20 Sep

Why Americans Hate Limousine Liberals

                                       

Schumer Has A Plan

Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat, N.Y. thinks the president’s plan to raise the taxes on households making more than $250,000 may require a special dispensation for New Yorkers.

After President Obama unveiled his totally new plan for the new plan for deficit-reduction that Americans hear about every other month, the plan that raises taxes on households that have an income of over $250,000, he flew to New York for a fundraising event (tickets were priced at $36,000).

A reporter, Marcia Kramer asked lawmakers from the New York region what they thought of President Obama’s tax plans. Most of the legislators were in step with the president, but Schumer stood up for his limousine Liberals. He supports the millionaire’s tax, but with caveats. He feels the $250,000 limit is unacceptable for the metropolitan area of New York, because of the high cost of living within the city.

Schumer Logic

“$250,000 makes you really rich in Mississippi, but it doesn’t make you rich at all in New York and there ought to be some kind of scale based on the cost of living on how much you pay.”

Schumer already has the rest of the country subsidizing the high rollers of New York with federal tax deductions for local and state taxes, but he seeks more advantages for his constituents.

While our Limousine Liberals beg to be taxed more, they like Buffet will use every device to keep from paying the taxes they have asked for; they don’t really plan to be required to pay the taxes, after all they paid $36,000 for a dinner, they want the people in fly over country paying the taxes.

About Skook

A professional horseman for over 40 years, Skook continues to work with horses. He is in an ongoing educational program, learning life's lessons from one of the world's greatest instructors, the horse. Skook has a personal website skooksjournal.com featuring his personal writings and historical novel type stories.
This entry was posted in Anti-Americanism, Auto Industry, Barack Obama, Campaign Financing, Charities, Class Warfare, Culture, Economy, Hollywood Limousine & Learjet Liberals, Liberal Idiots, Media, Social Studies, Taxes and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink. Tuesday, September 20th, 2011 at 9:28 am
| 1,369 views

37 Responses to Why Americans Hate Limousine Liberals

  1. Budvarackbar says: 1

    Chuck-you Schumer

    ReplyReply
  2. ThomNJ says: 2

    It NEVER ceases to amaze me at how many people in Blue Jersey, as well, constantly vote for the people who hammer them on taxes. $250K doesn’t make you rich in NY or NJ – but it sure as hell is a lot better than everyone who only makes $70K in the state. Sure the national average income is something like $45-$50K which would be tough to live on in New Jersey, but having said that, too many “Blues” in the Northeast JUST. DON’T. GET. IT., and they are now just starting to realize they will be suffering under more taxes via the words of chuck the schmuck schumer?

    ReplyReply
  3. Nan G says: 3

    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:SN01403:@@@P
    S.1403
    Latest Title: IDEA Full Funding Act
    Sponsor: Sen Harkin, Tom [IA] (introduced 7/21/2011)

    Cosponsors (14)
    Sen Begich, Mark [AK] – 7/21/2011
    Sen Bennet, Michael F. [CO] – 7/21/2011
    Sen Blumenthal, Richard [CT] – 7/21/2011
    Sen Durbin, Richard [IL] – 7/21/2011
    Sen Franken, Al [MN] – 7/21/2011
    Sen Johnson, Tim [SD] – 7/21/2011
    Sen Klobuchar, Amy [MN] – 7/27/2011
    Sen Lautenberg, Frank R. [NJ] – 7/21/2011
    Sen Leahy, Patrick J. [VT] – 7/21/2011
    Sen Mikulski, Barbara A. [MD] – 7/21/2011
    Sen Murray, Patty [WA] – 7/21/2011
    Sen Reed, Jack [RI] – 7/21/2011
    Sen Shaheen, Jeanne [NH] – 7/21/2011
    Sen Whitehouse, Sheldon [RI] – 7/21/2011

    All Dems.
    So, what does S.1403 do?
    Senate Bill 1403 would provide annual funding to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act by essentially doubling the excise tax on cigarettes and small cigars.
    So, the federal excise tax for cigarettes would go from $1.006 a pack to $2.01.
    And who smokes?
    According to Gallup, more than half of smokers earn less than $36,000 per year; only 13 percent of smokers made $90,000 or more annually.

    Limo Libs only care about themselves.
    I’m a non-smoker (all my life) hubby, too.
    But this peeves me enough to write both my senators and my congresswoman to vote against it.

    ReplyReply
  4. Buffalobob says: 4

    Chuck Schumer another NY congressman living large off the backs of the misinformed. I left upstate NY in 1978, back then the upstate view was to split NY in two. Upstate and NYC. The tax cancer has spread to all of NY State now.The people from upstate voted for Hillary, however they did vote for a Republican to fill Tony the weiner’s seat.

    ReplyReply
  5. FAITH7 says: 5

    @Nan G: NAN G #3 We were talking about this at work. The really screwed up part of this is that they (Gov’t/State Gov’t/Surgeon General etc…) go on and on every year on how “bad” cigarette’s are for you, the whole nine yards….Well, if they are so bad for you (and you answered this quite well) then “take them off the market” …but, they won’t because they [Want to collect the TAX ] off the sales of the smokes. What do they say about talking out both sides of your… you know what?.

    Hey, but don’t stop at cigarettes… why don’t they TAX ALCOHOL…. go after THOSE people TOO…. Alcohol is just as “deadly” as cigarette’s…. Smokers are an easy target! I wonder who they would ‘go after’ if everyone decided to quit smoking?

    ReplyReply
  6. Randy says: 6

    Another good post. The Cap and Trade would have sent even more tax money to the Blue states.

    ReplyReply
  7. Whats new, politicians protecting politicans. Its sickening, but I expected no less.

    ReplyReply
  8. Wm T Sherman says: 8

    @FAITH7: The government does tax alcohol. A lot of the cost of alcoholic beverages is the alcohol tax.

    ReplyReply
  9. Disenchanted says: 9

    Also to pay for these tax hikes federal workers, not those on the hill will pay almost 2% more in taxes, you will pay more to fly and I am going to bet 99% of these people are not millionaires or make over 250K. Also pensions and medical for retired military will be cut. How much? I don’t know. Yeah you go to war, dodge bullets possibly maimed for life and barry goes after them. When is someone going to get the balls to get him out of office? When will he be impeached? I am tired of hearing people say because he is black we can’t impeach him which by the way he is half white, so let them impeach that part.

    ReplyReply
  10. johngalt says: 10

    …..there ought to be…..

    Anytime you hear a politician say those words, it’s a good bet that they are looking to screw someone over. Nothing good ever came out of an utterance with those words involved.

    ReplyReply
  11. Chicago Nick says: 11

    Upchuckie has always been a slimeball and nothing’s changed nor will it. These people obviously live in a land of the lost and have completely lost touch with the people they supposedly represent.

    I picture them wearing gas masks when they return to their constituencies when not in public and wearing white gloves everywhere they go again unless in public view so as to not ‘pick up the germs of the smelly, sweaty commoners” and other royalty – like behaviors. I mean, we all remember what Dingy Harry said about the smell of the citizens waiting to come visit the Capitol building built with our money and sweat and tears over the years, no? http://huff.to/199Cxt

    These people are the exact clones of what our founders came here to escape in the first place, and the only people who see this are the vilified tea party people. Sad.

    ReplyReply
  12. Skookum says: 12

    Nick, words to remember:

    These people are the exact clones of what our founders came here to escape in the first place, and the only people who see this are the vilified tea party people. Sad.

    ReplyReply
  13. Toothfairy says: 13

    This reminds me of all the Obamacare waivers — only handed out to Obie buds and backers, of course.

    ReplyReply
  14. Toothfairy says: 14

    @FAITH7: I’m expecting Mooshelle to announce a “Twinkie Tax” any day now.

    ReplyReply
  15. NYGino says: 15

    In my humble opinion all this conversation about the imposter in chief’s new(ish) tax plan is a waste of time. This plan’s purpose is not to be accepted and passed in Congress it’s purpose is to be rejected, as well it should, in order to give this loser in Washington ammunition against the GOP come election time. With this guy it’s one devious move after another. He thinks everybody is ignorant and he still is working on the delusion that he can pull the wool over a majority. There have been too many illegal, irresponsible, ideologically based, un-American and just plain stupid moves on his part that he has zero credibility anymore with all but his most socialist supporters and the truly ignorant or apathetic. Even the mainstream media is starting to backpedal on him. He’s become so obviously a detriment to this country that they don’t want to be caught with their pants down and be flushed down the drain along with him.

    ReplyReply
  16. Pingback: Daily Pundit » No Surprises Here

  17. Nan G says: 16

    @Toothfairy:
    Waivers.
    Very good point, Toothfairy.
    I can see the list growing now.
    1st the New York liberal millionaires.
    Then the Bab’s and Mikey Moore’s from all over the country, one by one.
    (Or maybe put into weird, tiny categories.)
    Just like with ObamaCare.

    ReplyReply
  18. johngalt says: 17

    There is no such thing as ‘equal protection’ under the law when liberal/progressives are involved.

    Each day I wake up and wonder how so many people in this country can be so stupid that they support these liberal/progressive ‘know-it-alls’. I still haven’t found a completely satisfactory answer.

    ReplyReply
  19. Greg says: 18

    At some point soon, mainstream America may suddenly have had it up to the gills with the incessant bitching and whining of millionaires and billionaires about paying what are, in fact, some of the lowest effective tax rates in modern U.S. history. At a time when increasing numbers of working and middle class Americans are in a state of chronic anxiety about attaining and maintaining some modest level of basic financial security, we’ve got the pathetic spectacle of some of the wealthiest people who have ever existed–people who in many cases are living lives of privilege and luxury that princes and kings of the past would have found totally incomprehensible–asserting that the system that has allowed them to attain such an elevated status is somehow treating them with extreme unfairness.

    These people are so far out of touch with the daily reality that the vast majority of Americans contend with that their ability to empathize with the concerns of most of us is minimal. They’re the last people most of us should want to have the power to shape public perceptions; they’re the last people we should want to be rewriting the rules of the game.

    Hell, I’ll vote to raise their taxes purely as a matter of principle. I’ll vote to raise their taxes purely as a demonstration that while they’re free to own and control much, they will not be allowed to own and control it all. Such ambitions are appropriate to megalomaniacs, not to well-balanced human beings. Any broad-scale realization of such dreams by the few diminishes the potential that the well-meaning, well-balanced, normally-ambitious and normally-industrious many have to attain their own far more modest dreams.

    What we’re presently witnessing is that very thing: the fading of the American dream for the average American, while extraordinary wealth and privilege consolidate and prepare for a total take-over. What’s happening is of course being depicted as something else entirely. That’s by design and of necessity. People who are being sold a bill of goods generally aren’t pleased if they realize it. The evidence is all in plain view. The question is whether or not someone is able to see it, and whether or not their mind is still free to process it.

    ReplyReply
  20. Marine72 says: 19

    @johngalt: Reverse Natural Selection – the latest in evolutionary theory and practice where the producer ‘shoots themself in the foot to spite her/his face’.

    ReplyReply
  21. Marine72 says: 20

    @Greg: Oh My God! Who let you out without adequate windex for your abdominal window?

    ReplyReply
  22. Greg says: 21

    @Marine72, #20:

    Who sets up a system that allows businesses to make enormously increased profits by eliminating or exporting jobs, and then argues that they’ll start creating jobs again if you reduce taxes on the increased profits they’ve made by eliminating or exporting them?

    Cutting taxes can result in job creation–provided you cut taxes on consumers and on small business owners. Cutting taxes on huge corporations and the wealthiest accomplishes nothing, except making the already-rich even richer.

    ReplyReply
  23. johngalt says: 22

    @Greg:

    Greg, you truly labor under some misguided ideas and principles.

    I’d address your points in both of your above postings, but what’s the use? A week from now you’d still be stating the same things.

    Hell, I’ll vote to raise their taxes purely as a matter of principle.

    That statement right there shows that you have no business being in or around any law making body, and that includes voting for those who represent you in that area.

    ReplyReply
  24. Greg says: 23

    @johngalt, #22:

    Hell, I’ll vote to raise their taxes purely as a matter of principle.

    That sentence had a context.

    ReplyReply
  25. @Greg: You were describing our humble public servants, our politicians, and president right?

    ReplyReply
  26. Doug says: 25

    And Greg, what happens if, as a matter of principle, those faced with confiscation of their earnings just refuse to keep working for less than half of what they earn? Retire, or leave the country for pretty much any developed country in the world that offers a lower tax rate (Canada leaps to mind)? Your statement smacks of envy and is frankly petty and pathetic. These taxes have little chance of raising significant revenue. You are showing the real and ugly face of these policies, which are to spite the successful and take them down a peg, and not about actually raising the revenue needed for the programs you want to fund. Team Obama opts for every unworkable tax scheme that plays to this “us-versus-them” theme, while ignoring several revenue measures that he might propose, including those of his own deficit commission and of Paul Volker, that would raise revenues. He lacks the courage to take those measures before the voters because some of them (like the VAT) would be unpopular and might cost him the election. It’s all about power and popularity, isn’t it Greg?

    ReplyReply
  27. Hard Right says: 26

    As I’ve said before, greg once fought for the freedom of others. Now he fights (in a different way) to take that freedom away. How sad.

    ReplyReply
  28. johngalt says: 27

    @Greg:

    Your right, it did have a context. Essentially, you are stating that you will willingly choose to judge and punish an economic class of people. Again, and as I said above about Schumer, to liberal/progressives, there is no “equal protection under the law”. Hence, my statement that because you feel that way, you have no business voting for legislation, or voting for the people that make the legislation.

    If you’re not willing to stand up for the rights of others, even if you do not belong in their group, then you don’t deserve to have your rights defended. What you wish to accomplish is the destruction of rights for some people and the elevation of rights for others. That is undeniable, and shown by your comments.

    ReplyReply
  29. Randy says: 28

    @johngalt: Well said. I have this argument with people who think they are fair. It seems they are only address fair when someone is affecting their lives.

    ReplyReply
  30. Nan G says: 29

    It seems like the definition of the term, ”FAIR,” has been co-opted by the PC crowd.
    How can it be ”fair” that 1/2 of Americans have no skin in the federal taxation game?
    How can those 223,000 individuals who pay 20% of all federal income taxes be said to be not paying their ”fair” share?
    Re-read those definitions of ”fair” over at the Merriam-Webster Dictionary.
    Can you find Obama’s twisted new definition of ”fair,” there?
    No, you cannot.
    Because what Obama means when he says ”fair” is NOT fair.
    It is far removed from ”fair.”
    So far removed it brings to mind those slogans Orwell used in 1984…..
    “War is Peace”
    Freedom is Slavery”
    “Ignorance is Strength.”

    ReplyReply
  31. Greg says: 30

    @Doug, #25:

    And Greg, what happens if, as a matter of principle, those faced with confiscation of their earnings just refuse to keep working for less than half of what they earn?

    I don’t know. Why don’t we call their bluff and find out?

    That’s not intended as a smart-ass remark. I’m serious. Please consider:

    Would we rather have hundreds of highly prosperous local business owners operating hundreds of local businesses, or one absurdly wealthy entrepreneur whose tremendously successful big box enterprise has created thousands of jobs in China and hundreds of empty U.S. storefronts?

    I think a strong argument can be be made that the incentive of lower taxes should be focused primarily on the aspiring local small business owners; that it’s far better for the U.S. economy and for mainstream America if the tax structure strongly encourages a realistic aspiration to acquire riches within reason among a great many people, rather than rewarding the acquisition of enormous accumulations of riches that are ultimately attainable only by a very few.

    Cutting a billionaire’s taxes is a waste of badly needed revenue. In the matter of providing encouragement to the ambitious little guy just trying to get started, or to the affluent local business owner who employs a few dozen or a few hundred neighbors, it might be far better to raise the billionaire’s taxes. It might be thought of as a means of handicapping; as a means of leveling the playing field and creating a better environment for more people to compete. The billionaire needs no further encouragement. If you don’t keep an eye on him he’ll own the playing field, and begin modifying it to further his own advantage.

    ReplyReply
  32. johngalt says: 31

    @Greg:

    Consider it a means of handicapping, to level out the playing field.

    Government’s business should be about leveling out the playing field, Greg. However, what you are suggesting isn’t the leveling of the playing field, but rather, the leveling of the outcomes. That ISN’T the business of government. And the government already does that, which of course, makes it easier for people like you to insist on more measures to level the outcomes. As I said, you insist on the destruction of some people’s rights, while elevating the rights of others. That isn’t “fair” and is in direct opposition to “equal protection under the law”. But then, you aren’t concerned about “equal protection”, are you?

    ReplyReply
  33. Greg says: 32

    @johngalt, #31:

    That isn’t “fair” and is in direct opposition to “equal protection under the law”. But then, you aren’t concerned about “equal protection”, are you?

    What is there to protect the average American consumer, the average American worker, or the average American small business owner when concentrated wealth and power becomes totally focused on the fulfillment of its own interests?

    Can we consider “equal protection” sufficient when special interests and the common good are at odds in an unevenly matched contest?

    ReplyReply
  34. Helene says: 33

    Waivers for New York, California, New Jersey, and a whole bevy of friends of Barry O. To that I say, “NO BarryO.” (Now that would be a great bumper sticker …or maybe the letter O with a slash through it).

    ReplyReply
  35. johngalt says: 34

    @Greg:

    What is there to protect the average American consumer, the average American worker, or the average American small business owner when concentrated wealth and power becomes totally focused on the fulfillment of its own interests?

    The only assumption that one could make to support the idea that wealth and power become concentrated is this; A belief of a finite amount of wealth present, and the resulting fiscal power resulting from it. The fact that you have been blasted before on this, and your denial of believing that, should make that question never enter your head. Yet, you continue to ask asinine questions like that. The only conclusion that one can make is that you truly do believe in a finite amount of wealth from which everyone draws from.

    Think about it, Greg. In the 70′s and 80′s, two of the major wealth holders of today either didn’t exist, or were not even remotely considered the major successes that they are today. Yet, your kind of people, the liberal/progressives, were still screaming about that which you bitch and complain about today. That is, that wealth is concentrated at the top and only high punitive tax measures could right that “unfairness”. The two companies I speak of, Microsoft and Walmart, proved that with a unique idea and solid business plan, that wealth could be generated. Did they take it away from someone else? No. They simply kept to their plan and expanded as necessary, creating more wealth. And today, there are companies just starting out who have other unique ideas and solid business plans that will create the wealth of tomorrow. Wealth is created by private industry, Greg. It isn’t static. It doesn’t shift from one group to the other based on who knows who.

    Can we consider “equal protection” sufficient when special interests and the common good are at odds in an unevenly matched contest?

    Apparently not considering what happened with Solyndra. Did you even complain about that, Greg? Does Obama draw your ire over that? Or does he get a pass?

    The common good is sometimes served by special interests, Greg. It is never served by crony capitalism like we’ve seen from the Obama stimulus. It seems to me that you are angry over the wrong things, or that your anger is directed at the wrong people.

    ReplyReply
  36. MataHarley says: 35

    @Greg: What is there to protect the average American consumer, the average American worker, or the average American small business owner when concentrated wealth and power becomes totally focused on the fulfillment of its own interests?

    Yeeeeeaaaash… why do we have to keep going over this, Greg? What is it about pesky facts that belie your bemoaning that you refuse to absorb?

    Once again I’ll post the graph of the history of percentage of wealth held, from 1922 thru 2007. This from my comment #126 in the Class Warfare thread back in mid August.

    So, Greg…. as you can see, the highest percentage of wealth has varied very little in the past 8-9 decades. The lowest percentages were during the Jimmy Carter depression… yeah, let’s return to those golden days, eh? Oddly enough, during those glorious Clinton years, the bottom 99% were at some of their lowest levels.

    Pity you’re not 80 or so. You could have spent your entire lifetime whining about the same ol’, same ol’.

    ReplyReply
  37. Helene says: 36

    Regarding Walmart. Stop in and read the signs. Look around at the people working there. Look at the people shopping there.
    1. The signs show the amount of time volunteered by Walmart employees to the local community and the amount of money Walmart donates to local community projects. Shocking amounts! Huge!
    2. Look at the people working there. You’ll see people in wheel chairs. You’ll see the less than perfect people. Walmart hires and respects them. My local Sams club had a severly handicapped lady in a wheel chair. Her job? Hand out brochures.
    3. Look at the people shopping there. Go there right after food stamp money is applied to Independence Cards. People on limited incomes and with hard times can afford to buy food since the prices are so low.
    4. Read the Walmart Entrepreneur’s Creed. It’s on the wall.
    5. Check the pharmacy. Prices are LOW often $3 per month.

    I am tired of liberals slamming Walmart. So, the founder had a good idea. He dumped money into his good idea. Worked hard and proudly created jobs… jobs… jobs… for a wide range of people and he’s helping people to feed their families and providing insurance coverage.

    Why condem Walmart? Get smart. Buy Walmart stock. (Can’t forget, Walmart has a stock purchase plan for employees.)

    Other entrepreneurs do the same thing. They use their money to create jobs. How many jobs has Obama created, yet he wants to kill the golden goose that is creating jobs. What a chucklehead.

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

 

Switch to our mobile site