Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘Taxes’

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

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

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:

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

“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.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

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 dare – https://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.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

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.

Category:

Political, Society

Tagged with:

GIVE ME DEATH


Posted by http://joeforamerica.com/2013/06/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.

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

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?

Category:

Political

Tagged with:

Tag Cloud