AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Tell you what! Let's lawfully remove the Odem gangsters ASAP--impeach and remove-- without waiting for them to be voted out of office.

Tthe "October Surprise" was a charge leveled at then VP candidate George Bush.
The dems claimed that he flew aboard an SR-71 Blackbird to Iran to convince the Iranian govt to hold the American hostages till after the Presidential Election of 1980.

There was no evidence, the USAF could accout for all of their aircraft, and it was shown to be a total fabrication on the part of the dems.

I did in fact accuse Bush of violating the Constitution when he signed the bill for TARP and for the GM bailout

Taking the money that people earn--whether it be by taxes or some other method--in violation of the law (e.g., in violation of the Constitution of the USA) and giving it to people who did not earn it, is theft!

Seeing as every single admin that we've had over the last 70 years has taken tax monies and given them to people who you claim is 'theft' to do so, are you accusing them ALL of being 'gangster governments?'

What are you waiting for? Get right on it and let me know how well that works out for you, Mkay?

I'm waiting, no I'm working to convince you and all the rest of you, who currently support the Odems, that the Odems are worse gangsters than any of their predecessors in threatening to steal our Liberty, our Constitutional Government, and our Capitalist Economy.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
Amendment X
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.

you've proven completely politically impotent thus far at your stated goal.

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=19264&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=DPD
FOUR MILLION U.S. RESIDENTS COULD PAY COVERAGE PENALTIES IN 2016

About four million U.S. residents will be subject to fines averaging $1,000 per person for failing to obtain health insurance once the new health reform law is fully in effect in 2016, according to a Congressional Budget Office report released on Thursday.

Penalties for failing to abide by the law's individual mandate will begin in 2014 but will not be fully phased in until 2016:
• At that point, U.S. residents who have not purchased coverage will be fined $695 or 2.5 percent of their household income, whichever is greater.
• After 2016, the fines will increase according to annual cost-of-living adjustments.
• U.S. residents will be exempt from the penalty if the most inexpensive plan costs more than 8 percent of that individual's income.

Most of the 21 million U.S. residents who are expected to lack coverage in 2016 will be exempt from the penalties because of low income or undocumented immigrant status, or because they have received hardship or religious waivers, according to the report. The majority of those paying the fines will be middle-income U.S. residents, the report estimates:
• About three million people who will pay the fines will have annual incomes below $59,000 for individuals or $120,000 for families of four.
• The remaining people facing the fines will have higher incomes.
• The government could collect about $4 billion annually in penalties between 2017 and 2019.

Republicans criticized the penalties, noting that President Obama had promised not to raise taxes on individuals whose annual incomes are below $200,000 and families whose annual incomes are below $250,000.

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=19268&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=DPD
PENSION BOMB TICKS LOUDER

The time bomb that is public-pension obligations keeps ticking louder and louder. Eventually someone will have to notice, says the Wall Street Journal.
This month, Stanford's Institute for Economic Policy Research released a study suggesting a more than $500 billion unfunded liability for California's three biggest pension funds -- the California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS); the California State Teachers' Retirement System (CalSTRS); and the University of California Retirement System (UCRS). The shortfall is about six times the size of this year's California state budget and seven times more than the outstanding voter-approved general obligations bonds.

The pension funds responsible for the time bombs denounced the report and accused the study of being fundamentally flawed because it uses a controversial method that is out of step with governmental accounting standards. Those standards bear some scrutiny, says the Journal:
• The Stanford study uses what's called a "risk-free" 4.14 percent discount rate, which is tied to 10-year Treasury bonds.
• The Government Accounting Standards Board requires corporate pensions to use a risk-free rate, but it allows public pension funds to discount pension liabilities at their expected rate of return, which the pension funds determine.
• CalSTRS assumes a rate of return of 8 percent, CalPERS 7.75 percent and the UC fund 7.5 percent.
• But the CEO of the global investment management firm BlackRock Inc., Laurence Fink, says CalPERS would be lucky to earn 6 percent on its portfolio; a 5 percent return is more realistic, says the Journal.

Under California law, public pensions are a vested, contractual right. What this means is that taxpayers are on the hook if the economy falters or the pension portfolios don't perform as well as expected. The Governor's office projects that, absent reform, this figure will balloon to over $15 billion in the next 10 years.

What to do? The Stanford study suggests that at the least the state needs to contribute to pensions at a steadier rate and not shortchange the funds when markets are booming. It also recommends shifting investments to more fixed-income assets to reduce risks.

Source: Editorial, "Pension Bomb Ticks Louder," Wall Street Journal, April 27, 2010.

Diest TKO wrote:

you've proven completely politically impotent thus far at your stated goal.

FALSE!
Those people I have thus far convinced to join the TEA Party will adamantly disagree with your claim that I have "proven completely politically impotent thus far at [my] stated goal."

More, much more, to come!