The very funny Steven Crowder is at it again, this time revealing how the Left recruits their “volunteers” and “activists.”
From Hot Air’s ALLAHPUNDIT,
How much does a left-wing Astroturfer get paid , anyway?
Answer: There are no left-wing astroturfers, silly. They do it because they love the cause and the “fight” and the Unicorn King currently installed in the White House.
That $33,000 a year plus benefits is just their share of the wealth that belongs to all of us.
“Over the course of the health care debate, the bloggers at Verum Serum have done a true service to the cause of honesty in public discourse by posting video after video of liberal politicians and intellectuals all admitting that, despite his claims otherwise, President Barack Obama’s public option is designed for the sole purpose of being a Trojan Horse for government-run single payer health care. Now Verum Serum has edited all their public option videos into one clip. So the next time an Obamacare supporter tries to tell you that the public option is all about “choice and competition”, respond with this:”
“On this week’s season premiere of the popular AMC show “Mad Men” viewers were reminded about the punitive high tax rates in the 1960s:
This episode of Mad Men takes place in 1963, when the top income tax rate was 91 percent on incomes over $200,000 ($400,000 for married couples). That translates to about $1.4 million in 2009 dollars. The top rate today is 35 percent on incomes over $372,950. In 1963, by comparison, incomes over $10,000 (about $70,000 in 2009 dollars) paid 38 percent. As the scene from Mad Men makes clear, high tax rates in the 1960s discouraged working harder to get ahead because a large portion of the worker’s additional income went to paying taxes.
Discouraging work lowers economic growth. When this happens we all suffer because lower economic growth means fewer jobs and lower wages across the economy.
Tax rates have fallen significantly from the 1960s. The top rate today is 56 percentage points lower than it was in 1963, so the incentive to work hard and get ahead is a lot bigger now.
But if President Obama’s plan to raise the top two marginal income tax rates to Clinton-era levels and the House’s plan to slap a 5.6 percent surtax on top of that to partially fund a nationalization of the health care system become law, the top average tax rate in the U.S. will climb to 52 percent- higher than in France, Italy, Germany and Spain.
Many workers faced with a marginal tax rate that takes over half of their additional income will decide the extra effort just is not worth it- just like workers in the 1960s did. This will impede economic growth at the worst possible time as the economy suffers through its most severe contraction since World War II.
Mad Men has brought retro-1960s clothing and decor back into style. Let’s not bring back the economically stifling tax policy with it.”
Great report from Michelle Malkin, author of the new book Culture of Corruption, about the cool homecoming Reps are getting.
Worth reading and watching for inspiration as you attend forums, make office hours, write letters and make phone calls of your own! Or, my personal favorite, parade protests. Even in this off-year it’ll be fun.
Democrat Rep. Lloyd Doggett went home to Austin, Texas, and heard from his constituents about the planned government health care takeover.
Message: “Just say no!”
This taxpayer counterinsurgency is exactly what I talked about on the ABC This Week panel earlier today. The long, hot recess is underway. Make yourselves heard. Mark your calendars for the nationwide August 22 Recess Rally. Prepare to be demonized, of course.
And don’t let up until socialized medicine goes down:
In Philadelphia, Kathleen Sebelius and Arlen Specter get an earful (the YouTube user who posted the video calls the protesters “crazies.” You’re going to get a lot of that. Just carry on):
Better video and report from Andrew Monaghan here. Here’s one question from a woman who ticks off failed government program after failed government program and concludes, “How Can You Manage Health Care When You Can’t Manage Cash For Clunkers?”
Destroying working cars and common sense in the process.
Just how environmentally friendly is that?
Financial guru and Fox Business host Dave Ramsey rips “Cash for Clunkers” as an incentive for irresponsible spending.
Hot Air’s ALLAHPUNDIT points out some of the ironies that aren’t being reported about the program.
Rarely do you encounter a wealth-destroying green measure that literally destroys wealth but this is an exception and therefore a sweet, sweet metaphor for Obamanomics. I think some people are under the impression that C4C is just a trade-in program, where the dealer gets to keep the buyer’s old ride and sell it for parts or to a used-car dealer, etc. Not so. The whole point is to get fuel-inefficient vehicles off the road, which means the engines — the most valuable part — have to be destroyed. The Examiner’s Bill Dupray is horrified at the sheer inefficiency of it all:
“The Cash for Clunkers program is stupid for a lot of reasons. Not only is it just another tax-payer bailout of the unions automakers, who can sell more cars at artificially depressed prices so they can keep the doors open. It also screws with the free-market (big surprise there) by pulling forward demand that isn’t there now, only to kill demand over the next 1-2 years. Killing off the clunkers also hurts the used car market, the spare parts market, and the auto repair business. If there aren’t any old cars to buy or fix, those guys are all out of a job.
But one of the most asinine parts of the plan is that they take old cars, many of which were being used as functional day-to-day transportation the day before, and destroy them. A perfectly good and useful machine destroyed for political reasons…
I know people will say that some of these cars were maintenance disasters to own and if the blue book is less that what someone will pay you for it, then there is no point in keeping it. But the Cash for Clunkers program requires that a working vehicle be destroyed. What about giving it to charity, or to your teenager, or to whomever deems the thing more useful than a $4,500 credit on a new car.”
Via Dupray, here’s video of a Volvo in its death throes for the sake of Mother Gaia, but if you only have a few minutes to spare, skip it. Spend it instead on the Times’s must-read about the last hours of a clunker and watch the (sadly non-embeddable) video at the link. Not only is the program inefficient in the macro sense, but the feds’ underbudgeting and rickety Internet interface have made it inefficient at the micro level too by leaving dealers uncertain about whether they’ll ever be reimbursed for the rebates they’re paying out. Sample quote: “There is absolute frustration across the board.” No wonder a majority of the public is against the program.
Excerpts from an editorial from California Representative John Campbell (R).
“Prior to the founding of the United States, political theorist and philosopher John Locke developed the theory that government derives its power and authority from the consent of the governed. Benjamin Franklin once wrote that “in free governments the rulers are the servants and the people their superiors and sovereigns.”
Flash forward to the current setting and context. President Obama has made his intent clear on health care: Medical decisions will no longer be made by doctors and patients, but by the omnipotent prowess of the federal government. By proposing creation of a bureaucracy to ration care and determine the cost-effectiveness of care for individuals, he has violated at least one fundamental tenet of America’s founding.
The House version of the bill creates 53 new departments, agencies and commissions, but one stands out: the National Institute of Comparative Effectiveness. Though it may sound benign, this bureaucracy will be used to ration care.
A similar institution exists in Britain, called the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, given the curious acronym of N.I.C.E. Rulings on whether people live or die are made frequently in Britain and Canada, and if an individual has a pre-existing condition, is elderly, or for some reason deemed “unfit” for a lifesaving procedure, his chances of being granted that lifesaving procedure become uncertain. With health care rationing, lives will literally hang in the balance, subject to the whims of government.
In fact, it is documented that in countries where socialized medicine is in place, citizens suffer from drastically lower survival rates from ailments such as cancer and heart disease. On balance, survival rates range from around 30 percent to 50 percent below countries with private medicine.
This socialized-medicine package is a giant leap in a direction that changes the dynamic of government as a servant to the people…The American government will begin to view its citizens as liabilities rather than assets.
I and my Republican colleagues view the American people as assets with the intelligence and power to decide for themselves what is best for them and their families. This is something we are committed to fight for, and we continue to do so.