Monday, October 31, 2011
Saturday, October 8, 2011
The Truth About Social Security
Whether you are Democrat or Republican. Facts are Facts.
Social Security Cards up until the 1980s expressly stated the number and
Card were not to be used for identification purposes.Since nearly everyone in the
United States now has a number, it became convenient to use it anyway and the
Message, NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION, was removed.
United States now has a number, it became convenient to use it anyway and the
Message, NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION, was removed.
An old Social Security card with the "NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION" message.
Our Social Security
Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social
Security (FICA) Program. He promised:
1.) That participation in the Program would be
Completely voluntary,
No longer Voluntary
2.) That the participants would only have to pay
1% of the first $1,400 of their annual
Incomes into the Program,
Now 7.65%
On the first
$90,000
3.) That the money the participants elected to put
Into the Program would be deductible from
Their income for tax purposes each year,
No longer tax deductible
4.) That the money the participants put into the
Independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the
General operating fund, and therefore, would
Only be used to fund the Social Security
Retirement Program, and no other
Government program, and,
Under
Johnson the money was moved to
The General Fund and Spent
5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed
As income.
Under Clinton & Gore
Up to 85% of your Social Security can be Taxed
Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are
Now receiving a Social Security check every month --
And then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of
The money we paid to the Federal government to 'put
Away -- you may be interested in the following:
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ----
Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the
Independent 'Trust Fund' and put it
into the
General fund so that Congress could spend it?
A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically
Controlled House and Senate.
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --
Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax
Deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?
A: The Democratic Party.
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -----
Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social
Security
annuities?
A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the
'tie-breaking' deciding vote as President of the
Senate, while he was Vice President of the US
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -
Q: Which Political Party decided to start
Giving annuity payments to immigrants?
AND MY FAVORITE:
A: That's right!
Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party.
Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65,
Began to receive Social Security payments! The
Democratic Party gave these payments to them,
Even though they never paid a dime into it!
------------ -- ------------ --------- ----- ------------ --------- ---------
Then, after violating the original contract (FICA),
The Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want
To take your Social Security away!
And the worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it!
Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social
Security (FICA) Program. He promised:
1.) That participation in the Program would be
Completely voluntary,
No longer Voluntary
2.) That the participants would only have to pay
1% of the first $1,400 of their annual
Incomes into the Program,
Now 7.65%
On the first
$90,000
3.) That the money the participants elected to put
Into the Program would be deductible from
Their income for tax purposes each year,
No longer tax deductible
4.) That the money the participants put into the
Independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the
General operating fund, and therefore, would
Only be used to fund the Social Security
Retirement Program, and no other
Government program, and,
Under
Johnson the money was moved to
The General Fund and Spent
5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed
As income.
Under Clinton & Gore
Up to 85% of your Social Security can be Taxed
Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are
Now receiving a Social Security check every month --
And then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of
The money we paid to the Federal government to 'put
Away -- you may be interested in the following:
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ----
Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the
Independent 'Trust Fund' and put it
into the
General fund so that Congress could spend it?
A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically
Controlled House and Senate.
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --
Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax
Deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?
A: The Democratic Party.
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -----
Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social
Security
annuities?
A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the
'tie-breaking' deciding vote as President of the
Senate, while he was Vice President of the US
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -
Q: Which Political Party decided to start
Giving annuity payments to immigrants?
AND MY FAVORITE:
A: That's right!
Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party.
Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65,
Began to receive Social Security payments! The
Democratic Party gave these payments to them,
Even though they never paid a dime into it!
------------ -- ------------ --------- ----- ------------ --------- ---------
Then, after violating the original contract (FICA),
The Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want
To take your Social Security away!
And the worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it!
Friday, September 23, 2011
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
The Truth About Social Security
Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program. He promised: 1.) That participation in the Program would be Completely voluntary, No longer Voluntary 2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual Incomes into the Program, Now 7.65% on the first $90,000 3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year, No longer tax deductible 4.) That the money the participants put into the independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the general operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other Government program, and, Under Johnson the money was moved to The General Fund and Spent 5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxedas income. Under Clinton & Gore Up to 85% of your Social Security can be Taxed Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month -- and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to 'put away' -- you may be interested in the following: ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ---- Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the independent 'Trust Fund' and put it into the general fund so that Congress could spend it? A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically controlled House and Senate. ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -- Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding? A: The Democratic Party. ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- ----- Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities? A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the 'tie-breaking' deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the US ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- - Q: Which Political Party decided to startgiving annuity payments to immigrants? AND MY FAVORITE: A: That's right! Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party. Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive Social Security payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it! ------------ -- ------------ --------- ----- ------------ --------- --------- Then, after violating the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take your Social Security away! And the worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it! If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of awareness will be planted and maybe changes will evolve. But it's worth a try.How many people can YOU send this to? Actions speak louder than bumper stickers.
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Saturday, June 25, 2011
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
Sunday, June 12, 2011
Friday, June 3, 2011
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
investigation has revealed the identity of the man whose Social Security number (SSN) is being used by President Obama
An intensive investigation has revealed the identity of the man whose Social Security number (SSN) is being used by President Obama: Jean Paul Ludwig, who was born in France in 1890, emigrated to the United States in 1924, and was assigned SSN 042-68-4425 (Obama's current SSN) in or about March 1977.
Ludwig lived most of his adult life in Connecticut. Because of that, his SSN begins with the digits 042, which are among only a select few reserved for Connecticut residents.
Obama never lived or worked in that state! Therefore, there is no reason on earth for his SSN to start with the digits 042. None whatsoever!
Now comes the best part! Ludwig spent the final months of his life in Hawaii, where he died.
Conveniently, Obama's grandmother, Madelyn Payne Dunham, worked part-time in the Probate Office in the Honolulu Hawaii Courthouse, and therefore had access to the SSNs of deceased individuals.
The Social Security Administration was never informed of Ludwig's death, and because he never received Social Security benefits there were no benefits to stop and therefore, no questions were ever raised.
The suspicion, of course, is that Dunham, knowing her grandson was not a U.S. citizen, either because he was born in Kenya or became a citizen of Indonesia upon his adoption by Lolo Soetoro simply scoured the probate records until she found someone who died who was not receiving Social Security benefits, and selected Mr. Ludwigs Connecticut SSN for Obama.
Just wait until Trump gets past the birth certificate and onto the issue of Barry O's use of a stolen SSN. You will see leftist heads exploding, because they will have no way of defending Obama.
Although many Americans do not understand the meaning of the term "natural born" there are few who do not understand that if you are using someone else's SSN it is a clear indication of fraud.
Ludwig lived most of his adult life in Connecticut. Because of that, his SSN begins with the digits 042, which are among only a select few reserved for Connecticut residents.
Obama never lived or worked in that state! Therefore, there is no reason on earth for his SSN to start with the digits 042. None whatsoever!
Now comes the best part! Ludwig spent the final months of his life in Hawaii, where he died.
Conveniently, Obama's grandmother, Madelyn Payne Dunham, worked part-time in the Probate Office in the Honolulu Hawaii Courthouse, and therefore had access to the SSNs of deceased individuals.
The Social Security Administration was never informed of Ludwig's death, and because he never received Social Security benefits there were no benefits to stop and therefore, no questions were ever raised.
The suspicion, of course, is that Dunham, knowing her grandson was not a U.S. citizen, either because he was born in Kenya or became a citizen of Indonesia upon his adoption by Lolo Soetoro simply scoured the probate records until she found someone who died who was not receiving Social Security benefits, and selected Mr. Ludwigs Connecticut SSN for Obama.
Just wait until Trump gets past the birth certificate and onto the issue of Barry O's use of a stolen SSN. You will see leftist heads exploding, because they will have no way of defending Obama.
Although many Americans do not understand the meaning of the term "natural born" there are few who do not understand that if you are using someone else's SSN it is a clear indication of fraud.
Sunday, May 22, 2011
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Monday, May 9, 2011
Saturday, May 7, 2011
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
THIS IS OUR PRESIDENT
THIS IS OUR PRESIDENT
Is anyone out there awake?
Everyone of voting age should read these two books: Don't buy them,
just get them from the library.
From Dreams From My Father:
"I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites."
From Dreams From My Father :
"I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother's race."
From Dreams From My Father:
"There was something about her that made me wary, a little too sure of herself, maybe and white."
From Dreams From My Father:
"It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names."
From Dreams From My Father:
"I never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn't speak to my own. It was into my father's image, the black man, son of Africa , that I'd packed all the attributes I sought in myself:
the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, DuBois and Mandela."
And FINALLY ........... and most scary:
From Audacity of Hope:
"I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in
an ugly direction."
Is anyone out there awake?
Everyone of voting age should read these two books: Don't buy them,
just get them from the library.
From Dreams From My Father:
"I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites."
From Dreams From My Father :
"I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother's race."
From Dreams From My Father:
"There was something about her that made me wary, a little too sure of herself, maybe and white."
From Dreams From My Father:
"It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names."
From Dreams From My Father:
"I never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn't speak to my own. It was into my father's image, the black man, son of Africa , that I'd packed all the attributes I sought in myself:
the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, DuBois and Mandela."
And FINALLY ........... and most scary:
From Audacity of Hope:
"I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in
an ugly direction."
Thursday, April 28, 2011
JammieWearingFool: Obama Rails Against Oil Subsidies, Gave ACORN $3 B...
JammieWearingFool: Obama Rails Against Oil Subsidies, Gave ACORN $3 B...: "Yeah, how dare those evil oil companies who produce a product we all need get money from the federal government . President Obama lashed out..."
Monday, April 4, 2011
National Small Business Association
America's small business advocate
The Fair Tax
NSBA endorses the 23 percent national retail sales tax
The current U.S. income tax system discourages personal savings and investments by taxing
capital gains, dividends and earned interest. Business owners and wage earners struggle under
the burden of a very regressive payroll tax. The income tax-not to mention the Alternative
Minimum Tax-is unbelievably complex, time consuming and costly to administer.
In response to overwhelming sentiment calling for a simpler, more fair and efficient, and less
intrusive system of taxation, NSBA became the first small-business organization to endorse the
Fair Tax-a 23-percent, single rate, national retail sales tax which would be applied to the sale
of all consumer goods and services at the final point of consumption. The Fair Tax ensures that
every taxpayer will be subject to the same tax rate with no exceptions and no exclusions. Those
who are least able to share in the cost of government will bear no burden at all. Tax rates will
depend on the amount of purchases made. Used items will not be taxed, which promotes
reutilization. Business-to-business purchases for the production of goods and services will not
be taxed. In addition, the Fair Tax will replace the individual federal income tax, the capital
gains tax, all payroll taxes, corporate income taxes, the self-employment tax and the estate and
gift taxes.
Contrary to opponents' arguments that Fair Tax would harm elderly and low-income
individuals, the system actually would place these individuals in greater control over how much
they pay in taxes. The Fair Tax will include a rebate system, where all valid Social Security
beneficiaries will receive a rebate equivalent to the tax paid on essential goods and services.
This rebate will be paid in advance in equal installments each month. The size of the rebate will
be determined by the government's poverty level for a particular household (defined as one or
more individuals), multiplied by the tax rate. The Fair Tax also will be beneficial in terms of
compliance costs, which are continually seen as one of the most detrimental characteristics of
the current system. It is estimated that Americans spend at least $225 billion each year to
comply with the current tax code.
Under the Fair Tax, compliance costs will fall to less than $10 billion, creating enormous net
savings that eventually would be incorporated in lower product prices for consumers. The tax
will be collected at retail businesses, taking the tax burden out of the hands of the consumers.
Already, 45 states have a sales tax system, and the Fair Tax would simply add an additional
line onto the current sales tax reporting form. Businesses will collect the tax and send it to the
state's tax-collecting authority. All businesses serving as collecting agents will receive a fee for
collection, and the states also will receive a collection fee. While the Fair Tax should not be
interpreted as a tax cut, the reduction in work required to administer the new tax will certainly
be a relief for business owners and consumers alike.
On Jan. 2, 2011, the first day of the I 12th Congress, HR. 25 (the Fair Tax Act) was introduced
by freshman Rep. Rob Woodall (R-Ga.), with 48 original cosponsors-the most the Fair Tax
has ever had at the time of introduction.
NSBA continues to advocate that the Fair Tax is a fair, efficient, transparent, and intelligent
solution to the frustration and inequity of the United States' current tax system. NSBA supports
fundamental reform and looks forward to working with supporters of the Fair Tax to educate
taxpayers about the proposal.
The Fair Tax
NSBA endorses the 23 percent national retail sales tax
The current U.S. income tax system discourages personal savings and investments by taxing
capital gains, dividends and earned interest. Business owners and wage earners struggle under
the burden of a very regressive payroll tax. The income tax-not to mention the Alternative
Minimum Tax-is unbelievably complex, time consuming and costly to administer.
In response to overwhelming sentiment calling for a simpler, more fair and efficient, and less
intrusive system of taxation, NSBA became the first small-business organization to endorse the
Fair Tax-a 23-percent, single rate, national retail sales tax which would be applied to the sale
of all consumer goods and services at the final point of consumption. The Fair Tax ensures that
every taxpayer will be subject to the same tax rate with no exceptions and no exclusions. Those
who are least able to share in the cost of government will bear no burden at all. Tax rates will
depend on the amount of purchases made. Used items will not be taxed, which promotes
reutilization. Business-to-business purchases for the production of goods and services will not
be taxed. In addition, the Fair Tax will replace the individual federal income tax, the capital
gains tax, all payroll taxes, corporate income taxes, the self-employment tax and the estate and
gift taxes.
Contrary to opponents' arguments that Fair Tax would harm elderly and low-income
individuals, the system actually would place these individuals in greater control over how much
they pay in taxes. The Fair Tax will include a rebate system, where all valid Social Security
beneficiaries will receive a rebate equivalent to the tax paid on essential goods and services.
This rebate will be paid in advance in equal installments each month. The size of the rebate will
be determined by the government's poverty level for a particular household (defined as one or
more individuals), multiplied by the tax rate. The Fair Tax also will be beneficial in terms of
compliance costs, which are continually seen as one of the most detrimental characteristics of
the current system. It is estimated that Americans spend at least $225 billion each year to
comply with the current tax code.
Under the Fair Tax, compliance costs will fall to less than $10 billion, creating enormous net
savings that eventually would be incorporated in lower product prices for consumers. The tax
will be collected at retail businesses, taking the tax burden out of the hands of the consumers.
Already, 45 states have a sales tax system, and the Fair Tax would simply add an additional
line onto the current sales tax reporting form. Businesses will collect the tax and send it to the
state's tax-collecting authority. All businesses serving as collecting agents will receive a fee for
collection, and the states also will receive a collection fee. While the Fair Tax should not be
interpreted as a tax cut, the reduction in work required to administer the new tax will certainly
be a relief for business owners and consumers alike.
On Jan. 2, 2011, the first day of the I 12th Congress, HR. 25 (the Fair Tax Act) was introduced
by freshman Rep. Rob Woodall (R-Ga.), with 48 original cosponsors-the most the Fair Tax
has ever had at the time of introduction.
NSBA continues to advocate that the Fair Tax is a fair, efficient, transparent, and intelligent
solution to the frustration and inequity of the United States' current tax system. NSBA supports
fundamental reform and looks forward to working with supporters of the Fair Tax to educate
taxpayers about the proposal.
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Fair Tax
FairTax and the problem with congress
I have been saying that the biggest problem with getting the FairTax bill passed is not the people … IT IS CONGRESS.
FairTax eliminates a lot of lobbyist and that eliminates a great deal of campaign funding.
The letter below proves the point. In plain English the question is BULL CRAP. No concern for the people just for congress.They know that in every forum where the Flat Tax and The FairTax were debated the FairTax won. Just recently in Arizona
FairTax 42% - Flat Tax 17%. For the Republican Party to offer a survey on tax preference and not include the FairTax is Tyranny.
Please send an email to your congressperson and let them know you will work to defeat them if they do not play fair. Here is the response from Oliver Johnson. GOOD ON HIM.
Gentlemen, and I use the term loosely,
I resigned from the Republican Party because you guys had become deaf. You could not hear anything anyone said except "Yes Sir" and I had long since quit agreeing with your tactics and actions!
In your recent survey, question 11, "When it comes to reforms for debating our national tax system, do you support a Flat Tax to replace our current personal tax rates?"
The choices were a) YES, b) No Opinion.
Just to get your sense of how biased this question is, let me use your tactic on another matter. "When it come to reforms for debating our NATIONAL energy policy, do you support whale oil to replace our current energy sources? Choices a) Yes b) No Opinion
I do not support the current federal tax system, which includes income, payroll, gift, and other taxes. I do not support the Flat Tax. I do not support the VAT, not that you asked. I have more than an opinion, I have a passion for the FAIR TAX and eliminating the IRS as we know it. And I have a passion for replacing dishonest congressmen of any party.
Oliver Johnson,
Rhinebeck, NY
Click here to visit the homepage for this group
If the text above does not appear as a clickable link, you can visit the web address:
http://www.fairtax.org/site/
I have been saying that the biggest problem with getting the FairTax bill passed is not the people … IT IS CONGRESS.
FairTax eliminates a lot of lobbyist and that eliminates a great deal of campaign funding.
The letter below proves the point. In plain English the question is BULL CRAP. No concern for the people just for congress.They know that in every forum where the Flat Tax and The FairTax were debated the FairTax won. Just recently in Arizona
FairTax 42% - Flat Tax 17%. For the Republican Party to offer a survey on tax preference and not include the FairTax is Tyranny.
Please send an email to your congressperson and let them know you will work to defeat them if they do not play fair. Here is the response from Oliver Johnson. GOOD ON HIM.
Gentlemen, and I use the term loosely,
I resigned from the Republican Party because you guys had become deaf. You could not hear anything anyone said except "Yes Sir" and I had long since quit agreeing with your tactics and actions!
In your recent survey, question 11, "When it comes to reforms for debating our national tax system, do you support a Flat Tax to replace our current personal tax rates?"
The choices were a) YES, b) No Opinion.
Just to get your sense of how biased this question is, let me use your tactic on another matter. "When it come to reforms for debating our NATIONAL energy policy, do you support whale oil to replace our current energy sources? Choices a) Yes b) No Opinion
I do not support the current federal tax system, which includes income, payroll, gift, and other taxes. I do not support the Flat Tax. I do not support the VAT, not that you asked. I have more than an opinion, I have a passion for the FAIR TAX and eliminating the IRS as we know it. And I have a passion for replacing dishonest congressmen of any party.
Oliver Johnson,
Rhinebeck, NY
Click here to visit the homepage for this group
If the text above does not appear as a clickable link, you can visit the web address:
http://www.fairtax.org/site/
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Cutting The Budget
The President ordered the cabinet to cut $100 million from the $3.5 trillion federal budget. I'm so impressed by this sacrifice that I have decided to do the same thing with my personal budget.
I spend about $2000 a month on groceries, household expenses, medicine, utilities, etc, but it's time to get out the budget cutting axe, go through my expenses, and cut back. I'm going to cut my spending at exactly the same ratio, 1/35,000 of my total budget. After doing the math, it looks like instead of spending $2000 a month; I'm going to have to cut that number by six cents.
Yes, I'm going to have to get by with $1999.94, but that's what sacrifice is all about. I'll just have to do without some things, that are, frankly, luxuries. (Did the president actually think no one would do the math?)
John Q. Taxpayer
I spend about $2000 a month on groceries, household expenses, medicine, utilities, etc, but it's time to get out the budget cutting axe, go through my expenses, and cut back. I'm going to cut my spending at exactly the same ratio, 1/35,000 of my total budget. After doing the math, it looks like instead of spending $2000 a month; I'm going to have to cut that number by six cents.
Yes, I'm going to have to get by with $1999.94, but that's what sacrifice is all about. I'll just have to do without some things, that are, frankly, luxuries. (Did the president actually think no one would do the math?)
John Q. Taxpayer
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Collective Bargaining
Good Teachers Would Benefit From An End To Collective Bargaining
As a result of our efforts to support Governor Walker’s legislation to end collective bargaining for some public employees in Wisconsin we have been attacked by the left (as expected). We have also received a handful of complaints from people who claim to be conservative. These complaints usually are some slight modification of the following: ”Why are you attacking hard working teachers and public employees.” As a result I feel it necessary to further expand on some key points.Good teachers (and there are many of them) could actually benefit if the collective bargaining practice was ended. Collective bargaining has lead schools and government agencies to accept contracts treating every employee exactly the same. Teachers that perform well receive the same pay and benefits as the teachers who perform poorly. The result is that there is no incentive to excel as an educator and it is incredibly difficult to remove bad teachers under collective bargaining agreements. That being said, we know there are thousands of teachers doing their best every day under the current educational system to give students a good education. This fight has never been about them.
Eliminating collective bargaining would make it easier for school districts and other government agencies to negotiate performance based contracts with measurable results based criteria, rewarding those employees that excel. It will not take away worker rights as many are saying since worker rights are protected under existing law. Changing the law would also make it possible, although still difficult, to remove bad employees.
We do not dispute that unions played a large part in bringing about improvements to work conditions that we all enjoy. For that we are thankful. Riding on the coattails of history, modern unions are now little more than a political arm of the Democratic Party. National teacher’s unions time and time again use the phrase; “If you love the children, you need to spend more on education”. At the same time, performance in our educational system has been declining for many decades. We can and must do better for our children.
Contrary to liberal thinking, competition is a great motivator. I am a Conservative because I believe in free market principles. These same principles must be applied to the public sector if we want the best performance and the best results for our tax dollars. This is why I support Governor Scott Walker and the legislators who are fighting to save Wisconsin.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Debt Ceiling
Back in 2006, as the vote on raising the debt limit came up, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and Harry Reid all voted against it. ...
...They (the Republicans) should go to the floor of their respective house in the congress and, before pledging to vote against the debt limit just like Barack Obama did when he was there, they should quote Barack Obama. Every single one of them.
“Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that
‘the buck stops here.’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.”
Barrack Hussein Obama -2006
...here’s Joe Biden:
"But as the rest of the world copes with the waves of U.S. debt, we are now all in the same leaky boat. There is just so much of our debt other nations want to hold. The more of it they accumulate, the closer we are to the day when they will not want any more. When that happens, slowly or rapidly, our interest
rates will go up, the value of their U.S. bonds will drop, and we will all have big problems. We need both more awareness, and more understanding, of this fundamental threat to our economic well being and the global economy. … The President’s budget plans will bring that number to $11.8 trillion at the end of the next 5 years. This is a record of utter disregard for our Nation’s financial future. It is a record of
indifference to the price our children and grandchildren will pay to redeem our debt when it comes due. History will not judge this record kindly. My vote against the debt limit increase cannot change the fact that we have incurred this debt already, and will no doubt incur more. It is a statement that I refuse to be associated with the policies that brought us to this point."
…and Harry Reid:
"Given the explosion of debt in recent years, it is long past time for Washington to change the
course and adopt a new fiscal policy. After all, the future of our economy and our Nation is
at stake… "
...They (the Republicans) should go to the floor of their respective house in the congress and, before pledging to vote against the debt limit just like Barack Obama did when he was there, they should quote Barack Obama. Every single one of them.
“Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that
‘the buck stops here.’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.”
Barrack Hussein Obama -2006
...here’s Joe Biden:
"But as the rest of the world copes with the waves of U.S. debt, we are now all in the same leaky boat. There is just so much of our debt other nations want to hold. The more of it they accumulate, the closer we are to the day when they will not want any more. When that happens, slowly or rapidly, our interest
rates will go up, the value of their U.S. bonds will drop, and we will all have big problems. We need both more awareness, and more understanding, of this fundamental threat to our economic well being and the global economy. … The President’s budget plans will bring that number to $11.8 trillion at the end of the next 5 years. This is a record of utter disregard for our Nation’s financial future. It is a record of
indifference to the price our children and grandchildren will pay to redeem our debt when it comes due. History will not judge this record kindly. My vote against the debt limit increase cannot change the fact that we have incurred this debt already, and will no doubt incur more. It is a statement that I refuse to be associated with the policies that brought us to this point."
…and Harry Reid:
"Given the explosion of debt in recent years, it is long past time for Washington to change the
course and adopt a new fiscal policy. After all, the future of our economy and our Nation is
at stake… "
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
