“Get Used to It,” Replaces Hope and Change

Just three short years ago, Barack Obama captured the White House with a winning smile, a distracted media, $750 million dollars, and a “Hope and Change” mantra that mesmerized millions into believing that anything was possible.
We can do it!, YES, we can! and other shallow motivational slogans inspired millions to vote blindly for an unknown entity at a time when the nation and the world needed real, proven leadership and intelligence.
Instead of well-reasoned plans for dealing with an economy in meltdown and other cataclysmic catastrophes,

Candidate Obama snookered millions with double-talk and hollow promises which he could not possibly keep. The fact that folks like Harry Reid and Joe Biden were among the snookered says a lot about the current state of affairs in American politics, and even more about the dismal state of doings in the once proud Democrat Party.
Expecting mainstream liberal media to do anything but heap unwarranted praise on a extreme leftist running for the presidency was par for the course. Naively, some expected the sophisticated to be more probing; all were bitterly disappointed.
Back in the day when the name Obama caused thrills to run up and down the legs of Democrat operatives posing as objective journalists, there was a universal, yet myopic, view that one’s mortgage and car payments would be beaten into submission by the newly arrived Messiah from Illinois, Hawaii, Kenya, or wherever the hell he was from.
As the story went, elect Obama and the greedy banks and other purveyors of high crime on wall street would be kicked to the ground in favor of lending a hand to the “little people” of the world; i.e., those voiceless, powerless, and as we now know, mindless minions.
Alas, the old slogan, “If it seems too good to be true, it probably is!” has particular relevance to the performance of Barack Obama.
This insight became especially clear when Obama faced anxious questions about the ever-escalating price of gasoline, a commodity used to excess by both the wealthy and not-so-wealthy.
After acknowledging the financial pain that gasoline headed toward $5 a gallon would inflict on the poor, Obama retreated from his uplifting rhetoric concerning “Hope and Change.”
Indeed, the words of wisdom from the Messiah concerning outrageous gasoline prices was an uninspired, “Get used to it.”
Get used to it?
But what about the little people, small business folk, and the ever-elusive recovery?
So much for Hope and Change!
Source: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/print-friendly/35789
John W. Lillpop is a recovering liberal. “Clean and sober” since 1992 when last he voted for a Democrat. Pray for John: He lives in the San Francisco Bay Area, where people like Nancy Pelosi are actually considered normal!.

Quote:
Hello Friends,

I found some interesting graphs that might enlighten the progressive whiners and criers. They are really self explanatory but if they have any problems understanding and comprehending them please feel free to ask. Make you a bet that they (the whiners and criers) are in the 2.7 percentile group. :)

Shalom,

Peter

Three Economic Charts That Will BLOW YOUR MIND

Written By : John Hawkins

First off, here’s a breakdown of who pays into personal income taxes. Look at those numbers and SMELL the unfairness.

So, the top 10% of income earners pay 69.9% of the income tax while the bottom 50% of Americans pay 2.7%. Now, if we were actually going to make the tax code more “fair,” who would actually be paying more and who would be paying less? Maybe the rich aren’t getting quite as sweet a deal as you’d think if you got your information from Obama speeches and MSNBC.

Now, here’s another chart that defies conventional wisdom.

Over the decades, tax rates have varied quite a bit. They’ve even gone up as high as 90% in some brackets. Yet, the actual amount of revenue coming in doesn’t change very much in relation to revenue. It’s almost as if conservatives are right and people do react to higher tax rates by changing their behavior. Maybe they work less, take more loopholes, lobby Congress to create loopholes, invest differently, move industry offshore, etc., etc…it really doesn’t matter.

The key thing to take away from this is that the amount of revenue the government can bring in via the income tax is, for whatever reason, more inelastic than most people think. That’s yet another reason to put more emphasis on balancing the budget via spending cuts as opposed to trying to fix the problem with tax increases.

Now, if Hauser’s law is as spot-on as it has been in the past and it’s going to be difficult to raise the government’s revenue level much beyond the 20% mark, this is one hell of a scary graph.

Notice that we’re up from 2.7% of GDP in 1965 to 9.1% (the halfway mark) in 2012 and then 100% of all of tax revenue in 2052. Some people may take a little comfort from that. After all, 2052 seems like a long time away — and so it is. But, don’t forget — we have a 14 trillion dollar debt we need to pay off and the federal government funds a lot of other things besides those entitlement programs. That money is where defense, intelligence, border security, government salaries, interest payments on the debt, welfare, and even Harry Reid’s precious Cowboy Poetry comes from. At one point do people look at the size of the deficit, size of the debt, and numbers like these and then conclude it’s not safe to lend us money anymore? It could be much sooner than we think unless we start showing the world we’re serious about controlling spiraling entitlement costs.

Quote:

I would first like to wish everyone a wonderful Easter weekend and to my Jewish friends who are in the final few days of Passover, “Chag Sameach".

Peter those graphs are amazing. I just got the following article in my daily email from the Canada Free Press, our neighbors to the north, and found it very fitting. One of the things that puzzles me is why there are people who still think this fake can do no wrong. But then I look at the type of people who still support him and I see people, who are for the most part, the whiners and the losers, the ones with their hands stuck out, ready to take anything and everything they can get for free. And do you know what that tells me? More than likely their situations are caused by poor choices and poor decisions made during their lifetime, in other words they have never learned to take responsibility for their lives but have always depended on someone else to do it for them.

Words of wisdom from the Messiah concerning outrageous gasoline prices was an uninspired, “Get used to it.”

“Get Used to It,” Replaces Hope and Change

Just three short years ago, Barack Obama captured the White House with a winning smile, a distracted media, $750 million dollars, and a “Hope and Change” mantra that mesmerized millions into believing that anything was possible.
We can do it!, YES, we can! and other shallow motivational slogans inspired millions to vote blindly for an unknown entity at a time when the nation and the world needed real, proven leadership and intelligence.
Instead of well-reasoned plans for dealing with an economy in meltdown and other cataclysmic catastrophes,

Candidate Obama snookered millions with double-talk and hollow promises which he could not possibly keep. The fact that folks like Harry Reid and Joe Biden were among the snookered says a lot about the current state of affairs in American politics, and even more about the dismal state of doings in the once proud Democrat Party.
Expecting mainstream liberal media to do anything but heap unwarranted praise on a extreme leftist running for the presidency was par for the course. Naively, some expected the sophisticated to be more probing; all were bitterly disappointed.
Back in the day when the name Obama caused thrills to run up and down the legs of Democrat operatives posing as objective journalists, there was a universal, yet myopic, view that one’s mortgage and car payments would be beaten into submission by the newly arrived Messiah from Illinois, Hawaii, Kenya, or wherever the hell he was from.
As the story went, elect Obama and the greedy banks and other purveyors of high crime on wall street would be kicked to the ground in favor of lending a hand to the “little people” of the world; i.e., those voiceless, powerless, and as we now know, mindless minions.
Alas, the old slogan, “If it seems too good to be true, it probably is!” has particular relevance to the performance of Barack Obama.
This insight became especially clear when Obama faced anxious questions about the ever-escalating price of gasoline, a commodity used to excess by both the wealthy and not-so-wealthy.
After acknowledging the financial pain that gasoline headed toward $5 a gallon would inflict on the poor, Obama retreated from his uplifting rhetoric concerning “Hope and Change.”
Indeed, the words of wisdom from the Messiah concerning outrageous gasoline prices was an uninspired, “Get used to it.”
Get used to it?
But what about the little people, small business folk, and the ever-elusive recovery?
So much for Hope and Change!
Source: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/print-friendly/35789
John W. Lillpop is a recovering liberal. “Clean and sober” since 1992 when last he voted for a Democrat. Pray for John: He lives in the San Francisco Bay Area, where people like Nancy Pelosi are actually considered normal!.

Quote:
Hello Friends,

I found some interesting graphs that might enlighten the progressive whiners and criers. They are really self explanatory but if they have any problems understanding and comprehending them please feel free to ask. Make you a bet that they (the whiners and criers) are in the 2.7 percentile group. :)

Shalom,

Peter

Three Economic Charts That Will BLOW YOUR MIND

Written By : John Hawkins

First off, here’s a breakdown of who pays into personal income taxes. Look at those numbers and SMELL the unfairness.

So, the top 10% of income earners pay 69.9% of the income tax while the bottom 50% of Americans pay 2.7%. Now, if we were actually going to make the tax code more “fair,” who would actually be paying more and who would be paying less? Maybe the rich aren’t getting quite as sweet a deal as you’d think if you got your information from Obama speeches and MSNBC.

Now, here’s another chart that defies conventional wisdom.

Over the decades, tax rates have varied quite a bit. They’ve even gone up as high as 90% in some brackets. Yet, the actual amount of revenue coming in doesn’t change very much in relation to revenue. It’s almost as if conservatives are right and people do react to higher tax rates by changing their behavior. Maybe they work less, take more loopholes, lobby Congress to create loopholes, invest differently, move industry offshore, etc., etc…it really doesn’t matter.

The key thing to take away from this is that the amount of revenue the government can bring in via the income tax is, for whatever reason, more inelastic than most people think. That’s yet another reason to put more emphasis on balancing the budget via spending cuts as opposed to trying to fix the problem with tax increases.

Now, if Hauser’s law is as spot-on as it has been in the past and it’s going to be difficult to raise the government’s revenue level much beyond the 20% mark, this is one hell of a scary graph.

Notice that we’re up from 2.7% of GDP in 1965 to 9.1% (the halfway mark) in 2012 and then 100% of all of tax revenue in 2052. Some people may take a little comfort from that. After all, 2052 seems like a long time away — and so it is. But, don’t forget — we have a 14 trillion dollar debt we need to pay off and the federal government funds a lot of other things besides those entitlement programs. That money is where defense, intelligence, border security, government salaries, interest payments on the debt, welfare, and even Harry Reid’s precious Cowboy Poetry comes from. At one point do people look at the size of the deficit, size of the debt, and numbers like these and then conclude it’s not safe to lend us money anymore? It could be much sooner than we think unless we start showing the world we’re serious about controlling spiraling entitlement costs.

Debate of the Century: Obama vs. Trump