New American Way

More Wisdom from Tax Cheat, Treasury Secretary Geithner:

Geithner: Tax the Rich for “the Privilege of Being an American”

“{I}f you don’t ask, you know, the most fortunate Americans to bear a slightly larger burden of the privilege of being an American…”

“And that’s the kind of balance you need. And why is that the case? Because if you don’t try to generate more revenues through tax reform (aka Tax Increases), if you don’t ask the, you know, the most fortunate Americans to bear a slightly larger burden of the privilege of being an American, then you have to — the only way to achieve fiscal sustainability — is through unacceptably deep cuts in benefits for middle class seniors, or unacceptably deep cuts in national security.”

You could STOP SPENDING LIKE AN IDIOT! 🙂

When deep in debt the solution is not to Spend Even More!

But no Liberal would ever even conceive of that idea. And the Republicans aren’t far behind them.

I would also remind the Secretary that 47% of American pay no taxes AT ALL. And the “rich” people’s money he’s so covets pay over 70% of the taxes NOW!

But the Democrats want to SPEND EVEN MORE!

So they have to feed the class envy beast.

Even Michelle “Marie Antionette” Obama got in the act at a swanky fundraiser with “rich” Democrats:

“If a family in this country is struggling, we cannot be satisfied with our own families’ good fortune.”

She also rapped the rich, as has her husband. “Who do we want to be?” Obama asked. “Will we be a country where success is limited to the few at the top? This country is strongest when we are all better off.”

Thanks, Comrade. You can sit down now.

If your own millions of dollars is a burden to you, you can always give it away, dearie. 🙂

And besides doesn’t unemployment stimulate economic growth according to Nancy Pelosi, Press Propagandist Jay Carney and Sr WH Advisor Valerie Jarrett?

Why yes, they did say that. So maybe what we really need is even more unemployment, think of the “stimulus”!!! 🙂

When the Budget Control Act of 2011 increased the debt ceiling last August, Congress, the administration, and outside analysts believed that this increase would allow federal borrowing under the limit well into 2013 (and outside of the election campaign),” the center’s analysts wrote. “Due to unexpected circumstances … that belief appears increasingly likely to have been misguided.”

Well, now it may hit in the  summer and fall, along with $6 or higher gas prices, ObamaCare at the Supreme Court, SB1070 at the Supreme Court.

Won’t that be fun. The Ministry of Truth will have to spin the planet backwards to try and cover up this mess.

But don’t worry The latest Liberal Fantasy– Algae will save us all:

Environmentalists, by and large, live in a world of their own. A very smug, ill-thought-out world in which driving your electric car, wearing your hemp clothes, staring daggers at people who don’t put their soda bottles in the recycling bin, and perhaps even accepting subsidies from the federal government to put solar panels on your roof, are somehow the recipe for a sustainable and prosperous national future. They are blithely negligent of the facts: their cellphones/computers/electric cars are powered by coal, the promise of solar and wind is relatively pathetic, the accepted wisdom of recycling is founded on myth, global warming is increasingly dubious and politicized, that Obama’s green “investments” are helping to push the country toward bankruptcy… I could go on. We have the opportunity to create innumberable jobs and help dredge ourselves out of this economic slump, if we’d only let ourselves actually compete in the global energy market, and when energy prices are high, poorer Americans are the first to suffer.

But even worse than that, environmentalists actually have the gall to want to deny certain types of energy development and technologies to less developed (a.k.a., more miserable) parts of the world, thinking that the people living the ‘simple life’ are somehow ‘better off,’ on a local level and for the welfare of the planet in general. No — wealthier societies are healthier societies.

This video is one of my all-time favorites, and though it’s of a somewhat different environmental capacity than gas prices in America, it very aptly demonstrates just how willfully ignorant and lacking in critical thinking the greenie-attitude really is. Enjoy (warning: some crass language): (From Penn & Teller’s “Bullshit”) (Townhall.com)

Now don’t you feel like going out and hugging a tree and mugging a Millionaire?

It’s the New American Way!  🙂

Political Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

Political Cartoons by Ken Catalino

 Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

Ideological Blindness

Political Cartoons by Nate Beeler

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told the House Small Business Committee on Wednesday that the Obama administration believes taxes on small business must increase so the administration does not have to “shrink the overall size of government programs.”

The administration’s plan to raise the tax rate on small businesses is part of its plan to raise taxes on all Americans who make more than $250,000 per year—including businesses that file taxes the same way individuals and families do.

Wasn’t it Obama and Company that said they weren’t raising taxes on small businesses? 🙂

And shrinking the size of government programs is the whole F*cking point these days, at the people believe.

But not in Washington. They are still trying to get around it. They don’t want to do it. They just want to look like they are.

Which is why I say, the nuclear hot potato they are playing with will go off in our faces before anyone does anything. Guaranteed though, that the liberal will blame it on anyone but themselves.

Geithner’s explanation of the administration’s small-business tax plan came in an exchange with first-term Rep. Renee Ellmers (R.-N.C.). Ellmers, a nurse, decided to run for the U.S. House of Representatives in 2010 after she became active in the grass-roots opposition to President Barack Obama’s proposed health-care reform plan in 2009.

“Overwhelmingly, the businesses back home and across the country continue to tell us that regulation, lack of access to capital, taxation, fear of taxation, and just the overwhelming uncertainties that our businesses face is keeping them from hiring,” Ellmers told Geithner. “They just simply cannot.”

She then challenged Geithner on the administration’s tax plan.

“Looking into the future, you are supporting the idea of taxation, increasing taxes on those who make $250,000 or more. Those are our business owners,” said Ellmers.

Geithner initially responded by saying that the administration’s planned tax increase would hit “three percent of your small businesses.”

Ellmers then said: “Sixty-four percent of jobs that are created in this country are for small business.”

Geithner conceded the point, but then suggested the administration’s planned tax increase on small businesses would be “good for growth.”

Just like the liberal who sight “15 months of private sector job growth” as their way of saying the economy is growing when it’s not. But they want to ignore the burning forest to focus on the one tree that isn’t burning yet and say, “see, I told you it wasn’t on fire!

Raising Taxes during a near-depression is always a good idea. Liberals just don’t get it, and more importantly, don’t WANT to get it. They just want to do what they want to do because they want to do. And they fantasize that it will all work out because in their heads it make so much sense to them. Reality is not their strong suit.

“No, that’s right. I agree with that,” said Geithner. “But just to put it in perspective, it’s important to recognize why are we doing this. You know, our deficits are 10 percent of GDP, higher than they’ve been since any time in the postwar period really. We have a big hole to dig out of, and we have to figure out how to do that in a way that’s balanced, good for growth, fair to people as a whole.”

Geithner, continuing, argued that if the administration did not extract a trillion dollars in new revenue from its plan to increase taxes on people earning more than $250,000, including small businesses, the government would in effect “finance” what he called a “tax benefit” for those people.

What they hell do you call ObamaCare for godsake?

“We’re not doing it because we want to do it, we’re doing it because if we don’t do it, then, again, I have to go out and borrow a trillion dollars over the next 10 years to finance those tax benefits for the top 2 percent, and I don’t think I can justify doing that,” said Geithner.

Ah, there’s the Class WarFare mantra. it always rears it’s ugly head because it’s at the heart of Liberalism.

By the way, the top 1% pay 40% of ALL TAXES. 47% of the American people pay NO TAXES AT ALL!

The top 5% pay 60% of all taxes! (which by the way is well below the $250,000 threshold).

So half the people who pay taxes would be taxed more and the half that doesn’t pay now anyhow wouldn’t. Gee, that sounds like a great idea! 😦

So let’s make them pay more because Liberals want to be “fair” and appease their burning desire for Class Warfare and ‘peasant’ resentment!

Hey, Mr Geithner GOVERNMENT DOES NOT HAVE A REVENUE PROBLEM IT HAS A SPENDING PROBLEM!!!!

And you’re it, buddy!

Not only that, he argued, but cutting spending by as much as the “modest change in revenue” (i.e. $1 trillion) the administration expects from raising taxes on small business would likely have more of a “negative economic impact” than the tax increases themselves would.

“And if we were to cut spending by that magnitude to do it, you’d be putting a huge additional burden on the economy, probably greater negative economic impact than that modest change in revenue,” said Geithner.

Yeah, Over $14,000,000,000,000 in debt is not a worry at all.

Tax and Spend!

Spend and Tax!

When Ellmers finally told Geithner that “the point is we need jobs,” he responded that the administration felt it had “no alternative” but to raise taxes on small businesses because otherwise “you have to shrink the overall size of government programs”—including federal education spending.

Ah, poor baby… 🙂 (This would be the education spending where 12% of students could pass a basic history test after 12 years of it, right?)

https://indyfromaz.wordpress.com/2011/06/18/are-you-smarter-than-a-12th-grader/

“We’re not doing it because we want to do it, we’re doing it because we see no alternative to a balanced approach to reduce our fiscal deficits,” said Geithner.

Yeah, like cutting spending. The myopic Liberal view only sees Keynesian economics and nothing else.

Tax and Spend. Spend and Tax. Class Warfare. That’s it.

“If you don’t touch revenues and you leave in place the tax cuts for the top 2 percent that were put in place by President Bush, if you leave those in place and you’re trying to bring our deficits down over time, then you have to do exceptionally deep cuts in benefits for middle-class Americans and you have to shrink the overall size of government programs, things like education, to levels that we could not accept as a country,” said Geithner.

So you have to grow the size and scope of government and taxes to shrink a deficit?

Elections have consequences people!

“So to do a balanced approach to reduce our deficits you have to make modest changes in revenues,” he said. “There’s no realistic opportunity to do alternatives to doing that.”(CNS)

What we need is a drastic CUT in SPENDING. The revenues will follow.

But since Liberals can’t even fathom that concept this is what you get.

Now that’s you’re Hope & Change! 🙂

More recently we’ve witnessed the creation of new historical narrative about the financial crisis of 2008. The perceived history, eagerly peddled by liberals and Democrats, is that the crash of 2008 was the result of Wall Street greed. It was unregulated capitalism that brought us to the brink of financial meltdown, the Democrats insisted. And they codified their manufactured history in a law, the Dodd-Frank Act, that completely avoided the true problem.

It’s both surprising and gratifying, therefore, to report that a great revisionist history has just been published by none other than a New York Times reporter, Gretchen Morgenson, and a financial analyst, Joshua Rosner.

In “Reckless Endangerment,” Morgenson and Rosner offer considerable censure for reckless bankers, lax rating agencies, captured regulators and unscrupulous businessmen. But the greatest responsibility for the collapse of the housing market and the near “Armageddon” of the American economy belongs to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and to the politicians who created and protected them. With a couple of prominent exceptions, the politicians were Democrats claiming to do good for the poor. Along the way, they enriched themselves and their friends, stuffed their campaign coffers, and resisted all attempts to enforce market discipline. When the inevitable collapse arrived, the entire economy suffered, but no one more than the poor.

Jim Johnson, adviser to Walter Mondale and John Kerry, amassed a personal fortune estimated at $100 million during his nine years as CEO of Fannie Mae. “Under Johnson,” Morgenson and Rosner write, “Fannie Mae led the way in encouraging loose lending practices among the banks whose loans the company bought. A Pied Piper of the financial sector, Johnson led both the private and public sectors down a path that led directly to the credit crisis of 2008.”

Fannie Mae lied about its profits, intimidated adversaries, bought off members of Congress with lavish contributions, hired (and thereby co-opted) academics, purchased political ads (through its foundation) and stacked congressional hearings with friendly bankers, community activists and advocacy groups (including ACORN). Fannie Mae also hired the friends and relations of key members of Congress (including Rep. Barney Frank’s partner).

“Reckless Endangerment” includes the Clinton administration’s contribution to the home-ownership catastrophe. Clinton had claimed that dramatically increasing homeownership would boost the economy, instead “in just a few short years, all of the venerable rules governing the relationship between borrower and lender went out the window, starting with … the requirement that a borrower put down a substantial amount of cash in a property, verify his income, and demonstrate an ability to service his debts.”

“Reckless Endangerment” utterly deflates the perceived history of the 2008 crash. Yes, there was greed — when is there not? But it was government distortions of markets — not “unregulated capitalism” — that led the economy to disaster. (Mona Charen)

But I’m sure the liberals will CUT that out of the education they are so desperate to preserve. 🙂

Just Spend More Money!

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

Freedom a Dinosaur?

Recommended Viewing: Gov. Christie of NJ gives a whining member of the teacher’s union a slap back. For once, someone who will stand toe to toe with liberals and push back!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuri7p_9pm4&feature=player_embedded

********************

Now on to the Financial “reform” bill being finalized in the Congress.

It’s supposed to protect you and me from “too big to fail”.

It’s supposed to protect the consumer against the greedy capitalist pigs called Banks.

Naturally, these are Liberals, so it doesn’t really do that at all.

Just like Health Care reform wasn’t really about Health care. It was about granting the government the power to decide who lives and who dies. Period.

Well, here’s the next nail in your coffin.

But, we are from the government and we are here to help you!

The bill authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury – a political appointee – to seize any financial company (bank or nonbank) simply because, in his opinion, it is too big to fail and in danger of insolvency.  This power can be used for political retribution, pressure for campaign funding, or any other abuse bureaucratic whim or partisan politics can conceive.  It is a power Fidel Castro or Hugo Chavez would love to have!

The legislation also requires that any business that extends credit, in any form, needs to clear the loan instrument in advance with the new consumer protection agency.  The backlog of pending applications will strangle consumer credit.

And the bill fails to do the one thing it must do — regulate derivatives and make them transparent.  Senator Chris Dodd (D Ct) bowed to pressure from his sponsors on Wall Street and deleted the regulatory provision and set up a commission to study the situation for two years!  Senator Maria Cantwell (D Wash) protested the cop out with a no vote against the legislation.

These would be the financial fake money traders who caused the problem in the first place when all the bad debts from the subprime mortgage debacle-in-waiting started and eventually crashed.

Curiously, this was championed by the same guy who also championed the Subprime Mortgage mess, Now-retiring Sen. Chris Dodd.

Coincidence I think not.

So how did it pass?  Four Republicans sold out, that´s how!  Among the RINOs were, of course, Susan Collins and Olympia Snow of Maine.  But, surprisingly, Scott Brown (R Mass), the newly elected Massachusetts Miracle defected as did the normally stalwart Chuck Grassley (R Iowa).

Now the federal government has effectively taken over about one third of our national economy by passing Obamacare and regulatory reform in almost the same breath.
But that is only part of the story. The bill gives the secretary of the treasury (appointed by the president) powers that are a dictator’s dream come true. He would have the power to seize any bank or financial institution if, in his opinion, it is in danger of insolvency. One can imagine the threats coming from the White House to those banks who failed to make campaign contributions or endorse the presidential agenda.

Then there are the implications for our individual lives. The bill, as we explained in a previous story, would give the feds the right to peer into our bank accounts . . . yours and mine. But also the banks would have to get permission from the government to make individual loans. This is not merely a bank getting general approval to make loans. It is banks going to the government for approval of each and every individual loan.

It might look like this. John Smith goes to First Bank of Elm Street and asks for a car loan. The bank then sends an application to the federal government asking for permission to loan Mr. Smith the money. The feds look at Mr. Smith’s bank statement and find that he contributed money to the president’s political opponent last election. Mr. Smith can forget about his car loan . . . or home loan . . . or financing a new pair of socks.

With possible implications also, according to Glenn Beck, that it will be the “fault” of the lender if the person who they loan the money to defaults.

So imagine this: Your a Bank. If you loan Mr. Smith money, for say a house, and he defaults. He can go to the Consumer advocacy bureaucrats and complain that his rate was too high or whatever and the government can just say,” Bank, you were too greedy” and that’s that.

Now if you were a bank, would you loan any Mr. Smith’s any money?

And the economy comes to a grinding halt.

But at least your safe from greedy capitalist pigs!!

The Financial Stability Oversight Council will be created and identify non-bank financial companies that “may pose risks to the financial stability of the United States in the event of their material financial distress or failure”

So if the government “deems” you too big a risk they can come in and break up your company, fire anyone they like and do what they deem necessary to “protect” you from these greedy capitalist pigs! 😦

The Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection will be created — for you. They’ll be able to limit what financial products and services can be offered to consumers. And the bill mandates any financial institution that takes deposits, keep a record of the number and amount of those deposits and that customer addresses be “geo-coded for the collection of data regarding the census tracts of the residences or business locations of customers.” Geo-coded? Are they linking deposits to the Census Bureau?

They claim to be protecting you from “unfair and deceptive” practices. Unfair and deceptive are two words that are defined and often used in our laws, but there is another word they put in the bill: “abusive.” What does that even mean? No one really knows because it has not been used in this context before. Will its definition be up to the new super regulator who will be in charge of the agency? What is abusive? What if someone defaults on their loan or their house is foreclosed upon and they say “the interest rate is too high” or “I did not understand adjustable rate would adjust up” or “I am old, you should’ve explained it to me.”

Will the regulator decide the lender was abusive? It puts the pressure on the lender to not only offer full disclosure, but take full responsibility. Don’t worry if you can’t pay your loan, blame it on the abusive greedy bank.

Glenn Beck continues…

And here’s what is coming in the House’s financial bill:

First and foremost, it does nothing to address the problems with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Those two helped create the housing mess and then needed a $125 billion bailout, which they haven’t even scratched the surface on a payback.

It creates a special protected class of “too big to fail” firms. In section 113, a “Financial Stability Oversight Council” is established, which will choose the firms deemed too big to fail. Hmm, can you think of any other massive financial institutions that don’t care if they fail because they know they will be bailed out by the government? Fannie and Freddie. So not only is this bill not doing anything to stop Fannie and Freddie, as they continue to lose hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars, this bill will create more of them.

Provides for seizure of private property without meaningful judicial review. The secretary of the treasury can order the seizure of any financial firm that he finds “in danger of default.” Again, a bureaucrat arbitrarily getting to make the distinction to just take over a financial firm whenever they feel like it. And, once the decision is approved, it’s nearly impossible to reverse.

This Financial Stability Oversight Council, they’ve got nine regulatory authorities out there and this expands the reach outside of just financial firms. They can declare if a non-bank financial firm (insurance, finance companies, hedge funds) are “in trouble.” And guess what? They can turn it over to the treasury for regulation. Again, this distinction is completely arbitrary and comes from bureaucrats.

Opens a line of credit to the treasury for additional government funding. Guess who’s irrelevant? You are, Congress! No more begging those pesky politicians for billions of dollars, like with TARP. No, we’ll just skip that and tap the ATM.

Regulators can guarantee the debt of solvent banks as well. If there is a ‘liquidity crisis’ …

The bill creates a new “Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.” They just want to “protect” consumers. Uh-huh. This bureau will have broad powers to limit what financial products and services can be offered to consumers.

It’s supposed to help, but it will only reduce choices and likely make credit more expensive and harder to get. It also allows them to track all of your financial transactions, just to “protect you.”

Non-financial firms would be subject to financial regulations. Listen to how broad this is: Section 102 defines a “non-bank financial company” as a company “substantially engaged in activities… that are financial in nature.” Aren’t all companies financial in nature? Sure, bakeries are making cupcakes and bread, but isn’t that financial in nature?

And they’re making sure this bill is jammed down America’s throat by, I’m not kidding, July 4th.

So here is the Frankendodd monster giving us our independence by chaining our children and our freedoms by snooping through our credit cards.

This fits the progressive agenda to a T: Power and control. These guys are power hungry. This financial bill is the biggest reform since FDR. We’re making the same mistakes we make in the 1930s, except the first time we made these mistakes, the American people didn’t know what progressives were really about and there was no global structure in place. When FDR died in office, we could still reverse many of the things he tried to do. But this time, we won’t be able to, because your representatives won’t have any control.

Again: “Governance is not government — it is the framework of rules, institutions and practices that set limits on behavior of individuals, organizations and companies.”

Again, I ask you to call your representative at the IMF and complain if you don’t like that fact that America spent $50 billion in tax money to bail out Greece. Call your representative at the U.N. and say you won’t vote for him next time. Contact the World Bank and let them know that you’ll close your bank account with them if you have to.

This is why all of this matters: You have no representation. It’s just the way the world is now. It’s a global community.

Another thing FDR did not have, but Woodrow Wilson did, was Cass Sunstein.

He’s the regulatory czar, the head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. He controls everything — he nudges you. He never tells you what to do — he nudges you. Remember “The Truman show”? Sunstein is the director up there in the control room. You still have his “freedoms.” Sunstein is just using a lot of “choice architecture” around you.

Cass Sunstein has wanted that job in the control room his whole life — his whole life! In 2008, on the campaign trail, he went on a date with his soon to be wife, Samantha Power. She asked him what his dream job was. She said, “I expected him to say he dreamed of playing for the Red Sox… his eyes got real big and he said, ‘Ooh! OIRA!'”

Most people will say what’s the big deal with that job? Here’s a guy who’s wanted this job. What kind of geek wants this job? Well, any geek who knows history knows that’s one of the most powerful jobs in the world. You are looking at the power of the Fed and more.

Oh, by the way, if this financial regulation bill passes, how much control does government have over the economy? Twenty percent? Forty-eight percent? No — 60 percent.

We are teetering on the brink of totalitarianism in the land of the free. Folks, write your congressmen while there is still time.

But at least the government is looking out for you! 😦

*******

An analysis of government data by USA Today found that “paychecks from private business shrank to their smallest share of personal income in U.S. history during the first quarter of this year.”

That’s only part of this sad story: “At the same time, government-provided benefits — from Social Security, unemployment insurance, food stamps and other programs — rose to a record high during the first three months of 2010.”

If the share of private-sector pay is shrinking, income from government must necessarily be growing. Sure enough, during the first quarter, the federal government added 81,000 jobs while the private sector lost 4.71 million.

President Obama wants more. He’s asked federal agencies to accelerate and streamline hiring of federal workers at a time when laying off bureaucrats would be the far better course.

Even before Obama began to push federal hiring, working for Washington was a lucrative career choice. In 2008, the typical federal worker took home on average $67,691 in salary compared with $60,046 for the private sector.

During the first 18 months of the recession, USA Today reported in December, “Federal employees making salaries of $100,000 or more jumped from 14% to 19% of civil servants — and that’s before overtime pay and bonuses are counted.”

Government workers have also avoided the job losses we’ve seen in the private sector. Their unemployment rate from 2007 to 2010 has been 3%; the rate across private industry has been 7.9%.

************

And finally, this liberal ditty. Now keep in mind the Liberals have no problem with a 13-story Islamic mosque being built practically across the street from ground zero by a radical muslim cleric…

But they do object to…The American Flag!!

(But don’t expect the Ministry of truth to tell you this one.) 😦

An Army veteran in Wisconsin will be allowed to display an American flag until Memorial Day, but the symbol honoring his service in Iraq and Kosovo must come down next Tuesday, his wife told FoxNews.com.

Dawn Price, 27, of Oshkosh, Wis., said she received a call from officials at Midwest Realty Management early Wednesday indicating that she and her husband, Charlie, would be allowed to continue flying the American flag they’ve had in their window for months through the holiday weekend. The couple had previously been told they had to remove the flag by Saturday or face eviction due to a company policy that bans the display of flags, banners and political or religious materials.

“It’s basically an extension so we can fly the flag on Memorial Day,” Price told FoxNews.com. “It does need to come down after that.”

Charlie Price, 28, served tours of duty as a combat engineer in Iraq and Kosovo, his wife said. To honor his eight years of service, she began decorating their apartment during Veterans Day in November. An American flag topped off the display, she said.

“I knew it made Charlie really proud to see that,” she said. “And this isn’t something new. This has been up for quite some time now.”

Veterans’ groups were furious at the realtors’ refusal to allow the flag to fly.

“As a veteran, it sickens me that the Dawn and Charlie Price’s building management company would imply that the American flag could be construed as offensive by their residents,” said Ryan Gallucci, a spokesman for AmVets.

“We’re talking about our most revered national symbol. This is insulting to anyone who has defended our flag honorably, like Charlie Price.”

Dawn Price said she now works to amend the federal Freedom to Display the American Flag Act of 2005, which states no “condominium association, cooperative association, or residential real estate management association” may stop someone from flying the American flag. The law, however, does not apply to renters.

“This has been eating at us since Friday,” she said. ‘The best way to fight this isn’t getting an eviction and going after these people in court. That’s just going to cost us a lot of time, energy and money.”

Instead, Dawn Price said she either intends to place a curtain between the flag and the apartment window to block it from onlookers or will move it to a rear balcony come next week.

“We don’t want to fight the eviction,” she said. “We know we’d lose.”

Officials at Midwest Realty Management, which manages Brookside Apartments, where the Prices live, did not return several messages seeking comment. In a statement to the Oshkosh Northwestern, company officials said the policy was established to provide a consistent living environment for all residents.

“This policy was developed to insure that we are fair to everyone as we have many residents from diverse backgrounds,” the statement read. “By having a blanket policy of neutrality we have found that we are less likely to offend anyone and the aesthetic qualities of our apartment communities are maintained.”

Despite the brief reprieve, Dawn Price said her husband is disappointed by the flag flap.

“He actually sees it as a slap in the face to his service,” she said. “He’s pretty upset about it, especially right around Memorial Day.”(FOX)

*******

But the good news, if there is such a thing these days, there’s a Tea Party in San Francisco!!

No, the world did not end because of this fundamental contradiction.

But great “Unifier” can’t even win in San Francisco these days.

So there is hope.

Hope FOR Change.

Or else, in my lifetime, it will all go the way of the dinosaurs….

Damn Those Greedy Rich People

AP: About 47 percent will pay no federal income taxes at all for 2009. Either their incomes were too low, or they qualified for enough credits, deductions and exemptions to eliminate their liability. That’s according to projections by the Tax Policy Center, a Washington research organization.

In recent years, credits for low- and middle-income families have grown so much that a family of four making as much as $50,000 will owe no federal income tax for 2009, as long as there are two children younger than 17, according to a separate analysis by the consulting firm Deloitte Tax.

Tax cuts enacted in the past decade have been generous to wealthy taxpayers, too, making them a target for President Barack Obama and Democrats in Congress. Less noticed were tax cuts for low- and middle-income families, which were expanded when Obama signed the massive economic recovery package last year.

The result is a tax system that exempts almost half the country from paying for programs that benefit everyone, including national defense, public safety, infrastructure and education. It is a system in which the top 10 percent of earners — households making an average of $366,400 in 2006 — paid about 73 percent of the income taxes collected by the federal government.

The bottom 40 percent, on average, make a profit from the federal income tax, meaning they get more money in tax credits than they would otherwise owe in taxes. For those people, the government sends them a payment.

“We have 50 percent of people who are getting something for nothing,” said Curtis Dubay, senior tax policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation.

The vast majority of people who escape federal income taxes still pay other taxes, including federal payroll taxes that fund Social Security and Medicare, and excise taxes on gasoline, aviation, alcohol and cigarettes. Many also pay state or local taxes on sales, income and property.

That helps explain the country’s aversion to taxes, said Clint Stretch, a tax policy expert Deloitte Tax. He said many people simply look at the difference between their gross pay and their take-home pay and blame the government for the disparity.

“It’s not uncommon for people to think that their Social Security taxes, their 401(k) contributions, their share of employer health premiums, all of that stuff in their mind gets lumped into income taxes,” Stretch said.

But income tax rates were lowered at every income level. The changes made it relatively easy for families of four making $50,000 to eliminate their income tax liability.

Here’s how they did it, according to Deloitte Tax:

The family was entitled to a standard deduction of $11,400 and four personal exemptions of $3,650 apiece, leaving a taxable income of $24,000. The federal income tax on $24,000 is $2,769.

With two children younger than 17, the family qualified for two $1,000 child tax credits. Its Making Work Pay credit was $800 because the parents were married filing jointly.

The $2,800 in credits exceeds the $2,769 in taxes, so the family makes a $31 profit from the federal income tax. That ought to take the sting out of April 15.(IBD)

Which is why the Stealth Taxes of the Health Care Law, Cap & Trade,  and the end of the “evil” Bush Tax Cuts, and others will likely not be felt until this time next year when it’s too late to “throw the bums out”.

And the people who are most worried about it are the media-dubbed “terrorists”, “racists”, “violent” people.

Funny how that worked out! 😦

And then there’s Finance Reform, also known as Intimidation 101.

You pass a reform where if the Treasury Secretary, aka Turbo Tax Geithner, “deems” (there’s that word again 🙂 ) your company “to big to fail” and on the verge of failure he can seize it. Lock, stock, and shareholder.

With no appeal and no actual reason other than he deems it so.

So He fires the company officers, he breaks up the company and sells it off, he screws the shareholders into the ground and he can do it just because he can. Under the proposals the Democrats want.

Now, you’re a big company that donates to the evil domestic terrorist organization, The Republican Party, would you get a visit from Timmy “the Hammer” Geithner or his subordinates?

Under the proposed rules he can just go in at his discretion without any oversight whatsover.

Add in “The Chicago Way” and you have Intimidation 101.

On April 21st, Congress is going to publicly flog several big companies for announcing the hundreds of billions in cost from  ObamaCare out loud, embarrassing them.

It’s pay back time.

The Liberal want to their hunk of flesh.

How dare they speak the truth to the masses!

EVIL!!!

And they want to make sure you won’t do it again.

So Guido, the Union thug will come by your board room and make sure you are playing ball or you’re company may be “swimmin’ with the fishes”…

Don’t think Liberals are capable of it?

Why not?

They just crammed a massively unpopular Health Care bill down your throat because THEY wanted it.

They plan to take over the Financial Sector.

They will crush you with Cap & Tax and The EPA.

They already have their own Car companies.

They own an Insurance Company.

And, the best reason of all, The End justifies the means.

So why wouldn’t they?

After all, it’s the “greedy” “selfish” rich that they are flogging.

The same “greedy” “selfish” rich that likely give you your job and also pay the vast majority of the taxes in this economy.

They also send lots of money to politicians.

So when faced with a choice of funding the opposition and potentially losing your company or just staying silent, which do you choose?

And for the people, do you stay silent? or do say something and be branded a “racist” and a “terrorist” and a violent anti-american whackjob??

Well, my choice was made a long time ago.

How about you?

The Next Big Stick

As difficult as it was, passing the health care bill is only “a critical first step” in overhauling the system so that it “works for all Americans,” President Obama told NBC’s Today show.”It is not going to be the only thing,” Obama told Matt Lauer. “We are still going to have adjustments that have to be made to further reduce costs.”

Further reduce??

Reduce???

What universe is he living in?

Well, that’s done. So it’s on to the next big stick.

Several companies have come out with their  100’s of millions in new cost estimates for ObamaCare.

The Democrats are mad about it.

And they want someone to pay politically for it, just not them.

So it’s time to take some CEO’s to the woodshed.

Rep. Henry Waxman vowed to haul CEOs into hearings after they revealed just how much ObamaCare will cost their firms. It’s an absurd war on bookkeeping, from a Congress desperate to avoid heat for this fiasco.

In the wake of President Obama’s presidential signature on the gargantuan Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act last Thursday, big companies have crunched their numbers and come up with an ugly picture.

In legally mandated filings, AT&T reported that ObamaCare will cost it $1 billion. Deere & Co. reported $150 million in new costs. Caterpillar must cough up $100 million. 3M must pay another $90 million. AK Steel gets to fork over $31 million. Valero Energy will pay $30 million. There’ll be more as other companies report anticipated costs to fulfill their requirements to inform shareholders. What it shows is a huge wave of costs rolling over the private sector to pay for this bill.

It’s the real cost of ObamaCare, a bill House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had touted daily as “paid for” in her pitch for Congressional votes.

Well, yes, as a matter of fact, it’s paid for because everything is paid for. The question is by whom.

The coming costs are the result of a little-scrutinized ObamaCare provision ending a tax credit for prescription drugs. The credit had been there to encourage firms to carry those costs for retirees.

As a result of ObamaCare’s changes, companies now can either pay for those costs — and lay off workers, hold off expansion or move abroad — or scrap their prescription drug programs altogether, dumping their retirees onto the federal government.

Either way, the costs are “paid for” — but they’ve also just skyrocketed, thanks to ObamaCare.

Instead of admitting the economic reality voters and companies have been warning Congress about, and maybe offering to read the bill next time, Waxman seeks to blame the very businesses the Democrats have just victimized.

It’s a sorry spectacle because Congress paid no attention at all to anyone who raised a yellow flag about how badly the cost-shifting would hit the private sector.

The Chamber of Commerce’s assessments of the impact on companies were dismissed in favor of MoveOn.org’s hysterical “analysis” howling for socialized health care. And the bill passed.

Now it’s time to pay the piper, and Waxman doesn’t want to pay.

He has decided to haul the executives into yet another round of star chamber hearings to explain just why two and two make four.

This is an implied threat to companies either to cook their books or face legal or political sanctions for embarrassing Congress by revealing the true impact of its health care bill on the private sector.

It has its place with what Stalin did in Soviet Russia, denouncing farmers as hoarders after setting artificially low prices for crops, and what Hugo Chavez is doing today in Venezuela, dictating prices on raw goods and limiting access to money while penalizing companies for passing on those costs to customers.

If Waxman gets away with this, it will be just as corrosive on the private sector here. It’s only happening because companies operating in market conditions dared to embarrass Congress with reality.(IBD)

Add to this the Chris Dodd bill on Financial Reform where the Treasury Secretary will have the power to seize a business if he believes it will fail.

Believes.

The bill would establish a liquidation fund financed by the industry and authorize the appointment of FDIC as receiver for insolvent companies, with SIPC acting as trustee for broker-dealers. All that sounds reasonable. You don’t notice the danger until you’re deep into the 1,336 page bill.

The government is to take over not only defaulting financial companies but those “in danger of default”. Five conditions are listed to define default and in-danger-of-default. Two are straightforward—the company will be filing for bankruptcy shortly or its board or shareholders agree to a government takeover.

The other three conditions allow the government to take over even when a company is not filing for bankruptcy and its board/shareholders do not consent. What it means is that the secretary of the Treasury can decide that a company is about to collapse even if it does not look that way to other people.

So you want to embarrass the President with your economic forecasts do you, Mr CEO?

Well, maybe we just need to take your company way from you.

So you want to give money to the GOP to defeat us in November or 2012?

Well, maybe we just need to take your company way from you.

When you operate on  “the end Justifies the means” that the Democrats are, and they got the drug high from winning the Health Care battle why wouldn’t they go there?

They absolutely would.

It’s the Chicago Way.

And the Mafia.

And the Soviets.

And Hugo Chavez.

And Castro.

So why wouldn’t they.

Moreover, consider that if there is any public suspicion of what’s going on, the company is dead. Once the Treasury decides a company is doing down, this decision will become self-fulfilling. That company will go down. The way the bill is written, it vastly expands government power to make arbitrary choices—like liquidate bank x but let bank y stand. A preview of this happened in 2008, when the Treasury and Fed decided to backstop Bear Stearns but not Lehman Brothers.

Perish the thought, but suppose a secretary of the Treasury has a crony who really wants to buy an investment bank on the cheap—and will provide some future quid pro quo. Pick a time when equities are down and you could make a case that a financial company is wobbly. Voila, it gets liquidated in a fire sale.

Maybe this sounds far fetched—a politician would not do something just for his own interest, would he?(CSM)

To allow the government to make a determination of what could or might happen is to create a whole new arena for political corruption.

But “The end justifies the means”.

The end being, of course, absolute power corrupting absolutely.

And Free Speech? Well,  FREEDOM IS SLAVERY…and you wouldn’t want to say anything bad about Big Brother now would you…