Reagan on the 50?

Patrick McHenry, R-NC, has proposed that we change our 50 dollar bill from picturing Ulysses S. Grant with our 40th President, Ronald Reagan.  I think this is a fantastic idea (although putting Reagan on the penny would get him more face time under the Obama economy.)  Well, the LA Times is reporting distaste with this idea.  (http://articles.latimes.com/2010/mar/03/nation/la-na-reagan-fifty3-2010mar03) Democrat Brad Sherman said we should have a currency that unites us.  As Rush Limbaugh said, what is less uniting about winning 44 states and then 49 states in two elections?!  Other people have also expressed their disdain because of their love for Grant - seeing Grant's accomplishments more meaningful for the nation than Reagan's.  Oh really?!  Well, once again, we will let the eyes of history be our judge.  Let's list the accomplishments of both and see just whose are more meaningful.

Many historians would probably argue that the Civil War being won by the Union is more important than the Cold War being won.  So, the Civil War ends and what are the results?  We stay together as a nation and we have some important Amendments added to the Constitution (13th, 14th, and 15th).  The Cold War ended with an end to the strangle of Communism that Russia had on Europe it also made America safe and secure as Russia couldn't contend with Reagan's military.  See, we lose the Civil War and the nation is just cut in half.  We loose the Cold War and the nation no longer exists.  The rest of Reagan's accomplishments speak for themselves.  And, these are just a few of the many during his Administration.  We truly can say, as Reagan did, "Not bad...not bad at all."

Let's honor Reagan with a fitting tribute.  The mechanism of economics is supply and demand, but the mechanism of transaction, which ultimately drives supply and demand, is money.  In honor of a great economy Reagan allowed to happen, let's put him on the 50 dollar bill!

Middle Class Tax Cuts? You Lie!

I think this needs to be revisited. Earlier this month, Reuters reported that Obama's budget was full of back-door tax INCREASES for the middle class. The White House promptly grabbed Reuters by the crotch and demanded they pull the story. (So much for freedom of the Press). Reuters, with a backbone the consistancy of jello, pulled the story. But, what do you expect from the State-run media?! So, the story is only found on blogs at this point. (i.e http://www.thehotjoints.com/2010/02/02/reuters-does-story-on-obamas-backdoor-tax-increases-then-withdraws-it/). The portion I want to focus on is the actual tax increases for the middle class. Now, on Feb. 11th, 2010, Obama said he was going to be "agnostic" on tax increases. He was going to establish a "bi-partisan" group to investigate debt reduction proposals. This "bi-partisan" group is 60% Democrat and they are going to demand tax increases to fix the debt problem. Obama is going to play dumb and say "Well, uh, we've made progress, and un, the commission has worked hard, uh, and, they've determined, that uh, we need to increase taxes to pay for this debt." THE VERY DEBT YOU'VE CREATED! This way, he can say he didn't flipflop on his no taxes for the middle class promise. Come on, folks - his promises are about as pointless as Russian Roulet with a semi-automatic pistol. So, without further delay, here, again, is some insight to what will be coming down the pike to us middle class folk. Here is the story that wasn't protected under freedom of the press.

NEW YORK (Reuters.com) –The Obama administration’s plan to cut more than $1 trillion from the deficit over the next decade relies heavily on so-called backdoor tax increases that will result in a bigger tax bill for middle-class families.

In the 2010 budget tabled by President Barack Obama on Monday, the White House wants to let billions of dollars in tax breaks expire by the end of the year — effectively a tax hike by stealth.

While the administration is focusing its proposal on eliminating tax breaks for individuals who earn $250,000 a year or more, middle-class families will face a slew of these backdoor increases.
The targeted tax provisions were enacted under the Bush administration’s Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001. Among other things, the law lowered individual tax rates, slashed taxes on capital gains and dividends, and steadily scaled back the estate tax to zero in 2010.

If the provisions are allowed to expire on December 31, the top-tier personal income tax rate will rise to 39.6 percent from 35 percent. But lower-income families will pay more as well: the 25 percent tax bracket will revert back to 28 percent; the 28 percent bracket will increase to 31 percent; and the 33 percent bracket will increase to 36 percent. The special 10 percent bracket is eliminated.

Investors will pay more on their earnings next year as well, with the tax on dividends jumping to 39.6 percent from 15 percent and the capital-gains tax increasing to 20 percent from 15 percent. The estate tax is eliminated this year, but it will return in 2011 — though there has been talk about reinstating the death tax sooner.

Millions of middle-class households already may be facing higher taxes in 2010 because Congress has failed to extend tax breaks that expired on January 1, most notably a "patch" that limited the impact of the alternative minimum tax. The AMT, initially designed to prevent the very rich from avoiding income taxes, was never indexed for inflation. Now the tax is affecting millions of middle-income households, but lawmakers have been reluctant to repeal it because it has become a key source of revenue.

Without annual legislation to renew the patch this year, the AMT could affect an estimated 25 million taxpayers with incomes as low as $33,750 (or $45,000 for joint filers). Even if the patch is extended to last year’s levels, the tax will hit American families that can hardly be considered wealthy — the AMT exemption for 2009 was $46,700 for singles and $70,950 for married couples filing jointly.

Middle-class families also will find fewer tax breaks available to them in 2010 if other popular tax provisions are allowed to expire. Among them:

* Taxpayers who itemize will lose the option to deduct state sales-tax payments instead of state and local income taxes;

* The $250 teacher tax credit for classroom supplies;

* The tax deduction for up to $4,000 of college tuition and expenses;

* Individuals who don’t itemize will no longer be able to increase their standard deduction by up to $1,000 for property taxes paid;

* The first $2,400 of unemployment benefits are taxable, in 2009 that amount was tax-free.

Reuter's pulled this story and promised a new story to run in its place a week later. No such story ever was ran.

Open Your Wallets! It's The State Of The Union!

Strap yourselves in folks. We are about to ride the Liberal express and the only hopes to stop it is a barricade of truth and Conservatism. I'm going to comment on the opening of his speech, but if I were to go line by line, this would be an extremely long post. The major part of his speech was centered around his wonderful economy. I'll spend the balance of my post dealing with this issue.

Obama began his speech by boasting a Constitutional truth about the timing of the speech. He can't even get a full minute into his speech and he is already demonstrating his apparent grasp on hypocracy. Show me were the Constitution requires giving the rights it speaks of to terrorist?! Show me in the Constitution where it is ok to favor tax breaks for some in society and deny them to others - all the while touting that we are all "equal" under the law.

He goes on to say, "But when the Union was turned back at Bull Run and the Allies first landed at Omaha Beach, victory was very much in doubt." What?! When the Union was defeated at Bull Run it ignited a feeling of revenge and resolve to preserve the Union and defeat the Confederacy. Secondly, do you think our boys who stormed the beaches of Normandy had defeat on their mind? What kind of military leader are you?! Victory was the goal! Typical Liberal here - always gloom and doom and victory is only achieved when America lays down at the feet of the world.

"One year ago, I took office amid two wars, an economy rocked by severe recession, a financial system on the verge of collapse, and a government deeply in debt. Experts from across the political spectrum warned that if we did not act, we might face a second depression. So we acted – immediately and aggressively. And one year later, the worst of the storm has passed." A year later the worst storm has passed? The storm has just begun! First, note all of the indirect blame on Bush (which is made clearer later in the speech). Secondly, our unemployment is now 10% and climbing. The national debt has grown well beyond where the Bush Administration had taken it. You blamed the financial sector for poor decisions - decisions Democrats forced them into by their legislation - decisions that ACORN forced them into. Now, after the banks receive your bailout money and they've paid it back, with interest, you want to nail them again with taxes. The only aggressive action that was taken was to further place our economy into the hands of the crypt keeper. This isn't that difficult, Obama - aggressive action would be a tax cut, across the board, by 50%. Aggressive action would be to eliminate Capital Gains taxes to encourage more investing. Aggressive action would be to put pressure on states that have an income tax and a sales tax to end one or the other. Aggressive action would be to admit you have no business making these decisions. The storm hasn't passed, folks, it has just begun.

He goes on to start with the economy. "Our most urgent task upon taking office was to shore up the same banks that helped cause this crisis. It was not easy to do. And if there's one thing that has unified Democrats and Republicans, it's that we all hated the bank bailout. I hated it. You hated it. It was about as popular as a root canal." Again, WHAT?! The banks "helped" to cause this crisis through federal coercion. What steps did you take to shore up the damaging policies of Chris Dodd and Barney Frank?! And, you admit we all hated the bailouts...then why did you do it?! Now, you say it was "necessary" because unemployment may have "doubled" what it is today without it and we could have lost more houses than we did and had more business close than we did. So, your party's leadership in Congress forced banks to lend money to those who couldn't pay it back and now you want to come and rescue them while saying the banks are at fault. You can't create problems and then come to the rescue because all you will do is set yourself up to create a new problem, thus needing a new rescue. It is a government death spiral that just leads to more regulation of the market and less freedom for you and me.

He claims that this action has stabilized the markets and that most of the money given to banks has been returned. Hmmm...10% unemployment...hmmmm...a DJIA that is struggling to remain at 10k...hmmm...tax increases are coming to all. The markets have NOT been stabilized! Again, the banks which borrowed the money have paid it back, with interest by the way, and now you are proposing a tax on banks because their CEOs got bonuses. The financial meltdown was not because of CEOs getting bonuses! IT WAS YOUR PARTY ENGAGING IN COERCIVE ACTS, LED BY ACORN, THAT FORCED THESE BANKS INTO MAKING BAD DEALS! The only stability in the market that Obama will approve of is if it is totally under the strangling grip of the government.

He claims that this was helped by the 25 different tax cuts he proposed. Keep in mind, these "tax breaks" didn't go to the "rich." And, last time I checked, I never got a job from a poor person. But, you're right, Obama, tax cuts for the "rich" would be foolish. And, the credits these tax breaks offered were paltry in measure. One time tax credits are not tax breaks! Here's a tax break for you: pass federal legislation to ban the federal income tax and go to a national sales tax (no higher than 15%). "Oh, but you don't understand, so manyneeded government programs wouldn't have any more funding." EXACTLY! It's time to close the doors on these unconstitutional programs and departments! And we start with one of the biggest sucklers of the people's money, the Department of Education.

"Let me repeat: we cut taxes. We cut taxes for 95% of working families." As Ronald Reagan once said, "There is a non-Soviet word for that kind of talk. And extremely useful, time tested, original American word, one with deep roots in our rich agricultural and farming tradition." Turning over a couch cushion and giving me the proceeds isn't a tax cut. The very fact I am getting back a refund this year is because I OVER PAID IN TAXES. And, sorry for you unlucky 5% that didn't receive the tax cuts. What's the matter with you? Why would you want to be successful?! If you want to get angry, read this lovely piece from the Salt Lake Tribune (http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_14319271). Furthermore, get what's coming for taxes in 2011 according to the President's new budget proposal - charitable deduction will be gone, mortgage interest deductions for the 250k earners and higher will be gone. However, if the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire, the top tier tax bracket will go from 35% to 38%. The 25% bracket will go to 28%. The 28% will go back to 31% and the 33% bracket will go back to 36% (all pre-Bush tax cut rates). The 10% tax bracket will BE ELIMINATED. So, those making enough to be taxed at 10% will now be taxed at 15%. THAT'S A TAX INCREASE FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS!!!

Investors will also pay more - tax on dividends will jump to 39.6% from 15%. Does the middle class own stock? YES! The capital gains will go from 15% to 20%. For 2010, the estate tax is eliminated, but just for this year. So, make sure you die this year. But, some democrats are ready to have the estate tax come back prior to 2011. Something else that is curious: The Alternative Minimum Tax was never adjusted for inflation, so now it also is affecting the middle class. And, this year, the first $2,400 of unemployment wages are taxable and you can verify this with your payroll department. All of this, and we have a 1 trillion dollar annual deficit. Yes, Obama, the economy is doing fantastic! You can't spend your way out of a bad economy. You grow your way out of a bad economy by massive tax cuts to give us more of OUR MONEY to infuse back into the economy.

http://www.nodeathtax.org/article/legislative-alert-death-tax-in-the-2009-budget-proposal

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=519783

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/79161-presidents-budget-seeks-an-end-to-tax-break-for-the-middle-class

I'm telling you folks and have been for a while - Obama will drive this economy in the ground that all we have left is to rely upon the government. The evidence would show this is reality, not conspiracy.

"People are out of work. People are hurting. They need our help...and I want a job bill on my desk without delay." I'm not going to keep going line-by-line through this part because he just keeps heaping it on. GOVERNMENT CANNOT CREATE JOBS IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR! The private sector will create jobs based on the money it has to do so. Massive taxes and regulations limit the private sector's ability to create jobs. Again, to fix this simply cut taxes!

The 2010 Congressional election may be one of the biggest of our time. Let's hope we can get Conservative leadership back into the Capitol and stop this train wreck of an administration from destroying America for good.

An Eye Opener About Taxes

(Click on pictures to see larger image. Also, click on the Taxation link at the top of the blog to see the actual numbers from the IRS.)

Remember when Bush cut taxes and Al Gore was running around talking about how the tax cuts only benefited the top 1% of wage earners in this country? Well, aside from being a flat out lie (it was an across the board tax cut), the numbers would show there is a reason the top 1% "benefited" more than the rest. It is because they pay more! According to the IRS, the latest numbers (as of 2007) show that the top 1% of wage earners are paying a very hefty part of the income tax bill for all Americans. But, is it right that they benefit more, in the sense that the tax cuts were designed to solely give the rich more money? Well, let me create a scenario.

(For the purpose of our scenario, we will assume a 15% tax bracket for Person A and a 35% tax bracket for Person B; we will also assume a ficticious tax cut of 10% across the board as well as each person filing as single). Person A makes 20k a year while Person B makes 350k a year. Before the tax cut, Person A would owe $3,000 in income tax for the year. Person B would owe $122,500 in income tax for the year. Even before we enact the tax cut, we obviously see Person B is paying much more in taxes. However, for our argument, let's cut taxes!! The bells of heaven just rang and doves are flocking all around. Spring is in the air and the economy is roaring - yes, all because we cut taxes! So, now Person A has a 5% income tax responsibility and they now owe $1,000 for their income tax. That's a $2,000 savings! Person B has a 25% income tax responsibility now (remember, we cut taxes 10% across the board) and they owe $87,500 for their income tax. That's a $35,000 savings!

OK - question - who benefited more? In pure tax savings, who benefited more? The rich did! Were these tax cuts designed to help out the rich? No - they were fair and even. But, naturally, if one person pays more than the other, any tax break would cause the person who pays more to feel more relief. So, yes, it is fine to say they benefited the Top 1%. But, that's an analytical approach, which is foreign to the mind of Gore. He was twisting this to make a political pander to the less fortunate that he claims he fights for.

But, notice the second chart. 97% of the TOTAL FEDERAL INCOME TAX BURDEN is carried by the Top 50% of Wage Earners. Half of the wage earners in this country are expected to shoulder 97% of the tax burden. On the flip side, a wimpy 3% of the Federal Income Tax burden is shared by the Bottom 50% of wage earners. And, a good number of the Bottom 50% don't pay taxes anyway! Now, if you were in college and had a lecture class for Biology and the class was 200 people. Let's say the grade was determined by an entire class effort. In other words, you didn't receive a grade based on your individual work, but you received a grade based on the work submitted by the entire class. If you were in the top 100 students, how would you feel if you had to shoulder 97% of the work? You'd probably feel like you were being cheated and would promptly expect the Bottom 100 students to pick up their share of the load. Why then, do we not expect the same in the world of taxes?

Just remember this when you are filing this year. It should make it much more enjoyable of an experience!