If you thought that Obama was bad now with spending us into economic collapse and higher taxes, wait until we file our tax returns next year.
The question will remain for a lot of people though that have the Obama disease, the liberal progressive socialist DNA, there's no cure for this disease as they are born with it, "how will we blame this on George Bush, Ronald Reagan and all Conservatives but leave ourselves guiltless"?
SIX MONTHS TO GO UNTIL THE LARGEST TAX HIKES IN HISTORY
Source: Ryan Ellis, "Six Months to Go Until The Largest Tax Hikes in History," Americans for Tax Reform, July 1, 2010.
In just six months, the largest tax hikes in the history of America will take effect. They will hit families and small businesses January 1, 2011, says Americans For Tax Reform.
The first wave will be the expiration of 2001 and 2003 Tax Relief. In 2001 and 2003, the GOP Congress enacted several tax cuts for investors, small business owners, and families. These will all expire on January 1, 2011:
Personal income tax rates will rise; the top income tax rate will rise from 35 to 39.6 percent (this is also the rate at which two-thirds of small business profits are taxed). The lowest rate will rise from 10 to 15 percent; all the rates in between will also rise.
Itemized deductions and personal exemptions will again phase out, which has the same mathematical effect as higher marginal tax rates.
The return of the Death Tax: This year, there is no death tax. For those dying on or after January 1 2011, there is a 55 percent top death tax rate on estates over $1 million.
A person leaving behind two homes and a retirement account could easily pass along a death tax bill to their loved ones.
Higher tax rates on savers and investors: The capital gains tax will rise from 15 percent this year to 20 percent in 2011.
The dividends tax will rise from 15 percent this year to 39.6 percent in 2011. These rates will rise another 3.8 percent in 2013.
Some of the other taxes the Obama administration has planned: There are over 20 new or higher taxes in ObamaCare; several will first go into effect on January 1, 2011.
When Americans prepare to file their tax returns in January of 2011, they'll be in for a nasty surprise -- the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) won't be held harmless, and many tax relief provisions will have expired.
Tuesday, July 06, 2010
Monday, July 05, 2010
TV Critic Demonstrats Dynamic Results of 'Wide Screen' Set-up
You have to wonder where they get these critics and what they pay them. I mean anyone can do this stuff, Right? Although some are better than others -
But in this case, it works for me. Good job bring out just how good this TV really is.
Obama's Fannie and Freddie Set for More Crushing Debt
Why is this suddenly a problem to many in the media? George Bush begged congress on many occasions to take control of Fannie and Freddie but, along party lines, the requests were rejected every time.
Who lead the charge to protect F&F? hmmmm Let's see, who was in charge of the department for all these years? Oh, sure, it was and is Chris Dodd and Barney Frank, both liberal Democrats. Any wonder why all Democrats voted to sustain the disaster?
Look no further than the housing disaster that we are in now due to the liberal Democrats purposeful actions forcing banks to make bad loans. And guess who got the most contributions for their reelections campaigns from F&F, Dodd, Frank and Obama. McCain was fourth, but way down on the money list.
And just as a reminder, the people that were running the show got 261 million in salary and bonuses over six years, using misinformation and out right fraud to acquire the money. Right! You guessed it, all Democrats. Who was president at the time. Clinton. Who was attorney general, Janet Reno, big time Democrat and prime mover in forcing the banks to make the bad loans under penalty of law.
Now with the new financial bill coming through the government with Dodd and Frank in charge, who knew Fannie and Freddie would be exempt from any regulation. Go figure!
FANNIE-FREDDIE BAILOUT COULD COST TAXPAYERS $1 TRILLION
Source: Michelle Lodge, "Fannie-Freddie Bailout Could Cost Taxpayers $1 Trillion" CNBC, June 29, 2010.
American taxpayers are now on the hook for some $145 billion in housing losses connected to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac loans. Unfortunately, that amount could be just the tip of the iceberg, says CNBC.
According to the Congressional Budget Office: The losses could balloon to $400 billion. And if housing prices fall further, the cost to taxpayers could hit as much as $1 trillion.
Two things are clear, says CNBC: Taxpayers don't want to foot the bill. Fannie and Freddie, taken over by the government in 2008 to stanch the financial bloodletting, need a major overhaul.
At the crux of the financial crisis, the government took over Fannie and Freddie to avert possible massive losses for banks, money-market funds and, perhaps, most importantly, foreign institutions that purchased billions of Fannie and Freddie debt because of its implied government guarantee.
The Chinese, for example, had invested heavily, and the United States decided it didn't want them to take a loss on their investment.
One possible scenario for the entities is to turn them into utilities, says Sean Dobson, CEO and chair of Amherst Securities, whose company trades as much as $50 billion in mortgages annually. "Freddie and Fannie could be used to standardize the mortgage product," says Dobson, "to completely describe what the risks are and then act as a conduit for the capital markets to take the risk."
Who lead the charge to protect F&F? hmmmm Let's see, who was in charge of the department for all these years? Oh, sure, it was and is Chris Dodd and Barney Frank, both liberal Democrats. Any wonder why all Democrats voted to sustain the disaster?
Look no further than the housing disaster that we are in now due to the liberal Democrats purposeful actions forcing banks to make bad loans. And guess who got the most contributions for their reelections campaigns from F&F, Dodd, Frank and Obama. McCain was fourth, but way down on the money list.
And just as a reminder, the people that were running the show got 261 million in salary and bonuses over six years, using misinformation and out right fraud to acquire the money. Right! You guessed it, all Democrats. Who was president at the time. Clinton. Who was attorney general, Janet Reno, big time Democrat and prime mover in forcing the banks to make the bad loans under penalty of law.
Now with the new financial bill coming through the government with Dodd and Frank in charge, who knew Fannie and Freddie would be exempt from any regulation. Go figure!
FANNIE-FREDDIE BAILOUT COULD COST TAXPAYERS $1 TRILLION
Source: Michelle Lodge, "Fannie-Freddie Bailout Could Cost Taxpayers $1 Trillion" CNBC, June 29, 2010.
American taxpayers are now on the hook for some $145 billion in housing losses connected to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac loans. Unfortunately, that amount could be just the tip of the iceberg, says CNBC.
According to the Congressional Budget Office: The losses could balloon to $400 billion. And if housing prices fall further, the cost to taxpayers could hit as much as $1 trillion.
Two things are clear, says CNBC: Taxpayers don't want to foot the bill. Fannie and Freddie, taken over by the government in 2008 to stanch the financial bloodletting, need a major overhaul.
At the crux of the financial crisis, the government took over Fannie and Freddie to avert possible massive losses for banks, money-market funds and, perhaps, most importantly, foreign institutions that purchased billions of Fannie and Freddie debt because of its implied government guarantee.
The Chinese, for example, had invested heavily, and the United States decided it didn't want them to take a loss on their investment.
One possible scenario for the entities is to turn them into utilities, says Sean Dobson, CEO and chair of Amherst Securities, whose company trades as much as $50 billion in mortgages annually. "Freddie and Fannie could be used to standardize the mortgage product," says Dobson, "to completely describe what the risks are and then act as a conduit for the capital markets to take the risk."
Sunday, July 04, 2010
Junk Food Control Feaks What Control
Just what we need, more control over our lives. Why is it that others always know better what is good for the rest of us? Who are these people anyway?
THE TYRANNY OF THE ANTI-JUNK FOOD CRUSADE
Source: Rob Lyons, "The tyranny of the anti-junk food crusade," Spiked, June 23, 2010.
The United Kingdom's National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) claims that junk food is responsible for 40,000 deaths a year. However, the evidence on which this claim is made is highly dubious, says Rob Lyons, deputy editor of Spiked.
For most people there is no evidence that cutting salt is of any benefit at all; indeed, for some people it could be harmful: The idea that high salt automatically equates to shortened lives is wrong; the Japanese have a very high salt diet and enjoy longer lives than anyone else.
Our bodies are incredibly sensitive to the appropriate balance of salt and water in our blood, regulating it on a minute-by-minute basis to keep it within a very narrow range; there is no consensus that such salt-reduction policies would be beneficial.
There has been plenty of evidence for a very long time that attempts to reduce saturated fat consumption have no effect on cardiovascular disease:
The Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial (MRFIT), encouraged a large number of middle-aged American men with high cholesterol to change their diet in an effort to reduce their saturated-fat intake and, therefore, their cholesterol while another large group of middle-aged men were left to their own devices.
Slightly more men in the low-fat diet group died than in the control group, but in reality there was no practical difference in outcomes.
As for trans fats, the evidence that reducing our intake will "save lives" is once again weak. According to a study from the New England Journal of Medicine in 2006: A 2 percent increase in energy intake from trans-fatty acids was associated with a 23 percent increase in the incidence of coronary heart disease. That figure of 23 percent sounds impressively high, but epidemiological studies are very blunt instruments.
The U.S. National Cancer Institute noted in 1994, in epidemiological research, increases in risk of less than 100 percent are considered small and are usually difficult to interpret; such increases may be due to chance, statistical bias or the effects of confounding factors that are sometimes not evident.
THE TYRANNY OF THE ANTI-JUNK FOOD CRUSADE
Source: Rob Lyons, "The tyranny of the anti-junk food crusade," Spiked, June 23, 2010.
The United Kingdom's National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) claims that junk food is responsible for 40,000 deaths a year. However, the evidence on which this claim is made is highly dubious, says Rob Lyons, deputy editor of Spiked.
For most people there is no evidence that cutting salt is of any benefit at all; indeed, for some people it could be harmful: The idea that high salt automatically equates to shortened lives is wrong; the Japanese have a very high salt diet and enjoy longer lives than anyone else.
Our bodies are incredibly sensitive to the appropriate balance of salt and water in our blood, regulating it on a minute-by-minute basis to keep it within a very narrow range; there is no consensus that such salt-reduction policies would be beneficial.
There has been plenty of evidence for a very long time that attempts to reduce saturated fat consumption have no effect on cardiovascular disease:
The Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial (MRFIT), encouraged a large number of middle-aged American men with high cholesterol to change their diet in an effort to reduce their saturated-fat intake and, therefore, their cholesterol while another large group of middle-aged men were left to their own devices.
Slightly more men in the low-fat diet group died than in the control group, but in reality there was no practical difference in outcomes.
As for trans fats, the evidence that reducing our intake will "save lives" is once again weak. According to a study from the New England Journal of Medicine in 2006: A 2 percent increase in energy intake from trans-fatty acids was associated with a 23 percent increase in the incidence of coronary heart disease. That figure of 23 percent sounds impressively high, but epidemiological studies are very blunt instruments.
The U.S. National Cancer Institute noted in 1994, in epidemiological research, increases in risk of less than 100 percent are considered small and are usually difficult to interpret; such increases may be due to chance, statistical bias or the effects of confounding factors that are sometimes not evident.
Saturday, July 03, 2010
Friends Need Friends Video : Dogs and Cats
What a great video - these two have such a great relationship, no outside forces to interfere with making the best of each moment. I believe we can use this special friendship example and apply it our own lives.
Live life to it's fullest, take advantage of every moment to enjoy what has gone before and then spread the good news. Are we living in hard times, sure, but stop and take in the landscape that surrounds us, regroup with friends and then move forward.
Have a great 4th and remember what our forefathers gave to get us where we are today. Never allow their sacrifice to be in vain.
Friday, July 02, 2010
Celebrate Independence Day : Remember the Founders Sacrifices
It's time we stepped up and remembered how we got all the things that America has to offer. The old saying rings true here, "there is no such thing as a free lunch". We must pay for everything including freedom.
Take a few minutes after reading this short history of our founding fathers to thank God for them and this great country that we have inherited. Remember it's our job, our responsibility to all those that gave the 'full measure', now to make sure our freedoms do not slip away.
HAVE YOU EVER WONDERED WHAT HAPPENED TO THE 56 MEN WHO SIGNED
THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE?
Five signers were captured by the British as traitors and tortured before they died.
Twelve had their homes ransacked and burned.
Two lost their sons serving in the Revolutionary Army and another had two sons captured.
Nine of the 56 fought and died from wounds or hardships of the Revolutionary War.
They signed and they pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor!
What kind of men were they?
Twenty-four were lawyers and jurists.
Eleven were merchants, nine were farmers and large plantation owners;
men of means, well educated, but they signed the Declaration of Independence
knowing full well that the penalty would be death if they were captured.
Carter Braxton of Virginia, a wealthy planter and trader, saw his ships swept from the seas by the British Navy. He sold his home and properties to pay his debts and died in rags.
Thomas McKeam was so hounded by the British that he was forced to move his family almost constantly. He served in the Congress without pay and his family was kept in hiding. His possessions were taken from him and poverty was his reward.
Vandals or soldiers looted the properties of Dillery, Hall, Clymer, Walton, Gwinnett, Heyward, Ruttledge and Middleton.
At the battle of Yorktown , Thomas Nelson, Jr., noted that the British General Cornwallis had taken over the Nelson home for his headquarters. He quietly urged General
George Washington to open fire. The home was destroyed and Nelson died bankrupt.
Francis Lewis had his home and properties destroyed. The enemy jailed his wife and she died within a few months.
John Hart was driven from his wife's bedside as she was dying. Their 13 children fled for their lives. His fields and his gristmill were laid to waste. For more than a year he lived in forests
and caves. He returned home only to find his wife dead and his
children vanished.
So, take a few minutes while enjoying this 4th of July holiday, and silently thank these patriots. It's not much to ask for the price they paid.
But remember: Freedom is Never Free!
Take a few minutes after reading this short history of our founding fathers to thank God for them and this great country that we have inherited. Remember it's our job, our responsibility to all those that gave the 'full measure', now to make sure our freedoms do not slip away.
HAVE YOU EVER WONDERED WHAT HAPPENED TO THE 56 MEN WHO SIGNED
THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE?
Five signers were captured by the British as traitors and tortured before they died.
Twelve had their homes ransacked and burned.
Two lost their sons serving in the Revolutionary Army and another had two sons captured.
Nine of the 56 fought and died from wounds or hardships of the Revolutionary War.
They signed and they pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor!
What kind of men were they?
Twenty-four were lawyers and jurists.
Eleven were merchants, nine were farmers and large plantation owners;
men of means, well educated, but they signed the Declaration of Independence
knowing full well that the penalty would be death if they were captured.
Carter Braxton of Virginia, a wealthy planter and trader, saw his ships swept from the seas by the British Navy. He sold his home and properties to pay his debts and died in rags.
Thomas McKeam was so hounded by the British that he was forced to move his family almost constantly. He served in the Congress without pay and his family was kept in hiding. His possessions were taken from him and poverty was his reward.
Vandals or soldiers looted the properties of Dillery, Hall, Clymer, Walton, Gwinnett, Heyward, Ruttledge and Middleton.
At the battle of Yorktown , Thomas Nelson, Jr., noted that the British General Cornwallis had taken over the Nelson home for his headquarters. He quietly urged General
George Washington to open fire. The home was destroyed and Nelson died bankrupt.
Francis Lewis had his home and properties destroyed. The enemy jailed his wife and she died within a few months.
John Hart was driven from his wife's bedside as she was dying. Their 13 children fled for their lives. His fields and his gristmill were laid to waste. For more than a year he lived in forests
and caves. He returned home only to find his wife dead and his
children vanished.
So, take a few minutes while enjoying this 4th of July holiday, and silently thank these patriots. It's not much to ask for the price they paid.
But remember: Freedom is Never Free!
Thursday, July 01, 2010
Health Care Costs Decline With Consumer Control
No one thought that New Jersey would be able to get is debt under control but Chris Cristy is doing just that despite the unions. In fact I believe some of the unions are not fighting him on these issues.
Consumers taking control of their own health care costs works. I have done it and I know now how much I am paying for everything that the clinic is doing to me and for me, as well as how much the hospital is charging for every service they perform. Believe me it is staggering.
Look at this way, what if there was only one store in town and no matter what you wanted to buy, you had to pay that price and buy that item. The store tells you what you will buy and how much. But maybe you would want to look around to find a better price and or maybe even a different brand? The way our third party system is set up your real health care costs are hidden but show up as increased premiums. hmmmmm
Having control, at least partial control of costs, will indeed bring down the cost of health care.
PRICE TRANSPARENCY IN HEALTH CARE: WILL IT BEND THE COST CURVE?
Source: Kathryn Nix, "Price Transparency in Health Care: Will it Bend the Cost Curve?" Heritage Foundation, June 28, 2010.
Lack of transparency regarding pricing of medical services has often been attributed as one of the factors contributing to skyrocketing spending in the health care system. However, the bigger problem is that patients are completely disconnected from the cost of their medical bills because of the growing role of third party payers, says Kathryn Nix, a research assistant for the Heritage Foundation's Center for Health Policy Studies and the Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies.
According to Heritage experts Robert Book and Jason Fodeman:
A major source of these spending increases is a third-party payment system that often leaves the physician and patient insulated from and even unaware of the costs of the various treatment options.
Often, the patient faces the same copayment regardless of which treatment is chosen, and the extra costs are passed along to the insurance company, Medicare or Medicaid.
These payers may appear to have an incentive to encourage efficient use of resources, but ultimately they do not pay the price for inefficiency. Insurance companies offer "generous" benefits and pass on the increased spending to patients (and often their coworkers) through increased insurance premiums, and government programs pass on the spending increases to taxpayers.
Since price transparency is only part of the reason for the broken link between patients and the spending on their medical care, it can only be part of the solution. To be effective, transparent prices must be accompanied by allowing consumers to own and control their health care choices, including type of plan, says Nix.
Consumer-driven care is the key to making transparent pricing work.
This is currently available to a growing number of Americans through the combination of high-deductible health plans with health savings accounts, giving individuals greater control over the flow of their health dollars, says Nix.
Consumers taking control of their own health care costs works. I have done it and I know now how much I am paying for everything that the clinic is doing to me and for me, as well as how much the hospital is charging for every service they perform. Believe me it is staggering.
Look at this way, what if there was only one store in town and no matter what you wanted to buy, you had to pay that price and buy that item. The store tells you what you will buy and how much. But maybe you would want to look around to find a better price and or maybe even a different brand? The way our third party system is set up your real health care costs are hidden but show up as increased premiums. hmmmmm
Having control, at least partial control of costs, will indeed bring down the cost of health care.
PRICE TRANSPARENCY IN HEALTH CARE: WILL IT BEND THE COST CURVE?
Source: Kathryn Nix, "Price Transparency in Health Care: Will it Bend the Cost Curve?" Heritage Foundation, June 28, 2010.
Lack of transparency regarding pricing of medical services has often been attributed as one of the factors contributing to skyrocketing spending in the health care system. However, the bigger problem is that patients are completely disconnected from the cost of their medical bills because of the growing role of third party payers, says Kathryn Nix, a research assistant for the Heritage Foundation's Center for Health Policy Studies and the Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies.
According to Heritage experts Robert Book and Jason Fodeman:
A major source of these spending increases is a third-party payment system that often leaves the physician and patient insulated from and even unaware of the costs of the various treatment options.
Often, the patient faces the same copayment regardless of which treatment is chosen, and the extra costs are passed along to the insurance company, Medicare or Medicaid.
These payers may appear to have an incentive to encourage efficient use of resources, but ultimately they do not pay the price for inefficiency. Insurance companies offer "generous" benefits and pass on the increased spending to patients (and often their coworkers) through increased insurance premiums, and government programs pass on the spending increases to taxpayers.
Since price transparency is only part of the reason for the broken link between patients and the spending on their medical care, it can only be part of the solution. To be effective, transparent prices must be accompanied by allowing consumers to own and control their health care choices, including type of plan, says Nix.
Consumer-driven care is the key to making transparent pricing work.
This is currently available to a growing number of Americans through the combination of high-deductible health plans with health savings accounts, giving individuals greater control over the flow of their health dollars, says Nix.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Obama's "Cap and Tax" Bill Agenda : America In 1867
According to Obama himself, his 'cap and tax' bill will "necessarily cause energy rates to skyrocket". These are his words before the election. Those of us that were paying attention knew this. It has been reported that in ten years our electric bills will increase by $200 to $300 a month. Just who can afford this?
It seems the rest of the population, those that fell on their faces as 'the one' entered the room and voted him in, didn't care what he said, it was enough that he promised them he would take care of them. But to Obama it was "just words" as he said on many occasions.
And he was telling the truth on this one though, he really is taking care of them and us. We are all headed into bankruptcy. All of our life's savings will be gone if they aren't already.
What's the answer to all this, I not sure except we have to vote out the liberals and vote in people like Paul Ryan. People with clear heads for finance and the future of a free America.
BAM'S CLIMATE RX: ALL PAIN, NO GAIN
Source: Patrick J. Michaels, "Bam's Climate Rx: All Pain, No Gain," Cato Institute, June 21, 2010
The cap-and-trade bill that the House passed last summer aims to force Americans to reduce carbon emissions by 83 percent in less than four decades -- to the same per-capita level as 1867. Yet, the bill would do nothing to stop global warming, and simply drives up the price of fossil-fuel based energy so high that the nation will have to somehow get along with only 17 percent of the gasoline and fossil-fuel-powered electricity that it uses today, says Patrick J. Michaels, a senior fellow with the Cato Institute.
The median guess from the United Nations (UN) is that, if we do nothing to change our ways, the average world surface temperature will rise about 5 degrees Fahrenheit this century.
If only the United States changes its ways, by adopting something like the House bill, we would prevent about two-tenths of a degree of that warming, according to the UN's climate calculator.
That is, the temperature in 2100 gets reduced to what it would otherwise be in 2096.
In other words, the bill would be all pain and no gain, says Michaels.
Why would such drastic action on the part of America, Europe and Japan do so little to change the world? Because the older industrial nations are fast becoming bit players when it comes to global CO2 emissions. America has been stagnant in the last decade -- while China's emissions have been staggering. In eight years, China's annual totals will be equal to what they emit now plus everything we emit. So if we stopped emitting completely, China completely counters our effort, explains Michaels.
Add to that a simple fact which no cap-and-trade bill admits: That legislation would push even more of our industry into migrating to China, India and other nations that have no intention of reducing emissions by making energy more expensive, says Michaels.
.
It seems the rest of the population, those that fell on their faces as 'the one' entered the room and voted him in, didn't care what he said, it was enough that he promised them he would take care of them. But to Obama it was "just words" as he said on many occasions.
And he was telling the truth on this one though, he really is taking care of them and us. We are all headed into bankruptcy. All of our life's savings will be gone if they aren't already.
What's the answer to all this, I not sure except we have to vote out the liberals and vote in people like Paul Ryan. People with clear heads for finance and the future of a free America.
BAM'S CLIMATE RX: ALL PAIN, NO GAIN
Source: Patrick J. Michaels, "Bam's Climate Rx: All Pain, No Gain," Cato Institute, June 21, 2010
The cap-and-trade bill that the House passed last summer aims to force Americans to reduce carbon emissions by 83 percent in less than four decades -- to the same per-capita level as 1867. Yet, the bill would do nothing to stop global warming, and simply drives up the price of fossil-fuel based energy so high that the nation will have to somehow get along with only 17 percent of the gasoline and fossil-fuel-powered electricity that it uses today, says Patrick J. Michaels, a senior fellow with the Cato Institute.
The median guess from the United Nations (UN) is that, if we do nothing to change our ways, the average world surface temperature will rise about 5 degrees Fahrenheit this century.
If only the United States changes its ways, by adopting something like the House bill, we would prevent about two-tenths of a degree of that warming, according to the UN's climate calculator.
That is, the temperature in 2100 gets reduced to what it would otherwise be in 2096.
In other words, the bill would be all pain and no gain, says Michaels.
Why would such drastic action on the part of America, Europe and Japan do so little to change the world? Because the older industrial nations are fast becoming bit players when it comes to global CO2 emissions. America has been stagnant in the last decade -- while China's emissions have been staggering. In eight years, China's annual totals will be equal to what they emit now plus everything we emit. So if we stopped emitting completely, China completely counters our effort, explains Michaels.
Add to that a simple fact which no cap-and-trade bill admits: That legislation would push even more of our industry into migrating to China, India and other nations that have no intention of reducing emissions by making energy more expensive, says Michaels.
.
Monday, June 28, 2010
Obama Democrats Crush Family Businesses With Higher Taxes
If there is some way that the liberals can raise taxes on everyone and everything, they will, no matter how much destruction they will cause. It's as though people mean nothing. It's all about taking from others by any means possible to fulfill an agenda based on redistribution of wealth.
Socialism or worse.
The Obama Democrats are making history - the most destructive party in our nations history.
THE FAMILY BUSINESS REVENUE ACT
Source: Observers, "The Family Business Revenue Act," Wall Street Journal, June 24, 2010.
Carried interest is a share of any profits that the general partners of private equity and hedge funds receive as compensation, despite not contributing any initial funds. This method of compensation seeks to motivate the general partner (fund manager) to work toward improving the fund's performance. Democrats want to raise carried interest taxes from the current 15 percent rate to the top income tax rate, scheduled to hit 39.6 percent on January 1.
The sales pitch is that this will only whack hedge fund managers and other unsympathetic types. Yet Democrats wrote the law so broadly that it may sweep up millions of Americans in family partnerships, says the Wall Street Journal.
For example:
This would be a huge hit to the estimated 6.5 million folks invested in real estate partnerships, who own assets ranging from a local house to a commercial shopping center. The legislation also potentially hits any partnership invested in certain specified assets, including families who own, say, an auto dealership, fishing boat, construction company or securities.
These family entities have little ability to escape this new tax, says the Journal: Partnerships are the most common form of business structure for family operations, since they limit personal liability from claims against an asset or business.
To retain that liability protection, but also escape the higher taxes, families would have to sell a portion of their company to an outsider to manage the family affairs.
Mark this down as one more example of how the Democratic scramble for revenue will hurt millions of Americans who are far from wealthy, says the Journal.
Democrats are rewriting a half century of partnership tax law with no hearings, no analysis and little debate. And they wonder why businesses are creating so few jobs.
Socialism or worse.
The Obama Democrats are making history - the most destructive party in our nations history.
THE FAMILY BUSINESS REVENUE ACT
Source: Observers, "The Family Business Revenue Act," Wall Street Journal, June 24, 2010.
Carried interest is a share of any profits that the general partners of private equity and hedge funds receive as compensation, despite not contributing any initial funds. This method of compensation seeks to motivate the general partner (fund manager) to work toward improving the fund's performance. Democrats want to raise carried interest taxes from the current 15 percent rate to the top income tax rate, scheduled to hit 39.6 percent on January 1.
The sales pitch is that this will only whack hedge fund managers and other unsympathetic types. Yet Democrats wrote the law so broadly that it may sweep up millions of Americans in family partnerships, says the Wall Street Journal.
For example:
This would be a huge hit to the estimated 6.5 million folks invested in real estate partnerships, who own assets ranging from a local house to a commercial shopping center. The legislation also potentially hits any partnership invested in certain specified assets, including families who own, say, an auto dealership, fishing boat, construction company or securities.
These family entities have little ability to escape this new tax, says the Journal: Partnerships are the most common form of business structure for family operations, since they limit personal liability from claims against an asset or business.
To retain that liability protection, but also escape the higher taxes, families would have to sell a portion of their company to an outsider to manage the family affairs.
Mark this down as one more example of how the Democratic scramble for revenue will hurt millions of Americans who are far from wealthy, says the Journal.
Democrats are rewriting a half century of partnership tax law with no hearings, no analysis and little debate. And they wonder why businesses are creating so few jobs.
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Obama Energy Bill to Control All Energy Generation
And the hits just keep coming - more regulation by a totally incompetent government that causes harm everywhere it is instituted.
THE ENERVATING EFFECTS OF THE KERRY-LIEBERMAN ENERGY REGULATION BILL
Source: Pete du Pont, "Generation Gap; The Kerry-Lieberman energy bill would enervate America," Wall Street Journal, June 25, 2010.
A year ago the Waxman-Markey energy regulation bill passed the House. Now before the Senate is the Kerry-Lieberman energy regulation bill, which includes many of the same damaging provisions -- government control of many aspects of energy generation, distribution and prices, says Pete du Pont, chairman of the National Center for Policy Analysis and former governor of Delaware.
The Kerry-Lieberman bill is a bit less bad than the Waxman-Markey legislation, but only a bit, says du Pont:
It would provide loan guarantees and encourages a speedier licensing process for new nuclear plants, one of the safest and best electricity generation options we have; America has 104 such plants today and needs to build many more to reduce pollution.
It would support carbon capture in coal plants by providing $2 billion of research funding for clean coal, which -- if it works -- might help reduce domestic pollution at some point in the future.
Before the Gulf explosion, it would have significantly encouraged offshore drilling (Waxman-Markey never mentioned offshore drilling); but it has now been amended to give Atlantic and Pacific coastal states a veto over any offshore drilling plans that officials believe might cause environmental or economic harm.
And still tucked away in the bill is a protectionist measure that Sen. John Kerry's summary calls a "border adjustment mechanism." It would apply if "no global agreement on climate change is reached." In that case, there would be U.S. taxes on goods imported from countries "that have not taken action to limit emissions." The same bad idea is in the Waxman-Markey bill, says du Pont.
The Kerry-Lieberman bill also includes a national cap-and-trade system similar to Waxman-Markey's. Electricity generation utilities would have a limited allotment of greenhouse gas emissions, and there would be penalties for heavy-polluting industries. It may be a bit better than the House bill, but either version would add huge new bureaucracies and huge new regulations of energy, says du Pont.
THE ENERVATING EFFECTS OF THE KERRY-LIEBERMAN ENERGY REGULATION BILL
Source: Pete du Pont, "Generation Gap; The Kerry-Lieberman energy bill would enervate America," Wall Street Journal, June 25, 2010.
A year ago the Waxman-Markey energy regulation bill passed the House. Now before the Senate is the Kerry-Lieberman energy regulation bill, which includes many of the same damaging provisions -- government control of many aspects of energy generation, distribution and prices, says Pete du Pont, chairman of the National Center for Policy Analysis and former governor of Delaware.
The Kerry-Lieberman bill is a bit less bad than the Waxman-Markey legislation, but only a bit, says du Pont:
It would provide loan guarantees and encourages a speedier licensing process for new nuclear plants, one of the safest and best electricity generation options we have; America has 104 such plants today and needs to build many more to reduce pollution.
It would support carbon capture in coal plants by providing $2 billion of research funding for clean coal, which -- if it works -- might help reduce domestic pollution at some point in the future.
Before the Gulf explosion, it would have significantly encouraged offshore drilling (Waxman-Markey never mentioned offshore drilling); but it has now been amended to give Atlantic and Pacific coastal states a veto over any offshore drilling plans that officials believe might cause environmental or economic harm.
And still tucked away in the bill is a protectionist measure that Sen. John Kerry's summary calls a "border adjustment mechanism." It would apply if "no global agreement on climate change is reached." In that case, there would be U.S. taxes on goods imported from countries "that have not taken action to limit emissions." The same bad idea is in the Waxman-Markey bill, says du Pont.
The Kerry-Lieberman bill also includes a national cap-and-trade system similar to Waxman-Markey's. Electricity generation utilities would have a limited allotment of greenhouse gas emissions, and there would be penalties for heavy-polluting industries. It may be a bit better than the House bill, but either version would add huge new bureaucracies and huge new regulations of energy, says du Pont.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
