Home | About | Forums | Links | Contact | LR X-treme | Video | RSS
Daily e-mail updates from
Libertarian Republican.

Monday, January 7, 2013

We're Better Off Obama Was Reelected

This is yet more evidence that we're better off under Obama than Romney. If a tax increase of this kind had passed under Romney, which is highly likely, Obama voters would have blamed republicans for screwing the working poor. Now that Obama has screwed the working poor, his base is already pissed at him, as is demonstrated by the comments in the article below

A Romney victory would have meant a strong comeback for Dems in 2014. Let's hope this is the beginning of the end of the Obama honeymoon; let's hope for a disastrous second term and sluggish economy that will benefit Republicans. Besides, Obama voters need to feel some pain; it's the only  thing  that will turn them into conservatives. this will also embolden the GOP to be even more against tax increases of any kind. the GOP can also use this to push for real tax reform; for example, taxing labor equally with capital, rather than just giving rich investors a tax break on their capital gains. The GOP needs to become more populist, even using some class warfare against the rich, and advocating for overall lowering of tax rates; not just a tax break for the wealthy. A Romney victory would have permanently cemented the GOP as the party of the 1 percenters, an image Romney would have bolstered with crony capitalist policies; i.e tax breaks for favored corporate buddies and a refusal to close loopholes. Obama's reelection is good for the GOP. 

Andre Traversa

By Joseph Curl

Sometimes, watching a Democrat learn something is wonderful, like seeing the family dog finally sit and stay at your command.

With President Obama back in office and his life-saving “fiscal cliff” bill jammed through Congress, the new year has brought a surprising turn of events for his sycophantic supporters.
“What happened that my Social Security withholding’s in my paycheck just went up?” a poster wrote on the liberal site DemocraticUnderground.com. “My paycheck just went down by an amount that I don’t feel comfortable with. I guarantee this decrease is gonna’ hurt me more than the increase in income taxes will hurt those making over 400 grand. What happened?”
Shocker. Democrats who supported the president’s re-election just had NO idea that his steadfast pledge to raise taxes meant that he was really going to raise taxes. They thought he planned to just hit those filthy “1 percenters,” you know, the ones who earned fortunes through their inventiveness and hard work. They thought the free ride would continue forever.
So this week, as taxes went up for millions of Americans — which Republicans predicted throughout the campaign would happen — it was fun to watch the agoggery of the left.
“I know to expect between $93 and $94 less in my paycheck on the 15th,” wrote the ironically named “RomneyLies.”
“My boyfriend has had a lot of expenses and is feeling squeezed right now, and having his paycheck shrink really didn’t help,” wrote “DemocratToTheEnd.”
“BlueIndyBlue” added: “Many of my friends didn’t realize it, either. Our payroll department didn’t do a good job of explaining the coming changes.”

So let’s explain something to our ill-informed Democratic friends. In 2009, Mr. Obama enacted a “holiday” on the payroll tax deduction from employees’ paychecks, dropping the rate from 6.2 percent to 4.2 percent. But like the holidays, the drop ended, and like New Year‘s, the revelers woke up the next morning with a massive hangover and a pounding head.
“Bake,” who may have been trolling the site, jumped into the thread posted Friday. “My paycheck just went down. So did my wife’s. This hurts us. But everybody says it’s a good thing, so I guess we just suck it up and get used to it. I call it a tax increase on the middle class. I wonder what they call it. Somebody on this thread called it a ‘premium.’ Nope. It’s a tax, and it just went up.”
Some in the thread argued that the new tax — or the end of the “holiday,” which makes it a new tax — wouldn’t really amount to much. One calculated it would cost about $86 a month for most people. “Honeycombe8,” though, said that amount is nothing to sneeze at.
“$86 a month is a lot. That would pay for … Groceries for a week, as someone said. More than what I pay for parking every month, after my employer’s contribution to that. A new computer after a year. A new quality pair of shoes … every month. Months of my copay for my hormones. A new thick coat (on sale or at discount place). It would pay for what I spend on my dogs every month … food, vitamins, treats.”
The Twittersphere was even funnier.
“Really, how am I ever supposed to pay off my student loans if my already small paycheck keeps getting smaller? Help a sister out, Obama,” wrote “Meet Virginia.” “Nancy Thongkham” was much more furious. “F***ing Obama! F*** you! This taking out more taxes s*** better f***ing help me out!! Very upset to see my paycheck less today!”
“_Alex™” sounded bummed. “Obama I did not vote for you so you can take away alot of money from my checks.” Christian Dixon seemed crestfallen. “I’m starting to regret voting for Obama.” But “Dave” got his dander up over the tax hike: “Obama is the biggest f***ing liar in the world. Why the f*** did I vote for him”?
Of course, dozens of posters on DemocraticUnderground sought to blame it all (as usual) on President George W. Bush. “Your taxes went up because the leaders need to dig us out of this criminal deficit hole we are in which has been caused because taxes were too low during the Bush years. Everyone has to help by spreading the wealth around a little. Power to the correct people!” posted “Orinoco.”

But in fact, it was Mr. Obama who enacted the “holiday,” and, to be clear, the tax cut that he pushed throughout the campaign — remember? 98 percent of Americans will get a cut under his plan? — was really the extension of the Bush tax suts. Thus, it was Mr. Obama who raised taxes on millions of Americans, not Mr. Bush.
How many Americans? The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center in Washington put the total at 77.1 percent of all wage earners. In fact, “More than 80 percent of households with incomes between $50,000 and $200,000 would pay higher taxes. Among the households facing higher taxes, the average increase would be $1,635, the policy center said,” according to a Bloomberg News article. Hilariously, the tax burden will rise more for someone making $30,000 a year (1.7 percent) than it does for someone earning $500,000 annually (1.3 percent).
A whole new wave of Obama supporters still don’t even know: They’ll get their first 2013 paychecks on the 15th of the month. So when you’re shooting the breeze in the lunchroom with your grumbling co-workers on the 16th, just ask them, “Who’d you vote for in November?” When they say Mr. Obama, just tell them: “Well, you got what you voted for. You did know he was going to raise taxes, right?”
The looks on their faces will be priceless.
*bull; Joseph Curl covered the White House and politics for a decade for The Washington Times. He can be reached at jcurl@washingtontimes.com.

22 comments:

Chuck said...

What a pathetic fucking lunatic you've become, Andre.

Sick.

Erich Domdero said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Chuck said...

And you need to wipe the semen off of your chin.

Eric Dondero said...

Umm, okay Domdero, you don't like rugby shirts? Of all the things to pick on Andre about, you pick on him about his shirt?

Oh, btw, in case you didn't know, Andre is blind. Has been blind since birth.

Eric Dondero said...

Hit the fuckin' tip jar Domdero.

jgeleff said...

Fuck it. Jack up the taxes. Let the "little people" pay too. Fair is fair.

Erich Domdero said...

Polo shirts can be fine. His is just shitty and rumpled. Get his seeing-eye dog to pick out a new one.

Erich Domdero said...

And I'm shocked that chuck is afraid of homosexuals.

Chuck said...

No one is afraid of homosexuals, you dick sucking coward. That's simply a rhetorical ploy invented by dickless weasels like you.

Erich Domdero said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
The Right Guy said...

Well, how is it superior? It's an evolutionary dead end. On top of that, sticking habitrails in one's ass to allow rodents inside the colon or doing up to the wristwatch in crisco is hardly normal or something to be championed as superior. That said, I care not what people do in the privacy of their own homes, but I won't call it normal or superior in any way.

Erich Domdero said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
The Right Guy said...

Since it is not procreative it is not equivalent.

Erich Domdero said...

Sure it is.

The Right Guy said...

Never has been and never will be. It produces nothing.

Erich Domdero said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
The Right Guy said...

I said it's not equivalent, certainly not in an evolutionary sense. It's a dead end. It's nature's way of taking people out of the gene pool that shouldn't be there. Evolution used to do that all the time, before modern medicine and progressive ideals. I'll live with the modern medicine, but the progressives don't even agree with what they believe in, evolution.

Erich Domdero said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
The Right Guy said...

So said the sword swallower.

Erich Domdero said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
The Right Guy said...

Just a statement of fact.

Erich Domdero said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.