Monday, April 25, 2016

Trump Reacts To Cruz - Kasich Alliance

Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump coined a new nickname for rival John Kasich: "1 for 38 Kasich."
"Lyin' Ted Cruz and 1 for 38 Kasich are unable to beat me on their own so they have to team up (collusion) in a two on one. Shows weakness!" Trump tweeted Monday morning.
"Shows how weak and desperate Lyin' Ted is when he has to team up with a guy who openly can't stand him and is only 1 win and 38 losses," he tweeted minutes later.

Saturday, April 23, 2016

What Your 2015 Income Taxes Went For

The average household paid $13,000 in income taxes to Uncle Sam for 2015. Of that, the federal government spent:
  • $3,728.92 (or 28.7%) on health programs
  • $3,299.13 (or 25.4%) on the Pentagon and the military
  • $1,776.06 (or 13.7%) on interest on the debt
  • $1,040.93 (or 8%) on unemployment and labor programs
  • $771.26 (or 5%) on veterans benefits
  • $598.74 (or 4.6%) on food and agriculture programs
  • $461.59 (or 3.6%) on education programs
  • $377.50 (or 2.9%) on government expenses
  • $250.03 (or 1.9%) on housing and community programs
  • $207.68 (or 1.6%) on energy and environmental programs
  • $194.29 (or 1.5%) on international affairs programs
  • $150.68 (or 1.2%) on transportation funding
  • $143.20 (or 1.1%) on science funding
Now that you've filed your federal income taxes, your total tax bill for 2015 should be fresh in your mind. If you want to know exactly how much of it went to each of these areas down to the penny, just plug the number into NPP's federal tax receipt calculator to find out.

Friday, April 22, 2016

Is This The America We Want?

Wednesday, April 20, 2016

Supreme Court Rules Against Iranian Central Bank

Victims of Iranian sponsored terrorism can collect two billion.

Friday, April 15, 2016

Prophesy of the fall of American democracy


Progressives of today are clueless of yesterday!
When you do not know history, you will repeat History!
Alexander Fraser Tytler, a European historian published The Decline and Fall of the Athenian Republic.
In his publication, Tytler reported that from his research he had determined the following:
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury.
From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising them the MOST benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy ALWAYS collapses over a loss of fiscal responsibility, always followed by a dictatorship.
The average of the world's great civilizations before they decline has been 200 years. These nations have progressed in this sequence:
From bondage to spiritual faith,
From spiritual faith to great courage,
From courage to liberty,
From liberty to abundance,
From abundance to selfishness,
From selfishness to complacency,
From complacency to apathy,
From apathy to dependency,
From dependency back again to bondage."
** Henry Wallace, Roosevelt's VP from 1941 to 1945, also wrote that he had observed the beginning of a SLIDE into Despotism and Socialism within the attitudes of Washington's elite. According to Wallace, well-intended leaders with personal agendas would precipitate the LOSS of individual freedoms:
*** "So enlisted, men may rightfully feel they are serving a function as high as that of any minister of the Gospel. They will not be Socialists, Communists, or Fascists, but plain men trying to GAIN by DEMOCRATIC methods the professed objectives of the Communists, Socialists, and Fascists…"
**** Likewise, in 1944 Norman Mattoon Thomas espoused Wallace's theory with his prophesy of the fall of American democracy—and the mechanism that would be used:
"The American people will never knowingly ADOPT socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism,' they will ADOPT every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a SOCIALIST nation, without knowing HOW it happened.
I need no longer run as a Presidential Candidate for the Socialist Party.
The Democratic Party has ADOPTED our platform."

Tuesday, April 12, 2016

An Open Letter to The Boss.

An Open Letter to Bruce Springsteen and His Band

In this November 2, 2008 file photo, Singer Bruce Springsteen and his wife Patti Scialfa listen as then-Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama speaks during a campaign rally at the Cleveland Mall in Cleveland, Ohio.
By Michael Brown Published on April 10, 20161899 Comments
Dear Bruce,
As a resident of North Carolina since 2003, I read with interest that you decided to cancel your April 10th concert in Greensboro because of HB2, the Public Facilities Privacy and Security Act.
In your statement you explained that, in your view, the bill is “an attempt by people who cannot stand the progress our country has made in recognizing the human rights of all of our citizens to overturn that progress.”
You added that it was time for you and your band “to show solidarity for those freedom fighters” (speaking of transgender activists), and you ended your statement with these powerful words: “Some things are more important than a rock show and this fight against prejudice and bigotry — which is happening as I write — is one of them. It is the strongest means I have for raising my voice in opposition to those who continue to push us backwards instead of forwards.”
I also read that your guitarist, Steven Van Zandt, has likened HB2 to an “evil virus” that is spreading through the United States in the form of similar legislation.
These are strong words, and they represent strong convictions. So, let me first commend you and your band members for putting your principles before your livelihood, even to the disappointment of your North Carolina fans. I have read that you regretted not performing at the 1985 Live Aid concert in Wembley, and perhaps this is your way of saying, “I do care and I’m here to make a difference.”
Whatever your motivation, I admire anyone who puts morality before money. My question to you and your band is simply this: In boycotting North Carolina and siding against HB2, did you really side with morality? Are you truly standing with “freedom fighters”?
I’m assuming you read HB2 for yourself and you’re not just listening to media reports attacking the bill or, worse still, getting your talking points from biased lobbyist groups like the Human Rights Campaign. (If you’re not really familiar with the bill, then click here and here and here.)
So, please allow me to ask you some questions.
First, how do you know if someone is really “transgender” or not? Is it determined entirely by how they feel about themselves? If so, do you think that it might be hard to make laws based entirely on how people feel? Did you ever stop to consider that?
Second, what’s the difference between someone with “gender dysphoria” (or, as it used to be called, “gender identity disorder”) and someone, say, with schizophrenia or “multiple personality disorder” or some other psychological condition? In other words, if a man is a biological and chromosomal male but believes he is a woman, is he actually a woman, or does he have a psychological disorder?
If he does have a psychological disorder, should we try to treat that disorder or should we celebrate that disorder? And is it right to call biological males who feel they are women and biological women who feel they are men “freedom fighters”? Perhaps that’s not the best use of the term?
If you are deeply offended that I would dare suggest that many transgender individuals are dealing with a psychological disorder, could you kindly point me to the definitive scientific literature that explains that these biological males are actually females and these biological females are actually males?
I’m not saying they don’t deserve compassion. To the contrary, I’m saying that’s exactly what they deserve: compassion, not celebration.
But perhaps I’m being too abstract here, so let’s get really practical. Let’s say that a 6’ 4” male who used to play professional football and who has secretly agonized over his gender identity for years finally determines that he must be true to himself and live as a woman.
Do you think it might be traumatic for a little girl using the library bathroom to see this big man walk into her room wearing a dress and a wig? Should we take her feelings into account, or is she not important? What if that was your granddaughter? Would you care if she was traumatized? And when you speak of “the human rights of all of our citizens” does that include little girls like this?
I understand that this gentleman will have difficulties should he decide to dress and live as a woman, but that is still a choice he is making, and it is not fair to impose his struggles on innocent little children, is it?
And what if this same man, whom we’ll assume is not a sexual predator, wants to share the YMCA locker room with your wife and daughter, standing there in his underwear as they come out of the shower stalls wrapped in towels. Is this fair to them?
Let’s take this one step further. If any man who claims to be a woman can use women’s bathrooms and locker rooms, then how do we keep the sexual predators out? I’ve asked people to watch this short video, giving examples of male heterosexual predators who donned women’s clothing to get into the ladies’ rooms, and I’d encourage you to watch it too. Without HB2, rapists and voyeurs and pedophiles would have free access to our women and daughters in the safety of their own bathrooms and locker rooms.
Since you don’t like HB2 — indeed, your guitarist called it an “evil virus” — what’s your plan to keep the predators out? How can we tell the difference between a “genuine” transgender person and a sexual predator? Since everyone knows you as “The Boss,” what would you do to keep the ladies and children safe?
And one final question.
When you booked the concert in Greenboro, the laws in North Carolina were just as they are today: In public facilities, people had to use the bathrooms and locker rooms that corresponded to their biological sex. Why, then, did you agree to come in the first place? Why cancel the concert when things today are just what they were six months ago?
Again, I appreciate your sincerity, but I question your judgment. In your zeal to do what is right, you have actually done what is wrong.

Monday, April 11, 2016

Florida Laws That I Have Willingly Broken.

Governor Scott has just repealed the law making cohabitation by unmarried adults illegal, however these laws still exist on the books, how many have you broken?

Thursday, April 7, 2016

Doctor Shortages? Cut Tax Rates.

Doctor Shortages? Cut Tax Rates.

The Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) has released projections showing that we may have doctor shortages in coming years. The demand for doctor services is rising in our aging society, but various factors in the health care industry are hampering supply.
But policymakers should remember that high income tax rates inhibit the supply of top earners across all industries. America’s tax system is the most “progressive” or graduated among OECD nations, and that has consequences. If the government penalizes the most productive people, they will work fewer hours, retire earlier, and make other decisions to reduce their labor efforts.
Some politicians on the campaign trail want to raise tax rates on high earners, and they seem to consider them little more than economic leeches. The truth is that most high earners are very industrious people who add crucial skills to the economy. The nation’s 708,000 doctors and surgeons are a case in point.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reports that “physicians practicing primary care received total median annual compensation of $241,273 and physicians practicing in medical specialties received total median annual compensation of $411,852” in 2014.
That high pay makes sense because doctors are highly skilled, face substantial stress, and often work long hours. The BLS notes, “physicians complete at least 4 years of undergraduate school, 4 years of medical school, and, depending on their specialty, 3 to 7 years in internship and residency.” And after all that training, they often “work long, irregular, and overnight hours.”
So how does Congress reward that hard work? It imposes punitive marginal income tax rates on them of up to 40 percent, with state income taxes on top of that. Even lower-earning doctors can be pushed into the highest income tax brackets if their spouses work.
Doctors are exactly the type of workers who have large negative responses to high tax rates because they have substantial flexibility in managing their careers. With high tax rates, fewer people will want to go into this difficult profession, stay in it, and work the long hours—and that ends up hurting all of us who use the nation’s health care system.

Wednesday, April 6, 2016

Have to admit, I'm surprised

So, Pfizer has dropped their tax dodge scam. It was clear what the shame deal was all about but that it was actually stopped honestly surprised me. Here are a couple of links with different perspectives

I'm not sure I totally understood the Schiff comment. If American companies are buying foreign companies to escape America taxation, why would a foreign company buy an American company and pay high American taxes? Meh, it's the same ol same ol, people with money don't want to pay any fucking taxes. They endlessly cite our corporate tax rate, and negate to ever mention how many loopholes there are. Then we have this territorial plan that Lou talks about which will accomplish one thing and one thing only, it will allow for a ton of money to come back to America to be promptly distributed up the food chain rather than down. It wont' increase investment. It won't improve our economy and it won't change anything. Nonetheless, I support it. Then I can hear what empty argument is brought up next for why we need to end all corporate taxes.

The Campaign Gets Stranger And Stranger

Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump's campaign says Ted Cruz's campaign is now being run by the GOP establishment and "Bush people."
“The Bush people are now running Sen. Cruz’s campaign — Neil Bush, who’s spent millions of dollars invested with Common Core, and all of these other special interest groups like Goldman Sachs, like hedge fund managers,” Trump spokeswoman Katrina Pierson told Fox News on Wednesday.
“This is going to be a very serious problem if Sen. Cruz continues to go down this path and then neither Trump or Cruz becomes the nominee.”
Trump's campaign accused Cruz, his chief rival for the nomination, of being "worse than a puppet" in a statement released after Trump's loss in the Wisconsin primary Tuesday night.
"He is a Trojan horse, being used by the party bosses attempting to steal the nomination from Mr. Trump,” the Trump campaign said.
Pierson said Wednesday it's clear that many people in the GOP establishment don't plan to support Cruz during the convention process.
Cruz can't win "on his own merits," she said.
“When you have the establishment backing you so reluctantly to the point to where you have people endorsing you that said that you would get murdered on the Senate floor and nobody would care and the difference between Donald Trump and Ted Cruz is being stabbed or shot, their loyalty is not with Sen. Cruz,” she said.
Pierson was referring to comments made by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a former presidential candidate who backed Cruz last month as the best candidate to take on Trump after a series of negative comments about the Texas senator.

Tuesday, April 5, 2016

Eliminating the National Debt

Donald Trump's Unusual Plan to Lower the National Debt: Sell Off Government Assets

As president, Donald Trump would sell off $16 trillion worth of U.S. government assets in order to fulfill his pledge to eliminate the national debt in eight years, senior adviser with the campaign Barry Bennett said.
"The United States government owns more real estate than anybody else, more land than anybody else, more energy than anybody else," Bennett told Chris Jansing Sunday on MSNBC. "We can get rid of government buildings we're not using, we can extract the energy from government lands, we can do all kinds of things to extract value from the assets that we hold."
In a wide-ranging interview with The Washington Post, Trump said he would get rid of the $19 trillion national debt "over a period of eight years." The article noted that most economists would consider Trump's proposal impossible, as it could require slashing the annual federal budget by more than half.
Glenn Kessler, who writes the Post's Fact Checker column, deemed the plan "nonsensical" and gave it "Four Pinocchios." Kessler assessed that even if Trump were to eliminate every government function and shut down every Cabinet agency, he would still be short $16 trillion.
"We regret we have only Four Pinocchios to give for this whopper," Kessler said. "Trump is insulting the intelligence of Americans for making such a claim in the first place."
However, when pressed on whether the United States could sell off $16 trillion worth of assets, Bennett responded affirmatively on Sunday.
"Oh, my goodness," he said. "Do you know how much land we have? You know how much oil is off shore? And in government lands? Easily."
The federal government's assets totaled $3.2 trillion as of September 2015, according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office. However, that does not include include stewardship assets or natural resources.

Monday, April 4, 2016

More BS about abortion

After listening to Trump tap dance around Chris Mathew's "gotcha" question about abortion, I found the follow up commentary of both left and right to be interesting. Actually, more the right. Several right pundits commented and said that Trump basically proved he is not a conservative because he could not clearly explain the conservative position about abortion, and he seemed to only dig the hole deeper when he made the comment, "We should just leave the laws as they are". On Mathews show, the answer to a hypothetical question posed to Trump was that women if abortion was outlawed, women should be punished for having an abortion. Ironically, I think that was probably the most honest answer of the conservative position he could have given, but that's just my opinion.

Just to be clear, my position is as follows, I take zero delight in the number of abortions that are performed, I want to see that number go down, but I believe a woman has the right to choose to have an abortion. I also believe a majority of the country has a somewhat similar view, but that can be manipulated based on how you phrase the question. I spell that out because of the argument I'm going to make next.

Kasich was straightforward and honest, he is okay with abortion in cases of incest, rape, or to spare the life of the mother. My understanding is that Cruz is not. Where I call BS on this is that Cruz went on to say "The woman should not be punished". Based on anti abortion orthodoxy, this answer seems ridiculous. Why shouldn't the woman by punished? If we break up a terrorist ring, do we let the mastermind go and only punish the people who carried acts out? Of course not. The reason why Cruz and other Republicans say women shouldn't be punished is because they know this is politically unpopular with women voters and the public in general. I don't think some here would have a problem calling abortion murder and seeking punishment for all involved, and I believe this is the REAL conservative position. However, because this isn't what a majority of voters want to hear, the Republicans like Cruz run away from giving an honest answer. If abortion is murder, as many conservatives seem to believe, I don't see how you can possibly say the woman shouldn't be punished. Grow a spine Teddy and state what you really believe.......and lose the election.

Sunday, April 3, 2016

My how times change.

In 2005, Sen. Clinton said the Senate had a right to reject a president’s nominee: “I believe this is one of the most important roles the Senate plays. This, after all, is in the Constitution. We are asked to give advice and consent, or to deny advice and consent.”

Today she calls for hearings on Garlands nomination.

My how times change.