Hot Mic

Omakase

Amazon Search
«  
  »

You Should Be Ashamed

By lex, on April 16th, 2009

Exercising your constitutional rights like that.

Share
April 16th, 2009 | Tags: | Category: Politics and Culture

27 comments to You Should Be Ashamed

  • Edward
    April 16, 2009 at 3:32 pm

    Must be all those dangerously disgruntled veterans.

  • Brian R
    April 16, 2009 at 3:37 pm

    Not a single American household or business will be taxed at a higher rate this year.

    Next year, that’ll be a different story. But don’t you worry your pretty little head over it.

    • GeoSTI
      April 16, 2009 at 4:04 pm

      Yeah, it’s that cause and effect thing, which some can see, and others, for some reason, can’t.

      I protest not for my current taxes, but the taxes I will be paying if things don’t change.

  • JoeC
    April 16, 2009 at 4:09 pm

    Yeah. Saw that. wizbangblog.com poster Kim Priestap had the retort.

    See here.

    Seems Ms. Schakowsky husband just this week pled guilty to “tax violations and Bank fraud”.

    Now THAT is pure schadenfreude and ironic. See the link for the post. (I wish I could figure out how to get links to show up as clickable here. Surrounding it with the “url” tags doesn’t seem to do it. Can somebody clue me in? Thanks!)

    • JoeC
      April 16, 2009 at 4:10 pm

      Uhhh. Never mind. Seems if I do it manually, they don’t show up, but posting the raw link does.

    • PeterGunn
      April 16, 2009 at 10:46 pm

      As they say in the ER, “Nice catch JoeC”.

      Why does it seem that those who complain the loudest, have the most to cover up so often? Her hubby’s income won’t be taxed that much next year either; his 1040 will come addressed to him in the pokey.

    • PeterGunn
      April 16, 2009 at 10:49 pm

      As they say in the ER, “nice catch”, JoeC.

      Her hubby won’t pay that much is taxes next year either; his 1040 will find him in the pokey. On the up-side, he won’t have to worry about with-holding tax problems anymore.

    • Scott
      April 17, 2009 at 4:50 am

      Her husband has done paid consulting work for indicted former Gov. Rod Blagojevich, and is obviously part of the same Chicago machine that produced our president. And we are the “despicable” and “shameful” ones? How about that guy in your bed, and his paymaster, Representative? Do you really know the meaning of “shame”?

      And I won’t even get into her typical statist thought, that there is no mobility by individuals between tax rates. To believe as she believes, you have to think no one made more money in 2008, than in 2007. Certainly, thousands of filers had increased incomes, and therefore were taxed at a higher rate. But it doesn’t fit the template…

  • Paul
    April 16, 2009 at 6:11 pm

    It’s interesting… The congresswomen called the protest “shameless” and “despicable.” I notice she didn’t call for the protests to be outlawed or the protesters to be arrested. She was stating her opinion on something, otherwise known as… what was that called again? Oh yeah, free speech.

    • MaxDamage
      April 16, 2009 at 11:22 pm

      It is interesting, Paul. She was stating her opinion, I certainly agree. And she didn’t call for them to be outlawed or claim they were illegal in any way.

      But am I the only one who finds it fearful that this is the opinion of one who’s not only sworn an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, but writes and votes to enact the laws that must exist under it?

      Seems to me it’s a pretty small step for a lawmaker to take, from disliking to repressing, and history has shown our Congress is not at all against exceeding their authority until the Supremes slap them back, if indeed that happens.

      – Max

      • Paul
        April 17, 2009 at 5:16 am

        Max, your point is not lost on me. She is, however, one of 435 that write the laws. If the GOP can get its act together before the mid term elections (and I hope they do), then Congress can check itself and we don’t have to worry too much about the Supreme Court.

        If we are to endure a two party system of government in a 24 hour news cycle, we will need to grow thicker skins. By “we” I mean everyone, left and right.

  • AW1 Tim
    April 16, 2009 at 6:23 pm

    Paul,

    Interesting that she was living in some sort of vacuum the past eight years, though…

    Funny, that.

    • Paul
      April 17, 2009 at 5:17 am

      Tim,

      Same thing can be said for all those protesting the huge increases in government spending…

      • OldT6Flyer
        April 17, 2009 at 6:49 am

        At the Tea party I attended there was equal opportunity disgust expressed for both sides of the aisle. The real issue here is that the way our country has been run for a long time is simply not sustainable. People are fed up with the BS told them on this as if they are morons. This applies to both parties although the one currently proposing record increases gets most of the heat, deservedly I would think.

        As for the good Congresswoman’s comments we are right to make judgement on her words. If, for example, in expressing opposition to the war she argued for withdrawal that would be well and good. If she, in advancing the same position, called all US Servicemen War Criminals or despicable because they enabled a policy she opposed to be carried out, that would not be acceptable.

        This goes double for an elected Representative who should know better.

        • Paul
          April 17, 2009 at 12:28 pm

          OT6F – Regarding the elected officials that should know better; There seems to be a bumper crop of those around.

          How about the governor of Texas talking about sedition. The congresswomen from MN talking about re-education camps, etc. The idiocy is on both sides of the isle.

          Perhaps a more constructive pass time would be looking at how political machines get their candidates elected and effect some sort of improvement to that system.

  • david foster
    April 16, 2009 at 7:14 pm

    A little more information on how Schakowsky thinks. is a letter she sent to someone who has been helping This to organize protests against the excesses of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act, a poorly-designed piece of legislation which is crippling and destroying many small businesses.

    • virgil xenophon
      April 16, 2009 at 7:28 pm

      David/

      Undoubtedly one of the worst laws ever put into effect–a stake aimed at the heart of small business–a classic example of the law of unintended consequences. It is hard to see how Congress could do much worse if it intentionally tried. And after reading the Representative’s outrageous letter, I am so appalled at it’s mendacity that the only appropriate answer I can think of is:

      “JAN, YOU IGNORANT SLUT!”

  • david foster
    April 16, 2009 at 7:56 pm

    vx….yes, it’s a terrible law, and is doing serious harm to the economy and, worse, to the spirit of entrepreneurship. It has also resulting in the destruction of thousands and thousands of children’s books.

    As I said in this post:

    Don’t kid yourself that–just because you’re not in the toy business, or a science kit manufacturer, or a children’s clothing maker, or a thrift shop owner, or a homecrafter–this doesn’t have anything to do with you. Whatever your livelihood may be, there are plenty of Congressmen who would casually destroy it for the sake of a photo-op. And in the current political climate, such destruction will become more and more common.

  • Diablo
    April 17, 2009 at 12:54 am

    Ah I love Tea-baggers. People who spent all of Wednesday protesting against socialism and wealth redistribution while gathered in publicly funded — dare I say “socialized” — parks and town squares. An obviously well led movement .

    • RonF
      April 17, 2009 at 8:08 am

      I’ve seen this misunderstanding on left-wing blogs. The protestors were not against taxation in general. Taxation for public parks, fire protection, police, military, roads, dams, sewers, etc. are not the issue here. What’s at issue is the creation of debt four times what the previous administration rang up that will impoverish a generation to erase – since it’s predicated on growth rates of 3% or 4% that are highly unlikely to be achieved. It’s putting that money not into infrastructure or productive jobs but into newly created entitlements that will never be able to be properly funded, while siphoning money from the actual Constitutionally-mandated governmental functions.

    • XBradTC
      April 17, 2009 at 8:52 am

      Diablo, you make an intellectually dishonest (or possibly stupid) argument. When your doctor tells you that you are morbidly obese and need to go on a diet, he’s not telling you to starve to death.

      But maybe, just maybe, you should cut down from two buckets of fried chicken to just one.

  • Marianne Matthews
    April 17, 2009 at 8:40 am

    Ron F … Yes indeed, and I agree with you. What is not being admitted to by the Democrats pushing these funds is that the Fed. Govt. only plans to fund the new entitlements for three years. Then the states will be left with another expensive new program which, IIRC, the state is expected to use its own funds for. In the case of the poorer states, like Louisiana and Mississippi, they simply don’t, and won’t, have the funds to continue the programs. This is why the governors of these states, like Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, are reluctant to accept these temporary stimulus plans, Because they’re temporary.

    I’d like to ask virgil if I’m correct here, about Louisiana’s situation re this urging on by the Fed government to accept these funds and later on, these responsibilities. I think several state governors have been reluctant to accept the “largesse” from the Feds, for just this reason.

    Marianne

    • virgil xenophon
      April 17, 2009 at 8:59 am

      Marianne/

      Yes, your correct in your summation. That’s why a number of Governers want to take the money and pay down the debt, as that will be a permanent DIMUNITION of the State’s outlays (interest expense) as opposed to a permanent EXPANSION of govt outlays via funding the expansion (unemployment benefits, teacher hires, etc.) once the Fed Funds run out.

      And once the funds run out why doesn’t the state just curtail or wind-down the new programs, you might ask? Because the dems in Congress have written the law such that if you take the Fed $ you have to permanently fund the new programs/expansions, etc., the $ is used for–only, of course, with state funds.

      Currently some twit 18 yr-old in S. Carolina is suing (Via a left wing law firm that includes Clinton’s former Sec of Education) the Governor for the 700
      million in Fed education funds for new teachers (read sop to teachers unions)
      who wants to divert those funds to pay down state debt. Once again, a classic example of liberals using the courts (usually un-elected–don’t know about S.Carolina) as substitute legislatures and elected Governors to by-pass the democratic process.
eXTReMe Tracker

View My Stats