55
   

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

 
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Jan, 2010 02:11 pm
Quote:
From the Desk of:
Steve Elliott, Grassfire Nation

They are doing it again... Reid and Pelosi are holding
secret, backroom meetings to put the final touches on
ObamaCare. I'm done with government working in the
shadows, away from public scrutiny. See below. --Steve

We've just received word that congressional leadership will not hold formal Conference meetings to resolve the difference between the House and Senate ObamaCare bills.

They hatched the plan yesterday during a meeting with Obama's team at the White House. As a result, only a select few will work on the final ObamaCare legislation -- out of public view, free of traditional governing rules, and without a single Republican!

And efforts to open these meetings up to the public have been rebuffed.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi responded to a C-SPAN
request to televise the reconciliation process by saying,
"There has never been a more open process for any
legislation," and hinted that keeping the public at bay
is the best way to push the legislation through.

"We will do whatever is necessary to pass the bill,"
Pelosi concluded.

With public opposition to ObamaCare continuing to build, Reid and Pelosi are determined to use whatever political shenanigans they can to pass this bill as quickly as possible.

This is utterly despicable.

As an American who dearly loves my country, I cannot stand for this kind of arrogant disregard for our rules and regulations.

These hearings must be brought to light -- in full view of the public and following the normal House-Senate procedures. And we have to be the ones to demand as much!

+ + Their Goal: Keep Us In The Dark And Rush Passage!
It's no secret that Reid, Pelosi and their ilk are determined to pass ObamaCare in time for the President's State of the Union Address. That's just a few weeks away.

That is why we have to diligently use the time that remains to put the ENTIRE Congress on notice demanding these secret meetings be brought to light.


djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Jan, 2010 02:12 pm
@ican711nm,
never give money to a politician or anyone with a political agenda, it only encourages them
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Jan, 2010 02:21 pm
Quote:


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704152804574628633460370644.html?mod=djemEditorialPage
JANUARY 2, 2010
The States and the Stimulus
How a supposed boon has become a fiscal burden.

Remember how $200 billion in federal stimulus cash was supposed to save the states from fiscal calamity? Well, hold on to your paychecks, because a big story of 2010 will be how all that free money has set the states up for an even bigger mess this year and into the future.

The combined deficits of the states for 2010 and 2011 could hit $260 billion, according to a survey by the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Ten states have a deficit, relative to the size of their expenditures, as bleak as that of near-bankrupt California. The Golden State starts the year another $6 billion in arrears despite a large income and sales tax hike last year. New York is literally down to its last dollar. Revenues are down, to be sure, but in several ways the stimulus has also made things worse.

First, in most state capitals the stimulus enticed state lawmakers to spend on new programs rather than adjusting to lean times. They added health and welfare benefits and child care programs. Now they have to pay for those additions with their own state's money.

For example, the stimulus offered $80 billion for Medicaid to cover health-care costs for unemployed workers and single workers without kids. But in 2011 most of that extra federal Medicaid money vanishes. Then states will have one million more people on Medicaid with no money to pay for it.

A few governors, such as Mitch Daniels of Indiana and Rick Perry of Texas, had the foresight to turn down their share of the $7 billion for unemployment insurance, realizing that once the federal funds run out, benefits would be unpayable. "One of the smartest decisions we made," says Mr. Daniels. Many governors now probably wish they had done the same.

Second, stimulus dollars came with strings attached that are now causing enormous budget headaches. Many environmental grants have matching requirements, so to get a federal dollar, states and cities had to spend a dollar even when they were facing huge deficits. The new construction projects built with federal funds also have federal Davis-Bacon wage requirements that raise state building costs to pay inflated union salaries.

Worst of all, at the behest of the public employee unions, Congress imposed "maintenance of effort" spending requirements on states. These federal laws prohibit state legislatures from cutting spending on 15 programs, from road building to welfare, if the state took even a dollar of stimulus cash for these purposes.

One provision prohibits states from cutting Medicaid benefits or eligibility below levels in effect on July 1, 2008. That date, not coincidentally, was the peak of the last economic cycle when states were awash in revenue. State spending soared at a nearly 8% annual rate from 2004-2008, far faster than inflation and population growth, and liberals want to keep funding at that level.

A study by the Evergreen Freedom Foundation in Seattle found that "because Washington state lawmakers accepted $820 million in education stimulus dollars, only 9 percent of the state's $6.8 billion K-12 budget is eligible for reductions in fiscal year 2010 or 2011." More than 85% of Washington state's Medicaid budget is exempt from cuts and nearly 75% of college funding is off the table. It's bad enough that Congress can't balance its own budget, but now it is making it nearly impossible for states to balance theirs.

These spending requirements come when state revenues are on a downward spiral. State revenues declined by more than 10% in 2009, and tax collections are expected to be flat at best in 2010. In Indiana, nominal revenues in 2011 may be lower than in 2006. Arizona's revenues are expected to be lower this year than they were in 2004. Some states don't expect to regain their 2007 revenue peak until 2012.

So when states should be reducing outlays to match a new normal of lower revenue collections, federal stimulus rules mean many states will have little choice but to raise taxes to meet their constitutional balanced budget requirements. Thank you, Nancy Pelosi.

This is the opposite of what the White House and Congress claimed when they said the stimulus funds would prevent economically harmful state tax increases. In 2009, 10 states raised income or sales taxes, and another 15 introduced new fees on everything from beer to cellphone ringers to hunting and fishing.

The states pocketed the federal money and raised taxes anyway.

Now, in an election year, Congress wants to pass another $100 billion aid package for ailing states to sustain the mess the first stimulus helped to create. Governors would be smarter to unite and tell Congress to keep the money and mandates, and let the states adjust to the new reality of lower revenues. Meanwhile, Mr. Perry and other governors who warned that the stimulus would have precisely this effect can consider themselves vindicated.

Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A10, Jan.2, 2010
Copyright 2009 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Jan, 2010 02:38 pm
@ican711nm,
Stop posting these nutcases, Ican.

Send them some of your constitutional treatises. Only then will these we can we move towards removing those who would subvert the american way.
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Jan, 2010 02:50 pm
@JTT,
JTT wrote:
Stop posting these nutcases, Ican.

JTT, Please CONTINUE posting your nutty characterizations of what I post.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Jan, 2010 03:01 pm
@ican711nm,
JTTs characterizations are spot on, while your posts oftentimes doesn't make any sense.
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Jan, 2010 03:59 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:
JTTs characterizations are spot on, while your posts oftentimes doesn't make any sense.

Thank you! Thank you for your response to my post! You don't need any evidence to support your responses, because you are so ... brilliant?
0 Replies
 
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Jan, 2010 04:05 pm
as much as hecancut&paste usually posts crap i ignore, i have to admit the amnesty bit i agree with

the illegals may not increase the tax base, i worked in an industry that was prone to hiring illegal immigrants and folks who worked for cash, many of these people were new citizens who had worked under the table and continued to after becoming citizens, benefiting from the canadian government and only giving back through sales tax (usually a father might have a legit jib, but wife and older children worked for cash)
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Jan, 2010 09:25 am
How much outrage would there be from the left if a conservative or a repub had made this remark...

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/01/09/reid-apology-for-negro-dialect-comment/

Quote:
Washington (CNN) - Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid apologized Saturday following reports he had privately described then-candidate Barack Obama during the presidential campaign as a black candidate who could be successful thanks in part to his “light-skinned” appearance and speaking patterns "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one


And why is there no outrage from the left now?
If an apology is all it takes to make it go away, why has the left constantly ignored it when a repub or a conservative apologizes for stupid comments?
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Jan, 2010 11:06 am
@mysteryman,
Mysteryman, it's easily explainable.
When a lying thieving insidious coveter criticizes another lying thieving insidious coveter, he or she is merely exercising free speech rights. BUT when a conservative criticizes a lying thieving insidious coveter, he or she is perceived by lying thieving insidious coveters to be a despicable hate monger.
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Jan, 2010 11:21 am
@ican711nm,
Besides, lytics (lying thieving insidious coveters) advocate equal wealth over equal liberty, while conservatives advocate equal liberty over equal wealth.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Jan, 2010 11:46 am
@ican711nm,
Where do you stupid people arrive at such stupid conclusions that anyone is "advocating equal wealth" in this country?

How exactly will that happen? Please spell it out for us, because there must be something that I'm not aware of.



ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Jan, 2010 12:23 pm
WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS GOVERNMENT HEALTH CARE BILL?

(1) Allocate to each person an annual $2,500 income tax credit to buy health care insurance from any private health care insurer in the country.

(2) For those individuals or families whose taxes are less than the sum of their tax credits, issue them vouchers for the difference.

(3) For many tax payers those vouchers will be as much as $2,500 per person.

(4) Cancel all other forms of government health care insurance.

There are less than 310 million people in the USA, so the total annual cost of this bill will be less than 310 million times $2,500 or less than $775 billion dollars. That's much less than either the current Senate bill or the current House bill plus the current cost of federal employee health insurance, Medicare, and Medicaid.

Surely a family of four could purchase from a competitive free market excellent private health care insurance for four times $2,500 or $10,000 per year.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Jan, 2010 12:26 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Cice, you're kidding, right?

If not, then what do you think the phrase "redistribution of wealth" as uttered by Obama means?

How? How about "tax the rich" at a far greater rate than those not rich?
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Jan, 2010 12:49 pm
@ican711nm,
Quote:
How about "tax the rich" at a far greater rate than those not rich?


People are not being taxed according to how rich they are. They are taxed, progressively, on their yearly income. Any single individual can decide to reduce their yearly income and be taxed at a lower rate, or in the case of someone who's well enough off, not be taxed at all.

To determine what Obama meant by using that phrase, you'd have to ask him. Asking someone like you would be like asking a teabagger what socialism means.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Jan, 2010 01:27 pm
@JTT,
ican, It seems you are totally ignorant about our tax codes that have existed for all of our life. Your ignorance is obvious to everybody else except you!

Do you file your income tax every year? Do you know how the tax codes work or do you have a tax preparer do it for you?

The current tax codes are the combined work of congress - and that includes both conservative and liberal presidents and congress.

I know that's totally new information for you, but try to perceive what that really means before you make your stupid statements about wealth redistribution.

ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Jan, 2010 02:20 pm
@JTT,
JTT, you are fumbling with the meaning of words. "taxed, progressively, on their yearly income" is taxing the wealthy at a greater rate than the less wealthy.

A lot of income tax revenue is redistributed to those who earn less than those who earn more.

FOR EXAMPLE:
See top of left side of page 48 of the 1040 Forms & Instructions 2009):
Quote:
The EIC (Earned Income Credit) is a credit for certain people who work. The credit may give you a refund even if you do not owe any tax.


Obama, when he was campaigning for president, made it clear what he meant by "equalize wealth" in his conversation with Joe the Plumber. He clearly meant take some wealth from the more wealthy and give it to the less wealthy. That is not only theft; that is a violation of the 5th Amendment to the Constitution of the USA.
Quote:
Amendment V
No person … shall … be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. …

A person's property includes a person's wealth.

Due process of law is law that among oher things conforms to the Constitution's 6th Article:
Quote:
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution ...


Due process also conforms to the 10th Amendment:
Quote:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.


Just compensation consists of compensation for what a property or a work is worth in a free market.

The Preamble to the Constitution makes it clear what the purpose of the Constitution is:
Quote:
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Jan, 2010 02:25 pm
So I again conclude that lytics (lying thieving insidious coveters) prefer the equalization of wealth over the equalization of liberty.
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Jan, 2010 02:37 pm
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:
And why is there no outrage from the left now?
If an apology is all it takes to make it go away, why has the left constantly ignored it when a repub or a conservative apologizes for stupid comments?

As I posted in regard to what Michael Steele said, he had it right, there is a double standard. This is about socialist Democratic politics, not race. As long as blacks stay on the Democratic plantation and are willing to continue to be used by them, no problem in regard to anything any Democrat says about race, both black and non-black. As Obama pointed out, Reid cares about "social justice," so it is all okay. In case anyone wonders about the term "social justice," it is a term all ultra socialists and Marxists love. It has to do with taking from the producers and giving to the non-producers, that is "social justice" in their view.
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Jan, 2010 02:42 pm
@okie,
Here is Obama's response with his "social justice" reference, which provides proof of what I just posted, that racial politics is about liberal Democatic ultra socialism, not race.

"I accepted Harry’s apology without question because I’ve known him for years. I’ve seen the passionate leadership he’s shown on issues of social justice, and I know what’s in his heart,” Mr. Obama said in a statement, adding that the remark was “unfortunate.” “As far as I am concerned, the book is closed.”"

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/11/us/politics/11reidweb.html
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.32 seconds on 11/19/2024 at 12:34:00