It’s too bad the President and Congress don’t. Please take 5-1/2 minutes, and watch the video below. Whether you agree or disagree, please take the time to enter your answer to the new poll in the right margin.]]>
“I can make a firm pledge: Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.”
- – Then Senator Barack Obama, September 12, 2008
According to GOP.gov:
Beginning January 1, 2013, ObamaCare imposes a 3.8% Medicare tax on unearned income, including the sale of single family homes, townhouses, co-ops, condominiums, and even rental income.
In February 2010, 5.02 million homes were sold, according to the National Association of Realtors. On any given day, the sale of a house, townhome, condominium, co-op, or income from a rental property, can push middle-income families over the $250,000 threshold and slam them with a new tax they can’t afford.
This ObamaCare tax is the first time the government will apply a 3.8 percent tax on unearned income. This tax on home sales, unearned income and other Medicare taxes raise taxes more than $210 billion to pay for ObamaCare. The National Association of Realtors called this new Medicare tax on unearned income “destructive” and “ill-advised” and warned it would hurt job creation.
No thanks! I’ll keep my guns, my God and my money. You can keep “The Change”.
A young Texan grew up wanting to be a lawman. He grew up big, 6′ 2″, strong as a longhorn and fast as a mustang. He could shoot a bottle cap tossed in the air at 40 paces. When he finally came of age he applied to where he had always dreamed of working, a West Texas Sheriff’s Department.
After a big mess of tests and interviews, the Chief Deputy finally called him into his office for the young man’s last interview.
The Chief Deputy says, “You’re a big strong kid and you can really shoot. So far your qualifications all look good. But we have what you call an ‘attitude suitability test’ that you must take before you can be accepted. We just don’t let anyone carry our badge, Son.”
Then, sliding a service pistol and a box of ammo across the desk, the Chief says, “Take this pistol and go out and shoot six illegal aliens, six ACLU lawyers, six Democrat Senators, six meth dealers, six Muslim extremists and a rabbit.”
“Why the rabbit?”
“Great attitude,” says the Chief Deputy. “When can you start?”
Again, I can’t take credit for this… but its sentiment sure resonates through me.]]>
I met a fairy today that would grant me one wish.
“I want to live forever,” I said.
“Sorry” said the fairy, “I’m not allowed to grant wishes like that!”
“Fine,” I said, “Then I want to die after Congress gets their heads out of their asses!”
“You crafty bastard,” said the fairy.
I can’t take credit for it, but I sure do echo the sentiment behind it.]]>
Excerpts of classic movies with a modern theme. Trademarks and copyrights belong to their respective owners. Enjoy!
First, I can’t take credit for this, and it came out awhile ago. Also, due to some rough language, it’s not safe for work or kids, so be forewarned. This will definitely piss you off, but it will make you laugh, too. I especially like the subtle image of the tennis racket on the bench.
OK… I can’t take credit for this. Credit goes to Wayne Allyn Root – The Washington Times 6:17 p.m., Monday, April 4, 2011 MugshotIllustration. Wayne Allyn Root is a former Libertarian vice-presidential nominee and author of “The Conscience of a Libertarian: Empowering the Citizen Revolution with God, Guns, Gold, Gambling & Tax Cuts” (Wiley, 2009). He writes at RootforAmerica.com.
Socialist Obama by Alexander Hunter for The Washington Times: “I ought to know. I was Mr. Obama’s college classmate at Columbia University Class of ’83. Our college was dominated by socialists and Marxists who hated capitalism and America.” Let’s look at the facts up close and personal – Jeff Foxworthy style. Mr. Foxworthy leaves no doubt as to “who might be a redneck.” Let me leave no doubt that “Obama might be a socialist.”
It’s time to stand up and loudly call a socialist… a socialist!
Of course, that’s just One Man’s View. YMMV, and you’re welcome to comment here.]]>
There is a new storm brewing on the horizon you all should be aware of: That of the approximately 10 million private pensioners lobbying for a government bailout. None of us have forgotten the trillions of our tax dollars spent on the private financial sector bailouts of 2008 and 2009. Well, that’s just the tip of the iceberg.
We have police and firemen retiring in their early 40s on full pensions, teachers (and school administrators) receiving guaranteed annual raises (not based on merit) despite the recession, and our politicians continually agreeing to unsustainable (and unfundable) public sector compensation programs. The Tea Party movement has seen this coming, and you should be aware of it, too.
To quote Damien Hoffman of the Wall St. Cheat Sheet, “There are no guarantees in Capitalism. If the U.S. is to recreate one of the greatest economies in the world, we must end the practice of aiding businesses and programs which would otherwise go bankrupt without government subsidy. Once guarantees are offered to a privileged group of people, a society ends up in the current tit-for-tat gameplay currently reaching elevated heights in the U.S.”
Granted, there are programs providing significant value to a small percentage of people that really need the assistance. However, guaranteeing survival in the private market or permitting outlandish retirement benefits in the public sector are a direct path to the same fate as ancient Rome.
It used to be that a person contemplating going to work in the public sector would work for less wages than his private sector counterpart, but had a nicer retirement and benefit package to offset the wage disparity. This has changed, in that public sector wages have caught up with (and in many cases, surpassed) those in the private sector, while the public sector fringe benefits have gotten even fatter.
The tit-for-tat mentality works this way:
The public sector employees aren’t blind, and see the bailout money flowing to the public sector for a lot of stupid reasons… much of which lines the pockets of upper management in the form of bonuses.
Then, the private sector sees public employees retiring after 15+ years with full pensions at ridiculous rates (much of which is based on trumped up timekeeping methodology), fully paid medical benefits with little or no worker contribution, and other completely outrageous benefits dreamed up by the labor unions. This is on top of the wage rate, which in most cases matches that of the private sector.
The private sector then pushes back because they see the waste of tax dollars used to prop up the public sector’s ever increasing standard of living. The tit-for-tat continues until rational people intervene and stop the BS.
The public sector needs to learn basic math. More importantly, so do the legislators that cave in to the public sector labor unions’ demands. Organized Labor must be forced out of the public sector, or else there will never be a balanced budget or sustainable tax burden to pay for the continued increases in public sector benefit packages. This applies at the Federal, State and Local levels. Government must set the pay scales (similar to the old Federal “GS” system), where promotion and raises are based on time and merit. Public sector employees must start contributing to their own retirement plans, and the employee contributions must constitute the bulk of the funding. The High-3* system needs to be retired, being replaced with something similar to the private sector’s 401(k) system, where the pension amount is determined by employee/taxpayer contributions, without regard to how much the employee earned in his/her highest 3 years of compensation. A change to this type of system would give the public sector employee total control of their retirement fund, thus preventing the Government and Unions from using retirement fund money to fund their pet projects.
Yo… Organized Labor… do you hear me? My name is John Q. Taxpayer, and I’m mad as Hell and am not gonna take it any more. Wanna know why? I’ll tell you:
That’s right… it’s YOUR FAULT.
When $1,600 of the current cost of a GM vehicle goes toward paying legacy costs (i.e., mostly retiree health and pension benefits), that’s a sign of a major problem. Assuming the average price of a GM vehicle is $25,000, the cost of retiree health and pension benefits comprises 6.4% of that vehicle’s price and is paying benefits for people that no longer work for GM. That’s a problem, don’t you think?
39.5% of California’s General Fund expenditures goes toward K-12 education, and 82.9% of that pays teacher and staff salaries and benefits. In 2006-2007 salaries for classroom teachers accounted for 39.5 percent of school expenditures; salaries for other school staff, including counselors, principals, and secretaries, accounted for 24.4 percent; and employee benefits, including retirement and health benefits, accounted for 19.0 percent. That’s right… 19% of California’s education budget pays for retirement benefits. When added to administrative costs, 43.4% of the budget goes toward what we in the private sector call G&A (General and Administrative Expenses). If a private sector company had G&A expenses of 43.4%, it would be bankrupt because it couldn’t compete in the market. Oh gee…. look at GM and Chrysler.
For the record, I believe Organized Labor once had its place in this nation. But those days are over. We have Federal Labor and Minimum Wage laws that protect the Worker. The American worker doesn’t need a union to look out for his or her best interests. What the American worker needs to do is get a better education so they’re better equipped to negotiate their own best deal with their potential employers.
In 2009, just over 16 million Americans are union members, accounting for approximately 12.4% of the workforce. Organized labor believes that new legislation such as the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA aka Card Check) will give workers a better opportunity to join the union movement. Opponents feel it’s nothing more than pressure tactics on non-unionized employees. If you take out the public sector, unions are practically irrelevant, representing just 7.8% of the private sector workforce.
More concerning is the influence unions have through their pension funds. A study done by New York University professor Ashwini Agarwal found that AFL-CIO (the central federation of labor unions in the U.S.) affiliated pension fund assets total $100 billion, with 46% invested in domestic equities (as of September 30, 2006). In 2006, union-related funds were responsible for 295 out of 699 shareholder proposals. It also found that AFL-CIO funds became much less combative when the union no longer represented a company’s employees.
If you have a union pension, take a very close look at the investments. You can bet they’re playing retired workers against the current workers in a sophisticated game of chicken. Don’t let it happen. Unions increasingly find themselves in a conflict of interest today, in that they claim to represent the worker, when in reality they only represent themselves using their (unearned) influence to buy political favors by contributing to political campaigns. It’s a cat and mouse game that politicians would do well to beware of (and this includes you, Mr. Obama, with your cozy relationship with SEIU). Conflict of interest works both ways.
Of course, this is just One Man’s View. Your comments are, as always, most welcome.
I have been a California resident since 1955, am a product of the California public school system and was stationed here during my stint in the military in the 70s. I have owned a small business here since 1998… a business that is currently struggling for its very survival. I am on the Board of Directors of a fledgling alternative energy company, currently headquartered in New Mexico, that is considering relocating to California. I am also in the process of starting a new business… a business that doesn’t have to be located in California, but can be.
My questions to the 3 of you are:
I have watched our public school system fall from tops in the nation to one of the worst. My children were “educated” in it, and they didn’t receive near the education I received when I was a student here. My wife and I taught them more than the schools did. All the school systems in this state care about now is attendance, because attendance means money.
Our state budgetary situation is as bad (or worse) than the Federal Government’s. Our state taxes (i.e., income, real property, personal property, sales, etc.) are among the highest in the nation. We have a state legislature that doesn’t seem to give a damn about fiscal responsibility, and it gets worse every day. The Labor Unions currently run this State, not the People or Government. We were hoping Governor Schwarzenegger could turn things around, but he wasn’t able to get anything past the Legislature. Why will you be any different?
Please answer my questions, and tell me how you, as Governor, can fix the problems we face as Californians. Don’t ask me to go to your web site and read whatever documents you have prepared. I have already done that. What I am looking for is a direct, public response to my questions. A response you have carefully thought out and prepared. I don’t want a response from a staffer. The staffer won’t reside in the Governor’s mansion. I am curious so see if you will take the time to read this and personally respond.
You may be thinking that I am some right-wing nut. I assure you, I am not. I am John Q. Public. I am the entrepeneur that keeps this country (and this state) going, and I would like to know if it’s worth it to stay here.
To my readers (and there are more than those you see posting here): I have emailed a duplicate of this post to the campaigns of these 3 candidates. I don’t hold much hope of a response… but stranger things have happened.]]>
I don’t know if this idea would get much play in Congress, but it seems to me we could stimulate close to 10% of the economy by eliminating the Federal Income Tax on Unemployment Benefits for a year or so. The small hit to the Treasury would be far outweighed by the additional cash it would put in the pockets of those on Unemployment. This is cash that would definitely be spent… not socked away for a rainy day. If that’s not a stimulus, what is?
Congress… if you’re out there, is anybody listening?]]>