When conservatives are interviewed by the media, it's a completely different story. Conservative guests must be aggressively questioned and debated to create a "sense of balance." Suddenly a counter-point must be presented at all costs to avoid looking biased. But where's the need for balance and a counter-point of view when the liberal media agrees with their liberal guests? The answer is- there is none. Warren Buffett's interview on NBC was a great example of the disparity. Buffett's assertions went unchallenged by NBC, or the reporter for the segment Tom Brokaw (yes the old NBC anchor who recently retired).
First of all, Buffett is either dead wrong or being purposely misleading. It's a fact that facts lie all the time- anyone can twist facts to fit the point they are trying to make. Isn't it the media's job to point that out? Isn't it the media's job to present both sides of the argument? Buffett worded his claim in such a way that it appeared to viewers that he pays less taxes than his secretary. If I pay a 10% tax rate on $10,000,000 of income and you pay 20% tax rate on $30,000 of income, it is true that you're paying a higher rate. But that's completely misleading. My lower tax rate adds up to $1,000,000 in taxes paid. Your supposedly higher rate adds up to $6000 of taxes paid. Shouldn't someone at NBC News have bothered to point this out? Wouldn't you call that comparison of tax rates a bit misleading? Wouldn't you say that the rich guy that pays $1,000,000 to the government is paying his "fair share" compared to his employee paying $6000?
Shouldn't someone have pointed out that the employee paying $6000 per year in taxes will only pay about $240,000 (after working 40+ years) in his or her entire lifetime. That means that their rich boss pays 4 times more in taxes in one year than his or her employee will pay in a lifetime. Perhaps pointing that out might have made this story a bit more "fair and balanced." But Tom Brokaw never bothered to question Warren Buffett's contention. Not a peep. Not one objection. Not one word of protest to try to balance the story. Brokaw even went so far as to ask one of Buffett's longtime employees about taxes and if this disparity favoring the rich is fair. He asked the question right in front of Buffett- his boss. Wow that's pretty tough investigative journalism, huh? Gee, we're guaranteed to get an honest answer from Buffett's employee of 30 years, right in front of his ego-maniacal billionaire boss, aren't we? That will really balance the story, huh? Of course, Buffett's employee took the courageous route and responded with words something like this, "Aw sucks, I'd defer to Warren on anything about money or taxes. He's a pretty smart guy. If Warren says so, it must be true." Not too much bias there, huh? No obvious butt-kissing towards billionaire bosses allowed on the NBC Evening News, huh?
But wait. I'm only getting started. If you want to be objective and fair and present a balanced point of view, why not ask Warren Buffett exactly what kind of tax rates he's referring to? Afterall, it's a fact that rich people do pay higher tax rates than others on the lower end of the income scale. A secretary earning $50,000 or below probably pays tax rates of about 25% to 30%. Her boss that earns $150,000 a year (let alone a cool billion like Buffett) automatically (before legal tax deductions) pays a rate of close to 40%...plus higher sales taxes (because he quite naturally spends more)...plus higher property taxes (because he most certainly has a more expensive home)...plus higher state income taxes (on a higher income)...plus payroll taxes on all his employees. So what the heck is Buffett talking about? Is he ignorant or purposely being misleading? Buffett not only pays far more tax dollars than his employees, he also pays higher tax rates than his employees. Something doesn't add up here.
It took me awhile to figure it out- but it finally dawned on me. Buffett is a Billionaire (with a capital B). He probably takes no salary. He probably earns 100% of his income from capital gains investments (interest, dividends, sale of businesses, stocks and real estate investments). Capital gains are taxed at 15% versus income from your job that is taxed at 25% to 40%. So Buffett was comparing completely different tax rates. He was comparing apples to oranges. Yet Brokaw never bothered to point out this misleading trickery. Buffett's sleight of hand was never questioned or disclosed to viewers. The reason capital gains tax rates are lower is because that comes from money left over after you've already paid your taxes. To tax capital gains at all is DOUBLE TAXATION. That is why so many thriving countries all over the world offer capital gains tax rates of zero. To pay 15% capital gains tax rates is already paying 15 percentage points too high. To raise the rate higher is logic that only an ignorant fool...or an out-of-touch billionaire would advise. Or perhaps a deceptive liberal billionaire with an agenda.
The money I use to invest in homes, rental properties, stocks, bonds or to start businesses is the money that I have left after I've already paid my income taxes. Why should I be taxed again? Neither Buffett nor Brokaw bothered to mention that argument. Money I invest in those kind of capital gains deals is pure "risk money." I could lose it all (and I have on numerous occasions). Those kind of investments are what power the entire booming American economy. We want Americans of all income levels to invest in homes, stocks, bonds, small businesses. That's precisely how you create prosperity. And of course more wealth and prosperity creates more tax revenues. It's not higher rates that create more taxes- it is lower tax rates that creates more prosperity and therefore more tax revenues! How could you encourage more Americans to take huge risks with their savings by raising the taxes on these kinds of investments? I would never buy a stock or rental property...risking my life savings...if I was taxed at 50% or higher on my profits. But motivate me by offering me low capital gains taxes- now I'll risk everything I've got on the very investments that power the U.S. economy- stocks, bonds, real estate, small businesses.
That's the reason that Warren Buffett's argument is stupid, ignorant or just plain misleading. Billionaires are out of touch. He's already got his $50 Billion (give or take a billion or two). But young, newly-minted, self-made millionaires like me are still struggling and risking it all every day so we can build our fortune. So we can create our own version of the American Dream. We need our capital gains taxes low enough to encourage us to risk big and invest in America. And we deserve lower tax rates on those investments simply because we've already paid our high tax rates on our incomes. Capital gains is our reward- our only chance to build true wealth. Our only chance to invest in something that earns money while we sleep. Buffett has it all backwards- capital gains shouldn't be taxed at all. The tax rate should be zero.
Buffett is out of touch. He's fat and happy. Taxes are meaningless to billionaire liberal fat cats like him. It wouldn't affect him if rates were 79% or 99%. He wouldn't even notice. He's already got his $50 Billion salted away. Perhaps that's why he wants taxes raised- money is meaningless to him. Or perhaps he isn't the saint that the liberal media (and his publicists) portray him as. Perhaps he's not the wonderful, benevolent philanthropist he portrays. Perhaps his goal (like most rich liberals) is greed- by raising tax rates he keeps you and me out of his Billionaire Boys Club. He can keep us begging for scraps. Buffett's already got his $50 Billion. He knows we CANNOT possibly catch him unless tax rates are low enough to encourage risk and entrepreneurship. And of course the bonus in this equation is that low tax rates create a booming economy. That's our best shot at accumulating our own fortune- low taxes and a booming economy that creates unlimited opportunities for upward mobility and wealth. But raise tax rates and the window of opportunity shuts closed on millions of ambitious, courageous, entrepreneurial risk-takers.
High tax rates will prevent the rest of us from achieving our American Dream. If tax rates are high enough, it's virtually impossible to save enough to invest in real estate or stocks, or open a new business. The higher tax rates are, the lower your odds of ever attaining wealth. Prime example: France. High taxes mean fewer jobs, less investment, and far lower rates of entrepreneurship. Few Frenchmen invest in anything. They just want to work at a safe job (guaranteed for life), with a safe, steady weekly paycheck, with a 35 hour workweek and 6 weeks vacation. No wonder France's economy is in shambles. High tax rates are proven to eliminate upward mobility and destroy ambition.
Warren Buffett made his billions during periods of low tax rates and booming economy (no coincidence there). We all know that he's no dummy- he clearly understands that. Raise rates dramatically, ruin the economy, take away 50% or more of my profits, and it's assured that I'll never catch up to Buffett. By raising tax rates on investments, Buffett is killing the American dream. He's trying to turn America into France. France is a land where fairness and equality rule the day. No question about that. Everyone is equally poor and miserable. Except for a few billionaires who dominate French business. That's the kind of country (and economy) Buffett wants to create. One where he is the billionaire king- and the rest of us beg for scraps.
This "tax the rich" philosophy that Buffett espouses isn't to help the little guys of the world- it's to screw the little guys! High tax rates prevent the rest of us from ever becoming rich like Warren Buffett. He wants to be alone in the rarified air of his "Billionaire Boys Club." He wants to put up big obstacles to keep the rest of us out. High tax rates are the single biggest roadblock to success for smart, ambitious, young, self-made Americans. Poor people and immigrants can't move into the middle class because of high tax rates. The middle class cannot become millionaires because of high tax rates. And millionaires can't become billionaires because of high tax rates. High tax rates screw everyone- except those who already have their billions. Liberal Billionaires like Buffett aren't on your side. Warren Buffett is only interested in making sure he's always the king. And he wants to make the rest of us his servants and serfs, begging for scraps. Funny how Brokaw and the liberal media never bother to point that out.
[ add comment ] | permalink | related link |
( 3 / 1115 )I am so fed up with the liberal lies and distortions about capital gains and "giveaways to the rich." Liberal Presidential contenders like Barack Obama, John Edwards and Hillary Clinton are jumping over each other to announce new tax increases for "the rich." They say it as if being "rich" is a dirty word. As if being "rich" is something Americans deserve to be punished for. We all know that certain words are off limits- curse words, ethnic slurs, derogatory stereotypes, etc. Maybe it's time to declare the "R Word" a slur and declare it off-limits. Maybe we should replace that dirty, negative, demeaning word "rich" with more positive terms like successful, high-achiever, super-achiever, or "All-American role model." Now you can clearly see how important wording is. The masses support "taxing the rich." But few Americans would rush to support punishing "successful high-achievers." No one wants to punish "All-American role models." It's all in the wording and presentation. You may hate and envy "the rich," but we all aspire to become "successful."
Liberals use negative wording to try to pit the classes against one another to stir up anger, jealousy, envy, resentment- and most of all VOTES. That's how liberal Democrats get elected- by dividing Americans by income, class or race. And what's their number one whipping boy? Capital gains. All the Democrat Presidential candidates want to raise taxes on capital gains. Why? Once again, it's all in the wording. Liberals position capital gains as "dirty" and negative. This is money that rich people use to get richer. How evil! "We can't allow this" the liberals cry, whine and protest. Worse, they say, is the fact that capital gains are taxed at a lower rate than your income. GASP. "We cannot allow this" liberals cry, whine and protest. They position it this way so that poor people, blue collar workers, union members, and lower middle class Americans will all grow to hate rich people- but most of all, they'll grow to hate the investments of rich people. "How dare rich people invest in homes, stocks, and small businesses- while I barely have enough money for food and rent. It isn't fair. And worst of all- the rich get taxed lower on their passive million dollar investment returns, than I do on my $700 weekly paycheck for working 40 hours a week." What a powerful (and effective) sound bite. But it's also a complete distortion of the facts. I call it THE BIG LIBERAL LIE.
Here are the facts folks. Anything invested in what's called "capital gains" has already been taxed. To tax it again is DOUBLE TAXATION. When I buy a home, stocks, bonds or invest in a new business, I'm taking gigantic risks with my savings. I could lose it all. Every penny. And I'm taking these risks with money I've already paid taxes on. We all pay income taxes. "The rich"- those terrible people you hate and are envious of- already pay 80% (or more) of America's income taxes. They are only able to invest in real estate, stocks, bonds, and businesses with the money they have left AFTER paying high tax rates. What's wrong with that? What our liberal Democrat friends aren't telling us is that the only way out of poverty in America (or anywhere in the world) is through investment...is through risk...is through capital gains. You must invest (risk) your after-tax monies in something that will produce profit while you sleep. Why would you have to be punished for that? Why would government want to discourage people from investing in America? Why would liberal politicians want their voters to ignore the only opportunity they have for upward mobility? Could it be because keeping voters poor, hopeless, helpless, clueless, ignorant and angry at "the rich" also keeps those same voters motivated to support liberal Democrats? Now that's evil.
Capital gains is the only ticket out of poverty. The only ticket to success and upward mobility. You must find a way to get your money to work for you while you sleep. To earn interest and appreciation 24 hours a day while you're working, playing, eating, shopping, and sleeping. There has been only one proven way out of poverty for since the day that America was founded- investment into real estate, stocks, and small business. You must invest your after-tax money to succeed; to save; to build success and wealth; to beat inflation; to pay for your kid's college education; to pay your taxes and have anything left for retirement. Is that bad? Shouldn't we strive to encourage investment of after-tax savings to create generations of productive, upwardly mobile Americans? Why would we want to discourage that? Punish that? All this investment is good for America. Turn off the faucet and slow (or stop) investment by raising capital gains taxes (so the risk is no longer worth it) and stocks plunge, real estate collapses, business stagnates, jobs are lost by the millions. You know what you call that? France.
Or let's take an extreme example of liberal philosophy gone terribly wrong- Cuba. No one worries about capital gains in Cuba- because in a high-tax socialist or communist country, after government takes their cut, there is nothing left to invest. Liberals talk all day about "fairness." Life is completely fair in communist or socialist countries. In liberal utopias like that, taxes are so high that EVERYONE lives in poverty and misery. Everyone lives in broken down shacks, drives cars from 1950, buys groceries in ramshackle supermarkets with bare shelves, rations food, and rations health care. Isn't fairness grand? That's what happens when liberal ideas are taken seriously.
America is the richest nation in the world because we encourage risk, we reward investment, we honor wealth (except for self-hating liberals), we reward success. Thank God for capitalism and democracy. Thank God for low tax rates that motivate citizens to risk their savings by investing in IBM, Microsoft, Exxon and McDonalds. That willingness to risk our life savings in real estate, stocks and business is what has created the greatest economy in world history. That is why we have created more small businesses, more jobs, more home ownership, and more self-made millionaires (including me) than anywhere else in the world. That's why a fat, negative, unappreciative, liberal slug like Michael Moore is able to make $100 million by creating films that attack, demean and denigrate his own country (and capitalism).
Can you imagine? Michael Moore is the greatest example of how great our country is. In Cuba you can support your government and your reward is a lifetime of rationing, sacrificing, misery and poverty. In America you can demean and denigrate everything this great country stands for and yet you are rewarded with a fancy mansion in Beverly Hills, servants by the dozen, daily massages, and vacations at Four Seasons Resorts. And of course the bonus is the undying admiration of bleeding-heart, limosine-liberal, Hollywood hypocrites. What a great country!
But I digress. Back to capital gains taxes. Liberal ideas are so foolish, ignorant, and naive. Obama, Edwards, Hillary and their liberal friends want to raise capital gains tax rates. They position it as punishing "the rich." I see it very differently- they are punishing all older Americans. They are making life miserable for those 55 and older. They are making college unaffordable for the children and grandchildren of millions of over-taxed Americans. They are making retirement impossible, or at best, postponing it for an entire generation of 50 year olds. They are ruining the golden years for those older Americans already out of the rat race. Higher taxes on passive investments (capital gains, dividends, interest) are an unmitigated disaster for anyone nearing retirement or already retired.
In reality we should be eliminating capital gains taxes altogether. I propose the elimination of capital gains taxes for all Americans 55 and older. That would mean that Americans could retire with far lower taxes, far lower burdens, far lower stress, and a far lower "monthly nut." Why should we not reward older Americans for a lifetime of hard work and sacrifice? After working a lifetime- often working ourselves to death- why shouldn't the reward be lower taxes- which creates extra money for peace of mind, for golf, for cruises, for eating out every night, for paying for our grandkid's college educations. Let's stop punishing people for saving (and slaving) their whole lives. Let's reward them with lower taxes so they can retire early, or retire with peace of mind.
Elimination of taxes on capital gains, interest and dividends for Americans 55 and older would encourage all Americans to work hard, save, invest, and look forward to retirement. It would boost the entire American economy. It would eventually trickle down to all of us- in the form of a robust stock market; thriving real estate market; more investment in small business which translates to more jobs; more spending by older Americans which translates to economic prosperity; and of course upon their death- more money for their children, grandchildren and charity. What an economic boom. What a win/win.
Here are a few important questions to ponder. Are liberals against old people? Do they think older Americans should pay higher taxes that force them into miserable golden years? Or force them to never retire? Are liberals against older Americans enjoying life? They must be. Why else would they support older Americans paying more taxes on dividends, interest, investments, and capital gains? Passive investments are what older people live on after retirement. Remember, they no longer have a job. Elminate capital gains taxes and instantly, older Americans could retire on half the income. What a wonderful gift to the people that have worked and sacrificed and slaved to create a better life for themselves and their families.
Anyone 55 or older would have to be crazy to vote for any liberal Democrat politician. Afterall, these politicians want to punish you, tax you to death (literally), force you to work until the day you die. They don't want you to play golf, or take a cruise, or eat out with your own hard-earned money. They think your money is THEIR money. They think your retirement is better spent slaving away until the day you die- all the while paying higher tax rates on everything you earn. After you've worked, slaved and paid high taxes your whole life- liberals want to raise tax rates on the money you have left! They want to DOUBLE TAX you to death (literally right to your grave).
It's time for a new way to think about taxes. High tax rates are about slavery. They make you work harder, work longer, work forever- all for the government. It's YOUR money. It's YOUR property. You deserve to enjoy the fruits of your labor. Liberals are lying, distorting and scheming to steal more of your hard-earned money; to force you to work more hours to pay for their spending; to force you to postpone or eliminate retirement. Why do liberals want to spend ever higher amounts of your money? So they can buy the votes of people too ignorant to understand that the very policies they are voting for are keeping them poor, helpless and hopeless. Don't let them do it. It's time for a change in thinking. It's time for a change in political leadership. It's time to fight to keep more of your own money. It's time for a 21st century Boston Tea Party. It's time to abandon the failing 2-party system that is screwing you- the taxpayer. It's time to vote Libertarian for the first time in your life. It's time to ROOT for Liberty. ROOT for freedom. ROOT for America.
Wayne Allyn Root is a Libertarian Presidential candidate. For more about Wayne and his bold stands on important political issues, go to:
www.ROOT4America.com
[ add comment ] | permalink | related link |
( 3 / 726 )Democrats are alot like Robin Hood. They claim it's a good deed to steal from the rich to give to the poor. But guess what? No matter how you explain it, defend it, or twist the meaning around like a pretzel, it's still called STEALING! They try to say that it's no different than Republicans giving tax cuts to the rich- they call that a "giveaway." They call tax cuts "unfair." But Democrats have lost sight of one little fact- that money belongs to the taxpayers in the first place! It's not a "giveaway" when you allow someone to keep a little bit of their own money!
Let's use children playing marbles as a good example. Wayne has 10 marbles. His friend John steals 5 of those 10. Then he takes pity on Wayne and gives him back 2 of his own marbles. Is that a "giveaway" to Wayne? Was John being nice to "allow" Wayne to take back ownership of 2 of his own marbles? Weren't they Wayne's property in the first place? What a generous fellow that John is- he allows you to keep some of your own property. John is obviously a Democrat. He certainly thinks like a liberal Democrat about money, taxes and the concept of property.
Yes, the GOP lost me with their incredibly stupid Nanny State views on freedom and individual rights issues such as warrantless wiretaps, abortion, gay rights, right-to-die (Terri Schiavo), online gaming, medicinal marijuana- the list goes on and on. And of course their short-sighted spending orgy and unprecedented expansion of the federal government was the straw that broke the camel's back. No I did not leave the Republican Party. The GOP left me.
But as I hear the litany (and variety) of tax increases proposed by Democrats over just the past few days, I feel like vomiting. Let's examine just a few of the draconian tax increases proposed by the party that desperately wants to rob Peter to bribe Paul (because Paul is voting Democrat).
Hillary of course wants to roll back the tax cuts on the "rich" (as if being rich is a dirty word) to pay for her Universal Healthcare (actually the correct description is Socialized Medicine). So let's take a small businessman that earns a nice sized income of $500,000. That's a huge hit on his income- perhaps $25,000 or more. What will he do to make up for that loss? Close his business...fire key employees...cut back on hiring...sell off his property at a loss...stop going out to eat? Or perhaps raise prices to pass the higher taxes onto his customers? Does it occur to Democrats that all of those are bad things for the economy? Multiply those negative choices by millions of small businessmen and you see the pattern developing- it's called a recession. Worse, if this small businessman dies while a Democrat President is in office, his family will suffer a far worse fate at the hands of Big Brother. Democrats want to bring back the death tax (which dies a richly deserved death in 2011 thanks to President Bush)- so his family could stand to lose millions of dollars to the IRS and an over-reaching federal government.
John Edwards and many other Democrats also want to raise the taxes on capital gains, dividends and interest. Who does that tax increase hit? The rich? Well yes. Our small businessman friend above owns a business, stocks, retirement accounts, and of course bank accounts. He gets hit by all these tax raises on virtually everything he owns. But if he suffers, so do you. He either has to stop hiring new employees, fire old ones, or raise prices to make up for this added cost of doing business. But worse, when Democrats aim tax increases at "the rich," middle class taxpayers had better grab their wallets. A tax increase (perhaps doubling) on capital gains, dividends and interest is aimed squarely at every person in America over age 50. It literally ruins the retirement plans of millions of Americans. It cripples many retirees. It means retired people will need to go back to work. I believe this is a formula for disaster. We should be doing the opposite- eliminating all capital gains taxes so retirees pay zero taxes on interest, dividends and the sale of their properties (capital gains). Wouldn't that be the right thing to do for those above age 55, who have worked their whole lives to achieve the American Dream. Shouldn't people like that be able to live out their golden years tax free?
Then there's my old Columbia College classmate Barack Obama. He has the most onerous tax increase of all in mind to cripple high-income taxpayers. His goal isn't just to punish successful people- it's to punish them BADLY! Barack wants to "save" Social Security by extending FICA taxes from a present cap of about $100,000 to INFINITY. Did you hear me? Yes, I said infinity. Under a Barack administration, high-income earners would pay monstrous FICA taxes on all their income- no matter how high it goes. Presently a $500,000 earner (who owns his own business or is classified as an independent contractor- ie any professional) pays about 15% of the first $100,000 of his or her income. That's a total of $15,000. Keep in mind that theororetically they get most or all of it back someday- in the form of Social Security payments.
But under Obama that same unlucky fellow would owe 15% of his entire $500,000 income- that's $75,000. Yes, you heard me. $75,000 would come off the top of a $500,000 income BEFORE you pay your huge federal income tax bill (plus state taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, etc). That's a $60,000 tax increase on a $500,000 earner. That's a five fold increase in taxes. That's the kind of shakedown we throw mobsters in jail for. That's the kind of userous rates that causes us to name street lenders "Loan sharks." Remember, that $60,000 tax increase comes on top of the $25,000 income tax increase on "the rich"... plus higher taxes on capital gains, dividends and interest. It's enough to make the rich, poor. There's nothing left by the time these scoundrels have picked your pockets clean.
Worst of all, it means Social Security is no longer a retirement savings program. It is a regressive soak-the-rich tax windfall for the federal government. If you're talented and bright and creative and tenacious (everything we want our citizens to be) and manage to make a million dollars this year, under Barack Obama your FICA taxes alone would be $150,000. That's probably more than Social Security will pay out to you in all your lifetime of retirement. That was never the intent of Social Security.
But wait, we're not done yet. Democratic Congressman Dingell has proposed the most absurd tax increase of all. I knew Democrats would find creative ways to punish "the rich" for global warming. Dingell proved me correct. Dingell wants to pass a multitude of new taxes to pay for his unproven global warming theories- including huge new gas taxes. Is there global warming? I think most everyone agrees there is- heck it was almost 90 degrees in New York, Philly, Chicago and Detroit over the past few days. Yes, I think there is global warming- duh! But is man the one causing it, or is Mother Nature responsible for 99% of this warming crisis? Are our contributions so miniscule that we cannot make one iota of a difference- no matter how much we sacrifice, no matter how many jobs we destroy, no matter how much we choose to damage our economy? Well Congressman Dingell doesn't care. He's throwing caution to the wind. The centerpiece of his "global warming punish-the-rich crusade" is the wholesale elimination of your homeowner's mortgage deduction- based on the size of your home. Yes, you heard me. Dingell wants to use global warming as an excuse to screw "the rich." And he gets to punish many millions of middle class suburbanites as a bonus.
Anyone with a house larger than 3200 square feet loses most of that valuable tax deduction. Anyone who dares own a home 4000 square feet or bigger loses every penny of the tax deduction under Mr. Dingell's plan. Instead, why not tax everyone equally? Because the poor people, union workers and government employees that vote for liberal Democrats like Dingell don't want to pay a dime of their money to solve the problem. They want to spend your money and mine. Why not? Afterall, we're "the rich." We deserve to be punished for our success.
So now on top of the dramatic federal income tax increases under Democrats; and the gigantic out-of-this-world FICA increases; the doubling of capital gains taxes; and huge new gasoline taxes; successful Americans now get to lose the biggest tax deduction they have- their mortgage deduction. And of course as the Democrat "bonus"... the real estate market for houses larger than 3200 square feet collapses; the price of million dollar homes drops 30% overnight (without the tax deduction they are unaffordable); and in the midst of a foreclosure crisis, millions of Americans living comfortably and happily in large suburban houses are now unable to afford the mortgage payments without the tax deduction- thereby causing millions more to lose their homes to foreclosure.
If Democrats had their way, by the time you add all these increases up, you'd owe more in taxes than you made. But not everyone. Only successful people and small business owners shall be punished by Democrats. These groups vote Republican, so they must be punished, their wealth redistributed, and their lifestyle cut down to size. Like Jimmy Carter in the 1970's, today's liberal Democrats want to limit your dreams. They don't believe you have a right to dream big, earn big, and enjoy the American Dream. God forbid anyone in America should actually want a nice car or a big house. The global warming hysteria is allowing Democrats to show their Socialist colors again. Like that wonderful old country formerly known as the Soviet Union, Democrats want us all to drive drab-colored small cars and live in small apartments. Afterall, we'd be saving the planet by living in cramped quarters and driving small cars (with little energy used). What's the new Democratic campaign slogan? "Sacrifice for the common good." Just a nice way of saying "Misery equally for all."
If you thought Bush and the GOP was bad, boy do I have a news flash for you! The sequel "Hillary in Charge" is even worse. If you earn a good income; if you've built a successful business; if you own a home or stocks; if you own anything that produces interest or dividends; if you live in a nice sized home- get ready to defend your property and your lifestyle. Bar the doors to your country club and hold on to your wallets. The Democrats are coming. Be scared. Be VERY scared.
Wayne Allyn Root is a Candidate for the Libertarian Party Presidential Nomination. You can read more about his opinions on important issues at www.ROOT4America.com.
[ add comment ] | permalink | related link |
( 3 / 1348 ) Presidential Candidate and Columbia University Graduate Root Attacks Liberal Intolerance & Hypocrisy at Columbia over Iranian President Ahmadinejad
My name is Wayne Allyn Root. I am a Libertarian Conservative candidate for President of the United States. But I am NOT your typical conservative politician- actually my credentials sound quite liberal. I am a Jewish New Yorker with an Ivy League degree from Columbia University who has achieved my wealth and success in Hollywood and Las Vegas (in the television business). I have spent the last 18 years as a network anchor, host, television producer, and non-stop cable talk show guest. I've gotten to know and understand the liberal news media and the "intellectual elite" up close and personal. I understand their agenda. And the picture is not pretty. It can be summed up with the controversial decision by my alma mater Columbia University to invite a terrorist murderer to speak in front of the student body on September 24th- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. It is typical of Columbia University and it's leaders to hide behind the defense of "freedom of speech" to support this disgraceful decision. But it is a complete bogus lie. This fraud represents liberal hypocrisy at its most disingenuous and arrogant.I too support free speech. But there are exceptions. Not for terrorists who openly call for the destruction and annihilation of America and our ally Israel. Not for Holocaust deniers. Not for the leader of a nation that supports Hezbollah terrorist bombings that target innocent women, children and the elderly in Israel. Not for the leader of a country whose special forces and deadly weapons are smuggled into Iraq to kill American soldiers. And certainly not for a man whose obvious goal is to develop nuclear weapons to be used in a 21st century Holocaust against Israel and America. This is not about freedom of speech, but rather about giving a platform and credibility to an evil madman. This decision is typical of a university dominated by leftist, if not outright socialist, anti-American, anti-Israeli educators and administrators. It is an outrage and disgrace.
Yet as a Libertarian who values freedom over all else, even I could accept this decision if it was fairly applied to allow any speaker or newsmaker to address Columbia. It is not. The truth is that Columbia University is a hypocritical, biased, leftist-dominated institution that denies conservative speakers or thinkers that same platform, or access to its students. Columbia has consistently rejected the appearance of high-profile conservative speakers- including Jim Gilchrest, Founder of the Minuteman Project, whose appearance was cancelled just last week. Worse, Columbia has tried to suppress conservative thought by hiring only professors and educators who share their radical leftist agenda. The Columbia Conservative Alumni Association reported earlier this week that only 20 openly Republican, Conservative or Libertarian professors exist out of a faculty of over 3000. So where is "free speech" as a priority when it comes to diversity of thought among Columbia's educators? Columbia has also denied ROTC the freedom to recruit on campus- despite a majority student vote to reverse that censorship of free speech. So according to Columbia President Lee Bollinger, it's called "free speech" when Islamic extremists and terrorists (trying to acquire nuclear weapons to use against America and Israel) are invited to speak at the university. But allowing speakers and newsmakers who do not murder innocent civilians, or fund terrorism, or advocate terrorism in any way, but who simply have conservative ideals, or want to enforce illegal immigration laws, is forbidden? Murderers and Holocaust deniers have a right to explain and defend their beliefs under the guise of "free speech," but not conservatives?
As I heard of this bias and intolerance exhibited by Columbia's radical leftist administration and faculty in the past few days, it brought back a flood of memories from my Columbia college days. I was witness to many shocking displays of liberal bias, intolerance and hypocrisy that many in the heartland of America could never even imagine. One of these incidents that I witnessed while a student at Columbia literally defines America's intellectual elite- as a group so radical, so extreme, with an agenda so out of the mainstream, and a prejudice versus conservatives (and religious Christians) so strong and so vicious, that it borders on outright loathing. This event that I witnessed a quarter century ago was so revolting that I kept it to myself (and my close circle of friends) for over 2 decades. But now that I see the same liberal hate and intolerance being displayed by a new generation of left wing radicals at Columbia, and that same liberal media bias being displayed by many of my college classmates now prominent and influential in the media, I feel that the incident that I witnessed must be publicly exposed.
This incident from a quarter of century ago certainly debunks the myth that liberals are compassionate do-gooders out to save the world- somehow better, nicer, fairer to those less fortunate (you know- the Michael Moore, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, Rosie O'Donnell and George Clooney version of the facts). In reality they possess a hate so strong towards those with opposing viewpoints (in particular Republicans, Conservatives, Libertarians, Christians and their new whipping boys- Israelis), that it evokes memories of McCarthyism. The roots of that hate and moral superiority can all be summed up in one event I witnessed back in 1981. I was then a sophomore at Columbia University majoring in Political Science. Most (if not all) of my professors were radical leftists- filled with outright contempt for America and capitalism (yes, this is who is teaching our best and brightest children at Ivy League universities). My fellow students were almost to a man (or woman) extreme liberals and socialists- with many admitting openly an affinity for communism. I was sickened by the political views that I heard day and night- views so left wing they would make even Hillary Clinton and George McGovern cringe. These were brilliant students (mostly spoiled brats from the upper classes of America who had been handed everything they ever wanted their entire lives on a silver platter) that despised America and everything it stood for. As a student at one of America's finest academic institutions, I was subjected to a nonstop verbal attack against America, it's values and even the very idea of God! This was at the time the definition of "higher learning" at Ivy League institutions (and unfortunately still is).
As a na‹ve blue collar S.O.B. (son of a butcher) from a small dead-end town on the Bronx borderline, I found myself in awe of these blue-blooded, intellectual, trust-fund debutantes. I had never met people like this before.
I actually laughed and shook my head at their radical, anti-American, anti-capitalism beliefs. I actually thought they were just young and misguided, but well-meaning kids and that none of this was "personal." I wouldn't hold a person's political beliefs against them- surely they felt the same way? I was very wrong. What I learned at Columbia was that Liberals feel morally superior to others. They are on a mission to save the world from prejudice, patriotism, racism, greed, intolerance, and inequality.
America and the success our great country has achieved is a sign of everything these radical leftists despise- worse, it is living, breathing proof that everything they believe in is WRONG! And so they resent this country (and now Israel- the only living, breathing, successful capitalist democracy in the Middle East); anyone who has achieved self-made success through American values; and anyone who disagrees with their "morally superior" bleeding-heart liberal point of view. Anyone not on board with the same agenda is labeled ignorant, racist, intolerant, greedy, close-minded or dangerous and must be slashed, burned, slandered and destroyed (see George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Tom DeLay, Newt Gingrich, William Bennett, and an endless list of conservative leaders). To liberals, everything is personal. We as conservatives are seen as "the enemy." We aren't just espousing tax cuts- we are throwing single mothers, welfare mothers, children, the elderly into the streets. Our views in the eyes of liberals are based on ignorance and greed. What else could possibly explain the fact that our opinion is different? In the new McCarthy era among the liberal elite media in New York, D.C. and Hollywood, there can be no dissent. There is only one truth- the liberal version. Any other viewpoint is classified as repugnant and out of the "mainstream" (once again, only liberal's definition of "mainstream" is relevant). Hard to comprehend, until you realize that these same intolerant, biased, prejudiced radical liberal educators, union leaders, Hollywood executives, and media elite all started out at schools like Columbia University. These are the people that I attended Columbia with - 25 years later, all grown up with fancy titles.
The incident I witnessed at Columbia explains so much about the thinking of the radical left. Back in 1981, I was sitting in my political science class taught by extreme leftist Professor Esther Fuchs- in a large theatre style classroom seating 100 or more students. The President at the time was Ronald Reagan- a man reviled by the left just as viciously as George W. Bush is today. Suddenly our lecture was interrupted by a door swinging open violently- whereupon a breathless fellow student raced into our room screaming, "The President has been shot! They've just assassinated President Reagan." Ronald Reagan was my hero. It hit me like a ton of bricks- I instantly felt sick to my stomach and tears flowed down my cheeks. But it was the response of the rest of the class that I will remember for the rest of my life. They cheered! They clapped, they yelled, they high-fived and whooped in sheer unadultrated joy. My fellow classmates (the ones I was naively trying so hard to befriend despite their radical leftist views) were happy that my hero President Ronald Reagan was dead (or so they thought). More than happy- they were celebrating like it was New Years Eve. They were literally cheering the assassination of the President of the United States. Why? What could possibly cause the brightest young adults in this great country to cheer for the murder of their own country's leader? The answer was simple: because Ronald Reagan had the audacity to be a Republican Conservative. That's the dirty little secret that liberals don't want you to know. That despite the fact that they claim to be "compassionate," that they claim to love others less fortunate, that they abhor hate and prejudice, that they declare any war as inhumane and unjustified- despite all this compassion and goodness- this same liberal elite despises with a deep unbridled prejudice, anyone ignorant enough to disagree with their definition of what is "right." To liberals, that form of hate, that form of prejudice, that form of intolerance towards others with a different point of view is completely acceptable.
That intolerance was on display last year when socialist, communist and Hispanic student groups from Columbia were allowed to shout down the founder of the Minuteman organization while he was trying to address Columbia students- thereby violating his free speech. To radical liberals, it's justified to hate conservatives; to hate Republicans; to hate those who support war; to hate those greedy individuals who actually have the audacity to want to lower taxes (God forbid anyone should think taxes actually belong to the taxpayer- how ignorant, greedy and selfish!); to hate those so ignorant that they would support the death penalty; the ownership of guns, or the building of a wall to stop the stampede of illegal immigrants (otherwise known as criminals). To liberals that kind of hate, prejudice, and intolerance is fair and justified. That kind of intolerance and attempt to silence the opposition doesn't count as McCarthyism. To liberals, to root for the death of a conservative Republican is morally acceptable- it's actually "compassionate" because (in their warped thinking) the death of a Conservative would make the world a better place, safe from prejudice, racism, inequality, intolerance, corporate greed, and global warming.
That day at Columbia University over 20 years ago, I got physically sick. I ran out of class- the CHEERS of my classmates at the possible death of Ronald Reagan reverberating in the halls behind me. I ran into the bathroom, got on my knees and vomited. I felt sick for America- for the people I had just watched cheer and celebrate the shooting of our President were undoubtedly the future leaders of America. Unfortunately, I was more accurate that day than I would even imagine- over 25 years later as I read my Columbia College Today alumni magazine and see updates on the career success of my classmates, I see the names of future Supreme Court justices, close advisors to Presidents (George Stephanapoulus was a classmate), liberal United States Senators (Barack Obama of Illinois), the best and brightest legal minds in the country (any wonder lawyers seem to be at the root of most problems in our society?), and many of the most influential journalists and media executives in America. That's right, Columbia's best and brightest often wind up in the media. My classmates are the reporters, anchors, journalists, columnists and producers that influence the news we watch and read every day.
Today, I have no doubt that if George W. Bush were assassinated, glasses would be raised in toast to his death or demise by many of America's media elite. No, they would not dare cheer out loud- my classmates are now 46 years old, not enthusiastic kids anymore. But they would applaud and celebrate quietly and with "dignity." Their children on the other hand- now attending Columbia or Harvard or Princeton- would undoubtedly cheer and whoop loudly and passionately at the death of an "ignorant" and intolerant opponent. The death of a spotted owl, rat, fox, or worst of all, a radical Islamic or Palestinian terrorist- those are to be mourned by liberals. But the death of a conservative Republican, a capitalist, (or today added to the hate list- an Israeli) is a reason for celebration. So much for the unbiased media. So much for the "compassion" of Liberals. Now my fellow readers, you have some insight into the true mindset and agenda of America's liberal elite. You understand how they were raised (as spoiled brats with terrible guilt for all they were handed)...how they were educated (by teachers and professors with a radical leftist agenda)...and the roots (excuse the pun) of their bias in all they report on today as the keepers of the news.
Now you understand them the way that I do- as an "insider" with a front row seat for two decades. And I ask you a simple question: do you now feel it's possible for a Republican to ever get a fair shake from a media populated with people who hold the views espoused above? I'm sure that the liberal media and Hollywood elite- when confronted by this story- will say that what they believed as college students has no impact on their views as adults and professionals today. So I ask you a simple question- what would liberals say if they found out that a Fox News Channel host had joined the KKK back in his college days? Or that a Fox News executive had cheered and high-fived his friends over the death of Martin Luther King back in his college days? Would those errors of youth be forgiven and forgotten by liberals? Of course not.
I hope this story gives you insight into what I've known for a quarter of a century- the liberal intellectual elite are intolerant, they are hypocrites, and they are dangerous to America, American values, capitalism, Christianity (and the very existence of Israel too). I've known the truth about liberals all these years- now you do too. It's the reason that every time I watch CNN or PBS or Katie Couric anchor the evening news on CBS (among many others), I often feel the need to take a shower. But it never helps- nothing can quite scrub away the echoes of those cheers 20 years ago in that classroom at Columbia University. That was the day I learned the real truth about liberals- their compassion, morality and desire for tolerance doesn't extend to Republicans, conservatives, capitalists or libertarians. When it comes to people like us- rejecting freedom of speech, or rooting for death is perfectly acceptable. On the other hand, when it comes to terrorist murderers or madmen like President Ahmadinejad, the welcome light is always on. How sad. How disgusting. How disturbing. How revolting. Columbia University should be ashamed.
Wayne Allyn Root is a candidate for the Libertarian Presidential nomination. To learn more about Wayne please go to www.RootForAmerica.com
[ add comment ] | permalink | related link |
( 3 / 1003 )Isn't Government-Run Health Care Grand? Take a Look at Where Canada's Political Leaders Choose To Go for Their Health Care!
I just read a remarkable story in the news. A liberal (our version of Democrat) MP (Member of Parliament- our version of Congress) Belinda Stronach recently traveled to America for her breast cancer treatment. What? Now there's a grand endorsement for government-run health care, huh? She left her own country to get the best care that money could buy- in the USA. Does that surprise you? It shouldn't. Rich liberals have always been hypocrites- in any country, in any language. When I was a kid, I remember liberals fighting for school busing. They claimed to be fighting for equality for black children. They called anyone who opposed school busing a "racist." Yet as soon as busing became the law, they sent their kids to exclusive lily-white private schools. We called them "limosine liberals." Today you can find hypocrites just like that all over bastions of liberalism like Hollywood, Manhattan and San Francisco. Rich liberals support equality, equal opportunity and affirmative action- except at their homes, their businesses, and their own kid's schools. Rich liberals never think the rules apply to them. They think integrated public schools are great for YOUR kids- but not for their precious spoiled brats. Obviously that liberal hypocrisy translates to health care too. The government-run health care system of Canada (a nice term for "Socialized Medicine") is good enough for you and your family- but not for the wealthy billionaire politicians like Belinda Stronach (who is the daughter of Canadian billionaire business mogul Frank Stronach). Now don't get me wrong. I support freedom of choice. I think what Belinda did was the right thing. If I was sick with cancer, I'd choose to go wherever I could get the best health care. It just so happens that Belinda agrees that this place for the best health care is found in America. Canadians by the millions understand that the "expensive" American health care system is the best- and they choose to cross the border nonstop for medical care they can't find at home. Now our health care system has been endorsed by a prominent liberal member of Canadian Parliament. You know, the same health care system that liberal Democrats here in America complain about day and night- and want to tear down to force government-run health care (otherwise known as "Socialized Medicine") down our throats. Of course a free-market Libertarian conservative like me supports Belinda Stronach seeking (and paying for) health care wherever she chooses. But why isn't that free market available to the rest of her countrymen? Why isn't the system that is forced down the throat of all Canadian citizens good enough for a billionaire member of parliament? You mean freedom of choice is something reserved only for the exclusive and privileged few?
As a man who lost both his parents to cancer 28 days apart, I feel Belinda's pain. My mom died of breast cancer- the same disease affecting Belinda. I will always have a special place in my heart for cancer victims. Not a day goes by where I don't think about my mom or dad. I want to defeat and eradicate cancer more than anyone on earth. I hope and pray that Belinda Stronach will make a full recovery. But I also hope this experience changes her political point of view too. Doesn't everyone deserve freedom of choice? Doesn't everyone deserve to choose the medical care and physician that's right for you? Doesn't everyone deserve the best doctor that money can buy? Doesn't everyone deserve quick and competent care? The thing that drives liberals absolutely crazy is that not everyone gets the best medical care in America. But at least some of us get it. Perhaps a majority of us get it. We have to pay through the nose for it- but we get it. But that's not good enough for bleeding heart liberals. They're not happy unless there's complete equality for everyone. In a government-run system there is in fact equality- it's miserable care for EVERYONE! It's rationing for everyone. Unless you're a rich, liberal hypocrite. People like that (anywhere in the world) can opt out of the system and pay for their own private care at world-class medical centers- in the USA of course.
Don't believe me? A recent article by Jon Stossel (a hero of mine) in the Wall Street Journal reported that breast cancer survival rates are far higher in the United States. Among females diagnosed with breast cancer- one quarter die in the U.S.; while one third die in France; and almost half die in UK. How sad is that? How powerful are those facts? Where exactly do you want to be treated? The fact is that the smartest doctors in the world are found in the United States, not in spite of, but precisely because we have the most expensive health care system in the world. Next time you need an eye operation, or a breast cancer operation, do you want the K-Mart blue plate special? Do you want some foreign doctor who can't speak English, who finished next-to-last in his class in Barbados Medical School? Or do you want the guy who finished first in his class at Harvard (who has written 12 books on his medical specialty)? That Harvard guy is expensive. There is nothing cheap about good medicine. There are no "50% off sales" when you're talking about your eye, or your kidney, or your heart. If you want the best medical care in the world, you'd better be willing to pay for it. We get it (most of the time) in the USA. They don't in Canada, UK or France.
And on the rare occasions that they do get it, they certainly don't get it in a timely fashion. Next time you need a hip replaced, why not wait 16 months in beautiful Paris or London or Toronto. 16 months of agony is no big deal, right? Afterall, at this very moment almost one million Canadians are on a waiting list for medical care (in a country of under 20 million people). These long waits aren't just for cancer operations- this is for basic care. In UK the wait for a dentist is so long, news reports say that patients are choosing to pull out their own decaying teeth. In Scotland, rationing is so severe that the government will not provide treatments that would keep the elderly from going blind. Still want government-run health care? How about letting the people that managed Hurricane Katrina and Walter Reed hospital run the whole country's medical care? I can't wait for that.
Stories abound of sick Canadians and Brits waiting months for necessary operations or treatments. And who decides what's necessary? The government- those same kind of brilliant bureaucrats that brought us the well-managed Iraq War! How about competent treatment? Liberals don't understand why capitalism works. It attracts the best and brightest to American medicine only because medicine PAYS huge dollars here in a private enterprise system. If we socialize medicine and cut the dollars dramatically, you'll attract mediocre doctors. Not the best of the best, but the worst of the best. The smartest kids will decide to go into law or business or investment banking. But I'll tell you what they won't do- they won't give up a decade of the best (youngest) years of their life (for med school and internships) for a lifetime of mediocre pay. You attract the most brilliant doctors by offering the biggest dollars. Do we want a health care system that attracts incompetent doctors for mediocre pay? If my doctor can't afford to play golf, I don't want him anywhere near my heart! Next time I'm in a life and death medical emergency, I want the doctor leaning over my lifeless body to be very rich. Filthy rich. And American. Harvard American.
In the end, our U.S. health care system isn't perfect- far from it. It many instances, it is a disappointment. But there's nothing better out there. It turns out health care is like marriage. It's the worst institution on earth- except for all the others! I hear divorced friends constantly bad-mouthing marriage, yet two years later they're all married again. If it's so bad, why get re-married? Of course the answer is they searched around and couldn't find anything better. The truth is that humans like to complain. It gives them something to do. Complaining about marriage and health care are a national sport in the USA. That's fine. Just come get me when you find something better.
Wayne Allyn Root is a Candidate for the Libertarian Party Presidential Nomination. You can read more about his opinions on important issues at www.ROOT4America.com.
[ add comment ] | permalink | related link |
( 3 / 1364 )Back Next
Avatar
