Liberals Reason Like Children Now And Natural Born Losers

 "We're all in this together!" remember that one? Remember the next time you have to make rent or payroll and see if that works.

And "you didn't build that." Yes, even in context it was a pointless thing to say.

"Pay your fair share?" Well, 50% of Americans and Quebecers anyway.

Then there was the projections. "Who needs $1 million?" and "who needs a big house?" and in the gun-control debate "an ak-47" or "assault rifle" or in some cases "a gun?" Who needs anything when everyone looks at each other from different perspective and prisms? Right?

I like espresso but who needs that, right?

I don't "need" a big house but I do strive for one. Therein lies, in part, a major component of human activity the left and their defunct pundits don't seem to want to grasp, when you restrict to remove incentives. People do have ambition and ambition is not necessarily tied to greed. People have pride but it need not be a deadly sin. People want to strive for more in a healthy competitive environment.

Take Quebec for example. It recently increased the dividend tax to (around) 39% up from (about) 36%. Dividends used to be taxed favorably. It used to be that you could invest in a dividend paying stock and actually create wealth that way (when taxes were reasonable). It wasn't just"rich" people getting rich. Even middle-class folk and modest income earners who were bright enough to invest were benefiting.

In the eyes of the PQ, $100 000 a year constitutes being "rich." In fact, no one can even define rich properly or with any coherency. It's so vague it can be applied broadly. The PQ can't defend its economic policies (it's squirrel's mush) anymore their degenerate language policies.

Alas, someone has to pay for the $250 billion debt incurred, right? It ain't gonna be Pauline Marois, who hides her second-rate Machiavellian principles and populist-garbo poorly. She has her own sketchy skeleton business deals to face up to. En'quette toi pas, they're gonna "get the English and the rich."

In any event, the tax benefits of dividends was a break of sorts. And why not? People invest with AFTER tax dollars and risk part of what's left to invest. It's the least the government can do - even though it takes its cut for an investors risk and research. The incentive was there to keep wealth moving.

No more. As usual, we opt for the more static route. The belief is small-business owners are "rich" and should pay their "fair share." It's all a crock of shit of course because in the end all you've done is remove the desire to strive for more. By increasing taxes like this you don't really generate anything since the real money moves around.

I know because that's what we're angling to do. Quebec is way out of bounds now.

They're not alone. The same static thinking is happening in the United States. It seems the economic ills have been, not entirely wrongly I might add, laid squarely at the feet of corporate welfare and Wall St.

Entitlement welfare is barely discussed on the left.

And it so it is with rationalizing the Boston bomb attacks.

Hilary Clinton took all those aforementioned quotes above and summarized liberal thinking neatly when defending herself during the Benghazi hearings, "what difference does it make?!"

The return of the 'I didn't do it boy!"

Or as one commentator on MSNBC put in as investigators try to piece together a motive (like, you know, law enforcement is supposed to), "what does it matter?" It matters to him because the findings will likely not support the left-wing view, that's why. And then there's the priceless Chris Matthews who quipped, "domestic terrorists tend to be right-wing."

Even when exposed they have no shame. At this point, it's all shnott-making diarrhea-inducing with guys like that.

The echo chambers of paternalistic projections is the new pink for liberals. They're doomed to irrelevancy; built to fail.

Liberal orthodoxy is being challenged like it's likely never been. And it doesn't like it. It has little or no rebuttals so it settles on charges of "extremism" and "racism" to defend itself.

It's all I can think of when I listen or read what they have to say about the Boston Bomber. Since it wasn't, to their dismay, a white right-wing nut case who committed the crime, they turn to their prized possession of depicting criminals as victims.

More here from The Boston Herald op-eds.
The mother of the loser-boys was arrested for shop lifting $1900 worth of items back in 2012.

What difference does it make, indeed.

****

Best to recall the uncle at this point who called his nephews losers.

Natural born losers turns out.

Reason magazine is pleading Americans don't trade in more of the liberties for security for these two losers.