In July of 2009, I posted this article which demonstrated the impacts of the OSHIT tax on the majority of this country. I'm re-publishing that article today not as an "I told you so" (well, I did!) moreso to frame the discussion around the impacts of OSHIT to every day American's lives.
Yesterday the Wall Street Journal's Stephen Moore published a column stating that the tax implications of OSHIT would be felt overwhelmingly by the middle-class, that is those making less than $120,000 a year for a family of four.
By re-publishing the July 2009 article which shows 39 States having a cumulative tax rate of 50% or more we not only bolster Stephen Moore's claims, we demonstrate to each and every middle-class American exactly how it is Barack Hussein Obama lied to you in 2008 when he said he wouldn't raise your taxes "one thin dime."
How's that "hope and change" working out for you, America?
It’s now official because the US Supreme Court says so: ObamaCare is a TAX.
It is the biggest tax increase in the HISTORY of the world to the tune of $500,000,000 (that’s billion, folks.)
Since the US Supreme Court saw fit to re-write legislation and call it a tax, who am I to argue?
Obamacare is dead. It is now
The Obama Health Tax.
Note to the Romney Campaigin: Call it like it is. It’s the largest tax increase in the history of the world, and give Barack Hussein Obama full credit for it!
Overnight polling shows that more than 70% of American’s disagree with Chief Justice John Roberts and the US Supreme Court decision. Those numbers are only going to get worse as time goes on.
The Romney Campaign must seize upon this opportunity because if they do not, Romney will be perceived as “Obama Lite” and be relegated to the political history heap.
Join with the Tea Party folks, here’s our rallying cry. Obama and the US Supreme Court did exactly what we told them not to prior to the 2010 elections, and now it’s time to exact our revenge.
NBC News is reporting this morning that Congress is "very close" to a deal that will raise the debt limit 2.8 TRILLION dollars over the next two years.
The deal will allegedly require $1 TRILLION in cuts over the next two years, with another 1.8 TRILLION dollars in cuts to be "recommended" by a joint Congressional "Committee."
The "Committee" would be "required" to recommend cuts by this November, and should this committee fail to agree, cuts in Defense and Medicare would be automatic and decimate both programs.
Who'd get the blame for these cuts? Why the Republican's of course, who the Democrats are already blaming for "wanting to kill our Senior citizens." Cutting the Military budget is the liberal Democrats dream, if they had their way they'd gut our Defense capabilities to zero.
Additionally, this deal is designed to avoid any further discussion on the Debt and Deficit until after the 2012 elections, and gives Obama everything he asked for.
Once again, the Republican Party is snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, and is subsequently handing Obama the 2012 election by taking his debt-laden spending spree of $5.7 TRILLION DOLLARS since taking office, off the table.
Way to go, Boehner. Kick the ball down the road and let future generations deal with this mess, now that's leadership alright.
Six months ago, there seemed to be no end to the wreckless spending spree the Obama Administration embarked on January 20th, 2009 when Obama assumed power.
My how one mid-term election cycle and six months of hilighting the wreckless spending of Obama and the Democrats has changed the dialogue.
Last night, Barack Hussein Obama moved to the left of Dirty Harry Reid. Not only did he move left of Reid, he moved left of the majority of the Democrat party. Here it's important to note that during the 2010 mid-term elections, no fewer than 22 Democrats in the Senate running for re-election or election campaigned on balancing the budget, which the Obama Administration is steadfastly against.
In trying to demonize the Freshmen Republicans (read that: TEA PARTY) last evening, Obama characterized the choice between being a "balanced" approach versus cuts only. Obama's "balanced" approach includes more than $2,000,000,000,000 (Trillion) dollars in new tax increases on top of the expiring Bush Tax Cuts and the $1,500,000,000,000 (Trillion) dollars in tax increases as a result of Obama-Care.
Therefore my friends, the choice once we boil it down to dollars and cents is this: Cut government to live within it's means and the tax dollars it already takes in, or increase taxes to the tune of $4,500,000,000,000 (Trillion) dollars that the Obama Administration is demanding, and let the spending continue.
Let's see, we the American People can send $0 to this wreckless administration, or we can send another $4,500,000,000,000 (Trillion) dollars and let Obama keep spending like he has a blank check.
I choose $0, and by a recent CNN poll, so do 66% of my fellow American's who've woken up recently to the fiscal disaster this Administration has helped accellerate.
The dialogue is no longer how much can the government spend, the choice is now how much can they cut? I suggest they start with cutting and eliminating ObamaCare. That's money we didn't have when that over-arching legislative piece of Socialism was passed, and there can be no legitimate discussion about cutting Government programs without first recognizing that ObamaCare has to go.
Make no mistake about it, yesterday's S&P long-term outlook shift on U.S. Debit was meant to send a signal to Obama and Congress that the current fiscal trajectory is not sustainable, and needs to be dealt with in a big hurry. There is no other explanation for yesterday's market reaction.
For those of you who may not know, the next round of U.S. Bonds to finance the current Obama Deficit goes on sale May 1st. When these bonds DO NOT SELL look for a visceral and voracious market reaction. Translation: It ain't gonna be pretty.
There can be no question that the intent of Obama and his minions in the White House are deliberately trying to crash our economy. Their ultimate end goal is to seize all wealth in this country and re-distribute it according to their wishes to their own constituents. Yes, they're buying votes with your and my money.
Back to the opening salvo yesterday: the Producers in this country are about to go on strike. Yesterday was the notice it's coming. Heed the warning and protect yourselves.
Let's get this straight: Japan is in the midst of its worst crisis since ... hell I don't know when. It appears the radioactive fallout from Japan will reach our West Coast within the next week if the prevailing wind patterns keep up.
The Middle East burns with conflict after conflict across Libya, Tunisia, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Iran.
At home, hyper-inflation is knocking on our doorsteps with skyrocketing gas and food prices, an unemployment rate at 10.2% (according to Gallup, everyone knows the BLS is cooking the books.)
Last Friday Obama welcomed the NHL Champion Chicago Blackhawks to the White House. I'm a 'hawks fan, but this was ridiculous. Aren't there more pressing issues? Of course there are!
This past Saturday, he golfed for the 61st time since becoming "President." President Bush didn't golf anywhere near as much during his entire 8 years in office.
Sunday Obama spoke out against "bullies" telling of his own personal experience. Pardon me while I yawn, but I bet the worthless POC deserved what he got!
Tomorrow, Obama will be partying with the Taoiseach of Ireland, who'll be in town to help Obama celebrate St. Patrick’s Day. The SOB isn't even Irish!!
And then Friday it’s off to Brazil for the start of a three-country Latin American tour.
This is what our "President" is doing while the world burns. Proof the Community Organizer in Chief doesn't have a clue about being President.
Yes, I do miss President Bush and his Leadership.
Even the idiots that voted for this moron in the White House are starting to notice, Obama's disapproval rating is at an all-time high. Wake up America, before it's too damn' late.
Democrats Demonstrate Once Again Why Voters Rebuffed Them
Democrats in Congress have now so polluted the tax extention compromise that Republicans should now vote against the deal made with Obama earlier this week.
By extending unemployment benefits another 13 months creating another welfare program and extending the "Obama tax cuts" which do nothing but re-distribute wealth to the lazy class in this country, the net effect to our economy will be to simply extend the economic misery of the last two years. Simply stated, all we're doing is prolonging the economic agony and uncertainty another two years until the next election cycle.
So here's my suggestion to the Republican Party, if they have the backbone to take it: vote NO on the Bush tax-cut extensions, and let the Democrats go down in flames in the waning days of this Congress. They're already in self-destruct mode, give them the rest of the rope they need to fully hang themselves.
In voting NO on the tax cut compromise, the message to the American people, and the Tea Party is simple: Democrats have once again demonstrated why they were voted out of power in the House, and their margins minimalized in the Senate. Democrats once again have polluted a piece of legislation designed to help the American people of all income levels in this time of economic distress by loading up the bill with pork and special spending for their political interests.
Rather than pass this piece of crap bill, Republicans should tell the American people that they will wait until the next Congress to pass a permanent, clean tax-bill that will benefit all Americans and small businesses. Then, walk off the podium and leave town until the next Congress.
The internal destruction of the Democrat party that would be sure to follow will cement in the voters minds for the next election just who was responsible for this mess, the Democrats. They've had the last two years with super-majorities in both houses to deal with this problem, to push it off to the lame duck session and try to blame Republicans for their own failure is laughable on its face, and transparent for all to see.
Republicans, do you have the testicular fortitude to take my advice?
GM/Chrysler, Banks, Wall Street Bailouts Will Pale In Comparison To Coming European Bailouts
The U.S. led International Monetary Fund (IMF) is bailing out Greece using U.S. taxpayer dollars, and at the current rate of projected bankruptcies in the Eurozone, Greece won't be the only country we, the American Taxpayer will be on the hook to bailout.
Portugal, Spain, Italy, Ireland and the U.K. are next up on the list projected to fail. No wonder Germany doesn't want to "participate" in the bailouts, they fully understand the damage that will be done to their own economy if they do.
The Greek government, with its high taxes and profligate spending to support large bureaucracies and social programs, is bankrupt. Its bonds have been downgraded to junk status.
As economist Milton Friedman once said, "If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in five years there'd be a shortage of sand." Greece has run out of sand.
The IMF has pledged $145 billion to bail out Greece, and since the United States is the largest contributor to the IMF budget, our government will be funneling the majority, about $100 billion U.S. taxpayer dollars to Greece at a time when our own financial house is in disarray.
America faces the same problems Greece does, a debt to GDP ratio of 90%, burgeoning deficits exceeding $1.5 TRILLION dollars a year as far as the eye can see, public employee union pension fund payouts that exceed 5 times that which public employees put into the funds in the first place, a 10% unemployment rate and more than $12,000,000,000,000 (that's trillion) in public debt. We haven't even counted the more than $60,000,000,000,000 in unfunded Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid benefits that the Government owes because they stole the money from those funds!
Are we on the verge of becoming Greece? YOU BETCHA!!
In fact, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke recently warned congressional leaders that, without significant spending restraints, the United States would soon face a debt crisis like the one in Greece. It is unfair and unwise to ask US taxpayers to fund bailouts for EU countries while America racks up huge deficits.
It's unlikely that Greece will be the last major EU member to seek financial help. High-debt Portugal, Spain and Italy could all face similar crises soon. Estimates are that Spain will need a $450 billion bailout while Italy will cost more. We haven't even begun to talk about Ireland and the U.K. which are also on the verge of going bankrupt becuase of their generous, benefit laden socialist systems and who's going to bail them out? U.S. Taxpayers? Rev up the printing presses at the Treasury, we'll just sell more junk bonds to China and sell our great-great-great children into indentured tax servituded to them as well!
The American people already know what the governments of Greece and other EU members must learn: A nation can't borrow, spend and bail out its way back to a growing economy. The Tea Parties, election of Chris Christie in New Jersey and Scott Brown in Massachusetts are proof of that.
In New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie is making tough choices without raising taxes or requesting aid from Washington, DC. Scott Brown was elected in Massachusetts to stop ObamaCare, and the current Administration from racking tens of trillions of dollars of debt as a result. (While the that failed, the fight on this topic isn't over yet!)
The point is, if America isn't asking Europe for help with New Jersey, why should the EU ask the US for help with Greece?
Enough is enough. America's taxpayers are out of money. Our children's, children's, children's futures are already mortgaged by an over-spending socialist zealot, none of us want to see another generation of America's children become tax slaves to our own government, much less that of the E.U.
Suck it up E.U. You're on your own.
AZ Governor Jan Brewer Takes On Obama
Broken Borders are no laughing matter, watch as Brewer delivers a solid right-hook to the Obama Administration. Obama thinks our borders with Mexico are a joke, the joke will be on him in November.
What a smarmy, arrogant PRICK this "president" is.
Typically, I think Glen Beck's a nut, a loose cannon, an emotional roller-coaster waiting to careen off my TV screen crashing into a pile of blubber in my living room whenever his show is on. Really, sometimes I think the guy is just the other side of being able to hold himself together long enough to make a salient point.
But last night at CPAC, he put on a Masters Course in American History. It was nothing short of a brilliantly articulated tour of the history of America's19th and 20th centuries and our political system. Don't think for a second he blamed our country's ills on just the Democrats, rather some of his harshest criticism he left for the Republican Party. Why? Because a Progressive (or "Liberal", "Communist", "Socialist", "Marxist" or "Redistributionist") by any other name is still a PROGRESSIVE.
Progressives have called themselves all these different things over the last 100 years or so, yet their mission has remained steadfastly the same: to whittle away at the Constitution of the United States of America, and "re-make" it into something else.
For the rest, you'll need to watch the video and we promise you won't be disappointed.
Obama To Ram Through Health Care Bill
Approval Rating At All Time Low
Picture says a thousand words. Obama’s approval hits an all-time low days after announcing the Democrats would force through health care using a seldom used reconciliation amendment to have the House of Represenatives vote on the Senate’s health care reform bill, in a last, fatal attempt to force all American’s into Socialized medicine.
Plan To Fix Wall Street Does Not Include Treasury Secretary
For those of you who may have missed it over the weekend, Paul Volcker announced his plan to fix the troubled financial system in a New
York Times op-ed this past weekend. Nowhere in that plan or announcement was there any mention of Tim Geithner or a continuing role for the controversial tax-cheating Treasury Secretary.
Here are some of the elements of Volcker's plan:
-- Prevent banks from owning hedge funds and other proprietary
trading vehicles (a semi-reincarnation of the Glass Steagall Act that separated
commercial banking and investment banking from the 1930s to the 1990s.) This would prevent banks from making risky investments with account and shareholder money.
-- Give the government resolution authority to step in,
liquidate, or sell any firm it deems to be in trouble (including mortgage
lenders, investment banks, and insurance companies) or more simply stated, a re-incarnation of the successful Resolution Trust Corporation of the 1980's which managed the orderly liquidation of banks that failed, minimizing the cost to taxpayers.
-- Make shareholders, management, and, yes, bondholders
pay for any costs associated with the bank's failure, preventing Taxpayers from shouldering the burden of failed banks.
If we do only these things, we will have eliminated the
most insidious and problematic part of the status quo: Too Big To Fail. Under Volcker's plan, big firms would be allowed to fail--in
an orderly fashion, with their owners and lenders taking the hit.
In good times, they will also remain competitive in a global economy without
arbitrary size constraints that put them at a disadvantage versus international
banks that face no such restrictions. One question for those concerned with the fate of Treasury
Secretary Tim Geithner is why Paul Volcker is selling this plan.
Shouldn't the Treasury Secretary be doing that?
Let the Geithner Watch begin! It's only a matter of time before the financial midget is out.
Economists Agree, Administration Policies Will Kill Banking Idustry, Availability of Credit
So how does Barack Hussein Obama respond to the Democrats loss of their super-majority in the U.S. Senate?
Simple: By declaring war on America's banking system, implementing depression era, draconian rules on banks which would limit consumer and small business access to credit and in fact their own money!
Obama has now declared WAR not only on U.S. banks, he's declared it on each and every one of us who has a checking or savings account, owns a small business, or require credit to keep cash flow going.
The policies Obama wants implemented will raise fees on each and every bank account holder across the country, as Obama seeks to "reign in" the largest banks. By forcing banks to pay new fees (read that: TAXES) to the Federal Government, the reality is those costs will be pushed down to each and every bank account holder in the form of fees.
Obama wants a war on you and I? He's got a war. The conclusion of which he'll see in November of 2010 when the Democrat Congress gets neutered.
Summit Exposes Lack of Business, Economics Experience
Barack Hussein Obama has never held a job in the private sector, so is it any wonder that yesterday Obama blamed small business owners for “protecting their profits” as one of the primary reasons the unemployment rate is so high?
This gem was followed by yet another “brilliant” statement that the Government "”cannot spend its way out of recession.”
Almost $2,000,000,000,000 dollars later, reality sets in that the Government doesn’t create jobs, business’ do. We all know that Small Businesses are the economic engine of this country, yet Obama continues to “bash and tax” them into oblivion whilst simultaneously blaming them for lack of job creation.
As someone who’s started two small businesses, I can speak authoritatively on this issue in saying “of course they protect their profits, for without those profits small business would not be able to employ anyone in the first place, much less be the economic engine of this country.” Profits drive growth which drives economic expansion and job creation. It really is that simple, Obama must’ve been all ‘wee-wee’d up” during Economics 101.
The fact is also that laying off employees is typically the last thing most companies want to do. The cost of recruiting, interviewing, hiring, training new employees and making them productive within a company are so exorbitant they often take two years or more to recover.
So are small businesses reluctant to hire in this economic climate? You bet they are, and for good reason: We’ve had two years worth of Obama bashing small businesses (one year as a “Candidate”) threatening to increase their taxes and “spread the wealth around.”
It doesn’t take an economic genius to know that this bozo’s economic policies are ruining this country, driving us further and further into debt and eventually the bills are going to come due via higher inflation and a further erosion of the dollar’s purchasing power.
Ronald Wilson Reagan had it exactly right when he said during his first inaugural address: “In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.”
True then, true now.
Why Is Janet Napolitano Warning Al-Qaeda in America?
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano warned that al-Qaida followers are inside the U.S. and pose the threat of terrorist attacks on Americans.
“The fact is that home-based terrorism is here,” she said in an address to the American-Israel Friendship League in New York on Wednesday night.
So my question here is, why is Janet Napolitano “warning” Al-Qaeda in America and not finding and killing the bastards instead? Where is our national security? Why are muslims even allowed in America at this point?
Obama’s dithering and mixed signals in winning the war on terror no doubt means we’re going to fighting Al-Qaeda here on our own soil soon vis a vis more 9-11 style attacks. Clearly this “President” doesn’t want to win and our enemies know it.
“Warning” them? Let’s find ‘em, kill ‘em, wrap their dead bodies in pig skin and drop them off via airmail back home where they belong.
This political correctness bullshit is going to get us all killed.
I’m always heartened when left-wing marxists who want to destroy America turn on each other.
Video is from Daley Plaza in downtown Chicago. Watch as William Ayers turns on his good friend Barack Hussein Obama over the “troop surge” in Afghanistan.
I wonder if Ayers is going to hold fundraisers for Obama in 2012 after this. Ayers by the way was the first prominent left-wing liberal marxist in Chicago to host a fundraiser for Obama when he began his U.S. Senate run in 2006.
Ayers is also widely suspected as being the shadow writer of Obama’s “Dreams of my Father” due to the hundreds of similarities between Obama’s and Ayers’ “writing styles.”
It’s always fun to watch when the left-wing marxist wingnuts turn on each other isn’t it?
Obama best have the Secret Service check his mail for letter bombs after this.
There is no doubt that the Economy ranks #1 on most American's minds these days, far ahead of Health Care and sadly, the War in Iraq and Afghanistan. All the major polls say this.
There is also no doubt that Barack Hussein Obama's "rock star status" has burned out like a phoenix in the night. Less than 39% of American's "strongly approve" of Obama just one year into his Presidency. While the media won't tell you this little bit of truth, I will: That's Bush approval rating terroritory - at the end of Bush's 8 years in office.
Be that what it may, the key question for the 2010 elections will no doubt be "Are you better off now, than you were four years ago?"
To truly understand the damage that the Democrats have done to our economy we must look back to the only key, reliable metrics we had prior to the November 2006 elections when the Democrats took control of the United States Congress, that is both the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate.
On election day, November 2006 America had a vibrant economy. The statistcs here simply do not lie.
Dow Jones: 12,176
NASDAQ: 2,384
S&P 500: 1,385
Gold: $635 per ounce
Oil: $59.83 per bbl
Gasoline: $1.56 per gallon, National average
Unemployment: 4.4% ("Full Employment")
Net Job Creation: 132,000 (October, 2006)
Japanese Yen: 117 to $1 American
Canadian Dollar: .76 to $1 American
Following the Democrats takeover of Congress an all out assault on the American Economy began which included a run up in the price of Oil to a record $140/barrel in the Summer of 2007 before collapsing, spikes in commodity prices for key items such as food, energy, clothing, a collapse in the Housing market due to Democrat refusal to reign in Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac, the Fed's continued loose money policy, and culminating this November with an unemployment rate that is more than double the last unemployment report under President Bush and a Republican Congress in November of 2006.
This is not to say that President Bush and the Republican Congress did everything right. Far from it. While one can reasonably argue the case against the War in Iraq, there is no doubt that millions of Iraqi's are better off today than they were living under Saddam Hussein. Then there' the "free drugs for Seniors" program under Medicare, the largest Socialist expansion of the Federal Government at the time, a failure by the Republican Congress to reign in Federal spending amid mounting budget deficits, and the Bush initiated banking industry bailouts (ironically with Obama's, Reid's, Pelosi's, and Hillary Clinton's votes of approval in Congress.) Pushing the economy "over the edge" was the Obama Administration's seizure of 2/3rds of the American automobile industry, $1,000,000,000,000 (that's one TRILLION) in "stimulus spending", continued meddling in the Banking industry and his attempted seizure of the Health Care industry forcing all American's under government health care.
By his own admission, Bush abandoned his free market capitalist principles in order to "save" the Banking industry and the American markets. His successor Barack Hussein Obama simply seized upon the opportunity to declare Capitalism "dead" and mashed the Socialism gas pedal to the floor, accellerating the country's momentum in the wrong direction to advance his far left wing agenda.
Given these facts, is it really any wonder we're still in the worst recession since the Great Depression? Some economists argue we're finally exiting the recession but is that true? I would argue it isn't and I have the facts to back it up.
Rather than give away the answer though, here's a question: If we were truly exiting the worst recession since the Great Depression, then why are tax revenues at the Federal and State levels continuing to fall? In every other economic recovery, the fortelling that recovery was underway were increasing tax revenues at the Federal and State levels. That simply isn't happening right now.
Here in Illinois for example, tax revenues are down year over year by more than 27%. The situation here is so bad that Illinois' budget deficit is 47% of revenue which is second only to California's 49%.
At the Federal level, tax revenues are down just over 12% year over year, which only goes to exacerbate the $1.9 trillion dollar deficit the Obama Administration has incurred for the Federal Budget year of 2009. At the current rate of spending vs. tax revenues, by the end of Obama's first (and hopefully ONLY!) term, that would place the Federal Debt somewhere between $15.5 and $17 TRILLION DOLLARS, more than double the National Debt when Bush left office earlier this year.
None of this should be construed as a defense of the Bush Administration or Republicans. There are no clean hands in this mess. Republican's were elected to take over Congress in 1994 to get the Country's fiscal house in order. In large part they did that by forcing Clinton to cut the size of the Federal Government and implement welfare reform after Clinton passed the largest tax increase in the history of the country while he still had a Democrat Congress between 1992 and January 1994. It was the offsets in the size of Government spending combined with the Clinton tax hikes that balanced the budget, even though those tax hikes actually reduced revenue to the Federal Government.
The 2000 elections saw George W. Bush elected during a time of economic uncertainty: a recession was already underway, the technology bubble popped, the stock markets were in decline, and Bush proposed and implemented the largest expansion of the Federal Government (at the time...) implementing "free drugs for seniors" on Medicare. Then came 9-11, a stock market crash, and the "War on Terror" or more specifically the War in Iraq in 2003. It was during this period thatthe Republican Congress passed programs such as "free drugs for seniors" that they'd have otherwise never passed because it was so fiscally irresponsible. Later it would be said that big government was ok, as long as it was Republican big government.
Color me crazy, but it was the Republican Congress' complete lack of fiscal restraint which caused them to lose their way, resulting in the Democrats taking back Congress.
So now that we can honestly acknowledge with the facts clearly on the table that both Republican's and Democrats are responsible for this mess, what do we, the average Joe Six Pack do about it?
Absent a full-on revolution at the Capital complete with guns, bullets, tar, rope and feathers culminating in 537 dead swinging bodies hanging from the gallows, the mission for 2010 couldn't possibly be more clear: drain the swamp.
There is simply no way any right-thinking voter in this country should even consider voting for, and returning their Congressman, Senator, local Mayor or dog catcher back to office. Everyone complains that "they're all corrupt!" yet is convinced their guy/gal in office is doing a good job. It's time to change that mentality and send each and every member of the U.S. House of Reprsentatives and the 1/3 of the Senate that is up for election this year packing for home.
In no way shape or form should anyone who hasn't had to sit at their kitchen table and balance their checkbook at the end of each month be elected to office next November.
My solution? Simple: Elect the mom's and dad's who've had to make the hard choices to cut their family budgets to pay for food, clothing, housing and gas during this recession because they are the ones who understand the value of money and the impacts this over-grown government has on each and every one of us.
That's my solution, its short, simple and I think effective. It's either that or a few million of us put down our signs and go back to the Capital armed and ready to do the job that a bunch of misinformed, ignorant voters have thus far refused to do.
Thursday
evening October 29th on Air America, Democrat James Clyburn discussed the Democrats'
plan to use the "nucelar option" to pass ObamaCare.
What is the "nuclear option?"
The Senate does not restrict the total time allowed for debate; instead, a motion for cloture
must be passed to end debate. A three-fifths majority (60 Senators), is
required to approve the cloture motion and proceed to a vote on the
main issue. Thus, although a bill might have majority support, a
minority of 41 Senators can prevent a final vote, effectively defeating
the bill. In practice, if it is clear that the motion for cloture will
not carry, the bill may simply be tabled so that the Senate can conduct
other business. From time to time, however, the margin of votes for
cloture may be very close, and the minority may wish to stall the
cloture vote for as long as possible. Because debate time is unlimited,
Senators may simply speak endlessly on the Senate floor to prevent a
vote from taking place; this tactic is known as a filibuster.
A formal change to the Senate's rules is even more difficult to make:
Senate rule 22 says that such a change requires a two-thirds majority
of those present and voting to end debate (67 votes if all senators
vote).
The nuclear option is used in response to a filibuster or other
delaying tactic. A Senator makes a point of order calling for an
immediate vote on the measure before the body, outlining what
circumstances allow for this. The presiding officer of the Senate,
usually the vice president of the United States or the president pro tempore,
makes a parliamentary ruling upholding the senator's point of order.
The Constitution is cited at this point, since otherwise the presiding
officer is bound by precedent. A supporter of the filibuster may
challenge the ruling by asking, "Is the decision of the Chair to stand
as the judgment of the Senate?" This is referred to as "appealing from
the Chair." An opponent of the filibuster will then move to table
the appeal. As tabling is non-debatable, a vote is held immediately. A
simple majority decides the issue. If the appeal is successfully
tabled, then the presiding officer's ruling that the filibuster is
unconstitutional is thereby upheld. Thus a simple majority is able to
cut off debate, and the Senate moves to a vote on the substantive issue
under consideration. The effect of the nuclear option is not limited to
the single question under consideration, as it would be in a cloture
vote. Rather, the nuclear option effects a change in the operational
rules of the Senate, so that the filibuster or dilatory tactic would
thereafter be barred by the new precedent.
The term "nuclear option" has come to be used generically for a
procedural maneuver with potentially serious consequences, to be used
as a last resort to overcome political opposition.
Watch as House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D) describes on Air America how the Democrats have always planned to use the 'nuclear option' to pass "reform" in the Senate:
Hassan To Be Charged With Domestic Terrorism?
Rumor around Washington D.C. is that the Obama Administration wants the Fort Hood shootings by Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan to be treated as "domestic terrorism" with prosecution to be in the U.S. Federal Courts!
The reasoning: Hassan reached out to a radical muslim imamin Falls Church Virginia, who himself was directly tied to two of the 19 hijackers on 9-11. That imam left for Yemen in 2002, and his
lectures there in support of al Qaeda have appeared on the computers of
terrorists suspects in the U.S., Canada and the U.K.
The Fort Hood murders make it clear once again that Islamic terrorism is a national security and a domestic U.S. security problem as well. Why our military failed to act upon numerous reports and complaints that Hassan was abusing his position as an Army psychologist spewing al-qaeda propaganda is beyond me, however it's abundantly clear that Hassan was at the time of the attacks, and is today subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and any attempts by the Obama Administration and Attorney General Eric Holder should be met by mass protests by all in this country - our Armed Forces as well.
You know about the bailouts, the stimulus plan, cash for clunkers,
and moola for mansions. But for all the anxiety they've caused, those
government giveaways are just a tiny part of a mushrooming problem.
By one
measure, the government already plays an outsize role in our so-called
free-market economy--and it has little to do with the recession.
Economist Gary Shilling has calculated that 58 percent of the
population is dependent on the government for "major parts of their
income," including teachers, soldiers, bureaucrats, and other
government employees; welfare and Social Security recipients;
government pensioners; public housing beneficiaries; and people who
work for government contractors. By 2018, Shilling estimates, an
astounding 67 percent of Americans could be dependent on the government
for their livelihood. The implications aren't comforting.
Tea-party
ranters might cite this as evidence of liberal policies run amok, but
the growing-government phenomenon transcends party politics. In 1950,
the starting point for Shilling's analysis, just 29 percent of the
nation depended on government for its income. By 1980, that had risen
to 61 percent--higher than it is today--thanks to demographic factors
and the needs of a changing nation. The military got larger and defense
spending grew as America took up its role as a superpower. Baby boomer
kids required many more schoolteachers. The number of Americans
receiving payouts from Social Security, enacted in 1935, increased
10-fold. Food stamps and other safety-net programs of the 1960s and
'70s began to reach millions of Americans.
From 1980 to 2000,
Americans became less dependent on government. California and other
states cut their budgets and reduced spending. The military got smaller
after the Cold War ended. Welfare reform in the 1990s kicked many
people off the dole. And the private sector boomed during those two
decades, accounting for a larger share of the labor force. By 2000, the
portion of the population dependent on government had drifted down to
54 percent.
But it reversed course after that, and it seems
poised to keep going up. The size of government has generally held
steady since 2000, but globalization, technology, and other factors
have led to weak private-sector job creation over the past decade. And
that was before the recession destroyed more than 8 million jobs. So
the government has employed an increased share of Americans. The other
big change since 2000 has been a near tripling of food-stamp
recipients, as low earners got left out of the housing and stock-market
booms and then suffered worse during the recession.
The
next big shift will come as baby boomers begin to retire, boosting the
number of Social Security recipients 27 percent by 2018 and threatening
the solvency of the program. Shilling has another dire prediction:
Economic growth will be so weak for the next several years that without
government support, the unemployment rate will rise to 23 percent in
2018. Since that's politically intolerable, government will continue to
spend money to create jobs, he predicts, with nearly 25 million
additional Americans employed as a direct outcome of government
spending by 2018.
If that happens, more than two thirds of the
nation will owe their livelihood to the government, which is
unsustainable for a number of reasons. It will require federal deficits
far larger than the $1.4 trillion bogy we've got now, which is already
alarmingly high. If irate voters don't rein in America's debt binge,
market forces will, perhaps because foreigners will stop lending us the
money or the rates they demand will rise and effectively bankrupt the
country. Higher taxes would help solve the problem--and are probably
inevitable--but enacting them on rich people alone won't be enough. At
some point not too far off, the U.S. government will have to close the
vast gap between its income and its spending, and the pain will be
widespread.
Some
economists are more optimistic than Shilling, with stronger projections
for economic growth that might eliminate the government's need to
create 25 million new jobs. But rosier scenarios are taking their time
to materialize. The unemployment rate has soared to 10.2 percent, a
26-year high, with no indication that companies will start hiring again
anytime soon. So instead of restraint by government, Congress and
President Obama have extended housing subsidies and unemployment
insurance, cut taxes on struggling companies, and even made plans to
send a $250 check to every senior citizen, just as a nice gesture.
Americans who can get in on this bonanza should get theirs while they
can. Sooner or later, the door is going to slam shut.
Barack Hussein Obama, the Democrat Controlled Congress, the Fed and the Treasury are spending your money like drunken sailors!
CLICK HERE to see the Debt, Deficit and how much you and your children owe! (Updated in real-time, the numbers will spin your head.)
Since the recession began in December of 2008, 9.5 million American's have lost their jobs.
Of those 8.5 million, nearly 8.5 million have occurred under Obama's watch.
During OBama's first two years in office alone, unemployment reached a twenty-six plus year high of 10.2%.
CNN Reports There Are 400,000 fewer people working today, then when Obama took office! Where's the "Recovery?!"
There are now 25 MILLION People in this country who are Unemployed / Under-Employed / Gave Up Looking for work. That's more than any other time in this country's history.
That's more than the entire population of the State of Pennsylvania, according to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics.
The Unemployment Rate remains above 8% for the FOURTH year in a row - longer than any other time in history of this country.
How about Foreign Policy?
North Korea has successfully tested a nuclear weapon for the third timeand has directly threatened the security of the United States of America by declaring the Korean War has resumed.
The response by the Obama Administration? Silence, followed by more 'sanctions' against North Korea. As if that's going to matter.
Iran has accellerated its nuclear program in defiance of the United States and the so-called "United Nations." The Obama Administration's response? Another useless sanction with the United Nations. Iran now has several THOUSAND centrifuges making fissible, nuclear material for BOMBS and is DIRECTLY threatening war against Israel now.
Obama's response: Threaten Israel.
On the Economic Front:
The "Misery Index" is once again being calculated - for the first time since the disastrous Jimmy Carter Presidency.
By printing and adding another $6 TRILLION dollars in DEBT, Obama has set the stage for 1970's style inflation. Welcome to the Obama Economy.
The Federal Budget Deficit, which was $400 billion dollars for 2009 as voted on and approved by Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton and yes, Barack Hussein Obama during the last year of the Bush Presidency
Obama Budget Deficits have exceeded $1.5 TRILLION Dollars each year he's been in office. That's a historic first! They can't blame this on Bush, they own this crap sammich!
How about Obama's record on Energy?
Obama is still pushing for Cap and Tax. Once Cap & Tax has been instituted, along with the $1/gallon fuel tax advocated by some Obama Appointees we can expect gas to be $6/gallon or higher, should Cap & Tax go into effect.
Obama's EPA has effectively SHUT DOWN all off-shore drilling, and all drilling on Federal land. The "boom" in drilling is happening on PRIVATE LAND where the EPA cannot stop it.
How about the War on Terror?
Afghanistan is LOST.Obama's failed policies have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. The Taliban is resurgent, and the Obama Administration has entered into "negotiations" with the very regime that aided Osama Bin Laden in attacking us on 9-11-01. Why isn't Obama being impeached for TREASON?!
Obama - Change we can all believe in, to be sure (/sarcasm)
Why is Obama So Incompetent? 143 Days ....
That's the sum total of Barak Obama's experience in the United States Senate, prior to announcing his run for the United States Presidency.
Visits To NoBamaNation Since This Blog Was Started
In this video from 2004, Barak Obama says he's not qualified to run for President before ever having served a day in the U.S. Senate. I guess those 143 days have "qualified" him then?
Obama- Flops
Here are our favorite YouTube clips documenting Barak Hussein Obama's flip-flops on key positions.
*** NEW *** Obama Flip-Flops on Missile Defense During 1st Debate:
Obama flip-flopping on his position in Iraq:
Obama Flip-Flopping on Iran (and dangerously underestimating their resolve for Nuclear weapons)
Here, Obama flip-flops on the D.C. Gun Ban:
And here's another clip on the same topic:
Here's Obama flip-flopping on suspending the Federal Gas Tax. (Note: as a Junior Illinois State Legislator he supported suspending the Gas tax, but opposes suspending the Federal Gas Tax as a US Senator.)
Obama flip-flopping on Welfare Reform:
Obama Flip-Flopping on Public Financing for his Campaign:
In this video from 2004, Barak Obama says he's not qualified to run for President before ever having served a day in the U.S. Senate. (Must be those 143 days of experience that made the difference!)
And another clip of Obama admitting he's not ready to be President (this time as as sitting U.S. Senator!)
Posts
