BluntPolitics.com

Researched by Ric Joyner

This is a blog post from DailyKos.com which is a VERY leftist blog. They call themselves Kossacks and if you review their logo it appears to mimic the old Soviet Union communist propaganda art. Remember communism seeks to create an egalitarian society by taking wealth from others to give it to people who didn’t work or earn it and basically turning the entire country into slave labor with no opportunity.

Please follow the thread to see the “rock and the hard place” that President Obama is experiencing with several different factions in the democratic party, labor and left wing organizations that are for and against health care reform. President Obama has pandered to the left, unions and has helped to pay them back in the stimulus bill and even bailing out their pension plans in HR3200.

AFL-CIO: No Public Option, No Support

By BarbinMD

Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 03:00:04 PM PDT

This is what it sounds like when someone representing the Democratic wing of the Party speaks:

Democratic lawmakers will not be able to count on the AFL-CIO’s support if they drop the public insurance option from the health care reform legislation, union officials said Tuesday.

The AFL-CIO’s incoming president, Richard Trumka, outlined “three absolute musts” in any overhaul package: a public option, an employer mandate and no tax on employer-provided health benefits.

Asked if the union would work against any bill that did not hit those targets, Trumka told reporters during a *briefing: “That means we won’t support the bill if it doesn’t have the public option.”

Please note I cannot find independent verification of *a briefing: Ric

And as Trumka declared last month during a speech to the Sheet Metal Workers International Association:

We need to send them a special message: it’s that you may have forgotten what the labor movement did to get you elected; but, by God, we never will! And if you stab us in the back on health care this year don’t you dare ask us for our support next year!

And the Max Baucus/Blue Dog wing of the Party needs to remember that — and that 2010 is just around the corner.

Overview of what the “left” believes is the next move for Obama.

Report: President to reveal health care deal-breakers

By Jed Lewison

Tue Sep 01, 2009 at 04:30:04 PM PDT

Marc Ambinder delivers a report that has the feel of a trial balloon:

This time, the President is going to be specific. Next week, President Obama is going to give Democrats a health care plan they can begin to sell.

He plans to list specific goals that any health insurance reform plan that arrives at his desk must achieve, according to Democratic strategists familiar with the plan.

Strikingly, despite the tough “deal-breaker” language, there still seems to be a ton of wiggle room on the public option:

He will insist upon a mechanism to cut costs and increase competition among insurance companies — and perhaps will even specify a percentage rate — and he will say that his preferred mechanism remains a government-subsidized public health insurance option, but he will remain agnostic about whether the plan must include a robust public option. Officials won’t say whether the president intends to endorse a specific “trigger” mechanism if the competition mechanism fails, but they say he will make it clear that the final bill must contain language that increases competition.

Purely in political terms, if the White House’s goal is to generate enthusiasm in the Democratic base, that sort of approach won’t cut it. If they want to excite the base — and as Kos showed earlier, they need to — then they will need to come out more strongly for a public option, because it is the only mechanism that anybody has proposed that will meet his stated objectives.

Update (4:50, by Jed) — Remember that this sounds like a trial balloon, and it’s not coming from named sources. Nothing is written in stone. President Obama hasn’t said anything yet. If you don’t like what you’re hearing, the best thing to do is to let your voice be heard, whether at public events, phone calls to your senators and representatives, or whatever works best for you. Without your active involvement, AHIP could still win this thing.

Make a difference on Friday 9-11 and make the call. Your Representatives need to hear from you. They will be hearing from those who wish to take our freedom of choice, jobs and livelihood.

Yes. He hopes that by taxing the rich, and corporations that the job loss will trickle down to the rest of the country putting thousands out of work. Then he can put those people to work building bridges and roads thus keeping them enslaved to the government. Sound sarcastic? It is not meant to be because fear of Obama’s taxes and capitol gains increases is driving away investors to the market. These fears are only making a bad economy worse.

Read the article by Investors Business Daily today:

VIEWPOINT

Stocks Pay Price Of Coming Tax Increases

GROVER G. NORQUIST

   Some Americans are concerned that if Sen. Barack Obama is elected president, his plans for higher taxes on personal income, capital gains, dividends and corporations will damage the economy.
   It is a little late to be worrying about this. We are already in the midst of the Obama recession. But to be fair, we should give House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid at least equal billing.
   Why has the stock market collapsed? Why wouldn’t it?
   In 2003, the Dow stood at about 8000. The then-Republican Congress and President Bush reduced the capital gains tax to 15% from 20% and the tax on dividends to 15% from 35%. In the next three years, the Dow rose 50% to 12,000, and household net worth rose to $56 trillion from $40 trillion.
   This is the “wealth effect” of taxation. If you own stock in a company and the tax on earnings by that company is reduced, the value of the stock increases. If taxation on the company is increased, you would pay less for the same stock.
   Microsoft stock is worth less if you attach the boat anchor of higher capital gains taxes, higher corporate income taxes and higher dividend taxes. But this is not what will happen if Obama is elected. It’s what already happened on Nov. 7, 2006, when Democrats won the majorities in the House and Senate.
   The tax cuts of 2003 that sparked the increase in national wealth are scheduled to end on Jan. 1, 2011. It does not require a President Obama to make those taxes increase. All it requires is for the Democrats to control either the House or the Senate with enough votes to stop legislation to extend the tax cuts.
   And the top individual tax rate, now at 35% but also paid by many small businesses, will snap back up to Bill Clinton’s 39.6% on Jan. 1, 2011.
   Pelosi and Reid both voted against the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. We know where they stand. Every Democrat in the House and Senate has voted repeatedly for higher taxes since that party became the majority in January 2007, and House Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel has unveiled his “mother of all tax hikes” to increase taxes by $38 billion over 10 years.
   Presidents don’t cut taxes or raise taxes. They sign the bills sent to them by Congress.
   Obama originally campaigned for raising the dividend tax to 39.6% from 15%. Then, when his contributors from Wall Street pointed out how devastating that would be to the stock market, he changed his rhetoric to calling for an increase to “only” 20%. But if Congress does nothing, the dividend tax increases to 39.6% on Jan. 1, 2011.
   Americans for Tax Reform worked with John Rutledge to calculate how Obama’s and McCain’s tax policies would affect the stock market. The calculator appears at ATR’s Web site, www.atr.org.
   You can enter the size of your 401(k), and it will calculate its value under four different scenarios: if Obama’s tax increases pass; if McCain’s tax cuts are enacted; if Congress’ plans are enacted; and if Americans for Tax Reform’s fantasy tax cuts, including abolishing the capital gains tax, were made law.
   The Obama tax plan will reduce the value of the stock market and your 401(k) by 6%. The House Democrat plan will drop the market by 16%. Remember, Obama cannot impose his tax plan — he has to sign what Congress sends him, so Congress’ tax plans are more important than Obama’s campaign speeches.
   If Republicans won the House and Senate and McCain’s tax plans were enacted, the market and your 401(k) would increase by 46%. And if you pass the McCain plan and add ATR’s abolition of the capital gains and dividends tax, the market and your 401(k) would increase by 58%.
   But the market can read the newspapers and is aware that the Democrats control the House and Senate now and likely will for the next two years. This means the market gains since 2003 due to lower capital gains and dividend taxes will disappear.
   The market has already begun to drop in anticipation of the coming tax increases. The Pelosi-Reid-Obama recession has already started.
   Of course, if Obama and the Democrat leaders in Congress have tax hikes and regulatory burdens planned that they haven’t shared publicly, the market will drop even further. It can get worse.
   
Norquist

is president of Americans for Tax Reform and author of “Leave Us Alone: Getting the Government’s Hands Off Our Money, Our Guns, Our Lives.”

I went to the Obama web site and used the tax refund calculator. This showed with my income that I would receive about $1340 tax cut. First, this is not a tax cut. Second, this is a refund check. I will promptly return this to the government from whence it came because I didn’t earn it, and it came out of someone else’s pocket who did earn it.

By Ric Joyner

Yes. How? By giving a tax break to people who don’t pay taxes now. This is buying votes. This is putting people on welfare. This is socialism.

McCain has it right. Give businesses a tax break and they will put people to work. Smart.

Barack gives money away which isn’t his to give.

I found this comment on the web which is funny and sad:

The Democratic Party: We do everything for the children, including aborting them

The Democratic Party - We’re so compassionate, we give YOUR money to the poor (er, whatever’s left)!

The Democrat Party - Give us your tired, your weak, and your poor, we’ll make ‘em worse off.

Today on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read “Vote Obama, I need the money.” I laughed.

Once in the restaurant my server had on an “Obama 08″ tie, again I laughed
as he had given away his political preference–just imagine the coincidence.

When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that
I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there
in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to
someone who I deemed more in need–the homeless guy outside. The server
angrily stormed from my sight.

I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server
inside as I’ve decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was
grateful.

At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I realized
the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter
was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the
actual recipient deserved money more.

I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept
than in practical application.

(author unknown)

Starting To Pay Price For Our Protectionism (investors business daily)

Trade: As Obama makes political hay off protectionism and promises a new Smoot-Hawley era, it’s no surprise our trading partners are beginning to look to other markets — such as Europe. It’s a warning.

   Our No. 1 trading partner, Canada, isn’t stupid. When Obama threatened last February to rewrite the North American Free Trade Agreement on his own terms, our northern ally started looking abroad to other markets.
   They found a big one in Europe, which seems to have few hangups about increasing exports and signing free-trade treaties. Last Friday, Canada and the European Union held the first talks toward an eventual free trade agreement between the two.
   When this goes through, $27 billion in new trade is expected by 2014, according to a joint EU-Canada study. Canada will add an extra 0.8% to its GDP and see income gains of $11.1 billion from the new jobs and higher salaries coming in from Europe.
   After all, if free trade with the U.S. bolstered Canada’s economy and standard of living by a factor of four since 1994, it makes sense to do more of what brought in that wealth.
Europe’s $14 trillion market is an attractive alternative to the U.S. for the Canadians, if it comes to that, and the Europeans are happy to add Canadian investment to the $500 billion investment its three largest economies drew in 2007.
Canada isn’t the only one responding to these chill trade winds blowing in from the Washington elites in election season.
Colombia is also preparing to sign a free-trade deal with Europe, as its own free-trade accord with the U.S. languishes after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi blocked it in Congress last April.
U.S. allies are wise to seek other partners no matter what the U.S. climate — the U.S. downturn no doubt plays a role too. But it started with noises out of the U.S. about pulling up the drawbridge.
With a global downturn, free trade makes more sense than ever. That ought to be an election issue for the U.S., which needs to stay globally competitive. Sadly, it’s not.
Canada and Colombia are effectively defending themselves from the anti-trade vortex in the U.S. by turning to other markets. The Europeans have no intention of imitating the mistake made by the U.S. “It’s never a good sign when the U.S. becomes protectionist,” Philippe Favre, special ambassador for international investment and chairman of Invest in France Agency, the country’s foreign investment arm, said in recent comments to IBD.
   Like many European officials, Favre thinks the sentiment has been brewing for a while. “If you look at the last two or three years, there was the U.S. preventing foreigners from buying ports,” he said. “The Chinese wanted to buy an oil company and they were stopped. Then you have the contract for (air refueling) tankers refused to a European company (EADS).”
   Another failure was the World Trade Organization talks. “We have seen since 9/11 a U.S. trend to be more wary of the rest of the world,” Favre said. “We probably underestimated the impact (of the attack) on the people and the country in the EU.”
   Agree or disagree, there’s no doubt that protectionism will make America poorer and less influential, protecting nothing. Outsourcing is particularly full of misperceptions.
   “Look at the auto industry — Japan started by exporting to Canada and the U.S., and now produces cars in the U.S. They did it because the market itself is in the U.S. We see exactly the same thing in Europe. More car plants are going up in Germany and France than Bulgaria and Romania, even though the labor costs are lower there.”
   Michael Pfeiffer, managing director of Invest in Germany, told IBD that exports are no threat: “We (Germans) are the largest exporters in the world — it’s something we do. We have to do it.”
   Why? Germany doesn’t have the diversified economy America does. “One-quarter of German people are employed for export industries,” said Pfeiffer.
   With the possibility of a protectionist Democratic president (Barack Obama) working with a protectionist Democratic Congress, the U.S. may be the odd man out when it comes to free trade.
   Pity. Because free trade, as any economist will tell you, inevitably boosts the economies of those who engage in it. So others, like Canada, Colombia and Europe, will continue down the free-trade path — toward greater wealth for their citizens — while the U.S. sits on the sidelines.
   The world will decide it isn’t going to wait for Nancy Pelosi to come around on free trade — it’s going to leave the U.S. in the dust.

September 20, 2008
hp-1150

FACT SHEET:
Proposed Treasury Authority to Purchase Troubled Assets

Washington – The Treasury Department has submitted legislation to the Congress requesting authority to purchase troubled assets from financial institutions in order to promote market stability, and help protect American families and the US economy. This program is intended to fundamentally and comprehensively address the root cause of our financial system’s stresses by removing distressed assets from the financial system. When the financial system works as it should, money and capital flow to and from households and businesses to pay for home loans, school loans and investments that create jobs.  As illiquid mortgage assets block the system, the clogging of our financial markets has the potential to significantly damage our financial system and our economy, undermining job creation and income growth.  The following description reflects Treasury’s proposal as of Saturday afternoon.

Scale and Timing of Asset Purchases. Treasury will have authority to issue up to $700 billion of Treasury securities to finance the purchase of troubled assets. The purchases are intended to be residential and commercial mortgage-related assets, which may include mortgage-backed securities and whole loans. The Secretary will have the discretion, in consultation with the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, to purchase other assets, as deemed necessary to effectively stabilize financial markets.  Removing troubled assets will begin to restore the strength of our financial system so it can again finance economic growth. The timing and scale of any purchases will be at the discretion of Treasury and its agents, subject to this total cap. The price of assets purchases will be established through market mechanisms where possible, such as reverse auctions. The dollar cap will be measured by the purchase price of the assets. The authority to purchase expires two years from date of enactment.

Asset and Institutional Eligibility for the Program. To qualify for the program, assets must have been originated or issued on or before September 17, 2008. Participating financial institutions must have significant operations in the U.S., unless the Secretary makes a determination, in consultation with the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, that broader eligibility is necessary to effectively stabilize financial markets.

Management and Disposition of the Assets. The assets will be managed by private asset managers at the direction of Treasury to meet program objectives. Treasury will have full discretion over the management of the assets as well as the exercise of any rights received in connection with the purchase of the assets. Treasury may sell the assets at its discretion or may hold assets to maturity. Cash received from liquidating the assets, including any additional returns, will be returned to Treasury’s general fund for the benefit of American taxpayers.

Funding. Funding for the program will be provided directly by Treasury from its general fund.  Borrowing in support of this program will be subject to the debt limit, which will be increased by $700 billion accordingly.  As with other Treasury borrowing, information on any borrowing related to this program will be publicly reported at the end of the following day in the Daily Treasury Statement. (http://www.fms.treas.gov/dts/)

Reporting. Within three months of the first asset purchases under the program, and semi-annually thereafter, Treasury will provide the appropriate Congressional committees with regular updates on the program. 

Higher marginal rates across income levels hurts growth, some say

BY DAVID HOGBERG INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY

With the U.S. suffering from low GDP growth, job losses, a credit crunch and weak housing activity, Barack Obama’s tax plan would help or hurt, depending on which economist you ask.
   Obama would boost the tax burden over current policy, shift the tax burden to higher earners, and result in higher marginal rates for the top earners and for some in the middle class.
   His plan would raise taxes by $627 billion over 10 years, based on likely assumptions, according to an analysis by the Tax Policy Center, a joint project of the liberal Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution. Alan Viard, resident scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, claims the Obama plan would jar growth.
   “The higher marginal rates at the top would, all else equal, tend to reduce economic growth by impeding work and capital accumulation,” he said.
   Michael Ettlinger, vice president of economic policy at the liberal Center for American Progress, disagrees.
   “I think it’s a good plan. It balances needed investments in energy and education with the need to be fiscally responsible,” he said.
   The Obama plan would raise the top two marginal rates of 33% and 35% to 36% and 39% and hike the capital gains rate from 15% to 20%.
   The effective top marginal rate of 38% for top earners could rise to 48% to 50%, including a new Social Security payroll tax on wage income above $250,000.
   While Viard notes that Obama’s tax increases wouldn’t be as large as previously thought, they would still do “harm to long-run growth from reduced incentives,” he said.
   Bob Williams, an economist with the Urban Institute, sees a milder effect.
   “Increasing the top rates may change how the people at the top realize income,” he said. “But it is unlikely to affect how much income they earn.”
   On the lower end of the income scale, Obama’s plan would expand the earned income tax credit and the payroll tax, plus help out with child care and retirement savings.
   It also would scrap income taxes on the elderly making less than $50,000 annually.
   “That puts money in the hands of those most likely to spend it,” said Williams.
   “The tax cuts are well targeted to boost demand,” Ettlinger concurred. “The credit reducing the payroll tax for lower income workers is exactly what our economy needs.”
   The Obama plan would cut taxes for many middle class earners. The ones left out would find tax credits phase out as income increases. “Many middle-income households will face somewhat higher effective marginal tax rates due to the phase-outs,” said Viard.
   Under the Obama plan, a family of four with an income of $31,000 to $45,000 could end up with a marginal tax rate 34% to 39%, 13 percentage points higher than under the current tax code.
   Even with lower overall tax takes, higher marginal rates could reduce the incentive to work or improve skills to seek higher-paying jobs.
   Much of the impact of the Obama plan may hinge on how it treats the federal budget deficit, which this year is projected to swell to more than $400 billion.
   “It depends on how Obama pays for his tax cut,” said Robert McIntyre, director of Citizens for Tax Justice. “If there is no long-term borrowing, it will not have a long-term drag on the economy.”
   The Tax Policy Center analysis shows that the Obama plan would reduce the deficit by $800 billion over 10 years — assuming Obama would not cut or increase spending. But Obama has promised to boost spending by at least $126 billion annually, with increases in education, medical insurance, the environment and foreign aid.
   He has also promised to cut spending by an undetermined amount by ending the Iraq War, reducing subsidies to Medicare HMOs and farmers, and improving health insurance efficiency.
   Ettlinger worries that reducing the deficit could hamper government spending in energy infrastructure and education.
   “If the Obama plan were to solely focus on deficit reduction, it would harm the economy,” he said
   Economists also are divided over the short-term pros and cons of Obama’s plan, given the economy’s current weakness.
   “It is just what the economy needs since our current troubles are likely to move into next year,” Ettlinger said.
   Regarding the increases in the top rates, Williams said: “Raising rates in times of an economic downturn is a bad idea. Timing is important with this plan.”

By Ric Joyner

Obama showed his core beliefs at the Saddleback Church debate which is “redistribute wealth” by taxing the rich and many other socialistic leanings. The problem with taxing the rich thinking, is that being rich is a moving target. For example, I have relatives that are “rich” in farmland that will be sold for their retirement, but have lower  income now. Are they rich? Yes. Wealth, in the land puts them in the wealthy or rich category. But they don’t “feel” rich (their words) because the disposable income is not in their pocket NOW. But it will be in the future. Paying the bill when the land is sold from the tax increases, which  Obama enacts, will be payback for voting for him.

Historically the democrats “tax the rich” and the rich stop spending money. Who gets hurt when people stop spending money? Take a look at housing….slow now because folks aren’t spending… and the result is people are out of work. But the real question is; “who is better with my money…a bureaucrat in DC…or my family?” Those that want to tax the rich, don’t mind if the government taxes someone else, as long as it isn’t them.

McCain was clear on taxes. Let’s not tax anyone.

It was clear that Obama doesn’t do well in a personal debate, which John McCain excels. John McCain doesn’t do well as Obama in a prepared speech.

I was on the DailyKos Blogs, which is a left wing daily blog, earlier in the day on Saturday prior to Saddleback. I found the comments interesting as they focused on how Obama will show the world what a cool candidate he is, and turn John McCain into Elmer Fudd. During the debate, I watched the comments on Kos, and was surprised at the comments being shared that said Barack was doing poorly. Later in the day Kos posts began to coalesce that their “man” went into the lions den of Christians, and Obama was at an unfair advantage! Yikes, both candidates were given the questions ahead of time! Are Obama supporters whiners? The other thread that was on Kos was many Hillary supporters were saying “I told you so”.

The real Obama came out. Big government, redistribute wealth, and good feelings all around!

My opinion is that Obama is in a world of hurt and the polls are showing this fact.

By Ric Joyner

Hold on to your wallet….

The "Tax and Spend" democrats will never learn that you cannot tax people into prosperity. The Senate just passed the ability to end the Bush Tax Cuts and voted not to control spending! This will mean an added cost to working families and is horrible drain on the economy.

George Bush gave us tax cuts that got the economy moving again from the ravages of Bill Clinton’s tax increases, but didn’t reign in spending. The Senate Dems voted to kill the Bush tax cuts, and opposed spending cuts! So the definition of Tax and Spend Liberal still defines the  democratic party! http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,337769,00.html

The incredible arrogance of this thinking is swallowed hook line and sinker by the "working Dems" as championing "tax the rich". The problem is they can’t define the rich when challenged! They also don’t realize that the rich pay most of the taxes in the country and provide jobs.

The "rich" are never really defined by the liberal Dems. But here is an article that lays out exactly the way people are taxed.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_19_56/ai_n13673328

When I ask my relatives, who are die hard Dems, who believe in taxing the rich (even though it may be a widow in retirement) to let me know when they will see those tax cuts in their paycheck and helping the poor? They don’t have an answer except, you are a Bush fan and Bush is a liar…. They are not interested in conservative issues of not taxing and not spending. The Bush hating is all they have on their minds.

BTW when those tax bills come where do they go? Who do they pay? Certainly not the local merchant or the local poor.

Got another memorial we can build in DC?

Where is everyone’s common sense?