Last night I was talking to my sister about how strange it is for Americans to put up with federal regulations that would be worthy of a revolution in another place and time. She astutely pointed to CNBC’s debate on Wednesday as an example of normalized madness. In Carl Quintanilla’s world, it is perfectly acceptable to have a 73,000-page tax code. A woman who thinks it can and should be simplified to three pages is the one who should be ridiculed.
Fiorina: We now have a 73,000-page tax code. There have been more than 4,000 changes to the tax plan since 2001 alone. There are loads of great ideas, great conservative ideas, from wonderful think tanks, about how to reform the tax code. The problem is, we never get it done.
Quintanilla:You want to bring the 70,000 pages to 3. Is that using really small type?”
The premise of Quintanilla’s smarmy joke is that it is reasonable to have a tax code closing in on 100,000 pages long. Over 4,000 changes to said tax code over the course of two U.S. presidents is also considered sane.
Carly is the sane woman in an insane world, which sadly makes her insane.
Who benefits from a 73,000-page tax code? Answer: It’s not “the little guy,” who Bernie Sanders and Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton all claim to represent.
The “little guy” is the one who does not have an army of lawyers at his disposal to cut through bureaucratic red tape. Bernie Sanders need complex rules and regulations because – for all his rhetoric about making “billionaires” pay for all the world’s ills — it is hard-working families who end up shouldering the costs.
Last year I hired a tax professional to make sure I handled my family’s payments properly. I was 95 percent sure I correctly filled out all my paperwork, but it is always written in a way where you never reach the 100 percent mark. Jargon only a professional tax-preparer can understand makes honest Americans wonder if they’re going to get a letter from the IRS ten months later demanding money.
My name is not Donald Trump. My name is not Hillary Clinton. I do not have the resources at this time to navigate an endless maze of tax laws. My guess is that most of the people reading this blog are in the same boat. Yet it is Carly Fiorina who is mocked for an idea that would a.) increase individual liberty while b.) making our lives exponentially easier each tax season.
Carl Quintanilla, we are all dumber for listening to you moderate CNBC’s Republican debate. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
Burger King and Canadian coffee chain Tim Hortons have officially pulled off the kind of merger that Walgreen couldn’t quite complete with Alliance Boots (i.e., Walgreen’ operations will continue to be based in the U.S.) As a result, the new company is primed to rake in $23 billion annually. Even President Obama’s buddy Warren Buffett is involved, with Berkshire Hathaway handing over $3 billion in preferred equity financing for the deal. The usual suspects are not happy.
Perhaps the funniest quote comes from MSNBC “conservative” Joe Scarborough:
“They’ll keep their money and we all will have to pay their taxes,” an outraged Joe Scarborough said on Monday. “So, you know what I’m going to do so I can afford to pay Burger King’s taxes? I’m just not going to ever go to Burger King again.”
“I think a lot of American should not go to Burger King again if they’re going to cheat,” he added. “It’s wrong for them to do this. They are stealing money from us.”
Why do I get the feeling that if Mr. Scarborough’s accountant were to disclose the host’s tax records for the time he’s been raking in big bucks at MSNBC that viewers would find plenty of “cheating” and “stealing” (if one defines legally keeping more of your own money as “cheating” or “stealing”) going on? Besides, I doubt that Joe Scarborough has purchased a Whopper in the last five years unless someone spread foie gras on the buns. But I digress.
It rarely occurs to leftists and faux conservatives that perhaps the government is spending too much of everyone’s money and needs to curtail its size and scope — as opposed to spending money the nation doesn’t have at a lower rate than “politician X” wanted and then calling it a “cut.”
Instead of asking the question “Why are iconic companies that have been in the U.S. for years suddenly looking for ways to leave?” pundits and politicians want citizens to believe that finding ways to legally keep more of your own money is stealing from someone else.
The news gives Democrats another talking point. The potential departure of an iconic American company because of “corporate greed” will be trotted out on the campaign trail.
Talking about “corporate greed” may rile people up (How odd that the federal government’s insatiable appetite for money is never framed as “greed”?), but at the end of the day the hard reality is that the United States is no longer the world’s outpost of economic freedom. In fact, in the annual Index of Economic Freedom put out by The Heritage Foundation in partnership with the Wall Street Journal, Canada ranks sixth, with the U.S. embarrassingly holding on for dear life to the tenth spot.
The foundations of economic freedom in Canada remain strong and well-supported by solid protection of property rights and an independent judiciary that enforces anti-corruption measures effectively. While many large advanced economies have been struggling with the heavy burden of government and fiscal constraints that result from years of unrestrained public spending, Canada’s public finance management has been comparatively prudent, with efforts to downsize government made on a continuing basis.
Canada’s economy has been resilient, benefiting from a strong commitment to open-market policies that facilitate global trade and investment flows. Efficient regulations are applied evenly in most cases, encouraging dynamic entrepreneurial activity in the private sector. Steady reduction of the standard corporate tax rate has also contributed to global competitiveness.
Meanwhile, the United States continues to backslide:
Registering a loss of economic freedom for the fifth consecutive year, the U.S. has recorded its lowest Index score since 2000. Dynamic entrepreneurial growth is stifled by ever-more-bloated government and a trend toward cronyism that erodes the rule of law. More than three years after the end of recession in June 2009, the U.S. continues to suffer from policy choices that have led to the slowest recovery in 70 years.
Until Americans stop listening to greasy politicians and start eying ways to increase economic freedom, there will be more well-known companies that close up shop or move overseas. Once you begin telling businesses that their money is your money, it is only a matter of time before the men and women in charge look for friendlier environments. That is not “corporate greed” — that is common sense.
It takes some serious gall for a legislator to turn to British taxes from 1764 for inspiration, but that’s what Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), did when she introduced the Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax (SWEET Act). The Democrat’s goal: tax every teaspoon of sugar, high fructose corn syrup or caloric sweetener that you buy. The tax would start at one cent per teaspoon of sugar and increase as future masterminds in Washington, D.C. see fit.
“Added sugar is pervasive and almost inescapable at the supermarket. And of course, many times it is the sugary foods and drinks that are the easiest for the families living on the edge of poverty to afford. When a 2 liter cola is 99 cents and blueberries are over $3.00, something has gone very wrong. As [the movie] “Fed Up” shows, this is not just the free market at work. All too often sugary foods or drinks with high fructose are cheaper as a direct result of government polices. It is long past time that we pass and support policies that work to our better health instead,” (Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn.).
With that in mind, I’m working on legislation right now to tax sugar-sweetened drinks, like sodas, in a way that reflects the serious damage they are doing to our health. I hope to introduce legislation in a matter of weeks.”
How does one woman cram so much idiocy into so few words? First off, comparing the economics of blueberries to the economics of soda is just plain weird. It makes just as much sense as saying “When a box of Dunkin Donuts ‘Munchkins’ is $4.99 and a basket of cherries is $9.99, something is wrong.” Apparently the congresswoman has never taken Econ 101. The only thing “wrong” is that there is not a single area of your life — not one — that a woman like Ms. DeLauro believes is off limits to the federal government. If Ms. DeLauro doesn’t like subsidies and tariffs artificially warping sugar prices, then she should focus on getting rid of them — but she doesn’t. Why? The answer is simple: control.
Ms. DeLauro feels as though she should have some amount of say in every teaspoon of sugar you consume, so she goes about creating laws that will allow her that luxury. Those laws must be overseen by men and women who think like her, so a tax is put in place to fund studies, government agencies and bureaucratic overseers. If by some strange chance that tax should happen to curb sugar consumption and cause a budget shortfall for food-policing efforts, then some other group or tax bracket would be called upon to pick up the tab (e.g., “the rich”).
There is something sick and insidious about the individual who perpetually finds new ways to encroach upon the lives of those who just want to be left alone. Such politicians justify their self-described acts of “kindness” without ever stopping to think about how much evil has been inflicted upon the world under the banner of kindness. In a different time and a different place Americans would run Ms. DeLauro out of town, but these days Americans are so used to having individual liberties stripped away by political parasites that they hardly stir from their Netflix or XBox-inspired stupor. Worst of all may be that by allowing legislation like the Affordable Care Act to pass, citizens can expect a litany of new laws in the same vein as the SWEET Act.
Let us, for a moment, go back to the time U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson asked pro-Obamacare attorneys in Florida the following question: “If [lawmakers and regulators] decided everybody needs to eat broccoli because broccoli makes us healthy, could they mandate that everybody has to eat broccoli each week?” His question was completely dodged, but honest people know exactly what he was getting at: laws are being enacted under the presumption that there is no limit to the power granted to the federal government. If you deny this, simply listen to what politicians like Rosa DeLauro say and examine the rules and regulations they tirelessly try to impose upon you.
The Declaration of Independence states:
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
People like to joke that Americans are violent people. That is not true — at least as it pertains to individuals who cherish the nation’s founding. Americans would rather suffer endless violations of their civil liberties, doled out like Chinese water torture by 535 members of Congress and the regulatory agencies of the Executive Branch, than to resort to violence. Americans are patient, but there comes a time for everyone when patience runs out. When one sugar tax too many has been passed, Americans will put an end to the long train of abuses of freedom and individual liberty inflicted upon them over the course of many, many years.
A recent New York Times article by Andrew Sorkin is unintentionally hilarious from start to finish. He’s upset that a number of companies, such as Walgreen, AbbiVie, Medtronic and many others are all well on their way to moving overseas. I’d look for the Andrew Sorkin piece calling billionaire John Kerry “unpatriotic” for docking his luxury yacht out of state to avoid paying Massachusetts taxes, but I doubt it exists.
Alarmingly, dozens of large United States companies are contemplating the increasingly popular tax-skirting tactic known as an inversion. Under the strategy, companies merge with foreign rivals in countries with lower tax rates and then reincorporate there while still enjoying the benefits of doing a large part of their business in the United States.
In Walgreen’s case, an inversion would be an affront to United States taxpayers. The company, which also owns the Duane Reade chain in New York, reaps almost a quarter of its $72 billion in revenue directly from the government; it received $16.7 billion from Medicare and Medicaid last year.
“It is unconscionable that Walgreen is considering this tax dodge — especially in light of the billions of dollars it receives from U.S. taxpayers every year,” Nell Geiser, associate director of Change to Win Retail Initiatives, a union-financed consumer advocacy group, said in a statement.
Frank Clemente, executive director of Americans for Tax Fairness, called it “unfair and deeply unpatriotic if the company moves offshore while continuing to make its money here, leaving the rest of us to pick up the tab for its tax avoidance.
The last time I checked, Walgreen provides goods and services worth at least $16.7 billion to individuals who utilize Medicare and Medicaid — it isn’t simply holding out its hands and asking for taxpayer cash. It would be an “affront” to American taxpayers if Gregory D. Wasson, the chief executive of Walgreen, refused to pay his water bills for a decade and then demanded someone else pay them when he was drowning in debt (i.e., the citizens of Detroit).
In terms of patriotism, Mr. Sorkin and Mr. Clemente of Americans for Tax Fairness have it backwards — the patriotic thing to do is for Americans to protest high taxation. I applaud Walgreen and any number of pharmaceutical companies for packing up and moving overseas. You can only demonize the men and women running businesses for so long before they get fed up and leave. Instead of asking, “How do we make America more attractive to companies on the other side of the globe?” the New York Times throws socialist temper tantrums.
Mr. Sorkin continues:
The current law allows a company to reincorporate abroad if it acquires a foreign company in a transaction that transfers more than 20 percent of the shares to foreign owners. President Obama has sought to raise the threshold to 50 percent. While many Democrats appear to support a short-term solution, some Republicans, arguing that a Band-Aid approach could have unintended consequences, instead want to address inversions only in the context of an overall corporate tax overhaul bill.
Whereas Republicans realize that perhaps the corporate tax code is a nightmare, President Obama just wants to force companies to withstand significantly more pain before they make the decision to move. The beatings will continue until morale improves.
And finally, we have Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois:
Senator Richard J. Durbin, a Democrat from Walgreen’s home state, Illinois, told The Chicago Tribune last week: “I am troubled by American corporations that are willing to give up on this country and move their headquarters for a tax break. It really speaks to your commitment.”
Poor Dick doesn’t realize that American corporations aren’t giving up on America — they’re giving up on guys like him.
If America is no longer capable of being one of the world’s few outposts of economic and political freedom, then corporations have a responsibility to search out countries that are willing to take on the role. If U.S. citizens are unhappy with the business landscape that takes shape in the years ahead, then the blame will rest squarely on the shoulders of men like President Obama and Senator Dick Durbin.
Ronald Reagan once said of statists that their philosophy on life is: “If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.” Exhibit A: Chicago.
Think of an activity that you as a law-abiding free citizen enjoy. Chances are, Chicago’s bureaucrats have found a way to tax it directly or indirectly — and if they haven’t you can be sure they’re working on it.
Smoker? Chicago definitely wants to tax that behavior. Expect to pay roughly $7.50 a pack. Cyclist? Yes, you’re on the hook, too. You didn’t think that being a card-carrying member of the Green Team would exempt you from the compulsion to tax, tax, tax did you?
CHICAGO — A city councilwoman’s recent proposal to institute a $25 annual cycling tax set off a lively debate that eventually sputtered out after the city responded with a collective “Say what?” A number of gruff voices spoke in favor, feeding off motorists’ antagonism toward what they deride as stop sign-running freeloaders. Bike-friendly bloggers retorted that maybe pedestrians ought to be charged a shoe tax to use the sidewalks.
“There’d be special bike cops pulling people over? Or cameras? What do you do (to enforce this)?” asked Mike Salvatore, owner of Heritage Bicycles, a new Chicago hangout that neatly blends a lively cafe with a custom bike-building workshop in a 19th-century building.
Chicago is by no means the only place across the U.S. tempted to see bicyclists as a possible new source of revenue, only to run into questions of fairness and enforceability. That is testing the vision of city leaders who are transforming urban expanses with bike lanes and other amenities in a quest for relevance, vitality and livability — with never enough funds.
Two or three states consider legislation each year for some type of cycling registration and tax — complete with decals or mini-license plates, National Conference of State Legislatures policy specialist Douglas Shinkle said. This year, it was Georgia, Oregon, Washington and Vermont. The Oregon legislation, which failed, would even have applied to children.
“I really think that legislators are just trying to be as creative as possible and as open to any sort of possibilities to fill in any funding gaps. Everything is on the table,” he said.
Give yourself bonus points if the main takeaway you got from the AP story was that there is “never enough revenue.” No matter how much you are taxed, it will never satisfy the pathological do-gooder.
Growing up, did you ever think you would see the day when bureaucrats would devise mandatory mini-license plates for people who use bike trails? Shop owners like Mike Salvatore of Heritage Bicycles in Chicago is only partially joking when he asks about enforcement mechanisms like “special bike cops” and cameras that would be on the lookout for the guy who didn’t pay his “fair” share to the city’s power-brokers — but the people who come up with ridiculous rules and regulations are very serious.
Bike lanes? Get ready for bike tollways with little manned booths at random stops along your path around the city. Think of a crazy way for a city to raise revenue and then wait — in due time the tax or regulation that you deemed fit for admission into a psyche ward will be seriously debated among the masterminds in your neck of the woods.
Now if you’ll excuse me, I have to ponder how Chicago might tax runners. I’m thinking that the the environmental impact of ethylene-vinyl acetate or EVA alternatives used in running shoes might be a good angle. An no, you don’t get a tax reprieve if your name is Lenn Rockford Hann, the engineer from Chicago who made lighter faster running shoes.
We are all millionaires and billionaires now. You can thank Barack Obama. The refrain by the president that “millionaires and billionaires” should pay their “fair share” is synonymous in the minds of the average citizen with the memory of Dr. Evil from Austin Powers holding the world hostage for “1 million dollars!” Sadly, the inflationary realities that made audiences laugh at Dr. Evil will, in time, have them crying over the fiscal policies enacted by this president.
Congress’ definition of “the rich” is as concrete as the definition of pornography; the most important thing is not generating specificity in the minds of those hearing it, but the idea that something dirty is being discussed. “Millionaires and billionaires” has been defined as hard-working American families earning $900,000, those making over $450,000 and those making over $250,000. And now, the fiscal cliff bill (signed into law by auto pen while Obama body-surfs in Hawaii) officially raises the payroll tax in a way that carpet-bombs all low wage workers. Making $41,000 a year? Congratulations — you are now a millionaire.
Those most pernicious of all the taxes set to take effect in the coming years is the inflation that will occur — and it will happen — as a result of Washington’s unwillingness to address its spending problem. Even with $41 in new taxes for every dollar in spending “cuts” (another word that doesn’t mean what it really means when uttered on Sunday talk shows), the nation’s $16 trillion debt is expected to balloon. And faced with such challenges, men like Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., have seriously latched onto ideas like printing $1 trillion coins.
“I’m being absolutely serious,” the Manhattan and Brooklyn representative told CapitalNewYork.com. “It sounds silly but it’s absolutely legal. And it would normally not be proper to consider such a thing, except when you’re faced with blackmail to destroy the country’s economy, you have to consider things.”
The only people who are blackmailing the country are the politicians who never found a sum of money they couldn’t spend, but Nadler’s comment begs the question: Why not mint $16 trillion coins while we’re at it? They could have Obama’s face on them and they could be mailed to to every man, woman and child in America. We’d all be trillionaires. We’d be Zimbabwe, but we’d be trillionaires.
Every once-in-awhile liberals say what they really mean, and when they do it’s grand because the average American recoils at unbridled statism. Sometimes it comes in the form of the President of the United States saying things like “there are plenty of smart people” or “you didn’t build that.” Those instances are golden. Unfortunately, most politicians are too disciplined to do that sort of thing, and what we’re left with are sites like Gawker, where writers convince themselves they don’t sound like incredibly scary, elitist snobs when they say:
“Let’s have a maximum annual income of, oh, $5 million, pegged to inflation. All income above that would be taxed at 99 percent. Our precious national sports stars, celebrities, and corporate executives could still be fabulously wealthy. The daydreaming poor could still have a nice big number about which to hopelessly dream. Five million dollars a year. Five million! … It’s everything that any reasonable person could ask for, financially speaking. …
I defy the slickest PR firm in America to explain to a nation of struggling, underemployed working class people with a median household income of just over $50,000 why an already-wealthy person felt the need to leave the country [France, which is raising taxes on earnings over $1.2 million a year to 75 percent] — taking money out of the taxpayers’ pockets in a very literal sense — rather than donate, to the common good, earnings over one hundred times the nation’s median household income. …
This is not primarily about raising our total national tax revenue. That’s a far broader issue. This is about inequality. It’s about what type of nation we want to be—what level of inequality we are willing to tolerate in order to protect a vague and twisted notion of “freedom” that most people cannot even fully articulate, and that was created by the rich to serve themselves,” (emphasis added).
Where does one start with a smorgasbord of stupidity? A blog post on statistics alone (e.g., mean, median and mode) would do it, but that’s too dry. Let’s just consider that homework.
Who defines “reasonable” in the leftists’ ideal world? What a coincidence: They do. If you’re a writer for Gawker, it’s 5 million dollars. If you live in Maryland, it’s $100,000. Either way, self-righteous masterminds think they have to right to tell you when “you’ve made enough money.”
Conservatives have this crazy notion that when you make money through legal means that it’s your money. Liberals like Hamilton Nolan believe money you made through legal means is a.) “the taxpayer’s money” or b.) for “the common good.”
See where the disconnect is? If not, here’s an example:
Say there’s this guy named Bill Gates, and he starts making a lot of money with a product that he thinks could raise the quality of life for hundreds of millions, if not billions of people. He has big ideas — really big ideas — but he knows he’s going to need to raise a ton of cash to do it. In the conservative world, Bill Gates makes billions of dollars with Microsoft and then goes off to start the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and he’s cheered for all the wealth and joy and comfort his contributions have brought to society. No one begrudges his wealth, and parents tell their kids, “One day you can be the next Bill Gates, although I think you’ll be better than Bill Gates if you put your mind to it.” In the world of the liberal mastermind, Mr. Gates is “greedy” because he wanted to keep what was rightfully his to begin with. Bill never really helps the “common good” unless his money is first funneled through a government bureaucracy and then doled out to whatever groups or organizations the Sovereign deems worthy.
One lesson down and one to go: History. Gawker needs it.
Not too long ago I pointed out that Chris Rock was an ignorant boob, whose public statements suggest he doesn’t even realize that the founding fathers literally risked their lives — and often depleted their life savings — by becoming an enemy of the Crown in their quest for freedom. Regardless, it doesn’t stop men like Mr. Nolan from saying that the “rich” set up a system that only served “the rich.” They ignore the fact that we went from being a fledgling republic to the world’s lone super power in just over 200 years. They ignore the fact that President Barack Obama exists. Where is the Italian Barack Obama or the German Barack Obama or the French Barack Obama? They ignore Ford Motor Company, Sears, McDonalds, Apple, Bank of America, and many, many other success stories that highlight just how exceptional this nation is.
Why should liberals from Gawker magazine get to determine how much money our star athletes and musicians and businessmen make? Michael Jordan filled arenas with his talents and indirectly created countless jobs (e.g., Nike, vendors, clothing companies). The idea that the federal government should be able to tax any of his earning over $5 million dollars, at a 99 percent rate, is morally repugnant. Likewise, the same goes for the talented entrepreneur who stays up late for days and weeks and months figuring out how to get their business off the ground. The guy or girl who takes huge financial and personal risks to realize a dream is not greedy for wanting to keep the returns on their investment, and even if they were who cares because it’s their money.
We have one life. One. And in that life we have a very limited amount of time with which to pursue our passions and dreams. For the men and women who work hard, play by the rules and are financially rewarded for doing so, using the coercive force of the federal government to confiscate those returns and redistribute it to a third party based on the caprices or political favors of politicians is wrong.
Conservatives have a duty to stand up to leftist whiners who write for websites and suddenly feel as though they’re entitled to the monetary rewards of the businessman who turned a vision in his head into a small business and ultimately a cash cow of a corporation.
When Harry Reid isn’t worrying about the lack of sweatshops in the United States or surrendering to al Qaeda in Iraq, he usually keeps his gaffes minimized to micro-bursts of stupidity behind the podium. It may be rather depressing to read through the writings of statesmen like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison and then have to turn on the television and listen to Harry Reid … but alas, he is all we have.
Regardless, today a reporter actually had the nerve to hold his feet to the fiscal fire, asking why Democrats didn’t raise taxes on the “wealthy” when they controlled all three branches of government. Reid’s response: “Next question.”
TWS: Leader Reid, when it comes to the Bush tax cuts…why didn’t Senate Democrats push through this bill back when you controlled the Senate, the House, and the presidency?
REID: The tax cuts weren’t about to expire then. So that’s why we’re doing it now.
TWS: You could have foreseen this issue two years ago.
REPORTER: What are you talking about? They expired at the end of 2010.
REID: And that’s why they were extended one year.
TWS: Why didn’t they vote when you could have pushed this bill through and had it signed into law?
REID: (pause) Next question.
Watch the video and note the pause from Reid as the wheels turn in his head. He knows he’s nailed, but the synapses in his brain are firing so fast he can’t think of something to say (mainly because talking points weren’t given out for that question).
The top Democrat in the U.S. Senate apologized on Saturday for comments he made about Barack Obama’s race during the 2008 presidential bid.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada described then-Sen. Barack Obama as “light skinned” and “with no Negro dialect,”…
“I deeply regret using such a poor choice of words. I sincerely apologize for offending any and all Americans, especially African-Americans for my improper comments,” Reid said in a statement released after the excerpts were reported on the Web site of The Atlantic.
As I said before, IRS data proves that the “rich” pay more than their “fair” share of the tax burden in the United States. We have a spending problem — not a revenue problem — and liberals don’t want to talk about that because math isn’t as sexy as class warfare.
Federal spending is out of control, and our good friends at Heritage have done us a favor by collecting the data from the U.S. Census Bureau, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Congressional Budget Office before presenting it in a way that is easy to understand. How anyone can look at federal spending per household (adjusted for inflation) and not see that Harry Reid is a dishonest hack of the highest order is beyond me, but it’s up to conservatives to talk about these numbers in ways their friends, family and neighbors understand.
Now if you’ll excuse me, I think I’ll watch Sen. Reid intellectually drool into the microphone five more times just because it gives me the giggles. And then perhaps I’ll cry, because Baby Boomers and jerks like him have stolen the wealth of future generations. It’s a shame too many young people haven’t realized the magnitude of what men like him have done.
Jason Biggs is famous for humping pies. So it makes sense that a guy who wanted one all for his own (or was that “his onanism”?) would back a president who wants a bigger slice of yours. When asked by CNS News whether he was concerned about the President’s desire to raise taxes on couples making over $250,000 per year and individuals making over $200,000, the actor replied:
“No. I think uh, there is this, um, you know, inequity when it comes to taxation in America that, uh, you know, I think, I think if uh, I think we could do a lot to solve our, our, our, fiscal uh, concerns. Our deficit. I really do. I think it’s a uh, I think it’s a smart move, and I think those kinds of tax breaks for the wealthy that, uh, the last administration put into place um, have done more—created more trouble than they have been helpful for sure,” (Jason Biggs).
When you stick your penis in pies for a living instead of your eyes in books, that’s how you respond to relatively simple public policy questions. You’re vague. Lost. Confused. You show contempt for an administration you disagree with by not even mentioning it by name. Meanwhile, run-on sentences are filled with “uhs” and “ums”, punctuated by pure drivel.
In the interview, Jason was asked what percentage he’d feel comfortable paying, to which…he had no answer:
“You know, I don’t know. I’m not sure. I don’t have a number in mind. I do know that it’s, it’s greater than the number the last administration had in place. That’s for sure. I do think there is a, um, I do think that right now in this time of fiscal crisis that measures need to be taken.”
Exactly how much more should “the rich” be forced to shell out, and does that include small businesses and entrepreneurs filing as individuals? Who knows! But thank God for “measures” that “need to be taken” (never mind the economics).
Tax the rich all you want. We don’t have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem. Just like the guy who humps pies, the federal government has no self-control. And, just like the guy who makes a mess out of himself with pies, the federal government generally makes a mess of the country. Period.