Michael Wolfe

Study up. Stand up. Speak up. Pray up!

Posts Tagged ‘taxes’

« Previous Entries

What to look for in a presidential candidate, or any candidate for any office.

Posted by americana83 on June 10, 2011

I’ve been accused of looking for a “perfect” candidate. However, I am merely looking for someone who will actually move us in the right direction. The “right direction” can roughtly be broken down in to 10 areas, many of which are somewhat interlinked, but still worth noting separately:

Budget reduction: Does a candidate actually specify things which he would work to have cut. “streamlining” or “eliminating waste” sounds really good, but ANY candidate should be doing that, and in light of the massive federal budget, this only ever amounts to a few drops in the bucket, and it almost never gets done.

Redacting Green agenda: Does a candidate seek to curtail carbon emissions? If so, they are uninformed about global warming and are a serious threat to economic and personal liberty.

End Abortion: Often sidelined as a “social issue,” abortion actually should actually be at the center of the fight for constitutional rights. The Declaration of Independence cited the unalienable right of Life first, and that is proper, because without life, you can neither exercise liberty or pursue happiness. Abortion was forced on an entire county by an activist Supreme Court in direct violation of the Bill of Rights: No personal shall be deprived of LIFE, liberty or property without due process of law. Congress could remove the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court on the matter and return the issue of abortion to the states. A candidate that encourages that and/or which works to remove federal funds from paying for ANY abortion would be helping to move this issue forward.

Reducing the Size of government: Does a candidate have an agenda that involves cutting the size of government in some concrete way, such as reigning in the EPA, eliminating the federal department of education, eliminating federal entitlement programs (like free cell phones), vetoing any budget that includes any money to enact ObamaCare/signing any legislation that repeals ObamaCare? Any candidate can, and probably will talk about “big government” and how bad it is, but do they back up this talk with a plan for action? No candidate who supports laws banning so-called raw milk or Edison’s light bulb can be said to be concerned about the size of government- unless their concern is that it’s too SMALL!

Educational choice: Is the candidate committed to getting the federal government out of education? Eliminating the federal department of Education, eliminating grants? Education has declined in quality in America as the federal government has taken it over more and more.

Debt reduction and the Federal Reserve: Will the candidate veto any budget that includes debt ceiling increases, or deficit spending? Will he work to pare down the executive branch of the government of which he is head? Will he support a sound money program that seeks to restore proper money, the kind of money we had when America was a creditor and not a debtor nation? The kind of money we had when the dollar became the “world reserve” currency?

Health Care freedom: Is the candidate committed to protecting the rights of doctors to own hospitals (as ObamaCare bans)? Is he committed to pulling the government out of healthcare? Will he promote a plan that opts this and future generations out of mandated programs (paying medicare and Social security taxes, etc, while providing means to protect those who were forced under penalty of law to invest in these programs?

Gun rights:Is the candidate committed to supporting the right to bear arms along with the other rights in the constitution? Does he support gun grabs, registration, waiting periods, or so-called assault weapons bans? If he does, then he does not support the second amendment. It should be noted that Adolph Hilter supported full gun registration in National Socialist (NAZI) Germany. Only a dictator fears an armed populace.

Illegal Immigration: Does the candidate endorse “comprehensive immigration reform” or “guest worker programs to legalize those here illegally” or any form of amnesty? If so, then he does not oppose illegal immigration. It should be noted, that if a candidate supported and promoted serious reforms like those mentioned above, that illegal immigration would be greatly deterred. A president that cuts off federal money to cities in general will also go a long way in undermining so called “Sanctuary cities” because they will be forced to rely entirely on tax money extorted from their own people to pay for illegal aliens. A president that refuses to get in the way of a state that is actively seeking to solve its own illegal immigration problem would get a positive rating on this, and it could create an environment where other states would be willing to enforce the laws without getting sued by a government that refuses to protect them from an invasion. Radical Chicano groups support the idea of seizing the southwest US by mass immigration.

Foreign Affairs: Is a candidate dedicated to pursuing America’s interests? Will they oppose using any federal tax dollars for foreign aid? Will they remove America from harmful progressive international treaties? Will they work towards removing us from the UN and from supporting it with our tax dollars and troops? Will they speak out against and oppose Kyoto and other treaties designed to strangle American businesses? Will they speak out against and oppose any and all treaties that would harm our second amendment rights, or any other rights? Will they speak out against “climate debt” or other globalist scams designed to redistribute wealth and induce guilt because of success. Is the candidate willing to go to war on behalf of the UN? Is the candidate willing to go to war without having a congressional declaration of war? If the answer is yes, then the candidate has no respect for the separation of powers or the danger of “entangled alliances” like the UN which pit our interests against the interests of socialists and other kinds of dictators.

Constitutional fidelity: the above tenants basically embody this one, and all would move America towards a limited government like that in line with what the founders intended.

All of these tentants rely on one more thing, and this will determine their honesty even if they profess adamant support for any or all of the preceding items:

Time Frame: When does a candidate intend to start taking concrete steps towards the above goals? Within 10 years? 15? Any candidate that does not pledge to take steps in his first term of office is in fact pledging to do nothing. Some glitzy “waste reductions” and speeches and more and more promises will mean nothing. Passing a budget that starts to reduce spending “by 2016″ or some future date is committed to doing nothing now. Unfortunately, by passing the ball to a future year, the candidate has no responsibility to work on it now. Further, he could get replaced and his promised future reforms overturned. I don’t care if a candidate pledges to cut the budget by 25% by 2020, I care what they do NOW to accomplish these goals. Talking about future actions and making promises that extend to future congresses or presidencies is just foolish. They can no more guarantee their reelection than they can promise a sunny day on July 4th this year. (At least so long as we maintain free and fair elections).

I will not endorse a candidate who is not moving forward on these agenda items in some tangible way. Where do candidates like Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich fall on these issues? It should be fairly obvious by now that they intend either to continue the status quo, or continue to drag us farther from these goals. Do not endorse a candidate just because “they are electable.”  It doesn’t matter how electable they are if they indulge in the status quo or take us even farther down the road to serfdom.

Posted in Presidential, Election, deception, Obama, Barack Obama, communism, news, taxes, health care, Ohio, culture, Immigration, politics, Election 2012 | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

“Government is not a charity”

Posted by americana83 on February 10, 2011

The following is a letter I wrote which appeared in the Delaware Gazette this Tuesday (2-8-2011)

I am writing in response to William A. McCartney’s recent letter (February 2nd, 2011) about taxes. He is right about one thing, we should keep taxes in perspective.

Yes, taxes are high. As a percentage, they consume much more of our weekly paychecks than they did when houses cost 6,000. When the income tax was first implemented, 1913, it was a 1% for those making 20,000 to 50,000 and rose to a maximum of 6% for those making 500,000 and over. Today there are countless tax brackets, and the percentage taken from the gross income is itself gross.

Where the income tax used to start at 1% for individuals making 20,000 or more, today they take a whopping 10% from those making between $0 – $17,000 (married filing jointly) and     $0 – $8,500 (single)! And that’s not even counting, state, local and sales taxes, as well as the built in cost of taxes on every good and service that makes its way to the end consumer. And on the other end, if you’re making over 379,150, you get socked with a punitive 35% tax. And this is not even factoring in the new 50% tax on good health plans (isn’t that what the “healthcare” bill was supposed to promote). What’s more, a 20,000 salary has nowhere near the buying power it did in 1913. He also neglects to mention that the gimmick of printing money via the Federal Reserve to pay for government expenses helped to cause the inflation that makes us look back with awe at a time when a six room house cost 6,000!

Some people do not like that John Doe makes 375,000 a year plus benefits, so politicians play on this jealousy to enact punitive tax levels. If Mr. McCartney really wanted to address unfairly untaxed wealth, he would look where the real wealth is, places like the Rockefeller Brothers Foundation, the Carnegie Corporation, and the Ford Foundation. However, that would be uncomfortable because each of these treasure troves of billionaires are used to fund progressive causes, namely things like social justice, environmental justice, and about every other euphemism for wealth redistribution coupled with overbearing government intrusion that can be contrived of. (There is also the awkward irony of mega wealth funding those who claim to rail against the accumulation of wealth).

It is not a mere “bumper sticker” to demand a balanced budget, to demand a dramatic reduction in government spending. With the deficit surging quickly beyond 1 trillion dollars annually, it is only a matter of time before this economic madness collapses. It cannot continue indefinitely. McCartney seems to imply that massive social spending is “what made America great.” America was already great before the income tax was enacted, before generational wealth transfers were mandated. America will cease to be great because it continues to make promises with other people’s money, bribing voters with money taken from others.

McCartney is right, it is not taxes alone that are the problem. It is the mentality in Washington that it is ok to: spend money you don’t have and create new entitlement programs when you cannot pay for the ones you already have. This has got to stop. How long can a bankrupt Federal government hand out money on loan?

Government charity is an oxymoron. Whereas faith and values and love govern true charity work, the federal government gives out bonus money to states who spend the most tax payer money! Moreover, true charity is more effective with its face to face interaction with the downtrodden. They are able to apply not just financial resources, but time and love and actually invest in the lives of people and raise them up.

Government “charity” is little more than paychecks and food stamps and discounted housing and free cell phones appearing to emanate from a faceless, nameless, emotionless bureaucracy with a host of rules that make trying to break free an exercise in futility.

High taxes are a symptom of a government run amok, throwing other people’s money at problems it cannot truly solve.

Let charities and churches fund charity work. Let the federal government fund only those activities related to actually governing and running the country. Americans are already among the most charitable. Let people keep more of their money. This will certainly lead to more charitable giving, and all without going through a low efficiency middleman.

Posted in deception, health care, Ohio, politics, social spending, taxes | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Vote Alicia Healy for Columbus City Council on November 3rd

Posted by americana83 on October 28, 2009

I am proud to endorse candidate Alicia Healy for Columbus City Council. She embodies the constitutional spirit that is needed to help revitalize the city of Columbus.

She knows that its not “change” we need, its revitalization. She will work hard to help encourage prosperity to return, not at the strong hand of government, but by striving to create an environment that draws businesses to Columbus. It is the entrepreneur and the spirit of free enterprise that drive success, and she knows that.

Vote for Alicia Healy on November 3rd, and vote for revitalization!

Posted in politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

“Spreading the wealth around”

Posted by americana83 on October 7, 2009

Yesterday, Slate published an article titled “Health Reform Winners and Losers: How the House bill redistributes money to the middle class.” Among the statements they made, this one is both telling and alarming:

But in general, health reform has a redistributive impact. Democrats hesitate to talk about this for fear of sounding like socialists. Republicans hesitate to talk about it for fear of sounding like plutocrats. But let’s face it: Redistributing income in one form or another is a very large part of what government does. Arguing about whether it should be done is like arguing about whether the sky should be blue. The more urgent question is how it is done.

What the article fails to mention, is that wealth redistribution was never the intended purpose of the Constitutional Republic, and the sweeping conclusion that doing so is as proper as calling the sky being blue is absurd. The progressive income tax or the “success tax” is what really began this redistributive binge. Now the government wants to reach deeper into people’s pockets. 209408.9

Let me ask this: What right do I have to someone else’s money? They admit it will take a “mere” 20,000 from someone earning 358,000 (this is of course in addition to the 33 percent already being taken by federal taxes, and not including social security or state or local taxes).  Gross wages are a meaningless figure, because no one sees the “gross” of their income. The government is already taking $103283 from John Bourgeoisie, so whats another $20,000 right? If you’re in California and making a mere 47,000 or more, deduct an additional 9.3 percent, or $30990 right off the gross. Social security saps another 6.2 percent, or $6621 of the first 106,800 (and the ceiling keeps going up). Also throw in the 1.45 percent of gross, or $5191 Medicare tax. So this individual’s gross income of 358,000 for practical purposes becomes 211915* before taking out the ObamaCare tax of 20,000, which drops the figure to $191915. This would mean that, assuming the costs don’t skyrocket like most government programs, the government would be taking just over 45.1% of their gross income. (This does not even factor in sales taxes or gas taxes). So the average person who makes 358,000 is already contributing almost 40**% of their gross income (again, not factoring sales taxes or gasoline taxes) to the state and federal governments. It also does not include the difficult to estimate invisible tax of inflationary deficit spending.

How much wealth redistribution is enough? The Bible says, Thou shalt not steal, and when the little man gets shafted, we  rightfully demand justice be done. But, thanks to characters like Robin Hood, and the corrupt king he stole from, theft from the rich is seen in some circles as “getting what they deserve.” And when it is legally mandated by the government, it is seen as perfectly respectable. And as the government expands more and more into our personal lives and the private sector, we are only going to see the percentages skyrocket, and it won’t be just the “upper crust” that feels it. Imaging adding about another 15-17% for “cap-and-trade,” plus the ripple effect price increases all across the economy, or at least anything produced that required electricity somewhere in the production cycle.

Charity, and assisting those in need, is a call to Christians, not to the government, or via extortion. In deed, the government programs often entrap people in serf style subsistence living, with no incentive to improve themselves or get off the government life support. This gives these impoverished voters incentives (bribes?) to vote in the politicians that promise to keep giving them stuff for “nothing.”

So, a healthcare tax will greatly expand the socialist (yes, Slate I said it) redistribution our government engages in. Yes, it will decrease the number of doctors and hospitals available. Next, the government will have to subsidize doctor school and possibly coerce people into choosing the medical profession. It is in part the abysmal reimbursements current government programs pay to medical professionals that the cost for John Doe’s medical treatment is so high.

Mr Obama, Slate, Pelosi: how much wealth redistribution is enough? More importantly, how do you justify it constitutionally? He can’t, and his complaints about the “Warner court,” that they continued to interpret the Constitution as the founding fathers intended it as a charter of negatives that the government cannot do to you, the liberties that cannot be taken away by the government only shows that he has an utter contempt for the document upon which this country was founded, the one that he pledged to “uphold and defend.”

Is it possible then that his taking the oath of office was a commission of perjury in front of the highest court in the United States, since he wants to use the government, either the courts or the legislature to destroy the constitution, fundamentally changing this country in ways that the founders never dreamed of or intended?

Due to graduations within the federal tax scales, the tax amount shown is slightly less than the quoted maximum tax rate

*I did the same calculations with an income of 350,000 and the resulting net income gain from an $8,000 pay increase (358,000) is only $2506.1 (the combined government take on the last 8000 is just over 68.6 percent).

**There are some states that have lower or even no state personal income tax. This also does not include local or municipal or school taxes/levees. Cost of ObamaCare is taken from the Slate article

California tax rate was calculated using the state’s tax calculator.

The federal tax rate was calculated using the max-pedia tax calculator

Posted in politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

I got interviewed before Howard Dean’s Town Hall meeting

Posted by americana83 on August 15, 2009

The people at the union hall took notice that I was the first one to arrive outside before the meeting, and once they let people in for the Town Hall, I was interviewed by one of the gentlemen in the SEIU local 1199. I was asked this question: “What is wrong with the healthcare system we have now?” Given the targeted nature of the question, I was not able to really get into the problems with HR 3200, but I did offer this answer:

I believe that insurance contracts should be translated from lawyer speak (used to deceive people) into standard English, people should know what benefits and details are in their plan. I believe we need more targeted legislation than what is being discussed now.

“Targeted in what way?”

Towards the tangled web of laws preventing trans-state competition and insurance portablity from one state to another. It will help strengthen competition and prevent one company from having a monopoly over a given geographic area.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Brief overview of the Health Care Town Hall with Senator Sherrod Brown

Posted by americana83 on August 14, 2009

On Wednesday at about 10AM, the Senator held a Town Hall, or “Round table” as the aides in his office called it (thereby denying there was any town hall, according to those I spoke to regarding their efforts to find out about the event). I decided to get there an hour early only to find out that an hour early is about two hours too late. The staff kept saying that the main room was full, and they were busy preparing an overflow room (where no one was able to ask questions, and to which the senator did not make an appearance).

Despite the assurances of the staff that the main room was filled, large groups kept being admitted ahead of the line,  all of the ones I saw either had “planned parenthood” stickers clearly present, or “Organizing for America” signs.

For about 1/2 the meeting, audio was terrible, prompting several people to leave the overflow and go home. One of whom was a gentlemen in a suit with a House of Representatives binder who seemed increasingly agitated about the meeting. I was hoping to talk to him afterward, but he left about 15 minutes in.

On stage, the whole panel was totally for the AAHCA bill as it stands, with Sen. Brown noting one point of disagreement. Overall the talking points were the same (the “40 million” uninsured, the “public option” would keep insurance companies honest, you can “keep” your current coverage, etc) and it was clear that the purpose of the Town Hall was not to have an honest discussion about the bill, but to merely garner a “friendly” town hall unlike any of the open town halls held across the country (with the exception of the “Yes we can!” town hall hosted by the president).

Overall, given the timing of the meeting (10AM on a workday, selective admittance, long winded sales pitches by each of the people on the “round table,” hastily and poorly concocted “overflow” room, it was an organizational and conversational failure. With the Senator solidly in the bill’s camp (having helped write it), it was clear that he is on board regardless of what his constituents want.

As far as protestors go, there were 3 sides represented outside: those for the bill (complete with glossy pre-fab signs), greenpeace, and those who oppose the bill.

One thing I feel has been particularly interesting. I was talking with an acquaintance, not specifically about the healthcare bill, but the words of Nancy Pelosi, and how she called the protesters “un-American” And he brought up the psychological term “projection,” whereby an individual accuses his opponents of the very thing he himself is guilty of. There has been much harping about how “Fox News is bankrolling the protesters!” When in reality it seems that these protesters are individuals. I have yet to see an anti-ObamaCare protester carrying a glossy pre-made sign, while the proponents of the plan almost exclusively are carrying expensive ready made sings that SOMEONE bought and paid for (there was one individual that had a homemade pro-reform sign that I could see), and which were being distributed to the proponents as I was waiting for the meeting.

This healthcare bill AAHCA has some very deep pocked bankrollers (including radical abortion proponent Planned Parenthood).

So, to those who look at see “Fox News Operatives” disguises as elderly, disabled, moms, college students, nurses, or John Does, take a good look at that glossy sign, and ask yourself where the money came from to print and distribute all of them.

And after all this, why not take some time to sit down and take a long hard look at what is in this bill…

http://www.lc.org/index.cfm?PID=14102&AlertID=1015

Full text of bill avaliable at above link

Posted in Barack Obama, Columbus, deception, Election, health care, Obama, Ohio, taxes, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Checking the president’s “reality check”

Posted by americana83 on August 10, 2009

SOURCE: http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck/

The president gives you the “facts about the stability and security you get from health insurance reform.” I give you the facts behind these “facts” Doggone it, I agree with the White House on one thing:  facts sure are stubborn things. (especially with the whole text of the bill available for perusal)! Links HERE!

“Fact”1 Reform will stop “rationing” – not increase it
WHITEHOUSE VIDEO: http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck/4

The president’s plan will stop insurance companies from charging more for pre-existing conditions and will dictate plan coverage this will raise overall prices because preexisting conditions are costly. This will also not stop the government from rationing its own provision of health care. The woman in this video lies that it will not create more bureacracy. The AAHCA bill will create numerous boards, administrations and new officials, all directly appointed by the president. The president has said “time and time again” you can keep your plan and doctor. If you already have what you like you can keep it, but the federal (Read: TAXPAYER) subsidy will give the plan an unfair advantage, in addition to being able to set ALL the rules and coverage requirements AND levying a tax on the private plans it will increase the cost of the private plans and competitive forces will exterminate the private options (how can you compete when your opponent can offer as “low” of prices as they want, and cannot go bankrupt, merely absorbing more and more tax money to stay afloat). So once again, the president’s words prove ultimately meaningless (much like his transparency pledge and waiting period pledge for bills). This video also does not show his repeated desires to set up a single payer plan.

“Fact” 2 The “euthanasia” distortion on help for families
WHITEHOUSE VIDEO: http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck/7

First of all, what business does the government have demanding “end of life” counseling? Given that they want to require it more frequently for nursing home and critical patents, how can it not have anything to do with euthanasia? This is where the “drop in a bucket” savings will come from ObamaCare, by eliminating those most costly to the system, who have social security and medicare and other unfunded lien against the government. Yes, social security is a lien, the government took our money with the promise to return it in old age, and they have spent it and now they are clamoring for ways to get out from under that burden. Death counseling will eliminate 2 birds with one stone. The government hates being responsible to people, even if those people have been healthy productive citizens their whole lives. That is why the elderly have been some of the most vocal and adamant protesters at town hall meetings, THEY are the ones that will be most seriously impacted initially through these orwellian measures.

“for president obama, health care is a deeply moral issue…” Obama has shown he all but completely lacks a moral compass. From his wish that he had voted against trying to save Terri Schiavo to his stalwart opposition to ANY restrictions on abortions (including babies born alive, which even NARAL didn’t oppose) in the Illinois senate. Forgive me, but I do not trust our president’s ability to handle “deeply moral issues” let alone the fact that the constitution gives him no such power to control health care. His service to the American people is not to run our lives and make all our choices, but to “uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States,” which he has shown no desire to do whatsoever.

This bill will withhold services from the elderly, opting instead to give only pain medication in liu of “expensive” options. page 425.

*  Sec. 1233, Pg. 425, Lines 4-12 – Government mandates Advance (Death) Care Planning consultation. Think Senior Citizens and end of life. END-OF-LIFE COUNSELING. SOME IN THE ADMINISTRATION HAVE ALREADY DISCUSSED RATIONING HEALTH CARE FOR THE ELDERLY.

* Sec. 1233, Pg. 425, Lines 17-19 – Government WILL instruct and consult regarding living wills and durable powers of attorney. Mandatory end-of-life planning!

* Sec. 1233, Pg. 425-426, Lines 22-25, 1-3 – Government provides approved list of end-of-life resources, guiding you in death.

* Sec. 1233, Pg. 427, Lines 15-24 – Government mandates program for orders for life-sustaining treatment (i.e. end of life). The government has a say in how your life ends.

* Sec. 1233, Pg. 429, Lines 1-9 – An “advanced care planning consult” will be used as patient’s health deteriorates.

* Sec. 1233, Pg. 429, Lines 10-12 – “Advanced Care Consultation” may include an ORDER for end-of-life plans – from the government.

* Sec. 1233, Pg. 429, Lines 13-25 – The government will specify which Doctors (professional authority under state law includes Nurse Practitioners or Physician’s Assistants) can write an end-of-life order.

* Sec. 1233, Pg. 430, Lines 11-15 – The government will decide what level of treatment you will have at end of life, according to preset methods (not individually decided).
(Source: http://www.lc.org/index.cfm?PID=19319)

People can already get access to living will services, and other services regarding life decisions. Again, the government has no legal right to provide or mandate such services.

“Fact” 3 Vet’s health care is safe and sound

I am not that familiar with the current system of Veteran’s health care, so I am not going to comment excessively on this, other than to say that it will certainly be as “safe and sound” as the rest of the Americans that will eventually be herded onto the government program through unfair competition and special taxes on private options.

Also, one has to wonder how much the President really likes Veterans, since his DHS appointee Janet Napoliano has openly called returning veterans likely domestic extremists/terrorists.

UPDATE: Obama has re-instituted the VA “Death book” which referred its readers to counselors associated with the (successor to the) Hemlock Society (this book had been BANNED under the Bush administration once they found out its contents). This also brings into question the administrations adamant mockery and denial of “death panels.”

“Fact” 4 Reform will benefit small business – not burden it.
WHITEHOUSE VIDEO: http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck/21

It will benefit small businesses to be taxed for not providing health care. It will also penalize larger firms. Why does a small business pay more to offer health care programs? Its because when you have a larger business, you are “buying in bulk” when you offer a health care plan, which means that you can negotiate lower rates just because you are so big. A smaller business, with fewer people, has less leverage, they are not buying as much, so they cannot get the same rates. So, in effect, ObamaCare will levy an extra tax on the larger firms to subsidize the smaller ones – keeping with the president’s long term theme of “spreading the wealth around.” Not to mention any business not offering “approved health care” will be levied an additional tax, and employees which do not opt for an “approved health care plan” will also be slammed with a hefty tax, all for not wanting to buy a product they do not want!

“Fact” 5 Your medicare is safe, and stronger with reform.
WHITEHOUSE VIDEO: http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck/31

“cutting unnecessary subsidies” Reduced reimbursement will mean reduced acceptance of medicare, increased costs.

*  Sec. 1162, Pg. 341, Lines 3-9 – The government has authority to disqualify Medicare Advantage Plans (Part B), HMOs, etc. This will force people into a government plan. “The Secretary may determine not to identify a Medicare Advantage plan if the Secretary has identified deficiencies in the plan’s compliance with rules for such plans under this part.”
(Source: http://www.lc.org/index.cfm?PID=19319)

“Fact” 6 You can keep your own insurance
WHITEHOUSE VIDEO: http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck/3

Its Linda Douglass from the snitch video plays a starring role here. In fact, its the exact same video, with the exact same lies, claims of  “sentences and phrases out of context.” The president has indeed been talking to the American people, and he has been saying radically different things to his audiences. While talking to the radicals, he promised “single payer” he has repeatedly said he favors “single payer” government health care. However, all the recent clips shown are from his efforts to get the American people to swallow the poison pill of a “public option,” which, through unfair competition and controls will ultimately become the only option, thereby government will nationalize healthcare and it will appear that the “free market” has caused it to happen. Thus, I give the president props for a very clever and ingenius method to get the people to swallow his scheme. (Double props to the senior citizens and many others who have seen through this deceptive veil and have come out strongly against it!)

If you want to pay a special tax on it to help fund the government’s plan, and, as people migrate to the tax-payer subsidized government plan, are willing to pay increasing premiums until the government mandates that to stop and the provider subsequently goes out of business. The long term affect is being compelled onto the government plan, since, if your insurance goes out of business and you refuse coverage, you will be taxed for doing so.

The bottom line is the president advocated a “voluntary” universal health care program and adamantly campaigned against Hillary’s involuntary program. Once again, the president, through his strong support for AAHCA shatters yet another in a long list of broken promises.

Just for the record, if Bush had lied this often, he would have been impeached without hesitation…

Posted in Barack Obama, children, communism, deception, Election, Election 2008, health care, Obama, Presidential, social spending, taxes, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The moral case for conservative economic policy

Posted by americana83 on July 21, 2009

Whether we like it or not, the fact is God provides wealth to individuals, and they in turn give to charity (note that God will hold accountable those who misuse their wealth, or who abuse others to gain it). With the exception of sacrificial giving, most families in America will only donate after the basic needs of their families are met. A system of government that encourages free and private competition is the economic system which God has used in America to fuel technological advance and wealth generation. For, money itself or the ability to generate large amounts of it is not the root of all evil, but rather the love of money.


Let us look at Ananias and Sapphira for some lessons about economics and morals.

(Acts 5:1) But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession,

A perfectly acceptable and moral way to raise money.

(Acts 5:2) And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles’ feet.

This verse reveals the source of the couple’s sin, but it also reveals something else: that men of wealth were receiving Christ and joining the church and were donating large sums of money, and that all the church was rejoicing in how God was blessing. While lying is an abomination, it does say something about the society that honor and exaltation was received by those who gave of their wealth voluntarily to further God’s work in the world, which would have been administering to the poor and widowed (as the bible calls “true religion), and presenting the good news of Christ to a lost and dying world.

(Acts 5:3) But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?

Herein lies the sin: This couple has conspired together to deceive God, that they might receive honor for giving away such a great value as the entire price of what must have been a sizable possession (though in principle it would not have mattered whether it was a comic book or a Beverly Hills mansion).

(Acts 5:4) Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God. (Acts 5:5) And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things.

The early Christian church recognized the God granted right of private property. Civil governments work best when they honor the basic moral laws and principles explained in God’s word. As surely as lying and theft condemn single persons, so to will governmental theft and deceit condemn a nation. For the Bible says:

Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people. (Proverbs 14:34)

When government steals from men and forcibly redistributes wealth, it breaks the process whereby men generate wealth, by destroying personal incentive by progressive taxation and other methods more recently discussed such as special healthcare taxes, special “windfall profit” taxes. The government also engages in theft when it breaks contracts held by private companies and individuals, such as GM bond holders. Governments, like people are not immune to the effects of sin. The offense of slavery nearly broke this country into pieces. American law at that time, in violation of both our own Declaration of independence, and the immutable laws of God robbed people of their most basic rights: life and liberty. Had we not learned the lesson, that would have been the end of America. Today, we are accelerating down a similar road. The government of man in America has completely lost sight of God spiritually, morally, socially, and economically. In the noble name of promoting “economic justice” (as opposed to equal access to the opportunity to engage in the “pursuit of happiness,” the president and his cohorts across all branches of government seek to destroy personal liberty and private prosperity. By doing this, many who currently work will lose jobs, and many charities will decline and fail (and this in addition to the president’s crass desire to deplete the tax credit granted to the wealthy who donate to charity).

This will not hurt the wealthy, who will merely reduce or eliminate charitable giving, but it will have a direct impact on, and increase the number of, those individuals living at or below the poverty level in the United States, and this even as the president wants to force billions of American dollars into the coffers of the United Nations to “loan” to dictators who can then use it to bribe loyalty and prop up their failing regimes.

The economic implosion being engineered by Obama, Pelosi, Volkner* and their cohorts will have a direct and decisive impact on charity and home and abroad. By limp-wristed diplomacy and kissing up to Anti-Israel forces, Islamic Iranian tyrants and Marxist Latin-American dictators he has set himself at odds with the cause of Liberty.

The bottom line is this: Obama is the current figurehead of a movement that, at its higher levels, seeks to subvert America and remake in their own image, which is revealed by looking that those who promoted his agenda and walked closed to him:

Reverend Wright (Who’s ride under the bus came about only when political necessity dictated Obama appear to distance himself from Trinity United Church of Christ)

Frank Marshal Davis (marxist whom Obama noted as his mentor throughout his autobiography, Dreams from my father.

Fidel Castro, who praised Obama as being “the most progressive on worker and human rights”

The Communist Party, USA, who hailed his agenda and his election frequently on their website, and in their journals, People’s Weekly World and Political Affairs

ACORN, for whom he trained community organizers.

The New Black Panther party, who called him “the only choice”

Val Jones, “Green Czar appointee”

*The head of Obama’s economic recovery team, Paul Volcker has openly advocated the enforced decline of the American standard of living. He said:

“The standard of living of the average American has to decline … I don’t think you can escape that” – Paul Volcker, former Fed Chairman, and current Obama adviser, in 1979

(note Mr. Volcker’s use of the term “average American” – not him and his type of course). (a Source)

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

After Sotomayor, The Agenda Continues…

Posted by americana83 on July 14, 2009

Soon, the circus of Sotomayor will be over. Obama’s press for Socialist Medicine and economy killing Cap and Trade legislation will continue full force. Given his recent statement that he will completely ignore part of a bill he signed into law, and this, I wonder what sort of things will happen when congress goes on recess.

Until then, I’ve designed a coupon and booklet to help you acclimate to the type of rationing coming soon to a government near you (barring an unprecedented restored appreciation for freedom, prosperity and the constitution in the US Congress).

ObamaCareRationBookletObamaCare will ration health care, forcing people to pay for substandard care and the cheapest care options. The elderly need not apply, though they can certainly pay if they are rich! Private health care will be taxed to help pay for this economic drain.

The prices may be low, but the supply will be vastly restricted as providers get out of the market or move overseas…

ObamaCapandTaxCredit

The last time we had this kind of rationing was WWII. Cap and trade will implement government rationing of energy, prices and quantity. If implemented, as cap and trade legislation progresses, the number of credits decrease and costs continue to skyrocket, making energy a luxury item out of grasp of the average American.

“windmills and solar panels” are unreliable and dependent on weather and location. Energy being piped to some timezones will not be used because the people are still in bed. Peak times will require carbon/traditional energy sources, thus most energy used will be at the harsh cap and trade price…

Posted in Barack Obama, communism, deception, Obama, Presidential, social spending, taxes, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

The Anti-Tea Party Movement: Profiles in hypocrisy.

Posted by americana83 on July 10, 2009

Update 8/25/2010. My congratulations to Mike Flugennock, the artist who created the original artwork of the fine “attempted” parody below, who recently stumbled across my website! After painting a hasty gathering of black conservatives as a “fail” because there weren’t 1.6 million people there, accusing Breitbart of  editing the Sherrod video (without mentioning explicitly the alleged klan robes and burning cross materials stashed in his closet), he did something I have to sincerely thank him for doing: he managed to find ONE ‘tea party’ candidate that was swapping racially insensative and vulgar emails. It is here that I remind everyone why it is important that moral values go along with advocacy for constitutional economic reforms or we will lose the country. A focus on bare economics will set us up to fail, as this candidate clearly does not have a firm foundation. Anyone who forwards racist and profane emails should not attempt to lead this movement, you will inevitably be exposed (the bible does say your sins will find you out) and you will do much more damage to the cause you profess to support. However, one thing that Mr Flugennock didn’t take into account when he slammed my article is that this article was written well before Carl Paladino’s perversions were known. I stand by my claim that the tea party, and the true conservative movement in general, is motivated by ISSUES not race. I should note here that racism can only stem from a collectivist mindset, since individualism is a tenant of conservatism, no true conservative can be a racist. And Mr. Flugennock is also correct that parody is ‘fair use.’ And Mr. Flugennock, I don’t care why you were laughing, I’m just glad I was able to brighten your day! :-)

The Main Stream Media love to call the Tea Parties an “Astroturf” movement, meaning that they aren’t an authentic movement of the people, that they are merely people drawn to conservative celebrities, whether they be Glenn Beck or Rush (though Rush has intentionally distanced himself from the movement citing that very reason.

Yet, this same MSM saw no problem at all with, nor did they call the Hope and Change campaign in 2008 “Astroturf” despite the celebrities that climbed on board.

Will-I-Am and other liberal elites exalt Obama in a song flavored with “praise and worship” styled music and lyrics.

“Obama Girl” uses her body and sexy poses with images of Obama to cultivate an aura of celebrity around Obama that is empty. Do you really thing “boring discussions of policy” could have created such undying love in a generation (my generation) with perpetual ADHD? The MSM gave her several awards for her fantastic piece of astroturf. (While it resulted in actual votes, I consider popularity built around sexy political images instead of policy and practicality to be fake aura) (Astroturf is used to cover over dirt and concrete concealing reality in a prefabricated illusion of lush greenness)

A more “distinguished: part of the astroturfing of Obama was the incessant pimping of the “historical” aspect of Obama’s election. This pimping was carried out by every MSM news outlet, and by most news papers, for which Obama’s race trumped his agenda and any other considerations (This included the “conservative” Columbus dispatch, which though it technically endorsed “McCain-Palin” trumpeted the “historic” aspect of the election in almost every article written, with references to race so constantly, they must have thought all their readers had Alzheimer’s and forgot the historic aspect within seconds of reading of it.

One could argue that celebrities like the black eyed peas’ Will-I-AM, and cyber celebs like “Obama Girl” helped to propel Obama’s campaign over the top, creating an aura of celebrity around Obama himself. The media and other celebrities were complicit in making the “historical” aspect of the election, namely Obama’s skin color, the main attraction, followed by his “hip youngness.”

The Tea Parties, by contrast, do not center around a cult of personality. While Obama Girl and company made it about Obama’s “hotness” or “making history” the Tea Parties are about ideas, the chief among them opposing socialism (rapidly expanding government spending and control) and hailing the restoration of the free market and individual liberties.

Movements need leaders, who understand what’s going on with the ability to explain why something needs to be done.

They call these things a product of Fox. That’s because Fox angered the other stations by actually covering the protests and rallies in a “fair and balanced” manner, without resorting to juvenile derision tactics employed by CNN and MSNBC. (Speaking of such who can forget the MSNBC anchor that got a thrill going down his leg when he heard Obama’s voice?)

The other attempt going on to discredit the movement is that its only “old white guys” protesting the “historic election.” They think everyone else is as superficial and race-based as themselves, and that the only reason anyone could possibly oppose Obama is because “he is a black man.” This tactic is also employed by ignorant youtube kitties which make videos like this one:

The author of the video has included this email address in the video’s intro. flugennock@sinkers.org since he has disabled comments and video replies, I would urge you to email him and tell him that he’s wrongly and grossly slandering average Americans of all walks of life.

Claiming the Tea Party attendees are Nazis and white power people. He missed the passionate latin American immigrant who spoke at the DC rally, as well as the diversity within the very audience he tried to paint as little hitlers. These people lie to make themselves feel better, and because they have nothing of substance to attack people standing up for the constitution, and against tyranny. So they call them “racists” and “tea baggers”

My photo collage of the attenders of the July 4th Washington DC tea party.

People of all colors issuing an open invitation for Janeane Garafolo to attend the July 4th Texas tea party and see who makes up the tea party movement.

Ironically, with a little creative editing of my own, one of Flugennock’s own comics can be turned on him…

bigbus satire

Posted in Barack Obama, communism, deception, Election 2008, Entertainment, Hollywood, moveon.org, news, Obama, Presidential, Racism, social spending, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 8 Comments »

« Previous Entries
 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.