Obama Poll Numbers Plummet As Obama Reverts To Class Warfare Learned From Communist Mentor Frank Marshall Davis — Obama’s Unbroken Record of Failure — Videos
Lou Dobbs: President’s Economic Policies A Threat To The American Dream
Fox’s Hasselbeck Knocks Obama’s ‘Class Warfare’ Speech: ‘He Is the System’ He Criticizes
Jon Lovitz Destroys Obama’s Class Warfare
Obama Calls for Class Warfare in State of the Union
Facts and fallacies with Thomas Sowell: Chapter 4 of 5
Adam Carolla on class warfare, hard work, and Obama’s speech
Obama vs Sowell on Household Income
Obama Class Warfare.
Obama’s Class Warfare is “Not Solving the Problem”
Obama outed as a lying Class Warfare Racist
Class Warfare: Obama’s Reckless 2012 Strategy to Defeat the GOP
The Untold Story of Barack Obama’s Mentor
Glenn Beck Shows Next Book Paul Kengor “THE COMMUNIST” Frank Marshall Davis Barack Obama’s Mentor
Obama’s Mentor: Frank Marshall Davis—The Communist—Book: Mark Levin
OBAMA’s REAL FATHER is Frank Marshall Davis !!!
Obama’s Influences – Frank Marshall Davis
Obama returns to class warfare as poll numbers plunge
By Ben Wolfgang
–
Turning his attention yet again to the economy, President Obama on Wednesday zeroed in on the “defining challenge” of this generation — growing income inequality between the richest 1 percent and the rest of America.
But the president didn’t unveil any grand proposals to tackle the problem; instead, he repeated a laundry list of initiatives centered on many familiar themes: economic growth through government investment; job training and education reform; stronger protections for labor unions and paycheck fairness legislation; a hike to the minimum wage; and a revamped approach to how Americans save for retirement
in private accounts and in government programs such as Social Security.
Although his speech was short on specific ideas, it was big on ambition. The president talked in broad terms about how the greatest nation on earth must not allow the middle class to stagnate and the poor to get poorer as rich Americans’ net worth grows.
“I believe this is the defining challenge of our time — making sure our economy works for every working American. That’s why I ran for president,” Mr. Obama said at an event in Southeast Washington hosted by the left-leaning Center for American Progress. “It drives everything I do in this office. I know I’ve raised this issue before and some will ask why I raise the issue again right now. I do it because the outcomes of the debates we’re having right now, whether it’s health care, or the budget, or reforming our housing and financial systems, all of these things will have real practical implications for every American. I am convinced the decisions we make on these issues over the next few years will determine whether our children grow up in an America where opportunity is real.”
Pointing out widening income disparities is not new for Mr. Obama, who spoke of the issue often during both of his presidential campaigns. Indeed, it has become a focal point of politics in the U.S. and led some leaders such as former Sen. John Edwards, North Carolina Democrat, to declare there are “two Americas” — one for the rich and another for everyone else.
The question isn’t whether income inequality should be addressed, analysts say, but how the problem should be approached. On that front, they say, Mr. Obama simply is offering more of the same.
“What I heard was the same old, very broad brush strokes: We need to help the middle class, we need to raise the minimum wage and we need to do more infrastructure projects. More spending,” said Lance Roberts, CEO of STA Wealth Management who has more than 25 years of experience in private banking, investment management and venture capital.
“Let’s throw money at it,” Mr. Roberts said of the administration’s approach to income disparities and a generally poor economy. “If it doesn’t work, it’s because we didn’t throw enough money at it. We’ve done five years of this.”
In those five years, income inequality has hit a record level, according to a September report from the University of California, Berkeley. The study shows that income gaps continue to grow despite the administration’s intentions.
From 2009 to 2012, the top 1 percent of incomes in the U.S. grew by more than 31 percent, while the bottom 99 percent went up by 0.4 percent. During the same period, the top 1 percent of earners captured 95 percent of all income gains.
In 2012, as Mr. Obama neared the end of his first term that imposed massive government investment through his stimulus package, the top 1 percent of American incomes rose by nearly 20 percent while the bottom 99 percent of incomes grew by just 1 percent, according to the Berkeley report.
Republicans seized on the president’s remarks and framed them against the backdrop of such grim income statistics.
“The American dream is certainly more in doubt than in decades, but after more than five years in office, the president has no one to blame but himself,” said Brendan Buck, a spokesman for House Speaker John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican.
The president’s approach is “more stimulus, more government programs and more government intervention into the job-creating private sector,” Mr. Buck said. “By now, and by the president’s own admission, it should be clear that is not the solution.”
Income inequality usually is framed in purely economic terms, but the president cast it in a broader light and said it poses a fundamental threat to American democracy.
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/dec/4/obama-growing-income-inequality-defining-challenge/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS#ixzz2md8MPaIv
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
Former Communist KGB Lt. Colonel Putin Pleas for International Collectivism Not American Individual Exceptionalism — Obama Agrees! — Videos
Milton Friedman – Collectivism
Collectivism and Individualism – Edward Griffin
What We Believe, Part 7: American Exceptionalism
Individualism vs. Collectivism
G. Edward Griffin – The Collectivist Conspiracy
President Collectivist: Will Obama’s Statist, Class Warfare Mantra Resonate with Voters?
Newsmax Now (09/12/13)
Understanding Putin’s “remarkable” editorial
‘Plea for Caution’: Putin warns against diminishing intl law
Edward Griffin : United Nations One World Government? Collectivism (Control) Dec 2012
The UNITED NATIONS exposed by G Edward Griffin
G. Edward Griffin in Toronto: The New World Order and the UN – 11.16.2012
Background Articles and Videos
What We Believe, Part 1: Small Government and Free Enterprise
What We Believe, Part 2: The Problem with Elitism
What We Believe, Part 3: Wealth Creation
What We Believe, Part 4: Natural Law
What We Believe, Part 5: Gun Rights
What We Believe, Part 6: Immigration
What We Believe, Part 7: American Exceptionalism
Why Obama Is Snubbing Putin | WSJ Opinion
A Plea for Caution From Russia
What Putin Has to Say to Americans About Syria
By VLADIMIR V. PUTIN
MOSCOW — RECENT events surrounding Syria have prompted me to speak directly to the American people and their political leaders. It is important to do so at a time of insufficient communication between our societies.
Relations between us have passed through different stages. We stood against each other during the cold war. But we were also allies once, and defeated the Nazis together. The universal international organization — the United Nations — was then established to prevent such devastation from ever happening again.
The United Nations’ founders understood that decisions affecting war and peace should happen only by consensus, and with America’s consent the veto by Security Council permanent members was enshrined in the United Nations Charter. The profound wisdom of this has underpinned the stability of international relations for decades.
No one wants the United Nations to suffer the fate of the League of Nations, which collapsed because it lacked real leverage. This is possible if influential countries bypass the United Nations and take military action without Security Council authorization.
The potential strike by the United States against Syria, despite strong opposition from many countries and major political and religious leaders, including the pope, will result in more innocent victims and escalation, potentially spreading the conflict far beyond Syria’s borders. A strike would increase violence and unleash a new wave of terrorism. It could undermine multilateral efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and further destabilize the Middle East and North Africa. It could throw the entire system of international law and order out of balance.
Syria is not witnessing a battle for democracy, but an armed conflict between government and opposition in a multireligious country. There are few champions of democracy in Syria. But there are more than enough Qaeda fighters and extremists of all stripes battling the government. The United States State Department has designated Al Nusra Front and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, fighting with the opposition, as terrorist organizations. This internal conflict, fueled by foreign weapons supplied to the opposition, is one of the bloodiest in the world.
Mercenaries from Arab countries fighting there, and hundreds of militants from Western countries and even Russia, are an issue of our deep concern. Might they not return to our countries with experience acquired in Syria? After all, after fighting in Libya, extremists moved on to Mali. This threatens us all.
From the outset, Russia has advocated peaceful dialogue enabling Syrians to develop a compromise plan for their own future. We are not protecting the Syrian government, but international law. We need to use the United Nations Security Council and believe that preserving law and order in today’s complex and turbulent world is one of the few ways to keep international relations from sliding into chaos. The law is still the law, and we must follow it whether we like it or not. Under current international law, force is permitted only in self-defense or by the decision of the Security Council. Anything else is unacceptable under the United Nations Charter and would constitute an act of aggression.
No one doubts that poison gas was used in Syria. But there is every reason to believe it was used not by the Syrian Army, but by opposition forces, to provoke intervention by their powerful foreign patrons, who would be siding with the fundamentalists. Reports that militants are preparing another attack — this time against Israel — cannot be ignored.
It is alarming that military intervention in internal conflicts in foreign countries has become commonplace for the United States. Is it in America’s long-term interest? I doubt it. Millions around the world increasingly see America not as a model of democracy but as relying solely on brute force, cobbling coalitions together under the slogan “you’re either with us or against us.”
But force has proved ineffective and pointless. Afghanistan is reeling, and no one can say what will happen after international forces withdraw. Libya is divided into tribes and clans. In Iraq the civil war continues, with dozens killed each day. In the United States, many draw an analogy between Iraq and Syria, and ask why their government would want to repeat recent mistakes.
No matter how targeted the strikes or how sophisticated the weapons, civilian casualties are inevitable, including the elderly and children, whom the strikes are meant to protect.
The world reacts by asking: if you cannot count on international law, then you must find other ways to ensure your security. Thus a growing number of countries seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction. This is logical: if you have the bomb, no one will touch you. We are left with talk of the need to strengthen nonproliferation, when in reality this is being eroded.
We must stop using the language of force and return to the path of civilized diplomatic and political settlement.
A new opportunity to avoid military action has emerged in the past few days. The United States, Russia and all members of the international community must take advantage of the Syrian government’s willingness to place its chemical arsenal under international control for subsequent destruction. Judging by the statements of President Obama, the United States sees this as an alternative to military action.
I welcome the president’s interest in continuing the dialogue with Russia on Syria. We must work together to keep this hope alive, as we agreed to at the Group of 8 meeting in Lough Erne in Northern Ireland in June, and steer the discussion back toward negotiations.
If we can avoid force against Syria, this will improve the atmosphere in international affairs and strengthen mutual trust. It will be our shared success and open the door to cooperation on other critical issues.
My working and personal relationship with President Obama is marked by growing trust. I appreciate this. I carefully studied his address to the nation on Tuesday. And I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States’ policy is “what makes America different. It’s what makes us exceptional.” It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.
Vladimir V. Putin is the president of Russia.
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )Eat The Rich–Obama’s Big Distraction And Big Lie: The Buffett Rule Tax and The Rich Do Not Pay Their Fair Share–Class Warfare Progressive Propaganda–Videos
Buffett Rule Rebuffed
EAT THE RICH!
Weekly Address: Passing the Buffett Rule So That Everyone Pays Their Fair Share
Priebus: Buffett Tax A Shiny Object That Would Raise Just 11 Hours Of Revenue
Steve Hayes – Buffet Tax meaningless
Gene Sperling on the Buffett Rule
Interview – The Buffett Tax: Anything But “Fair”
Real News: Buffett Rule Tax Reform
GBR: Lies from Warren Buffett
Warren Buffet On Why U.S. Taxes Are Too Low For The Wealthy
Mark Levin – The Warren Buffett-Bill Gates “Tax Us More!”
The Buffett Rule is BS pt1
The Buffett Rule is BS pt2
Debunking Warren Buffett and other tax myths
Who Pays Income Taxes and How Much?
http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html
Tax Year 2009
|
Percentiles Ranked by AGI |
AGI Threshold on Percentiles |
Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid |
|
Top 1% |
$343,927 |
36.73 |
|
Top 5% |
$154,643 |
58.66 |
|
Top 10% |
$112,124 |
70.47 |
|
Top 25% |
$66,193 |
87.30 |
|
Top 50% |
$32,396 |
97.75 |
|
Bottom 50% |
<$32,396 |
2.25 |
|
Note: AGI is Adjusted Gross Income |
||
Table 6
Total Income Tax Shares, 1980-2009 (Percent of federal income tax paid by each group)
|
Year |
Total |
Top 0.1% |
Top 1% |
Top 5% |
Between 5% & 10% |
Top 10% |
Between 10% & 25% |
Top 25% |
Between 25% & 50% |
Top 50% |
Bottom 50% |
| 1980 |
100% |
19.05% |
36.84% |
12.44% |
49.28% |
23.74% |
73.02% |
19.93% |
92.95% |
7.05% |
|
| 1981 |
100% |
17.58% |
35.06% |
12.90% |
47.96% |
24.33% |
72.29% |
20.26% |
92.55% |
7.45% |
|
| 1982 |
100% |
19.03% |
36.13% |
12.45% |
48.59% |
23.91% |
72.50% |
20.15% |
92.65% |
7.35% |
|
| 1983 |
100% |
20.32% |
37.26% |
12.44% |
49.71% |
23.39% |
73.10% |
19.73% |
92.83% |
7.17% |
|
| 1984 |
100% |
21.12% |
37.98% |
12.58% |
50.56% |
22.92% |
73.49% |
19.16% |
92.65% |
7.35% |
|
| 1985 |
100% |
21.81% |
38.78% |
12.67% |
51.46% |
22.60% |
74.06% |
18.77% |
92.83% |
7.17% |
|
| 1986 |
100% |
25.75% |
42.57% |
12.12% |
54.69% |
21.33% |
76.02% |
17.52% |
93.54% |
6.46% |
|
|
Tax Reform Act of 1986 changed the definition of AGI, so data above and below this line not strictly comparable |
|||||||||||
| 1987 |
100% |
24.81% |
43.26% |
12.35% |
55.61% |
21.31% |
76.92% |
17.02% |
93.93% |
6.07% |
|
| 1988 |
100% |
27.58% |
45.62% |
11.66% |
57.28% |
20.57% |
77.84% |
16.44% |
94.28% |
5.72% |
|
| 1989 |
100% |
25.24% |
43.94% |
11.85% |
55.78% |
21.44% |
77.22% |
16.94% |
94.17% |
5.83% |
|
| 1990 |
100% |
25.13% |
43.64% |
11.73% |
55.36% |
21.66% |
77.02% |
17.16% |
94.19% |
5.81% |
|
| 1991 |
100% |
24.82% |
43.38% |
12.45% |
55.82% |
21.46% |
77.29% |
17.23% |
94.52% |
5.48% |
|
| 1992 |
100% |
27.54% |
45.88% |
12.12% |
58.01% |
20.47% |
78.48% |
16.46% |
94.94% |
5.06% |
|
| 1993 |
100% |
29.01% |
47.36% |
11.88% |
59.24% |
20.03% |
79.27% |
15.92% |
95.19% |
4.81% |
|
| 1994 |
100% |
28.86% |
47.52% |
11.93% |
59.45% |
20.10% |
79.55% |
15.68% |
95.23% |
4.77% |
|
| 1995 |
100% |
30.26% |
48.91% |
11.84% |
60.75% |
19.62% |
80.36% |
15.03% |
95.39% |
4.61% |
|
| 1996 |
100% |
32.31% |
50.97% |
11.54% |
62.51% |
18.80% |
81.32% |
14.36% |
95.68% |
4.32% |
|
| 1997 |
100% |
33.17% |
51.87% |
11.33% |
63.20% |
18.47% |
81.67% |
14.05% |
95.72% |
4.28% |
|
| 1998 |
100% |
34.75% |
53.84% |
11.20% |
65.04% |
17.65% |
82.69% |
13.10% |
95.79% |
4.21% |
|
| 1999 |
100% |
36.18% |
55.45% |
11.00% |
66.45% |
17.09% |
83.54% |
12.46% |
96.00% |
4.00% |
|
| 2000 |
100% |
37.42% |
56.47% |
10.86% |
67.33% |
16.68% |
84.01% |
12.08% |
96.09% |
3.91% |
|
| 2001 |
100% |
16.06% |
33.89% |
53.25% |
11.64% |
64.89% |
18.01% |
82.90% |
13.13% |
96.03% |
3.97% |
| 2002 |
100% |
15.43% |
33.71% |
53.80% |
11.94% |
65.73% |
18.16% |
83.90% |
12.60% |
96.50% |
3.50% |
| 2003 |
100% |
15.68% |
34.27% |
54.36% |
11.48% |
65.84% |
18.04% |
83.88% |
12.65% |
96.54% |
3.46% |
| 2004 |
100% |
17.44% |
36.89% |
57.13% |
11.07% |
68.19% |
16.67% |
84.86% |
11.85% |
96.70% |
3.30% |
| 2005 |
100% |
19.26% |
39.38% |
59.67% |
10.63% |
70.30% |
15.69% |
85.99% |
10.94% |
96.93% |
3.07% |
| 2006 |
100% |
19.56% |
39.89% |
60.14% |
10.65% |
70.79% |
15.47% |
86.27% |
10.75% |
97.01% |
2.99% |
| 2007 |
100% |
20.19% |
40.41% |
60.61% |
10.59% |
71.20% |
15.37% |
86.57% |
10.54% |
97.11% |
2.89% |
| 2008 |
100% |
18.47% |
38.02% |
58.72% |
11.22% |
69.94% |
16.40% |
86.34% |
10.96% |
97.30% |
2.70% |
| 2009 |
100% |
17.11% |
36.73% |
58.66% |
11.81% |
70.47% |
16.83% |
87.30% |
10.45% |
97.75% |
2.25% |
Source: Internal Revenue Service
http://taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html#table1
Table 8
Average Tax Rate, 1980-2009 (Percent of AGI paid in income taxes)
|
Year |
Total |
Top 0.1% |
Top 1% |
Top 5% |
Between 5% & 10% |
Top 10% |
Between 10% & 25% |
Top 25% |
Between 25% & 50% |
Top 50% |
Bottom 50% |
| 1980 |
15.31% |
34.47% |
26.85% |
17.13% |
23.49% |
14.80% |
19.72% |
11.91% |
17.29% |
6.10% |
|
| 1981 |
15.76% |
33.37% |
26.59% |
18.16% |
23.64% |
15.53% |
20.11% |
12.48% |
17.73% |
6.62% |
|
| 1982 |
14.72% |
31.43% |
25.05% |
16.61% |
22.17% |
14.35% |
18.79% |
11.63% |
16.57% |
6.10% |
|
| 1983 |
13.79% |
30.18% |
23.64% |
15.54% |
20.91% |
13.20% |
17.62% |
10.76% |
15.52% |
5.66% |
|
| 1984 |
13.68% |
29.92% |
23.42% |
15.57% |
20.81% |
12.90% |
17.47% |
10.48% |
15.35% |
5.77% |
|
| 1985 |
13.73% |
29.86% |
23.50% |
15.69% |
20.93% |
12.83% |
17.55% |
10.41% |
15.41% |
5.70% |
|
| 1986 |
14.54% |
33.13% |
25.68% |
15.99% |
22.64% |
12.97% |
18.72% |
10.48% |
16.32% |
5.63% |
|
|
Tax Reform Act of 1986 changed the definition of AGI, so data above and below this line not strictly comparable |
|||||||||||
| 1987 |
13.12% |
26.41% |
22.10% |
14.43% |
19.77% |
11.71% |
16.61% |
9.45% |
14.60% |
5.09% |
|
| 1988 |
13.21% |
24.04% |
21.14% |
14.07% |
19.18% |
11.82% |
16.47% |
9.60% |
14.64% |
5.06% |
|
| 1989 |
13.12% |
23.34% |
20.71% |
13.93% |
18.77% |
12.08% |
16.27% |
9.77% |
14.53% |
5.11% |
|
| 1990 |
12.95% |
23.25% |
20.46% |
13.63% |
18.50% |
12.01% |
16.06% |
9.73% |
14.36% |
5.01% |
|
| 1991 |
12.75% |
24.37% |
20.62% |
13.96% |
18.63% |
11.57% |
15.93% |
9.55% |
14.20% |
4.62% |
|
| 1992 |
12.94% |
25.05% |
21.19% |
13.99% |
19.13% |
11.39% |
16.25% |
9.42% |
14.44% |
4.39% |
|
| 1993 |
13.32% |
28.01% |
22.71% |
14.01% |
20.20% |
11.40% |
16.90% |
9.37% |
14.90% |
4.29% |
|
| 1994 |
13.50% |
28.23% |
23.04% |
14.20% |
20.48% |
11.57% |
17.15% |
9.42% |
15.11% |
4.32% |
|
| 1995 |
13.86% |
28.73% |
23.53% |
14.46% |
20.97% |
11.71% |
17.58% |
9.43% |
15.47% |
4.39% |
|
| 1996 |
14.34% |
28.87% |
24.07% |
14.74% |
21.55% |
11.86% |
18.12% |
9.53% |
15.96% |
4.40% |
|
| 1997 |
14.48% |
27.64% |
23.62% |
14.87% |
21.36% |
12.04% |
18.18% |
9.63% |
16.09% |
4.48% |
|
| 1998 |
14.42% |
27.12% |
23.63% |
14.79% |
21.42% |
11.63% |
18.16% |
9.12% |
16.00% |
4.44% |
|
| 1999 |
14.85% |
27.53% |
24.18% |
15.06% |
21.98% |
11.76% |
18.66% |
9.12% |
16.43% |
4.48% |
|
| 2000 |
15.26% |
27.45% |
24.42% |
15.48% |
22.34% |
12.04% |
19.09% |
9.28% |
16.86% |
4.60% |
|
| 2001 |
14.23% |
28.20% |
27.50% |
23.68% |
14.89% |
21.41% |
11.58% |
18.08% |
8.91% |
15.85% |
4.09% |
| 2002 |
13.03% |
28.49% |
27.25% |
22.95% |
13.87% |
20.51% |
10.47% |
16.99% |
7.67% |
14.66% |
3.21% |
| 2003 |
11.90% |
24.64% |
24.31% |
20.74% |
12.22% |
18.49% |
9.54% |
15.38% |
7.12% |
13.35% |
2.95% |
| 2004 |
12.10% |
23.09% |
23.49% |
20.67% |
12.28% |
18.60% |
9.26% |
15.53% |
7.01% |
13.51% |
2.97% |
| 2005 |
12.45% |
22.52% |
23.13% |
20.78% |
12.37% |
18.84% |
9.27% |
15.86% |
6.93% |
13.84% |
2.98% |
| 2006 |
12.60% |
21.98% |
22.79% |
20.68% |
12.60% |
18.86% |
9.36% |
15.95% |
7.01% |
13.98% |
3.01% |
| 2007 |
12.68% |
21.46% |
22.45% |
20.53% |
12.66% |
18.79% |
9.43% |
15.98% |
7.01% |
14.03% |
2.99% |
| 2008 |
12.24% |
22.70% |
23.27% |
20.70% |
12.44% |
18.71% |
9.29% |
15.68% |
6.75% |
13.65% |
2.59% |
| 2009 |
11.06% |
24.28% |
24.01% |
20.46% |
11.36% |
18.05% |
8.25% |
14.68% |
5.56% |
12.50% |
1.85% |
Source: Internal Revenue Service
http://taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html#table1
Obama Pushes ‘Buffett Rule’ in Florida
Obama’s Capital Gains Tax “Fairness”
Obama Presses ‘Buffett Rule’ Tax Pitch
RED ALERT: Buffett Rule Is Criminal Scam!
Obama Pushes “Buffett Rule” and Calls for More Romney Tax Returns
Dan Mitchell Debating the Buffett Rule on CNBC
Obama is yet again pushing the “Buffett Rule” while lying about taxes
Six Reasons Why the Capital Gains Tax Should Be Abolished
Indexing the Capital Gains Tax to Protect Taxpayers from Inflation
End Capital Gains and Dividends Tax
Dan Mitchell on Taxing the Rich
Warren Buffett’s Reported Plans to Avoid Taxes and the Buffett Rule
Obama: ‘Buffett Rule’ Would Raise Taxes for Rich
Warren Buffett’s Tax Rate is Lower than His Secretary’s
Warren Buffett, Secretary Debbie Bosanek Discuss Tax Rate Inequality in
Opinion: The Buffett Tax Folly
Flat Tax vs. National Sales Tax
Ron Paul_ End the IRS & Abolish the Income Tax forever
Buffett Rule Fails in Senate, 51-45
By Josh Barro,
“…the so-called Buffett Rule (imposing a minimum 30 percent federal income tax rate on those making at least $2 million per year) came up for a vote in the Senate and was defeated. There were 51 votes in favor and 45 opposed, but 60 votes were required for cloture and so the proposal could not proceed.
The vote was nearly along party lines, with Susan Collins (Maine) the only Republican to vote yes and Mark Pryor (Arkansas) the only Democrat to vote no. Joe Lieberman, an independent who caucuses with Democrats, also broke with his party and opposed the proposal, though he wasn’t in Washington D.C. today and so didn’t actually cast a vote. Lieberman said “I am opposed to the Buffett Rule because it would double to 30 percent the capital gains tax on one group of investors”—a statement that reflects the fact that the Buffett Rule debate is fundamentally a debate about whether we should have a preferential tax rate for capital gains. …”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/joshbarro/2012/04/16/buffett-rule-fails-in-senate-51-45/
Dems Lay Trap for GOP with Buffett Rule
By KIM DIXON and PATRICK TEMPLE-WEST, Reuters
“….President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats are laying a political trap for Republicans to be sprung on Monday when the U.S. Senate is slated to vote on the proposed “Buffett Rule,” which would slap a minimum tax on the highest-income Americans. With polls showing strong public support for the rule, Democrats plan to bring it up for a procedural vote in the Senate. Republicans are solidly against it and the proposal is not expected to garner enough votes to move forward.
Even if it does advance in the Senate, it is not expected to be taken up in the House of Representatives, which is controlled by Republicans. Democrats control the Senate, but just barely. Despite the proposal’s poor outlook, Democrats hope that the Senate vote and the debate around it will help them politically ahead of the November 6 elections by casting the Republicans and their presumptive presidential candidate Mitt Romney, himself a multi-millionaire, as the party of the wealthy.
Republicans have attacked the Buffett Rule as a diversion from the weak economy. They also argue that raising taxes on the rich would hit small businesses and discourage their growth. Here is a Q+A on the legislation and the issues behind it.
What Is the Buffett Rule?
Named after billionaire Warren Buffett, who backs it, the rule would require individuals with adjusted gross income of more than $1 million, or $500,000 for married individuals filing separately, to pay at least 30 percent in taxes. Democrats have been careful to stress that the tax would not apply to people with $1 million or more in assets, who comprise a much larger slice of the U.S. population than those with annual incomes of $1 million or more. About 433,000 U.S. households earn more than $1 million a year. That is only about 0.3 percent of all taxpayers, according to the Tax Policy Center, a research group. The bill being voted on in the Senate, sponsored by Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, would impose the 30-percent tax on adjusted gross income after a modified deduction for charitable giving and certain other tax credits. …”
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2012/04/16/Dems-Lay-Trap-for-GOP-with-Buffett-Rule.aspx#page1
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )Santorum Says Obama’s Religion Based On Phony Theology–Seven Reason Why Obama is Not A Christian–Many Christians, Including Catholic Santorum, Consider Black Liberation Theology Marxism, Socialism and Class Warfare And Not Christian But Supporting Black Genocide!–Videos
“…We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. …”
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
~The Constitution of the United States, Amendment One
“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
~The Constitution of the United States, Amendment Two
Still more pathetic is the total collapse of moral fanaticism. Fanatics think that their single-minded principles qualify them to do battle with the powers of evil; but like a bull they rush at the red cloak instead of the person who is holding it; he exhausts himself and is beaten. He gets entangled in non-essentials and falls into the trap set by cleverer people.”
~Dietrich Bonhoeffer – Letters and Papers from Prison (1943-1945, English publication 1967)
“…People have been beatened down so long they feel so betrayed by their government. So it’s not surprising that they get bitter and cling to their guns and religion or antipathy towards people who are not like them as a way to explain their frustrations.”
~Candidate Barack Obama
Obama And The Second Amendment
“We Will Not Comply” – Catholic Civil Disobedience
Religious Leaders Vow Not To Comply With HHS Mandate
Santorum Slams Obama’s Agenda Driven by a “Phony Theology . . . Not a Theology Based on the Bible”
Obama’s Agenda
“…not about you. It’s not about your quality of life. It’s not about your jobs. It’s about some phony ideal. Some phony theology. Oh, not a theology based on the Bible. A different theology. …”
~Former Republican Senator Rick Santorum and Candidate for Presidential Nomination
Face The Nation …: Santorum clarifies prenatal testing, theology statements
“We’re talking about specifically prenatal testing and specifically amniocentesis, which is a — which is a procedure that creates a risk of miscarriage when you have it and is done for the purposes of identifying maladies of a child in the womb, which in many cases, in fact, most cases, physicians recommend, particularly if there’s a problem, recommend abortion. 90 percent of Down Syndrome children in America are aborted. So to suggest where does that come from? I have a child who has Trisomy 18. Almost 100 percent of Trisomy 18 child are encouraged to be aborted. So I know what I’m talking about here.”
‘My Child Was Not Stillborn!’: Rick Santorum Gets Heated With Bob Schieffer During Prenatal Testing Discussion
Rick Santorum Doesn’t Believe in … Freedom? ( Freedom Watch Judge Napolitano 1-5-2012 )
Rick Santorum Speaks About A Higher Law & Religious Liberty
Santorum Agrees With MLK on Human Rights, Disagrees With Obama On Abortion
Obama & The Black Liberation Theology Of The Church He Attended / Video / Reverend Wright / James Cone
A Conversation with James Cone–Black Libertion Theology–Obama’s Phony Theology
Barack Obama on Religion and Politics
Barack Obama on his faith and Muslim smears
Is Obama Muslim Or not ?? The answer is here
Black Liberation Theology
Obama – Black Liberation Theology 1
Obama – Black Liberation Theology 2
Obama Speaks Of Rev. Wright In This 1995 Interview
Becoming Barack: Evolution of a Leader (Trailer)
Cardinal George on… Liberation theology
7 Reasons Why Barack Hussein Obama is NOT a Christian!
Why Obama Is Not A Christian: Reason #1
Why Obama Is Not A Christian: Reason #2
Why Obama Is Not A Christian: Reason #3
Why Obama Is Not Christian: Reason 4
Obama Is Not Christian: Reason 5
Obama Is Not a Christian: Reason 6
Obama Is Not a Christian: Reason 7
Barack Obama and Margaret Sanger’s “Negro Project”
Abortion: Black Genocide in 21st Century America (Part 3/13)
Abortion: Black Genocide in 21st Century America (Part 6/13)
Abortion: Black Genocide in 21st Century America (Part 8/13)
Abortion: Black Genocide in 21st Century America (Part 9/13)
21 Century Black American Genocide
What Obama Does Not Want You To See Or Know / Video PSA
Barack Obama Addresses Planned Parenthood
Margaret Sanger and Her Reproductive Revolution
Abortion’s Cultural Advance: Planned Parenthood and You
Fit vs. UnFit, Eugenics, Planned Parenthood & Psychology, Mind Control Report
Margaret Sanger: Eugenicist (1/3)
Margaret Sanger: Eugenicist (2/3)
Margaret Sanger: Eugenicist (3/3)
Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood’s Racist Founder
National Right to Life: The Truth About Planned Parenthood
Abortion Is Big Business And Big Bucks (Truth #6)
Planned Parenthood’s Political Machine
Mass Murder of Blacks in Libya
Why are they lynching us in Libya? Kamit live in fear.
Obama SUPPORTS Black Genocide. The Cover-Up!
OBAMA LYNCHING BLACK AFRICANS : Presides Over Racial Genocide in Libya
OBAMA Is Preparing BLACK GENOCIDE In LIBYA
Obama’s Massacre in Libya – With Support Of NATO Racist Rebels Continue To Eradicate Black Libyans
More Proof of rebel atrocities after Gaddafi troops found dead, mutilated in mass grave
West Unleashes Arab KKK in Libya
Black People Face Ethnic Cleansing in Libya, 1 of 2
Black People Face Ethnic Cleansing in Libya, 2 of 2
Cardinal George on… Obama and Abortion
The Health Care Betrayal
Obamacare: Ending the Elderly
Rick Santorum – Tea Party Phony
Rick Santorum a Progressive Conservative?
PHONY christian rick santorum EXPOSED – VOTER’S GUIDE TO 2012
Ron Paul on Religion
The Compassion of Dr. Ron Paul
“…James Williams of Matagorda County, Texas recounts a touching true story. Living in a still prejudiced Texas In 1972, his wife had a complication with her pregnancy. No doctors would care for her or deliver their bi-racial child. In fact one of the hospital nurses called the police on James.
Dr. Ron Paul was notified and took her in, delivering their stillborn baby. Because of the compassion of Dr. Ron Paul, the Williams’ never received a hospital bill for the delivery.
Ron Paul views every human being as a unique individual, afforded the rights endowed by our creator and codified in the Bill of Rights. …”
Ron Paul Ad – Life
Obama’s Gamble
‘You can’t compromise on principle’
“In an interview Monday evening in Rome with Catholic News Service, Cardinal-designate Timothy M. Dolan discusses why the U.S. bishops oppose the revised contraceptive mandate announced by President Obama three days earlier. Major excerpts here.”
Catholic News Roundup 02-16
youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfsyfPgAMok]
Ron Paul Texas Straight Talk: The Latest Obamacare Overreach – 2/13/2012
Ron Paul embarrasses Rick Santorum CNN SC Republican Debate 1/19/12
Ron Paul Ad – Plan
Armed Chinese Troops in Texas!
Ron Paul on Just War, War Breaking Families
Ron Paul Thanksgiving Family Forum Debate Nov,19,2011 Part 1
Ron Paul Thanksgiving Family Forum Debate Nov,19,2011 Part 2
Ron Paul: The Only One We Can Trust
Ron Paul Leaks His Choice for Vice President
Ron Paul Ad – Betrayal
Ron Paul – Three of a Kind
No One But Paul — Can Beat Obama
Ron Paul – “The one who can beat Obama”
“Jesus’ commandment never wishes to destroy life, but rather to preserve, strengthen, and heal life.”
“Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.”
~Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Santorum questions Obama’s Christian values
By Steve Peoples Associated Press
“…Lashing out on two fronts, Rick Santorum on Saturday questioned President Barack Obama’s Christian values and attacked GOP rival Mitt Romney’s Olympics leadership as he courted tea party activists and evangelical voters in Ohio, “ground zero” in the 2012 nomination fight.
Santorum, a former Pennsylvania senator known for his social conservative views, said Obama’s agenda is based on “some phony theology. Not a theology based on the Bible. A different theology.” He later suggested that the president practices a different kind of Christianity.
“In the Christian church there are a lot of different stripes of Christianity,” he said. “If the president says he’s a Christian, he’s a Christian.”
The Obama campaign said the comments represent “the latest low in a Republican primary campaign that has been fueled by distortions, ugliness, and searing pessimism and negativity.” …”
“…In Ohio, a Super Tuesday prize, he shifted decidedly to offense before friendly crowds. Trailing Romney in money and campaign resources, Santorum is depending on the tea party movement and religious groups to deliver a victory March 6 in the Midwestern contest.
More delegates will be awarded in Ohio than in any other state except Georgia in the opening months of the Republican campaign. Ohio and Georgia are two of the 10 contests scheduled for March 6, a benchmark for the primary campaign that often decides who can continue to the next level.
Santorum has surged in recent opinion polls after capturing Republican caucuses in Minnesota and Colorado and a non-binding primary in Missouri on Feb. 7. Several polls have shown him ahead in Romney’s native state of Michigan, where primary voters cast ballots a week from Tuesday. …”
http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20120219/POLITICS01/202190310/1022/rss10
Santorum says Obama agenda not “based on Bible”
“…A devout Roman Catholic who has risen to the top of Republican polls in recent days, Santorum said the Obama administration had failed to prevent gas prices rising and was using “political science” in the debate about climate change.
Obama’s agenda is “not about you. It’s not about your quality of life. It’s not about your jobs. It’s about some phony ideal. Some phony theology. Oh, not a theology based on the Bible. A different theology,” Santorum told supporters of the conservative Tea Party movement at a Columbus hotel.
When asked about the statement at a news conference later, Santorum said, “If the president says he’s a Christian, he’s a Christian.”
But Santorum did not back down from the assertion that Obama’s values run against those of Christianity.
“He is imposing his values on the Christian church. He can categorize those values anyway he wants. I’m not going to,” Santorum told reporters.
A social conservative, Santorum is increasingly seen as a champion for evangelical Christians in fights with Democrats over contraception and gay marriage. …”
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/18/us-usa-campaign-santorum-idUSTRE81H0M220120218
Rick Santorum tries to show he can win in November
By Dan Balz, Published: February 18
“…Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum has won four states and risen suddenly to challenge Mitt Romney as the leader in the national polls. Now he faces a new hurdle: defining himself positively before others rush to disqualify him.
Santorum presents himself as a committed and consistent conservative with blue-collar roots — just the kind of candidate Republicans need to energize the party’s base and reach out to Reagan Democrats in a campaign against President Obama that could be decided in the nation’s industrial heartland.
Obama advisers and other Democrats see a Santorum whose record, writings and statements, particularly on social issues, will be used to portray him as far too conservative for many voters. His record, they say, could make Santorum anathema to suburban swing voters, especially women. That view is shared by some Republicans and independent analysts.
“They [Democrats] would brutalize him on social and cultural issues and present him as so far out of the mainstream as to be radical,” said G. Terry Madonna, director of the Center for Politics and Public Affairs at Franklin & Marshall College and a leading pollster in Pennsylvania. “The analogy would be Barry Goldwater” — the 1964 GOP nominee who suffered a landslide defeat.
Santorum’s advisers recognize that he has entered a new phase in his campaign, and they see the obstacles ahead. They argue that a full and fair reading of his record reveals a more attractive profile of the former senator. But they acknowledge it is up to Santorum and his campaign to explain that record and allay concerns about his ability to run competitively in November.
“There will be people — Romney and the Democrats — who will try to distort these things,” said John Brabender, Santorum’s longtime political adviser. “It’s the responsibility of our campaign to show what the senator’s record really is. We are confident that once that happens, people will understand that the senator is extremely reasonable.”
The first tests will come over the next 10 days, as Santorum attempts to leverage his new prominence against Romney in primaries in Arizona and especially Michigan, and then on Super Tuesday, March 6. …”
Ron Paul Texas Straight Talk: The Latest Obamacare Overreach – 2/13/2012
Ron Paul: Many religious conservatives understandably are upset with the latest Obamacare mandate, which will require religious employers (including Catholic employers) to provide birth control to workers receiving healthcare benefits. This mandate includes certain birth control devices that are considered abortifacients, like IUDs and the “morning after” pill.
Of course Catholic teachings forbid the use of any sort of contraceptive devices, so this rule is anathema to the religious beliefs of Catholic employers. Religious freedom always has been considered sacrosanct in this country. However, our federal bureaucracy increasingly forces Americans to subsidize behaviors they find personally abhorrent, either through agency mandates or direct transfer payments funded by tax dollars.
Proponents of this mandate do not understand the gravity of forcing employers to subsidize activities that deeply conflict with their religious convictions. Proponents also do not understand that a refusal to subsidize those activities does not mean the employer is “denying access” to healthcare. If employers don’t provide free food to employees, do we accuse them of starving their workers?
In truth this mandate has nothing to do with healthcare, and everything to do with the abortion industry and a hatred for traditional religious values. Obamacare apologists cannot abide any religious philosophy that promotes large, two parent, nuclear, heterosexual families and frowns on divorce and abortion. Because the political class hates these values, it feels compelled to impose—by force of law—its preferred vision of society: single parents are noble; birth control should be encouraged at an early age; and abortion must be upheld as an absolute moral right.
So the political class simply tells the American people and American industry what values must prevail, and what costs much be borne to implement those values. This time, however, the political class has been shocked by the uproar to the new mandate that it did not anticipate or understand.
But Catholic hospitals face the existential choice of obeying their conscience and engaging in civil disobedience, or closing their doors because government claims the power to force them to violate the teachings of their faith. This terrible imposition has resonated with many Americans, and now the Obama administration finds itself having to defend the terrible cultural baggage of the anti-religious left.
Of course many Catholic leaders originally supported Obamacare because they naively believe against all evidence that benign angels in government will improve medical care for the poor. And many religious leaders support federal welfare programs generally without understanding that recipients of those dollars can use them for abortions, contraceptives, or any number of activities that conflict deeply with religious teachings. This is why private charity is so vitally important and morally superior to a government-run medical system.
The First Amendment guarantee of religious liberty is intended to ensure that Americans never have to put the demands of the federal government ahead of the their own conscience or religious beliefs. This new policy turns that guarantee on its head. The benefits or drawbacks of birth control are not the issue. The issue is whether government may force private employers and private citizens to violate their moral codes simply by operating their businesses or paying their taxes.”
Ron Paul Says Santorum Can’t Beat Obama
Ron Paul says social issues are a ‘losing position’ for the GOP
“…Ron Paul said he doesn’t think that Rick Santorum can defeat President Obama in a general election. “I don’t see how that’s possible,” he said on Sunday on CNN’s State of the Union.
Paul also jabbed at Santorum for his aim “to control peoples’ lives” and what he framed as Santorum’s hypocrisy on the birth control issue.
Santorum admitted in a 2006 interview on Fox News that he supported Title X, a government program that provides funds for family planning services, including access to contraceptives. Santorum said he voted for it during his time as Pennsylvania Senator, and though he believes in access to contraceptives, he personally feels they’re harmful to women and that abstinence education is a “healthier” option.
“I don’t see how anybody can get away with that inconsistency—pretending he’s a conservative,” Paul said in reference to Santorum’s vote.
Paul dismissed the recent debate over contraception entirely, saying that while the other candidates discuss birth control, he’s concerned with “the undermining of our civil liberties, the constant wars going on” and the debt.
Paul said the focus on social issues is a fundamental problem and an unwise fight for the GOP.
“I think it’s a losing position,” he said. “I talk about it because I have a precise understanding of how these problems are to be solved,” on a state-specific level, he said. …”
Background Articles and Videos
Black liberation theology
“…Black liberation theology, is a relatively new theological perspective found in some Christian churches in the United States. It is an instance of the liberation theology which originated from Catholic Theologians in the 1950’s. Liberation theology observes that Jesus Christ was a religious leader seeking greater justice for the oppressed and occupied people of Israel and views his teachings as both an inspiration and a model for others to seek freedom from injustice. The influenced of liberation theology resulted in a more socially conscious Catholic Church during the 1962 Vatican II conference and was central to Latin American peasant and grass-roots movements throughout the 60s 70’s and 80’s.
Black liberation theology seeks to liberate people of color from multiple forms of political, social, economic, and religious subjugation and views Christian theology as a theology of liberation — “a rational study of the being of God in the world in light of the existential situation of an oppressed community, relating the forces of liberation to the essence of the Gospel, which is Jesus Christ,” writes James Hal Cone.
Development
Modern American origins of contemporary black liberation theology can be traced to July 31, 1966, when an ad hoc group of 51 black pastors, calling themselves the National Committee of Negro Churchmen (NCNC), bought a full page ad in the New York Times to publish their “Black Power Statement,” which proposed a more aggressive approach to combating racism using the Bible for inspiration.[1]
In the minds of many African-Americans, Christianity was long associated with slavery and segregation.[2] The Southern Baptist Convention had supported slavery and slaveholders, and it was not until June 20, 1995 that the formal Declaration of Repentance was adopted. This resolution declared that they “unwaveringly denounce racism, in all its forms, as deplorable sin” and “lament and repudiate historic acts of evil such as slavery from which we continue to reap a bitter harvest.” The convention offered an apology to all African-Americans for “condoning and/or perpetuating individual and systemic racism in our lifetime” and repentance for “racism of which we have been guilty, whether consciously or unconsciously.[3][4] Christianity was long associated with racism. Therefore, there must then be a dialogue regarding the implications of racism in today’s society and to what extent historical factors affect the plight of the black community. Cone argues that, “About thirty years ago it was acceptable to lynch a black man by hanging him from a tree; but today whites destroy him by crowding him into a ghetto and letting filth and despair put the final touches on death.”
Black theology deals primarily with the African-American community, to make Christianity real for blacks. It explains Christianity as a matter of liberation here and now, rather than in an afterlife. The goal of black theology is not for special treatment. Instead, “All Black theologians are asking for is for freedom and justice. No more, and no less. In asking for this, the Black theologians, turn to scripture as the sanction for their demand. The Psalmist writes for instance, ‘If God is going to see righteousness established in the land, he himself must be particularly active as ‘the helper of the fatherless’ [5] to ‘deliver the needy when he crieth; and the poor that hath no helper.’[6]“[7]
James Cone and Black Liberation Theology
James Cone first addressed this theology after Malcolm X’s proclamation in the 1950s against Christianity being taught as “a white man’s religion”.[8] According to Black religion expert Jonathan Walton:
“James Cone believed that the New Testament revealed Jesus as one who identified with those suffering under oppression, the socially marginalized and the cultural outcasts. And since the socially constructed categories of race in America (i.e., whiteness and blackness) had come to culturally signify dominance (whiteness) and oppression (blackness), from a theological perspective, Cone argued that Jesus reveals himself as black in order to disrupt and dismantle white oppression.”[9]
Black liberation theology contends that dominant cultures have corrupted Christianity, and the result is a mainstream faith-based empire that serves its own interests, not God’s. Black liberation theology asks whose side should God be on – the side of the oppressed or the side of the oppressors. If God values justice over victimization, then God desires that all oppressed people should be liberated. According to Cone, if God is not just, if God does not desire justice, then God needs to be done away with. Liberation from a false god who privileges whites, and the realization of an alternative and true God who desires the empowerment of the oppressed through self-definition, self-affirmation, and self-determination is the core of black liberation theology.[10]
On God and Jesus Christ
Cone based much of his liberationist theology on God’s deliverance of Israel from Egypt in the Book of Exodus. He compared the United States to Egypt, predicting that oppressed people will soon be led to a promised land. For Cone, the theme of Yahweh’s concern was for “the lack of social, economic, and political justice for those who are poor and unwanted in society.”[11] Cone also says that the same God is working for the oppressed blacks of the 20th century, and that “God is helping oppressed blacks and has identified with them, God Himself is spoken of as ‘Black’.” [12]
Cone saw Christ from the aspect of oppression and liberation. Cone uses the Gospel of Luke to illustrate this point: “the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the good news preached to them.[13]” “‘In Christ,’ Cone argues, ‘God enters human affairs and takes sides with the oppressed. Their suffering becomes his; their despair, divine despair.’”[14] Cone also argues that, “We cannot solve ethical questions of the twentieth century by looking at what Jesus did in the first. Our choices are not the same as his. Being Christians does not mean following ‘in his steps.'” [Black Theology and Black Power, Page 139] [3]
Cone’s view is that Jesus was black, which he felt was a very important view of black people to see. “It’s very important because you’ve got a lot of white images of Christ. In reality, Christ was not white, not European. That’s important to the psychic and to the spiritual consciousness of black people who live in a ghetto and in a white society in which their lord and savior looks just like people who victimize them. God is whatever color God needs to be in order to let people know they’re not nobodies, they’re somebodies.” [15]
Stylistic differences in the Black religious community
Because of the differences in thought between the black and white community, most black religious leaders attempt to make their services more accessible to other African-Americans, who must identify with the faith in order to accept it. Another notable difference is Cone’s suggestion as to what must occur if there is not reconciliation among the white community. He states, “Whether the American system is beyond redemption we will have to wait and see. But we can be certain that black patience has run out, and unless white America responds positively to the theory and activity of Black Power, then a bloody, protracted civil war is inevitable.” [Black Theology and Black Power, Page 143] [10]
Black Liberation Theology is considered by some to be a form of racism, as some followers associate liberation with retribution and anger. For this to be considered a true Christian Faith, followers should embrace the liberation in concert with acceptance and fogiveness, just as Christ forgave his oppressors.
Criticisms
Anthony Bradley of the Christian Post interprets that the language of “economic parity” and references to “mal-distribution” as nothing more than channeling the views of Karl Marx. He believes James Cone and Cornel West have worked to incorporate Marxist thought into the black church, forming an ethical framework predicated on a system of oppressor class versus a victim much like Marxism.[16]
Trinity United Church of Christ, Chicago is the church most frequently cited by press accounts, and by Cone as the best example of a church formally founded on the vision of Black liberation theology.[17] The 2008 Jeremiah Wright controversy, over differing interpretations of some of his sermons and statements, caused then-Senator Barack Obama to distance himself from his former pastor.[18][19]
Stanley Kurtz of the National Review wrote about the perceived differences with ‘conventional American Christianity’. He quoted black-liberation theologian Dr. Obery M. Hendricks Jr.: “According to Hendricks, ‘many good church-going folk have been deluded into behaving like modern-day Pharisees and Sadducees when they think they’re really being good Christians.’ Unwittingly, Hendricks says, these apparent Christians have actually become ‘like the false prophets of Ba’al.'” Kurtz also quotes the Rev. Jeremiah Wright: “How do I tell my children about the African Jesus who is not the guy they see in the picture of the blond-haired, blue-eyed guy in their Bible or the figment of white supremacists [sic] imagination that they see in Mel Gibson’s movies?”[20]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_liberation_theology
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )Eat The Rich!–Vote Obama In 2012 For More Spending, More Taxes, More Deficits, More Debt, More Unemployment, More Recession–No Hope–No Change–No Deal!–Videos
EAT THE RICH!
Obama sets the record straight: It’s not class warfare …It’s MATH
President Obama – It’s Not Class Warfare to Ask Millionaire to Pay Same Tax Rate as Secretary
Obama the Socialist wants to spread YOUR money around
Obama – Taxes, Capital Gains
President Barack Obama, September 19, 2011
“…So I am ready, I am eager, to work with Democrats and Republicans to reform the tax code to make it simpler, make it fairer, and make America more competitive. But any reform plan will have to raise revenue to help close our deficit. That has to be part of the formula. And any reform should follow another simple principle: Middle-class families shouldn’t pay higher taxes than millionaires and billionaires. That’s pretty straightforward. It’s hard to argue against that. Warren Buffett’s secretary shouldn’t pay a higher tax rate than Warren Buffett. There is no justification for it.
It is wrong that in the United States of America, a teacher or a nurse or a construction worker who earns $50,000 should pay higher tax rates than somebody pulling in $50 million. Anybody who says we can’t change the tax code to correct that, anyone who has signed some pledge to protect every single tax loophole so long as they live, they should be called out. They should have to defend that unfairness — explain why somebody who’s making $50 million a year in the financial markets should be paying 15 percent on their taxes, when a teacher making $50,000 a year is paying more than that — paying a higher rate. They ought to have to answer for it. And if they’re pledged to keep that kind of unfairness in place, they should remember, the last time I checked the only pledge that really matters is the pledge we take to uphold the Constitution. …”
2011 Tax Rates & 2011 Tax Brackets
Here are the federal income tax rates for 2011 from the IRS:
2011 Tax Rates & 2011 Tax Brackets
Here are the federal income tax rates for 2011 from the IRS:
| Tax Rate | Single | Married Filing Joint | Married Filing Separate | Head of Household |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10% | Up to $8,500 | Up to $17,000 | Up to $8,500 | Up to $12,150 |
| 15% | $8,501 – $34,500 | $17,001 – $69,000 | $8,501 – $34,500 | $12,151 – $46,250 |
| 25% | $34,501 – $83,600 | $69,001 – $139,350 | $34,501 – $69,675 | $46,251 – $119,400 |
| 28% | $83,601 – $174,400 | $139,351 – $212,300 | $69,676 – $106,150 | $119,401 – $193,350 |
| 33% | $174,401 – $379,150 | $212,301 – $379,150 | $106,151 – $189,575 | $193,351 – $379,150 |
| 35% | Over $379,150 | Over $379,150 | Over $189,575 | Over $379,150 |
In addition to the tax brackets above, you may owe tax under the alternative minimum tax. You can review the 2011 AMT exemption to see if it will apply to you.
Proposed 2012 Tax Rates & Tax Brackets
| Tax Rate | Single | Married Filing Joint | Head of Household |
|---|---|---|---|
| 10% | Up to $8,600 | Up to $17,200 | Up to $12,250 |
| 15% | $8,601 – $34,900 | $17,201 – $69,800 | $12,251 – $46,750 |
| 25% | $34,901 – $84,500 | $69,801 – $140,850 | $46,751 – $120,700 |
| 28% | $84,501 – $195,950 | $140,851 – $237,700 | $120,701 – $216,800 |
| 36% | $195,951 – $383,350 | $237,701 – $383,350 | $216,801 – $383,350 |
| 39.6% | Over $383,350 | Over $383,350 | Over $383,350 |
Married Filing Separate was not included in the release. I’ll update the 2012 federal tax tables for all filing statuses as soon as the information is available.
2012 Tax Rates vs 2011 Tax Rates
Want to compare the proposed 2012 tax brackets to the current year to see the changes?
The biggest changes in the proposal are expanding the 28% bracket and replacing the 33% and 35% brackets with 36% and 39.6% brackets.
http://www.mydollarplan.com/tax-brackets/
FACT CHECK: Are rich taxed less than secretaries?
“…This year, households making more than $1 million will pay an average of 29.1
percent of their income in federal taxes, including income taxes, payroll taxes
and other taxes, according to the Tax Policy Center, a Washington think
tank.
Households making between $50,000 and $75,000 will pay an average of 15
percent of their income in federal taxes.
Lower-income households will pay less. For example, households making between
$40,000 and $50,000 will pay an average of 12.5 percent of their income in
federal taxes. Households making between $20,000 and $30,000 will pay 5.7
percent.
The latest IRS figures are a few years older — and limited to federal income
taxes — but show much the same thing. In 2009, taxpayers who made $1 million or
more paid on average 24.4 percent of their income in federal income taxes,
according to the IRS.
Those making $100,000 to $125,000 paid on average 9.9 percent in federal
income taxes. Those making $50,000 to $60,000 paid an average of 6.3
percent.
Obama’s claim hinges on the fact that, for high-income families and
individuals, investment income is often taxed at a lower rate than wages. The
top tax rate for dividends and capital gains is 15 percent. The top marginal tax
rate for wages is 35 percent, though that is reserved for taxable income above
$379,150.
With tax rates that high, why do so many people pay at lower rates? Because
the tax code is riddled with more than $1 trillion in deductions, exemptions and
credits, and they benefit people at every income level, according to data from
the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, Congress’ official scorekeeper on
revenue issues.
The Tax Policy Center estimates that 46 percent of households, mostly low-
and medium-income households, will pay no federal income taxes this year. Most,
however, will pay other taxes, including Social Security payroll taxes. …”
Table 1. Summary of Federal Individual Income Tax Data, 2008(Updated October 2010)
| Number of Returns with Positive AGI | AGI ($ millions) | Income Taxes Paid ($ millions) | Group’s Share of Total AGI | Group’s Share of Income Taxes | Income Split Point | Average Tax Rate | |
| All Taxpayers | 139,960,580 | 8,426,625 | 1,031,512 | 100% | 100% | – | 12.24% |
| Top 1% | 1,399,606 | 1,685,472 | 392,149 | 20.00% | 38.02% | $380,354 | 23.27% |
| 1-5% | 5,598,423 | 1,241,229 | 213,569 | 14.73% | 20.70% | 17.21% | |
| Top 5% | 6,998,029 | 2,926,701 | 605,718 | 34.73% | 58.72% | $159,619 | 20.70% |
| 5-10% | 6,998,029 | 929,761 | 115,703 | 11.03% | 11.22% | 12.44% | |
| Top 10% | 13,996,058 | 3,856,462 | 721,421 | 45.77% | 69.94% | $113,799 | 18.71% |
| 10-25% | 20,994,087 | 1,821,717 | 169,193 | 21.62% | 16.40% | 9.29% | |
| Top 25% | 34,990,145 | 5,678,179 | 890,614 | 67.38% | 86.34% | $67,280 | 15.68% |
| 25-50% | 34,990,145 | 1,673,932 | 113,025 | 19.86% | 10.96% | 6.75% | |
| Top 50% | 69,980,290 | 7,352,111 | 1,003,639 | 87.25% | 97.30% | >$33,048 | 13.65% |
| Bottom 50% | 69,980,290 | 1,074,514 | 27,873 | 12.75% | 2.70% | <$33,048 | 2.59% |
| Source: Internal Revenue Service | |||||||
| Total Income Tax Shares, 1980-2008 (Percent of federal income tax paid by each group) | |||||||||||
| Year | Total | Top 0.1% | Top 1% | Top 5% | Between 5% & 10% | Top 10% | Between 10% & 25% | Top 25% | Between 25% & 50% | Top 50% | Bottom 50% |
| 1980 | 100% | 19.05% | 36.84% | 12.44% | 49.28% | 23.74% | 73.02% | 19.93% | 92.95% | 7.05% | |
| 1981 | 100% | 17.58% | 35.06% | 12.90% | 47.96% | 24.33% | 72.29% | 20.26% | 92.55% | 7.45% | |
| 1982 | 100% | 19.03% | 36.13% | 12.45% | 48.59% | 23.91% | 72.50% | 20.15% | 92.65% | 7.35% | |
| 1983 | 100% | 20.32% | 37.26% | 12.44% | 49.71% | 23.39% | 73.10% | 19.73% | 92.83% | 7.17% | |
| 1984 | 100% | 21.12% | 37.98% | 12.58% | 50.56% | 22.92% | 73.49% | 19.16% | 92.65% | 7.35% | |
| 1985 | 100% | 21.81% | 38.78% | 12.67% | 51.46% | 22.60% | 74.06% | 18.77% | 92.83% | 7.17% | |
| 1986 | 100% | 25.75% | 42.57% | 12.12% | 54.69% | 21.33% | 76.02% | 17.52% | 93.54% | 6.46% | |
| Tax Reform Act of 1986 changed the definition of AGI, so data above and below this line not strictly comparable | |||||||||||
| 1987 | 100% | 24.81% | 43.26% | 12.35% | 55.61% | 21.31% | 76.92% | 17.02% | 93.93% | 6.07% | |
| 1988 | 100% | 27.58% | 45.62% | 11.66% | 57.28% | 20.57% | 77.84% | 16.44% | 94.28% | 5.72% | |
| 1989 | 100% | 25.24% | 43.94% | 11.85% | 55.78% | 21.44% | 77.22% | 16.94% | 94.17% | 5.83% | |
| 1990 | 100% | 25.13% | 43.64% | 11.73% | 55.36% | 21.66% | 77.02% | 17.16% | 94.19% | 5.81% | |
| 1991 | 100% | 24.82% | 43.38% | 12.45% | 55.82% | 21.46% | 77.29% | 17.23% | 94.52% | 5.48% | |
| 1992 | 100% | 27.54% | 45.88% | 12.12% | 58.01% | 20.47% | 78.48% | 16.46% | 94.94% | 5.06% | |
| 1993 | 100% | 29.01% | 47.36% | 11.88% | 59.24% | 20.03% | 79.27% | 15.92% | 95.19% | 4.81% | |
| 1994 | 100% | 28.86% | 47.52% | 11.93% | 59.45% | 20.10% | 79.55% | 15.68% | 95.23% | 4.77% | |
| 1995 | 100% | 30.26% | 48.91% | 11.84% | 60.75% | 19.62% | 80.36% | 15.03% | 95.39% | 4.61% | |
| 1996 | 100% | 32.31% | 50.97% | 11.54% | 62.51% | 18.80% | 81.32% | 14.36% | 95.68% | 4.32% | |
| 1997 | 100% | 33.17% | 51.87% | 11.33% | 63.20% | 18.47% | 81.67% | 14.05% | 95.72% | 4.28% | |
| 1998 | 100% | 34.75% | 53.84% | 11.20% | 65.04% | 17.65% | 82.69% | 13.10% | 95.79% | 4.21% | |
| 1999 | 100% | 36.18% | 55.45% | 11.00% | 66.45% | 17.09% | 83.54% | 12.46% | 96.00% | 4.00% | |
| 2000 | 100% | 37.42% | 56.47% | 10.86% | 67.33% | 16.68% | 84.01% | 12.08% | 96.09% | 3.91% | |
| 2001 | 100% | 16.06% | 33.89% | 53.25% | 11.64% | 64.89% | 18.01% | 82.90% | 13.13% | 96.03% | 3.97% |
| 2002 | 100% | 15.43% | 33.71% | 53.80% | 11.94% | 65.73% | 18.16% | 83.90% | 12.60% | 96.50% | 3.50% |
| 2003 | 100% | 15.68% | 34.27% | 54.36% | 11.48% | 65.84% | 18.04% | 83.88% | 12.65% | 96.54% | 3.46% |
| 2004 | 100% | 17.44% | 36.89% | 57.13% | 11.07% | 68.19% | 16.67% | 84.86% | 11.85% | 96.70% | 3.30% |
| 2005 | 100% | 19.26% | 39.38% | 59.67% | 10.63% | 70.30% | 15.69% | 85.99% | 10.94% | 96.93% | 3.07% |
| 2006 | 100% | 19.56% | 39.89% | 60.14% | 10.65% | 70.79% | 15.47% | 86.27% | 10.75% | 97.01% | 2.99% |
| 2007 | 100% | 20.19% | 40.41% | 60.61% | 10.59% | 71.20% | 15.37% | 86.57% | 10.54% | 97.11% | 2.89% |
| 2008 | 100% | 18.47% | 38.02% | 58.72% | 11.22% | 69.94% | 16.40% | 86.34% | 10.96% | 97.30% | 2.70% |
| Source: IRS | |||||||||||
| Average Tax Rate, 1980-2008 (Percent of AGI paid in income taxes) | |||||||||||
| Year | Total | Top 0.1% | Top 1% | Top 5% | Between 5% & 10% | Top 10% | Between 10% & 25% | Top 25% | Between 25% & 50% | Top 50% | Bottom 50% |
| 1980 | 15.31% | 34.47% | 26.85% | 17.13% | 23.49% | 14.80% | 19.72% | 11.91% | 17.29% | 6.10% | |
| 1981 | 15.76% | 33.37% | 26.59% | 18.16% | 23.64% | 15.53% | 20.11% | 12.48% | 17.73% | 6.62% | |
| 1982 | 14.72% | 31.43% | 25.05% | 16.61% | 22.17% | 14.35% | 18.79% | 11.63% | 16.57% | 6.10% | |
| 1983 | 13.79% | 30.18% | 23.64% | 15.54% | 20.91% | 13.20% | 17.62% | 10.76% | 15.52% | 5.66% | |
| 1984 | 13.68% | 29.92% | 23.42% | 15.57% | 20.81% | 12.90% | 17.47% | 10.48% | 15.35% | 5.77% | |
| 1985 | 13.73% | 29.86% | 23.50% | 15.69% | 20.93% | 12.83% | 17.55% | 10.41% | 15.41% | 5.70% | |
| 1986 | 14.54% | 33.13% | 25.68% | 15.99% | 22.64% | 12.97% | 18.72% | 10.48% | 16.32% | 5.63% | |
| Tax Reform Act of 1986 changed the definition of AGI, so data above and below this line not strictly comparable | |||||||||||
| 1987 | 13.12% | 26.41% | 22.10% | 14.43% | 19.77% | 11.71% | 16.61% | 9.45% | 14.60% | 5.09% | |
| 1988 | 13.21% | 24.04% | 21.14% | 14.07% | 19.18% | 11.82% | 16.47% | 9.60% | 14.64% | 5.06% | |
| 1989 | 13.12% | 23.34% | 20.71% | 13.93% | 18.77% | 12.08% | 16.27% | 9.77% | 14.53% | 5.11% | |
| 1990 | 12.95% | 23.25% | 20.46% | 13.63% | 18.50% | 12.01% | 16.06% | 9.73% | 14.36% | 5.01% | |
| 1991 | 12.75% | 24.37% | 20.62% | 13.96% | 18.63% | 11.57% | 15.93% | 9.55% | 14.20% | 4.62% | |
| 1992 | 12.94% | 25.05% | 21.19% | 13.99% | 19.13% | 11.39% | 16.25% | 9.42% | 14.44% | 4.39% | |
| 1993 | 13.32% | 28.01% | 22.71% | 14.01% | 20.20% | 11.40% | 16.90% | 9.37% | 14.90% | 4.29% | |
| 1994 | 13.50% | 28.23% | 23.04% | 14.20% | 20.48% | 11.57% | 17.15% | 9.42% | 15.11% | 4.32% | |
| 1995 | 13.86% | 28.73% | 23.53% | 14.46% | 20.97% | 11.71% | 17.58% | 9.43% | 15.47% | 4.39% | |
| 1996 | 14.34% | 28.87% | 24.07% | 14.74% | 21.55% | 11.86% | 18.12% | 9.53% | 15.96% | 4.40% | |
| 1997 | 14.48% | 27.64% | 23.62% | 14.87% | 21.36% | 12.04% | 18.18% | 9.63% | 16.09% | 4.48% | |
| 1998 | 14.42% | 27.12% | 23.63% | 14.79% | 21.42% | 11.63% | 18.16% | 9.12% | 16.00% | 4.44% | |
| 1999 | 14.85% | 27.53% | 24.18% | 15.06% | 21.98% | 11.76% | 18.66% | 9.12% | 16.43% | 4.48% | |
| 2000 | 15.26% | 27.45% | 24.42% | 15.48% | 22.34% | 12.04% | 19.09% | 9.28% | 16.86% | 4.60% | |
| 2001 | 14.23% | 28.20% | 27.50% | 23.68% | 14.89% | 21.41% | 11.58% | 18.08% | 8.91% | 15.85% | 4.09% |
| 2002 | 13.03% | 28.49% | 27.25% | 22.95% | 13.87% | 20.51% | 10.47% | 16.99% | 7.67% | 14.66% | 3.21% |
| 2003 | 11.90% | 24.64% | 24.31% | 20.74% | 12.22% | 18.49% | 9.54% | 15.38% | 7.12% | 13.35% | 2.95% |
| 2004 | 12.10% | 23.09% | 23.49% | 20.67% | 12.28% | 18.60% | 9.26% | 15.53% | 7.01% | 13.51% | 2.97% |
| 2005 | 12.45% | 22.52% | 23.13% | 20.78% | 12.37% | 18.84% | 9.27% | 15.86% | 6.93% | 13.84% | 2.98% |
| 2006 | 12.60% | 21.98% | 22.79% | 20.68% | 12.60% | 18.86% | 9.36% | 15.95% | 7.01% | 13.98% | 3.01% |
| 2007 | 12.68% | 21.46% | 22.45% | 20.53% | 12.66% | 18.79% | 9.43% | 15.98% | 7.01% | 14.03% | 2.99% |
| 2008 | 12.24% | 22.70% | 23.27% | 20.70% | 12.44% | 18.71% | 9.29% | 15.68% | 6.75% | 13.65% | 2.59% |
| Source: IRS | |||||||||||
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_United_States
| Summary of Outlays, Revenues (Receipts), Deficits, Surpluses Fiscal Years 1980-2010(Nominal Dollars in Millions) | |||
| Fiscal Year | Outlays | Revenues (Receipts) | Deficits (-), Surpluses |
| 1980 | 590,941 | 517,112 | -73,830 |
| 1981 | 678,241 | 599,272 | -78,968 |
| 1982 | 745,743 | 617,766 | -127,977 |
| 1983 | 808,364 | 600,562 | -207,802 |
| 1984 | 851,805 | 666,488 | -185,367 |
| 1985 | 946,344 | 734,037 | -212,308 |
| 1986 | 990,382 | 769,155 | -221,277 |
| 1987 | 1,004,017 | 854,288 | -149,730 |
| 1988 | 1,064,417 | 854,288 | -155,178 |
| 1989 | 1,143,744 | 991,105 | -152,639 |
| 1990 | 1,252,994 | 1,031,958 | -221,036 |
| 1991 | 1,324,226 | 1,054,988 | -269,238 |
| 1992 | 1,381,529 | 1,091,208 | -290,321 |
| 1993 | 1,409,386 | 1,154,335 | -255,051 |
| 1994 | 1,461,753 | 1,258,566 | -203,186 |
| 1995 | 1,515,742 | 1,351,790 | -163,392 |
| 1996 | 1,560,484 | 1,453,053 | -107,431 |
| 1997 | 1,601,116 | 1,579,232 | -21,884 |
| 1998 | 1,652,458 | 1,721,728 | 69,270 |
| 1999 | 1,701,842 | 1,827,452 | 125,610 |
| 2000 | 1,788,950 | 2,025,191 | 236,241 |
| 2001 | 1,862,846 | 1,991,082 | 128,236 |
| 2002 | 2,010,894 | 1,853,136 | -157,758 |
| 2003 | 2,159,899 | 1,782,314 | -377,585 |
| 2004 | 2,292,841 | 1,880,114 | -412,727 |
| 2005 | 2,471,957 | 2,153,611 | -318,346 |
| 2006 | 2,655,050 | 2,406,869 | -248,181 |
| 2007 | 2,728,686 | 2,567,985 | -160,701 |
| 2008 | 2,982,544 | 2,523,991 | -458,553 |
| 2009 | 3,517,677 | 2,104,989 | -1,412,688 |
| 2010 | 3,456,213 | 2,162,724 | -1,293,489 |
| 2011 Est. | 3,818,819 | 2,173,700 | -1,645,119 |
| 2012 Est. | 3,728,686 | 2,627,449 | -1,101,237 |
| 2013 Est. | 3,770,876 | 3,003,345 | -767,531 |
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/hist01z1.xls
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html#Data
Obama lied, it is Marxist class warfare as the above charts clearly show! Marxist Math!
The Story of Spending
Is Washington Bankrupting America?
Obama sets the record straight: It’s not class warfare …It’s MATH
President Obama – It’s Not Class Warfare to Ask Millionaire to Pay Same Tax Rate as Secretary
President Obama on Economic Growth and Deficit Reduction
Six Reasons Why the Capital Gains Tax Should Be Abolished
Saving Social Security with Personal Retirement Accounts
Keynesian Economics Is Wrong: Bigger Gov’t Is Not Stimulus
Eight Reasons Why Big Government Hurts Economic Growth
The Empirical Evidence Against Big Government
Background Articles and Videos
What We Believe, Part 1: Small Government and Free Enterprise
What We Believe, Part 2: The Problem with Elitism
What We Believe, Part 3: Wealth Creation
What We Believe, Part 4: Natural Law
What We Believe, Part 5: Gun Rights
What We Believe, Part 6: Immigration
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
Obama’s Fuzzy Budget Math–Videos
Glenn Beck-04/14/11-A
Glenn Beck-04/14/11-B
Which Budgets Are Fiscally Responsible?
Which Budgets Are Living Within Ones Means?
Democratic Party Budget Proposals
| S-1 FY2012 President’s Budget(Nominal Dollars in Billions) | ||||
| Fiscal Year | Outlays | Revenues | Deficits | Debt Held By Public |
| 2011 | 3,819 | 2,174 | -1,645 | 10,856 |
| 2012 | 3,729 | 2,627 | -1,101 | 11,881 |
| 2013 | 3,771 | 3,003 | -768 | 12,784 |
| 2014 | 3,977 | 3,333 | -646 | 13,562 |
| 2015 | 4,190 | 3,583 | -607 | 14,301 |
| 2016 | 4,468 | 3,819 | -649 | 15,064 |
| 2017 | 4,669 | 4,042 | -627 | 15,795 |
| 2018 | 4,876 | 4,257 | -619 | 16,513 |
| 2019 | 5,154 | 4,473 | -681 | 17,284 |
| 2020 | 5,442 | 4,686 | -735 | 18,103 |
| 2021 | 5,697 | 4,923 | -774 | 18,967 |
| 2012-2021 | 45,952 | 38,747 | -7,205 | n.a. |
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/tables.pdf
Republican Party Budget Proposals
| S-1 FY2012 Chairman’s Markup(Nominal Dollars in Billions) | ||||
| Fiscal Year | Outlays | Revenues | Deficits | Debt Held By Public |
| 2011 | 3,618 | 2,230 | -1,388 | 10,351 |
| 2012 | 3,529 | 2,533 | -995 | 11,418 |
| 2013 | 3,559 | 2,860 | -699 | 12,217 |
| 2014 | 3,586 | 3,094 | -492 | 12,801 |
| 2015 | 3,671 | 3,237 | -434 | 13,326 |
| 2016 | 3,858 | 3,377 | -481 | 13,886 |
| 2017 | 3,998 | 3,589 | -408 | 14,363 |
| 2018 | 4,123 | 3,745 | -379 | 14,800 |
| 2019 | 4,352 | 3,939 | -414 | 15,254 |
| 2020 | 4,544 | 4,142 | -402 | 15,681 |
| 2021 | 4,739 | 4,354 | -385 | 16,071 |
| 2012-2021 | 39,958 | 34,870 | -5,088 | n.a. |
http://budget.house.gov/UploadedFiles/PathToProsperityFY2012.pdf
Tea Party Solution
Tea Party Budget Proposals
| S-1 FY2012 Tea Party’s Balanced/Surplus Budget(Nominal Dollars in Billions) | ||||
| Fiscal Year | Outlays | Revenues | Surpluses | Debt Held By Public |
| 2012 | 2,500 | 2,500 | 0 | 10,900 |
| 2013 | 2,800 | 2,800 | 0 | 10,900 |
| 2014 | 3,000 | 3,000 | 0 | 10,900 |
| 2015 | 3,200 | 3,200 | 0 | 10,900 |
| 2016 | 3,300 | 3,300 | 0 | 10,900 |
| 2017 | 3,400 | 3,500 | 100 | 10,800 |
| 2018 | 3,500 | 3,700 | 200 | 10,600 |
| 2019 | 3,600 | 3,900 | 300 | 10,300 |
| 2020 | 3,700 | 4,000 | 300 | 10,000 |
| 2021 | 3,800 | 4,300 | 500 | 9,500 |
| 2012-2021 | 32,800 | 34,200 | 1,400 | n.a. |
Related Posts On Pronk Palisades
President Obama’s Fiscal Year 2012 Budget Speech Of April 13, 2011–Eat The Rich And Killing The American Dream Class Warfare–Cuts National Security Spending and Raise Taxes On The Rich–Produces Massive Deficits, National Debt, and Higher Unemployment For 12 More Years–Progressive Radical Socialist Economic Stagflation–Videos
Ron Paul, Michele Bachmann And Rand Paul–Stop Spending Money You Don’t Have!–Balance The Budget–Tea Party Budget Gets It Right–Videos
Republican Party Establishment Ruling Class Betrays The Tea Party Movement and American People With A Fiscal Year 2012 Budget Resolution With A Deficit of $995 Billion And Budgets Not Balanced In Next Ten Years–Replace Republican Party Leadership–Videos
Tea Party Movement Demands Passage of Balanced Budget Amendment and The FairTax As The Price For Raising The National Statutory Debt Limit of $ 14,294,000,000 One Last Time By $1,000,000,000,000!–Videos
Just One More Thing Congressman Ryan: When Does The Republican’s Path To Prosperity Balance The Budget?–The Twelth of Never!
The FairTax (National Consumption Sales Tax) vs. The Flat Tax (One Rate Federal Income Tax)–Who Pays The Most Federal Individual Income Tax? Videos
The Washington Political Elites of Both Parties Are Not Serious About Balancing The Federal Budget And Funding Entitlement Liabilities–Send In The Clowns–Don’t Bother There Here–Videos
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )President Obama’s Fiscal Year 2012 Budget Speech Of April 13, 2011–Eat The Rich And Killing The American Dream Class Warfare–Cuts National Security Spending and Raise Taxes On The Rich–Produces Massive Deficits, National Debt, and Higher Unemployment For 12 More Years–Progressive Radical Socialist Economic Stagflation–Videos
Pronk Pops Show 24: April 19, 2011
Pronk Pops Show 23: April 12, 2011
Pronk Pops Show 22 (Part 2): April 7, 2011
Pronk Pops Show 22 (Part 1): April 7, 2011
“A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned – this is the sum of good government.”
~Thomas Jefferson
President Obama’s Speech on 2012 Budget – April 13, 2011
Rep. Scott: Taxing those at $100,000 and up 100% will not cover deficit
Milton Friedman: Why soaking the rich won’t work.
Paul Ryan Thrashes Obama’s Speech: “Exploiting People’s Emotions” Is “Demagoguery”!
Ryan: Debt crisis lies within spending, not taxes
House Session 2011-04-14 (16:55:00-17:56:59)
Responsibility to the Poor
Howard Roark makes a case against Barack Obama Individual vs collectivism
Ayn Rand – Individual Rights
Francisco’s Money Speech Part 1
Francisco’s money speech Part 2
The Normal State of Man: Misery & Tyranny
Capitalism, Socialism, and the Jews
Who Is John Galt?
Why Did President Obama Invite Paul Ryan To A Front Row Seat To His Speech To Then Insult and Demonize Him?
Paul Ryan: Hiding Spending Doesn’t Reduce Spending
Eat The Rich
It’s Simple to Balance The Budget Without Higher Taxes
Boehner: We Can’t Tax The Very People We Expect To Create Jobs
Krauthammer: Obama’s Deficit Speech ‘A Disgrace’, ‘Shallow’, ‘Hyper-partisan’ and ‘Deeply Dishonest’
The Problem
“Extreme Spending”
Stop Spending Our Future – The Crisis
Partial Solutions
Senator Rand Paul on balancing the budget
Sen. Rand Paul Introduces Five-Year Balanced Budget Plan
Shelby Introduces Balanced Budget Amendment to Constitution
Which Budgets Are Fiscally Responsible?
Which Budgets Are Living Within Ones Means?
Democratic Party Budget Proposals
| S-1 FY2012 President’s Budget(Nominal Dollars in Billions) | ||||
| Fiscal Year | Outlays | Revenues | Deficits | Debt Held By Public |
| 2011 | 3,819 | 2,174 | -1,645 | 10,856 |
| 2012 | 3,729 | 2,627 | -1,101 | 11,881 |
| 2013 | 3,771 | 3,003 | -768 | 12,784 |
| 2014 | 3,977 | 3,333 | -646 | 13,562 |
| 2015 | 4,190 | 3,583 | -607 | 14,301 |
| 2016 | 4,468 | 3,819 | -649 | 15,064 |
| 2017 | 4,669 | 4,042 | -627 | 15,795 |
| 2018 | 4,876 | 4,257 | -619 | 16,513 |
| 2019 | 5,154 | 4,473 | -681 | 17,284 |
| 2020 | 5,442 | 4,686 | -735 | 18,103 |
| 2021 | 5,697 | 4,923 | -774 | 18,967 |
| 2012-2021 | 45,952 | 38,747 | -7,205 | n.a. |
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/tables.pdf
Republican Party Budget Proposals
| S-1 FY2012 Chairman’s Markup(Nominal Dollars in Billions) | ||||
| Fiscal Year | Outlays | Revenues | Deficits | Debt Held By Public |
| 2011 | 3,618 | 2,230 | -1,388 | 10,351 |
| 2012 | 3,529 | 2,533 | -995 | 11,418 |
| 2013 | 3,559 | 2,860 | -699 | 12,217 |
| 2014 | 3,586 | 3,094 | -492 | 12,801 |
| 2015 | 3,671 | 3,237 | -434 | 13,326 |
| 2016 | 3,858 | 3,377 | -481 | 13,886 |
| 2017 | 3,998 | 3,589 | -408 | 14,363 |
| 2018 | 4,123 | 3,745 | -379 | 14,800 |
| 2019 | 4,352 | 3,939 | -414 | 15,254 |
| 2020 | 4,544 | 4,142 | -402 | 15,681 |
| 2021 | 4,739 | 4,354 | -385 | 16,071 |
| 2012-2021 | 39,958 | 34,870 | -5,088 | n.a. |
http://budget.house.gov/UploadedFiles/PathToProsperityFY2012.pdf
Tea Party Solution
Tea Party Budget Proposals
| S-1 FY2012 Tea Party’s Balanced/Surplus Budget(Nominal Dollars in Billions) | ||||
| Fiscal Year | Outlays | Revenues | Surpluses | Debt Held By Public |
| 2012 | 2,500 | 2,500 | 0 | 10,900 |
| 2013 | 2,800 | 2,800 | 0 | 10,900 |
| 2014 | 3,000 | 3,000 | 0 | 10,900 |
| 2015 | 3,200 | 3,200 | 0 | 10,900 |
| 2016 | 3,300 | 3,300 | 0 | 10,900 |
| 2017 | 3,400 | 3,500 | 100 | 10,800 |
| 2018 | 3,500 | 3,700 | 200 | 10,600 |
| 2019 | 3,600 | 3,900 | 300 | 10,300 |
| 2020 | 3,700 | 4,000 | 300 | 10,000 |
| 2021 | 3,800 | 4,300 | 500 | 9,500 |
| 2012-2021 | 32,800 | 34,200 | 1,400 | n.a. |
Milton Friedman on Libertarianism (Part 4 of 4)
The FairTax: It’s Time
What is the FairTax plan?
The FairTax plan is a comprehensive proposal that replaces all federal income and payroll based taxes with an integrated approach including a progressive national retail sales tax, a prebate to ensure no American pays federal taxes on spending up to the poverty level, dollar-for-dollar federal revenue neutrality, and, through companion legislation, the repeal of the 16th Amendment.
The FairTax Act (HR 25, S 13) is nonpartisan legislation. It abolishes all federal personal and corporate income taxes, gift, estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, and self-employment taxes and replaces them with one simple, visible, federal retail sales tax administered primarily by existing state sales tax authorities.
The FairTax taxes us only on what we choose to spend on new goods or services, not on what we earn. The FairTax is a fair, efficient, transparent, and intelligent solution to the frustration and inequity of our current tax system.
The FairTax:
- Enables workers to keep their entire paychecks
- Enables retirees to keep their entire pensions
- Refunds in advance the tax on purchases of basic necessities
- Allows American products to compete fairly
- Brings transparency and accountability to tax policy
- Ensures Social Security and Medicare funding
- Closes all loopholes and brings fairness to taxation
- Abolishes the IRS
Table 1
Summary of Federal Individual Income Tax Data, 2008
(Updated October 2010)
| Number of Returns with Positive AGI | AGI ($ millions) |
Income Taxes Paid ($ millions) |
Group’s Share of Total AGI | Group’s Share of Income Taxes | Income Split Point | Average Tax Rate | |
| All Taxpayers | 139,960,580 | 8,426,625 | 1,031,512 | 100% | 100% | – | 12.24% |
| Top 1% | 1,399,606 | 1,685,472 | 392,149 | 20.00% | 38.02% | $380,354 | 23.27% |
| 1-5% | 5,598,423 | 1,241,229 | 213,569 | 14.73% | 20.70% | 17.21% | |
| Top 5% | 6,998,029 | 2,926,701 | 605,718 | 34.73% | 58.72% | $159,619 | 20.70% |
| 5-10% | 6,998,029 | 929,761 | 115,703 | 11.03% | 11.22% | 12.44% | |
| Top 10% | 13,996,058 | 3,856,462 | 721,421 | 45.77% | 69.94% | $113,799 | 18.71% |
| 10-25% | 20,994,087 | 1,821,717 | 169,193 | 21.62% | 16.40% | 9.29% | |
| Top 25% | 34,990,145 | 5,678,179 | 890,614 | 67.38% | 86.34% | $67,280 | 15.68% |
| 25-50% | 34,990,145 | 1,673,932 | 113,025 | 19.86% | 10.96% | 6.75% | |
| Top 50% | 69,980,290 | 7,352,111 | 1,003,639 | 87.25% | 97.30% | >$33,048 | 13.65% |
| Bottom 50% | 69,980,290 | 1,074,514 | 27,873 | 12.75% | 2.70% | <$33,048 | 2.59% |
| Source: Internal Revenue Service Table 6 | |||||||
| Total Income Tax Shares, 1980-2008 (Percent of federal income tax paid by each group) | |||||||||||
| Year | Total | Top 0.1% | Top 1% | Top 5% | Between 5% & 10% | Top 10% | Between 10% & 25% | Top 25% | Between 25% & 50% | Top 50% | Bottom 50% |
| 1980 | 100% | 19.05% | 36.84% | 12.44% | 49.28% | 23.74% | 73.02% | 19.93% | 92.95% | 7.05% | |
| 1981 | 100% | 17.58% | 35.06% | 12.90% | 47.96% | 24.33% | 72.29% | 20.26% | 92.55% | 7.45% | |
| 1982 | 100% | 19.03% | 36.13% | 12.45% | 48.59% | 23.91% | 72.50% | 20.15% | 92.65% | 7.35% | |
| 1983 | 100% | 20.32% | 37.26% | 12.44% | 49.71% | 23.39% | 73.10% | 19.73% | 92.83% | 7.17% | |
| 1984 | 100% | 21.12% | 37.98% | 12.58% | 50.56% | 22.92% | 73.49% | 19.16% | 92.65% | 7.35% | |
| 1985 | 100% | 21.81% | 38.78% | 12.67% | 51.46% | 22.60% | 74.06% | 18.77% | 92.83% | 7.17% | |
| 1986 | 100% | 25.75% | 42.57% | 12.12% | 54.69% | 21.33% | 76.02% | 17.52% | 93.54% | 6.46% | |
| Tax Reform Act of 1986 changed the definition of AGI, so data above and below this line not strictly comparable | |||||||||||
| 1987 | 100% | 24.81% | 43.26% | 12.35% | 55.61% | 21.31% | 76.92% | 17.02% | 93.93% | 6.07% | |
| 1988 | 100% | 27.58% | 45.62% | 11.66% | 57.28% | 20.57% | 77.84% | 16.44% | 94.28% | 5.72% | |
| 1989 | 100% | 25.24% | 43.94% | 11.85% | 55.78% | 21.44% | 77.22% | 16.94% | 94.17% | 5.83% | |
| 1990 | 100% | 25.13% | 43.64% | 11.73% | 55.36% | 21.66% | 77.02% | 17.16% | 94.19% | 5.81% | |
| 1991 | 100% | 24.82% | 43.38% | 12.45% | 55.82% | 21.46% | 77.29% | 17.23% | 94.52% | 5.48% | |
| 1992 | 100% | 27.54% | 45.88% | 12.12% | 58.01% | 20.47% | 78.48% | 16.46% | 94.94% | 5.06% | |
| 1993 | 100% | 29.01% | 47.36% | 11.88% | 59.24% | 20.03% | 79.27% | 15.92% | 95.19% | 4.81% | |
| 1994 | 100% | 28.86% | 47.52% | 11.93% | 59.45% | 20.10% | 79.55% | 15.68% | 95.23% | 4.77% | |
| 1995 | 100% | 30.26% | 48.91% | 11.84% | 60.75% | 19.62% | 80.36% | 15.03% | 95.39% | 4.61% | |
| 1996 | 100% | 32.31% | 50.97% | 11.54% | 62.51% | 18.80% | 81.32% | 14.36% | 95.68% | 4.32% | |
| 1997 | 100% | 33.17% | 51.87% | 11.33% | 63.20% | 18.47% | 81.67% | 14.05% | 95.72% | 4.28% | |
| 1998 | 100% | 34.75% | 53.84% | 11.20% | 65.04% | 17.65% | 82.69% | 13.10% | 95.79% | 4.21% | |
| 1999 | 100% | 36.18% | 55.45% | 11.00% | 66.45% | 17.09% | 83.54% | 12.46% | 96.00% | 4.00% | |
| 2000 | 100% | 37.42% | 56.47% | 10.86% | 67.33% | 16.68% | 84.01% | 12.08% | 96.09% | 3.91% | |
| 2001 | 100% | 16.06% | 33.89% | 53.25% | 11.64% | 64.89% | 18.01% | 82.90% | 13.13% | 96.03% | 3.97% |
| 2002 | 100% | 15.43% | 33.71% | 53.80% | 11.94% | 65.73% | 18.16% | 83.90% | 12.60% | 96.50% | 3.50% |
| 2003 | 100% | 15.68% | 34.27% | 54.36% | 11.48% | 65.84% | 18.04% | 83.88% | 12.65% | 96.54% | 3.46% |
| 2004 | 100% | 17.44% | 36.89% | 57.13% | 11.07% | 68.19% | 16.67% | 84.86% | 11.85% | 96.70% | 3.30% |
| 2005 | 100% | 19.26% | 39.38% | 59.67% | 10.63% | 70.30% | 15.69% | 85.99% | 10.94% | 96.93% | 3.07% |
| 2006 | 100% | 19.56% | 39.89% | 60.14% | 10.65% | 70.79% | 15.47% | 86.27% | 10.75% | 97.01% | 2.99% |
| 2007 | 100% | 20.19% | 40.41% | 60.61% | 10.59% | 71.20% | 15.37% | 86.57% | 10.54% | 97.11% | 2.89% |
| 2008 | 100% | 18.47% | 38.02% | 58.72% | 11.22% | 69.94% | 16.40% | 86.34% | 10.96% | 97.30% | 2.70% |
| Source: IRS | |||||||||||
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html
Federal income tax rates
1930 – 1960
Historical income tax rates for Married Filing Jointly at stated income levels.[3]
| Year | $20,001 | $60,001 | $100,001 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1930 | 10% | 21% | 25% |
| 1932 | 16% | 36% | 56% |
| 1934 | 19% | 37% | 56% |
| 1936 | 19% | 39% | 62% |
| 1938 | 19% | 39% | 62% |
| 1940 | 28% | 51% | 62% |
| 1942 | 55% | 75% | 85% |
| 1944 | 59% | 81% | 92% |
| 1946 | 56% | 78% | 89% |
| 1948 | 56% | 78% | 89% |
| 1950 | 56% | 78% | 89% |
| 1952 | 62% | 80% | 90% |
| 1954 | 56% | 78% | 89% |
| 1956 | 38% | 62% | 75% |
| 1958 | 38% | 62% | 75% |
| 1960 | 38% | 62% | 75% |
Year 2008 income brackets and tax rates
| Marginal Tax Rate | Single | Married Filing Jointly or Qualified Widow(er) | Married Filing Separately | Head of Household |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10% | $0 – $8,025 | $0 – $16,050 | $0 – $8,025 | $0 – $11,450 |
| 15% | $8,026 – $32,550 | $16,051 – $65,100 | $8,026 – $32,550 | $11,451 – $43,650 |
| 25% | $32,551 – $78,850 | $65,101 – $131,450 | $32,551 – $65,725 | $43,651 – $112,650 |
| 28% | $78,851 – $164,550 | $131,451 – $200,300 | $65,726 – $100,150 | $112,651 – $182,400 |
| 33% | $164,551 – $357,700 | $200,301 – $357,700 | $100,151 – $178,850 | $182,401 – $357,700 |
| 35% | $357,701+ | $357,701+ | $178,851+ | $357,701+ |
Year 2009 income brackets and tax rates
| Marginal Tax Rate[4] | Single | Married Filing Jointly or Qualified Widow(er) | Married Filing Separately | Head of Household |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10% | $0 – $8,350 | $0 – $16,700 | $0 – $8,350 | $0 – $11,950 |
| 15% | $8,351 – $33,950 | $16,701 – $67,900 | $8,351 – $33,950 | $11,951 – $45,500 |
| 25% | $33,951 – $82,250 | $67,901 – $137,050 | $33,951 – $68,525 | $45,501 – $117,450 |
| 28% | $82,251 – $171,550 | $137,051 – $208,850 | $68,526 – $104,425 | $117,451 – $190,200 |
| 33% | $171,551 – $372,950 | $208,851 – $372,950 | $104,426 – $186,475 | $190,201 – $372,950 |
| 35% | $372,951+ | $372,951+ | $186,476+ | $372,951+ |
Year 2010 income brackets and tax rates
| Marginal Tax Rate[5] | Single | Married Filing Jointly or Qualified Widow(er) | Married Filing Separately | Head of Household |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10% | $0 – $8,375 | $0 – $16,750 | $0 – $8,375 | $0 – $11,950 |
| 15% | $8,376 – $34,000 | $16,751 – $68,000 | $8,376 – $34,000 | $11,951 – $45,550 |
| 25% | $34,001 – $82,400 | $68,001 – $137,300 | $34,001 – $68,650 | $45,551 – $117,650 |
| 28% | $82,401 – $171,850 | $137,301 – $209,250 | $68,651 – $104,625 | $117,651 – $190,550 |
| 33% | $171,851 – $373,650 | $209,251 – $373,650 | $104,626 – $186,825 | $190,551 – $373,650 |
| 35% | $373,651+ | $373,651+ | $186,826+ | $373,651+ |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States
U.S. Debt Clock
| Year | Gross Debt in Billions undeflated[11] | as % of GDP | Debt Held By Public ($Billions) | as % of GDP |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1910 | 2.6 | unk. | 2.6 | unk. |
| 1920 | 25.9 | unk. | 25.9 | unk. |
| 1928 | 18.5[12] | unk. | 18.5 | unk. |
| 1930 | 16.2 | unk. | 16.2 | unk. |
| 1940 | 50.6 | 52.4 | 42.8 | 44.2 |
| 1950 | 256.8 | 94.0 | 219.0 | 80.2 |
| 1960 | 290.5 | 56.0 | 236.8 | 45.6 |
| 1970 | 380.9 | 37.6 | 283.2 | 28.0 |
| 1980 | 909.0 | 33.4 | 711.9 | 26.1 |
| 1990 | 3,206.3 | 55.9 | 2,411.6 | 42.0 |
| 2000 | 5,628.7 | 58.0 | 3,409.8 | 35.1 |
| 2001 | 5,769.9 | 57.4 | 3,319.6 | 33.0 |
| 2002 | 6,198.4 | 59.7 | 3,540.4 | 34.1 |
| 2003 | 6,760.0 | 62.6 | 3,913.4 | 35.1 |
| 2004 | 7,354.7 | 63.9 | 4,295.5 | 37.3 |
| 2005 | 7,905.3 | 64.6 | 4,592.2 | 37.5 |
| 2006 | 8,451.4 | 65.0 | 4,829.0 | 37.1 |
| 2007 | 8,950.7 | 65.6 | 5,035.1 | 36.9 |
| 2008 | 9,985.8 | 70.2 | 5,802.7 | 40.8 |
| 2009 | 12,311.4 | 86.1 | 7,811.1 | 54.6 |
| 2010 (31 Dec) | 14,025.2 | 95.2 (3rd Q) | 9,390.5 | 63.7 (3rd Q) |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt
Historical Debt Outstanding – Annual 2000 – 2010
Includes legal tender notes, gold and silver certificates, etc.
The first fiscal year for the U.S. Government started Jan. 1, 1789. Congress changed the beginning of the fiscal year from Jan. 1 to Jul. 1 in 1842, and finally from Jul. 1 to Oct. 1 in 1977 where it remains today.
To find more historical information, visit The Public Debt Historical Information archives.
MONTHLY STATEMENT OF THE PUBLIC DEBT
OF THE UNITED STATES
MARCH 31, 2011
TABLE I — SUMMARY OF TREASURY SECURITIES OUTSTANDING, MARCH 31, 2011
(Millions of dollars)
Amount Outstanding
Title Debt Held Intragovernmental Totals
By the Public Holdings
Marketable:
Bills………………………………… 1,694,692 3,809 1,698,501
Notes………………………………… 5,843,938 3,933 5,847,871
Bonds………………………………… 931,474 3,815 935,289
Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities….. 640,714 125 640,840
Federal Financing Bank 1 …………….. 0 10,239 10,239
Total Marketable a……………………… 9,110,819 21,921 2 9,132,740
Nonmarketable:
Domestic Series……………………….. 29,995 0 29,995
Foreign Series………………………… 3,786 0 3,786
State and Local Government Series……….. 181,922 0 181,922
United States Savings Securities………… 186,864 0 186,864
Government Account Series………………. 136,956 4,596,057 4,733,014
Hope Bonds 19…………………………. 0 493 493
Other………………………………… 1,301 0 1,301
Total Nonmarketable b…………………… 540,824 4,596,550 5,137,374
Total Public Debt Outstanding ……………. 9,651,643 4,618,471 14,270,115
TABLE II — STATUTORY DEBT LIMIT, MARCH 31, 2011
(Millions of dollars)
Amount Outstanding
Title Debt Held Intragovernmental Totals
By the Public 17, 2Holdings
Debt Subject to Limit: 17, 20
Public Debt Outstanding………………… 9,651,643 4,618,471 14,270,115
Less Amounts Not Subject to Limit:
Other Debt Not Subject to Limit……….. 488 0 488
Unamortized Discount 3………………. 20,388 20,657 41,046
Federal Financing Bank 1 ………… 0 10,239 10,239
Hope Bonds 19……………………….. 0 493 493
Total Public Debt Subject to Limit………. 9,630,767 4,587,082 14,217,849
Other Debt Subject to Limit:
Guaranteed Debt of Government Agencies 4 13 0 13
Total Public Debt Subject to Limit ……… 9,630,780 4,587,082 14,217,862
Statutory Debt Limit 5…………………………………………………………… 14,294,000
Balance of Statutory Debt Limit……………………………………………………. 76,138
COMPILED AND PUBLISHED BY
THE BUREAU OF THE PUBLIC DEBT
http://www.TreasuryDirect.gov
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/mspd/2011/opds032011.prn
| Date | Dollar Amount |
|---|---|
| 09/30/2010 | 13,561,623,030,891.79 |
| 09/30/2009 | 11,909,829,003,511.75 |
| 09/30/2008 | 10,024,724,896,912.49 |
| 09/30/2007 | 9,007,653,372,262.48 |
| 09/30/2006 | 8,506,973,899,215.23 |
| 09/30/2005 | 7,932,709,661,723.50 |
| 09/30/2004 | 7,379,052,696,330.32 |
| 09/30/2003 | 6,783,231,062,743.62 |
| 09/30/2002 | 6,228,235,965,597.16 |
| 09/30/2001 | 5,807,463,412,200.06 |
| 09/30/2000 | 5,674,178,209,886.86 |
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm
The Presidential Divider
Obama’s toxic speech and even worse plan for deficits and debt.
“…Did someone move the 2012 election to June 1? We ask because President Obama’s extraordinary response to Paul Ryan’s budget yesterday—with its blistering partisanship and multiple distortions—was the kind Presidents usually outsource to some junior lieutenant. Mr. Obama’s fundamentally political document would have been unusual even for a Vice President in the fervor of a campaign.
Joseph Rago and Steve Moore on who will pay more under the White House’s planned tax increases.
The immediate political goal was to inoculate the White House from criticism that it is not serious about the fiscal crisis, after ignoring its own deficit commission last year and tossing off a $3.73 trillion budget in February that increased spending amid a record deficit of $1.65 trillion. Mr. Obama was chased to George Washington University yesterday because Mr. Ryan and the Republicans outflanked him on fiscal discipline and are now setting the national political agenda.
Mr. Obama did not deign to propose an alternative to rival Mr. Ryan’s plan, even as he categorically rejected all its reform ideas, repeatedly vilifying them as essentially un-American. “Their vision is less about reducing the deficit than it is about changing the basic social compact in America,” he said, supposedly pitting “children with autism or Down’s syndrome” against “every millionaire and billionaire in our society.” The President was not attempting to join the debate Mr. Ryan has started, but to close it off just as it begins and banish House GOP ideas to political Siberia.
Mr. Obama then packaged his poison in the rhetoric of bipartisanship—which “starts,” he said, “by being honest about what’s causing our deficit.” The speech he chose to deliver was dishonest even by modern political standards. …”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703730104576260911986870054.html
Related Posts On Pronk Palisades
Sam Vaknin Analyzes Barack Obama–Videos
Ron Paul, Michele Bachmann And Rand Paul–Stop Spending Money You Don’t Have!–Balance The Budget–Tea Party Budget Gets It Right–Videos
Republican Party Establishment Ruling Class Betrays The Tea Party Movement and American People With A Fiscal Year 2012 Budget Resolution With A Deficit of $995 Billion And Budgets Not Balanced In Next Ten Years–Replace Republican Party Leadership–Videos
Tea Party Movement Demands Passage of Balanced Budget Amendment and The FairTax As The Price For Raising The National Statutory Debt Limit of $ 14,294,000,000 One Last Time By $1,000,000,000,000!–Videos
Just One More Thing Congressman Ryan: When Does The Republican’s Path To Prosperity Balance The Budget?–The Twelth of Never!
The FairTax (National Consumption Sales Tax) vs. The Flat Tax (One Rate Federal Income Tax)–Who Pays The Most Federal Individual Income Tax? Videos
The Washington Political Elites of Both Parties Are Not Serious About Balancing The Federal Budget And Funding Entitlement Liabilities–Send In The Clowns–Don’t Bother There Here–Videos
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )The FairTax (National Consumption Sales Tax) vs. The Flat Tax (One Rate Federal Income Tax)–Who Pays The Most Federal Individual Income Tax? Videos
Pronk Pops Show 23: April 12, 2011
Pronk Pops Show 22 (Part 2): April 7, 2011
Pronk Pops Show 22 (Part 1): April 7, 2011
Income Tax vs. Consumption Tax
What is the FairTax legislation?
“…What is the FairTax plan?
The FairTax plan is a comprehensive proposal that replaces all federal income and payroll based taxes with an integrated approach including a progressive national retail sales tax, a prebate to ensure no American pays federal taxes on spending up to the poverty level, dollar-for-dollar federal revenue neutrality, and, through companion legislation, the repeal of the 16th Amendment.
The FairTax Act (HR 25, S 13) is nonpartisan legislation. It abolishes all federal personal and corporate income taxes, gift, estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, and self-employment taxes and replaces them with one simple, visible, federal retail sales tax administered primarily by existing state sales tax authorities.
The FairTax taxes us only on what we choose to spend on new goods or services, not on what we earn. The FairTax is a fair, efficient, transparent, and intelligent solution to the frustration and inequity of our current tax system.
The FairTax:
- Enables workers to keep their entire paychecks
- Enables retirees to keep their entire pensions
- Refunds in advance the tax on purchases of basic necessities
- Allows American products to compete fairly
- Brings transparency and accountability to tax policy
- Ensures Social Security and Medicare funding
- Closes all loopholes and brings fairness to taxation
- Abolishes the IRS
We offer a library of information throughout this Web site about the features and benefits of the FairTax plan. Please explore! …”
http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_main
The FairTax: It’s Time
Tom Wright on the FairTax part 1
Why is the FairTax better than a flat income tax?
Dan Mitchell explains the fair tax
Laura Ingraham Interviews John Linder And Steve Forbes On Fair Tax Or Flat Tax
Five Key Reasons to Reject Class-Warfare Tax Policy
Who Pays Federal Income Taxes?
Uncle Sam Wants Your Money
It’s Simple to Balance The Budget Without Higher Taxes
Controlling Leviathan: The Battle for Limited Government
Question and Answer Session: The Fight Against Big Government
Table 1
Summary of Federal Individual Income Tax Data, 2008
(Updated October 2010)
| Number of Returns with Positive AGI | AGI ($ millions) |
Income Taxes Paid ($ millions) |
Group’s Share of Total AGI | Group’s Share of Income Taxes | Income Split Point | Average Tax Rate | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| All Taxpayers | 139,960,580 | 8,426,625 | 1,031,512 | 100% | 100% | – | 12.24% | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Top 1% | 1,399,606 | 1,685,472 | 392,149 | 20.00% | 38.02% | $380,354 | 23.27% | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 1-5% | 5,598,423 | 1,241,229 | 213,569 | 14.73% | 20.70% | 17.21% | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Top 5% | 6,998,029 | 2,926,701 | 605,718 | 34.73% | 58.72% | $159,619 | 20.70% | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 5-10% | 6,998,029 | 929,761 | 115,703 | 11.03% | 11.22% | 12.44% | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Top 10% | 13,996,058 | 3,856,462 | 721,421 | 45.77% | 69.94% | $113,799 | 18.71% | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 10-25% | 20,994,087 | 1,821,717 | 169,193 | 21.62% | 16.40% | 9.29% | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Top 25% | 34,990,145 | 5,678,179 | 890,614 | 67.38% | 86.34% | $67,280 | 15.68% | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 25-50% | 34,990,145 | 1,673,932 | 113,025 | 19.86% | 10.96% | 6.75% | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Top 50% | 69,980,290 | 7,352,111 | 1,003,639 | 87.25% | 97.30% | >$33,048 | 13.65% | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Bottom 50% | 69,980,290 | 1,074,514 | 27,873 | 12.75% | 2.70% | <$33,048 | 2.59% | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Source: Internal Revenue Service Table 6
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html
|
US State Sales Tax Rates – 2010
|
|
|
State
|
State sales tax rate (January 1st, 2010)%
|
|
Alabama
|
4.0
|
|
Alaska
|
nil
|
|
Arizona
|
5.6
|
|
Arkansas
|
6.0
|
|
California
|
8.25
|
|
Colorado
|
2.9
|
|
Connecticut
|
6.0
|
|
Delaware
|
nil
|
|
Florida
|
6.0
|
|
Georgia
|
4.0
|
|
Hawaii
|
4.0
|
|
Idaho
|
6.0
|
|
Illinois
|
6.25
|
|
Indiana
|
7.0
|
|
Iowa
|
6.0
|
|
Kansas
|
5.3
|
|
Kentucky
|
6.0
|
|
Louisiana
|
4.0
|
|
Maine
|
5.0
|
|
Maryland
|
6.0
|
|
Massachusetts
|
6.25
|
|
Michigan
|
6.0
|
|
Minnesota
|
6.875
|
|
Mississippi
|
7.0
|
|
Missouri
|
4.225
|
|
Montana
|
nil
|
|
Nebraska
|
5.5
|
|
Nevada
|
6.85
|
|
New Hampshire
|
nil
|
|
New Jersey
|
7.0
|
|
New Mexico
|
5.0
|
|
New York
|
4.0
|
|
North Carolina
|
5.75
|
|
North Dakota
|
5.0
|
|
Ohio
|
5.5
|
|
Oklahoma
|
4.5
|
|
Oregon
|
nil
|
|
Pennsylvania
|
6.0
|
|
Rhode Island
|
7.0
|
|
South Carolina
|
6.0
|
|
South Dakota
|
4.0
|
|
Tennessee
|
7.0
|
|
Texas
|
6.25
|
|
Utah
|
4.7
|
|
Vermont
|
6.0
|
|
Virginia
|
5.0
|
|
West Virginia
|
6.0
|
|
Wisconsin
|
5.0
|
|
Washington
|
6.5
|
|
Washington DC
|
6.0
|
|
Wyoming
|
4.0
|
http://www.usa-sales-use-tax-e-commerce.com/table_sales_rates.asp
| Persons in family | Poverty guideline |
|---|---|
| 1 | $10,830 |
| 2 | 14,570 |
| 3 | 18,310 |
| 4 | 22,050 |
| 5 | 25,790 |
| 6 | 29,530 |
| 7 | 33,270 |
| 8 | 37,010 |
| For families with more than 8 persons, add $3,740 for each additional person. | |
http://www.atdn.org/access/poverty.html
Federal income tax rates
1930 – 1960
Historical income tax rates for Married Filing Jointly at stated income levels.[3]
| Year | $20,001 | $60,001 | $100,001 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1930 | 10% | 21% | 25% |
| 1932 | 16% | 36% | 56% |
| 1934 | 19% | 37% | 56% |
| 1936 | 19% | 39% | 62% |
| 1938 | 19% | 39% | 62% |
| 1940 | 28% | 51% | 62% |
| 1942 | 55% | 75% | 85% |
| 1944 | 59% | 81% | 92% |
| 1946 | 56% | 78% | 89% |
| 1948 | 56% | 78% | 89% |
| 1950 | 56% | 78% | 89% |
| 1952 | 62% | 80% | 90% |
| 1954 | 56% | 78% | 89% |
| 1956 | 38% | 62% | 75% |
| 1958 | 38% | 62% | 75% |
| 1960 | 38% | 62% | 75% |
Year 2008 income brackets and tax rates
| Marginal Tax Rate | Single | Married Filing Jointly or Qualified Widow(er) | Married Filing Separately | Head of Household |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10% | $0 – $8,025 | $0 – $16,050 | $0 – $8,025 | $0 – $11,450 |
| 15% | $8,026 – $32,550 | $16,051 – $65,100 | $8,026 – $32,550 | $11,451 – $43,650 |
| 25% | $32,551 – $78,850 | $65,101 – $131,450 | $32,551 – $65,725 | $43,651 – $112,650 |
| 28% | $78,851 – $164,550 | $131,451 – $200,300 | $65,726 – $100,150 | $112,651 – $182,400 |
| 33% | $164,551 – $357,700 | $200,301 – $357,700 | $100,151 – $178,850 | $182,401 – $357,700 |
| 35% | $357,701+ | $357,701+ | $178,851+ | $357,701+ |
Year 2009 income brackets and tax rates
| Marginal Tax Rate[4] | Single | Married Filing Jointly or Qualified Widow(er) | Married Filing Separately | Head of Household |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10% | $0 – $8,350 | $0 – $16,700 | $0 – $8,350 | $0 – $11,950 |
| 15% | $8,351 – $33,950 | $16,701 – $67,900 | $8,351 – $33,950 | $11,951 – $45,500 |
| 25% | $33,951 – $82,250 | $67,901 – $137,050 | $33,951 – $68,525 | $45,501 – $117,450 |
| 28% | $82,251 – $171,550 | $137,051 – $208,850 | $68,526 – $104,425 | $117,451 – $190,200 |
| 33% | $171,551 – $372,950 | $208,851 – $372,950 | $104,426 – $186,475 | $190,201 – $372,950 |
| 35% | $372,951+ | $372,951+ | $186,476+ | $372,951+ |
Year 2010 income brackets and tax rates
| Marginal Tax Rate[5] | Single | Married Filing Jointly or Qualified Widow(er) | Married Filing Separately | Head of Household |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10% | $0 – $8,375 | $0 – $16,750 | $0 – $8,375 | $0 – $11,950 |
| 15% | $8,376 – $34,000 | $16,751 – $68,000 | $8,376 – $34,000 | $11,951 – $45,550 |
| 25% | $34,001 – $82,400 | $68,001 – $137,300 | $34,001 – $68,650 | $45,551 – $117,650 |
| 28% | $82,401 – $171,850 | $137,301 – $209,250 | $68,651 – $104,625 | $117,651 – $190,550 |
| 33% | $171,851 – $373,650 | $209,251 – $373,650 | $104,626 – $186,825 | $190,551 – $373,650 |
| 35% | $373,651+ | $373,651+ | $186,826+ | $373,651+ |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States
Background Articles and Videos
Why Is The Fair Tax so Controversial–My Contribution to Fair Tax Friday
Mar 25th, 2011 by David Anderson
“…The result is the tax code is 71,684 pages (2010). In 2006, before Pelosi took over, it was 61,845 pages. In 2005, the federal government estimated that the code and regulations contained 9,097,000 words. That is why it is burdensome. It is a huge lodestone attaching itself to our economy and weighing us down in the international race for jobs and growth. Fair Tax advocates say that it costs us 900 dollars per man, woman, boy, and girl in compliance costs. According the Tax Foundation, it costs us an estimated 368,000,000,000 dollars in compliance cost which is higher than Fair Tax estimates. Large companies have entire floors devoted to compliance with the tax code not productive activities.
Compare it to the Fair Tax proposal. It is no comparison. You are no longer manipulated. Naturally, charitable donations and education expenses are not taxed. You are not constantly manipulated. The hand of despotism is vanquished. We go from 71,00 pages to 36 pages of code. Compliance costs drop dramatically.
Even better, we will finally have a tax system designed to grow the economy. Currently imports get better treatment than domestic production. The playing field is leveled. Exports won’t be taxed at all. We will finally be ready to compete in the world. America will stop destroying and shipping out manufacturing and the orphaned investments kept offshore by our highest in the world corporate income tax will flow back and forth into our economy. The worst case estimates of growth are 5 to 7%. Other estimates are as high as 14% growth. We currently average around 3% and in the last few years struggle to reach 2% growth. The difference between 2% growth and 6% growth is an economy doubling every 32 years or one doubling every 12 years. That is huge. …”
http://www.delawarepolitics.net/why-is-the-fair-tax-so-controversial/
Tom Wright on the FairTax part 1
Tom Wright on the FairTax part 2
Tom Wright on the FairTax part 3
Tom Wright on the FairTax part 4
Tom Wright on the FairTax part 5
Tom Wright on the FairTax part 6
Tom Wright on the FairTax part 7
Why is the FairTax better than other tax reform efforts?
Does the FairTax repeal the federal income tax?
How does the FairTax affect the economy?
Is the FairTax truly progressive?
How does the “prebate” work?
Is it fair for rich people to get the same prebate as poor people?
Do corporations get a windfall break from the FairTax?
How do we keep exemptions and exclusions from undermining the FairTax?
Wouldn’t it be more fair to exempt food and medicine from the FairTax?
How does the FairTax rate compare to today’s?
Is the FairTax rate really 23%?
How is the FairTax different from a Value Added Tax (VAT)?
Will the prebate create a massive new entitlement system?
How does the FairTax impact the middle class?
How will the FairTax impact seniors?
How does the FairTax affect tax preparers and CPAs?
How does the FairTax impact charitable giving?
How does the FairTax affect compliance costs?
Will the FairTax hurt home ownership with no mortgage interest deduction?
Will the FairTax hurt home ownership with no mortgage interest deduction?
How will the FairTax help people who don’t hire an accountant?
How will the FairTax impact people who don’t file income taxes?
Will the FairTax drive the economy down if people stop buying?
How will the FairTax affect state sales tax systems?
Are any significant economies funded by a sales tax?
Is education taxed under the FairTax?
Will government pay taxes under the FairTax?
Will the FairTax impact tax deferred retirement accounts like 401(k)s?
What will happen to cities who depend on tax free bonds?
How does the FairTax impact tax free bonds?
How will Social Security payments be calculated under the FairTax?
What will happen to government programs like Social Security and Medicare?
How can you tax life saving medical treatment?
Will bartering present a compliance problem under the FairTax?
How will used goods be taxed?
Can’t Americans just cross the border to avoid the FairTax
How does the FairTax affect illegal immigration?
Isn’t it a stretch to say the IRS will go away?
What will the transition be like from the income tax to the FairTax?
FairTax Show – Part 1
FairTax Show – Part 2
Ron Paul on Taxes
Policy Resources
The following organizations provide policy analysis on taxation and related issues:
Tax Policy Organizations:
- National Retail Sales Tax Alliance (NRSTA) Website
- National Taxpayers Union
- National Debt Awareness Center
- Tax Foundation
- Citizens for a Sound Economy
- Americans for Tax Reform
- Citizens Against Government Waste
- Tax Relief: Taxpayers Federation Inland Revenue Watchdog
Small Business Policy Organizations:
- National Small Business Association
- National Association of Manufacturers
- National Federation of Independent Business
- Small Business Survival Committee
General Public Policy Research Organizations:
- American Enterprise Institute
- American Legislative Exchange Council
- Atlas Economic Research Foundation
- Brookings Institution
- CATO Institute
- Claremont Institute
- Competitive Enterprise Institute
- Heartland Institute
- Heritage Foundation
- Hoover Institute
- Hudson Institute
- James Madison Institute
- Mackinac Center for Public Policy
- Manhattan Institute
- National Center for Policy Analysis
- The National Center for Public Policy Research
- Pacific Research Institute
- Progress and Freedom Foundation
- State Policy Network
http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_links
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
Bilderberg Group–Videos
“…Synopsis
Delving into a world once shrouded in complete mystery and impenetrable security, this investigative report provides a fascinating account of the annual meetings of the world’s most powerful people—the Bilderberg Group. Since its inception in 1954 at the Bilderberg Hotel in the small Dutch town of Oosterbeek, the Bilderberg Group has been comprised of European prime ministers, American presidents, and the wealthiest CEOs of the world, all coming together to discuss the economic and political future of humanity. The working press has never been allowed to attend, nor have statements ever been released on the attendees’ conclusions or discussions, which have ramifications on the citizens of the world. Using methods that resemble the spy tactics of the Cold War—and in several instances putting his own life on the line—the author did what no one else has managed to achieve: he learned what was being said behind the closed doors of the opulent hotels and has made it available to the public. This second edition includes an entirely new chapter and updated information on topics such as an earlier attempt to break up Canada and the portents of a North American union. ”
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/True-Story-of-the-Bilderberg-Group/Daniel-Estulin/e/9780977795345
Who Is Bilderburg And What Are They Up To ?
Icon Jim Tucker Reveals New Location for Bilderberg 2010 Meeting on The Alex Jones Show 1/2
Icon Jim Tucker Reveals New Location for Bilderberg 2010 Meeting on The Alex Jones Show 2/2
Bilderberg Group
Daniel Estulin on Bilderberg 2009
Bilderberg is meeting in Athens, Greece Right Now!!
Monopoly Men Part 4
Monopoly Men Part 5
YouTube- Conspiracy Theory Jesse Ventura Bilderberg Group 1 of 4
YouTube- Conspiracy Theory Jesse Ventura Bilderberg Group 2 of 4
YouTube- Conspiracy Theory Jesse Ventura Bilderberg Group 3 of 4
YouTube- Conspiracy Theory Jesse Ventura Bilderberg Group 4 of 4
Bilderberg exposed – Part 1/6
Bilderberg exposed – Part 2/6
Bilderberg exposed – Part 3/6
Bilderberg exposed – Part 4/6
Bilderberg exposed – Part 5/6
Bilderberg exposed – Part 6/6
Background Articles and Videos
Daniel Estulin on Bilderberg 2009
Alex Jones – Jim Tucker:Bilderberg 2009 Pt1
Alex Jones – Jim Tucker:Bilderberg 2009 Pt2
Jim Tucker on Bilderberg 2009
Brzezinski on CFR, Bilderberg, and Trilateral Commission
Investigative Author, Daniel Estulin Exposes Bilderberg Group Plans
International best-selling investigative author Daniel Estulin has received from his sources the 73-page Bilderberg Group meeting wrap-up for participants.
“…— International best-selling investigative author Daniel Estulin has received from his sources the 73-page Bilderberg Group meeting wrap-up for participants. In the report no one is identified by name, only as an American or European, or by a description of the speaker’s position, i.e. member of the IMF. There appears to be some disagreement about who was in attendance at this year’s secretive conclave held at a 5-star resort in Greece. According to sources in Greece and the Bilderberg Netherlands “office,” US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and US General David Petraeus were at this year’s gathering. Both men have denied this, according to a conversation held with a Washington, DC reporter, who stated that Mr. Geithner was attending a private function and General Petraeus was at Central Command.
Using a purported participant list, a “smear” campaign has seemingly been launched against Estulin. On a French “left-wing” website (www.bellaciao.org/fr/), and then posted in English on a populist forum in the US (http://forum.prisonplanet.com), it is claimed that Estulin was a known participant in this year’s conference. “Hardly,” said Estulin, who laughed at the prospect, saying that the Group has tried many things to keep him from reporting on its activities, but had never asked him to attend. Estulin did his reporting this year from Spain, knowing from years of coverage that the location in Greece physically precluded any photographing of the participants. His book on the shadowy clique, ”The True Story of the Bilderberg Group” broke through the barrier that the Group even existed with help from numerous photographs exposing the elite that were taken by Estulin from 600-800 meters. The book has been translated into 48 languages and sold millions of copies worldwide. Estulin’s reportage of the annual meetings has led to many correct predictions of world events, including the timing of the 2003 Iraqi War, the rise and fall of oil prices, as well as the current economic calamity and housing mess. …”
http://www.prweb.com/releases/Bilderberg_Group_Meeting/Daniel_Estulin/prweb2453144.htm
Bilderberger Group
“… The Bilderberg Group, Bilderberg conference, or Bilderberg Club is an annual, unofficial, invitation-only conference of around 130 guests, most of whom are people of influence in the fields of politics, banking, business, the military and media. Each conference is closed to the public and the press.
Origin
The original conference was held at the Hotel de Bilderberg, near Arnhem in The Netherlands, from 29 May to 31 May 1954. It was initiated by several people, including Józef Retinger, concerned about the growth of anti-Americanism in Western Europe, who proposed an international conference at which leaders from European countries and the United States would be brought together with the aim of promoting atlanticism – better understanding between the cultures of the United States and Western Europe in order to foster cooperation on political, economic, and defense issues.[1] Retinger approached Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands, who agreed to promote the idea, together with Belgian Prime Minister Paul Van Zeeland, and the head of Unilever at that time, Dutchman Paul Rijkens. Bernhard in turn contacted Walter Bedell Smith, then head of the CIA, who asked Eisenhower adviser Charles Douglas Jackson to deal with the suggestion.[2] The guest list was to be drawn up by inviting two attendees from each nation, one of each to represent conservative and liberal points of view.[1] Fifty delegates from 11 countries in Western Europe attended the first conference along with 11 Americans.[3]
The success of the meeting led the organizers to arrange an annual conference. A permanent Steering Committee was established, with Retinger appointed as permanent secretary. As well as organizing the conference, the steering committee also maintained a register of attendee names and contact details, with the aim of creating an informal network of individuals who could call upon one another in a private capacity.[citation needed] Conferences were held in France, Germany, and Denmark over the following three years. In 1957, the first US conference was held in St. Simons, Georgia, with $30,000 from the Ford Foundation. The foundation supplied further funding for the 1959 and 1963 conferences.[2]
Organizational structure
Meetings are organized by a steering committee with two members from each of around eighteen nations.[4] Official posts, in addition to a chairman, include an Honorary Secretary General.[5] There is no such category in the group’s rules as a “member of the group”. The only category that exists is “member of the Steering Committee”.[6] In addition to the committee, there also exists a separate advisory group, though membership overlaps.[7]
Dutch economist Ernst van der Beugel took over as permanent secretary in 1960, upon Retinger’s death. Prince Bernhard continued to serve as the meeting’s chairman until 1976, the year of his involvement in the Lockheed affair. The position of Honorary American Secretary General has been held successively by Joseph E. Johnson of the Carnegie Endowment, William Bundy of Princeton, Theodore L. Eliot, Jr., former U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan, and Casimir A. Yost of Georgetown’s Institute for the Study of Diplomacy.[8]
A 2008 press release from the American Friends of Bilderberg stated that “Bilderberg’s only activity is its annual Conference. At the meetings, no resolutions are proposed, no votes taken, and no policy statements issued” and noted that the names of attendees were available to the press.[9] The Bilderberg group unofficial headquarters is the University of Leiden in the Netherlands.[10]
According to the American Friends of Bilderberg, the 2008 agenda dealt “mainly with a nuclear free world, cyber terrorism, Africa, Russia, finance, protectionism, US-EU relations, Afghanistan and Pakistan, Islam and Iran”.[9]
Chairmen
Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands (1954–1975)[11]
Alec Douglas-Home (1977–1980)[11]
Walter Scheel[3]
Eric Roll (1986–1989)[12]
Lord Carrington (1990–1998)[3]
Étienne Davignon[4]
Conspiracy theories
Because of its secrecy and refusal to issue news releases, the group is frequently accused of secretive and nefarious plots. Critics include the John Birch Society, a producerist advocacy group in the United States,[21] Canadian writer Daniel Estulin, British writer David Icke, American writer Jim Tucker, politician Jesse Ventura and radio host Alex Jones. The Bilderberg Group was the topic of a 2009 episode of the TruTV series Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura.[22]
Bilderberg founding member and, for 30 years, a steering committee member, Denis Healey has said:[23]
To say we were striving for a one-world government is exaggerated, but not wholly unfair. Those of us in Bilderberg felt we couldn’t go on forever fighting one another for nothing and killing people and rendering millions homeless. So we felt that a single community throughout the world would be a good thing.
In 2005 the then chairman Etienne Davignon discussed these accusations with the BBC.
It is unavoidable and it doesn’t matter. There will always be people who believe in conspiracies but things happen in a much more incoherent fashion…When people say this is a secret government of the world I say that if we were a secret government of the world we should be bloody ashamed of ourselves.[24]
G. William Domhoff, a research professor in psychology and sociology who studies theories of power, sees the role of social clubs such as Bilderberg as being nothing more than a means to create social cohesion within a power elite. He adds that those understandings of the clubs such as the Bilderberg fit with the perceptions of the members of the elite. In a 2004 interview with New Internationalist magazine, Domhoff warns progressives against getting distracted by conspiracy theories which demonize and scapegoat such clubs. He argues that the opponents of progressivism are corporate elite, the Republican Party, and conservative Democrats. It is the same people more or less, but it puts them in their most important roles, as capitalists and political leaders, which are visible.[25]
Origins of conspiracy theories
Before the 2001 meeting, a report in the Guardian stated:
…the press have never been allowed access and all discussions are under Chatham House rules (no quoting). Not surprisingly, such ground rules, while attracting publicity-shy financiers, have also fuelled the fantasies of conspiracy theorists.[26]
Jonathan Duffy, writing in BBC News Online Magazine states:
No reporters are invited in and while confidential minutes of meetings are taken, names are not noted… In the void created by such aloofness, an extraordinary conspiracy theory has grown up around the group that alleges the fate of the world is largely decided by Bilderberg.[27]
Investigative journalist Chip Berlet, notes the existence of Bilderberger conspiracy theories as early as 1964 in the writings of conservative political activist Phyllis Schlafly. In Berlet’s 1994 report Right Woos Left, published by Political Research Associates, he writes:
The views on intractable godless communism expressed by Schwarz were central themes in three other bestselling books which were used to mobilize support for the 1964 Barry Goldwater campaign. The best known was Phyllis Schlafly’s A Choice, Not an Echo, which suggested a conspiracy theory in which the Republican Party was secretly controlled by elitist intellectuals dominated by members of the Bilderberger group, whose policies would pave the way for global communist conquest.[28]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilderberg_Group
Pronk Palisades 
The Great Divider Obama Promotes Class Warfare and Racism: Black Criminal Class Attacks Black Middle Class and Police — Which Sides Are You On Boys? — This Land Is Your Land — Videos
Posted on December 3, 2014. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Communications, Crime, Crisis, Documentary, Drug Cartels, Economics, Education, Employment, Faith, Family, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Fraud, Freedom, Friends, Genocide, government, government spending, history, Homicide, Illegal, Immigration, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Music, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Psychology, Radio, Raves, Talk Radio, Technology, Unemployment, Video, Wealth, Welfare, Wisdom, Writing | Tags: 3 December 2014, Activists, Agitators, Alex Jones, America, articles, Audio, Bill Whittle, Black Community, Black Criminal Class, Black Middle Class, Black On Black Crime, Breaking News, Broadcasting, capitalism, Charity, Charles Barkley, Citizenship, Clarity, Class Warfare, Classical Liberalism, Collectivism, Commentary, Commitment, Communicate, Communication, Communists, Concise, Convincing, Cornel West, Courage, Crime, Culture, Current Affairs, Current Events, Darren Wilson, Democratic Party, economic growth, economic policy, Economics, Education, Evil, Experience, Faith, Family, Far Left, Ferguson Looters, Ferguson Missouri, First, fiscal policy, free enterprise, freedom, freedom of speech, Friends, Give It A Listen, God, Good, Goodwill, Grand Jury Verdict, Growth, Hope, Individualism, Knowledge, Left Networks, liberty, Life, Looters, Love, Lovers of Liberty, Lunatic Left, monetary policy, MPEG3, News, Opinions, Organizers, Peace, Pete Seeger, Photos, Podcasts, police, Police Body Cameras, Political Philosophy, Politics, President Barack Obama, Progressives, prosperity, Radio, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Representative Republic, Republic, Resources, Respect, Rioters, rule of law, Rule of Men, Show Notes, Socialist, Talk Radio, The Pronk Pops Show, The Pronk Pops Show 381, The Real Race War, Truth, Tyranny, U.S. Constitution, unions, United States of America, Videos, Virtue, War, Who Side Are You On, Wisdom, Woody Guthrie |
The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts
Pronk Pops Show 381: December 3, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 380: December 1, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 379: November 26, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 378: November 25, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 377: November 24, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 376: November 21, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 375: November 20, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 374: November 19, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 373: November 18, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 372: November 17, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 371: November 14, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 370: November 13, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 369: November 12, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 368: November 11, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 367: November 10, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 366: November 7, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 365: November 6, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 364: November 5, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 363: November 4, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 362: November 3, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 361: October 31, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 360: October 30, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 359: October 29, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 358: October 28, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 357: October 27, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 356: October 24, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 355: October 23, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 354: October 22, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 353: October 21, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 352: October 20, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 351: October 17, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 350: October 16, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 349: October 15, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 348: October 14, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 347: October 13, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 346: October 9, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 345: October 8, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 344: October 6, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 343: October 3, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 342: October 2, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 341: October 1, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 340: September 30, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 339: September 29, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 338: September 26, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 337: September 25, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 336: September 24, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 335: September 23 2014
Pronk Pops Show 334: September 22 2014
Pronk Pops Show 333: September 19 2014
Pronk Pops Show 332: September 18 2014
Pronk Pops Show 331: September 17, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 330: September 16, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 329: September 15, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 328: September 12, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 327: September 11, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 326: September 10, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 325: September 9, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 324: September 8, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 323: September 5, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 322: September 4, 2014
Pronk Pops Show 321: September 3, 2014
Story 1: The Great Divider Obama Promotes Class Warfare and Racism: Black Criminal Class Attacks Black Middle Class and Police — Which Sides Are You On Boys? — This Land Is Your Land — Videos
pete seeger which side are you on
Woody Guthrie-This Land Is Your Land
Obama Requests Millions for Police Body Cameras
Black Man Goes on EPIC Rant Against Ferguson Rioters
BILL WHITTLE: FERGUSON AND THE REAL RACE WAR
Afterburner w/Bill Whittle — Showtime: Evil or Stupid?
FERGUSON RIOTS – Elite Using Ferguson to Bring a RACE WAR to United States?
PJTV: State of the Union: Obama Embraces Class Warfare
Don’t Let The Race War Begin
Cornel West: ‘Ferguson Signifies the End of the Age of Obama’
Cornel West: Sharpton Sold Soul for Obama
Cornel West: Obama A ‘Republican In Blackface,’ Black MSNBC Hosts Are ‘Selling Their Souls’
Racial Profiling and Police Body Cameras
Ferguson Looters/Rioters confront Alex Jones reporters Joe Biggs and Jakari Jackson
Masked Thug Threatens Infowars Reporters
Reporters Discover Ferguson Psy Op
Ferguson Is A Beta Test For Coming Civil War
Epic Riot Footage From Inside The Battle of Ferguson
[FULL] Ferguson Protest Riots | Ferguson Protest 2014 | Ferguson Looting Riots | VIDEO
Charles Barkley Defends Darren Wilson: Without Cops, Ferguson Would Be ‘Wild, Wild West’
Beckel Trashes Charles Barkley: Hasn’t Seen a Poor Neighborhood in 20 Years!
(EXCLUSIVE) FERGUSON BURNING – Protesters Looting Shops, Burning Police Cars, Little Caesars & More
Ferguson Riots, Protesters Looting Shops, Burning Police Cars, (VIDEO)
The Root of this is Racism: Ferguson Activist Speaks Out on Police Abuses After Meeting Obama
Obama Ordered Standdown Created Ferguson Race Riots
Ferguson Could Ignite Race War
Pete Seeger – Talks about his banjo tutorial and sings ‘Which side are you on’
This Land Is Your Land: Woody and Arlo Guthrie
The final montage of the film “Woody Guthrie: Hard Travelin'”, produced by J. Brown. Audio mixed and overdubbed at Long View Farm in 1984 by Jesse Henderson and John Pilla, now deceased. Video edit and audio restoration by Gil Markle. High-res playback available on studiowner.com.
Included in the video are the images and voices of Woody and Arlo Guthrie, Holly Near, Pete Seeger, Ronnie Gilbert, Judy Collins, Joan Baez, Hoyt Axton, and others.
Woody Guthrie-This Land Is Your Land
JUDY COLLINS, PETE SEEGER – “This Land Is Your Land” with ARLO GUTHRIE & FRED HELLERMAN 1976
Arlo Guthrie & Pete Seeger – This Land Is Your Land
The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 376-381
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 369-375
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 360-368
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 354-359
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 346-353
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 338-345
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 328-337
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 319-327
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 307-318
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 296-306
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 287-295
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 277-286
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 264-276
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 250-263
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 236-249
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 222-235
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 211-221
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShow 202-210
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 194-201
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 184-193
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 174-183
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 165-173
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 158-164
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 151-157
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 143-150
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 135-142
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 131-134
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 124-130
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 93
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 92
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 91
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15
Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 01-09
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )