Not over yet

I have to get in my weekly quote from the Crack EmCee of


You know, one of the coolest things about this election, from where I sit, is that it’s not over yet. I get to receive all these smug, over-confident, e-mails from libs with extremely short memories:

In October of 2000, you thought you had it – with a far better candidate – he was 20 points up, and it didn’t happen.

In October of 2004, you thought you had it – with a far better candidate – he was 15 points up, and it didn’t happen.

It’s now October again, and you think you’ve got it – with a candidate, and a party, with more potential to blow it than I’ve seen in my lifetime – and no matter which poll you look at, he’s not nearly as up in points as the last two, but, once again, you’re still a bunch of cocky delusional idiots. I’d think, by now, you’d learn but no. Instead, you replay your losing hand like it’s never happened before. It’s truly amazing how dumb that is.

If the Democrats win, you will have gotten 4 out of 11 presidential elections from the last 40 years. I think, with that record and the Democrat’s history of over-reaching, you hardly have a reason to gloat. All you’ll have done is saved your party from oblivion. But you ain’t won it yet. And even with the media on your side, as it obviously is, there’s no guarantee you will. Remember:

We’ve seen this movie before


One Response to “Not over yet”

  1. Reena Says:

    IMO– This is the type of analysis people should be looking at and the types of issues regarding the tax burden we should be discussing.


    “ . . .Tax Policy Center figures show that after the income-shifting in the Obama plan, the top 1 percent of taxpayers would pay a greater share of the total federal tax burden than the bottom 80 percent of Americans combined. In other words, 1.13 million Americans would pay more in all federal taxes than 128 million of their fellow citizens combined. . .”

    “ . . . A recent Tax Foundation study found that in 2004, the nation’s tax and spending policies redistributed more than $1 trillion in income from the top 40 percent of American households to the bottom 60 percent of households. . . “

    ~“. . .Obama plan would boost the overall tax burden on the top 1 percent from 25.7 percent of all federal taxes to 31.3 percent. Thus, the top 1 percent of taxpayers would shoulder a greater burden of all federal taxes than the bottom 80 percent combined. . .”

    “. . . While many Americans may cheer this outcome as just or equitable, this sort of direct redistribution raises some important questions that should be part of a larger national discussion:

    1. What is the long-term effect on the economy of so few households shouldering such a large share of the tax burden?

    2. What are the consequences for our democratic system when a majority of Americans are disconnected from the full cost of government? Will that majority demand more from the government because they bear little of the cost?

    3. Should the tax system be used as a means of redistributing income or simply as a neutral mechanism for raising money for government services? Can a tax system premised on redistribution also be compatible with economic growth?

    4. The Obama plan assumes little behavioral change from such a large tax hike on high-income workers. Is this realistic or will the higher rates encourage tax minimization strategies and reduced work effort, which will lead to lower tax revenues?

    The Tax Policy Center has done the public a service by putting hard numbers on the candidates’ tax plans and bringing a dose of reality to the political rhetoric. While it is easy for the press and voters to consider only “What’s in it for me?,” there are larger issues raised by these findings that deserve more public discussion.”

    my answers to 2 and 4:

    #2. yes, most likely. Sense of entitlement results– but your the SW.

    #4. I know that I always look at what my take home pay will be when making decisions about how much to work– do I really want to pursue that promotion etc. I’ve already found the answer to be no in many cases due to the amount that will be deducted for taxes. The really rich, ie top 1% will likely puruse off-shore accounts to shelter their funds and find other means to invest their money as well.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: