Blogalwarning

The truth that was swept under the rug

On Obama, taxes, deficit and freedom

by bigblock57, blogalwarning blog.

An entry of mine in a discussion on another blog:

You see ognir, in my opinion your view that my money is automatically designated for government use is a huge problem. The more of MY hard earned money I am forced to give to the government, the less freedom I have. It is proven again and again that by raising taxes you take away the incentive to earn money (and increase the incentive to cheat) and revenues go down. By lowering taxes financial activity increases and revenues grow. Now don’t get me wrong. I voted GW twice and was deeply disappointed. Probably for different reasons than what you have against him. Nevertheless, very disappointed. However, this trillion dollars deficit he left us with, is something we are all going to long for when Obama is done with us. we are going to have way, way higher deficit, while still paying way, way higher taxes. I know I am digressing, but in my opinion Obama will go down as a dictator who was democratically elected by a bunch of blind fans who were so busy hating GW, they would vote for anything that did not have R beside it. The hell with democracy, freedom and constitution. You may think I am a lun, but you will regretfully come to agree with me, and this will not take long. Though It may be too late for both of us.

Advertisements

March 28, 2009 Posted by | BHO (Obama...) | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

How Did Obama Get Voted In?

A good entry from “gunnerdad” in sodahead.com on the question “Obama voters, do you regret Voting for Obama?”

I didn’t vote for him and neither did nearly 75% of the eligible voters. 
Consider that the turnout was just over 50% of the voters. Pretty sad commentary for our Country. Then consider that BO got just over 50% of those people and JM got just under 50%. That means 50% of 50% voted for either party. So something like 28% of the “eligible” voters elected the President of the United States. Seems we may be getting what we deserve. As for the Bush haters…your Democratic Congress encouraged the banks to run their housing racket so people who shouldn’t have gotten loans to begin with. And someone started the run on the money market funds that started the melt down in September that got BO elected. And as usual it all got away from them and our children and grand-children will have to pay for all of these Trillions he’s going to spend trying to spend our way out of the mess we’re in. 
You should all be worried. Just like the latest vote from Congress in placing a 90% tax on the few people from AIG. Your group may be next if this stands. The whole point of all that is to draw everyones attention from the fact that 55 Billion Dollars of the bailout money went to overseas banks to cover AIG’s debts. That’s 55 Billion of US taxpayers money that just went bye bye with absolutly no chance of any gain for us. Those bonuses are less than 1% of that money but oh are we making a deal about that. What about the other 99%? 
I pray I am wrong but I fear we will all suffer because we (you) elected a rock star…not a President. God Bless America and ALL who Defend Her

March 26, 2009 Posted by | BHO (Obama...) | , , , | 2 Comments

S.C. governor evokes Zimbabwe in arguments against stimulus

Interesting and not surprising take of a Republican gov. on the Stimulous Bill. What I noticed which I did not know before, is that there is a provision in the bill that allows state legislators to override governors that do not want to take the money allotted for their states, and take it anyway. Talk about power grab of the Federal Government and the Congress…

This articles is from CNN.com  3/11/09

COLUMBIA, South Carolina (CNN) — The United States faces a Zimbabwe-style economic collapse if it keeps “spending a bunch of money we don’t have,” South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford said Wednesday.

South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford says he does not want to spend money that his state doesn't have. 

South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford says he does not want to spend money that his state doesn’t have.

Sanford, a Republican, has been an outspoken critic of the Obama administration’s $800 billion stimulus plan. He said he’ll turn down about a quarter of his state’s $2.8 billion share unless Washington lets him use that money to pay down debt.

“What you’re doing is buying into the notion that if we just print some more money that we don’t have and send it to different states, we’ll create jobs,” he said. “If that’s the case, why isn’t Zimbabwe a rich place?”

Zimbabwe has been in the throes of an economic meltdown ever since the southern African nation embarked on a chaotic land reform program. Its official inflation rate topped 11 million percent in 2008, with its treasury printing banknotes in the trillion-dollar range to keep up with the plummeting value of its currency.

But with South Carolina’s unemployment rate now the second-highest in the country, state lawmakers will attempt to override Sanford and take the $700 million if he turns it down, Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer said.

“They will use the total economic stimulus to stimulate the economy, jump-start it, so we can get out of the ditch we are in as a state and as a nation,” Bauer, a fellow Republican, said in a written statement Wednesday.

Labor Department figures released Wednesday showed South Carolina’s January unemployment rate hit 10.4 percent, second only to Michigan’s 11.6 percent.

Sanford is one of several Republican governors who have criticized the nearly $800 billion stimulus package, which passed with minimal GOP support in the Senate and none in the House of Representatives. Other governors, such as California Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger or Michigan Democrat Jennifer Granholm, have said they would take any money Republican-led states reject.

But Sanford told reporters that taking the money now would leave the state in the lurch in two years, “when those funds dry up.”

“Fundamentally, if you boil down what the stimulus means for South Carolina, it means we would go through the process of spending a bunch of money we don’t have,” he said.

The stimulus measure allows state legislatures to override governors and take the money — a provision championed by South Carolina congressman James Clyburn, the No. 3 Democrat in the House. Clyburn said Sanford is unlikely to get any waiver from the administration, and he called the governor’s announcement “100 percent political posturing.”

“This recovery package is designed to stabilize communities, to save and create jobs, and help our economy get back in a growth mode,” he told reporters. “And you don’t do that by paying down debt that’s been incurred over a long period of time.”

And Bauer said that if South Carolina turns down the money, “South Carolina taxpayers will be taking on the debt for economic stimulus money sent elsewhere.”

March 15, 2009 Posted by | On Obama and Economy | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Card Ceck and Empolyee “Free” choice (EFCA)

Below are excerpts from James Sherk’s article in the Heritage Foundation website regarding the “Employee Free Choice Act”. The act does everything but giving employees any choice.  It sure gives unions the power to intimidate employees who vote against joining them s and gives government agencies the power to force contracts on employers that do not settle a contract with the union within a certain period of time.

In a nut shell, it gives Unions much better chance to organize work places in which employees will vote for joining the union just to avoid intimidation and harassment. Then it puts the negotiation power in the hands of the union. All the union needs to do is to come with extreme demands, and drag its feet through the negotiations to exhaust the time allowed by the law. Then contracts will be imposed by government bureaucrats. 

 Card Check Creates Government-Run Workplaces

by James Sherk

WebMemo #2334

The misnamed Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) does more than effectively eliminate workers’ rights to a secret ballot vote on joining a union. Section 3 of EFCA gives government officials the power to impose contracts on workers and firms. Government bureaucrats would set compensation and make most major business decisions at newly unionized companies. The bureaucrats writing these proposals would have no expertise in the company’s operations or business model and would be unaccountable if their decisions drove the company into bankruptcy. Workers would lose all say over working conditions. EFCA would effectively create government-run workplaces.  

Mutual Consent and Good Faith Bargaining…The end result is a contract that both sides can live with, even if they would have preferred different terms…If negotiations break down, the workers can strike or management can lock them out, but neither side must work under an unsatisfactory contract.

EFCA Imposes Contracts…Under Section 3 of the act (misleadingly titled “Facilitating Initial Collective Bargaining Agreements”)…EFCA provides that—after unions organize a business—the company has 10 days to meet with union officials to begin collective bargaining. After 90 days of bargaining, either party may request mediation by the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS). Thirty days later, if the parties have not settled on a contract or agreed to extend negotiations, the FMC…shall refer the dispute to an arbitration board established in accordance with such regulations as may be prescribed by the Service. The arbitration panel shall render a decision settling the dispute and such decision shall be binding upon the parties for a period of two years, unless amended during such period by written consent of the parties.

Bureaucrats Dictate Workplace Conditions…Unions would have strong incentives to make extreme demands and hope the arbitrator splits the difference between these demands and management’s position…Granting such a radical amount of power to an arbitrator puts control of workplaces in the hands of unaccountable government bureaucrats

March 14, 2009 Posted by | On Obama and Economy | , , , , | Leave a comment

Michelle’s hostpital job

In 2002, Michelle Obama was hired by the University of Chicago Medical Center. Her job was to run programs for community relations, neighborhood outreach, volunteer recruitment, staff diversity and minority. Her salary for this position was  $120,000.00

In 2005 the Medical Center raised her salary to $317,000.00, for a  $197,000.00 raise, nearly twice what her hubby made as a U.S. Senator.  Mr. obama became a senator in 2004 and he requested and received a $1,000,000.00 earmark from the Federal Government (our money) for the University of Chicago  Medical Center. Good Networking !

In 2007, Ms. obama  resigned her job to help her hubby campaign. The hospital has said that her position will remain unfilled.

How could this happen, if a person’s position is so vital to a hospital that they would pay her $317,000.00 and not be replaced ?

This is the couple that does not believe in “Earmarks”,  Right !

(Thanks to moph759fl is not online. Last active: 05 Mar 2009, 6:59 AMmoph759fl from bersatalk.com)

March 5, 2009 Posted by | BHO (Obama...) | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Spending our way out of the recession – it was tried before…

(Excerpts from “Do We Need a New New Deal?” By Burton W. Folsom Jr., Imprimis, January 2009).

 …There are three reasons why we do not need a New New Deal from President Obama In 2009…

…First, FDR’s New Deal did not lower unemployment. Sure the Works Progress Administration built roads, the Tennessee Valley Authority built dams, and the Civilian Conservation Corps planted trees. But every dollar that went to creating a federal job had to come from taxpayers, who, by sending their cash to Washington, lost the chance to buy hamburgers, movie tickets, or clothes and create new jobs for restaurants, theaters, and tailors… Henry Morgenthau, FDR’s loyal secretary of the Treasury, was frustrated at the persistence of double-digit unemployment throughout the 1930’s. In May 1939, with unemployment at 20 percent, he exploded at the failed New Deal programs. “We have tried spending money”, Morgenthaugh noted. ” We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work…We have never made good on our promises… I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started… And enormous debt to boot!”…

…Second, the taxes to pay for the New Deal became astronomical. In 1935, Roosevelt decided to raise the marginal tax rate on top incomes to 79 percent and. Later he raised it to 90 percent. These confiscatory rates discouraged entrepreneurs from investing, which prolonged the Great Depression…

…Third, the New Deal divided ad politicized the country in tragic ways. Those who lobbied most effectively won subsidies and bailouts even if their cause was weak. Others who had greater needs received nothing…

March 1, 2009 Posted by | On Obama and Economy | , , , | Leave a comment

Obama’s(?) pullout from Iraq

The Bush Pullout

By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, February 27, 2009 4:20 PM PT

Iraq War: President Obama traveled to Camp Lejeune, N.C., on Friday to announce that the U.S. would stay in Iraq at least until 2012 and keep 50,000 troops there even after combat ends. Sound familiar?

Obama’s withdrawal plan would take U.S. forces in Iraq down from a current 142,000 troops to 35,000 to 50,000. Under the status of forces agreement between the U.S. and Iran, negotiated and signed last year by the Bush administration, all forces must be out of Iraq by the end of 2011.

In short, though President Obama will get credit, it was Bush’s plan — not Obama’s…

…In Friday’s remarks, Obama told the assembled Marines: “Today I’ve come to speak to you about how the war in Iraq will end.” But in fact, the actual war has been over for some time. We hate to tell the Bush-haters out there, or to relive painful recent history, but President Bush won it, making the current pullout possible.

That victory was underscored in January when Iraq held largely peaceful elections, in which voters mostly repudiated extremist parties in favor of the moderate leadership of Nouri al-Maliki.

He further lauded January’s elections showing Iraqis have begun “pursuing their aspirations through peaceful political process…”

…Iraq has been a big success, which explains why you never see or hear about it in the mainstream news anymore. Suicide bombings and attacks on troops have become relatively rare, and now that Bush is out of office, there’s little political profit remaining for the left in bashing America’s bold Mideast initiative.

Whether you agree with Bush or not, he brought a kind of democracy to Iraq that can be found nowhere else in that region. His plan rocked al-Qaida back on its heels, to the point where its survival is in doubt. Iraq is a model.

In short, Obama’s policy is really, in most respects, Bush’s policy. That the troops can now come home proudly is a tribute to Bush’s steadfastness. But Obama will be wise not to remove them all.

We kept troops in Europe and Japan after World War II and in South Korea after the Korean War. Bush’s policy proved that democracy can take root where no one thought possible. But as in Europe, Korea and Japan, it must be protected.

March 1, 2009 Posted by | BHO (Obama...) | , , | Leave a comment