Liberals like Ed Asner might not be smart, but they are persistent. Zo thinks that Republicans can learn a few lessons from Democrats and liberals. Hear how on this ZoNation
Showing posts with label Tax The Rich. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tax The Rich. Show all posts
Friday, December 14, 2012
Alfonzo Rachel - More Hollywood Hypocrisy - Ed Asner Hates the Rich
Liberals like Ed Asner might not be smart, but they are persistent. Zo thinks that Republicans can learn a few lessons from Democrats and liberals. Hear how on this ZoNation
Labels:
Alfonzo Rachel,
Class Warfare,
Ed Asner,
Hollywood,
Tax The Rich,
Zonation
Friday, November 23, 2012
PJTV Trifecta - Will the GOP Allow Obama to Raise Taxes on the Rich?
House Republicans must decide whether to raise taxes on the rich or not. Should the GOP give Obama what he wants just to prove to America that his economic policies won't work? Find out as Trifecta discusses the looming fiscal cliff.Thursday, October 25, 2012
Austin Hill - Yes, Atlas Will “Shrug,” Eventually
“People call this the ‘new normal.’ Let me assure you there is nothing normal about this at all. It’s the new ‘abnormal,’ and it won’t last, because as free people we won’t stand for it…”
With those remarks, business magnate and former presidential candidate Steve Forbes drew thunderous applause from his audience last Wednesday. Headlining the “Power Up!” business and motivational seminar with Sarah Palin, Rudy Giuliani, and Indian-born Zig Ziglar protégé Krish Dhanam, Mr. Forbes was speaking before a crowd of ten thousand at the Idaho Center indoor sporting complex.
Forbes had just finished explaining why a confluence of cheap credit, billions of dollars in stimulus spending, lots of new taxes and government regulations, and the ensuing government debt have all failed to stimulate our economy. He was confirming with his technical explanation, what many of us know instinctively in our hearts: the reality that no organization- no individual or family, no business, no government – can spend its way out of debt and re-distribute its way to prosperity.
We should all hope that Forbes is right – that “as free people, we won’t stand for it.” Because if we continue to vote for politicians who viciously take expanding portions of wealth from our society’s producers and selfishly redistribute that wealth to those of their choosing, eventually the politicians will run out of other’s people’s money to redistribute and we will all suffer the consequences. The social disorder and collapse of Greece and Spain could be our future in the U.S., if, “as free people,” we don’t choose more wisely.
For those who have eyes to see and ears to hear, examples abound in this present day of how not to construct a national economy. Greece and Spain qualify, yes, and so does Venezuela. Yet even within the last week the news from France, another bureaucratic, debt-laden, and not-so-free-anymore part of the free world, should be a wake-up call to all Americans.
After five years of service from President Nicolas Sarkozy who sought to reduce government controls of the economy and to stimulate private enterprise, French voters tossed him aside last May in favor of a presidential candidate who was nominated jointly by both the French Socialist Party, and France’s “Radical Left Party.” Francois Hollande campaigned with a set of 60 propositions - referred to as his “manifesto” – which included raising taxes on corporations; raising taxes on banks; raising taxes on “rich” individuals; lowering the official retirement age back down to age 60 from 62; hiring 60,000 new government school teachers; and establishing government subsidized “youth jobs programs” in regions of high unemployment.
Today, many French citizens seem horrified that – shock! – President Hollande is doing precisely what he pledged to do. “The situation is very serious” noted Laurence Parisot, head of France’s largest labor union MEDEF in an interview with the London Telegraph last week. “Some business leaders are in a state of quasi-panic” he claimed, as the Telegraph reported that “France is sliding into a grave economic crisis and risks a full-blown ‘hurricane’ as investors flee rocketing tax rates.”
In less than six months, President Hollande has managed to raise capital gains taxes from 34.5% to 62.2%. According to Reporter Ambrose Evans-Pritchard at the London Telegraph, this compares to 21% in Spain, 26.4% in Germany, and 28% in Britain (capital gains taxes reach as high as 35% here in the U.S.).
Mr. Parisot claims that President Hollande has yet to understand the “extreme gravity” of the nation’s “crisis.” Additionally, a private enterprise coalition has launched a nationwide protest movement which they call the “State of Emergency For Business,” claiming that President Hollande’s “confiscatory tax rates” threaten lasting damage to their country.
So let’s be clear about what’s happening in France. A major, national labor union leader (Laurence Parisot) – arguably a counterpart of Teamsters leader James P. Hoffa here in the U.S. – is upset because a Socialist President is taking more money from “the rich” and re-distributing it to others via government employment programs. Such policies would seem like a dream come true for the AFL-CIO, yet the union leader in France seems to understand that the “rich” in his country play a vital role in other people’s livelihoods, and simply seizing more of their money is damaging for everybody. Mr. Parisot takes his criticisms further, stating that “aligning taxes on capital with those on wages is a profound economic error; it is scandalous that the French have been left in such economic ignorance for years” (a stinging indictment on France’s unionized public education system).
So is Atlas “shrugging” in France? When labor union leaders panic over taxes being too high, it suggests that, yes, the trains may soon stop running, in a matter of speaking.
Here in the U.S., it might not be so much of a proactive “shrug” right now as it is a more passive abandonment, a “sitting on the sidelines,” “waiting to see what happens” phenomenon with those who could otherwise be starting new businesses (a subtle “death by a thousand cuts,” perhaps). If he’s re-elected, President Obama will get his “Francois Hollande moment” as he can allow income and capital gains taxes to skyrocket on January 1 (which he has pledged to do) and watch lower and middle income Americans reel from the infliction of Obamacare taxes and penalties.
Let’s hope that Steve Forbes is right – that this is not our “new normal;” that we will reject politicians who are vicious with society’s wealth creators; that we will choose to remain a “free people” – and that we will reject President Obama in November.
Austin Hill
With those remarks, business magnate and former presidential candidate Steve Forbes drew thunderous applause from his audience last Wednesday. Headlining the “Power Up!” business and motivational seminar with Sarah Palin, Rudy Giuliani, and Indian-born Zig Ziglar protégé Krish Dhanam, Mr. Forbes was speaking before a crowd of ten thousand at the Idaho Center indoor sporting complex.
Forbes had just finished explaining why a confluence of cheap credit, billions of dollars in stimulus spending, lots of new taxes and government regulations, and the ensuing government debt have all failed to stimulate our economy. He was confirming with his technical explanation, what many of us know instinctively in our hearts: the reality that no organization- no individual or family, no business, no government – can spend its way out of debt and re-distribute its way to prosperity.
We should all hope that Forbes is right – that “as free people, we won’t stand for it.” Because if we continue to vote for politicians who viciously take expanding portions of wealth from our society’s producers and selfishly redistribute that wealth to those of their choosing, eventually the politicians will run out of other’s people’s money to redistribute and we will all suffer the consequences. The social disorder and collapse of Greece and Spain could be our future in the U.S., if, “as free people,” we don’t choose more wisely.
For those who have eyes to see and ears to hear, examples abound in this present day of how not to construct a national economy. Greece and Spain qualify, yes, and so does Venezuela. Yet even within the last week the news from France, another bureaucratic, debt-laden, and not-so-free-anymore part of the free world, should be a wake-up call to all Americans.
After five years of service from President Nicolas Sarkozy who sought to reduce government controls of the economy and to stimulate private enterprise, French voters tossed him aside last May in favor of a presidential candidate who was nominated jointly by both the French Socialist Party, and France’s “Radical Left Party.” Francois Hollande campaigned with a set of 60 propositions - referred to as his “manifesto” – which included raising taxes on corporations; raising taxes on banks; raising taxes on “rich” individuals; lowering the official retirement age back down to age 60 from 62; hiring 60,000 new government school teachers; and establishing government subsidized “youth jobs programs” in regions of high unemployment.
Today, many French citizens seem horrified that – shock! – President Hollande is doing precisely what he pledged to do. “The situation is very serious” noted Laurence Parisot, head of France’s largest labor union MEDEF in an interview with the London Telegraph last week. “Some business leaders are in a state of quasi-panic” he claimed, as the Telegraph reported that “France is sliding into a grave economic crisis and risks a full-blown ‘hurricane’ as investors flee rocketing tax rates.”
In less than six months, President Hollande has managed to raise capital gains taxes from 34.5% to 62.2%. According to Reporter Ambrose Evans-Pritchard at the London Telegraph, this compares to 21% in Spain, 26.4% in Germany, and 28% in Britain (capital gains taxes reach as high as 35% here in the U.S.).
Mr. Parisot claims that President Hollande has yet to understand the “extreme gravity” of the nation’s “crisis.” Additionally, a private enterprise coalition has launched a nationwide protest movement which they call the “State of Emergency For Business,” claiming that President Hollande’s “confiscatory tax rates” threaten lasting damage to their country.
So let’s be clear about what’s happening in France. A major, national labor union leader (Laurence Parisot) – arguably a counterpart of Teamsters leader James P. Hoffa here in the U.S. – is upset because a Socialist President is taking more money from “the rich” and re-distributing it to others via government employment programs. Such policies would seem like a dream come true for the AFL-CIO, yet the union leader in France seems to understand that the “rich” in his country play a vital role in other people’s livelihoods, and simply seizing more of their money is damaging for everybody. Mr. Parisot takes his criticisms further, stating that “aligning taxes on capital with those on wages is a profound economic error; it is scandalous that the French have been left in such economic ignorance for years” (a stinging indictment on France’s unionized public education system).
So is Atlas “shrugging” in France? When labor union leaders panic over taxes being too high, it suggests that, yes, the trains may soon stop running, in a matter of speaking.
Here in the U.S., it might not be so much of a proactive “shrug” right now as it is a more passive abandonment, a “sitting on the sidelines,” “waiting to see what happens” phenomenon with those who could otherwise be starting new businesses (a subtle “death by a thousand cuts,” perhaps). If he’s re-elected, President Obama will get his “Francois Hollande moment” as he can allow income and capital gains taxes to skyrocket on January 1 (which he has pledged to do) and watch lower and middle income Americans reel from the infliction of Obamacare taxes and penalties.
Let’s hope that Steve Forbes is right – that this is not our “new normal;” that we will reject politicians who are vicious with society’s wealth creators; that we will choose to remain a “free people” – and that we will reject President Obama in November.
Austin Hill
Thursday, September 13, 2012
BaracK Obama 'Promised' the Most Transparent Administration in History
"It's time to fundamentally change the way that we do business in Washington. To help build a new foundation for the 21st century, we need to reform our government so that it is more efficient, more transparent, and more creative. That will demand new thinking and a new sense of responsibility for every dollar that is spent."Barack Obama
Through his own words, a short un-narrated documentary that looks at Obama's first term with regards to transparency, healthcare, taxes, fairness, energy and the national debt - guaranteed to contain information of interest.
Friday, May 25, 2012
Alfonzo Rachel - Tax-Men in Black: Higher Taxes are Bad For Will Smith and the Poor
'Men in Black' star Will Smith was asked on French TV about whether he would be willing to pay more taxes, especially at the levels proposed by French President Hollande. Wait until you hear what Smith said about paying a 75% income tax. Zo tells Will Smith why higher taxes are not good for the government or the poor. Hear more.
Labels:
Alfonzo Rachel,
Hollywood,
Tax The Rich,
Taxes,
Will Smith,
Zonation
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
Austin Hill - Why Are the Rich Still Enamored of Obama?
A question for the rich: if President Obama successfully breaks the backs of the working middle class, is that really good for you?
And how about this: if over half of your fellow Americans pay no income taxes and are quite happy to have you foot the bill for our wasteful bloated government, will that be good for your portfolios– or anybody else’s?
We’re less than seven months away from selecting either four more years of Barack Obama, or a new President named Mitt. At this point President Obama isn’t running on his track record, so much as he is running against his own characterizations of Congress and his Republican presidential opponent. But is that the stuff that leadership is made of?
The President portrays the Congress as though it is inept and obstructionist. Despite his own party’s control of the entire U.S. Senate, “Congress” is preventing further progress, Mr. Obama tells us, and it is threatening the hope and change that he has already created.
As for Mitt Romney– well, he’s a creature of wealth and privilege, according to President Obama, a man defined by his greed. Ivy League law school grad’s Barack and Michelle understand the struggle of the middle class, but Mitt and Ann are incapable.
But look who’s funding the President’s campaign – overwhelmingly it’s the richest among us. According to a New York Times report last year, Obama’s top donors included many Silicon Valley executives, hedge fund managers, entertainment executives, and former supporters of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.
Today the President’s campaign is aggressively seeking low-dollar donors, soliciting contributions as little as $3.00 and raffling “dinner with the President” opportunities. Yet his financial support among middle and lower income Americans is miniscule, while wealthy Americans who are willing to pay up to $40,000.00 for dinner and a photo continue to flock to his side. Yes, there’s been a slowdown in the big-dollar donations, as the headlines indicate, but Barack Obama is still the presidential candidate of choice for rich folks.
And why? Are wealthy Americans so easily charmed by the thrill of “hanging” with a U.S. President that they’re ambivalent to the agenda they’re funding? And what part of the Obama agenda do rich people believe is strengthening our country – or even their own personal fortunes?
Consider the recent unemployment data. Thus far this year the U.S. Department of Labor has issued 14 reports on unemployment benefits claims, and 14 times the Department of Labor has revised the number upward, after the initial report was released. The Obama Administration grabs headlines with what appears to be a decrease in government benefits, then after the fact reports that the dependency is increasing. Is this what attracts the rich folks?
And how about the sharp decline in the number of people who are actually trying to work? The labor pool is shrinking (not just the number of available jobs) and the President’s solution to the problem is clear: more “free” services for the lower and middle class, and higher taxes for the rich. But is this our pathway to prosperity?
Reports about fewer people wanting to work have been dismissed as “right wing spin.” Yet it was none other than the Congressional Budget Office that predicted this phenomenon, after the Obamacare bill was signed in to law.
Douglas Elmendorf, the Director of the non-partisan C.B.O., a federal agency within the legislative branch of our government that employs people to analyze government policies, predicted 2 years ago that, given the generous enhancements to Medicaid and the supposed “universal coverage” of Obamacare, lots of us would simply choose to no longer work for a living.
Elemendorf said as much at a little noted conference in October of 2010, held at the University of Southern California’s Leonard D. Schaeffer Center for Health Policy and Economics. Nobody paid much attention to him then, but it appears now that what he predicted then is now beginning to happen.
Less productivity and higher taxes on the rich – what part of this spells “success” for rich folks? It’s perplexing that there aren’t more wealthy Americans like Steve Wynn, the successful C.E.O. of the publicly traded Wynn Resorts, Ltd. Last July, Wynn caught national attention for daring to disagree with the President’s agenda.
The headlines at the time stated “Wynn Slams Obama On Business,” but if you had read or listened to any of Wynn’s actual remarks at the time, you would have concluded to that there really wasn’t much of any “slamming” going on.
More accurately, Wynn’s comments seemed very accurate, rational and fair – as if he was simply stating the obvious.
Speaking with a calm tone during a corporate conference call with his associates, Wynn said, among other things: “… This administration is the greatest wet blanket to business, and progress and job creation in my lifetime…my customers… are frightened of this administration… Everybody complains about how much money is on the side in America…those of us who have business opportunities and the capital to do it are going to sit in fear of the President. And a lot of people don't want to say that. They'll say, God, don't be attacking Obama. Well, this is Obama's deal and it's Obama that's responsible for this fear in America…”
More government entitlements and less productivity. Is this good for rich Americans? Is it good for anyone?
Austin Hill
And how about this: if over half of your fellow Americans pay no income taxes and are quite happy to have you foot the bill for our wasteful bloated government, will that be good for your portfolios– or anybody else’s?
We’re less than seven months away from selecting either four more years of Barack Obama, or a new President named Mitt. At this point President Obama isn’t running on his track record, so much as he is running against his own characterizations of Congress and his Republican presidential opponent. But is that the stuff that leadership is made of?
The President portrays the Congress as though it is inept and obstructionist. Despite his own party’s control of the entire U.S. Senate, “Congress” is preventing further progress, Mr. Obama tells us, and it is threatening the hope and change that he has already created.
As for Mitt Romney– well, he’s a creature of wealth and privilege, according to President Obama, a man defined by his greed. Ivy League law school grad’s Barack and Michelle understand the struggle of the middle class, but Mitt and Ann are incapable.
But look who’s funding the President’s campaign – overwhelmingly it’s the richest among us. According to a New York Times report last year, Obama’s top donors included many Silicon Valley executives, hedge fund managers, entertainment executives, and former supporters of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.
Today the President’s campaign is aggressively seeking low-dollar donors, soliciting contributions as little as $3.00 and raffling “dinner with the President” opportunities. Yet his financial support among middle and lower income Americans is miniscule, while wealthy Americans who are willing to pay up to $40,000.00 for dinner and a photo continue to flock to his side. Yes, there’s been a slowdown in the big-dollar donations, as the headlines indicate, but Barack Obama is still the presidential candidate of choice for rich folks.
And why? Are wealthy Americans so easily charmed by the thrill of “hanging” with a U.S. President that they’re ambivalent to the agenda they’re funding? And what part of the Obama agenda do rich people believe is strengthening our country – or even their own personal fortunes?
Consider the recent unemployment data. Thus far this year the U.S. Department of Labor has issued 14 reports on unemployment benefits claims, and 14 times the Department of Labor has revised the number upward, after the initial report was released. The Obama Administration grabs headlines with what appears to be a decrease in government benefits, then after the fact reports that the dependency is increasing. Is this what attracts the rich folks?
And how about the sharp decline in the number of people who are actually trying to work? The labor pool is shrinking (not just the number of available jobs) and the President’s solution to the problem is clear: more “free” services for the lower and middle class, and higher taxes for the rich. But is this our pathway to prosperity?
Reports about fewer people wanting to work have been dismissed as “right wing spin.” Yet it was none other than the Congressional Budget Office that predicted this phenomenon, after the Obamacare bill was signed in to law.
Douglas Elmendorf, the Director of the non-partisan C.B.O., a federal agency within the legislative branch of our government that employs people to analyze government policies, predicted 2 years ago that, given the generous enhancements to Medicaid and the supposed “universal coverage” of Obamacare, lots of us would simply choose to no longer work for a living.
Elemendorf said as much at a little noted conference in October of 2010, held at the University of Southern California’s Leonard D. Schaeffer Center for Health Policy and Economics. Nobody paid much attention to him then, but it appears now that what he predicted then is now beginning to happen.
Less productivity and higher taxes on the rich – what part of this spells “success” for rich folks? It’s perplexing that there aren’t more wealthy Americans like Steve Wynn, the successful C.E.O. of the publicly traded Wynn Resorts, Ltd. Last July, Wynn caught national attention for daring to disagree with the President’s agenda.
The headlines at the time stated “Wynn Slams Obama On Business,” but if you had read or listened to any of Wynn’s actual remarks at the time, you would have concluded to that there really wasn’t much of any “slamming” going on.
More accurately, Wynn’s comments seemed very accurate, rational and fair – as if he was simply stating the obvious.
Speaking with a calm tone during a corporate conference call with his associates, Wynn said, among other things: “… This administration is the greatest wet blanket to business, and progress and job creation in my lifetime…my customers… are frightened of this administration… Everybody complains about how much money is on the side in America…those of us who have business opportunities and the capital to do it are going to sit in fear of the President. And a lot of people don't want to say that. They'll say, God, don't be attacking Obama. Well, this is Obama's deal and it's Obama that's responsible for this fear in America…”
More government entitlements and less productivity. Is this good for rich Americans? Is it good for anyone?
Austin Hill
Saturday, April 14, 2012
Star Parker - Obama's Message Has Nothing to Do with Fairness or Recovery
You have got to give credit where credit is due. President Obama has laid out the core message of his reelection campaign. It is a message whose claims are blatantly false and whose point is irrelevant to what is of greatest concern to Americans today.
Yet despite this, there is no evidence so far that his strategy and messaging is not working and won’t be successful.
In his speech at Florida Atlantic University last Tuesday, the President defined what he called “…the defining issue of our time.”
And this defining issue, per the president, appears to be that America is not fair.
We suffer today, he says, from “a shrinking number of people who are doing really, really well, but a growing number who are struggling to get by.”
And apparently the reason this is happening is we are not a nation (the President never tells us if we ever were) where “everybody gets a fair shot and everybody does a fair share, and everybody plays by the same set of rules.”
Now excuse me for pointing out the irony of hearing from our nation’s first black president a suggestion that America may no longer be a nation where dreams can be realized or where someone can come out of nowhere and make it.
But Mr. Obama probably would explain his unlikely success in this unfair nation as the result of his being an exceptional and extraordinary individual.
Which is why, I would assume in his thinking, we ordinary folk should turn our lives over to him to determine who should have what.
Ironically, I would say, that if America is unfair today, it is because politicians and government have the power to do exactly what it is that Mr. Obama wants to do. Seize control of the wealth of some and redistribute it to whomever they choose.
The Bible that I read every day calls this theft.
The president seeks to gain political support for this redistribution of wealth by tapping into the widespread dissatisfaction with our most disappointing economy.
But is our economy underperforming because some have more than others, because some succeed more than others?
At a time when Americans are looking for answers to restart our sputtering economy, our president chooses to use his time complaining about the wealthiest not paying sufficient taxes.
But according to the National Taxpayers Union, in 2009 the top 5 percent of income earners paid almost 60 percent of the funds raised by the federal income tax and the bottom 50 percent paid about 2 percent.
Yet, in the president’s remarks in Florida, he defined fairness as everybody playing by “the same set of rules.” Not only are the tax rules not fair by the president’s own definition, in the name of alleged fairness he wants to make them even more unfair.
Of course, the president’s real problem is that his policies have failed so he has to change the subject. He told us that the almost $900 billion in stimulus spending passed in 2009 would revive our economy and reduce unemployment to 6 percent. Unemployment now, three years later, stands at 8.2 percent.
There is no evidence that our president has a clue about what why we are not on the path to recovery. But, unfortunately, he does have a clue about how to tap into the worst instincts of people in order to garner political support. And inspiring blame and envy, sadly, pays political dividends.
The fairness the president obsesses about has nothing to do with fairness, nor does it have anything to do with fixing our economy.
If he really wants guidance on a fair and moral tax system, he might turn to his Bible instead of his campaign spin machine.
He can learn there that the ten percent tithe on income applies to everyone.
Star Parker
Labels:
Fairness,
Star Parker,
Tax The Rich,
Wealth Redistribution
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)

