Remember the line, "you will get to keep your doctors?" Well, we just lost another one. We have Tricare Prime. My 12 year old son has migraines and is ADHD. He's on Intunive and Concerta. His neurologist wanted him on an ADHD med that didn't have a stimulant, so he lowered the Concerta dose and added Intunive. His pediatrician handles the concerta script, while he does the Intunive. I called to refill the Intunive (which had several refills left) and was told they couldn't refill it. They told us to contact our doctor. Well, I've lost the business card, so I went to the website to find it. First of all they've changed all the categories and no longer have Child Neurologist. I had to look under Nervous System Disorders. I found my neurologist (who only does adults) but could not find his. I've lost another doctor.
I had to call his pediatrician to see if they can mail me a prescription for Intunive while I search for another child neurologist that takes my insurance. And I have GOVERNMENT INSURANCE. I tried to warn everyone about this 2 years ago, and no one would listen.
We have got to get Obamacare repealed. The insurance companies are deserting Medicaide and Tricare Prime like rats leaving a sinking ship. The government doesn't reimburse in a timely manner, nor very much. They're losing money. I had written an article a few years back when I went through all my receipts and discovered that they reimburse at about 19%. What if I owed the government taxes after I filed and decided to only send them 19% of what I owed? Do you think I could get away with it? If they are trying to force doctors to lower their prices, this is NOT the way to do it. They'll just make it to where doctors will refuse to take Medicaid/Medicare/Tricare. The only reason they currently take Tricare Standard is that the government only pays 80% of WHAT THEY ALLOW on claims. The hospital can come after the patient for the rest. Say you have a doctor's visit that costs $200. The government decides it's only worth $120. So they send the doctor $96 (which is 80%). The doctor will come back and tell you, well, they paid $96, you owe us $104. They won't say, ok, you only owe us $24. Where are they going to get the other $80? They may cost shift it, and charge people with other insurance plans $280 for their visit, but they are not going to lower their price to $120. If they did lower it to $120, the government would decide it would only pay $80, and then send them 80% of that, which is $64. You'd be paying $56 instead of $16.
Do they think no one in America has a calculator? Or is it that they figure they've dumbed down the younger generation of takers enough that they won't notice?
This is outrageous. The Tea Party better get their act together and get behind one candidate.
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
Sunday, August 14, 2011
Taxes and Executive orders
I've been wondering about the report that President Obama wants to list all Farm Equipment as commercial vehicles and anyone who drives it will be required to have a CDL (Commercial Driver's License). I just got an email that lists all the current taxes. Did you know there's a tax on getting a CDL? If this passes, he'll be able to tax the farmers out of one hand, while giving them subsidies out of the other. He is desperate for revenue.
Here's a list of all the taxes (I don't know if this includes ALL taxes or not)
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 Tax (currently 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
Recreational Vehicle Tax
Sales 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 Nonrecurring 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
Some of these I can't comment on because I know nothing about them or don't have a theory. I realize that these have been in effect for a while, and I am not blaming Obama for STARTING the tax, just for exploiting the fact that it's there. I'm so glad we are all waking up, Republicans and Democrats, to what has been taking place in our country over the past 110 years or so.
Corporate Income Tax....he wants to raise the taxes on corporations. I didn't study economics (and I don't play an economist on TV), but someone owns that corporation, right? Don't they already pay taxes on what they themselves make? That would be double taxing someone.
Inheritance tax....couple that with Obamacare and their death panels, and you have people collecting inheritances before they'd planned because the government deems their parents too old to be treated. Taxes gathered in earlier.
IRS Interest Charges IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax).... Can we charge interest on them when they don't pay us in time? How about all the people who get all of their taxes back because they didn't earn enough. Do they get to charge taxes on the fact that the government has earned interest on the money they collected during the year? If they invested that money, they earned interest on it.
Marriage License Tax.....Ever wonder why he's all for gay marriage? More people paying the Marriage License Tax. I'm surprised he doesn't lower the age for marriage so all his Muslim brothers who want to marry 4 women and as young as "in the cradle" will be taxed...oh, wait, Muslims aren't supposed to tax other Muslims or charge them interest.
Medicare Tax....again, couple this with Obamacare. He wanted more people on Medicare. Or, if this means the Medicare taken out of your check, couple it with Amnesty. Get the Illegals actually being paid above the table instead of under the table and you get more taxes. Bet the ones who vote for him won't realize this.
Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax...Does this apply to cell phones? He's trying to get cell phones as a right. They're also giving out free phones (at least one company is, but I forgot their name at the moment). My son who is on SSI (adult handicapped) got a notice that said he could have a free cell phone. I didn't take them up on it because why would I give a phone to a mentally handicapped adult? I guess this is for the people on Disability that aren't really disabled and the welfare recipients.
Utility Taxes....Remember, under his plan, utilities will necessarily sky rocket.
Once again, I'm not blaming Obama for STARTING these taxes, just taking advantage of them. Some have said that he's inept and not very intelligent. I disagree. I believe he knows exactly what he's doing. If you don't believe me, look up the Cloward and Piven strategy. He's following it as best he can. Overwhelm the system, and it will crash. He can then restart it as a communist/Marxist system.
As an update: On April 15th, World Net Daily came out with a story about the tract of land (called the buffer zone) that was transferred to the Obama's wasn't assessed or had taxes paid on it. Here's the link for the article: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=332929
According to Wikipedia (and I don't like to use them because they're very liberal/socialist): A property tax (or millage tax) is an ad valorem tax levy on the value of property that the owner of the property is required to pay to a government in which the property is situated. Multiple jurisdictions may tax the same property.
So, if you don't claim part of your property because it was given at different times, your real estate will be valued below what it actually is worth. Therefore you would pay less taxes. it's like adding square footage to your house and not having it reassessed. With normal average citizens, once they find out, they back charge you. Is Obama, a lawyer, going to say he didn't know?
Here's a list of all the taxes (I don't know if this includes ALL taxes or not)
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 Tax (currently 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
Recreational Vehicle Tax
Sales 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 Nonrecurring 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
Some of these I can't comment on because I know nothing about them or don't have a theory. I realize that these have been in effect for a while, and I am not blaming Obama for STARTING the tax, just for exploiting the fact that it's there. I'm so glad we are all waking up, Republicans and Democrats, to what has been taking place in our country over the past 110 years or so.
Corporate Income Tax....he wants to raise the taxes on corporations. I didn't study economics (and I don't play an economist on TV), but someone owns that corporation, right? Don't they already pay taxes on what they themselves make? That would be double taxing someone.
Inheritance tax....couple that with Obamacare and their death panels, and you have people collecting inheritances before they'd planned because the government deems their parents too old to be treated. Taxes gathered in earlier.
IRS Interest Charges IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax).... Can we charge interest on them when they don't pay us in time? How about all the people who get all of their taxes back because they didn't earn enough. Do they get to charge taxes on the fact that the government has earned interest on the money they collected during the year? If they invested that money, they earned interest on it.
Marriage License Tax.....Ever wonder why he's all for gay marriage? More people paying the Marriage License Tax. I'm surprised he doesn't lower the age for marriage so all his Muslim brothers who want to marry 4 women and as young as "in the cradle" will be taxed...oh, wait, Muslims aren't supposed to tax other Muslims or charge them interest.
Medicare Tax....again, couple this with Obamacare. He wanted more people on Medicare. Or, if this means the Medicare taken out of your check, couple it with Amnesty. Get the Illegals actually being paid above the table instead of under the table and you get more taxes. Bet the ones who vote for him won't realize this.
Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax...Does this apply to cell phones? He's trying to get cell phones as a right. They're also giving out free phones (at least one company is, but I forgot their name at the moment). My son who is on SSI (adult handicapped) got a notice that said he could have a free cell phone. I didn't take them up on it because why would I give a phone to a mentally handicapped adult? I guess this is for the people on Disability that aren't really disabled and the welfare recipients.
Utility Taxes....Remember, under his plan, utilities will necessarily sky rocket.
Once again, I'm not blaming Obama for STARTING these taxes, just taking advantage of them. Some have said that he's inept and not very intelligent. I disagree. I believe he knows exactly what he's doing. If you don't believe me, look up the Cloward and Piven strategy. He's following it as best he can. Overwhelm the system, and it will crash. He can then restart it as a communist/Marxist system.
As an update: On April 15th, World Net Daily came out with a story about the tract of land (called the buffer zone) that was transferred to the Obama's wasn't assessed or had taxes paid on it. Here's the link for the article: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=332929
According to Wikipedia (and I don't like to use them because they're very liberal/socialist): A property tax (or millage tax) is an ad valorem tax levy on the value of property that the owner of the property is required to pay to a government in which the property is situated. Multiple jurisdictions may tax the same property.
So, if you don't claim part of your property because it was given at different times, your real estate will be valued below what it actually is worth. Therefore you would pay less taxes. it's like adding square footage to your house and not having it reassessed. With normal average citizens, once they find out, they back charge you. Is Obama, a lawyer, going to say he didn't know?
Monday, August 8, 2011
Obamacare fallout
Well, I've discovered another consequence of Obamacare. I just went to get eye exams for me and my youngest son (actually back in July). The last time I got an eye exam, which was about three years ago, I could go anywhere, as long as I filed my own claim. I always went to Walmart. Walmart doesn't take Medicaid, which my oldest son is on. So I found an eye doctor that takes Medicaid. I thought, since my youngest son and I needed eye exams, we'd use the same place. I know they only pay for one eye exam every two years, which is stupid in and of itself. Every eye doctor I've ever gone to (and I've had glasses for 42 years) tells you to get an eye exam every year.
Well, I went, with my son, and filed the claim. Now, usually Tricare Prime will allow about 80% of what you actually bill, and then pay 80% of that. So you automatically deduct 40% and that's what you can expect to get back. I get the claim form, and they allowed the whole $65, but made it a deductible. So I called to find out what was up. I didn't go to one of their "approved" places. They labeled it a Point of Service, and basically disallowed it. And I bet this other place charges more than $65.
I just called and the place that actually takes Tricare Prime, charges $160 for an eye exam. Well, can you say Cloward and Piven? Let's double the price, and not pay for anyone who goes to a cheaper place. So, with all the financial distress this country is in, if I decide to go to a cheaper place, I have to pay for it myself. And we wonder why this country is in the mess it's in.
In addition to this, I had another claim that I filed. I got lymphadema in both arms from my cancer treatment. I had to buy lymphadema sleeves (compression sleeves). I paid $184 for the two together. They reimbursed me $88 and change. So they normally take off something like 20% and then reimburse you 80% of what they allow. But they will allow the full amount when they don't expect to have to pay it back to you.
Like I said, can you say Cloward and Piven?
Well, I went, with my son, and filed the claim. Now, usually Tricare Prime will allow about 80% of what you actually bill, and then pay 80% of that. So you automatically deduct 40% and that's what you can expect to get back. I get the claim form, and they allowed the whole $65, but made it a deductible. So I called to find out what was up. I didn't go to one of their "approved" places. They labeled it a Point of Service, and basically disallowed it. And I bet this other place charges more than $65.
I just called and the place that actually takes Tricare Prime, charges $160 for an eye exam. Well, can you say Cloward and Piven? Let's double the price, and not pay for anyone who goes to a cheaper place. So, with all the financial distress this country is in, if I decide to go to a cheaper place, I have to pay for it myself. And we wonder why this country is in the mess it's in.
In addition to this, I had another claim that I filed. I got lymphadema in both arms from my cancer treatment. I had to buy lymphadema sleeves (compression sleeves). I paid $184 for the two together. They reimbursed me $88 and change. So they normally take off something like 20% and then reimburse you 80% of what they allow. But they will allow the full amount when they don't expect to have to pay it back to you.
Like I said, can you say Cloward and Piven?
Friday, August 5, 2011
African Socialism revisited
Hopefully this will go through. It seems my first attempt to post this must have hit a filter on Google blogs. It didn't post, and now I'll have to try to remember all I said.
I wrote a critique of Barak H. Obama Sr.'s critique of Sessional Paper No. 10 a while back, but with all that's gone on in the last couple of years, I thought I'd revisit it. I've learned a lot about this administration in the past two and a half years. This reveals a lot of their agenda.
I'll put direct quotes from the critique (in Barak H. Obama Sr.'s own words) in quotation marks. I'll then follow up with my critique (these are my opinions).
"If it is accepted that it is the leaders of a country who usually formulate and define ideologies, then the only source for this definition would be to get it from them either through their speeches, press reports or papers or through their actions."
Well, that says a lot. This administration has refused to acknowledge the definition of socialism as defined in the dictionary, and have been trying to redefine it since Obama got elected and accused of being a socialist. They've even gone so far as to have the media label us all socialists. We have to look towards their actions, mostly, since the speech is directed at redefining the term. President Obama nationalized how many companies, I lose count. The banks, the car industry, etc. That's a definition of socialism. President Obama wants to redistribute the wealth. That's a definition of socialism. President Obama wants equality for all, that's socialism. Make everyone the same, no matter the amount of energy they put into bettering themselves. If they don't get high enough on their own, lets take from the rich and give it to them. Doesn't matter that the rich worked to get where they are.
"After all, how can one talk of the independence of something people do not know?"
This applies to why they don't define socialism as well as the reason behind their attacks on the Tea Party. 1. Lets not define socialism, so they won't know we're doing it or how to fight it. 2. If we create confusion on who exactly the Tea Party is, no one will want to join it. If we create a cloud around them, everyone will be against them.
"...differ from scientific socialism unless one takes the statement 'society in turn will reward these efforts' to be different from 'reward to each according to his needs.'"
Well, of course they're different. Who determines ones needs? Capitalism is being rewarded by society. Socialism is collecting all the money and rewarding to their needs. So, if the government determines everyone should have a cell phone, for safety reasons, and you can't afford one, one will be provided for you. I see so many people on welfare with IPhones. My family has to work for a living and we can't afford an IPhone.
..."one cannot say that solutions cannot be the same where causes are different."
This explains why Marxists, Communists, Socialists, Anarchists and Muslims are all working together to destroy America. What do you think will happen, Mr. President when these other groups deem you not of any use any more? The Tea Party doesn't condone violence, but what about these groups you've sided with?
"If left to the individual, consolidation will take a long time to come. We have to look at priorities in terms of what is good for society and on this basis we may find it necessary to force people to do things they would not do otherwise."
He's talking about consolidating land into the public domain. He advocates community ownership instead of individual. Doesn't this would like what they're doing with the farmers? They want all farm equipment listed as commercial vehicles, and everyone who drives them to get a Commercial Driver's License (CDL) and pass the same test as 18-wheeler drivers do.
"If the government should, however, feel that individual ownership is the best policy to take in order to bring development, then it should restrict the size of farms that can be owned by one individual throughout the country and this should apply to every body from the President to the ordinary man."
Well, except for applying to everyone. They don't apply any rule they make for the little man to themselves. But I can foresee this administration making an executive order limiting the size of farms....or just regulate them out of business.
"...so long as we maintain free enterprise one cannot deny that some will accumulate more than others."
Ahh, there's the rub. They don't want free enterprise, or capitalism because it encourage people to accumulate more than the people who would rather sit on the porch and wait for the check from the government.
"If some of these firms were to stop functioning today the country would be at a standstill. Let the government take an active part in these spheres and see to it that the people are actively represented in them."
Let's take over a car company and fire the CEO and put our own guy in. Sound familiar?
"...taxation can be used as a means of forced savings...there is no limit to taxation if the benefits derived from public services by society measure up to the cost in taxation which they have to pay."
"Theoretically, there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100 per cent of income so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed."
These were a few paragraphs apart, but they state the same thing, so I included them together. This explains his desire to tax the rich more, because he has plans to keep lowering that upper limit until it includes everyone not currently on welfare. If you don't believe me read the health care bill. It raises the level at which people qualify for welfare. I guess I should be happy, because when it finally kicks in, my family will qualify. Look up (if you don't know it already) the Cloward and Piven strategy.
"I do not see why the government cannot tax those who have more and syphon some of these revenues into savings which can e utilized in investment for future development, thereby reducing our reliance on foreign aid."
Hmmm. 'Nuf said.
"There is a statement in the paper about encouraging tourism. it is surprising that the government thinks only about lodges but not about making it cheap so as to include those who are not so rich. At the present time, the cost of living is too high for tourists....there are no price controls so that only the very rich can afford to come to Kenya as tourists."
Lets see, this sounds like forcing the airlines to set low air fares and the hotels to charge less. Probably only in liberal cities, though, because who cares if conservative cities prosper? Look at what they've done to Arizona (sued for trying to keep illegals out because the feds won't) and Texas (disallowing aid for all the fires we've had) and Missouri and other midwest towns affected by the flooding.
In conclusion, you can't really blame President Obama. He cut his teeth on communism/Marxism and the Muslim religion through his mother and dad and step-dad. Possibly he believes that his brand of Marxism/communism/socialism will work when no other one has. This is not the thinking of an American citizen. Most natural born citizens recognize our uniqueness. Heck, even some LEGAL immigrants recognize it better than our President.
I wrote a critique of Barak H. Obama Sr.'s critique of Sessional Paper No. 10 a while back, but with all that's gone on in the last couple of years, I thought I'd revisit it. I've learned a lot about this administration in the past two and a half years. This reveals a lot of their agenda.
I'll put direct quotes from the critique (in Barak H. Obama Sr.'s own words) in quotation marks. I'll then follow up with my critique (these are my opinions).
"If it is accepted that it is the leaders of a country who usually formulate and define ideologies, then the only source for this definition would be to get it from them either through their speeches, press reports or papers or through their actions."
Well, that says a lot. This administration has refused to acknowledge the definition of socialism as defined in the dictionary, and have been trying to redefine it since Obama got elected and accused of being a socialist. They've even gone so far as to have the media label us all socialists. We have to look towards their actions, mostly, since the speech is directed at redefining the term. President Obama nationalized how many companies, I lose count. The banks, the car industry, etc. That's a definition of socialism. President Obama wants to redistribute the wealth. That's a definition of socialism. President Obama wants equality for all, that's socialism. Make everyone the same, no matter the amount of energy they put into bettering themselves. If they don't get high enough on their own, lets take from the rich and give it to them. Doesn't matter that the rich worked to get where they are.
"After all, how can one talk of the independence of something people do not know?"
This applies to why they don't define socialism as well as the reason behind their attacks on the Tea Party. 1. Lets not define socialism, so they won't know we're doing it or how to fight it. 2. If we create confusion on who exactly the Tea Party is, no one will want to join it. If we create a cloud around them, everyone will be against them.
"...differ from scientific socialism unless one takes the statement 'society in turn will reward these efforts' to be different from 'reward to each according to his needs.'"
Well, of course they're different. Who determines ones needs? Capitalism is being rewarded by society. Socialism is collecting all the money and rewarding to their needs. So, if the government determines everyone should have a cell phone, for safety reasons, and you can't afford one, one will be provided for you. I see so many people on welfare with IPhones. My family has to work for a living and we can't afford an IPhone.
..."one cannot say that solutions cannot be the same where causes are different."
This explains why Marxists, Communists, Socialists, Anarchists and Muslims are all working together to destroy America. What do you think will happen, Mr. President when these other groups deem you not of any use any more? The Tea Party doesn't condone violence, but what about these groups you've sided with?
"If left to the individual, consolidation will take a long time to come. We have to look at priorities in terms of what is good for society and on this basis we may find it necessary to force people to do things they would not do otherwise."
He's talking about consolidating land into the public domain. He advocates community ownership instead of individual. Doesn't this would like what they're doing with the farmers? They want all farm equipment listed as commercial vehicles, and everyone who drives them to get a Commercial Driver's License (CDL) and pass the same test as 18-wheeler drivers do.
"If the government should, however, feel that individual ownership is the best policy to take in order to bring development, then it should restrict the size of farms that can be owned by one individual throughout the country and this should apply to every body from the President to the ordinary man."
Well, except for applying to everyone. They don't apply any rule they make for the little man to themselves. But I can foresee this administration making an executive order limiting the size of farms....or just regulate them out of business.
"...so long as we maintain free enterprise one cannot deny that some will accumulate more than others."
Ahh, there's the rub. They don't want free enterprise, or capitalism because it encourage people to accumulate more than the people who would rather sit on the porch and wait for the check from the government.
"If some of these firms were to stop functioning today the country would be at a standstill. Let the government take an active part in these spheres and see to it that the people are actively represented in them."
Let's take over a car company and fire the CEO and put our own guy in. Sound familiar?
"...taxation can be used as a means of forced savings...there is no limit to taxation if the benefits derived from public services by society measure up to the cost in taxation which they have to pay."
"Theoretically, there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100 per cent of income so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed."
These were a few paragraphs apart, but they state the same thing, so I included them together. This explains his desire to tax the rich more, because he has plans to keep lowering that upper limit until it includes everyone not currently on welfare. If you don't believe me read the health care bill. It raises the level at which people qualify for welfare. I guess I should be happy, because when it finally kicks in, my family will qualify. Look up (if you don't know it already) the Cloward and Piven strategy.
"I do not see why the government cannot tax those who have more and syphon some of these revenues into savings which can e utilized in investment for future development, thereby reducing our reliance on foreign aid."
Hmmm. 'Nuf said.
"There is a statement in the paper about encouraging tourism. it is surprising that the government thinks only about lodges but not about making it cheap so as to include those who are not so rich. At the present time, the cost of living is too high for tourists....there are no price controls so that only the very rich can afford to come to Kenya as tourists."
Lets see, this sounds like forcing the airlines to set low air fares and the hotels to charge less. Probably only in liberal cities, though, because who cares if conservative cities prosper? Look at what they've done to Arizona (sued for trying to keep illegals out because the feds won't) and Texas (disallowing aid for all the fires we've had) and Missouri and other midwest towns affected by the flooding.
In conclusion, you can't really blame President Obama. He cut his teeth on communism/Marxism and the Muslim religion through his mother and dad and step-dad. Possibly he believes that his brand of Marxism/communism/socialism will work when no other one has. This is not the thinking of an American citizen. Most natural born citizens recognize our uniqueness. Heck, even some LEGAL immigrants recognize it better than our President.
Marriage Act
I've often wondered why Obama is against the Marriage Act, listing Marriage as a union between 1 man and 1 woman.
I know a lot of people will disagree, but I believe he is a Muslim. You can twist words all you want, to justify anything. The Muslims are allowed to lie to the infidels. They're even allowed to make up stories to mislead. They aren't concerned with facts. They aren't supposed to charge each other interest, that's why you see all these Sharia compliant banks popping up. But they are instructed to charge high interest to infidels. This is supposed to make them want to convert because it's cheaper. I don't have the time to find these in the Koran, you'll have to do your own search on them.
So, I got to thinking. Muslims actually hate homosexuals. They kill them (wake up liberals who are gay and supporting Obama and Shari'a law). So why would he be in support of this? It seems to be against the Muslim belief, and you would think the Muslim community would be all up in arms about it.
But consider this. You've probably all heard the stories about Muslim men coming to America with their 4 allowed wives. They list one as a wife and list the others as extended family and put them all on welfare. If they 1 man 1 woman marriage law was repealed, what would stop it from becoming 1 man, 4 women? It's not about gay rights, they're just useful idiots. It's about getting Shari'a law into the United States. It's the camel's nose under the tent.
I know a lot of people will disagree, but I believe he is a Muslim. You can twist words all you want, to justify anything. The Muslims are allowed to lie to the infidels. They're even allowed to make up stories to mislead. They aren't concerned with facts. They aren't supposed to charge each other interest, that's why you see all these Sharia compliant banks popping up. But they are instructed to charge high interest to infidels. This is supposed to make them want to convert because it's cheaper. I don't have the time to find these in the Koran, you'll have to do your own search on them.
So, I got to thinking. Muslims actually hate homosexuals. They kill them (wake up liberals who are gay and supporting Obama and Shari'a law). So why would he be in support of this? It seems to be against the Muslim belief, and you would think the Muslim community would be all up in arms about it.
But consider this. You've probably all heard the stories about Muslim men coming to America with their 4 allowed wives. They list one as a wife and list the others as extended family and put them all on welfare. If they 1 man 1 woman marriage law was repealed, what would stop it from becoming 1 man, 4 women? It's not about gay rights, they're just useful idiots. It's about getting Shari'a law into the United States. It's the camel's nose under the tent.
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
March Repost of Progressives in History
March Repost of Progressives in History
Education is our best defense. I've committed to posting this every month, along with the names of all the progressive Congressmen. This is something we can not forget. We will not forget as long as I have breath in me. If the Progressives in office want America to forget, they will have to erase it from our minds, our print, our electronic media. In the old days, you could just burn the books. What are you going to do now, Obama?
August Note: We've now passed the Jobs bill, even though Americans didn't want it either. And hidden in the Jobs bill, are parts of Cap and Trade, waiting for the rest of it. Sooner and later, Cap and Trade, also known as Cap and Tax, will be passed against the will of the people. The arrogance of this administration is unbelievable.
December Note: And now we've passed more legislation than I can remember that the American People don't want. And most was passed during the Lame Duck session. I've only been into politics for a short time, and all these terms are new to me. Why is it that Congressmen who have been voted out of office, get to remain in office for 2 months so they can damage the country? The new congressmen should be sworn in the day after the elections. Don't Ask Don't Tell was repealed. I'm a veteran from 22 years ago. We had gays in the military then, and it wasn't really an issue. I had one woman tell me she would rather bend a straight woman than date another gay woman. Are we going to be dealing with out-right sexual assaults now? How can you file a complaint without being labeled a bigot? We are in a Constitutional Crisis and America needs to wake up!
March note: President Obama has now decided, on his own, that the Defense of Marriage is un-constitutional. This is way beyond the perview of the office of President. Is he now also the judicial branch of our government? He has told the judicial branch to not prosecute. So, what's next?
Progressives in History
My husband has an excellent set of History books, college level, that are just astounding in their insight. As a matter of fact, they're the ones I used in my Open Letter To President Obama. (Which I may post at a later date.) I've been tossing around the concept of the 100 year plan that the Progressives had, and, though it doesn't come out and say they had a 100 year plan, these books are where I got that idea. I've been asked a couple times to explain that, so this is my attempt to do just that.
At the turn of the century, the liberals chose to call themselves Progressives because they figured the people would be for progress. We were making huge leaps in progress at that time. There were new inventions all the time: the telephone, electric lighting, the automobile, the streetcar, the airplane, motion pictures, marketing of goods was quickly being developed, farmers were enjoying unprecedented prosperity and gold had been discovered in 1896 in Alaska. Although there had been a banking panic in 1907, there was a framework of prosperity set. We had a mindset of progress, of prosperity in America. All the progressives had to do was link themselves to reform and progress. And they also linked big government to progress. You had to have big government in order to have progress, in their minds.
They had already established Darwinism as fact by this time. The fittest survive. The unfit die out. There is a quote from John D. Rockefeller: " The growth of a large business is merely a survival of the fittest.....This is not an evil tendency of business. It is merely the working out of a law of nature and a law of God." So, by linking these concepts together, they established as fact that those against them were against progress, and would die out because they were weak. They were becoming more elite, a higher form of society, evolving. They were also pushing that the United States was a democracy, or that it ought to be. We are a Republic, not a Democracy. But as you see here, the progressives were the elite, not the conservatives. They were not for the common man.
In 1911, they turned their agenda to the school system. Charles A. Ellwood said, that the schools should be used as "a conscious instrument of social reconstruction." The progressives wanted to throw out religious and humane learning, (I take that as the humanities, or arts) and experiment with what would work. They wanted to "socialize" the young. This is when child-centered education began. This started the schools down the road towards what we have now, with the Department of Education taking the control away from the teacher in the classroom.
The progressives had even crept into the Christian movement, according to these texts, who call them the social gospellers. It calls them the most vicious attackers of the American economic system, calling for reform of our tax system. So, in the early 1900's socialists had infiltrated the churches and were calling on reforms and using God's word to back it up. They are the ones who basically were against the free market and started this whole movement that it was against God to be rich.
This is when muckraking became popular. I guess that's what we're doing. Expose articles became popular because the people were hungry for the truth about what was really going on. They list David Graham Phillips' Treason of the Senate...sound familiar?
Originally, Democratic Parties in the south were deemed private parties and excluded blacks. Even with the 14th amendment, blacks were only allowed to vote in the general elections. I guess they didn't want them voting until they had decided who they could vote for. And the south had become solidly Democratic. The progressives were the ones who pushed for segregation. They turned on the black voters. In the late 1800's there was no segregation, there was natural separation, but no forced segregation. By World War I, widespread segregation had been established in the states of the old Confederacy and the neighboring states. By 1930, Birmingham ordinance prohibited Negroes and whites from playing dominoes or checkers together. Two things need to be noted. Segregation was imposed by whites. White superiority was proclaimed, and black inferiority was assumed. Booker T. Washington, a prominent Black leader of the period, told everyone: "to suffer in silence," and to exercise "patience, forbearance, and self-control in the midst of trying conditions." He wanted them to improve themselves and compete in the market. What a smart man, beyond his years. But I have to admit, I don't think I would be able to under those conditions. I believe it was all orchestrated to chose a scapegoat for their future plans. And it's despicable to choose a whole race for your plans...
Did you know that in 1894 they tried to institute an income tax but found it to be unconstitutional? The constitution says that taxes are to be given out by the states according to population, and by consent...and that's not an income tax, is it? The progressives got around that by amending the tariff bill. This was our first redistribution of wealth, from the rich to the subsidized or unproductive in society. In 1913 is also when we ratified direct election of our Senators. Originally, the Senators were to represent the States, not the people. It was supposed to be one of the checks and balances, so the States had some control over congress.
The progressives were in power nationally from 1901 until 1921, covering the presidencies of Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, and Woodrow Wilson. Roosevelt referred to his program as the Square Deal, and Wilson had his New Freedom. Neither one professed to be socialists, but they set the country on a path towards socialism. Roosevelt said himself, "The New Nationalism puts the national need before sectional or personal advantage. . . .This New Nationalism regards the executive power as the steward of the public welfare. It demands of the judiciary that it shall be interested primarily in human welfare rather than property..." Wilson said of his New Freedom, "I believe that the time has come when the government of this country, both state and national, have to set the stage...for the doing of justice to men in every relationship of life....Without the watchful interference, the resolute interference, of the government, there can be no fair play between individuals and such powerful institutions as the trusts. Freedom today is something more than being let alone. The program of a government of freedom must in these days be positive, not negative merely." In other words, it's the government's job to be pro-active.
The history book says that in the 1920's, the intellectuals felt alienated from America. They fled to Europe.
The Great Depression began with the stock market crash of 1929. Herbert Hoover was the President, and was considered a cold and calloused president. Actually, he believed that the government should play no roll in picking Americans up out of the low place they were in, that it should be the place of private charities and businesses. He said that once government became the saviour, they would forever be dependant on government aide of some kind. Sound familiar? The Depression was the end of the conservatives in power. So the conservatives only had power from 1922-1932. Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected in 1932, and the progressives were back in office. He accused the present administration of too much spending, but said that he would spend money on American citizens in order to keep them from starving in the depression. Does that sound familiar? Blame the past administration and spend, spend, spend, but I have an excuse to do so.
At no point in history had any administration had so much been done in the first 100 days to "take care" of the American people, or assert so much authority over our economy. Unless you count the current administration. At one point Roosevelt openly threatened congress, saying if they didn't act, he would take the power and act himself. We were in the midst of a Depression, so the American people didn't see it as a usurpation of power.
One of the biggest lies, apparently, was Social Security. It was also the biggest redistribution of wealth programs the socialists ever came up with. It was set up as a 1% tax on wages and a 1% match by employers and was to be put in a trust fund in the Treasury. An accumulation was to occur. It was set up to slowly increase. Later it was described as an insurance program, I suppose for insuring when you retire. There were programs set up within Social Security that were redistribution programs from the beginning: unemployment compensation, aid to dependant children, maternal and child care, to crippled children, to neglected children, for public health programs. Social Security turned out to be a pyramid scheme. The people coming in to Social Security pay the ones who came in a long time ago. Don't people go to jail for setting up pyramid schemes?
Harry S. Truman became President upon FDR's death, but it doesn't claim he was a progressive. Although he didn't run as a progressive, his Fair Deal plan included a national health insurance for Americans, new "civil rights" legislation, Fair Employment Practices enactments, housing legislation, farming legislation with subsidies, and expansion of the welfare programs...sounds progressive to me. He instituted subsidies to reduce the rent for low income families. The minimum wage was increased to 75 cents an hour. They also increased low interest loans to farmers. The national health insurance was voted down because the people realized it was the first step to socialized medicine. One bill called for paying subsidies directly to farmers instead of driving up the cost of farm products when farm income fell below a certain level. They said it sounded too much like socialism.
When Eisenhower got elected in 1956 there was little known about his political views. Would he get rid of the welfare state? He was the first Republican since the beginning of the New Deal. He described himself as "basically conservative," and said that, "in the last twenty years creeping socialism has been striking in the United States." But, by 1954, it was clear that he wasn't going to take on the welfare state. Eisenhower accepted the Welfare state as fact. Eisenhower came in talking about how frugal we should be, but he had the highest deficit in peacetime history to that point: 12.4 billion. He turned out to be a middle of the road Republican. Or is it a DIABLO (Democrat In All But Label Only)? Either way, he couldn't turn the tide back from the path to socialism.
In 1960, we elected John F. Kennedy, the youngest man elected to the office of President of the United States of America. He did institute several programs, but this series said he had a hostile Democratic congress. Upon his assassination, Lyndon B. Johnson became President.
Johnson pushed the Great Society, which was real close to being openly socialist. Apparently, Barry Goldwater saw the significance of it, and he pushed for liberty in his campaign and lost the moderates to Johnson. Johnson wasn't bothered by scruples, and used a combination of arm twisting, cajolery and trades to get the bills he wanted passed in a Democrat controlled Congress. the National Republican Congressional Committee classified it as a 3B congress: bullied, badgered and brainwashed. Does that sound familiar? Johnson probably did more for the socialist movement than did any modern president. The only thing that stopped his momentum was the Viet Nam War. It also ended his presidency.
After World War II, America has even pushed Welfare abroad. As quoted from this history book, " ...the United States promoted welfarism and subsidized socialism in Europe." The European Recovery Program allows countries to trade with each other, yet shields them from the world market. They are also dependant on the United States.
This brings our history up to modern times, so I'll quit here. Besides, my mind is boggled. I am now in my generation, and had just no idea of what had gone on before my birth. The victor writes history. And history is being rewritten all the time. Luckily, we have the power to elect our officials, and we have periodically disrupted their plan through out these 100 years. But you can see how the path has wandered and meandered through our history. We are well on the path to a nanny state. I have gotten a much better appreciation for President Hoover. I had always heard that he was the cold and callous man, that he wouldn't even help people during the depression. But that isn't entirely true, is it? It's like the Bible says. Give a man a fish and help him for a day. Teach him to fish and help him for a life time. If we continue to put people on welfare, and leave them there, they will have learned helplessness. I have a handicapped son. When I was teaching him self-care when he was very young, I was told not to give up when he acted as though he didn't know how to do it. Any child will act as though he doesn't know how to get dressed if he thinks you're going to dress him. Why put out the effort if he doesn't have to? If he can stand there and hold up his arms and you'll put on his shirt, why should he struggle to do it himself? It's called learned helplessness. If I show how hard of a time I'm having, you'll come help me, and I won't have to do it. I did the same thing to get out of weeding the cucumbers with my mother. I weeded the cucumbers instead of the weeds. It's human nature.
Sooner or later you have to cut off the aide. I'm not against Welfare. Maybe there should be a time limit. That would encourage people to do something to better themselves. Everyone falls on hard times, and needs a hand up. But, there are an awful lot of nanny state programs, and there are people out there to tell you how to play the government and get your "fair" share. And to broaden government aide to include 150% of poverty and include government run health care? I don't think so. We should be shrinking government involvement. We need another Herbert Hoover about now.
Source: A Basic History of the United States, Volumes 1-5, by Clarence B. Carson, copyright American Textbook Committee, 1985, Tenth Printing, July 1994
Note added in March...the health care bill has passed, signed by Obama, and he's even bribing the American people. There are entitlements for Americans who make 400% of poverty. They are penalizing the young, by causing all student loans to go through the government. What a crock. And pre-existing conditions for children up to 26 were supposed to be covered immediately, but they forgot to put it in the bill. Rep Stupak caved on Pro-life language, based on an executive order, which he admits isn't worth the paper it's written on. Obama has been making deals, threatening congressmen, twisting arms, to get this bill passed, when in the past he has admitted that if you pass health care with less than 60%, you can't govern a nation. So, what does he intend to do? There is 76% of the United States against this bill, but he shoved it down our throats anyway. He wants a revolution so he can declare martial law and suspend the election and declare himself a dictator. Educate yourself. These are radicals from the 60-70's who would have already turned to burning the streets had the tables been turned. They can't figure out why we haven't.
I say we all start wearing tie dye shirts and make fun of them. Let's bring back the groovy talk, wear our hair long, in pony tails and start sporting peace signs. Peace out....groovy....freaky, deaky...man.
Lori Ann Smith
Fighting for Freedom with my dying breath.
Pray for peace
Education is our best defense. I've committed to posting this every month, along with the names of all the progressive Congressmen. This is something we can not forget. We will not forget as long as I have breath in me. If the Progressives in office want America to forget, they will have to erase it from our minds, our print, our electronic media. In the old days, you could just burn the books. What are you going to do now, Obama?
August Note: We've now passed the Jobs bill, even though Americans didn't want it either. And hidden in the Jobs bill, are parts of Cap and Trade, waiting for the rest of it. Sooner and later, Cap and Trade, also known as Cap and Tax, will be passed against the will of the people. The arrogance of this administration is unbelievable.
December Note: And now we've passed more legislation than I can remember that the American People don't want. And most was passed during the Lame Duck session. I've only been into politics for a short time, and all these terms are new to me. Why is it that Congressmen who have been voted out of office, get to remain in office for 2 months so they can damage the country? The new congressmen should be sworn in the day after the elections. Don't Ask Don't Tell was repealed. I'm a veteran from 22 years ago. We had gays in the military then, and it wasn't really an issue. I had one woman tell me she would rather bend a straight woman than date another gay woman. Are we going to be dealing with out-right sexual assaults now? How can you file a complaint without being labeled a bigot? We are in a Constitutional Crisis and America needs to wake up!
March note: President Obama has now decided, on his own, that the Defense of Marriage is un-constitutional. This is way beyond the perview of the office of President. Is he now also the judicial branch of our government? He has told the judicial branch to not prosecute. So, what's next?
Progressives in History
My husband has an excellent set of History books, college level, that are just astounding in their insight. As a matter of fact, they're the ones I used in my Open Letter To President Obama. (Which I may post at a later date.) I've been tossing around the concept of the 100 year plan that the Progressives had, and, though it doesn't come out and say they had a 100 year plan, these books are where I got that idea. I've been asked a couple times to explain that, so this is my attempt to do just that.
At the turn of the century, the liberals chose to call themselves Progressives because they figured the people would be for progress. We were making huge leaps in progress at that time. There were new inventions all the time: the telephone, electric lighting, the automobile, the streetcar, the airplane, motion pictures, marketing of goods was quickly being developed, farmers were enjoying unprecedented prosperity and gold had been discovered in 1896 in Alaska. Although there had been a banking panic in 1907, there was a framework of prosperity set. We had a mindset of progress, of prosperity in America. All the progressives had to do was link themselves to reform and progress. And they also linked big government to progress. You had to have big government in order to have progress, in their minds.
They had already established Darwinism as fact by this time. The fittest survive. The unfit die out. There is a quote from John D. Rockefeller: " The growth of a large business is merely a survival of the fittest.....This is not an evil tendency of business. It is merely the working out of a law of nature and a law of God." So, by linking these concepts together, they established as fact that those against them were against progress, and would die out because they were weak. They were becoming more elite, a higher form of society, evolving. They were also pushing that the United States was a democracy, or that it ought to be. We are a Republic, not a Democracy. But as you see here, the progressives were the elite, not the conservatives. They were not for the common man.
In 1911, they turned their agenda to the school system. Charles A. Ellwood said, that the schools should be used as "a conscious instrument of social reconstruction." The progressives wanted to throw out religious and humane learning, (I take that as the humanities, or arts) and experiment with what would work. They wanted to "socialize" the young. This is when child-centered education began. This started the schools down the road towards what we have now, with the Department of Education taking the control away from the teacher in the classroom.
The progressives had even crept into the Christian movement, according to these texts, who call them the social gospellers. It calls them the most vicious attackers of the American economic system, calling for reform of our tax system. So, in the early 1900's socialists had infiltrated the churches and were calling on reforms and using God's word to back it up. They are the ones who basically were against the free market and started this whole movement that it was against God to be rich.
This is when muckraking became popular. I guess that's what we're doing. Expose articles became popular because the people were hungry for the truth about what was really going on. They list David Graham Phillips' Treason of the Senate...sound familiar?
Originally, Democratic Parties in the south were deemed private parties and excluded blacks. Even with the 14th amendment, blacks were only allowed to vote in the general elections. I guess they didn't want them voting until they had decided who they could vote for. And the south had become solidly Democratic. The progressives were the ones who pushed for segregation. They turned on the black voters. In the late 1800's there was no segregation, there was natural separation, but no forced segregation. By World War I, widespread segregation had been established in the states of the old Confederacy and the neighboring states. By 1930, Birmingham ordinance prohibited Negroes and whites from playing dominoes or checkers together. Two things need to be noted. Segregation was imposed by whites. White superiority was proclaimed, and black inferiority was assumed. Booker T. Washington, a prominent Black leader of the period, told everyone: "to suffer in silence," and to exercise "patience, forbearance, and self-control in the midst of trying conditions." He wanted them to improve themselves and compete in the market. What a smart man, beyond his years. But I have to admit, I don't think I would be able to under those conditions. I believe it was all orchestrated to chose a scapegoat for their future plans. And it's despicable to choose a whole race for your plans...
Did you know that in 1894 they tried to institute an income tax but found it to be unconstitutional? The constitution says that taxes are to be given out by the states according to population, and by consent...and that's not an income tax, is it? The progressives got around that by amending the tariff bill. This was our first redistribution of wealth, from the rich to the subsidized or unproductive in society. In 1913 is also when we ratified direct election of our Senators. Originally, the Senators were to represent the States, not the people. It was supposed to be one of the checks and balances, so the States had some control over congress.
The progressives were in power nationally from 1901 until 1921, covering the presidencies of Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, and Woodrow Wilson. Roosevelt referred to his program as the Square Deal, and Wilson had his New Freedom. Neither one professed to be socialists, but they set the country on a path towards socialism. Roosevelt said himself, "The New Nationalism puts the national need before sectional or personal advantage. . . .This New Nationalism regards the executive power as the steward of the public welfare. It demands of the judiciary that it shall be interested primarily in human welfare rather than property..." Wilson said of his New Freedom, "I believe that the time has come when the government of this country, both state and national, have to set the stage...for the doing of justice to men in every relationship of life....Without the watchful interference, the resolute interference, of the government, there can be no fair play between individuals and such powerful institutions as the trusts. Freedom today is something more than being let alone. The program of a government of freedom must in these days be positive, not negative merely." In other words, it's the government's job to be pro-active.
The history book says that in the 1920's, the intellectuals felt alienated from America. They fled to Europe.
The Great Depression began with the stock market crash of 1929. Herbert Hoover was the President, and was considered a cold and calloused president. Actually, he believed that the government should play no roll in picking Americans up out of the low place they were in, that it should be the place of private charities and businesses. He said that once government became the saviour, they would forever be dependant on government aide of some kind. Sound familiar? The Depression was the end of the conservatives in power. So the conservatives only had power from 1922-1932. Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected in 1932, and the progressives were back in office. He accused the present administration of too much spending, but said that he would spend money on American citizens in order to keep them from starving in the depression. Does that sound familiar? Blame the past administration and spend, spend, spend, but I have an excuse to do so.
At no point in history had any administration had so much been done in the first 100 days to "take care" of the American people, or assert so much authority over our economy. Unless you count the current administration. At one point Roosevelt openly threatened congress, saying if they didn't act, he would take the power and act himself. We were in the midst of a Depression, so the American people didn't see it as a usurpation of power.
One of the biggest lies, apparently, was Social Security. It was also the biggest redistribution of wealth programs the socialists ever came up with. It was set up as a 1% tax on wages and a 1% match by employers and was to be put in a trust fund in the Treasury. An accumulation was to occur. It was set up to slowly increase. Later it was described as an insurance program, I suppose for insuring when you retire. There were programs set up within Social Security that were redistribution programs from the beginning: unemployment compensation, aid to dependant children, maternal and child care, to crippled children, to neglected children, for public health programs. Social Security turned out to be a pyramid scheme. The people coming in to Social Security pay the ones who came in a long time ago. Don't people go to jail for setting up pyramid schemes?
Harry S. Truman became President upon FDR's death, but it doesn't claim he was a progressive. Although he didn't run as a progressive, his Fair Deal plan included a national health insurance for Americans, new "civil rights" legislation, Fair Employment Practices enactments, housing legislation, farming legislation with subsidies, and expansion of the welfare programs...sounds progressive to me. He instituted subsidies to reduce the rent for low income families. The minimum wage was increased to 75 cents an hour. They also increased low interest loans to farmers. The national health insurance was voted down because the people realized it was the first step to socialized medicine. One bill called for paying subsidies directly to farmers instead of driving up the cost of farm products when farm income fell below a certain level. They said it sounded too much like socialism.
When Eisenhower got elected in 1956 there was little known about his political views. Would he get rid of the welfare state? He was the first Republican since the beginning of the New Deal. He described himself as "basically conservative," and said that, "in the last twenty years creeping socialism has been striking in the United States." But, by 1954, it was clear that he wasn't going to take on the welfare state. Eisenhower accepted the Welfare state as fact. Eisenhower came in talking about how frugal we should be, but he had the highest deficit in peacetime history to that point: 12.4 billion. He turned out to be a middle of the road Republican. Or is it a DIABLO (Democrat In All But Label Only)? Either way, he couldn't turn the tide back from the path to socialism.
In 1960, we elected John F. Kennedy, the youngest man elected to the office of President of the United States of America. He did institute several programs, but this series said he had a hostile Democratic congress. Upon his assassination, Lyndon B. Johnson became President.
Johnson pushed the Great Society, which was real close to being openly socialist. Apparently, Barry Goldwater saw the significance of it, and he pushed for liberty in his campaign and lost the moderates to Johnson. Johnson wasn't bothered by scruples, and used a combination of arm twisting, cajolery and trades to get the bills he wanted passed in a Democrat controlled Congress. the National Republican Congressional Committee classified it as a 3B congress: bullied, badgered and brainwashed. Does that sound familiar? Johnson probably did more for the socialist movement than did any modern president. The only thing that stopped his momentum was the Viet Nam War. It also ended his presidency.
After World War II, America has even pushed Welfare abroad. As quoted from this history book, " ...the United States promoted welfarism and subsidized socialism in Europe." The European Recovery Program allows countries to trade with each other, yet shields them from the world market. They are also dependant on the United States.
This brings our history up to modern times, so I'll quit here. Besides, my mind is boggled. I am now in my generation, and had just no idea of what had gone on before my birth. The victor writes history. And history is being rewritten all the time. Luckily, we have the power to elect our officials, and we have periodically disrupted their plan through out these 100 years. But you can see how the path has wandered and meandered through our history. We are well on the path to a nanny state. I have gotten a much better appreciation for President Hoover. I had always heard that he was the cold and callous man, that he wouldn't even help people during the depression. But that isn't entirely true, is it? It's like the Bible says. Give a man a fish and help him for a day. Teach him to fish and help him for a life time. If we continue to put people on welfare, and leave them there, they will have learned helplessness. I have a handicapped son. When I was teaching him self-care when he was very young, I was told not to give up when he acted as though he didn't know how to do it. Any child will act as though he doesn't know how to get dressed if he thinks you're going to dress him. Why put out the effort if he doesn't have to? If he can stand there and hold up his arms and you'll put on his shirt, why should he struggle to do it himself? It's called learned helplessness. If I show how hard of a time I'm having, you'll come help me, and I won't have to do it. I did the same thing to get out of weeding the cucumbers with my mother. I weeded the cucumbers instead of the weeds. It's human nature.
Sooner or later you have to cut off the aide. I'm not against Welfare. Maybe there should be a time limit. That would encourage people to do something to better themselves. Everyone falls on hard times, and needs a hand up. But, there are an awful lot of nanny state programs, and there are people out there to tell you how to play the government and get your "fair" share. And to broaden government aide to include 150% of poverty and include government run health care? I don't think so. We should be shrinking government involvement. We need another Herbert Hoover about now.
Source: A Basic History of the United States, Volumes 1-5, by Clarence B. Carson, copyright American Textbook Committee, 1985, Tenth Printing, July 1994
Note added in March...the health care bill has passed, signed by Obama, and he's even bribing the American people. There are entitlements for Americans who make 400% of poverty. They are penalizing the young, by causing all student loans to go through the government. What a crock. And pre-existing conditions for children up to 26 were supposed to be covered immediately, but they forgot to put it in the bill. Rep Stupak caved on Pro-life language, based on an executive order, which he admits isn't worth the paper it's written on. Obama has been making deals, threatening congressmen, twisting arms, to get this bill passed, when in the past he has admitted that if you pass health care with less than 60%, you can't govern a nation. So, what does he intend to do? There is 76% of the United States against this bill, but he shoved it down our throats anyway. He wants a revolution so he can declare martial law and suspend the election and declare himself a dictator. Educate yourself. These are radicals from the 60-70's who would have already turned to burning the streets had the tables been turned. They can't figure out why we haven't.
I say we all start wearing tie dye shirts and make fun of them. Let's bring back the groovy talk, wear our hair long, in pony tails and start sporting peace signs. Peace out....groovy....freaky, deaky...man.
Lori Ann Smith
Fighting for Freedom with my dying breath.
Pray for peace
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
Oil Company "Subsidies?"
OK, President Obama is not happy with the deal struck to bring down our debt, he now wants to get rid of subsidies for Oil companies, and raise the taxes on the most wealth Americans and corporations.
I did a search on oil subsidies, and it may surprise you (or maybe not).
Here are the tax expenditures the President has targeted: taken from http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/05/oil_company_subsidies.html
1. Intangible drilling costs. Firms engaged in the exploration and development of oil or gas properties may expense (deduct in the year paid or incurred) certain types of drilling expenditures from their taxes. These costs include wages, fuel, repairs, hauling, and supplies related to and necessary for drilling and preparing wells for the production of oil and gas. Other companies incurring similar types of costs must recover this cost over the life of the investment. The administration expects that eliminating this subsidy will produce budget savings of about $7.839 billion over 10 years.
_____________
If he is going to do this, is he also going to eliminate the deduction for small businesses for their expenditures, like mileage to and from work, if your business is in your home, the office computer, etc.? And it includes wages? How about when they give Congressmen $500,000 to hire up to 18 aides? How many congressmen are there? At $500,000 each! That would save a lot. Make them pay their employees just like the oil companies have to. And Senators get even more money for staff.
______________
2. Deduction for tertiary injectants. Tertiary, or enhanced oil recovery, methods increase the amount of oil that a company can extract from a well by an additional 5 percent to 15 percent according to some research. This tax expenditure subsidizes the costs of tertiary injectants—the fluids, gases, and other chemicals that are pumped into oil and gas reservoirs as part of this process. The subsidy essentially gives companies government money for acting in ways that will enhance their profits. It allows companies to expense the costs of tertiary injectants, even though such costs should be recovered over time. Companies can alternatively choose to deduct these costs as an intangible drilling cost.The administration expects that eliminating this subsidy will produce budget savings of about $67 million over 10 years.
_________________
How about eliminating the subsidy to farmers to grow corn for ethanol? It's been proven that ethanol only makes an engine deteriorate faster.
_______________
3. Percentage depletion allowance. Percentage depletion allows an independent oil company to deduct from its taxes about 15 percent from the revenue generated from a well, even if that amount exceeds the well’s total value. This means that oil companies take a deduction as long as a well is producing oil, without regard to how much, or whether, the well is still declining in value. Companies in other industries are only allowed to deduct an amount that represents the decline in their investment’s value that year. The administration expects that eliminating this subsidy to produce budget savings of about $10 billion over 10 years.
_________________
Is this a way of driving the oil companies out of the US? Remember, under his plan, energy costs will naturally sky rocket.
__________________
4. Passive investments. The government generally only allows investors to deduct a limited amount of losses from “passive activities” such as renting land in order to prevent tax shelters. Yet oil and gas properties are exempt from this rule. This gives oil and gas companies a competitive edge over other types of energy companies. The administration expects that eliminating this subsidy will produce budget savings of about $180 million over 10 years.
_______________________
And why is it when I bought my house in 2008, I had to sign something that said if they found precious minerals or oil on my property, it didn't belong to me? Do you think the government would pay me for it? Not.
_________________________
5. Domestic manufacturing tax deduction. Companies that manufacture, produce, or extract oil and gas or any primary derivative receive a manufacturing subsidy provided that the product was made in the United States. But since removing this subsidy does not affect the production of oil, the subsidy does not significantly affect business decisions and eliminating the subsidy would not affect consumer prices. The subsidy is essentially a throwaway for oil companies. The tax expenditure is provided through a deduction for 9 percent of income, subject to a limit of 50 percent of the wages paid that are allocable to domestic production during the taxable year. The administration expects that eliminating this subsidy will produce budget savings of about $17.3 billion over 10 years.
_________________________
Yea, won't affect the price of oil in the United States. Let's make it as unfriendly as possible so all the oil companies move to another country. Then we'll still be buying our oil from Saudi Arabia.
________________________
6. Geological and geophysical expenditures. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 created this tax subsidy, which allows companies to deduct the costs associated with searching for oil, recovering the costs over a two-year period. The administration expects that scaling back the amortization period to seven years would produce budget savings of about $1.1 billion over 10 years.
_________________________
I suppose this is so they won't choose to drill in Alaska, or Idaho or where ever they could find new oil. Another one of Obama's anti-oil policies.
________________________
7. Foreign tax credit. This credit is intended to prevent the double taxation of income that is taxed abroad but also subject to tax in the United States. Yet companies, particularly oil companies, have managed to exploit this subsidy even when they don’t pay income taxes abroad. In total, adjusting the rule would prevent companies from avoiding about $8.5 billion in taxes over a 10-year period.
_______________________
How about checking the books occasionally? They could then add their government employees and give them something to do. Instead they want to possibly double tax companies because some have exploited it?
__________________
8. Enhanced oil recovery credit. Companies receive a 15 percent income tax credit for the costs of recovering domestic oil when they use “enhanced oil recovery” methods to extract oil that is too viscous to be extracted by conventional primary and secondary water-flooding techniques. The EOR credit is nonrefundable and is allowed if the average wellhead price of crude oil (using West Texas Intermediate as the reference) in the year before the credit is claimed is below the statutorily established threshold price of $28 (as adjusted for inflation since 1990) in the year the credit is claimed. Oil prices in fiscal year 2006 were too high for companies to receive this subsidy, but the subsidy remains in existence. Its elimination is not expected to produce budget savings.
____________________
This is being eliminated because if we start producing oil again, the price WILL fall, because we won't be buying it from Saudi Arabia. He wants to make sure the money goes there.
___________________
9. Marginal well production. This provision provides a subsidy for oil and gas produced from certain types of oil and gas wells. These wells include those that produce heavy oil and those with an average production within a statutorily specified range. Oil prices were too high for companies to receive this subsidy in fiscal year 2006, but the subsidy remains in existence. Its elimination is not expected to produce budget savings.
______________________
Again, eliminating this one will only effect us if oil prices go down. That's something President Obama doesn't want....low fuel prices. Once again, under his plan, energy costs will necessarily sky rocket.
Do you really think that people hire on to work on oil rigs because it's fun? They do it for the money. It pays well. It only pays well and is profitable to drill for oil in the US because of these tax breaks. If these companies leave the US because it's no longer profitable, how many people will be out of work? Do you really think they'll keep the same people on if they move to a different country? This is nothing but a bid to make oil companies leave the United States. That way he can say the prices are high because we have to buy from the Arab countries. I have to wonder, where are his loyalties? They certainly don't appear to be with the American people.
I did a search on oil subsidies, and it may surprise you (or maybe not).
Here are the tax expenditures the President has targeted: taken from http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/05/oil_company_subsidies.html
1. Intangible drilling costs. Firms engaged in the exploration and development of oil or gas properties may expense (deduct in the year paid or incurred) certain types of drilling expenditures from their taxes. These costs include wages, fuel, repairs, hauling, and supplies related to and necessary for drilling and preparing wells for the production of oil and gas. Other companies incurring similar types of costs must recover this cost over the life of the investment. The administration expects that eliminating this subsidy will produce budget savings of about $7.839 billion over 10 years.
_____________
If he is going to do this, is he also going to eliminate the deduction for small businesses for their expenditures, like mileage to and from work, if your business is in your home, the office computer, etc.? And it includes wages? How about when they give Congressmen $500,000 to hire up to 18 aides? How many congressmen are there? At $500,000 each! That would save a lot. Make them pay their employees just like the oil companies have to. And Senators get even more money for staff.
______________
2. Deduction for tertiary injectants. Tertiary, or enhanced oil recovery, methods increase the amount of oil that a company can extract from a well by an additional 5 percent to 15 percent according to some research. This tax expenditure subsidizes the costs of tertiary injectants—the fluids, gases, and other chemicals that are pumped into oil and gas reservoirs as part of this process. The subsidy essentially gives companies government money for acting in ways that will enhance their profits. It allows companies to expense the costs of tertiary injectants, even though such costs should be recovered over time. Companies can alternatively choose to deduct these costs as an intangible drilling cost.The administration expects that eliminating this subsidy will produce budget savings of about $67 million over 10 years.
_________________
How about eliminating the subsidy to farmers to grow corn for ethanol? It's been proven that ethanol only makes an engine deteriorate faster.
_______________
3. Percentage depletion allowance. Percentage depletion allows an independent oil company to deduct from its taxes about 15 percent from the revenue generated from a well, even if that amount exceeds the well’s total value. This means that oil companies take a deduction as long as a well is producing oil, without regard to how much, or whether, the well is still declining in value. Companies in other industries are only allowed to deduct an amount that represents the decline in their investment’s value that year. The administration expects that eliminating this subsidy to produce budget savings of about $10 billion over 10 years.
_________________
Is this a way of driving the oil companies out of the US? Remember, under his plan, energy costs will naturally sky rocket.
__________________
4. Passive investments. The government generally only allows investors to deduct a limited amount of losses from “passive activities” such as renting land in order to prevent tax shelters. Yet oil and gas properties are exempt from this rule. This gives oil and gas companies a competitive edge over other types of energy companies. The administration expects that eliminating this subsidy will produce budget savings of about $180 million over 10 years.
_______________________
And why is it when I bought my house in 2008, I had to sign something that said if they found precious minerals or oil on my property, it didn't belong to me? Do you think the government would pay me for it? Not.
_________________________
5. Domestic manufacturing tax deduction. Companies that manufacture, produce, or extract oil and gas or any primary derivative receive a manufacturing subsidy provided that the product was made in the United States. But since removing this subsidy does not affect the production of oil, the subsidy does not significantly affect business decisions and eliminating the subsidy would not affect consumer prices. The subsidy is essentially a throwaway for oil companies. The tax expenditure is provided through a deduction for 9 percent of income, subject to a limit of 50 percent of the wages paid that are allocable to domestic production during the taxable year. The administration expects that eliminating this subsidy will produce budget savings of about $17.3 billion over 10 years.
_________________________
Yea, won't affect the price of oil in the United States. Let's make it as unfriendly as possible so all the oil companies move to another country. Then we'll still be buying our oil from Saudi Arabia.
________________________
6. Geological and geophysical expenditures. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 created this tax subsidy, which allows companies to deduct the costs associated with searching for oil, recovering the costs over a two-year period. The administration expects that scaling back the amortization period to seven years would produce budget savings of about $1.1 billion over 10 years.
_________________________
I suppose this is so they won't choose to drill in Alaska, or Idaho or where ever they could find new oil. Another one of Obama's anti-oil policies.
________________________
7. Foreign tax credit. This credit is intended to prevent the double taxation of income that is taxed abroad but also subject to tax in the United States. Yet companies, particularly oil companies, have managed to exploit this subsidy even when they don’t pay income taxes abroad. In total, adjusting the rule would prevent companies from avoiding about $8.5 billion in taxes over a 10-year period.
_______________________
How about checking the books occasionally? They could then add their government employees and give them something to do. Instead they want to possibly double tax companies because some have exploited it?
__________________
8. Enhanced oil recovery credit. Companies receive a 15 percent income tax credit for the costs of recovering domestic oil when they use “enhanced oil recovery” methods to extract oil that is too viscous to be extracted by conventional primary and secondary water-flooding techniques. The EOR credit is nonrefundable and is allowed if the average wellhead price of crude oil (using West Texas Intermediate as the reference) in the year before the credit is claimed is below the statutorily established threshold price of $28 (as adjusted for inflation since 1990) in the year the credit is claimed. Oil prices in fiscal year 2006 were too high for companies to receive this subsidy, but the subsidy remains in existence. Its elimination is not expected to produce budget savings.
____________________
This is being eliminated because if we start producing oil again, the price WILL fall, because we won't be buying it from Saudi Arabia. He wants to make sure the money goes there.
___________________
9. Marginal well production. This provision provides a subsidy for oil and gas produced from certain types of oil and gas wells. These wells include those that produce heavy oil and those with an average production within a statutorily specified range. Oil prices were too high for companies to receive this subsidy in fiscal year 2006, but the subsidy remains in existence. Its elimination is not expected to produce budget savings.
______________________
Again, eliminating this one will only effect us if oil prices go down. That's something President Obama doesn't want....low fuel prices. Once again, under his plan, energy costs will necessarily sky rocket.
Do you really think that people hire on to work on oil rigs because it's fun? They do it for the money. It pays well. It only pays well and is profitable to drill for oil in the US because of these tax breaks. If these companies leave the US because it's no longer profitable, how many people will be out of work? Do you really think they'll keep the same people on if they move to a different country? This is nothing but a bid to make oil companies leave the United States. That way he can say the prices are high because we have to buy from the Arab countries. I have to wonder, where are his loyalties? They certainly don't appear to be with the American people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)