Another Debate, Another Open Thread

Have at it folks.

More on tax fairness

Tiredoflibs beat me to this topic in the previous post, but I’d like to expand on the issue of tax fairness.  Anyone who has been listening to the radio or watching any news show on TV is aware of the Left’s latest class warfare tactic.  In the last couple days we’ve heard Lefties from Al Sharpton to network news anchors ask the question, “is it fair for millionaires to pay less than Warren Buffet’s secretary who, like most average Americans pays 30% in income taxes?”  When Reverend Al asked Congressman Tim Huelskamp that question on Sharpton’s MSNBC show, the Rev simply wouldn’t accept the Congressman’s answer that his premise wasn’t true.  Talk about comedy gold.  And what’s even more pathetic is that Sharpton is delinquent on almost as much in federal taxes as Romney paid.  How is that FAIR, Al?

A little research completely refutes this new Leftist assertion that the average American pays an effective federal tax rate of 30%.  In fact, according to the IRS’ own data, 97% of Americans pay an effective federal rate of less than 13%.  And, what’s even more interesting about the IRS charts that NewsBusters links to are the demographics of “the wealthy”.  The charts show that there were (as of 2009) 235,413 Americans who had adjusted gross incomes of $1 million or more who paid $177.5 billion in income taxes on taxable income of $623.538 billion.  So if we increase the tax rate on those “rich” back to the 39.6% Clinton era top marginal rate that so many of our resident Progressives have called for, it would raise an additional $23.3 billion (and that’s assuming 100% compliance) a year in federal revenue — enough to run the federal government for about 2 days.  That’s barely a rounding error, but I guess it would be fair — right?  No?  OK, how about if we DOUBLE the top marginal rate on those making over $1 million.  That would raise an amount equal to about 17.6% of the current deficit or enough to run the government for about 18 days.  I think what’s FAIR is to say that we have a SPENDING problem, not a TAXING problem.

Folks, it’s time to take the gloves off — call a spade a spade and a liar a liar.

Obama Wants the Rich To Pay Their Fair Shair, But Makes No Demands on His Cabinet

Considering he appointed several TAX CHEATS this is nothing new!

36 Obama Aides Owe $833,000 in back taxes.

As we have seen time and again, they are not alone – Democrats need to look in the mirror when it comes to “paying their fair share”.

Do Conservatives Want To Lose In November?

Every single day I hear the same lines of attack from Mitt Romney supporters against Newt Gingrich and Newt Gingrich supporters against Mitt Romney.

The way things are panning out now, it is highly likely one of those two will be the GOP nominee.

So really, it is time to stop the attacks. All we are doing is making it easier for conservatives to lose all advantages in the fall. In 2010 we had the enthusiasm, we won big in the midterms. This year, we are setting ourselves up for another 2008. We look for a conservative Messiah, a second coming of Reagan (who would never have survived a campaign like this, being a former Democrat) and ensure that no candidate can possible meet our expectations, then many of us stay home and complain that there wasn’t a “true conservative” in the race, and lo and behold, we have Obama again.

Well, enough of this already.

Yes, I support Newt Gingrich. I think he gives us our best chance to win in November. His record reducing government is unmatched by any candidate. His ability to articulate the conservative message is hands down the best I’ve seen. Do I care what he said about Ronald Reagan back in the day? No, I don’t. Ronald Reagan is the past. The canonization of Ronald Reagan is killing our party. Newt’s record matters far more.

That said, I would easily support Mitt Romney, should he be the nominee. Mitt Romney was my governor for four years. Did I agree with everything he did as governor? No. I was against Romneycare when it happened, but as I was active in the Massachusetts Republican Party back in those days, I know first hand how much effort he put into trying to build up the party in a ridiculously blue state. Do I believe him when he says he’ll repeal Obamacare. You bet I do.

If we keep slaughtering the candidates in our party, we might as well give up and give Obama the blank check he most certainly think he’ll have if he wins in November. Because frankly, we already are, with these vicious attacks against the likely nominees of our party.

No candidate is perfect. No candidate is a saint. But they are all determined to undo the damage done by Obama’s extremism and incompetence. Let’s focus on winning, not on destroying ourselves as a party. Obama can’t win in November, but the Republican Party can certainly lose.

Obama’s Last State of the Union Speech

Honestly, there should never have been a first one. So I’m boycotting it. How about you?

The following is a shorter version of  Obama’s Final State of the Union address:

 I am a lying douchebag.

Carry on.

Save The Eagles?

Remember how it was oh so important to save eagles? It was so important that the mosquito killing chemical DDT was banned, and as a result, millions upon millions of human beings died from mosquito-borne illnesses. Nearly 30 years later, it would seem that eagles aren’t that important after all:

A controversial wind farm proposed near Red Wing plans to ask for federal permission to legally kill eagles, making it one of the first in the nation to participate in a new federal strategy aimed at managing the often-lethal conflict between birds and turbine blades.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife officials say they urged the developers of AWA Goodhue Wind to seek the new permit because the deaths of an unknown number of eagles and endangered golden eagles will be inevitable once the 50-turbine project is up and running.

The process for such “incidental take” permits was devised in 2009 as a compromise between the demand for clean energy from the growing number of wind farms and the rising concern over the estimated hundreds of thousands of birds and bats that they kill every year.

So, is it wrong to kill eagles? From an enviro-whacko perspective, it depends on who does the killing.

You see, it’s different when a lefty kills an eagle. Remember when DDT was banned because it was supposedly (never proven) making the egg shells of eagles too thin and brittle. As a result, literally 10s of MILLIONS of human beings died from mosquito borne illnesses– supposedly to save eagles. But it’s OK to kill a few eagles if it means that these monuments to stupidity and “green religion” are left intact.

Meanwhile, it was acceptable to kill tens of millions of human beings by banning DDT–to “save” eagles.

Ain’t it grand how liberal illogic works?

Florida Debate Open Thread

Are you watching?

Obama: The American Dream is Unattainable without Abortion

Believe it or not, that is essentially what he said.

Barack Obama says the 39th anniversary of Roe v. Wade is the chance to recognize the “fundamental constitutional right” to abortion and to “continue our efforts to ensure that our daughters have the same rights, freedoms, and opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams.”

Really? Apparent children are not the future, they are obstacles.

Tags: abortion

Newt Debating Obama

Those who don’t support Newt often point to his challenge to seven Lincoln/Douglas style debates, should Newt be the GOP nominee and note that Obama would never agree to that.

Hey, it’s a fair point. The last thing Obama wants to do is debate Newt Gingrich.

That said, does it matter? This election, no matter who Obama faces in November, is going to be about Obama’s record. Plain and simple. And these debates don’t necessarily have to happen for them to impact the race. If Obama goes on the record refusing to debate Newt Gingrich, who comes out looking better? The one asking Obama to defend his record, or the one who can’t defend his record?

It’s obvious Obama will “agree to the standard three debates” in formats established by past precedent. He will say that is enough, that it’s worked in the past, yada, yada, yada. But, if Newt wins the GOP nomination, you can bet that his performance in the debates will have had something (if not a lot) to do with it. If Obama were at all confident in his positions, and was able to defend his record and pat himself on the back for his accomplishments, these debates would be easy for him. Obama, you recall, was supposed to be a great communicator. If Mr. Harvard University can’t face Mr. West Georgia College, what does that say about him?

Newt’s debate challenge has been a prominent theme of his campaign, and it won’t go away the first time Obama cowers into the corner refusing. The big question will be “Obama doesn’t want to debate, why not?”

We know why not. That’s why we need Newt as the nominee. He’s the candidate who has best been able to articulate just how bad Obama has been for the country. If he spent even an hour debating Obama, Obama would probably be convinced that his tenure  has been a disaster.

EPA Threatens North Dakota Oil Boom

Oil production in North Dakota has boomed to the point that the state now produces nearly as much oil each day as OPEC member Ecuador.

But a decision by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) could bring a halt to the boom that has virtually eliminated unemployment in North Dakota.

The state now has 200 rigs pumping 440,000 barrels of oil daily in the Bakken shale formation, according to the Heartland Institute. The state’s unemployment rate is holding at just 3.5 percent, with many oil industry jobs paying more than $100,000 a year, and “we have 18,000 jobs looking for people,” North Dakota Republican Rep. Rick Berg told The Hill.

“If our country’s GDP grew at 7 percent, as it does in [my] state, most of our problems would be over in two years.”

The North Dakota legislature is using some of the state’s oil revenue to fund $1.2 billion in infrastructure improvements, including roads and schools. Public schools will receive $340 million in oil-related revenues over the next two years, and oil money will pay for a disaster relief fund and a reduction in property taxes.

Also, the legislature has ordered that 30 percent of the funds from the state’s 6.5 percent oil extraction tax be sent to the state’s Legacy Fund, which cannot be touched until 2017, when accrued interest will become available for spending.

One reason for the boom: “The regulatory environment was already low in North Dakota, certainly better than California’s and some other oil-producing states,” said Brett Narloch, executive director of the North Dakota Policy Council.

“As we move forward with oil production, I expect the business environment to get better.”

Most of the Bakken shale production is occurring on private land, but analysts and state legislators fear the EPA may still seek to shut it down, the Institute reported.

The federal agency is currently investigating hydraulic fracturing (fracking) production techniques, which are used in shale oil production.

Narloch said: “If the EPA decides to ban fracking, that shuts down the entire industry since so many of the wells operate by that procedure. It would kill this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.”

*******************

Permatorium in the Gulf, driving rigs off to other countries
Ban on offshore drilling along nearly all of the Eastern Seaboard
Fracking banned in New Jersey (thank you, Governor Christie)
No drilling in ANWR
Keystone pipeline shut down

And now there is this new threat from the newly empowered EPA, which has been given, through presidential fiat, unlimited power and authority to (1) make a unilateral decision about what is or is not “pollution” and (2) the power and authority to do whatever they want to address the alleged problem.  Congress did not approve this power shift, and has no control over it unless they stand up to Obama and take that control back.