Trapped

Tell Me, this isn’t the same here and one reason why we have such an increase in “disability” and people just giving up looking.

And the new “dependent” voter.

The Sun (London UK): A SKIVING couple told last night how they claim £17,680 a year in benefits — and don’t even bother looking for work because it would leave them worse off.

FYI: Skiving is British for lay about gold-bricking person, aka Lazy.

Danny Creamer, 21, and Gina Allan, 18, spend each day watching their 47in flatscreen TV and smoking 40 cigarettes between them in their comfy two-bedroom flat.

I looked it up, the average apparently for a 47″ flat screen is about £1900-2000 British pounds.

1.00 British Pound = 1.57 U.S. Dollars currently

Do the Math.

It is all funded by the taxpayer, yet the couple say they deserve sympathy because they are “trapped”.

They even claim they are entitled to their generous handouts because their hard-working parents have been paying tax for years.

 

pahe 10 graphic

The couple, who have a four-month-old daughter Tullulah-Rose, say they can’t go out to work as they could not survive on less than their £1,473-a-month benefits.

1.00 British Pound = 1.57 U.S. Dollars currently

So that’s $2,312,61. Per month or $27,751.32 a year. That”s well above minimum wage in this country. Of course, they have a flat 17.5% VAT tax on everything and Inland Revenue (think IRS) but still I have had many jobs that paid less than that.

The pair left school with no qualifications, and say there is no point looking for jobs because they will never be able to earn as much as they get in handouts.

Gina admits: “We could easily get a job but why would we want to work — we would be worse off.”

Tell Me, Liberals aren’t thinking the same thing!

Danny’s father, 46, even offered him a job with his bowling alley servicing company — but could not pay him enough.

Danny’s mum, 45, works as a carer, while Gina’s mum, 46, is a teacher and her dad, 53, is a manager with a security company.

Yet their parents’ work ethic has not rubbed off on Danny and Gina. Instead, they claim they are entitled to benefits because of their parents’ tax contributions — and even complain they should be given MORE.

Gina, flaunting fake tan and perfectly manicured nails, said: “I don’t see that we’re living off the taxpayers, we’re entitled to the money our parents paid all their lives.

“They’ve worked so hard since they left school and I’m sure they’d rather it went to us than see us struggle. They pay a lot of tax, and although they’d rather we weren’t in this situation and one of us had a job, they understand why we are where we are. We can’t help it, we’re stuck like it.”

Danny, who quit his job as a supermarket shelf-stacker after eight months, admitted: “I could easily go and work for my dad. He’s got a job for me, but could only afford to pay for my travel and accommodation because I’d be going around the country.

“After that he wouldn’t be able to afford to pay me a wage, so I’d be worse off.

“The same would happen if I was to work somewhere like a supermarket. If I was earning less than £26,000 a year, there wouldn’t be any point. I’d be no better off. Who in their right mind would do that?” The pair spoke after we revealed last Sunday that Lithuanian Natalija Belova, 33, branded Britain “a soft touch” for giving her £14,408 annual benefits. Mum-of-one Belova told how she lives a life of luxury in Watford, Herts, thanks to our “strange system”, adding: “I am not going to work like a dog on minimum wage.”

British Minimum wage : £6.08 to £6.19 an hour on October 1 2012

And yesterday Gina agreed. She said: “The only way we’d ever be better off is by both working. But then childcare would probably be one of our wages gone, and put us back in a more difficult position.

“We don’t feel ashamed for being on benefits. Neither of us have the slightest bit of guilt towards the taxpayers as both of our parents have been paying into the tax system for the last 30 years.

“So we are just getting back our parents’ huge contributions. My dad earns £65,000 a year so he’s paid more than his fair share of tax, so I don’t see what the problem is. The fault lies with the system, not us. There’s just no incentive to find work when we’ve got a better lifestyle than if we were to go out and work for 35-40 hours every week. Why would we give this up?”

The couple, who live in Hants (Southern England), receive £340 a week, made up of £150 housing benefit, £60 child tax credit, £20 child benefit and £110 in Job Seeker’s Allowance. They pay just £25 towards their spacious £625-a-month home.

Their lounge is dominated by the huge TV and a leather sofa. A laptop and Tullulah-Rose’s toys are scattered around the room.

The couple’s monthly outgoings are £240 on food, £40 phone bill for their shared Nokia and an £80 payment towards their TV. They spend the same on tobacco as they do on their daughter’s milk and nappies.

The pair, who want another child, say they would need to earn at least £2,200 a month before tax to make working worth their while.

Danny said: “We’ve thought about a lot of things we wouldn’t normally have considered. Gina looked up escorting and saw you can make £110 an hour, but we decided we wouldn’t go down that route.

“We simply want the best for our daughter, which means even shoplifting becomes a temptation. We’d never do it, but being in this situation and feeling trapped changes you.

“We would work, but it’s just not worth our while because without qualifications we’ll only earn about £14,000 a year. That’s a lot less than what we get now. We need more money so we can maintain the way we live now but have a few extras, like holidays.

“People don’t understand — we’re actually stuck on benefits. In fact, we feel trapped.” Danny and Gina thought about going to college, but could not decide which course to take.

Gina said: “We have discussed getting more qualifications but just thought there’s no point when we don’t know what we want to do in the future. We wouldn’t know where to start.”

The couple are adamant that whatever they do in future, they want to enjoy the same luxuries as now. Gina said: “We spend £40 a month on clothes for Tullulah-Rose. It’s important she looks nice.

“We like a takeaway (Take out) too, Why shouldn’t we? It isn’t like I’m some scrounging single mum trying to cash in. It’s silly to think I’d actually be better off financially if Danny walked out on me and my daughter than if one of us got a job.

“Anyone else would do exactly the same if they were in our shoes. It’s actually really hard for us. We’re in a lose-lose situation here.”

And with reports out that the Birth rate in the US has been falling just as the largest population is retiring is going to make this kind of “trapped” dependence very, very, very costly to everyone.

But, he it’s better than working hard. 🙂

Every job in the last 25+ years I’ve had prior to my current one has paid me less than this a year. And I’m still not “rich”.

Makes you wonder I even bother…But at least I’m not “trapped”…Yet… 🙂

 

15 Questions

During the practically endless series of Republican debates, we have heard almost every question imaginable asked to Republican candidates – if by every question imaginable, you mean horribly slanted, often irrelevant questions designed to make them look bad and help Obama. We’ve heard questions about contraceptives, religion, Newt’s angry ex-wife, Gardasil, etc., etc., etc. So, what would happen if the mainstream media treated Barack Obama the exact same way that they treat Republicans? The questions might sound a little something like this.

1) Numerous Mexican citizens and an American citizen have been killed with weapons knowingly provided to criminals by our own government during Operation Fast and Furious. If Eric Holder was aware that was going on, do you think he should step down as Attorney General? Were you aware that was going on and if so, shouldn’t you resign?

2) In 2010 you said Solyndra, which gave your campaign a lot of money, was “leading the way toward a brighter and more prosperous future.” Today, Solyndra is bankrupt and the taxpayers lost $500 million on loans that your administration was well aware might never be paid off when you made them. What do you say to people who say this is evidence of corruption in your administration?

3) Unions invested a lot of time and money in helping to get you elected. In return, they gained majority control of Chrysler, the taxpayers lost 14 billion dollars on General Motors, and General Motors received a special 45 billion dollar tax break. What do you say to people who view this as corruption on a scale never before seen in American history?

4) Through dubious means, you and your allies in Congress managed to push through an incredibly unpopular health care bill that helped lead to the worst election night for the Democratic Party in 50 years. Since the bill has passed, many of your claims about the bill have proven to be untrue. For example, we now know the bill won’t lower costs and despite your assurances to the contrary, big companies like McDonald’s say they may drop health care because of the health care reform. Since the American people have rejected your health care reform and it doesn’t do what you said it would, shouldn’t you work with the Republicans to repeal it?

5) When you took office, gas was $1.79 per gallon. Since then, you’ve demonized the oil industry, dramatically slowed offshore drilling, blocked ANWR, and killed the Keystone Pipeline. Now, gas is $3.34 per gallon. How much higher do you anticipate driving gas prices?

6) Occupy Wall Street has been protesting against Wall Street and the richest 1 percent in America. You are in the top 1 percent of income earners in America and you have collected more cash from Wall Street than any other President in history. So, aren’t you exactly the sort of politician that Occupy Wall Street wants to get rid of?

7) How do you decide which foreign leaders to submissively bow towards and why do you think that’s appropriate for an American President?

8) If they could, don’t you think the Nobel Committee would take back the Nobel Peace Prize that you were awarded?

9) You made bipartisanship one of the central themes of your campaign in 2008. Yet, you’ve worked to push bills through Congress with almost no Republican support, spent much less time negotiating with Congress than George Bush, and you’ve said things like, “But, I don’t want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking. I want them to get out of the way so we can clean up the mess. I don’t mind cleaning up after them, but don’t do a lot of talking.” Why did you decide to break your campaign promise to pursue bipartisanship?

10) America lost its AAA credit rating for the first time under your watch. What do you think you should have done differently to have prevented that historic failure?

11) You cut more than 500 billion dollars out of Medicare to fund your wildly unpopular health care reform bill. Given that Medicare is running in the red already, don’t you think it’s irresponsible to cut money out of one entitlement program, that millions of seniors depend on — to put it into a risky new entitlement program?

12) Back in July, you said, “Nobody’s looking to raise taxes right now. We’re talking about potentially 2013 and the out years.” Since you plan to raise taxes if you’re elected and you’ve had kind words for a value added tax, shouldn’t every American expect a tax increase if you’re reelected?

13) Why should the American people reelect you when your 10 year budget saddles America with more debt than all previous Presidents combined?

14) Your stimulus bill cost more in real dollars than the moon landing and the interstate highway system combined. What do we have to show for all of that money spent?

15) Members of your administration promised that the trillion dollar stimulus would keep unemployment under 8 percent. Instead, we’ve had 35+ months of 8% and above unemployment. Doesn’t that mean we wasted a trillion dollars on nothing? (John Hawkins)

It’s fun to think what could have been if we had Journalists instead of Left Wing Propagandists masquerading as “journalists”.

So have a supply of industrial barf bags if yo decide to watch Obama’s “soaring” Campaign Bull shit speech tonight then the fawning and slobbering by the Liberal Media before and after.

I will be watching “Chopped” on the Food network.

 

The Wrong Green

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

Economic growth in the United States is expected to remain weak for several years and unemployment will likely stay above 8 percent for another three years, the head of the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday. (CBS)

President Obama plans a big jobs announcement—right after he finishes his vacation inMartha’s Vineyard.  Expect him to say that green jobs are the key to recovery — that they will generate millions of jobs and a new era of prosperity.

Oh, you’ve already heard that one?  So has everyone else.  Even The New York Times has begun to debunk Obama’s claim, headlining, “Number of Green Jobs Fails to Live Up to Promises.” Obama’s claim is getting quite old and quite expensive, but remains just as false as ever.

If Congress’ “super committee” wants to cut wasteful spending, the green jobs agenda is a great place to start.

Obama’s 2011 Labor Day announcement is likely to echo his similar jobs announcement just after Labor Day in 2010, asking for another $50 billion in spending.

His stimulus plans always include green jobs and lots of greenbacks for them. As the White House website quotes Obama, “the transition to clean energy has the potential to grow our economy and create millions of jobs — but only if we accelerate that transition.”

Green jobs are about government subsidies, cronyism, and job cannibalism. They aren’t self-sustaining because they rely on giveaways of taxpayer money and they cannibalize existing jobs.

ABC News found that 80% of the $2 billion set aside in the “stimulus” package for “green jobs” is going overseas — mostly to China.
Most of the stimulus went to government unions anyhow.
Too many green jobs and renewable energy companies can’t make it without taxpayer subsidies. Some can’t make it even with that help, such as Evergreen Solar in Massachusetts, which went bankrupt even with $40 million of help. (It was offered even more.) Evergreen Solar emerged in the last three years as the third-largest maker of solar panels in the United States.
The waste should be obvious even to die-hard liberals like Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA), who last week told MSNBC, “Green jobs have been about a lot of talk and not a lot has been happening on that.” (DC)
Federal and state efforts to stimulate creation of green jobs have largely failed, government records show. Two years after it was awarded $186 million in federal stimulus money to weatherize drafty homes, California has spent only a little over half that sum and has so far created the equivalent of just 538 full-time jobs in the last quarter, according to the State Department of Community Services and Development.
Wow! 😦
The Economic Development Department in California reports that $59 million in state, federal and private money dedicated to green jobs training and apprenticeship has led to only 719 job placements — the equivalent of an $82,000 subsidy for each one.
And only 35 of them are employed in a “green job”! WOW! Now that’s working!
The political left is always complaining about them — those undeserved subsidies for the hated oil companies. But when it comes to government subsidies, the renewable energy companies are king.‘Seniors are struggling. Oil companies are not struggling,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said in May. “Yet Republicans want to keep handing billions of dollars to the oil companies and ending Medicare as we know it.”About that same time, Sen. Claire McCaskill, the Missouri Democrat, whined about taxpayers subsidizing “the five biggest, most profitable corporations in the history of the planet.”Earlier this year, President Obama, speaking words his base wants to hear, swore that Washington would no longer “continue costly tax cuts for oil companies.”

What’s missing from the Democrats’ tireless refrain is the fact that the “subsidies” the oil industry enjoys are the same legitimate, passed-by-Congress tax deductions available to all companies — even those companies the Democratic lawmakers own stock in.

Simply put, Big Oil, which pays more than $86 million in taxes each day and sends 41% of its net income to Washington, is not supported by the U.S. taxpayer.

Renewable energy companies, however, are.

The Energy Information Administration says that $14.7 billion in taxpayers’ money was handed directly to renewable energy companies last year.

Politically connected ethanol raked in $6.6 billion, bird-killing wind power $5 billion, unreliable solar $1.13 billion and energy-deficient biomass $1.1 billion.

Combined, those subsidized sources provide roughly 11% of all U.S. energy output. Not much, in other words.

Total subsidies for renewables in 2010, the first budget the Democrats had full control over since taking Congress in 2006 and the White House in 2008, were $9 billion — or 186% — higher than the 2009 subsidies.

A portion of this largess was of course provided at the expense of the oil and gas industries, which paid $1 trillion in income taxes between 1998 and 2008.

Should Washington continue its fixation on propping up renewable energy companies with other people’s money, the U.S. will suffer the same bitter experiences that other countries, particularly Spain, lived through when they tried to establish a green economy.

There’s no reason to rush these sources when conventional fuels remain cheap and abundant. (IBD)

So it’s a scam. It’s liberals trying to make the market create the jobs THEY want and if it won’t SCREW everyone!

If it’s doesn’t “feel” good don’t do it! And we don’t want you to!

The Left’s subsidies are “good”, the the right’s are “bad” (even if the left actually benefits from those very same one it’s all politics after all).

And the ultimate, from Environmentalist Whacko King, Al Gore, you’re a racist if you don’t believe in his scam.

He just happens to have started and is invested heavily in the “carbon credits” scam and his dad’s Oil and Coal $$ doesn’t mean anything…

So it is about “green” jobs. But it’s the wrong Green $$$.

It’s just more of the Left’s need to control everyone and force people to do what THEY want not what actually can or will work.

So when Obama comes out soon with his 16th plan for new jobs (and his Job Competitiveness Czar Jeffrey Imelt send more jobs at GE to China) it will be a mask for more Tax (like a VAT and Class Warfare) and Spend (“Infrastructure” “Tax Reform”) and more political correct subsidies for politically correct jobs that isn’t designed to succeed except politically and “feels” good.

So why do you want 4 more years of this, exactly?

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

Thrown Under the Bus

Are feeling like you have tire treads  running up your body??

You’re not alone.

You must have Obama Bus Syndrome.

Where you are naively or purposely thrown under the bus to serve his ego and his mission to destroy all freedom everywhere.

After all, he is a Nobel Peace Prize Winner! 🙂

The latest victim, Israel. The long time ally of the United States.

Oh, and Christians and Jews, but who cares about them, they are just right wing religious nuts anyhow. 🙂

Obama, in a policy speech on Thursday on the “Arab spring” uprisings across the Middle East, laid down his clearest markers yet on the compromises Israel and the Palestinians must make for resolving their decades-old conflict.

His position essentially embraces the Palestinian view that the state they seek in the West Bank and Gaza should largely be drawn along the lines that existed before the 1967 war in which Israel captured those territories and East Jerusalem.

On the eve of Netanyahu’s visit, it was seen as a message that Obama expects Israel to eventually make big concessions.

“The viability of a Palestinian state cannot come at the expense of Israel’s existence,” Netanyahu said in a statement before flying to the United States for his talks with Obama.

Mind you some of the holiest sights in all of Christiandom and Judism would be turned over to Palestinians. Nothing too major since religion is hardly a concern of this administration except for that whole Muslim thing that he keeps reaffirming by doing Pro-Muslim things like this.

So what if Hamas, which is the government of the Palestinians, has in their charter, “KILL ALL THE JEWS” they can be reasonable and Israel has to stop being mean to them if they want peace. 😦

So what if a central tenant of these groups is the non-existence of Israel. Let’s be fair! They are the oppressed.

And Hezbollah, which is in Lebanon, and South America (I might add).

No biggie.

Syria, Iran. No biggie. if you’re just nice to them and you’re “fair” everything will come out kumbuya!

You have to do the 60’s hippie peacenik routine and everything will be a Summer of ’69 Lovefest.

Which I don’t know if he’s naive or deliberate. But the headline in the leftist LA Times might give us a Clue:

Obama: U.S. has chance to pursue the ‘world as it should be’

After decades of ‘accepting the world as it is’ in the Middle East, President Obama in his Middle East speech says the U.S. has a chance to ‘speak to the broader aspirations of ordinary people.’

<<BARF BAG ON STANDBY>>

This is liberalism at it’s core, the way the world should be, according to them, not the way it is. So deal from a position of unreality and try and force it into reality because it makes you feel “good” and…<<drum roll>>…It’s FAIR! 🙂

God Help Us All!

He wants to expand Oil production because his re-election depends on it, BUT NOT HERE. he wants to expand in Brazil where a Major Democratic $$ Donor has ownership in…<<drum roll>> and OIL company!

He wants businesses to create jobs, but he wants to choke them do death with regulations , Obamacare, and bad mouthing them.

He wants the government to take over health care because it will save money, only it doesn’t. But it doesn’t give them control over life and death and that can’t be all bad. 🙂

He go all pro-“democracy” in Egypt calling for that rulers head. Now the Muslim Brotherhood (read: radical islam) are leading to taking over there.

Oh, and then there’s the “war” he started in Libya that both he, the media, and the Democrats are trying desperately to ignore. And you’re 60 days (War Powers Act) are up Mr.  Nobel Peace Prize.

Then there’s 9% unemployment for basically the last 2 years. Has anything positive been done on that at all? I say thee neigh.

He is pandering to the hispanic vote to get them to vote for him promising them the sky and the moon and whatever he has to knowing full well it will never pass in Congress.

So border security is just PR, pat down and legal sexually molestations.

He doesn’t care. He’ll just throw legal immigrants and legal Americans under the Bus.

It’s, after all, ALL ABOUT HIM. All about his greatness. His superior vision.

His superiority, period.

And it’s your turn.

“You can’t do $2 trillion just in cuts,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said in an interview in his Capitol office. “There has to be a mix of spending cuts, including defense. There has to be a more fair apportionment of tax policy in this country.”

Read more taxes! Targeted to evil rich people mind you, but it never works out that way.

Especially with the proposals for a VAT TAX or a Vehicle Mileage Tax.

Because when a Liberal talks about “fairness” grab your wallet you’re under attack and about to be hit by that bus!

“That certainly would be a big, big number,” Reid said Thursday. “But you know these are numbers that are not impossible — if you do savings with the Pentagon, in addition to domestic discretionary [accounts] and rearrange the tax stuff. That’s all doable.

Aka, slash the military, crush businesses, raise taxes massively on “the rich”.

Throw them all under the bus. They are evil anyhow.

But it will create jobs and grow the economy! 🙂

Oh, and then there’s the new Food Devil on the block, McDonald’s. They are the Devil Incarnate. Evil Corporate devils preying on your innocent children for their evil profits! Bwah hahahahahahahahaha! <<organ sting>> <<Thunder and Lightning!!>> <<maniacal laughter>>

The national debate on corporate responsibility played out in a microcosm at McDonald’s annual meeting Thursday, when votes on shareholder proposals became a referendum on the pursuit of profit versus the question of what constitutes the public good.

Critics hammered McDonald’s executives not only for offering unhealthful menu items but also for marketing fast food to kids with its Ronald McDonald character and Happy Meal toys — all while boasting eight straight years of sales growth despite a deep economic recession.

McDonald’s response was powerful too, tapping into the fundamental notion of American freedom.

“This is all really about choice,” McDonald’s Corp. CEO Jim Skinner said at the meeting, held at company headquarters in Oak Brook, Ill. He said that while shareholders have the right to communicate concerns, the company should also have the right to advertise its menu offerings. “It’s about protecting people’s rights in this democratic society that we live in.”

As for Ronald McDonald?

“Ronald McDonald is an ambassador to McDonald’s, and he is an ambassador for good,” Skinner said. “Ronald McDonald isn’t going anywhere.”

Critics’ main beef with McDonald’s is its marketing to America’s children, thus side-stepping the thorny retort “If you don’t like McDonald’s, don’t eat there.”
Children are susceptible to the advertising that McDonald’s spends hundreds of millions of dollars on each year, said Juliana Shulman, national compaign organizer for Corporate Accountability International.

“For adults that’s one thing, but children aren’t just little adults. Their brains are just forming,” Shulman said. “McDonald’s marketing is really designed to get around parents and get to kids directly. For nearly 50 years, McDonald’s has been working to hook kids on unhealthy foods…. Parents are exercising parental responsibility. That alone won’t stop the problem.” (LA Times)

So if you’re feeling tired it’s probably because you have a bus parked on you by Obama and his Leftist apparatchiks.

And let’s not evil talk about how evil you are if your not in a union and your <<shudder>> a white person!!  EVIL!!!:)

Pure Evil! You must be destroyed.

Or at least repeatedly run over by my bus!

Oh, and do vote for me in 2012 because I have a (D) after my name and I represent all that is sweetness and light and good in the world. 🙂

Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death,
I will fear no evil: For thou art with me;
Thy rod and thy staff, they comfort me.
Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies;
Thou annointest my head with oil; My cup runneth over.

Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life,
and I will dwell in the House of the Lord forever. (Psalms 23)

You just have to find a place to park that bus on top of you! 🙂

Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert

Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

P.s.A D.C. Circuit decision this week in Oberwetter v. Hilliard <a href="” target=”_blank”><http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/748BE2DE8AF2A2A485257893004E07FC/$file/10-5078-1308285.pdf&gt;, concluding that (1) the Jefferson Memorial is a “nonpublic forum” in which reasonable, viewpoint-neutral restrictions are permissible, and that (2) the government could therefore bar from people from engaging, inside the Memorial, in picketing, speechmaking, marching, holding vigils or religious services and all other like forms of conduct which involve the communication or expression of views or grievances, engaged in by one or more persons, the conduct of which has the effect, intent or propensity to draw a crowd or onlookers.

Isn’t freedom just fun under the Obama Bus…

P.P.s.

There is a report that the TSA faked its safety data on its X-ray airport scanners in order to deceive the public about the safety of such devices.

As evidenced by recent events in Washington, we now live in an age where the federal government simply fakes whatever documents, news or evidence it wants people to believe, then releases that information as if it were fact. This is the modus operandi of the Department of Homeland Security, which must fabricate false terror alerts to keep itself in business — and now the TSA <http://www.naturalnews.com/the_TSA.html> division has taken the fabrication of false evidence <http://www.naturalnews.com/evidence.html> to a whole new level with its naked body scanners.

The evidence of the TSA’s fakery is now obvious thanks to the revelations of a letter signed by five professors from the University of California, San Francisco and Arizona <http://www.naturalnews.com/Arizona.html> State University. You can view the full text of the letter at: http://www.propublica.org/documents… <http://www.propublica.org/documents/item/april-2011-letter-to-john-holdren>

The letter reveals:

• To this day, there has been no credible scientific testing of the TSA’s naked body <http://www.naturalnews.com/body.html> scanners. The claimed “safety” of the technology <http://www.naturalnews.com/technology.html> by the TSA is based on rigged tests <http://www.naturalnews.com/tests.html>.

• The testing that did take place was done on a custom combination of spare parts rigged by the manufacturer of the machines (Rapidscan) and didn’t even use the actual machines installed in airports. In other words, the testing was rigged.

• The names of the researchers who conducted the radiation <http://www.naturalnews.com/radiation.html> tests at Rapidscan have been kept secret! This means the researchers are not available for scientific questioning of any kind, and there has been no opportunity to even ask whether they are qualified to conduct such tests. (Are they even scientists <http://www.naturalnews.com/scientists.html>?) (KFYI)

So are you feeling securing under that bus?… 🙂

Circular Firing Squads

SUPERMAN LOVES AMERICA AGAIN

In Action Comics #900, a back up strip by David Goyer, showed Superman announcing he was to go to the UN and give up his citizenship of the USA, so to ensure his actions were not mistaken for US government policy.

There was a Firestorm! (and I don’t mean a DC comics character).

Well, today, from DC Comics, on the last page of Superman #711, we see a very different situation. Superman loving America after all! That (thankfully) doesn’t spoil the story having on its own right here.

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

The challenge of a U.S. corporate tax overhaul only seems to grow.

At a House Ways and Means hearing on Thursday, some business executives were even nodding to the possibility of a value-added tax to offset the budget impact of significantly lowering the U.S. corporate tax rate.

“As you take a holistic view… the value-added tax is one of those things that needs to be on the table,” Greg Hayes, CFO of United Technologies Corp., said in response to a lawmaker’s question.

In fact, there’s a surprising amount of interest in that idea on all sides. Many Democrats see a VAT as a way to pay for new infrastructure and shore up spending programs. Some Republicans – and corporate executives – see it as a way to pay for tax cuts that would spur investment, and make U.S. businesses more competitive. Much of the corporate-rate cutting that has gone on around the rest of the developed world in recent years has been paid for by increasing value-added taxes. Other countries view it as a necessary tradeoff to boost domestic manufacturing and exports.

Mind you, corporations don’t actually pay these taxes, they just pass them on in the cost of goods. So you get the old double whammy.

It all goes to show how knotty the long-neglected problems of the U.S. corporate tax system have become. The painful reality, as several lawmakers suggested, is that the U.S. would have to get rid of many if not most of its current corporate tax breaks just in order to lower the U.S. corporate rate to the high 20s. It’s currently 35%, the second highest in the developed world. And to be truly competitive, the U.S. rate probably needs to get down to around 20%. That would leave room for state corporate rates. (WSJ)

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

Students in New London will not only have to pass English to graduate, but they will have to prove that they know the American English language and be able to demonstrate it as of 2015.

The board of education on Thursday approved the major change to city education policy, according to the Day of New London.

Only 16 percent of New London High School 10th graders scored at the highest levels for English on standardized tests in 2010, the Day reports.

The student body includes immigrants from 28 countries, the Day reports. And the school district Web site includes translations in 52 languages.

“We know from colleges and employers, that our students are going to have to know how to read and write in English if they are going be successful,” Supt. Nicholas Fischer, told the Day.

The state department of education does not have a policy of this kind. (NBConnecticut)

Wonder how long before it’s ruled as “racist” and “insensitive”??…

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

Washington is full of self-interested political characters, and it’s always amusing to watch ambitious schemers with common enemies harm each other instead. Inside the beltway, this is called a “circular firing squad.”

There’s no shortage of this in-fighting in flailing political campaigns. One recent example was the public scrum over President Obama’s birth certificate.

It’s natural to think that the whole “birther” phenomenon was cooked up by right-wing conspiracy theorists, but it was actually the brainchild of Hillary Clinton partisans during the 2008 Democratic primaries.

Even the White House’s late April disclosure of Obama’s long-form birth certificate didn’t quell the noise level completely, with some continuing to allege fraud. The smart money says this issue — created by supporters of Obama’s current secretary of state — will remain on the national radar for some people through the 2012 elections.

America’s food fringe has its share of circular firing squads too.

VegNews magazine — which, as you probably guessed, advocates against eating meat, cheese, or using any animal products — recently found itself embroiled in a major scandal (“major” within its tiny cultural niche, anyway).

Bloggers discovered that VegNews was airbrushing meat and dairy foods out of “stock” photography, sanitizing them just enough to credibly accompany vegan recipes. (Apparently, some animal activists were shocked to learn that a juicy burger looks more tempting than faux-meat soy loaf.)

Among the 1 percent of Americans who eat a PETA-approved diet, mass outrage ensued. And VegNews, sensing the loss of its subscription base, issued a groveling retraction.

You’d think vegans would have a great enough sense of common purpose to avoid targeting their own kind.

But to a certain degree, it’s predictable. This is what happens when you look at dinner as a political statement instead of as — well, food.

Some food revolutionaries, to be fair, are well intentioned and genuinely look for ways to improve agriculture, even if their solutions aren’t terribly practical. But there’s definitely a current of holier-than-thou snobbery running through today’s “foodie” movement. And the food-politics stage is seldom big enough for two giant egos.

A celebrity chef announces an all-organic menu. Then a school lunch program (usually somewhere like Berkeley) limits itself to organic and “local.” Eventually the one-upmanship results in someone marketing organic, local, and “heirloom” produce. Grass-fed, organic, locally raised, artisanal beef, anyone? You get the picture.

The results for organic-food crusaders are mutually destructive squabbling, fractured messages, and a confused consumer base. The same thing happens when one organic interest directly attacks another, as we’ve seen with the Cornucopia Institute’s broadsides against large, “corporate” organic marketers.

We see some flavor of this with egg marketers. Some of them may find it appetizing, for competitive advantage if no other reason, to embrace “cage free” and organic niches and promote their supposed benefits in a way that undercuts larger, “conventional” egg interests.

This may — underline “may” — be a winning strategy in the short-term. But in the long run, profit margins on cage-free eggs will creep down closer to those of regular eggs. And the whole industry will be left more vulnerable to vegan-promotion organizations like the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), whose foot in the door will eventually become two feet, and then a leg.

For the uninitiated, an HSUS vice president admitted a few years ago that her organization’s goal was to “get rid of the entire [animal agriculture] industry” by “promoting veganism.”

She now runs the “Global Animal Partnership,” which Whole Foods created to legitimize its feel-good animal welfare niche marketing and help it cling to its elite status.

Whole Foods, of course, is the paragon of “progressive” food. But it still has circular firing squad problems.

Anti-biotechnology activists now claim that many products in Whole Foods stores are “contaminated” with genetically modified organisms. This might be technically true, but GMOs are harmless. Americans have been eating them for 15 years without credible evidence of any health risks.

Ultimately, Whole Foods’ purer-than-thou positioning hasn’t insulated it from pitchfork-wielding ideologues. The self-proclaimed “Millions Against Monsanto” movement even hints that an organized boycott of Whole Foods could come as soon as October.

Conventional wisdom in Washington holds that if an opponent wants to hang himself, you should give him some rope. When annoying “foodie” factions publicly bicker over who’s the most gastronomically chaste, sometimes the best thing to do is grab some non-organic popcorn and watch the fireworks. (DC)

So anyone else want to stand in front of the Firing Squad? Because there are plenty of people out there that will volunteer YOU for one!! 🙂

Political Cartoons by Lisa Benson

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

A Dead Plan Walking

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

Remember the “Debt Commission” that early on was rumored to be just an excuse for the VAT tax to be proposed? And still might…

Then November 2, 2010 rolled around and the Democrats were handed their heads on a platter.

So now the Debt Commission is proposing a whole bunch of ACTUAL Cuts.

Which means it’s a dead plan walking.

I will admit to having no faith in Washington elites. They can talk a good game, but in the end they will vote to save their own ass before the country, the future, or your kids.

[Deficit]
But many of these, like the Social Security is in 2050. THAT’S 40 years from now. The first people effected by it would 25 now.
If you can’t plan for 4 extra years 40 years out, you must be a Liberal!
Speaking of the Left:

“The chairmen of the Deficit Commission just told working Americans to ‘Drop Dead,’” said Richard Trumka, president of the AFL-CIO, referring to proposed changes in how Social Security is administered. “Some people are saying this is plan is just a ‘starting point.’ Let me be clear, it is not.”

Mind you, Mr Trumpka heads a union were many, many of his members can retire in their 50s with outrageously extravagant pensions that are bankrupting states all over the nation. But don’t mention that to him, you’ll just make him mad. 🙂

House Speaker (soon-to-be Minority Leader) Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, called the proposal “simply unacceptable.”

Self-Admitted Socialist  Bernie Sanders (I-VT) blasted, “It is reprehensible to ask working people, including many who do physically-demanding labor, to work until they are 69 years of age. It also is totally impractical. As they compete for jobs with 25-year-olds, many older workers will go unemployed and have virtually no income. Frankly, there will not be too much demand within the construction industry for 69-year-old bricklayers.”

A non-starter. A gift to the rich.

The giant flushing sound you heard Wednesday on Capitol Hill was the reaction of Congressional Democrats to the initial recommendations of President Obama’s bipartisan deficit reduction commission.

And so the Left is going to fight any spending cuts, and any repeals of their Utopian vision of a European America.

They will be the “obstructionists” that they have railed agasinst for the last number of years. And proudly so.

Isn’t politics grand. 🙂

Which is why it will never happen.

It has to happen.

But it won’t.

The Political elite don’t have the guts.

I’m hoping I’m wrong about the Republicans.

But the American people are the co-dependent drug addicts in this equation.

Because, who is more like to vote, the 25 year old who will actually be hit by the plan or the over 50 person who’s going to get it very soon or already addicted to it?

Forgetaboutit.

Sure they turned out to toss the Democrats (at least most of them, Jerry Brown and Harry Reid aside) on their asses. But when it’s their ass on the line and their ox is being goured, forgetaboutit.

The new NIBY principle. From Not in My Backyard to Not in my Backpocket.

It will be cut “Them” not “Me”. With the Democrats getting holier-than-thou about “the poor” and “the rich” even more so than the last few years. And all for political calculations.

The evil republicans who want to cut off grandma and force her eat dog food, etc.

Just for political advantage. Nothing else.

I hope I’m wrong. But I’m a cynic, after all.

Meanwhile…

The number of federal workers earning $150,000 or more a year has soared tenfold in the past five years and doubled since President Obama took office, a USA TODAY analysis finds.

The fast-growing pay of federal employees has captured the attention of fiscally conservative Republicans who won control of the U.S. House of Representatives in last week’s elections. Already, some lawmakers are planning to use the lame-duck session that starts Monday to challenge the president’s plan to give a 1.4% across-the-board pay raise to 2.1 million federal workers.

Government-wide raises. Top-paid staff have increased in every department and agency. The Defense Department had nine civilians earning $170,000 or more in 2005, 214 when Obama took office and 994 in June.

•Long-time workers thrive. The biggest pay hikes have gone to employees who have been with the government for 15 to 24 years. Since 2005, average salaries for this group climbed 25% compared with a 9% inflation rate.

•Physicians rewarded. Medical doctors at veterans hospitals, prisons and elsewhere earn an average of $179,500, up from $111,000 in 2005.

Federal workers earning $150,000 or more make up 3.9% of the workforce, up from 0.4% in 2005.

Since 2000, federal pay and benefits have increased 3% annually above inflation compared with 0.8% for private workers, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Members of Congress earn $174,000, up from $141,300 in 2000, an increase below the rate of inflation.

That’s insulting to ordinary Americans, who are struggling mightily every week to pay the mortgage and health care and college costs, only to see their increasingly scarce tax dollars go straight into the pockets of public workers. That shouldn’t be happening in hard times – not whether those public sector employees work on health care, education, agriculture, homeland security or defense. Shared sacrifice must be more than an empty slogan. (The  Very Liberal NY Daily News)
I learned a hard lesson earlier in this decade: The Truth is truth and you don’t have to like it. As a matter of fact, it doesn’t matter if  you like it, it’s still the truth.
And the truth is that the way thinks have been done for the last several generations is now unsustainable.Period.
Deal with it.
The truth doesn’t care if you like it or not.
The often-comedic co-chairman Alan Simpson sheepishly exited the meeting, telling reporters, “We’re entering the witness protection program,” referring to his fellow co-chairman and proposal author Erskine Bowles.
But some members cautioned against snap judgments. Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., a member of the panel, said, “The greatest national security threat facing America today is our national debt and a Congress that has avoided tough choices for decades. The discussion draft describes some of the tough choices facing Congress and the nation,” and warned, “I would encourage taxpayers to view with great suspicion the beltway, interest group culture that often prefers demagoguery over honest debate. In the real world, no family facing tough economic times has the luxury of treating portions of their budget as sacrosanct. Neither should Congress.”(FOX)
But Washington D.C. is not in touch with reality. And the American people want to stop the spending, just not their spending.
Sigh…
Political Cartoon by Chip Bok
Political Cartoon by Jerry Holbert
Political Cartoon by Robert Ariail

I Told You So :)

I, like many others who read the health care bills, unlike the mainstream Media, which did it’s best to hide and deny what was going to happen, have now been shown the light of our truth.

But I’m sure the Ministry of Truth will do it’s best to diminish, dismiss and deny it even now.

That is that Mandatory Health Insurance is a TAX.

Shocking revelation, I know… 🙂

On poor people no less!!

CBS Sept 2009: President Barack Obama says requiring people to get health insurance and fining them if they don’t would not amount to a backhanded tax increase. “I absolutely reject that notion,” the president said.

“My critics say everything is a tax increase,” Mr. Obama said on “This Week.” “For us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase.”

ABC: The—for us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. What it’s saying is, is that we’re not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore . . .” In other words, like parents talking to their children, this levy—don’t call it a tax—is for your own good.

Mr. Stephanopoulos: “But you reject that it’s a tax increase?”

Mr. Obama: “I absolutely reject that notion.”

President Obama said in his not quite State of the Union address that Americans earning less than $250,000 would pay “not one dime” in new taxes.

Well, it’s time to reveal Lie #4,362. The Big Whopper.

The one all of us “racist” “teabagger” “idiots” and “terrorist” warned you about.

WASHINGTON — When Congress required most Americans to obtain health insurance or pay a penalty, Democrats denied that they were creating a new tax. But in court, the Obama administration and its allies now defend the requirement as an exercise of the government’s “power to lay and collect taxes.”

And that power, they say, is even more sweeping than the federal power to regulate interstate commerce.

Administration officials say the tax argument is a linchpin of their legal case in defense of the health care overhaul and its individual mandate, now being challenged in court by more than 20 states and several private organizations.

Under the legislation signed by President Obama in March, most Americans will have to maintain “minimum essential coverage” starting in 2014. Many people will be eligible for federal subsidies to help them pay premiums.

In a brief defending the law, the Justice Department says the requirement for people to carry insurance or pay the penalty is “a valid exercise” of Congress’s power to impose taxes.

Congress can use its taxing power “even for purposes that would exceed its powers under other provisions” of the Constitution, the department said. For more than a century, it added, the Supreme Court has held that Congress can tax activities that it could not reach by using its power to regulate commerce.

While Congress was working on the health care legislation, Mr. Obama refused to accept the argument that a mandate to buy insurance, enforced by financial penalties, was equivalent to a tax.

“For us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase,” the president said last September, in a spirited exchange with George Stephanopoulos on the ABC News program “This Week.”

When Mr. Stephanopoulos said the penalty appeared to fit the dictionary definition of a tax, Mr. Obama replied, “I absolutely reject that notion.”

Congress anticipated a constitutional challenge to the individual mandate. Accordingly, the law includes 10 detailed findings meant to show that the mandate regulates commercial activity important to the nation’s economy. Nowhere does Congress cite its taxing power as a source of authority.

They knew they were lying. They didn’t care. Because the end justified the means.

And the Mainstream Media was either brain-dead stupid or in on the lies. Period.

Under the Constitution, Congress can exercise its taxing power to provide for the “general welfare.” It is for Congress, not courts, to decide which taxes are “conducive to the general welfare,” the Supreme Court said 73 years ago in upholding the Social Security Act.

Dan Pfeiffer, the White House communications director, described the tax power as an alternative source of authority.

“The Commerce Clause supplies sufficient authority for the shared-responsibility requirements in the new health reform law,” Mr. Pfeiffer said. “To the extent that there is any question of additional authority — and we don’t believe there is — it would be available through the General Welfare Clause.”

The law describes the levy on the uninsured as a “penalty” rather than a tax. The Justice Department brushes aside the distinction, saying “the statutory label” does not matter. The constitutionality of a tax law depends on “its practical operation,” not the precise form of words used to describe it, the department says, citing a long line of Supreme Court cases.

Orwell is smiling on you, Mr President and AG Holder.

Masters of Doublespeak.

Orwell on “The Party” of Big Brother: The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power.  Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from all the oligarchies of the past, in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites.

To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them…(Orwell, New American Library, 1981, p35)

Moreover, the department says the penalty is a tax because it will raise substantial revenue: $4 billion a year by 2017, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

In addition, the department notes, the penalty is imposed and collected under the Internal Revenue Code, and people must report it on their tax returns “as an addition to income tax liability.”

2009: What’s more, the agency is limited in the actions it can take to enforce compliance. “Congress was very careful to make sure that there was nothing too punitive in this bill,” {IRS Chief} Shulman said. “There’s no criminal sanctions for not paying this, and there’s no ability to levy a bank account or do seizures or [use] some of the other tools” available to the agency for enforcing laws.

If necessary, the IRS will levy fines against individuals who fail to purchase adequate insurance and collect them though tax return offsets. But the agency’s “first line of defense is education,” he said.

Because the penalty is a tax, the department says, no one can challenge it in court before paying it and seeking a refund.

Jack M. Balkin, a professor at Yale Law School who supports the new law, said, “The tax argument is the strongest argument for upholding” the individual-coverage requirement.

Mr. Obama “has not been honest with the American people about the nature of this bill,” Mr. Balkin said last month at a meeting of the American Constitution Society, a progressive legal organization. “This bill is a tax. Because it’s a tax, it’s completely constitutional.”

Mr. Balkin and other law professors pressed that argument in a friend-of-the-court brief filed in one of the pending cases.

Opponents contend that the “minimum coverage provision” is unconstitutional because it exceeds Congress’s power to regulate commerce.

“This is the first time that Congress has ever ordered Americans to use their own money to purchase a particular good or service,” said Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah.

In their lawsuit, Florida and other states say: “Congress is attempting to regulate and penalize Americans for choosing not to engage in economic activity. If Congress can do this much, there will be virtually no sphere of private decision-making beyond the reach of federal power.”

In reply, the administration and its allies say that a person who goes without insurance is simply choosing to pay for health care out of pocket at a later date. In the aggregate, they say, these decisions have a substantial effect on the interstate market for health care and health insurance.

In its legal briefs, the Obama administration points to a famous New Deal case, Wickard v. Filburn, in which the Supreme Court upheld a penalty imposed on an Ohio farmer who had grown a small amount of wheat, in excess of his production quota, purely for his own use.

The wheat grown by Roscoe Filburn “may be trivial by itself,” the court said, but when combined with the output of other small farmers, it significantly affected interstate commerce and could therefore be regulated by the government as part of a broad scheme regulating interstate commerce.

But it will bring prices down: Lie #4,264

The Democratic co-chair of President Obama’s fiscal commission said Wednesday that the president’s health care bill will do very little to bring down costs, contradicting claims from the White House that their sweeping legislation will dramatically impact runaway entitlement spending.

“It didn’t do a lot to address cost factors in health care. So we’ve got a lot of work to do,” said Erskine Bowles, former White House chief of staff to President Bill Clinton, speaking about the new health law, which was signed into law by Obama this past spring after a nearly year-long fight in Congress.

Esrkine Bowles is one of the two stooges who will anounce AFTER the mid-term election that all is crap and we have to have massive Tax increases in order to save us all, including likely, the VAT.

And if the republicans are in charge of at least one side or both of Congress it will be even  more there fault! 🙂

And Obama is going to, “Well, I have to do what the report says…”

It’s the ultimate Dog & Pony show.

Just keep that in mind.
Bowles, speaking at an event hosted by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said that even with the passage of Obama’s legislation, health care costs are still going to “really eat us alive” unless dramatic changes are made. The commission will submit recommendations on how to fix America’s long term fiscal problems to Congress in December.

Bowles’ point will be amplified Thursday when a conservative think tank releases a paper arguing that Obama’s health plan “is not entitlement reform,” at an event intended to highlight an alternative plan for reforming health care spending that is the brainchild of Rep. Paul Ryan, Wisconsin Republican.

James C. Capretta, a former White House budget adviser on health care to President George W. Bush, will present the paper for the Galen Institute at an event on Capitol Hill with Ryan, one of the Republican Party’s rising stars, and Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a top conservative economist.

Even as many on Capitol Hill are talking about addressing Social Security spending, Capretta writes in the 19-page paper that Medicare is the real problem.

Most Democrats and Republicans agree, Capretta says, that the 30 to 35 million seniors in Medicare’s fee-for-service (FFS) insurance program are “the engine … pulling the rest of the health system down the tracks at an accelerated and dangerous rate.”

And who just got recess appointee to the job of head of Medicare, a NHS Single-payer Health Care rationing lover.
No coincidence there mind you. 🙂

Most FFS participants pay nothing out of their own pockets for health care, and hospitals and doctors are incentivized to provide them with as many services and tests as can be loosely justified.

But Capretta says in the paper that the Obama health bill is not reform because it attempts to stop price inflation and inefficient care through top-down government control rather than bottom-up consumer demand.

“When attempts have been made in the past to steer patients toward preferred physicians or hospitals, they have failed miserably because politicians and regulators find it impossible to make distinctions among hospitals and physician groups based on quality measures that can themselves be disputed,” Capretta says.

Capretta goes on to say that Paul Ryan’s plan would move Medicare recipients from defined benefits to defined contributions, in which “cost-conscious consumers choose between competing insurers and delivery systems based on price and quality.”

“Beneficiaries would get to decide which insurance plan they want to enroll in. If the premium were more than the amount they are entitled to from Medicare, then they would pay the difference. If it were less, they would keep all of the savings,” Capretta says.

“Millions of otherwise passive Medicare participants would become active, cost-conscious consumers of insurance and alternative models for securing needed medical services,” Capretta writes. “Cost cutting innovation would be rewarded, not punished as it is today.”

White House officials pointed to recent blog posts by White House budget director Peter Orszag, who said that “if implemented effectively, [Obama’s health care bill] can play an important role in moving toward a healthier fiscal future.” (Daily Caller)

Welcome Big Brother Obama and Big Mother Michelle’s New and Improved IRS:

If it seems as if the tax code was conceived by graphic artist M.C. Escher, wait until you meet the new and not improved Internal Revenue Service created by ObamaCare. What, you’re not already on a first-name basis with your local IRS agent?

National Taxpayer Advocate Nina Olson, who operates inside the IRS, highlighted the agency’s new mission in her annual report to Congress last week. Look out below. She notes that the IRS is already “greatly taxed”—pun intended?—”by the additional role it is playing in delivering social benefits and programs to the American public,” like tax credits for first-time homebuyers or purchasing electric cars. Yet with ObamaCare, the agency is now responsible for “the most extensive social benefit program the IRS has been asked to implement in recent history.” And without “sufficient funding” it won’t be able to discharge these new duties.

That wouldn’t be tragic, given that those new duties include audits to determine who has the insurance “as required by law” and collecting penalties from Americans who don’t. Companies that don’t sponsor health plans will also be punished. This crackdown will “involve nearly every division and function of the IRS,” Ms. Olson reports.

Well, well. Republicans argued during the health debate that the IRS would have to hire hundreds of new agents and staff to enforce ObamaCare. They were brushed off by Democrats and the press corps as if they believed the President was born on the moon. The IRS says it hasn’t figured out how much extra money and manpower it will need but admits that both numbers are greater than zero.

Ms. Olson also exposed a damaging provision that she estimates will hit some 30 million sole proprietorships and subchapter S corporations, two million farms and one million charities and other tax-exempt organizations. Prior to ObamaCare, businesses only had to tell the IRS the value of services they purchase. But starting in 2013 they will also have to report the value of goods they buy from a single vendor that total more than $600 annually—including office supplies and the like.

Democrats snuck in this obligation to narrow the mythical “tax gap” of unreported business income, but Ms. Olson says that the tracking costs for small businesses will be “disproportionate as compared with any resulting improvement in tax compliance.” Job creation, here we come . . . at least for the accountants who will attempt to comply with a vast new 1099 reporting burden.

Meanwhile, the IRS will be inundated with useless information, because without a huge upgrade its information systems won’t be able to manage and track the nanodetails.

In a Monday letter, even Democratic Senators Mark Begich (Alaska), Ben Nelson (Nebraska), Jeanne Shaheen (New Hampshire) and Evan Bayh (Indiana) denounce this new “burden” on small businesses and insist that the IRS use its discretion to find “better ways to structure this reporting requirement.” In other words, they want regulators to fix one problem among many that all four Senators created by voting for ObamaCare.

We never thought anyone would be nostalgic for the tax system of a few months ago, but post-ObamaCare, here we are.(WSJ)

On Friday, Democratic Rep. Henry Waxman of California, the chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, declared that the sky is about to fall on the Medicare system. His plea to fellow Democrats to pass a $22.9-billion fix for Medicare doctors’ fees reveals the fraudulent nature of our new national health care regime.

Remember the health care issue? Well, the fiscal consequences of the socialized medicine scheme enacted by President Barack Obama and Congress just two months ago are already beginning to snowball.

Democratic Rep. Henry Waxman of California, the chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, was one of the key architects and advocates of Obamacare. He was back on the House floor on Friday delivering an urgent plea to fellow Democrats that inadvertently—or, perhaps, unavoidably—revealed the fraudulent nature of our new national health care regime.

It was supposed to save the taxpayers money, remember? “This legislation will lower costs for families and for businesses and for the federal government, reducing our deficit by over $1 trillion in the next two decades,” Obama said when he signed the bill.

On Friday, Waxman declared that the sky is about to fall on the Medicare system. He went to the House floor to “urge” his colleagues to vote for a bill that includes $102 billion in new federal spending and would add $54 billion to the national debt over the next 10 years — $25 billion of it in the few months remaining in this fiscal year.

Why did Waxman believe this new borrowing-and-spending was necessary?

“It’s absolutely critical to do this if we are going to keep doctors in Medicare and keep the promise to Medicare beneficiaries that they will have access to physicians’ services,” said Waxman. “This provision will provide a moderate increase in physicians’ fees, 2.2 percent for the rest of the year. If we don’t act, doctors’ fees will be cut by 21 percent from where they are today. This would be unconscionable.”

It would not merely be unconscionable. If the 21-percent cut in Medicare fees for doctors—that, in fact, legally took effect on June 1 — is allowed to stand, many doctors in this country will simply stop seeing Medicare patients. They will not be able to afford it. The cost to them of serving their patients will exceed what they are paid. Their profit margin will be swept away.

To make precisely this point, 12 national surgeons’ associations—including the American Association of Neurological Surgeons, the American Association of Orthopedic Surgeons and the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery—sent House Speaker Nancy Pelosi a letter last Wednesday warning her what would happen if Medicare doctors’ fees are slashed as they are scheduled to be under current law.

“These continued payment cuts, rising practice costs and a lack of certainty going forward, make it difficult, if not impossible, for already financially challenged surgical practices to continue to treat Medicare patients,” the surgeons’ associations told Pelosi.

The letter pointed the speaker toward the results of a survey of more than 13,000 physicians done in February by the Surgical Coalition, a group of more than 20 medical associations. The survey asked these doctors what they would do if Medicare fees were slashed by the scheduled 21.2 percent.

Twenty-nine percent said they would opt out of the Medicare system entirely. Almost 69 percent said they would limit the number of appointments they would take from Medicare patients, 45.8 percent said they would start referring complex Medicare patients to other physicians, 45.3 percent said they would stop providing certain services, 43.8 percent said they would defer purchasing new medical equipment and 42.7 percent said they would cut their staff. Almost 4 percent of the doctors said they would close or sell their practices.

Why did Congress plan to slash the doctors’ Medicare fees in the first place? It didn’t. In the past, the majority in Congress has routinely enacted budget bills that fraudulently assumed that on some future date the federal government would dramatically slash the Medicare fees paid to doctors, knowing that before that date arrived the majority would pass “emergency” legislation postponing the cuts to some still-future date. The majority in Congress does this so the long-term deficits caused by their spending bills appear to be smaller than they actually are.

As originally proposed, Obamacare would have ended this practice, permanently setting Medicare reimbursement rates for doctors at the true anticipated level. But the Congressional Budget Office determined that doing so would have added $208 billion to the cost of Obamacare over 10 years, forcing the CBO to declare that Obamacare added to the deficit rather than reduced it. That would have cost Obamacare votes on the House floor and quite possibly defeated the legislation.

So the congressional leadership stripped the “doc fix” out of Obamacare and left it to another day.

Waxman went down to the floor last Friday to declare that day had come. Unfortunately, for him, the Senate had already left town for its Memorial Day vacation. So, the current fix will have to wait until it returns.

Even then, the fix only accounts for $22.9 billion of the $102 billion cost of the bill the House did pass on Friday. Most of the rest of the money is for extending unemployment benefits and special targeted tax breaks.

The $22.9 billion fix for the doctors’ fees—if passed by the Senate—would only last through September 2011. Then Congress will presumably do it all again—or let the Medicare system collapse.

And they did.

In the meantime, Obamacare is supposed to cut half a trillion in spending from elsewhere in Medicare, while Obama’s budget—not counting the $54 billion in new debt included in this bill—is expected to add $9.8 trillion to the national debt over the next 10 years.

And then there’s still more on the “Financial Reform” bill related to the IRS:

“Small businesses are America’s job creators and essential to our nation’s economy,” Roberts said in prepared remarks. “Under the new healthcare law, small businesses will be hit with a costly tax reporting provision that will increase the cost of doing business at a time of economic uncertainty.”

Beginning in 2012, the law states that businesses, tax-exempt organizations, and state and local governments must submit a separate 1099 form for every business-to-business transaction totaling more than $600. The impetus behind the requirement is help the IRS better enforce the tax law by forcing companies to disclose whom they do business with.

Several organizations, including the IRS watchdog The National Taxpayer Advocate, have questioned how effective this requirement will be on enforcement.

The new mandate applies to everyday purchases, like shipping costs, supplies, even Internet and phone service. The senators argue this will overburden companies. The Taxpayer Advocate questions the IRS’ ability to handle all the documentation.

“Unless corrected, this time-wasting mandate of 1099 filings on common purchases needed to do business, will stifle economic growth and job creation while the IRS will be handed a paperwork nightmare,” Roberts said.

The senators contend the requirement will affect 40 million businesses nationwide.

“I have heard from many Kansas small businesses and farmers, already burdened with government bureaucracy, that these new reporting requirements will waste time and negatively impact their bottom-line,” Roberts said.

Abortion, anyone?

As reports are coming out that Pennsylvania is receiving $160 million from the Department of Health and Human Services to set up a new high-risk insurance pool program that will fund abortions, we are seeing, yet again, that the Obama Administration will say and do anything to pass their liberal agenda — ignoring public opinion along the way…

LIES: “You’ve heard that this is all going to mean government funding of abortion – not true. These are all fabrications.” — President Obama on August 19, 2009

D*MN LIES: “The executive order provides additional safeguards to ensure that the status quo is upheld and enforced, and that the health care legislation’s restrictions against the public funding of abortions cannot be circumvented.” — White House Statement on March 21, 2010

STATISTICS: 67 percent of Americans oppose funding abortions with public funds under the health care bill. — Quinnipiac University Poll, January 14, 2010

As pundits have commented in recent weeks, and many of us have realized, you need to watch what the President really does, not listen to what he says, as the two are often in vast contrast of one another. As you can read above, nowhere is this truer than on the issue of abortion.

Back in March, when the offer to sign an Executive Order was made, many pro-lifers questioned why the order was needed after President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and Secretary Sebelius had been saying for months that no federal dollars would be used to fund abortions. On the day of the vote, I personally spoke on the House floor about how an Executive Order has no effect of law and cannot override the clear intent of a statute, as well as on how an Executive Order is only a piece of paper. Now that we know how little the President values his word and that he is comfortable violating an Executive Order, we are only left to wonder what other secrets are lurking for us in the dark. (The Hill)

Remember, it was abortion that was the very last hurdle that Obama had to jump over to get his power over life and death.

He promised to Federally ban it.

He said Health Care Reform wasn’t tax.

The Stimulus will create 3 Million Jobs. (not “save or create”)

I said at the time he was lying.

I got called a racist so many times I could have paid off my house with the money if I got paid for it.

Saying this President is lying when his lips are moving is like saying the sun will come up tomorrow.

It’s an absolute certainty.

“If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – forever.”-Orwell

Thank you, Big Brother and Big Mother and Big Sis… 😦

Anyone got a crate of Tea handy… 🙂

Poisoning The Well, With Lame Duck

The Democrats are expected to lose big, especially in the House, in November.

Their hierarchy is made  up of very petty partisans who will do anything for their agenda.

They are the ones who have total disrespect for everyone who disagrees with them.

So faced with nearly inevitable annihilation that even they think is coming.

What can they do in the less than 4 months left before their power is diminished before the rampaging hoardes of barbarian Tea Partiers and Satan’s army incarnate, The Republicans,  storm the gates of their rightful power.

What any villager or Military in olden times did.

POISON THE WELL.

Do as much damage in a short amount of time as to make the incoming Congress’s job as tough as possible.

Likely, so in 2012’s Presidential Campaign Obama can claim that “well we tried it their way but it hasn’t gotten any better” because you know that if the House goes Republican (and possibly the Senate) that the Democrats who have been yelling about Republican “Obstructionism” for the last 18 months will now pivot and become the champion of  “No”.

And “NO!” will become a virtue again. And you know the Mainstream Media will be on the “Hell No!” bandwagon.

Meanwhile, their Health care provisions and taxes and the 2011 taxes will, of course, be “republican’s fault” after all they were in power when they hit. So it has to be their fault, doesn’t it. 🙂

The Democrats aren’t petty. 🙂

And the Mainstream Media isn’t in bed with them and won’t go from kiss-ass to a pack of veracious 24/7  raptors overnight.

No, that would never happen. 🙂

Democratic House members are so worried about the fall elections they’re leaving Washington on July 30, a full week earlier than normal—and they won’t return until mid-September. Members gulped when National Journal’s Charlie Cook, the Beltway’s leading political handicapper, predicted last month “the House is gone,” meaning a GOP takeover. He thinks Democrats will hold the Senate, but with a significantly reduced majority.

The rush to recess gives Democrats little time to pass any major laws. That’s why there have been signs in recent weeks that party leaders are planning an ambitious, lame-duck session to muscle through bills in December they don’t want to defend before November. Retiring or defeated members of Congress would then be able to vote for sweeping legislation without any fear of voter retaliation.\

“I’ve got lots of things I want to do” in a lame duck, Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D., W. Va.) told reporters in mid June. North Dakota’s Kent Conrad, chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, wants a lame-duck session to act on the recommendations of President Obama’s deficit commission, which is due to report on Dec. 1. “It could be a huge deal,” he told Roll Call last month. “We could get the country on a sound long-term fiscal path.” By which he undoubtedly means new taxes in exchange for extending some, but not all, of the Bush-era tax reductions that will expire at the end of the year.

Mind you, the commission recommendation is a forgone conclusion. Higher Taxes,  even the VAT tax is not unlikely.

After all, it’s job is to deflect blame away from Obama and Congress to begin with.

Why not, they have nothing to lose. 😦

And Democrats, especially Progressive Socialist Democrats, aren’t petty and vindictive now are they…:)
In the House, Arizona Rep. Raul Grijalva, co-chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, told reporters last month that for bills like “card check”—the measure to curb secret-ballot union elections—”the lame duck would be the last chance, quite honestly, for the foreseeable future.”

Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin, chair of the Senate committee overseeing labor issues, told the Bill Press radio show in June that “to those who think [card check] is dead, I say think again.” He told Mr. Press “we’re still trying to maneuver” a way to pass some parts of the bill before the next Congress is sworn in.

Other lame-duck possibilities? Senate ratification of the New Start nuclear treaty, a federally mandated universal voter registration system to override state laws (got to have even more potential for Democrats to foster voter fraud in 2012), and a budget resolution to lock in increased agency spending. (poison the well) Deficits, we’ll show you deficits! 🙂

Then there is pork. A Senate aide told me that “some of the biggest porkers on both sides of the aisle are leaving office this year, and a lame-duck session would be their last hurrah for spending.” Likely suspects include key members of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Congress’s “favor factory,” such as Pennsylvania Democrat Arlen Specter and Utah Republican Bob Bennett.

Conservative groups such as FreedomWorks are alarmed at the potential damage, and they are demanding that everyone in Congress pledge not to take up substantive legislation in a post-election session. “Members of Congress are supposed to represent their constituents, not override them like sore losers in a lame-duck session,” Rep. Tom Price, head of the Republican Study Committee, told me.

But these are they guys who rammed Health Care down your throat even if to this day a majority are against it.

They are suing the State of Arizona for their own Open Borders mentality even though a majority of Americans are against it.

They continue to spend like drugged-out addicts.

Why wouldn’t they take one final shot of that pork heroin.

The Democrats have the chance to push as much of their Agenda without consequence to them personally as possible. Why wouldn’t they do it?

I wouldn’t even put Amnesty off the table.

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (Calif.), one of the GOP’s staunchest opponents of illegal immigration, warned that President Barack Obama might seek immigration reform after this fall’s elections, and urged lawmakers running for reelection to pledge not to move such legislation during a lame-duck Congress.

“If you listen to the debate, since the president’s speech, and now you look at this action by his Justice Department, what we can expect is that after the next elections, in between before the next Congress is sworn in, they will move and try to do something dramatic in the area of illegal immigration,” Rohrabacher said during an interview with a conservative radio syndicate.

So we have initiatives to create even more voter fraud, we have Amnesty for new Democrat voters.

They wouldn’t be trying to steal 2012 and future elections now would they?

Nah, they aren’t that cynical and power mad now are they. 🙂

Got a Global Warming PR problem, no problem a Lame Duck can’t fix.

“Last night President Obama reiterated his call for comprehensive energy and climate legislation to break our dependence on oil and fossil fuels. Next week he will be reaching out to senators on both sides of the aisle to chart a path forward.”

There’s that word “comprehensive” again….

“The tragedy in the gulf underscores the need to move quickly, and the president is committed to finding the votes for comprehensive energy legislation this year.”

Never Let a crisis go to waste, or a Lame Duck for that matter. 🙂

Under this scenario, the final product of any House-Senate conference could come up for a final vote in a lame-duck session after lawmakers have faced voters in November, thereby cushioning the vote’s political impact. (WP)

It’s been almost 30 years since anything remotely contentious was handled in a lame-duck session, but that doesn’t faze Democrats who have jammed through ObamaCare and are determined to bring the financial system under greater federal control.

Mike Allen of Politico.com reports one reason President Obama failed to mention climate change legislation during his recent, Oval Office speech on the Gulf oil spill was that he wants to pass a modest energy bill this summer, then add carbon taxes or regulations in a conference committee with the House, most likely during a lame-duck session. The result would be a climate bill vastly more ambitious, and costly for American consumers and taxpayers, than moderate “Blue Dogs” in the House would support on the campaign trail. “We have a lot of wiggle room in conference,” a House Democratic aide told the trade publication Environment & Energy Daily last month.

Many Democrats insist there will be no dramatic lame-duck agenda. But a few months ago they also insisted the extraordinary maneuvers used to pass health care wouldn’t be used. Desperate times may be seen as calling for desperate measures, and this November the election results may well make Democrats desperate. (John Fund, WSJ)

DAMN THE TORPEDOES! FULL STEAM AHEAD!

And of course, it’s all George W Bush and The Republican’s Fault. 🙂

What we really need is to have Lame Duck declared a  Major Health Hazard, because it’s potentially very, very TOXIC and  potentially lethal to us all.

You Can Fool People with Spin

Government these days isn’t about making the hard choices. It’s about making the choice that will sell, either to “your base” (thus ignoring everyone else) or by spin (which is inevitably deceitful) because it will benefit you or one of your “sides” interests.

They write 2000+ bills they won’t read. But expect everyone to follow.

They can’t be bothered to read SB1070, at a minimalist 16 pages.

Much easier to just play on people fears, anxiety,biases, and divide and conquer.

And when that doesn’t work, just lie.

Then there’s the politician favorite phrase these days, “I misspoke”.

No, we have it on tape or audio.

But they “misspoke”.

Then you get stuff like this:

President Barack Obama, fresh from a win on a sweeping overhaul of Wall Street regulations, on Saturday urged Congress to take up his proposal for a $90 billion, 10-year tax on banks as the next step in reform.

Obama wants to slap a 0.15 percent tax on the liabilities of the biggest U.S. financial institutions to recoup the costs to taxpayers of the financial bailout.

“We need to impose a fee on the banks that were the biggest beneficiaries of taxpayer assistance at the height of our financial crisis — so we can recover every dime of taxpayer money,” Obama said in his weekly radio and Internet address.

He does realize that a tax on business is passed onto the consumer right?

He doesn’t care. It sounds good.

It plays to his anti-capitalist base and the “wall street” anger that has been ginned up.

The fact that Congress in the 1990’s set up the roots of this problem and the Government agency in charge of monitoring them were too busy with Porn is not a matter for discussion.

And one of the biggest players in this whole mess, Fannie and Freddie were and are  ignored should be a sign.

Alinsky, Rules for Radicals:
Rule 5: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It’s hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.

Rule 6: A good tactic is one your people enjoy. “If your people aren’t having a ball doing it, there is something very wrong with the tactic.”

Rule 9: The threat is more terrifying than the thing itself.

Rule 11: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it.

Daniel Foster at the conservative National Review Online argues that the bill is filled with unnecessary or useless measures.

“There is much in the bill that has nothing to do with ‘Wall Street’ or the root causes of the crisis (i.e. debit card and interchange fee rules),” Foster writes. “There is little in it that will ‘reform’ too big to fail or change the incentives for the kind of behavior that led to the crisis (implicit subsidies and bailout authority galore); and it was a ‘compromise’ mostly between Democrats.”

Then you have VP Joe Biden, a one man gaffe machine:
VP Biden ran into an ice cream shot owner (in his shop) who aked him to lower the taxes and he called the guy a “smartass”

And it gets better:
Vice President Joe Biden gave a stark assessment of the economy Friday, telling an audience of supporters, “there’s no possibility to restore 8 million jobs lost in the Great Recession.”

Appearing at a fundraiser with Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.) in Milwaukee, the vice president remarked that by the time he and President Obama took office in 2008, the gross domestic product had shrunk and hundreds of thousands of jobs had been lost.

“We inherited a godawful mess,” he said, adding there was “no way to regenerate $3 trillion that was lost. Not misplaced, lost.” (CBS)

Andrew Langer, The Daily Caller:

Ultimately, with election victory comes the responsibility of governance. That responsibility requires grappling with the excruciating problem of making tough choices. This is something all elected officials face at some time or another, and it is the caveat for anyone interested in pursuing a political career. Problems ensue when political leaders abdicate their responsibilities—and a case can be made that such abdication is an abuse of the public trust. And when it comes to domestic policy, there is no more important issue than the creation of a government’s annual budget.

For the past three years, there has been a disturbing trend of federal legislators essentially punting their responsibilities—whether it comes to oversight of federal agencies, understanding the constitutional implications of legislation, or, at its most basic, actually reading legislation being voted upon. This seemingly fundamental misunderstanding of the role of legislators in our republic has resulted in an unprecedented outpouring of public ire, from Tea Parties to very public “dressing downs” of congressmen at Town Hall meetings.

Congress should have gotten the message, yet as proof they are deaf to their constituencies, leaders in the House have recently done—or not done—something stunning. Congressional leaders have decided that they are unable to even propose, let alone pass, a federal budget this year.

They have ostensibly done this while they await the decision of President Obama’s “Deficit Commission,” a convenient fiction created to give cowardly Democrats the “cover” necessary for a tax increase following the 2010 elections. It is not their fault, they will argue when they eventually do propose a budget. They were forced to do this because of the recommendations of the commission.

It is an excuse that doesn’t hold water. Congress has the responsibility for the budget, which means that the majority party has the responsibility for getting it prepared and shepherded through the system and passed. It is, in fact, statutorily mandated. But without any consequences, the law has about as much real power as a Las Vegas illusionist: it’s great theatre, but it really doesn’t do what it claims.

The problem is that more and more government entities (including state and local governments) are shifting these powers to unelected commissions. While some might call it mere “punting”—moving the power to some other group of individuals—it’s more accurately a form of political surrender; the functional equivalent of throwing in the towel because, well, the job is just too darn hard, and, in an election cycle, these guys want the title but they don’t want the responsibilities to go along with it.

Spending and size of government are the two top issues going into this fall election, with healthcare reform playing a role in both. Voters not only are fed up with out-of-control spending, they’re genuinely fearful of the potential economic instability runaway spending creates. Controlling that spending is infinitely more complicated when government officials refuse to release a budget detailing just how that money is being spent. It was, interestingly enough, the continued secrecy of national budgets that brought Gorbachev to power as the Soviet Union’s last premier—and opening up those budgets to greater scrutiny one of the hallmarks of his Perestroika program. How ironic, then, that more than two decades later, America is moving in that direction—an entirely wrong direction—when it comes to budgets.

Americans are tired of cowardly politicians. They are tired of being lied to, of having polls say one thing and do quite the opposite. They are hungry for real leaders—leaders who mean what they say and say what they mean. Leaders who are willing to make the tough choices, like Gov. Chris Christie in New Jersey.

Whether it’s trying to shift responsibility or surrendering to the difficulties of governance, either way the result is the same: Americans’ government grows larger without anyone exercising fiscal restraint. Political leaders raise taxes to try and pay for their inability to control spending. Overall we all suffer. Unfortunately, in this case, waiting until January 2011 might just be too late.

  • Entitlements lead to Tax Increases The deficit will reach a stunning $1.5 trillion this year. Even after the recession ends, trillion-dollar deficits will persist, causing the national debt to double by 2020.
  • Excessive spending—not low revenues—accounts for 92% of deficits by 2014 and 100% by 2017.
  • Solutions that “split the difference” between tax hikes and spending cuts doesn’t really address the source of the problem: spending.
  • Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and interest costs will surge by nearly $2 trillion by 2020. By comparison, the cost of extending the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts is 85% less at $404 billion.

Tax Increases Are Not the Solution

  • Raising federal income taxes to pay for entitlement spending would require rates to double by 2050 and continue to rise thereafter.
  • Balancing the budget with tax increases alone would increase the tax burden from an average of 18% of the economy to 30% by 2055.
  • Layering on a value added tax (VAT)—a new national sales tax—would create a huge drag on the economy and family budgets.
  • A VAT would cause the price of everything to rise by 15–20%. By 2019, 44 cents of every dollar would go to the federal government, compared to 15 cents today.

Tax Hikes Have Harmful Economic Consequences

  • Tax increases take money from families and businesses, lowering savings and investment and killing jobs. This is especially harmful in the current economic climate.
  • Future generations—who can’t yet vote—will be stuck paying the higher taxes and inheriting lower standards of living that go with it.
  • Any new federal income taxes would be on top of state and local taxes, such as income, property, excise, fuel, and sales taxes.
  • A VAT would become a cash cow for Congress to fund new spending and open the door for continued, stealthy rate increases.
  • Twenty of 29 developed economies with a VAT have increased rates since passage. Denmark leads, having increased their VAT from 15 to 25% since it was enacted.

Congress has been mismanaging taxpayer dollars for decades. Can Washington really be trusted to use new revenues to close the deficit gap, or would they just spend the money on new programs? (heritage.org)

I would say no.

When you can just “misspeak” or “The previous administration…” or “the party of no” or just demonize someone else, why bother.

It is much easier to spend than to be responsible.

After all, it’s not the politician’s money.

It’s yours.

And you’ll always be there for them so why should they worry. 🙂

Greece-ing the Skids

WASHINGTON (AP) – Your parents were right. Money can’t buy you happiness.
That was the message from the Federal Reserve chairman on Saturday to graduates of the University of South Carolina.

Or was it?
“We all know that getting a better-paying job is one of the main reasons to go to college. … But if you are ever tempted to go into a field or take a job only because the pay is high and for no other reason, be careful!” Ben Bernanke said in his commencement address.
“Having a larger income is exciting at first, but as you get used to your new standard of living and as you associate with other people in your new income bracket, the thrill quickly wears off,” he said.

Unless you’re a  Liberal that is…

If you’re rich, you’re above it all. But we will demonize only Republicans.

If you’re not, you are told you’re entitled to other people’s money, so don’t worry about it.

But doesn’t this sound a lot like Michelle Obama’s Zanesville speech that got her in so much hot water that she was removed from the campaign trail.

“The salaries don’t keep up with the cost of paying off the debt, so you’re in your 40s, still paying off your debt at a time when you have to save for your kids,” she says.
“Barack and I were in that position,” she continues. “The only reason we’re not in that position is that Barack wrote two best-selling books… It was like Jack and his magic beans. But up until a few years ago, we were struggling to figure out how we would save for our kids.” A former attorney with the white-shoe Chicago firm of Sidley & Austin, Obama explains that she and her husband made the choice to give up lucrative jobs in favor of community service. “We left corporate America, which is a lot of what we’re asking young people to do,” she tells the women. “Don’t go into corporate America. You know, become teachers. Work for the community. Be social workers. Be a nurse. Those are the careers that we need, and we’re encouraging our young people to do that. But if you make that choice, as we did, to move out of the money-making industry into the helping industry, then your salaries respond.” Faced with that reality, she adds, “many of our bright stars are going into corporate law or hedge-fund management.”

Collectively, according to the IRS, they made $5 Million Dollars last year.

I guess that wasn’t so evil.

The message, don’t strive so hard to succeed.

Lower your expectations.

Because, we already know we are living so far beyond our means as a government that eventually,  in 10 or 20 years or less you’ll be Greece’d.

So better to lower the expectations now so they can lessen the violence when the fecal matter hits the air circulation device.

In Greece:

They are angry because for years they have been encouraged to live beyond their means, taking advantage of the cheap credit on offer since Greece joined the euro in 2001. Now, the rug is being pulled from under their feet. People who have taken out mortgages to buy homes, loans to purchase cars and credit cards to pay for overpriced basic goods are being asked to meet all these commitments with a much lower income than they had budgeted for.

Fannie and Freddie anyone??

UK Guardian: Saddled with burgeoning public sectors (which help sustain muscular trade unions)– SEIU, UAW, NEA anyone?

This is not what angers Greeks most, though. What you will hear time after time, both at the protests and at workplaces and cafes, is that this crisis confirms the failure of the country’s political system. In other words, that for years politicians have been bleeding the country dry, looking after themselves and their friends and failing to build a robust economy and a country equipped to deal with the challenges of the 21st century.

🙂

There is anger at the pervasive, high-level corruption for which no politician is ever punished. People are also furious that no government has ever tackled influence-peddling in the public sector. The Greek branch of Transparency International estimated that Greeks paid almost euro800 million ($1 billion) in bribes last year. This is another drain on household budgets but more importantly it creates a sense of injustice, a sense that to get anything done you have to play by the system’s warped rules.

Sound familiar??

This feeling of unfairness is compounded when tax evasion also goes unpunished.

“Turbo Tax” Geithner anyone? Barney Frank? Charlie Rangel??

Salaried professionals and civil servants have their wages taxed at source but many Greeks do not. And, what they declare often bears no resemblance to what they actually earn. The government believes that tax evasion could be worth up to euro30 billion ($38 billion) a year, or 12 percent of the country’s GDP. Allowing one part of the population to consistently get away without paying while Greece’s public finances are propped up by the same people all the time creates incredible resentment. That’s why you hear many Greeks say they will put up with the austerity measures if the government ensures that everybody pays their fair share. If people believe that the usual suspects, who in many cases are wealthy businessmen, doctors and lawyers, are allowed to get away with it, then the level of anger will go up several notches.

47% of all Americans pay NO TAXES whatsover!

Union workers and civil servant can make more in retirement than on the job.

But we aren’t going down that road…oh no…the Nazi, Racist, Violent Tea Baggers are just wrong. 😦

Some of the measures imposed on Greece by the EU in order to bail them out (BBC):

The plans hope to achieve budget cuts of 30bn euros over three years – with the goal of cutting Greece’s public deficit to less than 3% of GDP by 2014. It currently stands at 13.6%.

PAY CUTS

The government is planning a freeze pay for all public sector workers.

Some pay cuts will also be implemented, and public sector contract workers are set to lose their jobs.

This follows several years of continuous increases in pay, with salaries rising by an average of 30% since 2006.

Annual bonus payments – paid as 13th and 14th month salaries – will also be scrapped for high earners and capped for lower earners.

Other bonuses will be scrapped.

In the private sector, the legal maximum number of people companies can lay off each month will be doubled from 2% of personnel to 4%.

PENSIONS

The reforms seek to prevent early retirement. Currently the average age of retirement in Greece is 61, though it is not uncommon for public sector workers to retire in their 50s.

Under the planned changes, the retirement age, which is currently 65 years for men and 60 years for women, will be linked to average life expectancy.

In addition, the minimum number of years someone will have had to have worked to qualify for a full pension will rise to 40 years from 37.

Pensions will also be reduced so that they reflect a worker’s average working pay rather than their final salary.
TAX REFORM

VAT will be increased to 23% from 21% – just the latest in a series of recent increases.

Indirect taxes – including those on alcohol, fuel and cigarettes – will see a 10% rise.

There will also be a clamp-down on tax evasion – widely regarded as a big problem in Greece – and on untaxed illegal construction.

Tax-evasion alone is estimated to cost the Greek government at least 20bn euros a year.
PRIVATISATION

In the longer-term, the government will look to reduce the reliance of the Greek economy on the public sector, reducing the number of people on the public payroll.

This will require growth in the private sector, and possible privatisation of some industries.

Getting eerily uncomfortable I hope.

See our future if  Obama and The Democrats (and Republicans too) are not stopped.

According to a December report from the BLS, state and local government employers spent an average of $39.83 per hour worked ($26.24 for wages and $13.60 for benefits) for total employee compensation in September 2009. Total employer compensation costs for private industry workers averaged $27.49 per hour ($19.45 for wages and $8.05 for benefits), see chart above. In other words, government employees make 45% more on average than private sector employees.

According to an analysis by USAToday (thanks to Michael Jahr for the pointer), “The number of federal workers earning six-figure salaries has exploded during the recession, according to an analysis of federal salary data.” For example, the number of federal employees making $100,000 or more has increased by 120,595, from 262,163 employees in December 2007 to 382,758 in June 2009, for a 46% increase. The number of federal workers making $150,000 or more has more than doubled since the recession started, from about 30,000 to more than 66,000 (see chart above).

USA Today also reports that “When the recession started, the Transportation Department had only one person earning a salary of $170,000 or more. Eighteen months later, 1,690 employees had salaries above $170,000.” That’s a 168,900% increase!!

The Unemployment rate in the public sector is about 3%.

It’s been near 10% for a very long time in the real world.

And do the Democrats look concerned?

Do the Republicans?

Do they?

Josh Barro writes for the Manhattan Institute about the “Two Americas” and the “sharp difference between two classes of employees: those who work in the private sector and those who work for the government. Workers in the public sector have experienced a very different recession from those in the private sector.”

So is this Greece-ing the skids for what the government knows is coming if things don’t change?

I think so.

Coming Attractions

The TAX that isn’t a “TAX” and don’t you dare call it a Tax!

But it is a Tax.

Another exercise in putting lipstick on a pig and calling it an Extreme Porcine Makeover.

Two immovable facts face Democrats on President Obama’s fiscal commission: They don’t see any way to alleviate the country’s debt without raising taxes, and they know most voters hate the thought of any tax increase.

Leading Democrats on the commission tried during the first week of meetings to finesse their way toward a discussion of what they consider inevitable — by arguing that any tax hikes would be “pro-growth.”

So paying MORE TAXES are your patriotic duty and they will be good for you! 🙂

“If we can put forward some practical proposals that control the rate of spending in the future and that raise revenues in a pro-growth way, I think we’ll get a hearing in the Congress,” said Alice Rivlin, a former White House budget director for President Jimmy Carter, who is one of 18 commission members.

Jimmy Carter? No wonder this sounds familiar….

If you didn’t read the word “tax” in the previous sentence, that’s because most who favor raising taxes don’t like to use the word. Instead they use “revenue,” as in the money that comes to the government from taxpayers.

Orwellian Translation:  “Revenue”=Tax

“Pro-Growth” = More Taxes

And IF they control spending, they THINK it will work.

This after ObamaCare, and with Cap & Trade and Amnesty coming…yeah that’s going to happen.

But I’m sure the Fifth Column/Ministry of Truth Mainstream Media has already been briefed on their talking points.

And this “commission” to work out how exactly to get the VAT tax in under the Orwellian Door has cost of $500,000 already, in it’s first week.

It must be all those twists and turns , contortions and distortion exercises.

Oh, and the Commission is expected to hand in it’s report AFTER the November elections… 🙂

Any solution is “going to involve revenue (read:Tax), and we have to face up to that,” Co-Chair Erskine Bowles said.

Translation: No matter what we do or say it all comes down to raising Taxes ON EVERYONE. We just have figure out how to cram the square peg in the Orwellian round hole and sugar coat it so it doesn’t sound like the bitter pill that it is.

That’s what happens when you spend $4 Trillion in 16 Months. Fascinating correlation there.

“I want to make sure that any time we discuss revenues that we don’t do anything that has a negative impact on economic growth,” Bowles said.

Translation:  Whenever we mention raising taxes we have to be sure we are stressing we aren’t  going to raise taxes!! When we are.

And when that doesn’t work <<drum roll please>> IT WAS GEORGE W. BUSH’S FAULT!! <rimshot> 🙂

On the VAT Tax: “It raises a lot of money without affecting what people do and that’s a good thing,” said Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center.

So taxing every step in the production of a product, making the product more expensive to make, thus raising the price of the product will not affect what people do or the product?

Where’s my barf bag…anyone seen it…

So it’s all about trickery and deception.

This is a cod liver oil enema.

We are from the Government and we are here to Help you!

Pay us more, so we can spend even more.

Rejoice.

Your “Pro-Growth Revenue” is on it’s way to you.

*****

Story #2: Oops! did I say what I believe!

It comes to us from Great Britain and is another chilling example of the Politically Correct Thought Police in action.

Where, Like Arizona, you have thought the wrong thought and you must be punished for it.

Also, undoubtedly the same if you call the coming Tax Increases,”Tax Increases”, you’ll be excoriated by the Left and by the Ministry of Truth.

Dale McAlpine was charged with causing “harassment, alarm or distress” after a homosexual police community support officer (PCSO) overheard him reciting a number of “sins” referred to in the Bible, including blasphemy, drunkenness and same sex relationships.

The 42-year-old Baptist, who has preached Christianity in Wokington, Cumbria for years, said he did not mention homosexuality while delivering a sermon from the top of a stepladder, but admitted telling a passing shopper that he believed it went against the word of God.

Police officers are alleging that he made the remark in a voice loud enough to be overheard by others and have charged him with using abusive or insulting language, contrary to the Public Order Act.

Mr McAlpine, who was taken to the police station in the back of a marked van and locked in a cell for seven hours on April 20, said the incident was among the worst experiences of his life.

“I felt deeply shocked and humiliated that I had been arrested in my own town and treated like a common criminal in front of people I know,” he said.

“My freedom was taken away on the hearsay of someone who disliked what I said, and I was charged under a law that doesn’t apply.”

Christian campaigners have expressed alarm that the Public Order Act, introduced in 1986 to tackle violent rioters and football hooligans, is being used to curb religious free speech.

Sam Webster, a solicitor-advocate for the Christian Institute, which is supporting Mr McAlpine, said it is not a crime to express the belief that homosexual conduct is a sin.

“The police have a duty to maintain public order but they also have a duty to defend the lawful free speech of citizens,” he said.

“Case law has ruled that the orthodox Christian belief that homosexual conduct is sinful is a belief worthy of respect in a democratic society.”

Mr McAlpine was handing out leaflets explaining the Ten Commandments or offering a “ticket to heaven” with a church colleague on April 20, when a woman came up and engaged him in a debate about his faith.

During the exchange, he says he quietly listed homosexuality among a number of sins referred to in 1 Corinthians, including blasphemy, fornication, adultery and drunkenness.

After the woman walked away, she was approached by a PCSO who spoke with her briefly and then walked over to Mr McAlpine and told him a complaint had been made, and that he could be arrested for using racist or homophobic language.

The street preacher said he told the PCSO: “I am not homophobic but sometimes I do say that the Bible says homosexuality is a crime against the Creator”.

He claims that the PCSO then said he was homosexual and identified himself as the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender liaison officer for Cumbria police. Mr McAlpine replied: “It’s still a sin.”

The preacher then began a 20 minute sermon, in which he says he mentioned drunkenness and adultery, but not homosexuality. Three regular uniformed police officers arrived during the address, arrested Mr McAlpine and put him in the back of a police van.

At the station, he was told to empty his pockets and his mobile telephone, belt and shoes were confiscated. Police took fingerprints, a palm print, a retina scan and a DNA swab.

He was later interviewed, charged under Sections 5 (1) and (6) of the Public Order Act and released on bail on the condition that he did not preach in public.

Mr McAlpine pleaded not guilty at a preliminary hearing on Friday at Wokingham magistrates court and is now awaiting a trial date.

The Public Order Act, which outlaws the unreasonable use of abusive language likely to cause distress, has been used to arrest religious people in a number of similar cases.

Harry Hammond, a pensioner, was convicted under Section 5 of the Act in 2002 for holding up a sign saying “Stop immorality. Stop Homosexuality. Stop Lesbianism. Jesus is Lord” while preaching in Bournemouth.

Stephen Green, a Christian campaigner, was arrested and charged in 2006 for handing out religious leaflets at a Gay Pride festival in Cardiff. The case against him was later dropped.

Cumbria police said last night that no one was available to comment on Mr McAlpine’s case. (Times of London)

And since The Left in this country is very anti-christian a lot of time, how long before we have a Public Order Act? 😦

And remember, the Left in this country not only struck down the National Day of Prayer, but is pushing to have the Chairman of that event, Billy Graham’s son- Rev. Franklin Graham, dis-invited because he had “something bad” to say about Muslims.

So enjoy your “pro growth revenues” secure in the knowledge that your government is looking out for you.

And when the Public Oder Acts come up, just know it’s for the “public good”, after all we have to protect people from the truth and from unapproved thoughts.

Take VAT America!

Before deciding what revenue options are best for dealing with the deficit and the economy, Obama said in an interview with CNBC, “I want to get a better picture of what our options are.”

For days, White House spokesmen have said the president has not proposed and is not considering a VAT.

“I think I directly answered this the other day by saying that it wasn’t something that the president had under consideration,” White House press secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters shortly before Obama spoke with CNBC.

After the interview, White House deputy communications director Jen Psaki said nothing has changed and the White House is “not considering” a VAT. (yahoo)

Translation: it’s coming, we just haven’t figured out what color lipstick to put on this pig.

He said his first priority “is to figure out how can we reduce wasteful spending so that, you know, we have a baseline of the core services that we need and the government should provide. And then we decide how do we pay for that.”

Reduce Wasteful Spending??

REDUCE WASTEFUL SPENDING??!!!!

$%&*^$%#@$^*%#!@!@#^!!!!!!!

Now juxtapose this comment against: Health Care, Bailiouts, GM, Chrysler, AIG, Cap & Trade, Global Warming,Wall Street Demonization and Financial Reform and you just have to conclude they are either the most aethical people who just say whatever the hell they want to at that moment and expect you to believe it, or that they believe wholeheartedly that you really are mind numbingly stupid!

Ask almost anyone — economists, politicians, entrepreneurs, average Americans — and they’ll tell you a value-added tax is a bad idea. So why does the White House continue to consider it?

After hearing VAT opponents smeared as anti-government radicals and worse, we decided to poll Americans on the issue. What our IBD/TIPP poll found was surprising: Not only is the VAT unpopular, but it’s unpopular across the board, regardless of political affiliation.

Overall, Americans oppose a VAT by 73% to 22%. Republicans, as might be expected, feel the strongest: 83% against, 14% for. But even Democrats oppose it 65% to 27%. Independents stand somewhere in between (see chart).

We’re not surprised. A VAT would be a huge new tax on all levels of income, including the poor and the middle class. That, even as Americans have made it clear in poll after poll that they feel overtaxed — and that government spending is the problem.

And they’re right. To eliminate expected deficits of $12 trillion over the next 10 years, the VAT would have to be enormous.

It’s been estimated that a 5% VAT would generate $250 billion in annual revenues. So to get rid of the $1 trillion annual deficits expected through 2020 would require a value-added tax of 20%. And that’s in addition to all the taxes we already pay at every level of government. Such a tax burden would kill innovation, jobs and economic growth. Our economy would be more like those of the stagnant, debt-ridden European Union, where the VAT averages close to 20%.

A Chamber of Commerce study suggests that spending in countries with a VAT grows 45% faster than in non-VAT countries. A VAT, it seems, emboldens money-drunk politicians to spend even more on expanding the welfare state.

That’s why, as unpopular as it is, Democratic politicians in the White House and Congress can’t quite let go of the idea.(IBD)

The idea of cutting spending is not even a wisp of an after-thought with these guys.

It’s about how do we spend even more.

Which means we have to raise money money to cover it.

And does absolutely nothing for the debt and deficit we already have.

But damn it feels good to spend like there’s no tomorrow.

And for a Government that wants to take over everything and everybody, that’s a lot of money.

But they haven’t come up with the used car salesman pitch yet.

And most likely, the demon to polarize it with.

So what if it’s unpopular even with Democrats.

It’s not like they really care what anyone things outside of the Capital area.

It’s not hard to figure out why. According to the American Institute for Economic Research, federal tax revenues in 2009 shriveled by $400 billion from the year before to the lowest level of taxes as a share of GDP — 15% — since 1950.

That’s a huge revenue hole, and it comes at a time when total federal spending through 2020 is expected to surge nearly 70% to $45 trillion. To fill the hole, Washington wants more of your money.

And considering Medicare projection of it’s first 25 years were off by 900% that makes Health Care a country buster in the next generation.

So unless we all want to work for our Feudal Lord Democrat and pay more in taxes than you earn regardless of income level,  the drug addicts in Washington have to go the Spending Patch and their has to be a Voter/Taxpayer Intervention  and we need to ween them and us off dependency and return to self-reliance and fiscally sound policies.

OR ELSE!

Creating Unemployment

“The second way government assistance programs contribute to long-term unemployment is by providing an incentive, and the means, not to work. Each unemployed person has a ‘reservation wage’—the minimum wage he or she insists on getting before accepting a job. Unemployment insurance and other social assistance programs increase [the] reservation wage, causing an unemployed person to remain unemployed longer.”

Any guess who wrote that? Milton Friedman, perhaps. Simon Legree? Sorry.

Full credit goes to Lawrence H. Summers, the current White House economic adviser, who wrote those sensible words in his chapter on “Unemployment” in the Concise Encyclopedia of Economics, first published in 1999.

“The several extensions of emergency unemployment insurance benefits appeared to have raised the measured unemployment rate, relative to levels recorded in past downturns.” It continued: “Some estimates suggested it could account for 1 percentage point or more of the increase in the unemployment rate during the recession.” That’s more than one million jobless workers Alan Reynolds of the Cato Institute has found that the average unemployment episode rose from 10 weeks before the recession to 19 weeks after Congress twice previously extended jobless benefits—to 79 from 26 weeks. Even as initial unemployment claims have fallen in recent months, the length of unemployment has risen. Mr. Reynolds estimates that the extensions of unemployment insurance and other federal policies have raised the official jobless rate by nearly two percentage points.

Or consider the Brookings Institution, whose panel on economic activity reported this March that jobless insurance extensions “correspond to between 0.7 and 1.8 percentage points of the 5.5 percentage point increase in the unemployment rate witnessed in the current recession.”

Or perhaps the Senate should listen to another Obama Administration economist, Alan Krueger of the Treasury Department, who concluded in a 2008 study that “job search increases sharply in the weeks prior to benefit exhaustion.” In other words, many unemployed workers don’t start seriously looking for a job until they are about to lose their benefits.

And, sure enough, the share of unemployed workers who don’t have a job for more than 26 weeks has steadily increased, reaching a record 44.1% in March. The average spell of unemployment is now 31 weeks, even though the economy is once again creating more new jobs than it is losing. Democrats are slowly converting unemployment insurance into a welfare program. (WSJ)

Dependency. That’s all the Democrats really, really want.

If you’re dependent on them, if you think you’re entitled, you’ll vote for them.

That’s all that matters in the end, isn’t it?

Then there’s the VAT, to destroy any recovery that might peek it’s head up like the Whack-A-Mole’s at a carnival.

Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich is about as liberal as they come. Yet even he gets the obvious truth of a VAT: When added to other taxes, it would fall hardest on the poor.

Clinton’s labor guy is now comfortably ensconced as a professor at Berkeley. The nine books he has written have basically helped delineate liberal thinking since the late 1970s.

Yet while many in his party, the Democrats, now yearn for a value-added tax (in addition to our current income tax) as a way to raise money to pay down the estimated $12 trillion in deficits over the next decade, Reich is having none of it.

Appearing on CNBC, Reich laid out the goods: “I worry that because it is a kind of super sales tax, it’s regressive,” he said. “It does not take a bigger bite out of the incomes of the wealthy than it does out of the incomes of the poor, and therefore it is a step backwards toward greater tax regressivity, as is every sales tax.”

We don’t agree much with Reich on anything, but on this he’s right. The VAT, so beloved by Democrats, would sock the poor and the middle class — 47 million of whom today pay no taxes at all on their incomes — with higher taxes.

Whether that’s fair or not is a different question. But Reich is undoubtedly correct when he assails the VAT as a “hidden” tax. Since it’s levied at each level of production, and not just on the final sale, the consumer doesn’t realize how much he or she has paid in taxes.

Even so, President Obama’s deficit-reduction commission, a bipartisan panel created to reduce our soaring deficits, is thought by many to be leaning in favor of a VAT. But once a VAT is imposed, even at a minuscule rate of say, 2%, it will inevitably grow bigger.

Witness the experience of the European Union. When the 12 largest nations of Europe first began using the VAT in the late 1960s, it averaged a bit over 13%. Today, it averages 20.5% across those same European Union nations — a 54% increase.

Once the camel’s nose gets under the tent, it’s tough to keep out the rest of the hairy beast.

President Obama, on the stump in 2008 and after entering office in 2009, promised that those earning less than $200,000 wouldn’t see their taxes hiked. A VAT would represent the largest tax hike on the working poor since Social Security.

The president would be wise to heed Reich’s advice and avoid it like the plague — or he’ll give Democratic base voters one more reason to look for change in 2012.

But he won’t.

You know he won’t.

And when they do it and it sinks the economy it surely won’t be there fault.

And when you raise taxes, and you continue to spending like a drug addict who needs his fix, the problem will only get worse.

So, it’s imperative that we stop the drug addicts in November.

And do our best to stop them now.

An Intervention is definitely overdue.

Then we have to hold the hand of the next Congress to make sure they stay clean.

Yes, Virginia, we are going to have to be the Mommy.

Petulance & Deception

Our petulant President who just can’t understand why people STILL hate his cram down of the Health Care takeover.

He was out on the Campaign Trail for it (why do you campaign for something that has passed already??)  and for his fake-out “exploration” for oil trying to soften up Republicans for Cap & Trade.

The key to the oil bait and switch is “exploration” and “must pass all environmental regulations”.

And therein lies the rub.

And the carrot is rotten on the end of this stick.

It’s not about actual drilling where we actually know there is oil. It’s about “exploration” and if we find it the enviromentalist can shut it down anyways.

It’s a game.

He’s playing with his toys again.

And he’s being snotty and petulant about the last toys he bestowed on us, the ungrateful, unwashed masses.

Health Care Takeover Phase 1.

(NY Post) WASHINGTON – President Obama on Thursday ridiculed media pundits for portraying health care reform as unpopular.

“It’s only been a week, folks,” Obama said to cheers and laughter from about 2,500 supporters in Portland, Maine. “Before we find out if people like health care reform, maybe we should wait until it actually happens.”

Mocking the political doomsayers, Obama went on:

“Can you imagine if some of these reporters were working on a farm? You planted some seeds, and they came out the next day, and they looked, and nothing’s happened! There’s no crop! We’re going to starve! Oh, no! It’s a disaster!”

Obama went to Maine to highlight the tax credits in the health bill designed to help small businesses provide insurance for their workers.

“Millions of people will get tax breaks to help them afford coverage – credits that add up to the largest middle-class tax cut for health care in history,” he said.

But the “benefits” don’t start until 2012 and 2014.

Until then, Cap & Trade, VAT, mandatory Health Insurance costs, Global Warming regulations, and the other taxes crush you like a bug.

Then he hits you will massive gasoline and car buying price increases from new “cafe” Standards  for Miles per Gallon on new vehicles –10 miles more a gallon in less than 6 years!

The standard would be equivalent to an average of 35.5 mpg for 2016 model-year vehicle if all GHG emission reductions were to come from fuel economy improvements. The 35.5 mpg is about a 10 mpg difference compared with current standards.

This will add thousands to the cost of a vehicle and higher gas prices will offset any “savings” for the average american.

Like a good Liberal, he giveth with one hand and he taketh away with many hands and wonders why you’re ungrateful.

They are doing it for your own good after all!

You ungrateful  “racist” neanderthal. 🙂

NY Post: Scandal-plagued Rep. Charles Rangel, long a target of the right, fired back Wednesday at conservative opponents of health care – likening them to racist foes of civil rights.

Noting that he had been “cursed at and spat at” in the South in the ’60s – as some Democratic congressmen say they were last week by anti-health care activists – Rangel said the similarities to Tea Party backers are striking.

“The group that were in Washington fighting against the health bill and fighting against the President, [they] looked just like and sounded just like those groups that attacked the civil rights movement in the South,” Rangel, 79, told NY1’s “Inside City Hall.”

The Harlem Democrat is facing a slew of ethical probes for his failure to report income on assorted investments, including a Dominican Republic villa, and for failing to pay taxes on that income.

So if you disagree with Barack The Magnificent, you’re a racist. 😦 Again!

And I haven’t even gotten to the EPA and there declaration soon that CO2 is “harmful to human life” so they will crush you will regulations on that as well.

Global Warming is back!

But don’t worry, at least you’ll have your health…care… 🙂

Money, who needs money when you have Obama-Reid-Pelosi looking out for you.

They shall provide. 🙂

And now some more Liberal petulance:

The debut on the Fox News Channel of Sarah Palin’s “Real American Stories” Thursday night turned out to be like one of those shows that’s on when nothing’s on and yet there is air to fill — like infotainment you sometimes see on empty channels in hotel rooms, or the stuff that’s playing on the little TV screen at the gas pump nearest the rental-car center. What are we watching exactly? (A commercial? News?)

I dunno, but hush: The mother of the dead Marine is talking about the day a naval destroyer was named after her son. The millionaire is about to give away millions to send underprivileged minority kids to college for free. The loyal service dog is going to help the sweet little boy walk again. A woman is about the save a man from a burning tanker truck. Toby Keith is singing about patriotic veterans. Flags are billowing. A piano is playing. (Wash Post)

But during the end of the Health Care debate we got massive Liberal sob stories about one lady in Mississippi who supposedly was wearing he dead grandmother’s dentures because she could afford new ones and endless parade of children being abused politically for the Liberals advantage.

Whoops, I guess they forgot about that.

But it wasn’t really about the people on the show as much as it was another petulant personal attack on the Left’s least favourite Mom, Sarah Palin.

She has her own Palin Derangement Syndrome very similar to the still rampant Bush Derangement Syndrome.

The left just hates the fact that she’s still breathing. That’s enough to set them off.

But remember, right wingers  are the hateful ones! 🙂

So, to round out this Liberal lover fest, I give you Rep. Grayson (D-FL)  who last year when he characterized the GOP’s idea of health care as, “If you get sick, America … Die quickly,” Leftist is at it again.

A Doctor in Mount Dora, FL has put a sign in protest of the Health Care bill.

MOUNT DORA — A doctor who considers the national health-care overhaul to be bad medicine for the country posted a sign on his office door telling patients who voted for President Barack Obama to seek care “elsewhere.”

“I’m not turning anybody away — that would be unethical,” Dr. Jack Cassell, 56, a Mount Dora urologist and a registered Republican opposed to the health plan, told the Orlando Sentinel on Thursday. “But if they read the sign and turn the other way, so be it.”

The sign reads: “If you voted for Obama … seek urologic care elsewhere. Changes to your healthcare begin right now, not in four years.” (Orlando Sentinel)

I’ll grant you it lacks any kind of tact and is really in your face. But so are Liberals.

In the doctor’s defense he also says: “I’m not turning anybody away — that would be unethical,” Dr. Jack Cassell, 56, a Mount Dora urologist and a registered Republican opposed to the health plan, told the Orlando Sentinel on Thursday. “But if they read the sign and turn the other way, so be it.”

So what was leftist firebrand Grayson’s comment: The outspoken Grayson described Cassell’s sign as “ridiculous.”

“I’m disgusted,” he said. “Maybe he thinks the Hippocratic Oath says, ‘Do no good.’ If this is the face of the right wing in America, it’s the face of cruelty. … Why don’t they change the name of the Republican Party to the Sore Loser Party?”

Childish and petulant, that’s your modern Liberal.

Not all of them, just a lot of them, especially if they are anywhere near a microphone or a webpage.

But they are the compassionate ones. The caring ones. And anyone who isn’t them is a hateful, nasty, racist, terrorist extremist.

Don’t believe me?

Just ask them. 🙂

Drowning in a VAT of Debt

President Obama’s fiscal 2011 budget will generate nearly $10 trillion in cumulative budget deficits over the next 10 years, $1.2 trillion more than the administration projected, and raise the federal debt to 90 percent of the nation’s economic output by 2020, the Congressional Budget Office reported Thursday.

In its 2011 budget, which the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) released Feb. 1, the administration projected a 10-year deficit total of $8.53 trillion. After looking it over, CBO said in its final analysis, released Thursday, that the president’s budget would generate a combined $9.75 trillion in deficits over the next decade.

“An additional $1.2 trillion in debt dumped on [GDP] to our children makes a huge difference,” said Brian Riedl, a budget analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation. “That represents an additional debt of $10,000 per household above and beyond the federal debt they are already carrying.”

The federal public debt, which was $6.3 trillion ($56,000 per household) when Mr. Obama entered office amid an economic crisis, totals $8.2 trillion ($72,000 per household) today, and it’s headed toward $20.3 trillion (more than $170,000 per household) in 2020, according to CBO’s deficit estimates.

But ask a Liberal or the Fifth Column/MSM/Ministry of Truth and they’ll say it was George W. Bush’s fault and they are “fixing it”.

This like the plumber that comes over to fix your toilet and ends up flooding your house.

It’s not his fault.

God helps us all.

If the president opts to continue with the biggest ideologically based spending spree in history — risk to the economy be damned — federal spending for 2009-2020 will as a percent of GDP increase by an enormous 23% (or more) compared to the Bush/Clinton years, the government’s gross debt (public plus internal) will as a percent of GDP equal or exceed Greece’s, and catastrophe will follow.

Some analysts say that America’s AAA bond rating is already in jeopardy and may be lost by 2014 at the latest.

If one uses the Congressional Budget Office’s more realistic forecasts of interest rates, revenues and GDP growth, adding the president’s extra spending and debt is even more risky: The public debt in 2020 will be 91% of GDP. The gross debt will be 123% of GDP (compared with 115% to 125% in Greece today) and greatly in excess of the “tipping point” identified by Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff in their recent landmark study of worldwide data.

On the other hand, the president could decide not to put America at such great risk and, therefore, to forgo adding the additional spending and debt. In that case, the public debt would be 56% of GDP and the gross debt would be 85% (or, according to CBO data, 68% and 100%).

As the night follows the day, the VAT cometh. With the passage of ObamaCare, creating a vast new middle-class entitlement, a national sales tax of the kind near-universal in Europe is inevitable.

We are now $8 trillion in debt. The Congressional Budget Office projects that another $12 trillion will be added over the next decade.

ObamaCare, when stripped of its budgetary gimmicks — the unfunded $200-billion-plus doctor fix, the double counting of Medicare cuts, the 10-6 sleight-of-hand (counting 10 years of revenue and only 6 years of outflows) — is at minimum a $2 trillion new entitlement.

It will vastly increase the debt. But even if it were revenue-neutral, ObamaCare pre-empts and appropriates for itself the best and easiest means of reducing the existing deficit. ObamaCare’s $500 billion of cuts in Medicare and $600 billion in tax hikes are no longer available for deficit reduction. They are siphoned off for the new entitlement of insuring the uninsured.

This is fiscally disastrous because, as President Obama himself explained last year in unveiling his grand transformational policies, our unsustainable fiscal path requires control of entitlement spending, the most ruinous of which is out-of-control health care costs.

ObamaCare was sold on the premise that, as Nancy Pelosi put it, “health care reform is entitlement reform. Our budget cannot take this upward spiral of cost.” But the bill enacted last Tuesday accelerates the spiral: It radically expands Medicaid (adding 15 million new recipients/dependents) and shamelessly raids Medicare by spending on a new entitlement the $500 billion in cuts and the yield from the Medicare tax hikes.

Obama knows that the debt bomb is looming, that Moody’s is warning that the Treasury’s AAA rating is in jeopardy, that we are headed for a run on the dollar and/or hyperinflation if nothing is done.

Hence his deficit reduction commission. It will report (surprise!) after the November elections. What will it recommend? What can it recommend?

Sure, Social Security can be trimmed by raising the retirement age, introducing means testing and changing the indexing formula from wage growth to price inflation. But this won’t be nearly enough. As Obama has repeatedly insisted, the real money is in health care costs — which are now locked in place by the new ObamaCare mandates.

That’s where the value-added tax comes in. For the politician, it has the virtue of expediency: People are used to sales taxes, and this one produces a river of revenue. Every 1% of VAT would yield up to $1 trillion a decade (depending on what you exclude — if you exempt food, for example, the yield would be more like $900 billion).

It’s the ultimate cash cow. Obama will need it. By introducing universal health care, he has pulled off the largest expansion of the welfare state in four decades. And the most expensive. Which is why all of the European Union has the VAT. Huge VATs. Germany: 19%. France and Italy: 20%. Most of Scandinavia: 25%.

American liberals have long complained that ours is the only advanced industrial country without universal health care. Well, now we shall have it. And as we approach European levels of entitlements, we will need European levels of taxation.

Obama set out to be a consequential president, on the order of Ronald Reagan. With the VAT, Obama’s triumph will be complete. He will have succeeded in reversing Reaganism. Liberals have long complained that Reagan’s strategy was to starve the (governmental) beast in order to shrink it: First, cut taxes — then ultimately you have to reduce government spending.

Obama’s strategy is exactly the opposite: Expand the beast, and then feed it. Spend first — which then forces taxation. Now that, with the institution of universal health care, we are becoming the full entitlement state, the beast will have to be fed.

And the VAT is the only trough in creation large enough.

As a substitute for the income tax, the VAT would be a splendid idea. Taxing consumption makes infinitely more sense than taxing work. But to feed the liberal social-democratic project, the VAT must be added on top of the income tax.

Ultimately, even that won’t be enough. As the population ages and health care becomes increasingly expensive, the only way to avoid fiscal ruin (as Britain, for example, has discovered) is health care rationing.

It will take a while to break the American populace to that idea. In the meantime, get ready for the VAT. Or start fighting it.(IBD)

So add to that the “Universal Retirement” where you are forced to fund the National Debt through Treasury bonds and all the Taxes for the Health Care Bill that will not drive you into the hands of the government but your employer as well.

Doom is coming over the horizon.

And the only thing we can do is REMEMBER IN NOVEMBER!

Into the VAT

President Obama: “you will not see your taxes increased a single dime.  I repeat: not one single dime.”

A Series of quotes and excerpts follow, see if you can connect the dots:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=864kh6hJlyg&feature=player_embedded

“Most of the health-care reform will be paid from money already being spent, and it will not increase the deficit,” the DNC repsonse statement reads. (NY Post)

Now think about that for a moment, they will pay for reforms with money ALREADY being Spent.

Think about it.

So in comes (pun not intended) a potential new friend. Imported for the more “civilized” Europeans:

A VAT is tax on consumption similar to a national sales tax. But it’s not just paid at the cash register. It’s levied at every stage of production. So all businesses involved in making a product or performing a service would pay a VAT. And then the end-user — such as the retail customer — ponies up as well.

CATO:

Since being elected, Obama has raised cigarette taxes and has advocated raising healthcare taxes, energy and small business taxes, in addition to corporate taxes. What’s more, economic advisers like Larry Summers seem eager to get rid of all the Bush tax cuts, not just those on so-called wealthy Americans.

And it’s also no secret that economists love the idea of a VAT. It promotes savings over consumption, and its hidden nature may mean it has less behavioral impact on taxpayers. Conservative economist Bruce Bartlet puts it this way, “As a broad-based tax on consumption, it creates less economic distortion per dollar of revenue than any other tax–certainly much less than the income tax.” Indeed, a VAT is part of cash-strapped California’s newly proposed tax reform.

Liberals love the idea of a VAT because it’s, well, so European — also because it does raise tons of revenue to expand government. And that is what Obama wants: more revenue to pay for bigger government. Is a VAT better than the soak-the-rich approach favored by Democrats such as Nancy Pelosi and Charlie Rangel? Sure. Of course, the concern is that a VAT would be in addition to new soak-the-rich taxes. (James Pethokoukis-Reuter At a symposium today in Washington, Alan Greenspan predicted taxes would be headed higher and thought a VAT would be the ‘least worst’ way of doing it.

…former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker. In a two-part interview with Charlie Rose airing yesterday and today(Oct 1-2), Volcker says that if Washington can’t get spending under control, either a VAT or a carbon tax would be effective revenue raisers. “Those are two big ones,” he says.

“There’s going to have to be revenue in this budget,” said Podesta, Clinton’s former chief of staff and co-chairman of President Barack Obama’s transition team, said in an interview on Bloomberg Television’s “Political Capital with Al Hunt,” airing today (Sept 28th).

A so-called consumption tax would “create a balance” with European and Japanese economies and “could potentially have a substantial effect on competitiveness,” said Podesta. Value- added taxes in Europe and Japan encourage savings by taxing consumption.

Podesta said such a tax may be regressive, but can be balanced by exempting some products and using “the money to support low-wage workers.”

Yesterday Oct 1, the Center for American Progress, the liberal think tank with close White House ties, holds a conference on the rising national debt. While speaker after speaker — Paul Krugman, Roger Altman, CAP President Podesta (again), Laura Tyson — admits entitlement spending must be reduced, they also agree that taxes must be raised. Altman suggests $400 billion in new tax revenue is needed almost immediately to calm financial market fears, and a VAT would be a great way of doing it. That’s $400 billion a year, by the way, not over ten years.

Podesta is also president of the George Soros-funded Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank closely allied with the White House.

WSJ Online:

“As progressives we need to debate the policy merits and likelihood of enacting a range of options — including designing a small and more progressive value-added tax, changes to the corporate tax code, and taxing upper income earners beyond reversing the Bush tax cuts,” Mr. Podesta said in a statement Tuesday.

White House economic adviser Larry Summers and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner refused to rule out middle-class tax increases during Sunday talk-show appearances over the summer. “We have to bring these deficits down very dramatically,” Mr. Geithner said on ABC’s “This Week.” “And that’s going to require some very hard choices.” But White House press secretary Robert Gibbs disavowed the comments.

Forbes:

This is also the conclusion of one Washington insider with ties to the White House economic team: ‘Does this all add up to a trial balloon? Of course, it’s a trial balloon. And I expect the administration will propose major tax reform, including a VAT.’

CNN Money:

“Tax rates could be raised in the existing system, but that would be extremely inefficient,” said Rudolph Penner, a former director of the Congressional Budget Office and now an institute fellow at the Urban Institute, a public policy research group.Penner in a paper about the VAT, “Tax reform might raise revenues more efficiently, but that is excruciatingly difficult politically.”

“That leaves the possibility of a brand new tax, and a VAT is a very likely candidate,” he added.

Democrats say it’s regressive, meaning it would hit lower-income people hardest since they tend to spend all of their income on consumption purchases that could be subject to the VAT. Low-tax advocates, such as conservative Republicans, see a VAT — on top of the current tax system — as harmful.

But given the depth of the nation’s fiscal needs, there aren’t many attractive options.

CNN:

An increasing number of influential Democrats and fiscal-policy experts have signaled that lawmakers will have to get a handle on the deficit. And they recommend seriously considering the creation of a value-added tax (VAT) on top of the federal income tax

Bruce Bartlett, Forbes.com columnist:

For example, a recent National Bureau of economic Research study by Lawrence Summers and James Hines argues that globalization makes it harder for national governments to tax income and recommends that taxes be shifted more towards a consumption base. Summers is, of course, director of the National Economic Council in the White House.

A Wall Street Journal report from this morning indicates that a group with close White House ties, the Center for American Progress, will be recommending a VAT as part of a fiscal reform initiative to reduce budget deficits. It will be opposed by the usual right-wing suspects. But as I have explained on many occasions, they are fools because if we don’t raise revenues through a consumption tax they will inevitably be raised by soak-the-rich taxes that will be far more harmful to the economy.

To offset the income tax reduction, the commission would create a wide-ranging business tax that would encompass virtually every corner of California capitalism, including the service sector — lawyers, engineers, business consultants — that currently are not taxed. Such businesses are viewed as growth industries.

Baltimore Sun:

“We are now closer than ever before to finally passing reform that will offer security to those who have coverage and affordable insurance to those who don’t,” Obama said.

Lower Income Taxes, but create Health Care taxes, and a consumption tax on everything.

Will he and the Democrats in Congress risk a political backlash by trying to pass another big tax hike during some future session? In a word, yes. It’s an inescapable element of their broader political program, and they believe it’s the right thing to do. As with health care, they believe that whatever short-run political costs they must bear, they’ll be seen as heroes in the long run by moving America closer to the European-style welfare state they consider the necessary outcome of social progress.(NRO)

YES!

Stick you toe in the VAT of warm water little piggie, it’s not boiling……………YET!