Domestic Cyber Snooping

Reports have now surfaced that the Obama Government's Department of Homeland Security has tried to breach the security of the Election Servers in the States of Kentucky, Georgia and West Virginia. see here

Why??

WHAT IF IT SAID WHITE?

Photo By JESSICA RINALDI/REUTERS

A convention-goer stands on the convention floor on the first day of the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, North Carolina, September 4, 2012.

Do you consider this racist?

BY THE NUMBERS 4.5M=300K OBAMA JOBS

On the Democratic Campaign Trail and at the Democratic National Convention there is a lot of highlighting of the 4,500,000 jobs created during the Obama Administration. An article at CNN.com has revealed that the 4.5M jobs number is correct, BUT only for a part of the Obama Presidency.

The Key Note Speaker, San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro, Former Obama Chief of Staff and now Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, and Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, who followed Mitt Romney as Governor in Massachusetts all echoed the Great Jobs Creation Record of 4,500,000 jobs created during the last four years.

Anyone listening would get the impression that the Obama White House has been responsible for a real positive job growth. But as this article CNN Fact Check: About those 4.5 million jobs ...  makes clear

The figure of 4.5 million jobs is accurate if you look at the most favorable period and category for the administration. But overall, there are still fewer people working now than when Obama took office at the height of the recession.
 

The 4.5M number is only accurate for the period from January 2010 to the present. Considering the whole period of the Obama Presidency

... it's only a net gain of 300,000 over the course of the Obama administration to date.
 

UPDATE: Guy Bensen provides some interesting facts. Team Obama: Oh, You Bet Americans Are Better Off Today

Unemployment: 7.8% then, 8.3% now
Median income: $54,983 then, $50,964 now
Gas prices: $1.85 per gallon then, $3.78 now
National debt: $10.6 trillion then, $15.9 trillion now (with the debt hitting the magic $16 Trillion mark tonight, appropriately)
Half of all Americans are now considered "poor" or "low income."
One out of every six Americans is living in poverty -- an increase of millions since Obama took office.
Food stamp usage has increased by 45 percent under this president.
Average family health care premium costs have increased to roughly $15,000 per year.

HOW GOOD IS OUR NATIONAL DEFENSE?

Could we be attacked or invaded easily by Foreign Nations? Actually we have been. Illegal entry into the USA is rampant. It is not just the Illegal Aliens, although they represent a real threat. It is also Russia in the form of Nuclear Attack Subs able to spend a month undetected in the Gulf of Mexico. This startling admission comes from this article "Silent Running" published in The Washington Free Beacon.

A Russian nuclear-powered attack submarine armed with long-range cruise missiles operated undetected in the Gulf of Mexico for several weeks and its travel in strategic U.S. waters was only confirmed after it left the region...

Based on that article, I'd say our National Defense is not great. So I ask the question - Why does the Obama Government feel now is the time to cut Defense Spending?

The Obama administration’s defense budget proposal in February cut $1.3 billion from Navy shipbuilding projects, which will result in scrapping plans to build 16 new warships through 2017. The budget also called for cutting plans to buy 10 advanced P-8 anti-submarine warfare jets needed for submarine detection.

This rather unsettling fact was also revealed in this article.

Under the terms of the 2010 New START arms accord, such exercises require 14-day advanced notice of strategic bomber drills, and notification after the drills end. No such notification was given.

I believe a strong National Defense requires a strong Economy. We are currently borrowing 40 cents of every dollar we spend because of our National Debt. We cannot have a strong National Defense without a strong Economy. Have any of the Democrats put forth a Budget Proposal? Yes. President Obama did, BUT it was rejected by a vote of 96-0. President Obama did not get even 1 vote from his own party. Have the Republicans put forth a Budget Proposal? Yes. Paul Ryan's which passed the House, but Harry Read the Democratic Leader of the Senate will not allow it to go through the Senate.

NANCY PELOSI - WITHOUT STIMULUS UNEMPLOYMENT 14.5%

Former Speaker of the Most Ethical House of Representatives EVER says in reference to The 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, (2009 Stimulus to us)

"Without the Recovery Act and accompanying federal interventions, whether from the Fed, or Cash for Clunkers, or other initiatives, the unemployment rate last year at the time of the election would have been fourteen and a half percent, not nine and a half percent,"

This quote is reported in the Weekly Standard article Pelosi Says Unemployment Rate Would Have Hit 14.5% Without 2009 Stimulus

It would appear that Representative Pelosi, who is currently the Minority Leader of the House, has a rather short memory. There are two inconvient facts about which Ms Pelosi should be aware. 1) The current realistic Unemployment Rate is already at 14 -16% when the number of Unemployed who have stopped looking are added and 2) When the $862 Billion Stimulus Bill was being considered by Congress, the American Public was assured that passage of the Stimulus would insure that Unemployment would not rise above 8%. Despite those facts, Ms. Pelosi thinks the Stimulus was a success.

Now she is saying the current Obama Jobs Bill is also going to be a success. If the Stimulus was a success, what's her definition of a Failure?

GOVERNMENT SPENDING TO CREATE JOBS

UPDATE Joe Biden's Cincinnati Comments of today at end of this Post

Many on the Left (most Democrats) insist that the stimulus program did not spend enough money to create enough jobs to turn the economy around. President Obama, appears ready this week to ask Congress to approve more GOVERNMENT spending to "jump start" the economy and create jobs. Now Rep. Maxine Waters Calls For A Trillion-Dollar Jobs Program. Based on her past history, I assume this means another stimulus program. One which will follow the 1st failed stimulus program.

"I’m talking about a jobs program of a trillion dollars or more. We’ve got to put Americans to work. That’s the only way to revitalize this economy. When people work they earn money, they spend that money, and that’s what gets the economy up and going."

Do we do this by giving companies government stimulus money/tax credits to hire the workers? In a similar fashion to what the 1st Stimulus did for GM and Chrysler?. Isn't this essentially putting the employees (whose jobs are created by the Government Stimulus Payment) on the Government's Payroll?

Besides GM and Chrysler, haven't we already done this years ago with Amtrak and the United States Postal System? How did that work out? For another clue read this. Postal Service Is Nearing Default as Losses Mount What's the cause of the Postal System excessive losses?

...decades of contractual promises made to unionized workers, including no-layoff clauses, are increasing the post office’s costs. Labor represents 80 percent of the agency’s expenses, compared with 53 percent at United Parcel Service and 32 percent at FedEx, its two biggest private competitors. Postal workers also receive more generous health benefits than most other federal employees.

Amtrak is mostly due to lousy service and lack of public ridership (due in large part to lousy service). As for GM and Chrysler, it was the unions who benefited most from the 1st bailout.

Jimmy Hoffa, Jr is telling his Union Workers this.

"We got to keep an eye on the battle that we face: The war on workers. And you see it everywhere, it is the Tea Party. And you know, there is only one way to beat and win that war. The one thing about working people is we like a good fight. And you know what? They've got a war, they got a war with us and there's only going to be one winner. It's going to be the workers of Michigan, and America. We're going to win that war," Jimmy Hoffa Jr. said to a heavily union crowd.

That's what he told the crowd as a warm-up to President Obama's address in Detroit today. Hoffa Threatens GOP At Obama Event: "Take These Son Of Bitches Out"

"President Obama, this is your army. We are ready to march. Let's take these son of bitches out and give America back to an America where we belong," Hoffa added. Obama addressed the crowd shortly after Hoffa.

After he took the stage, President Obama has this to say about Jimmy Hoffa Jr's remarks.Obama Says He Is "Proud" Of Hoffa After Union Leader's Remarks President Obama also made this Faux Pas during his address.
[Emphasis Mine]

"I think putting money back in the pockets of working families is the best way to get demand rising because that then means business is hiring. That means the government -- that means that the economy is growing."

Did he start to say what he really believes? That Government should pay the wages of the working families? If this would really work, why doesn't the Government pay everyone, instead of your employer paying their employees? Along that line of reasoning, if everyone worked for the Government, the economy would be back on track. The Government (oops the Taxpayers) could own everything. Then all employers would be like Government Motors (GM).

But wait, hasn't that already been done in other parts of the world? Like Russia, China, Cuba and Venezuela? Is this what is really good for America? Is this what we really want? I Don't!!

UPDATE: Vice President Joe Biden made these remarks at a Cincinnati AFL-CIO gathering today. (Video)

"You Are The Only Folks Keeping The Barbarians From the Gates"

Sounds to me that the Democrats do not want to run on accomplishments or their abysmal record. They want to turn politics into Class Warfare

THE PARTY OF NO...IS THE DEMOCRATS

...Democrats in Washington still won't let a good crisis go to waste. Their current gambit is to use Hurricane Irene as a pretext to prevent spending cuts to one of Washington's most notorious boondoggles.

That quote is from the Wall Street Journal article Leveraging a Hurricane Remember it was the Democrats who claimed on the issue of the Debt Crisis, that the Republicans (especially the Tea Party) said no to every proposal of the Left. In truth this is impossible because there was no specific plan from the Democrats or the President. We only got general statements and the accusation that the Tea Party was refusing to budge on any proposal. Actually the Tea Party and the Republican lead House proposed at least 4 different plans and passed 2. All would have ended the Debt Crisis and insured that our obligations as a country were paid.

Paul Ryan and Michele Bachmann each proposed solutions which would have averted any default. However, it was the Democratic Senate and the Democrat in the White House who said no. Now they are doing it again.

WARREN BUFFETT PROBABLY NOT QUALIFIED TO BE TREASURY SECRETARY

Warren Buffett thinks Millionairs and Billionairs should pay higher taxes. After all they can afford it. But the fact is Warren Buffett’s Taxing the Rich Won't Solve Deficit, Says Tax Foundation

Taxing millionaires and billionaires more – a position advocated by billionaire Warren Buffett and President Barack Obama – won’t make much of a dent in the national debt or the record federal budget deficits, a new study finds.

Why? The answer is simple - there are not enough US citizens who make a Million Dollars or more. It is interesting to note that even though President Obama has used the terms "...millionaires and billionaires need to pay their fair share...", the fact is President Obama will start taxing at the $200,000.00 level. Why? Because apparently he considers someone who makes $200,000.00 a millionaire?

“Even taking every last penny from every individual making more than $10 million per year would only reduce the nation's deficit by 12 percent and the debt by 2 percent,” the non-partisan Tax Foundation’s David Logan writes.

Something else to consider. Fortunately for our life savings, the Tax Laws do not tax that which we have already accumulated, only the growth is taxes. That is one reason that Millionaires and Billionaires do not pay as much taxes. They have already earned the money that makes them Millionaires and Billionaires. They have already paid taxes on the ACCUMULATED millions and billions they have.

“My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress,” wrote Buffett.

Therefore unless we wish to change the Tax Law to include some sort of "look-back" provision, the fault Mr. Buffett sees is in the past when he acquired his wealth. By the way this is still wrong headed thinking, because if Mr. Buffett and friends had not been "coddled" by Congress, they wouldn't be where they are today. And more importantly, the jobs they created when they earned their wealth would not exist. We would all be a lot poorer if they had not been "coddled

".[A]ccording to the Tax Foundation study written by Logan, even taxing the nation’s millionaires at 50 percent – even eliminating loopholes and deductions – would only reduce the deficit by 8 percent and the national debt by 1 percent.

The truth is that we cannot pay our national debt with taxes, unless you wish to consider this:

In fact, the only way for the government to solve its fiscal issues with revenue would be to confiscate every single dollar from every single American making $200,000 or more per year, the study said

It is clear that the best way to pay off our National Debt is to reduce spending. Raising the Debt Ceiling should only be a stop-gap measure to insure that our credit standing is maintained. As the Standard and Poor's reasoning for the downgrading of the US Credit rating indicates: The problem is the unstanable level of spending by the Government.

We currently use over 40 cents of every dollar borrowed just to pay the interest on our National Debt. Congress does not have the will power to reduce spending but a Constitutional Admendment requiring a balanced budet would make Congress feel the will power of the people they represent.

DEBT CRISIS DEFAULT - BUT NOT EXACTLY

Remember a couple of weeks ago when the Democrats said the Republicans were reckless by not passing President Obama's plan? A plan, by the way, that only existed in the mind of our President, because NOTHING was ever put on paper. Well it is time to go to the "Way Back" machine for this from March 3, 2009 when President Obama said this:

"Let me say this as plainly as I can. If you buy a car from Chrysler or General Motors, you will be able to get your car serviced and repaired just like always," Obama said in a speech. "Your warranty will be safe. In fact, it will be safer than it has ever been. Because starting today, the United States will stand behind your warranty."

That does not sound like President Obama was only talking in terms of from this day forward and yet consider the latest development at Government General Motors.

General Motors Co (GM.N) is seeking to dismiss a lawsuit over a suspension problem on more than 400,000 Chevrolet Impalas from the 2007 and 2008 model years, saying it should not be responsible for repairs because the flaw predated its bankruptcy.

So let us recap. The Democrats denounce Republicans for being reckless over not approving what they demanded, but were unwilling to put specifically on paper. While the Republican House presented 3 different plans, (2 of which passed the House) and a resolution by Michele Bachmann which would have reaquired payment of all legal debts. But the Democrats are not reckless when promises made to all General Motors purchasers that their warantee claims would be paid are not going to be honored. How does that add up?

BIBLICAL SUBMISSION IS...

Kirsten Powers has it right as she explaines Biblical Submission in Stop Attacking Evangelicals!

Since Rep. Michele Bachmann was asked in a debate whether she would be submissive to her husband as president, the punditry has morphed into a morass of armchair theologians pushing flawed interpretations of what submission means in a biblical context.

To the vast majority of Bible reading Christians, the word submission is interpreted to mean respect and love for one another. It applies to more than just Husband and Wife. The original language of this part of the New Testament Bible was translated from the Greek. In this context Submission does not mean to obey. Further the word submission is applied to all Christians in their relationships with each other and the world in general. The meaning is clear to anyone who will take the time to do a little thinking.

It’s also not what any evangelical I’ve spoken to believes is even implied in the doctrine of submission. Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, who as an ordained Southern Baptist minister knows a few things about the Bible, explained it to me this way: “This is not about a woman being a doormat. It’s about mutual, reciprocal, selfless, sacrificial love.”

Notice the words "mutual, reciprocal, selfless and sacrificial in the last sentence of Mike Huckabee's quote! It does not apply to just wives, as Michele Bachman clearly explained. It is a respect for each other as partners in a marrage.

Kathy Keller, the wife of pastor Tim Keller of the evangelical Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City, speaks regularly on the Bible and gender issues. A graduate of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, she knows of what she speaks. She told me: “Women and men who understand the Bible’s actual teaching on headship and submission will see instantly that this issue is being defined by those on the extreme left and the extreme right, who both caricature what the Bible teaches.”

As Kristin correctly points out it is the fringe Left and Right who have perverted the true meaning understood by the vast majority of Christianity.

She [Kathy Keller] said: “A man’s headship in a marriage consists of imitating the way Jesus has died for … the church. In no Christian marriages that I know of does a husband presume to tell his wife how to do her job, whether that is homemaking or heart surgeon or commander in chief. For a woman, being submissive in your marriage means bringing all your giftedness into the marriage in support of both your husband and your marriage. If this isn’t an issue for married men, who if they are professing Christians should be willing to die for their wives, then it shouldn’t be made into an issue for a woman.”

Kristin ends her article with this paragraph.

Furthermore, look at the two highest-profile evangelical women in American politics—Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann—and tell me with a straight face that they aren’t treated with respect by their husbands. If you doubt that, I can assure you that five minutes with either lady will set you straight.

PRESIDENT OBAMA BY THE LETTERS

The Obama Downgrade, Alphabetically is the title of an article in the Wall Street Journal. The author is BRET STEPHENS. Bret goes through every letter of the alphabet to make the point that, as he points out when he gets to letter "L":

L is for Laden, Osama bin. The president's greatest triumph, which will forever put him one notch—if only one notch—above Jimmy Carter.

It is an interesting way to show the failures of President Obama. Bret has to admit that:

H is for Hillary Clinton, who—I can't believe I'm writing this—would have made a better president than Mr. Obama.

The Letter "D"

D is for—what else—the federal debt, which grew to $14.3 trillion this month from $10.7 trillion at the end of 2008. D is also for the dollar, which has lost almost half its value against gold since Aug. 2008.

The Letter "E":

E is for energy. The average retail price of a gallon of gas hovered near the $1.80 mark when Mr. Obama was inaugurated. It has since more than doubled. E is also for ethanol, the non-wonder fuel the U.S. continues to subsidize to the tune of $5 billion a year

and the Letter "F":

F is for free trade. Bill Clinton signed Nafta in 1994, which facilitates $1.6 trillion in the trade of goods and services between the U.S., Mexico and Canada. George W. Bush midwifed more than a dozen FTAs, from Australia to Singapore to Morocco to Bahrain. Number of FTA's signed by the current president: zero.

One of my personal favorited is the Letter "S":

S is for shovel-ready. Enough said.

However the Letter "W" ranks as my number 1:

W is for the Dubya, whose presidency now looks like a model of spending restraint.

I strongly suggest you read Mr Stephens article. Let me know what your favorite is when you finish the article.

DRILL BABY DRILL

There are many reasons we should be drilling for Oil and Gas domestically. In the Atlantic, Pacific Oceans and the Gulf of Mexico we should be drilling. In Alaska and also in the Oil Shale of the Rockies we should be drilling. In Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana and all the other places where we can produce Oil and Gas we should be drilling.

While it is true that drilling for Domestic Oil and Gas would not keep us from being dependent on additional Imported Oil and Gas, Domestic production would decrease the amount we have to Import and IT WOULD CREATE JOBS.

Why aren't we? Ask the Environmentalists, the Liberals and President Obama? They are the one's to blame. This group have prevented Domestic drilling for Oil and Gas. While it is true we could have another disaster as happened in the Gulf of Mexico when the BP well ruptured, or when the Exxon Valdez ran aground in Alaska, the benefits of Domestic Exploration, Drilling and Production of Oil and Gas far outway the negatives.

The is even more evident in light of the recent debunking, according to a NASA study, that Global Warming is a serious threat. New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism The computer models are wrong! Global Temperatures over the last decade are not rising, although the CO₂ (carbon dioxide) levels have significantly increased. So forget Global Warming due to Man-Made Carbon Dioxide.

Now there is an additional reason for Immediate Domestic Oil and Gas Drilling. Cuba has Licensed several Drilling sites in the Gulf of Mexico. Drill, Bebé, Drill

Sometime over the next three months, if all goes according to plan, Cuban workers on a Chinese-built, Spanish-owned rig will start drilling for oil in the mile-deep waters just off the north coast of Cuba, 70 miles from the Florida Keys.

If you think the BP spill was bad, what do you think about the Chinese having a blow-out? We must ask ourselves - Would I rather have US controled, inspected and regulated Domestic Drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. Or would I trust the Chinese to do that same drilling knowing they do not have the same controls, inspection and regualtion?

An oil blowout in Cuban waters could reprise the nightmare that was last year’s Gulf of Mexico oil spill, and send crude spewing to the beaches of Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina

.A blowout is more likely in part because the componets are inferior to US parts. In other words, the Chinese will be using second-rate parts and equipment.

They (the Cuban Licensed rigs) will have to buy copycat or second-tier parts,” Lee Hunter, president of the Houston-based International Association of Drilling Contractors, told National Journal. Hunter and other experts say that, to date, it appears that the Cuban government, fearful of the devastation an oil spill could wreak on its economy, wants to use the lessons learned from the BP oil disaster to develop a rigorous safety and oversight program. But it will be nearly impossible for drillers in Cuba’s waters to legally use the safest equipment. “The Cubans want to use good technology; they want to drill safely,” Hunter said. “But … their ability to drill safely is extremely compromised.”

In light of this development and the loss of an extimated 200,000 US jobs because of the US (Presidential Executive Order and Congressional actions), do we really want Cuba, China, Russia, Brazil, etc to be responsible for Gulf of Mexico Oil and Gas Production?

We should take immediate actions to Domestically "Drill Baby Drill".

PRESIDENT OBAMA ACCUSED

Joseph Curl writing for "The WASHINGTON TIMES" asks the following question.

Is Obama a pathological liar?"

As we all know, the percentage of Politicians who "expand" or "bend" the truth is close to if not 100%. This is a class of people who want to please everyone. Therefore they promise things they can't or shouldn't deliver.

In the weird world that is Washington, men and women say things daily, hourly, even minutely, that they know deep down are simply not true. Inside the Beltway, we all call those utterances “rhetoric.”

RHETORIC is an interesting word!

But across the rest of the country, plain ol’ folk call ‘em lies. Bald-faced (even bold-faced) lies. Those folks have a tried-and-true way of determining a lie: If you know what you’re saying is patently false, then it’s a lie. Simple.

The article continues and points out President OBAMA'S lies.

And lately, the president has been lying so much that his pants could burst into flames at any moment.

I will leave it to the reader to follow the link above for the rest of the story.

WHY DIDN'T THE STIMULUS WORK?

Terry Keenan has the answer in a piece she wrote for the New York Post Why feds' spending has failed In this article Terry points out this interesting fact.

...if the Obama-era spending increases had just been cut in half to, say, $1.1 trillion extra, the president wouldn't have had to even face a debt-ceiling debate until a second term.

Why is President Obama unwilling to accept a short-term solution to the Debt Crisis? It is clear that he is playing politics because he does not wish to go through another Debt Limit vote before he is re-elected in 2012. Politics.

Government does not create jobs. There is no tax increase that will create a job either. What does create jobs is in the final paragraph of Terry's article. She quotes Lacy Hunt, who is an excellent economic forecaster.

"In the broadest sense, monetary and fiscal policies have failed because government financial transactions are not the key to prosperity. Instead, the economic well-being of a country is determined by the creativity, inventiveness and hard work of its households and individuals." [Emphasis mine]

Lacy also points out the astonishing numbers when she compares the 3years of the Obama administration to the last 3 of the Bush Administration.

"In the three years 2009, 2010, 2011, US federal spending was an astounding $2.2 trillion more than in the three years ending 2008."

The deficit in the first three years of the Barack Obama administration will total 28.3 percent of GDP, versus 6.3 percent the last three years President Bush was in the White House.

If government created jobs, that should have done it, and I think we can all see why? If you don't understand yet refer back to the 1st Lacy Hunt quote.

REPUBLICANS 2 DEMOCRATS 0

We are facing a default condition on August 2nd according to the Department of the Treasury. That's less than 2 weeks from today. Both the Senate and the House are gone for the weekend.

But at least the House, under Republican leadership, has acted responsibly by proposing 2 solutions to solve our Debt Limit crisis. Representative Paul Ryan, a Republican, has proposed a plan and the House has passed the Cut, Cap and Balance legislation. That's 2 different proposals to solve the crisis.

On the other hand the Democrats have done nothing except make grand speeches about possible ideas to be considered. There is nothing specific from either President Obama or the Democrat controlled Senate. In fact, the Senate has not passed a budget for 2 years, and the House under Democrat Nancy Pelosi also failed to pass a budget.

Where is the leadership the American people deserve from the Democrats? It is one thing to disagree with a proposal, but how can anything be solved if all the Democrats are willing to do is say the Republican proposals are not acceptable. Where is the Democrat Plan? If you are going to say something is unacceptable, then at the very least you should be willing to propose something, anything. Nothing is not acceptable.

Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) says it this way:

Senator Rubio: “I have watched the President give press conferences, I have watched the President give speeches, but I have yet to see a plan from the President. And with all due respect to my colleagues in the other party here in the Senate, I haven't seen a plan from them either. They are the majority party. They control this chamber. They control the Senate. And I haven't seen a plan from them.

The Senator goes on to say this:

“A moment ago we heard this talk about – well we have to compromise. Well it's really hard to compromise when the other side doesn't have a plan. What do you compromise on? Where is your plan? You can't compromise if only one person is offering plans. There is only one plan that has been voted on by any House to deal with this issue, and it's the one we're on right now, Cut, Cap and Balance. I would submit that if you don't like Cut, Cap and Balance, if you don't think we need to cut spending, cap spending and balance our budget, then show us your alternative. [Emphasis mine]

As a final thought. When the Democrats controlled the House under Nancy Pelosi, the Senate under Harry Reid and the Presidency under Barack Obama, they could not get a tax increase through. Therefore, what would allow a tax increase to pass now?

POVERTY IN AMERICA

In America when we hear the word poverty we form a mental picture. A picture of a dismal, bleak existence. But says the Census Bureau that's not the real picture of Poverty in America.

NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE lays-out what Poverty In America really looks   like.

"When the Census Bureau defines “poverty,” though, it winds up painting more than 40 million Americans — one in seven — as “poor"

That is a lot of people. But are most of them really poor by the standards we think of a Poverty Level? Here is what the Cencus Bureau says is typical of a Poverty Level household.

"Americans might well be surprised to learn from other government data that the overwhelming majority of those defined as “poor” by the Census Bureau were well-housed and adequately fed even in the recession year 2009. About 4 percent of them did temporarily become homeless."

Well-Housed and Adquately Fed. From other Government Agencies these items are found in the Poverty Level Home.

Data from the Department of Energy and other agencies show that the average poor family, as defined by Census officials:

● Lives in a home that is in good repair, not crowded, and equipped with air conditioning, clothes washer and dryer, and cable or satellite TV service.

● Prepares meals in a kitchen with a refrigerator, coffee maker and microwave as well as oven and stove.

● Enjoys two color TVs, a DVD player, VCR and — if children are there — an Xbox, PlayStation, or other video game system.

● Had enough money in the past year to meet essential needs, including adequate food and medical care.

Makes one wonder.

HISTORY LESSON - CUT TAXES - INCREASE REVENUE

To many cutting Taxes sounds like Revenue would also be cut. But History says otherwise. Who says tax cuts kill jobs? Our history sure doesn’t

"When Ronald Reagan took office in 1981, the top tax rate in America was 70 percent. Reagan cut that to 50 percent in 1982, then to 38.5 percent in 1987, and finally to 28 percent in 1998. What happened? Unemployment dropped from 9.2 percent (exactly what it is today) to 5.3 percent and inflation plummeted from 13.5 percent to 4 percent. At the same time, real income for Americans grew by an average $4,000."

That's one example. Here is another.

"John F. Kennedy — a Democrat! — had the right idea. He slashed the capital gains tax in 1962 and dropped the top tax rate to 70 percent. Federal tax revenues went up 50 percent, from less than $100 billion in 1961 to more than $150 billion in by 1968"

And yet another example.

"Reducing taxes, historically, has driven up federal revenue. In the 1920s, Warren G. Harding and Calvin Coolidge dropped the top tax rate from 70 percent to 25 percent; revenue rose from just more than $700 million in 1921 to $1.1 billion by the end of the 1920s."

One other lesson from history.

"One of the real problems is the tax-paying base. A whopping 43 percent (some say nearly 50 percent) of Americans — 66 million “lucky duckies” out of 151 million taxpayers — don’t pay a cent, according to the Tax Policy Center. That’s a far cry from the past: From 1950 to 1990, that number averaged 21 percent, dropping to 18 percent in 1986, according to the Tax Foundation."

So when President Obama says "Fair Share" he means the Richest among us, but he should be talking about the bottom of the Heap. 43-50% pay nothing. Does this sound like paying a "Fair Share"?

JAN SCHAKOWSKY SAID WHAT?

My Congresswoman, Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), says we don't know how the Social Security Trust Fund works. According to her there is apparently no LOCK BOX the payments of Social Security may be held up because there is no money.

What happened to the money which was paid into the Trust Fund all these years? Who took it out of the LOCK BOX? Why are millions of employees and self employed people still making payments in excess of what is paid out, yet there may be no money to write the checks? Why were we told that Social Security was not broke, but suddenly the Government can't make monthly payments?

It will be President Obama's decision which prohibits the payment to Social Security receipitents even if we don't raise the Debt Limit by August 2nd.

Therefore, this President Obama and the Democrats are using scare and fear to get what they want.

BALANCED APPROACH TO DEBT LIMITS

Much is heard from the Liberals in Congress and especially from President Obama that we need a "Balanced Approach" to control our Budget. As part of the "Balanced Approach" the tax rate on the highest earners needs to be raised so they pay their "Fair Share". Highest earners are those making over $250,000 for a Married Couple and $200,000 for a single earner.

So what is the "Fair Share" for these people? According to the IRS, for 2008 (the latest year available) the top 1% paid more than 38% of all Income Taxes while the top 5% paid almost 59% of all Income Taxes. (source The Tax Foundation) To be in the top 1% you have to have at least $380,354 Adjusted Gross Income while $159,619 and above is the top 5%. It might be noted that the bottom 50% pays less than 3% of all Income Taxes. These represent Adjusted Gross Income of less than $33,048. (Nice to know that if your Adjusted Gross Income is more than $33,048 you are in the top half of all Income Tax Payers and you are part of the group that pays better than 97% of all income taxes.

To me a "Balanced Approach" would mean more Income Taxes on the 50% who pay less than 3% not higher Income Taxes on the 50% who pay over 97%. There may be a growing difference between the richest and the poorest in America, but the emphasis should not be on limiting the top, but rather raising the bottom. If this happened, we would have a better distribution of the "Fair Share" for Income Taxes paid.

We need to eliminate the Loopholes in the Tax Code which carve out special individuals and groups to receive unfair Income Tax Benefits. We do not need to limit the top earners who are the job creators. We need to make more opportunity for the rest of us to reach the top earning levels by letting everyone retain more of their earnings through a more fair and lower Tax Rate.

Increasing the Tax Rate for the Richest Taxpayers will have the same effect as cutting the top off most plants. Growth Stops because (except for the Grasses) the top is where all the growth happens.

A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION

President Obama thinks 80% favor a Tax Increase Obama: Public is 'sold' on tax increases in a debt-ceiling deal No poll figures support this.

Scott Rassmussen shows 55% oppose a Tax Increase 55% Oppose Tax Hike In Debt Ceiling Deal

Gallup Poll Numbers are similar where only 11% believe Tax Increases are the sole answer and 50% say mostly spending cuts are the answer On Deficit, Americans Prefer Spending Cuts; Open to Tax Hikes

In 2006 EVERY Democrat Senator (including Obama) voted against raising the Debt Limit Senate Roll Call What changed such that they are prediction dire consequences if the debt limit is not raised?