ROMNEY'S TAX RATE

According to the Internal Revenue Service, Mitt Romney paid a higher tax rate than 90% of rest of of us. The IRS has released its data on the 2010 tax year. That report is over 300 pages of information as compiled by the IRS. If you don't want to take the time to read all of this, I suggest you read this article. Mitt Romney Pays a Higher Percent in Taxes than 90% of all Americans

...in 2010, somewhere between 90 and 95 percent of Americans had a lower effective income tax rate than Romney’s 13.9 percent. In 2011, somewhere between 95 and 97 percent of Americans had a lower effective income tax rate than Romney’s 15.4 percent, at least according to the latest IRS data from 2010.

Based on this data, it would appear to me that the RICHEST of American Tax Payers are already paying their fair share.

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?

ARE LIBERALS HYPOCRATS?

When George Bush was in the White House a few years ago, the Liberals were emphatically against passage of the Patriot Act. Many claimed this legislation gave the Government too much authority to gather personal information in violation of the Constitution. After all Article 4 of the Constitution prohibits unreasonable search and seizure of the people. The Patriot Act allowed the interception of email and telephone eavesdropping without a warrant in many situations. And even those situations where a warrant was necessary, this warrant did not have to be granted BEFORE the supposed illegal activity took place.

Yet many of these same people allow OnStar to track them. OnStar can and DOES track those who have the blue button, even if the service is discontinued. But the Liberals don't make complaints about this intrusion into personal life. In fact many Liberals (the same ones who complain about the Patriot Act) pay for this service. The same is true of LoJack and some ADT plans. They allow eavesdropping, and tracking of movements without warrants.

Now the Obama Administration is proposing a special rule, as part of OBAMACARE, which would require all health insurance providers to give the Government everyones' medical information. Obamacare HHS rule would give government everybody’s health records

Where is the outcry from the Liberals?

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 IS QUALIFIED TO BE A HYPOCRITE

Warren Buffett, hypocrite is the title of an article in the NEW YORK POST. A hypocrite because he said recently that people like him should pay more taxes, yet his company admits, according to the Post article that it owes back taxes.

As Americans for Limited Government President Bill Wilson notes, the company [Berkshire Hathaway] openly admits that it owes back taxes since as long ago as 2002.

Mr. Buffett owns Berkshire Hathaway. In addition, Berkshire Hathaway apparently still has unresolved tax issues for tax years 2005 through 2009.

Obvious question: If Buffett really thinks he and his “mega-rich friends” should pay higher taxes, why doesn’t his firm fork over what it already owes under current rates?

By the way, there is no law that prevents someone from writing a check to the IRS. In fact the law specifically provides for that kind of payment. Therefore if anyone feels they underpay their taxes, the remedy is simple send a check!

When someone like Warren Buffett makes the claim, that he pays a smaller percentage of his income in taxes than many of his employees do, he is being a little disingenuous.

...he wrote in The New York Times, he paid only 17 percent of his income last year to the government -- even as many working stiffs who make far less than him coughed up higher percentages.

Disingenuous because he makes most of his money in the form of qualified dividends. Dividends which are taxed when he receives them at a rate of 15%. (All citizens pay from 0% to a maximum of 15% on qualified dividends.) But the actual rate on those dividends for Mr. Buffett is closer to 40% or more, because they are also subject to taxation when Berkshire Hathaway files their corporation return.

Raise the top tax rate on them by 13 percent, as Obama wants (from 35 percent to 39.6 percent) and you bring in only another $26 billion, tops -- and that’s if your tax hike doesn’t stifle the economy and kill jobs (which it surely would). Yet what’s $26 billion in a world of $4 trillion federal budgets with trillion-dollar-plus deficits?

The $26 Billion is not enough to pay our $4 Trillion debt, so when Obama and friends say millionaires and billionaires, they also must tax those who make as little as $200 thousand. $200,000 is quite a lot, but it takes five of those taxpayers to get to $1,000,000.

What about the 51% of taxpayers who pay nothing, nada, zip? Shouldn't they pay something? Not only do the top half pay all the income taxes, many in the other half get back all they paid plus some of what the top half payed.

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.