America, You Asked For It!

Political News and Commentary from the Right

Obamatopia not what Dems envisioned

#TCOT #diggcons

Remember how they gloated on November 4?  Do you recall the appearance of cohesiveness displayed after the Dems practically swept the elections?

Oh, all was right with the world, their dream was about to be realized…or was it?  After all, their dream was about consolidating power in the hands of  “progressive” politicians–translated:  those who take money from a few people and give some of it to a lot of other people to buy votes.

Now that unseverable bond in November is beginning to fall apart.

You see, Obama’s Democratic allies were foaming at the mouth to confiscate more of your money to fund their pet projects in their perpetual pursuit of re-election.  But shock of all shocks, the other day Obama declared he would ban his former colleagues’ from including pork barrel projects from his stimulus package, promising to post all budget data online and making government spending more transparent.

His liberal buddies didn’t make too many waves over this, probably figuring they had the know how to slip their little projects in without being noticed, or that Obama was just pandering to the crowd and didn’t really mean it.  Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND) couldn’t stay completely quiet though and pointed out that “some earmark projects have proven tremendously popular and effective over the years.”  And besides, Obama made the remarks after stating his plans to spend almost a trillion dollars to stimulate the economy!  The Dems in Congress were probably drooling on themselves thinking about all that money they were going to get to spend.

But today, the seams that coalesced the Democratic Party two short months ago really started loosening.  When congressional libs heard the phrase they dread more than any other was part of the plan–tax cuts.

Now I haven’t seen too many details of Obama’s planned tax cuts, so I can’t say if I agree with it or not.  But the reaction from some Democrats make clear they don’t like it

Sen. Conrad’s comments illustrate his ineptitude where the economy’s concerned–“If I’m a business person, it’s unlikely if you give me a several-thousand-dollar credit that I’m going to hire people if I can’t sell the products they’re producing.” 

Can the Senator not understand the simple economic concept that more money in the hands of the people increases consumer spending which in turn creates demand for products and services that force employers to hire?

Senator John Kerry (D-MA) would “rather spend the money on the infrastructure, on direct investment, on energy conversion, on other kinds of things that much more directly, much more rapidly and much more certainly create a real job.”   You can bet he knows just what projects he has in mind.  In other words, he’ll just call his pork projects infrastructure, energy conversion, and other kinds of things to create jobs for which there is no current demand! 

Senator Kerry, real jobs are created by consumer spending which is a direct result of consumers keeping more of their own money.

One more Democratic economic genius moron, Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) doesn’t think much of Obama’s proposed tax credits that would put $10-$20 more per week in almost everyone’s pocket.  “In tough times people don’t respond all that well to marginal changes, such as a small amount of money added per paycheck,” Wyden said.  (Meaning they don’t spend enough money under these circumstances.)

This takes the cake for moronic rationale.  Senator Wyden, when “times are tough” it’s because it takes all they have or more to live.  Putting a few dollars more in their pockets means they will spend that money because they have to!  Consumer spending will increase, and as I’ve already stated, and will drive up demand for goods and services forcing businesses to hire.

Good grief, this isn’t rocket science.

But these Dems who want you to believe that tax cuts are the equivalent of spending already know all this.  They really do understand.  They just don’t want you to understand.  Their power is derived straight from their ability to control how money is spent and what it is spent on.  Giving you control of money to stimulate the economy means (in their eyes) taking it away from them and with it goes the ability to wield their power.

As I said earlier, this is not an endorsement of Obama’s tax cuts.  Dems have a nasty habit of mislabeling wealth redistribution as tax cuts.  We need to see a lot more details before I can say whether I agree with these or not.

I will say though, the fact that these liberal Democrats don’t like it makes me believe at least parts of it may be alright.

January 8, 2009 Posted by | Economy | , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Smut Sales Down, Porn Needs Bailout


Digg!
#TCOT #diggcons

These girls could be the next to lose their jobs!

How can you say no to faces..wait.. (edited) like this?

I can’t help it, I have to say it!  I told you so!  After the “Bailout Bill for the Big Banks” was passed, I knew there would be no end to people, businesses and entire industries standing in line with their hands out and pockets empty.

Well, the latest industry to call on Congress for a $5 billion bailout doesn’t have empty pockets–they don’t have any pockets at all!  The newest bunch of solicitors seeking your hard-earned money have employees who don’t even wear clothes to work.  Who are they?

The publisher of Hustler magazine, Larry Flynt,  and the CEO of Girls Gone Wild, Joe Francis claim that porn is a vital American industry that deserves a taxpayer bailout too!  Flynt goes so far as to claim that failure to dole out government dollars to shore up the smut industry would present a danger to the health of the nation.

“People are too depressed to be sexually active,” Flynt says, “This is very unhealthy as a nation.* Americans can do without cars and such but they cannot do without sex.”

*emphasis added

If that’s not depraved enough to convince Congress that the US will fail to exist as we know it if naked men and women are forced to stand in unemployment lines, try this–Congress has a duty to make Americans horny according to Flynt!

“With all this economic misery and people losing all that money, sex is the farthest thing from their mind,” Flynt says, “It’s time for congress to rejuvenate the sexual appetite of America.* The only way they can do this is by supporting the adult industry and doing it quickly.”

*emphasis added

This would be funny if I was certain the Democratic controlled Congress wouldn’t stoop so low as to take money from my pocket to fill the G-strings of these poor men and women who suffer so much in this economy that they must resort to rubbing their naked bodies over other hot young bodies in order to make a living. Since I’m not convinced, it’s depressing.

Francis wants Congress to empathize with the American citizens who patronize the porn industry. How will these citizens of our country survive if something so near and dear to their heart as their nudie magazines and XXX videos suddenly became unavailable?

Francis says, “Its [porn’s] emergence into the mainstream of popular culture suggests that the US government should actively support the adult industry’s survival and growth, just as it feels the need to support any other industry cherished by the American people.”*

*emphasis added

You dont want her on food stamps do you?

You don't want her on food stamps do you?

I know what you’re thinking: Surely the Democrats wouldn’t stoop so low as to tax dollars in the pockets G-strings of the porn kings and queens? Okay, what if I told you these brokers of smut contributed heavily to the campaigns of well known democrats?

According to this article, Obama’s campaign received $1000’s from gay porn baron Terry Bean. Larry Flynt contributed $1000’s to Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) and the Democratic National Committee. Joe Francis donated $4000 to Senator John Kerry (D-MA) in 2004. We’ll have to watch how these two Democrats vote on the upcoming “Save the Smut Sales Bill.”

This won’t be the end. I don’t know what could top this request for our hard-earned dollars to shore up smut in America, but you can bet there will be more and more grovelers for the manna taken from hard working Americans to line the pockets and G-strings of incompetent, irresponsible CEO’s of inefficient and ineffective companies.

Work hard America, then work harder and remember you are your brother’s and sister’s keeper–even if your brother and sister make their living having sex with farm animals.


Digg!


Related Posts

Cheeky: Porn industry wants a bailout–Michelle Malkin

Porn Chiefs Gone Wild: Hustler Publisher Larry Flynt and Girls Gone Wild CEO Joe Francis Seek $5 Billion Bailout From Congress–Religion and Morality

January 7, 2009 Posted by | Bailout | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Obama’s Undemocratic Plan to Tax Everything You Do and Send the Money to Kuwaiti Millionaires

from The Foundry

Despite the 5,800 miles between them, events yesterday in Poznan, Poland, and Sacramento, Calif., shed a frightening light on the direction President-elect Barack Obama’s administration wants to take our country on energy policy. First in Poznan, Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) promised delegates at an international climate conference that “Congress and the president-elect are committed to movement on mandatory goals as rapidly as possible.” According to Obama’s transition website, the preferred enforcement mechanism for these mandatory goals would be a cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gas emissions, which any honest economist will tell you is really just a energy tax dressed up in drag. Meanwhile, in Sacramento, the unelected California Air Resources Board approved “the nation’s most sweeping plan to reduce global warming by curbing emissions.” Like Obama’s plan, California’s plan features “an elaborate cap-and-trade program” at its core.

What makes California’s cap-and-trade plan so scary is that voters never had, and never will have, an opportunity to debate and vote on its implementation. The plan is being implemented entirely through the administrative process. None of the members of California board have ever had to, or ever will, face the voters. They are appointed by the governor.

…(Read full article)

December 12, 2008 Posted by | Environment | , , , , , | 2 Comments