Contributed by "A Reader" concerning taxes:
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
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Friday, March 27, 2009
Watauga County Republicans Upbeat
“He is not marching us to Socialism. He is racing us towards it.’ “And by the way, did you hear that the Boone Town Council proposed sabotaging traditional marriage?” (The preceding little gem is hiding in this link) “There are Republicans out in the county who sat out the last election. Not this next time!”
With the realization that the Radical Left has hijacked the country and that Democrats, Independents, Conservatives, and Republicans alike are traumatized by what they are seeing, Republicans are being energized. This charging up could be seen no better than in the Thursday night monthly gathering of the Watauga County Republican party.
The Republican Women reported an increase in attendance. The college Republicans said that attendance at meetings of the Young Republicans had drawn as many as 10 times the number as did the other side's meetings.
And, unlike in the last election, local Republicans are already announcing their plans to run. And, for those asking about tea parties” “Yes there will be a tea party April 15 on campus for all alarmed Americans.” Information about the local tea party should show up soon on the links for this post:
Tea Parties
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!
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Card Check, One More Government Power Grab
FROM THE HERITAGE FOUNDATIONThe misnamed Employee Free Choice Act does more than take away workers' rights to vote in private. It also gives control of the workplace to government bureaucrats.
Government officials would write the collective bargaining agreements of most newly organized companies. The government would set not just wages and benefits but all business operations that significantly affect workers, such as promotion procedures, retirement plans, health benefits, subcontracting, mergers, work assignments, even the machines used to run a plant. Employers would lose the ability to pursue their business strategies, and workers would lose all say about their workplace for two years.
EFCA effectively constitutes a government takeover of America's workplaces.
Monday, March 23, 2009
What Goes Around Comes Around
To you Liberals who are salivating over the idea of charging members of the Bush administration (and maybe even President Bush himself) with crimes, let me remind you that what goes around comes around.
What seems to bother you the most was that President Bush was successful at what he felt was his number one responsibility that 2001 thrust upon him–keep the enemy away from our shores.
He took the fight to the enemy and while other nations around the world were being attacked, America was safe.
Today, Obama feels his number one responsibility is saving the economy. So, suppose there is a populist revolt and a new administration comes in with the same type of mean spirited people that are now calling for Bush’s scalp? Using the template on Obama that is being used on Bush, successful or not, the Obama administration is put on trial for overstepping the Constitution while over nationalizing America. And if he is unsuccessful, his administration is also put on trial for bankrupting the country while trying to save it.
We can only hope that those on the radical-left knock it off before they screw up things for generations to come.
What seems to bother you the most was that President Bush was successful at what he felt was his number one responsibility that 2001 thrust upon him–keep the enemy away from our shores.
He took the fight to the enemy and while other nations around the world were being attacked, America was safe.
Today, Obama feels his number one responsibility is saving the economy. So, suppose there is a populist revolt and a new administration comes in with the same type of mean spirited people that are now calling for Bush’s scalp? Using the template on Obama that is being used on Bush, successful or not, the Obama administration is put on trial for overstepping the Constitution while over nationalizing America. And if he is unsuccessful, his administration is also put on trial for bankrupting the country while trying to save it.
We can only hope that those on the radical-left knock it off before they screw up things for generations to come.
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Republican Fortunes Looking Up
GOP Raised More Than Democrats Last Month
RNC Raised 5.1 million in February
DNC Raised Only $3.2 Million in February
Support for the Democratic Congressional candidates fell to a new low over the past week, allowing the GOP to move slightly head for the first time in recent years in the Generic Congressional Ballot.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 41% said they would vote for their district’s Republican candidate while 39% would choose the Democrat.
Investors now favor Republicans by a 46% to 36% margin
Fox News today reported a poll revealing Independents now split 46% for Republicans and 46% for Democrats
Republican Hypocrites Cochran, Wicker, Bond and Shelby
Below is the list of the Judases who voted for the $410 Billion Omnibus Budget Bill. They are such hogs they would rather stink up the party then give up their addictions.
Names and the amounts of their earmarks:
Thad Cochran, R-Miss.: $474 million
Roger Wicker, R-Miss.: $391 million
Christopher Bond, R-Mo.: $248 million
Richard Shelby, R-Ala.: $219 million
That adds up to a cool One Billion (yes Billion)Three Hundred Thirty Two Million for just those four alone.
They are among the top 10 porkers in the Senate. Do you wonder why we Republicans have contempt for our leaders?
Names and the amounts of their earmarks:
Thad Cochran, R-Miss.: $474 million
Roger Wicker, R-Miss.: $391 million
Christopher Bond, R-Mo.: $248 million
Richard Shelby, R-Ala.: $219 million
That adds up to a cool One Billion (yes Billion)Three Hundred Thirty Two Million for just those four alone.
They are among the top 10 porkers in the Senate. Do you wonder why we Republicans have contempt for our leaders?
Obama Opening for a Right Hook
I have lived through many elected officials. I have never known any to break as many major campaign promises as has this current president--major ones.
President Barack Obama and his West Wing lieutenants are playing on the world's largest stage, yet act as if no one is watching them when they contradict their campaign promises. That behavior is unwittingly giving the Republicans an opening.
Read entire article
Friday, March 20, 2009
Geithner Didn't Inherit the Policy
According to Newt Gingrich, Geithner Didn't Inherit the Policy of Throwing Billions at Failing Companies - He Helped Create It
Because when it comes to Washington's handling of the financial crisis, so far we've had the rule of politicians, not the rule of law.
Most prominent among the politicians in question is Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.
As Americans' level of outraged has risen, so has the level of finger pointing by Geithner and others for the mess we're in.
But Treasury Secretary Geithner is disingenuous at best and untruthful at worst when he says that he "inherited the worst fiscal situation in American history."
The truth is that Secretary Geithner didn't inherit the policy of throwing billions of taxpayer dollars at failing companies - he helped create it.
Even before he was Treasury Secretary - when he was still head of the New York Federal Reserve - Geithner was so deeply involved in the government's bail out of Bear Stearns, its take over of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and its bailout of AIG that this was the Washington Post's headline from September 19, 2008:
"In the Crucible of Crisis, Paulson, Bernanke and Geithner Forge a Committee of Three".
The first meeting of the first bailout - of Bear Stearns - was held in Geithner's office. And the first meeting of what has become a $170 billion bailout of AIG was held - where else? In Geithner's New York Fed office.
Because when it comes to Washington's handling of the financial crisis, so far we've had the rule of politicians, not the rule of law.
Most prominent among the politicians in question is Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.
As Americans' level of outraged has risen, so has the level of finger pointing by Geithner and others for the mess we're in.
But Treasury Secretary Geithner is disingenuous at best and untruthful at worst when he says that he "inherited the worst fiscal situation in American history."
The truth is that Secretary Geithner didn't inherit the policy of throwing billions of taxpayer dollars at failing companies - he helped create it.
Even before he was Treasury Secretary - when he was still head of the New York Federal Reserve - Geithner was so deeply involved in the government's bail out of Bear Stearns, its take over of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and its bailout of AIG that this was the Washington Post's headline from September 19, 2008:
"In the Crucible of Crisis, Paulson, Bernanke and Geithner Forge a Committee of Three".
The first meeting of the first bailout - of Bear Stearns - was held in Geithner's office. And the first meeting of what has become a $170 billion bailout of AIG was held - where else? In Geithner's New York Fed office.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Why the GOP Can't Win With Minorities.
Wall Street Jounal This is a difficult article and requires real motivation to study it. Nevertheless, it is important for Conservatives.
The author is a Conservative Black and writes from the viewpoint of an honest concern for our party. “The appeal of conservatism is the mutuality it asserts between individual and political freedom, its beautiful idea of a free man in a free society. And it offers minorities the one thing they can never get from liberalism: human rather than racial dignity.”
Liberals, he points out have the advantage because they can create acts of redemption. In the 60's America admitted it had sinned against Blacks. Liberalism then could claim the moral ground by saying “we acted.” Example: “Redemptive liberalism would proactively engineer the good. Name a good like ‘integration,’ and then engineer it into being through a draconian regimen of school busing. If the busing did profound damage to public education in America, it gave liberals the right to say, ‘At least we did something’. In other words, we are activists against America’s old sin of segregation. Activism is moral authority in redemptive liberalism.”
Conservatives on the other hand are in a bind. Once we had admitted our sin of segregation in the 60's, there was no time to allow individual freedom to render up the social good (ideas which actually have their roots in classical liberalism). Instead of redemptive activism as moral, “conservatism sees moral authority more in a discipline of principles than in activism.. . . Conservatism would enforce the principles that ensure individual freedom, and then allow ‘the good’ to happen by ‘invisible hand.”
After a discussion about why blacks need to stay racially aggrieved now, not because they feel aggrieved, but as a way to stay united as a community, he goes on: “Today’s liberalism may stand on decades of failed ideas, but it is failure in the name of American redemption.”
He concludes with “Liberalism’s glamour follows from its promise of a new American innocence. But the appeal of conservatism is relief from this supercilious idea. Innocence is not possible for America. This nation did what it did. And conservatism’s appeal is that it does not bank on the recovery of lost innocence. It seeks the discipline of ordinary people rather than the virtuousness of extraordinary people. The challenge for conservatives today is simply self-acceptance, and even a little pride in the way we flail away at problems with an invisible hand.”
The author is a Conservative Black and writes from the viewpoint of an honest concern for our party. “The appeal of conservatism is the mutuality it asserts between individual and political freedom, its beautiful idea of a free man in a free society. And it offers minorities the one thing they can never get from liberalism: human rather than racial dignity.”
Liberals, he points out have the advantage because they can create acts of redemption. In the 60's America admitted it had sinned against Blacks. Liberalism then could claim the moral ground by saying “we acted.” Example: “Redemptive liberalism would proactively engineer the good. Name a good like ‘integration,’ and then engineer it into being through a draconian regimen of school busing. If the busing did profound damage to public education in America, it gave liberals the right to say, ‘At least we did something’. In other words, we are activists against America’s old sin of segregation. Activism is moral authority in redemptive liberalism.”
Conservatives on the other hand are in a bind. Once we had admitted our sin of segregation in the 60's, there was no time to allow individual freedom to render up the social good (ideas which actually have their roots in classical liberalism). Instead of redemptive activism as moral, “conservatism sees moral authority more in a discipline of principles than in activism.. . . Conservatism would enforce the principles that ensure individual freedom, and then allow ‘the good’ to happen by ‘invisible hand.”
After a discussion about why blacks need to stay racially aggrieved now, not because they feel aggrieved, but as a way to stay united as a community, he goes on: “Today’s liberalism may stand on decades of failed ideas, but it is failure in the name of American redemption.”
He concludes with “Liberalism’s glamour follows from its promise of a new American innocence. But the appeal of conservatism is relief from this supercilious idea. Innocence is not possible for America. This nation did what it did. And conservatism’s appeal is that it does not bank on the recovery of lost innocence. It seeks the discipline of ordinary people rather than the virtuousness of extraordinary people. The challenge for conservatives today is simply self-acceptance, and even a little pride in the way we flail away at problems with an invisible hand.”
Monday, March 16, 2009
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Press Gets Ready Again to Cover Federal Prosecuters Story
Congress subpoenas Karl Rove regarding the replacing of the federal prosecutors The press gears up to cover the story once again.
Friday, March 13, 2009
The Employee
Unions set to destroy Southern industry! Write your Congressperson and say no to cardcheck..
Foxx Authors Another Government Accountability Law
March 13, 2009, Foxx introduces legislation to hold government accountable.
Bill requires reporting of all spending on non-English government services.
WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Representative Virginia Foxx (NC-05) introduced legislation this week that will bring more openness and accountability to federal government spending. Her legislation, the Multilingual Services Accounting Act, requires all federal government bureaucracies to annually report how much taxpayer money is spent to provide government services in languages other than English.
“Our government spends untold sums providing government services in a multitude of languages—with little or no accountability for how this money is spent and with no information on the value of this spending,” Rep. Foxx said. “American taxpayers deserve better. They deserve a full accounting of how their government spends their tax dollars.”
Federal government agencies currently do not have to report how much money they spend to provide government services and publications in languages other than English. Foxx’s legislation fixes this problem by requiring that each of the 24 federal bureaucracies report multilingual expenditures in their annual reports to the Office of Management and Budget.
Without this basic accounting information, the federal government has no way of knowing how much it spends to provide multilingual services.
“Responsible government must be transparent and accountable,” Foxx said. “By shining the light on how much money is spent on non-English services we can ensure tax dollars are not squandered on wasteful projects.”
The Multilingual Services Accounting Act (H.R. 1414) is supported by the advocacy groups U.S. English and ProEnglish as a responsible accounting practice. A growing number of states also have passed laws requiring state government agencies to account for spending on multilingual services, such as Wisconsin did in 2008.
"All too often, the provision of multilingual government services has been a decision made by a single bureaucrat or bureaucrats without the consent of Congress," said Mauro E. Mujica, Chairman of U.S. English. “I want to thank Rep. Foxx for her dedication to government accountability and to the American people."
Bill requires reporting of all spending on non-English government services.
WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Representative Virginia Foxx (NC-05) introduced legislation this week that will bring more openness and accountability to federal government spending. Her legislation, the Multilingual Services Accounting Act, requires all federal government bureaucracies to annually report how much taxpayer money is spent to provide government services in languages other than English.
“Our government spends untold sums providing government services in a multitude of languages—with little or no accountability for how this money is spent and with no information on the value of this spending,” Rep. Foxx said. “American taxpayers deserve better. They deserve a full accounting of how their government spends their tax dollars.”
Federal government agencies currently do not have to report how much money they spend to provide government services and publications in languages other than English. Foxx’s legislation fixes this problem by requiring that each of the 24 federal bureaucracies report multilingual expenditures in their annual reports to the Office of Management and Budget.
Without this basic accounting information, the federal government has no way of knowing how much it spends to provide multilingual services.
“Responsible government must be transparent and accountable,” Foxx said. “By shining the light on how much money is spent on non-English services we can ensure tax dollars are not squandered on wasteful projects.”
The Multilingual Services Accounting Act (H.R. 1414) is supported by the advocacy groups U.S. English and ProEnglish as a responsible accounting practice. A growing number of states also have passed laws requiring state government agencies to account for spending on multilingual services, such as Wisconsin did in 2008.
"All too often, the provision of multilingual government services has been a decision made by a single bureaucrat or bureaucrats without the consent of Congress," said Mauro E. Mujica, Chairman of U.S. English. “I want to thank Rep. Foxx for her dedication to government accountability and to the American people."
Grandaughter, Ask Obama For Help
A Letter From a Granddad (Going around on the e-mail, author unknown)
Guess you heard that 68% of the youth vote went to Obama. My granddaughter called this morning to tell me she was one of them. I replied with this e-mail:
Dear Susan,
The election of Obama comes down to this. Your grandmother and I, your mother, and other productive, wage-earning tax payers will have their taxes increased and that means less income left over. Less income means we will have to cut back on basic purchases, gifts and handouts. That includes firing the Hispanic lady who cleans our house twice a month. She just lost her job. We can't afford her anymore.
What is the economic effect of Obama's election on you personally? Over the years, your grandmother and I have given you thousands of dollars in food, housing, cash, clothing, gifts, etc. By your vote, you have chosen another family over ours for help. So in the future, if you need assistance with your rent, money for gas, tires for your car, someone to bring you lunch, etc. ... call 202-456-1111 . That's the telephone number for the Office of the President of the United States . I'm sure Mr. Obama will be happy to send a check from his personal or business accounts, as we have, or leave cash in an envelope taped to his front door for you, as we have.
It's like this. Those who vote for the President of the United States should consider what the impact of an election will be on the nation as a whole and not just be concerned with what they can get for themselves (welfare, stimulus checks, etc.). What Obama voters don't seem to realize is that the government's money comes from taxes collected from tax paying families. Raising taxes on productive people means they will have less money to spend on their families.
Congratulations on your choice. For future reference, you might attempt to add up all you've received from us, your mom, Mike's parents and others and compare it to what you expect to get over the next four years from Mr. Obama.
To congratulate Mr. Obama and to make sure you're on the list for handouts, write to:
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20500
Love you Susan, but call the number listed above when you need help.
Granddad
Guess you heard that 68% of the youth vote went to Obama. My granddaughter called this morning to tell me she was one of them. I replied with this e-mail:
Dear Susan,
The election of Obama comes down to this. Your grandmother and I, your mother, and other productive, wage-earning tax payers will have their taxes increased and that means less income left over. Less income means we will have to cut back on basic purchases, gifts and handouts. That includes firing the Hispanic lady who cleans our house twice a month. She just lost her job. We can't afford her anymore.
What is the economic effect of Obama's election on you personally? Over the years, your grandmother and I have given you thousands of dollars in food, housing, cash, clothing, gifts, etc. By your vote, you have chosen another family over ours for help. So in the future, if you need assistance with your rent, money for gas, tires for your car, someone to bring you lunch, etc. ... call 202-456-1111 . That's the telephone number for the Office of the President of the United States . I'm sure Mr. Obama will be happy to send a check from his personal or business accounts, as we have, or leave cash in an envelope taped to his front door for you, as we have.
It's like this. Those who vote for the President of the United States should consider what the impact of an election will be on the nation as a whole and not just be concerned with what they can get for themselves (welfare, stimulus checks, etc.). What Obama voters don't seem to realize is that the government's money comes from taxes collected from tax paying families. Raising taxes on productive people means they will have less money to spend on their families.
Congratulations on your choice. For future reference, you might attempt to add up all you've received from us, your mom, Mike's parents and others and compare it to what you expect to get over the next four years from Mr. Obama.
To congratulate Mr. Obama and to make sure you're on the list for handouts, write to:
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20500
Love you Susan, but call the number listed above when you need help.
Granddad
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Leno on Obama's Tax Plans
President Obama continues to have problems filling Cabinet positions. CNN’s medical expert Sanjay Gupta turned down the job as surgeon general. He said he didn’t want to take the big pay cut. Obama said to him, “Hey don’t worry about it — after my tax hike, it'll work out to the same money anyway.”
Jay Leno
Jay Leno
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Abandoning the Obama Ship
Posted by Oatz Treasury This Moment By The Prowler on 3.6.09 @ 6:10AM
"People think Wall Street and our economy are in a mess? They have nothing on what we're going through here," said a career Treasury Department official after learning yesterday that former U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission member Annette Nazareth had withdrawn from consideration to serve as deputy Treasury secretary.
Senior White House officials were telling reporters on background last night that Nazareth withdrew from consideration because initial feedback from the Senate on her possible nomination was that she would endure a tough confirmation process due to her role at the SEC directing oversight of market regulation. But associates of Nazareth familiar with the situation say that there were other reasons for her to pull out. "She simply lost confidence in [Treasury Secretary Timothy] Geithner," says a colleague of Nazareth's at the law firm, Davis Polk & Wardwell. "There's a lot of that going around, we hear."
Nazareth's decision is doubly embarrassing for the Obama White House because, her husband, Roger Ferguson, current CEO of TIAA-CREFF and former Vice Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, currently serves on the Economic Recovery Advisory Board, a post he was given by Obama.
Creating further confusion at Treasury, Caroline Atkinson, who currently works at the International Monetary Fund, also withdrew from consideration as undersecretary for international affairs. According to Treasury and Capitol Hill sources, her decision was linked to possible tax situations similar to that of Geithner.
"We have no one here. There is no leadership," says another senior career Treasury official. "I've never seen anything like it. We have a secretary who seems to have no understanding of what his job entails, and no one in the White House seems to either know it or want to acknowledge it. We have people making decisions who shouldn't be making decisions, and in positions where we should have people making decisions about our domestic economy, our banking system and our Wall Street recovery plan, we have no one. People should be alarmed by this, but no one seems to care."
Currently, the only Senate-confirmed undersecretary is Stuart Levey, undersecretary for terrorism and financial intelligence, but he is a Bush Administration confirmee, held over by the Obama Administration.
Late Thursday night rumors swirled around the Obama White House that Lee Sachs, a former assistant Treasury secretary in the Clinton Administration, who worked on the Obama transition team and who was "pitching in" in an advisory role for Geither, was also mulling withdrawing from consideration for a senior Treasury post.
Both Treasury officials who spoke on background say that there is a growing lack of confidence within the department over Geithner. One said, "He is a nice man, but he is out of his depth."
On Wednesday, according to a senior Democratic leadership aide, Sen. Max Baucus, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, was "underwhelmed" by Geithner's performance during testimony on the budget. "I think it's safe to say that at least the Senate Democratic leadership is less than pleased with the performance of this White House and this Treasury Department. It's a ***damned mess."
"People think Wall Street and our economy are in a mess? They have nothing on what we're going through here," said a career Treasury Department official after learning yesterday that former U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission member Annette Nazareth had withdrawn from consideration to serve as deputy Treasury secretary.
Senior White House officials were telling reporters on background last night that Nazareth withdrew from consideration because initial feedback from the Senate on her possible nomination was that she would endure a tough confirmation process due to her role at the SEC directing oversight of market regulation. But associates of Nazareth familiar with the situation say that there were other reasons for her to pull out. "She simply lost confidence in [Treasury Secretary Timothy] Geithner," says a colleague of Nazareth's at the law firm, Davis Polk & Wardwell. "There's a lot of that going around, we hear."
Nazareth's decision is doubly embarrassing for the Obama White House because, her husband, Roger Ferguson, current CEO of TIAA-CREFF and former Vice Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, currently serves on the Economic Recovery Advisory Board, a post he was given by Obama.
Creating further confusion at Treasury, Caroline Atkinson, who currently works at the International Monetary Fund, also withdrew from consideration as undersecretary for international affairs. According to Treasury and Capitol Hill sources, her decision was linked to possible tax situations similar to that of Geithner.
"We have no one here. There is no leadership," says another senior career Treasury official. "I've never seen anything like it. We have a secretary who seems to have no understanding of what his job entails, and no one in the White House seems to either know it or want to acknowledge it. We have people making decisions who shouldn't be making decisions, and in positions where we should have people making decisions about our domestic economy, our banking system and our Wall Street recovery plan, we have no one. People should be alarmed by this, but no one seems to care."
Currently, the only Senate-confirmed undersecretary is Stuart Levey, undersecretary for terrorism and financial intelligence, but he is a Bush Administration confirmee, held over by the Obama Administration.
Late Thursday night rumors swirled around the Obama White House that Lee Sachs, a former assistant Treasury secretary in the Clinton Administration, who worked on the Obama transition team and who was "pitching in" in an advisory role for Geither, was also mulling withdrawing from consideration for a senior Treasury post.
Both Treasury officials who spoke on background say that there is a growing lack of confidence within the department over Geithner. One said, "He is a nice man, but he is out of his depth."
On Wednesday, according to a senior Democratic leadership aide, Sen. Max Baucus, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, was "underwhelmed" by Geithner's performance during testimony on the budget. "I think it's safe to say that at least the Senate Democratic leadership is less than pleased with the performance of this White House and this Treasury Department. It's a ***damned mess."
The Founding Fathers Would have Wanted Obama to Fail Too
Posted by Oatz. March 10, 2009
The Founding Fathers would have wanted Obama to fail too
Rick Moran
Byron York has an excellent article in today's DC Examiner that discusses James Madison and the founder's view on the kind of government Obama envisions for America. They would not have approved:
In the Federalist Papers, written 221 years ago, Madison addressed the need for a Senate to accompany the more populist House of Representatives. An upper body, he wrote, “may be sometimes necessary as a defense to the people against their own temporary errors and delusions.”
For the times when a political leader would attempt to capitalize on those errors and delusions, the Founders prescribed the Senate, with its members elected to terms three times the length of those in the House, originally chosen not by the people but by the state legislatures. From Federalist 63:
“There are particular moments in public affairs when the people, stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be the most ready to lament and condemn. In these critical moments, how salutary will be the interference of some temperate and respectable body of citizens, in order to check the misguided career, and to suspend the blow meditated by the people against themselves, until reason, justice, and truth can regain their authority over the public mind?”
Now is the time for the salutary interference of temperate and respectable citizens, otherwise known as the 41 Republicans in the United States Senate. It is their job to help the president in areas where there is widespread agreement that he should be helped, and hold the line on everything else.
President Obama, his chief of staff, and Hillary Clinton have all now come out and said straight out that they want to use this economic crisis as an "opportunity" to fulfill a wishlist of liberal programs and to remake America into something it isn't. It's not the platform they ran on. It is not what people voted for. But they are doing it because they believe that Obama is popular enough that the people will swallow anything as long as he attaches the words "economic crisis to it."
I think it should be clear to all by now that this president sees economic recovery as a secondary goal to radically changing America. With a war on business, on the free market, on the independence of the American people, Obama is seeking nothing less than a transformation of the United States into something more like a European social democracy than any vision or imagined state our founders thought about so many years ago.
Just because they can do it, they are doing it. A sad reason to throw what America has been out the window.
Lyndon Baines Obama
CLICK FOR FULL STORY It was the winter of conservative discontent.
Barry Goldwater had gotten only 38 percent of the vote, and his
party had suffered its worst thrashing since Alf Landon fell to FDR in 1936.
Democrats held 295 House seats, Republicans 140. They held 68 Senate seats to Republicans' 32, and 33 governors to the GOP's 17.
Democratic registration was twice that of the GOP. The liberal press was gleefully writing the obituary of "The Party That Lost Its Head."
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Different Presidents, A Different Corps
Thanks to Sarkazein. I predict relations with the military will get even cooler as Obama continues to send mixed signals.
Obama 60, Bush 63, Carter 75
President Obama's Job Approval Rating In Perspective
Karl Rove
While the latest Gallup poll (3/3-3/5) shows 62% of Americans approve of the way President Obama has been doing his job, how does that compare with how other recent presidents fared in their first months in office?
Obama’s approval rating is approximately on par with that of several of his predecessors: George W. Bush had a 63% approval rating in a March 5-7, 2001 poll, and George H. W. Bush was also at 63% in a February28-March 2, 1989 poll.
But early approval ratings may not offer much information about the rest of a president’s first term. For example, at this point in his presidency, Clinton held a 53% approval rating in a March 12-14 poll and saw his approval-rating fall as low as 37% by early June 1993. But heading into his re-election in October 1996, he was back up to a 58% approval rating.
On the other hand, Carter was as high as 75% in March 1977, only to see his approval-rating fall to 31% over the summer of 1980. It’s too soon to say whether Obama will end his first term more like Clinton or Carter, but one thing is clear: Obama may have won the widest electoral victory since 1988, but six weeks into his presidency, his approval rating is average, rather than extraordinary.
Most Recent
Karl Rove
While the latest Gallup poll (3/3-3/5) shows 62% of Americans approve of the way President Obama has been doing his job, how does that compare with how other recent presidents fared in their first months in office?
Obama’s approval rating is approximately on par with that of several of his predecessors: George W. Bush had a 63% approval rating in a March 5-7, 2001 poll, and George H. W. Bush was also at 63% in a February28-March 2, 1989 poll.
But early approval ratings may not offer much information about the rest of a president’s first term. For example, at this point in his presidency, Clinton held a 53% approval rating in a March 12-14 poll and saw his approval-rating fall as low as 37% by early June 1993. But heading into his re-election in October 1996, he was back up to a 58% approval rating.
On the other hand, Carter was as high as 75% in March 1977, only to see his approval-rating fall to 31% over the summer of 1980. It’s too soon to say whether Obama will end his first term more like Clinton or Carter, but one thing is clear: Obama may have won the widest electoral victory since 1988, but six weeks into his presidency, his approval rating is average, rather than extraordinary.
Most Recent
Saturday, March 7, 2009
Watauga Republican Convention
Two representatives from the North Carolina Republican Party attended the Watauga County Republican Party Convention Saturday, February, 7, 2009. Noting the huge crowd in attendance, they informed us that the turnout is phenomenal at conventions all over the state.
Our Convention was addressed by Congresswoman Virginia Foxx. She observed that numerous people were letting her know they are seeing her on national TV. She commented that it was not her that had stirred the interest so much as it was the issue with which she has become identified. The issue of squandering taxpayers’ money is beginning to take hold.
Regarding the bill now being rammed through the Senate, she posed the question, “Why this year of all years, should the President and Congress increase the budget by 8.3% “ She asked the gathering how many of them had received an 8.3% raise this year. No hands.
There are however, some people who just don’t get it yet. She described a visit by some people to her office. She was illustrating her position as follows. Under this latest bailout bill, a person owes $100,000 on their mortgage. The bankruptcy judge tells them to pay $60,000. She asks her visitors “Who now picks up the other $40,000?” They replied “The bankers do. They just won’t make as much money.” That is when she threw up her hands.
She also remembered when she was in the NC State Senate, the Democrats would say “We have to pass this bill, otherwise we won’t get the Federal money for matching funds.” Folks, there is no Federal money, only taxpayers’ and money borrowed from China.
She also told of infuriating Appropriation Chairman Obey. He did not want to hear about the nearly 9000 earmarks in the bill to be voted on this week. When she faced him down, he became so enraged, he slammed the papers on the desk and exited, stage Left.
At one moment, she was telling us how every morning when she wakes up, and every evening before going to sleep, she thanks God for letting her live in this wonderful country. At that point, she teared up. Of course we could connect because we all feel that way.
Finally, she complemented us on our choice of Aaron Whitener to be the new Chair of the Watauga County Republican Party. She has watched him over the years and describes him as one of the hardest workers and sharpest persons she knows.
Moving on about the Convention. A letter from Senator Burr to us was read in which he reminded us that we must work hard to get him re-elected. “We cannot afford to let Harry Reid get the 60th Senator.”
Among others reporting was Alex Hege, the new president of the ASU Republicans. He was able to attend CPAC in Washington, and described the moving experience of being with 9000 turned on Conservatives, a huge number of them, young people. And, speaking of young people, there were a lot of them at our local convention, and this is Spring Break! That drew a big round of applause.
At long last, I got to rag the older people in the party who lament they are too old to learn to use the new technology. I said excuses were not acceptable as my advanced age trumped most everyone in the room.
Delegates to the regional and state convention were then elected. It was another great convention.
Friday, March 6, 2009
He's My President, But I don't Have to Like It
HE'S MY PRESIDENT, BUT I DON'T HAVE TO LIKE IT Prelutsky has written exactly what I would have liked to have written--verbatim.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Mendacious Dems
Posted by Oatz: CBO Report: Democrat Plan Will Reduce Economic Output
The Congressional Budget Office again released a report that shows that the Democratic stimulus plan will actually reduce economic output.
The Republican Study Committee released this statement earlier today:
Republican Study Committee Chairman Tom Price (R-GA) issued the following statement in response to a false claim made by House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD). Hoyer distributed a statement claiming that a new report by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) affirms that the Democrats’ massive non-stimulus package will lead to economic recovery. The report actually confirms previous statements by the CBO indicating that the Democrats’ spending spree will stunt economic growth and cause long-term harm.
“Democrats want to believe that their spending spree will lead to economic recovery, but that doesn’t make it true,” said Chairman Price. “It’s not hard to figure out that these reckless tax-and-spend policies are the last thing this country needs during a recession.
“History has long shown that their agenda won’t lead to recovery. Now, nonpartisan experts have weighed in with the same assessment. It makes one wonder when the Democrats will start to listen.”
Note: The CBO, responding to Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Charles Grassley’s request, prepared a year-by-year estimate of the economic effects of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Though Majority Leader Hoyer has touted CBO’s estimate, the report clearly states: “In contrast to its positive near-term macroeconomic effects, the legislation will reduce output slightly in the long run.”
The Congressional Budget Office again released a report that shows that the Democratic stimulus plan will actually reduce economic output.
The Republican Study Committee released this statement earlier today:
Republican Study Committee Chairman Tom Price (R-GA) issued the following statement in response to a false claim made by House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD). Hoyer distributed a statement claiming that a new report by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) affirms that the Democrats’ massive non-stimulus package will lead to economic recovery. The report actually confirms previous statements by the CBO indicating that the Democrats’ spending spree will stunt economic growth and cause long-term harm.
“Democrats want to believe that their spending spree will lead to economic recovery, but that doesn’t make it true,” said Chairman Price. “It’s not hard to figure out that these reckless tax-and-spend policies are the last thing this country needs during a recession.
“History has long shown that their agenda won’t lead to recovery. Now, nonpartisan experts have weighed in with the same assessment. It makes one wonder when the Democrats will start to listen.”
Note: The CBO, responding to Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Charles Grassley’s request, prepared a year-by-year estimate of the economic effects of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Though Majority Leader Hoyer has touted CBO’s estimate, the report clearly states: “In contrast to its positive near-term macroeconomic effects, the legislation will reduce output slightly in the long run.”
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Rush as Obama's Strawman
Heads up everybody, including all dittoheads. Obama-Ron Emmanuel have a scheme to use Rush Limbaugh. This Goebbels inspired scheme is to first convince the people that Rush is the Republican party. Then demonize him.
Of course, they are upping Rush's listenership. Thank God, Americans are not stupid.
Of course, they are upping Rush's listenership. Thank God, Americans are not stupid.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Monday, March 2, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)