Category Archives: Taxes

Sitting At The Head Of The Class

soccer
Teacher, Teacher, I need you...

Premise: Obama administration is a troop of gangsters, needs to be investigated to the hilt, and held accountable just like every other administration that has come before. The Obama administration is not entitled to its own dictatorship in the United States of America, no matter who he thinks he is.

Charmer #1: If you can't see that both sides of this political circus act are corrupt and no matter which side gets into the Oval Office at any given time we will get the same result because we allowed the elite bankers to hijack the country via the federal reserve bank of which they are major shareholders.

Charmer #2: I can see one side refused to participate in a program forcing everyone in the nation to eventually change insurance plans, enumerating everyone under the same system, thus ruining healthcare and one-sixth of the US economy; I can see that one side sent guns into Mexico illegally and 300 people were killed including an American border patrol agent; I can see that one side used the IRS illegally to stymie conservative political organizations; I can see that one side lied about a tape being the cause of the Benghazi tragedy, and has refused to allow survivors to testify before Congress; I can see that one side spent $800,000,000,000 that was earmarked for shovel ready projects (infrastructure) and is now calling for $400,000,000,000 for infrastructure because they used to the $800 billion to bankroll Obama-friendly green energy companies that failed rather than spend it on traditional infrastructure; and I can see one side gave organizations billions of that money to support Obamacare so it would pass the Congress with one side's votes. The more I look at both sides the more I see corruption in this administration that the other side had nothing to do with. Since you claim to be sitting at the head of the class, can you see a problem with the people in office now? If so let's deal with it first rather than give them a pass since they are the problem at the moment.

Teacher's question: Where is the snake?

The Supreme Court Speaks on Health Care Law

Obama's Ditch
Obama's Drive Into The Ditch
ALMOST FULLY GROUNDED AGAIN AFTER ALL the zetetic excitement yesterday, I say we take a more serious and sober look at what transpired yesterday, and then again, this morning as Chief Justice John Roberts read for the majority, and we boomeranged all around the Internet seeking solace in our hour of disenchantment. Of all that I have read and seen in video, TV, and slapshot Internet reporting, here is a most convincing snippet from commentator Jay Cost of The Weekly Standard. Cost seems to put the onus on the current administration to act quickly in this snatch and grab of power and policy if they want to salvage the so-called Affordable Health Care Act because a not so shabby portion of it is unconstitutional, and a greater part is vigorously disliked by the citizenry, despite its many wonderful features that heal the sick and raise the dead, or so you would be led to believe by its proponents:

[I]f you were more concerned about the qualitative expansion in the power of the government that the bill represented, it was definitely a win.

First, the Roberts Court put real limits on what the government can and cannot do. For starters, it restricted the limits of the Commerce Clause, which does not give the government the power to create activity for the purpose of regulating it. This is a huge victory for those of us who believe that the Constitution is a document which offers a limited grant of power.

Second, the Roberts Court also threw out a portion of the Medicaid expansion. States have the option of withdrawing from the program without risk of losing their funds. This is another major victory for conservatives who cherish our system of dual sovereignty. This was also a big policy win for conservatives; the Medicaid expansion was a major way the Democrats hid the true cost of the bill, by shifting costs to the states, but they no longer can do this.

Politically, Obama will probably get a short-term boost from this, as the media will not be able to read between the lines and will declare him the winner. But the victory will be short-lived. The Democrats were at pains not to call this a tax because it is inherently regressive: the wealthy overwhelmingly have health insurance so have no fear of the mandate. But now that it is legally a tax, Republicans can and will declare that Obama has slapped the single biggest tax on the middle class in history, after promising not to do that.

Conservatives have a shot at getting the best of both worlds: having the Supreme Court use Obamacare as a way to limit federal power while also using the democratic process to overturn the law. I didn't think we could have one without the other, but now maybe we can.
If Obama loses in November, that is...

We have gotten into a bit of editorial trouble on Facebook this morning by reposting what turned out to be one of those overwrought but probably closer to the mark than the original bill's hidden intent has tried to hide, so we will just have to watch for the fall out over the next several months, but chances are Obama and his buddies in Congress are too busy running for re-election to spend too much time on an old toxic bill like this one, but will quietly work behind the scenes implementing all the necessary changes to the health care industry it deems choice and tasty while leaving the iffy parts of the bill to gather dust and excuses. Fundraising and speechifying, yep, he'll be there. And let this health bill interfere with his golf outings? God forbid. We have an absentee president, although I am sure I'm not the first one to notice this.

Bernanke Cast Doubts On Administration's Jobs Claims

obama
President Barack H. Obama
Declining joblessness figures, sprouting lately from the current administration like so many spring crocuses, have left even the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke, puzzled over numbers that are "out of sync" with the overall economy.

"The combination of relatively modest GDP growth with the more substantial improvement in the labor market over the past year is something of a puzzle," Bernanke admitted to the National Association for Business Economics earlier this week.

Bernanke then proceeded to explain why unemployment figures from the administration seem so out of step with the reality most folks are experiencing. He started with a basic, but often overlooked, part of the jobless equation. "The monthly increase in payroll employment, which commands so much public attention, is a net change," he said. "It equals the number of hires during the month less the number of separations (including layoffs, quits, and other separations)[.]"

Then Bernanke concluded, "the increase in employment since the end of 2009 has been due to a significant decline in layoffs but only a moderate improvement in hiring."

So, despite the Obamedia's attempt to paint a sunny picture heading into the November election—note their relative inattention to Bernanke's speech—very few new jobs are actually being created during Obama's watch. In fact, the most recent numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, cited by Bernanke, show that the number of people being hired has declined in 2012—even as Obama officials reported that unemployment figures came down.

Early in his administration Barack Obama said that job creation was goal Number One. He promised to create 3 million new jobs during his first two years in office, a pledge which would seem laughable if his failure didn't adversely affect so many people. Even with recent improvements in jobless numbers—caused mainly by a slowing of layoffs—as Benanke noted, "private payroll employment remains more than 5 million jobs below its previous peak; the jobs shortfall is even larger, of course, when increases in the size of the labor force are taken into account."
The Obama administration was claiming jobless improvement in a job market that, according to non-Obama sources, was still grim. "American employers put the brakes on new jobs in January," according to Forbes, citing employment firm ADP. And Gallup reported in February that their surveys show new hirings dropped and that "the February score matches those recorded from October through December 2011."

As to the unemployment numbers emanating from Obama's regime, Bernanke noted, "the better jobs numbers seem somewhat out of sync with the overall pace of economic expansion," before concluding, "the job market remains quite weak relative to historical norms."

Read it all at American Thinker.

This article points out the corrupt methodology this administration has used on the American people since day one. Opening the Obama toolbox, one would suffix lie after lie, distortion after distortion, monkey wrench after monkey wrench. Our puerile president is NOT inept. He is defiantly on point, with concerted efforts to deconstruct American history, its industry, its liberty—its very way of life. He doesn't seem to care to whom he hands off a weakened America—could be the Soviets-in-training, the Chinese, or the Islamic Caliphate he works so diligently to reward at the expense of his own supposed homeland.

Countdown to creation in a bloodless dream...

Forgive Us Our Debts

Ostrich
The Ostrich Revolution
FATHOM A FEW FACTS about our flipping national debt. LBJ's Great Society and a few other distractions—like the Vietnam war—stormed into 1969 and the Nixon era with buckets of deficit spending. Since then, the national debt has grown dramatically each decade, as shown below:

• In the 1970’s, the national debt more than doubled, from $366 billion to $829 billion.
• In the 1980’s, the national debt more than tripled, from $829 billion to $2.9 trillion.
• In the 1990’s, the national debt almost doubled again, from $2.9 trillion to $5.6 trillion.
• In the 2000’s, the national debt is projected to more than double again, from $5.6 trillion to $12.9 trillion (projected national debt at the end of fiscal year 2009).

Just for giggles and lollipops, let's analyze who was in charge of the Spending and Budget Authority—The House of Representatives:

In the 1970's the Democrats held the House all 10 years.
In the 1980's the Democrats held the House all 10 years.
In the 1990's the Democrats held the House for 4 and The Republicans for 6 years.
In the 2000's the Democrats held the House for 10 years.

The only time we ever balanced the budget was when the Republicans held the house in the 1990's during the Gingrich Revolution.

The anti-Constitutional Progressives give the credit to Bill Clinton—who was forced to accept the budgets from the Republican-dominated House. In addition—Clinton only got to a balanced budget by gutting the military and called it the "Peace Dividend" that rather quickly led to a tragic series of missteps that opened the door for 911.

Anyone who blames people who want to balance the budget and make excuses for fools who want to spend money we don't have and then raise taxes—is historically ILL-INFORMED and most often always DEMOCRAT to the core.

However, over time even the Republicans began to pitched gobs of cash wherever they could, just to make a good impression on the debtor nation the Democrats were grooming. Gotta keep them national defense and compassionate conservative votes coming, ya know.

National Debt Made Simple

Budget In Toilet
US Budget is in the Toilet...
THE US CONGRESS SETS a federal budget every year (Before Obama*) in the trillions of dollars. Few people know how much money that is so we created a breakdown of federal spending in simple terms. Let’s put the 2011 federal budget into perspective:

* US income: $2,170,000,000,000
* Federal budget: $3,820,000,000,000
* New debt: $1,650,000,000,000
* National debt: $14,271,000,000,000
* Recent budget cut: $38,500,000,000 (about 1 percent of the budget)

It helps to think about these numbers in terms that we can relate to, so let’s remove eight zeros from these numbers and pretend this is the household budget for the fictitious Jones family:

* Total annual income for the Jones family: $21,700
* Amount of money the Jones family spent: $38,200
* Amount of new debt added to the credit card: $16,500
* Outstanding balance on the credit card: $142,710
* Amount cut from the budget: $385

So in effect last month Congress, or in this example the Jones family, sat down at the kitchen table and agreed to cut $385 from its annual budget. What family would cut $385 of spending in order to solve $16,500 in deficit spending? It's a start, although hardly an easy solution.

Now after years of this, the Jones family has $142,710 of debt on its credit card (which is the equivalent of the national debt). One would think the Jones family would recognize and address this situation, but it does not. Neither does Congress.

The root of the debt problem is that the voters typically do not send people to Congress to save money. They are sent there to bring home the bacon to their own home state. To effect budget change, we need to change the job description and give Congress new marching orders.

It will be brutally hard, but not impossible, to reverse course and to insist the government stop borrowing money from our children and spending it now. In effect, what we have is a reverse mortgage on the country. The problem is that the voters have become addicted to the money. Moreover, the American voters are still in the denial stage, and do not want to face the possibility of going into rehab…

—Marco Nolo

* Neither Congress nor POTUS have offered up a budget these past two fiscal years, contrary to constitutional and traditional mores.

Piercing The Political Tick

fingerprint2

Found this sharp stab at political-economical consciousness at the always provocative American Thinker in a few words posted by the self-identified AWARE54397, and from my own current sorry state of economic ruin all I can think to add to the soil is this—Damn. I wish I had written those two paragraphs. The political tick, blood-filled and bulging. Quite a fit description of the body politik...

So let us get on with the rain seeding...

It won't matter if gold and oil are pumped out of the ground in record quantities, there is no recovery, no "rebound". The problem is the same as the Soviets, who despite huge natural resources and a willingness to exploit them much more ruthlessly than we, continued down the road of want, shortage, and economic oblivion. Our problem is political not economic. The political class runs the economy and it is that simple. The political tick is now bigger than the economic dog. Do you think any benefits derived from increased oil production won't be siphoned off by the usual political bandits through the instrument of wealth destruction called government for the enrichment of the favored cronies?

Until the scope and power of government is severely curtailed no amount of wealth will change the worsening economic picture. With more government than we can afford the profit will always go to support it, not us.

Perhaps these also apply:

Mr. Obama is exactly what he has proclaimed he is many times over, and that is a "Citizen of the World"; a Globalist. A Globalist, who is familiar with and identifies more with Muslim culture than Judeo-Christian culture. Those people who refer to themselves as "Citizens of the World", or as "Global Citizens" believe the United Nations should be the sole arbiter for every international solution (i.e. AGW). It is the United Nations Agenda 21 which we are seeing being implemented in this country in a gallop under this administration.

These Globalists are the new NAZI movement except that instead of being nationalists they are internationalists. It is an international socialist movement which embraces the same totalitarian goals which Islamofascists pursue. Both are para-theo-political belief systems and constructs.

The parallel is that the Globalists are the new NAZI Party and the Islamofascists are the new Italian Fascists from WWII. Guess who gets to play the new Jew? The Conservative Constitutionalists, and Judeo-Christians get the role of the European Jew of WWII.

I hope that answered your question. Now have a "rooping" good day.

Straight From Ludwig Von Mises

Property
Ownership of Private Property
FOR A WELL-REASONED and well-written treatise on the virtues of property ownership as the salve for what curses us as a people in constitutional crises, check out this essay by Ludwig von Mises of which the following excerpt is provided...

Most social problems which perplex national leaders could be solved fairly simply by an increase in the amount and type of property owned. This would entail the equally important, general recognition that ownership is and must be total, rather than merely a governmental permission to possess and/or manage property so long as certain legal rules are complied with and "rent" in the form of property taxes is paid. When a man is required to "rent" his own property from the government by paying property taxes on it, he is being forbidden to fully exercise his right of ownership. Although he owns the property, he is forced into the position of a lessee, with the government the landlord.

The proof of this is that if he fails to pay the taxes the government will take his property away from him (even though it is his property and not the government's), just as a landlord would kick out a tenant who failed to pay the rent. Similarly, if a man must comply with laws dictating the use or upkeep of his property (or any other rule except that of not using the property to initiate force or fraud against others), he is being forbidden to fully exercise his right of ownership.

Ludwig von Mises
Ludwig von Mises
Because a man must use his time—which is part of his life—to acquire, utilize, and care for property, he has a right to own and control that property fully, just as he has a right to fully own and control his life (so long as he doesn't use it to coerce any other man). Any form of property tax or regulation denies the individual's right to fully control his own property and, therefore, his own life. For this reason, taxation and regulation of property is always wrong — taxation is theft and regulation by initiated force is slavery.

In a governmentally controlled society, the unrestricted enjoyment of property ownership is not permitted, since government has the power to tax, regulate, and sometimes even confiscate (as in eminent domain) just about anything it pleases. In addition, much potential property is not permitted to be owned. In a laissez-faire society, everything which was valued and rationally claimed would be owned, and this ownership would be total.

Property is anything which is owned. Ownership is the right to possess, use, and/or dispose of anything to which one has a moral claim. Property may be acquired by producing it, by exchange with others, as a gift, or by claiming an unowned value. The claiming of unowned values is the way in which all property originally came to be owned.

[Straight From Ludwig von Mises]