"In terms of the issue of Guantanamo, look, this is a very difficult issue. It's difficult in my country; it's difficult internationally. We have a facility that contains some people who are very difficult to deal with. Some of them probably should not have been detained in those facilities in the first place. They should have been processed and tried and convicted. If they weren't convicted, then they should not have been languishing in a facility like that, that became a symbol for many around the world of us not sticking to our ideals and our traditions and rule of law."This was his response to a question at the press conference held in Dresden on June 5th, 2009 with German Chancellor Merkel. I linked to quote directly to the White House website so as prevent people from denying he actually said it later. What part of that statement really jumps out and grabs your attention? For me it's the "They should have been processed and tried and convicted." sentence. He later mentions how this was a symbol of our lack of "sticking to our ideals and our traditions and rule of law." EXCUSE ME!? Chalk it up to B.H. being off teleprompter and making an error in speaking his mind or possibly just plain not thinking before he spoke. What happened to innocent until proven guilty? Isn't that one of the core principles that makes America unique in the world. Essentially B.H. said they should've been found guilty as a result of the trial and that by not doing that OR freeing violent people on society we were betraying our values. Uh-huh....does that make sense to anyone out there? It sure doesn't make any sense to me.
Saturday, June 6, 2009
Did you blink AGAIN!?
I came across this when researching the earlier post and thought....WOW....too good to pass up. Here's what B.H. thought should've happened to the Gitmo detainees:
Stop blinking or you'll miss it all!
Did you blink and miss it? I know I almost did but I was halfway into the blink with my eyes only half shut. I almost didn't believe what my ears had heard. If my eyes would've been completely closed I might have thought, that can't possibly be B.H. Obama it had to have been an impersonator. NOPE! B.H. actually, for the first time, publicly began setting the stage for the play called "Gitmo Aint Closing This Year". I heard it's going to be a musical in which B.H. stars as an up-n-comer charismatic man who promised gold at the end of the rainbow to his passionate followers. The climatic ending has B.H. running away with his Czars, the followers cash and leaving behind broken dreams, empty promises and a ruined nation. Wait WHAT? In Dresden Obama said:
That quote in itself when put up against B.H.'s claim to have all combat troops out of Iraq shows B.H.'s lack of understanding of the word COMBAT. To protect civilian and military efforts wouldn't involve COMBAT? To conduct targeted counter-terrorism missions wouldn't involve COMBAT? So this extension of the closing of Gitmo is just another let down to those that voted for hope and change and is another I TOLD YOU SO to all of the rest of us. Funny how everyday that passes B.H. sounds more and more like G.W.
"I don't anticipate that it's going to be resolved anytime in the next two or three months. I think it's going to be a longer process of evaluation,"Google that quote and make your own judgement call but I'd put my money on Gitmo not closing by the end of the year. B.H. is beginning to prepare his supporters for the let down 6 months early. Before some of you start in with the excuse making remember he didn't need to UNI-LATERALLY (yeah that word cuts both ways and I'm using it to needle the Dems) go it ALONE attitude in signing an executive order to close Gitmo by years end on his second day as President without consulting our ALLIES. Oh gee you mean the Europeans didn't show up to help out with the closing of Gitmo after publicly calling for it's closure for years? This is what you get when you vote into office someone with NO experience. Lots of big ideas and promises all of which come crashing down once applied to reality just like his promises to have all combat troops out of Iraq in 16 months from office. Which once he took office became 18 - 19 months leaving a 35-50,000 troop "transitional force" behind until 2011. The transitional forces mission will be, and I quote B.H.:
"we will retain a transitional force to carry out three distinct functions: training, equipping, and advising Iraqi Security Forces as long as they remain non-sectarian; conducting targeted counter-terrorism missions; and protecting our ongoing civilian and military efforts within Iraq."
That quote in itself when put up against B.H.'s claim to have all combat troops out of Iraq shows B.H.'s lack of understanding of the word COMBAT. To protect civilian and military efforts wouldn't involve COMBAT? To conduct targeted counter-terrorism missions wouldn't involve COMBAT? So this extension of the closing of Gitmo is just another let down to those that voted for hope and change and is another I TOLD YOU SO to all of the rest of us. Funny how everyday that passes B.H. sounds more and more like G.W.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
It's safe to say we've been lied to.
The Democrats are in a lot of trouble. They've made a lot of promises and so far it's looking like they're slowing backing out of all of them. Obama is quickly looking like he'll be a one term president. Don't get me wrong I'm not excessively happy about that because that will likely mean the Republicans will pick up the presidency in 2012 and in 2010 might get some seats in Congress back. Right now I don't see how either party is really in it for WE THE PEOPLE. However, I do think we should be happy to see Obama, Pelosi and Reed go home if possible. I've not been very impressed with the Republicans but the damage that those three are planning on doing to us is by far worse than anything Bush ever did. At this point based on recent events I feel it save to call them LIARS.
They need to raise taxes on the middle class when they promised not to. Many of these taxes come in a hidden form. Two examples of hidden tax hikes on middle America are Cap and Trade, CAFE standards.
Cap and Trade is expected to raise the cost of the average American electric bill by $1400.00 a year. All companies with factories will also have to raise the costs of their products to cover the added costs of high electric bills but also the Carbon Tax which they too will need to pay for their Carbon footprint.
The CAFE standards aren't initally evident to most people I talk to as a tax on them. However, when you consider that the Obama admin now OWNS a portion of Chrysler and GM it begins to become obvious. Why the Obama admin would reduce the time frame from the Bush plan of a 35.5 m/g car from 2020 to 2016? Increasing fuel efficiency increases the cost of the car. Increasing the cost of the car means that the amount of money the government gets from the sale of every car goes up. I know you're thinking WHAT DID HE JUST SAY?! It's simple math though really. As the government OWNS shares of the car companies they get a percentage of the sales via dividend checks. So the more money into the company the more money the government gets. It's expected that the CAFE standards will raise the cost of cars by a minimum of $1300.00. If you buy a Chrysler and the cost of that car is $1300.00 more expensive next year than this year $104.00 goes to the government. The government OWNS 8% of Chrysler.
With their health care plan they anticipate putting the government in direct competition with the private health insurance companies. Apart from this being destructive to the economy they are essentially going to raise your taxes to pay for this plan and in addition to paying higher taxes you'll need to find the money to pay for their plan. You the hard working American will need to pay for those that can't pay for their own insurance via higher taxes. Then in addition the government will require you to have a health insurance plan. So you'll either have to buy from the government plan or from a private plan. We all know that the government plan will be cheaper than the private plan because they have the advantage of raising your taxes to cover their shortfalls or they can just operate on deficient spending like all other government programs. If private insurance companies tried that they'd go out of business. So here once again Obama lied. He will raise your taxes he just won't call it a tax raise. To me I personally view any increased cash flow to the government a tax raise. Call me crazy.
Then there is the expiration of the Bush tax cuts next year. Maybe you didn't get a big tax cut. However, a cut is still a cut. Next year when the Bush tax plan expires that cut will vanish effectively raising your taxes to the levels prior to the Bush plan. So the Dems haven't created a new tax plan they just wait out the cut to expire thereby raising your taxes.
This is just the tip of the iceberg. There are many other point to discuss which I'll get into next week. I think it's save to say that on taxes Obama and the other Dems lied. Middle America is going to be paying higher taxes under their watch.
They need to raise taxes on the middle class when they promised not to. Many of these taxes come in a hidden form. Two examples of hidden tax hikes on middle America are Cap and Trade, CAFE standards.
Cap and Trade is expected to raise the cost of the average American electric bill by $1400.00 a year. All companies with factories will also have to raise the costs of their products to cover the added costs of high electric bills but also the Carbon Tax which they too will need to pay for their Carbon footprint.
The CAFE standards aren't initally evident to most people I talk to as a tax on them. However, when you consider that the Obama admin now OWNS a portion of Chrysler and GM it begins to become obvious. Why the Obama admin would reduce the time frame from the Bush plan of a 35.5 m/g car from 2020 to 2016? Increasing fuel efficiency increases the cost of the car. Increasing the cost of the car means that the amount of money the government gets from the sale of every car goes up. I know you're thinking WHAT DID HE JUST SAY?! It's simple math though really. As the government OWNS shares of the car companies they get a percentage of the sales via dividend checks. So the more money into the company the more money the government gets. It's expected that the CAFE standards will raise the cost of cars by a minimum of $1300.00. If you buy a Chrysler and the cost of that car is $1300.00 more expensive next year than this year $104.00 goes to the government. The government OWNS 8% of Chrysler.
With their health care plan they anticipate putting the government in direct competition with the private health insurance companies. Apart from this being destructive to the economy they are essentially going to raise your taxes to pay for this plan and in addition to paying higher taxes you'll need to find the money to pay for their plan. You the hard working American will need to pay for those that can't pay for their own insurance via higher taxes. Then in addition the government will require you to have a health insurance plan. So you'll either have to buy from the government plan or from a private plan. We all know that the government plan will be cheaper than the private plan because they have the advantage of raising your taxes to cover their shortfalls or they can just operate on deficient spending like all other government programs. If private insurance companies tried that they'd go out of business. So here once again Obama lied. He will raise your taxes he just won't call it a tax raise. To me I personally view any increased cash flow to the government a tax raise. Call me crazy.
Then there is the expiration of the Bush tax cuts next year. Maybe you didn't get a big tax cut. However, a cut is still a cut. Next year when the Bush tax plan expires that cut will vanish effectively raising your taxes to the levels prior to the Bush plan. So the Dems haven't created a new tax plan they just wait out the cut to expire thereby raising your taxes.
This is just the tip of the iceberg. There are many other point to discuss which I'll get into next week. I think it's save to say that on taxes Obama and the other Dems lied. Middle America is going to be paying higher taxes under their watch.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
ecoAmerica
When I first heard about it I thought....geeeee....didn't I blog about this not so long ago. In fact I did. ecoAmerica believes:
The best though is from their "research".
These people have no shame. Rather than letting science frame the debate they'd rather use slogans and rhetoric. For those that don't think that there's big money in the environmental movement you've just been given a cold slap in the face with this group. They basically state they must spend money to convince the public. Sorry I thought science would do that? No?
"Our engagement marketing approach creates new audience and consumer opportunities.... By harnessing our audience understanding and developing measurably successful programs, we create partnerships that reach out to new people and create lasting behavior changes that benefit our project partners..."OK maybe the scariest couple of words in that paragraph are "lasting behavior changes". So they believe that by using marketing techniques they can sway their audience to their point of view to benefit their project partners....oh and by the way the environment too. Lets see if I have this straight....they're going to make money by helping other companies sell to the public that global warming is man made and if you buy their partners products you'll help prevent it. In doing so they expect to be able to influence your behavior for the long term. Wow! Quality! Nice to see they're not afraid to admit what I've been saying for years.....environmentalism is about money not the environment.
The best though is from their "research".
Climate and Energy Media Center (new program)
The Climate and Energy Media Center is a plan for a media “war room” that would repudiate the climate deniers; help change the framing on climate change from a long-term catastrophe to a near term economic and national security opportunity; and work to make climate change relevant by connecting climate and weather with Americans' everyday lives. Fresh polling data from Pew and Rasmussen indicate the increasing need for this program - global warming still ranks last out among the
top 20% public priorities and for the first time, more Americans attributed global warming to natural causes (44%) than human activity (41%). Since October, Bob Perkowitz and David Fenton have fleshed out the strategy and organization of the operation. Because this project requires a significant capital investment to launch – we won’t move forward until we have raised at least $1,000,000 for it. We have secured about $300,000 of initial pledges and are working with ACP/WE, EDF, NRDC, Open Society and others to secure necessary additional funding, but we have not secured any additional commitments at this point.
These people have no shame. Rather than letting science frame the debate they'd rather use slogans and rhetoric. For those that don't think that there's big money in the environmental movement you've just been given a cold slap in the face with this group. They basically state they must spend money to convince the public. Sorry I thought science would do that? No?
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Bigger than Barnum
I can't wait for the big show to kick off. I really hope that the Dems do start a in depth investigation of the torture that took place under the Bush Admin. It's just what we need as a nation. It will set us straight in the eyes of the world. No longer will we be viewed as a tyrannical superpower. We need to bring light to those dark days and watch the roaches scatter. Sarcasm aside, I'm serious. I'll TiVo the whole show. Why? Well I know what the outcome will be or at least I think I know what it will be. You see the Dems, claiming morale superiority, have beaten the Repubs with the torture stick for about 6 years now. Now that they have both houses and the presidency they are on the hook. Just like they were with the "vote for us and we'll get you out of Iraq" and here we are going on 3 years since they've had control of both houses and we're still in Iraq. This is no different. They made a lot of noise last Fall just before the election about vote for me and we'll have trails and now people want to hold them to it. Obama knows better. That's why he initially said there won't be any trials. Which is why he released the CIA documents. He had hoped that by releasing those documents he would placate his base and avoid having to actually investigate the individuals that were involved. What a colossal blunder releasing those documents have been. In releasing those documents he made an enemy of the intelligence community. Not only has the release of those documents put us in greater risk by showing our hand to the enemy it will also make the intel community skittish about taking risks for the nation. Now with the potential of being brought to trail for offering legal opinions and for following orders the intel community will be even less likely to actively protect us. They will become what they were prior to 9-11 a reactive organization rather than a proactive one. Who can blame them?
So WHY am I looking forward to the trials and investigations and the testimony on the Hill? Well, to chase the roaches back into their holes. In this case it's Pelosi, Reed and the rest of the screaming mimi's. Some of the young and new blood on the Hill are idealist and might yet still have some delusions about cleaning house. The old guard though knows, or should know, better. Here's my predictions for any trails regarding torture. I would bet that the people in charge of the interrogations of captive terrorist practiced some CYA. For those that don't know CYA means Cover Your Ass. My guess is that Pelosi and Reed and all the rest were fully briefed on what practices were not only in the Bush Admins opinion legal but which were actually being used or going to be used. Now Pelosi can claim all she wants that knowing something might be used is not the same thing as something being used. That just doesn't cut it. No American will buy that line except the truly dense, blind followers. Furthermore, by releasing those documents Obama all but guaranteed that some staffer, lawyer, or interrogator practicing some good CYA will squirrel or has squirreled away documents, recordings, and/or video tapes which will show that the screaming mimi's were implicit in the aggressive interrogation techniques. Using this evidence of their innocence if they are brought to trial. Time and time again this has happened during show trials. Just like when the Dems created the Un-American Activities Committee to seek out Communists (which by the way was originally created to seek out the KKK but then again the KKK was run by the Dems and by their voter base so they switched their focus to Communists) this too will blow up in their faces.
The American Center for Law and Justice has filed a Freedom of Information request to get the memo of the briefing that Pelosi received back in 2002 regarding water boarding. If they get the memo I have a strong suspicion it will show that Pelosi and other Dems knew about it and accepted it. The Dems should've known better than to light the pyre while standing in it when burning witches. Obviously, they did not and will suffer for it. When it comes out that some of these terrorists gave up information that saved lives they will burn for it. When it comes out that they knew about these techniques being used and then feigned indignation to further their political goals (like they did with denying any sort of WMD materials were in Iraq oh yeah except for the nearly 800 tons of yellow cake that our government knew about since 1992 but hey lets pretend that doesn't exist). When people begin to connect the dots and see that to further their political careers they denied knowing about water boarding, helped close GitMo, and remove water boarding from the table of interrogations and in doing so put all Americans at greater risk they will burn.
All of the Dems talk is just that TALK. They don't want trials. They could've started an active investigation into the water boarding over 2 years ago. They haven't, didn't and won't. They fear what will come out. They know that once the public finds out about the scam they've been running there will be a house cleaning in the next election. Just like they never mounted any serious effect to cut funding for the war in Iraq they won't mount any serious effort to hold hearings about water boarding. They know it will be their political death to so. Just as it would've been if the Dems were actually successful in cutting funding for the war in Iraq.
So bring on the trials! Let's air the dirty laundry! This will bring down the Obama administration and cost him the next election. It will ruin the Dem party and will cost them both houses within 2-4 years. I hope that with an already weaken Republican party prior to any hearings and a destroyed Dem party after the hearing a serious 3rd party might gain enough seats to have meaning. I do not necessarily like a particular 3rd party but I believe a 3rd party with some teeth might help restore some balance to D.C. The shift to the left by both parties is appalling. Over the last 10 years or so the Republicans shifted away from the right and picked up the ideals of the Dems while the Dems began picking up the ideals of Marx and Lenin. Now is the time for a new 3rd party that will shift the other two parties back towards their center left and center right homes. So let's get ready for the show and POSSIBLY a new political awakening of the silent American center right majority. Enjoy!
So WHY am I looking forward to the trials and investigations and the testimony on the Hill? Well, to chase the roaches back into their holes. In this case it's Pelosi, Reed and the rest of the screaming mimi's. Some of the young and new blood on the Hill are idealist and might yet still have some delusions about cleaning house. The old guard though knows, or should know, better. Here's my predictions for any trails regarding torture. I would bet that the people in charge of the interrogations of captive terrorist practiced some CYA. For those that don't know CYA means Cover Your Ass. My guess is that Pelosi and Reed and all the rest were fully briefed on what practices were not only in the Bush Admins opinion legal but which were actually being used or going to be used. Now Pelosi can claim all she wants that knowing something might be used is not the same thing as something being used. That just doesn't cut it. No American will buy that line except the truly dense, blind followers. Furthermore, by releasing those documents Obama all but guaranteed that some staffer, lawyer, or interrogator practicing some good CYA will squirrel or has squirreled away documents, recordings, and/or video tapes which will show that the screaming mimi's were implicit in the aggressive interrogation techniques. Using this evidence of their innocence if they are brought to trial. Time and time again this has happened during show trials. Just like when the Dems created the Un-American Activities Committee to seek out Communists (which by the way was originally created to seek out the KKK but then again the KKK was run by the Dems and by their voter base so they switched their focus to Communists) this too will blow up in their faces.
The American Center for Law and Justice has filed a Freedom of Information request to get the memo of the briefing that Pelosi received back in 2002 regarding water boarding. If they get the memo I have a strong suspicion it will show that Pelosi and other Dems knew about it and accepted it. The Dems should've known better than to light the pyre while standing in it when burning witches. Obviously, they did not and will suffer for it. When it comes out that some of these terrorists gave up information that saved lives they will burn for it. When it comes out that they knew about these techniques being used and then feigned indignation to further their political goals (like they did with denying any sort of WMD materials were in Iraq oh yeah except for the nearly 800 tons of yellow cake that our government knew about since 1992 but hey lets pretend that doesn't exist). When people begin to connect the dots and see that to further their political careers they denied knowing about water boarding, helped close GitMo, and remove water boarding from the table of interrogations and in doing so put all Americans at greater risk they will burn.
All of the Dems talk is just that TALK. They don't want trials. They could've started an active investigation into the water boarding over 2 years ago. They haven't, didn't and won't. They fear what will come out. They know that once the public finds out about the scam they've been running there will be a house cleaning in the next election. Just like they never mounted any serious effect to cut funding for the war in Iraq they won't mount any serious effort to hold hearings about water boarding. They know it will be their political death to so. Just as it would've been if the Dems were actually successful in cutting funding for the war in Iraq.
So bring on the trials! Let's air the dirty laundry! This will bring down the Obama administration and cost him the next election. It will ruin the Dem party and will cost them both houses within 2-4 years. I hope that with an already weaken Republican party prior to any hearings and a destroyed Dem party after the hearing a serious 3rd party might gain enough seats to have meaning. I do not necessarily like a particular 3rd party but I believe a 3rd party with some teeth might help restore some balance to D.C. The shift to the left by both parties is appalling. Over the last 10 years or so the Republicans shifted away from the right and picked up the ideals of the Dems while the Dems began picking up the ideals of Marx and Lenin. Now is the time for a new 3rd party that will shift the other two parties back towards their center left and center right homes. So let's get ready for the show and POSSIBLY a new political awakening of the silent American center right majority. Enjoy!
Friday, April 17, 2009
As promised.....
OK so I'm a little late in getting back to you on my claim that the rich don't pay taxes. They do not. The middle classes pay a vast majority of all tax revenue levied by our governments. I love the stat that shows how 5% of Americans paid 60% of Federal Personal Income Taxes. While this is likely a true statistic it is not an accurate way to compare tax burden. It's very important that we distinguish between INCOME TAX and TAX. Why? Well because they are two very different issues. While the "rich" might pay more INCOME TAX they are not burdened by taxes the way the average American is. The actual number of pages in the Federal Tax Code depends on how you define it. Depending on your definition of the Federal Tax Code it can range from about 2,000 pages to as high as 70,000 pages. Depending on what state you live in you could practically double that number. The NYS tax form is twice as long as the federal 1040. If you are like me you don't really have the time to KNOW how to pay less taxes and likely you don't have the resources to pay someone who does KNOW how to pay less taxes. For example, did you know that for every $ you make over $102k you aren't required to pay SS on it? I bet you didn't. Did you know the fact that you actually pay 15.3% of your income to SS and Medicare rather than the 7.65% shown on your pay stub? Yeah, your employer pays the same amount you pay for you. That money could've been in your paycheck instead it's off to the feds. So now lets look at what the average American pays in Federal Income Tax. It's about 25%. Add that to the 7.65% and we're talking about 32.65% of your income going to the Feds. That doesn't condsider the OTHER 7.65% you could have been paid by your employer but aren't. In effect it's a "hidden" tax on your wages. So the TOTAL paid is actaully 40.3%. That's not even beginning to calculate state income taxes. Now the "rich" income tax rate maxes out at 35%. As we mentioned earlier they stop paying SS and medicare payments on anything over $102k. So if they made $1.102 million they pay 35% on the $1.102 million and 15.3% on $102k. So while the average American is paying 40.3% on their income the weathlier American is pay 35% on a vast majority of the income. As you can see they do not have a greater burden than the average American. Now lets consider a recent HOT topic in the media....bonuses. What almost none of the media outlets mentioned in regards to the AIG bonuses was that many of the individuals that got those "bonuses" had opted to get a $1.00 yearly salary in exchange for the bonus. What!? Yep that's right. Why the heck would they do that? Well because bonuses are not taxed as "income" they are taxed under the capital gains heading. Which is 15% rather than 35%. In addition they don't pay SS and Medicare on it. So when comparing the RICH to the AVERAGE American it's truly absurd to make the claim that the Rich have a greater tax burden.
Now let's consider the impact of raising taxes on the rich. I know, I know, I've just said they don't pay hardly any taxes compared middle income Americans. However, lets look at what we can expect with raising taxes on the rich. To do this consider what happens when your purchasing power is reduced. When your cost of living goes up you look at where you can make cuts to save money. For you and I it's things like eating out less, canceling cable TV, shorter or no vacations, etc., etc. For the wealthy, it's more along the lines of investments, and business expansion. If the rich have less to spend they don't debate HBO or Cinemax with their spouse. They look at laying off employees or reducing their stock portfolio. They have their team of lawyers and accountants locate tax shelters where they can put their money to ride out the storm of the tax hike until someone cuts taxes.
So lets go after their businesses! Cap and Trade! Higher Corporate Tax Rates! Well, sure that's fine. Know this, a business NEVER pays taxes. The consumers of the products or services that business produces or provides pay the taxes. When a business does a cost analysis it must figure in the cost of the tax it will pay. It then incudes that into the price structure for it's goods and services. So, for example, placing a tax on a coal burning electric plant is essentially placing a tax on all of the consumers of that electric plant. The plant doesn't pay more tax. They pass that cost on to you. The plant doesn't pay for it greener technology. You do. If that electric plant can't compete and closes, guess what? Your rates will increase with increased demand on fewer plants and less competition. In addition, raise taxes on an electric plant only serves to make more expensive engery more competitive. It doesn't make you life less expensive.
This idea that we can make the rich pay an equal share is mythical under the current tax structure which has been created by both Democrats and Republicans. Do you truly believe that Obama will raise taxes on himself? Well lets look at that. He and Michelle reported earning $2.6 million from book sales in 2008, about $200k in income and a small amount of money from some investments. They paid $855k in taxes. Ummmm...what? Do the math. They paided less than 35% of their total income. I wonder HOW they were able to do that? Obama was able to reduce his tax profile there by reducing his tax burden and effectively NOT PAYING HIS FAIR SHARE!
There would be ONLY 1 method to make all pay their fair share. That would be a national sales tax on EVERYTHING. Nothing would be exempt. No need for thousands of pages of tax code. You can't hide your money from it because to live in the USA means your spending money in the USA. The more money you make the money money you'll probably spend therefore the more money you'd pay into the tax coffers. You could dramatically reduce the size of the IRS. No one would need to fear April 15th. No more dreaded knock on the door by the IRS wanting to see your records from 10 years ago. It's the purest way to fund the federal government without burdening some while others aviod it. Now I am not saying I'm in favor of taxes nor the federal government having such a large budget nor some of the programs that are being funded. HOWEVER, in 2009 it's estimated that the federal government spent about $3 trillion with a budget deficiet of about 400 $billion. The GDP of 2008 was about $14.3 trillion. With a national sales tax of about 25% would've covered the 2009 budget, the deficiet and still had some jingle in the governments pocket to begin to pay down the National Debt and make up for the SS and Medicare projected short falls. When you consider that the average American is already paying about 40% of their income to the Fed just counting Income Tax and FICA you can see how much more money the middle class would have. Now think about all the other taxes you pay to the Feds that wouldn't exsist with a national sales tax. Gas would cost less for example. I would ONLY suggest a nation sales tax if all other federal taxes were scrapped. Just think about it.
Now let's consider the impact of raising taxes on the rich. I know, I know, I've just said they don't pay hardly any taxes compared middle income Americans. However, lets look at what we can expect with raising taxes on the rich. To do this consider what happens when your purchasing power is reduced. When your cost of living goes up you look at where you can make cuts to save money. For you and I it's things like eating out less, canceling cable TV, shorter or no vacations, etc., etc. For the wealthy, it's more along the lines of investments, and business expansion. If the rich have less to spend they don't debate HBO or Cinemax with their spouse. They look at laying off employees or reducing their stock portfolio. They have their team of lawyers and accountants locate tax shelters where they can put their money to ride out the storm of the tax hike until someone cuts taxes.
So lets go after their businesses! Cap and Trade! Higher Corporate Tax Rates! Well, sure that's fine. Know this, a business NEVER pays taxes. The consumers of the products or services that business produces or provides pay the taxes. When a business does a cost analysis it must figure in the cost of the tax it will pay. It then incudes that into the price structure for it's goods and services. So, for example, placing a tax on a coal burning electric plant is essentially placing a tax on all of the consumers of that electric plant. The plant doesn't pay more tax. They pass that cost on to you. The plant doesn't pay for it greener technology. You do. If that electric plant can't compete and closes, guess what? Your rates will increase with increased demand on fewer plants and less competition. In addition, raise taxes on an electric plant only serves to make more expensive engery more competitive. It doesn't make you life less expensive.
This idea that we can make the rich pay an equal share is mythical under the current tax structure which has been created by both Democrats and Republicans. Do you truly believe that Obama will raise taxes on himself? Well lets look at that. He and Michelle reported earning $2.6 million from book sales in 2008, about $200k in income and a small amount of money from some investments. They paid $855k in taxes. Ummmm...what? Do the math. They paided less than 35% of their total income. I wonder HOW they were able to do that? Obama was able to reduce his tax profile there by reducing his tax burden and effectively NOT PAYING HIS FAIR SHARE!
There would be ONLY 1 method to make all pay their fair share. That would be a national sales tax on EVERYTHING. Nothing would be exempt. No need for thousands of pages of tax code. You can't hide your money from it because to live in the USA means your spending money in the USA. The more money you make the money money you'll probably spend therefore the more money you'd pay into the tax coffers. You could dramatically reduce the size of the IRS. No one would need to fear April 15th. No more dreaded knock on the door by the IRS wanting to see your records from 10 years ago. It's the purest way to fund the federal government without burdening some while others aviod it. Now I am not saying I'm in favor of taxes nor the federal government having such a large budget nor some of the programs that are being funded. HOWEVER, in 2009 it's estimated that the federal government spent about $3 trillion with a budget deficiet of about 400 $billion. The GDP of 2008 was about $14.3 trillion. With a national sales tax of about 25% would've covered the 2009 budget, the deficiet and still had some jingle in the governments pocket to begin to pay down the National Debt and make up for the SS and Medicare projected short falls. When you consider that the average American is already paying about 40% of their income to the Fed just counting Income Tax and FICA you can see how much more money the middle class would have. Now think about all the other taxes you pay to the Feds that wouldn't exsist with a national sales tax. Gas would cost less for example. I would ONLY suggest a nation sales tax if all other federal taxes were scrapped. Just think about it.
Friday, April 3, 2009
Saint O's healing touch....I CAST THE OUT DEVIL! BE HEALED! HALLELUJAH!
Who knew O was such a reverent pastor of the people!?
I've been gathering up information so I could present this argument correctly. I think it's important to get on the point and not deviate with this particular discussion. I hold veterans, in general, in the highest regard. I do not wish that to be misunderstood. This discussion is less about the vets than socialized/nationalized health care. So while I may bring up our wounded vets in this discuss it is to make a point about socialized/nationalized health care and not to critique the VA nor what our vets deserve. I don't think we could ever fully repay their service.
That said, I would like to turn your attention to something the Obama administration considered doing before hitting a brick wall and backing away from. Last month the Obama administration purposed a plan that would have required private insurance companies to provide coverage to our soldiers, airmen, sailors, and marines for injuries sustained on the battle field. This is a fact (google it if you don't like my link). Obama claims this would save the federal government about $540 million per year. We will come back to that number but first consider what it would do to premiums for health care coverage by the private insurance companies if they were obliged to provide health care for those people the government sends to war. It would send them through the roof. It would likely bankrupt the private insurance companies which would provide ample excuse for the government to step in and nationalize health care in the exact manner that they've done with our banks. The premium would be to high forcing many people to drop their coverage giving the insurance company less money to pay for the injuries it was legally obligate to pay for. Eventually, the private health care providers would begin failing and the more expensive it became to pay for health care the louder the cry would get for nationalized health care. Some of the larger insurance companies would get bailed out. These would be partially or wholly owned by the US government similar to the situation AIG finds itself in. This would be a quiet way for the US government to nationalize health care and no one would mind. Why? Well because by this point a majority of the nation would be without health care coverage.
The second point I would like to make brings us back to that number I mentioned earlier. $540 million. Let's do a little math shall we? First though lets get some more information. How many vets are are enrolled in the VA Health Care System? There are 7.8 million vets enrolled in the VA Health Care System. Now remember, the proposal by the Obama admin only discusses forcing private insurance companies to cover injured vets not ALL vets. So now how many vets receive VA Disability Compensation? That number is 2.95 million. Now this number is a little misleading. Do all 2.95 million need constant medical care? Not likely. This number includes people who are not necessarily injured on the battle field. It could be their job gave them a bad back. But we can't distinguish between those shot in war and those that drop a heavy box on their big toe. All of these 2.95 million people will at one time or another seek medical assistance from the VA if their injury disables them. So now to the math. Lets divide $540 million by 2.95 million vets. That works out to be about $183.05 per vet. Which is really not a lot. I assume that the big toe injury doesn't require as much medical attention as a bullet wound. However, we need to look at averages. So on average the VA spends $183.05 per vet per year for medical attention. Now where am I going with all this? Well, lets consider Obama's first budget. In it he purposes creating a $630 billion "reserve fund" for changes to our health care system. The total costs are not known which Obama fully admits to. If you review his budget plan and read the last paragraph on page 67 you'll note that the plan specifically calls this $630 billion a down payment and it goes on further to state:
The term down payment and the fact that the "Budge call's for an effort beyond this down payment" tells me that this $630 billion is just a small piece of the total cost "to put the Nation on a path to health insurance coverage for all Americans." Now if we just consider the down payment $630 billion and we divide that by 10 years (that's the number of years the $630 billion will be spread out over) we get $63 billion. Now take 63 billion and divide it by 300 million Americans we get $210.00 per American per year.
So now that the math is done lets draw your own conclusions. I personally see a great deal of hypocrisy when Team O can claim it will save $540 million per year by forcing private insurance company's to foot the bill for battle wounds and then also purpose to spend even more money per private citizen. Remember the math....$210.00 per year on a private citizen and $183.05 per year on a vet.
Now lets not forget that the Obama plan has no real way of funding this $630 billion. The budget states:
Now lets consider recent history of other federally funded social programs that have worked sooooooo well. According to Richard W. Fisher, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, in a speech before The Commonwealth Club of California on May 28, 2008 in San Francisco:
While we are moving towards nationalize health care the countries the started the craze are leaving it. European countries are bankrupt and quietly cutting critical health care to it's citizens. A friend of mine is dying of a brain tumor. About 6 years ago he was diagnosed with it. The Italian health system said basically he should go home, put his things in order and die. Instead he, and I think most would, decided he'd try and fight to live. He and his wife have spent a lot of their own money on private health care to try and extend his life. A man, that was given 6 months, and told to go home to die is still alive 6 years later because of private health care he has spent his own money on ALL THE WHILE BEING TAXED FOR NATIONAL HEALTH CARE! I know lots of people who have chronic disease like thyroid disease that are told by the nation health care system here in Italy that their treatment is not covered by the national coverage. Once the thyroid is dead....we'll remove it and you'll get meds to supplement the missing hormones. This they will pay for. That said....until that happens....all the blood work, the medication, the treatments to improve life.....well that's on the patient to pay for out of their own pocket. Nationalized health care in Europe does not practice preventive medicine. It engages in treatment after the fact. They don't keep records to track you health through your life. So a new development isn't caught and treated before it becomes life threatening. This is what you pay for with your taxes. Nationalized health care does not want you to live long. Why? Well, preventive medice extends your life expectancy therefore the costs to the government go up as you live longer and are not contributing to taxes as you're a pentioner and not part of the work force. Idealy, under nationalized health care it's citizens will die off before they get to the pention age. One way to assure that is to not practice preventive medicine.
So what does all this cost you ask? A lot! I know of an individual that takes home 60,000 Euro's a year. Well, he does before taxes. What he actually takes home is about 30,000 Euro's a year. That's a tax rate of 50% on someone making about (depending on the exchange rate) 75 to 80 thousand US$. In addition, out of the 30,000 Euro's he then pays a 20% sales tax on EVERYTHING he buys. So if he spend lets say 25,000 Euro's a year on life's expenses he's paid an additional 5,000 Euro's in taxes. This is all before we consider that taxes on his gasoline (over half the cost of the 1.22 Euro's per liter is tax it's actually closer to two thirds), his car, the yearly tax he pays to own a TV (not kidding), the house, etc., etc., etc. This is how Europe pays for it's social programs. They tax the hell out of the middle class. Do you really think we in America are going to some how be different when we have a nationalized health care system? After all that is said and done on top of paying the equivalent of 75-80% of his income to the government the government continues to reduce it's social programs because it can't afford them. Is this the road you want America to go down? To take on another large social commitment it won't pay for just like Social Security isn't paid for? It's a bold face lie that O makes when he says he can expand coverage and reduce cost. Large bureaucracies are not know to be efficient users of cash.
The first and easiest way to reduce cost in a socialize health care system is to reduce the quality of the facilities provided. If you visit a hospital in a country with socialized health care you'd be shocked at the conditions. It's not a critique of the employee's it's a critique of the governments commitment to providing national health care. The local hospital here CRAWLS with mosquitoes throughout the warmer months. Imagine not being able to slap at mosquitoes as they suck you dry because you're physically unable to while you lie in your hospital bed. In addition, the typical ward is 3 to 4 beds per room. Further, there are plenty of cases where there aren't enough beds and so patients sleep on stretchers in the hallways. If you'd like examples I can link some but they'd be in Italian. How about the hospital that was amputating healthy limbs and conducting unnecessary surgeries just to get a bigger budget the next year? Then there is the girl that died during a common surgery on the operating table because the government never supplied backup generators to the hospital so when the power went out the equipment and lights stopped working. This is what you want?
Let's also not forget that this won't "end" private health care. In every country where you find national health care you also find private health care. So in the end the middle class is taxed to pay for the nationalized health care and the rich or those that can afford it get private health care. Why? Well because typically the national health care system is over loaded. So if you need a surgery you might have to wait for months to get it. This includes simple testing like blood work or a breast exam. If you miss your appointment you may not be able to reschedule it for months or a year. Meanwhile, the rich and those that can afford it go to the front of the line. What? That's right because while the doctors work for the state and draw a salary from the state they also work on their own as private health care providers. So half their time is to the public health care system and the other half is to private health care. This is true also of many hospitals that receive public funding and also are used by private health care. So the MIR you have wait months to get, the rich guy can get done in a week. Do we really want a two class health care system in America? Currently, apart from the myths, lies, and occasional occurrence no one in America goes without health care except by choice.
My last point to make, regarding nationalized health care is how much is spent in the countries where is already exists. The UK expects to have a NHS budget of 110 billion pounds for the 2010-2011 fiscal year. Depending on the exchange rate you use that's about $162 billion. That's nearly three times the annual budget down payment that O has purposed. Oh but wait a minute, the UK doesn't have as many people as the US does. OK, time for some more math. The UK has about 60 million people or about 1/5 the population of the USA which is 300 million. So I guess we would need to multiply that $162 billion by 5 to get the estimated cost for nationalized health care. That would be $810 billion a year for nationalized health care in the USA. That's about 13.5 times the size of the down payment in O's budget. Typically, when I think of a down payment I think of a number around 10%. That's about right for the down payment of 63 billion a year. Do we as a nation REALLY want to spend 800 billion a year via the US Treasury on health care? Think about who's pocket that will come from.
Next week I promise to explain why I say the rich don't pay the majority of the taxes.
I've been gathering up information so I could present this argument correctly. I think it's important to get on the point and not deviate with this particular discussion. I hold veterans, in general, in the highest regard. I do not wish that to be misunderstood. This discussion is less about the vets than socialized/nationalized health care. So while I may bring up our wounded vets in this discuss it is to make a point about socialized/nationalized health care and not to critique the VA nor what our vets deserve. I don't think we could ever fully repay their service.
That said, I would like to turn your attention to something the Obama administration considered doing before hitting a brick wall and backing away from. Last month the Obama administration purposed a plan that would have required private insurance companies to provide coverage to our soldiers, airmen, sailors, and marines for injuries sustained on the battle field. This is a fact (google it if you don't like my link). Obama claims this would save the federal government about $540 million per year. We will come back to that number but first consider what it would do to premiums for health care coverage by the private insurance companies if they were obliged to provide health care for those people the government sends to war. It would send them through the roof. It would likely bankrupt the private insurance companies which would provide ample excuse for the government to step in and nationalize health care in the exact manner that they've done with our banks. The premium would be to high forcing many people to drop their coverage giving the insurance company less money to pay for the injuries it was legally obligate to pay for. Eventually, the private health care providers would begin failing and the more expensive it became to pay for health care the louder the cry would get for nationalized health care. Some of the larger insurance companies would get bailed out. These would be partially or wholly owned by the US government similar to the situation AIG finds itself in. This would be a quiet way for the US government to nationalize health care and no one would mind. Why? Well because by this point a majority of the nation would be without health care coverage.
The second point I would like to make brings us back to that number I mentioned earlier. $540 million. Let's do a little math shall we? First though lets get some more information. How many vets are are enrolled in the VA Health Care System? There are 7.8 million vets enrolled in the VA Health Care System. Now remember, the proposal by the Obama admin only discusses forcing private insurance companies to cover injured vets not ALL vets. So now how many vets receive VA Disability Compensation? That number is 2.95 million. Now this number is a little misleading. Do all 2.95 million need constant medical care? Not likely. This number includes people who are not necessarily injured on the battle field. It could be their job gave them a bad back. But we can't distinguish between those shot in war and those that drop a heavy box on their big toe. All of these 2.95 million people will at one time or another seek medical assistance from the VA if their injury disables them. So now to the math. Lets divide $540 million by 2.95 million vets. That works out to be about $183.05 per vet. Which is really not a lot. I assume that the big toe injury doesn't require as much medical attention as a bullet wound. However, we need to look at averages. So on average the VA spends $183.05 per vet per year for medical attention. Now where am I going with all this? Well, lets consider Obama's first budget. In it he purposes creating a $630 billion "reserve fund" for changes to our health care system. The total costs are not known which Obama fully admits to. If you review his budget plan and read the last paragraph on page 67 you'll note that the plan specifically calls this $630 billion a down payment and it goes on further to state:
"In addition, the Budget calls for an effort beyond this down payment, to put the Nation on a path to health insurance coverage for all Americans."
The term down payment and the fact that the "Budge call's for an effort beyond this down payment" tells me that this $630 billion is just a small piece of the total cost "to put the Nation on a path to health insurance coverage for all Americans." Now if we just consider the down payment $630 billion and we divide that by 10 years (that's the number of years the $630 billion will be spread out over) we get $63 billion. Now take 63 billion and divide it by 300 million Americans we get $210.00 per American per year.
So now that the math is done lets draw your own conclusions. I personally see a great deal of hypocrisy when Team O can claim it will save $540 million per year by forcing private insurance company's to foot the bill for battle wounds and then also purpose to spend even more money per private citizen. Remember the math....$210.00 per year on a private citizen and $183.05 per year on a vet.
Now lets not forget that the Obama plan has no real way of funding this $630 billion. The budget states:
"$630 billion over 10 years to finance fundamental reform of our health care system that will bring down costs and expand coverage."Excuse me? How does one EXPAND COVERAGE and BRING DOWN COSTS? It's simply not possible to expand the number of people covered by health care and expect that costs will come down. Costs will go UP because you're taking care of more people. It goes on further to explain:
"The reserve is funded half by new revenue"New revenue? Ohhhhh you mean increased taxes. I see. Where will he get these new taxes from? Why the rich of course, right? NO! Let's face facts here people and put to rest a HUGE myth. The rich do not pay the greatest share of the tax. WHAT!? No they do not. You can give all the facts you want but at the end of the day the rich are not this nations greatest revenue resource. It is and always will be the middle class. HOW SO?! Well, you'll just need to wait for next weeks post to find out because I want to stay focused here for now. I promise you can debate it next week. For now lets pretend we agree on this point. Predominately the governments revenue source comes from the middle class. O can threaten to raise taxes all day and night on the rich but he'll never pay for his plans that way. It will come out of the pockets of the people that are already paying for their own health care. In the beginning of O's plan he'll raise taxes on the middle class to pay for coverage of the people who do not have it yet. So at the end of the day all of you out there that are currently struggling to pay your bills will get the added advantage of paying for someones bills. Does that tie nicely back to my earlier suggestion about what O nationalizing with bailouts private insurance providers? I think it does. Because just like we are paying for the mortgages of people who took on too much risk we will eventually be paying for the health insurance of people who can't/won't pay for it.
Now lets consider recent history of other federally funded social programs that have worked sooooooo well. According to Richard W. Fisher, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, in a speech before The Commonwealth Club of California on May 28, 2008 in San Francisco:
"Add together the unfunded liabilities from Medicare and Social Security, and it comes to $99.2 trillion over the infinite horizon."WOW! This happened because instead of using Medicare and Social Security funds the way they were suppose to be used they got quietly spent on pet projects of our federal politicians. That number is 10 times the GDP of the USA. In other words if we spent every penny made in the USA to pay our debts it would take more than 10 years to pay it off. Incredible. A nationalized health care plan will end up under funded and searching to make cuts just as Social Security and Medicare do now. A nationalized health care system is as sustainable as Social Security and Medicare.
While we are moving towards nationalize health care the countries the started the craze are leaving it. European countries are bankrupt and quietly cutting critical health care to it's citizens. A friend of mine is dying of a brain tumor. About 6 years ago he was diagnosed with it. The Italian health system said basically he should go home, put his things in order and die. Instead he, and I think most would, decided he'd try and fight to live. He and his wife have spent a lot of their own money on private health care to try and extend his life. A man, that was given 6 months, and told to go home to die is still alive 6 years later because of private health care he has spent his own money on ALL THE WHILE BEING TAXED FOR NATIONAL HEALTH CARE! I know lots of people who have chronic disease like thyroid disease that are told by the nation health care system here in Italy that their treatment is not covered by the national coverage. Once the thyroid is dead....we'll remove it and you'll get meds to supplement the missing hormones. This they will pay for. That said....until that happens....all the blood work, the medication, the treatments to improve life.....well that's on the patient to pay for out of their own pocket. Nationalized health care in Europe does not practice preventive medicine. It engages in treatment after the fact. They don't keep records to track you health through your life. So a new development isn't caught and treated before it becomes life threatening. This is what you pay for with your taxes. Nationalized health care does not want you to live long. Why? Well, preventive medice extends your life expectancy therefore the costs to the government go up as you live longer and are not contributing to taxes as you're a pentioner and not part of the work force. Idealy, under nationalized health care it's citizens will die off before they get to the pention age. One way to assure that is to not practice preventive medicine.
So what does all this cost you ask? A lot! I know of an individual that takes home 60,000 Euro's a year. Well, he does before taxes. What he actually takes home is about 30,000 Euro's a year. That's a tax rate of 50% on someone making about (depending on the exchange rate) 75 to 80 thousand US$. In addition, out of the 30,000 Euro's he then pays a 20% sales tax on EVERYTHING he buys. So if he spend lets say 25,000 Euro's a year on life's expenses he's paid an additional 5,000 Euro's in taxes. This is all before we consider that taxes on his gasoline (over half the cost of the 1.22 Euro's per liter is tax it's actually closer to two thirds), his car, the yearly tax he pays to own a TV (not kidding), the house, etc., etc., etc. This is how Europe pays for it's social programs. They tax the hell out of the middle class. Do you really think we in America are going to some how be different when we have a nationalized health care system? After all that is said and done on top of paying the equivalent of 75-80% of his income to the government the government continues to reduce it's social programs because it can't afford them. Is this the road you want America to go down? To take on another large social commitment it won't pay for just like Social Security isn't paid for? It's a bold face lie that O makes when he says he can expand coverage and reduce cost. Large bureaucracies are not know to be efficient users of cash.
The first and easiest way to reduce cost in a socialize health care system is to reduce the quality of the facilities provided. If you visit a hospital in a country with socialized health care you'd be shocked at the conditions. It's not a critique of the employee's it's a critique of the governments commitment to providing national health care. The local hospital here CRAWLS with mosquitoes throughout the warmer months. Imagine not being able to slap at mosquitoes as they suck you dry because you're physically unable to while you lie in your hospital bed. In addition, the typical ward is 3 to 4 beds per room. Further, there are plenty of cases where there aren't enough beds and so patients sleep on stretchers in the hallways. If you'd like examples I can link some but they'd be in Italian. How about the hospital that was amputating healthy limbs and conducting unnecessary surgeries just to get a bigger budget the next year? Then there is the girl that died during a common surgery on the operating table because the government never supplied backup generators to the hospital so when the power went out the equipment and lights stopped working. This is what you want?
Let's also not forget that this won't "end" private health care. In every country where you find national health care you also find private health care. So in the end the middle class is taxed to pay for the nationalized health care and the rich or those that can afford it get private health care. Why? Well because typically the national health care system is over loaded. So if you need a surgery you might have to wait for months to get it. This includes simple testing like blood work or a breast exam. If you miss your appointment you may not be able to reschedule it for months or a year. Meanwhile, the rich and those that can afford it go to the front of the line. What? That's right because while the doctors work for the state and draw a salary from the state they also work on their own as private health care providers. So half their time is to the public health care system and the other half is to private health care. This is true also of many hospitals that receive public funding and also are used by private health care. So the MIR you have wait months to get, the rich guy can get done in a week. Do we really want a two class health care system in America? Currently, apart from the myths, lies, and occasional occurrence no one in America goes without health care except by choice.
My last point to make, regarding nationalized health care is how much is spent in the countries where is already exists. The UK expects to have a NHS budget of 110 billion pounds for the 2010-2011 fiscal year. Depending on the exchange rate you use that's about $162 billion. That's nearly three times the annual budget down payment that O has purposed. Oh but wait a minute, the UK doesn't have as many people as the US does. OK, time for some more math. The UK has about 60 million people or about 1/5 the population of the USA which is 300 million. So I guess we would need to multiply that $162 billion by 5 to get the estimated cost for nationalized health care. That would be $810 billion a year for nationalized health care in the USA. That's about 13.5 times the size of the down payment in O's budget. Typically, when I think of a down payment I think of a number around 10%. That's about right for the down payment of 63 billion a year. Do we as a nation REALLY want to spend 800 billion a year via the US Treasury on health care? Think about who's pocket that will come from.
Next week I promise to explain why I say the rich don't pay the majority of the taxes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)