14 October 2013

Pissed

I am so pissed at the Republicans right not it’s not even funny.  They make a principled stand around Obama care and shut down the government over it.

Now its 11 days later and the Republicans are talking entitlement reform and Obama care is not even mentioned.  Why?  I’m starting to understand that the republican party is really split between conservatives and big government, go along to get along, just make me a committee chairmen, all for the establishment republicans.

With McCain in the senate bashing Cruz because Cruz became a true “maverick” and stood his ground with his 21 hour speech about defunding Obama care.  All Cruz did was do what McCain ran his whole presidential campaign on.  Remember maverick this and maverick that. McCain’s a maverick. Maverick maverick, maverick. Cruz stood his ground against the senate and said I’m going to draw the line here and fight. You can tell who is a threat to the establishment by who is attacking them, and Cruz was attacked from all sides. And Sarah Palin comes to mind as well,  That right I said Sarah Palin.    What the hell is the Republicans problem with fighting for something they believe in?  I get the polls suck, but they suck for everyone at this point.  I saw one today that said the by margin of 80% that the American public wants to throw out every member of congress.  I’m with them.  I have absolutely no confidence in the republicans let along congress to do the right thing to save the country.  How can we trust a government that exempts themselves from the very law that they say we need? I won’t trust them so why should you?

The media is fully on the side of the administration as well.  Most questions to a republican lately is do you feel bad that you shut down the government? Or don’t you feel responsible for shutting down the Government?  (80% of the Government is still up and running by the way).  Or, how bad do you feel about shutting down the government and putting all these people out of work?  Oh, they grill the democrats as well.  They ask the democrats shouldn't the republicans feel bad about shutting down the government?  Or, When do you think the republicans will stop their extreme ways and open the government? You know BS like that.   

But then I think this is all part of Obama’s plan to transform America. For his plan to work the old system has to collapse, all you have to do is look around you. The public needs to lose faith in the government (which it has), the economy is down and unemployment is high, cost of living is going up and the government is taking control of your health care.  The term “illegal aliens” is going to become a thing of the past, because immigration reform WILL come back for the midterms in 2014 and the presidential election in 2016 I guarantee you that.  The IRS worked in tandem with the White House to target citizens. The administration sold automatic weapons to the Mexican drug cartels just to prove there’s automatic weapons going over the border to be used by the Mexican drug cartels. Killing over 300 Mexicans and one US border agent.  The administration let 4 Americans die in Benghazi because helping them in the middle of a re-election was considered “bad optics” right after a convention where the theme was Obama defeated Al Qaeda. I know at this point what difference does it make? In addition, Obama is droning everyone and everything.    Quoting Dr. Ben Carson “ The worst thing you can do to another human being is to make them dependent”  and that’s what Obama’s goal is.  Make things so bad that the only way out is Government. A massive, centralized, all encompassing, fat, bloated, unchecked all powerful Government.  When you have a President that won’t sign a bill funding bereavement pay to the families of fallen soldiers because a private organization temporally stepped in to help.  That’s fucked up.  Obama chose not to sign this. Him, Mr. compassion himself chose not to sign a bill that passed through both houses at time of great crisis in a bipartisan full consent way.  He chose not to sign it.  Yep that’s change you can believe in. I just hate the fact that for all their dysfunction republicans are the only party that is at least trying to put a check on spending and debt. The other party wants ALL the barriers removed to spend and borrow without limits or checks, and they all themselves the rational ones?  Really?

SO where does that leave us??  It leaves us with a weak republican party that’s in the process of killing themselves by death of a thousand cuts.  The country is in free fall and Obama is walking around telling us how great everything is and will be if we just give a little more of our liberty up and stop complaining and get with the program.   So I’m calling out the republicans to stand up and fight!  Get rid of all the consultants and republican strategist.  If you had anything to with the last 3 election cycles get out!  Your advice is and was useless so get lost.  Carl Rove and company this means you!  Take your white board and go home.   I calling for a complete vote of no confidence for the entire republican leadership.  From the speaker of the house to the head of the party, your all on notice!  Blow this fight, the mid-terms and 2016 and your done as a party.  Who needs you if this is the best you can do.  Don’t just say I believe in the Constitution, put your money where your mouth is and fight for it, fight for us!   I’m calling for a return to the founding principles or first principles as some call them.  Look to the Constitution for guidance.  Read the arguments regarding the constitutional convention. Read the federalist and anti-federalist papers.   Look to the original intent of the founding fathers and the framers of the constitution for inspiration.  Draw strength from them.  Understand that they were willing to sacrifice everything and I mean everything including their lives in order to create a country where it’s citizens were greater than any government.  A country where for the first time in history acknowledged that all men were endowed with rights that were granted by God and not dictated by a government. A country that stood for liberty and freedoms and these freedoms are slipping away with every lost election to the big government statist.  Stop worrying about your own self interests of your pension and health care for you and your family for life.  Stop only listening to the Washington insiders who tell you to support the “Most electable” candidate.  Learn from these mistakes.  Take solace from the millions of people who want you to stand and fight!  Stop this tyranny before the country is too far gone to save!  

13 April 2013

Obama's New Budget


Below are the top 10 tax increases in President Obama's budget (all numbers are over a decade):

1. Chained CPI. The budget would change the definition of inflation for all federal budget purposes, including federal tax provisions. Because tax brackets and other tax items are indexed to inflation, slowing down their growth is an income tax increase. This is a tax increase for all Americans who pay income tax, including middle class Americans. In the past, Congress' Joint Committee on Taxation has estimated that enacted "chained CPI" would be a $100 billion tax increase.

2. Itemized deduction cap. The Obama budget limits the maximum value of itemized deductions, like those for charitable donations and mortgage interest. This is an income tax increase. No matter what tax bracket you are in, under this Obama provision you can't benefit any more than if you were in the 28 percent bracket. There are three tax brackets higher than this: 33 percent, 35 percent, and 39.6 percent. These families will not be able to fully deduct things like mortgage interest, charitable deductions, and state taxes paid. Note that this is on top of the phaseout of itemized deductions ("Pease") that President Obama forced on taxpayers in the fiscal cliff. Tax increase: $529 billion.

3. Death tax hike. The Obama budget would raise the death tax rate from 40 percent today to 45 percent. It would also reduce the inflation-indexed death tax "standard deduction" from $10.3 million today for married couples (half that for singles) to $3.5 million with no inflation adjustment. There are also other death tax increases of a more technical nature. Tax increase: $79 billion.

4. "Buffett rule." The president's budget would impose a new "Buffett rule" on taxpayers whose adjusted gross income exceeds $1 million. These taxpayers would have to face an average tax rate (that is, their tax bill divided by their income less charitable contributions) of 30 percent. Tax increase: $53 billion.

5. Tobacco tax hike. The president's budget nearly doubles the tobacco tax, from $1.01 to $1.95 per pack, and then indexes it to inflation from there. This is a clear tax hike on middle class Americans. According to independent estimates, the average smoker in America makes about $40,000 per year. Additionally, tobacco taxes are a declining tax revenue base, and as a result it's inappropriate to fund new government programs using it. This isn't the first time President Obama has raised federal tobacco taxes. In 2009, on his 16th day in office, he signed into law a 156 percent increase in the tobacco tax. Such tax increases are a violation of Obama's central campaign promise not to sign "any form of tax increase" on Americans making less than $250,000 per year. Tax increase: $78 billion.

6. IRA and 401(k) plan restrictions. There are two new tax increases on IRA and 401(k) savers in the president's budget. The first restricts the total account balance in ALL tax preferred IRAs and 401(k)s to a combined $3 million. The second would require that non-spouse beneficiaries of IRAs and 401(k)s distribute all money within five years, rather than over their lifetime. Additionally, the budget forces all employers with 10 or more employees to open payroll-deduction IRAs at work. Tax increase: $14 billion.

7. "Carried interest" capital gains tax hike. Under current law, capital gains are taxed at rates lower than ordinary income to reflect the double taxation of investment capital, risk, and other factors. The current top capital gains tax rate is about 24 percent. Some capital gains are received by managing partners of investment partnerships. These capital gains are known as "carried interest." Despite the fact that these capital gains are no different than capital gains anywhere else (and are the same source of capital gains that the limited partners in such arrangements receive), the president's budget taxes these capital gains at ordinary income tax rates, which are nearly 45 percent on an all-in basis. Tax increase: $16 billion.

8. Energy tax hikes. There are energy tax hikes littered throughout the budget. Taken together, these tax increases will have one effect and one effect only: higher prices for consumers at the gas pump and in their utility bills. Tax increase: $94 billion.

9. Tax increases on international income. The U.S. is one of the only developed nations that taxes the income of U.S. companies and individuals which are earned overseas (so-called "worldwide taxation"). In so doing, we potentially expose this money to taxation in two different countries on the same earnings. The Obama budget increases the likelihood that this double taxation will occur by removing protections against it. Ideally, the U.S. would only seek to tax income earned within the United States, a system known as "territoriality." Tax increase: $158 billion.

10. Financial system tax increases. These, too, are littered throughout the budget. They would impose taxes on banks, brokerage firms, life insurance companies, and virtually every other way that the middle class saves and invests. These costs will be passed along in the form of higher fees, bigger commissions, and lower returns to shareholders. Tax increase: $94 billion.

29 January 2013

Rahm's ObamaCare


The information minister has called it again...First dump the city employees, then the State, then the federal, then the poor and old then the rest of us.  The state exchanges will beg the fed to bail them out because of the cost.  The fed will step in for the "Good of the people" and universal single payer health care will be ours.  This was the end game all along.  This is why the Democrats in fiscally fucked up states and cities were all for this.  They knew that eventually this will have to passed off to the federal government.  Which means we all pay.  Oh and while were at it we'll need to raise your taxes again and again and again.  After all its for the "Good of the People" 


Rahm's ObamaCare Brainstorm
Chicago may dump its retiree health costs on federal taxpayers.

Rahm Emanuel's parting gift to national taxpayers upon leaving Washington two years ago was a $1 trillion bill for ObamaCare. Now the Chicago Mayor may add billions more to the tab by dumping his city's retirees on the federally subsidized state health exchange.
This public service announcement is brought to you by a city commission that the mayor appointed last summer to study the cost of continuing health benefits for retired workers. A 25-year-old legal settlement requiring the city and its pension funds to pay between 40% and 55% of most retirees' health costs conveniently expires this June—convenient because the city can't afford the bill.
The city is running a $370 million budget deficit, which will blow up in 2015 when a $1.2 billion balloon payment for pensions comes due. The bill for retiree health benefits is $194 million this year and will grow to $540 million by 2023. Actuaries have recommended that the city sock away $2 billion this year to finance future benefits and pay down a $23 billion unfunded liability. Meanwhile, Chicago's pension funds, which are projected to run dry by the end of the decade, are scraping the bottoms of their barrels to pay for retiree health benefits as required by the settlement.
Enter the Mayor's commission. The four-member panel issued a report this month suggesting that dumping pre-Medicare retirees onto the state's ObamaCare exchange in 2014 could be fab for retirees and city taxpayers. Nearly 60% of retirees and 94% of those who receive subsidies would pay less for their health care on the exchange. Married retirees with dependents would save an average of $4,300.
Chicago and its pension funds in turn would shed $23 billion in liabilities, assuming supplemental benefits for Medicare recipients are also cancelled. (These calculations are based on models that assume public pensions are retirees' only source of income.)
On the other hand, the cost to national taxpayers would be enormous, especially if other local and state governments joined the party. Federal subsidies for Chicago retirees would amount to $44 million in 2014 and increase as more workers retire in their early to mid-50s and health costs grow. All told, state and local governments are on the hook for between $700 billion and $1.5 trillion for retiree health benefits, and like Chicago most will soon be unable to afford even their minimum annual payments.
Offloading the costs on Uncle Sam will look attractive since retiree health benefits don't enjoy the legal protections that some states have bestowed upon pensions. Stockton, California intends to shed its $400 million unfunded liability for retiree benefits in bankruptcy.
Mr. Emanuel says the city's decision on retiree health benefits will "strike the right balance between meeting the needs of the retirees and providing them health-care choices with protecting the interests of the city's taxpayers." So, let's see. On the one hand, Chicago pays, on the other everyone else does. Which do you think he'll choose?
The Chicago report illustrates once again how ObamaCare provides a convenient mechanism and incentive for employers to transfer health-care liabilities to national taxpayers—and how the costs will explode beyond Washington's phony projections.

10 September 2012

Why Clinton's speech proves that Obama does not deserve a second term


Clinton's speech last night was about a close as perfect speech as you can get at a convention.
Clinton had complete control of the audience and the media is still dabbing themselves off with warm wet washcloths in admiration
Clinton may have also given Obama a second term in a 50 minute speech.
But buried deep within the speech was a line that stood out to me that I want you to take particular note of, more on that later.
First this proves that Obama is the amateur and Clinton is the master.  For the third time is Obama "presidency " Clinton had to brought off the bench to save Obama's ass.
The first time was in Nov of 2009.  Obama Care was dieing on the house floor because the democrats really could not get behind Obama grand plan to take over health care.      Obama's leadership failed to provide the needed votes to pass the house.      Just Obama being Obama was not enough.      So he called in Clinton to save the day. "It's not important to be perfect here," Clinton said. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33824081/ns/politics-health_care_reform/t/bill-clinton-urges-passage-health-care-bill/)       Knowing that Obama was trying to pass a shit sandwich on the American people.      Clinton swoops in and by 5 votes Obama Care passes.
The second time Clinton had to save Obama's ass was during the Bush tax cuts extension deal in Dec 2010.     Yet again Obama failed to lead the congress to get a deal passed.  You can almost see how this went down.     The phone rings at the Clinton's....Bill?...yeah?....It's Obama on the phone again....tell him I'm not here....he knows your here because he already checked with the secret service before he called....Dammit I'm coming....Yes Barack what do you need now?       So Obama calls a press conference starts talking and then passes the podium over to Clinton because he "Had to go to one more Christmas party"  WTF!!!!       Clinton slides over and takes over as president yes Clinton took over as president.  He goes onto to explain to the press why Obama the guy who just walked out to go to a Christmas party agreed to extend the Bush tax cuts.(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYHDPxohkrc)       Yes real leadership on display.
The third time Clinton saved Obama's ass may have been last night.      If you saw it then you know what happened if you didn't Google it.        Which brings me back to what I want you to remember from his speech.       At one point when Clinton was on a roll he said, "For this to work we have to agree with how Obama thinks" .      Let that sink in for a moment.        For this to work we have to agree with how Obama thinks.       Clinton for all his gravitas and charisma slipped.       He knows the America people do not think like Obama.     He knows the America people do not want to think like Obama.     Clinton knows he does not think like Obama.    And there is his out.     He tried he may say but the American people just couldn't agree with how Obama thinks.    Oh well Hillary 2016 here we come!!!
We all know better now and no amount of speeches will cover up the mess that is this administration.
Third times a charm for saving Obama's ass???
Not this time Bill. 
America Prevails
Information Minister
Loyal Opposition
JohnGalt1984


09 August 2012

Tax Plans



If Romney just came out and spoke clearly about his tax plan Vs Obama's he might be in better shape going forward.  Maybe He'll relaunch his plan at the convention.   From The American Spectator;
In a campaign stop at Rollins College in Florida last week, Barack Obama suggested that the middle class should resent Mitt Romney's tax proposals:
"I want everybody to understand here -- he's not asking you to pay an extra $2,000 [in taxes] to reduce our deficit; he's not asking you to pay an additional $2,000 to help care for our seniors; he's not asking you to pay an additional $2,000 in order to rebuild America or to fight a war," the president said. "He's asking you to pay more so that people like him can pay less."
But here is the actual truth: Mitt Romney is not asking the middle class or anyone else to pay more taxes. Mitt Romney is proposing to cut tax rates for everyone, across the board. That would finally liberate the economy for a long overdue recovery. Increased revenues from that booming economic growth, combined with savings from cutting Obama's runaway spending and closing loopholes that mostly benefit the highest income taxpayers, would enable a U-turn, from the four straight highest deficits in world history to a balanced budget in 5 years. The roadmap for doing that is Paul Ryan's 2013 budget, which has already been adopted by the Republican controlled House. (The Democrat majority Senate, by contrast, has never shown up for work.) This is classic tax reform, cutting rates and closing loopholes.
Obama's Tax Plan: Higher Taxes, No Jobs
The only candidate in this race proposing to increase taxes is Barack Obama. He has already enacted increases in the top rates of virtually every major federal tax, which will go into effect January 1. That is when the tax increases of Obamacare will hit, and when the Bush tax cuts will expire. (Remedial education for Obama supporters: "Bush tax cuts expire" means tax increases).
As a result, the top two income tax rates are already scheduled in current law to increase by nearly 20 percent; the capital gains tax rate is slated to soar by nearly 60 percent; the tax rate on dividends will explode to nearly three times its current level; the Medicare payroll tax rate will rocket up by 62 percent for disfavored taxpayers (the nation's job creators, investors, and successful small business entrepreneurs); and the death tax will rise further from the grave with a 57 percent increase in the top rate.
This is all on top of the corporate income tax rate, which under President Obama is already the highest in the industrialized world at 35 percent -- or nearly 40 percent counting state corporate rates on average. Even Communist China has a lower corporate income tax of 25 percent. The average in the social welfare states of the EU is less than that. Germany has an 18 percent federal corporate rate. Canada, which has been booming under a conservative government, is now at 15 percent.
American businesses are uncompetitive in the global economy under these tax policies. But with President Obama there is no relief in sight. Instead he is continually barnstorming the country calling for still more tax increases. Under his so-called Buffett rule, the capital gains tax rate would increase by 100 percent, to the fourth highest in the industrialized world.
Then in 2014, the Obamacare mandate tax will go into effect, requiring every employer and every worker in the country to buy the expensive health insurance plan that the federal government decides you must have. That is another tax increase on the middle class, which -- in addition to all the other tax increases in Obamacare they will have to pay -- trashes Obama's central campaign promise in 2008 not to raise taxes on working people.
Obama promised in 2008 that he would only increase tax rates on the wealthy -- the nation's job creators, investors, and small business owners -- to the levels that existed under President Clinton. But this talking point, which he and his brain dead supporters are still repeating, is now long outdated. In total, these tax increases will raise top rates well beyond the Clinton rates, and in an even worse context. Other countries have learned the lessons of Reaganomics and slashed rates on capital in particular since then, and so they are already outcompeting America today. Thus, the combined effect of all those tax rate increases on "the rich" would be a renewed recession, double-digit unemployment, and a federal deficit that tops $2 trillion.
The Romney Tax Plan
Mitt Romney, in sharp contrast, actually has a very good tax plan that will get the economy booming again and restore the American Dream. The key is reducing tax rates, in particular marginal tax rates, which are the rates that applies to the next dollar of income. Marginal rates determine the incentive for productive activity, such as working, saving, investing, expanding businesses, starting businesses, or creating jobs.
Romney's tax plan proposes to:
• Extend all of the Bush tax cuts that are scheduled to expire in January.
• Repeal the unfair death tax, which taxes yet again a lifetime of savings that have already been taxed multiple times.
• Repeal all of the Obamacare taxes.
• Repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), which was originally meant to stop the richest from avoiding taxes altogether, but which increasingly applies to millions in the middle class.
• Cut income tax rates by one-fifth across the board. So the top rate would be reduced from 35 percent to the 28 percent originally established in the Reagan tax reform. The bottom tax rates, paid by working people and the middle class, would be reduced to 8 percent and 12 percent -- even lower than under Reagan.
• Completely eliminate federal income taxes on long-term capital gains, dividends, and interest income for workers earning less than $100,000 and married couples earning less than $200,000.
• Reduce the federal corporate tax rate from 35 percent to a more internationally competitive 25 percent, close to the global average, which would restore international competitiveness for American business. That rate would be reduced further in conjunction with broader corporate tax reform to close the numerous and extensive loopholes.
• Allow a tax holiday for the repatriation of the trillions in profits that corporations have parked overseas to avoid the double taxation they face in bringing the money back to America. Over the long run he would eliminate that double taxation by adopting a system of territoriality, so taxes apply to corporate profits only in the country where those profits are earned. Romney also proposes to make the federal research and development tax credit permanent.
The central theme is actually to cut taxes on the middle class, multiple times, over and over. Romney nowhere proposes any tax increase on the middle class, or on anyone else for that matter. Obama's allegation that Romney would raise taxes on the middle class by $2,000 per family is a complete fabrication. Obama did the same thing to Ryan's budget plan, alleging a litany of supposed cuts that were nowhere to be found in the plan. Obama just made them up well.
Even the Tax Policy Center study that Obama cites for his charge says that Romney "promises that low- and middle-income households will pay no larger shares of federal taxes than they do now." The study argues that in order to raise the same amount of money, the federal government would have to raise taxes on middle- and lower-class families -- but it does not suggest that any such thing has been proposed by Romney. In addition, the study fails to give nearly adequate credit to the fact that Romney's tax plan will increase economic growth and jobs -- and thus, tax revenue. Reagan cut overall tax rates by far more than Romney is proposing, and during the 1980s, federal revenue doubled.

VIA Mark Levin