Image 01 Image 03

If it looks like a duck, if it …

If it looks like a duck, if it …

Self-conscious we much?

From reader and blogger C. Dodd Harris, IV, who spotted this vehicle in Louisville, KY:

Saw this today, seemed like it was up your alley.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.



Needs to finish it, “….just naturally foolish”

I am wondering this morning about what happens with CJ Roberts ruling after Obamacare is repealed?

Can Roberts decision be repealed along with Obamacare? Or has Roberts set some precedents now that will affect us forever even if Obama care is gone? What are they, who will they benefit and how will they work? If the outcome of Roberts decision will be harmful to the constitution or the American people what would be the wording for a law against it, or is it like a watermelon seed now?

    Ragspierre in reply to betty. | July 5, 2012 at 9:08 am

    Yes, the decision on ObamaCare set new precedent, IMNHO. As I understand, very bad precedent, too.

    I was trying to think of a historical analogy yesterday, and may have found one. Many of us learned of the Whiskey Rebellion years ago in school. The Rebellion was during Washington’s time as President, and was over the taxation of whiskey and other distilled spirits. Farmers often distilled their own excess grain into spirits. It stored well, was easier to transport, and made one happier than eating a couple handfuls of rye, for instance.

    Under the Articles of Confederation, the central government had no taxing power, but the Revolution had left a debt, and the taxing power was necessary under the new Constitution to retire that debt and do a good bit else now being allowed a central government.

    When the tax on distilled spirits hit, it was wildly unpopular with many of the people who would have to collect it and pay it…the farmers. They actually got violent about it, and Washington had to forcefully suppress the rebellion. But it was a straight-forward tax, easily understood, to generate revenue to pay debts and for the very limited Federal government to function.

    Now, consider that the young Federal government had decided it was good for you to drink some whiskey every day. You could either join a private whiskey club (Federally sanctioned), or you could just be part of your state’s whiskey pool (sounds fun, huh?). But you MUST drink whiskey every day. And you are taxed, OF COURSE, for your whiskey unless you are paying for it otherwise. And Federal inspectors will oversee your whiskey consumption, among thousands of other things.

    The United States, which was ANOTHER experiment in limited government after the Confederation failed, would have lasted about long enough for the lead to cool in the bullet molds if THAT had been tried.

    And that is KIND of the perversion of the Constitutional taxing power Mr. Roberts and his buds gave us. Except theirs is far worse and more intrusive because it deals with your health, and nannies will find that EVERYTHING touches your health…so can be regulated.

    It is a gross expansion of Federal power in many respects, but it DOES NOT come without some genealogy. Federal taxes have been perverted for decades to social engineering…some of which would seem amenable to most of us, like the home mortgage deduction. So we see that we are reaping the bitter harvest of years of Constitutional neglect. Again. Some more.

      Midwest Rhino in reply to Ragspierre. | July 5, 2012 at 12:41 pm

      interesting …

      Would the analogy be better if they were not forcing the drinking of whiskey, but the purchase of whiskey, so as to keep the non-paying alcoholics drinking (and importantly, the whiskey maker richer)?

      The bigger issue as I see it, is the subversive effort to destroy individual plans, by rules Sebelius has been given draconian powers to continue to write. The money isn’t mostly coming from the penalty/tax , it is coming from the unread laws that are already forcing rates to skyrocket, for those that already have bought insurance responsibly.

      The insurers are made a utility to serve up the mandated “free” drinks for all. I drink one shot of whiskey a day at home, but Sebelius requires me to buy a bottle a day for redistribution to the bar. (I have a high deductible plan, adequate for me, but I’m forced via tax penalty AND skyrocketed rates, to subsidize others. High deductible is not Obama approved) Of course that encourages me to get drunk daily, and soon only bad whiskey is available.

      Mortgage deductions allow me to keep a little more of my own income, “affordable health care” means I have to fund the “free riders”, with no control over their drunken parties.

        Ragspierre in reply to Midwest Rhino. | July 5, 2012 at 1:33 pm

        As with all analogies, this one is limited.

        I think it is apt, still, but enjoy throwing stuff out for testing.

        Social engineering with the tax code was ALWAYS a very, very bad idea, IMNHO. The dollars of a taxpayer should (I’ve said for decades) be considered a sacred trust that one simply does not screw with. It should NEVER be a pry-bar to try to get some kind of behavior or other. Just a means of financing Constitution government.

        That is a decidedly minority opinion, it seems…

        Frank Koza in reply to Midwest Rhino. | July 5, 2012 at 1:35 pm

        The mortgage interest deduction doesn’t actually allow you to keep more of your own money for you must take on a considerable debt load and spend much more of your cash flow on interest payments than you ever recover in taxes to service that debt. You may actually end up paying more in taxes depending on your individual rate because as you help increase the profits of the banking industry, they are then taxed at the corporate 35% rate. Corporations don’t actually pay taxes, they collect them from us by pricing their products in the markets accordingly.

        Better yet, many who partake of this deduction are sympathetic to the one aspect of the OWS movement’s disdain for and lashing out at banks because it helped fuel the bubble and resultant crash putting many of their mortgages “under water”. BoA was one particular target which was demonized for a few years of tax returns where they didn’t pay any corporate taxes, but no one reported how they paid an average of around 32% for the previous ten years filling the government coffers with tens of billions of dollars before the housing crash to show how misguided they were. They are right to be pissed but for all the wrong reasons.

I drive one. Have never been nor never will be a Liberal. It was purely an economic decision on my part to save $$. Got a very good deal on a last of the model year car. It cut my gas bill in half. With a 70 mile round trip commute keeping more money in my wallet. It costs less for me to drive and park than to take the commuter bus.

    LT Xray in reply to kbmccrory. | July 5, 2012 at 8:21 pm

    Same here. I save enough on gas in an average month to pay for the note… sort of a “conservative” approach if you ask me.

    I do like to drive with my windows rolled down, however. Not to feel the breeze, but to see the look of shock as nearby drivers hear Mark Levin saying “Thank me!” on the radio.

I know a bleeding heart 72-year old liberal in Woodstock, NY who lives on a steep mountain road and who drives a Prius that can’t make the ascent to his driveway even in the best of weather conditions. He’s stuck indoors all winter unless and until he employs a veritable army of gas-guzzling snowplow trucks and snowblowers. But like the rest of Blue New York that now wants to criminalize fracking, he thinks he’s “going Green.”

I can relate. I drive a Volvo, wear birkenstocks, am an amateur artist, live part of the year in France and love the “coffee” in Amsterdam. And yet, I am a proud card-carrying member of the VRWC! Go figure!

    Anchovy in reply to Bohemian. | July 5, 2012 at 8:45 pm

    I can identify! I have a Subaru (excellent AWD vehicle) and have recently had to wear Birkenstocks because of foot problems.

    However there is a gas guzzling sand dune eating mud covered Jeep in my garage right along side a BMW Z4 which is my answer to class warfare.

Cheerful in Marin | July 5, 2012 at 2:16 pm

I can relate to this, too – we have a 2005 Prius (proudly dented-now needed for identification in the sea of silver Priuses located here). One of the first in Marin County. We chuckled at the deference we often received in the Whole Foods parking lot back then. My spouse opted for the Prius because he likes stopping for gas less frequently. The unexpected bonus was the carpool sticker made available later that year. We also are old enough to remember the gas station lines in the seventies – so our brains are imprinted with a preference for some degree of gas efficiency.

    Ragspierre in reply to Cheerful in Marin. | July 5, 2012 at 3:01 pm

    A nice, hard-headed Conservative lady of my acquaintance was an early adopter of the Prius. She liked it very much.

    She also owned a 60s era muscle car, a Harley, and a full-sized pick-up.

Yet another example of how reasoning by bigotry (Prius owner == liberal) doesn’t work. Another popular bigotry (Apple owner == liberal) is pretty funny when you consider Rush is one of the biggest Apple-philes in the nation… 😉