Obama wants your money, and he wants it NOW!

All the talk about 1% or 2% is just sophistry. Obama and the Democrats want everybody's taxes to go up in the end. You have to get to the end of Obama speeches before you actually hear the truth come out. Obama knows that people pay more attention to the headline than the actual body of the speech. Take a look at this excerpt from his speech on 12/06/12.

So I’m encouraged to see that there’s been some discussion on the part of Republicans acknowledging the need for additional revenue. As I’ve indicated, the only way to get the kind of revenue for a balanced deficit reduction plan is to make sure that we’re also modestly increasing rates for people who can afford it -- folks like me. For folks who are in the top 2 percent, we can afford to have a modest rate increase. That allows us to not only reduce our deficit in a balanced, responsible way, it also allows us to make investments in education, in making college affordable, in putting folks back to work, and investing in basic research that’s important for our economy.

And I think we all recognize that there are some smart cuts we’ve got to make in government. We’re going to have to strengthen our entitlement programs so that they’re there for future generations. Everybody is going to have to share in some sacrifice, but it starts with folks who are in the best position to sacrifice, who are in the best position to do a little bit more to step up. And that’s what my plan does.

So just to be clear, I’m not going to sign any package that somehow prevents the top rate from going up for folks at the top 2 percent. But I do remain optimistic that we can get something done that is good for families like this one’s and that is good for the American economy. All right. Thank you very much, everybody.

So, "Everybody is going to have to share in some sacrifice, but it 'starts' with the top 2%." I wonder where it goes from there?

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Follow The WindUpRubberFinger on Twitter!

John Boehner and Obama; Much Love

The Republican Party is in the worst shape its been in since I've been alive. The Republicans lost a presidential election to a devout and open socialist. While there are many reasons for that, I think I have pinpointed the real causes.

Blaming Romney is just like blaming a quarterback when his receivers can't catch good passes. Romney is a small part of the equation. Republicans have made promises and then backed out of them. People don't vote to send someone to Washington simply to say things and not act. They send someone up there to do what's right, what's necessary. So far, the Republicans have shown that they do not have the courage of their convictions.

Contrast that with the Democrats. Democrats have shown that they do not lack the courage of their convictions, of course I don't agree with them, but they have a spine when it comes to what they believe in. Republicans have been trying to get along to get along; all the while backing down on the Conservative beliefs that got them their in the first place. As I said before, "You attract moderates directly at the cost of the base."

Yesterday Speaker of The House John Boehner said, "If you look at the plans that the White House has talked about thus far, they couldn’t pass either house of the Congress." So, John Boehner proposes "revenue" which means tax increases which verifies the Democrat narrative of tax the rich. Now the Republicans have no argument. There is no longer any contrast between Republicans and Democrats. But the Democrats are the ones who stand to win here. There is only one way the Republicans can win on this issue only if the Democrats cave. The Democrats have no reason to cave. Democrats want higher taxes on everyone in the end, so they win on two fronts. The Democrats will have their victory delivered to them on a platter by the media who will blame the economic impact on the Republicans. Thanks to John Boehner conceding that tax increases will fix everything; the media has an easy job making the Republicans at fault.

The Republicans have become the moderate party. They have marginalized themselves by not really standing up for anything. The Republican Party is a dead platform until it can purge itself of moderates and replace them with Conservatives. The American people don't want wimpy career politicians they want people with conviction.

Tell your congressman that John Boehner does not need to be Speaker of The House any longer. It's time to send Tammy Faye Boehner packing. We need someone who will stand up to Obama in the public arena not meet in private and make deals that are unknown to the American people or the rest of the party. Not someone who will remove Conservatives from budget related committees! Someone who can articulate the differences in Conservative ideas and big government ideas.

I'm not sure who they can vote in as a replacement. I would suggest anyone that was removed from their committee position as "punishment" for not towing the line. What about Tim Huelskamp, R-Kansas., and Justin Amash, R-Michigan or David Schweikert, R-Arizona? We know that if they were removed they are Conservatives. We sent them to congress to do exactly what they did, they represented their districts!

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Follow The WindUpRubberFinger on Twitter!

Thelma and Louise Going Forward

What if America has been driven over the cliff on purpose. We are in the air right now, the question is for how long. In order to answer the question you have to determine who it will benefit the most and why.

The Obama administration is looking for a way to blame things on the Republicans. The Obama administration is looking for a way to hide the negative effects of Obamacare. Going over the cliff accomplishes all of this while Democrats get everything they've been asking for. Tax increases across the board (not just on those making more than $200,000) military cuts and the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) will still be in the tax code --one of the Democrats most powerful weapons.

Here is my argument for why I think we should go over the cliff now. Democrats have been running for years on higher taxes (for those making more than $200,000) and more spending, which they refer to as "investment". If we go over the cliff there will be higher taxes on everyone, not just the "rich". What will that accomplish? I believe it will force the truth to the surface. There isn't enough money to fund the government period --even with everybody's taxes going higher! There never was; it's the same thing that happened to so many state, county and city governments. Governments made more promises than there was funding for. The money was never there, only local governments can't print their own money the federal government can.

As long as the Democrats can get Republicans to keep folding and raising the debt limit, this will never end. The Fiscal Cliff is only the beginning. The Democrats are purposely creating the largest economic bubble the world has ever seen. Only the very rich will be able to deal with this kind of economic shrinkage easily.

Then the questions start. Why would anyone do this? If Obama is so brilliant, why didn't he foresee the Republicans standing their ground and have another plan that would help to keep the economic pressure from reaching those he claims to care about? Why isn't Obama dealing to save the middle class?

The real answer is that Obama and the Democrats have wanted this for a long time, don't kid yourself.

I think we need to do this now, before the bubble gets any bigger! It's going to happen sooner or later anyway because as I explained earlier; there isn't enough money to keep up with current spending rates.

I say let it all go now, and disarm every argument the Democrats have made. Once everyone's taxes are increased and there still isn't enough revenue --what will be the next Democrat solution? So far the only argument they've had is tax increases. If tax increases are the answer let them go up, raise them now and prove the Democrats wrong.

What do you think?

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Follow The WindUpRubberFinger on Twitter!

Search trending is nothing new, but I bet there are a few things you've never considered. For example, there was an article posted on election day showing a staggering number of Google searches for "who's running for president"! Not only does the Google chart show the number of hits, it also indicates the location from which the searches originated.

Chart: "who is running for president 2012"

Map: "who is running for
president 2012"

Go here to see results live on Google Trends.

We are in really deep trouble if this data is in anyway representative of the U.S. electorate. Sadly I think it might be, here's why...

Chart: "Moving to Costa Rica March 2010"

So, what happened in March of 2010? Obamacare was passed!

Chart: "Moving to Costa Rica November 2012"

Go here to see results live on Google Trends.

So people were worried about Obamacare, and are worried that what will happen now that Obama has been reelected. The effect is that people are actually looking to leave the country. Of course this isn't reflective of a majority of the U.S. population, but it's enough people to make Google Trends reflect it. I don't think that it's a coincidence do you?

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Follow The WindUpRubberFinger on Twitter!

The gun lobby was 100% correct in their fears of Obama. Literally hours after Obama was elected the U.S. is now agreeing to debate a draft version of a U.N. conventional arms ban.

But the U.N. General Assembly's disarmament committee moved quickly after Obama's win to approve a resolution calling for a new round of talks March 18-28. It passed with 157 votes in favor, none against and 18 abstentions.

U.N. diplomats said the vote had been expected before Tuesday's U.S. presidential election but was delayed due to Superstorm Sandy, which caused a three-day closure of the United Nations last week.

An official at the U.S. mission said Washington's objectives have not changed.

"We seek a treaty that contributes to international security by fighting illicit arms trafficking and proliferation, protects the sovereign right of states to conduct legitimate arms trade, and meets the concerns that we have been articulating throughout," the official said.

"We will not accept any treaty that infringes on the constitutional rights of our citizens to bear arms," he said.

U.S. officials have acknowledged privately that the treaty under discussion would have no effect on domestic gun sales and ownership because it would apply only to exports.

A few things here are strange to me. Why, if the treaty does not effect U.S. domestic gun sales, do U.S. officials have to acknowledge that information "privately"? Also the name "U.N. General Assembly disarmament committee" does not sound like a committee devoted to maintaining gun rights. The fact of the matter is this; the U.N. is trying to mandate global gun laws. Once the framework is in place the U.N. will begin to encroach on U.S. gun owners individual rights. There could be no other reason to agree to something like this. As I have said before, "find me any newly created legislation that limits the power of those who passed it".

The measure now goes to the 193-nation General Assembly for a formal vote. It is expected to pass.

The resolution said countries are "determined to build on the progress made to date towards the adoption of a strong, balanced and effective Arms Trade Treaty."

Jeff Abramson, director of Control Arms, a coalition of advocacy groups, urged states to agree on stringent provisions.

"In Syria, we have seen the death toll rise well over 30,000, with weapons and ammunition pouring in the country for months now," he said. "We need a treaty that will set tough rules to control the arms trade, that will save lives and truly make the world a better place."

Brian Wood of Amnesty International said: "After today's resounding vote, if the larger arms trading countries show real political will in the negotiations, we're only months away from securing a new global deal that has the potential to stop weapons reaching those who seriously abuse human rights."

The treaty would require states to make respecting human rights a criterion for allowing arms exports.

The entire premise of this treaty is absurd. Does anyone really believe that those who violate human rights can't manufacture their own weapons? Iran is on the verge of manufacturing a nuclear weapon with the ability to kill hundreds of thousands of people, but we need to focus on hand-held weapons?

Anyone who thinks that this will not effect the U.S. and private gun ownership is far removed from reality.

Note: You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment.

Follow The WindUpRubberFinger on Twitter!