It is my humble opinion that Barack Hussein Obama knows that he will not be elected in 2012. That gives him about 12 months to implement his agenda. It is clear this agenda has one major goal: TO TAKE THE UNITED STATE AS WE KNOW IT, TO ITS KNEES (he calls in REFORM). The Obama destruction plan has several components:
1. Economics (Continued deficit spending, increased regulations and industry takeovers, and higher taxes where possible)
2. Executive Orders (Using Obama's agencies to implement policy in lieu of passing legislation)
3. Presidential Side Letters (A way to get around any congressional legislation that doesn't further his agenda)
4. Foreign Policy (Withdrawing as the leader of the free world, playing footsie with all enemy states of the US while dismantling the military with budget cuts and social experiments)
5. Using the Obama Justice Department to harrass Red states while increasing voter fraud everywhere possible
As much as I hate to bog blog readers with numbers it seems democracies don't work so well without informed citizens. To really understand what devious politicians do requires delving into the detail. Politicians on both sides of the isle go to great lengths to hide ugly facts from the American voter. Today's posting exposes the size of our country's true financial challenge. The next posting will tell the truth about Social Security.
Time and again we read that our federal debt has surpassed the Gross Domestic Product. Put simply this means our country could not pay its debts if it confiscated (taxed) all goods and services produced by the country in one full year and applied all of that revenue to the deficit. Put another way if the government spent no more than it received in revenues (you know like a balanced budget), and it put a 10% surtax on all goods and services, it would take about 9 years to pay off our debt at the current growth rate of the country. Scary, right? But this isn't half the sad story. In fact, it is only about 1/3 of the story.
Releasing information on the Friday before a big holiday is a time-tested way to bury bad news. So when the Government Accountability Office’s fiscal 2011 financial statements for the federal government were released on the Friday before Christmas, you knew there must be some big time bad news. Not only has the government created a deficit of over $15 Trillion, it has made promises way beyond that number. Pesky little promises like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and pensions.
In 2011, the cost of these promises grew from $30.9 trillion to $33.8 trillion. To put that in context, consider that the total value of companies traded on U.S. stock markets is $13.1 trillion. Or the value of the equity in all U.S. taxpayers’ homes, according to Freddie Mac, is $6.2 trillion. Said another way, there just ain't enough wealth in America to meet these promises. NOT EVEN IF OBAMA CAN GET THE MILLIONAIRES PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE!!
If the government followed corporate accounting rules (imagine that) , it would add the promises to the cash deficit and the real deficit would be $4.2 Trillion last year. A huge number when you realize that total federal income from taxes and fees is "only" $2.5 Trillion in 2011. In other words our spending and promised spending exceeds our tax revenues by almost a factor of 3.
For we common folks if your family made $50 thousand in 2011, and spent and made promises like the federal government, it would create debt of $84 thousand over and above your income. That's trouble!! AND OBAMA AND THE DEMS SAY THEY JUST HAVEN'T SPENT ENOUGH TO GET US OUT OF THIS ECONOMIC DOWNTURN. LET'S JUST KEEP SPENDING UNTIL THE ECONOMY GETS BETTER, AND THEN WE CAN ADDRESS THE DEBT ISSUES (maybe after the election in 2012?).
The Libs say the greatest threat to our country isn't radical muslims developing nukes nor communists dictators with nukes nor financial bankruptcy driven by an entitlement state but RADICAL TEA PARTIERS. Radical in that they want a smaller federal government that spends less and with less government control over private enterprises so they can commit more resources to building an American economy that can reduce their children's debt (the only way to get out of this mess is less spending, less regulations, and economic growth rates exceeding 4% a year). Nothing threatens the ruling elite's power more than the Tea Party's radical concept that originated with the original radicals that founded this country. Evil and stupid guys like Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and Adams (you know old rich white guys with slaves). These leaders just didn't have the good of the people in their hearts like these nice and brilliant guys FDR, LBJ, Teddy Kennedy, Jimmy Carter, and Obama/Reid/Pelosi.
It is time for Americans to pick sides, NOT COMPROMISE. A compromise between brilliance (Jefferson) and stupidity (Obama) is just plain old fashioned dumb (Reid).
Think about it,
Jim
Monday, January 2, 2012
Monday, December 26, 2011
2012: Blue, Purple, or SOLID RED?
So what are the choices in 2012? There are three: Blue, Purple, or SOLID RED.
Blue would be a return to the first two years of Obama's term. If you loved Obama/Reid/Pelosi dominated government resulting in Obamacare, $1 trillion handouts to voters and capitalistic cronies, deficit spending exceeding $1 trillion each year ($5 trillion in Obama's first 3 years), gays in the military, bans on energy exploration and production unless it went into the pockets of Algore and the green scammers, government takeovers of industries like autos, health care and energy, and taking your hard earned money and "spreading it around". A second term would be a repeat with one huge difference. It would be on STEROIDS. In other words, "you ain't seen nothing yet".
Or if you loved the drama of the so called Payroll Tax Holiday extension, your color of choice would be to repeat the good old Purple government split between the Democrats and Republicans. Nothing big would get done, and most of the time that is a good thing for the government to do nothing. However, these times are different. The greatest nation in history has been dramatically weakened by entitlements, bailouts, and redistribution. A continuation of our Purple government would hasten our slide into bankruptcy (today our debt exceeds our GNP). And without economic power, we have no foreign power or influence. Our "leading from the rear" approach practiced by Hillary and Obama, while giving these two egomaniacs clips for the 6:00 News, renders the US as impotent in real world affairs. Do you really believe there is a single world leader who listens to Barack Hussein Obama today?
This Purple government not only did not cut the federal budget this year they actually increased spending for the coming year by $50-$100 billion. Remember the downgraded credit rating of the US for the first time in history. Remember the creation of the super committee to identify bi-partisan spending cuts to avoid the dreaded "government shutdown". Remember newly elected Republicans pledging to cut the budget by $100 billion when they came to town in the first year. Bottom line, Obama would not make any cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security and the Republicans were unsuccessful in cutting any of the federal agency spending. It was a complete standoff as the Senate completed its third year in a row without passing, or even submitting, a budget in a violation of the US Constitution. So hold on because our economic slide just gains speed with the color Purple.
Our last choice is to go SOLID RED with a Republican in the White House combined with Republican majorities in the House and Senate. The last SOLID RED government left office on January 3rd, 2007 when the Democrats took control of the House and Senate for George Bush's last two years. At the time the DOW Jones closed at 12,621.77. The GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5% vs. last quarters 1.8%. The unemployment rate was 4.6% vs. a fudged current 8.6%.
A SOLID RED government going forward would adapt Tea Party principles of returning the country to fiscal responsibility by not overspending, and not burdening our children and grandchildren with our bills. These principles also include constitutionally limited government which means power resides with the people and not with the government. Governing should be done at the most local level possible where it can be held accountable. The American people make this country great, not our government.
The third, and last, Tea Party principle would return us to free market economics that has for at least two centuries provided generations of Americans more opportunities and higher standards of living than any nation in history. An erosion of our free markets through government intervention is at the heart of America’s current economic decline, stagnating jobs, and spiraling debt and deficits. Failures in government programs (Fannie and Freddie loans to moochers) and government-controlled financial markets (packaging bad loans and reselling them) helped spark the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.
The most reliable polling organization, Rasmussen, explored the type of action that voters were looking for the government to take. Among all voters, 77% want the government to cut deficits, 71% think the government should cut spending, and 59% want the government to cut taxes. This is consistent with long held voter views that cutting spending and taxes is good for the economy, and it is right out of the Tea Party playbook. And of course, the Obama media calls the Tea Party radical, in which case the majority of voters are "radical" as well. It is time for this country to get radical, big time.
Non-Tea Party issues would include energy independence, allowing God back into our public life, supporting the family unit, and returning schools and marketplaces to a merit based system of rewards.
So there are clear choices. Our challenge is to communicate these choices to the American electorate in simple, positive terms while not getting caught up in the weeds (a 2 month payroll tax holiday or a 12 month theft of social security). Communications are critical. The Republican House just forced Obama and the Senate to drop a tax on millionaires while also forcing Obama to move up his decision on the Keystone pipeline. These were big wins, yet America is absolutely convinced House Republicans lost because the Senate got a 2 month extension instead of a 12 month extension. Many are touting this dribble as Obama's biggest win that will insure his re-election. Only in a Liberal controlled media could this happen.
Think about how we do can replace Obamaspeak with the truth, and think SOLID RED, big time! So what are the odds we can go SOLID RED? I believe in the American people so I would give it a 51-49 chance of going RED. And the odds of implementing a country saving agenda which would take great courage and tenacity? Again I am a believer, so I would give it another 51-49 chance.
This is a chance we have to take,
Jim
Blue would be a return to the first two years of Obama's term. If you loved Obama/Reid/Pelosi dominated government resulting in Obamacare, $1 trillion handouts to voters and capitalistic cronies, deficit spending exceeding $1 trillion each year ($5 trillion in Obama's first 3 years), gays in the military, bans on energy exploration and production unless it went into the pockets of Algore and the green scammers, government takeovers of industries like autos, health care and energy, and taking your hard earned money and "spreading it around". A second term would be a repeat with one huge difference. It would be on STEROIDS. In other words, "you ain't seen nothing yet".
Or if you loved the drama of the so called Payroll Tax Holiday extension, your color of choice would be to repeat the good old Purple government split between the Democrats and Republicans. Nothing big would get done, and most of the time that is a good thing for the government to do nothing. However, these times are different. The greatest nation in history has been dramatically weakened by entitlements, bailouts, and redistribution. A continuation of our Purple government would hasten our slide into bankruptcy (today our debt exceeds our GNP). And without economic power, we have no foreign power or influence. Our "leading from the rear" approach practiced by Hillary and Obama, while giving these two egomaniacs clips for the 6:00 News, renders the US as impotent in real world affairs. Do you really believe there is a single world leader who listens to Barack Hussein Obama today?
This Purple government not only did not cut the federal budget this year they actually increased spending for the coming year by $50-$100 billion. Remember the downgraded credit rating of the US for the first time in history. Remember the creation of the super committee to identify bi-partisan spending cuts to avoid the dreaded "government shutdown". Remember newly elected Republicans pledging to cut the budget by $100 billion when they came to town in the first year. Bottom line, Obama would not make any cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security and the Republicans were unsuccessful in cutting any of the federal agency spending. It was a complete standoff as the Senate completed its third year in a row without passing, or even submitting, a budget in a violation of the US Constitution. So hold on because our economic slide just gains speed with the color Purple.
Our last choice is to go SOLID RED with a Republican in the White House combined with Republican majorities in the House and Senate. The last SOLID RED government left office on January 3rd, 2007 when the Democrats took control of the House and Senate for George Bush's last two years. At the time the DOW Jones closed at 12,621.77. The GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5% vs. last quarters 1.8%. The unemployment rate was 4.6% vs. a fudged current 8.6%.
A SOLID RED government going forward would adapt Tea Party principles of returning the country to fiscal responsibility by not overspending, and not burdening our children and grandchildren with our bills. These principles also include constitutionally limited government which means power resides with the people and not with the government. Governing should be done at the most local level possible where it can be held accountable. The American people make this country great, not our government.
The third, and last, Tea Party principle would return us to free market economics that has for at least two centuries provided generations of Americans more opportunities and higher standards of living than any nation in history. An erosion of our free markets through government intervention is at the heart of America’s current economic decline, stagnating jobs, and spiraling debt and deficits. Failures in government programs (Fannie and Freddie loans to moochers) and government-controlled financial markets (packaging bad loans and reselling them) helped spark the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.
The most reliable polling organization, Rasmussen, explored the type of action that voters were looking for the government to take. Among all voters, 77% want the government to cut deficits, 71% think the government should cut spending, and 59% want the government to cut taxes. This is consistent with long held voter views that cutting spending and taxes is good for the economy, and it is right out of the Tea Party playbook. And of course, the Obama media calls the Tea Party radical, in which case the majority of voters are "radical" as well. It is time for this country to get radical, big time.
Non-Tea Party issues would include energy independence, allowing God back into our public life, supporting the family unit, and returning schools and marketplaces to a merit based system of rewards.
So there are clear choices. Our challenge is to communicate these choices to the American electorate in simple, positive terms while not getting caught up in the weeds (a 2 month payroll tax holiday or a 12 month theft of social security). Communications are critical. The Republican House just forced Obama and the Senate to drop a tax on millionaires while also forcing Obama to move up his decision on the Keystone pipeline. These were big wins, yet America is absolutely convinced House Republicans lost because the Senate got a 2 month extension instead of a 12 month extension. Many are touting this dribble as Obama's biggest win that will insure his re-election. Only in a Liberal controlled media could this happen.
Think about how we do can replace Obamaspeak with the truth, and think SOLID RED, big time! So what are the odds we can go SOLID RED? I believe in the American people so I would give it a 51-49 chance of going RED. And the odds of implementing a country saving agenda which would take great courage and tenacity? Again I am a believer, so I would give it another 51-49 chance.
This is a chance we have to take,
Jim
Saturday, December 24, 2011
2012: MOOCHERS VS. PRODUCERS!
The latest statistics revel that 53% of Americans pay all federal income taxes. Not only is this a small majority it is an alarming wake up call.
There is a clear choice in the next election no matter who the Republican candidate. The choice is between an entitlement society or a merit based society. The entitlement worshipers believe in a Keynesian approach to economics and a concept called "social justice".
First let us look at the economics. Obama and other liberals believe that if the government gives people money (let's say a $600 'tax credit') the recipients will stimulate the economy by spending that money resulting in more production, more jobs, and therefore, more employment. They believe the government produces economic growth through stimulating the economy.
The truth is the government produces nothing. It just redistributes. The $600 the government in the above example gave away came from producers. The government took the $600 out of the economy and redistributed it to someone who, in effect, is mooching off the producers. Again, redistribution takes from producers and gives to moochers. It is a zero sum game. And that is not he worst part of government stimulus.
Look at the incentives created by redistribution. The moocher is incented to not produce and to rely on the government for more handouts (the moocher is entitled to compensation rather working or not, health care, food, housing, education, childcare, etc.). Businesses are even created to sponge off the moochers who are sponging off the producers. Producers are incented to produce less (there are not rewarded for MERIT) since the government takes their production and gives it away to moochers. Bottom line, both moocher and producer are incented to work less (THE MERIT BASED SOCIETY IS DEAD). This is why socialism fails time and time again even though it appears so appealing to moochers, and of course, to those who want power to rule over moochers (unions, welfare pimps, many lawyers, big government capitalistic cronies like GE/green energy gurus/Warren Buffett, and socialist politicians).
Let's break this down into a simpler example. What if there were two farmers, and only two, in an economic market? What if farmer A decided to retire and draw unemployment while farmer B continued to work? Where would the unemployment come from? (I hope this isn't getting too complex!) It comes from farmer B, right? And how about incentives? Farmer A has successfully, at least for a little while, become a MOOCHER. Farmer B, meanwhile, has lost all incentive to work hard as a PRODUCER since his extra effort has no MERIT BASED REWARD and is redistributed to farmer A. Doesn't work, right? This economic market will not continue to grow and prosper. And if it doesn't work on a small scale like this example just guess how much it doesn't work in a complex $3.5 Trillion economy like the US (3Q US GDP growth was pathetic at 1.8%). Or how about worldwide? Just look at Europe. The MOOCHERS are rioting in the streets because their ENTITLEMENTS are threatened. Meanwhile, the entitlement pimps claim a merit based approach is just plain greed.
Now let's look at this thing called "social justice" since it is used as justification for most entitlements. Just plain old "justice" means to be fair in making judgments based on facts and the truth. Justice favors no one and treats everyone equal. To put any descriptor on the front of justice is to attempt to sell "injustice". It is simply used to favor someone or some group. "Social Justice" in most cases is an attempt to redistribute or take from one group and give to a "favored" group. This is theft whether it is done by a blindfolded scoundrel in an alley or by Washington politicians doing the biding of a majority of voting moochers.
Liberals use the "Social Justice" theme to favor their voters. These voters may be black, Hispanic (anything but white even though the hypocritical Liberal elite is mostly white), gay, lesbian, transgender, female (anything but male even though most of the hypocritical Liberal elite leaders are white), unemployed, illegal, members of labor unions (anyone but the producers), etc., etc. The size and number of groups varies based on the number of votes required by the pimping politicians. Liberals invented "social justice" when the term welfare became unpopular (remember Bill Clinton double crossed them). Social justice arguments are aimed at those 47% that don't pay taxes, and the Liberal elite who live off them.
So who could be against "social justice"? The answer is simple. Anyone who believes in "justice". These would be most of the 53% that are producing and paying taxes.
While we all agree there are real situations where true welfare assistance is needed in our society. This assistance is provided generously by Americans. It is clearly best handled at local levels whether by churches, local care organizations, or local government. Big government entitlement pimps are doing everything possible to drive local organizations out of the practice of assisting those in need. This is criminal, and what is really sad, it hurts those in need the most. No one has suffered more by the entitlement society than minorities and the poor.
Think MERIT BASED IN 2012,
Jim
There is a clear choice in the next election no matter who the Republican candidate. The choice is between an entitlement society or a merit based society. The entitlement worshipers believe in a Keynesian approach to economics and a concept called "social justice".
First let us look at the economics. Obama and other liberals believe that if the government gives people money (let's say a $600 'tax credit') the recipients will stimulate the economy by spending that money resulting in more production, more jobs, and therefore, more employment. They believe the government produces economic growth through stimulating the economy.
The truth is the government produces nothing. It just redistributes. The $600 the government in the above example gave away came from producers. The government took the $600 out of the economy and redistributed it to someone who, in effect, is mooching off the producers. Again, redistribution takes from producers and gives to moochers. It is a zero sum game. And that is not he worst part of government stimulus.
Look at the incentives created by redistribution. The moocher is incented to not produce and to rely on the government for more handouts (the moocher is entitled to compensation rather working or not, health care, food, housing, education, childcare, etc.). Businesses are even created to sponge off the moochers who are sponging off the producers. Producers are incented to produce less (there are not rewarded for MERIT) since the government takes their production and gives it away to moochers. Bottom line, both moocher and producer are incented to work less (THE MERIT BASED SOCIETY IS DEAD). This is why socialism fails time and time again even though it appears so appealing to moochers, and of course, to those who want power to rule over moochers (unions, welfare pimps, many lawyers, big government capitalistic cronies like GE/green energy gurus/Warren Buffett, and socialist politicians).
Let's break this down into a simpler example. What if there were two farmers, and only two, in an economic market? What if farmer A decided to retire and draw unemployment while farmer B continued to work? Where would the unemployment come from? (I hope this isn't getting too complex!) It comes from farmer B, right? And how about incentives? Farmer A has successfully, at least for a little while, become a MOOCHER. Farmer B, meanwhile, has lost all incentive to work hard as a PRODUCER since his extra effort has no MERIT BASED REWARD and is redistributed to farmer A. Doesn't work, right? This economic market will not continue to grow and prosper. And if it doesn't work on a small scale like this example just guess how much it doesn't work in a complex $3.5 Trillion economy like the US (3Q US GDP growth was pathetic at 1.8%). Or how about worldwide? Just look at Europe. The MOOCHERS are rioting in the streets because their ENTITLEMENTS are threatened. Meanwhile, the entitlement pimps claim a merit based approach is just plain greed.
Now let's look at this thing called "social justice" since it is used as justification for most entitlements. Just plain old "justice" means to be fair in making judgments based on facts and the truth. Justice favors no one and treats everyone equal. To put any descriptor on the front of justice is to attempt to sell "injustice". It is simply used to favor someone or some group. "Social Justice" in most cases is an attempt to redistribute or take from one group and give to a "favored" group. This is theft whether it is done by a blindfolded scoundrel in an alley or by Washington politicians doing the biding of a majority of voting moochers.
Liberals use the "Social Justice" theme to favor their voters. These voters may be black, Hispanic (anything but white even though the hypocritical Liberal elite is mostly white), gay, lesbian, transgender, female (anything but male even though most of the hypocritical Liberal elite leaders are white), unemployed, illegal, members of labor unions (anyone but the producers), etc., etc. The size and number of groups varies based on the number of votes required by the pimping politicians. Liberals invented "social justice" when the term welfare became unpopular (remember Bill Clinton double crossed them). Social justice arguments are aimed at those 47% that don't pay taxes, and the Liberal elite who live off them.
So who could be against "social justice"? The answer is simple. Anyone who believes in "justice". These would be most of the 53% that are producing and paying taxes.
While we all agree there are real situations where true welfare assistance is needed in our society. This assistance is provided generously by Americans. It is clearly best handled at local levels whether by churches, local care organizations, or local government. Big government entitlement pimps are doing everything possible to drive local organizations out of the practice of assisting those in need. This is criminal, and what is really sad, it hurts those in need the most. No one has suffered more by the entitlement society than minorities and the poor.
Think MERIT BASED IN 2012,
Jim
Friday, December 23, 2011
What A Shameful Week In American Politics
This past week the American federal debt rose to $15.2 trillion, a big milestone. Why? Because our Gross Domestic Product (all the goods and services this country produces) is $15.1 Trillion. Yep, our debt is over 100% of our GDP. That is only supposed to happen in places like Italy and Greece. Maybe France.
But not worry, Americans. Obama has saved our economy by extending the "Payroll Tax Holiday". Obviously that is the case are the media would not have given this legislation such attention. If fact all the smart folks say that Obama was so brilliant in how he handled this major crisis that it just might insure his re-election. Must be a really big deal, huh?
Let's take a look. The law extends the payroll tax cut, set to expire on Dec. 31, through Feb. 29. That means workers will only pay 4.2% on the first $110,100 of their wages into Social Security. That is 2 percentage points below the normal 6.2% rate.
If the payroll tax cut is extended for all of 2012 -- which both parties say they want and will work to do when they return from their Christmas recess -- workers would reduce what they pay into their retirement funds from several hundred dollars if they're low-income to more than $2,000 if they earn six figures.
Estimated cost of a two-month extension: $21 billion. If extended for one year: $126 billion will not be available for social security funding. Ain't that great!
The proposed extension of the payroll tax holiday is touted by the idiot in the White House to prevent a hit to our anemic economic recovery. The White House and members of Congress have sold the end of the holiday as a tax increase on the middle class. In fact, this Social Security payroll tax is actually an investment into one’s retirement account. Promoting continued reduced payment into Social Security is the same as telling folks to borrow from their retirement and spend the money now. Obama used the story of a woman who said if she did not get the $20 per week "tax cut" she would not be able to have pizza with her daughters each week. She is happy to trade off her retirement for pizza?
Shame on any citizen who buys into the idiot pitch that the opponents of extending this underfunding of future security just want to increase tax rates for the middle class. Greater shame on those immoral politicians who make that claim. Similarly, replacing the billions of dollars (approximately $126 billion/year) that don’t come to Social Security from workers paychecks by funds the government has to borrow to cover its huge deficit is bad policy. Surely there are better initiatives to support economic growth (how about permanent tax cuts paid for by reduced government spending?). Bottom line the politicians continue to rob our social security system to buy votes.
The passed legislation also extended jobless benefits: Emergency federal unemployment benefits, also scheduled to expire on Dec. 31, will be extended through February. Without that extension, an estimated 1.8 million jobless workers in January would have run out of benefits, which average $296 a week. Obama claims this extension some how creates jobs by giving the unemployed money to spend.
With the dramatic decrease in unemployment from 9% to 8.6% you would think we will not need this provision. Oh, I forgot. The reduction in unemployment numbers were because of the way we count. Over 300,000 people left the workforce last month and only 120,000 people took new jobs. Since we don't count those that left the workforce our employment percentage goes up and unemployment percentage goes down. Got that? Obama doesn't get into weeds like this.
Estimated cost: $8.4 billion.
Next comes the extension of the "Doc fix": The new law prevents a scheduled 27% cut in payments to Medicare physicians for the first two months of next year. The American Medical Association has noted that even with the regular intervention by Congress, Medicare payments lag 20% behind the cost of caring for seniors.
Many in Congress would like to pass a permanent doc fix, but the biggest stumbling block to doing so is figuring how to pay for the estimated $300 billion cost over the first decade. So the politicians just sneak it by the public one little piece at a time. This is a perfect example of what happens when the government takes over an industry. Medicare and medicaid are a mess, and Obamacare is even worse. The continuation of these programs as they are will doom this nation to bankruptcy, and soon.
Estimated cost: $3.6 billion.
The last item in the legislation is a congressional push to force the President to expedite his decision on whether to allow construction of the 1,700-mile Keystone oil pipeline. The Obama administration has said that if forced to make a decision before the election Obama will decide against the pipeline. Why doesn't Obama want to make a decision now? If he approves the pipeline HE LOSES HIS CONTRIBUTIONS FROM ENVIRONMENTALISTS. If he disapproves the pipeline HE LOSES HIS CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE AFL/CIO LABOR UNIONS. Surprise, surprise it is about idiot in chief's re-election.
And of course the pols argued and argued about HOW TO PAY FOR THESE EXTENSIONS. What did they settle on? The law calls on mortgage financing giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to charge lenders more to guarantee repayment of new loans. Fannie and Freddie play a central role in destroying the housing market by purchasing mortgages from banks and bundling them into mortgage-backed securities (and getting taxpayer bailouts when their corrupted strategies don't work). New housing starts in the US are at an all time (since they started keeping records in 1963) record low in 2011 at about 325,000. To economically recover we need them to be over 700,000. So let's raise the cost of buying a new home so a lady can take her daughters out to have pizza. Makes complete sense doesn't it.
Estimated to raise: $36 billion over 10 years. Note how we always spend the money now and pay for it over 10 to 20 years.
What didn't make the cut? Not every expiring tax provision is accounted for in the new law. Left out was any action on a host of other "temporary" tax breaks that expire this year. These include the research and development credit for businesses and a state and local sales tax deduction for individuals.
Also left out was the usual fix to protect the middle class from getting hit by the Alternative Minimum Tax when they file their taxes for 2012. I don't know about you but every year I am unable to write off my mortgage interest and some other deductions because the AMT kicks in. Enough said about the big tax loopholes for the rich.
And then to top things off. Obama's media is quoting "unnamed sources" who are wanting to fire John Boehner, Republican Speaker of the House. I have a better suggestion. DITCH MITCH! Fire Mitch McConnell, the Republican Senate Minority Leader, who sided with Obama, Reid, and Pelosi against the House Republicans in supporting this insanity.
Bottom line: What a shameful week.
Think about it,
Jim
But not worry, Americans. Obama has saved our economy by extending the "Payroll Tax Holiday". Obviously that is the case are the media would not have given this legislation such attention. If fact all the smart folks say that Obama was so brilliant in how he handled this major crisis that it just might insure his re-election. Must be a really big deal, huh?
Let's take a look. The law extends the payroll tax cut, set to expire on Dec. 31, through Feb. 29. That means workers will only pay 4.2% on the first $110,100 of their wages into Social Security. That is 2 percentage points below the normal 6.2% rate.
If the payroll tax cut is extended for all of 2012 -- which both parties say they want and will work to do when they return from their Christmas recess -- workers would reduce what they pay into their retirement funds from several hundred dollars if they're low-income to more than $2,000 if they earn six figures.
Estimated cost of a two-month extension: $21 billion. If extended for one year: $126 billion will not be available for social security funding. Ain't that great!
The proposed extension of the payroll tax holiday is touted by the idiot in the White House to prevent a hit to our anemic economic recovery. The White House and members of Congress have sold the end of the holiday as a tax increase on the middle class. In fact, this Social Security payroll tax is actually an investment into one’s retirement account. Promoting continued reduced payment into Social Security is the same as telling folks to borrow from their retirement and spend the money now. Obama used the story of a woman who said if she did not get the $20 per week "tax cut" she would not be able to have pizza with her daughters each week. She is happy to trade off her retirement for pizza?
Shame on any citizen who buys into the idiot pitch that the opponents of extending this underfunding of future security just want to increase tax rates for the middle class. Greater shame on those immoral politicians who make that claim. Similarly, replacing the billions of dollars (approximately $126 billion/year) that don’t come to Social Security from workers paychecks by funds the government has to borrow to cover its huge deficit is bad policy. Surely there are better initiatives to support economic growth (how about permanent tax cuts paid for by reduced government spending?). Bottom line the politicians continue to rob our social security system to buy votes.
The passed legislation also extended jobless benefits: Emergency federal unemployment benefits, also scheduled to expire on Dec. 31, will be extended through February. Without that extension, an estimated 1.8 million jobless workers in January would have run out of benefits, which average $296 a week. Obama claims this extension some how creates jobs by giving the unemployed money to spend.
With the dramatic decrease in unemployment from 9% to 8.6% you would think we will not need this provision. Oh, I forgot. The reduction in unemployment numbers were because of the way we count. Over 300,000 people left the workforce last month and only 120,000 people took new jobs. Since we don't count those that left the workforce our employment percentage goes up and unemployment percentage goes down. Got that? Obama doesn't get into weeds like this.
Estimated cost: $8.4 billion.
Next comes the extension of the "Doc fix": The new law prevents a scheduled 27% cut in payments to Medicare physicians for the first two months of next year. The American Medical Association has noted that even with the regular intervention by Congress, Medicare payments lag 20% behind the cost of caring for seniors.
Many in Congress would like to pass a permanent doc fix, but the biggest stumbling block to doing so is figuring how to pay for the estimated $300 billion cost over the first decade. So the politicians just sneak it by the public one little piece at a time. This is a perfect example of what happens when the government takes over an industry. Medicare and medicaid are a mess, and Obamacare is even worse. The continuation of these programs as they are will doom this nation to bankruptcy, and soon.
Estimated cost: $3.6 billion.
The last item in the legislation is a congressional push to force the President to expedite his decision on whether to allow construction of the 1,700-mile Keystone oil pipeline. The Obama administration has said that if forced to make a decision before the election Obama will decide against the pipeline. Why doesn't Obama want to make a decision now? If he approves the pipeline HE LOSES HIS CONTRIBUTIONS FROM ENVIRONMENTALISTS. If he disapproves the pipeline HE LOSES HIS CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE AFL/CIO LABOR UNIONS. Surprise, surprise it is about idiot in chief's re-election.
And of course the pols argued and argued about HOW TO PAY FOR THESE EXTENSIONS. What did they settle on? The law calls on mortgage financing giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to charge lenders more to guarantee repayment of new loans. Fannie and Freddie play a central role in destroying the housing market by purchasing mortgages from banks and bundling them into mortgage-backed securities (and getting taxpayer bailouts when their corrupted strategies don't work). New housing starts in the US are at an all time (since they started keeping records in 1963) record low in 2011 at about 325,000. To economically recover we need them to be over 700,000. So let's raise the cost of buying a new home so a lady can take her daughters out to have pizza. Makes complete sense doesn't it.
Estimated to raise: $36 billion over 10 years. Note how we always spend the money now and pay for it over 10 to 20 years.
What didn't make the cut? Not every expiring tax provision is accounted for in the new law. Left out was any action on a host of other "temporary" tax breaks that expire this year. These include the research and development credit for businesses and a state and local sales tax deduction for individuals.
Also left out was the usual fix to protect the middle class from getting hit by the Alternative Minimum Tax when they file their taxes for 2012. I don't know about you but every year I am unable to write off my mortgage interest and some other deductions because the AMT kicks in. Enough said about the big tax loopholes for the rich.
And then to top things off. Obama's media is quoting "unnamed sources" who are wanting to fire John Boehner, Republican Speaker of the House. I have a better suggestion. DITCH MITCH! Fire Mitch McConnell, the Republican Senate Minority Leader, who sided with Obama, Reid, and Pelosi against the House Republicans in supporting this insanity.
Bottom line: What a shameful week.
Think about it,
Jim
Thursday, December 22, 2011
The Idiot In The White House
I just watched an idiot on television. He was speaking to the American Public from the White House. He said that most Democrats and Republicans in the Senate passed a bill to stop a tax increase on 160 million Americans that he would sign. He said it is being held up by a faction of Republicans in the House. The idiot in chief said the average American would have their taxes raised by $1,000 on an annual basis. The idiot then said that would result in taking $40 per week from their paychecks. Any school child would tell you that $40 per week is over $2,000 per year. This guy doesn't even have his math right, much less the facts.
This President did not mention the difference between the House and the Senate is the House wants to pass the Payroll Tax Holiday for ONE YEAR VERSUS THE SENATE VERSION OF TWO MONTHS. The President shamelessly claims he and the Senate want to extend the tax holiday and the House does not. This is completely untrue.
What is the truth?
The first truth is the "Payroll Tax Holiday" is an Obama scheme to get votes by weakening our Social Security System which is going bankrupt. This ploy weakens Social Security, increases our national debt, and creates a tax cut that has to be taken away at some future date. Additionally, this creates no new jobs whatsoever. No employer is going to add employees because the employee gets an $80 per month tax holiday. Also, hidden in the rhetoric is an extension of unemployment required because of the Obama economy. Also, hidden is the "Doctor's Fix" which must be passed periodically because Medicare and Obamacare are so screwed up. Overall these provisions increase our national deficit by ONE QUARTER OF A TRILLION DOLLARS.
The second truth is if the President and Congress want to cut taxpayers taxes they should do it permanently, and they should offset that tax cut by cutting government spending as not to increase the deficit. Social Security deductions should not be the means for a tax cut. A twelve month extension means we have to face the music by reinstating the Payroll Taxes at the same time the Bush tax cuts expire. Both of course, come due after the 2012 election.
The third truth is the reason this issue is getting so much press time is the Congress once again has put off doing its business until the 11th hour. The Democratic controlled Senate has not passed a budget now for 3 years, and obviously will not pass a budget until after the 2012 election. In fact a Democratic controlled government may never pass another budget. This same Senate put off extending the Payroll Tax Holiday until the last day they were in Washington before they left for a 30 Holiday vacation. Meanwhile the Payroll Tax terminates January 1. The bill they passed for a meager 60 day extension does not give employers time to change their payroll systems before January 1, and then requires them to change again possibly after 60 days. If the Senate had passed their bill earlier they would have plenty of time to engage the House in negotiations to get a quality piece of legislation instead of the 60 day hodgepodge they approved.
The fourth truth is the only bigger idiot than Obama and Reid is a Republican. Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell led his Republican Senators into a massive political trap for Republicans by voting for the 60 day mess, and then leaving Washington while timidly suggesting the House Republicans should drop their principles and go along as he and his colleagues did.
The fifth truth is the American electorate can be tricked by political maneuvers as practiced by Obama, Reid, and Pelosi and supported by the main stream media. They pull political stunts like the Payroll Tax Holiday (robbing social security funding) while claiming they are only putting $40 per week (bad math) in needy American pockets only to be challenged by a fragment of radical Republicans in the House who are only interested in politics. Bottom line: The electorate has been convinced the Republican led Tea Party Radicals are only interested in political games while Obama and his democrats are only interested in cutting taxes for middle class Americans. In other words BLACK IS WHITE, AND WHITE IS BLACK. UP IS DOWN, AND DOWN IS UP.
Interestly the press doesn't talk about "truth" anymore. They talk about sophisticated things like "optics". I call these "deceptions".
Don’t think about this too much because it will drive you crazy,
Jim
This President did not mention the difference between the House and the Senate is the House wants to pass the Payroll Tax Holiday for ONE YEAR VERSUS THE SENATE VERSION OF TWO MONTHS. The President shamelessly claims he and the Senate want to extend the tax holiday and the House does not. This is completely untrue.
What is the truth?
The first truth is the "Payroll Tax Holiday" is an Obama scheme to get votes by weakening our Social Security System which is going bankrupt. This ploy weakens Social Security, increases our national debt, and creates a tax cut that has to be taken away at some future date. Additionally, this creates no new jobs whatsoever. No employer is going to add employees because the employee gets an $80 per month tax holiday. Also, hidden in the rhetoric is an extension of unemployment required because of the Obama economy. Also, hidden is the "Doctor's Fix" which must be passed periodically because Medicare and Obamacare are so screwed up. Overall these provisions increase our national deficit by ONE QUARTER OF A TRILLION DOLLARS.
The second truth is if the President and Congress want to cut taxpayers taxes they should do it permanently, and they should offset that tax cut by cutting government spending as not to increase the deficit. Social Security deductions should not be the means for a tax cut. A twelve month extension means we have to face the music by reinstating the Payroll Taxes at the same time the Bush tax cuts expire. Both of course, come due after the 2012 election.
The third truth is the reason this issue is getting so much press time is the Congress once again has put off doing its business until the 11th hour. The Democratic controlled Senate has not passed a budget now for 3 years, and obviously will not pass a budget until after the 2012 election. In fact a Democratic controlled government may never pass another budget. This same Senate put off extending the Payroll Tax Holiday until the last day they were in Washington before they left for a 30 Holiday vacation. Meanwhile the Payroll Tax terminates January 1. The bill they passed for a meager 60 day extension does not give employers time to change their payroll systems before January 1, and then requires them to change again possibly after 60 days. If the Senate had passed their bill earlier they would have plenty of time to engage the House in negotiations to get a quality piece of legislation instead of the 60 day hodgepodge they approved.
The fourth truth is the only bigger idiot than Obama and Reid is a Republican. Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell led his Republican Senators into a massive political trap for Republicans by voting for the 60 day mess, and then leaving Washington while timidly suggesting the House Republicans should drop their principles and go along as he and his colleagues did.
The fifth truth is the American electorate can be tricked by political maneuvers as practiced by Obama, Reid, and Pelosi and supported by the main stream media. They pull political stunts like the Payroll Tax Holiday (robbing social security funding) while claiming they are only putting $40 per week (bad math) in needy American pockets only to be challenged by a fragment of radical Republicans in the House who are only interested in politics. Bottom line: The electorate has been convinced the Republican led Tea Party Radicals are only interested in political games while Obama and his democrats are only interested in cutting taxes for middle class Americans. In other words BLACK IS WHITE, AND WHITE IS BLACK. UP IS DOWN, AND DOWN IS UP.
Interestly the press doesn't talk about "truth" anymore. They talk about sophisticated things like "optics". I call these "deceptions".
Don’t think about this too much because it will drive you crazy,
Jim
Friday, December 16, 2011
Mitt Romney Is THE MAN!
Last night's debate did it for me.
I thought Michelle Bachman was great. She is conservative, consistent, courageous,and courteous. Over the next four years she will provide excellent leadership to the Republican Party.
Newt was Newt. His description of Obama's failure to allow the pipeline from Canada was fantastic. His scorning of the whacko liberal judges was over the top but stimulating and refreshing. His defense of Fannie and Freddie was horrible. His defense of his $1.6m "consulting fees" was even worse.
Ron Paul was inspiring with his Libertarian domestic views and totally frightening with his view of the world and his isolationism.
And then there was Mitt. No screw ups. Great answers. Terrific temperance. And then he closed me with his philosophy of leadership.
Mitt said under Obama's leadership we were a declining nation and under his Presidency we would regain our position of leadership.
Post debate with Hannity, Mitt gave his formula for making the next century, America's Century. It follows:
"We need to make this century the American Century. It will require leadership in two critical areas to make that happen. The first input pertains to our nation's values and principles. Our values must be based on freedom and opportunity. Our society must return to a 'merit based' society, and it must be built around strong family units."
"The second requirement for American leadership is to restore an American economy that leads the world. The essentials include restoring a climate of innovation, entrepreneurship, and providing a business friendly environment."
Contrast this to Obama's recent tirades of condemning his Republican opposition for wanting to "go back" to those practices that got us in trouble (Obama hates the pre-Obama America). Obama's vision is clear. More government (taxpayer) spending on teacher's unions, more government (taxpayer) spending with construction unions, more government (taxpayer) spending with green energy cronies (Solyndra), higher taxes on job producers (the spending has to come from somewhere), and more government regulations and control (picking winners). These are the "new" reforms espoused by Obama that have worked so well over the last 3 years. In his view we just have not done enough spending, taxing, and regulating to assist his cronies and contributors (the governing class which is the real 1%).
Contrast that to "going back" to Romney's proven American values (freedom, opportunity, merit based outcomes, and striong families) and American economic leadership (business led innovation and entrepreneurship) with a government that gets out of the way of producers and encourages moochers to participate in the American dream. Just how difficult is this choice?
Mitt Romney was an effective counter balance to the Democratic controlled Massachusetts' legislature when he served as Governor. He was an effective CEO at Bain and Company and then at Bain Capital. He volunteered to rescue the 2002 US Winter Olympic organization and did a great job there. Given a Republican House and Senate I am convinced Romney can be trusted to return this country to it's rightful place of world leadership. I am also confidant he is the man to expose Barack Hussein Obama, and his Chicago style of corrupt politics, as the phony incompetent that he is.
Think about it,
Jim
I thought Michelle Bachman was great. She is conservative, consistent, courageous,and courteous. Over the next four years she will provide excellent leadership to the Republican Party.
Newt was Newt. His description of Obama's failure to allow the pipeline from Canada was fantastic. His scorning of the whacko liberal judges was over the top but stimulating and refreshing. His defense of Fannie and Freddie was horrible. His defense of his $1.6m "consulting fees" was even worse.
Ron Paul was inspiring with his Libertarian domestic views and totally frightening with his view of the world and his isolationism.
And then there was Mitt. No screw ups. Great answers. Terrific temperance. And then he closed me with his philosophy of leadership.
Mitt said under Obama's leadership we were a declining nation and under his Presidency we would regain our position of leadership.
Post debate with Hannity, Mitt gave his formula for making the next century, America's Century. It follows:
"We need to make this century the American Century. It will require leadership in two critical areas to make that happen. The first input pertains to our nation's values and principles. Our values must be based on freedom and opportunity. Our society must return to a 'merit based' society, and it must be built around strong family units."
"The second requirement for American leadership is to restore an American economy that leads the world. The essentials include restoring a climate of innovation, entrepreneurship, and providing a business friendly environment."
Contrast this to Obama's recent tirades of condemning his Republican opposition for wanting to "go back" to those practices that got us in trouble (Obama hates the pre-Obama America). Obama's vision is clear. More government (taxpayer) spending on teacher's unions, more government (taxpayer) spending with construction unions, more government (taxpayer) spending with green energy cronies (Solyndra), higher taxes on job producers (the spending has to come from somewhere), and more government regulations and control (picking winners). These are the "new" reforms espoused by Obama that have worked so well over the last 3 years. In his view we just have not done enough spending, taxing, and regulating to assist his cronies and contributors (the governing class which is the real 1%).
Contrast that to "going back" to Romney's proven American values (freedom, opportunity, merit based outcomes, and striong families) and American economic leadership (business led innovation and entrepreneurship) with a government that gets out of the way of producers and encourages moochers to participate in the American dream. Just how difficult is this choice?
Mitt Romney was an effective counter balance to the Democratic controlled Massachusetts' legislature when he served as Governor. He was an effective CEO at Bain and Company and then at Bain Capital. He volunteered to rescue the 2002 US Winter Olympic organization and did a great job there. Given a Republican House and Senate I am convinced Romney can be trusted to return this country to it's rightful place of world leadership. I am also confidant he is the man to expose Barack Hussein Obama, and his Chicago style of corrupt politics, as the phony incompetent that he is.
Think about it,
Jim
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Obama Calls For The Producers to Be Fair to the Moochers
"In Obama's speech yesterday he used the word 'fairness' about ten jillion times. Obama's idea of fairness is, I won, you lost, so I can take anything I want from you and give it to my people. Hell he took the largest automobile company in these United States from the share holders and gave it to the United Auto Workers while keeping some for his fat federal government. And what is sad, the American people didn't make a squeak about it. The Post Office is going to look well run compared to GM when the Obamas get through with it."
Using this attention grabber it is reported Butch Jackson launched into a tirade right there at coffee in the Hubbard City Cafe, "The Obama regime is running a major intelligence test on the American people here 11 months before the 2012 election. If the electorate fails this test, the socialists think they have clear sailing to four more years in the White House."
"The test goes like this. If Congress doesn't take action millions of the American middle class will suffer from a $1,500 tax increase on their payroll taxes. Obama asked why would the tax cutting Republicans block action to stop this tax increase. Of course he has the answer handy, because they want to protect millionaires and billionaires from paying their fair share of taxes by paying a small surtax on their income. If Obama can sell this garbage to the American voter, then he has clear sailing for 4 more years because he can play this rich against the middle class game over and over between now and next November."
Billy Roy tugged hard at the front brim of his hat while putting on his grimmest of many grim looks, "Butch, you may be on to something. I was looking at notes from Obama's Kansas speech yesterday where he was doing what these weird people call channeling, in this case Teddy Roosevelt. If you leap over all of his bullshit, which is a helluva big jump, I must say, Obama summarized his idiot pitch with three things: He said, 'Investing in things like education that give everybody a chance to succeed. A tax code that makes sure everybody pays their fair share. And laws that make sure everybody follows the rules. That’s what will transform our economy'. Let's break these words down. We he says 'transform' he is talking about making a too big federal government into an even larger European style socialist welfare state. He believes the Europeans current economic crisis is just that big governments and collectivism just haven't grown enough yet."
"Good exercise, BM. We all know an Obama 'investment' is SPENDING. The Socialists Libs think the only thing wrong with the almost $1 Trillion Stimulus Package was that it wasn't big enough. Obama in his summary picks out education for more investing to the delight of the teachers union. Our schools are spending jillions and our educational system just gets worse and worse. Included in these investments would be spending tax payer money for infrastructure (paying back construction unions) and for green energy which shovels taxpayer money to Obama's millionaire and billionaire contributors in the biggest scam in American history (Solyndra is only the tip of the iceberg). Bottom line, Obama's 'investments'are paying back his contributors who have put up a record $1 Billion for his re-election. Ironically these contributors consist mostly of labor unions thugs and rich fat cats who are mostly billionaires."
"Good insights, Butch. Let's break open Obama's new 'fair' tax code. Obama says if the rich would only pay their fair share and if we would make minor adjustments to Medicare (which he has never defined) that the $15 Trillion debt of this country would be taken care of 'long term' (meaning when he is long gone from office). Do millionaires pay their fair share? Well .2 of 1% of tax payers make over $1 Million. Yet they pay 21% of all taxes. The other 99.7% pay 79%. What do the Obamas think is fair for this way less than 1% of tax payers? Remember 50% of those on the tax rolls pay zero taxes, and many of these get tax rebates. Which is the biggest tax problem, .2 of 1% paying 21% or 50% paying no taxes? In the state of New York the top 1%, who the occupiers in the street are rioting against, pay 40% of all taxes collected. Clearly Obama's strategy is to invest (spend) NOW, tax middle and upper income folks (including small businesses and employers) NOW, and make moderate reductions to Medicare (after he leaves office). That's his tax reform and investment plan. Most of Obama's fat cats (like Goerge Soros, John Doerr, and Algore, and Warren Buffet) will not be effected by the tax increases because they take their income in Capital Gains from selling stock they have pumped up with big government's corrupted assistance."
"Right on, BM. You nailed it. That leaves the feds making laws that makes sure everyone follows the rules. Obama is talking mostly about financial regulations. He claims that Bush was weak on regulating Wall Street and that caused the financial collapse and recession. The truth is Barney Frank and his Washington cohorts working with Fannie Mae, Freddie Mack, and socialist activists pressured banks to make housing loans to low income and minorities. The banks were assured they were backed by Fannie and Freddie and were boycotted if they didn't make the loans. The banks in many cases created fraudulent transactions to make these loans to willing low income borrowers who thought it was there right for the government and rich banks to provide them a home. So who were the culprits so far in this scam? Socialist politicians, Fannie, Freddie, the banks, and the borrowers who locked arms in this act of thievery.
Who are the innocents who got screwed? The taxpayers. Over $700 Billion of taxpayer money was shoveled to the banks through TARP for a bailout. These are the same banks who fraudulently packaged these worthless mortgages and passed them around like a hot potato (by the way Warren Buffet made literally billions on the bailout). When the bubble bursts what did the Feds (Department of Justice) do about the fraud? NOTHING. Not one person has been tried for fraud. Meanwhile as 60 Minutes reported last Sunday, most of the execs in the banks that blew the whistle on corruption have been fired and silenced. So the biggest culprit of all is the Obama administration (the DOJ run by Erich Holder when he wasn't running his Fast and Furious debacle). Obama's grand plan is to create more laws instead of enforcing the laws on Obama's HUGE FAT CAT WALL STREET CONTRIBUTORS."
Billy Roy took on his summarizing posture, "So back to this Payroll Tax Trial balloon pitting the Rich against the Middle Class. A Payroll Tax is intended to go to the Social Security Trust Fund. That fund is currently in trouble to the sum of $5 Trillion. Any reductions in these taxes make the bankruptcy of Social Security come even sooner. Any honest person knows this is the last place we should be reducing tax collections. The Payroll Tax Holiday, if extended, would cost the Trust Fund about $200 Billion. What you never hear are things like 25% of government workers do not pay Payroll Taxes at all. If they did, it would source about $100 Billion to the Trust Fund. Why the hell aren't they talking about this instead of the stupid class warfare of rich against the middle class? This President of ours is a very mean and deceitful person who is only interested in his re-election. Let's just hope the folks get enlightened and don't fail this idiot test."
When Obama talks "investments", he is talking MORE BIG GOVERNMENT SPENDING. When Obama talks "fair taxing", he is talking income "REDISTRIBUTION FROM THE MIDDLE AND UPPER CLASS (PRODUCERS) TO THE MOOCHERS. When Obama talks "more laws", he is talking MORE BIG GOVERNMENT INTRUSION INTO FREE MARKETS AND INDIVIDUAL FREEDOMS.
Think about it,
ANYBODY BUT OBAMA in 2012!!!!!!!
Jim
Using this attention grabber it is reported Butch Jackson launched into a tirade right there at coffee in the Hubbard City Cafe, "The Obama regime is running a major intelligence test on the American people here 11 months before the 2012 election. If the electorate fails this test, the socialists think they have clear sailing to four more years in the White House."
"The test goes like this. If Congress doesn't take action millions of the American middle class will suffer from a $1,500 tax increase on their payroll taxes. Obama asked why would the tax cutting Republicans block action to stop this tax increase. Of course he has the answer handy, because they want to protect millionaires and billionaires from paying their fair share of taxes by paying a small surtax on their income. If Obama can sell this garbage to the American voter, then he has clear sailing for 4 more years because he can play this rich against the middle class game over and over between now and next November."
Billy Roy tugged hard at the front brim of his hat while putting on his grimmest of many grim looks, "Butch, you may be on to something. I was looking at notes from Obama's Kansas speech yesterday where he was doing what these weird people call channeling, in this case Teddy Roosevelt. If you leap over all of his bullshit, which is a helluva big jump, I must say, Obama summarized his idiot pitch with three things: He said, 'Investing in things like education that give everybody a chance to succeed. A tax code that makes sure everybody pays their fair share. And laws that make sure everybody follows the rules. That’s what will transform our economy'. Let's break these words down. We he says 'transform' he is talking about making a too big federal government into an even larger European style socialist welfare state. He believes the Europeans current economic crisis is just that big governments and collectivism just haven't grown enough yet."
"Good exercise, BM. We all know an Obama 'investment' is SPENDING. The Socialists Libs think the only thing wrong with the almost $1 Trillion Stimulus Package was that it wasn't big enough. Obama in his summary picks out education for more investing to the delight of the teachers union. Our schools are spending jillions and our educational system just gets worse and worse. Included in these investments would be spending tax payer money for infrastructure (paying back construction unions) and for green energy which shovels taxpayer money to Obama's millionaire and billionaire contributors in the biggest scam in American history (Solyndra is only the tip of the iceberg). Bottom line, Obama's 'investments'are paying back his contributors who have put up a record $1 Billion for his re-election. Ironically these contributors consist mostly of labor unions thugs and rich fat cats who are mostly billionaires."
"Good insights, Butch. Let's break open Obama's new 'fair' tax code. Obama says if the rich would only pay their fair share and if we would make minor adjustments to Medicare (which he has never defined) that the $15 Trillion debt of this country would be taken care of 'long term' (meaning when he is long gone from office). Do millionaires pay their fair share? Well .2 of 1% of tax payers make over $1 Million. Yet they pay 21% of all taxes. The other 99.7% pay 79%. What do the Obamas think is fair for this way less than 1% of tax payers? Remember 50% of those on the tax rolls pay zero taxes, and many of these get tax rebates. Which is the biggest tax problem, .2 of 1% paying 21% or 50% paying no taxes? In the state of New York the top 1%, who the occupiers in the street are rioting against, pay 40% of all taxes collected. Clearly Obama's strategy is to invest (spend) NOW, tax middle and upper income folks (including small businesses and employers) NOW, and make moderate reductions to Medicare (after he leaves office). That's his tax reform and investment plan. Most of Obama's fat cats (like Goerge Soros, John Doerr, and Algore, and Warren Buffet) will not be effected by the tax increases because they take their income in Capital Gains from selling stock they have pumped up with big government's corrupted assistance."
"Right on, BM. You nailed it. That leaves the feds making laws that makes sure everyone follows the rules. Obama is talking mostly about financial regulations. He claims that Bush was weak on regulating Wall Street and that caused the financial collapse and recession. The truth is Barney Frank and his Washington cohorts working with Fannie Mae, Freddie Mack, and socialist activists pressured banks to make housing loans to low income and minorities. The banks were assured they were backed by Fannie and Freddie and were boycotted if they didn't make the loans. The banks in many cases created fraudulent transactions to make these loans to willing low income borrowers who thought it was there right for the government and rich banks to provide them a home. So who were the culprits so far in this scam? Socialist politicians, Fannie, Freddie, the banks, and the borrowers who locked arms in this act of thievery.
Who are the innocents who got screwed? The taxpayers. Over $700 Billion of taxpayer money was shoveled to the banks through TARP for a bailout. These are the same banks who fraudulently packaged these worthless mortgages and passed them around like a hot potato (by the way Warren Buffet made literally billions on the bailout). When the bubble bursts what did the Feds (Department of Justice) do about the fraud? NOTHING. Not one person has been tried for fraud. Meanwhile as 60 Minutes reported last Sunday, most of the execs in the banks that blew the whistle on corruption have been fired and silenced. So the biggest culprit of all is the Obama administration (the DOJ run by Erich Holder when he wasn't running his Fast and Furious debacle). Obama's grand plan is to create more laws instead of enforcing the laws on Obama's HUGE FAT CAT WALL STREET CONTRIBUTORS."
Billy Roy took on his summarizing posture, "So back to this Payroll Tax Trial balloon pitting the Rich against the Middle Class. A Payroll Tax is intended to go to the Social Security Trust Fund. That fund is currently in trouble to the sum of $5 Trillion. Any reductions in these taxes make the bankruptcy of Social Security come even sooner. Any honest person knows this is the last place we should be reducing tax collections. The Payroll Tax Holiday, if extended, would cost the Trust Fund about $200 Billion. What you never hear are things like 25% of government workers do not pay Payroll Taxes at all. If they did, it would source about $100 Billion to the Trust Fund. Why the hell aren't they talking about this instead of the stupid class warfare of rich against the middle class? This President of ours is a very mean and deceitful person who is only interested in his re-election. Let's just hope the folks get enlightened and don't fail this idiot test."
When Obama talks "investments", he is talking MORE BIG GOVERNMENT SPENDING. When Obama talks "fair taxing", he is talking income "REDISTRIBUTION FROM THE MIDDLE AND UPPER CLASS (PRODUCERS) TO THE MOOCHERS. When Obama talks "more laws", he is talking MORE BIG GOVERNMENT INTRUSION INTO FREE MARKETS AND INDIVIDUAL FREEDOMS.
Think about it,
ANYBODY BUT OBAMA in 2012!!!!!!!
Jim
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
