In an earlier post I covered Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner's proposal/demand that Congress simply eliminate the debt limit.
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said the U.S. “absolutely” should get rid of the debt ceiling as soon as possible.
“It would have been time a long time ago to eliminate it,” Geithner told Bloomberg TV on Friday. “The sooner the better.” - HuffPo (Found at Hot Air)
As
it turns out, this is the demand that was made today to the Republican
members of Congress as part of the fiscal cliff solution talks.
House
Republicans said on Thursday that Treasury Secretary Timothy F.
Geithner presented the House speaker, John A. Boehner, a detailed
proposal to avert the year-end fiscal crisis with $1.6 trillion in tax
increases over 10 years, an immediate new round of stimulus spending,
home mortgage refinancing and a permanent end to Congressional control over statutory borrowing limits. - NY Times
The 'deal' includes no cuts to Government spending. Only a suggestion to discuss cuts sometime next year. The offer is so ridiculous that Republican Senator Mitch McConnell burst into laughter. Unfortunately, this meeting confirms my belief that the Democrats have no intention of dealing with the Nation's debt problem.
Geithner’s
visit to his office left McConnell discouraged about reaching a
“balanced” deal on tax hikes and spending reductions designed to prevent
a shock to the economy in January. “Nothing good is happening” in the
negotiations, McConnell says, because of Obama’s insistence on tax rate
hikes for the wealthy but unwillingness to embrace serious spending
cuts. - Weekly Standard
So
there you have it, Obama and the Democrats are unwilling to commit to
any real spending cuts, outside of cutting spending for the Military.
They have already run the country for four years with no budget. Now
they are demanding to be able to run the country with no limit on
spending.
Like I said before, they have no intention of solving the debt and deficit
crisis. If they did, they would know how high the debt would grow before
a plan of increased revenue and decreased spending would eliminate the
deficit. Of course they might have even more plans for increasing
spending. Perhaps legalizing the illegal aliens and giving them
Obamacare benefits. That would surely increase Government spending.
Keep
in mind that raising taxes on the richest 2% will only solve about 8%
of the deficit problem. This demand is confirmation that President
Obama and the Democrats have no intention of solving the debt problem.
So
the latest story concerning the fiscal cliff the US is facing is news
that some Republicans in Congress are thinking of being flexible when it
comes to their 'Grover Norquist' no tax increase pledge.
However, I think this issue brought out a huge lie pushed by Democrats
in general but said by Illinois Democrat Senator Dick Durbin. He said
that
'Social Security does not add one penny to the debt. Not one penny.'
His
statement was in response to Republican demands that entitlement
spending reform be on the table . Basically Senator Durbin is claiming
that there is no need to reform Social Security Entitlements because
Social Security is not a part of this nation's spending/deficit crisis.
Unfortunately, this is not the case and Senator Durbin for sure knows
that this is a lie. Zero Hedge explains:
This statement is a lie that is covered over by a dopy accounting
system called the Unified Budget. In this magical world, the deficits
driven by entitlements are hidden. The reliance on this accounting
fiction is a dangerous path for liberals to take. The fact is, SS (and
the other government retirement programs for Federal workers and the
Military) are running billion dollar cash deficits today and will run
Mega-Trillion dollar cash deficits for the next seventy-five years.
Every penny of those deficits will result in more borrowing from the
public.
These deficits may be “Off Budget” in the magical world of Unified
Accounting, but they do add to the publicly held debt on a
dollar-for-dollar basis. The Rating Agencies are part of the Cliff
discussion (like it or not); those folks are no dopes and they fully
understand that Senator Durbin is all wet with his talk of Off Balance
sheet debt. - Zero Hedge
If
a publicly traded company did this sort of accounting gimmickry,
shareholders would eventually lose their investments and people would go
to jail. Ironically, Democrat politicians would then be crowing to
every TV camera how we need even more laws to prevent this kind of
criminal behavior, all the time committing a much larger theft right out
in the open.
Finally, the Trillions of dollars in assets that the Social Security Trust fund has are currently held in the form of US Treasury Bonds.
In short, the money was given to the Government and spent. The
Government will then have to redeem the bonds as the money is needed to
pay Social Security recipients. This means that they will have to get
the money from somewhere. Given that the Government plans to run a
deficit into the sunset, that means that they will either have to print
or borrow the money.
Graphs pictured above were taken from the US Government's own Government Accountability Office. The article is titled 'Federal Debt Basics'.
Clearly, this is a topic Senator Durbin and many of his follow
Democrats would fail if a grade was given. Unfortunately, it is we who
suffer as a result of their incompetence and criminal behavior if they
had to be judged the same way that they demand businesses be held to
account.
During this last election, President Obama proclaimed that oil drilling in the US has never been greater, implying that he was responsible for this oil drilling boon. In reality, the increase in oil drilling had been taking place on private lands that the Government had little ability to stop.
Now, that President Obama has won re-election, his pro-oil Administration is planning to close off Western Government land from oil exploration.
The Interior Department on Friday issued a final plan to close 1.6 million acres of federal land in the West originally slated for oil shale development.
The proposed plan would fence off a majority of the initial blueprint laid out in the final days of the George W. Bush administration. It faces a 30-day protest period and a 60-day process to ensure it is consistent with local and state policies. After that, the department would render a decision for implementation.
The move is sure to rankle Republicans, who say President Obama’s grip on fossil fuel drilling in federal lands is too tight. - The Hill
The Obama Presidency, redefining 'Pro-Oil'. Then again, his 'All-of-the-Above' energy policy seems to mean 'None of the below'.
Keep in mind that the race for President is now down to two choices:
Sticking with President Obama for four more years
Electing Romney as they new President
We have all experienced four years of Obama and there is no reason to expect any dramatic improvement in how he and his team (Biden-VP, Geithner-Treasury, Holder-'Justice', Solis-'Labor', Sebelius-HHS, Chu-Energy, Napolitano-Homeland Security, Jackson-EPA and Rice-UN) are running this country.
Perhaps President Obama's term would have been much better if he assumed office during good times. Then perhaps with nothing to fix, he could have run after his liberal agenda without the rest of the country suffering. As it so happens, his supporters blame the poor economy for the President's poor performance. However, Obama applied for the job of president knowing that the economy was a mess and that he was the man to fix it. Unfortunately for all of us, he was not.
So what can we expect with having Romney as President? How about a President with experience in fixing messes and turning around and transforming unprofitable businesses and events.
Take the Salt Lake City Olympics. The Olympics was setting up for a huge disaster. Mitt Romney was brought in to save the event, which went from being a huge money pit to actually turning a profit. Mitt Romney took control of the Olympic Games and turned them around from a disaster into a success.
Now picture Obama being put into the same situation. Might we have seen the same result. Or perhaps might he have turned a bad situation worse? Obama's experience has no examples of him doing anything similar. In fact, President Obama has little if any business experience. Instead, his presidency is full of examples where businesses have been targeted as the enemy. And remember that Obama and the Democrats Hate Your Job and your coal job.
Take his role in Bain Capital. He is being attacked for running a company that took businesses in trouble and either turned them around, restructured them to make a profit or closed them down if they were doomed.
Obama and the Democrats will have you think that the actions of Bain were somewhat bad. But lets think about this for a second. It is not like Bain was dismantling successful businesses. Let's face it businesses come and go, even successful ones. Remember Blockbuster Video? Borders Books? Reader's Digest? KB Toys? Bennigan's? Circuit City? Bethlehem Steel, Kodak? Polaroid? Sometimes it is nothing more than changing technology and a corporation's inability to adapt fast enough.
Take Polaroid and Kodak. they were experts at what they did, but have not been able to transition fast enough to survive the coming of digital cameras. Should the Government step in and save these companies? Should the Government save the jobs in these companies? Well what about all the new jobs being created as the new technology takes over from the old? Oh, you say that these new jobs are being created in China? Many are, but there is nothing that we can do about it. At least not until the living standards on those countries catches up to ours. Until then, companies are going to have to keep their manufacturing expenses as low as possible to ensure that the greatest number of people can afford their products. People in China need cars. Very few of them can afford any car made in the US or elsewhere in the first world. So they are going to have to be made in China and other low wage countries. But that fine because most Americans are not going to want to buy such a car. We are a different target market. This leaves room for other manufacturers to meet that demand.
As for jobs, I expect a Romney Administration to do the following to stimulate job creation:
Stabilize the business and personal tax rates
Replace all of Obama's political appointees
'Green light' the Keystone pipeline
Open of more Government lands and offshore areas to drilling
Ensure that new power plant applications are approved
Stop attacking the:
Banking Sector
Insurance sector
Medical sector
End mandatory healthcare coverage
Ah, that last point. Stop forcing companies to pay for employee medical care. This requirement along with increasing the minimum wage are killing all sorts of jobs. One group (among many) that has suffered are the young. Raising of wages and increasing the expense of employing people, such as through forced benefits, has both eliminated jobs for teens and other young as well as displace young workers with older workers who now find those jobs more appealing. Take supermarkets. You used to see young people working in those jobs. Now the supermarkets are full of employees who are working these jobs as full-time workers. Partly because these jobs have been forced to compensate them better and partly because there are less jobs of other kinds out there. Unfortunatly, there are even less supermarket jobs because companies are replacing some of these workers with automatic checkout. Simply because you do not have to pay for medical coverage for a machine.
Many Obama supporters are claiming that they do not want to take a risk on Romney. Well the country took a risk on Obama and we are all worse off. Will some people be worse off four years from now because of Romney? Sure. But we should not flush the whole country down the drain in defense of giving some people an ever-increasing basket of freebees. And this brings about the last important item - Benefit reform and passing a sustainable budget and budget plan. Romney and Ryan will be able to present a path forward. Obama has proven that he cannot and will not tackle the debt issue by failing to pass a budget in the last four years.
I understand that there are many reasons to vote for Obama, such as sticking it to rich people. Unfortunately, there are not enough rich people around to pay for our current spending and certainly not enough to pay for Obama's promise of 'FREE HEALTHCARE'. Things need to be paid for. In order to pay for as much as possible, more people need to be working. Romney will accomplish that. The first step is getting the Government's boot off the necks of the more prosperous half of the country.
My current Nokia phone is just over two years old.
All of my Finnish friends (at least those who have not been laid off by Nokia) have given up on Nokia. That was pretty shocking revelation from my summer trip to Finland.
I do not want an iPhone.
So, here I am waiting for the Nokia Lumia to come out. I signed up at Nokia's website for news on when the phone will be available and have not heard a word.
Worse, I am a T-Mobile customer and I understand that they will not be offering the Lumia 920. Pretty odd strategy Nokia has in only offering their newest phone via the cellphone carriers that carry the iPhone.
I just don't like my Congressman Gerry Connolly. He is a Liberal tool right behind Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. So I will be voting for the man seeking to replace him as my Congressman, Colonel Chris Perkins.
Here is a statement and video by Chris PErkins responding to comments made by Congressman Connolly, both touting his accomplishments in the district, which sounds lots like taking credit for securing Government funding for local projects in which he expects to be rewarded with being re-elected to his spot in Congress. Well, if that is how we should vote, then why not vote in the most corrupt people we can find. That will surely get the money flowing. Anyway, here is Chris Perkins statement:
I was forewarned that politics can be an ugly thing, but I was unprepared for the latest development in my congressional race to represent the 11th District of Virginia.
Incumbent Congressman Gerry Connolly has shocked many of his constituents by suggesting that career military veterans, like myself, are unqualified to serve in Congress – implying that their service to the nation at-large does not amount to sufficient “sweat equity” in the district they seek to serve in Congress.
While speaking to a local Chamber of Commerce and touting his own accomplishments during his 16 years in local politics, Mr. Connolly recently asked the audience: "Where has my opponent been?" Many in the room who were aware of my military career, including those wearing lapel stickers listing the Democratic Party ticket, were visibly taken aback and later distanced themselves from Mr. Connolly’s attack. Unrepentant, the congressman subsequently pressed his line of attack when he spoke to a local neighborhood civic association. Once again describing the work he did as a Fairfax County Supervisor in the building of schools and sidewalks for his community, Mr. Connolly again dismissed my more than 24 years of military experience, saying "I expect a candidate to have demonstrated some sweat equity!"
I am happy to answer the congressman's question. I was in Iraq trying to rescue American fighter pilots who had been shot down. I was hunting down war criminals in Bosnia, and I was evacuating U.S. Embassy personnel in Africa from armed mobs that would do them harm. I was at Arlington National Cemetery 17 times paying my last respects to brave men that I had the privilege and honor to serve with.
I am profoundly disappointed that Congressman Connolly believes career military men and women are unqualified to serve in Congress simply because they chose to serve and protect their country rather than enter local politics. Mr. Connolly’s statements are outrageous and demonstrate an out-of-touch career politician who thinks that only those who climb the ladder of local politics can graduate to higher office. By Mr. Connolly’s standard, many of our forefathers, including George Washington and Dwight Eisenhower, were unqualified to hold federal office. His statements are offensive to our service members and their families who have sacrificed so much for the country they love.
This country’s military veterans, professional intelligence officers and career first responders don’t just have sweat equity in their communities, they have blood equity in America. I believe the voters in Virginia's 11th District appreciate that.
Chris Perkins is a retired U.S. Army officer and congressional candidate for Virginia's 11th District. - Washington Times
Most Americans do not realize that there were two attacks in Benghazi the night of 9/11. One attack on the US Consulate and a second attack on the CIA Annex building in the City.
Those in the CIA Annex, called for help. Help was denied. Not only that, but they were ordered twice not to go and help those at the consulate.
At least three operatives disobeyed that order. Former Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods was one of them and is one of the Americans who died later that night, about 7 hours after the attacks began. Most Americans believe that he was in the Consulate when the attack happened and that he died there. In fact he was at the CIA Annex. Former Navy SEAL Glen Doherty also died while defending the CIA Annex.
With each day news of how the Administration completely mishandled the response to the terrorist attack against the US Consulate in Benghazi, Libya just keeps getting worse. In recent days comes more troubling news that those on the group were pleading for help and there are claims that the requests for help were actively denied, by an as-yet unknown senior person in the Government, perhaps even the President himself or someone in his staff.
Fox News has learned from sources who were on the ground in Benghazi that an urgent request from the CIA annex for military back-up during the attack on the U.S. consulate and subsequent attack several hours later on the annex itself was denied by the CIA chain of command -- who also told the CIA operators twice to "stand down" rather than help the ambassador's team when shots were heard at approximately 9:40 p.m. in Benghazi on Sept. 11.
Former Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods was part of a small team who was at the CIA annex about a mile from the U.S. consulate where Ambassador Chris Stevens and his team came under attack. When he and others heard the shots fired, they informed their higher-ups at the annex to tell them what they were hearing and requested permission to go to the consulate and help out. They were told to "stand down," according to sources familiar with the exchange. Soon after, they were again told to "stand down." - Fox News
It seems to be a huge stroke of luck that those at the CIA Annex disobeyed orders, went to the Consulate and rescued the majority of the Americans there otherwise it is possible that all of the Americans at the Consulate would have ended up dead. Where is the Administration hiding them? Kind of interesting that none of them have had an opportunity to give their version of the events.
Making this twist in the story even more interesting is the news out of the CIA that no one within the CIA would have denied a request for help.
the CIA spokesman, presumably at the direction of CIA director David Petraeus, has put out this statement: "No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate. ”
So who in the government did tell “anybody” not to help those in need? Someone decided not to send in military assets to help those Agency operators. Would the secretary of defense make such a decision on his own? No.
It would have been a presidential decision. - Link
President Obama is damn lucky that only four Americans died during the 9/11 terrorist attacks in Benghazi, not to mention all of the Americans there that survived the attacks. It is only due to the heroic efforts of those on the ground defending their location that they were not assassinated or kidnapped and made hostages in some sort of Tehran Embassy repeat. This attack could easily have ended up that way. It almost defies belief that over the course of the attack, no direct assistance was given.It is incredible and suggests to me that the President considered everyone on the ground that night expendable.
It certainly seems like the Administration is hiding a number of facts of the attacks, starting with the most basic details right to the lack of details of any response efforts made during the attack as well as what military assets might have been in the area to help. Were the predator drone in the area armed as it is suggested that at least one of them was? Was there a SPECTRE Gunship in the area as has been rumored? Finally, why where the Americans defending the CIA Annex lasing a target with the expectation that it would be hit from above? They would only do such a thing if they thought that there were military assets in the area with the capability of dropping a bomb or missile on their target. Might it be that they were told that help was coming? There just seem to be ever more questions regarding this attack..
One last thing. It is perfectly understandable that the Vice President and even the President would not know most of the details of this attack just after it happened, but one would think that weeks after they would be well briefed on the details of this terrorist attack. So it is somewhat inexcusable that Vice President Biden would have no idea that the Americans under attack in Benghazi had requested additional security in the month before the attack. Was the Vice President truly not briefed in these matters, or was he lying? Either way the answer does not bode well for the country.
The Benghazi terrorist attack which killed the US Diplomat to Libya and three other Americans is a big deal. The Obama Administration has accused Mitt Romney of politicizing the attack. This is a load of bull. The Obama Administration has been lying about the attack for weeks and even to this day still can't give straight answers as to how it came about that the US Consulate has less security than the US Embassy in peaceful Helsinki, Finland. This is despite pleas from the Ambassador for more security.
In addition to the lax security question, also unanswered is why the Administration decided to do nothing when they learned about the attack. The attack was brought to the President's attention while it was underway. The Administration took a 'Wait and See' approach.
The Administration openly blamed a stupid internet video. Even though they are downplaying the link now that the association has so opening been seen a lie, they are still holding the producer of the video in jail, not to be brought before a judge until after the election.
Then the Administration waited weeks before securing the Consulate site, leaving classified material free for the taking, even by the news media.
So the next time Obama declares that Mitt Romney politicized the Benghazi terror attack, hopefully someone will point out that it was the weeks of the Administration lying about the attack that politicized it.
Then there is the other Obama foreign relations disaster with a body count, that being 'Fast and Furious'. I hope that comes up for discussion during the last Presidential debate. Along with kicking our long-term friends the UK, Canada, Australia, Israel, Poland, Taiwan and other to the curb, while at the same time embracing Russia, the UN's despot-controlled 'Human Rights Council' and groups traditionally seen as supporters of terrorism.
First, there would have been no point to this story. But the Democrats had to insist in forcing companies and religious institutions to provide birth control to adults at no charge despite 'lack of access to birth control' not even being listed as any of the major reasons why women get accidentally pregnant.
One of Obama's major vote for free birth control warriors is Sandra Fluke. She has been activly promoted by Obama's re-election team, even given a speaking spot at the Democrat National Convention. Personally I do not know why, as the message of a 31 year old law graduate whining about her need to get free birth control does not really ring with me. It actually rings pretty hollow when you find out that a month's worth of birth control costs about $10. Everyone can pony up $10. The fact that Sandra can't gather a crowd of more than ten persons at an Obama re-election rally is pretty good evidence that her 15 minutes of fame is about over.
Now take Monica Lewinsky. I had a chance to see her back in 1999 when she appeared in Helsinki Finland for her book signing. This was her second appearance that day and all of the people packed into the bookstore are trying to get a glimpse of her. the first bookstore was so packed that you could not get into it. All of this is 3 years after the scandal that made her famous.
So maybe Obama should ask Monica if she can help him campaign. Because Sandra's message is just not cutting it.
With each passing day it seems that the Obama Administration is looking more and more responsible for the success of the terrorist attack against the US Consulate in Benghazi, Libya. Take the following developments since the initial news of the attack:
The Obama Administration initially blamed the attack on protests against some crudely made internet video
The Administration claimed to have no intelligence information suggesting any impending attacks, however they were informed both internally and from foreign sources.
The attack happened on 9/11
The Administration, including the President, met during the attack and decided to take a 'wait-and-see' posture, deciding against sending forces to defend the consulate.
The Ambassador himself alerted the State Department regarding threats to his life.
The Ambassador had repeatedly requesting additional security.
The requests were denied.
the requests and the denials were kept from the public.
It took weeks before the Consulate was investigated by the FBI. To this day, there is no evidence that the State Department did anything to secure the site or any confidential information still remaining in the Consulate.
How is it possible, other than through a case of negligence, possibly bordering on criminal negligence, or through some huge misguided social experiment in 'Hope' is is possible for a consulate in a country full of persons violently hostile to Americans to have less security than the US Embassy in peaceful Helsinki, Finland. How is that possible? It's possible when you put a President in charge who does not believe in a strong defense. A President who believes that a strong defensive posture is what drives hate against Americans.
All I can say to that is that letting those who hate America destroy our Embassies and kill Americans is not going to extinguish the hate. All it will do is make America look weak and fan the flames of more hate.
This is just one more reason to elect Mitt Romney as the next President. The haters around the world will hate us no matter who is President. We can however minimize the threat by having a strong a proud President at the helm.
This is just the latest example of how much of a failure President Obama's soft stance against terrorism is. Hugging terrorists does not reform them. It never will. The Obama Administration will never understand this. The only 'extremists' they can recognize are members of the 'Tea Party.'
UPDATE 10 October 2012
Above I had mentioned the possibility that persons in the State Department might have been criminally negligent. Well, take a look at this Congressional hearing questioning Charlene R. Lamb, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Programs. Here is a summary of what she is responsible for:
Diplomatic Security Senior Leadership » Lamb, Charlene R - Assistant Director for International Programs
Biography
Other Releases
Bureau of Diplomatic Security
Washington, DC
Share on facebookShare on google_plusone
Share
Charlene R. Lamb
Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Programs
As the Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Programs, Ms. Lamb is a key member of the DS management team, responsible for providing strategic planning, management support, and establishing budget priorities to senior DS management. Ms. Lamb manages more than $1.2 billion in security assets and programs and thousands of personnel dedicated to that purpose. She is also responsible for the safety and security of over 285 overseas Embassies and Consulates and oversees the 550 special agent/security professionals posted at those locations. - US State Department
That is a pretty impressive set os responsibilities. You know what else is impressive, her past history. Go ahead and read the rest of her bio which includes postings in a number of hot spots. It sounds like this is exactly the kind of person you would want overseeing embassy safety and security. Which makes this testimony all the more bizarre and I dare say damning. How on earth did she come to the conclusion that security in the consulate was anywhere near acceptable, especially considering that embassies in peaceful countries have much better security.
The US State Department's Office of Authentications recently changed their operating hours. Or dare I say their operating hour. Until recently, the office of Authentications at the US State Department was open until 11AM. As long as you made it in the door by 11AM they would service you as you waited. Now they have reduced their hours to one hour a day, from 8 until 9AM. And only to accept documents, not to actually process them. For that, you'll have to come back.
Starting September 17, 2012, Authentications staff will meet customers by appointment 10:00 a.m to 2:30 p.m. Monday - Friday (except Federal Holidays).
Beginning Monday, September 17, the Office of Authentications will perform document review by accepting document drop-offs 8-9 AM, Monday - Friday (except Federal Holidays). - Link
Now you can forget about making an appointment, appointments are reserved for Government business and for 'life and dead' emergencies. The joke is, to get an appointment, you still have to show up between 8 and 9.
This might not matter to most people, but the service this office provides, the legalization of documents for presentation in other countries is important when conducting business overseas, including import and export. Often times, in order to conduct business overseas, business documents are required to be legalized, including a stop at the US State Department.
I can tell you from first-hand experience that the legalization process it expensive and time consuming. Having a courier call you to tell you that the hours have been cut back to one a day is just one more anti-business decision made by our Government.
Thankfully, our operations are local. I was told that there were many pissed off people from Phili and even New York who made the trip to DC just to get documents legalized only to be confronted with an office that was already closed for the day.
OK, so there is a program that telephone and cellular phone subscribers pay for that gives away cellular phones to the poor and dare I say 'near-poor'. The money comes from Universal Service Fund fees that are tacked onto most phone bills. The Universal Service Fund is:
The Universal Service Fund (USF) was created by the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in 1997 to meet Congressional universal service goals as mandated by the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The 1996 Act states that all providers of telecommunications services should contribute to federal universal service in some equitable and nondiscriminatory manner; there should be specific, predictable, and sufficient Federal and State mechanisms to preserve and advance universal service; all schools, classrooms, health care providers, and libraries should, generally, have access to advanced telecommunications services; and finally, that the Federal-State Joint Board and the FCC should determine those other principles that, consistent with the 1996 Act, are necessary to protect the public interest. As of the third quarter of 2012, the USF fee, which changes quarterly, equals 15.7 percent of a telecom company's interstate and end-user revenues - Wiki
One of the approved uses of this money is to give free cellular phones, and cellular phone service to people who qualify. Who qualifies? Well, according to the Obama Phone website up to 35% of all Americans
If you, or members in your household are, receiving the following
benefits you automatically qualify for the Lifeline program. Those
interested in the program must have an income of less than 135% of the
Federal Poverty Guidelines. (For example in the 48 Contiguous States and
D.C the income level is $22,350 per year for a family of four.)
Food Stamps or Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
Medicaid
Supplemental Security Income – commonly known as SSI
Health Benefit Coverage under Child Health Insurance Plan (CHIP)
The National School Lunch Program’s Free Lunch Program.
Low-Income Energy Assistance Program – LIHEAP
Federal Public Housing Assistance ( Section 8 )
If you are a low-income Eligible Resident of Tribal Lands
You have got to be kidding me. That is a huge number of people. And in certain areas of the country, I guess people could claim that everyone has an Obama Phone like was done in the video from Cleveland, Ohio earlier this week...
So where do I sign up for free alcohol?
But seriously, I do not have a land line phone. The cable company is more than willing to give me one for free, but I gave that phone up years ago because the 'Free' phone cost me about $10 a month in taxes. Part of those taxes was to fund this program which is probably being abused all to hell. What's next? Free internet? Apparently this is the direction that we are headed.
Keep this in mind the next time you look at your phone bill. What other programs are you paying for through fees in your phone bill.You might find some surprising things. Take the NY City area. Their phone bills also include a surtax for the Metropolitan Transit Authority. All of this you pay for to subsidize other people.
Yes, some people should get help. But I bet that people will be surprised at just how much help poor people already get as they cry to politicians to put their hands into your pockets yet again... Don't wait for any accountability anytime soon. They only want to audit the rich. There is no interest in auditing what happens to the money when it it given to the poor (in exchange for votes).
I was forwarded this and enjoyed it enough to share. If only President Obama and his follow Democrats could understand and confront this problem. I am not saying that the Republicans are blameless here. However, they are the only ones that both sides will hold to account regarding future spending....
----------------------------------
This rather brilliantly cuts thru all the political doublespeak we get.
It puts it into a much better perspective.
US Tax revenue: $2,170,000,000,000
Fed budget: $3,820,000,000,000
New debt: $1,650,000,000,000
National debt: $16,000,000,000,000
Recent budget cut: $38,500,000,000
Now let’s remove 8 zeros and pretend it’s a household budget
Annual family income: $21,700
Money the family spent: $38,200
New debt on the credit card: $16,500
Outstanding balance on the credit card: $160,000
Total budget cuts: $385
OK, now Lesson # 2:
Here's another way to look at the Debt Ceiling:
Let's say … you come home from work and find there has been a sewer backup in your neighborhood and your home has sewage all the way up to the ceilings.
What do you think you should do ......
Raise the ceilings, or pump out the crap?
----------------------------------
When the Democrats talk about creating jobs, they only talk about jobs in sectors that traditionally support Democrats. It is really a kind of self-supporting loop.
These jobs:
Firefighters
Policemen (Sometimes)
Teachers
More Government workers
These jobs all sound good, but employing ever more of them requires more tax revenue. That is because all of these workers are supported by taxes. Now President Obama and the Democrats would like you to believe that these jobs are supported by Federal Taxes. However, outside of Federal Government workers, this is a huge lie. Most firefighters, policemen and teachers are supported by State and local taxes. So when President Obama hits Romney in an ad for wanting to drastically slash funding for public schools 20 percent, it is a deceptive claim given that 90% of school funding comes from local sources, such as property taxes. In reality slashing the Government portion by 20% only reduces the overall amount 2 percent. But if the Democrats told you this, most every reasonable person would say that a 2% overall cut is not bad. Anyway, this is one reason that teachers and firefighters get laid off. The Government gives stimulus money to hire extra workers. The stimulus money runs out. These extra workers are laid off. Obama and the Democrats howl about these laid off workers without noting that they were ever needed to begin with.
Now take the other jobs. Those that pay taxes to support the jobs above. Take coal jobs. The coal mining industry is being killed under this Administration. And they are nowhere near done. We have had people knocking on our door multiple times in the last couple of months asking us to sign petitions to encourage the President, Congress, the EPA, etc.. to push to get rid of dirty coal, with the excuse that they are pushing to get this done for the children. Even my children.
Now, we really do have a good and relatively clean country. The air and water are better than ever before. Remember acid rain? How about leaded gasoline and lead paint. I do. Surely there are pollutants associated with coal fired power plants, but now we have gotten to the point apparently that the remaining issues are either relatively trivial or rare that they don't even have a name to scare people with and certainly nothing to point at. So instead we just have to be confronted with the idea that coal is bad because this is something we can all believe. Remember that acid rain.... Well, there are are huge consequences for continuing a 'War on Coal' and coal mining jobs:
President Obama’s war on coal is real. Don’t believe us? Come to Brilliant, Ohio or Clay, West Virginia and we’ll show you coal mines that were closed as a result of President Obama’s assault on hardworking Americans who work in the coal industry. Coal is a cheap, abundant, and reliable source of power. Almost 90% of Ohio’s power comes from coal and just across the Ohio River in West Virginia, over 95% of its power comes from coal. Needless to say, coal plays a vital role in not only powering the Buckeye and Mountain states, but coal generates nearly half of America’s electricity. So why would President Obama want to destroy such a vital part of America’s economy?
President Obama’s war on coal is nothing new. Even before President Obama took the oath of office, he was pretty clear with his plans for America’s coal industry. In 2008, then-candidate Obama said to the San Francisco Chronicle, “So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them.” If there’s one thing we can say about the Obama Administration, when it comes to assaulting the coal industry, its actions match its words. - By Reps. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) and Bill Johnson (R-Ohio), The Hill
It is senseless to drive what was a productive industry out of business. Worse, it is reckless to destroy energy production not only for households but also for businesses. Some industries, like steal production rely on cheap electricity. Pushing those businesses out of the US will just result in much dirtier production in China not to mention much higher electric bills in the US. Want to pay more for electricity? How do you like the light of those CFL bulbs? Me, I like lighting up my world.
Lighting up the night was a huge innovation. It is somewhat sad that many people are now so concerned about their high electric bills that they no longer keep on a front light. Kind of a shame really and we only have the Government and Global warming fanatics to blame. We can hopefully put a stop to this with a change of occupants in the White House.
This President wants to talk about outsourcing to China. He accuses Mitt Romney of outsourcing jobs to China. Well Obama and the Democrats are outsourcing our pollution to China. That is the worse crime. Their actions are literally killing people over there. Not only that, by making electricity more expensive over here, along with everything else, it is just one more reason we are losing jobs in America.
Don't kid yourself. This is by Democrat design. They actually think they are doing you and your family a favor by killing off coal jobs and other jobs like steel production. Lets face it, they are hard nasty jobs. They would never do these jobs. So, you're welcome...
