PLEDGE TO AMERICA
Comments:Criticize a public figure regarding their public work only when you have backings in the form of solid citations, quotes or proofs from authority sources. Don’t attack a private citizen by name. Refrain from criticizing an identifiable person repeatedly. Refrain from making false statements about any one. If someone has broken these rules, call it to our attention immediately.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Daniel Hannan MEP: The devalued Prime Minister of a devalued Government
Wouldn't it be wonderful if someone would tie Obama in a chair and make him listen to this over and over. Wow!
35
comments:
Reader
said...
Excellent Blogger, I saw this today. Thank you for reminding me again, the sanity some people possess. That just makes me feel good. Oh to live in the world full of them.
Should I mention that he said: 'If I had a vote in the U.S. I would have voted for Ron Paul'?
Blogger (and all), In the earlier post about the "traitor" republicans I was going to make this comment, but it got off track and I decided not to.
There is no longer a Democrat/Republican line. There is only a difference between big government and those who oppose it. McCain was in favor of bailouts under Bush, and there is no doubt in my mind we would have as many trillions of spending lined up had McCain been elected. (probably more of it going overseas than even Obama's plan). Many of the people would be on here arguing in favor of McCain's spending. It is very easy to criticize those across the isle, but we are no saints either.
Until we realize that our way out of this mess is not simply voting for a party (There are great Democrats and Libertarians too) but for individual people and philosophies, we are doomed.
Hearing this from across the pond is very reassuring, lets not forget they are a decade ahead of us in terms of socialistic government...and look how worse off they are.
That's a great point about those in favor or opposed to big government, and your right about it crossing party lines.
I do have a quibble with you about McCain. Of course it's speculation but McCain has walked the walk as far as spending (your point about the bailout notwithstanding), I don't believe we would be facing the deficits we are under McCain. Further, I don't believe Republicans would cut him slack. He wasn't all that popular with the base anyways. Certainly commenters on this blog would be raising hell, party be damned. I agree that "It is very easy to criticize those across the isle". I strongly feel that Republicans are different than Democrats in that area. I think history proves that unequivocally. The question I have is: Who is the Republican (or for that matter Democrat) here in the USA that has the courage to stand up to Mr. Obama the way that Mr. Hannan did to Mr. Brown? Virginia Foxx?
Gregg, Maybe I am just drawing a blank...but when do our congressmen ever have an opportunity to publicly ask Obama questions or make comments like we saw in this video?
That's interesting Matt, I hadn't really thought about that. Our Presidents address (publicly) Congress but they don't take questions or comments. Certain members of Congress meet with the President but that's behind closed doors. The best I could think of with our Republic is if the Vice-President was chairing the Senate but that rarely happens and you'd have to catch it on CSPAN.
Oh well, I don't want a Parliament. Let's hope some are looking Obama in the eye and standing up to him even if it's in private.
Anony maybe because the Teleprompter President reads so well IE other peoples words that when he does speak off the cuff we get 57 states, Americans invent automobile, and Special Olympic bowling. Who brings a teleprompter to a Press conference? It is not like he will get a "REAL" question.
Robert Reich, professor of public policy at the University of California, Berkeley and the former Clinton Administration Secretary of Labor thinks we are all idiots. In an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal entitled "Obamanomics Isn't About Big Government," Mr. Reich tells us that catastrophic government spending, un-constitutional legislation, uncontrolled earmarks, corruption, cronyism-bloated bureaucracies, class warfare, and social engineering are "trickle-up economics."
Reaganomics surely marked the beginning of one of the longest bull markets in American history and generated enormous gains at the top. But its benefits were not widely shared. After the Reagan tax cuts, growth in the median wage slowed, adjusted for inflation. After George W. Bush's tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, the median wage dropped. Meanwhile, an increasing share of total income went to the top 1% of income earners. In 1980, before Reagan took office, the highest-paid 1% took home 9% of total national income. By 2007, before the economy melted down, the richest 1% was taking home 22%.
Obamanomics, by contrast, holds that an economy grows best from the bottom up. The president proposes to increase taxes on the highest 2% of income earners starting in 2011. Those tax increases will fund more Pell grants allowing lower-income children to attend college, better pay for teachers that show they're worth it, broader access to health care, improved infrastructure, and more basic research. These and related expenditures are designed to help Americans become more productive. You might think of it as "trickle up" economics.
Bush was the most inarticulate, gaff-machine president we EVER had. Books have been written with his malapropisms and incorrect grammar. Never learned to pronouce "nuclear" correctly. And when he had no teleprompter to help, he answered questions like a deer caught in the headlights.
Truely, he was a moronic figurehead. A public embarassment!
Matt, you are entirely correct about party lines not meaning much anymore. The Republicans have sold out their conservative base for years. The Wolf and I have discussed this many times. His solution was to vote Libertarian. My was to vote against the worse candidate or not vote.
The problem (as I see it) is that the anti-big government forces are so fragmented. The Conservatives in the Republican party do not trust it any more, although periodically it swings back toward its base (as with Palin). The conservative Democrats are afraid to speak their minds. If they do, they are ridiculed and publicly told they are not "real" Democrats. The Libertarians have so many different views that it is hard for conservative Republicans and Democrats to support them. For instance, I can get by wanting to legalize drugs because that is something that will be controlled automatically. (Some junkies will O.D. and not be a problem. Taking the huge profits out of the sale of drugs would probably help lower crime. However, I do have moral and religious misgivings about this issue.) What I cannot get by is the tendency of Libertarians to neglect our national defense. We have to have a federal government to play with the rest of the world in order to safeguard our freedoms.
We somehow need to create a tri-partisan effort to support candidates that promote those things on which we can agree in order to limit the size of government. Tax reform would seem to be one of them. Hopefully gun rights are another.
It may be that the Wolf has been right in his adamant refusal to vote for any big government proponent, even though I thought that sometimes we needed to delay the inevitable collapse by supporting the lesser of the evils.
On another note, many of our legislators call Mr. Obama to task everyday. The problem is that our fair and even media does not inform us of what they say.
Change the Republican Party to the Patriot Party (Patriotic Party for Andrew). Boot out all the RINOS and go libertarian with a strong national defense. The Platform would be restore the Constitution. Make drug possession neither legal nor illegal. Make it legal to drug test all people applying for the little government aid offered, drivers licenses,...etc.
Pocket Pocket Pocket only you could take 2+2=4 and come up with the answer as Bush Fault. Lets see 911 was totally only planned from Bush first day in office January 20, 2001 until September 11, 2001 right. Ok all those terrorists were able to over stay their visas and get flight training in a little less than 9 months (Clinton had Zero responsibility in Pockets world). Katrina response was delayed not because Federal assistance can not be granted until asked for by Governor and Mayor both Democrats, but because of Bush right right gotcha there Pocket. Economic meltdown all Bush's fault since he only tried 13 times to overhaul Fannie/Freddie those well run institutions but was hamstrung by Chris Dodd and Barney Frank. Dodd and Frank are going to resign for their failure to regulate the banks, Right? Just like the GM CEO. Yep I am holding my breathe for that to happen. Pocket still carrying the Koolade for Obama. How is all that Hope and Change working? Check the Stock market today they voted on Obama's plan again today.
"Change the Republican Party to the Patriot Party (Patriotic Party for Andrew). Boot out all the RINOS and go libertarian with a strong national defense. The Platform would be restore the Constitution. Make drug possession neither legal nor illegal. Make it legal to drug test all people applying for the little government aid offered, drivers licenses,...etc."
Wow! Sark you are too much fun. You are Republican extremism gone wild. Sark, are you really on my side?
"Change the Republican Party to the Patriot Party (Patriotic Party for Andrew). Boot out all the RINOS and go libertarian with a strong national defense."
That move should get you about 15% of the electorate.
With all the endless wars and defense contracts who will pay the taxes??
"Make it legal to drug test all people applying for the little government aid offered, drivers licenses,...etc."
What about our rights under the Constitution? What about Republican belief in freedom?
We see from you want to reduce freedom you don't really believe in the constitution.
Grumpy old men and Reader see what I mean about Republican silliness.
POV, I do not believe that you think Sark's ideas are silly. I think they frighten you because they force you to look at things in a different way. For instance your comments on durg tests for those applying for gimme-gimme programs are certainly reasonable. Being a recipient of these programs is not a right. It is a privilege in that the government grants the use of money not earned to many people that do not deserve the help. If this is money that comes from public axes, the funds should go to those that need it and are living legal lifestyles. This cuts out criminals that break drug laws and illegal aliens.
I certainly see what you mean by your subterfuge about silliness. I also recognize your fear that public opinion does not support you.
I will agree that we have parents on welfare that are drug users but 80% of those on welfare are children. What are you going to do about the children of drug users? The biggest problem I have with Republican logic is you want to demonize people down on their luck and buy into urban legends and myths. Reality is not where the Republican mind resides. You want to take 5% of the problem and convert it to 95%. Guy and all the other grumpy old men and a few grumpy women remember what you think you know just ain't so.
Lib, I'm not known as a grump to anyone. People always ask me if I'm always upbeat as I say. Yes!!
I've never heard my parents complain about the hardships during the Depression...I think it was much worse then. How many of us actually go out to help the ones who are hungry? Lib? You complain about children being hungry, if you know of any in Boone, let me know, please.
My bad you don't sound grumpy here either. Keep up the good work. Feel free to correct some of the demonizing of the poor by fellow Republicans. How about that anti gay marriage stuff?
Can you tell me how a marriage between a man and a woman is in any way affected by this nonsense?
POV, part of your problem is that you try to cookbook a universal answer to everything. This universal answer is big government control. Local regulation would be much better. Local people know much better when someone is abusing the system. Every situation is unique.
Also, as Reader indicates, many of your concerns would be better handled privately though churches and charitable organizations.
As to your question as to what happens to the children of drug abusing parents, I would guess you would remove them from a criminal environment by placing the parents in jail. Child care would be provided by their extended family or foster care as it would in any other situation in which a child is endangered by criminal activity.
Do you support legalizing drug use so it will no longer be a criminal concern? If so, what do you want to do about drug abuse?
Thanks Lib...Guy, I agree that churches need to step up. This is why, IMO, that a lot of people have turned to the government for help. Benevolent funds are diminishing. I think we christians need to start putting forth an effort to replenish the fund, rather than purchasing that new A/C. Our selfish wants have become more important than helping our friends in need.
Accounts Receivable Tax Building Permit Tax CDL License Tax Cigarette Tax Corporate Income Tax Dog License Tax Excise Taxes Federal Income Tax Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA) Fishing License Tax Food License Tax Fuel Permit Tax Gasoline at 44.75 cents per gallon Gross Receipts Tax Hunting License Tax Inheritance Tax Inventory Tax IRS Interest Charges
IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax) Liquor Tax Luxury Taxes Marriage License Tax Medicare Tax Personal Property Tax Property Tax Real Estate Tax Service Charge Tax Social Security Tax Road Usage Tax Sales Tax Recreational Vehicle Tax School Tax State Income Tax State Unemployment Tax (SUTA) Telephone Federal Excise Tax Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Taxes Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax Telephone Recurring and Non-recurring Charges Tax Telephone State and Local Tax Telephone Usage Charge Tax Utility Taxes Vehicle License Registration Tax Vehicle Sales Tax Watercraft Registration Tax Well Permit Tax Workers Compensation Tax
STILL THINK THIS IS FUNNY?
Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago,
and our nation was the most prosperous in the world.
We had absolutely no national debt, had the largest middle class in the world,
Hey Pocket your favorite Dem Barney Frank is at it again. Care to defend this?
[I]n a little-noticed move, the House Financial Services Committee, led by chairman Barney Frank, has approved a measure that would, in some key ways, go beyond the most draconian features of the original AIG bill. The new legislation, the “Pay for Performance Act of 2009,” would impose government controls on the pay of all employees — not just top executives — of companies that have received a capital investment from the U.S. government. It would, like the tax measure, be retroactive, changing the terms of compensation agreements already in place. And it would give Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner extraordinary power to determine the pay of thousands of employees of American companies.
The purpose of the legislation is to “prohibit unreasonable and excessive compensation and compensation not based on performance standards,” according to the bill’s language. That includes regular pay, bonuses — everything — paid to employees of companies in whom the government has a capital stake, including those that have received funds through the Troubled Assets Relief Program, or TARP, as well as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
The measure is not limited just to those firms that received the largest sums of money, or just to the top 25 or 50 executives of those companies. It applies to all employees of all companies involved, for as long as the government is invested. And it would not only apply going forward, but also retroactively to existing contracts and pay arrangements of institutions that have already received funds. In addition, the bill gives Geithner the authority to decide what pay is “unreasonable” or “excessive.”
And it directs the Treasury Department to come up with a method to evaluate “the performance of the individual executive or employee to whom the payment relates.”
The bill passed the Financial Services Committee last week, 38 to 22, on a nearly party-line vote. (All Democrats voted for it, and all Republicans, with the exception of Reps. Ed Royce of California and Walter Jones of North Carolina, voted against it.)
35 comments:
Excellent Blogger, I saw this today. Thank you for reminding me again, the sanity some people possess. That just makes me feel good. Oh to live in the world full of them.
It didn't even look like he was reading from a tele-prompter. He must not be VERY intelligent.
Really, that was one of the best speeches I have seen.
I might even have noticed a wee bit of biting sarcasm.
That was great!
Our alliance with the British is storied.
FDR/Churchill
Reagan/Thatcher
Bush/Blair
Now we have Obama/Brown. What happened?
This is awesome.
Bravo Mr. Hannan.
Should I mention that he said: 'If I had a vote in the U.S. I would have voted for Ron Paul'?
Blogger (and all), In the earlier post about the "traitor" republicans I was going to make this comment, but it got off track and I decided not to.
There is no longer a Democrat/Republican line. There is only a difference between big government and those who oppose it.
McCain was in favor of bailouts under Bush, and there is no doubt in my mind we would have as many trillions of spending lined up had McCain been elected. (probably more of it going overseas than even Obama's plan). Many of the people would be on here arguing in favor of McCain's spending. It is very easy to criticize those across the isle, but we are no saints either.
Until we realize that our way out of this mess is not simply voting for a party (There are great Democrats and Libertarians too) but for individual people and philosophies, we are doomed.
Hearing this from across the pond is very reassuring, lets not forget they are a decade ahead of us in terms of socialistic government...and look how worse off they are.
His interview from Fox News is here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqC6ubGOJxM&feature=related
(Has a few good quotes here that I would like POV,Pocket,etc to listen to)
Part 2 can be found on that page as well
(~4:50 he says he would have voted for Ron Paul in part 2)
Matt,
That's a great point about those in favor or opposed to big government, and your right about it crossing party lines.
I do have a quibble with you about McCain. Of course it's speculation but McCain has walked the walk as far as spending (your point about the bailout notwithstanding), I don't believe we would be facing the deficits we are under McCain. Further, I don't believe Republicans would cut him slack. He wasn't all that popular with the base anyways. Certainly commenters on this blog would be raising hell, party be damned. I agree that "It is very easy to criticize those across the isle". I strongly feel that Republicans are different than Democrats in that area. I think history proves that unequivocally.
The question I have is: Who is the Republican (or for that matter Democrat) here in the USA that has the courage to stand up to Mr. Obama the way that Mr. Hannan did to Mr. Brown? Virginia Foxx?
Gregg,
Maybe I am just drawing a blank...but when do our congressmen ever have an opportunity to publicly ask Obama questions or make comments like we saw in this video?
That's interesting Matt, I hadn't really thought about that. Our Presidents address (publicly) Congress but they don't take questions or comments. Certain members of Congress meet with the President but that's behind closed doors. The best I could think of with our Republic is if the Vice-President was chairing the Senate but that rarely happens and you'd have to catch it on CSPAN.
Oh well, I don't want a Parliament. Let's hope some are looking Obama in the eye and standing up to him even if it's in private.
Sarkazein:
Why are you guys so hungup on teleprompters. Is it because unlike Bush or McCain, Obama can READ?
Anony maybe because the Teleprompter President reads so well IE other peoples words that when he does speak off the cuff we get 57 states, Americans invent automobile, and Special Olympic bowling. Who brings a teleprompter to a Press conference? It is not like he will get a "REAL" question.
Anonymous
uh-uh-uh-uh-uh-uh-uh-uh-uh-uh-uh-uh-uh-uh-uh-what was the question....wait a minute....uh-uh-uh-uh-uh-uh
I heard after his presidency ends, he's going to put in for a uh, um, uh, umm, uh..."chair umpire" job.
Robert Reich, professor of public policy at the University of California, Berkeley and the former Clinton Administration Secretary of Labor thinks we are all idiots. In an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal entitled "Obamanomics Isn't About Big Government," Mr. Reich tells us that catastrophic government spending, un-constitutional legislation, uncontrolled earmarks, corruption, cronyism-bloated bureaucracies, class warfare, and social engineering are "trickle-up economics."
Reaganomics surely marked the beginning of one of the longest bull markets in American history and generated enormous gains at the top. But its benefits were not widely shared. After the Reagan tax cuts, growth in the median wage slowed, adjusted for inflation. After George W. Bush's tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, the median wage dropped. Meanwhile, an increasing share of total income went to the top 1% of income earners. In 1980, before Reagan took office, the highest-paid 1% took home 9% of total national income. By 2007, before the economy melted down, the richest 1% was taking home 22%.
Obamanomics, by contrast, holds that an economy grows best from the bottom up. The president proposes to increase taxes on the highest 2% of income earners starting in 2011. Those tax increases will fund more Pell grants allowing lower-income children to attend college, better pay for teachers that show they're worth it, broader access to health care, improved infrastructure, and more basic research. These and related expenditures are designed to help Americans become more productive. You might think of it as "trickle up" economics.
Please get real!
Bush was the most inarticulate, gaff-machine president we EVER had. Books have been written with his malapropisms and incorrect grammar. Never learned to pronouce
"nuclear" correctly. And when he had no teleprompter to help, he answered questions like a deer caught in the headlights.
Truely, he was a moronic figurehead. A public embarassment!
Man! It must have really bugged you when Bush said "nucular" while keeping your ungrateful ass safe.
I believe it was Jimmy Carter pronouncing NUKIEAR when discussing proliferation with hiss ten year old daughter. And he worked on a NUKIEAR sub.
Matt, you are entirely correct about party lines not meaning much anymore. The Republicans have sold out their conservative base for years. The Wolf and I have discussed this many times. His solution was to vote Libertarian. My was to vote against the worse candidate or not vote.
The problem (as I see it) is that the anti-big government forces are so fragmented. The Conservatives in the Republican party do not trust it any more, although periodically it swings back toward its base (as with Palin). The conservative Democrats are afraid to speak their minds. If they do, they are ridiculed and publicly told they are not "real" Democrats. The Libertarians have so many different views that it is hard for conservative Republicans and Democrats to support them. For instance, I can get by wanting to legalize drugs because that is something that will be controlled automatically. (Some junkies will O.D. and not be a problem. Taking the huge profits out of the sale of drugs would probably help lower crime. However, I do have moral and religious misgivings about this issue.) What I cannot get by is the tendency of Libertarians to neglect our national defense. We have to have a federal government to play with the rest of the world in order to safeguard our freedoms.
We somehow need to create a tri-partisan effort to support candidates that promote those things on which we can agree in order to limit the size of government. Tax reform would seem to be one of them. Hopefully gun rights are another.
It may be that the Wolf has been right in his adamant refusal to vote for any big government proponent, even though I thought that sometimes we needed to delay the inevitable collapse by supporting the lesser of the evils.
On another note, many of our legislators call Mr. Obama to task everyday. The problem is that our fair and even media does not inform us of what they say.
Guy Faulkes
Change the Republican Party to the Patriot Party (Patriotic Party for Andrew). Boot out all the RINOS and go libertarian with a strong national defense.
The Platform would be restore the Constitution.
Make drug possession neither legal nor illegal.
Make it legal to drug test all people applying for the little government aid offered, drivers licenses,...etc.
Greggggg:
Bush didn't keep me safe! 9/11 was on HIS watch, Katrina was on HIS watch, economic meltdown was on HIS watch. Who are you kidding?
Sark, maybe we could add drug tests for those running for office and random tests on a continuing basis for those holding office?
Blogger or any of the Grumpy old men or Reader
How many numbers are in the new 12 page Republican budget?
I love Republican silliness when they're not in power however Ms Foxx's silliness is hurting Western NC.
Pocket Pocket Pocket only you could take 2+2=4 and come up with the answer as Bush Fault. Lets see 911 was totally only planned from Bush first day in office January 20, 2001 until September 11, 2001 right. Ok all those terrorists were able to over stay their visas and get flight training in a little less than 9 months (Clinton had Zero responsibility in Pockets world). Katrina response was delayed not because Federal assistance can not be granted until asked for by Governor and Mayor both Democrats, but because of Bush right right gotcha there Pocket. Economic meltdown all Bush's fault since he only tried 13 times to overhaul Fannie/Freddie those well run institutions but was hamstrung by Chris Dodd and Barney Frank. Dodd and Frank are going to resign for their failure to regulate the banks, Right? Just like the GM CEO. Yep I am holding my breathe for that to happen. Pocket still carrying the Koolade for Obama. How is all that Hope and Change working? Check the Stock market today they voted on Obama's plan again today.
Sark
"Change the Republican Party to the Patriot Party (Patriotic Party for Andrew). Boot out all the RINOS and go libertarian with a strong national defense.
The Platform would be restore the Constitution.
Make drug possession neither legal nor illegal.
Make it legal to drug test all people applying for the little government aid offered, drivers licenses,...etc."
Wow! Sark you are too much fun. You are Republican extremism gone wild. Sark, are you really on my side?
"Change the Republican Party to the Patriot Party (Patriotic Party for Andrew). Boot out all the RINOS and go libertarian with a strong national defense."
That move should get you about 15% of the electorate.
With all the endless wars and defense contracts who will pay the taxes??
"Make it legal to drug test all people applying for the little government aid offered, drivers licenses,...etc."
What about our rights under the Constitution? What about Republican belief in freedom?
We see from you want to reduce freedom you don't really believe in the constitution.
Grumpy old men and Reader see what I mean about Republican silliness.
"The Platform would be restore the Constitution."
POV, I do not believe that you think Sark's ideas are silly. I think they frighten you because they force you to look at things in a different way. For instance your comments on durg tests for those applying for gimme-gimme programs are certainly reasonable. Being a recipient of these programs is not a right. It is a privilege in that the government grants the use of money not earned to many people that do not deserve the help. If this is money that comes from public axes, the funds should go to those that need it and are living legal lifestyles. This cuts out criminals that break drug laws and illegal aliens.
I certainly see what you mean by your subterfuge about silliness. I also recognize your fear that public opinion does not support you.
Guy
I will agree that we have parents on welfare that are drug users but 80% of those on welfare are children.
What are you going to do about the children of drug users?
The biggest problem I have with Republican logic is you want to demonize people down on their luck and buy into urban legends and myths. Reality is not where the Republican mind resides. You want to take 5% of the problem and convert it to 95%.
Guy and all the other grumpy old men and a few grumpy women remember what you think you know just ain't so.
Lib, I'm not known as a grump to anyone. People always ask me if I'm always upbeat as I say. Yes!!
I've never heard my parents complain about the hardships during the Depression...I think it was much worse then. How many of us actually go out to help the ones who are hungry? Lib? You complain about children being hungry, if you know of any in Boone, let me know, please.
Reader
My bad you don't sound grumpy here either. Keep up the good work. Feel free to correct some of the demonizing of the poor by fellow Republicans.
How about that anti gay marriage stuff?
Can you tell me how a marriage between a man and a woman is in any way affected by this nonsense?
POV, part of your problem is that you try to cookbook a universal answer to everything. This universal answer is big government control. Local regulation would be much better. Local people know much better when someone is abusing the system. Every situation is unique.
Also, as Reader indicates, many of your concerns would be better handled privately though churches and charitable organizations.
As to your question as to what happens to the children of drug abusing parents, I would guess you would remove them from a criminal environment by placing the parents in jail. Child care would be provided by their extended family or foster care as it would in any other situation in which a child is endangered by criminal activity.
Do you support legalizing drug use so it will no longer be a criminal concern? If so, what do you want to do about drug abuse?
Oatz:
Oh, now I get it. It was everyone else's fault! (See Repub playbook page 19 - "Barney Frank.")
Thanks Lib...Guy, I agree that churches need to step up. This is why, IMO, that a lot of people have turned to the government for help. Benevolent funds are diminishing. I think we christians need to start putting forth an effort to replenish the fund, rather than purchasing that new A/C. Our selfish wants have become more important than helping our friends in need.
I wonder if we are taxed enough?
Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
CDL License Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Dog License Tax
Excise Taxes
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
Fuel Permit Tax
Gasoline at 44.75 cents per gallon
Gross Receipts Tax
Hunting License Tax
Inheritance Tax
Inventory Tax
IRS Interest Charges
IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
Liquor Tax
Luxury Taxes
Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Personal Property Tax
Property Tax
Real Estate Tax
Service Charge Tax
Social Security Tax
Road Usage Tax
Sales Tax
Recreational Vehicle Tax
School Tax
State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Telephone Federal Excise Tax
Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax
Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Taxes
Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax
Telephone Recurring and Non-recurring Charges Tax
Telephone State and Local Tax
Telephone Usage Charge Tax
Utility Taxes
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft Registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax
STILL THINK THIS IS FUNNY?
Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago,
and our nation was the most prosperous in the world.
We had absolutely no national debt, had the largest middle class in the world,
and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.
What happened?
Can you spell 'politicians'?
Hey Pocket your favorite Dem Barney Frank is at it again. Care to defend this?
[I]n a little-noticed move, the House Financial Services Committee, led by chairman Barney Frank, has approved a measure that would, in some key ways, go beyond the most draconian features of the original AIG bill. The new legislation, the “Pay for Performance Act of 2009,” would impose government controls on the pay of all employees — not just top executives — of companies that have received a capital investment from the U.S. government. It would, like the tax measure, be retroactive, changing the terms of compensation agreements already in place. And it would give Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner extraordinary power to determine the pay of thousands of employees of American companies.
The purpose of the legislation is to “prohibit unreasonable and excessive compensation and compensation not based on performance standards,” according to the bill’s language. That includes regular pay, bonuses — everything — paid to employees of companies in whom the government has a capital stake, including those that have received funds through the Troubled Assets Relief Program, or TARP, as well as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
The measure is not limited just to those firms that received the largest sums of money, or just to the top 25 or 50 executives of those companies. It applies to all employees of all companies involved, for as long as the government is invested. And it would not only apply going forward, but also retroactively to existing contracts and pay arrangements of institutions that have already received funds.
In addition, the bill gives Geithner the authority to decide what pay is “unreasonable” or “excessive.”
And it directs the Treasury Department to come up with a method to evaluate “the performance of the individual executive or employee to whom the payment relates.”
The bill passed the Financial Services Committee last week, 38 to 22, on a nearly party-line vote. (All Democrats voted for it, and all Republicans, with the exception of Reps. Ed Royce of California and Walter Jones of North Carolina, voted against it.)
Thanks Reader.
Post a Comment