Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Taxes’

The Bidens Used S Corps To Avoid Paying Hundreds of Thousands in Payroll Taxes


Commentary By Randy DeSoto | Published September 28, 2020 at 3:18pm

While the Joe Biden campaign was quick to leap on a New York Times story that President Donald Trump paid a small amount in personal income taxes in recent years, it is clearly a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Joe and his wife Jill Biden funneled millions in income through a pair of S corporations they set up in Delaware as a way to circumnavigate paying Social Security and Medicare taxes, according to an August opinion article in The Wall Street Journal.

Of the nearly $13.3 million the couple took in primarily through speaking fees and book royalties during the 2017 and 2018 tax years, they claimed just $750,000 in income.

The other 94 percent of the money passed through the corporations as a direct distribution to the Bidens, preventing it from being subject to the up to 15.3 percent combined Social Security and Medicare tax rate, according to CNBC.

The Internal Revenue Service requires S corps to pay “reasonable compensation” to employee shareholders before making non-wage distributions to them.

The nature of the business dictates what should be characterized as income and what can be a distribution to an employee shareholder as money generated from the business.

“But to the extent gross receipts are generated by the shareholder’s personal services, then payments to the shareholder-employee should be classified as wages that are subject to employment taxes [Social Security and Medicare],” IRS guidance reads.

Such is clearly the case with the Bidens.

The companies made money through their speaking fees and book royalties and apparently little, if anything, else.

READ THE REST OF THE COMMENTARY AT https://www.westernjournal.com/bidens-used-s-corps-avoid-paying-hundreds-thousands-payroll-taxes/

ABOUT THE COMMENTATOR:

Biden Ad Features Woman Attacking Trump on COVID, Fails To Mention Her $27,000 in PPP Money


If you’re Joe Biden and you’re going to argue President Donald Trump hasn’t helped small businesses, and you’re going to do this in a campaign advertisement that highlights the owner of a small business, it helps if your people choose a small business that didn’t receive help from the federal government headed by Donald Trump.

If you have to pick someone who got assistance from a program signed into law by the president, it also helps to pick an individual who kept this information private. If conservatives discovered this information a month or two down the line, long after the message conveyed by the advertisement was absorbed into the body politic, the effect of the discovery is near zero. If you can find the information out via a quick Google search, well, that’s problematic.

I think this would go without saying, but apparently this reminder wasn’t relayed to the crack team currently being employed by the former vice president. His new ad features the owner of an eyewear shop in Philadelphia who got a forgivable Paycheck Protection Program loan.

Not only that, she gave an interview about it to BillyPenn, a Philadelphia-area news outlet, thus leaving a short trail of breadcrumbs for anyone willing to put in five minutes to discover it for themselves.

This is the advertisement, released by the Biden campaign on Wednesday:

“Small businesses are the backbone of communities across our nation, and we need to do so much more to help them,” read the copy on Joe Biden’s official Twitter account. “Donald Trump may have forgotten about them — but I never will.”

In the ad, owner Tiffany Easley — who wears a mask in what looks like an empty shop, showily proving an empty point — talks about her business woes at NV My Eyewear in Philadelphia.

“I always wanted to build something from the ground up. I saved, put in the hours, and put off vacations,” Easley says in the video.

“I opened NV My Eyewear three and a half years ago, and just as we were adding locations and employees, this pandemic brought everything to a halt. I had to permanently close one location and furlough my employees, and it’s my staff. They’re my family. It’s just heartbreaking.

“But what’s worse is that this president seemed to make everything else worse. Donald Trump and his administration left the American people behind,” she continued.

“The people that he is supposed to protect and serve. Small businesses, they need a partner in the White House, and that’s why I’m with Joe. I know he’ll help small businesses like mine get back on our feet. I spent my life building this business from the ground up. I want a president that’s going to build this country back better than before.”

The advantage of the video is that, save from the anecdotal evidence and information already known to every viewer, the ad is entirely fact-free. It doesn’t mention what Trump could have done better or how Biden will do so. Simply put, the ad’s fuzzy argument goes, Biden’s better, vote him.

Thus, the fact that the ad never mentions that Easley benefited a good deal from a bill signed by Trump doesn’t necessarily make it false, just wildly misleading:

In an April interview with BillyPenn, Easley said she’d “lost at least 95% of my revenue for March, and I guess it’s gonna be the same thing for April.”

However, she was able to stay in business thanks to the PPP, one of President Trump’s signature COVID-19 relief packages.

“The reason she’s able to be optimistic about the future? For one, Easley is a woman of faith, she said. Also, she was able to score emergency financial relief from two different sources,” BillyPenn reported.

“NV My Eyewear is one of the businesses that got a payout from the first phase of the federal Paycheck Protection Program. Easley was awarded a loan of $27,000, which will be forgiven if she uses it to rehire staff, as she’s planning to do.”

The other aid came in the form of a $5,000 grant from a Philadelphia COVID-19 relief fund.

According to the Washington Free Beacon, the Trump campaign has called the ad “dishonest.” The Biden campaign and Easley didn’t respond to requests for comment, the Free Beacon reported.

One muffed ad doesn’t a spoilt message make, although the case of NV My Eyewear speaks to a larger issue in Biden’s messaging that presented itself when, in the early days of response to the novel coronavirus, he was asked what he would have done differently from the president.

The suite of changes he originally presented were materially identical to what Trump had done. Oh, but he’d have gone further. How? Don’t ask for details, because that’s not Biden’s forte. That this isn’t remembered more acidly is proof of the kinds of the passes a mediocre establishment Democrat will receive both from his own party and the media.

Biden’s small business proposals, such as they are, are likely to get the same kid-gloves treatment.

What’s his messaging here — that he wasn’t president when the coronavirus hit? That he would have given out more money in PPP money? He would have spent more money than the trillions that had already been spent?

The ad makes none of that clear.

Biden has called for student loan forgiveness, according to Forbes, and a stimulus package “a hell of a lot bigger” than the $2 trillion in the CARES Act, according to Politico.

These would have to be paid for, at least in part, through tax increases.

Those words aren’t featured in the ad, and for good reason: If you want one weird trick to get voters to recoil from Biden just as COVID-19 lockdowns have led to record unemployment, it’s telling them they need to pay more taxes.

Another weird trick to get investors spooked: Tell them that the American people will have less money to spend as we attempt the greatest economic turnaround in history.

Interestingly, Easley has appeared in one other interview recently. In a June 15 Philadelphia Inquirer story, she talked about the looting and rioting going on in a business corridor that served the black community in Philadelphia. Easley told the newspaper residents in the neighborhood discouraged rioters from destroying NV My Eyewear as they had with so many other small businesses on historic 52nd Street in the City of Brotherly Love.

“I probably would have been devastated if my business was one of the properties,” she said. “I thank God that people remember me.”

If only there were a political party that believed in standing up against the rioters instead of saying that it was just property damage and it was time to defund our police.

If only there were a president who wanted to restore law and order so business owners like Easley’s wouldn’t have to worry about savage mobs destroying their livelihood.

I wonder if anyone’s going to tell her.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: 

Pocahontas Now Wants GAY REPARATIONS – No, This Isn’t Satire


Written by Wes Walker on June 24, 2019

It’s like they’ve looked at their rabid base and decided ‘whoever promises to give away the most free crap wins’… and now they’re desperate to outspend one another.

Well, since the Democrats have already promised to give away more money than the nation will ever see, why not add one more promise to the pandering pile?

A report by the Joint Committee on Taxation released Tuesday estimated that taxpayers who were in same-sex marriages prior to the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act in 2013 would be eligible for up to $57 million in refunds. Warren introduced a version of the bill in 2017.

Same-sex couples in nearly 10 states were permitted to legally marry on the state level prior to the Supreme Court’s 2013 United States v. Windsor decision, which struck down the Defense of Marriage Act and permitted these couples to file joint federal tax returns.

At the time, the IRS said same-sex married couples could file amendments to their tax returns for the previous three years — the same amount of time for opposite-sex couples. However, gay couples in several states, including Warren’s home state of Massachusetts, had been legally married for more than three years before the Windsor decision.
Source: NBC

The fact that she’s making this promise in a State that had no safe drinking water when the Democrats were running the show only adds to the ridiculousness of her announcement.

With all the issues facing the nation at the moment — including nations from 52 countries having been apprehended slipping across the Texan border, unfunded liability obligations that are about to bite us in the ass, and a Congress that has weaponized their oversight capabilities in the service of the destruction of their political opponents, she is demonstrating the basic Leftist instinct — tack to the left and appease the outrage class.

Does she really believe this is THE burning issue that needs to be addressed? Or is she just desperate to make people forget that she’s the brunt of every “23-and-Me” DNA joke going.

And it’s just a ‘coincidence’ that she’s unveiling this announcement in June — right?

Sure it is.

Did she have any proposals about compensation being paid to groups that were unlawfully targeted and harassed by the IRS because they were the political enemies of the Obama Administration?

Of course not.

This is an exercise in kissing ass, politically speaking. Nothing more.

But maybe you see it differently. The comments are open.

Have at ‘er.

Experts Have Chilling Prediction for Where De Blasio Is Taking NYC, Hasn’t Happened in 40 Years


Reported By Ben Marquis | Published March 12, 2019 at 2:53pm | Modified March 12, 2019 at 2:57pm

New York City has long been viewed by many as a dumpster fire of fiscal irresponsibility with ridiculously high taxes and insanely excessive spending, and under the past few years of leadership by the socialist, er, Democratic Mayor Bill de Blasio, the situation has only gotten worse.

Recent reports citing economic experts have warned that the famed city could soon face the financial disaster of bankruptcy for the first time in more than 40 years, but it doesn’t appear that the city is doing much of anything to address that dire consequence, and instead is arguably making things even worse.

The New York Post reported last week that as businesses and residents flee the high taxes imposed on them by the city and state, resulting in entirely predictable tax revenue shortfalls, public spending has actually been increased instead of reduced as well, creating a sort of fiscal death spiral that could ruin the city.

Milton Ezrati, chief economist of financial communications agency Vested, told the Post, “The city is running a deficit and could be in a real difficult spot if we had a recession, or a further flight of individuals because of tax reform.”

“New York is already in a difficult financial spot, but it would be in an impossible situation if we had any kind of setback,” he added.

Such setbacks would include a financial recession, which could prove fiscally devastating, or even just a continuation of the exodus of taxpayers while spending continues to increase.

Indeed, Mayor de Blasio recently announced an additional $3 billion in new spending on top of a budget that already included $89.2 billion in spending.

Meanwhile, the mayor only found “savings” of about $750 million in his proposed budget for 2020 — obviously not enough to save the city in a disaster — and the state’s Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo cut roughly $600 million in city-related spending from his proposed state budget for the coming year.

The Post noted that the city’s spending has increased by 32 percent since de Blasio assumed office, about three times the rate of inflation, and has hired some additional 33,000 public sector workers who are paid with city funds and are granted long-term pensions and other city-funded benefits.

Peter C. Earle, economist at the American Institute for Economic Research, stated, “New York City could go bankrupt, absolutely.”

“In that case, the city would get temporary protection from its creditors, but it would be very difficult for the city to take on new debt,” he added.

City pensions, along with other long-term liabilities like bonded debt and other post-employment benefits for public workers, are estimated at more than a quarter trillion dollars, according to a 2018 report from the city’s Citizen’s Budget Commission, which placed the total liabilities held by New York City at roughly $257.3 billion for that year. That is nearly $5 billion more than the 2017 total of $252.5 billion, and works out to an astonishing liability per New York City household of $82,577.

The budget commission also noted that the city’s pension fund is only about 76 percent funded.

All of that news comes as residents are increasingly leaving the excessively taxed city and state for low-tax states like Florida and Texas, an exodus that has been partially blamed for the state’s announced $2.3 billion budget deficit caused by a shortfall in expected tax revenues, according to Fox News.

All the while, Cuomo is blaming the problem on the Trump administration and Republicans for the tax cut bill Trump signed in 2017, which reduced the amount of state and local taxes residents could deduct from their federal taxes and left some residents and businesses with a higher tax bill.

In response to the incredible shortfall, the state has decided not to reduce spending or do anything responsible like that, but to instead levy aggressive audits on the businesses and individuals leaving the state to try and soak them with a tax bill one last time for whatever they may be worth.

Unfortunately for New York, that aggressive effort will likely only encourage more top-earners and wealthy individuals to get out while they still can, and considering the fact that the top 1 percent in the state account for roughly half of all tax revenues, that could actually serve to hasten the potential financial disaster facing the city and state. New York City, and the state as well, were already fiscal dumpster fires.

But the financially irresponsible actions of their progressive leadership have only served to throw gasoline on the blaze, and the growing monetary inferno of high taxes, high spending and unfunded liabilities in the face of reduced tax revenues now threatens to engulf the city in bankruptcy.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: 

Summary

More Info Recent Posts Contact

Ben Marquis is a writer who identifies as a constitutional conservative/libertarian. His focus is on protecting the First and Second Amendments. He has covered current events and politics for Conservative Tribune since 2014.

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon by A.F. Branco


A.F. Branco Cartoon – Maduro’s Daughter

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Has a lot of ideas that Dictator Maduro of Venezuela could endorse. it’s almost like they’re related. If Maduro Had a daughter.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez VenezuelaPolitical cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2019.
More A.F. Branco Cartoons at The Daily Torch.

A.F. Branco 2019 13-Month Calendar <—- Order

take our poll – story continues below
  • Did the Covington Catholic High School kids do anything wrong?

Donations/Tips accepted and appreciated –  $1.00 – $5.00 – $10 – $100 –  it all helps to fund this website and keep the cartoons coming. – THANK YOU!

A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions, (art and politics) and translated them into the cartoons that have been seen all over the country, in various news outlets including “Fox News”, MSNBC, CBS, ABC and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as James Woods, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, and even the great El Rushbo.

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon by A.F. Branco


A.F. Branco Cartoon – High Tax Nancy

Nancy Pelosi may be back holding the gavel with a vengeance wanting her crumbs back from the taxpayers.

Nancy Pelosi Speaker AgainPolitical Cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2018.
More A.F. Branco Cartoons at The Daily Torch.

A.F. Branco 2019 13-Month Calendar <—- Order Here

take our poll – story continues below
  • Will the Democrats try to impeach President Trump now that they control the House?

A.F.Branco Coffee Table Book <—- Order Here.

A.F. Branco has taken his two greatest passions, (art and politics) and translated them into the cartoons that have been seen all over the country, in various news outlets including “Fox News”, MSNBC, CBS, ABC and “The Washington Post.” He has been recognized by such personalities as James Woods, Sarah Palin, Larry Elder, Lars Larson, and even the great El Rushbo.

Ocasio-Cortez Supporters Love Socialism So Much That They Have Absolutely No Idea How It Works


Reported By Ben Marquis | July 30, 2018 at 2:41pm

Democratic socialism, a sort of mythical utopian form of government halfway between a capitalist democratic society and a socialistic communist one, is all the rage on the left these days following the surprising primary victory of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in New York’s 14th Congressional District.

Ocasio-Cortez makes no secret of her passion for a more socialist society in America, one where every individual’s basic needs are provided by the government. And that passion is apparently shared by a growing number of American citizens, as was recently revealed by Campus Reform.

Campus Reform’s media director Cabot Phillips took to the streets of Ocasio-Cortez’s district and asked random people about the potential congresswoman and her desire for the government to provide things like “free health care,” “free college tuition,” “a minimum living wage” and “housing as a human right,” none of which should be denied to anybody in her view.

Incredibly, most of those Phillips spoke with were in favor of such policies and government “freebies,” even as they had no idea how it would all be paid for. Watch right here:

Asked where the money would come from, one couple paused and replied, “Oh God … us, I guess.”

Another woman said some of the “free things” should be paid for with taxes and the rest picked up by government, apparently not making the connection that government is funded entirely by taxes on people like her.

“I don’t know where the money would come from, but they can figure it out,” said one man with a laugh.

Phillips suggested more taxes on rich people and the man replied, “For sure man, like, they can afford it.”

Another man suggested we “tax corporations, tax the one percent and find a way to support a living wage,” while yet another maintained that “people with a good idea, and a good reason to spend their tax money, people wouldn’t actually mind paying more taxes.”

Many of the people pointed to “other countries” that have implemented socialist ideas and appeared to be doing well, but were more or less rendered speechless when Phillips asked if they thought Venezuela’s utter failure of a socialist government was one such example.

In the end, all of the people featured in Campus Reform’s video were absolutely clueless about what “democratic socialism” even is, much less how all of the “free” goodies promised by socialists like Ocasio-Cortez would be paid for. Phillips was only too happy to discuss his findings in an appearance on “Fox & Friends Weekend.”

Phillips noted that even though the responses he received were “laughable” to hear, the rise of a favorable view of socialism among millennials was “not a joking matter” as the consistent failure of socialism was a rather serious issue that young people don’t seem to understand.

“It seems like all these students don’t have a grip on history… They’re not being taught history and economics courses … so many students — it’s hard to blame them — they don’t have a context of history, they don’t know that socialism has failed every time its been implemented,” Phillips said.

“I think a lot of this also stems from how we have demonized success in America,” he continued. “Many people are taught that if you are wealthy, you only got that way because you stole it from someone less fortunate or less privileged.

“And I think after eight years of class warfare under President Obama, young people are now coming of age thinking ‘If someone else is rich it must be because they did something wrong,’and so instead of teaching people to emulate success, we’ve taught them now to try and drag successful people down, and that’s the wrong way of doing things,” Phillips added.

Sadly, Phillips is absolutely correct in that our nation’s liberal education system hasn’t taught the latest generations about the complete failures and abject horrors of true socialism. That’s why so many folks today seem absolutely clueless about the utter impossibility of a government providing “free” everything while remaining a prosperous nation where citizens enjoy liberty and freedom.

It’s why there are so many Democrats.

How Americans View Republican Policies Has Changed Drastically in Last 4 Months


Reported By Robert Donachie | April 17, 2018 at 8:56am

URL of the original posting site: https://www.westernjournal.com/how-americans-view-republican-policies-has-changed-drastically-in-last-4-months/

More American voters want the Republican party to remain in charge of the economy and tax policy, according to an NBC News/WSJ poll released Monday evening. The two media outlets found that 35 percent of Americans believe the Republican Party is better suited to handle the economy, compared with 28 percent who think Democrats have the better economic policies.

Roughly four months ago, Democrats had the upper hand. Thirty-five percent of American voters thought Democrats were the better choice in December — the same month Republicans passed the 2017 tax reform bill. The party now holds a slim 2 percent advantage over Democrats on the question of who has the better tax policy. Democrats had a 4 percentage point advantage in December.

Americans remain divided on whether or not the 2017 tax reform bill was a net-positive. Only 27 percent of Americans think the bill was a good idea, while 34 percent say they don’t know enough about the bill and 36 percent say it wasn’t a good idea.

A slim majority of Americans — 53 percent — think it is likely a negative because of expectations that it will greatly increase the federal deficit. Americans also believe the bill was a giveaway to the wealthy and major corporations.

Recent findings from government oversight officials work to back up Americans’ growing federal deficit concerns. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office expects the Republican tax reform bill and 2018 congressional budget agreement will grow the economy over the coming years, but also add nearly $2 trillion to federal deficit over the next decade.

The CBO released analysis earlier in April detailing how the federal budget deficit will be $804 billion in 2018 and exceed $1 trillion in 2020. Publicly held U.S. debt will total $28.671 trillion by the end of 2028, amounting to over 96 percent of U.S. gross domestic product that year.

Republican tax cuts are expected, as leadership has repeatedly claimed, to grow the economy over the next two years. Real GDP will expand 3.3 percent in 2018 and 2.4 percent in 2019. Starting in 2020, those gains are expected to taper off. The CBO expects real GDP to grow 1.8 percent in 2020, continuing at an average annual rate of 1.7 percent from 2020-2026.

While the deficit remains a concern, the tax bill has shown and is expected to show some other net-benefits for the American people.  Hundreds of corporations and small businesses announced bonuses and wage increases following the bill’s signing last December, although many have decried the moves as simply a public relations stunt.

Americans filed their first tax returns under the new Republican tax plan Tuesday, a first litmus test for voters and politicians as to how effective the tax cuts will end up being. Tax cuts are also expected to bring nearly $2 trillion in capital held overseas back to the United States, according to a United Nations Conference on Trade and Developments report.

The U.N. expects the Republican tax law could lead to the repatriation of roughly $2 trillion in funds that American multinationals are holding overseas. U.N. analysts attribute their predictions to the dramatic cut to the U.S. corporate tax rate that took effect on Jan. 1, 2018.

A version of this article previously appeared on The Daily Caller News Foundation website. 

Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon by A.F. Branco


This is Armageddon

Multi-millionaire Pelosi thinks a $1000 to $2000 bonuses are crumbs but working families may feel different.

Pelosi CrumbsPolitical cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2017.

Utility Company Wants to Cut Rates for Millions After Trump Tax Cuts


By Randy DeSoto | January 11, 2018 at 11:13am

URL of the original posting site: https://www.westernjournalism.com/utility-company-wants-cut-rates-millions-customers-trump-tax-cuts/

Arizona’s largest utility company is seeking permission to cut rates to its more than one million customers as a result of the Republican tax reform bill passed last month. The public corporation joined one of New England largest providers — serving liberal Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s Massachusetts — in announcing it will do the same.

The news came as Walmart became another of a plethora of companies that will pay $1,000 bonuses and other benefits to its employees due to the windfall it will reap as a result of the corporate tax rate being lowered from 35 percent to 21 percent.

The Associated Press reported Tuesday that Arizona Power Service is seeking permission from regulators to cut bills by $119 million a year, effective on Feb. 1. Residential customers will see their monthly decrease by an average of $4.68 per month.

APS said more cuts could follow once the tax bill’s effects become more clear, according to the AP.

Meanwhile, the Massachusetts-based utility Eversource, which serves over 3 million customers, announced earlier this month it wants to lower its rates as well.

“We believe it’s important that our customers reap the benefit of a lower tax rate,” Eversource Massachusetts Electric Operations President Craig Hallstrom said in a statement, according to WBUR. “As a regulated power company our rates are based on our costs, including federal taxes, so if taxes are reduced ultimately costs are reduced and that benefits our customers.”

Eversource seeks to reduce its rates by $35.4 million in eastern Massachusetts and lower its recently approved increase for the western part of the state from $24.8 million to $16.5 million.

The Bay State’s Democrat Attorney General Maura Healey is calling on all utilities serving Massachusetts residents to do the same.

On Wednesday, Fox News host Bret Baier questioned Warren, an outspoken critic of the GOP tax plan and President Donald Trump, about the decision by Eversource to lower its rates.

“Good for them. I’m delighted to hear that,” she replied, but added that she would move to change the new tax law if Democrats take back Congress in November.

“You’ve got to take out the parts that are giveaways to big corporations that right now, the Republicans plan for hardworking families to eventually pay for,” Warren said. “It is a $1.5 trillion that the Republicans gave away to billionaires and to giant corporations.”

“I want those breaks to go to hardworking families, not to a bunch of rich folks,” she added.

At his first Cabinet meeting of 2018 on Wednesday, Trump touted the benefits Americans at all income levels are already experiencing as a result of the tax law, including some that were unforeseen.

“Since that tax cut was enacted more than one million workers have received a tax cut bonus. Something that frankly no one even thought about,” he said. “We just knew a lot of good things were going to happen.”

“I must say AT&T was the first one, and they did it, $1,000 per employee,” he added. “They have hundreds of thousands of employees. And many companies followed immediately thereafter. Millions of employees in this country are getting $1,000 and more in some cases. Tax bonuses because of the tax cuts.”

He also pointed out the plan specifically targets working Americans by nearly doubling the standard deduction, making the first $12,000 earned income tax-free for individuals, and the first $24,000 for married couples. Additionally, the law doubles the child income tax credit from $1,000 to $2,000.

On Thursday, Trump tweeted out the announcement by Walmart, the nation’s largest private employer, that it was raising its U.S. minimum wage to $11 per hour and issuing a bonus of up to $1,000 to employees as a result of the lower corporate tax rates.

The corporation also plans to expand maternity and parental leave benefits.

CBS Attempted Hit Job Against Tax Bill, But All 3 Families Discovered Something


Reported By Cillian Zeal | December 26, 2017 at 10:20pm

URL of the original posting site: https://conservativetribune.com/cbs-hit-job-tax-bill/

Before the Republican tax bill was passed, the media narrative focused on how it would only benefit the wealthy. Once it was passed (after a bit of procedural drama for good measure), that narrative went into overdrive. No matter what statistics or examples the GOP may have pointed the media toward, that was the story, and they were sticking to it. However, as our second president pointed out, facts are stubborn things — even more stubborn than media outlets are.

CBS found out the timeless sagacity of Mr. Adams’ advice the hard way.

After the tax bill passed, the network decided to run a segment that looked at how three separate American families from three different parts of the country would fare under the Republicans’ new tax plan. The original idea, one would assume, was to highlight the inequality therein.

Instead of the hit job one assumes some were looking for, however, CBS found that all three families ended up saving money.

The first profile was of Marcie George, a single mother who rents a home in Cary, North Carolina.

“It didn’t seem as they were going along like it would really affect someone like me,” George said.

An administrative assistant, George makes under $40,000 a year. “Financially, I struggle,” George said. “I live paycheck to paycheck. I make things work, I readjust and rearrange, but we do get by.”

Remember that we were told incessantly by the left that Ms. George and her child were going to be the kind of people who would get the shaft under the GOP tax plan. So, how did things end up for her? Pretty well, we’d say: over $1,300 saved, in part thanks to the child tax credit doubling.

Amber and Jason Edwards, a couple from Providence, Rhode Island, are slightly higher up the tax bracket than Ms. George is. Homeowners who are married without children, the educators took in a combined $150,000. While the Edwardses would pay taxes on $12,000 more of their income, according to CBS’ accountant, they would end up saving money based on the lower tax numbers, saving the family $650. They would also switch to the standard deduction, meaning a simpler return.

“Honestly, I’m a little surprised,” Amber Edwards said, turning to her husband. “What you had said, initially, you thought we were going to have a higher tax bill.”

And he was wrong.

Meanwhile, Melissa and Layne Lev of Fresno, California have three children and own their home and a small business. They too thought their taxes were going to be higher, although Melissa had trouble explaining why she thought this was. They make roughly $300,000. Even though they’re from a high-tax state — one where most individuals likely think that they’re going to get hit hard by the reduced state tax deductions — they ended up saving money too.

They’ll be receiving $13,000 in tax cuts, thanks to receiving child tax credits and not paying the alternative minimum tax.

Can you imagine the tears in the CBS newsroom as the results poured in? It’s like a mini-election night all over again!

So, yes, as much as this is apparently just a tax cut for the rich, everyone — the Georges, the Edwardses and the Levs — will be seeing money back thanks to tax reform. And these are hardly modern-day Vanderbilts, either, meaning this is money that’s going to be going directly back into the economy.

Talk about a Christmas present for everybody. Unless you’re part of the Democrat caucus, of course.

H/T PJ Media

Liberals Launch Program to Increase No. of Illegals Allowed to Stay by 1,100%


Reported By Ben Marquis | November 13, 2017 at 2:17pm

URL of the original posting Site: https://conservativetribune.com/liberals-program-illegals-allowed/?

Since President Donald Trump took office, there has been a marked difference in the manner in which the federal government deals with illegal immigration, both on the border and within the country.

Deportations are reportedly rising, but liberals are intent on reversing that trend and allowing as many illegals to remain lawfully in the country as long as possible, and they appear to now be using taxpayer funds to do so.

The liberal New York City-based Vera Institute of Justice just announced via a press release the formation of a new program known as the Safety and Fairness for Everyone Cities Network.

The SAFE Cities Network provides publicly-funded legal representation to both legal immigrants and illegals involved in deportation and detainment hearings at no cost to the immigrants themselves. Some localities have begun similar programs on their own already.

The program is based on a study by the New York Immigrant Family Unity Project that was conducted in one particular New York City immigration court, the results of which the Vera Institute now intends to attempt to duplicate nationwide.

That study found that immigrants facing deportation hearings had only a 4 percent success rate of avoiding deportation when representing themselves, but that their success rate was about 48 percent when they were provided with legal representation — an estimated increase of 1,100 percent.

The organization touted, “Network members come from 11 politically, economically, and ethnically diverse jurisdictions that are united in their commitment to the belief that … a crucial way to keep our communities safe is to ensure legal representation for those whose future depends on it.”

Except that the 11 Network members aren’t exactly as “politically” diverse as the Vera Institute would have the public believe. Just check out the list of participating jurisdictions and see if you can spot the one thing they all have in common.

The 11 Network members are: Atlanta, GA; Austin, TX; Baltimore, MD; Chicago, IL; Columbus, OH; Dane County, WI; Oakland/Alameda County, CA; Prince George’s County, MD; Sacramento, CA; San Antonio, TX; and Santa Ana, CA.

If you noticed that all of those cities and/or counties are liberal-dominated and Democrat-controlled, even if they are in a “red” state, then you would be correct.

The Vera Institute proudly proclaimed that under their initiative, “[Eleven] jurisdictions are providing funding for trained legal service providers to represent immigrants facing deportation proceedings supplemented by a catalyst grant administered by Vera.”

What that means is that Vera provided some private funding up front to start the program, but that participant jurisdictions will continue the program with taxpayer dollars.

Were this initiative to be completely funded by private dollars, we would have no qualms with it whatsoever, as it would be nothing more than liberals putting their money where their mouths are and funding a venture to protect illegals by themselves. But this program will utilize taxpayer money, funds that will inevitably come from individuals vehemently opposed to the program who will nevertheless be paying for it. That is not right.

Furthermore, can we expect liberal organizations like the Vera Institute to formulate similar programs using taxpayer funding to provide for the “free” legal defense of American citizens facing hearings for violations of gun or tax laws or other government regulations? After all, wouldn’t that be “fair” to everyone?

We highly doubt it.

H/T LawNewz

FBI uncovered Russian bribery plot before Obama administration approved controversial nuclear deal with Moscow


Reported

 
 
 

Before the Obama administration approved a controversial deal in 2010 giving Moscow control of a large swath of American uranium, the FBI had gathered substantial evidence that Russian nuclear industry officials were engaged in bribery, kickbacks, extortion and money laundering designed to grow Vladimir Putin’s atomic energy business inside the United States, according to government documents and interviews.

Federal agents used a confidential U.S. witness working inside the Russian nuclear industry to gather extensive financial records, make secret recordings and intercept emails as early as 2009 that showed Moscow had compromised an American uranium trucking firm with bribes and kickbacks in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, FBI and court documents show.

They also obtained an eyewitness account — backed by documents — indicating Russian nuclear officials had routed millions of dollars to the U.S. designed to benefit former President Bill Clinton’s charitable foundation during the time Secretary of State Hillary Clinton served on a government body that provided a favorable decision to Moscow, sources told The Hill.

The racketeering scheme was conducted “with the consent of higher level officials” in Russia who “shared the proceeds” from the kickbacks, one agent declared in an affidavit years later.

ADVERTISEMENT

Rather than bring immediate charges in 2010, however, the Department of Justice (DOJ) continued investigating the matter for nearly four more years, essentially leaving the American public and Congress in the dark about Russian nuclear corruption on U.S. soil during a period when the Obama administration made two major decisions benefiting Putin’s commercial nuclear ambitions.The first decision occurred in October 2010, when the State Department and government agencies on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States unanimously approved the partial sale of Canadian mining company Uranium One to the Russian nuclear giant Rosatom, giving Moscow control of more than 20 percent of America’s uranium supply.

When this sale was used by Trump on the campaign trail last year, Hillary Clinton’s spokesman said she was not involved in the committee review and noted the State Department official who handled it said she “never intervened … on any [Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States] matter.”

In 2011, the administration gave approval for Rosatom’s Tenex subsidiary to sell commercial uranium to U.S. nuclear power plants in a partnership with the United States Enrichment Corp. Before then, Tenex had been limited to selling U.S. nuclear power plants reprocessed uranium recovered from dismantled Soviet nuclear weapons under the 1990s Megatons to Megawatts peace program.

“The Russians were compromising American contractors in the nuclear industry with kickbacks and extortion threats, all of which raised legitimate national security concerns. And none of that evidence got aired before the Obama administration made those decisions,” a person who worked on the case told The Hill, speaking on condition of anonymity for fear of retribution by U.S. or Russian officials.

The Obama administration’s decision to approve Rosatom’s purchase of Uranium One has been a source of political controversy since 2015. That’s when conservative author Peter Schweitzer and The New York Times documented how Bill Clinton collected hundreds of thousands of dollars in Russian speaking fees and his charitable foundation collected millions in donations from parties interested in the deal while Hillary Clinton presided on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States.

The Obama administration and the Clintons defended their actions at the time, insisting there was no evidence that any Russians or donors engaged in wrongdoing and there was no national security reason for any member of the committee to oppose the Uranium One deal.

But FBI, Energy Department and court documents reviewed by The Hill show the FBI in fact had gathered substantial evidence well before the committee’s decision that Vadim Mikerin — the main Russian overseeing Putin’s nuclear expansion inside the United States — was engaged in wrongdoing starting in 2009.

Then-Attorney General Eric Holder was among the Obama administration officials joining Hillary Clinton on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States at the time the Uranium One deal was approved. Multiple current and former government officials told The Hill they did not know whether the FBI or DOJ ever alerted committee members to the criminal activity they uncovered.

Spokesmen for Holder and Clinton did not return calls seeking comment. The Justice Department also didn’t comment.

Mikerin was a director of Rosatom’s Tenex in Moscow since the early 2000s, where he oversaw Rosatom’s nuclear collaboration with the United States under the Megatons to Megwatts program and its commercial uranium sales to other countries. In 2010, Mikerin was dispatched to the U.S. on a work visa approved by the Obama administration to open Rosatom’s new American arm called Tenam.

Between 2009 and January 2012, Mikerin “did knowingly and willfully combine, conspire confederate and agree with other persons … to obstruct, delay and affect commerce and the movement of an article and commodity (enriched uranium) in commerce by extortion,” a November 2014 indictment stated.

His illegal conduct was captured with the help of a confidential witness, an American businessman, who began making kickback payments at Mikerin’s direction and with the permission of the FBI. The first kickback payment recorded by the FBI through its informant was dated Nov. 27, 2009, the records show.

In evidentiary affidavits signed in 2014 and 2015, an Energy Department agent assigned to assist the FBI in the case testified that Mikerin supervised a “racketeering scheme” that involved extortion, bribery, money laundering and kickbacks that were both directed by and provided benefit to more senior officials back in Russia.

“As part of the scheme, Mikerin, with the consent of higher level officials at TENEX and Rosatom (both Russian state-owned entities) would offer no-bid contracts to US businesses in exchange for kickbacks in the form of money payments made to some offshore banks accounts,” Agent David Gadren testified.

“Mikerin apparently then shared the proceeds with other co-conspirators associated with TENEX in Russia and elsewhere,” the agent added.

The investigation was ultimately supervised by then-U.S. Attorney Rod Rosenstein, an Obama appointee who now serves as President Trump’s deputy attorney general, and then-Assistant FBI Director Andrew McCabe, now the deputy FBI director under Trump, Justice Department documents show.

Both men now play a key role in the current investigation into possible, but still unproven, collusion between Russia and Donald Trump’s campaign during the 2016 election cycle. McCabe is under congressional and Justice Department inspector general investigation in connection with money his wife’s Virginia state Senate campaign accepted in 2015 from now-Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe at a time when McAuliffe was reportedly under investigation by the FBI.

The connections to the current Russia case are many. The Mikerin probe began in 2009 when Robert Mueller, now the special counsel in charge of the Trump case, was still FBI director. And it ended in late 2015 under the direction of then-FBI Director James Comey, whom Trump fired earlier this year.

Its many twist and turns aside, the FBI nuclear industry case proved a gold mine, in part because it uncovered a new Russian money laundering apparatus that routed bribe and kickback payments through financial instruments in Cyprus, Latvia and Seychelles. A Russian financier in New Jersey was among those arrested for the money laundering, court records show.

The case also exposed a serious national security breach: Mikerin had given a contract to an American trucking firm called Transport Logistics International that held the sensitive job of transporting Russia’s uranium around the United States in return for more than $2 million in kickbacks from some of its executives, court records show.

One of Mikerin’s former employees told the FBI that Tenex officials in Russia specifically directed the scheme to “allow for padded pricing to include kickbacks,” agents testified in one court filing.

Bringing down a major Russian nuclear corruption scheme that had both compromised a sensitive uranium transportation asset inside the U.S. and facilitated international money laundering would seem a major feather in any law enforcement agency’s cap. But the Justice Department and FBI took little credit in 2014 when Mikerin, the Russian financier and the trucking firm executives were arrested and charged. The only public statement occurred a year later when the Justice Department put out a little-noticed press release in August 2015, just days before Labor Day. The release noted that the various defendants had reached plea deals.

By that time, the criminal cases against Mikerin had been narrowed to a single charge of money laundering for a scheme that officials admitted stretched from 2004 to 2014. And though agents had evidence of criminal wrongdoing they collected since at least 2009, federal prosecutors only cited in the plea agreement a handful of transactions that occurred in 2011 and 2012, well after the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United State’s approval.

The final court case also made no mention of any connection to the influence peddling conversations the FBI undercover informant witnessed about the Russian nuclear officials trying to ingratiate themselves with the Clintons even though agents had gathered documents showing the transmission of millions of dollars from Russia’s nuclear industry to an American entity that had provided assistance to Bill Clinton’s foundation, sources confirmed to The Hill.

The lack of fanfare left many key players in Washington with no inkling that a major Russian nuclear corruption scheme with serious national security implications had been uncovered.

On Dec. 15, 2015, the Justice Department put out a release stating that Mikerin, “a former Russian official residing in Maryland was sentenced today to 48 months in prison” and ordered to forfeit more than $2.1 million.

Ronald Hosko, who served as the assistant FBI director in charge of criminal cases when the investigation was underway, told The Hill he did not recall ever being briefed about Mikerin’s case by the counterintelligence side of the bureau despite the criminal charges that were being lodged.

“I had no idea this case was being conducted,” a surprised Hosko said in an interview.

Likewise, major congressional figures were also kept in the dark.

Former Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.), who chaired the House Intelligence Committee during the time the FBI probe was being conducted, told The Hill that he had never been told anything about the Russian nuclear corruption case even though many fellow lawmakers had serious concerns about the Obama administration’s approval of the Uranium One deal.

“Not providing information on a corruption scheme before the Russian uranium deal was approved by U.S. regulators and engage appropriate congressional committees has served to undermine U.S. national security interests by the very people charged with protecting them,” he said. “The Russian efforts to manipulate our American political enterprise is breathtaking.”

Indictment Affidavit by M Mali on Scribd

https://www.scribd.com/embeds/361782806/content?start_page=1&view_mode=scroll&access_key=key-1KruSlw1gQLLv68Bb1ZB&show_recommendations=true

 

Warrant Affidavit by M Mali on Scribd

https://www.scribd.com/embeds/361783030/content?start_page=1&view_mode=scroll&access_key=key-N455a4bz5qQFSYWLdHvG&show_recommendations=true

 

 

Mikerin Plea Deal by M Mali on Scribd

https://www.scribd.com/embeds/361783782/content?start_page=1&view_mode=scroll&access_key=key-9FqAb64N1wtBrEk5gxzZ&show_recommendations=true

Corporate Tax Cut Will Raise Middle-Class Wages


Reported 

URL of the original posting site: https://www.westernjournalism.com/corporate-tax-cut-will-raise-middle-class-wages/?

Advertisement – story continues below

A study released Monday by Kevin Hassett, President Donald Trump’s chief economist, gives a boost to Trump’s proposed corporate tax cut. The study shows that if the tax cut is implemented, the average family could see an income boost in the thousands of dollars.

The tax cut would lower the current rate of 35 percent to 20 percent. Based on “conservative estimates,” this decrease would boost the average household income by $4,000, the paper said. But more “moderate estimates” reveal increases of $9,000 per family.

“Put simply, capital deepening, which brings additional returns to the owners of capital, brings substantial returns to workers as well,” said the paper, which studied evidence from other countries that have lowered their corporate tax rates.

But Democrats have disapproved of Trump’s proposed tax cut from the start. They believe it will not benefit ordinary families, but only business themselves.

The new study will allow Republicans to offer a rebuttal.

Hassett, the chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, insists that American families would benefit the most from significantly lower corporate tax rates, more so than the companies themselves.

Advertisement – story continues below

“America’s broken corporate tax system creates incentives for firms to hold their money outside of our borders,” Hassett told reporters on Sunday, according to the Washington Examiner. “When firms hold their money overseas rather than invest them in America, they’re holding down the productivity of the American economy and the wages of American workers.”

The United States has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world, leading many companies to keep their profits abroad in lower-tax countries to avoid significant tax hits back home.

By cutting the tax rate, the idea is that companies would then invest more within the United States. This would cause a boost in productivity throughout the country.

This productivity would then boost wages, according to Hassett’s study.

“More assets like machines let workers produce more, and when workers can produce more, businesses can afford to pay their workers more,” Hassett said, as reported by The Hill. 

But some economists and tax policy experts have voiced their concerns about the tax cut directly benefiting workers. Although they agree this would attract companies to invest more in the United States economy, they cannot predict how much money will bring back home. There is also concern over what corporations will do with their tax savings.

Trump announced his tax proposal during a September a speech in Indianapolis. Calling it a “revolutionary change,” he said it would boost wages to “levels that you haven’t seen in many years,” according to The New York Times. 

Additional Politically INCORRECT Cartoons for Tuesday September 5, 2017


Today’s Politically INCORRECT Cartoon by A. F. Branco


Feeling Heavy

URL of the original posting site: http://comicallyincorrect.com/2017/07/19/feeling-heavy/#ZTRstsK3Itmjo0B8.99

The mainstream media want to keep focusing on Russia while the rest of the country are tired of it, and ready to move on to other issues.

Political Cartoon by A.F. Branco ©2017.

More A.F. Branco cartoons at Constitution.com here.

A.F.Branco Coffee Table Book <—- Order Here!

Perspective: Trump scored big, using a conventional speech to kick off an unconventional presidency


Donald Trump in Mesa, AZ / Gage Skidmore | Flickr

State of the Union Addresses are usually full of carefully-crafted platitudes presenting the president’s agenda in a unifying tone from a position of strength. Typically, no new ground is plowed at these events. In recent years, they have fallen flat for presidents of both parties. But given that Trump is such an unconventional president, a conventional policy speech — carefully crafted with a serious but upbeat tone — is exactly what he needed in order to recover his stalled momentum.

In many ways this was the best speech he has given to date. In fact, it was a perfect presentation of his agenda. To be clear, not all of his agenda is conservative, but that is already baked into the cake. Amidst a month of endless muddled messaging, ramblings about the media, Republican infighting, and competing factions within his own administration, last night was his only opportunity to take his message directly to the American people. It was also a time to move beyond campaign rhetoric and embrace the reality of his party controlling all of government and the need for a forward-looking message.

Here are my quick observations on the policy aspects of the speech, divided into what conservatives should consider good and bad..

THE GOOD

1. Immigration:

Coming into the speech, rumors were swirling in the media that Trump would embrace some sort of amnesty. Not only did that not occur, but Trump reclaimed the term “immigration reform” and used it to describe what the word truly means: finally restoring our immigration system to its historical values before Ted Kennedy destroyed it. That means only admitting immigrants who love our values, do not become a public charge, and do not threaten our way of life. It also means implementing a sane legal immigration system that is not based on chain migration. He put Democrats on defense so that they will have to explain why they oppose merit-based immigration.. For those of us who’ve worked on this issue for years, this speech was just what the doctor ordered.

2. Refugees:

Trump spoke to the morality, not just the legality, of his immigration moratorium, which we called on him to do earlier this week. As Trump said,

“It is not compassionate, but reckless, to allow uncontrolled entry from places where proper vetting cannot occur. Those given the high honor of admission to the United States should support this country and love its people and its values.” He also charted a completely new path on the entire premise and goal of refugee policy: “The only long-term solution for these humanitarian disasters is to create the conditions where displaced persons can safely return home and begin the long process of rebuilding.”

3. Obamacare:

Earlier today, I laid down the gauntlet for Trump to finally speak directly to the problems of Obamacare. I argued he needed to call for full repeal and hold Democrats accountable for creating this disaster but then blocking its solution. Trump did not disappoint in the macro-messaging. The guiding principles he laid out on health care were sound. He actually touched on the central point missed by GOP congressional leadership — that we should focus on lowering costs rather than expanding coverage as an end to itself, saying: “The way to make health insurance available to everyone is to lower the cost of health insurance, and that is what we will do.” Unfortunately, he contradicted that messaging by hinting at a pre-existing condition mandate and refundable tax credits — two elements of the establishment plan that will actually keep prices high. Nonetheless, the overall plan was as good as we can hope for from any Republican at this moment and needs to be bolstered by allies in the administration.complete-message

4. Foreign policy:

Although the details were a little sparse for a speech this long, he made it clear that the era of nation building is over. “My job is not to represent the world. My job is to represent the United States of America,” said Trump in a very effective punchline. At the same time, President Trump spoke to defending American security without apologizing and waging an unflinching war against radical Islamic terror. And thank God, as this is the first time in years a president has mentioned our alliance with Israel without pushing the odious “two state solution.”

5. Drugs and crime:

Although crime is a policy mainly dealt with on a state level, I’m glad Trump used his “job” as ‘citizen in chief’ to address rising crime rates. This is one area of Trumpism that is actually more in line with traditional conservatism, even though it deviates from the current dogma among “right-leaning” policy elites. The same is true for the drug epidemic. He let the liberal open borders crowd own the disaster that is taking place in our communities thanks to drugs pouring over the border.

THE BAD

1. No mention of life and religious liberty:

While we’ve come to expect social conservatism to take a back seat, it’s a shame that these issues didn’t even receive the traditional obligatory mention, especially given the persecution that is taking place at the hands of the sexual identity lobby and the courts. He could have easily woven in respect for the conscience and private property decisions of others into this unifying speech and would have been a good ambassador for the cause. He won with overwhelming support from evangelicals and other faith-based groups in this country. It’s a shame they were left out tonight. Then again, the rest of the party is just as bad on this issue, so it’s not as if Trump is changing the party’s true position. Nonetheless, conservatives need to fight harder to address fundamental rights and judicial reform.amen

Let our policies stand on their own merits and the media’s desire to destroy them will be that much harder.

2. Ivankacare, porkulous, spending, and debt:

As always, there was no mention of balancing the budget, the threat of debt, or the need to cut spending. In addition, President Trump promoted “Ivankacare” and the full blown $1 trillion porkulous he calls an infrastructure rebuilding package. Conservatives should not back down in their opposition to these bad ideas. We don’t need another massive entitlement; we need to repeal Obamacare so that mothers don’t have to work more to pay for a second mortgage. Likewise, the talk of “crumbling infrastructure” is a dubious left-wing talking point. And to the extent there are problems with our infrastructure it’s because of the inefficient, failed federal monopoly on highway spending. Trump said, “the time has come for a new program of national rebuilding.” He is right, it’s time to devolve transportation and education spending to the states in order to improve those important functions.amen

Moreover, Trump must remember that we cannot have economic growth with such long-term debt. Also, the trade deficit he speaks of is only a problem because of our fiscal deficit and the misallocation of investments pouring into this country.

3. The protectionist trade policies:

Nothing new here, but still very problematic. Much of the appeal of “buy America” and “stopping companies from going overseas” stems from the general feeling that we have lost our economy and sovereignty. But were Trump to really propose a solid agenda ending venture socialism — taxation, regulation, and subsidization — along with his virtuous immigration ideas, those problems would go away over time and trade won’t have to be the bogeyman. Furthermore, enactment of true free market policies is the best way to keep companies in America.

Overall, there was really nothing new regarding Trump’s non-conservative views, and I believe they were overshadowed by the solid parts of his speech on immigration and Obamacare. It’s something we must continue to work on as we fight to defend his good policies.

President Trump must now harness the energy from this successful speech and deliver specific policies to Congress on taxes, immigration, and health care. He must whip GOP leaders into shape, get everyone in his administration on the same page, stay on message, and let his policies speak above the rancor of the media. Trump should focus relentlessly on his policies (hopefully the more conservative ones) and back them up with a series of policy speeches while simply ignoring the media. Yes, the media is the enemy, but we must not be our own worst enemy. Let our policies stand on their own merits and the media’s desire to destroy them will be that much harder.

Liberals Whine About Trump’s Border Wall, Then This 1 Map Leaves Them Dead Silent


waving flagBy: C.E. Dyer on August 10, 2016

Liberals whine that GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump’s proposal to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border is racist.

But Breitbart reported that the editorial board of El Mañana — one of the country’s largest newspapers — wrote an article titled “Yes to the Border Wall … but in Mexico’s South,” calling for the country to build a wall along its southern border to stem the tide of illegal immigrants pouring across from Central America.

But when was the last time you heard American liberals up in arms about how Mexico treats illegal immigrants coming across its own border from the south? Apparently there’s nothing wrong with Mexico wanting to build a wall to protect its territory, but when the United States wants to do it, suddenly it’s “racist.”

This maps below are just another example of the hypocrisy of the left:

Mexico's Southern Border Wall

Conservative Post reported exactly how Trump can fund the wall, explained why it’s important and debunked the left’s assertions that it isn’t possible. Thanks to Mexicans who live and work in the United States, $24 billion flows into Mexico a year. If the Mexican government wants that money to continue, it will have to come up with a one-time payment of $5 to $10 billion in order to build the border wall, according to the Conservative Post.

The Mexican government officials can protest all they want, but if the money gets cut off, it’s likely they will sing a different tune.

Conservative Post mentioned three things that would help pay for the wall:

“Trade tariffs, or enforcement of existing trade rules.” As Trump has repeatedly said, we need to renegotiate trade deals in America’s favor. Doing so would provide a huge source of money to put toward building the wall.

“Cancelling visas.” America is not required to take in everyone around the world and, as the article pointed out, it is a privilege to come to the United States.

illegalalienvoters-300x300The U.S. holds a great deal of power in these negotiations as Mexico uses the U.S. as a de facto welfare state and also needs visas for business and tourism purposes.

“Visa Fees.” The left regularly likes to talk about increasing taxes on Americans, but what about visa fees? Conservative Post argued that just a small increase in visa fees could pay for the wall itself.

America needs to build a wall in order to protect Americans from drug trafficking, crime and gangs.  In addition, we need to start, as Trump has said, putting Americans first. Building a wall is not only doable, it is critical for the future of America.

H/T Defund.com

or a liar Never-Hillary-Egl-sm fight Picture1 true battle In God We Trust freedom combo 2

The Pipeline We Know Little About


waving flagJuly 29, 2016, By

Remember the Keystone XL Pipeline project? Remember what a cause célèbre it was for both the left and right? What the heck ever happened to it? Have you wondered that?

Well, in short it was killed pretty much for good, or at least the foreseeable future – both here in the USSA and now in Canada. As you are no doubt aware, it was Obama who, with the left in the federal and various state legislatures – and with some help from Choo-choo Warren Buffet who owns most of the rail cars now hauling crude down south, vetoed the pipeline. And don’t forget all the gobs of leftist activist money thrown at killing the project.

You may also recall that Canada threatened to build their own pipeline to their west coast and ship the oil to Asia if the U.S. did not acquiesce. That was when the “conservatives” ran Canada. But with the election of lefty socialist (like there’s another kind) Justin Trudeau in Canada, the entire XL project, above and below the border, was pronounced dead.

And that was the end of any talk of long distance oil pipelines. Or is it?

There is another long distance oil pipeline which will span 1,172 miles – from North Dakota’s famous Bakken and Three Forks oil production zones all the way to Pakota, Illinois. The 30 inch pipeline will be capable of transporting an average of 450,000 barrels of crude per day, but have a capacity of 570,000 barrels – possibly more. With this pipeline, the oil will be available to the Midwest, East Coast and Gulf Coast.

This is way it is supposed work – domestically produced crude, shipped throughout the United States for domestic consumption. No foreign entanglements whatsoever – not even friendly.

I know – you’re waiting for a shoe to drop – right? Well, so far there have been no shoes. On July 27, just two ago the Indian Country Media Network reported  that “Despite the strong opposition of several tribes, the Army Corps of Engineers has approved nearly all permits to build the Dakota Access Pipeline project. Construction has already begun in all four states along its pipeline-full-mappath.”

May I digress for just a moment? Why is it that we whiteys must call American Indians “Indigenous Peoples,” but their own media outlet can be the “Indian Country network?” I guess it’s the same reason blacks can call each other the “n” word, but we would be jailed for it. Oh well.

This time, the Injuns seem to be the only ones making a fuss (not quite) – claiming that a pipeline break could contaminate entire water supplies, destroy land and create public health hazards for reservations – but a train derailment, which are a lot more common, would never.

The only other organization to raise hell over it is of course Think Progress – the ultra-ultra left advocacy organization. If it has anything to do with actual progress, you can bet they will be firmly against it.

Their big beef, other than a pipeline which transports dirty oil and not rainbows and Unicorn farts, is that the feds are virtually shut out of the process. Other than the Army Corps of Engineers permitting process, the pipeline runs almost entirely through State and private land, so there is not much Obama can do – which is probably why we haven’t heard much about it.

Also there is the presidential election, coupled with almost daily terrorist updates worldwide – and the Olympics. These “hot” topics are sucking virtually all the oxygen out of other news.

Then there is the investment being made – all the equipment, pipes, machinery, etc. All cost loads of money, which means an uptick in those manufacturing sectors – none of which the left can tout because of the source. And of course there are all the jobs, which again cannot be discussed by the left.

The Dakota Access Pipeline is a $3.7 billion investment and will create (actually has already begun) anywhere from 8,000 to 12,000 jobs for area residents – maybe more. All trades are needed – from welders to mechanics, electricians, pipefitters, heavy equipment operators and others within the heavy construction industry. Then is the boon to the hospitality industries such as hotels, motels, restaurants, etc. along the route – none of which the press will report on.

Finally there is the increased tax revenue for the four states involved – North and South Dakota, Iowa and Illinois. The pipeline will generate an estimated $50 million annually in property taxes and nearly $74 million in sales taxes to these states.

So hooray for real progress and the relatively quiet production of a much needed domestic pipeline. It’s about time I get a chance to report some good news.

fight Picture1 true battle In God We Trust freedom combo 2

RECORD NUMBER: U.S. Citizens are RENOUNCING Citizenship


waving flagPosted on May 6, 2016

Never thought this day would come for America? Well it just did. See why they are leaving.

It seems crazy to call it the ‘New Normal’, but once again, record numbers of Americans are renouncing citizenship. Every three months, the Treasury Department publicly names individuals who renounced. It is surely more about FATCA and family than politics. Still, numbers are flying, with one poll saying that 1 in 4 Americans would consider leaving if Trump is elected. Others claim they will leave if Hillary is elected.

FATCA EXPLAINED BELOW; Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA)fat

Picture2In reality, of course, most who bristle about politics are not serious. And for those who are, they surely mean a temporary move, not a final exit. In contrast, giving up citizenship is a big deal. Yet the number of published expatriates for the first three months of 2016 was a record 1,158. In 2015, there were approximately 4,300 expatriations. Comparing present to past suggests that Americans renouncing citizenship have risen 560% from their Bush administration high. There are now 18 times as many renouncers as in 2008.

Of course, these numbers seem tiny compared to the influx of immigrants. Yet expatriations have historically been much lower, making the uptick worrisome. Moreover, the published list is incomplete, with many not counted. Surprisingly, no one seems to know exactly how big the real number is, even though the IRS and FBI both track Americans who renounce. There is no single explanation, though some renounce because of global tax reporting and FATCA. One law adding to the mix is the IRS power to revoke passports.

The reasons for renouncing can be family, tax and legal complications. Dual citizenship isn’t always possible, as this infographic from MoveHub shows. And leaving can be expensive. Some countries have no fee, but America charges $2,350 to hand in your passport. That is more than twenty times the average of other high-income countries. The U.S. government has collected about $12.6 million in fees since the fall of 2014, after hiking its fee to renounce citizenship by 422%. Some renouncers write why they gave up their U.S. citizenship.

Picture1 true battle Picture1 In God We Trust freedom combo 2

H&R Block: Customers paying twice as much to satisfy Obamacare penalty


– The Washington Times – Tuesday, March 8, 2016

URL of the original posting site: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/mar/8/hr-block-customers-pay-twice-much-obamacare-fee

Complete Message

Halfway through tax season, uninsured filers are paying more than twice as much as they did last year to satisfy Obamacare’s penalty for lacking coverage, H&R Block said Tuesday in an analysis that found other customers are still struggling to match their incomes to tax credits they got from Uncle Sam.

The tax-prep giant said its customers are paying an average penalty of $383 because of the Affordable Care Act’s “individual mandate,” compared to $172 last year.

That’s because the mandate, a lever designed to bring healthy people into the new marketplace, rose from $95 or 1 percent of qualified income — whichever is greater — in 2014 to $325 or 2 percent of income for 2015.

H&R Block also said three out of five customers who received advanced tax credits to help them buy private plans on Obamacare’s web-based exchanges must pay a portion back to the IRS because they underestimated their actual income for 2015. Together, the figures suggest filers are struggling with Obamacare, even though it is the law’s second waltz with tax season.

Starting in 2014, Obamacare’s subsidies were designed to lend a helping hand to low- and moderate-income Americans who do not hold insurance through jobs or a government program such as Medicaid, and cannot afford coverage on the individual market. Yet by routing subsidies through the tax system, filers were forced to reconcile the financial help they received up front with their actual income during the year. If the two don’t match, then filers will either cough up more to the IRS or get more money back.Oh good

Only 52 percent had to repay a portion of government subsidy during last year’s tax season, compared to 60 percent this year — undercutting the belief that subsidized customers would get better at estimating their annual pay after a year of practice. The average amount they’ve paid back to Uncle Sam has also gone up, from $530 last year to $579.

“With millions of new marketplace enrollees going through the reconciliation process for the first time we expected to see some confusion,” said Mark Ciaramitaro, vice president of H&R Block’s taxes and health care services. “But the fact a majority of returning marketplace enrollees are underestimating and having to pay back a portion of the [tax credit] signals there is still a steep learning curve on how to accurately estimate income in applying for the premium tax credit when enrolling in a marketplace plan.”

He said the problem could be due to high year-to-year volatility in how much low-income households take in each year.

H&R Block said customers who had to repay some subsidy still saw an average refund of $2,022, although it is less than what they would have received.

More than a third of taxpayers who claimed Obamacare tax credits overestimated their income and got extra money back from the IRS — $450 on average. Only 3 percent of customers didn’t see any impact on their refunds because of their exchange subsidies.

H&R Block’s analysis adds to data reported last month by TurboTax, a tax-filing company that said seven in 10 taxpayers using its online system this season claimed an exemption from the Obamacare mandate tax.

Many of those say even the cheapest plans available to them at work or on the exchanges are still too expensive, and so they claimed the IRS’s financial burden exemption in refusing to gain coverage. Others said they were exempt because they’d recently been evicted, had a close family member die, or had another hardship that excused them from the mandate.

H&R Block said uninsured customers who aren’t exempt from Obamacare’s mandate will see even stiffer penalties during next year’s tax season. The penalty is set to more than double this year from the 2015 tax, to $695 or 2.5 percent of income.

H&R Block said a family of four earning $60,000 would pay $975 this tax season, compared to about $400 last year. Next year, they could be socked for $2,000.

Tytler cycle cdr modified 071712 Die true battle Picture1 In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Important news from the Next Generation


waving flag

next gen

In God We Trust freedom combo 2

 

From My Email Inbox


waving flag

bosten bombers conquiest difference hate crime how ISIS employmnet suggestions reproductive stomping stupidity told voter ID


In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Democrats label lazy welfare recipients as ‘working families’


CALIFORNIA VOTER ALERT
A guide to the 2014 California propositions

Welfare is often unpopular with the voters who fund it through their taxes. So California politicians and academics who support it are now redefining welfare recipients as “workers” even if they do almost no work, and as members of “working families” if they live in the same household as someone who does a tiny bit of work. By doing this, they hope to brand critics of welfare as “anti-worker.”

Fifty-six percent of welfare recipients are in “working families,” according to a misleading recent report by the University of California at Berkeley’s left-wing Center for Labor Research and Education. But the report reached that false conclusion by defining even very lazy people as “workers”: “We define working families as those that have at least one family member who works 27 or more weeks per year and 10 or more hours per week.”

But working just ten hours a week for only about half the weeks in the year doesn’t make you a typical worker, or show industriousness. As Breitbart notes, “If someone is only working ten hours a week, there is probably time to find a second job, rather than rely on government assistance.” The Center that put out this ridiculous “study” is funded not just by taxpayers, but also by government employee unions like AFSCME whose members are hired to administer such welfare programs.Liberalism a mental disorder 2

That slanted “study” coincides with a recent push by California’s governor to expand welfare for so-called “workers” who actually do very little work. The Associated Press reported that Gov. Jerry Brown (D) is

proposing a $380 million earned income tax credit” for “as many as 825,000 families and up to 2 million Californians. “It’s just a straight deliverance of funding to people who are working very hard and are earning very little money, so in that sense I think it does a lot of good things,” Brown said of the tax credit. The average tax credit would be $460 a year with a maximum credit of $2,653 for families with three or more children, to complement the federal tax credit program. It would be available to individuals with incomes of less than $6,580, or up to $13,870 for families with three or more dependents.Picture11

For an individual to have an income of less than $6,580 at the California minimum wage of $9 per hour (and thus qualify for this welfare), he would have to work no more than 731 hours per year, or 14 hours per week. That’s not “working very hard,” Governor Brown. The Associated Press story, which reads like a press release for the governor’s proposed budget, never even questions his strange claim about this being hard work. The AP wrongly calls this huge, record-setting budget “a cautious approach to spending” even though it does nothing about California’s massive unfunded pension problems, and is balanced only due to tax increases that are supposedly temporary but that most California Democrats now want to make permanent, such as those in Proposition 30.Picture7

As the Los Angeles Daily Newspoints out:

In 2013, California’s public-employee pension systems—including those for police, firefighters and teachers—were carrying an estimated aggregate of $198 billion in unfunded liability. That’s 31 times the unfunded liability 10 years earlier.Picture8

Governor Brown has largely turned a blind eye to pension-spiking by CALPERS that will explode California pension costs by billions of dollars, half-heartedly objecting to only one of the “ninety-nine categories used” in its “scheme.”

As profligate and irresponsible as his budget is, it could have been even worse: Jerry Brown is a model of responsibility and common sense compared to California’s money-wasting left-wing legislature and its big-spending Democratic leadership (the state legislature is two-thirds Democrat and only one-third Republican). The AP quotes Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de Leon (D-Los Angeles) demanding yet more “investments” (the trendy euphemism for government spending) and promising that “we can and will do more” to increase such spending.  State legislative leaders have sought to expand Medicaid and other government healthcare programs to cover illegal immigrants at a cost of at least $1.3 billion annually, which Brown has not yet fully endorsed, although his budget does earmark the more modest sum of “$62 million to begin enrolling low-income immigrants in Medi-Cal, California’s version of Medicaid, on the assumption that President Barack Obama will prevail in a court battle over his executive order.”burke

The relabeling of welfare recipients as “workers” even when they do little work echoes the approach of the progressive ideological guru George Lakoff, a professor at the University of California at Berkeley, who advocates reframing the political debate in deceptive ways. As The Atlantic noted:

Lakoff offers no new policy ideas. Instead he suggests that the Democrats reposition the ones they already have, and spruce up some unpopular terminology while they’re at it. He advocates referring to ‘trial lawyers’ as ‘public-protection attorneys,’ replacing ‘taxes’ with ‘membership fees,’ and generally couching the entire Democratic message in palatable—even deceptive—language in order to simplify large ideas and disguise them behind innocent but powerful-sounding phrases.more evidence

The Associated Press sometimes follows the deceptive Lakoff ideological approach when it comes to government spending, labeling spending on education and social programs as an “investment” even when the money spent will not be recouped later through higher tax revenue, making the reference to “investment” misleading.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Hans Bader

Hans BaderHans Bader is Counsel at the Competitive Enterprise Institute in Washington. After studying economics and history at the University of Virginia and law at Harvard, he practiced civil-rights, international-trade, and constitutional law. Hans also writes for CNS News and has appeared on C-SPAN’s “Washington Journal.”
OARLogo Picture6

Sorry, But YOU Don’t Pay Enough Taxes


Posted by Michael BeckerMichael BeckerJanuary 13, 2015

URL of the Original Posting Site: http://joeforamerica.com/2015/01/sorry-but-you-dont-pay-enough-taxes/

Democrats, fresh off a resounding stomping last November, are convinced that the reason they lost is because you don’t pay enough taxes.

Democrats, fresh off a resounding stomping last November, are convinced that the reason they lost is because they’re not giving away enough of your money.

They rectified that Monday with a speech by Rep. Chris Van Hollen proposing tax increases on the wealthy with the money going straight to tax cuts for the poor and middle class.

The plan uses tax laws to encourage employee wage increases, reduce tax breaks for Wall Street and slap another fee on financial transactions. The government would dole out $1,000 tax credits for most workers and increase a slew of other tax credits for poor and middle-class families.more evidence Party of Deciet and lies DO NOT JACKASS

There’s more to it, a laundry list of giveaways to the “poor” and especially the “middle class.”  When reading stuff like this it’s good to recall that the Democrats unwritten rule is “There is no vote too expensive to buy.”  If you really need a mind numbing event in your life, follow the link and just try to follow the “logic” that Rep. Van Hollen is spewing.

Let’s take a quick look at just who is paying taxes now.  Remember, 47% of Americans pay zero income tax.  Actually, that’s not quite true.  The pay no income tax, but they get rebates back from the IRS, so the 47% not only pay no income tax, it’s a profit center for them.  “Earned Income Tax Credits” that require no income to cash in on.  So, the 47% are actually not leaving us with no contribution to the cost of government in the country, they are actually taking money away from tax revenues.

Democrats also love to talk about who makes all the money.  Here’s the truth.

Don’t kid yourself about the Democrats new found love of the “middle-class.”  You probably don’t come anywhere near being middle class, at least according to Democrats, you’re “rich.”  Note that they never talk about income levels when they have these rants, like ObamaCare, you have to pass the tax increase to find you’re rich.DemWarProsperityPIX

About the AuthorMichael Becker

Michael BeckerMichael Becker is a long time activist and a businessman. He’s been involved in the pro-life movement since 1976 and has been counseling addicts and ministering to prison inmates since 1980. Becker is a Curmudgeon. He has decades of experience as an operations executive in turnaround situations and in mortgage banking. He blogs regularly at The Right Curmudgeon, The Minority Report, Wizbang, Unified Patriots and Joe for America. He lives in Phoenix and is almost always armed

The True Reason Gas Prices are Falling (Hint: It’s Not Because of Green Energy)


MId Term drawing

Posted by Stephen Moore / / October 26, 2014

Photo via Newscom

<!– Gas Prices dipping below the $3.00 mark in some parts of the country in New York. In fact, industry reports say that gas has dropped a full 20 cents in the past month. Now 10 states are reporting gas that weighs in under $3 per gallon, with predictions that many other states will soon follow. Photo by Dennis Van Tine/ABACAUSA.COM (Newscom TagID: abausaphotostwo110914.jpg) [Photo via Newscom] –>

Portrait of Stephen Moore Stephen Moore/

American workers and motorists got some badly-needed relief this week when the price of oil plunged to its lowest level in years. The oil price has fallen by about 25 percent since its peak back in June of $105 a barrel.  This is translating to lower prices at the pump with many states now below $3 a gallon.

At present levels, these lower oil and gas prices are the equivalent of a $200 billion cost saving to American consumers and businesses. That’s $200 billion a year we don’t have to send to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and other foreign nations. Now that’s an economic stimulus par excellence.

obamamoney1There are many global reasons why gas prices are falling, but the major one isn’t being widely reported. America has become in the last several years an energy-producing powerhouse.  And sorry, Mr. President, I’m not talking about the niche “green energy” sources you are so weirdly fixated with.

Oil prices are falling because of changes in world supply and world demand. Demand has slowed because Europe is an economic wreck. But since 2008 the U.S. has increased our domestic supply by a gigantic 50 percent. This is a result of the astounding shale oil and gas revolution made possible by made-in-America technologies like hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling.  Already thanks to these inventions, the U.S. has become the number one producer of natural gas. But oil production in states like Oklahoma, Texas and North Dakota has doubled in just six years.

Without this energy blitz, the U.S. economy would barely have recovered from the recession of 2008-09. From the beginning of 2008 through the end of 2013 the oil and gas extraction industry created more than 100,000 jobs while the overall job market shrank by 970,000.When the radical greens carry around signs saying “No to Fracking,” they couldn’t be promoting a more anti-America message. It would be like Nebraska not growing corn.

We are just skimming the surface of our super-abundant oil and gas resources.  New fields have been discovered in Texas and North Dakota that could contain hundreds of years of shale oil and gas supplies.comment 01

Here’s another reason to love the oil and gas bonanza in America. It’s breaking the back of OPEC.  Saudi Arabia is deluging the world with oil right now, which is driving the world price relentlessly lower. The Arabs understand–as too few in Washington do–that shale energy boom is no short term fad. It could make energy cheaper for decades to come.  As American drillers get better at perfecting the technologies of cracking through shale rock to get to the near infinite treasure chest supplies of energy locked inside, we will soon overtake Saudi Arabia as the dominant player in world energy markets.

You can’t have a cartel if the world’s largest producer–America–isn’t a member. OPEC will never again be able to create the level of economic turmoil that the Arab members of OPECs engineered in the 1970s with their oil embargo. And by the way: lower oil prices place increased pressure on Iran’s mullahs to abandon their nuclear program and curb Putin’s capabilities to engage in East Europe aggression.

Yet the political class still doesn’t get it. As recently as 2012 President Obama declared that “the problem is we use more than 20 percent of the world’s oil and we only have 2 percent of the world’s proven oil reserves.”  Then he continued with his Malthusian nonsense,  “Even if we drilled every square inch of this country right now, we’d still have to rely disproportionately on other countries for their oil.” Apparently, neither he nor his fact checkers have ever been to Texas or North Dakota.  And we don’t have 2 percent of the world’s oil. Including estimates of onshore and offshore resources not yet officially “discovered”, we have ten times more than the stat quoted by the president–resources sufficient to supply hundreds of years of oil and gas.

America, in sum, has been richly endowed with a nearly invincible 21st century economic and national security weapon to keep us safe and prosperous. The plunge in gas prices is just one visible sign of this supply explosion.  Think of how much bigger this revolution could be if we started building pipelines, repealed the ban on oil exports, expanded drilling on public lands, and stopped trying to punitively tax and regulate the oil and gas.comment 02

For much of the last forty years, oil’s periodic price spikes have remained a constant threat to growth. Higher consumer energy costs as well as increased industrial production costs weighted on the economy. Now oil is one of the primary accelerators; the new big drag on the economy is politicians who despise the carbon-based industry.

A version of this article originally appeared on FoxNews.com

The version above replaces an earlier version of this article originally published on The Daily Signal. Some of the numbers have been changed.

Portrait of Stephen Moore

Stephen Moore, who formerly wrote on the economy and public policy for The Wall Street Journal, is chief economist at The Heritage Foundation. Read his research.

 

Article collective closing

Government is Three Times More Valuable Than God?


A friend of mine, Ron Johns – a Sunday school teacher who like myself, lives in Toledo – sent over a speech he gave over the Easter weekend in the Toledo suburb of Perrysburg. It was at a gathering of activists who were holding the “Toledo Tax Day.”

I loved the speech and got some terrific ammunition for tax debates – especially this gem:  “For those that don’t know; tithing is Christians giving the first 10% of their income to God and anything past that becomes an offering. Taxation for the average American for their income with all levels of government sticking their hand in the cookie jar is 30%…”

Killer! There’s a lot more in the video below. As Ron puts it; “Two things you were always told to never talk about at family gathering has  always and will always be religion and politics. Unfortunately for myself my two favorite things to discuss are religion and politics…” 

speech

Original article:

http://www.ronjohnsfortoledo.com/extremely-hilarious-comparison-god-vs-government/

ronRon Johns has lived in Toledo all his life, graduated from Maumee High School in 2010, from there moved on to The University of Toledo and graduated in 2014 majoring in Marketing and Entrepreneurship.

At the University of Toledo Ron lead the campus’ local Young Americans for Liberty chapter as President , wrote for the local college newspaper; The Independent Collegian and for the most part went to class.

Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee Urges Welfare Name Change: “Transitional Living Fund”


http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/01/congresswoman-sheila-jackson-lee-urges-welfare-name-change-transitional-living-fund/#6IhvC21RtEpSBLCu.99

Posted By on Jan 9, 2014

071411-politics-sheila-jackson-lee

In a brief speech on the House floor about safety nets that touches on all manner of government assistance, Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee suggested that the term “welfare” is no longer politically correct, and like all masters of doublespeak, wants Congress to change its name to a “transitional living fund.”

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) hailed the war on poverty, endorsed government welfare programs, and said the “safety net has to be something for all of us.”

“Maybe the word welfare should be changed to something of, ‘a transitional living fund.’ For that is what it is — for people to be able to live,” she said.

She urged Congress to pass emergency unemployment insurance — “a transitional outreach to individuals who are chronically unemployed,” as she put it.

Source: CNS News (Watch at Youtube)

LeeFollowing the financial crisis of 2008 when millions lost their jobs, homes and life savings, it is certainly understandable that emergency programs were established to help people transition and get back on their feet.

The operative term here is “transition” – a period of changing from one state or condition to another. Normally, when we think of a transition, especially as it relates to emergency funds from the government, we think short-term assistance. That could mean several months, or as is the case with unemployment benefits, 99 weeks.

However, no matter how Ms. Lee tries to spin this, welfare is no longer a short-term program for the majority of people on it. The “transition” the Congresswoman refers to is one in which a person simply stops working and starts collecting a monthly check from the government for producing absolutely nothing in return.

As we highlighted in a recent interview, and though it’s not necessarily descriptive of everyone who receives welfare assistance, the program itself is being abused on a massive scale. In the case of this particular caller, the “transitional living” involved going from working a job to sitting at home, smoking weed and still getting paid.

Me and people that I know that are illegal immigrants that don’t contribute to society, we still gonna get paid.

Our check’s gonna come in the mail every month… and it’s gonna be on time… and we get subsidized housing… we even get presents delivered for our kids on Christmas… Why should I work?

Ya’ll get the benefit of saying “oh, look at me, I’m a better person,” but when ya’ll sit at home behind ya’lls I’m a better person… we the ones gettin’ paid!

(EVERYONE MUST HEAR THIS INTERVIEW. Click on the image below to hear the interview.)

Sit homeSometimes our best laid plans fall apart. People hit hard times. That’s inevitable. Providing those people with transitional living assistance with food, health care or housing makes sense.

What doesn’t make sense is the confiscation of earnings from hard working Americans to the tune of $500 billion per year only to distribute those funds to apathetic leeches who contribute absolutely nothing to society. For many on government assistance you are a joke if you struggle at a 40-hour job for a weekly paycheck.

Transitional living? Hogwash.

People like the esteemed Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee would like to see nothing less than cradle-to-grave long term government dependents.

sheila-jackson-lee

Thought Provoking Thought


Obama-Shackles“We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle”

Winston Churchill:

“We Have Plenty Of Money If We Just Loot More People”


There has never been a clearer picture of Socialism than the following story. No longer is the Radical Socialist Left Wing spinning their intentions. Now they are outright saying, “We are Socialist and proud of it.”

Now, what are we going to do about it? Mid-Terms anyone? – Jerry Broussard

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The words came from Democratic Representative Keith Ellison of Minnesota:“The bottom line is we’re not broke, there’s plenty of money, it’s just the government doesn’t have it.”

 

You couldn’t ask for a clearer portrayal of the ethics of plunder. “We” are the government and “we” are not broke because all the government needs to do is to take money from other people. Ellison was advocating for his “Inclusive Prosperity Act.” He explained, “The government has a right, the government and the people of the United States have a right to run the programs of the United States. Health, welfare, housing – all these things.”

 

The looting mechanism proposed in the “Inclusive Prosperity Act” is a sales tax on every sale/purchase of a stock, bond, or derivative. This would arguably be destructive to the economy, but I’ll leave that argument to the side. Instead, let me ask, if everything turned out as rosy as Ellison pretends, would we be better off? Ellison claims his new tax would rake in $300 billion a year.

 

I have no idea how realistic his assumptions are. Is he assuming that there would be no reduction in sales of stocks, bonds, or derivatives? Whatever. Pretend he is right and we get $300 billion a year coming into the government. What does he want to do with it? The Bill itself says the money will be used to “fund international sustainable prosperity programs such as health care investments, AIDS treatment, research and prevention programs, climate change adaptation and mitigation efforts by developing countries, and international assistance.”

 

I’m not going to address the value of these goals, or if they are based on hallucinations, in some cases, or not. We don’t need to go into all that. The essential point here is that Ellison is questing for more government spending. The best you can say about him is that he doesn’t admit that he wants to increase the national deficit. But what was that deficit? For 2012 the national deficit was over a Trillion dollars for the fourth year in a row.

 

So the man who is telling us that “we have plenty of money,” even if we assume he really can get all the revue he claims he can get, year after year, is powerless. $300 billion wouldn’t even cover a third of the national deficit if we didn’t spend it on anything else.

 

So, even by these wildly optimistc claims, we are still just a larger version of Detroit heading toward inevitable collapse and bankruptcy. Ellison would loot more people to simply make our financial situation even less safe. He is living in a dream world.

Bad News for Blacks


Posted by

 

Richard Rahn at The Washington Times has an interesting article about how Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama have done by Black Americans. Of course they had different economic philosophies to say the least. Barack Obama regularly denounces “supply-side” economics and scoffs at the idea that a rising tide lifts all boats. And cutting taxes? Why that just favors the rich, don’t you know. reagan

Rahn sums it up this way: Reagan reduced taxes on job creators by 60%; Obama increased them by 17%. Reagan cut non-defense federal spending by a third; Obama has increased it, to say the least. Reagan cut regulations while Obama has greatly increased them.

  • Under Reagan, adult black unemployment fell by 20%, but under Mr. Obama, it has increased by 42%.
  • Black teenage unemployment fell by 16% under Reagan, but has risen by 56% under Mr. Obama.
  • The increase in unemployment rates has been far worse for blacks under Mr. Obama than for whites and Hispanics.
  • Inflation-adjusted real incomes are slightly higher for Hispanics and whites than they were in 2008, but are lower for blacks.
  • The labor force participation rate has fallen for all groups, but remains far lower for blacks than for whites and Hispanics.

Richard Rahn’s brilliant piece in it’s entirety can be read below:

As a famous man once said, you’re entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. And here they are:

obamaAre you paying attention Black America? Rahn goes on to say that, in a nutshell, a sane person would look at the above facts, admit that the program wasn’t working and change course – especially when you’re the first black President and over 90% of blacks voted for you and Oprah is kinda looking bad now for having you on the show. But noooooo, Obama is doubling and tripling down, mainly because he can, I guess.

But why?

Why do blacks put up with such high unemployment? Whites wouldn’t. They threw Jimmy Carter out on his ass and would do the same to anyone that ran white unemployment up anywhere near where it is for blacks. And why does Obama insist on running the country further into the ground? It’s puzzling, unless you buy into the theory that he’s just a Marxist who wants the place to fold and then everyone will depend on government.

I happen to be one of those people, but it’s not for the faint of heart.

– 30 –

 

rodney on tap

Sugar? No thanks, I’m sweet enough…

follow Rodney Lee onTwitter @rodneyconover

Send email to kowenhoven@gmail.com

Friend him if you darehttps://www.facebook.com/rodneyleeconover

 

Rodney Lee Conover is a writer / performer, living in Southern California’s Mohave Desert with his whippet “Jack”

 

RAHN: Obama’s bad news for blacks

Obamacare will hurt most those with the least

Mugshot

** FILE ** President Obama pauses as he speaks at the daily news briefing at the White House in Washington on Friday, July 19, 2013. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)

By Richard Rahn

The Washington Times

Friday, July 26, 2013

If you knew nothing else about President Obama other than looking at the data, you might conclude that he was insensitive to blacks, given that they have done far worse economically under his administration than Hispanics or whites. What is striking is that the president and his advisers still seem to be clueless about which economic policies work and which don’t work. Despite his (at least for this week) emphasis on the economy, he persists in being the anti-Reagan, with anti-growth policies. In his speech Wednesday in Illinois, the president came up with no new pro-growth proposals, just more of what has not worked.

President Reagan reduced the maximum tax rate on job creators by 60 percent; Mr. Obama increased the maximum tax rate on job creators by 17 percent. Reagan cut non-defense, discretionary, federal government spending by a third as a percentage of gross domestic product; Mr. Obama has increased it. Reagan cut government regulations while Mr. Obama has greatly increased them.

The results are:

Under Reagan, adult black unemployment fell by 20 percent, but under Mr. Obama, it has increased by 42 percent.

Black teenage unemployment fell by 16 percent under Reagan, but has risen by 56 percent under Mr. Obama.

The increase in unemployment rates has been far worse for blacks under Mr. Obama than for whites and Hispanics.

Inflation-adjusted real incomes are slightly higher for Hispanics and whites than they were in 2008, but are lower for blacks.

The labor force participation rate has fallen for all groups, but remains far lower for blacks than for whites and Hispanics.

Most people, when confronted with the evidence presented above, probably would realize that they had been mistaken and then try a set of policies that were successful in the past. Not Mr. Obama. Given the tenor of his most recent talks, he seems to be intent on doubling down on his own failed policies.

It was true until the Industrial Revolution of two centuries ago, in a world of little economic growth, that for any individual to become better off, others would have to become worse off. Adam Smith was one of the first to understand that as a result of new technologies and better political and business institutions and organizations — and, most important, the rule of law and proper incentives — everyone could become better off without taking anything from anyone else. Despite the empirical evidence of the past 200 years that Smith and all of the clear and rational thinkers who followed him were right about economic growth, there is still the widespread belief that for one person to prosper someone else needs to suffer. It is this mindset that serves as the basic rationale for socialism and the state as an instrument of income redistribution. One would think that only the uneducated still would have this mindset, but it is most prevalent in universities.

Perhaps a major reason that professors and other educators are so dense when it comes to productivity increases and the resulting economic growth and real rise in living standards is that most classrooms are not much more productive than they were when Aristotle was speaking to a dozen or so students 2,500 years ago. By contrast, entrepreneurs see better ways of producing more for less and visualize and create things that never existed (i.e., the automobile, the airplane, the iPad, etc.) — and they create wealth and jobs. Mr. Obama comes from the government/academic class rather than the entrepreneurial class and has a much more static view of the world.

Reagan thought like an entrepreneur, and thus intuitively understood that economic growth creates opportunities for everyone — most important, for those who have the least. Mr. Obama has fewer senior advisers and top officials in his administration who have had significant private-sector experience than any previous president; hence, like all too many of the European statists and socialists, they think in static terms.

The unfortunate irony is that America’s first black president seems bent on continuing a set of policies that can lead only to continued slow growth or stagnation. The ones who are and will suffer the most from these policies are those who have the least. Mr. Obama no doubt has real compassion for the poor, but until he can begin to understand the destructive second-order effects of his policies and see that getting the foot of government off the forces of economic growth is the only real way to make life better for most of them, all too many will continue to suffer unnecessarily.

Richard W. Rahn is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and chairman of the Institute for Global Economic Growth.

He who will not work…


Posted by  http://joeforamerica.com/2013/07/he-who-will-not-work/

 

This past Sunday in church it was my turn to do the Bible readings on which the sermon text was based.  I love giving the readings because there are few things to equal the majesty of reading Scripture out loud. And it was an extra pleasure because the New Testament readings were one of my favorites: 2 Thessalonians 3: 6-10

“In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers and sisters, to keep away from every believer who is idle and disruptive and does not live according to the teaching you received from us. For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example. We were not idle when we were with you, nor did we eat anyone’s food without paying for it. On the contrary, we worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you. We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to offer ourselves as a model for you to imitate. For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.”

This echoed an interesting post my friend Enola Gay recently had on her blog. Her grandfather sent her a piece called The Truth of the Welfare State, which expresses the frustration many of us feel:

Like most folks in this country, I have a job.  I work, they pay me.  I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit.  In order to get that paycheck, in my case, I am required to pass a random urine test (with which I have no problem). What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don’t have to pass a urine test.So, here is my question:  Shouldn’t one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check because I have to pass one to earn it for them?Please understand, I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet.  I do, one the other hand, have a problem with helping someone sitting on their BUTT doing drugs or whatever they want while I work.Can you imagine how much money each state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check?

I guess we could call the program “URINE OR YOU’RE OUT”!

This all reinforces the Great Divide in this country.  No, it’s not the Haves vs. the Have Nots.  It’s becoming the “Work” vs. the “Work Nots.”

Please note the Bible verse says “The one who is UNWILLING to work.”  Other versions say “shall not work” or “will not work.”  This differs greatly from CANNOT work.

People cannot work for a huge variety of reasons.  Some are too old.  Some are disabled.  Some are too young.  Some are single mothers (I distinguish between women who have been abandoned by their men versus women who crank out babies for profit).  And, especially in this economy, many are simply unable to find work, no matter how hard they try.

This greatly differs from those who WILL NOT work.

There are very few among us in this nation who are not willing to help those who are truly in need.  When we see people who are UNABLE to work, collectively there is a deep-seated instinct to help.  That’s one of the reasons I admire and support such organizations as the Union Gospel Mission, which takes people off the street and “teaches them to fish” rather than merely “giving” them fish (to paraphrase the old saying).  Charities such as this are privately run, efficient, and deserving of praise.

But just as there is a deep-seated instinct among us to help those in need, there is equally a deep-seated resentment among us to have our hard-earned money forcibly removed from our pockets and “redistributed” to those who, quite often, are UNWILING to work.

Giving money to those unwilling to work is cruel.  It destroys their incentive, ruins their work ethic, and supplies a false sense of entitlement.  It rips families apart (since the man is no longer necessary as the critical breadwinner).  It teaches children that age-old virtues are unnecessary.

In short, giving UN-earned money may well lead, directly or indirectly, to the destruction of our nation.  It’s a chain-reaction downward spiral, apparently encouraged by our government so it has a built-in cadre of dependent voters willing to keep the entitlements coming if only they vote in the same ol’ politicians.

I would dearly love my girls to inherit a nation worthy of them.  We are endeavoring to teach them that hard work, self-sufficiency (from government assistance), and independence are the tickets toward true freedoms.  But our government is burning these notions down around their ears.

GIVE ME DEATH


If Barack Obama didn’t tell Lois Lerner to target his enemies it’s because he didn’t have to. She knows who her boss is and they’re happy as hell with the job she did to help silence Tea Party, religious and conservative groups going into the 2012 election. Ms. Lerner hasn’t been charged, fired, or even had her computer unplugged. She took the Fifth and got a promotion administering ObamaCare.

My point is the Obama Administration is more than willing to use the power of the Federal government to deny Americans their Constitutional rights. “There is no direct link to the White House…” So what? When a baseball team is in last place no one says; “There’s no direct link to the manager. He wasn’t at bat or playing the field – he had nothing to do with it…” It’s his team, just like this is Barack Obama’s team. The manager and most of the players have got to go and this President is no different, except there are probably high crimes and misdemeanors involved here.

I care about Edward Snowden only to the extent that he’s the reason we’re talking about the NSA trolling billions of phone calls, email messages, texts, videos and other means of private communications. Apparently, the information Mr. Snowden “leaked” was already out there but other NSA whistleblowers, Bill Binney and J. Kirk Wiebe, who “did it right,” got harassed, were retaliated against, and most importantly – nothing changed at the NSA, except It got bigger and more secretive. Defenders say the programs are effective and agents can only collect the data, not actually look at it without a court order. Yeah, about that…

In a secret Capitol Hill briefing, the NSA recently disclosed that thousands of analysts have the authority to listen to domestic phone calls. That goes for email and text messages as well. And when I say “secret” Capitol Hill briefing, I of course mean  everyone knows about it. This would be funny if the story didn’t end with me kicking someone’s ass in the gulag. In light of such clear evidence this Administration is not to be trusted with information; why would we grant them the ability to collect this ‘meta-data’? It’s insane. Do I have to list the other Obama scandals that involve secrecy, deception, obfuscation and outright lies?

You know how it’s not cool to make a joke about a bomb when you’re at the airport? Do it and you’ll be detained for hours and be put on a list or two. Does the airport bomb-joke rule go for private conversations, emails, or texts now? Is there even such a thing as a private conversation now? If someone at the NSA finds something they deem suspicious, can they go back years and listen to everything you say to anyone – on the phone, email, text, video – whatever? What’s stopping them from investigating your friends and family using the powers granted to them to catch terrorists? Is this just a continuation of Bush policies or is it much, much bigger as Mr. Snowden claims – a Marxist conspiracy by Chicago thugs?

My point is, do I have to watch what I say on the phone or email for fear Big Brother will become suspicious? They have all my records now and just need to get a FISA court to sign off on further intrusion. How would I know they’re investigating me and everyone I’ve ever called, emailed or texted? And what if I did something private I don’t want anyone else to see? Just to be clear: It’s none of your business. I don’t need another reason.

Trusting government to follow the law are Boehner, Feinstein, Rogers, Saxby, McCain, Reid and others who have been collecting a government paycheck since before the Louisiana purchase. Then there’s Karl Rove who said on Fox that folks opposed to NSA programs must also be against local police forces who use the same type of intelligence gathering to solve crime. Mr. Rove – I haven’t committed a crime! I haven’t been accused of one either, and I damn sure don’t want government agents collecting my records without cause for any reason. patrick henry2

There are people I do respect on a certain Fox News Show… let’s just say it’s on at FIVE, who say these are necessary anti-terrorist programs because if just one nuclear bomb gets through we’re all dead. I’m not going to say their names because I sincerely think they’re both solid people and great conservatives, but their initials are Dana Perino and Greg Gutfeld. Question, you two: Does “Give me Liberty, or Give me Death” ring a bell? Did you miss the part where Eric Holder goes from judge to judge until he finds one to sign off on James Rosen being a co-conspirator and a flight-risk? Now we’re supposed to believe they wouldn’t do the same with a FISA court? Did the IRS petition anybody to deny Obama’s enemies their civil rights?

Look at what this President and Congress has done over the past five years with the dollar, the military, the economy, welfare, unemployment. Talk about endangering the well-being of the country – they’ve done a million more times damage to the safety and defense of this nation than Edward Snowden ever could. It’s shocking to me that we’re even debating giving them these kind of powers after all the questions about voting irregularities in the last election. Ask anyone who escaped a place of tyranny if they think this is a good idea.

With every phone record, text, and email of everyone in the nation at hand, a motivated administration could easily fix a national election. You don’t think they’d be on board with that? These are the same people who give automatic weapons to Mexican drug cartels in order to gin up a phony gun crisis here in America to push their anti-Second Amendment crusade. They invented a crazy anti-video riot to cover-up the deaths in Benghazi. These are bad, bad, people who should not have any power at all, much less this kind. This NSA matter isn’t about terrorism, it’s about you. Controlling you. Ten years ago, I would have called myself crazy for saying that.

2014 is right around the corner.

How About That Herman Cain?


I’m nearly 65 years old and have been active follower of politics for over over 40 years. Like you I’ve heard all the various arguments, the ideology and baseless charges about the “other side”. I admit I am growing tired of all the rhetoric and aggravated with the “pundits” telling me that what I am thinking is not right, and they are smarter than the rift-raft that is anything other than themselves (i.e., Cable News Anchors and Commentators). I’m even getting fed up with O’Rielly. I am seeing a growing number of people like me. Maybe, they are underestimating our research and influence.

A perfect example is Herman Cain. Since the first time I heard him speak I have been a fan. The more I hear him, the more I like him. I’ve been thrilled at his growth in the polls, and yet all the “big-mouths” want to put us down saying he has no chance. No Chance? Let’s take a look at Mr. Cain as compared to President Obama as a candidate;

  • Herman Cain has years of Corporate Leadership experience employing people and delivering a great product. He has dealt with budgets, business ups and downs, and the art of negotiating. As a candidate, Barack Obama had none of this experience, and got elected.
  • Herman Cain’s number one attribute for me is that he is NOT, NOR HAS HE EVER BEEN A POLITICIAN. We have had over two hundred years of what politicians can do for us. It’s time to let a business man do it right.
  • I get angry every time I hear someone point out his lack of experience (especially those supporters of President Obama). Do I really have to list his vast experience as a leader, as a profit maker, as an employer, as a community leader, as a local, State and National tax producer as an employer and his experience with many other business as an adviser.
  • His 999 plan may not be perfect, but non of the others are even understandable. Sorry pundits, and that includes you Mr. “RINO” Romney, more often than not the simple answers work out to be the longest running solution to an over complicated problem.
    • By the way, do I really have to explain to you that the complicated tax code is for the subjugation of the American People? In the last several years we’ve heard multiple examples of people on the left making millions of dollars and NOT paying taxes. Why is it that when they are being considered for political office, or another movie role, do these back taxes become an issue?

There is so much more I want to say, but I am wrung out now because of a major crisis that hit our family recently. However I leave you with this. Do we want another politician ignoring us for the next four years, are we ready for REAL CHANGE and give men like Herman Cain with Newt Genrich as his Vice President a chance to go in there and kick  some tail?

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: