I have mentioned this topic i am about to address in previous posts, comparing hate crimes legislation to fascism.
In Nazi Germany the nazis use to punish people based off thought and intention of crime. Meaning if you were a Jewish supporter or thought nicely of the Jews then you would pay a much higher price for your crime then if you didn't. The British Empire also use to do this, policing our thoughts and controlling our thoughts. So naturally the founders came here, and placed amendments like the 14th and 5th (see post 'Constitution V. Hate Crime' for details) so that this would not happen in the US.
However, the police state liberals or soft fascists are big supporters of a thing called, hate crime legislation. That if you commit a crime and you are against gays, or sexual orientation played a role for motivation, then you will pay a far higher price for your crime. Just like the fascists in Germany. If you like Jews, your punishment is greater. If you hate gays, your punishment is greater. Thus punishing us for our thoughts.
This is a classic example of fascism and how the far left is more and more, like fascism.
31 October 2009
Eliminating a Tax Cut
When talking about raising taxes, Nancy Pelosi made the comment, that it is not raising taxes, it is eliminating a tax cut. This is referring to the Bush tax cuts, which the Obama administration is going to let expire in 2010.
But here is the truth: in 1999 people making $60,000 a year, paid $16,000 in income tax. under the bush tax cuts, they paid $9000 in income tax so when the bush tax cuts expire, people making 60k will pay 16k in taxes again. Now i don't know how good your math is, but last time i checked, 16,000 is more than 9,000. That is an INCREASED rate from 9,000. And even if Obama cuts that down to lets say 12,000 $$ and says "look a 4,000 cut," it's still 3,000 more than they were paying. a 3 thousand dollar INCREASE.
Increase-to become progressively greater (as in size, amount, number, or intensity)
--Merriam Webster Dictionary.
So to stop the tax cut which is at a rate of 9,000 dollars in taxes, would make the tax rate of those making 60,000 dollars per year progressively greater in amount, to 16,000 dollars.
But here is the truth: in 1999 people making $60,000 a year, paid $16,000 in income tax. under the bush tax cuts, they paid $9000 in income tax so when the bush tax cuts expire, people making 60k will pay 16k in taxes again. Now i don't know how good your math is, but last time i checked, 16,000 is more than 9,000. That is an INCREASED rate from 9,000. And even if Obama cuts that down to lets say 12,000 $$ and says "look a 4,000 cut," it's still 3,000 more than they were paying. a 3 thousand dollar INCREASE.
Increase-to become progressively greater (as in size, amount, number, or intensity)
--Merriam Webster Dictionary.
So to stop the tax cut which is at a rate of 9,000 dollars in taxes, would make the tax rate of those making 60,000 dollars per year progressively greater in amount, to 16,000 dollars.
The Price of the Pelosi Bill
The house is now looking into the Pelosi bill hoping to pass some variation of it. But what exactly will it cost? It is estimated to be around 900 billion dollars, although most serious resources will tell you it could end up in the long run costing up to 2 trillion. But what they aren't telling you, is the huge tax burden it will impose, along with 400 billion in medicare cuts.
American's for Tax Reform, has looked over the nearly 2000 page bill and has pulled out all of the taxes in the bill.
* Employer Mandate Excise Tax (Page 275): If an employer does not pay 72.5 percent of a single employee’s health premium (65 percent of a family employee), the employer must pay an excise tax equal to 8 percent of average wages. Small employers (measured by payroll size) have smaller payroll tax rates of 0 percent (<$500,000), 2 percent ($500,000-$585,000), 4 percent ($585,000-$670,000), and 6 percent ($670,000-$750,000).
* Individual Mandate Surtax (Page 296): If an individual fails to obtain qualifying coverage, he must pay an income surtax equal to the lesser of 2.5 percent of modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) or the average premium. MAGI adds back in the foreign earned income exclusion and municipal bond interest.
* Medicine Cabinet Tax (Page 324)
* Cap on FSAs (Page 325)
* Increased Additional Tax on Non-Qualified HSA Distributions (Page 326)
* Denial of Tax Deduction for Employer Health Plans Coordinating with Medicare Part D (Page 327)
* Surtax on Individuals and Small Businesses (Page 336)
* Excise Tax on Medical Devices (Page 339)
* Corporate 1099-MISC Information Reporting (Page 344)
* Delay in Worldwide Allocation of Interest (Page 345)
* Limitation on Tax Treaty Benefits for Certain Payments (Page 346)
* Codification of the “Economic Substance Doctrine” (Page 349)
* Application of “More Likely Than Not” Rule (Page 357)
American's for Tax Reform, has looked over the nearly 2000 page bill and has pulled out all of the taxes in the bill.
* Employer Mandate Excise Tax (Page 275): If an employer does not pay 72.5 percent of a single employee’s health premium (65 percent of a family employee), the employer must pay an excise tax equal to 8 percent of average wages. Small employers (measured by payroll size) have smaller payroll tax rates of 0 percent (<$500,000), 2 percent ($500,000-$585,000), 4 percent ($585,000-$670,000), and 6 percent ($670,000-$750,000).
* Individual Mandate Surtax (Page 296): If an individual fails to obtain qualifying coverage, he must pay an income surtax equal to the lesser of 2.5 percent of modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) or the average premium. MAGI adds back in the foreign earned income exclusion and municipal bond interest.
* Medicine Cabinet Tax (Page 324)
* Cap on FSAs (Page 325)
* Increased Additional Tax on Non-Qualified HSA Distributions (Page 326)
* Denial of Tax Deduction for Employer Health Plans Coordinating with Medicare Part D (Page 327)
* Surtax on Individuals and Small Businesses (Page 336)
* Excise Tax on Medical Devices (Page 339)
* Corporate 1099-MISC Information Reporting (Page 344)
* Delay in Worldwide Allocation of Interest (Page 345)
* Limitation on Tax Treaty Benefits for Certain Payments (Page 346)
* Codification of the “Economic Substance Doctrine” (Page 349)
* Application of “More Likely Than Not” Rule (Page 357)
The Constitution V. Hate Crime Legislation
Here is a letter to the Washington Post sent by Nat Hentoff:
The Oct. 28 editorial “A civil rights advance,” applauding President Obama’s imminent signing of “hate crimes” legislation, ignored the legislation’s plain violation of the 14th Amendment’s “equal protection of the laws.” As a result of this law, those convicted of serious bodily harm against protected classes of Americans — based on their gender or transgender identity, sexual orientation, disability, race, color, religion or national origin — could get longer prison sentences than persons convicted of bodily harm against victims outside protected classes. Perpetrators of a violent act not designated a “hate crime” — for example, against a homeless person on the street, or a police officer, or a former employer — could receive lesser prison terms.
Furthermore, the Fifth Amendment states: “Nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.” This “hate crimes” statute gives federal prosecutors the authority to try a defendant a second time for an alleged hate crime after prosecution in a state court.
Nat Hentoff, New York
The writer is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.
The Oct. 28 editorial “A civil rights advance,” applauding President Obama’s imminent signing of “hate crimes” legislation, ignored the legislation’s plain violation of the 14th Amendment’s “equal protection of the laws.” As a result of this law, those convicted of serious bodily harm against protected classes of Americans — based on their gender or transgender identity, sexual orientation, disability, race, color, religion or national origin — could get longer prison sentences than persons convicted of bodily harm against victims outside protected classes. Perpetrators of a violent act not designated a “hate crime” — for example, against a homeless person on the street, or a police officer, or a former employer — could receive lesser prison terms.
Furthermore, the Fifth Amendment states: “Nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.” This “hate crimes” statute gives federal prosecutors the authority to try a defendant a second time for an alleged hate crime after prosecution in a state court.
Nat Hentoff, New York
The writer is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.
29 October 2009
Universal Nightmare: The Co-op Opt Out Plan Tax
Yeah i don't really get what the hell that means either. It is a phrase coined by our esteemed senate majority leader, Sen. Harry Reid (D) Nev.
The new proposal by senator Reid would allow states to opt out of the public option health care plan if they so desired. However, they states, meaning the people of that state would still have to pay the taxes for it. Even though they aren't receiving services.
Here's the other catch, the benefits, won't come for four years. So basically the people pay taxes, for something that won't happen for four years, and for something that they may not even get. So to put this in perspective for you, let's say i have the option to buy some candy at the candy store. But then i decide not to. But i still get charged for something i didn't get. Stupid, pointless.
Possibly the most interesting aspect of this is, is the tax. This is a TAX for health care. A NEW tax. But wait, i though we wouldn't see our taxes go up one dime.
The new proposal by senator Reid would allow states to opt out of the public option health care plan if they so desired. However, they states, meaning the people of that state would still have to pay the taxes for it. Even though they aren't receiving services.
Here's the other catch, the benefits, won't come for four years. So basically the people pay taxes, for something that won't happen for four years, and for something that they may not even get. So to put this in perspective for you, let's say i have the option to buy some candy at the candy store. But then i decide not to. But i still get charged for something i didn't get. Stupid, pointless.
Possibly the most interesting aspect of this is, is the tax. This is a TAX for health care. A NEW tax. But wait, i though we wouldn't see our taxes go up one dime.
27 October 2009
Flu Shot Shortage
One year ago, the government told us that we would have hundreds of millions of vaccinations available. Then, over the summer, the prediction was that 40 million would be on hand by the end of October.
Last month, the estimate was scaled back to 28 million. And, as of late last week, only 11.5 million had been delivered, leaving tens of millions vulnerable and, tragically, likely leading to hundreds of preventable deaths. Given the tendency of the virus to strike the young, many of those deaths will be among children.
It should be a fairly simple task to produce and distribute a vaccine - as we do with regular flu shots each and every year. But it was apparently beyond the capacity of the Obama Administration to manage such a routine feat.
This is just another classic example of the incompetence of government. The fed wants to run your health care but can't even pass out flu shots.
Last month, the estimate was scaled back to 28 million. And, as of late last week, only 11.5 million had been delivered, leaving tens of millions vulnerable and, tragically, likely leading to hundreds of preventable deaths. Given the tendency of the virus to strike the young, many of those deaths will be among children.
It should be a fairly simple task to produce and distribute a vaccine - as we do with regular flu shots each and every year. But it was apparently beyond the capacity of the Obama Administration to manage such a routine feat.
This is just another classic example of the incompetence of government. The fed wants to run your health care but can't even pass out flu shots.
Liberal Fascism Part 4
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country." --Adolf Hitler
Yes believe it or not, the King of Fascism, Hitler, was strongly in favor of gun control.
Seriously some parts of this quote sounds like it's coming directly from a lib, or a congressman (D) talking about gun control. If i didn't know the author i would say "I don't know probably some democrat."
Only the far left (to be fair some on the right) support such acts surrounding guns.
So what's this? The fascists and liberals, once again having the same opinion on something. And what about conservatives? Oh they completely disagree. Guess Bush, and all those 'gun nuts' aren't so fascist after all. Now Pelosi, that i can see.
Nazi Weapons Act of 1938 (Translated to English)
* Classified guns for "sporting purposes".
* All citizens who wished to purchase firearms had to register with the Nazi officials and have a background check.
* Presumed German citizens were hostile and thereby exempted Nazis from the gun control law.
* Gave Nazis unrestricted power to decide what kinds of firearms could, or could not be owned by private persons.
* The types of ammunition that were legal were subject to control by bureaucrats.
* Juveniles under 18 years could not buy firearms and ammunition.
I swear this seams just like a liberal proposal to regulate and control guns.
Yes believe it or not, the King of Fascism, Hitler, was strongly in favor of gun control.
Seriously some parts of this quote sounds like it's coming directly from a lib, or a congressman (D) talking about gun control. If i didn't know the author i would say "I don't know probably some democrat."
Only the far left (to be fair some on the right) support such acts surrounding guns.
So what's this? The fascists and liberals, once again having the same opinion on something. And what about conservatives? Oh they completely disagree. Guess Bush, and all those 'gun nuts' aren't so fascist after all. Now Pelosi, that i can see.
Nazi Weapons Act of 1938 (Translated to English)
* Classified guns for "sporting purposes".
* All citizens who wished to purchase firearms had to register with the Nazi officials and have a background check.
* Presumed German citizens were hostile and thereby exempted Nazis from the gun control law.
* Gave Nazis unrestricted power to decide what kinds of firearms could, or could not be owned by private persons.
* The types of ammunition that were legal were subject to control by bureaucrats.
* Juveniles under 18 years could not buy firearms and ammunition.
I swear this seams just like a liberal proposal to regulate and control guns.
Fox Won The War
It has been a few weeks now since the white house launched it's war on Fox News.
If the idea was to diminish Fox, and stunt their ratings, then they failed their attempt miserably. Especially considering that 46% of their viewers were democrats.
The Fox Report w/ Shep' Smith had it's best month ever. And the O'Reilly Factor continued to dominate.
Just take a look at these two charts to see how Fox's ratings are doing lately.
Here's a chart comparing network ratings from the period 9/28/2009-10/11/09, which is when Anita Dunn slammed the network, and the two weeks after that ("post feud"). The numbers on the bottom right of this chart show the sequential gain for all demos (+9%( and the 25-54 year old demo (+14%).
Ouch! Epic Failure Mr. President.
This makes me very nervous to see how President Obama does against our real enemies on the battle field.
If the idea was to diminish Fox, and stunt their ratings, then they failed their attempt miserably. Especially considering that 46% of their viewers were democrats.
The Fox Report w/ Shep' Smith had it's best month ever. And the O'Reilly Factor continued to dominate.
Just take a look at these two charts to see how Fox's ratings are doing lately.
Here's a chart comparing network ratings from the period 9/28/2009-10/11/09, which is when Anita Dunn slammed the network, and the two weeks after that ("post feud"). The numbers on the bottom right of this chart show the sequential gain for all demos (+9%( and the 25-54 year old demo (+14%).
Ouch! Epic Failure Mr. President.
This makes me very nervous to see how President Obama does against our real enemies on the battle field.
Fighting for the Status-Quo?
During this health care debate, the right has been accused of simply saying "No!" and not coming up with any ideas. Just rejecting what the left has to say.
The reality is, there have been well over 50 bill proposed by republicans in the house. However all of these bills have been shot down by the REAL party of no.
Bills have included plans, like medical savings accounts, tort reform, a market exchange, allowing insurance to be bought and sold across state lines, and more. All of these would be very different from our current system.
The reality is, there have been well over 50 bill proposed by republicans in the house. However all of these bills have been shot down by the REAL party of no.
Bills have included plans, like medical savings accounts, tort reform, a market exchange, allowing insurance to be bought and sold across state lines, and more. All of these would be very different from our current system.
The Co-op Opt Out plan
Here is a post from 'Freedomworks blog' that i read today:
Andrew Moylan, over at National Taxpayers Union, notes a serious problem with Sen. Reid's new health care plan and the supposedly optional public option.
But here's the fine print:
"Those taxes and others required to fund the $6 billion public option would be collected from all states, including those that opt out of the plan."
Read that one more time. The massive tax increases associated with this bill, on the order of a half-trillion dollars, will apply to EVERYONE regardless of whether or not their state has opted out. There is no comfort in the opt out provision, no shelter from the tentacles of government reaching inexorably into our health care decisions. Why opt out if you'll have to pay all the taxes but get none of the services (inefficient though they may be)?
Andrew Moylan, over at National Taxpayers Union, notes a serious problem with Sen. Reid's new health care plan and the supposedly optional public option.
But here's the fine print:
"Those taxes and others required to fund the $6 billion public option would be collected from all states, including those that opt out of the plan."
Read that one more time. The massive tax increases associated with this bill, on the order of a half-trillion dollars, will apply to EVERYONE regardless of whether or not their state has opted out. There is no comfort in the opt out provision, no shelter from the tentacles of government reaching inexorably into our health care decisions. Why opt out if you'll have to pay all the taxes but get none of the services (inefficient though they may be)?
The Copenhagen treaty Is No Virtue
About 45 years ago words were spoken, that were never more right, then they are now. They need to be heard no more then ever.
"Let me remind you also, that moderation, in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."
--Barry Goldwater 1964 RNC acceptance speech
This is a pledge all government officials should take. Politicians need to look back at this and the constitution, and see how much they've fucked things up. This goes for both the left and right.
Once this copenhagen treaty is signed by our Commander-in-Cheese Obama, we will be forced to abide by the laws of this treaty, and cannot leave unless voted out. Which given the other countries, will never happen.
We are founded on independence and isolationism. This is a direct contradiction of that. We are giving up our freedom and independence for a UN type anti-american styled group that does nothing productive.
When this is signed, and it will be signed, you can kiss the sovereign nation of America good bye.
This treaty is extremism, and is being signed to moderate the world in order to seek justice to fight climate change.. Giving up freedom for a political cause, moderation, in the pursuit of justice. Something i believe to be no virute
"Let me remind you also, that moderation, in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."
--Barry Goldwater 1964 RNC acceptance speech
This is a pledge all government officials should take. Politicians need to look back at this and the constitution, and see how much they've fucked things up. This goes for both the left and right.
Once this copenhagen treaty is signed by our Commander-in-Cheese Obama, we will be forced to abide by the laws of this treaty, and cannot leave unless voted out. Which given the other countries, will never happen.
We are founded on independence and isolationism. This is a direct contradiction of that. We are giving up our freedom and independence for a UN type anti-american styled group that does nothing productive.
When this is signed, and it will be signed, you can kiss the sovereign nation of America good bye.
This treaty is extremism, and is being signed to moderate the world in order to seek justice to fight climate change.. Giving up freedom for a political cause, moderation, in the pursuit of justice. Something i believe to be no virute
24 October 2009
Stimulus Tracker: Is That It?
Earlier this week i said that 49/50 states have lost jobs since the stimulus was enacted and how it has hurt jobs and basically done the opposite of what it was suppose to do.
One person then made the claim that there was still a ton more left to be spent of the stimulus. My reaction to that was "Good God, there's more!?"
Now congress is trying very hard to make the stimulus look like it's working but with the total jobs created vs. jobs lost, they are running out of excuses.
Now on Thursday chairman of the president's Council of Economic Advisers Christina Romer spoke to congress about the stimulus for an update and said:
"Most analysts predicted a fiscal stimulus will have its greatest impact on growth. In the second and third quarters of 2009. And by mid 30. Fiscal stimulus will likely be contributing little. To further growth."
now the 3rd quarter ended on Spet. 30 when we lost record amounts of jobs. So this is pretty much all the stimulus is going to do.
So my claims are right, the stimulus has killed jobs in 49/50 states, hasn't helped much with the economic recovery (what did was the economic theory; the harder the fall the quicker the rise). Now the idea that since not all of it had been spent so more growth will come apears to be just a fantasy.
Hmmm, falling markets, 9.6 unemployment, and 1 trillion on the debt. Put this down for one of the biggest wastes of tax payer money.
One person then made the claim that there was still a ton more left to be spent of the stimulus. My reaction to that was "Good God, there's more!?"
Now congress is trying very hard to make the stimulus look like it's working but with the total jobs created vs. jobs lost, they are running out of excuses.
Now on Thursday chairman of the president's Council of Economic Advisers Christina Romer spoke to congress about the stimulus for an update and said:
"Most analysts predicted a fiscal stimulus will have its greatest impact on growth. In the second and third quarters of 2009. And by mid 30. Fiscal stimulus will likely be contributing little. To further growth."
now the 3rd quarter ended on Spet. 30 when we lost record amounts of jobs. So this is pretty much all the stimulus is going to do.
So my claims are right, the stimulus has killed jobs in 49/50 states, hasn't helped much with the economic recovery (what did was the economic theory; the harder the fall the quicker the rise). Now the idea that since not all of it had been spent so more growth will come apears to be just a fantasy.
Hmmm, falling markets, 9.6 unemployment, and 1 trillion on the debt. Put this down for one of the biggest wastes of tax payer money.
Liberal Fascism Part 3
Health care is hot topic these days. And any one who opposes Obamacare, is a Nazi.
Or at least they'll be called one. But who is the real Nazi on health care? Who's the fascist, the people who don't want a government run system, the town hall protesters, or the liberal congress? Believe it or not, it is the exact people who are calling other fascists, and nazis who are the real fascists.
It was adolph Hitler who proposed National Health care in Germany and began a government run health plan. Hitler's fascist views involved a big government run health system that included rationing, and death pannels. Now aside from that (although i'm still not fully convinced that Obamacare doesn't have health rationing) the plans are very similar. How similar? Well if they weren't they wouldn't be worth comparing.
FDR was the first president to propose universal health care. Now keep in mind this is a democrat here, and one of the biggest supporters of Social Security, and Government Health care. Hence why those were both included (social security & medicaid & medicare) in the 'New Deal.' Now where did he get these ideas you may ask. Oh from Adolf Hitler himself. Hitler was the big champion of social security in Germany and as i have mentioned above brought national health care to Germany. And now Obama want's to do the same thing to our health care system.
What you mean, national health care was a huge part of the Fascist beliefs? Yes Mussolini was the first to really champion such a system and Hitler's fascist views actually made it law in Germany. The idea of free government run health care was then stolen by FDR and has been a major cause for the Democrats ever since. And it all came, from Fascism.
Democrats, Fascism? Same ideas? No that can't be. Because it's the Republican who are fascist right? >FDR, Obama, Hitler, Mussolini>Same health care plan. FDR, Hitler> Same social security plan.
Another fun note is Hitler's silence of the press. If you reported against the government, you were targeted and arrested. Some what similar to Obama's war on Fox News. So who are the fascists here?
Or at least they'll be called one. But who is the real Nazi on health care? Who's the fascist, the people who don't want a government run system, the town hall protesters, or the liberal congress? Believe it or not, it is the exact people who are calling other fascists, and nazis who are the real fascists.
It was adolph Hitler who proposed National Health care in Germany and began a government run health plan. Hitler's fascist views involved a big government run health system that included rationing, and death pannels. Now aside from that (although i'm still not fully convinced that Obamacare doesn't have health rationing) the plans are very similar. How similar? Well if they weren't they wouldn't be worth comparing.
FDR was the first president to propose universal health care. Now keep in mind this is a democrat here, and one of the biggest supporters of Social Security, and Government Health care. Hence why those were both included (social security & medicaid & medicare) in the 'New Deal.' Now where did he get these ideas you may ask. Oh from Adolf Hitler himself. Hitler was the big champion of social security in Germany and as i have mentioned above brought national health care to Germany. And now Obama want's to do the same thing to our health care system.
What you mean, national health care was a huge part of the Fascist beliefs? Yes Mussolini was the first to really champion such a system and Hitler's fascist views actually made it law in Germany. The idea of free government run health care was then stolen by FDR and has been a major cause for the Democrats ever since. And it all came, from Fascism.
Democrats, Fascism? Same ideas? No that can't be. Because it's the Republican who are fascist right? >FDR, Obama, Hitler, Mussolini>Same health care plan. FDR, Hitler> Same social security plan.
Another fun note is Hitler's silence of the press. If you reported against the government, you were targeted and arrested. Some what similar to Obama's war on Fox News. So who are the fascists here?
Uh Oh Huckabee Is Creeping Up In the Polls
Former governor of Arkansas, Mike Huckabee, in the latest PPP Poll is shown with a favorability rating of 43% Now that was when he was polled up against President Obama, who's rating was 47%
This is the 7th PPP Poll like this, and in all 7 polls, Huckabee has creeped closer to Obama.
Don't look now, but Romney also is sneaking up on Obama. His poll showed him trailing Obama 40/41%.
And this one should scare the hell out of all the liberals, the Palin/Obama poll, showed 50% for Obama, and 42% for Palin with 8% unsure.
This is the 7th PPP Poll like this, and in all 7 polls, Huckabee has creeped closer to Obama.
Don't look now, but Romney also is sneaking up on Obama. His poll showed him trailing Obama 40/41%.
And this one should scare the hell out of all the liberals, the Palin/Obama poll, showed 50% for Obama, and 42% for Palin with 8% unsure.
22 October 2009
Liberal Fascism Part 2
"The Italian Doctrine of Fascism states: "The Fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value."
No values, like no religion, like separation of church and state. Which shockingly is only really advocated the the progressives. Gee, but i thought it was the conservatives who were fascist. And the papers also say that "All fascist movements advocate the creation of an authoritarian government that is an autocratic single-party state led by a charismatic leader with the powers of a dictator."
So to be clear a charismatic leader is one who says good things, and some times does good things to keep public support, while really doing awful things through back door methods and enslaving its people. Promising good things. This is Obama through and out. No this is the Democrats. LBJ's (not so) Great Society was totally a charismatic bill. On the outside it looked great. Welfare for the poor, the war on poverty, new entitlements and other spending to provide for the general welfare. But something that the CNN documentary didn't cover, was that is was a trap. To enslave the poor and minorities. But they didn't know it. They thought it was good.
But around the passing of the (not so) great society LBJ was quoted for saying, when asked about the black community and how it would impact them; "I'll have them n****rs voting Democrat for years." Of course this quote was covered up and has been ever since. It take a lot of reading and research to find that. So to recap, LBJ, a democrat. A charismatic leader, who promised change and fairness, and welfare for the poor and help for the poor. And also in doing so made it that these people including minorities would vote democrat, for years to come, while the democrats assault their rights. Not just of the poor but of everyone.
Oh look over here, this is a new welfare program, pay no attention to the socialist plan over there. Oh this thing? No you see choice in education is a bad thing trust me you don't want it. Escape the failing schools and go to a private school? C'mon why would you want to do that? Um.. is it getting warm in here? Uh...Uh...look a home buyers tax credit! And here's a hate crimes legislation. No don't think of it as regulating your thoughts, think of it as, as, as...Oh look at this what do we have here, oh free health care. Phew...that was close. That aught to keep them democrat for another 20 years or so.
This is pure fascism. It is what Hitler did to the people of Germany and how he got away with the horrible thing he did. He kept their support with things like social security and a proposed national health care. While in the background he was formulating the most diabolical genocide in history.
Now This is also pure liberalism and another way of how liberals use the same tactics as the fascists did years ago.
No values, like no religion, like separation of church and state. Which shockingly is only really advocated the the progressives. Gee, but i thought it was the conservatives who were fascist. And the papers also say that "All fascist movements advocate the creation of an authoritarian government that is an autocratic single-party state led by a charismatic leader with the powers of a dictator."
So to be clear a charismatic leader is one who says good things, and some times does good things to keep public support, while really doing awful things through back door methods and enslaving its people. Promising good things. This is Obama through and out. No this is the Democrats. LBJ's (not so) Great Society was totally a charismatic bill. On the outside it looked great. Welfare for the poor, the war on poverty, new entitlements and other spending to provide for the general welfare. But something that the CNN documentary didn't cover, was that is was a trap. To enslave the poor and minorities. But they didn't know it. They thought it was good.
But around the passing of the (not so) great society LBJ was quoted for saying, when asked about the black community and how it would impact them; "I'll have them n****rs voting Democrat for years." Of course this quote was covered up and has been ever since. It take a lot of reading and research to find that. So to recap, LBJ, a democrat. A charismatic leader, who promised change and fairness, and welfare for the poor and help for the poor. And also in doing so made it that these people including minorities would vote democrat, for years to come, while the democrats assault their rights. Not just of the poor but of everyone.
Oh look over here, this is a new welfare program, pay no attention to the socialist plan over there. Oh this thing? No you see choice in education is a bad thing trust me you don't want it. Escape the failing schools and go to a private school? C'mon why would you want to do that? Um.. is it getting warm in here? Uh...Uh...look a home buyers tax credit! And here's a hate crimes legislation. No don't think of it as regulating your thoughts, think of it as, as, as...Oh look at this what do we have here, oh free health care. Phew...that was close. That aught to keep them democrat for another 20 years or so.
This is pure fascism. It is what Hitler did to the people of Germany and how he got away with the horrible thing he did. He kept their support with things like social security and a proposed national health care. While in the background he was formulating the most diabolical genocide in history.
Now This is also pure liberalism and another way of how liberals use the same tactics as the fascists did years ago.
Will America's Real Fascists Please Stand Up
Yes that means you speaker Pelosi. Senator Reid get up. Excuse me Senator Franken i said "will America's real fascists please stand up." So i would advice getting up on your feet.
Ah yes. As a conservative I've heard it before. I'm a fascist. Hitler, was a "right winger" and the nazis were racist conservatives. So because i vote republican, i am a fascist.
Fascists advocate the creation of a single-party state.[7] Fascist governments forbid and suppress openness and opposition to the government and the fascist movement.[8] Fascism opposes class conflict, blames capitalist liberal democracies for its creation and communists for exploiting the concept.[9]
In the economic sphere, many fascist leaders have claimed to support a "Third Way" in economic policy, which they believed superior to both the rampant individualism of unrestrained capitalism and the severe control of state communism.[10][11] This was to be achieved by establishing significant government control over business and labour.
Hmmm a big central government to control business. So sort of like have the government oh i don't know say regulate and cap executive pay, and perhaps, tax business bonuses by 90% to strip them away. Or forcing auto companies to take bailouts.
A further decisive step in the Nazi seizure of power (Gleichschaltung) was the "Enabling Act", which granted the cabinet (and therefore Hitler) legislative powers. The Enabling Act effectively abolished the separation of powers, a principle enshrined in the German Constitution.
Separation of Powers, you don't say. Wouldn't that be um oh Federalism. Which is states rights, judicial restraint, small government and SEPARATION OF POWERS. Sounds pretty conservative. And the fascists wanted a BIG government and merging of powers. Sounds pretty progressive.
Fascist are big police state supporters and favor telling us what we can and can't think. Similar to hate crime legislation. And The fascist believes in controlling what we say, there by possibly eliminating freedom of speech. Fairness doctrine anyone?
So now you have an idea of what fascism is. Now tell me does that sound anything like conservatism? let me remind you of some core conservative values:
~Small government (not a police state or tyranny like Nazi Germany)
~Lower taxes (How do you think Hitler's programs were paid for? High taxes.)
~Free Markets (Not a cooperate state in which the gov't controls business like in Nazi Germany)
~State's right/Separation of Powers (The opposite of fascism)
And to be fair, let's here it from the left:
~Favor a bigger government to regulate and control the economy (like Nazi germany with the press, and Mussolini's Fascist Book which talks about the government controlling business.
~High taxes (Mussolini was a big class warfare guy. And Hitler raised taxes)
So will now, will America's REAL fascists, please stand up.
Ah yes. As a conservative I've heard it before. I'm a fascist. Hitler, was a "right winger" and the nazis were racist conservatives. So because i vote republican, i am a fascist.
Fascists advocate the creation of a single-party state.[7] Fascist governments forbid and suppress openness and opposition to the government and the fascist movement.[8] Fascism opposes class conflict, blames capitalist liberal democracies for its creation and communists for exploiting the concept.[9]
In the economic sphere, many fascist leaders have claimed to support a "Third Way" in economic policy, which they believed superior to both the rampant individualism of unrestrained capitalism and the severe control of state communism.[10][11] This was to be achieved by establishing significant government control over business and labour.
Hmmm a big central government to control business. So sort of like have the government oh i don't know say regulate and cap executive pay, and perhaps, tax business bonuses by 90% to strip them away. Or forcing auto companies to take bailouts.
A further decisive step in the Nazi seizure of power (Gleichschaltung) was the "Enabling Act", which granted the cabinet (and therefore Hitler) legislative powers. The Enabling Act effectively abolished the separation of powers, a principle enshrined in the German Constitution.
Separation of Powers, you don't say. Wouldn't that be um oh Federalism. Which is states rights, judicial restraint, small government and SEPARATION OF POWERS. Sounds pretty conservative. And the fascists wanted a BIG government and merging of powers. Sounds pretty progressive.
Fascist are big police state supporters and favor telling us what we can and can't think. Similar to hate crime legislation. And The fascist believes in controlling what we say, there by possibly eliminating freedom of speech. Fairness doctrine anyone?
So now you have an idea of what fascism is. Now tell me does that sound anything like conservatism? let me remind you of some core conservative values:
~Small government (not a police state or tyranny like Nazi Germany)
~Lower taxes (How do you think Hitler's programs were paid for? High taxes.)
~Free Markets (Not a cooperate state in which the gov't controls business like in Nazi Germany)
~State's right/Separation of Powers (The opposite of fascism)
And to be fair, let's here it from the left:
~Favor a bigger government to regulate and control the economy (like Nazi germany with the press, and Mussolini's Fascist Book which talks about the government controlling business.
~High taxes (Mussolini was a big class warfare guy. And Hitler raised taxes)
So will now, will America's REAL fascists, please stand up.
Obama's War on Fox News
I can't believe it! This is such a typical Obama thing to do. This is unbelievable. This guy has no credibility.
The entire god forsaken Obama administration, over the past few weeks has been targeting Fox News for their opinion shows. Mainly Glenn Beck who despite what people say about "oh he never went to college" is far more interesting and bright and people centered that Keith Olbermann. They also targeted Sean Hannity's show.
Now here's is what i can't understand. They are against Fox's opinion writers and shows, but then, on Monday, Keith Olbermann, Rachael Maddow, Eugene Robinson (left wing journalist) Maureen Dowd (how ever you spell it) (She is a liberal writer for the New York Times) and many others from MSNBC, The NYTs, CNN, PBS and other liberal pinion writers and radio hosts. Now are any of these people journalists? Hell NO! The are all liberal drive by smear machine, opinion writers.
So now to go after Fox, for their opinion shows, which are suppose to be slanted. And don't claim to bring news, unlike MSNBC's opinion "news" shows. And then, they turn around and hold a two hour off the record, conference, with opinion writers and TV hosts, from the left? I'm sorry but you have no credibility, are a hypocrite and don't have a leg to stand on.
Here something that talk radio host Mark Levin pointed out, that Obama has spent more time with Keith Olbermann than he has with General McCrystal. I'm sorry but when you spend more time, with a leftist commentator, after ranting on Fox for their commentators and how they aren't journalists, but when you spend more time with this liberal mouth piece, then you do with your General in Afghanistan, a war that you have championed, then some is seriously wrong with you.
The only Reason this administration has targeted Fox News, is because they have exposed his lies and dirty tricks throughout the last few months. And that's what journalists are suppose to do! Uncover plots, look into conspiracies and to take on authority, make good writing and report news. Not kiss up to the president and edit your paper for anything that may make Obama look bad (*ahem the New York Times*). No real journalists don't slant things in favor of an agenda, no real journalists don't spew the DNC party line. Real journalists report on a story like ACORN weather it hurts the democrats or not, because it's an important and entertaining story that the public need to here.
So i don't know about you, but Fox News has more journalists, then MSLSD, CNN (Clinto News Network), ABC (the All Barack Channel), and the whole rest of the God damn left wing drive by media.
Dear President Obama,
At least pretend like you're doing something. What kind of president has two hours to talk to liberal commentators, on a MONDAY! And what kind of President spends more time talking about and targeting a news station, then talking to your generals when you're at war!?!? At least pretend like you care. And as far as your comment the other day in New Jersey about "let's march" we are! But the only marching that is going on, are Tea Parties, Protests, and Town-Halls. And you've stopped, and shutdown, and singled out and belittled and trashed all of those demonstrations. Keep this up, and soon Fox will be reporting on your loss in the 2012 election.
--MVD
The entire god forsaken Obama administration, over the past few weeks has been targeting Fox News for their opinion shows. Mainly Glenn Beck who despite what people say about "oh he never went to college" is far more interesting and bright and people centered that Keith Olbermann. They also targeted Sean Hannity's show.
Now here's is what i can't understand. They are against Fox's opinion writers and shows, but then, on Monday, Keith Olbermann, Rachael Maddow, Eugene Robinson (left wing journalist) Maureen Dowd (how ever you spell it) (She is a liberal writer for the New York Times) and many others from MSNBC, The NYTs, CNN, PBS and other liberal pinion writers and radio hosts. Now are any of these people journalists? Hell NO! The are all liberal drive by smear machine, opinion writers.
So now to go after Fox, for their opinion shows, which are suppose to be slanted. And don't claim to bring news, unlike MSNBC's opinion "news" shows. And then, they turn around and hold a two hour off the record, conference, with opinion writers and TV hosts, from the left? I'm sorry but you have no credibility, are a hypocrite and don't have a leg to stand on.
Here something that talk radio host Mark Levin pointed out, that Obama has spent more time with Keith Olbermann than he has with General McCrystal. I'm sorry but when you spend more time, with a leftist commentator, after ranting on Fox for their commentators and how they aren't journalists, but when you spend more time with this liberal mouth piece, then you do with your General in Afghanistan, a war that you have championed, then some is seriously wrong with you.
The only Reason this administration has targeted Fox News, is because they have exposed his lies and dirty tricks throughout the last few months. And that's what journalists are suppose to do! Uncover plots, look into conspiracies and to take on authority, make good writing and report news. Not kiss up to the president and edit your paper for anything that may make Obama look bad (*ahem the New York Times*). No real journalists don't slant things in favor of an agenda, no real journalists don't spew the DNC party line. Real journalists report on a story like ACORN weather it hurts the democrats or not, because it's an important and entertaining story that the public need to here.
So i don't know about you, but Fox News has more journalists, then MSLSD, CNN (Clinto News Network), ABC (the All Barack Channel), and the whole rest of the God damn left wing drive by media.
Dear President Obama,
At least pretend like you're doing something. What kind of president has two hours to talk to liberal commentators, on a MONDAY! And what kind of President spends more time talking about and targeting a news station, then talking to your generals when you're at war!?!? At least pretend like you care. And as far as your comment the other day in New Jersey about "let's march" we are! But the only marching that is going on, are Tea Parties, Protests, and Town-Halls. And you've stopped, and shutdown, and singled out and belittled and trashed all of those demonstrations. Keep this up, and soon Fox will be reporting on your loss in the 2012 election.
--MVD
21 October 2009
Liberal Fascism
In reading a post on RedState.com i came across some excerpts from the book "Liberal Fascism" Here is something to think about:
Citing the program of Mussolini’s Fasci di Combattimento, page 46 looks like a talking points memo e-mailed from the DNC to its’ unholy minions yesterday. Included are, briefly, enactment of a minimum wage, strict regulations on land use, a huge tax on capital, the nationalization of many industries, confiscation of the wealth of the church and on and on. Coincidence? Somehow I don’t think so.
Moving along to page 51, when describing the doctrinal Fascist economics which Mussolini was finally called upon to put on paper, that too had a strangely familiar and contemporary ring. Goldberg states, “…it looked fairly recognizable as just another left-wing campaign to nationalize industry, or regulate it to the point where the distinction was hardly a difference.” Pay close attention to this latter description. It really doesn’t have to meet some lawyerly burden of proof to be a gubmint take-over, it only has to result in ultimate gubmint control. You can call it “a co-op”, “ a single payer system”, “the public option” or “Santa Claus”, but if it results in gubmint control it really doesn’t matter, now does it?
I have said it for a long time. Fascism is not related to conservatism but liberalism. Mussolini's book page speaks for it self. If i didn't know better i would assume it was the Democratic platform. That's exactly what redstate was getting at. Liberals favor a big brother, police state, government run nation that controls the economy, banks, money, jobs, compensation, health care, and polices our thoughts through things like hate crime legislation and separation of church-and-state. This is pure fascism. Any government that seeks Imperial power over territories and have an elite group rule over several territories is a fascist one.
Sentence *Disclaimer*: I am not comparing liberals to Nazism towards jews, but to Hitler political views.*
So given the above, is it any wonder that Hitler proposed the same health care plan as Obama is proposing now? Or How Hitler came to power with huge popularity, huge media coverage and carrying the youth vote? So did Obama. They both came during a crisis and promised change.
Some say Obama is a communist, and libs will deny it. People who think that though, are considered radical right wingers. But it doesn't take a radical to think that at all. Take the time to read Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto and read the section on how to turn a capitalist nation into a communist nation. Then look at what's going on today and tell me Obama is not at least close to a communist.
So what is fascism? Here is the definition:
Fascism is a religion of the state. It assumes the organic unity of the body politic and longs for a national leader attuned to the will of the people. It is totalitarian in that it views everything as political and holds that any action by the state is justified to achieve the common good. It takes responsibility for all aspects of life, including our health and well-being, and seeks to impose uniformity of thought and action, whether by force or through regulation and social pressure. Everything, including the economy and religion, must be aligned with its objectives. Any rival identity is part of the “problem” and therefore defined as the enemy.
"It takes responsibility for all aspects of life including our health... and seeks to impose uniformity of thought and action by force or regulation."
Does that sound anything like, mandating everyone by health insurance to take responsibility for health. And to impose it by forcing us to buy it or pay a fine if we don't, and possibly going to jail?
Citing the program of Mussolini’s Fasci di Combattimento, page 46 looks like a talking points memo e-mailed from the DNC to its’ unholy minions yesterday. Included are, briefly, enactment of a minimum wage, strict regulations on land use, a huge tax on capital, the nationalization of many industries, confiscation of the wealth of the church and on and on. Coincidence? Somehow I don’t think so.
Moving along to page 51, when describing the doctrinal Fascist economics which Mussolini was finally called upon to put on paper, that too had a strangely familiar and contemporary ring. Goldberg states, “…it looked fairly recognizable as just another left-wing campaign to nationalize industry, or regulate it to the point where the distinction was hardly a difference.” Pay close attention to this latter description. It really doesn’t have to meet some lawyerly burden of proof to be a gubmint take-over, it only has to result in ultimate gubmint control. You can call it “a co-op”, “ a single payer system”, “the public option” or “Santa Claus”, but if it results in gubmint control it really doesn’t matter, now does it?
I have said it for a long time. Fascism is not related to conservatism but liberalism. Mussolini's book page speaks for it self. If i didn't know better i would assume it was the Democratic platform. That's exactly what redstate was getting at. Liberals favor a big brother, police state, government run nation that controls the economy, banks, money, jobs, compensation, health care, and polices our thoughts through things like hate crime legislation and separation of church-and-state. This is pure fascism. Any government that seeks Imperial power over territories and have an elite group rule over several territories is a fascist one.
Sentence *Disclaimer*: I am not comparing liberals to Nazism towards jews, but to Hitler political views.*
So given the above, is it any wonder that Hitler proposed the same health care plan as Obama is proposing now? Or How Hitler came to power with huge popularity, huge media coverage and carrying the youth vote? So did Obama. They both came during a crisis and promised change.
Some say Obama is a communist, and libs will deny it. People who think that though, are considered radical right wingers. But it doesn't take a radical to think that at all. Take the time to read Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto and read the section on how to turn a capitalist nation into a communist nation. Then look at what's going on today and tell me Obama is not at least close to a communist.
So what is fascism? Here is the definition:
Fascism is a religion of the state. It assumes the organic unity of the body politic and longs for a national leader attuned to the will of the people. It is totalitarian in that it views everything as political and holds that any action by the state is justified to achieve the common good. It takes responsibility for all aspects of life, including our health and well-being, and seeks to impose uniformity of thought and action, whether by force or through regulation and social pressure. Everything, including the economy and religion, must be aligned with its objectives. Any rival identity is part of the “problem” and therefore defined as the enemy.
"It takes responsibility for all aspects of life including our health... and seeks to impose uniformity of thought and action by force or regulation."
Does that sound anything like, mandating everyone by health insurance to take responsibility for health. And to impose it by forcing us to buy it or pay a fine if we don't, and possibly going to jail?
After 7 Months of Stimulus, 49/50 States have Fewer Jobs
It has now been 7 months since the porkulus bill was enacted. It was promised to revive the economy and put Americans back to work. So far, the stock market has been up and down still in bad way, we've quadrupled the national debt, and um no jobs. The president claimed that this would create 3.5 million jobs. Since this bill was passed we've lost 2.7 million.
Forty nine out of fifty states have less jobs than before the stimulus. 2.7 million jobs lost. Oh but look on the bright side we lost nearly everything we were suppose to gain and racked up the debt, but hey we created a whopping 33,000 jobs. Oh and those only cost us $500,000 a job. 1 million for every two jobs created...or saved.
Check below to see how screwed your state is from the stimulus:
Forty nine out of fifty states have less jobs than before the stimulus. 2.7 million jobs lost. Oh but look on the bright side we lost nearly everything we were suppose to gain and racked up the debt, but hey we created a whopping 33,000 jobs. Oh and those only cost us $500,000 a job. 1 million for every two jobs created...or saved.
Check below to see how screwed your state is from the stimulus:
19 October 2009
TEA Party: Obama Inaug. v 9/12 Project
It is estimated that about two million came to watch President Obama's inauguration. Truly a historic number. The largest crowd for an inauguration ever.
BUT...
9 months later, on a cool September day, an estimated two million people came to protest the same government it just elected. on Sept. 12 two million people gathered for the "9/12 Project March on Washington" to protest big government, big spending, and taxes.
Not surprisingly, the liberal drive-by media, was no where to be found. In fact the media gave more attention to a couple hundred (like 120) women in pink protesting the war, then two million in the largest protest in U.S. history. Yes even bigger, than the civil rights march, the woman's rights march and the Boston Tea Party.
The millions that cheered for Obama in January, are now part of the largest protest in American history.
~TEA Party: Revolution is Brewing, At a City Near You~
BUT...
9 months later, on a cool September day, an estimated two million people came to protest the same government it just elected. on Sept. 12 two million people gathered for the "9/12 Project March on Washington" to protest big government, big spending, and taxes.
Not surprisingly, the liberal drive-by media, was no where to be found. In fact the media gave more attention to a couple hundred (like 120) women in pink protesting the war, then two million in the largest protest in U.S. history. Yes even bigger, than the civil rights march, the woman's rights march and the Boston Tea Party.
The millions that cheered for Obama in January, are now part of the largest protest in American history.
~TEA Party: Revolution is Brewing, At a City Near You~
Why We Can't Have Tort Reform
Obama and his team are generally opposed to Tort Reform of any kind, and have basically dismissed it. They say malpractice law suits "may be contributing to health costs." Now the Washington Examiner took a look at the savings if we had Tort Reform, and said it could reduce 27% of health costs.
It would also save 54 billion a year in the deficit. So why can't we have Tort reform?
Because the trial lawyers' political action committee is the second largest donor to Democrats campaign. In 2008 they gave 127 million dollars to democratic congressional candidates.
That is why we can't have Tort reform. The same reason the dems are killing the D.C. voucher system. Because the teacher's unions are big democrat supporters.
It would also save 54 billion a year in the deficit. So why can't we have Tort reform?
Because the trial lawyers' political action committee is the second largest donor to Democrats campaign. In 2008 they gave 127 million dollars to democratic congressional candidates.
That is why we can't have Tort reform. The same reason the dems are killing the D.C. voucher system. Because the teacher's unions are big democrat supporters.
Support For Obamacare Going South
A new Rasmussen Report shows that opposition of Obamacare has risen to 54%. This poll also shows that support for it has gone down by 4% during the last two weeks. As it stand now public support for the senates health reform is at 42%. Again that's a 4 point drop in the last two weeks. Among independent voters 56% oppose and 38% support.
These numbers have been steady since the August recess. Earlier this summer approval rose to 56% but since has leveled out in the low to mid 40s. As people find out more about Obamacare they support it less. I commend the 'right wing' and radio hosts for exposing the horrors of obamacare during the summer, like death panels, rationed care, and tax increases, medicare cuts and more.
Based on these polls and ratings, and attitude of the people towards this, i draw the conclusion, Obamacare is dying and due to its recent unpopularity, we can expect to see another last minute thousand page bill, rushed through while no one reads the bill, topped with the 'do something' mentality and some good ol' fasion fear mongering.
These numbers have been steady since the August recess. Earlier this summer approval rose to 56% but since has leveled out in the low to mid 40s. As people find out more about Obamacare they support it less. I commend the 'right wing' and radio hosts for exposing the horrors of obamacare during the summer, like death panels, rationed care, and tax increases, medicare cuts and more.
Based on these polls and ratings, and attitude of the people towards this, i draw the conclusion, Obamacare is dying and due to its recent unpopularity, we can expect to see another last minute thousand page bill, rushed through while no one reads the bill, topped with the 'do something' mentality and some good ol' fasion fear mongering.
More ACORN Problems
SO here is a new article about the ACORN voter registration fraud, from 'Rightwingnews.com'
Not long ago, Pam Geller told the story of an ACORN office in Florida that had destroyed all the Republican voter registration forms it had gotten during a 2008 voter registration drive.
Geller had a first-hand account of this crime from one Fathiyyah Muhammad, an Obama voter that is a registered Republican. She is also an African-American.
"This is my first experience" with ACORN, Muhammad said. "This was before Obama got the nomination, long before then�.I heard about this group that was paying $3.00 per person, to go out and to get people to sign up to vote. So I went over, I thought that well this is a good way to make some money because I know everybody, you know. I went over there and this guy signed me up and everything, and gave me my little pad, all this stuff."
Muhammad dutifully went out and registered a bunch of Republican voters in Jacksonville and returned to the ACORN office to turn in her results. However, the ACORN representatives were incensed to find out that her registrations were for Republicans and not Democrats.
She saw ACORN officials in Jacksonville throw out the Republican registrations she made. “They just discarded those, they weren’t valid. All of the registrations� they just threw those out.” Yet she says that she is sure that the people she registered were actually going to vote: “Yes, they all were going to vote, I just didn’t want to get anybody just to get the three dollars, I wasn’t desperate for three dollars.”
ACORN is not in the business of registering voters. ACORN is in the business of enlarging Democrat voter rolls and it doesn't matte to them how they do it.
This was from a rwn.com 0ct 19th post. So this is just more of the terrible fraud of ACORN and why they should not be getting tax money.
Not long ago, Pam Geller told the story of an ACORN office in Florida that had destroyed all the Republican voter registration forms it had gotten during a 2008 voter registration drive.
Geller had a first-hand account of this crime from one Fathiyyah Muhammad, an Obama voter that is a registered Republican. She is also an African-American.
"This is my first experience" with ACORN, Muhammad said. "This was before Obama got the nomination, long before then�.I heard about this group that was paying $3.00 per person, to go out and to get people to sign up to vote. So I went over, I thought that well this is a good way to make some money because I know everybody, you know. I went over there and this guy signed me up and everything, and gave me my little pad, all this stuff."
Muhammad dutifully went out and registered a bunch of Republican voters in Jacksonville and returned to the ACORN office to turn in her results. However, the ACORN representatives were incensed to find out that her registrations were for Republicans and not Democrats.
She saw ACORN officials in Jacksonville throw out the Republican registrations she made. “They just discarded those, they weren’t valid. All of the registrations� they just threw those out.” Yet she says that she is sure that the people she registered were actually going to vote: “Yes, they all were going to vote, I just didn’t want to get anybody just to get the three dollars, I wasn’t desperate for three dollars.”
ACORN is not in the business of registering voters. ACORN is in the business of enlarging Democrat voter rolls and it doesn't matte to them how they do it.
This was from a rwn.com 0ct 19th post. So this is just more of the terrible fraud of ACORN and why they should not be getting tax money.
17 October 2009
Real Unemployment Is Far Greater Than 9.8
we now know that the unemployment rate is 9.8%, and that the stimulus has created or saved about 30,000 jobs. But while unemployment is bad, is the number we have still not accurate?
Figure it this way. If the workforce is 1000 and 100 are out of work, the unemployment rate is 10%. But if 10 of those 100 stop looking for work, the workforce is 990, and the unemployment rate drops to 9.1%.
So while 30,000 jobs have been made (really only about 14,000 once you subtract the saved) how many jobs have been removed from the work force? How many people have stopped looking for jobs? Thus shrinking the work force, which is bad. So even if unemployment goes down, think of how many of those supposed new jobs are actually people leaving the labor force. Just something to about.
Figure it this way. If the workforce is 1000 and 100 are out of work, the unemployment rate is 10%. But if 10 of those 100 stop looking for work, the workforce is 990, and the unemployment rate drops to 9.1%.
So while 30,000 jobs have been made (really only about 14,000 once you subtract the saved) how many jobs have been removed from the work force? How many people have stopped looking for jobs? Thus shrinking the work force, which is bad. So even if unemployment goes down, think of how many of those supposed new jobs are actually people leaving the labor force. Just something to about.
16 October 2009
Taxed Enough Already: Taxing Medical Devices
And now for another post in our segment Taxed Enough Already, where we dive into some of the most outrageous taxes in our country.
Do you use a wheel chair? Need hearing aids, use condoms, or have prosthetic hips, or knees? Then you are costing the tax payers, 40 billion dollars! Yes it's true a new over the next 10 years, we are being taxed on all class II medical devices. So instead of reducing medical costs, were are jacking them up by taxing medical devices.
So now grandpa's hearing aids are costing us 40 billion.
Do you use a wheel chair? Need hearing aids, use condoms, or have prosthetic hips, or knees? Then you are costing the tax payers, 40 billion dollars! Yes it's true a new over the next 10 years, we are being taxed on all class II medical devices. So instead of reducing medical costs, were are jacking them up by taxing medical devices.
So now grandpa's hearing aids are costing us 40 billion.
Universal Nightmare: Taxing The Sick
As it stands today, tax payers are allowed to deduct any medical expenses that exceed 7.5% of their income. But, now in a new proposed amendment to the health reform bill by Senate Finance Committee Chairman, Max Baucus, and President Obama, that could soon go up.
This amendment, would make it so now, you can only deduct if it exceeds 10%, of your gross income. That is a 2.5% increase. So now sick, poor people, the same Obama and Baucus, and really all the liberals claim to be helping, are now going to have to pay more. Imagine that.
"Eight million Americans are sick enough and poor enough that they have to pay more than 7.5% of their income in medical expenses. And it is these folks that the liberals Obama and Baucus plan to tax! Six million of them earn less than $75,000 a year!" (""Dick Morris)
It is estimated that this would cost a family earning $75,000 a year, who faces out of pocket medical expenses of $7,500 (7.5% of their income) an extra $6,000 in new taxes.
This plan is said to raise 2 billion in revenue a year, by taxing sick people.
Perhaps we should tax Obama and Baucus an extra $6,000 because based on this proposal, they are 'sick' in my book.
This amendment, would make it so now, you can only deduct if it exceeds 10%, of your gross income. That is a 2.5% increase. So now sick, poor people, the same Obama and Baucus, and really all the liberals claim to be helping, are now going to have to pay more. Imagine that.
"Eight million Americans are sick enough and poor enough that they have to pay more than 7.5% of their income in medical expenses. And it is these folks that the liberals Obama and Baucus plan to tax! Six million of them earn less than $75,000 a year!" (""Dick Morris)
It is estimated that this would cost a family earning $75,000 a year, who faces out of pocket medical expenses of $7,500 (7.5% of their income) an extra $6,000 in new taxes.
This plan is said to raise 2 billion in revenue a year, by taxing sick people.
Perhaps we should tax Obama and Baucus an extra $6,000 because based on this proposal, they are 'sick' in my book.
Stimulus Tracker: Where Are The Jobs?
Last month the Obama administration claimed that their economic stimulus package had saved or created, what ever the hell that means, 1 million jobs. Now keep in mind this is the same administration who's debt projection was 2 trillion off. So naturally I question their math.
Now the report came out Thursday (yesterday) and it had a vastly different story to tell on jobs created...or saved. It said, the stimulus has created (or saved) 30,083 jobs. To give you an idea of how far off they were, that is less than 1/30th of their September claim.
Where are the jobs?
Now the report came out Thursday (yesterday) and it had a vastly different story to tell on jobs created...or saved. It said, the stimulus has created (or saved) 30,083 jobs. To give you an idea of how far off they were, that is less than 1/30th of their September claim.
Where are the jobs?
15 October 2009
Wait Isn't The Ice Suppose To Be Melting?
Right. Of course it is. Global Warming is destroying us all. The ice is melting, the ice is melting. Or is it?
12 Oct 09 – “As a Colorado Rockies playoff game is snowed out, scientists report that Arctic sea ice is thickening and Antarctic snow melt is the lowest in three decades,” says this article on Fourwinds10.com.
“It seems that ice at both poles hasn't been paying attention to the computer models.”
A summary of summer sea-ice conditions released last week by the National Snow and Ice Data Center reported a substantial expansion of second-year ice (ice thick enough to have persisted through two summers of seasonal melting). Second-year ice this summer made up 32% of the total ice cover on the Arctic Ocean, compared with 21% in 2007 and 9% in 2008.
Full article: http://fourwinds10.com/siterun_data/environment/weather_and_climate/news.php?q=1255539831
12 Oct 09 – “As a Colorado Rockies playoff game is snowed out, scientists report that Arctic sea ice is thickening and Antarctic snow melt is the lowest in three decades,” says this article on Fourwinds10.com.
“It seems that ice at both poles hasn't been paying attention to the computer models.”
A summary of summer sea-ice conditions released last week by the National Snow and Ice Data Center reported a substantial expansion of second-year ice (ice thick enough to have persisted through two summers of seasonal melting). Second-year ice this summer made up 32% of the total ice cover on the Arctic Ocean, compared with 21% in 2007 and 9% in 2008.
Full article: http://fourwinds10.com/siterun_data/environment/weather_and_climate/news.php?q=1255539831
The Meltdown: Record Low Temps in Minneapolis
Record snowfall in Minneapolis - "The Dakotas, Minnesota, northwest Wisconsin, and portions of the Upper Peninsula of Michigan were generally dealing with 1-3 inches of snow with locally higher amounts Sunday into Monday.
"St. Paul, Minn., had 4.2 inches of snow, while Minneapolis got a record of 2.5 inches... The old record was 2.0 inches set back in 1959. It has been 7 years since Minneapolis has received accumulating snow in October !" (Exclamation point was in original article.)
http://www.accuweather.com/regional-news-story.asp?region=midwestusnews
Thanks to Kenneth Lund for this link
"St. Paul, Minn., had 4.2 inches of snow, while Minneapolis got a record of 2.5 inches... The old record was 2.0 inches set back in 1959. It has been 7 years since Minneapolis has received accumulating snow in October !" (Exclamation point was in original article.)
http://www.accuweather.com/regional-news-story.asp?region=midwestusnews
Thanks to Kenneth Lund for this link
The Meltdown: What Happened To Global Warming?
Here is a section of an article from a BBC Climate Correspondent Paul Hudson:
For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures. And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise. So what on Earth is going on?
And:
According to research conducted by Professor Don Easterbrook from Western Washington University last November, the oceans and global temperatures are correlated.
The oceans, he says, have a cycle in which they warm and cool cyclically. The most important one is the Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO).
For much of the 1980’s and 1990’s, it was in a positive cycle; that means warmer than average. And observations have revealed that global temperatures were warm too. But in the last few years it has been losing its warmth and has recently started to cool down. These cycles in the past have lasted for nearly 30 years.
So could global temperatures follow? The global cooling from 1945 to 1977 coincided with one of these cold Pacific cycles. Professor Easterbrook says: “The PDO cool mode has replaced the warm mode in the Pacific Ocean, virtually assuring us of about 30 years of global cooling.”
So what does it all mean? Climate change sceptics argue that this is evidence that they have been right all along. They say there are so many other natural causes for warming and cooling, that even if man is warming the planet, it is a small part compared with nature.
For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures. And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise. So what on Earth is going on?
And:
According to research conducted by Professor Don Easterbrook from Western Washington University last November, the oceans and global temperatures are correlated.
The oceans, he says, have a cycle in which they warm and cool cyclically. The most important one is the Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO).
For much of the 1980’s and 1990’s, it was in a positive cycle; that means warmer than average. And observations have revealed that global temperatures were warm too. But in the last few years it has been losing its warmth and has recently started to cool down. These cycles in the past have lasted for nearly 30 years.
So could global temperatures follow? The global cooling from 1945 to 1977 coincided with one of these cold Pacific cycles. Professor Easterbrook says: “The PDO cool mode has replaced the warm mode in the Pacific Ocean, virtually assuring us of about 30 years of global cooling.”
So what does it all mean? Climate change sceptics argue that this is evidence that they have been right all along. They say there are so many other natural causes for warming and cooling, that even if man is warming the planet, it is a small part compared with nature.
Reid & Tort Reform
The other day Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid slipped up in talking about the Tort reform savings. In that process he talked about the total savings on the whole bill. Which of course to make the savings look smaller to discourage tort reform, admitted that the Baucus bill actually has an overall price tag of two trillion.
Whoops. Thank you Sen. Reid, saved us on the right, a lot of explaining.
SENATOR HARRY REID: He talked about CBO saying that there would be $54 billion saved each year if we put caps on medical malpractice and put some restrictions — tort reform — $54 billion. Sounds like a lot of money, doesn’t it, Mr. President? The answer is yes. But remember, we’re talking about $2 trillion, $54 billion compared to $2 trillion. You can do the math. We can all do the math. It’s a very small percent.
Now where he is wrong, is the CBO 2 trillion estimate, is over ten years, not each year. Oh well i guess Sen. Reid can't do the math. Also what is key to remember, is that this is all (the 54 billion) in deficit savings. Not overall savings which is estimated to be far greater, up to almost 110 billion a year.
It is also estimated that it could save $1,000 per family a year.
Whoops. Thank you Sen. Reid, saved us on the right, a lot of explaining.
SENATOR HARRY REID: He talked about CBO saying that there would be $54 billion saved each year if we put caps on medical malpractice and put some restrictions — tort reform — $54 billion. Sounds like a lot of money, doesn’t it, Mr. President? The answer is yes. But remember, we’re talking about $2 trillion, $54 billion compared to $2 trillion. You can do the math. We can all do the math. It’s a very small percent.
Now where he is wrong, is the CBO 2 trillion estimate, is over ten years, not each year. Oh well i guess Sen. Reid can't do the math. Also what is key to remember, is that this is all (the 54 billion) in deficit savings. Not overall savings which is estimated to be far greater, up to almost 110 billion a year.
It is also estimated that it could save $1,000 per family a year.
14 October 2009
Is Exercise Making Us Fat?
Here's a novel idea if I've ever seen one. In a specific day care center. lots of kids were picked up late. So they owners got mad about this because, that meant that they had to stay over. So to try and curb late pick ups they started a late fee, where by if you were late you paid an extra fine.
To their surprise, it didn't work. In fact in this study (by Freakonomics) showed that the late fee actually resulted in more late pick ups. Now why would this be do you suppose? Because since people felt guilty already about picking their kids up late, the fee gave them the idea, that they could pay off their guilt. ya know "i'm sorry i'm late here's 10 buck." Not, "i can't be late i'll have to pay extra."
So now let's look at fatness in America. Take exercise. It is the same idea. People who are over wight and exercise, just get more over weight. Because they then think "hey i worked out today so now i can eat these fries." or "hey i really over ate, oh well i'll just exercise and then it will be better" and then the next day eat cake as a reward for their exercise.
Thus, the person feals guilty about eating to much and being over weight, and then exercises to pay off the guilt, but then takes the fact that they exercise as an excuse to eat more. And that cycle repeats over and over. In short, in a lot of way, exercise is making us fatter.
To their surprise, it didn't work. In fact in this study (by Freakonomics) showed that the late fee actually resulted in more late pick ups. Now why would this be do you suppose? Because since people felt guilty already about picking their kids up late, the fee gave them the idea, that they could pay off their guilt. ya know "i'm sorry i'm late here's 10 buck." Not, "i can't be late i'll have to pay extra."
So now let's look at fatness in America. Take exercise. It is the same idea. People who are over wight and exercise, just get more over weight. Because they then think "hey i worked out today so now i can eat these fries." or "hey i really over ate, oh well i'll just exercise and then it will be better" and then the next day eat cake as a reward for their exercise.
Thus, the person feals guilty about eating to much and being over weight, and then exercises to pay off the guilt, but then takes the fact that they exercise as an excuse to eat more. And that cycle repeats over and over. In short, in a lot of way, exercise is making us fatter.
13 October 2009
Don't Be Hatin'
Here is an insightful and enjoyable blog post i read the other day that dives into the tyranny of the hate crimes legislation.
Today, congress voted to expand hate crime legislation to cover gays, lesbians, bisexuals, etc... This is perhaps one of the most devastating pieces of legislation to pass since Obama took office. Congress passed this legislation the day before national coming out day, politicizing the gay rights movement.
What congress did not consider is a strong gay populous that opposes all hate crime legislation, on the basis that it is plain and simple fascist. Now before I am blasted, reprimanded, and expelled for using "the f word," please consider that "fascist" has an educated definition. In this country, we prosecute people for unjust ACTIONS, because the action itself (murder, rape, violence, etc...) is wrong. Period. But fascists take this further. They police and prosecute for their thoughts and beliefs. In Nazi Germany any pro-Jewish person who committed a crime would pay a much greater price than a conformist, or supporter of the status quo. Our free country has never stooped this low. Until today.
Lets say one murders someone who happens to be gay. Before "hate crimes" you would be justly punished and sentenced accordingly for the murder under the rule of law. However this is no longer the case. Your motives are now considered. If you murdered him because he, say stole your money you will receive a regular sentence. BUT if you hate gay people, disagree with gay marriage, or if the crime in ANY way involved his sexual orientation, your sentence will be much greater, as your thoughts and beliefs are now under assault. This is tyranny in its most pure form.
In conclusion, I ask anyone reading this to do one thing. Stand up and defend freedom, the constitution, and due process of law. If anyone tomorrow promotes this new hate crime legislation tomorrow as part of National Coming Out Day, don't let your voice be silenced in vain. An injustice has been done to the American People and to freedom-we must make clear that we will not except this. I fully respect the gay rights movement, and what National Coming Out day means to them, because GSA is standing up for those who have been unfairly silenced because of their sexuality. However, it would be completely hypocritical for us to treat this bill as some virtuous victory for the gay rights movement, as that would be silencing a huge number of gay and straight people alike who oppose this legislation. Don't be Silenced!
Today, congress voted to expand hate crime legislation to cover gays, lesbians, bisexuals, etc... This is perhaps one of the most devastating pieces of legislation to pass since Obama took office. Congress passed this legislation the day before national coming out day, politicizing the gay rights movement.
What congress did not consider is a strong gay populous that opposes all hate crime legislation, on the basis that it is plain and simple fascist. Now before I am blasted, reprimanded, and expelled for using "the f word," please consider that "fascist" has an educated definition. In this country, we prosecute people for unjust ACTIONS, because the action itself (murder, rape, violence, etc...) is wrong. Period. But fascists take this further. They police and prosecute for their thoughts and beliefs. In Nazi Germany any pro-Jewish person who committed a crime would pay a much greater price than a conformist, or supporter of the status quo. Our free country has never stooped this low. Until today.
Lets say one murders someone who happens to be gay. Before "hate crimes" you would be justly punished and sentenced accordingly for the murder under the rule of law. However this is no longer the case. Your motives are now considered. If you murdered him because he, say stole your money you will receive a regular sentence. BUT if you hate gay people, disagree with gay marriage, or if the crime in ANY way involved his sexual orientation, your sentence will be much greater, as your thoughts and beliefs are now under assault. This is tyranny in its most pure form.
In conclusion, I ask anyone reading this to do one thing. Stand up and defend freedom, the constitution, and due process of law. If anyone tomorrow promotes this new hate crime legislation tomorrow as part of National Coming Out Day, don't let your voice be silenced in vain. An injustice has been done to the American People and to freedom-we must make clear that we will not except this. I fully respect the gay rights movement, and what National Coming Out day means to them, because GSA is standing up for those who have been unfairly silenced because of their sexuality. However, it would be completely hypocritical for us to treat this bill as some virtuous victory for the gay rights movement, as that would be silencing a huge number of gay and straight people alike who oppose this legislation. Don't be Silenced!
Universal Nightmare: The Baucus Bill
Facts:
The CBO estimates the REAL cost of the Baucus bill is over 2 trillion dollars. This also assumes that congress will make cuts from medicare payments as well as the $550 billion 'extra stuff' from medicare.
The bill imposes a 40 percent excise tax on health insurance plans that offer benefits in excess of $8,000 for an individual plan and $21,000 for a family plan. Insurers would almost certainly pass this tax on to consumers via higher premiums. As inflation pushes insurance premiums higher in coming years, more and more middle-class families will find themselves caught up in the tax — providing the government with more revenue.
At the time of the analysis, the Baucus plan held that if you have an insurance plan with a high premium (exceeding $8,000 per individual or $21,000 per family), your insurance company would pay a tax of 35 cents for every dollar that your plan exceeds the threshold.
Sound good? Guess what they don't pay it. They transfer part of it to you. through, higher premiums. Which means higher tax on them which they still transfer to you.
The analysis by the Joint Committee on Taxation concluded that tax payments would indeed rise. And it found that the middle class would be stuck with the tab.
The report projected that the excise tax would raise about $52 billion in 2019. Of that, about $8.9 billion would come from taxpayers with incomes of less than $50,000; about $19.4 billion from taxpayers with incomes between $50,000 and $100,000; and about $17.4 billion from taxpayers with incomes between $100,000 and $200,000.
Add those up, and you see that about 87 percent of the revenue in the original Baucus proposal to finance Obamacare would come from individuals with incomes of less than $200,000.
Baucus and the Senate committee have since upped the proposed tax to 40 percent, and the trigger thresholds to $9,850 and $26,000, tweaks that shouldn't change the basic thrust of the story....
The remarkable thing is that this revenue comes from low- and middle-income people who already have insurance. Many members of organized labor have these "gold-plated" plans. And they would be worse off, not better, because of Obamacare.
""Greg Mankiw's Blog
The CBO estimates the REAL cost of the Baucus bill is over 2 trillion dollars. This also assumes that congress will make cuts from medicare payments as well as the $550 billion 'extra stuff' from medicare.
The bill imposes a 40 percent excise tax on health insurance plans that offer benefits in excess of $8,000 for an individual plan and $21,000 for a family plan. Insurers would almost certainly pass this tax on to consumers via higher premiums. As inflation pushes insurance premiums higher in coming years, more and more middle-class families will find themselves caught up in the tax — providing the government with more revenue.
At the time of the analysis, the Baucus plan held that if you have an insurance plan with a high premium (exceeding $8,000 per individual or $21,000 per family), your insurance company would pay a tax of 35 cents for every dollar that your plan exceeds the threshold.
Sound good? Guess what they don't pay it. They transfer part of it to you. through, higher premiums. Which means higher tax on them which they still transfer to you.
The analysis by the Joint Committee on Taxation concluded that tax payments would indeed rise. And it found that the middle class would be stuck with the tab.
The report projected that the excise tax would raise about $52 billion in 2019. Of that, about $8.9 billion would come from taxpayers with incomes of less than $50,000; about $19.4 billion from taxpayers with incomes between $50,000 and $100,000; and about $17.4 billion from taxpayers with incomes between $100,000 and $200,000.
Add those up, and you see that about 87 percent of the revenue in the original Baucus proposal to finance Obamacare would come from individuals with incomes of less than $200,000.
Baucus and the Senate committee have since upped the proposed tax to 40 percent, and the trigger thresholds to $9,850 and $26,000, tweaks that shouldn't change the basic thrust of the story....
The remarkable thing is that this revenue comes from low- and middle-income people who already have insurance. Many members of organized labor have these "gold-plated" plans. And they would be worse off, not better, because of Obamacare.
""Greg Mankiw's Blog
12 October 2009
Capitalism: A Love Story (The Epic Romance between Michael Moore and Movie Profits)
Now been out for about a week and a half is Michael Moore's new movie "Capitalism: A Love Story." Now In this movie Moore talks about the problems and failures of capitalism in terms of interest groups and business lobbying. He goes on to bash the capitalist system and blame it for the economic downturn.
Now Mr. Moore is a big opponent to capitalism and prefers socialism, but he is also a big proponent of hypocrisy. His movies, which under the totalitarian systems he supports, wouldn't even be able to be shown, have made him 50 million dollars.
So really considering his success, he has made lots of money. $50,000,000 worth. All coming from the private sector movie industry. And he says he hasn't gotten anything from capitalism. The only love story I see here is between Michael Moore, and movie profits.
Moore now joins the ranks of Al Gore when it comes to the Hypocrisy Ratings. Gore who despite his damming of carbon emissions, was caught red handed with his Gulf Stream Jet flying around the world.
Now Mr. Moore is a big opponent to capitalism and prefers socialism, but he is also a big proponent of hypocrisy. His movies, which under the totalitarian systems he supports, wouldn't even be able to be shown, have made him 50 million dollars.
So really considering his success, he has made lots of money. $50,000,000 worth. All coming from the private sector movie industry. And he says he hasn't gotten anything from capitalism. The only love story I see here is between Michael Moore, and movie profits.
Moore now joins the ranks of Al Gore when it comes to the Hypocrisy Ratings. Gore who despite his damming of carbon emissions, was caught red handed with his Gulf Stream Jet flying around the world.
The Meltdown: It's Snowing!
Ahh the fall, such a great time of the year. One of my favorites. The nice luke warm weather, the sun, the leaves, the pumpkins and the last days of warmth. All of this makes fall great. And ...Snow? Yes that's right snow. Today 12 October it is snowing in the Twin Cities, some areas just west of the Metro area received about 2-4 inched of the white powder. St. Paul-Minneapolis got an average of 1-2 inches. This past week the average temperature was in the 40s. today the high was 43. It's not even halloween. It's the middle of October!
Snow, 30 degree weather, ice, winter coats...in October. Where's global warming?
Snow, 30 degree weather, ice, winter coats...in October. Where's global warming?
Second Stimulus? Part II
This is a quick follow up to my last post. So lately the idea of a second stimulus bill has been the talk of politics. Now I have already covered that the stimulus has essentially failed. It has done way more damage then it has solved and even congress admits it has failed since they don't even want to call this new bill a stimulus, due to the fact that the first one isn't working.
But here's another little nugget of information. We've only spend 80 million of the stimulus so far. That's 80 million 787 billion. That is right around 13%. Also a strong 45% of Americans think we should cancel the rest of this bill. Now weather or not the stimulus will create long term affect, which i'm sure it would. The problem is this would not take full effect, until as the CBO estimates 2011. Do we really need this? While our debt is 9 trillion?
Dear Congress,
You still have about 87% of the first stimulus to spend, before i even want to talk about a second stimulus.
But here's another little nugget of information. We've only spend 80 million of the stimulus so far. That's 80 million 787 billion. That is right around 13%. Also a strong 45% of Americans think we should cancel the rest of this bill. Now weather or not the stimulus will create long term affect, which i'm sure it would. The problem is this would not take full effect, until as the CBO estimates 2011. Do we really need this? While our debt is 9 trillion?
Dear Congress,
You still have about 87% of the first stimulus to spend, before i even want to talk about a second stimulus.
Second Stimulus?
So now, recently there has been talk of a second stimulus bill to help the economy. Now there are a couple points i want to make from this. The first, is that they (specifically Nancy Pelosi) has said they don't want to call this a 'stimulus' but that is basically what it would be. Why not? Because stimulus has a bad name they claim. And almost everyone would agree it does. It didn't work, so why would you want to tell people you're gonna pass another one?
Point two is some what like the last part of my previous point, which is, it didn't work. The stimulus did nothing to stimulate the economy. It helped quadruple our national debt, jack up unemployment to 9.8 despite Obama told us with the stimulus unemployment wouldn't go over 8% (although when he said that it was 8.1%.) All it did was re-hire some workers, and spend money we don't have, thus raising inflation and interest rates. So why a second stimulus? because the first one didn't work. And they know it. But it's all apart of their left wing agenda.
Now regarding unemployment. We were told we had to pass the stimulus, and if we didn't it could get worse than the great Great Depression. So we were told unemployment would shoot up, if we didn't pass it. With the stimulus it was projected unemployment would drop. So far it has gone over, the projections for what it would be, if we had done nothing at all.
Where are the jobs? Where is the growth? Most economists will tell you with these economics policies, we are headed for a double dip recession. Stocks are up, yes but right now, they are in fact way down from the summer. This summer stock rally was most likely due to the fact that in the summer, people spend more. Now that it is October, stocks are falling again.
So when you look at the stimulus, what it's done, and what it hasn't done, what is costs, and what economists predict will happen, then how can anyone with common sense say we need another one. Another trillion dollars to our debt.
A second stimulus?
Point two is some what like the last part of my previous point, which is, it didn't work. The stimulus did nothing to stimulate the economy. It helped quadruple our national debt, jack up unemployment to 9.8 despite Obama told us with the stimulus unemployment wouldn't go over 8% (although when he said that it was 8.1%.) All it did was re-hire some workers, and spend money we don't have, thus raising inflation and interest rates. So why a second stimulus? because the first one didn't work. And they know it. But it's all apart of their left wing agenda.
Now regarding unemployment. We were told we had to pass the stimulus, and if we didn't it could get worse than the great Great Depression. So we were told unemployment would shoot up, if we didn't pass it. With the stimulus it was projected unemployment would drop. So far it has gone over, the projections for what it would be, if we had done nothing at all.
Where are the jobs? Where is the growth? Most economists will tell you with these economics policies, we are headed for a double dip recession. Stocks are up, yes but right now, they are in fact way down from the summer. This summer stock rally was most likely due to the fact that in the summer, people spend more. Now that it is October, stocks are falling again.
So when you look at the stimulus, what it's done, and what it hasn't done, what is costs, and what economists predict will happen, then how can anyone with common sense say we need another one. Another trillion dollars to our debt.
A second stimulus?
09 October 2009
Drop Bombs And Win The Peace Prize
Well it's official, Barack Obama has won the Nobel Peace Prize. Thank God for that. After all he really deserved after all he's done. I mean he has done so much as far as bringing peace, such as.....oh wait that's right. Nothing. He hasn't done a damn thing to bring peace.
In fact just hours after he won, he met (earlier this afternoon) with his war advisers, to talk about sending 6,000 more troops into Afghanistan. A country which he has dropped many bombs on since taking office.
Peace? Right, how is closing GITMO peaceful? Releasing Terrorists and letting skum of the earth killers back out and on the battle field? How is that keeping peace and reducing danger and violence? That's essentially helping Al-Qaida. How peaceful.
Does he deserve this award? Hell no. But on the flip side, to be fair it does look good for our country to have another Peace Prize winner. But seriously the guy talk a big game about peace, and then bombs the hell out of Afghanistan and Send more troops into Iraq. Heck I could talk about Peace, but you don't see anyone handing me the Nobel Peace Prize.
In fact just hours after he won, he met (earlier this afternoon) with his war advisers, to talk about sending 6,000 more troops into Afghanistan. A country which he has dropped many bombs on since taking office.
Peace? Right, how is closing GITMO peaceful? Releasing Terrorists and letting skum of the earth killers back out and on the battle field? How is that keeping peace and reducing danger and violence? That's essentially helping Al-Qaida. How peaceful.
Does he deserve this award? Hell no. But on the flip side, to be fair it does look good for our country to have another Peace Prize winner. But seriously the guy talk a big game about peace, and then bombs the hell out of Afghanistan and Send more troops into Iraq. Heck I could talk about Peace, but you don't see anyone handing me the Nobel Peace Prize.
08 October 2009
Great Moments In Socialized Medicine
Here is an entertaining post from the 'Political Coffee House' discussion board.
Great Moments in Socialized Medicine
"Thousands of people are being forced to wait six months or more for hospital treatment or tests because of problems with the £12.7 billion [about $20 billion] project to upgrade NHS computer systems," reports London's Times:
More than 14,000 patients at a major London trust have already had to endure waiting times that exceed government guidelines. The trust was one of the first to install electronic patient records. Similar systems are being rolled out across England.
The Department of Health says that nobody should wait more than 18 weeks to receive hospital treatment from the time they are referred by a GP, unless they choose to wait longer.
But Barts and the London NHS Trust, which introduced the system in April last year, has a backlog of 22,000 electronic patient records on its 18-week waiting list.
Ha ha, don't worry! According to former Enron adviser Paul Krugman, "In Britain, the government itself runs the hospitals and employs the doctors. We've all heard scare stories about how that works in practice; these stories are false."
Great Moments in Socialized Medicine
"Thousands of people are being forced to wait six months or more for hospital treatment or tests because of problems with the £12.7 billion [about $20 billion] project to upgrade NHS computer systems," reports London's Times:
More than 14,000 patients at a major London trust have already had to endure waiting times that exceed government guidelines. The trust was one of the first to install electronic patient records. Similar systems are being rolled out across England.
The Department of Health says that nobody should wait more than 18 weeks to receive hospital treatment from the time they are referred by a GP, unless they choose to wait longer.
But Barts and the London NHS Trust, which introduced the system in April last year, has a backlog of 22,000 electronic patient records on its 18-week waiting list.
Ha ha, don't worry! According to former Enron adviser Paul Krugman, "In Britain, the government itself runs the hospitals and employs the doctors. We've all heard scare stories about how that works in practice; these stories are false."
Gov't: Can't post something on line, but wants to run your health-care
So the other day i heard Sen. Max Baucus explaining why he doesn't want to put the bill he is proposing on line for people to read. He said it was because it was to hard for his staff and the government to upload it online. He said it would take to long.
Well i don't know about you all, but to me, if the government can't even post something online, then how do they expect to take over health care?
Oh and by the way, most Americans disagree with Senator Baucus, a Rasmussen poll shows that 82% want the bill on line.
Well i don't know about you all, but to me, if the government can't even post something online, then how do they expect to take over health care?
Oh and by the way, most Americans disagree with Senator Baucus, a Rasmussen poll shows that 82% want the bill on line.
05 October 2009
What Are You Afraid Of?
We are all afraid of something. Be it the dark, ghosts, your gym teacher, or say a gun. Irrational fear of inanimate objects is a huge fear that has been sweeping the liberal nation for years now.
The liberals fear guns. They want gun control. But why are they afraid of guns? Some say it is simple, guns kill people. People cannot be trusted with guns.
But why guns? Naturally over the years they have been hyped to be scary and dangerous. What is so scary about guns and unscary about others. Let's take cars. In the year 1995 (last available study) cars were the cause of 43,900 deaths, this while guns were the cause of only 1,400 deaths. In a given years studies show that only 1.7% of crimes involve guns. clearly cars can be just as if not more dangerous that guns.
If you look in kitchen supply sections in stores and search for knives you'll be shocked at what kind of knives are being sold for low prices. Butcher's knives? you should see the 15 inch piercing sharp knife we own for cutting meat. But you would never question weather that is safe or not. All we care about are guns.
Why are guns so scary? i could just as easily kill some one with a switch blade or an axe as with a gun. So yes this is simply irrational fear. by nature guns are scary to us, but then we think nothing of chain saws, or razors or even something as simple as a stick.
This is an irrational fear that the people have and it's time we realize how stupid it is. Take away guns, i still have a machete.
There is no point in banning guns. It is senseless to implement a law to prevent criminals who aren't going to obide by a gun controlrule. The people who they are trying to stop break laws. This is just another law they break. And it takes away the right of people to defend themselves making them more vulnerable to guns and criminals.
Now that's something worth being scared about.
The liberals fear guns. They want gun control. But why are they afraid of guns? Some say it is simple, guns kill people. People cannot be trusted with guns.
But why guns? Naturally over the years they have been hyped to be scary and dangerous. What is so scary about guns and unscary about others. Let's take cars. In the year 1995 (last available study) cars were the cause of 43,900 deaths, this while guns were the cause of only 1,400 deaths. In a given years studies show that only 1.7% of crimes involve guns. clearly cars can be just as if not more dangerous that guns.
If you look in kitchen supply sections in stores and search for knives you'll be shocked at what kind of knives are being sold for low prices. Butcher's knives? you should see the 15 inch piercing sharp knife we own for cutting meat. But you would never question weather that is safe or not. All we care about are guns.
Why are guns so scary? i could just as easily kill some one with a switch blade or an axe as with a gun. So yes this is simply irrational fear. by nature guns are scary to us, but then we think nothing of chain saws, or razors or even something as simple as a stick.
This is an irrational fear that the people have and it's time we realize how stupid it is. Take away guns, i still have a machete.
There is no point in banning guns. It is senseless to implement a law to prevent criminals who aren't going to obide by a gun controlrule. The people who they are trying to stop break laws. This is just another law they break. And it takes away the right of people to defend themselves making them more vulnerable to guns and criminals.
Now that's something worth being scared about.
02 October 2009
Set The Record Straight
A small lesson on Smoking:
So what if some one smokes. Second hand smoking is not nearly as effective as the adds say. i mean the numbers show that most people do not get affected by smoking. It's fine if the government wants to ban smoking in public areas, like airports, or public schools, etc. But where i get mad, is when the government tells me that i can't have smoking, in MY bowling alley, in MY restaurant. That i can't have smoking in the privacy of my own privately owned home.
The government has no right to invade and set laws that affect my private property rights. If I own a bowling alley or a movie theater, I have the right to let people smoke or not. The Fed should stay out. They have no say on what goes on in my house. People don't have to come in to my bar, people don't have to come to my house, people don't have to sit in my car while I smoke, i don't but if i did.
The fed needs to stay out and let the market decide. Let the market dictate and take care of smoking. If a place offers smoking and people don't go because of that it will close or change it's laws. Then other places will learn and do the same. Then you get rid of smoking without having the fed come in and ruin everything.
I use to live in Columbus, OH, and the city implemented a no smoking law that no place that served food, could allow smoking, which is fine, people would abide by it, but soon bowling alleys lost money, and people came less. many bowling alleys went under because people didn't come. Well a little late some bowling places figured out, it was because the bowling crowed, smoked. So they stopped serving food. and then attendance rose again. But it was too little too late for some.
And that my friends, students and readers, members of congress etc. is how the market force works. unfortunately government officials have not yet figured out this rather straight forward logic.
So what if some one smokes. Second hand smoking is not nearly as effective as the adds say. i mean the numbers show that most people do not get affected by smoking. It's fine if the government wants to ban smoking in public areas, like airports, or public schools, etc. But where i get mad, is when the government tells me that i can't have smoking, in MY bowling alley, in MY restaurant. That i can't have smoking in the privacy of my own privately owned home.
The government has no right to invade and set laws that affect my private property rights. If I own a bowling alley or a movie theater, I have the right to let people smoke or not. The Fed should stay out. They have no say on what goes on in my house. People don't have to come in to my bar, people don't have to come to my house, people don't have to sit in my car while I smoke, i don't but if i did.
The fed needs to stay out and let the market decide. Let the market dictate and take care of smoking. If a place offers smoking and people don't go because of that it will close or change it's laws. Then other places will learn and do the same. Then you get rid of smoking without having the fed come in and ruin everything.
I use to live in Columbus, OH, and the city implemented a no smoking law that no place that served food, could allow smoking, which is fine, people would abide by it, but soon bowling alleys lost money, and people came less. many bowling alleys went under because people didn't come. Well a little late some bowling places figured out, it was because the bowling crowed, smoked. So they stopped serving food. and then attendance rose again. But it was too little too late for some.
And that my friends, students and readers, members of congress etc. is how the market force works. unfortunately government officials have not yet figured out this rather straight forward logic.
The Affect of Cash For Clunkers
It's been almost a month now since the government program 'Cash For Clunkers' ended. So how have the Auto Giants GM and Chrysler faired from it? The monthly reports came out the other day and GM is down 42%. Chrysler is down 45% and Ford who did not take a government bailout is only down 5%. Car sales in September were down 25%
So in all the program did, nothing. All it did was speed up a few sales, and give the government another thing to screw up. Many people didn't get their rebate when they were told they would and some didn't get a rebate. And people still think government can manage money. Ha.
So while GM may have gotten some more sales, it did little in long term affect as they are now down 43%. And that is the problem with stimulus programs. It looks great at the short term, but then in the long run your down almost 50%. Had this come at any other time and been managed by GM it would've been great. They would've had tons of new sales and revenue. but instead it created a mad rush at the beginning, and soon enough the government got behind on payments (big surprise) and now GM is losing sales and profit.
Another argument could be made that since the rebates were for only $4,500 that GM lost money in sales. But that's besides the point. It was good program, at the wrong time and as a result of short term stimulus, it has put GM right back where they started.
So in all the program did, nothing. All it did was speed up a few sales, and give the government another thing to screw up. Many people didn't get their rebate when they were told they would and some didn't get a rebate. And people still think government can manage money. Ha.
So while GM may have gotten some more sales, it did little in long term affect as they are now down 43%. And that is the problem with stimulus programs. It looks great at the short term, but then in the long run your down almost 50%. Had this come at any other time and been managed by GM it would've been great. They would've had tons of new sales and revenue. but instead it created a mad rush at the beginning, and soon enough the government got behind on payments (big surprise) and now GM is losing sales and profit.
Another argument could be made that since the rebates were for only $4,500 that GM lost money in sales. But that's besides the point. It was good program, at the wrong time and as a result of short term stimulus, it has put GM right back where they started.
So Much For The Olympics
After all the talk and hype about brining the Olympics to Chicago (which would've been a bad idea) Chicago was eliminated in the first round of bids for the host of the 2016 summer Olympic games.
The economic blog 'Cafe Hayek' put it nicely "Condolences to President Obama. Congrats to the people of Chicago."
So much for Obama's chance to look good. "Oh look i brought back the Olympics everyone look at me now!" Yeah i don't if you realize president Obama, but we have two wars going on and a recession, and you're talking about the Olympics. Which i might add would bring economic woes to Chicago. Hence why the polls showed that only 50% of the people in Chicago wanted the Olympics there.
I wish he was as persistent on stopping Iran's nuclear program as he was on the Olympics.
The economic blog 'Cafe Hayek' put it nicely "Condolences to President Obama. Congrats to the people of Chicago."
So much for Obama's chance to look good. "Oh look i brought back the Olympics everyone look at me now!" Yeah i don't if you realize president Obama, but we have two wars going on and a recession, and you're talking about the Olympics. Which i might add would bring economic woes to Chicago. Hence why the polls showed that only 50% of the people in Chicago wanted the Olympics there.
I wish he was as persistent on stopping Iran's nuclear program as he was on the Olympics.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
