Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Monday, November 3, 2008
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Saturday, November 1, 2008
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
So we need a change? What is so bad that we have to change from? Dems, I imagine would respond that we need to change the following:
1) George Bush's failing economic policies- he guided us through 9/11 which had great impact on our financial community/structure, average household income was higher during George Bush than Bill Clinton (contrary to current claims), the stock market reached its highest during George Bush's term, unemployment was lower during Bush's terms than during Clinton's term.
2) Repair our image throughout the world- We freed a country from a horrible dictator (yes, I know, Dems will say, "we went in for the WMD's that were never there! Bush lied"), and I am sure Saddam was pursuing WMD and might have had some buried in the desert kind of like they did with Mirage and MIG fighter jets (see picture below)
3) Stop Giving Tax Cuts to the Wealthy- what in the heck is wrong with being wealthy? Why does the government feel obligated to give that money to people who just want to remain lazy and leach off the system? I have a one word answer for you: socialism....We are punishing people economically for going the extra step through the universities to get their degrees, the people who stepped out on a limb to start a business and made it grow, and those people who have worked hard to rise up in their companies.
The Dems are equating wealthy people to CEO's with golden parachutes, investors who frauded the market....it is all a ploy to get the majority populous to feel like victims and and those who are mediocre who just want a free ride to buy into all of this nonsense.
4) Failed Strategy in
It depends on what the meaning of 'tax cut' is.
One of Barack Obama's most potent campaign claims is that he'll cut taxes for no less than 95% of "working families." He's even promising to cut taxes enough that the government's tax share of GDP will be no more than 18.2% -- which is lower than it is today.
It's a clever pitch, because it lets him pose as a middle-class tax cutter while disguising that he's also proposing one of the largest tax increases ever on the other 5%. But how does he conjure this miracle, especially since more than a third of all Americans already pay no income taxes at all? There are several sleights of hand, but the most creative is to redefine the meaning of "tax cut."
For the Obama Democrats, a tax cut is no longer letting you keep more of what you earn. In their lexicon, a tax cut includes tens of billions of dollars in government handouts that are disguised by the phrase "tax credit." Mr. Obama is proposing to create or expand no fewer than seven such credits for individuals:
- A $500 tax credit ($1,000 a couple) to "make work pay" that phases out at income of $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 per couple.
- A $4,000 tax credit for college tuition.
- A 10% mortgage interest tax credit (on top of the existing mortgage interest deduction and other housing subsidies).
- A "savings" tax credit of 50% up to $1,000.
- An expansion of the earned-income tax credit that would allow single workers to receive as much as $555 a year, up from $175 now, and give these workers up to $1,110 if they are paying child support.
- A child care credit of 50% up to $6,000 of expenses a year.
- A "clean car" tax credit of up to $7,000 on the purchase of certain vehicles.
Here's the political catch. All but the clean car credit would be "refundable," which is Washington-speak for the fact that you can receive these checks even if you have no income-tax liability. In other words, they are an income transfer -- a federal check -- from taxpayers to nontaxpayers. Once upon a time we called this "welfare," or in George McGovern's 1972 campaign a "Demogrant." Mr. Obama's genius is to call it a tax cut.
The Tax Foundation estimates that under the Obama plan 63 million Americans, or 44% of all tax filers, would have no income tax liability and most of those would get a check from the IRS each year. The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis estimates that by 2011, under the Obama plan, an additional 10 million filers would pay zero taxes while cashing checks from the IRS.
The total annual expenditures on refundable "tax credits" would rise over the next 10 years by $647 billion to $1.054 trillion, according to the Tax Policy Center. This means that the tax-credit welfare state would soon cost four times actual cash welfare. By redefining such income payments as "tax credits," the Obama campaign also redefines them away as a tax share of GDP. Presto, the federal tax burden looks much smaller than it really is.
The political left defends "refundability" on grounds that these payments help to offset the payroll tax. And that was at least plausible when the only major refundable credit was the earned-income tax credit. Taken together, however, these tax credit payments would exceed payroll levies for most low-income workers.
It is also true that John McCain proposes a refundable tax credit -- his $5,000 to help individuals buy health insurance. We've written before that we prefer a tax deduction for individual health care, rather than a credit. But the big difference with Mr. Obama is that Mr. McCain's proposal replaces the tax subsidy for employer-sponsored health insurance that individuals don't now receive if they buy on their own. It merely changes the nature of the tax subsidy; it doesn't create a new one.
There's another catch: Because Mr. Obama's tax credits are phased out as incomes rise, they impose a huge "marginal" tax rate increase on low-income workers. The marginal tax rate refers to the rate on the next dollar of income earned. As the nearby chart illustrates, the marginal rate for millions of low- and middle-income workers would spike as they earn more income.
Some families with an income of $40,000 could lose up to 40 cents in vanishing credits for every additional dollar earned from working overtime or taking a new job. As public policy, this is contradictory. The tax credits are sold in the name of "making work pay," but in practice they can be a disincentive to working harder, especially if you're a lower-income couple getting raises of $1,000 or $2,000 a year. One mystery -- among many -- of the McCain campaign is why it has allowed Mr. Obama's 95% illusion to go unanswered.
Please add your comments to the Opinion Journal forum.
Monday, October 13, 2008
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Senator Barack Obama's Contempt for Your 2nd Amendment Rights
The right to bear arms is a fundamental right provided by the Constitution as a means for Americans to protect themselves, their families, and their property. Senator Barack Obama has sought to diminish and even remove the Second Amendment rights of law abiding citizens and has gone so far to say that he does not believe people should own guns. The right to own a firearm is exceedingly important to the citizens of this nation, especially to the significant number of sportsmen who enjoy the outdoors. Senator Obama's record on the Second Amendment is extreme and simply does not resonate with the American people.
BARACK OBAMA DISMISSES GUN OWNERS
"You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
- Senator Barack Obama (April 6, 2008)
THE OBA MA FILE
* Running for the Illinois State Senate in 1996, Senator Obama supported banning "the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns." Senator Obama also supported waiting periods and background checks to purchase all firearms.
* In 2001, Senator Obama voted against a bill to allow individuals to carry a concealed weapon when they have a valid order of protection out against another person.
* In 2003, Senator Obama voted in support of legislation that "would have banned most of the privately held hunting shotguns, target rifles, and black powder rifles" in Illinois. He also voted in support of a measure that would have prohibited multiple sales of handguns within a 30-day period.
* In 2004, Senator Obama voted against legislation "drafted to protect homeowners from being prosecuted in cases where they used a firearm to halt a home invasion."
* In 2004, Senator Obama expressed his opposition to right to carry concealed weapons by saying, "I mean, I am consistently on record and will continue to be on record as opposing concealed carry."
* Running for the U.S. Senate in 2004, Senator Obama received an "F" rating from the National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund. Senator Obama advocated national legislation banning concealed carry.
* In a 2004 candidate questionnaire, Senator Obama supported banning assault weapons.
City, State, % of People Below the Poverty Level
1. Detroit , MI 32.5%
2. Buffalo , NY 29.9%
3. Cincinnati , OH 27.8%
4. Cleveland , OH 27.0%
5. Miami , FL 26.9%
6. St. Louis , MO 26.8%
7. El Paso , TX 26.4%
8. Milwaukee , WI 26.2%
9. Philadelphia , PA 25.1%
10. Newark , NJ 24.2%
U.S. Census Bureau, 2006 American Community Survey, August 2007
What do the top ten cities (over 250,000) with the highest poverty rate all have in common?
Detroit, MI (1st on the poverty rate list) hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1961;
Buffalo, NY (2nd) hasn't elected one since 1954;
Cincinnati , OH (3rd)...since 1984;
Cleveland , OH (4th)...since 1989;
Miami , FL (5th) has never had a Republican mayor;
St. Louis , MO (6th)....since 1949;
El Paso , TX (7th) has never had a Republican mayor;
Milwaukee , WI (8th)...since 1908;
Philadelphia , PA (9th)...since 1952;
Newark , NJ (10th)...since 1907.
Einstein once said, 'The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.'
It is the disadvantaged who habitually elect Democrats---yet they are still disadvantaged...
Saturday, October 11, 2008
If you think the economy is bad now, you just wait until the socialists have full control! Taxes- little or no money to put back in the market; Healthcare: Little or no choice on what type of coverage as well as needing government approval for medical procedures/medicine (What happens when you oppose the government, will you then still get medical coverage or will they just not let you get the treatment you need?); Education- our children will be required to recieve indoctrination with leftist philosophies (alternative lifestyles, sexual eduction, condoms at a young age, etc...)
Let there be no mistake, if Dems hold Congress by a wide margin and Obama is President, alot of this will happen quickly. Congress leaders and Obama are already meeting to move things forward when he is elected.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
|By Sara Hansard |
October 7, 2008, 5:18 PM EST
This was suggested by the chairman of the House Committee on Education and Labor.
“With respect to the 401(k), it appears to be a plan that is not really well-devised for the changes in the market,” Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., said.
“We’ve invested $80 billion into subsidizing this activity,” he said, referring to tax breaks allowed for 401(k) contributions and savings.
With savings rates going down, “what do we have to start to think about in Congress of whether or not we want to continue and invest that $80 billion for a policy that is not generating what we … say it should?” Mr. Miller said.
Congress should let workers trade their 401(k) assets for guaranteed retirement accounts made up of government bonds, suggested Teresa Ghilarducci, an economics professor at The New School for Social Research in New York.
When workers collected Social Security, the guaranteed retirement account would pay an inflation-adjusted annuity under her plan.
“The way the government now encourages 401(k) plans is to spend $80 billion in tax breaks,” which goes to the highest-income earners, Ms. Ghilarducci said.
That simply results in transferring money from taxed savings accounts to untaxed accounts, she said.
“If we implement automatic [individual retirement accounts] or if we expand the 401(k) system, all we’re doing is adding to this inefficiency,” Ms. Ghilarducci said.
Rep. Robert Andrews, D-N.J., raised the issue of which investment advisers are allowed to offer workers investment advice.
The Department of Labor is considering “loopholes” that would allow advisers to offer “conflicted investment advice if the advisers work for subsidiaries of financial services companies that sell the investments,” he said.
With American workers facing $2 trillion in losses from retirement plans over the past year and Democrats expected to gain seats in the House and the Senate, actions being contemplated by the committee are an important harbinger of what could come out of Congress next year.
Nephew: He had some medical issues and his brain was starting to swell, documented by a CT scan. They, and the doctor, had to petition to the government to allow surgery to take place in order to relieve the swelling; a week later authorization came for surgery. By that time, the brian started to swell again and there was some bleeding that had occurred as well. Currently the nephew is undergoing treatment to relieve swelling; they do not yet know the extent of the damage caused by the brain swelling.
About eight months ago, this woman's husband, was having heart issues. The doctor recommended surgery because of various reasons. The govt responded back that his condition was "not bad enough"- eight days later he died.
We need to stand up and not let this happen to our country.