Obamacare Adds Employees To The IRS
Feb 16, 2011 Political
Obamacare will cost a lot of money instead of saving money like we were told (lied to) when it was introduced. We are already seeing this as the IRS will need thousands of new agents to implement the law. The IRS will effectively become an enforcer of a health care law that has been ruled unconstitutional.
The IRS will need 81 new agents just to keep track of the new tax on tanning salons and 76 will keep track on those who make and import drugs to make sure they pay the new fees imposed on them. Does anyone with a brain actually think these taxes and fees will NOT be passed on to the consumer?
This increase on consumers will add to the misery being felt by consumers who are paying a lot more for things since Obama took office. Dick Morris has a very sobering chart posted at his website. This chart shows how bad things have gotten under Obama.
The law will not create private sector jobs but it will certainly add to an already inflated federal payroll.
And it will add more costs to consumers.
Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Obama Budget Is More Of The Same
Feb 15, 2011 Political
One thing that is constant about progressives is that they love to spend, spend, spend and they also like to tax, tax, tax. Barack Obama released his budget and it is more of the same. The spending amounts to about 2 TRILLION dollars and is over 102% of GDP. The deficit for this year is expected to 1.645 TRILLION dollars which would break last year’s record by quite a bit.
The budget does not address the social programs that cost us the most as there is no mention of Social Security or Medicare reform. The budget allegedly has cuts but since Obama raised the budgets of federal departments in the last two years, how much will really be cut? One thing is certain, the budget involves lots of tax increases.
The economy is still in the tank and inflation is creeping in as gas and clothing prices rise along with the cost of food. People are getting less for the same amount of money because of the inflation producing policies of the Obama regime.
We need to reduce federal spending by cutting the budgets of all departments (especially all those booze purchases) and we need to reform the social welfare programs.
These are tough times and tough decisions will have to be taken but the cold hard truth is that we have NO money.
And we can’t continue spending what we do not have. Though the government has been doing so for quite some time we can no longer follow the model that got us into this mess.
“We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.” [attributed to Albert Einstein]
Related:
Bloomberg says it is like a slow train wreck…
Obama will cut funding to airports and then increase fees on air travelers to make up the shortfall. People always end up paying.
The Budget Bluff
Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
No One Likes To Pay More Taxes, Even Liberals
Jan 24, 2011 Political
For all the talk that we get from liberals about how it is patriotic to pay our “fair share” of taxes and how the wealthy need to step up and bear some more of the burden, there sure are enough of them who do what they can to avoid taxes. We already know that many liberals claim that they do not pay enough in taxes and that they believe they should be paying more. Bill Clinton has stated this several times but there is no indication that he ever sent a check to the Treasury to help retire the debt. Anyone can do it.
There was a group of liberal college professors (redundant alert) who decided that they were mad because the government extended the Bush tax cuts for everyone. They have started to give their money to charity and are encouraging the wealthy to donate so it can go to help the peeps. They seem to have discovered that the individual and private entities are better at charity than the government and, in a bit of irony, they also get a tax write off to avoid paying more of what they think the rich should be paying…
Now it looks like the city of New York is going after people who they think might be cheating on taxes. If a person lives in New York City for more than 183 days then that person must pay NYC taxes. Being in the city for any part of the day counts as a day. Many wealthy people who have business in the city and own a place to live there “claim” they are not in the city for 183 days thus avoiding the tax which is quite high. The taxing authority audits these folks to see and scours for parking violations and other evidence that the people were in the city just to make the folks pay their taxes. Of course, most of these people are in the city for 183 days or more but they lie to avoid the taxes.
Now those folks, which includes Alec Baldwin, will have to attest to the fact that they are not in the city more than 183 days and if they are caught in a lie they will be committing another crime. Yes, Alec Baldwin, the big time liberal tells New York that he is not in the city enough to pay the taxes. What with a place in the Hamptons and all…
Liberals love to talk about tax increases as long as those increases are put upon someone else and not them. Taxes are for the riff-raff and not the elite of the liberal establishment.
So typical of liberals, do as I say and not as I do.
Rush Limbaugh and Derek Jeter moved out of the city (Limbaugh out of the state) to keep from being harassed. Before people say Limbaugh was avoiding taxes, he was audited every year for more than a dozen and they never found he was in the city for more than the 183 days (he paid the proper amount of taxes). He spent most of his time in Florida so he just moved there completely. Seems like a lot of rich people are migrating to states where the taxes are lower (or there are no taxes at all).
Source:
New York Daily News
Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: alec baldwin, Clinton, liberals, new york city, rich, taxes
More Trouble With Government Numbers
Jan 19, 2011 Political
The claim from the left has always been that there are 45 million people in this country who do not have health insurance. This number is an inflated number that counts illegal aliens and those who can afford or are offered health insurance but choose not to buy it. The real number is probably less than 20 million.
We had this health care takeover in order to accommodate these people and there will still be quite a few uninsured while we are spending trillions of dollars on an unsustainable program (refer to UK). But that is a discussion for another time.
The Democrats are not happy the GOP is going to hold a vote on repeal. They have been claiming that this is a waste of time and that the Republicans should be working on the economy and job creation instead. After two years of ignoring jobs and the economy in favor of the progressive socialist agenda, these people are now saying we need to focus on jobs and the economy.
Since the health care takeover is a job killer (yes I wrote killer) then repealing it will help with the job situation. It will also cut unnecessary and wasteful spending.
While Democrats are squawking about focusing on jobs they are also indicating that repealing the takeover will cost us money. Only in their twisted world can cutting a program that spends trillions be adding to the deficit.
The latest ploy is for the Democrats to claim that between 50 and 120 million non-elderly people will be uninsured in a few years due to preexisting conditions if the takeover is repealed. I am having a bit of trouble with this math.
Where did all these people come from? How does the regime know that this many people will have conditions that will cause the denial of health insurance? If we accept the grossly inflated number of uninsured as 45 million (or even 30 million as has been the case in some discussions) how did we get to 50-120 million?
Surely these people are here now and are insured. Since we are not getting 50-120 million people dropped every three years how can we now claim that this will be the case. There is no history to support this and since there are, according to the regime, 30-45 million uninsured, how on Earth do that many more people suddenly end up uninsured?
This is another scare tactic using information from some regime friendly report (that might have been produced by the regime) in order to scare people into opposing the repeal. This is why Democrat friendly media outlets are producing polls that over sample Democrats when asking about the repeal issue. They want to give the appearance that the folks are OK with the takeover.
The people are against this monstrosity and want it repealed. This has been shown time and again in accurate polls and it is part of the reason the Democrats suffered a historic defeat last November.
Now they are working to spin anything they can to keep the vote from taking place.
Though this will not be repealed as long as Democrats control the Senate and the White House the vote is important because the Republicans promised they would do it.
Imagine that, politicians keeping their word.
Unless the repeal is attached to the bill raising the debt ceiling there is little chance of it being repealed but we can make sure it is not funded.
Regardless of how all this takes place there is no way in hell that there will be 50-120 million people dropped from insurance due to preexisting conditions.
The Democrats lied about the takeover bill, lied about what was in it, lied about how things would take place, lied about it funding abortion and lied about death panels.
Now they expect us to believe them when they make an obviously outrageous claim about the number of people who will be uninsured.
Never trust a progressive/Socialist/liberal/Democrat.
They lie whenever they speak and they are only interested in controlling people.
Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: control, health care, lies, Obama, repeal, takeover, taxes
And More Maryland Foolishness
Jan 6, 2011 Political
Or, “Johns Hopkins University Professors Who Show Themselves As Fools.”
Maryland, like most governments today, wants more cash. They honestly don’t give a damn from where it comes, they just want more to spend. As government, they feel it is their right to continue to spend money and don’t understand the concept of “recession.” And also, apparently “economics” — including an apparent supporter of huge bloated government, one David Jernigan, a “professor” at Johns Hopkins. Hopefully a medical professor or something, and not one teaching basic math or economics.
You see, Mr. Jernigan supports raising the tax on alcohol. Why? Well, we may never know, but if he is like most professors, its because he believes that government is perfect and only government knows how to spend money, so the more money that government takes from working people to give to him (salary & “research”), the better. But that’s not what he says. Instead, he actually makes the claim that raising taxes on alcohol “is a win-win for the state. They provide much needed revenue, and reduce alcohol consumption and related problems”
Mr. Jernigan needs to learn some basic economics. Then again, he may already know this and not care. Either way, attention class, here comes the lesson:
Statement: You cannot raise taxes on an item and both increase revenue and reduce consumption. Those are opposite actions in the real world.
For example: Let’s say I sell 20 drinks at $3.64 each. With a tax of 10%, that’s a total of $4.00 for each drink, or 36 cents tax on each drink. The total revenue to the state in that case is 0.36 x 20, or $7.20. Now the state decides to increase the tax and add an additional 10 cents on each drink. When the price of an item increases in this economy, in general, the number sold will decrease. That part of Mr. Jernigan’s statement is correct. Let’s say the decrease in consumption is 25% — enough to be significant enough to meet Mr. Jernigan’s claim to reduce alcohol consumption. That means I will now only sell 15 drinks. As a seller, I cannot reduce my prices. Therefore, the price of the drink is still $4.00. Now add to that the 10 cents additional tax, and now each drink sells for $4.10. I still get $3.64, and now the state gets 46 cents. But I’ve only sold 15 drinks now, so the total to the state is only 15 x 0.46, or $6.90.
When you raise the taxes on an item, you will sell a smaller amount — but in this case that will result in a lower amount of revenue to the state.
Of course, in all likelihood, this action will result in an increase to the state because it will NOT result in a decrease of drinking. Instead, it will result in people needing to spend more money, so they will have to receive more through working, government handouts, or theft. Either way, the results Mr. Jernigan proposes are impossible.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]