Obama '08?

When the USA fights a war to limit the mass murder of innocent lives, invariably innocent lives are killed while winning that war and achieving that limit.

George W. Bush. Besides, you can do nothing now to tarnish the reputation of a good and decent American.

As with any fair debate, I think some ground rules should be established here. For example, if we are going to condemn any war when innocent people were affected or died, then we need to be consistent.

I do, there has been too many civilians killed or hurt using those drones

I just read the transcript of O'Reilly's interview yesterday of Obama. It was a poor interview, and O'R didn't lay a glove on Obama.

I just read the transcript of O'Reilly's interview yesterday of Obama. It was a poor interview, and O'R didn't lay a glove on Obama.

JTT, It's useless trying to talk sense with somebody who has no human value, and only knows how to support his political party.

GW Bush admitted he tortured people; that's not only illegal by US laws but also international laws that we are signatories to.

He has no understanding of ethics, common sense, or humanity, and believes Amnesty International is a socialist organization.

There's no cure for stupid, and will quit trying to talk sense with this imbecile who calls himself okie.

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=20259&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=DPD

Corporate Taxes Are Self-Defeating

There is a growing realization that the United States is at an increasingly competitive disadvantage when it comes to taxing corporations. From a purely economic standpoint, it makes no sense to tax corporations at all, because only people pay taxes, not legal entities, says Richard W. Rahn, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and chairman of the Institute for Global Economic Growth.

Many countries used to have higher corporate tax rates than the United States, but, over time, they realized they were losing business -- and jobs -- to countries with lower rates; so most countries have been reducing their corporate tax rates to attract new businesses and global firms.
• Japan, up to this year, had a corporate-tax rate slightly higher than the U.S. rate, but it has announced it will reduce its rate by 5 percentage points.
• The Canadians have been steadily reducing their corporate rate and have said they will continue to do so.
The Obama administration has said that any corporate tax rate reduction must be "revenue neutral," by which it means that rates can only be lowered if corporate "loopholes" are closed. The way the administration and some in Congress are formulating the conditions for a revenue-neutral corporate-rate cut means the effort will be both a political and economic failure.
• Tax-revenue projections are provided by the Joint Tax Committee of Congress.
• The committee uses largely static, rather than fully dynamic, revenue analysis.
• When it prepares estimates of proposed corporate tax changes, it will largely ignore the fact that if the U.S. rate remains the highest or one of the highest in the world, increasing numbers of U.S. businesses will migrate elsewhere, and new or existing foreign businesses will choose not to come to the United States -- all of which will have a significant negative impact on U.S. job and economic growth.
• As a result, the United States will continue to lose global market share of the economic pie.

Source: Richard W. Rahn, "Corporate Taxes Are Self-Defeating," Washington Times, January 18, 2011.

There have been too many civilians murdered & injured by radical Muslim terrorists.

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=20261&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=DPD

Taking the Government Out of Housing Finance

Implicit in most of the proposals for reforming the housing finance system is the idea that institutional investors will not buy mortgage backed securities backed by U.S. mortgages unless they are issued by a government sponsored enterprise (GSE), a U.S. government agency, or are otherwise guaranteed by the U.S. government. There is, however, a robust alternative to government support of the housing finance system, say Peter J. Wallison, Alex J. Pollock and Edward Pinto.
• An alternative approach is to ensure that only prime quality mortgages, which comprise the vast majority of U.S. mortgages, are allowed into the securitization system.
• The very low delinquency and default rates on prime mortgages will be attractive investments for institutional investors and enable the housing finance system to function effectively with no government support.
• This will eliminate the potential for additional taxpayer losses in the future, and allow the eventual elimination of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The current interest in replacing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac provides another opportunity to adopt reforms that will prevent a recurrence of another financial crisis in the future. The four central principles to make this work are:
• The housing finance market -- like other U.S. industries and housing finance systems in most other developed countries -- can and should principally function without any direct government financial support.
• To the extent that regulation is necessary, it should be focused on ensuring mortgage credit quality.
• All programs for assisting low-income families to become homeowners should be on-budget and should limit risks to both homeowners and taxpayers.
• Fannie and Freddie should be eliminated as GSEs and privatized -- but gradually, so the private sector can take on more of the secondary market as the GSEs depart.

Source: Peter J. Wallison, Alex J. Pollock and Edward Pinto, "Taking the Government Out of Housing Finance: Principles for Reforming the Housing Finance Market," American Enterprise Institute, January 20, 2011.

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=20227&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=DPD

Repeal and Replace: 10 Necessary Changes
The National Center for Policy Analysis and four other think tanks are conducting a Capitol Hill briefing today to discuss 10 structural flaws in the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The briefing will be shown live on C-SPAN at noon Eastern. Below are five of the 10 flaws and solutions.

An impossible mandate.
• The ACA requires individuals to buy a health insurance plan whose cost will grow at twice the rate of growth of their incomes.
• Solution: Repeal the individual and employer mandates and offer a generous tax subsidy to people to obtain insurance.
A bizarre system of subsidies.
• The ACA offers radically different subsidies to people at the same income level, depending on where they obtain their health insurance.
• Solution: Offer people the same tax relief for health insurance, regardless of where it is obtained or purchased.
Perverse incentives for insurers.
• The ACA creates perverse incentives for insurers and employers to attract the healthy and avoid the sick, and to overprovide to the healthy and underprovide to the sick (to encourage them to leave).
• Solution: Instead of requiring insurers to ignore the fact that some people are sicker and more costly to insure than others, adopt a system that compensates them for the higher expected costs.
Impossible benefit cuts for seniors.
• By 2020, Medicare nationwide will pay doctors and hospitals less than what Medicaid pays.
• Solution: Medicare cost increases can be slowed by empowering patients and doctors to find efficiencies and eliminate waste.
Lack of portability.
• The single biggest health insurance problem for most Americans is the lack of portability.
• Solution: 1) Allow employers to do something they are now barred from doing: purchase personally-owned, portable health insurance for their employees; 2) Give retirees the same tax relief now available only to employees; and 3) Allow employers and employees to save for postretirement care in tax-free accounts.

Source: John C. Goodman, "What Most Needs Repealing and Replacing," National Center for Policy Analysis, January 17, 2011

ObamaCare Highlighted by Page Number

THE CARE BILL HB3200

THIS IS THE 2ND OFFICIAL WHO HAS OUTLINED THESE PARTS OF THE CARE BILL

Judge Kithil of Marble Falls , TX - HB3200 highlighted pages most egregious
ObamaCare Highlighted by Page Number Please read this..... especially the reference to pages 58 & 59

JUDGE KITHIL wrote:

** Page 50/section 152: The bill will provide insurance to all non-U.S. residents, even if they are here illegally.

** Page 58 and 59: The government will have real-time access to an individual's bank account and will have the authority to make electronic fund transfers from those accounts.

** Page 65/section 164: The plan will be subsidized (by the government) for all union members, union retirees and for community organizations (such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now - ACORN).

** Page 203/line 14-15: The tax imposed under this section will not be treated as a tax. (How could anybody in their right mind come up with that?)

** Page 241 and 253: Doctors will all be paid the same regardless of specialty, and the government will set all doctors' fees.

** Page 272. section 1145: Cancer hospitals will ration care according to the patient's age.

** Page 317 and 321: The government will impose a prohibition on hospital expansion; however, communities may petition for an exception.

** Page 425, line 4-12: The government mandates advance-care planning consultations. Those on Social Security will be required to attend an "end-of-life planning" seminar every five years. (Death counseling..)

** Page 429, line 13-25: The government will specify which doctors can write an end-of-life order.

HAD ENOUGH???? Judge Kithil then goes on:

"Finally, it is specifically stated that this bill will not apply to members of Congress. Members of Congress are already exempt from the Social Security system, and have a well-funded private plan that covers their retirement needs. If they were on our Social Security plan, I believe they would find a very quick 'fix' to make the plan financially sound for their future."

Honorable David Kithil
Marble Falls, Texas