Small Business Owners Explain Why ObamaCare Causes Cuts in Hours and Layoffs


Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

As the layoffs continue to mount, and the left continues to blame everyone/everything but Obama’s policies, business people continue to attempt to explain the situation.  FOX News has the video.  Why FOX News?  Because the other networks won’t cover it!

Of course, leftists will probably promise to boycott these businesses, and try to put them under.  Because, as we all know, putting all of the workers in the unemployment line is far better than some of them losing their jobs.  As far as I can ascertain, it must be a twist on the normal liberal fairness meme.  You see, if some losing their jobs, and others  not, creates an unfair situation.  The liberal solution?  Make sure none of them have jobs.  Unfairness is therefore vanquished! It’s the liberal way.

H/T:  Gateway Pundit


You Didn’t Build That: Debunking the Leftist Narrative


Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

If we listen to the leftists, we hear two repeated messages…

Corporations are not people

No one get’s rich on their own, or, you didn’t build that.

Of course, these are parts of the class warfare lexicon.   For example, corporations are not people because their campaign donations help balance the torrent of big labor money to the democratic coffers.  So, it necessary to redefine them as “not people.”   Oh, and by the way, labor unions ARE people.  Don’t ask how- it cannot be explained.  Perhaps some strange metaphysical process is involved, or it is simply an asinine narrative?  You can be the judge on that.

Then, we have the whole concept that no one get’s rich on their own.  The idea here is that along the line, some teacher might have inspired, or someone gave support at a critical time, all going towards the person in question becoming rich.  Frankly, that might be true, but that is where the leftist narrative leaves the rails.  You see, that same inspirational teacher may have taught thousands of students at one time or another.  However, none of the other students became rich.  Perhaps it was the ideas, talents, or the drive of the rich person that made the difference?  Not so! According to the POTUS.

Also, it is said that if it weren’t for roads and other government sponsored infrastructure, businesses could not succeed.  To this is I must respond, who pays for the roads and bridges?  And, in fact, who pays for the teacher’s salary?  Is it the producers, those that work, create, and build businesses?  How would these projects and careers be funded without people doing something productive, and therefore paying taxes?

There are some breakdowns of who pays taxes.  The first is from US News and World Report (Hardly a Conservative organization).

In politics, perception often counts more than reality. First, for argument sake, let’s classify “the rich” as those in the top 1 percent of income earners. For 2009, the most recent data available, to be included in the top 1 percent you had to report Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) of just under $344,000.

That same year, the top 1 percent paid 37 percent of federal income taxes. The top 10 percent (this would include a public school teacher and a police officer each making $56,000 a year who are married and filing a joint tax return) paid 70 percent, and those in the top half paid almost 98 percent of all federal income taxes. That means the bottom half paid about 2 percent. In fact, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, 47 percent of households pay no federal income taxes. Does it seem fair that the top 1 percent pays only 37 percent? Or does the fact that the top 1 percent pays over one third of all federal income taxes seem unfair to the rich?

The second take on the same data comes from the Heritage Foundation…

Your ads will be inserted here by

Easy Plugin for AdSense.

Please go to the plugin admin page to
Paste your ad code OR
Suppress this ad slot.

Top earners are the target for new tax increases, but the federal income tax system is already highly progressive. The top 10 percent of income earners paid 71 percent of all federal income taxes in 2009 though they earned 43 percent of all income. The bottom 50 percent paid 2 percent of income taxes but earned 13 percent of total income. About half of tax filers paid no federal income tax at all.

Well, why are they are paying a higher tax rate than their percentage of income?  That is fair?  No, it’s not, because according to our leftist friends, they should be paying even more of their income, no matter that the scales are already stacked against them.

Let’s take a bit to examine this further.  If these rich people work for corporations (that clearly are non-human), they do need each other to make the system go.  Business owners, or CEO’s need everyone, from the warehouses, janitorial staff, and the mid level administrators doing their jobs to make the company work.  Once again, we have to recognize that without the ideas, drive, and talents of the creators of the business (those inhuman rich people), the janitors, warehouse staff, and mid level administrators wouldn’t have jobs.  You can replace a janitor, or a staffer, and most people wouldn’t even notice. But without a person at the top with the drive, ideas, and work ethic to do what it takes to make the business go, the whole operation can, and often does, fall apart.

Additionally, the drive and ideas of the evil and inhuman rich creates products and services that the rest of us want.  There are stockholders, retailers, salespeople, and scores of others that benefit from the distribution of those goods and services.  That drive and initiative to build a better mousetrap ripples through the economy, and the more ripples, the better it is for more and more people.   If the “builder” were not there, would the goods and services “poof” themselves into existence?  I think not.  However, if you listen to the POTUS, he seems to suggest that he can do that by decree.

And what of businesses and corporations not being “people?”

In a free state, people are able to freely make mutually beneficial associations.  Even if you want to call them “collectives,” you can. People join these “collectives” voluntarily, and break the relationship when one party no longer needs or wants the association with the other.  It’s freedom!  People take and quit jobs as they please.  Businesses, large and small, want to keep people that work well for them, and to replace those that don’t.  Consumers pick the products and services that they want.  Investors invest in the entities that they think will give them a good return.  It’s all volutary.  And, as evidenced by history, it works!

Until, that is, government get’s involved.

Now, let’s the two comments and tie them together.  From one side of the leftist mouth, we are told that people can’t get rich on their own, and that they need other people to make that happen.  However, the other side of that same leftist maw tells us that these people involved in a voluntary arrangement are NOT people.

Let’s briefly contrast the union arrangement; in a private company, you get to chose to stay or go, you get to make the choices, and if you do well, you might find yourself moving up, either at that company, or at your own.  The company has the same choices.  They can associate with you, advance you if they see potential, or terminate you if they don’t.  But, with the union, you are forced to join-there is NO choice.  And, if you do well, the work rules often won’t let the company pay you more.  Your drive, talent, and ideas have no bearing on your outcome, as the union won’t allow that.  You won’t get paid more than the drunk guy at the next work station.  In fact, if the drunk guy has more time in than you, you will be terminated first if there are layoffs.  In the leftist/union/government world, this is called “fairness.”  Of course, since your personal talents and abilities are meaningless, it’s the opposite of fair, but as usual, up is down, and right is wrong in liberal land.

But, even though corporations and small businesses are make up of people-voluntarily engaging in mutually beneficial relationships, they are not people, they are inhuman, and therefore can be deprived of their rights.  And, even though the productive owners, and even the workers of those companies pay far more than their “fair share” of the taxes, they should be taxed more.  Then, they are told that their efforts at building their businesses are irrelevant, and that government made it all happen anyway-even though the taxes paid by business owners funded the very government projects that the government touts as the reason for success in the first place!

Leftist “logic,” and explaining how completely bass ackwards it is, gives me a headache.  But, it has to be done.


The Childish Left


Are there any adults in the Democrat Party? Or, do they behave like children because that is how they see the majority of American voters? Cindy Simpson’s article at American Thinker today implies that the latter is the case. She is focused on Obama’s use of the “Fairness Card”.

In  the game of Obama politics, the Race Card and the Bush Card are frequently  played to trump most any criticism of Obama or his policies.  While those  cards tend to be the most oft-used defensive tactics, the most  effective offensive card in the Obama campaign’s hand is the Fairness  Card.  Take this recent example, when Obama said:

If  you believe this economy grows best when everybody gets a fair shot and  everybody does their fair share and everybody plays by the same set of rules,  then I ask you to stand with me for a second term as  president.

Although  the grown-ups in the room see that statement for what it is — an  appeal to the juvenile thinker, a large boulder to add to the chips accumulating  on the 99%-er’s shoulder — we can’t ignore the fact that the Fairness Card is  extremely persuasive.  Millions of voters will never even attempt to  understand the philosophical and economic lessons valiantly offered by  Republican candidates.  The unhappy voters are looking for someone to blame  — Racists, Bush, Republicans, the Rrrrich, Wall Street Fat Cats, Tea Partiers,  etc.  Because you know how spoiled kids think when the going gets tough:  the dog ate my homework, and Suzy got a  bigger cookie.


Obama  has taken the tenth Commandment — the one admonishing envy — and spun it  around into a campaign platform of “Thou shalt have fairness!”  With it, he  constructs a fence that divides our nation along numerous lines, with citizens  restlessly peering over it, sure their neighbor’s grass is  greener.


Obama’s job, as “President of the United States of America and  Protector of their Liberties,” is to preserve, protect, and defend the  Constitution.  Instead, Obama, in the role of President Superfair, flies  around handing out Fairness Cards.  And while one hand distracts with the  cards (which all have huge strings attached), Obama’s other hand is busy playing  a trick — taking his own revolutionary vision  of fairness and using it to make freedom disappear.

I think Ms. Simpson is right. She has correctly identified Obama’s main strategy for winning reelection. Obama is convinced the that the majority of voters are childish enough that he can sell them an empty bag of promises. Whether Obama has picked the right strategy will depend on whether the so-called ”independent voters” are a majority adults or children.

But, sometimes Democrats behave like children because that’s exactly what they are. Among the dimmest of the Democrats is Nancy Pelosi. The Washington Examiner gives us a prime example:

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., thinks that President Obama should unilaterally eliminate the debt ceiling, rather than negotiate with Congress to spend more money when the United States hits the debt ceiling later this year.

“I would like to see the Constitution used to protect the country’s full faith and credit, as the Constitution does,” Pelosi told reporters Wednesday. She was endorsing the idea that Obama should use the 14th Amendment — which states that “The validity of the public debt of the United States . . . shall not be questioned” — to circumvent House Republicans who want spending cuts in exchange for another debt ceiling hike.

Can you imagine her as a child saying: “Daddy, there should be no limit on my allowance. It’s not fair!”

Today we are all anxiously awaiting the decision of the Supreme Court on Obamacare. The consensus among pundits is that the Court will strike it down, at least in part.  And, if they do, how do you think the Democrats should respond? Here is what Democrat pundit Michael Tomasky suggest:

…There’s very little they can do legislatively. But I’ll be watching for rhetoric, tone, even body language. And on those counts, they had damn well better dispense with the usual liberal woe-is-me hand-wringing and shoulder slumping and come out swinging. They had better communicate to their base that they stand for something, it’s important to them, and they’re pissed. And if they do it the right way, they can make the Supreme Court an issue this fall in a way that might even persuade some swing voters that the court overstepped its bounds. I’d go so far as to say that an aggressive response can reset and reframe the whole health-care debate, once Americans have had their minds focused on this by a blatantly partisan court.

“They had better communicate to their base that they stand for something…”? What the hell do they stand for? They  forced this bill through behind closed doors aganst the will of the people. And now, if they don’t get their way , he recommends that they have a hissy fit.

It is all too typical. every time the left is confronted with reality, they revert to name calling. Very childish, don’t you think?

Well, that’s what I’m thinking. What are your thoughts?


More Evidence that OWS is a Microcosm of Their Future Socialist State


Redistribution is one of the key foundational concepts of socialism.  People having differing talents & work habits is inherently unfair, so government has to steal from others, and give to others.  Naturally, we have history to teach us that this thinking eventually fails, but reality is an elusive concept to our left, so additional examination is needed.

The latest example comes from OWS, who have been taking over forclosed homes, and kinda-sorta giving them to others.  Let’s see how that has worked out for them.  Hot Air has the details…

The proposal originally attracted the support of Wise Ahadzi, owner of a property in East New York who had been unable to make his mortgage payments and moved his family to a lower rent apartment while he sought to sort things out with the bank. Occupiers proposed that they would fix up the place for Mr. Ahadzi in exchange for taking part, and he agreed. They busted in and soon installed the family of Alfredo Carrasquillo, a homeless man. So popular was the move that a Democratic member of the city council came to pose for a photo op with the new tenant.

So, how did that work out for Wise Ahadzi? The pictures speak for themselves.

Last week,Wise Ahadzi opened the door to the house he still owns, 702 Vermont Street in East New York.

Inside is a war zone. The walls are torn down, the plumbing is ripped out and the carpeting has been plucked from the floor. It’s like walking through a ribcage.

Garbage, open food containers and Ahadzi’s possessions are tossed haphazardly around the house.

“This is where my kitchen was,” Ahadzi says. There is no sink, no refrigerator and no counter space. Instead there are dirty dishes piled high waiting for a dip in three large buckets of putrid water that serve as the dishwashing system.

The house is now in such a condition that the owner sees it as being fit for nothing other than being condemned. Even if he could get the mortgage situation straightened out, he couldn’t move his family back in. The property is destroyed.

So, we see what redistribution (theft) accomplishes.  Let’s look at it this way.  Liberalism and “social justice” in practice has ruined this home.  When you think of it, liberalism did the same thing to a city (Detroit), and an entire state (California).  And, if our leftist friends had their way, they would make the entire country look like Detroit.


Obama Thinks "Unneeded" Income Belongs to Government?


Commentary Magazine has a great article by John Steele Gordon.  I think it is quite revealing.

President Obama’s press conference yesterday—in which he only took questions from left-leaning reporters apparently–contained an amazing statement. It should be noted the first two instances of the first person singular pronoun in the sentence refer to Barack Obama, President of the United States. The second two refer to Barack Obama, taxpaying citizen:

And I do not want, and I will not accept, a deal in which I am asked to do nothing, in fact, I’m able to keep hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional income that I don’t need, while a parent out there who is struggling to figure out how to send their kid to college suddenly finds that they’ve got a couple thousand dollars less in grants or student loans. (emphasis mine)

But, unlike Scrooge McDuck, the rich do not put the excess in a vast money bin and frolic about in it. They invest it. What a concept! Where does Obama think new capital comes from, the tooth fairy? It’s nothing more than the excess of income over outgo. Take away the income the rich “don’t need” and spend it on social programs, and capital formation in this country drops to zero.

Gordon nails it completely.  In the absence of experience, or for that matter, reality, Obama takes to the leftist mantra that wealth is unfair, and that government is the arbiter of who gets what, or who keeps what.

Government, under the liberal vision, confiscates wealth, and spends it as they see fit.  And, we see the results every day; an expanding dependent class,  increased poverty, and decreased economic activity.  The economic pump is not “primed,” as FDR put it, it is instead buried, and sealed in concrete.   The left fails to realize that without the enticement of profit, businesses do not spend.  If businesses do not spend, they cannot be taxed.  When they cannot be taxed, government revenues goes down.  And then, the left’s precious social programs, which exacerbate the very problems that they are meant to ameliorate, are underfunded.

The fact that history teaches this again and again, without exception, is  irrelevant to the left.  Steele goes back in time to show that reality bounces right off of Obama…

So determined is Obama to deprive “the rich” of excess income–as defined by him, of course–he is even willing to adversely impact government income in order to do so. Read this colloquy between Obama and ABC’s Charlie Gibson in a 2008 debate with Hillary Clinton:

MR. GIBSON: And in each instance, when the [capital gains tax] rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased. The government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down. So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?

SENATOR OBAMA:  Well, Charlie, what I’?ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.

MR. GIBSON:  But history shows that when you drop the capital gains tax, the revenues go up.

SENATOR OBAMA: Well, that might happen or it might not. It depends on what’?s happening on Wall Street and how business is going.

Actually, it doesn’t. Every time capital gains tax rates have gone up, revenues have gone down and vice versa. High capital gains tax rates, because the tax liability is only incurred when an asset is sold, have the effect of locking in capital, which is economically pernicious, preventing capital from flowing to its most productive, i.e wealth creating, use.

Again, he knocks it right out of the park.  The ignorance of economic reality, and the effort to destroy the rich, no matter the fact that they will destroy the economy in the process, means nothing to Obama and his ilk.  His statement about “fairness” is frankly asinine, as it not only unfair to steal what others have legally earned, it will eventually hurt everyone.  The government will be underfunded, jobs will be lost, and everyone will be poorer.  But then again, socialism doesn’t build people up equally, it screws everyone down equally.

We call socialism “trickle up poverty” for a reason.  Because it is.


Tolerating Socialists if There Were Any For Real?


In my class, I tolerate almost every sort of student- conservatives, liberals, libertarians, socialists, and even moderates. In our discussions, debates, and in simulations, it doesn’t matter to me how a student thinks the best way to improve life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness- it isn’t my place to make them conform with my views or my ideology. But even though I’m tolerate of those groups, I do not tolerate fascists, hypocrites, or those students who openly promote tyranny and seek power over others.

Public education receives a lot of money from the state, and that money comes with a responsibility and obligation that I make sure that there are not students in my classroom who think that it okay to openly support fascism, that it is not okay to serially lie about their beliefs and views on issues, or that it is not okay to promote control over other people and tyranny and oppression. I crack down on those beliefs and try to teach students that those are not acceptable in our free and open society- they can think and believe whatever they want, but as long as I’m getting money from a free state of laws and liberty and freedom, I’m not going to let students openly and with my support think or say anything that advocates its violent overthrow or a take over by any hateful groups out there.

That being said, I am plenty accepting of liberals and socialists- as long as that is what they really are. The problem is that there really are not that many true socialists that come through my classroom, because there honestly are not a lot of real socialists in general. Oh, there are plenty of people in society that pretend they are socialist- they preach equality, redistribution of wealth, no ownership of property, fairness, and a society of rainbows and puppy dog tails- but when it really comes down to it and I make them make decisions about their own lives, their own property, their own liberty, it turns out they believe something else entirely.

Many people in society claim to be socialist, but in reality they are just thugs- they want others who they don’t like to redistribute their property, by force if necessary. They want other people, not them or their friends, to lose their liberties and freedoms- but not them. They want equality, as long as that equality drags others down to their levels- but once they have more than others and are more fortunate, they no longer believe in equality. They talk about the joys of a society that they can build, ignoring the horrors of it in reality.

Victor Davis Hanson wrote about this in a recent article called There Are No Socialists. Here are some of the key parts:

…The strangest things about the global statist crack-up are socialists’ unhappiness with their socialist utopia, and their subsequent efforts to avoid the consequences of the very redistributive state that they themselves once so gladly crafted…

…Here at home, Obama got his ObamaCare. Why, then, did he grant hundreds of exemptions — many to northern California liberals? Should they instead not have lined up to volunteer to implement such a wonderful, long-needed entitlement?

He said energy would rightly sky-rocket, given his determination to curb fossil fuel production (cf. “bankrupt” coal companies). Why then is Obama concerned that gas hit $4; is not such a high price a welcomed retardant to burning hot fuels? The higher the gas prices, the more that subsidized wind and solar power, and electric cars are attractive, and thus the more we enjoy “sustainable” power. Right? Am I missing something about this desire within our grasp of “living within our means”?

Obama enjoyed big majorities in both houses of Congress; and on the campaign trail he had promised a de facto amnesty under the euphemism of “comprehensive immigration reform.” So why did he not grant such exemptions, and absorb 11, 15, or 20 million new “citizens” from Oaxaca? Is not that the point of amnesty, to welcome in new constituencies who will remember a benefactor at the polls?…

….This discussion is, of course, a belabored example of why and how socialists do not like socialism. Indeed, statism is not a desired outcome, but rather more a strategy for obtaining power or winning acclaim as one of the caring, by offering the narcotic of promising millions something free at the expense of others who must be seen as culpable and obligated to fund it — entitlements fueled by someone else’s money that enfeebled the state, but in the process extended power, influence, and money to a technocratic class of overseers who are exempt from the very system that they have advocated.

So what is socialism? It is a sort of modern version of Louis XV’s “Après moi, le déluge” – an unsustainable Ponzi scheme in which elite overseers, for the duration of their own lives, enjoy power, influence, and gratuities by implementing a system that destroys the sort of wealth for others that they depend upon for themselves….

…History is not kind to such collective states of mind. Pay an Athenian in the fifth century BC a subsidy to go to the theater; and in the fourth century BC he is demanding such pay to vote in the assembly as well — and there is not to be a third century free democratic polis. Extend to a Roman in the first century BC a small grain dole, and by the late first century AD he cannot live without a big dole, free entertainment in a huge new Coliseum, and disbursements of free coined money. Let the emperor Justinian try cutting back the bloated bureaucracy in sixth century AD Constantinople and he wins the Nika riots that almost destroy a civilization from within even as it is beset by hosts of foreign enemies….

Victor Davis Hanson is the author of books such as The Father of Us All: War and History, Ancient and Modern and How The Obama Administration Threatens Our National Security (Encounter Broadsides).

Original Post:  A Conservative Teacher