for their own failings, Wallace & Schmidt were only TOO HAPPY to hand MSM reporters Sarah Palin in anonymous leaks, giving the MSM full reign to distort & attack Palin as the cause of the ticket's demise.  

You didn't learn anything from 4 years ago?  Really?  REALLY?!

You will NEVER make these anonymous leaks work on behalf of your candidate.                 Stop LYING to yourselves.  You are NOT that smart.  

You think these MSM reporters want to tell the story the way YOU want it covered?  Are you stupid or just crazy?  You know what these reporters are thinking?  Here's what they're thinking: 

"Who's going to be our PATSY?  Who's going to say something to us anonymously so we can take it and spin in into the attack narrative against Romney/Ryan we already know we want to go with?  Who's going to be this stupid?" 

The MSM uses anonymous leaks from Democratic campaigns to FURTHER Democratic campaign goals and to do DAMAGE CONTROL.  Do you SERIOUSLY think, O Anonymous Romney Campaign Leaker/s, that this is what the MSM reporters are gonna do on YOUR behalf with your unsourced leakings?  You are DREAMING.

They ALWAYS spin leaks from Republican campaigns into attacks & smears.  They have NO INTEREST whatsoever in doing damage control for your candidate or helping you 'get your message out there'.  

The MSM reporters ALREADY STARTED trying to set their narrative. Why in the holy heck are YOU HELPING them to do it?

O Anonymous Leaker, did you learn anything from what Buzzfeed did?  You CAN'T come out and dispute Buzzfeed's reporter publicly that he changed/distorted what you said without BLOWING YOUR COVER.

All you do when you leak anonymously is give the reporter carte' blanche to spin whatever you said to fit his own agenda. PERIOD. FULL STOP. END OF STORY.

Reporters are out there right now scanning for that 1 guy in the campaign they can flatter into sharing strategy & problems with them 'off the record'

Even innocent utterances like "I sure would have preferred Pawlenty" will be spun into "Deep Division in Romney Camp Over Ryan Pick!"

My advice to you is SHUT UP. You will never make anonymous leaks turn into anything positive. If you can't own it publicly, zip it.   STOP telling yourself you are going to 'help' your campaign for Romney/Ryan by talking to these reporters anonymously.   How many times will you have to get burned before you remember not to put your friggin' hand on the stove?  

Last piece of friendly advice: Unlike McCain, Romney really DOES want to win, and is running to win.  McCain shrugged off leakers in his own campaign and did nothing to stop them. Romney & Ryan won't go that route.  If you're gonna keep leaking, you had better hope you don't get sniffed out, because I suspect if you get caught Mitt won't hesitate to fire your ass.

Friday, August 10, 2012

5 Liberal Talking Points 
MakingThe Rounds On 
Twitter Debunked In  
One Handy Post!

Liberal Talking Point #1:

Raising Taxes To Send More Money To Washington So Politicians Can Spend It Is Best Way To Get This Economy Growing

Recent conversations on Twitter have convinced me many Progressives are deliberately short-circuiting their thinking on how we're ever going to get the economy growing again and put America back to work.

Progressives have a deep and abiding belief in the THEORY that it's Washington that drives the economy, that the politicians up there DOING THINGS with the tax money sent up there is what causes this country to 'go'.  They honestly believe this country's prosperity originates with politicians in Washington.

And nothing could be further from the truth.

"Well of course us political elites here in Washington are better at creating jobs than businessmen 
in the private sector. What? No, I've never worked in the private sector.....
wait why are you all looking at me like that?"

For 3 1/2 years we've watched Obama & Co. try to promote 'job creation' and 'kick-start the economy' by spending vast amounts of money taken from the private sector.  Over $1 trillion at last count. $820 billion in new spending in one stimulus bill alone.

It's like a natural law on the left: sending more money to Washington is ALWAYS the answer to a better economy; leaving more money in the private sector is NEVER the answer.  The greedy rich bastards will just SIT on the money, so Washington HAS to take it so something good can be done with it.

They only trust wealth when it's under the control of the political elite class in Washington.  In private hands they actually view it as a net negative.

Liberal Talking Point #2:

Cutting Tax Rates DOES NOT Lead To Gov't Collecting MORE Tax Revenue During Resulting Economic Boom

The problem with this kind of thinking is that actual experience doesn't bear it out.  The wealthy do NOT sit on their money when you cut the tax rates.  Here's just 3 examples where tax rate cuts lead to economic booms that also led to the Gov't collecting MORE in taxes than they were at the higher rates, courtesy of Peter Ferrara at The American Spectator:

These tax policies enjoy a history of bipartisan success. JFK proposed legislation to reduce income tax rates across the board by 30 percent, explaining. 
It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today, and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the tax rates….[A]n economy constrained by high tax rates will never produce enough revenue to balance the budget, just as it will never create enough jobs or enough profits. 
Kennedy's proposed tax cuts were adopted in 1964, and pulled the top rate from 91 percent down to 70 percent, while reducing the lower rates. The next year, economic growth soared by 50 percent, and income tax revenues increased by 41 percent! By 1966, unemployment had fallen to its lowest peacetime level in almost 40 years. U.S. News and World Report exclaimed: "The unusual budget spectacle of sharply rising revenues following the biggest tax cut in history is beginning to astonish even those who pushed hardest for tax cuts in the first place." Arthur Okun, the administration's chief economic advisor, estimated that the tax cuts expanded the economy in just two years by 10 percent above where it would have been.
Reagan and succeeding Republicans abolished federal income taxes on the working poor and on what the Left calls the working class, and they almost abolished them on the middle class. 
It began with the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), which grew out of then-Governor Ronald Reagan's famous testimony before the Senate Finance Committee in 1972. Reagan proposed exempting the working poor from all Social Security and income taxes as an alternative to welfare, with the credit serving as a way to offset payroll taxes for low-income workers. As president, Reagan cut federal income tax rates across the board by 25 percent. He also indexed the tax brackets to prevent inflation from pushing working people into higher rates. 
In the Tax Reform Act of 1986, President Reagan reduced the federal income tax rate for middle- and low-income families all the way down to 15 percent. That law also doubled the personal exemption, shielding a higher proportion of income from taxation for lower income workers than for higher income workers. 
After the Reagan tax cuts were fully implemented, the economy took off on a 25-year economic boom (from 1982 to 2007). It was interrupted by two short, shallow recessions, but it is widely recognized in the economic literature, and by the National Bureau of Economic Research, as one long boom. During the first seven years alone, the economy grew by almost one-third, or the equivalent of adding an entire West Germany, the third largest economy in the world at the time, to the U.S.
Newt Gingrich's "Contract with America" adopted a child tax credit of $500 that also reduced tax liabilities for low-income people more than high earners. President Bush doubled that credit to $1,000 per child, and made it refundable so that low-income people can get the full credit even if they do not pay $1,000 in federal income taxes. Bush also adopted a new 10-percent tax bracket for the lowest income workers, which reduced their federal income tax rate by one-third. 
This is how we reached the point at which, by 2007, after 25 years of Reaganomics and before President Obama was even elected, the bottom 40 percent of earners, on net and as a group, paid less than 0 percent of federal income taxes, according to official IRS data, as reported recently by the Congressional Budget Office. Instead of paying at least some income taxes to help support the federal government, the federal government paid them cash through the income tax code. That same year, the middle 20 percent, the true middle class, paid less than 5 percent of all federal income taxes.
George W. Bush
The Bush tax cuts quickly ended the 2001 recession, despite the contractionary economic impacts of 9/11, and the economy continued to grow for another 73 months. In the four years after the rate cuts were fully implemented, the economy created 7.8 million new jobs, and the unemployment rate fell from over 6 percent to 4.4 percent. Real economic growth over the next three years doubled from the average for the prior three years, to 3.5 percent. 
Business investment, which had declined for nine straight quarters, reversed and increased 6.7 percent per quarter. That is where the jobs came from. Manufacturing output soared to its highest level in 20 years. The stock market revived, creating almost $7 trillion in new shareholder wealth. From 2003 to 2007, the S&P 500 almost doubled. Capital gains tax revenues doubled by 2005, despite Bush's 25 percent rate cut!
Cut the tax rates, collect double the revenue you were getting at the higher rate - just 3 years later.  Imagine that.

And yet even after you spell this out, many progressives just dismiss the evidence out of hand.  They don't need to even take a real look at it; it doesn't FIT their worldview, so of course there is no reason to look at it - it can't possibly be true, so why bother?
The Progressive can sit there and keep sputtering "Does....NOT...compute!" but that doesn't do a thing to change the history or the facts.

If you want to twist a Progressive into mental knots: after getting them to strongly deny that the Kennedy, Reagan & Bush tax rate cuts had ANYTHING to do with the economic booms that followed, with low unemployment and the increasing tax revenue collected, ask them to explain what the REAL cause was.  What was it that caused these big economic boom times of sustained growth, anyway? Do they know?


Washington HAS to play a direct role in this.  There's just no other way.  They won't even seriously consider any thought that the cause lies outside of Washington political elites spending money somewhere.

So they have no clear idea what it really was that caused those economic booms....but BY GOD THEY DO 'KNOW' WHAT DIDN'T CAUSE IT! And they will never give an inch on that point.  Ever.

Liberal Talking Point #3: 

Because Republicans Won't Agree To Immediate Tax Increases In Exchange For Future Spending Cuts, They Don't Care About Deficit
Right now Democrats are trying the same old trick of trying to get Republicans to agree to immediate tax increases in exchange for the promise of future spending cuts.  So of course Progressives on Twitter are demanding to know when Republicans will give in and agree to immediate tax hikes in exchange for future spending cuts.  

Ann Coulter already reminded everyone yet again why you can NEVER trust Democrats who are trying the same old 'Lucy With The Football' trick of offering a trade of immediate tax increases today in exchange for spending cuts tomorrow:
Reneging on Reagan:
At Tuesday night’s Republican presidential debate on foreign policy, for example, CNN’s Wolf Blitzer asked the candidates for the one-millionth time if they would agree to raise taxes in exchange for spending cuts 10 times larger than the tax hikes. 
Terrorism can wait — first, let me try to back you into a corner on raising taxes. 
Amazingly, Blitzer cited Ronald Reagan’s statement in his autobiography, “An American Life,” that he would happily compromise with Democrats if he could get 75 or 80 percent of what he wanted — implying that today’s Republicans were nuttier than Reagan if they’d refuse a dollar in tax hikes for $10 in spending cuts. 
Wolf should have kept reading. As Reagan explains a little farther in his autobiography: He did accept tax hikes “in return for (the Democrats’) agreement to cut spending by $280 billion,” but, Reagan continues, “the Democrats reneged on their pledge and we never got those cuts.” 
Maybe that’s why Republicans won’t agree to raise taxes in exchange for Democratic promises to cut spending. 
For Americans who are unaware of the Democrats’ history of repeatedly reneging on their promises to cut spending in return for tax hikes, the Republicans’ opposition to tax increases does seem crazy. That’s why Republicans need to remind them. 
From the moment President Reagan succeeded in pushing through his historic tax cuts in 1981 — which passed by a vote of 323-107 in the House and 89-11 in the Senate, despite Democrats’ subsequent caterwauling — he came under fantastic pressure to raise taxes from the media and the Democrats. 
You will notice it is the same culprits pushing for tax hikes today. 
So in 1982, Reagan struck a deal with the Democrats to raise some business and excise taxes — though not income taxes — in exchange for $280 billion in spending cuts over the next six years. As Reagan wrote in his diary at the time: “The tax increase is the price we have to pay to get the budget cuts.” 
But, of course, the Democrats were lying. Instead of cutting $280 billion, they spent an additional $450 billion — only $140 billion of which went to the Reagan defense buildup that ended the Evil Empire. 
Meanwhile, Reagan’s tax cuts brought in an extra $375 billion in government revenue in the next six years — as that amiable, simple-minded dunce Reagan always said they would. His tax cuts funded the entire $140 billion defense buildup, with $235 billion left over.
Reneging on George H.W. Bush: 
Unable to learn from the first kick of a mule, President George H.W. Bush made the exact same deal with Democrats just a few years later. 
Pretending to care about the deficit — created exclusively by their own profligate spending — Democrats demanded that Bush agree to a “balanced budget” package with both spending cuts and tax increases. 
In June 1990, Bush did so, agreeing to tax hikes in defiance of his “read-my-lips, no-new-taxes” campaign pledge. 
Again, Democrats, being Democrats, produced no spending cuts, and within two years the increased federal spending had led to a doubling of the deficit.
So yes, let's hope Republicans fall for a third attempt to kick that football, shall we?  No, this time Dems will actually have to do the spending cuts and after we actually CUT THE TAX RATES to get the economy moving again, we'll talk about what taxes to raise a few years down the road.

Liberal Talking Point #4: 

Tax Cuts Must 'Pay For Themselves'; Bush's Didn't So It's Long Past Time For Them To End

Also prevalent on Twitter right now is the rhetorical trick of claiming that tax rate cuts lead to 'lost revenue' and so they need to 'pay for' themselves.

In fact, even if you bought into this rhetorical confusion of tax cuts having to 'pay for themselves', the economic booms that followed the Kennedy, Reagan & Bush tax cuts would have indeed 'paid for' those rate cuts.
Peter Beinart, contemplating how smart he is

Here's Peter Beinart at the Daily Beast trying to sell the idea that the Bush tax cuts cost the Federal Gov't over $2 trillion in lost revenue:
George W. Bush and his congressional allies pushed through tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 that, according to the Congressional Budget Office, added more than $2 trillion to the deficit over 10 years.
Beinart must not have noticed the federal revenues climbing from 2003-2007 after the economy expanded and grew after the taxcuts took effect:

As anyone who remembers what happened to the economy in late 2001 through 2002, the economy took a $2 trillion hit from the 9-11 attacks, not the Bush tax cuts.  Beinart has simply quoted the OMB on how much tax revenue was lost during this period and laid it solely at the feet of the Bush tax cuts.  He tries to palm off that big dip in federal tax revenues you see in that chart above, from 2001-2003 as being a direct result of Bush lowering the tax rates, completely flushing 9-11 and it's economic impact right down the memory-hole.  Not to mention he's also peddling the fallacy that lowering tax rates has to be 'paid for'.

The tax cuts actually HELPED THE ECONOMY REBOUND from the 9-11 hit. Revenues hit a peak of over $2.7 trillion in 2008 before plunging because of the recession. But don't wait for Peter Beinart to point this out to you.  He'll try to sell you the idea that the economic boom from 2003-2007 happened IN SPITE of the Bush tax cuts, but he gets hazy if you try to press him as to what the actual cause of that boom was.

Liberal Talking Point #5: 

It's The Gov't's Most Important Job To 'Fix' The 'Problem' of 'Income Inequality' In This Country

Another prevalent trend on Twitter with Progressives is the constant caterwauling over 'income inequality' and how Washington isn't doing enough to address this 'problem'.

It needs to be remembered at all times: for Progressives raising taxes is never about generating more revenue for the Government; it's about FAIRNESS and the Gov't exercising it's supposed role in 'fixing' the 'problem' of 'income inequality' by engaging in wealth redistribution.

Let me remind everyone in case they forgot or they've been brainwashed: it's not the Government's job to 'fix' 'income inequality' through wealth redistribution through taxation or ANYTHING ELSE.

If you really think it is, please cite the section in the Constitution that spells out the role of the Federal Government in this.

This is a sophistry, an invention and it's far past time it was laid to rest.  It's not the Governments job to force or cause economic equality between citizens.  You do not have a 'right' to equal financial outcome with anybody else.  Anyone who told you did was either ignorant or lying to you.

Thursday, August 9, 2012

Obama's Palace Guard Rushes
To Save Him From His 
Latest 'Gaffe'

I put "gaffe" in quotes because as we all know by now, these aren't gaffes or mistakes at all; these statements are where Obama says precisely what he believes & then his political handlers & his media enablers rush to 'explain' what he really meant.

Naturally, the MSM immediately realized what a stunningly telling thing it would be for the President to talk about massive transfers of taxpayer funds to industry to 'help them build that'.

Ace at Ace of Spades wonders when we can start taking Obama's own words at face value:

Anyone notice a pattern continuing from 2008...? Obama continuously expresses his strong preference for European socialism -- "redistribute the wealth," "you didn't build that," let's do bailouts "with every industry" -- and the media is always Johnny-On-The-Spot to insist to you your ears did not just hear what they just heard. 
At what point do we begin crediting the alleged super-genius and supposed master orator of our time with comprehending the words that come tumbling out of his corrupt mouth? 
Is Obama a big boy? Does he wear his big boy pants? Then let him choose his own big boy words, and stop trying to tell us he meant something other than what he said.

He then goes on to point out how Politico rushed to 'clarify' what Obama meant:

Politico has now "fixed" the story, because they claim they were "unclear" about Obama's intent, about his main thrust. Although they don't say so, they're attempting to now say Obama did not mean he wants to heavily invest government money in every industry -- even though his actual examples are about precisely that (subsidies for the wind farm industry, for example).
Obama wants to use government $ to 'help them build that' - he's being entirely consistent here, but now watch the MSM rush to convince people they didn't hear what they heard.

Tuesday, August 7, 2012

Do The People Making These 

Obama Ads Have An 

Internet Connection Or Not? 

I'm assuming they'll engage in basic research FIRST before they put out an ad.  After all, it costs money to make these ads and then you have to pay big $$$ to have them run on various media sites.

Last week it was MoveOn.Org rolling out an ad that made the claim the Romney's collected a $77,000 deduction on Ann's dressage horse.  

MoveOn.Org debuted that ad on August 2nd.

The only problem? That claim had been thoroughly DEBUNKED weeks before.  Here's Lee Stranahan tracking down how the smear got started and cataloging every Lefty site that passed it on without doing even basic research. And he was doing this back on July 13.  By that time even the sites that had originally started the smear had made corrections and admitted they'd gotten it wrong:

We're not talking like a few DAYS before that ad was rolled out.  Anybody who spent 5 minutes researching the claim on the internet would have learned the claim had been debunked over a month before.  It never had any truth to it; the only thing that got it started was the same thing that kept it going for weeks in some circles: ignorance and people finding it 'too good to check'.

Now another PAC shilling for Obama has put out a new ad that's selling another debunked smear, only this one is even OLDER than the one about the $77,000 tax break.

It's been a matter of public record for months that Romney left Bain in 1999.  Yet watch what this ad put out by Priorities USA claims:
Romney leaves Bain in 1999.
Steel plant is closed down in 2001;
Soptic's wife passes away from cancer in 2006.

So yeah.....Romney's fault.  Obvious, right?

They've gone RIGHT BACK to claiming Mitt's responsible for business closings that occurred after he left Bain.  They already tried this and got caught, yet they've gone right back to it.

Even IF Romney HAD been at Bain during this time, this attack is a non-starter.

In private equity firms like Bain you can't save every business.  It's not like the federal government which never gives up or ends a program and just keeps shoveling millions more of taxpayer's money into it.  Private equity firms are in business to make a profit. Sometimes you have to restructure a company by letting workers go; you save the company but some people lose jobs.  And sometimes - like in the case of the steel plant being discussed here - you can't save the business.  Government can subsidize failure with other people's money as long as they can politically get away with it, but private sector businesses don't have that option.

When Obama & Co. took over General Motors, fired thousands of people by closing hundreds of GM dealerships, restructured the company by reducing it's size, and saved money by cutting lose a bunch of non-union pensions, they were doing EXACTLY what Bain does, except they were doing it as the State, not a private business.

It's time to ask: do the people putting these ads together have an internet connection or not? Can they not bother to spend like 10 minutes doing basic research on something before spending big $$$ on something like this that is so easily debunked?

If they want to keep making it THIS easy to debunk their BS, hey I'm all for that.  I'm just wondering why they don't even seem to be trying any more.

LATE BREAKING DEVELOPMENT:  At the time of the GM takeover, there was a big stink over the fact that 20,000 GM workers had their pensions gutted.  People noticed all the UNION workers at GM didn't have their pensions gutted, just those that weren't union members.

The Administration INSISTED at the time they weren't responsible for making this decision.  And now evidence has turned up that they lied to Congress under oath about this:

UPDATE:  No basic fact checking at all. None. Zero. Zip. Bubkis.

CNN does the actual fact-checking that Team Obama couldn't be bothered to do:

Soptic's wife still had health insurance through her own job at another company, which she kept AFTER he lost his at the steel plant.  #EPIC FAIL there, Team Obama.

UPDATE II: After this latest exceptionally vicious smear attack ad blew up in their faces in all of one day, even the people who put it together are distancing themselves from it, claiming they have no idea who didn't do the due diligence:

Legally Team Obama can't coordinate with a PAC; and yet that appears to be exactly what's happened here.

Via Politico. Remember, thanks to the lame legal fictions of campaign finance law, the Obama campaign is forced to pretend that the Obama Super PAC responsible for yesterday’s smear heard ’round the world is entirely independent of it rather than a wholly owned subsidiary. What you’re about to see is the absurdity of that fiction taken to its logical conclusion. So eager is lifelike talking-points robot Stephanie Cutter to keep the campaign’s fingerprints off the cheap lies in the PAC ad that she claims at 4:00 below not to know the facts about when Soptic’s wife got sick or when she died. Minor problem: The campaign itself featured Soptic in not one but two ads several months ago and had him tell the story of his wife’s death after he lost his insurance during a conference call with — ta da — Stephanie Cutter.

UPDATE III:  Somebody got around to noticing the relevant fact that while Romney had left Bain in 1999, it was OBAMA BUNDLER Jonathan Lavine who was actually RUNNING Bain when the GST steel plant was closed: