Alright, it's been a couple of months and we've got a fuller and richer idea of what Obama means by 'hope' and 'change'. Let's take a look at what's being said, what's been said, and what is being planned for the future.
President Obama, being eternally optimistic and having run on a platform that claimed sunshine and bluebirds every day should he be elected, has been speaking doom and gloom on the economy so often that even Bill Clinton has reprimanded him on the topic. The stock market has dropped further since his election than it did in all the time W. Bush was in office, and every time he makes a speech, it takes a fall of a couple hundred points. His message is simple; the only way for this country to survive is to give him every power, and to oppose any of his decisions is to want this country to fail. As well, to want lower taxes and greater freedom is now unpatriotic.
Our 'stimulus package' was put together under the watchful eye of Nancy Pelosi, who encourages government funding of contraception and abortion services under the unapologetic (her words!) claim that we can cut government spending on education and healthcare for children by reducing the number of children. I would never have thought of that solution. My natural preference is to reduce or eliminate government spending by cutting taxpayer programs for children of rich families, but the expansion to SCHIP either has been or will be passed soon.
The changes in the package made to medical spending were put into place by Tom Daschle, who has praised Europeans above Americans for being willing to accept a 'hopeless diagnosis' for a treatable condition on the grounds that it would cost the government too much money to help you.
Robert Reich, another lawmaker who worked on the package, caused a minor stir when he pronounced that guidelines should be created for the infrastructure upgrades to ensure that construction jobs created by the work do not go to skilled construction workers or white men. We must ensure that "women and minorities" who are not construction workers or skilled professionals are the ones who ensure that our bridges are safe to cross.
But don't despair! You'll be getting tax relief, if you don't make what the government deems to be too much money, which is about $75K/year. Yeah, I know Obama said his threshhold was $250K, but then Biden, I think it was, said $150K, and someone else said $120K, so are you really surprised? Anyways, if you are not rich, i.e. making $75K/year, you'll be getting about $25/month back in your paycheck starting in April. Don't you feel lucky? It's a tax credit, not a cut, but it's evenly distributed so that it looks like a cut. Oh yes, and you will get this money even if you don't pay any taxes at all, so it isn't really a 'tax' adjustment so much as a welfare check. Basically, the government is using the IRS to send welfare checks to people who are already working, whether they want it or not, and anyone making over $75K/year, in other words, the rich, will be paying for it.
This is the Democrat definition of hope, you see. The government will be handling the redistribution of wealth. If they decide that you make 'too much' money, you will be forced to pay for the lifestyles of all the people who don't. However, even if this level of financial burden bankrupts you, it will still not be enough. Therefore, all the 'little people' who don't make 'too much' money have to learn to be content with what the government provides. Instead of negotiating your own prices with an HMO in order to obtain the medical care that you need, you must expect that if you are too expensive for the government, you will not be allowed to obtain care. You must learn to accept that which has been rationed out to you instead of seeking your own fortune.
The government will care for all your needs, and if your needs are too many, the government will see to it that the population of the needy is reduced through abortion and lack of care for the ill and elderly until the finances work. In other words, prevent hunger by killing the hungry and prevent poverty by killing the poor. The survivors will revere you for saving them from want.
Ah, let me take a moment and address the jobs situation. The rise in unemployment is actually less of an all-over set of layoffs and more targeted to a couple of specific industries, primarily construction. But don't despair, you who are losing your construction jobs! The benevolent Obama has foreseen your needs! He and the Democrats in Congress are setting up a large spending spree on upgrading roads, bridges, and highways.
Unfortunately, Reich and others advocate restrictions on this spending to ensure that the money does not go to actual construction workers and/or 'skilled professionals', especially if they are white men. That's right, despite the fact that 'whites' make up about two-thirds of this nation's population, we must make sure that they are not getting any government funding, even if that means that we cannot hire the people who actually lost their jobs in this recent rise in unemployment. Don't despair, however. Plenty of money in the stimulus package will go towards hiring biologists to study field mice and climatologists to study 'global warming', even though there is no indication of a high unemployment level among biologists or climatologists.
How will Obama pay for all these non-white non-construction workers, biologists, and climatologists? Well, next up on the agenda is supposedly a 25% cut in defense spending. That's right, since the housing market collapse has caused many lost jobs among various construction workers and associated professionals, we must pay for non-professionals and people who are not construction workers by taking money away from the people who employ carpenters, painters, plumbers, electricians, and welders. With the government refusing to buy military equipment built by blue-collar workers and then refusing to hire those same blue-collar workers with the money they've taken away, I'm afraid we're in for a lot more government-subsidized people lining up for their rationed food and rationed healthcare.
Is this hope? Well, it certainly is change.
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Saturday, February 7, 2009
Fixing the economy is too expensive, but socialism never has too great a price?
Charles Schumer is an idiot.
You won't often hear me calling people idiots. I tend to not like doing that. I don't call people idiots just for disagreeing with me. You have to have come out with "a real doozy" for that word to apply.
The Democrats killed (by vote) the Republican alternative to Obama's economic plan. They claimed that the package of mostly tax cuts, including cutting the bottom personal tax brackets, was just too expensive. This comes from the same people whose only hesitation on the collection of pork termed a "stimulus package" is that they 'fear' it may not spend enough money.
The real beauty, however, comes from Schumer's objection to the Republican plan to encourage banks to offer fixed-rate mortgage loans at 4-4.5% with 'jumbo loans' being exempt. This would help an awful lot of people, by the way, especially the minorities that the Democrats claim to favor. Think about it... the Democrats encourage minority home ownership by letting banks offer a $300,000 loan at variable interest rates, for a house that was worth less than $200K just a few years ago. The Republicans encourage minority home ownership by floating a suggestion to encourage banks to lend to them at a 4-4.5% fixed rate. But anyways, back to Schumer's objection.
The plan would provide a windfall to banks charging fees to refinance mortgages.
That's right, that's his objection. Those naughty banks might actually make some profit off the mortgage refinancing fee. We're talking roughly in the neighborhood of $3,000 for the privilege of refinancing a loan. What will that do to the poor consumer? Well, I recently refinanced at a lower interest rate and rolled the cost into the loan, and still saved over $300/month in bill payments. But that's besides the point, really.
Banks might make money by refinancing mortgages. That's the objection.
Remember TARP? It was meant to hand banks some capital in hopes of restoring liquidity. Basically, the government handed them money in hopes that they would start lending again. Guess what the banks didn't do with the money. That's right. This plan got through a Democrat-controlled Congress with ease.
So basically, it's A-Ok for the government to give the banks 'free' money in hopes that they'll start lending again, but it's unacceptable for the government to prod banks into earning some money by starting to lend again.
This isn't about the economy! This is about government control of the private sector! The Democrats aren't after an end to the recession. They want to turn this country to socialism. They're just using the recession as an excuse!
You won't often hear me calling people idiots. I tend to not like doing that. I don't call people idiots just for disagreeing with me. You have to have come out with "a real doozy" for that word to apply.
The Democrats killed (by vote) the Republican alternative to Obama's economic plan. They claimed that the package of mostly tax cuts, including cutting the bottom personal tax brackets, was just too expensive. This comes from the same people whose only hesitation on the collection of pork termed a "stimulus package" is that they 'fear' it may not spend enough money.
The real beauty, however, comes from Schumer's objection to the Republican plan to encourage banks to offer fixed-rate mortgage loans at 4-4.5% with 'jumbo loans' being exempt. This would help an awful lot of people, by the way, especially the minorities that the Democrats claim to favor. Think about it... the Democrats encourage minority home ownership by letting banks offer a $300,000 loan at variable interest rates, for a house that was worth less than $200K just a few years ago. The Republicans encourage minority home ownership by floating a suggestion to encourage banks to lend to them at a 4-4.5% fixed rate. But anyways, back to Schumer's objection.
The plan would provide a windfall to banks charging fees to refinance mortgages.
That's right, that's his objection. Those naughty banks might actually make some profit off the mortgage refinancing fee. We're talking roughly in the neighborhood of $3,000 for the privilege of refinancing a loan. What will that do to the poor consumer? Well, I recently refinanced at a lower interest rate and rolled the cost into the loan, and still saved over $300/month in bill payments. But that's besides the point, really.
Banks might make money by refinancing mortgages. That's the objection.
Remember TARP? It was meant to hand banks some capital in hopes of restoring liquidity. Basically, the government handed them money in hopes that they would start lending again. Guess what the banks didn't do with the money. That's right. This plan got through a Democrat-controlled Congress with ease.
So basically, it's A-Ok for the government to give the banks 'free' money in hopes that they'll start lending again, but it's unacceptable for the government to prod banks into earning some money by starting to lend again.
This isn't about the economy! This is about government control of the private sector! The Democrats aren't after an end to the recession. They want to turn this country to socialism. They're just using the recession as an excuse!
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Who will save you more money?
Alright, folks, here's the deal. Obama wants to give working singles $500, whether they pay that much in taxes or not. He wants to give working couples $1,000, whether they pay that much in taxes or not.
The Republicans want to cut the 10% tax bracket (first $8,350 for singles, first $16,700 for couples) to 5% and the 15% tax bracket (to $33,950 for singles or $67,900 for couples) to 10%.
What does this mean for your family?
Well, let's take a family of four making $50K/year. In the state of Connecticut, that's low enough to qualify for several government programs, including fuel assistance and state-funded healthcare. Doing the calculations for taxes in the first and second bracket, I come up with a savings of $2500 under the Republican plan and.. $1000 under the Obama plan.
So let's try someone else. A single person working full-time at federal minimum wage. That's roughly $13,624/year. Apply the tax brackets and he saves about $681 under the Republican plan. Under Obama's plan, he gets handed a check for $500.
Now I know taxes are a wee bit more complicated than that... things like healthcare expenditures, mortgage interest, and such can change the amount of money that you actually pay taxes on. Still, a little math can tell you the truth... you have to be making pretty darn near nothing to benefit from Obama's plan over the Republicans' plan!
So which plan do the actual workers of this country want?
Feel free to pass this on!
The Republicans want to cut the 10% tax bracket (first $8,350 for singles, first $16,700 for couples) to 5% and the 15% tax bracket (to $33,950 for singles or $67,900 for couples) to 10%.
What does this mean for your family?
Well, let's take a family of four making $50K/year. In the state of Connecticut, that's low enough to qualify for several government programs, including fuel assistance and state-funded healthcare. Doing the calculations for taxes in the first and second bracket, I come up with a savings of $2500 under the Republican plan and.. $1000 under the Obama plan.
So let's try someone else. A single person working full-time at federal minimum wage. That's roughly $13,624/year. Apply the tax brackets and he saves about $681 under the Republican plan. Under Obama's plan, he gets handed a check for $500.
Now I know taxes are a wee bit more complicated than that... things like healthcare expenditures, mortgage interest, and such can change the amount of money that you actually pay taxes on. Still, a little math can tell you the truth... you have to be making pretty darn near nothing to benefit from Obama's plan over the Republicans' plan!
So which plan do the actual workers of this country want?
Feel free to pass this on!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)