Kamala Harris Wants To Give Away YOUR Money!

The Looney Left Report

California Senator Kamala Harris sure knows how to spend taxpayers' money.

She just announced legislation giving people $6,000/year or $500/month, whether they work or not. More leftist redistribution of wealth lunacy!

According to the Sacramento Bee:

American families making less than $100,000 a year could be eligible for a monthly tax credit of up to $500, or $6,000 a year, under new legislation announced Thursday by Democratic U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris of California. 

Individuals making less than $50,000 would be eligible for up to $250 a month, $3,000 a year. 

“Americans are working harder than ever but stagnant wages mean they can’t keep up with cost of living increases,” Harris, a likely presidential candidate in 2020, said in a statement. 

Harris’ office cited a 2017 survey from the website Bankrate.com that found more than half of Americans cannot afford a $500 unexpected expense, such as a rent increase, medical bill or child care. 

According to Harris’ office, recipients could receive the money in either monthly payments or annually.

Naturally, some people (the gimmie-gimmies) who would rather get a handout instead of earning their money would be all for this lunatic's scheme. Just like pigs at the trough!

To read more, go here. 

Kiss 50% of Your Income Goodbye By 2016!

Thanks to the U.S. Communist Party, disguised at the Democratic Party, your income tax rates are due to jump starting January 1. That is only the beginning of the effects of their redistribution scheme.

According to the Wall Street Journal's website:

A new wave of redistribution will arrive in America on Jan. 1, primarily thanks to the Affordable Care Act. The president's health-insurance plan forces those who hire, work and produce to pay full price for health care, while creating generous discounts for practically everyone else. 

This second redistributionist wave of the Obama era will follow a first wave of tax hikes, additional unemployment benefits, food-stamp expansions, waived work requirements for welfare benefits, etc. These measures were supposed to be temporary, intended to help people cope with the recession. The recession officially ended in mid-2009, but many of the administration's measures continue. 

Regardless of whether redistribution is achieved by collecting more taxes from families with high incomes, levying employment taxes on businesses, providing more subsidies to families with low incomes, or all of the above, an essential consequence is the same: a reduction in the reward for working.

By 2016, many of us will lose 50% of our hard-earned incomes to the pigs in the government. When this happens, why bother to work?

Once people really realize what's happening to them, maybe this will be the end of the Democrat Party.

To read more (and weep), go here.

Margaret Thatcher On Free Market and Redistribution Societies On "Firing Line"

Before she became Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher appeared on William F. Buckley's Firing Line and spoke about free market societies and state-controlled redistribution societies.  Keep in mind that this conversation took place 30 years ago.  What she said then is pertinent now in the U.S.

Her comments begin at about the 3-minute mark.

Obama: "I Believe In Redistribution" 1998 Audio

The Marxist-in-chief Barack Obama says he beieves in redistribution of wealth in this 10/19/98 YouTube audio:

Obama Appoints Marxist As Administrator For Medicare/Medicaid

President Barack Obama is appointing Donald Berwick to be the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) administrator while congress goes into recess.

This recess appointment is causing a furor as Berwick is clearly a radical socialist/Marxist. Berwick made remarks in London at the National Health Service conference on July 1, 2008.

At that conference, Berwick said:

Sick people tend to be poorer and that poor people tend to be sicker and that any health care funding plan that is just equitable, civilized, and humane must, must redistribute wealth from the richer among us to the poorer and the less fortunate. Excellent health care is by definition redistributional. Britain, you chose well.

Remember Obama's "redistribution of wealth" comments to Joe the Plumber back in the 2008 campaign?

He is also an "expert" on rationed healthcare. As Jake Tapper of ABC News pointed out:

In an interview last year with Biotechnology Healthcare, Berwick said society makes decisions about rationing all the time, and that the "decision is not whether or not we will ration care -- the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open. And right now, we are doing it blindly."

How's that hope and change working out for you?

$1 Trillion in New Taxes

Jake Tapper with ABC News has an interesting article that everyone should read:

Obama's Budget: Almost $1 Trillion in New Taxes Over Next 10 yrs, Starting 2011

Some of the tax hikes hit people earning over $250,000.

President Obama's budget proposes $989 billion in new taxes over the course of the next 10 years, starting fiscal year 2011, most of which are tax increases on individuals.

1) On people making more than $250,000.

$338 billion - Bush tax cuts expire
$179 billlion - eliminate itemized deduction
$118 billion - capital gains tax hike

Total: $636 billion/10 years

What 'til you see what he has planned for businesses! To read the full article, go here.

Dick Morris notes that Obama has been doom & gloom's biggest spokesman. He claimed that unless something is done (i.e., raise taxes and spend like crazy), there will be a catastrophe. Morris knows why:

Why does Obama preach gloom and doom? Because he is so anxious to cram through every last spending bill, tax increase on the so-called rich, new government regulation, and expansion of healthcare entitlement that he must preserve the atmosphere of crisis as a political necessity. Only by keeping us in a state of panic can he induce us to vote for trillion-dollar deficits and spending packages that send our national debt soaring.

And then there is the matter of blame. The deeper the mess goes — and the further down his rhetoric drives it — the more imperative it becomes to lay off the blame on Bush. He must perpetually “discover” — to his shock — how deep the crisis that he inherited runs, stoking global fears in the process.

So, having inherited a recession, his words are creating a depression. He entered office amid a disaster and he is transforming it into a catastrophe, all to pass every last bit of government spending and move us a bit further to the left before his political capital dwindles.

Fortuately, there are some of us who can see through Obama's bullplop. Unfortunately, there's not really enough to stop him, Pelosi and Reed.

Stop Porkulus: Contact Your Representatives Now!

Stop Porkulus: Contact Your Representatives Now!

Congress is about to vote on the porkulus/stimulus bill today. Very few, if any, members of Congress have read the final bill that came out of the Conference Committee (the one Republicans were blocked from participating in). The Democrats kept the bill from being posted online for people to read under the promised 48 hours, and it is a PDF file, which means that it can't be searched and it is essentially a picture of a document.

Don't rely upon the media, they aren't asking any probing questions (how can they since their tongues are on the floor?).

With interest and future spending, this monstrosity will end up costing taxpayers $1.5 trillion (that's trillion with a 'T').

Heritage.com reports:

The United States Congress is about to pass the largest single-year increase in domestic federal spending since World War II. Despite the fact that neither the Republicans in Congress, the media, nor the American people have been allowed to read the bill, the House plans to vote on the plan today. The Senate will quickly follow suit so that the bill will hit President Barack Obama’s desk by Monday. Even without the full benefit of digesting what is in this trillion dollar debt bill, over 200 economists have expressed their belief that this plan is destined to fail. And conservative economists that once supported the idea of a stimulus are now calling the current plan “An $800 Billion Mistake.” Even center left economists like President Bill Clinton’s budget director, Alice Rivlin have told Congress that the long-term spending items in the plan “should not be put together hastily and lumped in with the anti-recession package.”

This comes down to two Republican senators (Susan Collins is a lost cause): Arlen Specter and Olympia Snow. Senator Edward Kennedy is too ill to come to Washington from Florida to vote. If this bill is kept from getting 60 senate votes, it fails. Then something much better can be proposed.

Contact your congress member and senator today and tell them to vote against this rape of the taxpayer. Also, contact the offices of Senators Specter and Snow.

Contact Elected Officials at USA.Gov

Charles Krauthammer: The Fierce Urgency of Pork

Charles Krauthammer nails it again in his latest column in the Washington Post. His latest article is called, "The Fierce Urgency of Pork."

In it, Krauthammer writes:

It's the essential fraud of rushing through a bill in which the normal rules (committee hearings, finding revenue to pay for the programs) are suspended on the grounds that a national emergency requires an immediate job-creating stimulus -- and then throwing into it hundreds of billions that have nothing to do with stimulus, that Congress's own budget office says won't be spent until 2011 and beyond, and that are little more than the back-scratching, special-interest, lobby-driven parochialism that Obama came to Washington to abolish. He said.

After Obama's miraculous 2008 presidential campaign, it was clear that at some point the magical mystery tour would have to end. The nation would rub its eyes and begin to emerge from its reverie. The hallucinatory Obama would give way to the mere mortal. The great ethical transformations promised would be seen as a fairy tale that all presidents tell -- and that this president told better than anyone.

I thought the awakening would take six months. It took two and a half weeks.

Some of us already had Obama figured out months ago. It's the people who drank the Kool-Aid and voted for him who need to wake up.

To read Krauthammer's full column, go here.

Brad Sherman Voted For Socialist Pork Bill

California Congressman Brad Sherman, D-Woodland Hills voted for the "porkpalooza" stimulous bill yesterday.

The vote yesterday showed that the only bi-partisanship was the opposition vote. Eleven (11) Democrats joined the unanimous Republicans in opposing the stimulous bill. The 'yes' vote was totally partisan. Only Democrats voted for it.

The Wall Street Journal editorialized:

"Never let a serious crisis go to waste. What I mean by that is it's an opportunity to do things you couldn't do before."

So said White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel in November, and Democrats in Congress are certainly taking his advice to heart. The 647-page, $825 billion House legislation is being sold as an economic "stimulus," but now that Democrats have finally released the details we understand Rahm's point much better. This is a political wonder that manages to spend money on just about every pent-up Democratic proposal of the last 40 years.

We've looked it over, and even we can't quite believe it. There's $1 billion for Amtrak, the federal railroad that hasn't turned a profit in 40 years; $2 billion for child-care subsidies; $50 million for that great engine of job creation, the National Endowment for the Arts; $400 million for global-warming research and another $2.4 billion for carbon-capture demonstration projects. There's even $650 million on top of the billions already doled out to pay for digital TV conversion coupons.

Another "stimulus" secret is that some $252 billion is for income-transfer payments -- that is, not investments that arguably help everyone, but cash or benefits to individuals for doing nothing at all. There's $81 billion for Medicaid, $36 billion for expanded unemployment benefits, $20 billion for food stamps, and $83 billion for the earned income credit for people who don't pay income tax. While some of that may be justified to help poorer Americans ride out the recession, they aren't job creators.

To see the full WSJ editorial, go here.

As Jack Ryan wrote in the Post Chronicle:

Reports of what's in the new stimulus is causing tons of questions in the media and the people in America. According to reports, $335,000,000 is going towards sexually transmitted disease education and prevention programs. I thought this was a economy stimulus bill?

Besides that, it is reported that the radical community organizer group ACORN is to receive billions from this bill. Economic stimulous?! This is nothing but a redistribution of wealth to Democrat/Leftist special interest groups.

FoxNews.com reported:

Republican lawmakers are raising concerns that ACORN, the low-income advocacy group under investigation for voter registration fraud, could be eligible for billions in aid from the economic stimulus proposal working its way through the House.

House Republican Leader John Boehner issued a statement over the weekend noting that the stimulus bill wending its way through Congress provides $4.19 billion for "neighborhood stabilization activities."

He said the money was previously limited to state and local governments, but that Democrats now want part of it to be available to non-profit entities. That means groups like ACORN would be eligible for a portion of the funds.

And, the Associated Press noted:

Undocumented immigrants who are not eligible for a Social Security number can file tax returns with an alternative number. A House-passed version of the economic recovery bill and one making its way through the Senate would allow anyone with such a number, called an individual taxpayer identification number, to qualify for the tax credits.

Most of the (arguably) stimulous spending won't even kick in until 2010, an election year. What are people supposed to do in the meantime?

And Brad Sherman, the congressman in my district, voted for it! His idiocy knows no bounds.

Rush Limbaugh Responds To President Obama

Source: FreeRepublic.com

Talk show host Rush Limbaugh responded to President Barack Obama's comment to GOP leaders to not "listen to Rush Limbaugh." He responded via Byron York at National Review Online.

Limbaugh replied in part:

There are two things going on here. One prong of the Great Unifier's plan is to isolate elected Republicans from their voters and supporters by making the argument about me and not about his plan. He is hoping that these Republicans will also publicly denounce me and thus marginalize me. And who knows? Are ideological and philosophical ties enough to keep the GOP loyal to their voters? Meanwhile, the effort to foist all blame for this mess on the private sector continues unabated when most of the blame for this current debacle can be laid at the feet of the Congress and a couple of former presidents. And there is a strategic reason for this.

Secondly, here is a combo quote from the meeting:

"If we don't get this done we (the Democrats) could lose seats and I could lose re-election. But we can't let people like Rush Limbaugh stall this. That's how things don't get done in this town."

To make the argument about me instead of his plan makes sense from his perspective. Obama's plan would buy votes for the Democrat Party, in the same way FDR's New Deal established majority power for 50 years of Democrat rule, and it would also simultaneously seriously damage any hope of future tax cuts. It would allow a majority of American voters to guarantee no taxes for themselves going forward. It would burden the private sector and put the public sector in permanent and firm control of the economy. Put simply, I believe his stimulus is aimed at re-establishing "eternal" power for the Democrat Party rather than stimulating the economy because anyone with a brain knows this is NOT how you stimulate the economy. If I can be made to serve as a distraction, then there is that much less time debating the merits of this TRILLION dollar debacle.

To read Limbaugh's full response, go here.

Related story from the London Telegraph.

A Dozen Fun Facts About the House Democrats' Massive Spending Bill

Yesterday, Minority Leader John Boehner sent out an email on the House Democrats' ridiculous $825 billion "stimulus" bill. It is worth reproducing in its entirety:

A Dozen Fun Facts About the House Democrats' Massive Spending Bill

1. The House Democrats' bill will cost each and every household $6,700 additional debt, paid for by our children and grandchildren.

2. The total cost of this one piece of legislation is almost as much as the annual discretionary budget for the entire federal government.

3. President-elect Obama has said that his proposed stimulus legislation will create or save three million jobs. This means that this legislation will spend about $275,000 per job. The average household income in the U.S. is $50,000 a year.

4. The House Democrats' bill provides enough spending - $825 billion - to give every man, woman, and child in America $2,700.

5. $825 billion is enough to give every person living in poverty in the U.S. $22,000.

6. $825 billion is enough to give every person in Ohio $72,000.

7. Although the House Democrats' proposal has been billed as a transportation and infrastructure investment package, in actuality only $30 billion of the bill - or three percent - is for road and highway spending. A recent study from the Congressional Budget Office said that only 25 percent of infrastructure dollars can be spent in the first year, making the one year total less than $7 billion for infrastructure.

8. Much of the funding within the House Democrats' proposal will go to programs that already have large, unexpended balances. For example, the bill provides $1 billion for Community Development Block Grants (CDBG), which already have $16 billion on hand. And, this year, Congress has plans to rescind $9 billion in highway funding that the states have not yet used.

9. In 1993, the unemployment rate was virtually the same as the rate today (around seven percent). Yet, then-President Clinton's proposed stimulus legislation ONLY contained $16 billion in spending.

10. Here are just a few of the programs and projects that have been included in the House Democrats' proposal:

$650 million for digital TV coupons.
$6 billion for colleges/universities - many which have billion dollar endowments.
$166 billion in direct aid to states - many of which have failed to budget wisely.
$50 million in funding for the National Endowment of the Arts.
$44 million for repairs to U.S. Department of Agriculture headquarters.
$200 million for the National Mall, including grass planting.
$400 million for "National Treasures."

11. Almost one-third of the so called tax relief in the House Democrats' bill is spending in disguise, meaning that true tax relief makes up only 24 percent of the total package - not the 40 percent that President-elect Obama had requested.

12. $825 billion is just the beginning - many Capitol Hill Democrats want to spend even more taxpayer dollars on their "stimulus" plan.

Obama and Osawatomie, the Weather Underground Newspaper

Zomblog managed to obtain a copy of the very first issue of Osawatomie newspaper that was published by the Weather Underground Organization of Bill Ayres and Bernardine Dohrn in 1975. This is the cover of the paper:



There's a lot of striking catchwords and rhetoric that the WUO used then and what Barack Obama uses now.

From Zomblog:

Zomblog has obtained an extremely rare copy of the first issue of Osawatomie, a newspaper published by the Weather Underground in 1975. Noteworthy passages are reproduced below, along with exact transcriptions. The full pages, with each passage in context in high resolution, are found at the bottom of this post.

Much of Osawatomie, which was written at a time when the Dohrn-Ayers wing of the Weather Underground was transitioning from terrorism to “working from the inside” for revolution, concerns itself with the need to encourage “organizers” who will work in “communities” and use “audacity” to bring about “socialism” in America.

Sound familiar?

It is thought that the Obama logo is similar to the logo of the Weather Underground logo. Here's a side-by-side comparison:



Several pages of Osawatomie have been posted at the Zomblog page.

To read the full article, go here.

Obama Redistribution of Wealth Audio Revealed

A recording from 2001 reveals more of Barack Obama's "redistribution of wealth" ideology.

This was while he was a state legislator and law professor.



National Review Online has more on the transcript.

FoxNews.com writes:

A 7-year-old radio interview in which Barack Obama discussed the failure of the Supreme Court to rule on redistributing wealth in its Civil Rights rulings has given fresh ammunition to critics who say the Democratic presidential candidate has a socialist agenda.

The interview -- conducted by Chicago Public Radio in 2001, while Obama was an Illinois state senator and a law professor at the University of Chicago -- delves into whether the civil rights movement should have gone further than it did, so that when "dispossessed peoples" appealed to the high court on the right to sit at the lunch counter, they should have also appealed for the right to have someone else pay for the meal.

In the interview, Obama said the civil rights movement was victorious in some regards, but failed to create a "redistributive change" in its appeals to the Supreme Court, led at the time by Chief Justice Earl Warren. He suggested that such change should occur at the state legislature level, since the courts did not interpret the U.S. Constitution to permit such change.

"The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of basic issues of political and economic justice in this society, and to that extent as radical as people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical," Obama said in the interview, a recording of which surfaced on the Internet over the weekend.

"It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it has been interpreted.

"And the Warren court interpreted it generally in the same way -- that the Constitution is a document of negative liberties, says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf, and that hasn't shifted.

"And I think one of the tragedies of the civil rights movement was that the civil rights movement became so court-focused, I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and organizing activities on the ground that are able to bring about the coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change, and in some ways we still suffer from that," Obama said.

Someone asked at National Review Online a very good question:

"How can Obama take the oath of office to 'preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution' when he clearly does not believe in it and thinks it’s a flawed document, too focused on "negative liberties," instead of positive ones, and wishes to see the Supreme Court "break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution?"

Biden Can't Handle Critical Questioning

Senator Joe Biden bristled at some questioning from a Florida television station. Obviously, this is one station not in the tank for Obama.

From FoxNews.com:

Barack Obama's campaign killed all interviews with a Florida TV station after Sen. Joe Biden, the Democratic vice presidential nominee, faced tough and critical questions from a reporter at the Orlando station, reported the Orlando Sentinel .

During a satellite video Thursday, WFTV's Barbara West quoted Karl Marx and asked Biden how Obama's comment to "Joe the Plumber," about spreading the wealth wasn't being Marxist.

"Are you joking?," Biden asked.

West replied, "No."

Later in the interview West questioned Biden about his comments that if Obama wins the election next month, he would be tested early on as president and wanted to know if Biden was implying America was no longer the world's leading power.

"I don't know who's writing your questions," Biden asked her.

The Obama camp then killed a WFTV interview with Biden's wife Jill, according to an Orlando Sentinel blog.

"This cancellation is non-negotiable, and further opportunities for your station to interview with this campaign are unlikely, at best for the duration of the remaining days until the election," wrote Laura K. McGinnis, Central Florida communications director for the Obama campaign, according to the Sentinel.

The Obama campaign seems to be a little thin-skinned.

Redistribution of Wealth

This joke has arrived in my emailbox in slightly different forms. But the essential story is this:

Redistribution of Wealth

Today on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read "Vote Obama, I need the money." I laughed.

Once in the restaurant my server had on a "Obama 08" tie, and again I laughed as he had given away his political preference -- just imagine the
coincidence.

When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in need -- the homeless guy outside. The server angrily stormed from my sight.

I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server inside as I've decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was grateful.

At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the actual recipient "deserved" money more.

I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application.

Get the point?