Welcome to the Straight Hype, new home of the former
internet hot spot "The Rant". The Straight Hype's egregious spelling and atrocious grammar are kept in check by my associate editor, the lovely Miss Claire, and the site looks so pretty thanks to our in-house computer guru, the esteemed Mr. Paul Leger. Please feel free to email any comments to the editor, Joe Leger (that's me), at firstname.lastname@example.org. Mr. Leger is a writer living in Atlantic Canada.
Before the great sequestration began, we asked noted economist Tim Dimas to reflect on the consequences of the election results, and the ugly class warfare that launched America into another 4 years of expected economic malaise. Tim took up the challenge and chipped away at the cliches and misguided thinking that led to the mess that is Obama 2.0 - a sort of pre-questration if you will.
Please enjoy, this month's installment of, Tim's Take.
New Year, America! Your paycheck is smaller.
it’s all George W. Bush’s fault.
really, all I’ve heard about since November 2000 is that Bush is a modern day
Hitler. So Democrats did the most logical thing and allowed one of his tax cuts
on workers expire, resulting in about a $50 smaller paycheck every two weeks
(for the “average” American). Of course, nobody is screaming in the streets
that Obama broke a promise never to raise taxes on anyone earning less than
$250,000.00 a year. Enjoy that extra pinch in your paycheck, America. You
earned it: You voted for it.
Bush-averse logic also led Democrats to make his tax cuts on the middle class
permanent. I think that’s a wonderful way to honor “BusHitler.” (Remember THESE
gems? http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=612 ) Nothing highlights how
much you hate the man quite like making his tax cuts permanent.
Figure 1 - "My predecessor was an ignorant
fool that ruined our economy, which is why you should elect me - AGAIN - and
why I'm making his tax cuts permanent" - President Barack Obama
wait, it gets better. You’re getting an average of $50 less in your paycheck
($100/month) so that you can get free birth control. Remember, you had to vote
for Obama because those pesky Republicans were waging a war on women. Too bad
you’re getting that $10 prescription for free but getting $100 less a month.
Of course most Obama voters were willing to
turn a blind eye to their dwindling paycheck in the hopes of soaking the rich
and sticking them with higher taxes, which was the theme of the fiscal
cliff-deal deal, the 2012 election, the 2008 election... Like many liberal
ideas, there are two-fold problems wrapped in this worldview: first is that the
principle of hosing the rich doesn’t makes sense, second is that the liberal
execution of policy won’t deliver more revenue . I suppose that qualifies as a
are some of the errors liberals make in assaulting the rich for their wealth.
What’s wrong with having money? Remember, love of money is the root of all
evil; not money as an object.
The rich are already paying their “fair share.” The CBO states that the wealthy
in this country control half of the money in the United States. They pay for
70% of its taxes. This is even before we discuss the fact that only about half
of Americans pay any income taxes at all. (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jul/10/cbo-rich-pay-outsized-share-taxes/) The tax burden on the
rich has fallen in recent years: it could continue to fall another 20% and it
would still be more than their “fair share.”
objections to this are “Who needs that much money?”, and “What about people
before profits.” As we already discussed in the previous post, there’s nothing
wrong with making profit - that’s all that a corporation lives and breathes
for. As for “Who needs that much money?” there’s really only one response: Why
do you care?
some reason the left has dubbed itself arbiter of what is fair and what isn’t.
The problem, unfortunately, is that they are the ones setting the rules, and
the fact that the rich are paying a disproportionate amount of the tax burden
to begin with isn’t enough for them. This is because they wouldn’t ever be able
to squeeze enough out of the rich.
liberals here and abroad are hell-bent on taxing the rich, they’re going to
find themselves up against the grim reality that if they don’t want to let the
rich live as functional members of society, the Cayman Islands will gladly take
their emigrated dollars.
know what you’re thinking and what your objections are. Let’s briefly debunk
your liberal (and predictable) qualms with not soaking the rich so we can all
go out to Applebee’s and be friends again.
“No one needs that much money.” -Thanks for your concern. I’ll make as much as
“Rich people aren’t patriotic.” -Joe Biden said paying taxes is patriotic. And
the rich in the US are paying more taxes than anyone. So if they aren’t
patriotic, you certainly aren’t.
“It’s really crappy that the rich would move instead of paying taxes.” -What’s
wrong with trying to protect their assets? It’s not their fault you voted
someone in that hates them for no good reason except their success.
“Rich people only care about money.” I’m pretty sure everyone cares about
voted Obama back into office in November of 2012 thinking that they were voting
against Mitt Romney who was too rich or didn’t understand their needs. The
prior four years of economic destruction and tepid recovery didn’t register
when they went in the voting booth. As of this writing, the breaking news is
that GDP contracted for the end of 2012 by .1% The sad reality is that there
will be far fewer rich Americans if the failed economic policies of this
administration are enacted for another four years. Buckle up!
can’t say it any more succinctly than Lady Thatcher did: I’ll do my best to
are far less concerned with making the poor richer, than they are with making
the rich poorer.”
US president has put more effort and energy into punishing the successful and
the well-off than he has into lifting up the working class. Playing Robin Hood
is not a policy, it’s robbery. And it’s not a way to raise the middle-class.
It’s a way to subsidize votes.
are all like “Romney lost, you need to get over it.” When I stop seeing
HuffPost articles berating the guy, I’ll drop it. Three months later, he
remains the left’s whipping boy.
don’t tell anyone, but Marco Rubio’s meteoric rise in the GOP is encouraging to
me for two critical reasons. The first is that he’s brilliant and young,
symbolizing a possible conservative renaissance. The second is that if Rubio is
the GOP nominee in 2016 (yes, I know it’s early) I can say that liberals that
don’t like him are racist. And if those liberals are white, they will have no
defense. And I’ll be able to bless liberals with the ability to live the
utter hell of being called a racist for no good reason at all. People think I’m
joking about this, but look sharp! If you are a white liberal and Rubio is the
nominee, I’m coming for you. And I won’t be joking.
Dimas loves to hike, play soccer, and drink bubble tea (how harijuku!). He’s
also addicted to Words with Friends, even though he loses about 73% of the