Why Steal $700,000,000,000 from the US Economy?


Robin Hood stole from the Political Class and returned to the taxpayers made poor by the government's burden

With the US economy suffering its first depression in sixty years, why would the Liberal Democrats in Congress want to suck seven hundred billion dollars from the economy?

But that is what they’re demanding, with their bizarre claim that we should raise taxes in the midst of this economic crisis.

When they say letting job-producing businesses and families making more than $250K per year keep their money “will cost seven hundred billion dollars”, of course that means that NOT letting them keep it will cost the private economy that same amount.

And, of course, the private economy is what creates wealth and permanent jobs.

We have seen that for the past year, when the government’s make-work “stimulus” jobs each ended, causing unemployment to worsen.

A “stimulus” job is a burden on the economy that must eventually end, leaving the worker unemployed again…but a job at at a real company pays for itself…as long as the worker makes the employer a profit, the business keeps employing him.

So, in order to save our economy, we need to leave money in private hands, to create wealth that sustains private jobs, that create more wealth, on and on.

Remember, the Political Class thinks that it owns the money it confiscates in taxes…but in the real world, WE own it, and the entire economy is robbed when it’s taken by the government.

The T.E.A. Party is correct: We are Taxed Enough, Already.

Advertisements

Obama Has a Mandate AGAINST Big Government



Bush didn't understand why people didn't like his Big Brotherment style, and Obama doesn't understand why people hate him copying it.

Obama fanatics are all confused and muddled by this anti-government backlash.

They keep saying “but a majority voted for Obama, they must WANT socialized health care”, or Cap and Trade, or Tax the Rich, or whatever.

We had an election, THEY won. This was proof of a mandate for a growing, interventionist government. Obama ran on socialized medicine, redistribution of taxes, environmentalist control of the economy, and he’s trying to do just what he always said he believed in, so:

Everyone should be happy…right?

Well, no.

See:

People were not voting for Obama

Aside from the absolute idiots who voted for or against him because he is half black, or on blind party lines, most people were specifically voting against Bush and McCain. Obama won because he ran on “change”.

And, regardless of any Democratic spin to the contrary, Bush had a Big Government administration. The change people wanted was less government intervention.

Expanding socialized medicine is not Change, it’s Business as Usual. The largest expansion of socialized medicine in US history was Bush’s prescription drug plan.

People voted not for a Che Guevara Wannabe, but against someone who governed like a Hugo Chavez-Wannabe, and his philosophical heir, who promised to be an even bigger advocate of government intervention.

  • They were not saying “we like Obama’s stimulus plan” but “we hate Bush’s stimulus plan, that McCain supports”.
  • Not “we like Obama’s plan to expand war in Afghanistan” but “we hate Bush’s war in Iraq, that McCain wants to extend”.
  • Instead of “we want Obama’s cap and trade proposal” they were saying “we hate McCain’s cap and trade proposal”.
  • People were voting against the Bush/McCain bank bailout, not for Obama’s bank takeover.

What we have gotten, under Obama, is not Change, but four more years of Bush’s philosophy of Big Brotherment.

The people striking out against Obama now are the same people who got Obama elected, voting against Bush by doing something other than voting for McCain, whether by abstaining, voting third party, or actually voting for Obama.

If he wants to save his presidency, Obama needs to realize the TEA Party and town hall speakers are the Obama mandate.

%d bloggers like this: