Cash for Clunkers & Government Spying

This sent to me by RayRay

And you thought that they just wanted you to go green....
Never in America ... Yeah Right

But Wait, There's More

My good friend Cato has sent me something that he encountered on his walks about the Forum. I post his guest article here....
_______
From http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/5374095/British-banks-revolt-against-Obama-tax-plan.html

"..... British banks revolt against Obama tax plan. British banks and stockbrokers may refuse to take on American clients if new international tax proposals outlined by President Obama are passed.The decision, which would make it hard for Americans in London to open bank accounts and trade shares, is being discussed by executives at Britain's banks and brokers who say it could become too expensive to service American clients. The proposals, which were unveiled as part of the president's first budget, are designed to clamp-down on American tax evaders abroad. However bank bosses say they are being asked to take on the task of collecting American taxes at a cost and legal liability that are inexpedient."


What idiotic incompetence! Now Obama wants foreign banks to get entangled in enforcing our tax laws, just like he wanted foreign governments to take on Guantanamo prisoners. This guy takes no responsibility for anything and is arrogant enough to think that the whole world is going to bow down to the Anointed One.

There is a common pattern here. Just as Germany asked Obama, “Well if terrorists aren’t dangerous, why don’t you keep them?”, so England’s banks are rightly saying. “Ain’t our problem, Obama.” But this is all part of Obama’s welfare mentality: why take responsibility for your problems if you can get someone else to take care of them?
~ Cato

On Charitable Contributions

OK, I admit it, sometimes I am slow on the uptake, and I confess that it took me a while to understand the implications of the Obama proposal to eliminate the tax deduction on charitable contributions.

Here is the reason Obama wants to do this - Obama is a collectivist and he wants NOTHING to come but through the government. The entire thrust of his Administration is to complete the attachment of the people to the government so that the citizens are reduced to a people of the government, rather than a government of the people. For this reason, he must sever all connection of the people to any entity other than the government.

Obamunism 102

From http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/13/AR2009051303014_pf.html

"For the first time, neither sales nor property nor income taxes are the largest source of money for state and local governments. The federal government is."

"We are toast", as they used to say around the Roman campfire.

~ Cato

Socialism/Collectivism For Dummies

Sent to me by a friend and it was too good to not post. It fits in exactly with my take on things ....

An economics professor at Texas Tech said he had never failed a single student before but had, once, failed an entire class.

That class had insisted that socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer. The professor then said, "Okay, we will have an experiment in this class on socialism."

All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A. After the first test the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy.

But, as the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too; so they studied little.. The second test average was a D! No one was happy.

When the third test rolled around the average was an F.The scores never increased as bickering, blame, name calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else. All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great; but when government takes all the reward away; no one will try or want to succeed.Could not be any simpler than that...

The Epitome of Failure

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/25/AR2009042501870.html

At the link above, you will find the epitome of the liberal/collectivist failure and a harbinger of the future.

I have news for this poor sister -- she cannot keep up, and neither can Obama. This is what awaits the entire country: complete exhaustion, the destruction of the goose that lays the golden eggs. Why? Because the government simply cannot, nor should it, take care of anyone or everyone, meet all their needs, ensure that the house is not foreclosed, the gas bill gets paid, the job saved, that everybody uses energy wasting environment-destroying fluorescent bulbs, etc..

Liberals want utopia secured by the government, but want what can never be, and in trying to achieve their utopia, they destroy the very thing that created the wealth of the world.



P.S.

About 1/3 down the article says:

Now she sometimes wonders aloud to her husband, Charles: "When does it stop?"

Councilwoman, let me break it down for you. It stops when you and your kind move your eyes to the right hand side of this blog, read the "About Me" section, and start to understand that it is exactly the views and morality espoused there that built the country, and that government policies having their basis in your views, are leading to its very destruction.

It stops when you wake up and realize that that lazy brother of yours will suck you dry, exactly BECAUSE you are giving him a handout.

It stops when you realize that there is ALWAYS going to be a "lazy-brother" and that your handouts of MY money, do nothing but increase his number.

It stops when you realize that you could take all the wealth of all those evil rich people, distribute it to all those you deem "in-need", and raise the standing of "the people" by perhaps as much as only .00001% . (aka shared misery)

It stops when you tell that "friend" of yours that they need to pay their own "... $168 .. water bill".

From all of us that grew up on the farm and know that if you put out free cream for one cat that the next day there will be 3 more freeloaders, none of which will catch mice anymore, we tell you that you are playing with matches in the closet.

Burn Baby Burn

A Letter to a Tea Party Oganizer

Name Redacted,

Thank you for your work (and everybody else's) on the event (Tea Party) and for your speedy reply to my letter about prohibited signage. Welcome to the world of herding cats.

OK here goes -

I understand that some feel that "the cause" should attempt to end run the Catie Couric's of the world, but running away from the liberal's propaganda machine is equivalent to trying to negotiate with them. THEY will not negotiate with us, and until we learn that we should not negotiate with them, we are stalled. We should speak our mind and should stop being afraid of how others in opposition want to paint us.

Fear of confrontation, I think, is the problem with "conservatives" and the reason why they are at a disadvantage whenever they engage the left. The left is NOT afraid of confrontation, nor are they interested in debate or civility. Indeed, confrontation and Orwell Speak is THE tool in their very effective arsenal, and confrontation has ALWAYS been their tool of change. Is Carvill, or Obama thru his minions, afraid of confrontation??? Not hardly.

Concerning "debate", the left's idea of debate is where the other side stays quiet and listens to whatever venom the left wants to spew. Indeed, part of the left's agenda is keeping the other side "pacific" and nice, and your attempts to de-Obamanize the Tea Party event plays nicely into their hands.


So then, regardless of how many "Obamanuism" signs are kept out of the event, it WILL be painted however Couric et. al. has to paint it so as to get an anti-obama "juice" onto the story. I reiterate, an anti-Obama slant of the event WILL be made by the media and in a broad sense of things, until the media gets the message that we, the majority of Americans, indeed have the stones to voice it to the rooftops that We DO Want Obama To Fail, then we are going to have a hard road to walk.

BTW - Obama (the personification of his ideology) IS the problem and to "walk across the aisle" or be non-partisan is fatal. Obama (individually and thru his group of counselors) sets the agenda and is a radical Communist/Socialist/Collectivist. He is the figurehead for the "spend your money so as to reshape society into his image" ideology. He is Wilson and Roosevelt and Bush all rolled into one. He is the one that proposes the budget and he is the one that signs the appropriations bill. It was not Pelosi, Reed, or Congress that told Joe the Plumber that he intended to '.... spread it around". Don't get me wrong, it is not just Obama, as the congress and millions of others are lockstep with the Obamunism ideology, and it is they that constitute the vast left wing base that is pushing all this stuff though, but, back to the signage, that does not mean that Obamunism should be off limits.

In this regard on the signage, I find it odd, if you do not want "negative play", for it to be OK for the logo for the event to be the Alamo wrapped with a snake threatening to strike. Gee - if that image is not filled with emotional overtones of "... let's make sure the government knows that We the People are ready, and will strike in rebellion if they push us too far", I do not know what is. Frankly, I am surprised it made muster, for it is much more threatening to the government eyes that will be at the rally than any "Obama Lied - The Economy Died" signage, and I venture to guess that the group is now, because of the connotations of the event being near the Alamo, and because of this "militia-ish" logo, on some government watch list - and that I am going to be photographed into some database along with you and all the other attendees.

Returning to the spending - You say congress actually spends the money .... Actually, Congress does NOT spend the money. Essentially, all they can do is to appropriate it. Yes, it is appropriated for various broad based initiatives but after that it is spent essentially as the president and his executive branch wishes, mostly because the appropriation is made pretty much according to what the president proposes.

That (the imperial presidency) is one of the things that WE the People are fed up with. THAT - resistance to Obamanomics and Obamunism - is what is embodied in the "prohibited" signage and THAT is what We the People are Resisting - Obamanomics, Obamunism, Statist, Collectivism, etc. We are not hacked off about the spending (spending is just a proxy), we are hacked off about the underlying philosophy that gives rise to the spending (and we are hacked off that this philosophy is found in the Rebublicans and the Democrats.) Making it about "spending" is deflection from the real issue.

I do agree that the Congress Republicans & Democrats are the problem and I go further in saying that many of them need to be changed out. For example, when we have the likes of Lamar Smith, John Cornyn, and KB Hutchison voting for the first $700 billion bailout then we have a problem. That one practically put me in my grave.

As to the last part of your reply - the "Please go somewhere else ...". That is not in comportment with the American spirit and reeks of the same problem that we all have with the left - they use every attempt to silence and shutdown and do not want to listen to, or allow, the expression of any divergent view. How do they do that?? - by exclusion and by claiming ownership and thus control of the idea. Not to put too fine a point on things, if it does not get partisan (via signage like what you "prohibit", good vs evil, then the collectivist juggernaut will not be stopped. Our American system is all about partisan and the sooner we start knowing that fact, then the sooner we will be able to stop the infection. Do we really think that the collectivists and statist, when they say bi-partisan, mean it. NO, bi-partisan to them means that you have agreed with them, and your eschewing of expression of views not your own seems a bit in the same vein that is practiced by the leftists.

As to the second of the last part of you reply ".... that we all agree on the spending problem." Agreement on the spending problem covers up that the problem is not a spending problem. The problem is an infective, cancerous ideology.

Focusing on spending also covers up the fact that until we address the real issue we will never be able to change things. For example, if we all agree on the spending problem, will we be OK with the administration running GM as long as they do not do it using too much money??

THIS is what Beck is trying to say - that the overarching problem and cancer is corruption of thought as to what the American system is supposed to be. It is not spending, it is collectivism and Statism. - Beck calls it Fascism - Statism is a better term in my view. Spending is but a symptom of the disease.

Anyway, rest assured, I am not out to rain on the event, I am not an agitator for the other side, and I laud what is being done. It needs to be done. You are making a good difference.