“The total potential federal government support could reach up to $23.7 trillion,” said Neil Barofsky this week. He’s the special inspector general for the TARP -- one of the government’s many bailout programs dumping billions upon billions. Say again… this whole mess could put U.S. taxpayers on the hook for just under $24 trillion.
Barosfky’s report was self-admittedly an overblown worst-case scenario… for example, it assumes that every mortgage loan on Fannie and Freddie’s books will go bad and that every government-aided bank will go bust. (Heh, we like this guy).
But we see why he bothered crunching all the numbers for a scenario that will never happen (or if it were to happen, no one would really care what the exact cost would be). This is what your government is willing to do in order to maintain the status quo. Votes for this year’s election are worth $24 trillion for tomorrow’s generation.
So when Congress asked, hey Neil, what’s your real guess? $3 trillion, he responded. Phew, what a relief!
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Global Warming...55 million years ago?
Another little nugget of information for you: SUV's (allegedly) did not exist 55 million years ago BUT, according to scientists, they've found that there was indeed massive global warming 55 million years ago here on Earth. This little revelation prompted one scientist to wonder if all the current climate models are completely wrong. Time for Al Gore to fire up the propaganda machine and discredit another scientist!
Universal Health helps kill UK man
Just a little nugget of information for you to noodle as Universal Healthcare is being rammed down our throats. In the UK, where they have Universal Health, a 22 year old man was denied a request for liver treatment and died soon after. The reason he was denied? Because he couldn't prove he could stay sober (he had a drinking problem). Despite having checked into AA and wanting to get better -- he couldn't prove it, so -- let him die! Let the rationing begin here in the US!
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Redefining Wealth
In what came as no shock to me....
“An income tax surcharge on highly paid Americans emerged as the leading option Wednesday night as House Democrats sought ways to pay for health care legislation that President Barack Obama favors, several officials said. As discussed in the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, the surtax would apply to individuals with adjusted gross income of more than $200,000 and couples over $250,000, (since changed to $350,000) they added.” AP July 8, 2009
While there are plenty of discussions going on about the pros and cons of nationalized health care, I want to comment on this notion of taxing the wealthy.
Ever since his first day on the campaign, Obama has defined wealth using the same numbers cited above, usually in making the argument that he intended to take more money from them because “they really don’t need it”; and while I will not argue that someone making $200,000 per year is making a lot of money, I do not believe that it automatically defines them as wealthy.
Every year, Forbes magazine lists the 400 richest people in America, however they define wealth by net worth which is the value of everything that they own, minus their debt. By Forbes definition, Warren Buffett is wealthy with a net worth of $50 Billion, however in the latest information we have, Buffet’s annual salary in 2006 was only $100,000, placing him way below the standard set by Obama (I do want to point out here that Mr. Buffet is a big supporter of Obama and has helped him in numerous ways).
Further more, the latest public information about our elected officials shows that Speaker Pelosi has a net worth of about $62 Million, yet her congressional salary of $165,200 puts her way below the wealth standard as well. In fact, if you start looking at the net worth of all of our elected officials, you would see that the latest reports show a median net worth of $746,000. The Senate especially is truly a millionaires club with a median net worth of $1.7 million.
Said Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, which conducted the latest study on congressional wealth:
"In the House of Representatives, Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., ranks No. 1, with $397 million, followed by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., with $343 million. Rep Robin Hayes, R-N.C., ranks third, with $173.4 million. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., ranks sixth, with $62 million.
"In the Senate, the two Democrats from Massachusetts claimed two of the top three spots.
"Sen. John Kerry led the pack, with $336 million, while Sen. Edward M. Kennedy ranked third, with $104 million. Sen. Herb Kohl, D-Wis., ranked second, with $241.5 million”.
Senator Kohl is one of my Senators and in a recent exchange, said in no uncertain terms that there would be no need to include government employees and elected officials in the new Health Care system meaning that they were going to keep their current health care system, while forcing the rest of us into their newly created model.
So not only are they not going to participate in the program they’re quickly shoving down our throats, they also are making sure that they won’t be using their money to help fund it. So our taxes will be used to fund both.
If after this year, you still think that we have any semblance of a representative government of the people, then I have some carbon credits that I’d like to sell you. This new ruling class has positioned themselves to dictate just about every aspect of our lives from what we will drive, how much energy we will use, what kind of food we eat and how much of our money “we need” to keep, while exempting themselves from the life they demand that we lead.
In 1913, Woodrow Wilson started chipping away at the Constitution, in the 1930’s FDR took a sledgehammer to it and in 2009, this Government has brought in the steamroller. I can’t wait to hear the rationalization for all this!
“An income tax surcharge on highly paid Americans emerged as the leading option Wednesday night as House Democrats sought ways to pay for health care legislation that President Barack Obama favors, several officials said. As discussed in the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, the surtax would apply to individuals with adjusted gross income of more than $200,000 and couples over $250,000, (since changed to $350,000) they added.” AP July 8, 2009
While there are plenty of discussions going on about the pros and cons of nationalized health care, I want to comment on this notion of taxing the wealthy.
Ever since his first day on the campaign, Obama has defined wealth using the same numbers cited above, usually in making the argument that he intended to take more money from them because “they really don’t need it”; and while I will not argue that someone making $200,000 per year is making a lot of money, I do not believe that it automatically defines them as wealthy.
Every year, Forbes magazine lists the 400 richest people in America, however they define wealth by net worth which is the value of everything that they own, minus their debt. By Forbes definition, Warren Buffett is wealthy with a net worth of $50 Billion, however in the latest information we have, Buffet’s annual salary in 2006 was only $100,000, placing him way below the standard set by Obama (I do want to point out here that Mr. Buffet is a big supporter of Obama and has helped him in numerous ways).
Further more, the latest public information about our elected officials shows that Speaker Pelosi has a net worth of about $62 Million, yet her congressional salary of $165,200 puts her way below the wealth standard as well. In fact, if you start looking at the net worth of all of our elected officials, you would see that the latest reports show a median net worth of $746,000. The Senate especially is truly a millionaires club with a median net worth of $1.7 million.
Said Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, which conducted the latest study on congressional wealth:
"In the House of Representatives, Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., ranks No. 1, with $397 million, followed by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., with $343 million. Rep Robin Hayes, R-N.C., ranks third, with $173.4 million. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., ranks sixth, with $62 million.
"In the Senate, the two Democrats from Massachusetts claimed two of the top three spots.
"Sen. John Kerry led the pack, with $336 million, while Sen. Edward M. Kennedy ranked third, with $104 million. Sen. Herb Kohl, D-Wis., ranked second, with $241.5 million”.
Senator Kohl is one of my Senators and in a recent exchange, said in no uncertain terms that there would be no need to include government employees and elected officials in the new Health Care system meaning that they were going to keep their current health care system, while forcing the rest of us into their newly created model.
So not only are they not going to participate in the program they’re quickly shoving down our throats, they also are making sure that they won’t be using their money to help fund it. So our taxes will be used to fund both.
If after this year, you still think that we have any semblance of a representative government of the people, then I have some carbon credits that I’d like to sell you. This new ruling class has positioned themselves to dictate just about every aspect of our lives from what we will drive, how much energy we will use, what kind of food we eat and how much of our money “we need” to keep, while exempting themselves from the life they demand that we lead.
In 1913, Woodrow Wilson started chipping away at the Constitution, in the 1930’s FDR took a sledgehammer to it and in 2009, this Government has brought in the steamroller. I can’t wait to hear the rationalization for all this!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)