BETWEEN THE LIES, Obama has taken THE PEOPLE'S FREEDOM AWAY and MADE THE POLITIICANS or THE RICH RICH-ER ON THE TAXPAYER from Wall Street, banks, to Main Street, local politicians who live larger than the people they serve.

PUBLIC SERVICE IS AN HONOR AND A PRIVILEGE, AND IF YOU WANT TO MAKE MONEY, STAY IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR.

THE TAXPAYER has been GIVEN SO-CALLED CRAP 'FREEBIES,' AND ENTITLEMENT PROGRAMS, e.g., crap events in state parks, while making the park, or state, a landlord for the vendor rent and sometimes with a percentage of the sales of the vendors, AND, KEEP THE PUBLIC PASSIFIED--NO RIOTS.

Similarly, an example of more corruption and making the politicians richer and THE PEOPLE POOR AND NOT FREE.
California Official's $800,000 Salary in City of 38,000 Triggers Protests
Hundreds of residents of one of the poorest municipalities in Los Angeles County shouted in protest last night as tensions rose over a report that the city’s manager earns an annual salary of almost $800,000.
An overflow crowd packed a City Council meeting in Bell, a mostly Hispanic city of 38,000 about 10 miles (16 kilometers) southeast of Los Angeles, to call for the resignation of Mayor Oscar Hernandez and other city officials. Residents left standing outside the chamber banged on the doors and shouted “fuera,” or “get out” in Spanish.
It was the first council meeting since the Los Angeles Times reported July 15 that Chief Administrative Officer Robert Rizzo earns $787,637 -- with annual 12 percent raises -- and that Bell pays its police chief $457,000, more than Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck makes in a city of 3.8 million people. Bell council members earn almost $100,000 for part-time work.
City Attorney Edward Lee said the council members couldn’t discuss salaries in public without advance notice. The council then adjourned for a private session. About an hour later, the council members returned, and Hernandez read a statement saying the city would prepare a report on the salaries and seek public comment at the next council meeting, scheduled for Aug. 16.
Residents shouted in protest. Lee said he would have the room cleared if people continued to speak out of line. Police Chief Randy Adams said the fire department wanted to end the meeting because the crowd outside was blocking the door.
Easing Tensions
Then, in what appeared to be an effort to ease tensions, Hernandez announced that the meeting to discuss salaries would be held instead on July 26.
After the meeting, Bell resident Ali Saleh read a statement from a newly formed group called the Bell Association to Stop the Abuse. He called for an independent audit of city salaries and contracts.
On July 1 Bell took control of many of the city functions of neighboring Maywood, a city whose council members voted to contract out almost all services. Saleh also asked that Bell stop that process until the city’s salary investigations were resolved.
Bell has sold two general obligation bond issues totaling $50 million in the past six years, according to prospectuses for the bonds and information in the city’s annual financial statement for 2009. In that time, its debt has risen to $1,972 per capita in 2009 from $599 in 2004, according to its annual financial statement.
Inquiry Under Way
The city’s personal income was $24,800 per capita in 2008, according to its financial statement. That compares with an average of $32,819 nationwide, according to 2010 figures from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis.
Bell’s general fund revenue declined 4.6 percent to $14.1 million for the fiscal year that ended June 30, 2009, according to the city’s financial statement. The city’s expenses rose 2.3 percent to $15.9 million in same period.
The Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office has begun an inquiry into Bell council member pay, according to Dave Demerjian, head of the office’s Public Integrity Division. He said Bell council members were receiving $8,083 a month, mostly by serving on city-related commissions.
“We’re reviewing the council member salaries to see if they conform to state law,” Demerjian said in a telephone interview.
California law limits the salaries of council members to several hundred dollars a month, depending on the size of the city, according to Hector De La Torre, a state assemblyman from nearby South Gate, who sponsored legislation in 2005 that limits how much council members can get paid from other city-related assignments to $150 a month.
‘Obscene Pay’
De La Torre said that after his bill was passed, Bell’s City Council voted to operate under its own charter, rather than adhere to state laws on how cities should be run.
“It seems obscene to me,” De La Torre said in a telephone interview. “People making $30,000 a year are paying taxes so that their council members can make $80,000.”
Adams, Bell’s police chief, said in an interview after the council meeting that he had retired as chief of police in the much larger city of Glendale, California, when Bell officials approached him.
“I told them they would have to pay me what I was making in retirement and the $165,000 I would make as chief of police,” Adams said.
Adams said he had been brought in to end corruption in Bell’s police department.
“Some of the former members of this force are in the federal penitentiary,” he said.
‘Streets Are Cleaner’
Hernandez, the mayor, defended the salaries in an interview with the Los Angeles Times.
“Our streets are cleaner, we have lovely parks, better lighting throughout the area, our community is better,” Hernandez said, according to the newspaper. “These things just don’t happen, they happen because he had a vision and made it happen.”
Carmen Avalos, the city clerk in South Gate, said she attended the Bell council meeting to help educate people about the political process.
“This is what we are trying to avoid,” she said in an interview at the meeting. “The lack of fiduciary responsibility, the lack of transparency.”

Hope and Change is a farce because very little has changed since Bush/Cheney.

Obama made the same deals with Wall Street as Bush did because both took Wall Street money.

Health Care , Financial Reform , Iraq , Afghanistan , Home Foreclosures , Americans Unemployed , and a multitude of other problems are not solved with Obama.

His Health Care and Financial reform is like putting a band aid on a cancer.

Obama took Glass/Steagall off the table as well as Single Payer Health Care.

Obama did not even fight for a public option and for millions of Americans who lost HOMES & JOBS.

Obama only bailed out Wall Street just like Bush and Cheney did.

Wall Street won and "We The People" lost.

Every Three Months Wall Street top echelon takes turns cashing in their Stock Options worth Millions plus bonuses.

The greats, FDR and LBJ, didn't accomplish as much in the first 18 months as Obama has. This ravening frenzy of wild name-calling reminds me of the years our previous Democratic president served, when the right came up with a horribly awful scandel every month, until finally one panned out. It's standard operating procedure by the right these past many years to relentlessly pound away at any Democratic president. I mean, really,-comments about communists reaching into the highest rungs of government (yesterday's question) are so out beyond the fringe.

"In 18 Months, he's passed healthcare, financial reform, economists say his policies stoppped a second Great Depression." -RNN

"The Hope" - He rammed health care down our throats against our will. Pay now and maybe, possibly in the future things will be better but many make the case things will be much worse.

"The Change" - financial reform second fiddle to health care reform, so he waited. If faced with the same situation as 2008 will it work? Will it be better, does it go far enough? What other unnecessary spending is in that bill?

"The Same" - What policies stopped another great depression? You mean spending our kids and grand-kids money away is a great policy? Gee, maybe I should pay my bills that way and I will be great too!

Mike Q: Don't be so naive what Obama is allowing the Bilderbergers to do on the left side may be the polar opposite what the Bush militarist faction did on the right but we are all being herded quite quickly into a New World Order that at its centering goal combines the two most base components of the last century military fascism and "all" surveillance communism. Until there are jobs that are created until those jobs are condusive to innovation and creativity that will insure our independence, our security, privacy and freedom of speech- there is no representation worthy of America and the American people.
So far Obama has capitulated on everything that would bring back what was stolen from us under the Bush regime. what he has given us instead are promises that don't go into affect until the next 4yrs.
By then there will be another excuse, to delay the "?" and ... Do you know the cost? Does anybody. Why has it remained secret months after the bill has passed?
Financial reform only ties up and inhibits domestic businesses- it does not even touch the real money behind the Bilderberg Empire "NWO" that wants us chipped. JUST BECAUSE THEY CAN AND THEY NOW HAVE FULL CONTROL OVER THE FED. OBAMA HAS NOT REIGNED IN "GEITHNER" UNTIL HE DOES HE TOO IS PART OF THE PROBLEM.
if its not PC... it must be "verboten".

We the elite, and select members of society will have immunitys, that cannot be challenged even verbally- lest it be noted and charged as a "hate crime.
That's the path we are on.

"We will not entertain conspiray theorys" - George W Bush
"We will not prosecute or even challenge the presence of "illegals" in this country. -President Obama
CITIZENS MUST SHOW VALID LEGAL PROOF OF THEIR PERMISSION TO OPERATE, ASSEMBLE,... OR BE DETEAINED!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zvQGqKGNSQ&feature=related

Mike Q: Don't be so naive what Obama is allowing the Bilderbergers to do on the left side may be the polar opposite what the Bush militarist faction did on the right but we are all being herded quite quickly into a New World Order that at its centering goal combines the two most base components of the last century military fascism and "all" surveillance communism. Until there are jobs that are created until those jobs are condusive to innovation and creativity that will insure our independence, our security, privacy and freedom of speech- there is no representation worthy of America and the American people.
So far Obama has capitulated on everything that would bring back what was stolen from us under the Bush regime. what he has given us instead are promises that don't go into affect until the next 4yrs.
By then there will be another excuse, to delay the "?" and ... Do you know the cost? Does anybody. Why has it remained secret months after the bill has passed?
Financial reform only ties up and inhibits domestic businesses- it does not even touch the real money behind the Bilderberg Empire "NWO" that wants us chipped. JUST BECAUSE THEY CAN AND THEY NOW HAVE FULL CONTROL OVER THE FED. OBAMA HAS NOT REIGNED IN "GEITHNER" UNTIL HE DOES HE TOO IS PART OF THE PROBLEM.
if its not PC... it must be "verboten".

We the elite, and select members of society will have immunitys, that cannot be challenged even verbally- lest it be noted and charged as a "hate crime.
That's the path we are on.

"We will not entertain conspiracy theorys" - George W Bush
"We will not prosecute or even challenge the presence of "illegals" in this country. -President Obama
CITIZENS MUST SHOW VALID LEGAL PROOF OF THEIR PERMISSION TO OPERATE, ASSEMBLE,... OR BE DETAINED!

What is being proposed
Illegals may keep the jobs that they have obtained, and pay a one time fine in increments.
Citizens who lost their jobs to illegals cannot pay the gov't any amount to get back the job that was stolen from them.
Citizens can receive unemployment, for 99 weeks soon to be lowered, before they fall into the abyss, no longer counted. Not even as a statistic.
These are the cold hard facts. Period.
And I ain't buying "malaise" or ZERO JOB GROWTH RECOVERY as a solution.

If people want change its not a matter of partys "the Bilderbergers" CFR, Federal Reserve apparatus must be removed from their positions and seats of power.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zvQGqKGNSQ&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nD7dbkkBIA

Hey Rich,..could you possibly shine Obama's knob any more?

Might as well rename the show. How's about the "Obama Hour with the Richard French Choir". Laughable and typical shenanigans from a lefty show.

Luckily for Obama, the liberal media has been protecting him. The media's collusion in propping this guy up is all too apparent and shameless. Obama could never stand up to the scrutiny of an unbiased press.

The public is finally aware of this nonsense and we're tired of it,..as evidenced by the ever diminishing numbers of viewers. The progressive liberal media has abused our trust.

Might be game over,turn out the lights:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38665351/ns/politics/

Whoever said the general voting public was intelligent to begin with.

There hasnt been an intelligent president since Truman or Ike.

The whole political infastructure has been corrupted for the past 50 years.

The dumbing down of America..........!

"So far Obama has capitulated on everything that would bring back what was stolen from us under the Bush regime. what he has given us instead are promises that don't go into affect until the next 4yrs." -John

John, just part of an excellent right on the money post. It has been nothing but smoke and mirrors by the Obama administration. Taking credit when things seem better and blaming Bush when things seem worse. Dragging of feet and double talk when it comes to responsible policies that help Americans. Yet lightening fast defending of illegals or seizing any opportunities for more government power and control over our lives.

I suppose in the same way a small number of people thought Bush was great, a small number of people on the opposite end think Obama is great. Frankly, at this point in time, I would consider either side to be worse case, delusional and best case, in denial.

Hey RNN!
Where is the story about the $12 billion$ cut to Food Stamps?

Imagine Bush cutting food stamps to pay for a special interest which supported him - ya think the press would have anything to say about that? But Obama does it and...big yawn from the servile media.

The left and every other disillusioned
shumck that voted for Obama is getting exactly what they deserve. The country has been on ultra fast track towards socialism since Obama and the Democrats have taken control so now you can all choke on what you have reaped and sewn by believing anything the lying left had to offer. NEVER...NEVER....AGAIN!

Wall Street Socialism
July 16th, 2008 / http://tinyurl.com/5d7755
This weekend, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, former head of the Goldman Sachs investment house, provided us with a perfect demonstration of Wall Street socialism.
He announced that the Bush administration would seek congressional approval to bail out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government created but privately owned, profit-making housing finance companies that hold or guarantee nearly half of the U.S. mortgage market—some $5 trillion in debt. Paulson seeks and will get an unlimited line of credit to guarantee their debt, as well as authority to purchase their shares to supplement their capital base. The Federal Reserve announced it was ready to provide lending while waiting for Congress to act. Paulson said the new subsidies were designed to sustain the two institutions in "their current form."
http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/wall-street-socialism

Wall Street Socialists
Sep 17, 2008 / http://tinyurl.com/3n2qfc
The financial crisis gripping the U.S. has the largest banks and insurance companies begging for massive government bailouts. The banking, investment, finance and insurance industries, long the foes of taxation, now need money from working-class taxpayers to stay alive. Taxpayers should be in the driver’s seat now. Instead, decisions that will cost people for decades are being made behind closed doors, by the wealthy, by the regulators and by those they have failed to regulate.
Tuesday, the Federal Reserve and the U.S. Treasury Department agreed to a massive, $85-billion bailout of AIG, the insurance giant. This follows the abrupt bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers, the 158-year-old investment bank; the distressed sale of Merrill Lynch to Bank of America; the bailout of both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; the collapse of retail bank IndyMac; and the federally guaranteed buyout of Bear Stearns by JPMorgan Chase. AIG was deemed “too big to fail,” with 103,000 employees and more than $1 trillion in assets. According to regulators, an unruly collapse could cause global financial turmoil. U.S. taxpayers now own close to 80 percent of AIG, so the orderly sale of AIG will allow the taxpayers to recoup their money, the theory goes.
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20080917_wall_street_socialists/

How the White House's Deal With Big Pharma Undermines Democracy
By Robert Reich / August 09, 2009 / http://tinyurl.com/ngqhkn
I'm a strong supporter of universal health insurance, and a fan of the Obama administration. But I'm appalled by the deal the White House has made with the pharmaceutical industry's lobbying arm to buy their support.

Last week, after being reported in the Los Angeles Times, the White House confirmed it has promised Big Pharma that any healthcare legislation will bar the government from using its huge purchasing power to negotiate lower drug prices. That's basically the same deal George W. Bush struck in getting the Medicare drug benefit, and it's proven a bonanza for the drug industry. A continuation will be an even larger bonanza, given all the Boomers who will be enrolling in Medicare over the next decade. And it will be a gold mine if the deal extends to Medicaid, which will be expanded under most versions of the healthcare bills now emerging from Congress, and to any public option that might be included. (We don't know how far the deal extends beyond Medicare because its details haven't been made public.)
http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2009/08/white-houses-deal-with-big-pharma.html

"He announced that the Bush administration would seek congressional approval to bail out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government created but privately owned, profit-making housing finance companies that hold or guarantee nearly half of the U.S. mortgage market—some $5 trillion in debt." -Casp

Here is another example of smoke and mirrors by the Obama administration and those like RNN media that exaggerate his accomplishments. RNN state Obama passed health care reform, financial reform, etc. A meaningless laundry list of accomplishments without real substance, meant to sway some into believing this administration has done great things. Great things and great leaders pass bills with substance not just pass anything to make a name for themselves.

How is it they can claim financial reform and not include reforming Freddie and Fannie? This was the main reason many Republicans did not vote for the bill.

"WHILE Congress toiled on the financial overhaul last spring, precious little was said about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the mortgage finance companies that collapsed spectacularly two years ago. Indeed, these wards of the state got just two mentions in the 1,500-page law known as Dodd-Frank: first, when it ordered the Treasury to produce a study on ending the taxpayer-owned status of the companies and, second, in a “sense of the Congress” passage stating that efforts to improve the nation’s mortgage credit system “would be incomplete without enactment of meaningful structural reforms” of Fannie and Freddie."
By GRETCHEN MORGENSON
Published: August 7, 2010
NYT

Here is another example of smoke and mirrors by the Obama administration and those like RNN media that exaggerate his accomplishments.

Mike G.

RF is a truth teller for the most part.

He doesn't go far enough with the truth and is guilty of protecting corporate Democrats like Obama.

With all his faults RF is still a cut above most other mainstream media talking heads.


Naturally my preference is Independent Media which holds nothing back and is not sponsored by corporate America.

But Mike G. we need investigative journalist to counter what the government is doing or not doing.

-------------------------

White House Philosophy Stoked Mortgage Bonfire
We can put light where there’s darkness, and hope where there’s despondency in this country. And part of it is working together as a nation to encourage folks to own their own home.” — President Bush, Oct. 15, 2002
December 20, 2008 / http://tinyurl.com/83qjpf
WASHINGTON — The global financial system was teetering on the edge of collapse when President Bush and his economics team huddled in the Roosevelt Room of the White House for a briefing that, in the words of one participant, “scared the hell out of everybody.”
It was Sept. 18. Lehman Brothers had just gone belly-up, overwhelmed by toxic mortgages. Bank of America had swallowed Merrill Lynch in a hastily arranged sale. Two days earlier, Mr. Bush had agreed to pump $85 billion into the failing insurance giant American International Group.
The president listened as Ben S. Bernanke, chairman of the Federal Reserve, laid out the latest terrifying news: The credit markets, gripped by panic, had frozen overnight, and banks were refusing to lend money.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/21admin.html?_r=2&hp

"By Robert Reich / August 09, 2009 / http://tinyurl.com/ngqhkn
I'm a strong supporter of universal health insurance, and a fan of the Obama administration. But..."

Sorry Caspian but this guy lost me with his opening statement.

"But Mike G. we need investigative journalist to counter what the government is doing or not doing."- Caspian

Caspian yes we do but we are not getting that from the media either by what they say or fail to say. They have an agenda and it is not the voice of the otherwise silent majority. This is the reason for the town hall shouting and tea party's there is nobody to represent us, so we have to take charge and represent ourselves.

I expected republicans to twist every accomplishment and truth into a negative lie for political gains.

I was hoping Obama would hold the Bush administration accountable (NOT just blame them in the media for our downfall, but REALLY hold them accountable), and I was hoping for faster change. But I have to say, I do feel more at ease now that a democrat is in office. I know McCain would have brought us into Iran by now. ...And Palin might have taken us over to her neighbors in Russia if oil companies asked her to.

IT WAS STARING THEM IN THE FACE...IF ONLY THEY HAD LISTENED in 2008!
--------------------------------------

Socialism in disguise
Obama's Third-World radicalism:


Intoxicated by the mantra of change, those who support Sen. Barack Obama appear to be gleeful about the new era that would come if he won. But is America such a fundamentally flawed country that it needs the kind of change that Mr. Obama promises? If you answer yes, then you have no idea how good a country this is compared to the rest of the world.

As a naturalized American who grew up in the Third World and experienced firsthand the economic misery and impenetrable corruption under socialism, I know socialism when I see it - and I see socialism in Mr. Obama's plans. He has skillfully disguised his socialist agenda by an oratorical cloak of populism. So, just as it takes an alert eye to spot the proverbial wolf in sheep's clothing, it takes an experienced eye to spot the incipient but insurgent socialism inside Mr. Obama's agenda.

Among the indubitable indicators of Mr. Obama's socialist beliefs is his tax plan. Most notably, he wants to tax the Dickens out of people who make more than $250,000 a year so that the government can then turn around and give that money to poor people, either as tax rebates or as services. That is Mr. Obama's plan to spread the wealth - and that is socialism - i.e., government-enforced redistribution of wealth to people whether they earned it or not. Once he started at $250,000, who says he would stop there? Pretty soon, he could hit those who make $50,000 a year.

Mr. Obama's harangues on denuding the rich are typical of many Third-World politicians, who, despite being well-off themselves (Mr. Obama is himself a millionaire, after all), somehow manage to bamboozle the masses into electing them on the premise that the rich are the villains.

Mr. Obama's plan to spread the wealth by taking it from the rich and giving to the poor may sound good to liberals, but in the end, it will not please anyone. Spreading wealth is somewhat like spreading a stick of butter - spread it over too many slices of bread and pretty soon nobody can taste the butter.

The trouble with those who support socialism is that their anti-capitalist fervor has so overtaken their common sense that they fail to ask themselves how America got the high standards of living that it has. The things that most Americans take for granted - advanced medicine, safe food, air-conditioned homes, cars with automatic transmission, cell phones etc. - did not come from socialist countries. Instead, those inventions were made possible thanks to capitalism - the idea that those who are entrepreneurial should reap the benefits of their ingenuity.

Of course, the recent collapse of Wall Street is hardly the milieu in which one should tout capitalism's blessings. But the whole of capitalism cannot be judged by a few bad weeks coming after decades of prosperity. After all, you would not say the typical weather in Florida is terrible merely because it has gotten a Category 5 hurricane once in several decades, would you? Even the poorest Americans have better access to higher-quality services than millions of people living in the Third World. For instance, clean water is a luxury in many parts of the world. The police will protect you only if you bribe them. The schools will educate your children only if you belong to the ruling political party. Thankfully, none of those things are the prevailing reality in America.

Yet, Mr. Obama and his supporters seem to think that America is such a terrible place that it needs a complete overhaul. If in fact America is such a terrible place, then why are millions of immigrants coming here from all over the world? I will tell you why: They know that the capitalist system we have here, despite its faults, is still the only system that provides the most opportunities for success.

If Mr. Obama became president, it would be the first time in history that an American president hailed from a Third-World lineage (Mr. Obama's father came from Kenya, an unmistakably Third World country). Now, since you cannot change where your parents came from, there is nothing inherently wrong with a president having Third-World parents. However, in Mr. Obama's case, this Third-World nexus is relevant because it may help explain his apparent proclivity for radical socialist ideas commonly seen in the Third World.

So, as we near the election, we Americans must ask ourselves if we really think America is such a bad place that we should turn it over to someone who wants to radically change it. For my part, that is change I do not believe in.

IT WAS STARING THEM IN THE FACE...IF ONLY THEY HAD LISTENED in 2008!
--------------------------------------

Tax-cut socialism

Wednesday, October 22, 2008


He refers to it as "tax cuts," hoping that the American public is too dumb to catch on and ridicule anyone who gets in their political way.

Mr. Obama promises to give 95 percent of American workers what he refers to as a "Making Work Pay" tax cut - a $500 refundable tax credit to every worker or $1,000 per couple. The key word here is "refundable." This means that the one-third of taxpayers with zero income-tax liability (one-third of all tax returns to be filed in 2009 under current law) get a direct payment from the U.S. Treasury - in essence, a welfare check for working. And this will be paid by increased taxes on single filers making $200,000 or more per year and joint filers making $250,000 or more.

The issue was brought to the fore by Joe Wurzelbacher, a Holland, Ohio plumber who was playing football with his son in his front yard when Mr. Obama visited his neighborhood Oct. 11.

Mr. Wurzelbacher charged that Mr. Obama's tax plan would be at odds with "the American dream." Saying that he was preparing to "buy a company that makes $250,000 to $280,000 per year," he challenged Mr. Obama. "Your new tax plan is going to cost me more, isn't it?" Mr. Wurzelbacher asked.

In recent days, Mr. Obama and Mr. Biden sounded like they were dismissing out of hand the concerns expressed by Mr. Wurzelbacher, now known internationally as "Joe the Plumber." When the mainstream media reported that Mr. Wurzelbacher lacked a plumbing license, Mr. Biden went on the "Tonight Show" to make light of that fact, saying he was worried about "Joe the Plumber with a license." (Mr. Wurzelbacher says he works under the license held by his boss). Last week, Mr. Obama also sounded somewhat bemused by Joe the Plumber's concerns: "How many plumbers do you know making $250,000 a year?"

The above comments by Mr. Obama and Mr. Biden are examples of liberal elitism on display.

Mr. Wurzelbacher, so far as we can tell, never claimed to be making that much money from the plumbing business; it seems pretty clear that he was referring to his hopes and dreams for the future. But these facts seem lost on Democrats and the mainstream media. The latter appear more interested in learning whether Mr. Wurzelbacher might have been a McCain campaign "plant" who just happened to ask his question to embarrass Mr. Obama. To Mr. Obama and Mr. Biden, however, the idea that a successful plumber could make more than $250,000 in a single year sounded like a vaguely stupid Republican Party dirty trick, and they weren't having any of it.

Aside from ridiculing Mr. Wurzelbacher's efforts to create a better life for his family, Mr. Obama's campaign cites statistics purporting to show that less than 2 percent of small businesses will be affected by his tax increases. Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) claims the actual figure is closer to 10 percent, and it says that analysis of IRS statistics shows that in 2006, small businesses reported $700 billion in profits - two-thirds of which were earned in households that would be hit by the Obama tax increases.

If anything, the ATR figures probably understate the job-killing impact of Mr. Obama's tax increases, because they don't include his Social Security proposals - which cut taxes on workers making under $85,000 a year and significantly increase them for workers with incomes of $250,000 and above. When you factor these Social Security tax hikes into the mix, it is very likely that some of the country's biggest job creators will find themselves paying marginal rates above 50 percent.

Furthermore, in his response to "Joe," Mr. Obama told him that he needed to "spread the wealth around." Since Mr. Obama has roundly rejected being called a socialist, the onus is on him to explain: What part of such government-engineered wealth distribution isn't socialism?

WHY THE LEFT WILL DESTROY AMERICA IF NOT STOPPED!
---------------------------------------
Classroom Socialism Experiment:


An economics professor said he had never failed a
single student, but had once failed an entire class.

The class (students) insisted that socialism worked
since no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great
equalizer. The professor then said, "OK, we will have
an experiment in this class on socialism."

"All grades will be averaged and everyone will
receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will
receive an A."

After the first test the grades were averaged and
everyone got a B. The students who had studied hard were
upset while the students who had studied very little were
happy.

But, as the second test rolled around, the students
who had studied little studied even less and the ones who
had studied hard decided that since they couldn't make
an A, they also studied less. The second Test average was a D.

No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around the
average grade was an F.

The scores never increased as bickering, blame, name
calling, all resulted in hard feelings and no one would
study for anyone else.

To their great surprise all failed.

The professor told them that socialism would ultimately fail.

The harder people try to succeed the greater their
reward (capitalism) but when a government takes all the
reward away (socialism) no one will try or succeed.

Could not be any simpler than that.....

The United Socialist States of America:

Friday, March 5, 2010

President Obama is close to completing his socialist revolution. Since coming to power last year, he has sought relentlessly to transform America. From his days as a student radical, Mr. Obama has been obsessed with smashing the traditional free-market system. Like most leftists, he thinks capitalism is the enemy.

"He was a Marxist-socialist in college," said John C. Drew, who knew Mr. Obama as a university student, in an interview. "He kept talking about the need to overthrow capitalism in favor of a working-class revolution."

One of Mr. Obama's favorite philosophers was Frantz Fanon, a post-colonial Marxist who championed Third World liberation movements. Fanon argued that the West - led by America - was based on racism, imperialism and the economic exploitation of the world's poor. The only remedy was authoritarian socialism and a massive redistribution of wealth from Western nations to developing countries.

Throughout his career, Mr. Obama has had radical associations. At Columbia University, while teaching constitutional law, he embraced postmodernist legal theory that maintains that the U.S. constitutional system presents an artificial veneer for liberty while actually advancing the economic interests of powerful white males. As a community organizer in Chicago, he studied and tried to mimic the activism of Saul Alinsky - a neo-Trotskyite who championed "permanent revolution." His longtime associates, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn are supporters of Marxist liberation and share a deep hatred for the United States. They believe only fundamental, sweeping change can redeem America.

Rather than being a pragmatic centrist - as the mainstream media insists on portraying him - Mr. Obama is the very opposite: an ideologue who is pursuing his political project even at the risk of badly damaging the Democratic Party.

This explains his bizarre, almost reckless desire to ram Obamacare through Congress. The president has said he wants an "up-or-down vote" on his health care overhaul - preferably by the end of this month, before the Easter recess. In other words, he has given the green light to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, to use reconciliation, a parliamentary process designed to fast-track budgetary measures. Under these arcane rules, a simple majority in the Senate of 50 Democratic votes plus a tie-breaker from Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. will be enough to pass health care reform. The filibuster will be rendered impotent.

This is unprecedented. Never in our history has reconciliation been used to pass a major piece of social legislation on a narrow partisan majority. Obamacare will overhaul nearly one-sixth of the U.S. economy. By contrast, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid passed with overwhelming bipartisan consensus. Contrary to popular myth, numerous Republicans endorsed the New Deal-Great Society welfare state. This is why repealing it has been so difficult (if not impossible).

The White House and its media allies claim that the 1996 welfare reform bill, the 1997 children's health insurance program and the 2001 Bush tax cuts were passed using reconciliation. This is misleading. Every one of these measures had strong Democratic support - especially in the Senate.

Mr. Obama is engaged in an abuse of power. He is thwarting the will of the majority of the American people who do not want socialized medicine. They rightly fear that the proposal's massive $1 trillion price tag will add to our skyrocketing national debt, which has brought us to the brink of ruin. They understand it will stifle medical innovation and reduce the quality of care, leading to rationing and longer waiting lines. It represents the greatest expansion of entitlement spending since the 1960s.

Moreover, Mr. Obama's actions are undermining the traditional system of checks and balances established by the Founding Fathers. The institutional role of the Senate is to serve as a bulwark against raw majority rule. By circumventing the filibuster, Mr. Obama is not only thumbing his nose at the voters - including those in Massachusetts who elected Republican Sen. Scott Brown - but the very constitutional safeguards meant to prevent this kind of usurpation of power.

His proposal seeks to create a centrally planned medical economy that will erect a gigantic government bureaucracy based on massive taxes, subsidies and regulations. Mr. Obama is willing to sacrifice his party's political fortunes in November - and even his own re-election in 2012 - because he understands one fundamental fact: Nationalized health care is the heart of cradle-to-grave statism. No country that has ever embraced socialized medicine - Canada, Britain, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Italy - has ever been able to regain economic freedom.

This is not because government-run health care is so effective or beloved; rather, it fosters a debilitating spirit of dependency that is fatal to a self-governing people. In short, it kills the self-reliance and individualism critical to a free-market democracy.

For Mr. Obama, that is precisely the point. Vladimir Lenin, the leader of the Bolshevik Revolution, laid out the Marxist blueprint that has been followed by the radical left since 1917. Lenin urged that any disaster should be exploited to "hasten the destruction ... of the capitalist class." The 2008 Great Recession brought Mr. Obama to power. He has been seizing this crisis in order to overthrow the old capitalist order.

Mr. Obama is relentlessly giving birth to a new nation: the United Socialist States of America - the U.S.S.A.

No Bill, its you who wouldn't listen. Remember all the timesyou were warned about the hyped Bush Ownership Society that turned loose Wall St on anunwary public? Remember all the times I warned you that the $250,000 number was way too low? Remember all the times you warned about aligning with and the beed for taxing the top .01% who own even you lock stock and barrel and who piled up the debt while bankrupting the US economy with their crap since 2004.
Hmmmmmmm! Well, what happened? Don't act like these after the fact articles make you the new Kreskin. ALL THAT YOU PRESENT IS WHAT WAS KNOWN HERE FOR YEARS.
Your gloating is a total misrepresentation of all that you stubornly denied despite having so much better examples at your disposal.
C'mon Bill either dig deep or find something about the top .01% or figure out the correct percentage that should be extracted from them to allow for a higher cut off point than $250,000 for the 1.9% under the million mark.
We will be waiting anxiously.

No Bill, its you who wouldn't listen. Remember all the timesyou were warned about the hyped Bush Ownership Society that turned loose Wall St on anunwary public? Remember all the times I warned you that the $250,000 number was way too low? Remember all the times you warned about aligning with and the need for taxing the top .01% who have nothing for their wars, who own even you lock stock and barrel, and who piled up the debt to $12.7trillion upped from $4.3trillion of 2001 while bankrupting the US economy with their crap since 2004.
Hmmmmmmm! Well, what happened? Don't act like these after the fact articles make you the new Kreskin. ALL THAT YOU PRESENT IS WHAT WAS KNOWN HERE FOR YEARS.
Your gloating is a total misrepresentation of all that you stubornly denied despite having so much better examples at your disposal.
C'mon Bill either dig deep or find something about the top .01% or figure out the correct percentage that should be extracted from them to allow for a higher cut off point than $250,000 for the 1.9% under the million mark.
We will be waiting anxiously.

Caspian & Mike G: Ed Schultz and Dylan Ratigan have come forward today with some great stuff. Schulz even mentioned CARLYLE and its outsourcing. Perhaps he will say more.

How A Progressive Socialist Gets to Be President Of The USA:

----------------------------------------

The Lies of Obama:

Jan 21st, 2010

When politicians are caught out in lies, their supporters often resort to the old cliché: all politicians lie. But that is itself a lie: most don’t. Even among those who do, there are enormous differences in the importance and frequency of the lies. And it is surely now clear that this nation has a far from routine problem in the scale and regularity of President Obama’s lying.

When politicians lie they are usually trying to avoid political damage, or to make themselves look good. Bill Clinton lied (and got himself impeached) to save himself from embarrassment about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. Hillary Clinton lied about being under fire in Bosnia to enhance her non-existent foreign affairs profile. Richard Nixon was forced from office because he lied to cover up his involvement in a political dirty trick. John Kerry lied about his Vietnam combat experience to blunt his anti-military reputation. But Barack Obama’s lies are far more corrosive and destructive, because they go the heart of legislation and governance, and so seriously undermine trust in government. His lies generally take a specific form: they attempt to persuade people to vote for him or his policies by categorically assuring them that they need not have the anxieties that they have been expressing. The lies say, essentially: trust me, support what I want, and I promise that what you fear will never happen. But in every case it soon becomes clear either that he knew perfectly well that what the public feared would in fact happen, or that he was giving a firm assurance that he was in no position to give, or that he had no intention of following through on his promise.

The accumulated weight of Obama’s deceit is overwhelming:

* During his campaign for the presidency and since, Obama repeatedly assured us that he would protect Medicare against cuts; but he now presses for passage of bills that include savage cuts in Medicare.

* To obtain passage of his first stimulus bill, Obama assured us that 90% of the jobs created would be in the private sector; but as he well knew, most of them were to be in the public sector.

* Early in the health care debate, Obama assured us that he had not said that he favored a single payer system; but he was on record as having said exactly that.

* Obama gave primary voters a firm assurance that if he became the nominee of the Democratic party he would (unlike Hillary Clinton) abide by the campaign finance limits of public funding; but as soon as he became the party’s nominee, he reneged on that pledge.

* During the presidential campaign Obama criticized the presence of former lobbyists in the Bush administration and solemnly assured us that he would appoint no lobbyists to his administration; but once elected he proceeded to appoint even more lobbyists than his predecessors.

* Obama criticized the size of George Bush’s deficit and promised to stop deficit spending if elected; but he has already quadrupled the size of the deficit he objected to and recklessly continues new federal spending in the trillions.

* When campaigning Obama criticized bills before the congress that were too long for anyone to be able to read and promised to stop that; but the bills he has been backing throughout his first year are infinitely longer (2000+ pages) than the ones he criticized.

* Candidate Obama promised an end to the corruption of earmarks and pork, but in the bills he has supported this year there have been more and bigger earmarks than ever before.

* Candidate Obama promised us that CIA personnel involved in the interrogation of terrorists would not be prosecuted; but his administration is now doing exactly that.

* Obama assured a joint session of Congress that the health bill he supported (pre-Stupak) would not provide public funding for abortions; but bitter resistance on the part of House Democrats to inclusion of language to that effect soon proved that it did.

* Candidate Obama promised that he would make sure that there was always enough time for the public to read legislation before it was enacted; but he has done exactly the opposite, repeatedly pressing for even faster passage of even longer bills.

* Candidate Obama met fears that he would be a tax and spend liberal by promising, emphatically and repeatedly, that those earning under $200,000 would see no increase in their taxes of any kind; but he now urges passage of a healthcare bill that breaks that pledge in many different ways, and his unrestrained increase in federal spending makes more tax increases inevitable.

* Candidate Obama promised bipartisanship and an end to partisan bickering; but in a display of especially ruthless partisanship his allies have shut Republicans out of all key meetings on his health care initiative, with the unprecedented result that domestic legislation of historic importance garnered not a single Republican vote in the Senate.

* Candidate Obama criticized his opponent’s plan to tax employer paid healthcare benefits, and promised he would not tax them; but the bill he now backs will do just that.

* Obama had promised that he would not sign a healthcare bill that would add one dime to the federal deficit; but the bill he now backs adds trillions in new federal spending, offset only by new sources of revenue that are both uncertain and more properly seen as offsetting the already existing deficit.

* Obama coerced congress into passing his stimulus bill by promising that if it were passed unemployment could go no higher then 8%; but unemployment is now at 10%, and he could not possibly have had good reason to exclude that possibility.

* Obama promised that his cap and trade legislation will create jobs; but its massive tax increases will certainly hobble the economy and destroy jobs, while green jobs in significant numbers can at best be hoped for, but never promised.

* Obama has repeatedly assured the American people that if they like their current health plan they can keep it; but the House bill which he supported created huge incentives for employers to drop their coverage and shift their members to a public option.

* Obama has just as often assured the public that under his health plan everyone will be able to keep their current doctor; but many are certain to lose their doctors when ObamaCare’s large cuts in Medicare funding induce more doctors to withdraw from Medicare coverage, as they also would were employers to transfer patients to a public option to save money.

* Obama assured a joint session of Congress that his health plan would not fund illegal aliens; but his allies had been busy voting down amendments to that effect. (This was the point of Joe Wilson’s outburst.)

* Obama claimed that Caterpillar’s CEO had told him that Caterpillar would begin hiring again as a result of the stimulus bill; but that individual immediately announced that he had said no such thing, and that Caterpillar would in fact be laying off more workers.

* Candidate Obama promised that Guantanamo would be closed by January 1, 2010; but it is still open.

* Candidate Obama promised that his administration (unlike his predecessor’s) would be so transparent that TV cameras (C-Span) would be there for key deliberations; but an unprecedented level of secrecy prevails as the final stages of Obamacare are negotiated behind closed doors and kept so secret that even the Senate majority whip admitted that he had no idea what was going on. Requests for Obama to honor the promise of C-Span cameras are being ignored.

* To gain traction for his attempt to return a would-be socialist dictator in Honduras to power, Obama claimed that he had been overthrown in an illegal coup; but the congressional research service pointed out correctly that ex-President Zelaya had been removed for constitutionally sufficient cause by legal and constitutional means.

* Obama claims that he wants a public option only to increase choice and competition; but the House bill would clearly reduce choice both by squeezing unsubsidized private health plans out of the market, and by setting rigid conditions on acceptable plans that would narrow available options.

* Candidate Obama claimed that violent radical Bill Ayers was just another guy in his neighborhood; but the record shows that the two had worked closely together.

* Obama assured us that his stimulus bill would create or save a million jobs; but he was claiming as fact what could never have been more than a wild (and highly improbable) guess, and his more recent attempts to justify that guess have been fraudulent.

* Obama assured us that his health plan would never ration care, or “pull the plug” on grandma; but the legislation he backs sets up panels to make crucial decisions on when to withhold care, and it makes such deep cuts in Medicare that rationing is inevitable.

* Obama now assures us that health insurance premiums will not go up if ObamaCare becomes law, insisting indignantly that people who say this have not read the bill; but the legislation forces insurers to cover preexisting conditions, which will compel them to raise premiums substantially.

This is an extraordinary record of serial mendacity. One or two instances might charitably be regarded as rash promises later regretted, or as the wishful thinking of someone who had not thought through the implications of what he was saying. But when it happens again and again—and my 30 instances are by no means exhaustive—only one judgment seems possible: this is the record of a habitual, shameless liar, a man who will say anything to get what he wants. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me, goes the old saying. But scores of times? How shameful is that for our society when this disgraceful record is never the subject of a reproachful editorial in the New York Times, the Washington Post, or CBS news? Richard Nixon was removed from office, and Bill Clinton impeached for a single lie. Who could look at Obama’s record without concluding that his lying is in a completely different league to theirs?

President Obama evidently believes that he can solve any problem with a speech. But he really does not care whether what he says is true or not, nor does he feel any responsibility to honor the assurances and promises he makes. As a result, this nation is now in a position where it cannot believe a word that he says, and that amounts to an unprecedented crisis of confidence in the Presidency. Democratic government will atrophy if we allow lying on this scale to count as the business as usual of politics. When will the press and the Congress hold him accountable?

MSNBC has been over the top today revealing most of the items we have been discussing here for the past several days. Pretty accurately too. I can no longer watch RNN and the guys but, you can keep me up to date.
By my assessment the Dems no longer have the luxury of choice on anything anymore. They will have to come out strong over the next few weeks to stem the tide. Watch for it!
Charlie Rangel did what I expected and will do just fine for us. The snakes at all levels had better beware.

“I mean, really,-comments about communists reaching into the highest rungs of government (yesterday's question) are so out beyond the fringe.“ - Mike Q

Really Mike Q? Certainly this boardwalk game is in very poor taste and in my view, offensive but important enough for the secret service to investigate? What kind of government is concerned about how kids (mostly), respond to a fake game, yet have no trouble ignoring the real and potential threats of leaving our borders open?

What’s next, Secret Service at our doors because we say we don’t like Obama? Shhh keep your opinions to yourself. Reminds me of what we heard took place in the USSR back in the old days.

http://www.dailyrecord.com/article/20100811/COMMUNITIES/308110017/Controversial-Obama-game-at-boardwalk-is-a-target-for-critics-too

“The 1-minute-36-second clip did not escape the attention of federal authorities, a Secret Service agent confirmed today. "When this happened, we were made aware of the carnival game," said Max Milien, a spokesman for the Secret Service, which investigates threats against the president. "We did in fact conduct an investigation, and we interviewed the subject." Milien would not elaborate further. “Scott Simmons, a daytime manager of Lucky Leo's, said the game — "Walkin Charlie" — is all in good fun and implies no political bend. He explained no one griped when tourists were pummeling President George W. Bush with the same baseballs before Obama. Indeed, a likeness of Sarah Palin, the former Alaska governor and vice presidential candidate, was being prepped for an appearance with the president, on one of two rotating carousels that also included Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.”

“Whalen may have been convinced by more than just public pressure to remove the Obama effigy, telling the Star-Ledger that a Secret Service agent informed him Wednesday that he had stationed himself near the game two months ago to make sure employees weren't urging patrons to throw a ball to "hurt" Obama or that patrons themselves weren't voicing a desire to injure the president.”

I long for the days of idiot Bush. Obama is a complete and total failure.

As usual you can't be counted on for anything Bill.
TABBREAK BREAKDOWN- INDEPENDENT AUDIT
Here is the difference between the Democrats vs Republican tax breakdowns that sets it's aims to reduces the deficit by $36billion and the Republican continuation of the greed for those who have been living on our backs that adds $36billion or as the Geithner Federal Reserve has it all planned out spreading the costs and interests charges out over anamazing decade or two an amazing #3.6trillion difference because TAX BREAKS FOR THE SUPER RICH DOESNOT LOWER THE DEFICIT BY THE NUMBERS SHOWN BUT INSTEAD MULTIPLYS THE LOAD ALREADY INCURRED OVER THE PAST 8YRS.
Do you get it, now? Or does someone else have to explain it to you?

Incomes of...
20-30,000- avg $700 a $2.oo difference

30-75-000- an avg $1,700 a $29.oo difference

100-250.000- highs avg around $8,000

*250-500,000- highs of $7,000

*500-1,000,000- highs of $17,000 an $11,000.oo difference that is liveable.

1,000,000 plus- an average $103,000.00 dollar tax break with billionaires offloading their monumental savings of TENS OF MILLIONS down to the lowly millionaires who are of course, averaged in and pooled with them.
How gracious of the billionaires to have themselves loweredinto this pool but asanyone can clearly see. This pooling only serves to benefit themselves.

See: Attention deficit disorder Video clip.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#38685229

KEEP THESE FIGURES FOR MAGS, MAGGIE MAMA, AND THE REST OF THE BROOD.

As usual you can't be counted on for anything Bill.
TABBREAK BREAKDOWN- INDEPENDENT AUDIT
Here is the difference between the Democrats vs Republican tax breakdowns that sets it's aims to reduces the deficit by $36billion and the Republican continuation of the greed for those who have been living on our backs that adds $36billion or as the Geithner Federal Reserve has it all planned out spreading the costs and interests charges out over anamazing decade or two an amazing #3.6trillion difference because TAX BREAKS FOR THE SUPER RICH DOESNOT LOWER THE DEFICIT BY THE NUMBERS SHOWN BUT INSTEAD MULTIPLYS THE LOAD ALREADY INCURRED OVER THE PAST 8YRS.
Do you get it, now? Or does someone else have to explain it to you?

Incomes of...
20-30,000- avg $700 a $2.oo difference

30-75-000- an avg $1,700 a $29.oo difference

100-250.000- highs avg around $8,000

*250-500,000- highs of $7,000

*500-1,000,000- highs of $17,000 an $11,000.oo difference that is liveable.

1,000,000 plus- an average $103,000.00 dollar tax break with billionaires offloading their monumental savings of TENS OF MILLIONS down to the lowly millionaires who are of course, averaged in and pooled with them to keep the figures lower and obscure.

*How gracious of the billionaires to have themselves lowered into this pool but as anyone can clearly see. This pooling only serves to benefit themselves. But of course, it is their men in government and GEITHNER IN THE FED who are setting us up with this smoke screen and the republicans who are again lying through their deficit causing teeth.
*No party favoritism here. I am just identifying the culprits that gave away those trillions $8.7 in all, in a mere 8yrs with THEIR WARS TO NOWHERE, TAXBREAKS FOR THE SPECULATORS, DEREGULATION & THE TWO TARPS $3.1TRILLION.

See: rachel maddows Attention deficit disorder Video clip.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#38685229

KEEP THESE FIGURES CLOSE AT HAND FOR YOURSELF, MAGS, MAGGIE MAMA, AND THE REST OF THE BROOD BEFORE YOU EVER WENT TO TALK ABOUT BEING FISCALLY RESPONCIBLE CONSERVATIVE EVER AGAIN BECAUSE I WILL SURELY WHIP THIS OUT TO REBUTT YOUR CLAIMS.

By Robert Reich / August 09, 2009 / http://tinyurl.com/ngqhkn
I'm a strong supporter of universal health insurance, and a fan of the Obama administration. But..."

Sorry Caspian but this guy lost me with his opening statement.

===============

Mike G. your taxpayer dollars go to the richest anyway with corporate welfare, subsidies, bailouts and war profiteers.

Why not invest in health care for all?

Medicare covers the elderly 80% and I don't understand why we cannot have Medicare for everyone with Single Payer.

======================

Iraq war could cost taxpayers $2.7 trillion
In addition to the cost of war, taxpayers pay for rising veteran health care costs, and returning soldiers faced with foreclosure and unemployment.
June 12, 2008 / http://tinyurl.com/owc5ew
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- As the Iraq war continues with no clear end in sight, the cost to taxpayers may balloon to $2.7 trillion by the time the conflict comes to an end, according to Congressional testimony.
In a hearing held by the Joint Economic Committee Thursday, members of Congress heard testimony about the current costs of the war and the future economic fallout from returning soldiers.
At the beginning of the conflict in 2003, the Bush administration gave Congress a cost estimate of $60 billion to $100 billion for the entirety of the war. But the battle has been dragging on much longer than most in the government expected, and costs have ballooned to nearly ten times the original estimate.
http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/11/news/economy/iraq_war_hearing/index.htm

"Why not invest in health care for all?

Medicare covers the elderly 80% and I don't understand why we cannot have Medicare for everyone with Single Payer."


Being a socialist minded individual yourself, of course you wouldn't understand why traditional core America would be outraged. Try getting a job and paying for your own health insurance the way most of the rest of us working shleps do. Try it...you might even like it. When we get old and cannot work anymore then that is what medicare is for and it should stay that way. The private sector will be good to you if you just will be good to it. Put youy energies into fixing the system we already have and not destroying it in order to satisy an old and crumbling leftist wish list that doesn't belong in a free Democratic and capitalistic society like America.

Bush Tax Cut Expiration Will Cost Taxpayers $1 Trillion:

Wednesday, 14 Jul 2010 07:40 PM

Low-tax crusader and Republican strategist Grover Norquist tells Newsmax that letting the Bush tax cuts expire in January 2011 would amount to a $1 trillion tax increase — the largest boost in American history.

Norquist — president of Americans for Tax Reform — also warns that President Barack Obama and the Democrats are intent on pursuing the “very bad idea” of imposing a European-style value-added tax.

And he says the tea party movement arose when millions of Americans became “scared straight” by huge increases in federal spending and debt.
Americans for Tax Reform is a coalition of taxpayer groups, individuals, and businesses opposed to higher taxes at the federal, state, and local levels.

In an exclusive Newsmax interview, Norquist — who is also on the board of the American Conservative Union and a regular Newsmax contributor — was asked if Obama had reneged on his promise not to raise taxes on couples earning less than $250,000 a year.
“Yes — 16 days into his presidency he signed a bill that raised taxes on tobacco,” he says.

“The first tax increase he signed hit Americans of all income levels.”

Allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire at the end of this year, as the Democrats plan, will in fact result in “about a trillion-dollar tax increase on the American people over the next decade,” Norquist says.

“It would be the largest tax increase in American history, and it would take every marginal tax rate and increase it. The taxes on businesses, on capital gains, would be very high.

“When these tax cuts went into effect in 2003, the economy and the stock market strengthened. As soon as people realized that those tax increases were going to come in in January of 2011, the stock market began its decline.”

Asked about proposals for a national sales tax known as a value-added tax, or VAT, Norquist tells Newsmax:

“A VAT is a very bad idea. It is true that it is what the Democrats plan to do. It is Obama’s goal.

“Obama and the Democrats have been moving the United States toward the European social welfare model. That has a VAT, on average in Europe, of 20 percent.

“If we were to adopt a value-added tax as Europe has, your salary would be worth 20 percent less because you could buy less with it. Your life savings would be worth 20 percent less. Your pension would be worth 20 percent less, because anything you bought would have a 20 percent value-added tax attached to it.

“It would be very bad for the American economy.”

The Democrats’ healthcare reform bill includes a mandate to purchase health insurance and severe penalties for noncompliance.

“It’s going to cost hundreds and eventually thousands of dollars a year,” Norquist declares.

“It is designed to force you to buy health insurance, but it is a tax. It will largely be put on low-income people since higher-income Americans already have health insurance.”

Norquist is also highly critical of the Democrats’ cap-and-trade plan to curb carbon emissions.

“There are a number of different versions of it, but all of them have the same thesis: They are taxing the energy that you and I use and subsidizing, giving corporate welfare, to industries that don’t yet exist or don’t produce energy at real prices,” he says.

“So it’s a massive tax increase on the energy you use generated by coal or natural gas or oil, electricity, and subsidies for expensive energy [wind, solar, etc.). Your energy costs will go up because of these taxes by thousands of dollars a year.

“It is not the unfortunate side effect of Obama’s policy. The goal of his policy is to make most energy, coal-generated energy, too expensive, so for similarly high prices you will use solar or wind energy — which you don’t use now because it’s too expensive.”

Asked for his view of the tea party movement, Norquist says: “The tea party movement is best understood as millions of Americans who have not been involved in politics for most of their adults lives but in the last two years got scared straight by Obama’s debt — trillions in higher taxes, higher debt, higher spending, and trillions more being threatened.

“And because they’re involved in politics, if the Republicans come back into power they will be a different party than they were in the past, because there are these new troops that have arrived with one thing on their mind — spend less.”

Norquist favors a plan to cut spending by setting up a congressional committee with subpoena powers to examine spending, with an eye toward reducing unnecessary federal expenditures. The plan is “getting good traction around the country,” he says, but the Democratic leadership opposes it.
He also says he would welcome a presidential campaign by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who is considering a run.

“Speaker Gingrich fought for lower taxes at all levels. The other thing Gingrich does is he’s a movement builder, a party builder, and so whether he’s a back-bencher, speaker of the House, or candidate for president, his goal has always been to advance liberty. I think it’s very helpful, very Reaganesque.”

Why Democrats Don’t Care about $9.7 Trillion Debt:

Mar 9th, 2010

As reported by The Washington Post, “President Obama’s proposed budget would add more than $9.7 trillion to the national debt over the next decade, congressional budget analysts said Friday.”

CNN adds, “Of that amount, an estimated $5.6 trillion will be in interest alone.”

The Post continues: “The CBO (Congressional Budget Office) and the White House (are) … both predicting a deficit of about $1.5 trillion this year — a post-World War II record at 10.3 percent of the overall economy. But the CBO is considerably less optimistic about future years, predicting that deficits would never fall below 4 percent of the economy under Obama’s policies and would begin to grow rapidly after 2015.

“Deficits of that magnitude would force the Treasury to continue borrowing at prodigious rates, sending the national debt soaring to 90 percent of the economy by 2020, the CBO said.”

CNN adds that “By 2020 the (CBO) estimates debt held by the public would reach $20.3 trillion, or 90 percent of GDP. That’s up from 53 percent of GDP in 2009.”

I suspect that most Americans, if asked whether these numbers trouble the Democratic leadership and President Obama, would answer in the affirmative.

They would be wrong.

They would be wrong not because the Democratic Party or the president are economically illiterate or bad individuals, but because the Democratic Party and the president are leftists. And most Americans, including most Democrats, do not understand the left. They may understand liberalism; but President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and most Democratic representatives and senators are not liberals; they are leftists. And most Americans do not understand the difference between liberal and left. They do not realize, for example, that there is no major difference between the American Democratic Party and the leftist social democratic parties of Western Europe. They do not know that from Karl Marx to Obama, the left (as opposed to liberals) has never created wealth because it has never been interested in creating wealth; it is interested in redistributing wealth.

Therefore, unprecedented and unsustainable debt, a debt that will negatively affect most Americans’ quality of life, renders the dollar increasingly undesirable, and undermines America’s prestige and power in the world — these developments do not particularly disturb the left. They may trouble the president, the Democratic Party, and others on the left on some political level, but that pales in comparison to what the left really wants: a huge government overseeing a giant welfare state and a country with far fewer rich Americans.

Achieving those goals is far more important than preventing a decline in the American quality of life. The further left one goes, the more contempt one has for the present quality of American life in any event. The left regularly mocks many of the symbols of that life — from the three-bedroom suburban house surrounded by a white picket fence to owning an SUV (or almost any car) because Americans should be traveling on public buses, trains and bicycles.

As for the dollar, I can bear personal testimony to the decline of the dollar’s prestige. I am writing this column in Morocco. In Casablanca, my wife and I and another couple hired a Moroccan driver for the day. And when it came time to pay, the man refused to accept dollars; he wanted to be paid in either Euros or Moroccan dirhams. Yes, dirhams rather than dollars. But the demise of the dollar as the world’s currency disturbs the left as much as does America’s not getting a gold medal in curling at the Winter Olympics.

And as for America wielding less power in the world, that is a positive development for the American left. It is the world community as embodied in the United Nations that should wield power throughout the world, not an “overstretched,” “imperialist” and “militarist” United States.

I used to believe that left and right have similar goals for America, that they just differed in the means they wanted used to get there. I was mistaken. The left has a very different vision of America than those who hold the founding values of America, most especially individualism and small government. And if the price of a once in a lifetime possibility of getting to a giant welfare state dominated by the left is America’s steep financial decline, that is a price fully worth paying.

Being a socialist minded individual yourself, of course you wouldn't understand why traditional core America would be outraged.

---------

Bill evidently you don't mind spending Billions and Trillions for war profiteers, corporate welfare, loop holes for the wealthy, subsidies, to make the wealthy few wealthier.

I believe the taxpayer should get something tangible and of substance in return with 80% Medicare coverage for all Americans.

---------------------

Reagan insider: 'GOP destroyed U.S. economy'
Commentary: How: Gold. Tax cuts. Debts. Wars. Fat Cats. Class gap. No fiscal discipline

Bill F: Trillion dollar increase to whom? Definitely not to those under the one million dollar mark it simply would restore the old rates for 98% of the entire US population. -Case Closed!

Norquist "supposes" and presents a "scare tactic" from which point any addition that YOU transcend rather imaginatively with false and inflated figures that depend upon spreading the cost and INTEREST RATES OVER PROLONGED AND EXXAGERATED PERIODS OF TIME. -Case Closed

Cigarette taxes while punitive only affect those most likely to be tomorrows CANCER PATIENT AND healthcare burden. It is not an income tax. It is a luxury tax. -Case Closed

“It would be the largest tax increase in American history, and it would take every marginal tax rate and increase it. The taxes on businesses, on capital gains, would be very high. ALREADY ANSWERED IN THE FIRST THREE RESPONSES.

VAT AND ENERGY TAXES are universally supported by both Dems and Republicans by using entirely different phrasing. Dems will tax. Repubs will use raise costs to 5.00 per gallon by way of price fixing, planned energy shortages blaming nature and incidents to even the most superfluous of pipeline disruptions. Except, instead of having at least some the money being recycled back into the general economy it would all be siphoned to the globalists too big to fails- as stock holder & CEO profit. - NICE TRY! -Case Closed

BLAH, BLAH, BLAH... OIL JUNKIE- Case Closed!

LET'S SING A HAPPY SONG
Spill the "whine"... TAX THE RICH!!!
Spill the "whine"... let the .01% bitch.
Spill the "whine"... by taxing big oil.
Spill the "whine"... let's till the soil
Still the "whine"... and watch Bill boil

"Bill evidently you don't mind spending Billions and Trillions for war profiteers....."



Being that you and John are self proclaimed pacifists who have an agenda aside from your socialistic Progressive/Democratic left, one class fits all wish list, then opinions on national defense and security or any other actions necessary to maintain America's safety and superior military position in the world would best be left to those without an overwhelming biased agenda. Don't you think that both of you look extremely silly at this point if not only President Bush but now President Obama and his new administration believe that both Iraq and the Afghanistan War is well worth the cost in money and blood, without a doubt? Unfortunately Obama's multi trillion dollar social programs give aways are what is breaking the back of the US economy.......and on top of everything they have failed to stimulate anything except for your very bad socialistic nightmares.

Critical Condition:

The Progressive Pretense Evaporates

August 12, 2010

Only months have passed since Congress, in its superior wisdom, enacted central planning in health coverage, and implementation by the bureaucrats is in its earliest stages.

Recall that prominent among the virtues of this shining example of progressive governance — indeed, foremost among them — were “universal coverage” (or something close to it) and “cost control.” No more death in the streets for want of medical care. No more profiteering by doctors and hospitals. And no more dastardly efforts by insurers to align expected costs with premiums.

And so it is curious that the august editorial board of the San Francisco Chronicle now calls for state regulation of health-insurance premiums. After all, “there are no guarantees that the [insurance] choices will be fairly priced.” Whoa, there, guys. What happened to that promised decline in costs? Even a profit-maximizing monopolist, after all, will cut prices if costs fall. And aren’t the Beltway regulators up to the task?

What is clear to all except Paul Krugman is that the “cost control” promised by the proponents of health-care central planning is a mirage, based as it is on reductions in compensation to the providers — the advertised 30 percent cut to doctors and hospitals is the most amusing — that will not and cannot be implemented. After all, involuntary servitude seems still to be verboten, and one need look only at the Medicaid program to see the effects of such cuts on the actual availability of medical care. So much, therefore, for the simpleminded claim of “universal coverage”; and so much for the mindless argument that “universal coverage” will reduce the pressures on the emergency rooms. What is fascinating is that even the hard lefties at the Chronicle seems to understand all this, even if they cannot articulate it very well; and it is no surprise that they now argue for an expansion of government coercion as a solution to the massive problems soon to be created by the previous expansion of government coercion. There really is a perpetual-motion machine.

Whitney Gollinger, marketing chief for a Manhattan condo building with an outdoor movie theater and panoramic city views, is highlighting a different amenity to spur sales: the financial backing of the federal government.

The Federal Housing Administration agreed in March to insure mortgages for apartments at the 98-unit Gramercy Park development, known as Tempo. That enables buyers to make a down payment of as little as 3.5 percent in a building where apartments range from $820,000 to $3 million.

“It’s a government seal of approval,” said Gollinger, a director at the Developments Group of New York-based brokerage Prudential Douglas Elliman Real Estate. “We need as many sales tools as we can have these days, and it’s one more tool.”

The FHA, created in 1934 to make homeownership attainable for low- to moderate-income Americans, is now providing a lifeline to new Manhattan luxury condominiums after sales stalled. Buildings featuring pet spas, concierges and rooftop lounges are applying for agency backing to unlock bank financing for purchasers. The FHA guarantees that if a homebuyer defaults on his mortgage, the agency will pay it.

thanks obama- taxpayer funded and backed real estate funding for millionaires. nice going

"Why not invest in health care for all?"-Caspian

Caspian, I am not opposed to any concept either Private or Public, as long as it works and does not punish those that invest the most and play by the rules, while rewarding those looking for a free ride.

It comes down to whether I trust those running the program I am investing in. I don't trust them and apparently you don't either, since these are the same people that run other government programs you oppose. So if I trusted that they were looking after my best interest and that they understood fairness, then yes, I would be swayed in the public direction.

So does that mean I trust Private company's to do whats best for me?

No, private company's only care about making and continuing to make money. They don't care about what is best for me either but because I know they are driven by money, then I also have a way to persuade them to do what is in my best interest. By having free choice I could choose to spend my money somewhere else or negotiate a solution.

Can I do that with government? Can I choose not to pay my taxes or participate in a plan I don't agree with? Can I work out a private plan with my doctor?

You see Caspian, free choice is what gives power to the people but it also removes the safety net. The more government is involved in our lives the less freedom and power we have.

The bottom-line is we have power over the private sector as long as the government does not interfere with our power. Unfortunately, they often do.

MikeG: Now here's your dilemma coming right back at you. Is it government or that private sector that buys and funds government officials into being sellouts of the public good that is at the very root of the problem?
Government officials by themselves do not and cannot BY THEMSELVES influence or control the kingpins of finance and industry. Finance and industry can immediately put such pressure on ANY government and this entire nation to act AND CONFORM exactly as it demands.
Yes, at present we all can still exert some limited power over our aspects personal situations but that number dwindles day by day, We are all subject to the mitigating influences that are pushed down our throats by both of these punitive authoritarian entities.
The thing is not to fully side with either side when it is fully known that both tools are the clever mechanation and manipulation of one "known" international ruling coven.
And that coven working outside national laws seeks to systematically remove all possiblity of self determination from the individual by any and all means conjured by themselves that are alien to the constitution and US laws- for unjust, self serving, criminal greed in both practice and intent, protected by kangaroo courts that are now purposed to the cause of the "suspension of inalienable rights" protection of property, and equality of justice in its decisions- then that opens the door to the question has nationalism, capitalism and the democratic process already succumbed to buyout, merger "centralizations" in the financial sector to the point that it is already denying you choice of whom you choose to conduct business with. As well as the government takenover by authoritarian two party military fascist surveillance tax apparatus that nullifies all voting outcomes.

They play, we pay... til death do us part.
Death is certain. How we live and what we choose to stand for is "still" for the time being- up to us.

Coming Attractions follow the progression
Tick, tick, tick... 9%GDP- 2001.
Tick tick, tick 63%GDP- 2010.
Tick, tick, tick...

...I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE CORPORATION, ...COMMUNIST STATE OF THE ELITISTS...
When that happens do you think there will be a difference between the private sector winner and the government it pays to keep you in line? Tell me, what do you think your "indentured salary and benefits" will be when all is mergered under one house rule?

Just asking good friend, ... just asking.
I am telling you there is no difference. None whatsoever.

John, open, honest debate is good for us. It tests our statements for validity or opens our eyes to truth we did not think of. By disagreeing openly and honestly we are able to grow. By agreeing we learn nothing new.

My statements are based on this simple logic. Does the mobster, gangster or organized crime NEED to pay the police to keep people in line? Why then does Corporations NEED to pressure the government to keep us in line? The police may not be able to eliminate organized crime but they don’t have to be a part of it.

I am not demanding government officials influence or control the kingpins of finance and industry. I am demanding that they don’t except their funding, bribes and kickbacks. No matter how much you want to blame the private sector, if the government is corruptly excepting their money and using their power and influence over us to do the private sectors bidding, then the government is solely responsible for perpetuating the corruption.

So how does finance and industry pressure our government? What if our government simply refused to give in to that pressure? Should the government be paying ransom in order to prevent economic collapse or should the government be playing hardball and not give in to their demands to ensure a better tomorrow?

ONLY DAYS LEFT FOR ISRAEL or THE US TO ACT!
-------------------------------------
Russian S-300s in Abkhazia block possible Israeli air route to Iran:

August 12, 2010

Russian S-300 interceptors now in AbkhaziaUS and Israeli military sources told debkafile Thursday, Aug. 12, that a threat from Georgia was not the reason why Russian posted advanced S-300 interceptor batteries Russia in Abkhazia and air defense weapons in South Ossetia on the northern shore of the Black Sea -as Moscow officially maintained, but rather possible moves by the US and/or Israel against Iran and its nuclear facilities.
Georgia's armed forces do not run to the sophisticated warplanes, missiles or drones that would warrant establishing the high-powered S-300 interceptors for defending the breakaway Abkhazia and South Ossetia.Ordinary air defense batteries would do for deterrence.

Therefore, US military sources believe Moscow placed the sophisticated batteries on the Black Sea shore more as a counterweight for the US Sixth Fleet warships present in the Mediterranean and Black Seas and the two big American bases close to the latter waterway - the Mikhail Kogalniceanu Air Base near Constanta, Romania, and the Bezmer Air Base used by the US Air Force just 50 kilometers from the southern shore of the Black Sea.
Their location gives the US Air Force the freedom to operate over both the Mediterranean and Black Seas.
Our military sources disclose that attention was drawn in Moscow and Tehran to the exercises the Israeli Air Force has been conducting from the two American bases to simulate strikes against Iran's concealed nuclear sites.

They noticed in particular the Israeli Yasur CH-53 helicopter which crashed in the Carpathian Mountains of Romania on July 26, killing six Israeli airman and a Romanian flight captain. It was obvious to Russian and Iranian observers from the way the CH-53 crashed and the veil of secrecy clamped down by Israeli authorities that it had been engaged in practicing touch-and-go attacks on nuclear sites which the Iranians have holed up in tunnels burrowed in the sides of lofty mountain precipices.
DEBKfile's intelligence sources do not doubt that Russian placed the top-of-the line air defense systems in Abkhazia for intercepting flights taking off from the American bases in Bulgaria and Romania and heading east over Georgia and Azerbaijan and on to the Caspian and Black Seas to northern Iran.
Byt deploying the S-300s, Moscow has put paid to any plans Israel may have had for using this northern route for attacking Iran.
The deployment was also a message of reassurance from Moscow to Tehran: Although Russia is withholding the advanced S-300 interceptors from Iran it has its own methods for blocking an American or Israel raid on the Islamic Republic's nuclear facilities.

ONLY DAYS LEFT FOR ISRAEL or THE US TO ACT!
-------------------------------------
Russian S-300s in Abkhazia block possible Israeli air route to Iran:

August 12, 2010

Russian S-300 interceptors now in AbkhaziaUS and Israeli military sources told debkafile Thursday, Aug. 12, that a threat from Georgia was not the reason why Russian posted advanced S-300 interceptor batteries Russia in Abkhazia and air defense weapons in South Ossetia on the northern shore of the Black Sea -as Moscow officially maintained, but rather possible moves by the US and/or Israel against Iran and its nuclear facilities.
Georgia's armed forces do not run to the sophisticated warplanes, missiles or drones that would warrant establishing the high-powered S-300 interceptors for defending the breakaway Abkhazia and South Ossetia.Ordinary air defense batteries would do for deterrence.

Therefore, US military sources believe Moscow placed the sophisticated batteries on the Black Sea shore more as a counterweight for the US Sixth Fleet warships present in the Mediterranean and Black Seas and the two big American bases close to the latter waterway - the Mikhail Kogalniceanu Air Base near Constanta, Romania, and the Bezmer Air Base used by the US Air Force just 50 kilometers from the southern shore of the Black Sea.
Their location gives the US Air Force the freedom to operate over both the Mediterranean and Black Seas.
Our military sources disclose that attention was drawn in Moscow and Tehran to the exercises the Israeli Air Force has been conducting from the two American bases to simulate strikes against Iran's concealed nuclear sites.

They noticed in particular the Israeli Yasur CH-53 helicopter which crashed in the Carpathian Mountains of Romania on July 26, killing six Israeli airman and a Romanian flight captain. It was obvious to Russian and Iranian observers from the way the CH-53 crashed and the veil of secrecy clamped down by Israeli authorities that it had been engaged in practicing touch-and-go attacks on nuclear sites which the Iranians have holed up in tunnels burrowed in the sides of lofty mountain precipices.
DEBKfile's intelligence sources do not doubt that Russian placed the top-of-the line air defense systems in Abkhazia for intercepting flights taking off from the American bases in Bulgaria and Romania and heading east over Georgia and Azerbaijan and on to the Caspian and Black Seas to northern Iran.
Byt deploying the S-300s, Moscow has put paid to any plans Israel may have had for using this northern route for attacking Iran.
The deployment was also a message of reassurance from Moscow to Tehran: Although Russia is withholding the advanced S-300 interceptors from Iran it has its own methods for blocking an American or Israel raid on the Islamic Republic's nuclear facilities.