From Frank Strategies, video from DC:
Can ANYONE recall any other President inspiring a nationwide protest in just his second month of office? Maybe I'm too young or forgetful, but I don't even remember the "evil" W inspiring such passion from his opposition so soon?
Check out Michelle Malkin's blog for more details.
Lest we not forget what our founding fathers accomplished.
Cities throughout the United States hosting their very own tea parties:
Washington, DC
New York City, NY
Philadelphia, PA
Boston, MA
Hartford, CT
Buffalo, NY
Jackson, Mississippi
Atlanta, GA
Fayetteville, NC
Shelby County, AL
Calera, AL
Greenville, SC
Columbia, SC
Tampa, FL
Orlando, FL
Fort Meyers Beach, FL
Sarasota, FL
Nashville, TN
Chicago, IL
Wichita, KS
Kansas City, KS
St. Louis, MO
Springfield, MO
Tulsa, OK
Oklahoma City, OK
Cleveland, OH
Lansing, MI
Houston, TX
Ft. Worth, TX
Dallas, TX
Seattle, WA
Vancouver, WA
Portland, OR
Denver, CO
Phoenix, AZ
Sacramento, CA
San Diego, CA
Los Angeles, CA
IF YOU LIVE IN ANY OF THESE AREAS make sure you make your way out there. Michelle's site list specific details as to where/when/what the event is for each city. My own "area of residence" is not calling for a party until later this spring...
Let's see the press ignore us THIS weekend!!
Jarvis DeBerry: Violence mocks our state of denial Posted by Jarvis DeBerry, Columnist, The Times-Picayune February 27, 2009
"A child, however, who had no important job and could only see things as his eyes showed them to him, went up to the carriage. 'The Emperor is naked,' he said."
-- from "The Emperor's New Clothes" by Hans Christian Andersen
Tuesday afternoon as a truck parade rolled down St. Charles Avenue, New Orleans had a moment of clarity about as startling as the one that prompted the boy in the fairy tale to honestly recount what he saw.
We saw that the barriers we've told ourselves separate the so-called bad neighborhoods from the good ones and keep criminals from interfering with the daily activities of decent folks are not only invisible, but they also happen to be nonexistent.
Police say seven innocent bystanders were shot as the parade moved through the Garden District, including two men around the age of 20 who were shot in the abdomen and hospitalized in serious condition. In addition to those two victims, a 20-month-old boy sustained a graze wound to his back; a 17-year-old girl was shot in the thigh; a 50-year-old woman was shot in the elbow; a 15-year-old boy was grazed in the back, and a 30-year-old man was grazed in the thigh.
Police booked 20-year-old Mark Brooks with seven counts of attempted murder and one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm. They booked 28-year-old Lazone Lewis with seven counts of principal to attempted murder.
Brooks had pleaded guilty in 2008 to possession of crack cocaine and was wearing a court-ordered ankle monitoring device when he was arrested, police said. Lewis pleaded guilty in November to marijuana possession and soon after being sentenced to probation was shot in the abdomen at an intersection in Central City.
Central City borders the Garden District. But we've grown accustomed to shootings occurring in one of those neighborhoods, but not the other. We've had faith in a barrier that would stop the violence from reaching St. Charles Avenue, let alone crossing over to the other side.
Funny how we believed in the invisible for so long, especially in a city where the character of a neighborhood often changes block to block. However, denial is a powerful hallucinogen; in this case, it caused residents to see a security barrier that never existed.
No one group is any more guilty than another for thinking that way. Who among us doesn't make distinctions between neighborhoods they believe to be safe and those they believe to be less so? Denial arises when we tell ourselves that street violence can be contained, when we tell ourselves that we're safe so long as the victims live a couple blocks or a couple neighborhoods away.
As the Rev. John Raphael noted in his eulogy for 2-year-old murder victim Ja'Shaun Powell, the problem is when we decide that other people's victimization makes violence exclusively the problem of other people.
That isn't a call to paranoia so much as it is an acknowledgment that unchecked violence in certain neighborhoods is going to eventually cross the boundaries and reach people who are not expecting it.
And if the police can't figure out a way to sharply reduce the violence in the places where we've come to expect and accept violence, then their security efforts in the quieter places will also be compromised.
The police had the parade route covered Tuesday afternoon, and yet the sound of gunshots still rang out.
That's proof that to some criminals, a strong police presence isn't a deterrent.
So you know an imaginary line between neighborhoods is not."
So, please, lefty leftys, please keep funding these thugs. With my paycheck at that. Because guess what? These guys DO NOT work. They've never been taught to work or value accomplishment...or life, at that. These fellas have been taught to depend on someone else OR to gain your belongings by taking from someone else.
The more money you pump into thug communities like this, the less likely we will ever get out of a recession. These are not the consumers. BUT they are the ones that qualify for welfare.
I must admit. Lately I've become disgusted at my government...and they have yet to do anything to change my mind.
Do you have to follow US tax laws in the Virgin Islands?
I won't review the speech in detail, as that has already been badly overdone. However, I would like to point out a few things that I believe make it full of deceit and intentional obfuscation, all of which must be corrected in the minds of Americans if we are to survive the next four years. Obama, and many of the Democrats interviewed later, in what appeared to be practiced repetitive and misleading tag lines, played the same two lines over and over: "The debt we inherited" and the "failed policies of the past". The first of these is meant to pass the blame for irresponsible spending to the last administration, even though the numbers don't add up, even though we have had a Democratic majority the last two years, and even though those numbers have doubled in the first month of this Presidency. The second is intended to provide a jumping off place for the huge, unprecedented expansion of federal government the Democrats seek, by placing blame for all our ills on the policies of Bush (which, in large part, are indistinguishable from those of the Democrats), and then doing precisely what Bush did, but with a new and insidious goal - to expand government and the welfare state so broadly, and so fast, that we cannot retreat. Once entitlements appear, our history shows that they never go away. Hello, European statism.
Obama talked about three initiatives - everything else, such as defense, foreign relations, and for the most part, taxes and deficit spending, came up only as asides, or in relation to other topics - the economy, healthcare, and education. Here's what I heard:
This administration has inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit, and he will cut that inherited deficit in half by the end of his "first" term. Oh? What does that mean? Bush's deficits (he was a big spender by any fair estimate) ranged from $158 to $455 billion. In 2007, the deficit was $162 billion. In 2008, which we hoped was to be a one-time debacle, that swelled to $455 billion, due in large part to the emerging recession and a lot of stimulus and bailout packages that should have been temporary and not repeatable. A large amount of that deficit is represented by the part of the $787 billion stimulus, passed by THIS Congress, that will be spent this fiscal year. When Obama says he will reduce the deficit in half, what he is actually saying is that he will reduce the $1.3 trillion to about $534 billion by the end of fiscal year 2013. To do that, he will pass the largest budget annual deficits in history, year after year, throughout his "first" term. The lowest one, according to Obama, will be this year, and it is larger than any Bush ran in his entire Presidency, except for this year. The resulting deficit he seems so proud of will be three times as large as Bush's 2007 deficit. This is a permanent and very irresponsible increase in the scale of government borrowing. Worse, it makes assumptions that have not taken into account the new crop of baby-boomers who will be retiring and accessing Social Security and Medicare, and it does not tell us what happens when the paper debt resulting from the government's robbing the Social Security trust fund actually has to be ponied up because real people will be demanding their checks. He did not address or even mention how he intends to shore up Social Security, which in current form is unsustainable. One thing we know, however, is that raising taxes on "the rich" will actually lower government revenues over time, and will likely stall or slow economic recovery, so it is going to be a demanding task indeed. The rhetoric? He says he will take steps to "strengthen capitalism" when he means statist programs that expand government at the expense of capitalism. He says he will "promote financial accountability" when he means more government bailouts, ownership, and even nationalization of banks. He plans to "trim back deficits" when he means he will begin by expanding them to unrecognizable proportions, then "scaling back" and "cutting worthy projects" but passing budgets that are far above anything we have seen under even the most spendthrift of Presidents.
On healthcare, I don't entirely disagree with Obama. This spiraling-upward cost scenario needs to change. But my concern is with how he plans to do that. He gave us no details. Will he address the reasons healthcare costs are spiraling upward? One big one is that government is by far the biggest payor in the system, has expanded programs such as Part D drug coverage, grown the federal healthcare bureaucracy by twofold, and has not modified its plan designs substantially in years. Business, on the other hand, when faced with these cost increases at double digit levels, began to put tighter controls and higher cost-sharing in place, while accenting consumerism and prevention, resulting in actual negative growth in many plans (increases of 2-3% during inflationary cycles in the broader economy of 3-5%). Yet government cost numbers have continued to rise at alarming levels, still in double digits. One wonders, if government is the culprit, how is more government going to fix it? Perhaps his plan is to adopt the practices that businesses have adopted, but how likely is that when the Congress has among the richest healthcare plans extant, and believes that Medicare represents a baseline coverage? What I believe I heard is that, using the threat of unaffordable health care costs that the government has created, he will launch a massive further intrusion into that arena, so that, even if it begins with a public-private partnership, will inevitably become socialized medicine. His language? Again, he speaks of "free medical coverage", "protecting the uninsured" and "full access to medical care" to say that we, the taxpayers, will cover the costs, and government will increasingly involve itself in both pricing and treatment decisions.
Finally, he laid out a vision, but no details, for fixing our educational system. Again, I agree it needs to be fixed. But I do not agree that federal bureaucrats will ever be able to fix it. I believe that history is on my side. Recent legislation has already expanded the access to higher education, even though it is fair to say that a college degree is wasted on many who will access that money. America doesn't need another few million folks in political science, criminal justice, sociology, or the other "soft subjects", but needs substantially more math and hard science majors who will eventually end up as scientists, engineers, IT designers, inventors, and entrepreneurs. If most of our current teachers are in the soft subjects, and have no capacity to teach anything but whiffenpoof, how are these kids going to enter colleges, technical schools and trade schools to learn the required subjects and disciplines to find the work we will need for the next decades? Yes, nice, inspiring words, but what is it masking? Less choice for American parents, more federal programs and bureaucracy, and much more on the taxpayer's tab.
Statists and socialists tell great stories about individual charity and initiative, but then they move charity and initiative to the government, and create corresponding obligations on those who produce in our society, so that whatever good is done, the government may take the credit. They talk a lot about "ideals and principles" for government transparency, individual liberties, freedoms and democracy, but then they resort to partisnaship, opaque backroom deals and bullying, and create government oversight that ends up inhibiting liberty and the free exercise of ideas, in the name of the collective good. That is how they rise to power, that is how we are all taken in, and that is how we end up with an overly powerful, super-sized central government instead of the smaller, smarter republican government envisioned by the Founders. Where is Obama in this? His first TV drama doesn't give me much hope.
"All I know is that Obama is gettin me and my folks some money. Bush aint did nothing for us blaack folks, and now its our turn. I dont need to work, my ancesters worked hard enuf for nuthing. Now its time we get what our grandparents payed for 200 years ago. Live with it and get use to the new USofA!!!!"
And they honestly think giving MORE money to people like this is going to make this country PROGRESS??? I'd be humiliated if I were the President, who ran on Hope and Change and Acceptance, and this is what my voters were saying...
By Robert Romano
Top Capitol Hill sources are reporting to ALG News that the Obama Administration “does not contemplate Congressional involvement…” in implementing its latest $2.75 trillion bank bailout plan. In other words, they're just going to implement it—without any authorization from the people's representatives in the House and Senate.
If true, then the bank bailout will represent the single greatest expenditure in U.S. history without the explicit approval of Congress.
It would also represent a very significant shift in doctrine, because it appears to contradict what Sen. Dodd said when the Financial Stability Plan was unveiled by he and Treasury Secretary Geithner just one week ago: "The framework will require swift and concerted action by policy- makers throughout our government using existing authorities. The elements it may require will require new legislation and, certainly, I look forward along with my colleagues, to work with the secretary and his staff in that effort to flush out the details in the coming days and week [emphasis added]."
So, which is it? A failure to have an up-or-down vote on investing almost $3 trillion into the financial system, and potentially nationalizing the banking system, would be an affront to the very system of government that America was founded upon. It would mean that the executive branch, in practice, can simply appropriate money—in this case, a sum representing nearly 26 percent of the current national debt—out of thin air to do with whatever it wishes.
According to FinancialStability.gov, the plan would include $1 trillion for a “public-private investment fund” to price “troubled” assets; $1.1 trillion—$100 billion allocated and $1 trillion lent-printed from the Fed—for consumer and business lending; $600 billion for purchasing bad paper from Fannie and Freddie; and another $50 billion to give homes away to those facing foreclosure.
If these provisions are simply undertaken without new Congressional authorization, then it is clear that a lack of clarity—on display by Mr. Geithner's disjointed press conference—is actually what the Administration wants, so that no opposition can or will be mounted. Top sources also suggest that there are no plans for legislators to even stand in the way of this outright end run around the American people.
If true, this troubling news in turn purports that leaders on Capitol Hill have all but lost the political will to mount any resistance what amounts to the enslavement of their own people to an ever-growing mountain of debt. Which is exactly what this plan will do to the American taxpayer. Forevermore.
But, believe it or not, it gets worse. The Federal Reserve is also currently considering purchasing long-term U.S. Treasuries, a move which would basically mean that the U.S. central bank was simply going to print money to finance the government's spending spree. By definition, that would be quantitative easing. Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI) states that, as a result, “our money supply, which has already increased substantially over the past year, will grow even faster.”
This, too, would occur without any approval from the people's representatives in Congress. Nor would the ensuing inflation—which devalues all Americans' purchasing power to by essential staples such as food, clothes, and fuel—be subject to any vote.
And there is no question this will result in inflation. As Luo Ping, a director-general at the China Banking Regulatory Commission stated, “[W]e know the dollar is going to depreciate…” China is the largest holder of U.S. Treasuries and, thus, the national debt. And even they know that their investment is becoming increasingly worthless by the day, although they see no viable alternative.
In related news, last week, the governor of the Bank of Italy, Mario Draghi, speaking on behalf of the G7, all but endorsed firing up the printing presses: “We have seen in the United States that quantitative easing does work, and when I say quantitative easing I mean direct intervention in specific segments of the financial service industry…” through bank recapitalization. So, to deepen the crisis even more, central banks all over the world plan on printing up yet more money to cover their own bad debts.
In sum, to make up for the deleveraging of debts around the world, governments across the globe are flooding the world economy with as much cash as they can print, borrow, and spend. This will not work. Just ask the happy printers of the Weimar Republic, or those today at the central bank in Zimbabwe.
Instead, the American people would do well to demand that the first step to getting out of this hole be to simply stop digging. They must demand that their leaders be honest about the state of the monetary and financial crisis facing not just the U.S., but the entire world. They must demand that Congress be allowed to have its say—in the negative—on the $2.75 trillion bank bailout plan. And they must demand a return to sound monetary and fiscal policies—price stability and debt reduction—that are the only avenue for setting a sustainable foundation for prosperity.
This could be their last chance. The only alternative is government by executive edict which would spell an end to democratic rule.
ALG CTA: The latest $2.75 trillion bank bailout could be the final nail in the coffin of the American economy. Contact your Congressmen and Senators and tell them that enough is enough with the bailouts and that not another cent should go to Wall Street or Washington! The Capitol Switchboard number is (202) 224-3121.
Robert Romano is the Editor of ALG News Bureau. http://alg31blog.timberlakepublishing.com/default.asp?Display=968 ________________________________________
Not sure why the drive-by media doesn't want to report the above headline...could it be that not even BUSH caused states to declare their 9th and 10th Amendment rights?
Even the President's childhood state is in on it. "Hawaii's measure calls for a new state constitutional convention to return self-governance, a complaint that traces back to the days it was a U.S. territory, prior to achieving statehood in 1959."
This is going to get interesting.
What do the three all have in common? Well, they're some of the most liberal cities in the United States...is that it? Nope. Those are the names of cities where anti-stimulus rallies are appearing. Rallies organized by Republicans, Conservatives and Libertarians that are opposed to the "Stimulus" Bill that the POTUS plans on signing tomorrow. Michelle Malkin has kept good on her promise, by delivering pulled pork to the Seattle rally today and she has a roasted pig headed to Denver tomorrow, to greet our good ol' President.
I don't know that these rallies fall in the same categories as say, the Boston Tea Party (as Michelle brought up), but I do think that Conservatives, Libertarians and Republicans coming out to publicly protest will set some of the Democratic leaders into a panic. For one, those three groups very rarely publicly gather. Second, they are gathering in BLUE STATE cities. It's kind of like New Hampshire legislature presenting HR0006 before a state such as Georgia or Texas.
I have mentioned in previous posts that it is time to hit the roots and get people that typically would sit back and ignore the problem (or at least just complain to friends and family) to voice their outrage. There are 58 million of us that DID NOT vote for Barack Obama and this current administration. We are not a small number.
It is time to be heard.
**Pictures from Michelle Malkin's blog, which she got from Zac Peterson.**
In other news...1,500 bags of pork rinds will be shipped to Democrat Sen. Chuck Schumer's office thanks to some very thoughtful Kentucky listeners of WLAP News Radio.
Does that response answer that question? Is it too much debt to take on? Now, I am an old trial lawyer. In the courtrooms of America, you can't legitimately respond to a valid argument by attacking the other side's failings on the same point. In other words, to put it in terms understood by all of us, if my daughters overused their credit cards (and they have not), would it be responsible for me, as a father, to accept their retort that I had overused mine? Would it change their behavior? Would it move them in the right direction? Or would it be better for them to learn from my mistakes, adjust their behavior, and avoid having to live through the unfavorable consequences of bad debt management?
When asked about the bill's failings on its intended purpose, economic stimulus, he said, "First of all, when I hear that from folks who presided over a doubling of the national debt ... I just want them to not engage in some revisionist history." Again, this is artful (split infinitive aside) deflection, but it is not a valid or utilitarian response. Again, did he answer the question? There was no "second of all ..." Do Americans really care any more if the last guy got it wrong? Or are they more interested in the new guy getting it right?
Only in politics, the world of the unreal and of pointless rhetoric, does that work. If I had responded in trial to an appropriate argument by the other lawyer by merely pointing out that he had once done the same thing, any judge worth his salt would have shut me down immediately, to the harm of my clients. It is sad that many Americans don't know that a legal education is not enough to make one an effective lawyer, and that experience in such things DOES matter. We have elected a guy who is a pure politician, who responds based on the politics of the moment, who points a finger rather than accepting responsibility. That is bad enough, but he also has an agenda that includes massive government growth, redistribution of wealth, and payoffs to supporters on the left.
We will soon learn we can't afford this guy and his "People's Troika" (Obama, Summers, Geithner). They believe in central planning, but where is the plan? I listened carefully for any indication that he gave Congress any real guidance, and all I heard was that his metric for success would be "the saving or creation of 4 million jobs." Of course, that metric can't effectively be measured, so we will never know if this will be successful, nor will anyone be able to prove it was not. How does one measure "jobs saved"? I do intend, however, to hold him to a measure on job creation - I will watch the next six months to see if jobs are "created" and unemployment declines. If those things don't happen, of course, we will still have to pay the bill, for the rest of our lives and those of our children and grandchildren. Nancy Pelosi said yesterday that Congress will be held accountable. I can only hope she is right. And we had better hope some jobs are created, because we are going to need them to pay for this mess!
...The decision to put off the House vote was made Thursday morning following a closed-door Democratic meeting, the second one in less than 24 hours to discuss the legislation...
...Another member of the Progressive Caucus, who requested anonymity, said the Thursday morning meeting was a "venting session," adding with a wry smile, "In my career, I've never seen so much money and so many angry people..."
After reading Jeff's piece, this thought came to me: We need to take this to the grassroots. Have people like YOU and ME (that are working to live, not living to work and are FAR from RICH) be the face of Conservatism. Show our fellow Americans that Conservatives are every day people with a great respect and appreciation of what we earn, who we are and who we want to be. We need to show those that are teetering that the values Conservatives stand by are what this country was made of. Not the values of the likes of Pelosi, Reid, Obama....
Furthermore, we need to find experts that can break down this bill line by line, word by word, and in layman's terms, so that our fellow Americans can UNDERSTAND the rights and liberties this "stimulus bill" will take away from us. We then need to send the breakdown in every form possible: snail mail, email, newspaper editorials. Hit it hard. Go door to door if we have to. Go to the roots.
This country is full of people that believe they are entitled to all that they have and are very used to living beyond their means. I don't know that once they figure out their basic rights are being stripped of them with the passage of ONE bill that they will take too kindly to it. It'll be interesting to see how the "common folk" react when the Federal government (otherwise known as the Prominent People) tells them *how to work, *how to raise their children, *whether or not their illness is cost effective and if their life is worth saving...
200+ years ago, this idea started with a group of people that all shared one common goal. Freedom and Justice for all. NOT freedom and justice for the Prominent People. It is time again, for the "common folk" to stand together and rally.
I think people are finally starting to see...this is beyond hope and change. This is now about the country that we love so dearly and all that it represents. This is about our freedoms, our rights, and even, our luxuries.
It is time now for the Rebirth of the Conservative Party.
New Hampshire Files First Shot of Civil War?
Well, not trusting the words I was reading, I ventured out to google and searched for "new hampshire legislature, 2009."
First hit back was legistlative piece HR0006: A RESOLUTION affirming States’ rights based on Jeffersonian principles.
Let's also give the guy a pass when he says he won't listen to admittedly genuine and legitimate concerns that we should not pass the stimulus bill, because he came preconditioned to take big government actions to "save" us from ourselves, and because he believes there is a consensus among economists to take aggressive actions.
Still, there remains a lot about this bill he is not telling us, or is minimizing. He mentioned, for example, that we are still using triplicate paper forms when all he wants to do is modernize the healthcare system, utilize electronic capability, and make it work better, smarter and cheaper. Really?
This problem has been debated and worked on by task forces (I was on one for several years with the Southern Governor's Association), and there are immense problems with privacy protection and sharing of information across state lines, because the states have different laws and requirements. But I am not worried about those mundane issues, nor is he.
What is in this stimulus package should scare all of us to death. However he downplays it, this is an outright but well-concealed ploy to force government control and rationing of healthcare, and he intends to do it without fair debate.
If you like everything in the stimulus bill, you should still urge your senators and representatives to reject it, because of this callous, underhanded, devious and duplicitous attempt to force government healthcare on all of us in the midst of an economic crisis, and with no sunshine or debate.
I received this today from Dave Patton, quoting a expert in the field:
"In a Bloomberg News commentary, Betsy McCaughey writes:
“Tragically, no one from either party is objecting to the health provisions slipped in without discussion…Senators should read these provisions and vote against them…The bill’s health rules will affect ‘every individual in the United States.’”
McCaughey reports that the bill calls for all medical treatments to be tracked electronically by a new federal bureaucracy known as the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, which will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is administering what the federal government considers appropriate and cost effective health care. All this is the brain child of former Senator and disgraced tax cheat Tom Daschle, who recently had to withdraw his name from nomination for Secretary of Health and Human Services.
The goal, writes McCaughey, is “to reduce costs and guide your doctor’s decisions. These provisions in the stimulus bill are virtually identical to what Daschle prescribed in his 2008 book, ‘Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis.’ According to Daschle, doctors have to learn to give up autonomy and ‘learn to operate less like solo practitioners.’”
Hospitals and doctors that are not “meaningful users” of the new system will face penalties. “Meaningful user is not defined in the bill. That will be left to the HHS secretary, who will be empowered to impose “more stringent measures of meaningful use over time.” Daschle says health care reform “will not be pain free.” Seniors, he says, should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them. And you thought the government wouldn’t ration your health care."
Thanks, Dave, for pointing out what has been largely hidden from the public.
"Suleman was implanted with embryos at a Beverly Hills fertility clinic run by a well-known — and controversial — specialist who pioneered a method of implantation."
I don't know about you but anything with Beverly Hills in it makes me think you are FAR away from qualifying for welfare. And if you can't afford the first six, well don't go impregnate yourself with EIGHT more.
And we wonder why this nation is in the state that it is? The government allows people like this to take advantage of the system. Gotta love it.
Click here to read the article.
I'm starting to feel like I'm reading history books. Obama's latest move is to take the U.S. Census to the White House.
Moving the Census to the White House "It takes something that is supposedly apolitical like the census, and gives it to a guy who is infamously political," Bishop said of Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, who would be tasked with overseeing the census at the White House.
The U.S. census -- a counting of the U.S. population -- is conducted every 10 years by the Commerce Department. Its results determine the decennial redrawing of congressional districts
As a matter of impact, the census has tremendous political significance. Political parties are always eager to have a hand in redrawing districts so that they can maximize their own party's clout while minimizing the opposition, often through gerrymandering
Click here to view the entire article.
Why do so many people NOT have a problem with this?!? Why do people honestly feel it is ok to give all the power to one party? When that happens, we as a people lose our voice. Our voice is then "decided" for us--often times without factoring in what is important to us. Often times, the only consideration is what pet group did what for what politician...
February 9, 2009 Rasmussen Report reports that 62% want Stimulus Plan to have more tax cuts and LESS spending.
On the WashingtonWatch.com, 86% are reporting that they are against this bill while a mere 14% are reporting that they support the bill.
Here's some tidbits about what this bill that "will save us all and the economy" is projected to cost each American family (information gathered from WashingtonWatch.com):
Featured Item
This week, the Senate is scheduled to continue considering the economic stimulus bill, H.R. 1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. A compromise reached in the Senate will reportedly see a vote on Monday afternoon, after which time the House and Senate will have to hammer out differences between their two versions. The size of the compromise bill, and the mix of spending and tax cuts in it, is not known. An amendment in the Senate last week would have cost about $3,400 per U.S. family.
H.R. 1The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Costs $3,381.85 per family.
Displayed below are new, updated, and passed items with their cost or savings per family.
New Items
S. 22The Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009, Costs $55.30 per family.
Updated Items
H.R. 1The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Costs $3,381.85 per family.
Passed Items
P.L. 111-3The Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009, Costs $1,165.58 per family.
There are over 300 pages in this bill and line for line, a bunch of items have been snuck in that benefit a politician or two’s special interest groups.
Also, President Obama has stated (more than once) that this bill would not immediately stimulate the economy. If that is the case, why is it such an emergency to get it passed? Why not sit down--and DO YOUR JOB, acting as the leaders of this nation, and figure out what will REALLY stimulate this economy rather than fast tracking spending. Forget your pet projects and special interest groups and figure out SOMETHING (and include regulations in there, too).
I’ve also heard many a “Obama Supporter” state that “we don’t need the Republicans, they’ll be extinct.” My answer to that is: the day that we as Americans accept that ONE party is correct is the day that we lose our title "most powerful nation in the FREE world." Because we will no longer be free. That is why there has always and should always be multiple parties in this nation. So that one group can't decide what is best for ALL OF US with absolutely no opposition.
That's called dictatorship (communism, socialism, fill in the blank). So, the kool aid drinkers need to drop the "we don't need Republicans"...we will always need someone to oppose the radical democrats, just as we will always need someone to oppose the radical republicans. Checks and balances.
If everyone just sits back and says "well I vote that way because it's 'closest' to how I believe" we'll always be stuck with the crooks that are currently running this country.
It's time now--to take a stand and get honest, hard working "Joes" in Senate seats and in the House. It's time NOW to start getting the likes of Pelosi and Reid out. It won’t happen overnight, and will have to start at a local level, but if we all join together, we can reform this nation the way it needs to be done.
And back to the original topic: Seriously, how are some of people honestly NOT bothered by this stimulus plan. It is anything BUT a stimulus. If you have children, look at them. THEY (and their children) will be the ones paying for our mistakes if this bill goes through. Can you honestly look at them and put that burden on them?
Why are you not angry that he has failed to keep more campaign promises in two weeks than most Presidents fail to do in a four year term?
Why are you not angry that he has hired CRIMINALS (or at least nominated them)?
Why are you not angry that he has now verbally separated the United States into two categories: the Prominent and the Ordinary. The Prominent being POLITICIANS. What gave them the right to be Prominent?
Have you even taken the time to skim over the "Stimulus" package he is trying to "rush" through Congress?
When he himself has told us this plan will not stimulate the economy immediately...why "rush" it through as an emergency. Why not spend some time creating a bill that can actually STIMULATE the economy in less than a year's time?
Why are you not appalled at the pork in the bill?
How does rebuilding the projects stimulate the economy? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but do the people that live in the projects already NOT contribute to the economy? The government is already paying for them.
Why do those "Progress" signs not freak you out?
Civil Disobedience. The blog "Where's The Change" suggests stamping "Tax Cheat" on American Dollars that bear Tim Geithner's name. Hmmm. Now, while I don't think it's so much Civil Disobedience as just a nuisance to a certain "Secretary of Treasury," I do think it is a FABULOUS idea.
It probably wouldn't cause much of an uproar, but could you imagine, if every dollar was marked "Tax Cheat." That would at least let our Government know that we are on to them...
Obama was right in one thing. It IS time for a change. He's just not showing us any.
...born February 5, 1981 at 7:33 am:
Section 1: How You Approach Life and How You Appear to Others
Forward-looking and progressive, you are a person who supports change, innovation, and human advancement
Section 2: The inner You: Your Real Motivation
You are a freedom-loving, strong-willed, and independent-minded individual, and you insist upon living your own life as you see fit, even if that means ignoring convention and tradition
If you don't have to deal with budgets and corporate accounting, God Bless you, but we might want to think about making the government do it.
Here are some scary tidbits:
Under this method of accounting, future outlays for entitlements (all the "vested" government benefits those of you under 30 may never receive) must be acknowledged as expenditures before they are actually paid. If we account for Social Security in that manner, and reflect the amounts already obligated, the deficit for the fiscal year that ended September 30 (per Mr. Will) would have been $3Trillion rather than a mere $454.8 Billion.
Under this accounting, our current national debt is an astounding $56 Trillion, not the mere $10 Trillion that is bandied about by your politicians (not mine - none of mine ever get elected, being, as they are, mostly responsible Americans and leaning libertarian). Don't you just love GAAP accounting?
Now add to that this little fact (again, Mr. Will's comment and data, but he is a trustworthy source) that in a quarter century - when the under 30's are approaching retirement age - the population 65 and older will increase from 12 to 20 percent, but the funding source (those who work and pay taxes) will shrink from 60 to 55%. Assuming only historical growth in Medicare, entitlements will account for 65% of all federal expenditures.
Now tell me, would any reasonable person, facing that kind of data and understanding the debt impact of entitlements, ever vote for a bailout or a stimulus bill of the proportions these morons are promoting? Not and keep her job in corporate America!
Recently, the Senate began debate on an economic stimulus package that is intended to get our economy back on track and help Americans who are suffering through these difficult times. Unfortunately, the proposal on the table is big on the giveaways for the special interests and corporate high rollers, yet short on help for ordinary working Americans. I cannot and do not support the package on the table from the Democrats and the Obama Administration. Our country does not need just another spending bill, particularly not one that will load future generations with the burden of massive debt. We need a short term stimulus bill that will directly help people, create jobs, and provide a jolt to our economy.
I believe we need to evaluate every bit of spending in this stimulus proposal with one important criteria - does it really stimulate the economy and help create jobs - if the answer is no, it does not belong in a so-called stimulus package. Furthermore, the stimulus must include significant direct relief to American workers in the form of payroll tax cuts and programs to help homeowners keep their homes. Finally, we need an end game to this stimulus so that when our economy recovers, these spending programs do not remain permanent and saddle our children with a skyrocketing national debt.
http://www.CountryFirstPAC.com/facebook/economic.htm
I appreciate the discussions President Obama is having with my Republican colleagues, but the time for talking has come to an end and we must now begin some serious negotiation. But as of yet, Republicans have not been given the opportunity to be involved. The House of Representatives passed a stimulus bill without a single Republican supporting it. In the Senate, the Democrat leadership is trying to jam the existing proposal through regardless of reservations from a number of members. With so much at stake, the last thing we need is partisanship driving our attempts to turn the economy around.
I have long been a fighter against wasteful spending in Washington and long an advocate for a balanced budget -- that will never change. I realize we face extraordinary challenges with our economy today, but that is not an excuse for more irresponsibly from Washington. I hope you will join me in saying no to this stimulus package as it currently exists by signing this petition.
Sincerely,
John McCain
Chair, Country First PAC
New Column: Senate Must Reject Faux Stimulus Printer Friendly Americans should contact their congressmen before it's too late about their instinctive concerns over efforts to convert the world's greatest engine of free market prosperity into a socialistic leviathan under the euphemistic cover of possibly successive rescue "stimulus" bills. The stated rationale for the original Troubled Asset Relief Program "bailout" wasn't to stimulate the economy to get it moving again, but to toss it a liquidity life raft to loosen credit markets and keep it from drowning. That is, the idea was to prevent a catastrophe, not to empower little Napoleons in government to play God with the economy.
Former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson's scare tactics -- heartfelt or not -- panicked the country into action, and TARP became a reality. Yet not much seemed to change. Politicians will always be able to say that if we hadn't implemented TARP, America's economy would have tanked beyond our wildest nightmares. And being without the supernatural power to prove a negative, we'll never be able to disprove their claims.Of all the concerns we had concerning TARP, our greatest should have been that once we opened the door to this magnitude of governmental intervention -- especially under a Republican administration -- we'd have even greater difficulty in resisting efforts by politicians to reopen it in the future anytime they pronounced there was a crisis.Sure enough, Mr. Obama and his confidants view this "crisis" with eager anticipation as an opportunity to actualize their dreams for government to assume its rightful place as Master of the Universe and choreograph the economy on a super-macro level.
Even the bipartisan Congressional Budget Office has revealed Obama's bill is largely not stimulative. It's more accurate to describe it as a grandiose slush fund for his preferred projects, support groups and constituencies on the spending side and a massive redistribution of income on the tax side. When the bill is stripped of its rhetorical disguise, we see it's a license for government to shackle the invisible hand of the free market and appoint itself manager of the gross domestic product according to the superior wisdom of central planners.
Why do you think the Obamites are constantly blaming market excesses, greed and Wall Street for our financial problems, when most of the blame lies with politicians themselves? Why do you think they trash talk the economy every day, when they know that such pessimism from "on high" will cause real economic damage, considering that much of the spending downturn is related to a crisis in consumer confidence?
The answer is that they need us in panic mode -- the only mindset likely to divorce us from our ordinary walking-around sense and make us receptive to the big-government remedies they're salivating to employ.Note that President Obama doesn't even pay lip service to making his interventionist plans short-lived. And by their terms, it's impossible they could be. This is an effort to restructure our economy radically toward the type of command and control model that has accompanied tyrannical regimes throughout history. Nor does Mr. Obama express the slightest concern that his plan would further expand the national debt.
Indeed, Democrats have suddenly developed permanent amnesia about their professed budget concerns, whose primary usefulness (as weapons against President George W. Bush) expired along with the Bush term.To accept that deficits and debt were high on their priority list would require us to believe they'd fundamentally changed their age-old tax-and-spend philosophy and to ignore their persistent obstruction of entitlement reform.
The Clinton budgets are no rebuttal. Clinton had to be dragged kicking and screaming to fiscal restraint by the Gingrich Congress.Everyone knows government doesn't have the money -- even through tax receipts -- to fund this bill. Other than defense spending, which Obama unwisely plans to cut drastically in this time of war, Obama has no intention of substantially cutting other expenditures. Even if the bill as presently configured succeeds in jump-starting the economy, there will eventually be a day of reckoning over our increasingly unmanageable national debt.
If only government-planning liberals would be honest and admit they believe their ideas on how to spend the people's money are morally superior to those of the American people as expressed through the free market. Then, instead of dealing with the smoke and mirrors of the bill's proponents, we could point to world history to demonstrate conclusively that despite the sometimes-best intentions of social planners, command and control economies have only spread misery and never worked to produce the kind of prosperity that is only possible in a free market.
Unless this bill is dramatically overhauled, the Senate, instead of trying to massage it toward passage in allegiance to the seductive but dangerous goals of bipartisanship or just getting something done, should reject it outright.
Posted by David Limbaugh at February 2, 2009 07:18 PM
All pages copyright David Limbaugh 1994-2006
I have never posted a comment on their blog (well, until today), but enjoy their bantering back and forth and reading up on the evils of conservatism--(the target of the moment is Ann Coulter as Helen is currently reading Ann's book, "Guilty.") They really are HILARIOUS.
While reading Helen's current review of Ann's book I came across this statement, "It appears that Obama doesn’t walk on water. He actually admitted that he made a mistake in handling the nomination of Tom Daschle as his health and human services secretary. Can you believe that? A President who admits he made a mistake when he makes it rather than years later when he is leaving office and trying to fabricate a legacy. It gives me hope that whoever classified Ann’s books as nonfiction will one day also admit their mistake."
I'm going to go ahead and break this down a little bit.
It appears that Obama doesn’t walk on water: wow. That was a shock.
He actually admitted that he made a mistake in handling the nomination of Tom Daschle as his health and human services secretary.: Ok, let's set the record straight. Obama said he "screwed up" on Tuesday night AFTER Daschle withdrew his nomination. He didn't say it Monday or Sunday or Saturday or in December or January...he said it AFTER it was brought to America's attention that Daschle believed he didn't best fit the job at hand because of his prior mistakes.
A President who admits he made a mistake when he makes it rather than years later when he is leaving office and trying to fabricate a legacy. Obama has yet to take credit for any of the crap we've seen come through these past TWO weeks (because it has only taken two weeks to see what criminals "We The People" have elected into office). He won't even take full credit for the Stimulus Bill (you know, because those pesky House Repubs don't like it). To date, 11 lobbyists (that lobbied in the past year for companies that hold special interests in the same governmental department they will now be working)...check out Zelda's comment on Blonde Sagacity for reference. Three people (possibly more, but I don't feel like doing research at the moment) that have been nominated (by Mr. President himself) for positions in either the White House staff or Cabinet have failed to pay taxes at some point in their lives. One of the three is now the Big Guy at the IRS. Explain that one, Mr. President.
Oh sweet, deluded women. When will you see this man for what he is? A Chicago politician (or better known as Chicago Criminal), that has no problem looking the other way...or hiring criminals because "he owes them." I like how Moogie P summed it up in her recent post.
And with that, I'll finish this post with an Obama quote:
Tuesday, 2/3/09: "Ultimately, I campaigned on changing Washington and bottom-up politics," Obama said. "And I don't want to send a message to the American people that there are two sets of standards -- one for powerful people and one for ordinary folks who are working every day and paying their taxes."
But Mr. President, you already sent us the message of double standards. Or need I remind you that the guy you made BOSS of the IRS had back taxes, too??? Or of the lobbyists you said you would not hire. Or of the other people you have appointed (Killefer withdrew as well) that seem to have a problem with paying taxes...
Spare me the bull shit, Mr. President.
So...the Secretary of Health candidate is quoted, "But if 30 years of exposure to the challenges inherent in our system has taught me anything, it has taught me that this work will require a leader who can operate with the full faith of Congress and the American people, and without distraction," Daschle added. "Right now, I am not that leader." (click title of post to view article from Washington Post)
...yet the Department of Treasury does NOT have the same respect for our Country?
Mr. Daschle, thank you for doing what is right. Mr. Geithner, please follow the example.
Mr. President, I know you hail from Chicago politics, but could you please stop choosing criminals to join your staff?
Thanks. SG
February 3, 2009
Dear Mr. Secretary:
I first want to offer my congratulations to you on your lofty position in our Government. I am sure it is quite a priviledge to be named The Secretary of Treasury.
On Wednesday, January 21, 2009, it was brought to America's attention that you failed to pay $34,000 in taxes. You told a panel of Senators that "These were careless mistakes. They were avoidable mistakes, but they were unintentional," Geithner told the committee. "I should have been more careful."
I have a severe problem believing that you made a careless mistake in reporting your taxes. When it is your job to know money and taxes, you should NOT make these mistakes. I suppose we can group you with the Weathermen of the Country...be wrong 90% of the time and still keep your job. If you don't feel that is a fair "grouping," I'd be happy to suggest that otherwise, we can simply group you with the Criminals.
In addition to you making a "mistake" in your taxes, you have allowed your boss to continue nominating and appointing people to key Governmental roles that have also "made mistakes" (some over $100K worth of mistakes) in their taxes.
I am not sure what kind of example you and your colleagues are trying to set for American citizens, but I am highly disappointed in the road you are taking. How come you made a mistake and get appointed to the highest office in the "tax world," yet if Joe Blow on Main Street made the mistake, he'd be sent to prison? I don't feel like the double standards that this current administration are acting on are setting a good example for Jane and Joe Blow.
With that said, I have contemplated to no longer withhold my taxes. Instead, I would open a savings account and place the money that would have been withheld in there. At year's end I would "accidentally" forget to send in the money I owe the Government.
When you and the IRS decide to confront me about this "accident" I will simply state, "these were careless mistakes. They were avoidable mistakes, but they were unintentional, I should have been more careful." After that, I would happily pay you my back taxes. Would that be ok with you? I mean, it was just a "simple mistake" afterall.
As I make a pretty measley salary, you and the IRS would probably not notice that I was not paying in my contribution to the Government. If this were the case, I would keep that money in my savings account UNTIL I felt that the Government is responsibly handling my money and not handing it out to every poor soul that "needs a hand out." (what's that called again, Wealth Redistribution?) When I felt that the taxpayers' money was being handled fairly and responsibly, then and only then, would I happily cut a check back to the Government.
Please note that I have used the word "contemplated." I am a law-abiding citizen that could never bring myself to commit such an act. I am highly disappointed, however, that the people that have been selected to make decisions in my Government do not share the same attitude. Unfortunately, for us all, there are plenty of people in this country that will think it is ok to do the same as you have. You have set the standard for us all.
I wish you the best of luck in your current role and can only pray that you will take the high road from now on. I unfortunately will not have another say in the matter until the second Tuesday of November, 2012, but hopefully by then the world will see you and your colleagues for what you truly are: Criminals.
Respectfully,
SouthernGirl
A Taxpaying Citizen of the United States of America
This morning, I open my Outlook to find an email in my inbox titled, "Obama too liberal for France?!?" (click the post title to see the article)
Ok--is that a joke? Have we seriously just elected a President that is too liberal even for the liberal Parisians?
"It would be irresponsible to chose another policy, which would increase our country's indebtedness without having more infrastructure and increased competitiveness in the end," [Prime Minister Francois] Fillon said in a speech in Lyon.
It would be IRRESPONSIBLE to spend more money when we're already in so much debt. What a crazy idea.
Maybe we SHOULD follow the example of other countries (before we make our own mistakes). After years of socialism and liberalism, I think some countries are finally starting to see that the choices they've made could possibly be more trouble than they are worth.
THE COWORKER: "It's getting hard for me to hate France with Nicolas Sarkozy as their President."
Amen Coworker, Amen.
By Doug Patton
February 2, 2009
Dear Mr. President:
Recently, you stated that: “There will be a time for profits…Now is not that time.” Not since you made Joe the most famous plumber in America by telling him (and all of us) that you wanted to “spread the wealth around” have you been so transparent about your attitude toward the private sector.
You complain about “excessive” CEO salaries and bonuses. And I must admit that it strains credulity to imagine the chutzpah it takes for some of these companies to engage in such indulgences with both hands outstretched to the federal government for bailout dollars in numbers most of us can’t even comprehend. It is unseemly at best to watch these jackals presiding over companies that are hemorrhaging buckets of red ink while they fly off into the sunset in their corporate jets with their golden parachutes — paid for by American taxpayers.
Unfortunately, the same rules don’t seem to apply to you and your cohorts in government. You have an equally arrogant, cavalier attitude toward the hard-working Americans who pay for your salary and your extravagant lifestyle. And you don’t seem to play by the rules you create for the rest of us. Your new treasury secretary cheated on his taxes and yet was confirmed to oversee the Internal Revenue Service. Your nominee to run the health and human services department is the poster boy for limousine liberals who don’t even pay for their limousines — or at least not the taxes they owe on them. And your attorney general believes in pardons for terrorists and tax cheats.
Meanwhile, you and your Democrat Congress act as though the revenue you are using for your pork-laden bailouts and so-called stimulus packages just grew on the money tree in the back yard at the White House and is yours to do with as you see fit. Well, let me remind you of something, Mr. President: that money you are doling out is money my great-grandchildren haven’t even earned yet. It is tax revenue your successor five presidents down the line will have to steal from them in order to pay for this madness.
The saddest thing about this whole scenario, Mr. President, is that you are killing the one entity in our society that is actually creating jobs. Any high school Economics 101 teacher can tell you that in good economic times, 75 percent of new jobs in this country are created by small, independently-owned businesses. In times like these, when corporate America is slashing workforces like mad, that number is 100 percent!
And yet who gets the bailouts? Joe the Plumber or Sam’s Handyman Service, who eek out a living trying to find enough work to keep themselves and one or two employees afloat? No, it’s Citibank and the bloated auto industry. We’re told that they are “too big to fail.”
Well, let me tell you something, Mr. President. Granted, it would be a pretty big ripple through the economy if General Motors went under. But if you put every small entrepreneur in this country out of business, our economy, as we know it, will be gone.
Mr. President, small business owners are being crushed by a largely hysteria-created recession. Their credit has been cut off because of the irresponsible behavior of Members of Congress and the greed of some on Wall Street. These entrepreneurs aren’t asking for a bailout. They just want you and your bloated, obstructionist government to get out of their way!
Not the time for profits, indeed! With all due respect, this is precisely the time when businesses need profits.
But then, the ignorant souls who voted for you — many of whom don’t even pay taxes — have so wrapped yourselves in victim status and class envy that they are cheering you on as their new Fairness Czar; so I guess I don’t expect you to listen to me. I won’t have a real say in the matter again until the first Tuesday after the first Monday of November 2012. See you then.
Respectfully,
Doug Patton
An American taxpayer ____________________________________________________________________________
© Copyright 2009 by Doug Patton ____________________________________________________________________________
Doug Patton is a freelance columnist who has served as a political speechwriter and policy advisor to conservative candidates, elected officials and public policy organizations. His weekly columns are published in newspapers across the country and on selected Internet web sites, including Human Events Online and GOPUSA.com, where he is a senior writer and state editor. Readers may e-mail him at dougpatton@cox.net.
Obama 'Absolutely' Stands By Daschle at HHS
Daschle is not the first Cabinet choice that has had issues with his taxes.
Geithner failed to pay taxes as well.
I don't know...if I were the "average tax paying American," that didn't typically follow politics, I'd certainly take these two appointments as..."it's ok to not pay your taxes."
Team it up with alotting over $100 billion to the low-level income level, so that they become even more dependent on the government and what do you get?
A society that will depend and depend on the Big Ol' Government...that WILL eventually run out of money...and then be in an even worse crisis than we are now.
WHY is it ok to have two tax evading criminals in the POTUS's Cabinet?!? Is anyone else as enraged as I am? The double standards of this nation today are sickening.
**UPDATED February 3, 2009**Add Nancy Killefer to the list.
Though I was pulling for the Cardinals to win--the Steelers gave the Superbowl audience a great show!
It makes me so hopeful, watching an underdog like Arizonia almost win--that ONE day my Saints will make it to the Big Show.
So, I'm going to direct you to Wyatt Earp's blog...as a post has already been made about this...check out Support Your Local Gunfighter and be ready to be enraged!!! **UPDATE: February 3, 2009. While there has still been no mention of this $93,000 petty cash "raise" to Congress in the MSM (with the exception of Fox News), there are two Congress proposals out there with very little description. This petty cash allotment could very well fall under one of these (but who has the time to read the fine print of the 300+ page bill) or amendments to the bill?
