“One Nation” — as Long as It’s Leftist

Pages: 1 2

“For the last two years President Obama has had to put up with the word no,” Schultz said. “40 people, 40 people in the United States Senate have held down the working man of America. 40 Republicans have decided to say no. While you suffer, while your jobs go overseas, while they strangle the money. They don’t want to give it to the small businesses. They want to keep it at the top.”

In today’s political and economic climate, expressing such socialist ideals is tantamount to political suicide. Either guys like Schultz don’t care about going down in flames, which is unlikely, or they truly believe that this kind of rhetoric will find some traction among the electorate. It’s 2010, not 2008, but the contact high that the Barack Obama’s election generated throughout the Left has yet to wear off.

Tea Partiers are hardly in love with big corporations. Americans instinctively distrust corporate America. They understand that businesses large and small must be held accountable for their actions and that government should do its best to maintain a level playing field. The Left’s wild assertion that conservatives – and it should be noted that twice as many Americans associate themselves with the right than they do the Left – favor unchecked corporate greed over their own well-being is patently ridiculous. Those same Americans are stockholders in corporations, their retirement accounts depend on the continued profitability of those corporations and their jobs, to a large extent, depend on maintaining a free market economy that allows corporations large and small to thrive.

The millions of Americans who have embraced the Tea Party movement didn’t do so because they yearn to protect some CEO’s million dollar salary. They have stood up because they know that the balance between government and private enterprise has been thrown far out of kilter in the last two years. They understand that sacrificing our children’s future to pay for today’s government largesse is morally wrong. They’re not against government, but they are irreconcilably opposed to a ruling class that strangles, degrades and denounces an economic system that is based on freedom of opportunity and, as importantly, the freedom to fail.

Ed Schultz left his adoring masses with these words of wisdom: ”We as one nation, we as one nation must stand together, must fight the forces of evil, the conservatives in this country across the board want it for them. They don’t want it for the people. They talk about the Constitution but they don’t want to live by it. They talk about our forefathers but they want discrimination. They want to change this country.”

And this was a rally that was supposed to unite America. How one is supposed to unite the nation by calling the forty per cent of Americans who identify themselves as conservative evil, unwilling to live by the Constitution and in favor of discrimination is beyond comprehension. Contrast those words, if you will, with the non-partisan, conciliatory, inspiring and universally-embracing message that Glenn Beck delivered at the mall just  a couple of weeks ago. But, at least Ed Schultz got one thing right. He said that we conservatives “…want to change this country.” There’s no doubt that is true and the Left’s “One Nation” rally is all the proof we need that the country desperately needs that change of direction.

Pages: 1 2

  • swathdiver

    I haven't seen this many socialists in one place since the Nuremberg Rallies of the 1930s!

    How pitiful are these people willing to enslave themselves for government handouts. They do not understand that "civic rights" are government rights and will be granted and taken away at the whims of those in charge.

  • http://www.worldthinktank.net Lance Winslow

    Indeed, your assessment was more than a fair observation of the One-Nation theme my dear sir.

  • DogWithoutSlippers

    The Union Bosses rub their hands together at
    the prospect of collecting more Union dues!

  • votedagainstoby

    Ok A few things,.. ONE,.. I have NEVER been hired by a "poor person". And TWO,.. I HATE UNIONS.

    I'm from the metro DETROIT aria. If you want to see what the UNIONS and the democrats have in mind for America, Look at what they have accomplished with DETROIT. It took them just a little longer than 20 years.

    • aspacia

      Steve Crowder did an enlightening piece on this city.

  • Huffer115

    I believe the point so many miss is: the system of unions, interstate commerce control, immigration laws, etc are all good things when tempered with ethics, and good will, that protects against tyrants taking advanage of loopholes created by lawyers.Today,the tyrants have usurped the systems and laws and use them for personal gain,wealth and power.
    When rightous men stand up and use our constitutional laws, with the SPIRIT they were intended,the nation can be on top again where OPPORTUNITY to better oneself is again present.
    True wealth is EARNED, not given or stolen!

  • http://www.intellectualConservative.com Steven Laib

    Barack Obama and many of his cronies are involved in an incestuous relationship with the big players on Wall St. If the people at this rally want jobs they should get rid of the people they presently support.

    Wall St. does not play favorites and is not welded to the Republican Party .

  • jacob

    How come the President ,his leftist buddies and the so called "Pundits" failed so far to point out that the reasons for the financial crisis and unemployment, are the direct results of the MADE IN USA tag dissappearance ??

    And as to the jobs exporting, isn't it the government responsability to stop it or aren't these companies doing business in the USA ???

    Other than parasiting the workers, what have the unions do about ??

    Does it call for a supersage of Milton Friedman's Chicago School of Economics to put his finger on it ???

  • Phineas

    And ,not surprisingly, they LITTERED about as horribly,if not worse, than they did the day of the inauguration, a year and a half ago. 40+ years of babble from the Left about littering,nature,the environment – nothing but Doublespeak.

  • BK1413

    Rich, you state "Democrats control the White House, the Senate and the House. They’ve gotten their bailout, they’ve passed health care and they’ve raised taxes." Can you please provide an example of how you taxes have increased? Do you make more than $250,000 in Adjusted Gross Income? If so, then yes, your taxes will increase. What percentage of people in the US make more than $250,000 a year? Two, yes two percent.

    That means 98 percent of us are not getting a tax increase, but actually a tax cut.

    People, please look at Circular E provided by the IRS. Compare your tax rate from 2008 to 2010 (you will need to search both years) and see that your rate is actually less under the new administration. Meaning, your tax rate in 2008 under Bush, was greater than it is now. Circular E can be found here: http://www.irs.gov.

    By the way, the "tax increase" you speak of is not an increase, but a lapsing of a tax bill enacted under the previous administration.

    Please provide support for you comments in the future, and those reading, please educate yourself and don't always believe what you read.

    • Buki Dobro

      Sorry BK, but you've just proven you utter ignorance regarding tax matters which is what the current administration was so patently counting on when they passed their so-called tax cut as part of the stimulus. Circular E which you tout is the schedule of withholding rates for EMPLOYERS, not a listing of tax rates for tax payers. This is the game they played. They decreased the withholding rate slightly, so everyone got their $25/week 'tax-cut' that Obama keeps claiming he passed. Come the end of the year, the actual tax rates remained unchanged. As stated on the IRS webpage when this was enacted, this actual meant that many people ending having to pay taxes instead of getting a refund because not enough money ended up being withheld due to the changes made.
      As far as the Bush tax cuts go, argue semantics all you want, but it is a tax increase. The only reason the cuts weren't permanent is because the Dummycrats controlled the Congress and foresaw this possibility. Make the cuts temporary and then they could simply let them expire and would be able to claim that it is all Bush's fault and that they didn't vote for any tax increase.

      • BK1413


        Ignorance, interesting. You are correct that it is a withholding circular for employers, but it is an easy way to illustrate an example. Go to page 38 and 39, find your withholding frequency, find your wages and compare the rate that your federal tax is being withheld compared to 2008. Get it genius? I can explain it further if it is above you understanding.

        Hope you enjoyed that educational lesson.

        Second, semantics? The 106th Congress was a 55 to 45 Republican Majority under which the first Bush tax cuts (2001) were implemented. So to say that cuts, and I quote you… "weren't permanent is because the Dummycrats controlled the Congress" is wrong again.

        (Here is your reference http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/history/one_item

        This all brings me to a question for you, are you making more than $250,000 in adjusted gross income? If so, then yes your taxes are increasing.

        (If you want I can educate you as to what AGI is, but I am sure you already know b/c you seem to have a solid grasp on taxation)

        Third, and your final lesson in taxation. The tax rates have not changed, you are correct, but the wage brackets that are covered by those rates have.

        Here, I'll explain what that means.

        Looking at the 2008 US Master Tax Guide page 17 , the 28% tax bracket for Married Filing Joint had a top income of $200,300. After that amount, you move into the 33% bracket. Now in 2010 that top number (from the 2010 US Master Tax Guide, Page 13) is $209,250.

        Do you need me to explain that that means you can now make an additional $8,950 and pay tax at a lower rate. In 2008 you would have paid tax at the 33% bracket on that $8,950


      • BK1413


        Please educate yourself and don't believe all that you hear.

        It is okay to be angry, but know what you are angry about and find the truth.

        What are you so mad about?

        Even if it is $25 dollar a week, (as you stated, but I proved that it is more) that is an extra $1300 a year over 52 weeks. That's more money in your pocket than you had under the previous administration.

        Most people are getting a break on taxes.

    • asstralUndertaker

      They went up. They did for me. First time in my 30 years of working I have ended up owing the Gov't money!
      Buki Dobro is right.
      BK1413 :
      Make Work Pay is a scam. I had $400 "given" to me on my irs paperwork, a few lines down, the same $400 is subtracted plus I owe another $17. I have not changed my tax status since I got divorced almost twenty years ago.

      Oh, and I made only $19,000.00 last year and even less the year before.
      I ended up paying $17.00. Not much, but it went up.
      Obama lied, America Died.

      • BK1413

        So how much did you have withheld? IF you did not have taxes taken out on your paycheck, then yep, you might owe. In other years you might have had taxes withheld.

        Your not giving the full picture. Find your W2 from 2008 and look at box 2. Do the same for 2009.

        So you said that your making work pay credit was subtracted. Well did you receive an actual paper check? If so, then you won't get a credit on your return because you already received it.

        Once again, give the full picture. You make it sound as if you were "scammed" as you so put it. Maybe you were scammed by the person that did your tax return, because on your 1040, the Making work Pay was reported under the other tax section of your 1040. Nowhere in that section can you subtract an amount from the credit. Though you stated… "I had $400 "given" to me on my irs paperwork, a few lines down, the same $400 is subtracted".

        Someone did your return wrong. OOPS!!!

  • jgreene

    BK, don't bother going to the polls on November 2nd. You're so convinced of your "point of view" that it won't be necessary to support your fellow socialist-progressive-Marxist-liberal-DemocRAT politician.

    Stay home and enjoy the show!

  • jgreene

    The various interest groups sparsely populating the Washington DC Mall on Saturday made their point best when they departed. This amalgam of garbage tossed their union printed signs and debris on the ground; well the American People are going to toss them to the ground in November, but also sweep them away and begin the cleansing of the political landscape of socialists, Marxists, Progressives, Liberals and anarchist Democrats.

    • bakunin

      what's an anarchist democrat? anarchists are against both political parties.

  • Nick Shaw

    I don't know what BK 1413 is going on about. First, if the Bush rates are not extended that will be a tax increase. Taxes are paid at the rate you are paying, if they go up after this point in time they are increased if they go down that's a cut, if they stay the same..well , it's neither. Stop trying to baffle us with BS, we're smarter than that. Now, as to actual increases with this administration, SCHIP. Within days of taking over the Dims raised taxes on cigarettes to pay for this program. Laudable but, it's guys like me, who make a heck of a lot less than $250K that are paying the tax to cover the bill. The vast majority of smokers fall into my catagory. Yes, I could quit smoking, maybe, but, then who would be tapped to cover the bill? And don't even bother with "Oh you got a tax cut too!" Yeah, closer to $11 a week, less than a pack of smokes. Wow, If I stopped I could afford that trip to Hershey! Dude, taxes went up, even on the less than $250K crowd.

    • BK1413


      Yes, an increase for the top 2% of residents in the country, which is the millionaire/billionaire crowd. Hence why you hear so much about the taxes going up. The wealthy that run the media don't want to have to pay more, and they have you convinced that it is in your best interest as well.

      If you cut taxes for the wealthy, the money has to come from somewhere or someone.

      Who do you think that someone is? Us. The non-wealthy.

      So to let the tax breaks for the wealthy expire at the end of the year, I am all for that. Let them pay there fair share.

      Second, I guess I need to slow down my explanation on tax brackets since you seem baffled. The example of the 28% tax bracket must have been to hard to understand.

      Here we go one more time…

      In 2008 the maximum amount you could make for the 15% tax bracket as married filing joint was $65,100. Any dollar after that you move to the next tax bracket of 25%. By tax bracket, I mean your tax rate.

      Now in 2010 that number changed to $68,000 for the top of the 15% bracket.

      That is an increase in the "bracket" of $2900. So whereas in 2008 that $2900 would be taxed at 25%, it is now at 15%.

      Get it? Your taxes went down. You are now saving 10% on that $2900 that would have been in the $25% bracket under Bush.

      Finally, Nick, you choose to smoke. So if you have to pay more taxes there, that is by choice. No sympathy here. Try a flavored toothpick. Heck of a lot cheaper than cigarettes.

      You might save some money.

      • Nick Shaw

        First, if taxes go up on 2% of taxpayers in January it will only be mil/bil crowd? I thought the idea being batted around was anyone above $250K? Next, you insist on using "cut" taxes for the wealthy. I won't bother reposting my first post to address this. The money has to come from somewhere? Hey, how about stop spending money you don't have!
        Pay "their fair share"? Please stop! The "rich" pay the bulk of the money that keeps America afloat, the bottom half pay nothing. How do you describe fair again? My best interests are served by a "rich" guy 'cause a guy that pays no taxes or the government cannot give me private sector employment. (cont)

        • Nick Shaw

          Finally, attempting to "explain" taxes and rates to me while looking down your sanctimonious nose does not change the fact that I got 11 bucks more a week from The One, which does not cover a pack of smokes. Nor does the fact that I prefer, along with many others in my income bracket, to smoke, negate the fact I pay more in taxes. That was the point of the discussion, not methods I could use to avoid tax. If I didn't smoke, the rich or you (if you are not rich, which I suspect is true) would have to pay. Have a smug day sir!

          • BK1413

            Follow the ball Nick. Two separate items.

            1) The tax cuts that are expiring December 31 are for the upper 2%.

            2) The tax cuts for those making under $250,000 went into affect last year.

            Why do you find it so hard to believe that President Obama gave you a tax break?

            You just stated it yourself that you got at least $11 more per check. That's $550 at a minimum that you did not have before.

            So under Bush when you DID NOT get an extra $11 a paycheck, you could afford smokes? I get that the taxes went up, but by more than $11 a pack? As you said "which does not cover a pack of smokes". Expensive habit.

            Another lesson about you feeling the "rich" pay their fair share.

            I'll Explain:

            1) Off shore accounts? Used to not pay US taxes. Guess how many of the upper 2% hide money off shore. Why?

            2) The low capital gains rate. A large portion of the wealthy prefer to be paid in stock, and stock options. As well as receive dividend checks. Why?
            To avoid taxes. Stock gains and dividends are taxed at a max 15%. If a married couple makes more than $68000 in 2010 they pay at 25%.

            As a percentage of income, the upper 2% pay at a smaller rate than you and I. In addition they use any method possible to pay as little as possible. Off shore accounts, stock, dividends.

            Get it?

            I will ask that you explain your comment "negate the fact I pay more in taxes". More than who? More than when?

            Food for thought Nick.

          • Nick Shaw

            I am following the ball but you have proven you really don't have a clue. You honestly think only the top 2% are affected if nothing is done by Jan 1 to extend the Bush tax policy? Only the million/billionaire class? Is that what you really think? So, all this discussion about some taxes being allowed to go up and some left at the current rate (those making less than $250K) is all in my, and many others, imagination? As to "rich" people doing whatever with their money, more power to them if they follow the rules. Some don't of course. Interestingly, some middle class people and some poor people don't follow the rules either. So what? You want to punish all rich folk because you think they are all stealing from you or something? All I hear from you is envy. If you happen to be a business owner, which I doubt, you would be the last I would work for. As to your second last paragraph:
            Refer to the second sentence in your first post. More than me. More than then. Oh, and eat this!

          • bubba4

            It's not about "punishing" rich folks. The tax breaks were designed to expire for budget reasons…let them expire. No one achieved wealth in a vaccuum…it is all dependent on the larger system of government(s), the infrastructure and civic institutions that exist because of it. They can pay 3% more..

          • BK1413

            "Oh, and eat this!"…Nice comment in your last post. Your intellect impresses me.

            You have yet to provide any sort of facts to substantiate your arguments.

            Follow the new legislation and support your arguments. You obviously have a computer, with an internet connection, so log on to the IRS.gov and do some research. I gave you exact references and pages of the tax guide.

            You my friend, have provided nothing.

            I am sort of hungry, so what are you offering for me to eat? Mmmm, maybe an apple. I am really hungry for an apple. No wait, that is just my envy speaking!!!

            P.s. If you were my employee, I would at least take the time to explain to you the affects of taxes on your wages and your paycheck. Oh, and I would help to pay for your smoking cessation classes since I would be providing you health insurance.

            You see employers are getting some incentives (credits) for providing over 50% of an employees health insurance, but I am sure you knew that because you have taken the time to read the health care reform act.

            But then I would be assuming, which is always a dangerous thing to do.

          • Nick Shaw

            I give you an example of an increase in taxes for someone earning less than $250K despite any offset by the magnanimous Anointed One and you continue to drone on about the tax code! What will it take? A copy of my tax form and receipts for my cigarettes? Then you vear off into ObamaKare, describing all the wonderful things employers get from it. Yeah, unless I work for McDonalds! I do think you missed my point, I would not work for you, no sense dreaming about all the good things you could provide for me. I wasn't on the Mall for ONWT. God, you are more dense than a bag of rocks.

          • BK1413

            Yet again Nick, name calling is the act of a weak mind.

            "more dense than a bag of rocks". Ouch, that one hurt.

            Nice retort. I see conversation is one of your strong points.

            Sure, provide the numbers on your "tax form". That way you would at least be providing examples instead of rhetoric and talking points.

          • Nick Shaw

            And I see you have a masters in sarcasm. Your point? It's too bad you don't watch Beck. Today's show would have diagnosed your malady better than I ever could 'cause Beck uses blackboards and such. Interestingly, he had Austen Goolsby on, with whiteboards no less, to explain your point of view. Much better presentation! Though still trash, I prefer Austen over you. He has whiteboards, you have, "Dddrrrrroooooooonnnnnnnneeeeee, something dot gov dddddrrrroooooonnnnnnneeee something dot gov dddddrrrrrroooooonnnnnnneeee" There you go, an example of a government drone!

      • coyote3

        No, you are not decreasing taxes for anyone if you leave the present tax structure in place. If it is left in place, everything will remain the same. It is also not true that if you do not increase taxes for the "wealthy" others will have to pay more. That assumes you are not going to cut spending. Indeed, that is what is going to happen on massive scale.

        • Nick Shaw

          No sense coyote, "cut spending" doesn't seem to be in this guy's vocubulary.

          • bk1413

            Cut spending is a fabulous idea. Lets start with the industrial war complex which was not on the budget with the previous administration. I would prefer that my tax dollars go to rebuilding our nation versus destroying others.

          • Nick Shaw

            Hmmm I personally enjoy destroying others. A good war is good for the soul I always say. It's those darn turtle tunnels and teaching Chinese hookers to drink liquor responsibly programs that chap my butt.

  • Wesley69

    Ed Schiltz's comments are just like our Philosopher King. They, both, demonize their opponents as immoral and haters. Rather than unite, they create an us versus them mentality. As Saul Alinsky wrote, any means to an end. Our Philosopher King has, indeed, divided us into classes of oppressors and victims.. Many like Schulitz and MSNBC, carry his water for him. Divide and conquer. It seems so simple, but Mr. O. is doing just that. Just another thought – Do theose union members really believe their leadership has their best interests at heart?

    All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.
    Thomas Jefferson

  • Ocean_Breeze

    I watched this on CSPAN Saturday – a good bit anyway. The Theme was Jobs now – to rebuild Schools, Highways and Bridges. Those are all Government Jobs – It was one Big Government Rally Day. Their message truly terrified me becuase it was all Government, Unions, etc…absolutely awful.

    • bubba4

      How do you think we got schools, roads and bridges in the first place? Our infrastructure is crumbling and has been denied care and pushed off into the future….

  • http://FinalRacKoonsAgainBlog.blogtownhall.com Glenn Koons

    I wonder if Indies,Libertarians and Reagan Dems just compared the safe, clean articulate conserv Rally vs this Socialist hate rally? If so , more Dems will lose in Nov. than first thought. What is so hypocritical, is that Dems go back to their districts as lap dogs to Pelosi, Reid and Obama. There are no conserv Dems left. Do not be fooled. This reminded me of Nuremburg, not America. These people claim to be American and look like the old Che people.

  • MKS

    Oil corporations produce oil and its derivatives, and we can use those products to heat our homes and power our transportation.

    Pharmaceutical corporations produce medicines, and we can use those products to treat our infirmities.

    Textile corporations produce fabrics and threads, and we can use those products to cover ourselves and decorate our homes.

    Financial corporations produce loans and investments, and we can use those products to provide capital to implement good ideas in the other areas of production.

    Governments produce regulations and force – nothing else. We can use those products to protect ourselves. Or to restrict ourselves. We must be most careful in the use of these products – more careful than even in the use of drugs, for power is one of the most addictive of all the commodities.

    We really do need more businesses – including corporations – and less government. We do not need to eliminate government; it has its role. But it has now gone well beyond that role, and it is time for government to step back somewhat.

    Do not vote Democrat.

  • USMCSniper

    Comrades of the world socialist "C" party rally and demonstrate for the greater glory of chairman Obama and one world government – and the destruction of the United States.

  • Rakowski

    I do hear complaints on the right (not just the left) that the government is too influenced by corporations. The left is hypocritical, they take huge donations from Wall Street etc.
    Anyway corporations were so powerful, then we wouldn't have one of the highest corporate taxes in the world.
    Or take lawsuits. Overall, asbestos litigation has already forced at least 70 companies into bankruptcy–causing the loss of as many as 60,000 jobs.
    And some of these companies had only used asbestos in the distance past. And The asbestos lawsuits threaten companies that had only indirect relationship to that chemical.
    Another thing some on the right is upset about is outsourcing and free-trade agreements. But free-trade is just the absence of tariffs. Tariffs mean big government. They mean government taxing products – those products made elsewhere. They mean government reducing your choice of what to buy. They mean government creating an enforcement arm to prevent smuggling and impose the tax (tariff). Conservatives should not be for tariffs. And outsourcing would be less of a problem if it were cheaper to do business here. My brother had a product he invented, and he wanted to manufacture it here, but he did the calculation, and for it to be competitive with existing products, he had to manufacture it in China. We could force the Chinese not to sell their products here, and we could force American companies not to have part of their operations in China, but again – to do that we need big government, and we reduce the choices of the consumer, and we reduce our own competitiveness.
    By the way, I can't stand China – its still a totalitarian state with forced labor camps and aggressive intentions.

  • Bill

    Downie, you are so silly. You think you are clever but you are just as silly as the ancient greek sophists who tried to prove that no one could know anything by posing self-contradictory questions. Get a clue! A first year student in logic could rip your argument to pieces. You have not defined your terms and practiced a reductionism which is unwarranted and does not take into account all the facts. You fail the test of Ockham's Razor, as well as several others. People being chosen by government does not necessarily equal government ruling in the best interest of the people.

    • Nick Shaw

      Bill, have you considered he may just be a first year logic student and, like a lot of smarmy liberal taught freshmen, he already knows more than anyone? You know, like Algore telling grade school students they know more than their parents? Just sayin'.