Obama’s Chained-CPI Budget Proposal Negatively Targets Senior’s Social Security Benefits

May 4, 2013 in Debt Crisis, Economic Deception, Hope and Change, Obama's America 2016, ObamaCare, Obamanation, Our Dear Leader, Political Deception, President Obama, Redistribution of Wealth, Socialism by Admin1

Barack Hussein Obama has declared Open Season on senior’s Social Security benefits in his Budget proposal. If enacted it would once again unilaterally single out seniors for cuts. You may remember that Obamacare Robbed Medicare of $716 Billion to Fund Itself.

Now he is targeting your Social Security benefits. According to Emily Brandon’s April 29th U.S.News & World Report article How the Chained CPI Affects Social Security Payments, Retirees are likely to get smaller monthly payments using this new measure of inflation.

In a SPECIAL SUPPLEMENT ON CPI, Shadow Government Statistics, American Business Analytics & Research LLC explains the various inflation indexes and their relationship to REAL Inflation. After you come to understand the impact of Chained CPI Indexing on your retirement benefit, we are sure that you will demand that no changes be made to the current index unless there is a comprehensive plan to deal with our debt by ALL American families. We are willing to pitch in to solve out monumental debt problem but are not willing to carry the majority of the debt burden on our shoulders when entire illegal Immigrant extended families like the Boston Marathon Bombers’ Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s receive EBT cards, high school scholarships, housing and college funding among other benefits !

A copy of the Special Supplement on CPI follows:

An Opinion on the Renewed Push to Use the C-CPI for COLA, Inflation Indexing

The Chained-CPI (C-CPI) is a fully-substitution-based version of the CPI-U, which is the primary inflation measure published by the U.S. government’s Bureau of Labor Statistics. The C-CPI is designed to reduce the level of reported inflation that otherwise would be used by individuals to make decisions tied to their investments and income. As a vehicle for artificially reducing COLA adjustments for such programs as Social Security, its proposed use here appears to be a rare area of agreement between both sides in the current budget-deficit negotiations.

Those in the federal government who are honest and forthright with the American public—at least about the proposal to understate the official rate of inflation for purposes of budget reduction—have failed to drive a wooden stake through the heart of the C-CPI. Arising from its second, premature political burial, the C-CPI looks again like it has a strong chance of being used as a new federal parasite to drain consumer liquidity. Like a vampire bat that sucks only enough blood for self-nourishment—leaving its victims alive for further abuse—the use of the C-CPI as a cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) measure is designed to suck real disposable income from the limited cash-flow of Social Security recipients, for the benefit of politicians who do not have the guts to vote against Social Security.

Those receiving, or who will be receiving Social Security payments were forced to pay into the system for all of their working lives, and generally believed the U.S. government would treat them fairly and honestly. The bloodsuckers in Washington have hit their victims similarly, before, back in the 1980s with the introduction of hedonic-quality adjustments to inflation, and in the 1990s with the change of concept in the CPI to a quasi-substitution-based inflation measure. Previously, the CPI measured inflation for a fixed-weight basket of goods, which measured COLAs as an inflation adjustment needed to maintain a constant standard of living.

As noted earlier in this missive, these methodological changes have altered the CPI-U and its more narrowly defined variant, the CPI-W, so that they no longer measure those costs of maintaining a constant standard of living (substitution effects) and no longer measure out-of-pocket costs (hedonic-adjustment effects). Without the changes made to CPI calculations of the last several decades, Social Security payments would be more than double what they are today. Indeed, with the use of a substitution-based index (the C-CPI is fully substitution based), the resulting cost of living adjustments promise only a declining standard of living. Expanding the example that former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan often used, where, as the price of steak rose, consumers would shift to hamburger, so too with higher hamburger costs have some cash-strapped retirees actually shifted consumption to dog food.

The President and Congress must address Social Security and other programs, such as Medicare, restructuring them so as make them solvent over the long haul, eliminating the horrendous levels of unfunded liabilities that are deteriorating at an aggregate pace in excess of $5 trillion per year on a net-present-value basis (see the Hyperinflation Report). With discussions instead focusing on using the outright deceit of implementing the C-CPI to cut COLA, those controlling the government appear to lack the political will to make needed changes in a straight-forward manner. Under those circumstances, there can be no meaningful budget deal structured by the negotiators in Washington.

The government must be honest with its citizens. If the government cannot afford to pay full COLAs, it is better to indicate that upfront, rather than to try to fool individuals as to the actual level of inflation they have to overcome in order to maintain their living standards. Cutting benefits by stealth and deceit may be politically expedient for the miscreants playing this game, but it is utterly unconscionable.

Beyond the damage caused by the C-CPI not reflecting out-of-pocket costs, and no longer measuring the cost of living of maintaining a constant standard of living, the C-CPI is not a practical measure for being used as a COLA or other benchmark inflation measure.

No Fixed Index Level for Reliable Cost Escalations in Contracts. As a separate issue, beyond the C-CPI not reflecting the cost of living of maintaining a constant standard of living or of reflecting full out-of-pocket consumer expenses, it cannot be published on a timely-enough basis to make it feasible as an annual-COLA factor.

The following graph shows the regular net revisions to year-to-year inflation in the Chained-CPI, published February 21, 2013 for the years 2011 and 2012. In contrast, the CPI-U and CPI-W never are revised on a not-seasonally-adjusted basis (barring an outright error in calculation).

That feature enables the use of the CPI-U and CPI-W as inflation-adjustment and cost-of-living-adjustment (COLA) measures in contracts, COLA adjustments to Social Security, etc. Although designed as a consumer-damaging, budget-cutting replacement for the CPI-W in goverment COLA adjustments, the C-CPI reporting is unstable, since it goes through regular revisions every year, for the two prior years. As shown in the following graph, the latest revisions would have suggested an upside revision of about three-tenths of a percentage point to any COLA adjustment would have been made previously for 2011.

As discussed by the BLS in its February 21, 2013 press release: “Because the current expenditure data required for the calculation of the C-CPI-U are available only with a time lag, the index is issued first in preliminary form, using the latest available expenditure data at the time of publication, and is subject to two subsequent revisions. Therefore, C-CPI-U indexes for the 12 months of 2011 [now] are issued in final form – employing monthly expenditure weights from 2011. Values for the 12 months of 2012 are revised and issued as interim, using expenditure weights from the 2009-2010 period. Calculation of the initial value of the January 2013 C-CPI-U index, and all subsequent months in 2013, will also be based upon 2009-2010 expenditure weights.”

Notes on Different Measures of the Consumer Price Index

The Consumer Price Index (CPI) is the broadest inflation measure published by the U.S. Government, through the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), Department of Labor:

The CPI-U (Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers) is the monthly headline inflation number (seasonally adjusted) and is the broadest in its coverage, representing the buying patterns of all urban consumers. Its standard measure is not seasonally adjusted, and it never is revised on that basis except for outright errors.

The CPI-W (CPI for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers) covers the more-narrow universe of urban wage earners and clerical workers and is used in determining cost of living adjustments in government programs such as Social Security. Otherwise, its background is the same as the CPI-U.

The C-CPI-U (Chain-Weighted CPI-U) is an experimental measure, where the weighting of components is fully substitution based. It generally shows lower annual inflation rate than the CPI-U and CPI-W. The latter two measures once had fixed weightings—so as to measure the cost of living of maintaining a constant standard of living—but now are quasi-substitution-based. Since it is fully substitution based, the series tends to reflect lower inflation than the other CPI measures. Accordingly, the C-CPI-U is the “new inflation” measure being considered by Congress and the White House as a tool for reducing Social Security cost-of-living adjustments by stealth.

The ShadowStats Alternative CPI-U Measures are attempts at adjusting reported CPI-U inflation for the impact of methodological change of recent decades designed to move the concept of the CPI away from being a measure of the cost of living needed to maintain a constant standard of living. There are two measures, where the first is based on reporting methodologies in place as of 1980, and the second is based on reporting methodologies in place as of 1990.

No Comments »

by carlos

President’s Bloated Budget Calls For $800B Tax Hike, $7.3 Trillion In New Debt – Fuzzy Math

April 7, 2013 in Budget, Congress, Debt Crisis, Debt Limit, Depression, Economic, Economic Deception, Economy, Obama's America 2016, Obamanation, President Obama, Propaganda, Sequestration, Unions by carlos

$fuzzy math$

Obama Admin Says Turning Off Sequester Will Save $1 Trillion
President’s Bloated Budget Calls For $800B Tax Hike, $7.3 Trillion In New Debt – Fuzzy Math On Whitehouse.gov

Obama: Proposed budget not my ‘ideal plan’ Published April 06, 2013 Associated Press

Confronting bipartisan criticism, President Obama conceded Saturday his proposed budget is not his “ideal plan” but said it offers “tough reforms” to the nation’s benefit programs while closing loopholes for the wealthy, a mix that he argued will provide long-term deficit reduction without harming the economy.

In his first comments about a budget he is to release Wednesday, Obama said he intends to reduce deficits while at the same time providing new spending for public works projects, early education and job training.

“We don’t have to choose between these goals – we can do both,” Obama said in his weekly radio and internet address.

Obama’s budget calls for slower growth in government benefits programs for the poor, veterans and the elderly, as well as higher taxes, primarily from the wealthy. Some of its details, made public Friday, drew a fierce response from liberals, labor unions and advocates for older Americans and prompted an unimpressed reaction from Republican House Speaker John Boehner.

“It’s a compromise I’m willing to accept in order to move beyond a cycle of short-term, crisis-driven decision-making, and focus on growing our economy and our middle class for the long run,” Obama said.

Obama proposes spending cuts and revenue increases that would result in $1.8 trillion in deficit reductions over 10 years, replacing $1.2 trillion in automatic spending cuts that are otherwise poised to take effect over the next 10 years.

Counting reductions and higher taxes that Congress and Obama have approved since 2011, the 2014 budget would contribute to a total $4.3 trillion in total deficit reduction by 2023.

The key deficit reduction elements of the plan incorporate an offer Obama made to Boehner in December as both men sought to avert an impending “fiscal cliff” of automatic, across the board spending cut and broad tax increases.

Obama’s plan has two central features — $580 billion in new taxes that Republicans oppose and a new inflation formula, rejected by many liberals, that would reduce the annual cost of living adjustments for a broad swath of government programs, including Social Security and benefits for veterans.

In his address, Obama said he would achieve deficit reduction by making “tough reforms” to Medicare and by enacting “commonsense tax reform that includes closing wasteful tax loopholes for the wealthy and well-connected.”

Obama, however, made no mention of the effect his budget would have on Social Security and on other social safety net programs, a key feature of his proposal and one that drew hostile reaction from some of his most ardent political backers.

Obama rejected a House Republican budget that aims to balance the budget in 10 years with steep cuts in domestic spending. His remarks reflected the White House’s argument that Obama’s blend of tax increases and spending cuts have widespread public support and will ultimately change the terms of the fiscal debate in Washington.

“My budget will reduce our deficits not with aimless, reckless spending cuts that hurt students and seniors and middle-class families — but through the balanced approach that the American people prefer, and the investments that a growing economy demands,” he said.

Still, Obama has been unable to move House Republicans from their opposition to higher taxes. And his proposed reduction in the growth of benefits drew swift objections from allies.

“The president should drop these misguided cuts in benefits and focus instead on building support in Congress for investing in jobs,” AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said in a statement Friday.

Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback delivered the Republican radio address, arguing that “the ideas on how to fix the federal government are now percolating in the states.”

“You see, you don’t change America by changing Washington — you change America by changing the states,” he said. “And that’s exactly what Republican governors are doing across the country — taking a different approach to grow their states’ economies and fix their governments with ideas that work.

Brownback, a former House member and U.S. senator, called for a “taxing structure that encourages growth, an education system that produces measurable results, and a renewed focus on the incredible dignity of each and every person, no matter who they are.”

No Comments »

by admin

Crisis In Europe – Protecting Your Hard-Earned Money – Wake Up America! – O’Reilly

March 26, 2013 in "Bill of Rights", 2nd Amendment, America's Collapse, Bail Out, Congress, Debt Crisis, Economic Deception, Economy, Freedom, Obamanation, President Obama, Propaganda, Redistribution of Wealth, Socialism, Socialist, Speaker John Boehner, Tax Hike, Treason, US Sovereignty, Who Is Barack Hussein Obama? by admin

European Union Authorize Seizure Of Money In Private Bank Account!

Nigel Farage: Now They Done It In One Country They are Quite Capable Of Do it In Italy Spain Portugal Or Anywhere Else & The Message That Sends To People That Has Saving In Bank In Those Country, Certainly If I Was Them Is Get Your Money Out While You Can!!!

Could That Happen In The United State?

Crisis In Cyprus Sparking Fears About Bank Deposits Everywhere – Is Your Money Safe? – Cavuto

No Comments »

by admin

Starving Democrats – Sequester Squeeze – Democrat Whines Staffers Can’t Afford Pricey Meals

March 26, 2013 in "Biden the Fool", Abuse of Power, Accountability, Bail Out, Budget, Congress, Debt Crisis, DICTATORSHIP, Economic, Economic Deception, Economy, Gas Price, Generational Theft, Hillary Clinton, Hope and Change, Oust Obama, President Obama, Propaganda, Socialism by admin

A a Starving Starving Democrats – Texas Congressman Solicits Lobster Donations

Congresswoman’s Crying Shame – Staffers Can’t Afford “High Quality Meal”

What Sequester? – Veep’s Paris Price Tag Raising Eyebrows
Sequester Squeeze Democrat Whines Staffers Can’t Afford Pricey Meals

No Comments »

by admin

Bank Deposit Taxed As Part Of Bailout! – Race To Withdraw Before 10% Tax Hit – Stuart Varney

March 18, 2013 in Bail Out, Debt Crisis, Tax Hike by admin

Cyprus Cypriots rushed to pull their money out of banks and ATMs before the tiny Mediterranean nation’s government could finalize a plan to seize depositors’ funds to satisfy austerity demands from euro zone leaders, sparking a run that prompted banks to be closed until at least Thursday.

Bank Deposit Taxed As Part Of Bailout! – Race To Withdraw Before 10% Tax Hit – Stuart Varney

Cyprus Turmoil Sparks Run On Banks Wall Street Bracing For Wild Ride – Stuart Varney

The island nation’s leaders were huddling to come up with a way to soften the blow on average depositors, with one proposal targeting accounts with deposits above $130,000. The plan elicited an angry response from Russian President Vladimir Putin, whose nation’s oligarchs may have as much as $19 billion secretly deposited in Cyprus banks. “Putin said that this decision, in case of its adoption, will be unfair, unprofessional and dangerous,” Russian news agencies quoted Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov as saying. The Brussels-based euro zone agreed on Saturday to give Cyprus a $13 billion bailout, but demanded levies that would take between 6.75 and 9.9 percent of bank deposits.

Analysts believe the measure is designed to ensure that the bailout doesn’t go toward propping up Russia’s billionaires – including Putin himself.

“It is clear that (Cyprus) is under tremendous pressure from the European Union,” Deputy Finance Minister Sergei Shatalov told Interfax.

The $19 billion figure comes from Moody’s, and would account for as much as half of all Cypriot deposits. Cyprus’ bank deposits dwarf by 8-to-1 the gross domestic product of the nation of 1 million, indicating a dangerously oversized banking system stuffed with foreign cash. And Cypriot banks are invested heavily in Greek government bonds, which were restructured last year at the EU’s demand, incurring big losses on bondholders.

News of the coming bank accounts seizure sent shockwaves rippling through Europe and beyond. Not only did it spook wealthy foreigners who have long parked money in the island nation’s banks, it was seen as possibly setting the stage for similar grabs in bigger nations within the troubled euro zone.

“If I were a saver, certainly in Spain or maybe Italy, I think I’d be looking askance at these measures and think this could yet happen to me,” Peter Dixon, global financial economist at Commerzbank, told Reuters.

The Cypriot Parliament put off a vote on the measure until Tuesday in order to blunt the pain for small savers. But without the EU bailout, Cyprus would be headed for default, according to experts. If depositors – especially the foreigners who have made Cyprus the Cayman Islands of Eastern Europe, pull their money from banks, action by the European Central Bank may be all that can stop regional contagion. The Cypriot central bank announced all banks will remain closed until Thursday while talks on the savings seizure continue.

Russian mining tycoon and owner of the NBA’s Brooklyn Nets Mikhail Prokhorov said euro zone leaders “had set a real financial mine under the idea of a single Europe.”

“And this is not because it touches Russian business, which can afford to lose $2 [billion] or $3 billion,” Prokhorov told the Kommersant business daily. “The European Union essentially opened a Pandora’s box.”

Some analysts say the move could send billions in Russian deposits to safer havens, such as Luxembourg, leaving Cyprus no way to pay down its bailout.

“The unhappiest of the Russians will simply look for other places to put their money,” Paragone Advisory Group analyst Alexander Zakharov told the Global Post.

No Comments »

by admin

Speaker Boehner: I “Absolutely” Trust President Obama – What The Hell?

March 18, 2013 in Congress, Debt Crisis, Fiscal Cliff, Government, Obama's America 2016, Obama-Nomics, Political Deception, President Obama, Propaganda, Sequestration, Speaker John Boehner by admin

Bainor (Politico)

House Speaker John Boehner says President Barack Obama’s outreach to House Republicans has been helpful, but it won’t make up for the deep policy differences between the White House and the congressional GOP.

Asked if he trusted Obama, Boehner said “absolutely – See Vide

No Comments »

by Admin1

Just Another Obama Lie Which He Hopes Will Cause Republicans to Cave on Sequestration

February 27, 2013 in Abuse of Power, Anarchist, Debt Crisis, dictator, Economic Deception, Fiscal Cliff, Generational Theft, Indoctrination, Intimidation, Liars, Obamanation, Political Deception, President Obama, Propaganda, Redistribution of Wealth, Socialist, Treason, White House Fraud, Who Is Barack Hussein Obama? by Admin1

Barack Hussein Obama invented Sequestration

Now it looks like Obama and his Thugs miscalculated on Sequestration. They have been using the imminent implementation of Sequestration to conspire with their media minions in attempting to coerce the Republicans to once again cave to Community organizer’s wicked lying propaganda rants that have increased in volume and intensity as we approach the February 1st implementation.

The Republicans didn’t cave immediately and thereby created a potentially disastrous political dilemma for Our Dear Leader. His political cohorts are telling him that if Sequestration becomes effective and the sky doesn’t fall, Barack will have a sever credibly problem, even among his loyal supporters.

If you take a look at the GDP math below that shows about a half cent hit for every non sequestrated GDP dollar, or even if you don’t, there is only one unquestionable conclusion that becomes evident.

Obama’s rants on Sequestration are a contrived comedy about “Much A do about Nothing ”

That’s Right! There is no appreciable affect on our economy, even if he jawbone’s Ben Bernake into saying so!

Call Your Senators and Representatives and tell them to let Sequestration to go into affect so that we can bring our $16.6T ever increasing Debt Crisis under control!

Analyses of Sequestration Affect on 2013 GDP:

The size of a nation’s economy is the total value of the spending on goods and services in the nation in a year. This spending occurs in the form of transactions within and between these three sectors. The flip side of this spending is production, because you can buy only what has been produced. So we can also measure an economy based on its production. Therefore, when you add up all of these transactions—and the value of foreign trade—the result is gross domestic product, or GDP. The formula for GDP is:

GDP = C + I + G + (Ex – Im)

where “C” equals spending by consumers,
“I” equals investment by businesses,
“G” equals government spending and
“(Ex – Im)” equals net exports, that is, the value of exports minus imports. Net exports may be negative.

According to Infoplease the composition of GDP breaks down roughly as follows:

Consumption: 65%

Investment: 15%

Government: 20%

Net Exports: 0.0%

The CBO Projection for 2013 GDP is $16.198Trillion

2013 without Sequestration

C = $16.198T X .65 =10.5287 Trillion

G = $16.198T X .2 = $3.2396 Trillion

I = $16.198T X .15 =$2.4297 Trillion

2013 with Sequestration

- Assumes that the only variable is the $85B removed from G, the Government Budget Contribution while C, I remain constant

$16.198T – .085T =$16.113 T

C = $10.5287 Trillion

G = $3.2396T- .$085T = $ 3.1546 Trillion

I = $2.4297 Trillion

What is the affect of Sequestration on GDP?

(Sequestration GDP divided by Non-Sequestration GDP minus 1) x 100 = Percent

($16.113T/ $16.198T) -1 = 0.0099 = .99% or about 1%

The $85B in Sequestration would reduce GDP by 1-cent for every dollar of a Non Sequestration GDP.

Since one-half of the $85T in Sequestration is slated for FY 2014, Sequestration will reduce the FY 2013 Sequestration GDP by about one-half a penny for every Non Sequestration dollar.

No Comments »

by Admin1

If Sequestration is Repealed, Will America Become the Next Weimar Republic?

February 24, 2013 in Abuse of Power, Debt Crisis, Debt Limit, Economic Deception, Economy, Fiscal Cliff, President Obama, Sequestration by Admin1

The Weimar Republic is the name given to the federal republic and parliamentary representative democracy established in 1919 in Germany to replace its pre-WWI imperial form of government. It was named after Weimar, the city where the constitutional assembly took place. The Weimar‘s Constitution was signed on August 11, 1919 and was deposed by Hitler’s Third Reich ascendency in February/March 1933. During its fourteen year existence the Weimar Republic was burdened by hefty reparations imposed by the victors of WWI, political extremist from both the Left and Right as well as rampant hyperinflation that permitted Hitler to seize power and dissolve the Constitution. The caption below the above photo of a one Hundred Million Mark note[A mark was equivalent to our $1-dollar bill] reads: In 1923, a German housewife burned mark notes in her kitchen stove since it was cheaper to burn marks than to buy firewood.

The vision most vividly embedded into the minds of school children studying the era is one of a wheelbarrow filled with thousands or millions of marks to purchase a single loaf of bread! The photo at left taken during this period, depicts that scenario.

When Barack Hussein Obama came into office, our FY2009 Budget stood at $3.1Trillion. Today the FY2013 Budget is at $3.8Trillion. Sequestration, which is a program devised by President Obama, cuts $85B across-the-board from THE RATE OF INCREASE of theFY2012 budge of 3.72Trillion. It DOES NOT DECREASE the FY2013 total budget amount from that of FY2012. Of the phantom $85B in cuts, half isslated to be removed from Defense Spending and half from Entitlement Spending. The $85B in phantom cuts represents measly 2.2% of our $3.8T Budget.

The FY2013 Budget consists of 60% Mandatory Spending and 40% Discretionary Spending. Mandatory spending is spending that is required under existing law. In passing, it needs to be noted that while Defense spending represents 19% of the FY2012 Budget, it is slated for 50% of the FY2013 Sequestration cuts.

Last Fall, Jim Rogers, the founder of Rogers International Commodity Index and economic guru,” predicted that America is headed to a “Financial Armageddon”. Rogers stated that he was absolutely convinced that the economy would burst soon after the election. He also stated that he has never been a supporter of the policy of quantitative easing.[ The Federal Reserve can just create dollars out of thin air by buying up assets like long-term Treasuries or mortgage-backed securities from commercial banks and other institutions. These "thin air" dollars created by the Federal Reserve flow into the banks, and in turn are pumped into the U.S. economy and ultimately reduce our long-term interest rates. The theory is that when long-term interest rates go down, investors have a greater incentive to spend their money.] Jim Rogers is also quite certain that our Government needs to cut spending in order to reduce our burgeoning debt. Rogers also stated that German Chancellor Angela Marker and Obama were promoting policies which were just another disguise for hiding the real state of their economies.

www.usgovernmentpending.com is estimating that the US debt to GDP will exceed 100% for 2012. Two American economists, Carmen Reinhardt and Ken Rogoff, argue that growth slows sharply in countries where the ratio of debt to GDP exceeds 90 percent.

So there you have it. Barack Hussein Obama is jawboning Congress about Sequestration, seeking even more deficit spending that will most certainly result in even slower growth, less jobs and further US credit rating downgrades. Are you going to push back on the President and his propaganda squads and support a strong America, or are you going to sit idly by and watch our economy and country slide further into the abyss?

No Comments »

by Admin1

Sequestration: The Facts About the Policy

February 19, 2013 in Debt Crisis, Debt Limit, Economic Deception, Economy, Political Deception, Political Incompetence, Propaganda, Redistribution of Wealth, Sequestration, White House Fraud by Admin1

Sequestration does not cut spending, it simply reduces the rate-of-increased spending

The Military is 1/4 of the Budget yet it is taking 1/2 of the Sequestration Budget Hits

America at Risk: Budget Cuts Threaten Military Readiness

Sequester Main Points:

On the sequester “cuts” not being real cuts:

The so-called sequester “cuts” aren’t even real cuts! This year the government will spend more of your money than they did last year, and next year they will spend even more. If you spent more money year after year, you wouldn’t say you were cutting spending, so why does Washington get away with it?

Overspending is overspending, no matter which way you look at it. Spending $800 that you don’t have on your credit card instead of $1000, doesn’t mean you cut $200 of spending. It means you’re still overspending by $800.

Only an extremist would want to stop the sequester. As the National Taxpayers Union said, it is a starting point, not a finish line. Politicians will never actually cut spending if we let the spending radicals like Nancy Pelosi stop us from taking this small step forward.

The amount of the so-called “cuts” would be enough to run the government for only 4.5 days, and the spending radicals like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid want us to believe that the sequester will be “devastating.”

On the President’s flip-flop:

As the president’s own press secretary admitted, the sequester was President Obama’s idea in the first place. American families are tired of him playing politics and blaming others for his own ideas.

In July 2011, a White House fact sheet praised the deal that gave us the sequester as “a win for the economy and budget discipline.” At the time, President Obama said it didn’t impact the middle class or working families. Now he says it does. He was either lying then, or he’s lying now.

Other points:

What is the sequester anyway? In a nutshell, the sequester is a deal that the President signed into law that says the government will overspend a little less this year than they did last year. That’s it. So they’re still overspending.

A recent poll conducted by Anderson Robbins Research and Shaw & Company Research shows that 73% of Americans want the government to cut spending, while only 15% want increased spending. The time is now to do what the majority of the American people want done.

Everyone agrees that we need to reduce the deficit. Let’s start now by keeping the sequester in place, and making the politicians keep their promises, and uphold the laws they pass.

We need to become an economically sustainable nation. The sequester is a step in the right direction. Don’t let politicians and their well-connected friends stop this little bit of badly-needed progress.

Recently, Nancy Pelosi said that cutting Congressional pay would undermine their “dignity.” Could she be any more insulting? What about the dignity of the millions of Americans that are still out of work? Or the dignity of younger generations that will be burdened by the massive debt that paid politicians like Nancy Pelosi have racked up? What’s undignified is making a promise to the American people that you will cut spending and then trying to weasel your way out of it when the time comes, hoping that you’ll be retired before the bills come due.

The Heritage Foundation

Morning Bell: Spending Cuts Are Happening, One Way or Another

Amy Payne February 19, 2013 at 7:32 am

Federal budget cuts called “sequestration” are scheduled to hit in just 10 days. The sequestration cuts are not perfect—they’re a blunt instrument to cut spending, rather than a deliberative plan that sets priorities, trims entitlements, and cuts other spending. But they are law. It would be better to replace them with smarter cuts, but the reality is that Washington has to start cutting spending now. Real program reforms and a balanced budget are the only way to solve our continuing fiscal crises. So it is critical that Congress keep its word and follow through on these spending cuts to prove it is serious about bringing our budget into balance over the next 10 years. Now that the March 1 deadline is approaching, the President is urging Congress to offset the sequestration budget cuts with more tax increases. That’s simply unacceptable, says Heritage’s Grover M. Hermann Senior Fellow in Federal Budgetary Affairs, Patrick Louis Knudsen: “President Obama has already pocketed a $618 billion tax increase, so simply holding the line against taxes is a given.” Lawmakers shouldn’t be fooled by the President’s rhetoric on a “balanced” approach to sequestration or any other budget issue—that simply means he’s looking to raise taxes again. Instead, they should be focusing on true balance—balancing the federal budget in the next 10 years. Producing a budget would be a start, but balancing that budget is the way to put the country back on track. Knudsen explains:

Government spending and debt are both too high, and thisthreatens all Americans with a weaker economy and a lower standard of living. Every opportunity to reduce spending and put the government on the path to a balanced budget must be taken. Anything less is a path to defeat.

We need spending cuts that are targeted to the programs that need reforms—the entitlements that are the major drivers of our growing deficit. Sequestration leaves many programs like Social Security, welfare, food stamps, and Medicaid untouched, while having devastating effects on national security. Trying to use defense cuts to balance the out-of-control entitlement spending while we still face growing threats (Russia, China, Iran, and al-Qaeda affiliates) is a fool’s errand that will create a hollow military and do nothing to fix economic troubles. But if Congress does not replace the sequestration cuts with smarter cuts—like eliminating Obamacare funding or other ineffective programs—then the sequestration cuts will be our first step toward getting serious about federal spending. The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation

No Comments »

by Admin1

Barack Hussein Obama Settles the Score with S&P

February 5, 2013 in Abuse of Power, Budget, Debt Crisis, Economic Deception, Economy, Obama-Nomics, President Obama, Socialism, The Hope and The Change by Admin1

On August 5th 2011 in an unprecedented move, the Standard & Poors Rating Agency lowered the Debt Rating of the United States from AAA to AA+. The lowered rating represented the first downgrade in 70 years and was preceded by numerous warnings to our government that the unprecedented Debt by the Obama Administration was crippling our economy and”..had grown increasingly skeptical that Washington policy makers would make significant progress in reducing the deficit, given the tortured talks over raising the debt ceiling.”

“S&P said the downgrade “reflects our opinion that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the administration recently agreed to falls short of what, in our view, would be necessary to stabilize the government’s medium-term debt dynamics.” It also blamed the weakened “effectiveness, stability, and predictability” of U.S. policy making and political institutions at a time when challenges are mounting. ”

S&P also put the new grade on “negative outlook,” meaning the U.S. has little chance of regaining the top rating in the near term.”

Barack Hussein Obama is now jawboning Congress for even more fiscally irresponsible $Trillions in debt to satisfy his lust for a a new Socialist Order in America and this lawsuit appears to be a warning shot across the bow of S&P.

It will also serve as a warning to the other Rating Agencies not to challenge the Obama Administrations continuing black hole Debt lest they too succumb to the same fate that faces S&P .

No Comments »

by Admin1

Amnesty Coming Your Way?

January 25, 2013 in Amnesty, Debt Crisis, Economy, Illegal Aliens, Redistribution of Wealth, Welfare, Welfare Fraud by Admin1

Senator Marco Rubio in an interview with Greta Van Susteren on Fox talked about his plan for “Undocumented Immigrants.”

Even our so called rising star Republican political class can’t help but use the same political speak of the Progressive Left, who seek to legitimatize criminal behavior. According to Title 8 Section Section 1325 of the US Code of Federal Regulations:

“Improper Entry by Alien,” any citizen of any country other than the United States who:

Enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers; or
Eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers; or
Attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact;
has committed a federal crime.”

Further, one has to question the political motives of Senator Rubio. After all, a similar Amnesty law to that proposed by Rubio et al, the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) was signed into law by President Reagan on November 6, 1986 who called it, “the most comprehensive reform of our immigration laws since 1952.”.

IRCA:

required employers to attest to their employees’ immigration status.
made it illegal to knowingly hire or recruit unauthorized immigrants.
legalized certain seasonal agricultural illegal immigrants.
legalized illegal immigrants who entered the United States before January 1, 1982 and had resided there continuously with the penalty of a fine, back taxes due, and admission of guilt. About three million illegal immigrants were granted legal status.

The law turned out to be a complete and utter failure when you consider that, it did nothing to stem the flow of Illegal Immigration. It is estimated that we now have 4 to 6 times the 1986 illegal Alien population, residing in the United States when IRCA became law. Thus Senator Marco Rubio follows in the footsteps of his political elite predecessors and ignores George Santayana admonition that, “Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

“ There is much talk about the need for “comprehensive immigration reform”. With that in mind it would be useful to review what we as a nation learned, or should have learned, from our last big experiment in the field, the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA).” (Ref: Center for Immigration Studies Article January 2013)

In MA alone 17,000 EBT card holders were unable to be identified in 2012. What percentage of these lost EBT cardholders are illegal Aliens? What about the fraud perpetrated by Illegal Aliens that are on Welfare, on Medicare and perpetrate felonious. Criminals that are stealing our hard earned treasure at a time when America faces debt crises after debt crisis and at at a time when every level of government can barely manage to provide care for its legal citizenry. The effect of Amnesty on our economy at this time would be nothing short of devestating.

Doesn’t Senator Rubio understand that the end game for illegal Aliens is a quid pro quo relationship, wherein the Democrat Party keeps them as a permanent government dependent underclass in return for their votes and political support. If Amnesty were to passe, these Illegal Aliens would then become a permanent dependent American underclass. These demographic trends have been causing dramatic political changes in our Southwestern states and if Amnesty were to be passed, this trend will befall our state as well.

The following is an article from Real Clear Politics:

Real Clear Politics

Rubio Finds Support on the Right for Immigration Plan

By Scott Conroy - January 22, 2013

With leaders from both parties calling on Congress to take up immigration reform this year, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio has been meeting with news outlets and conservative opinion-shapers to lay out his vision for a plan that would offer temporary legal status to undocumented immigrants. Those applying would have to pass background checks and other tests designed to eventually lead from permanent residency to citizenship.

Though he has not yet introduced legislation, in trumpeting his sweeping proposals Rubio has seized a torch that in recent years burned several similarly ambitious Republican politicians. But in a sign of how quickly the parameters of the debate on this issue have shifted since President Obama’s re-election, prominent conservatives — many of whom were vocal in their opposition to previous similar plans — have been lavishing praise on Rubio’s ideas for reform.

On his nationally syndicated radio show, Sean Hannity said that Rubio’s plan was “probably the most thoughtful bill that I have heard heretofore,” while Fox News colleague Bill O’Reilly called the program “a good one.” Other purveyors of conservative thought, from Grover Norquist to Ralph Reed to David Brody, have also weighed in with positive reactions.

The most important seal of approval thus far may have come from Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan, who had until recently been tied to 2012 running mate Mitt Romney’s policy of opposing “amnesty” for illegal immigrants (whom Romney had suggested could be encouraged to “self-deport”).

But Ryan has made clear that he, too, is ready to pivot on the issue.

“Senator Rubio is exactly right on the need to fix our broken immigration system,” Ryan wrote last week in a post on his Facebook page. “I support the principles he’s outlined: modernization of our immigration laws; stronger security to curb illegal immigration; and respect for the rule of law in addressing the complex challenge of the undocumented population. Our future depends on an immigration system that works.”

Rubio spent much of the first half of last year trying to drum up support for his plan to offer visas to the children of illegal immigrants who have served in the military or attended college — an alternative to the Democratic-backed DREAM Act. But when the president issued an executive order that achieved similar ends, Rubio criticized him for having sidestepped Congress.

Since Obama’s re-election, which came with the support of more than 70 percent of Hispanic voters, Rubio’s team has been heartened by the stark sea change they have seen on the issue.

“Overall, the reaction’s been really positive, and there really hasn’t been any significant opposition to it,” Rubio spokesperson Alex Conant said of the senator’s plan. “People have made good points about the proposals, and we welcome a healthy debate. This isn’t something [where] the senator just woke up one morning and decided to do. He’s been thinking about these issues for years now.”

Rubio’s goal is to pass immigration legislation this year, and the political implications for the rising GOP star could be long-lasting. The first-term senator is widely expected to run for president in 2016. If he does, his first political hurdle to overcome would likely be in Iowa, where conservative hardliners on illegal immigration have long held sway.

In the 2008 nominating fight, John McCain’s efforts to promote comprehensive immigration reform were perhaps his greatest challenge in Iowa — where he finished a distant fourth in that year’s caucuses. He was able to recover and win the Republican nomination, but immigration became an unshakeable albatross for a more recent GOP White House hopeful.

When Texas Gov. Rick Perry suggested in a primary debate that people who disagreed with a Texas law offering in-state tuition rates to children of illegal immigrants “don’t have a heart,” the resulting criticism from conservatives grew into a firestorm in the Hawkeye State. Perry’s opponents and right-leaning activists hammered him for the comment, which he was forced to spend precious time on the stump trying to explain away.

But Republican consultant Bob Haus, who helped run Perry’s Iowa campaign, predicted that Rubio’s efforts on immigration reform would not sting him in a similar manner, if he does run in 2016.

“There are now more Republican leaders who are working to craft sensible, workable solutions than trying to simply derail everything,” Haus said. “These leaders are changing the debate. Republicans aren’t just against everything related to immigration. Now they’re for something. That signals a paradigm shift, and it will be a good one for the Republican Party.”

Despite those shifting sentiments on the right, however, there will no doubt be more than a few influential Republican voices in Iowa who remain resistant to Rubio’s proposals. Steve Deace, an influential conservative radio host in the nation’s first voting state, made clear on Twitter last week that he had no intention of getting behind Rubio’s plan.

“Strangely I am not reassured by Bill O’Reilly’s endorsement of Marco Rubio’s amnesty..err..immigration plan,” Deace tweeted.

During the 2012 primaries, Romney largely succeeded in his efforts to stake out a position to the right of his Republican opponents on the issue. But his short-term political gain became a Pyrrhic victory when the general election came around and the Obama campaign was able to paint him as an extremist on the issue.

Some former members of Romney’s team are among those taking that lesson to heart, seeing Rubio’s efforts as both politically savvy and a near necessity for the GOP’s future.

David Kochel, who helmed Romney’s near-victory in the 2012 Iowa caucuses, suggested that Rubio and other Republicans with their eye on the White House are wise to demonstrate a willingness to be a part of the solution to a difficult challenge.

“I think there will always be some folks in the conservative entertainment industry who will bang away at Republicans who want to work on immigration,” Kochel said. “But it’s a real problem, and not just a party problem. Time to look it in the eye and solve it. We can do it without compromising our principles.”

Read the entire article and comments at: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/01/22/rubio_finds_support_on_the_right_for_immigration_plan_116748-2.html

No Comments »

by admin

Obama To Boehner: “We Don’t Have A Spending Problem” -WJS

January 7, 2013 in Debt Crisis, Economic, Economic Deception, Economy, Fiscal Cliff, Gas Price, Obama's America 2016, Obama-Nomics, Obamanation, President Obama, Propaganda, Quantitative Easing, Redistribution of Wealth, Tax Hike by admin

Obama

Obama To Boehner: “We Don’t Have A Spending Problem” – WJS
Pelosi: More Tax Revenues Must Be Part Of Any Debt Deal
Boehner: Obama Blames “Health Care Problem” For Deficit -WSJ
Democrats Pushing For Another $1 Trillion In Tax Revenue – Rpt

Obama to Boehner: ‘We Don’t Have a Spending Problem’

By Ben Shapiro, Breitbart.com

In an interview with Stephen Moore of the Wall Street Journal, newly re-elected House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) opened up about President Obama’s utter unwillingness to cut a single dollar from federal spending. In a stunning admission, Obama reportedly told Boehner, “We don’t have a spending problem.”

Boehner added that President Obama continues to maintain that America’s federal deficit is caused not by governmental overspending but by “a health-care problem.” Said Boehner, “They blame all of the fiscal woes on our health-care system.” Boehner told Obama, “Clearly we have a health-care problem, which is about to get worse with Obamacare. But, Mr. President, we have a very serious spending problem.” Obama eventually replied, “I’m getting tired of hearing you say that.”

Obama may be tired of hearing Boehner talk about a spending problem, particularly when Obama has been re-elected on the basis of ignoring government spending. Nonetheless, America does have a spending problem, which Obama is steadfastly ignoring. “He’s so ideological himself,” Boehner explained, “and he’s unwilling to take on the left of his own party.” That’s why Obama refused to raise the retirement age for Medicare after agreeing to it. “He admitted in meetings that he couldn’t sell things to his own members,” said Boehner. “But he didn’t even want to try … We could never get him to step up.”

No Comments »

by carlos

The ‘Europe-ization’ Of America One Step Closer To Europe? Congress Passes Deal To Avert ‘Cliff”

January 2, 2013 in America's Collapse, Anarchy, Bail Out, Budget, Congress, Cooking the Books, Debt Crisis, Economic, Economic Deception, Economy, Fiscal Cliff, Government, Hope and Change, Jobs, Obama-Nomics, Politics by carlos

Taxes Are Going Up!! What Congress Past Was To Try To Keep some Taxes The same!!!!
One Step Closer To Europe? Congress Passes Deal To Avert ‘Cliff” – Stuart Varney
Smoking Mirrors There are No Cuts!!!

Here’s The Deal: $1 Spending Cuts For Every $10 In Tax Hikes
Tax And Spend – Deal Cuts $15 Billion, Raises Taxes $620 Billion
Here’s The Deal: $1 Spending Cuts For Every $10 In Tax Hikes – Judge Andrew Napolitano

No Comments »

by Admin1

The GOP Seminar in Surrender

December 5, 2012 in America's Collapse, Congress, Debt Crisis, Fiscal Cliff, Mitt Romney, Obama's America 2016, Obama-Nomics, Obamanation, Paul Ryan, Political Deception, President Obama, Redistribution of Wealth, Republicans Vs. Tea Party, Speaker John Boehner, Taxiation with Representation by Admin1

[Boehner and the Republicans have Caved!- Remember "The play's the thing"]

The GOP Seminar in Surrender

December 05, 2012

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

SOS

RUSH: Ladies and gentlemen, this morning there was a joint press conference that featured the so-called Republican leadership of John Boehner and Eric Cantor and about 15 other people that were standing there. I don’t know why, but they were smiling. And what we got today was a seminar on how to surrender. It was weak. The Republicans have conceded the language. They have conceded the silly language of baseline budgeting. I think it’s time for a re-teaching of what baseline budgeting is, because until that’s addressed, all of this is smoke and mirrors. All of this fiscal cliff stuff, deficit reduction talk, there isn’t any.There aren’t any spending cuts, even if they claim there are because of the current services baseline. All there will ever be until that’s fixed is cuts in the rate of growth of spending.But there won’t be any real spending cuts. And the Republicans showed today that they’re not even interested in it. And now they’re ceding the language. So now deductions are loopholes. You know what that sets up? That sets up the premise that 100% of income is subject to taxation and that everything that we might deduct from our overall gross earnings is a loophole, not a deduction, not a legitimate deduction. They just gave that away by conceding on the language here. A loophole is not a deduction, but it has become one.

I mean, stop and think. When you think of a loophole in the tax law, what do you think of? You think of an unintended error that allows people to get away without paying their taxes. That’s what you think a loophole is. Well, sorry. Now a standard, legal itemized deduction and everyone one of them have become loopholes. And such, they are subject to elimination. So now the premise of 100% taxation, the premise is now on the table. And all that means is that all money is Washington’s, and what we end up with is totally up to their discretion and their big-heartedness or mean-heartedness, what have you.

This seminar in surrender today also -- we got the sound bites coming up, you’ll hear it — validated the false premise that confiscating additional private property will result in greater tax revenue going forward. The Republicans have just given in. They have compromised, what have you, on the premise that raising taxes on the rich will fix the problem. They have conceded that the problem exists in part because the rich aren’t paying their fair share. They must feel so squished, so defeated, so universally disliked. I think we all had a sense of this. The first few days after the election, you start listening to Republicans from the consultant class to the elected class, all talk about what they had to do to start winning elections. It basically was, “Well, we have to adopt the liberal premise on things without actually saying so. We gotta be open to amnesty, relax our views on abortion. We gotta concede that many of the Tea Party’s a bunch of kooks,” all that.

Well, it turns out that that apparently is exactly what they think they’ve gotta do. Because once you concede the premise that taking private property from people is justified and will actually reduce deficits, ’cause it won’t, it can’t. The only thing that can reduce deficits is two things: economic growth and spending cuts. And nobody has anything on the table that’s gonna promote economic growth, and of course nobody has anything on the table that’s gonna result in any genuinely reduced spending.

You know, if it weren’t for the fact that my expectations going into this were so low to begin with, I’d be really mad. But my expectations on this have been fulfilled. My expectations here thus have made it possible that I’m not blowing a gasket here. I’m sure some of you, contrary to me, probably had high expectations. You probably thought, “Well, we elected the Republicans. They know that they’re the last wall of defense. They’re the firewall.”

Nope.

Some of you, I’m sure, are livid and outraged. Believe me, intellectually I’m with you. Emotionally, my expectations on this were so low that I’m not angry. In fact, they’ve been met. Obama’s gonna end up getting what he wants. We’re using his language. We’re now calling new taxes “revenues.” We have accepted the premise that “new revenues” will result in greater tax receipts going forward. Yeah, let’s listen. Maybe I’m wr… No. I was gonna say, “Maybe I’m wrong.” (laughing)

Here’s Boehner on Capitol Hill, a little press briefing on the fiscal cliff…

BOEHNER: If the president doesn’t agree with, uh, our proposal and our outline, I think he’s got an obligation, uh, to send one to the Congress — and a plan that can pass both chambers of Congress. If you look at the — the plans that the White House have — have talked about thus far, uh, they couldn’t pass either house of the Congress. We’re ready and eager to talk to the president and to work with him to make sure that the American people, uhh, aren’t disadvantaged, uhh, by what’s happening here in Washington.

RUSH: Well, the problem, Mr. Speaker, is that Obama doesn’t want deal to with you. He wants to go over the cliff. He doesn’t want to deal with you, except to the extent he can get to you concede to him. He has no desire to deal with you. Here’s Eric Cantor…

CANTOR: They don’t want to sit down with the president! We want to talk specifics. We put an offer on the table now. He has out-of-hand rejected that. Where are the specifics? Where are the discussions? Nothing is going on. Meanwhile, the people of this country are the ones that suffer. So we ask the president, “Sit down with us, be serious about the specifics of spending, so we can stop the wasteful spending in Washington and finally address the problem.”

RUSH: Now, I… It’s just the same old lingo. Those two bites do not feature the ceding of the language that I heard (i.e., “deductions” being “loopholes”). But again, in that sense, it’s not just these guys. I mean, the Republican Party made that part of their presidential campaign. You know, Romney was suggesting that we could “raise” $1.2 trillion or something by eliminating deductions and so forth. By the way, I have it here somewhere.

Obama, back in 2011, said, “No way,” or… Nah, where did he…? I thought I had it right here at the top. I’m sorry, I don’t. Obama has contradicted himself. Whatever he’s saying today, he said just the exact opposite in 2011 about deductions and so forth. Which is instructive and informative only in the sense that whatever he’s saying now doesn’t matter and can’t be trusted. He’s out there saying, “The economy’s poised to take off!”

Sorry, the math doesn’t work out. It just doesn’t. It just isn’t there. Let me take a break here. I’ve got to anyway. I want to find this point of contradiction with Obama. There’s a lot of other interesting stuff out there today. Folks, I’m sorry, but this stuff, frankly… I don’t want to disappoint you, but as I said: My expectations going into it were not very high anyway. So I’m not all that surprised at the way this is shaping up and the way it’s gonna end up going down.

I’ll be shocked, pleasantly so, to be wrong if indeed I am.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Okay, I found it. You know where I put it? I’ve got three pages here on Ryan and Rubioand the speeches they made at the Jack Kemp Foundation. The Kemp Foundation has an annual dinner to celebrate Kemp. They met at the Mayflower Hotel last night and it was obvious… Both Rubio and Paul Ryan, in their speeches, did everything they could to distance themselves from the 47% comment that Romney made.

That really has got the Republican Party shaken up.

I mean, everybody in it is flabbergasted.

Bobby Jindal, Rubio, now Paul Ryan. They all are just flabbergasted over that, and they think it’s one of the reasons Romney lost. So they’re all making tracks to distance themselves from that whole 47% comment that Romney made and the premise that is behind it. Both their speeches, you could say, were an attempt to get out from under the legacy of that comment and make sure they have no contact with it, no relationship with it whatsoever.

They don’t agree with it, don’t want any part of it.

We’ve got sound bites of both of their speeches coming up as well, as the program unfolds.

Anyway, I had put this story about Obama underneath that, and here he is: “In negotiations on the looming fiscal cliff, Obama has been insistent on the matter of raising tax rates on the top 2%.” It was the top 1%, by the way. Now it’s the top 2%. Remember he started out wanting $800 billion? After he won the election, he started flexing his muscles and jacked that up to $1.6 trillion.

And Boehner has come along and offered $800 billion with the premise of eliminating “loopholes.” I can’t tell you how the ceding of the language hurts. You know, the language matters. Words mean things, and to let the left once have another word and total co-opt it and destroy its real meaning… We’ve just allowed it to happen here. So now every legitimate deduction is a “loophole.”

From now on going forward, the mortgage interest deduction is a “loophole.” The charitable deduction is a “loophole.” The earned income tax credit’s a “loophole” now. Well, you know what low-information voters think a “loophole” is. You know what people who file a one-page tax form think a “loophole” is. And the vast majority of Americans file a one page, the 1040-EZ form.

“How much did you make? How much will you give us? Here’s what here taking. Send it in.” And they’re done with it. They don’t know itemized deductions or the earned income tax credit. All they know is what they make and what they pay — which, in many cases, income tax-wise isn’t much. But they hear the word “loophole” and they think tax cheat. And so now every legit, by law, itemized deduction is considered a “loophole” for the express purpose of eliminating them.

Well, this is our private property we’re talking about. Our money is as much our private property as anything else that we have earned and that we own. And Boehner has said (summarized), “All right, I’ll give you $800 billion in new revenue.” They live in this world. They think, because of the election, that the American people want new taxes and want new “revenue.” I’ll boil it down to the essence.

It’s clear that they have no interest in teaching conservatism. It’s clear they have no interest in defending it or standing up for it or explaining it, even. And I think one of the reasons is that many of them really aren’t conservatives. It used to be that “Republican Party” and “conservative” meant the same thing. I don’t think they do anymore. It’s been that way for a while. But they don’t explain it. They don’t take the opportunity to contrast it because they don’t know it.

It’s like they or some consultants convince them that all they gotta do to win these precious independents or win the votes of people who are voting against them is go ahead and give them what they want, which is taxes on the rich. And “the rich” is now defined as $200,000 a year. Anyway, “In negotiations on this looming fiscal cliff, Obama has been insistent on the matter of raising taxes top 2%. In a Bloomberg interview yesterday, Obama said, “It’s just a matter of math.

“You know, there’s been a lot of talk, that somehow we can raise $800 billion or a trillion dollars worth of revenue just by closing loopholes and deductions. … [T]hat’s not a realistic option.” Yet it was just over a year ago, in the same negotiations with Republicans going on now on the debt reduction deal that never came to fruition, the White House proposed doing just that. They proposed $800 billion, raising revenue, by closing loopholes and deductions.

Yesterday Obama says, “You can’t do it! There’s not that kind of money there.”

A year ago he was all for it!

Well, how do you negotiate with somebody like this?

You don’t!

And then why do you beg somebody like this to come sit at the table with you and give you a proposal?

Take it to him, for crying out loud!

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: All right, here is what Obama said in July of 2011. This was during another such negotiation as this. It wasn’t a fiscal cliff negotiation, but it was a debt reduction deal. Debt limit, all that. And here’s what Obama said in July of 2011. “What we said was give us $1.2 trillion in additional revenues, which could be accomplished without hiking tax rates. It could simply be accomplished by eliminating loopholes, eliminating some deductions and engaging in a tax reform process that could lower rates generally while broadening the base.”

He said that a year ago. Now, he did not mean it. Remember, July ’11, it’s reelection time in their mind. He didn’t mean it. He doesn’t mean lower tax rates. He would never do it, but he talked about it. The important thing is, the take-away here is that in July of 2011 Barack Obama articulated the very deal Boehner has offered. After winning reelection last month, Obama said, to hell with that, and jacked up his demand to $1.6 trillion. He wants the Clinton tax rates back, which is close to 40% on the upper earners.

Yesterday Obama said: “It’s just a matter of math. You know, there’s been a lot of talk, that somehow we can raise $800 billion or a trillion dollars worth of revenue just by closing loopholes and deductions. … That’s not a realistic option.”

Let me read these quotes again, back-to-back.

Obama, July 2011: “Give us $1.2 trillion in additional revenues, which could be accomplished without hiking tax rates. It could simply be accomplished by eliminating loopholes, eliminating some deductions and engaging in a tax reform process that could lower rates generally while broadening the base.” That’s July last year.

Yesterday: “It’s just a matter of math. You know, there’s been a lot of talk, that somehow we can raise $800 billion or a trillion dollars worth of revenue just by closing loopholes and deductions. … That’s not a realistic option.”

Okay, so if you’re Boehner and Cantor and these guys, which Obama do you deal with here? My point is you don’t deal. This is like trying to get out of quicksand, herd cats, or swim in Jell-O. Whatever analogy that you want. Now, here’s Boehner. This is also from the press conference this morning.

BOEHNER: This week we made a good-faith offer to avert the fiscal crisis.

RUSH: Yeah.

BOEHNER: And that offer included significant spending cuts and reforms, and it included additional revenue.

RUSH: Yeah.

BOEHNER: And frankly it was the balanced approach that the president’s been asking for. Now we need a response from the White House.

RUSH: He’s accepted the premise. This is my point. Okay, spending cuts will never happen, additional revenue, why don’t we just call it taxes? “We’ve agreed with the president to raise taxes $800 billion.” Why not just say that? Instead of this “new revenue” garbage. We’ve already lost the word “investment.” “Investment” now means tax increase. “Investment” means more private property of yours taken away. If somebody could convince me that our budget problems were because we’re undertaxed then maybe I’d have a different view, but it’s not. We do not have a taxation problem. We have got a wildly out-of-control spending problem. But we’ve just accepted the premise.

By the way, the new revenue that Boehner offered was $800 billion. Boehner offered exactly what Obama asked for last July, and Obama says, “Well, the math doesn’t work out on that.” I’ll tell you what it reminds me of. My first ever contract in this business was in 1986. I started in this business 1967. So essentially it was 20 years before I had a contract. It was a big deal to have contract. Not everybody did. It was a sign that you had advanced climbing the ladder and all that. I didn’t have an agent. I don’t have an agent now. Why give somebody 20%, 5%, whatever, when I can do it myself?

At any rate, I am, quote, unquote, “in negotiations” with the general manager. And we set a meeting. We’re in the middle of the talks, as it is said. We have a meeting scheduled for 7:30 one morning. My program starts at nine. I show up at 7:30, the general manager is in his office on the phone, puts his call on hold, said, “What are you doing here?”

“I’m here for our meeting.”

“We don’t have a meeting.”

“Yeah, we have a contract…”

“No, there’s no meeting.”

“What are you talking about?”

He started thumbing through his calendar. “I don’t have anything on the calendar here. I don’t have time for you today.”

I ran out, I said, “What the hell just happened?” It was a typical ploy. I didn’t know what was going on. We all learn as you go through these things. It didn’t take me long to learn what had happened, but at the moment I’m thinking, “Did I get something wrong?” But what had happened was I had been put totally on the defensive. And what had really been conveyed was, “I don’t care about you. You’re not important. Why do you think I’ve got a meeting with you? Who do you think you are?” That was the message.

Well, that’s all that’s happening here. A year ago Obama had made the comment to Boehner. A year ago, $800 billion, we can raise that if we close loopholes. So Boehner offered it this year. “What are you talking about? The math doesn’t work out. I don’t know what you’re talking about.” But to complete the analogy, if I would have acted then like the Republicans are acting today, I woulda walked out of the general manager’s office, I woulda gone on the radio and started crying about it. “What do you mean? Come on, we were supposed to meet. Will you meet with me?” They’re saying, “We’ve submitted a proposal. All we want is the president to react to our proposal. We’ve done what he wanted. Could he just submit a response?”

I don’t know, maybe they don’t know or maybe they don’t understand or they don’t agree that what the president is trying to do is render them irrelevant. There’s a lot of ego attached to positions of power in Washington, and it may well be that if you’re Speaker of the House, it’s inconceivable somebody would want to render you irrelevant, in your own mind. I don’t know. I’ve never been Speaker of the House. But I know egos. I’ve been surrounded by ‘em all my life and I have a healthy one myself, that’s in check, by the way, contrary to popular opinion. (laughing)

But, again, we’ve ceded the lingo. We’re now calling tax increases revenue. We’ve agreed $800 billion of revenue. We’re accepting the premise that it’s a tax problem and, yeah, and that it’s a balanced approach. And we’re doing this with a guy that we know has run up the national debt $6 trillion in four years. This guy has added to the national debt more than all the previous presidents combined.

Now, the Republicans also have a history, a behavioral pattern you can predict. They believe Obama won the election, that means he should get his judges and he should get his budget, and that’s what it means. And by the same token, when we win elections… except it never works out that way. You never hear the Democrats adopting our language. You never hear the Democrats abandoning their core beliefs and what they believe. In fact, when they lose, you’d be hard-pressed to know it by watching the media and listening to the Democrats each and every day after they lose an election.

Now, you notice that in July of 2011, Obama said that we could raise $1.2 trillion by eliminating loopholes. That’s 50% more than Boehner says they could raise, $800 billion. Obama said you could get $1.2 trillion closing loopholes in July of 2011. So Boehner said, “Okay, well, here’s $800 billion.” Obama said, “No, no, no, math doesn’t work out. You can’t do that. I mean, that would mean eliminating the charitable deduction,” when in fact that’s what he wants to do. You know, I guess my point is if we’re gonna let him have his way, do it. Don’t compromise yourself in the process. And don’t make it look like his way is also yours.

But look, that’s just me, folks, I’m just a guy on the radio here. I’ve never done their job. It’s easy to throw spitballs here from the peanut gallery. But there is a pattern. There is a pattern that’s undeniable here in every debt deal that’s negotiated, be it the debt limit, be it this fiscal cliff, be it the budget. There’s a pattern, and it always involves us relaxing what we believe, due to the premise that we think we’re hated and so we gotta do stuff to make people like us. I still think that’s at the root of a lot of this, plus the fact that they don’t know conservatism. They really aren’t conservatives, and thus taking the occasion, the opportunity to teach it, to be instructive, is really not relevant, either.

Let’s take a brief time-out. We’ll be back, and — there’s other stuff happening out there. We’ll get to it when we get back.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: To prove my point, CNN is overjoyed. Here is their headline for their report on the Boehner press conference. You ready? Quote: “The Rich Will Pay More in Taxes, Boehner Says.” There you have it. And so you see, the Republicans have now agreed with the premise that the problem is that the rich aren’t paying their fair share. We have just agreed with Obama’s campaign premise.

The rich aren’t paying their fair share!

The Republicans have agreed to this, they’ve recognized this, and Boehner says those days are over. “The rich will pay more in taxes.” Now, some of you might be saying, “But, Rush! But, Rush! You know, the media would say that no matter what.” Nope. Not in this case. Not if Boehner and the Republicans had steadfastly opposed raising taxes on anyone. “But, Rush! But, Rush! They can’t win that.”

That’s not the point. The point is what you stand for when this is all said and done. You have something to fall back on and go back to, in order to move forward. We’ve just given away something that used to be part of our brand. “That’s right, Rush, and the brand is what’s killing us. Republicans love the rich, and Boehner knows it.” That could be at the root of this, too. It could be.

These guys, elected Republicans, believe that the average American thinks that the only people the average Republican cares about are the rich. “Let’s get rid of that! Let’s raise taxes on them. To hell with it! I’m sick and tired of being called a friend of the rich.” When in fact it’s Obama who has all the crony capitalist deals with all the rich guys. Could be that. Whatever, it’s defensive. And whatever, it’s reactionary.

It certainly isn’t proactive.

From the article: “Taxes on the wealthy are going up, House Speaker John Boehner conceded on Wednesday in challenging President Barack Obama to sit down with him to hammer out a deal for avoiding the fiscal cliff.” So you see, in the Drive-Bys now we got the framework for a deal! “Finally we’re gonna blame the rich. We should have been doing that all along, and now Boehner’s finally agreed. Okay, now we can move forward.”

They’re blaming the rich.

The last group of people with any money in the private sector have now, officially, been targeted.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: All right, there it is up on CNN; “Obama Demanding Tax Hike on Wealthy,” and of course the Republicans agreed to do that today and actually earlier in the week, by reducing “loopholes.” But Obama’s not gonna be content with that. He wants the rates to go up, too — make no mistake — and they will. Here. I’ve got Obama in his own words, back-to-back. Let’s go July 22nd at the White House. This is Obama, a press briefing on the debt ceiling talks at that time…

OBAMA JULY 22, 2012: What we said was, uh, “Give us 1.2 trillion in additional revenues,” which could be accomplished without hiking tax rates but could simply be accomplished by eliminating loopholes, eliminating some deductions, and engaging in a tax-reform process that could have lowered rates generally by broadening the base.

RUSH: That’s last year, July of last year. “Yeah, we could raise $1.2 trillion just by closing loopholes and eliminating deductions.” Here’s Obama yesterday…

OBAMA DECEMBER 4, 2012: It’s not me being stubborn. It’s not me being partisan. It’s just a matter of math. You know, there’s been a lot of talk that somehow we can raise $800 billion or a trillion dollars worth of revenue just by closing loopholes and deductions.

RUSH: Yeah, you did.

OBAMA DECEMBER 4, 2012: But a lot of your viewers understand, uh, uh, that the only way to do that would be if you completely eliminated, for example, charitable deductions. Well, i-i-i-if you eliminate charitable deductions, that means every hospital and university and not-for-profit agency across the country would suddenly find themselves, uh, on the verge of collapse. So that’s not a realistic option.

RUSH: Yeah?

Last year it was!

Last year it was a totally realistic option, right out of Obama’s mouth.

This year, ain’t no way. You’d have to eliminate ‘em all. And then he says, “Yeah, and what’s wrong with that? Hee-hee-hee-hee. I’ll gladly be the sole benefactor for hospitals! I’ll gladly be the sole benefactor for universities. I’ll gladly be the sole benefactor for nonprofits.” That’s what he wants, anyway.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

Doug in Seattle. I’m glad you waited. Great to have you on the program, sir. Hi.

CALLER: Good morning, Rush, from sunny liberty sicko Seattle.

RUSH: Yes, sir. Welcome to the program.

CALLER: Well, 23, 24-year-listener, first-time caller, first time I’ve ever called a radio show in my life.

RUSH: Oh, I’m honored.

CALLER: Got through to Snerdley on like the third ring, so unbelievable.

RUSH: Well, I’m glad you made it. Thank you, sir.

CALLER: Thanks. Well, I agree that any tax hikes by Obama or the Republicans for that matter is not gonna solve anything, but I have an idea for a very simple plan, very understandable by even the American people. I know that’s a tough nut to crack, and could put Obama in a bind. And here’s the plan. Are you ready?

RUSH: I’m ready.

CALLER: Very simple. You redefine middle class to about four to 500 K. That gives the people in the high cost areas, New York, California, Washington state, you know, which really is middle class in a lot of those places, gets them into the middle class. You lower the tax rates for the middle class down to 15 or 20%.

RUSH: They already are.

CALLER: The maximum you’re gonna pay is 15 or 20. If you want to make it lower for people in the lower middle class, or lower class, that’s great, no problem. And here’s the biggest thing. Any savings by the middle class, capital gains and gains they make, capital gains, dividends, interest if they have money in a bank or they own a bond –

RUSH: Okay –

CALLER: — anything they make in savings is tax-free, no tax ever.

RUSH: I’ve got to take a break here, but I’ve actually thought of something similar to that. Be back in just a second.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: If there was no tax on savings, like our previous caller said, you’d have to get out of the way for all the capital flooding into this country. Why do you think people go offshore, is to escape this kind of stuff. There are clearly all kinds of ways to build up this economy. Obama’s not interested and the Republicans ought not participate with him in his ideas.

END TRANSCRIPT

Obama-Nomics = Class Warfare + Wealth-Seizure + Wealth-Redistribution = Collapse of US Capitalism

November 29, 2012 in Debt Crisis, Economic Deception, Economy, Fiscal Cliff, Freedom, Government, Liberty, Obama-Nomics, Political Deception, Socialism, The Hope and The Change, United States Constitution, Welfare by Admin1

“We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.” -
– Winston Churchill

“When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion – when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing–when you see money flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors–when you see that men get richer by graft and pull than by work, and your laws don’t protect you against them, but protect them against you– when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self sacrifice- you may know that your society is doomed.”

– Ayn Rand

Our Political Class is considering confiscating your private retirement account known as your 401k in order to “pay down the deficit?” A total deficit that is now being estimated at over $86 Trillion. Far Left Socialist professor, Teresa Ghilarducci of the New School of Social Research, describes 401(k)s and related plans as a failed experiment. For about ten years she has argued for government confiscation of 401k plans. In October 2008, Democrats were so enthralled with her unconstitutional confiscatory plan that they actually asked her to testify before their subcommittee.

After her testimony, James Pethokoukis wrote in Money on October 23d that:

“Ghilarducci would offer a lousy 3 percent return. The long-run return of the stock market, adjusted for inflation, is more like 7 percent. Look at it this way: Ten thousand dollars growing at 3 percent a year for 40 years leaves you with roughly $22,000. But $10,000 growing at 7 percent a year for 40 years leaves you with $150,000. That is a high price to pay for what Ghilarducci describes as the removal of “a source of financial anxiety and…fruitless discussions with brokers and financial sales agents, who are also desperate for more fees and are often wrong about markets.” Please, I’ll take a bit of worry for an additional $128,000.”

Would you believe that Ghilarducci’s plan is now actively being discussed in the “Cliff Talks” . Not so good you say? It gets worse. Also being floated is the idea that when you pass on to your Great Reward, your annunity would terminate. There would be no payout to your heirs. If you already feel like the government has stolen your retirement through the Social Security ponzi scheme, you had better speak out before your 401k is seized and redistributed to freeloaders as a solution to ward off the fiscal cliff.

The following article from our friends at the Pittsburgh Tea Party Movement demonstrates statistics that indicates that Pennsylvania is already well on the road to Obam-Nomics and a “Welfare State”.

Pittsburgh Tea Party Movement

The Blaze has an outstanding article ‘Welfare Nation’: The Sad Truth which includes a study by Gary Alexander, Secretary of Public Welfare, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Please check out the study from our Secretary of Public Welfare.The article includes facts such as:

For every 1.65 employed persons in the private sector, one person receives welfare assistance;
For every 1.25 employed persons in the private sector, one person receives welfare assistance or works for the government;
It makes more financial sense for a single mom to earn $29,000 and get government subsidies than for that single mom to earn $69,000; and
It is now more lucrative – in the form of actual disposable income – to sit, do nothing, and collect various welfare entitlements, than to work, as shown below:

No Comments »

by Admin1

Components of the Fiscal Cliff and How it Will Affect You

November 15, 2012 in Debt Crisis, Economy, Fiscal Cliff by Admin1

Everything you need to know about the fiscal cliff in one post

Washington Post

Posted by Dylan Matthews on July 16, 2012 at 2:25 pm

Mass Taxpayers Going Over a cliff!

This morning, my colleague Lori Montgomery reported that Democrats are increasingly willing to allow the United States to fall off the so-called “fiscal cliff” at the end of this year to get Republicans to agree to allow higher rates on wealthy taxpayers. Which raises the question — what the heck is the “fiscal cliff”?

What is it? How big is it?

The term is wonk-speak for a series of major policy changes that will happen automatically at the end of this year if Congress does nothing. The big players on the tax side are the Bush tax cuts and the payroll tax cut. On the spending side, the automatic cuts included in last summer’s debt ceiling deal will take effect. But there’s a lot more, as you can see in this table from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget:

Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget

The combined effect will be a huge fiscal contraction, one which, according to conventional economic theory, could pose a real threat to the economic recovery. Here’s how the major provision break down by category, courtesy of the CBO:

By far the biggest provision is the Bush tax cuts, followed by the payroll tax cut and the cost of indexing the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) eligibility cutoff to inflation.

When will it happen?

The payroll tax break expires this December, and the Bush tax cuts expire Jan. 1, meaning that new, higher rates will take effect the following year. Since payroll taxes are deducted from wages every week, the effect there will be immediate, whereas the income tax rate increases only affect income starting in 2013. If employers adjust withholding, the effects could come sooner, but if there are logistical hurdles to that, the economic dent could be delayed.

The sequestration cuts will take effect starting in January too, meaning their impact, like the payroll tax cut’s expiration, will be more immediate. The cuts are evenly split, with $27 billion each in 2013 for defense and non-defense spending, plus $12 billion in cuts to Medicare.

What will happen to the economy?

The CBO estimates that the total effect of these provisions is a 3.9 percent reduction in the growth rate of GDP next year — enough to make the year’s total growth rate negative, plunging the country back into recession. What’s more, the mere anticipation of this change will reduce GDP growth by 0.5 percent this year. However, this change is not evenly distributed between the cliff’s components, as this helpful chart from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget shows:

So letting us fall over the fiscal cliff would be very bad in the short-term, and a deal that offset some of the changes would do a lot to mitigate that. The CBO estimates that if the payroll tax cut is allowed to expire but the other provisions are extended, growth will fall by 2.3 percent — not good, but it would leave the overall growth rate still positive.

Curiously, both deficit hawks and groups focused on promoting the interests of low-income people are more bullish about the cliff than the CBO is. The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, for one, has noted that since most of the economic damage of the cliff is concentrated in the payroll tax cut expiring and the debt ceiling’s cuts, letting the more expensive Bush tax cuts expire while extending those provisions would have a much lesser impact.

Some deficit hawks are also sanguine about the cliff. A report from the Carlyle Groupargues that going over the cliff is actually preferable to extending these policies and increasing the long-term deficit. “This automatic deficit reduction package would largely solve near-to-medium term fiscal problems,” the authors, Jason Thomas and David Marchick, argue. But it’s worth noting that while the expiration of these provisions reduces the deficit, the effect on growth actually grows the deficit by $47 billion between 2012 and 2013. This is easily overwhelmed by the deficit reduction of the actual provisions, but it’s a reminder that growth is an important and frequently undervalued tool for deficit reduction.

What could stop it?

The simplest way to prevent the fiscal cliff is simply to prevent any of its components from taking effect. But few want to do this. This would involve extending the Bush tax cuts again, which goes against Obama’s deficit reduction plan, and extending payroll tax cuts that were supposed to be temporary. Democrats don’t want to the former, and no one wants to do the latter indefinitely. So the likeliest deal would involve preventing most of the elements of the fiscal cliff from taking effect — such as by making the doc fix and AMT patch permanent — while limiting or eliminating the Bush and payroll tax provisions.

Here’s my estimate of how a range of possible plans would affect growth, using the CBO’s multipliers and the OMB’s estimates of the cost of extending the middle-class provisions of the Bush tax cuts. I measured the impact if nothing changes, with and without the Bush tax cuts, with only the Bush tax cuts on middle-income people, and with and without the payroll tax cut:

All scenarios reduce growth, but removing all provisions except the Bush tax cut extension, and especially the Bush tax cut extension for high-income people, reduce it by a lot less.

There’s also the possibility that the fiscal cliff will be averted by a “grand bargain” on the debt of the kind that was attempted last summer. A bipartisan group of senators ranging from Chris Coons to Mark Warner to Lamar Alexander to Tom Coburn has been meeting to try to hash out just such a deal. House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer’s “go big” working groupis focused on a similar solution, and Paul Ryan has touted his debt plan as a potential way to avoid the cliff. The idea is that by delaying some of the near-term contraction in favor of longer-run deficit reduction, we could get the best of both worlds: no recession in the near term, no debt crisis in the long-term. Such a deal could also include tax reform that cuts harmful tax expenditures. But as we’ve seen again and again, it’s easier to talk about the possibility of such a deal than it is to get 60 senators and 218 representatives to go along with it.

Read the entire story here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/07/16/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-fiscal-cliff-in-one-post/

No Comments »

by Admin1

A Chilling Letter from Proctor & Gamble to Obama

October 17, 2012 in Abuse of Power, America's Collapse, Benghazi Coverup, Budget, censorship, Constitutional, Debt Crisis, DICTATORSHIP, DOJ, Economic Deception, Economy, Election, Energy, Environment, Eric Holder, Events, Food Police, Food Stamp, Foreign Policy, Freedom, Gas Price, Gun Control, Hope and Change, Immigration, Iran's Nuclear Threat, Israel, Liars, Michele obama, Middle East Peace, Middle East War, Nanny State, Obama's America 2016, ObamaCare, Obamanation, Oust Obama, President Obama, Propaganda, Redistribution of Wealth, Shariah Law, Slacker In Chief, Socialist, The Hope and The Change, The Stakes for the 2012 Election, United Nations, United States Constitution, United States Sovereignty, US Military, White House Fraud, You Didn't Build That by Admin1

Chilling Letter from Proctor & Gamble to Obama
Who would have thought, and yet many are thinking it.

By Lou Pritchett, Procter & Gamble

A LETTER FROM A PROCTER AND GAMBLE EXECUTIVE TO THE PRESIDENT

* THE LAST SENTENCE IS THE MOST CHILLING

Lou Pritchett is one of corporate America ‘s true living legends

- an Acclaimed author, dynamic teacher and one of the world’s highest
Rated speakers. Successful corporate executives everywhere recognize
Him as the foremost leader in change management.. Lou changed the way
America does business by creating an audacious concept that came to
Be known as “partnering.”

Pritchett rose from soap salesman to Vice-President, Sales and Customer Development for Procter and Gamble

and over the course of 36 years; made corporate history.

AN OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA

Dear President Obama:

You are the thirteenth President under whom I have lived and unlike
Any of the others, you truly scare me.

You scare me because after months of exposure, I know nothing about you.

You scare me because I do not know how you paid for your expensive
Ivy League education and your upscale lifestyle and housing with no
Visible signs of support.

You scare me because you did not spend the formative years of youth
Growing up in America and culturally you are not an American.

You scare me because you have never run a company or met a payroll.

You scare me because you have never had military experience, thus
Don’t understand it at its core.

You scare me because you lack humility and ‘class’, always blaming others.

You scare me because for over half your life you have aligned
Yourself with radical extremists who hate America and you refuse to
Publicly denounce these radicals who wish to see America fail..

You scare me because you are a cheerleader for the ‘blame America ‘
Crowd and deliver this message abroad.

You scare me because you want to change America to a European style
Country where the government sector dominates instead of the private sector.

You scare me because you want to replace our health care system
With a government controlled one.

You scare me because you prefer ‘wind mills’ to responsibly
Capitalizing on our own vast oil, coal and shale reserves.

You scare me because you want to kill the American capitalist goose
That lays the golden egg which provides the highest standard of
Living in the world.

You scare me because you have begun to use ‘extortion’ tactics
Against certain banks and corporations.

You scare me because your own political party shrinks from
Challenging you on your wild and irresponsible spending proposals.

You scare me because you will not openly listen to or even consider
Opposing points of view from intelligent people.

You scare me because you falsely believe that you are both
Omnipotent and omniscient.

You scare me because the media gives you a free pass on everything
You do.

You scare me because you demonize and want to silence the
Limbaugh’s, Hannitys, O’Reillys and Becks who offer opposing,
Conservative points of view.

You scare me because you prefer controlling over governing.

Finally, you scare me because if you serve a second term I will
Probably not feel safe in writing a similar letter in 8 years.

Lou Pritchett
*
*
This letter was sent to the NY Times but they never acknowledged it.
Big surprise. Since it hit the Internet, however, it has had over
500,000 hits. Keep it going. All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for
good men and women to do nothing.. It’s happening right now.

The CHANGE is here!!

90% of Americans will forward this.

WE HAVE HAD ENOUGH!

No Comments »

by Admin1

MA Dems set to Introduce a Plethora OF New Taxes in 2013 on Top of Expiring Bush Tax Cuts

October 6, 2012 in Budget, Debt Crisis, Deval Patrick, Economic Deception, Economy, Election, MA, The Hope and The Change by Admin1

Barack Hussein Obama and our nitwit Vice-President Joe Biden , if re-elected , promise to let the Bush tax cuts expire which will result in increased taxes at every income level.

What happens to you if the cuts expire? The Tax Foundation has done the math and provides a handy map to show the likely economic impact on people in every state. (For the record, the Tax Foundation describes themselves as, “a nonpartisan tax research group based in Washington, D.C.”)

The Five States Facing The Biggest Tax Increases (avg. per household):

Connecticut $5,783

New York $5,542

New Jersey $5030

Massachusetts $4277

California $4242

Meanwhile, according to a report from the State House News Service our own House Speaker Robert DeLeo, in collaboration with Deval Patrick is hinting at raising taxes in 2013 in the middle of a recession, in order to support Taxachusetts’s burgeoning spending pogram. Taking their cue from Barack Hussein Obama, they will likely spring details of their proposals after the election when they and their minions are safely back in office.

On top of the Federal Tax Increases for 2013 and according to the Wall Street Journal a Loss of $4,019 in real Income during the Obama years we are now looking at additional MA State Tax increases as well. Could there be a stronger reason to help Fiscally Responsible, Small Government Championing, Free Market Conservative candidates this fall?

“Flat tax collections in September have left state government trailing budgeted revenue benchmarks by $95 million one quarter of the way into the new fiscal year, according to figures released Wednesday by the Department of Revenue. Collections last month of more than $2.2 billion were up $8 million over September 2011, but were still $32 million shy of the monthly benchmark. Tax collections are up 0.03 percent over the first quarter of fiscal 2013.
Murray and DeLeo over the past few years have embraced the no-new-taxes approach after voting in 2009 to boost the sales tax by 25 percent to 6.25 percent. Though some more liberal Democrats on Beacon Hill have advocated for higher cigarette taxes to pay for health programs, members of the House and Senate from both parties have largely cheered the reluctance of leaders to force votes on new revenue, particularly in an election year.”

House Minority Leader Brad Jones of North Reading on Thursday said DeLeo’s reluctance to rule out tax hikes next year was “disappointing.”

“I will say that I am well aware that numerous discussions have been going on about increased taxes and that obviously members of the majority party don’t want to have those go public until after the election.

The 4 October 2012 press release from State House News follows:

ON RESISTANCE TO NEW TAXES, DeLEO TAKING WAIT-AND-SEE APPROACH FOR 2013

By Matt Murphy and Mike Deehan

STATE HOUSE NEWS SERVICE

STATE HOUSE, BOSTON, OCT. 4, 2012….After holding the line on new taxes since 2009, the pledge by legislative leaders to not upset the delicate economic recovery by increasing broad-based taxes or fees on residents and business is showing signs of cracking.

House Speaker Robert DeLeo told the News Service this week he doesn’t yet know if his proscription against new taxes or fees will apply to the 2013 legislative year when the Legislature is expected to address long-term financing of the state’s transportation system and may need to look to new sources of revenue.

DeLeo said he wants “to see where the numbers fall on next year’s budget” and with transportation financing before making a decision on whether to rule tax hikes in or out, a line the Winthrop Democrat has drawn the past several years, and which Democrats have followed, prior to the release of the House budget in April.

“That’s never been a desire of mine to increase taxes. But on the other hand . . . I’m smart enough to know that until you see the figures of what you’re working with, you don’t make any pledges.” DeLeo, the former House budget chief, said after a meeting Tuesday afternoon with UMass officials and local entrepreneurs.

Senate President Therese Murray last year deferred to the House, noting tax bills originate in there, while working to craft the Senate’s spending blueprint for the year that began July 1, though she showed no signs of appetite herself for higher taxes. Through a spokesman, Murray declined comment on the appetite for taxes next session.

Flat tax collections in September have left state government trailing budgeted revenue benchmarks by $95 million one quarter of the way into the new fiscal year, according to figures released Wednesday by the Department of Revenue. Collections last month of more than $2.2 billion were up $8 million over September 2011, but were still $32 million shy of the monthly benchmark. Tax collections are up 0.03 percent over the first quarter of fiscal 2013.

Murray and DeLeo over the past few years have embraced the no-new-taxes approach after voting in 2009 to boost the sales tax by 25 percent to 6.25 percent. Though some more liberal Democrats on Beacon Hill have advocated for higher cigarette taxes to pay for health programs, members of the House and Senate from both parties have largely cheered the reluctance of leaders to force votes on new revenue, particularly in an election year.

House Minority Leader Brad Jones of North Reading on Thursday said DeLeo’s reluctance to rule out tax hikes next year was “disappointing.”

DeLeo has used his position over the past few years to thwart proposals by Gov. Deval Patrick to tax candy and soda, raise taxes on cigarettes and expand the scope of the state’s five-cent bottle redemption law, an idea encouraged by some environmentalists to improve recycling rates and generate $20 million in new revenue.

Any new debate over taxes in Massachusetts will also likely play out over a backdrop of the national discussion about how to address the federal debt and deficit, including the looming expiration of tax cuts on Jan.1 that could increase payroll taxes on Massachusetts residents and millions of Americans.

With unemployment at 6.3 percent after having risen moderately over the past two months, legislative leaders like DeLeo, if he wins reelection as anticipated, will be challenged to come up with a justification for new revenue after years of touting their reluctance to raise taxes as a selling point of their fiscal discipline and rationale for new businesses to locate and grow in Massachusetts.

In May, DeLeo published an open letter in the local Menlo Park, California newspaper to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg suggesting the company, and others like it in Silicon Valley, consider expanding in Massachusetts.

“Unlike California, where Governor Brown just announced a $16 Billion budget deficit sure to mean massive cuts in services and increases in government revenues, Massachusetts leaders have passed budget-after-budget on-time and with no new taxes or fees,” DeLeo wrote. “There is no denying California’s strengths, but a lot has changed in Massachusetts in the eight years since Facebook moved out. It’s a place where young workers, start-up companies and innovation entities want to be.”

Jones said that in addition to consideration of raising gas taxes, he has heard mention of raising the state income tax from 5.25 percent to 5.95 percent.

“Unfortunately the Democrats don’t want to have that discussion before the election because they know the public isn’t going to be welcome to it, isn’t going to be open to it. People are still hurting. They’re very apprehensive. We have a fragile economy,” Jones said.

Jones said there is a “reasonable consensus” that some people would like to put more resources into transportation and infrastructure, but said the idea of “going down the tax path is a dangerous one.”

“I think we’re going to be faced with the false choice of, well, we have to raise taxes to do this as opposed to, well, isn’t some of it maybe reprioritizing spending?” Jones said.

Citizens for Limited Taxation earlier this week rolled out endorsements of 40 legislative candidates, including 17 incumbents – all Republicans – who scored well on the group’s issues test and signed a “Taxpayer Protection Pledge” to “oppose and vote against any and all effort to increase taxes.”

Through its political action committee, CLT also gave maximum donations of $500 to many of its endorsees, including candidates challenging Sen. Murray and Reps. Thomas Calter (D-Kingston), Thomas Sannicandro (D-Ashland), Carolyn Dykema (D-Holliston), John Rogers (D-Norwood) and James O’Day (D-West Boylston.

-END-

10/04/2012

Serving the working press since 1910

Tags: "Fiscal Responsibility", Abuse of Taxpayer Funds, Debt Limit, Deficit, Income Tax, MA Taxes
No Comments »

by carlos

Unemployment Rate fell to 7.8 Percent – New Math 1+1=1 Numbers Does Not Add Up!

October 5, 2012 in America's Collapse, Debt Crisis, DICTATORSHIP, Economic Deception, Economy, Impeachment, Jobs, President Obama, Propaganda by carlos

The U.S. unemployment rate fell to 7.8 percent last month, dropping below 8 percent for the first time in nearly four years. The rate declined because more people found work, a trend that could have an impact on undecided voters in the final month before the presidential election. The Labor Department said Friday that employers added 114,000 jobs in September. The economy also created 86,000 more jobs in July and August than first estimated. Wages rose in September and more people started looking for work.

IFRAME Embed for Youtube

The revisions show employers added 146,000 jobs per month from July through September, up from 67,000 in the previous three months. The unemployment rate fell from 8.1 percent in August, matching its level in January 2009 when President Obama took office. The decline could help Obama, who is coming off a disappointing debate performance against GOP challenger Mitt Romney. Stock futures rose modestly after the report. Dow Jones industrial average futures, up 30 points just before the report came out, were up 45 points after it was released. The yield on the 10-year U.S. Treasury note climbed to 1.73 percent from 1.68 percent just before the report, a sign that investors were more willing to embrace risk and moving money from bonds into stocks. The job market has been improving, sluggishly but steadily. Jobs have been added for 24 straight months. There are now 325,000 more than when Obama took office. The September gains were led by the health care industry, which added 44,000 jobs — the most since February. Transportation and warehousing also showed large gains. The revisions showed that governments actually added 63,000 jobs in July and August, compared with earlier estimates that showed losses. Still, many of the jobs added last month were part time. The number of people with part-time jobs who wanted full-time work rose 7.5 percent to 8.6 million.

No Comments »

by Admin1

Obama Administration Breaks Laws Again – Unlawfully indemnifies Contractors with Taxpayer Dollars

October 2, 2012 in Abuse of Power, America's Collapse, Anarchy, Budget, Constitutional, Debt Crisis, DICTATORSHIP, Economic Deception, Economy, Election, Liars, Obamanation, President Obama, The Hope and The Change, White House Fraud by Admin1

The Washington Post

By Marjorie Censer, Published: October 1

Defense contractors back off layoff notice threats ahead of sequestration

Several defense contractors on Monday backed off threats to issue layoff notices to employees in coming weeks, a move they had said might be required given the threat of mandatory federal budget cuts in January.

Bethesda-based contracting giant Lockheed Martin and the U.S. arm of Britain’s BAE Systems, which is based in Arlington County, said they would not issue the notices this year. Under the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, or Warn Act, states require advance notice of mass layoffs or facility closures.

The White House issued a memo late last week that directs contractors to follow the guidance of the Labor Department. In a July letter, the department said the Warn Act does not require contractors facing sequestration to send notices to their workers that they could be let go.

In its new guidance, the White House said that if sequestration occurs and an agency terminates or changes a contract that results in a plant closing or mass layoff, the contractors’ liability and litigation costs under the Warn Act would be “allowable costs” covered by the contracting agency.

“The additional guidance offered important new information about the potential timing of DOD actions under sequestration, indicating that DOD anticipates no contract actions on or about 2 January, 2013, and that any action to adjust funding levels on contracts as a result of sequestration would likely not occur for several months after 2 Jan,” Lockheed said in a statement.

Brian Roehrkasse, a spokesman for BAE Systems’ U.S. business, said BAE also will not issue Warn notifications to its employees.

“However, if specific information becomes available that certain company facilities may suffer mass layoffs due to sequestration, we will issue Warn notices at that time as required by law,” he said in an e-mail. “Unless sequestration is avoided, we eventually may have no choice but to issue Warn notices to potentially impacted employees.”

Tags: "Fiscal Responsibility", Deception, Deficit, Economic Collapse
No Comments »

by Admin1

Have we gone beyond the Tipping Point?

September 28, 2012 in America's Collapse, Audit the Fed, Congress, Constitutional, Debt Crisis, Economic Deception, Economy, Election, Freedom, Obama's America 2016, Politics, President Obama, Quantitative Easing, Restoring Courage, Socialist, The Hope and The Change, The Stakes for the 2012 Election, United States Constitution, United States Sovereignty, Welfare, Welfare Fraud by Admin1

Just another Obama Abomination!

In 2011, our Government has provided ” free“ give-away phones to welfare clients that has cost you and I $1.6B and is climbing. This Administration is buying votes and allegiances with our tax dollars in accordance with Obama’s October 19, 1998 Loyola College forum on community organizing and policy making speech. In that speech Obama stated that he favored a government redistribution of wealth and more importantly, he viewed welfare recipients and “the working poor” as “a majority coalition” that could be mobilized to help advance progressive policies and elect their champions.

The Barack Hussein Obama Administration is purchasing votes with programs like the “Obama Phones” even though we do not have the tax revenues to pay for these outrages. Consequently, Ben Bernake and his Fed minions have been purchasing as much as 80% of our $16T National Debt associated with these “Welfare Frauds” with increasingly worthless US paper dollars. This monumental US debt accumulation, using Quantitative Easing (Another name for selling/buying US Bonds) will result at some point in the near future in an Inflationary Spiral that will make Germany’s Weimar debacle seem like a cake walk!

The Washington Examiner
Sep 28, 2012 | 07:01 PM

Beltway Confidential

Where do “Obama phones” come from?

September 27, 2012 | 2:25 pm

The video of an Obama supporter bragging about having an “Obama phone” has gone viral on the web, but where do these “free cell phones” come from?

The program is called Lifeline, established in 1984, originally created to subsidize landline phone service for low income Americans, funded by government-collected telecommunication fees, paid by consumers.

In 2008, the program was expanded to support cell phones which quickly escalated the cost of the program. In 2008 the program cost $772 million, but by 2011 it cost $1.6 billion.

A 2011 audit found that 269,000 wireless Lifeline subscribers were receiving free phones and monthly service from two or more carriers. Several websites have been created to promote “free” government cell phones, including the”The Obama Cell Phone” website at Obamaphone.net.

Rep. Tim Griffin R-Ark. has proposed a bill to eliminate federal subsidies for free cell phones and has produced a great YouTube videohighlighting the runaway cost of the program. The program has also been highlighted for reform by Senator Claire McCaskill D-Mo.

Pressure to reform the program led the FCC to announce an effort in February to “reduce the potential for fraud while cutting red tape for consumers and providers” by the end of 2013.

Tags: "Fiscal Responsibility", Constitution, Deception, Democracy in Jeopardy, Economic Collapse, National Debt, President Obama
No Comments »

by carlos

Pres Obama Blames explosion in National Debt On President Bush Again – America Wake Up!!!

September 26, 2012 in America's Collapse, Bail Out, Debt Crisis, Economic Deception, Economy, Election, Gas Price, Mitt Romney, Obama's America 2016, Politics, President Obama, RomneyRyan by carlos

Pres Obama Blames explosion in National Debt On President Bush Again!- 9-26-2012

President Obama on National Debt

“When You Look At Why the Debt Exploded under My watch, It’s Because Somebody else ran the tab Before I got Into Office.” -Des Moines Register

This President Take No Responsibility For Anything.

IFRAME Embed for Youtube

No Comments »

by carlos

Egyptian President Denying That His Country And U.S. are “Allies”

September 25, 2012 in Debt Crisis, Economic Deception, Economy, Foreign Policy, Homeland Security, Hope and Change, Middle East Peace, National Security, Politics, President Obama, radical islam by carlos

Egyptian President Denying That His Country And Us are Allies

Critics: Cut Off Aid To Egypt as Anti- U.S. Rage Mounts Us Has Given Egypt $1.6 Billion in Aid in Each of the past 3 Years!

United States Aid To Egypt Since 1948, U.S. Has Given more than $73 Billion in aid To Egypt.

IFRAME Embed for Youtube

No Comments »

by Admin1

Obama is Purchasing Votes with the “…largess out of the public treasury.”

September 20, 2012 in America's Collapse, Audit the Fed, Budget, Debt Crisis, Economic Deception, Economy, Freedom, Obama's America 2016, Oust Obama, President Obama, Socialist, The Hope and The Change, Welfare, Welfare Fraud by Admin1

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy.” Elmer T. Peterson

Food Stamps is just one of Barack Hussein Obama giveaways from our “public treasury’ that will eventually cause our Republic to collapse under the weight of his Socialist Programs.

It’s not just the increase in recipients: Obama allows each recipient to receive much more. Can’t blame that on Bush.

Under Obama, Food Stamp Costs Growing Much Faster than Can’t blame that on Bush.Food Stamp Rolls

KIM ZIGFELD

September 20, 2012 – 12:00 am

One of the least-appreciated reasons for conservatives to dislike former President George W. Bush is that even while the unemployment rate was declining, the U.S. saw a massive increase in participation in the food-stamp programs (Women, Infants and Children, or WIC; and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP). It’s quite accurate to refer, as the Washington Examiner recently did, to the “Great Bush-Obama food-stamp expansion.” But a recent article on the subject of food-stamp costs in National Review didn’t even mention Bush’s name. Firebrand Newt Gingrich, who has tirelessly focused attention on this topic, has been similarly negligent in omitting Bush from the picture.

Yet Obama has done much more than simply oversee an increase in participation.

Obama brings up Bush’s expansion when challenged about his food-stamp record — he has aggressively sought to blame his performance on his Republican predecessor. Here’s what he told ABC News when confronted on this issue:

First of all, I don’t put people on food stamps. People become eligible for food stamps. Second of all, the initial expansion of food-stamp eligibility happened under my Republican predecessor, not under me. No. 3, when you have a disastrous economic crash that results in eight million people losing their jobs, more people are going to need more support from government.

It’s stunning that the Romney campaign is allowing Obama to get away with not mentioning the costs that have no precedent whatsoever in Bush administration records or policy.

Under Obama, 14.7 million more Americans began using the food-stamp program than had been using it under Bush. That’s a whopping increase of 46%, from 31.9 million users in 2009 to 46.6 million today. One in every seven Americans. The WIC program now purchases over half of all infant formula sold in the United States.

But most importantly, the cost of the program to taxpayers has increased by far more than the expected, proportionate 46%.

Under eight years of George Bush, annual spending on food stamps rose from $15 billion to $35 billion — an increase of about $2.5 billion per year. But in just the first two years of the Obama administration alone, spending rose from $35 billion to $75 billion — a staggering increase of $20 billion per year, nearly ten times the rate of increase in cost under Bush.

The cost of food stamps under Obama rose from an average of $3.6 billion per month when he came to office to $6.2 billion per month now, a disproportional increase of 72% compared to the 46% increase in program usage. And even that figure is misleading because it is based on averages: the total cost of the program over Obama’s four years in office, as noted above, actually rose by well over 100%, now running in excess of $75 billion per year. If you compare 2007 and 2011, the total cost increase is an astounding 135%.

There are two possible explanations for the wildly disproportionate rise in food stamp costs under Obama: either he’s being much more generous with recipients than Bush ever dreamed of being, or food prices are rising because of his inflationary policies. Earlier this year, the Congressional Budget Office weighed in. They concluded that a combination of both factors was in play — but that Obama’s generosity (with taxpayer money) is the much bigger culprit.

Tags: "Fiscal Responsibility", Debt Limit, Deception, Deficit, Economic Collapse
No Comments »

by carlos