Easy - cut the spending, cut the taxes on small businesses and the funds will flow like magic into the federal coffers, just like it did during the Reagan years. Continue on the track we are on now and all future plans you might have will have to change as this country will not be the one you will recognize from past years.
How Do Spending Cuts Affect an Economic Recovery?
Source: Alberto Alesina, Carlo Favero and Francesco Giavazzi, "The Output Effect of Fiscal Consolidations," National Bureau of Economic Research, August 2012.
September 4, 2012
Many Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries will have to reduce their public debts in near future. As a result, many policy debates are centered on how best to accomplish this. Reducing deficits and government debt (labeled as fiscal adjustments) have been known to cause large output losses. But it may seem that fiscal adjustments based upon spending cuts are much less costly in terms of output losses than tax-based ones, according to researchers Alberto Alesina, Carlo Favero and Francesco Giavazzi.
Alesina, Favero and Giavazzi study the overall effect of fiscal consolidations on the economy rather than the effects of individual shifts in taxes and spending as most other studies do. By studying the combination of tax increases and spending cuts, policymakers have a better estimate of tax and spending multipliers.
Alesina, Favero and Giavazzi find that it matters greatly how the consolidation occurs.
•Spending-based adjustments are followed by mild, short-lived recessions and in many cases no recession at all.
•Furthermore, these adjustments have less of an impact on output losses.
•Yet tax-based adjustments create deep and prolonged recessions.
•The difference is explained by the asymmetrical response of private investment into the economy based on the two different approaches.
•In addition, business confidence picks up immediately after spending-based adjustments.
Tuesday, September 04, 2012
Health Care - ObamaCare - A National Tragedy
This article is on the mark in that we now know what's in the ACA program, but yet we are not taking it seriously as a source of destruction for our health care system and national solvency.
Believe, nothing good can come from the (ACA) Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Any government program that requires 2700 pages to explain how it works should be warning enough for even the most unaware individual.
To stop this nightmare, all we have to do is vote out the instigaters this November. If we fail to do this, don't blame ObamaCare if you are denied care and find you have to pay much more for no care, look in the mirror.
Twelve Things Still Wrong with Health Reform
Source: Merrill Matthews, "The Health Care Dirty Dozen: Twelve Things (Still) Wrong with ObamaCare," Institute for Policy Innovation, August 14, 2012.
September 4, 2012
The U.S. Supreme Court may have upheld most of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ACA), but that won't fix its many flaws. Here are 12 problems that still riddle the 2,700-page law known as ObamaCare, says Merrill Matthews, a resident scholar with the Institute for Policy Innovation.
•Imposes a bevy of new taxes.
•Expands a nation of takers.
•Creates a maze of cross subsidies.
•Hands control to unelected bureaucrats.
•Empowers the IRS.
•Imposes perverse economic incentives.
•Explodes health care spending.
•Enhances rationing under the Independent Payment Advisory Board.
•Allows fewer health insurance options.
•Creates more inefficiency.
•Includes pork and calls it prevention.
•Cooks the Medicare books.
What is the Affordable Care Act's greatest failure, according to Matthews? It imposes a mid-20th century health insurance model on a 21st century global economy.
•The Internet brings consumers countless products and services from countless vendors; ObamaCare provides four choices from a handful of insurers.
•Technology creates fast-paced health care changes while ObamaCare's 2,700 pages ties up almost everything in the snail-paced legislative and bureaucratic processes.
•Innovators and entrepreneurs are asking what consumers want; ObamaCare tells both patients and providers what they can and can't have. (emphasis Mine)
•The Affordable Care Act looks backward -- to the days of big-government and grand social schemes. It is the wrong policy for the dynamic and fast-paced 21st century. It is an albatross fit for 1960, not 2012.
Believe, nothing good can come from the (ACA) Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Any government program that requires 2700 pages to explain how it works should be warning enough for even the most unaware individual.
To stop this nightmare, all we have to do is vote out the instigaters this November. If we fail to do this, don't blame ObamaCare if you are denied care and find you have to pay much more for no care, look in the mirror.
Twelve Things Still Wrong with Health Reform
Source: Merrill Matthews, "The Health Care Dirty Dozen: Twelve Things (Still) Wrong with ObamaCare," Institute for Policy Innovation, August 14, 2012.
September 4, 2012
The U.S. Supreme Court may have upheld most of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ACA), but that won't fix its many flaws. Here are 12 problems that still riddle the 2,700-page law known as ObamaCare, says Merrill Matthews, a resident scholar with the Institute for Policy Innovation.
•Imposes a bevy of new taxes.
•Expands a nation of takers.
•Creates a maze of cross subsidies.
•Hands control to unelected bureaucrats.
•Empowers the IRS.
•Imposes perverse economic incentives.
•Explodes health care spending.
•Enhances rationing under the Independent Payment Advisory Board.
•Allows fewer health insurance options.
•Creates more inefficiency.
•Includes pork and calls it prevention.
•Cooks the Medicare books.
What is the Affordable Care Act's greatest failure, according to Matthews? It imposes a mid-20th century health insurance model on a 21st century global economy.
•The Internet brings consumers countless products and services from countless vendors; ObamaCare provides four choices from a handful of insurers.
•Technology creates fast-paced health care changes while ObamaCare's 2,700 pages ties up almost everything in the snail-paced legislative and bureaucratic processes.
•Innovators and entrepreneurs are asking what consumers want; ObamaCare tells both patients and providers what they can and can't have. (emphasis Mine)
•The Affordable Care Act looks backward -- to the days of big-government and grand social schemes. It is the wrong policy for the dynamic and fast-paced 21st century. It is an albatross fit for 1960, not 2012.
Agriculture Crop Insurance Needs Reform : Spread the Risks
More grim news of government interference in the open market - just think it's the Agriculture Dept that handles the Food Stamp programs and look how that has gone completely over the cliff.
Bottom line, the crop insurance problem has been around for ever and many people have gotten rich on it, but now with the entire economy headed toward the edge of insolvency it's time to take drastic action and allow farmers to take some of the risk on themselves.
The Grim Reapers of Crop Insurance
Source: Vincent H. Smith, "The Grim Reapers of Crop Insurance," The American, August 24, 2012.
August 31, 2012
Policymakers are currently looking at ways to make the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Farm Service Agency (FSA) more efficient. In the status quo, the FSA is too overstaffed and inefficient for its mission of delivering and monitoring various federal subsidy and conservation programs. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack has announced that 131 FSA offices will be closing, but this is not enough. With a restructuring of its mission and operations, the FSA can save taxpayers billions, says Vincent H. Smith, a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.
One proposal has been set forth by the National Association of FSA County Office Employees (NASCOE) union, which seeks to provide the federal crop insurance program through the FSA.
•Currently, the federal crop insurance program is managed by the Risk Management Agency.
•However, the program is being delivered by private insurance companies that sell and service the subsidized insurance products.
•This costs taxpayers $3 billion to $4 billion annually.
•Additionally, over 94 percent of the subsidized crop insurance policies sold to farmers last year could have been delivered over the internet without an insurance agent or company.
•Furthermore, between 2006 and 2010, insurance companies received an average of $1.44 from the taxpayer for every $1 dollar of subsidy the farmers received.
•But in other countries, subsidized crop insurance is less than 30 cents per dollar of subsidy.
In the face of these high costs, NASCOE claims that FSA offices can deliver the insurance program at $1.5 billion to $2 billion a year less. But even with the projected annual savings, the program has been dismissed by those in Washington. One reason is because insurance companies and agents are the most effective lobbyists. The 16 or so private companies that deliver the program want to continue receiving their $3 billion to $4 billion subsidy from the taxpayers.
The question that must be asked is whether this program is required at all. The subsidies for crop insurance do nothing more than allow farmers to adopt risky production practices because they are insulated from the consequences of their own bad decisions. Additionally, the subsidies distort the market and hurt the industry in the long run.
Bottom line, the crop insurance problem has been around for ever and many people have gotten rich on it, but now with the entire economy headed toward the edge of insolvency it's time to take drastic action and allow farmers to take some of the risk on themselves.
The Grim Reapers of Crop Insurance
Source: Vincent H. Smith, "The Grim Reapers of Crop Insurance," The American, August 24, 2012.
August 31, 2012
Policymakers are currently looking at ways to make the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Farm Service Agency (FSA) more efficient. In the status quo, the FSA is too overstaffed and inefficient for its mission of delivering and monitoring various federal subsidy and conservation programs. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack has announced that 131 FSA offices will be closing, but this is not enough. With a restructuring of its mission and operations, the FSA can save taxpayers billions, says Vincent H. Smith, a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.
One proposal has been set forth by the National Association of FSA County Office Employees (NASCOE) union, which seeks to provide the federal crop insurance program through the FSA.
•Currently, the federal crop insurance program is managed by the Risk Management Agency.
•However, the program is being delivered by private insurance companies that sell and service the subsidized insurance products.
•This costs taxpayers $3 billion to $4 billion annually.
•Additionally, over 94 percent of the subsidized crop insurance policies sold to farmers last year could have been delivered over the internet without an insurance agent or company.
•Furthermore, between 2006 and 2010, insurance companies received an average of $1.44 from the taxpayer for every $1 dollar of subsidy the farmers received.
•But in other countries, subsidized crop insurance is less than 30 cents per dollar of subsidy.
In the face of these high costs, NASCOE claims that FSA offices can deliver the insurance program at $1.5 billion to $2 billion a year less. But even with the projected annual savings, the program has been dismissed by those in Washington. One reason is because insurance companies and agents are the most effective lobbyists. The 16 or so private companies that deliver the program want to continue receiving their $3 billion to $4 billion subsidy from the taxpayers.
The question that must be asked is whether this program is required at all. The subsidies for crop insurance do nothing more than allow farmers to adopt risky production practices because they are insulated from the consequences of their own bad decisions. Additionally, the subsidies distort the market and hurt the industry in the long run.
Social Security / Medicare Mandates : Worse Then Thought?
This is interesting in that it's the progressive liberal Democrats that point the finger at Republicans for having the audacity to propose changes in Medicare to save the system and the entire economy, when in reality it's the progressives that are pushing these mandates into a black hole of insolvency.
This has always been the case for as long as the two parties have faced off in elections. The progressives have always proclaimed to be the party of the people, read this as the party that cares for the 'people', Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid third rail politics, and have shouted from the roof tops that they will always protect these benefits for the people from the cutting knifes of the Republicans.
Even though it's the progressives that are now cutting 716 billion from Medicare to fund ObamaCare, the press and the 'party of the people' still point the accusing finger at the Republicans as wanted to cut these mandates. Progressive duplicity? Who knew?
Social Security's Woes Are Worse than You Think
Source: Ramesh Ponnuru, "Social Security's Woes Are Worse than You Think," Bloomberg, August 27, 2012.
August 31, 2012
America's debt problem stems from the continued growth of entitlement spending and no proper effort to rein it in. Policy circles emphasize the need to make changes to Medicare to make it sustainable, whereas Social Security is put on the backburner. This is because in the long-run, Medicare will be a bigger problem to the debt than Social Security, says Ramesh Ponnuru, a senior editor at National Review
But it is important for policymakers to take a look at possible solutions to Social Security, because if left unchecked, it too can become unsustainable and ruin the economy.
•In 1983, the financing gap for Social Security over the next 75 years was 1.8 percent of payroll.
•Today, the financing gap stands at 3.5 percent over the next 75 years.
•Furthermore, by 2035, Social Security will cost 6.4 percent of the economy while Medicare will cost 5.7 percent.
•By that point, Social Security costs are set to peak because the demographics will play out while Medicare costs go up.
•According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), by 2025, public debt will reach 106 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP).
•Even worse, by 2035 -- the year Social Security costs are said to peak -- public debt will reach 181 percent.
The nation's finances will be tanked before Social Security costs peak. However, there are possible solutions to Social Security that can prevent future debt problems.
•First, increase the retirement age. This would encourage people to work longer and continue paying into the system.
•Second, the growth of benefits can be reduced, especially for high-income earners. In the status quo, high earners who retire in 2040 will receive higher benefits than those who retire in 2020.
The proposed plan would keep the benefits the same, adjusting for inflation.•Moreover, the Democrats' plan to raise taxes would discourage people from working and saving, according to the CBO.
This has always been the case for as long as the two parties have faced off in elections. The progressives have always proclaimed to be the party of the people, read this as the party that cares for the 'people', Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid third rail politics, and have shouted from the roof tops that they will always protect these benefits for the people from the cutting knifes of the Republicans.
Even though it's the progressives that are now cutting 716 billion from Medicare to fund ObamaCare, the press and the 'party of the people' still point the accusing finger at the Republicans as wanted to cut these mandates. Progressive duplicity? Who knew?
Social Security's Woes Are Worse than You Think
Source: Ramesh Ponnuru, "Social Security's Woes Are Worse than You Think," Bloomberg, August 27, 2012.
August 31, 2012
America's debt problem stems from the continued growth of entitlement spending and no proper effort to rein it in. Policy circles emphasize the need to make changes to Medicare to make it sustainable, whereas Social Security is put on the backburner. This is because in the long-run, Medicare will be a bigger problem to the debt than Social Security, says Ramesh Ponnuru, a senior editor at National Review
But it is important for policymakers to take a look at possible solutions to Social Security, because if left unchecked, it too can become unsustainable and ruin the economy.
•In 1983, the financing gap for Social Security over the next 75 years was 1.8 percent of payroll.
•Today, the financing gap stands at 3.5 percent over the next 75 years.
•Furthermore, by 2035, Social Security will cost 6.4 percent of the economy while Medicare will cost 5.7 percent.
•By that point, Social Security costs are set to peak because the demographics will play out while Medicare costs go up.
•According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), by 2025, public debt will reach 106 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP).
•Even worse, by 2035 -- the year Social Security costs are said to peak -- public debt will reach 181 percent.
The nation's finances will be tanked before Social Security costs peak. However, there are possible solutions to Social Security that can prevent future debt problems.
•First, increase the retirement age. This would encourage people to work longer and continue paying into the system.
•Second, the growth of benefits can be reduced, especially for high-income earners. In the status quo, high earners who retire in 2040 will receive higher benefits than those who retire in 2020.
The proposed plan would keep the benefits the same, adjusting for inflation.•Moreover, the Democrats' plan to raise taxes would discourage people from working and saving, according to the CBO.
Monday, September 03, 2012
Car Mileage Standard Set : Insanity Runs Amuck
Green house gases will be cut by the new fuel mileage demand? WOW, Mr Obama seems to forget that Ethanol production causes far more green house gases than fossil fuel, and not to mention the huge subsides that are needed to produce Ethanol. And talk about foreign oil imports, we have enough fossil fuel ready to be extracted from are own reserves that we can export to the rest of the world.
Not only do we have trillions of new gas finds and multi billions of oil barrels ready to extracted , but the millions of jobs these industries would create would be a wind fall for the unemployment line. And isn't that what this election is all about?
Final Rules Set On Car Mileage
Source: "Final Rules Set On Car Mileage," Wall Street Journal, August 28, 2012.
August 31, 2012
Newly released final fuel-economy standards are set to bring the average mileage of cars and light trucks to 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025. But the Obama administration's new push for increasing fuel-economy standards may leave consumers having to pay more despite lower overall fuel costs, says the Wall Street Journal.
The new standards add fuel to the presidential elections as both sides try to carve out the facts of how the new fuel standards will affect the consumers and the economy.
•The Obama administration says new vehicles will cost about $1,800 more by 2025.
•According to Bill Underriner, chairman of the National Automobile Dealers Association, the standards may actually increase new car prices by $3,000.
•This would shut out nearly 7 million people from the new car market.
While the Obama administration is quick to tout the environmental benefits of the plan and reduced dependence on foreign oil, they overlook some problems. Foremost, foreign automakers say the standards are strict on cars and less-strict on light trucks, which benefits American automakers since they make a lot of trucks. Not to mention that the United States still has part ownership of General Motors. Moreover, the savings in fuel would simply add to the upfront costs of getting new technology that consumers may not want.
Furthermore, the new fuel standard has been used in the presidential campaign as a means for the candidates to distinguish each other. Republicans assert that the standards prevent businesses from recovering in a weak economy. However, the Obama campaign argues that this would reduce U.S. oil consumption by more than two million barrels by 2025 and cut greenhouse gas emissions.
Not only do we have trillions of new gas finds and multi billions of oil barrels ready to extracted , but the millions of jobs these industries would create would be a wind fall for the unemployment line. And isn't that what this election is all about?
Final Rules Set On Car Mileage
Source: "Final Rules Set On Car Mileage," Wall Street Journal, August 28, 2012.
August 31, 2012
Newly released final fuel-economy standards are set to bring the average mileage of cars and light trucks to 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025. But the Obama administration's new push for increasing fuel-economy standards may leave consumers having to pay more despite lower overall fuel costs, says the Wall Street Journal.
The new standards add fuel to the presidential elections as both sides try to carve out the facts of how the new fuel standards will affect the consumers and the economy.
•The Obama administration says new vehicles will cost about $1,800 more by 2025.
•According to Bill Underriner, chairman of the National Automobile Dealers Association, the standards may actually increase new car prices by $3,000.
•This would shut out nearly 7 million people from the new car market.
While the Obama administration is quick to tout the environmental benefits of the plan and reduced dependence on foreign oil, they overlook some problems. Foremost, foreign automakers say the standards are strict on cars and less-strict on light trucks, which benefits American automakers since they make a lot of trucks. Not to mention that the United States still has part ownership of General Motors. Moreover, the savings in fuel would simply add to the upfront costs of getting new technology that consumers may not want.
Furthermore, the new fuel standard has been used in the presidential campaign as a means for the candidates to distinguish each other. Republicans assert that the standards prevent businesses from recovering in a weak economy. However, the Obama campaign argues that this would reduce U.S. oil consumption by more than two million barrels by 2025 and cut greenhouse gas emissions.
Ethanol Is Not Comepitive : Subsides Define Ethanol
This best way to find out if Ethanol can compete is let it float in the open market - no subsides. If government continues to support Ethanol with subsides, this industry will have no reason to define itself as a competitor with fossil fuels and nuclear energy.
Can Ethanol Cut Foreign Oil Imports?
Source: Ken Silverstein, "Can Ethanol Cut Foreign Oil Imports?" Forbes, August 26, 2012.
August 31, 2012
The federal government has lent its support to various alternative energy policies as a way to jumpstart an uncompetitive industry. These have taken the form of loans guarantees, grants and other subsidies, says Ken Silverstein, editor-in-chief for Energy Central's EnergyBiz Insider.
The most recent vocal support has come from both presidential campaigns in favor of a Renewable Fuel Standard that mandates an increase in ethanol-blended gasoline. But ethanol would likely disappear from the marketplace absent federal subsidies and mandates, says Sterling Burnett, a senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis.
A large part of the debate centers on whether the ethanol that comes from corn is an efficient fuel source. Furthermore, corn ethanol cuts the overall supply of corn that would otherwise be used to feed livestock, thus driving up food prices.
But proponents of ethanol claim that a next-generation source of ethanol, cellulose, provides promise for the future.
•Cellulose could supply 130 million gallons a year of ethanol because of its abundant supply.
•Because of this, the government lent $4 million to Chemtex, a cellulosic manufacturer.
•This money will construct a refinery to convert 600,000 tons of energy grasses per year into about 20 million gallons of cellulosic ethanol.
•Oil giant BP says that biofuels could provide up to 23 percent of the global demand for transportation fuel by 2030.
While the outcomes seem promising, there are many reasons to be cautious because of the difficulty of financing large ethanol projects. Take for example past ethanol facilities.
•In 2007, Colorado-based Range Fuels received a $76 million grant to build a cellulosic factory.
•However, the facility was forced to close its doors recently.
•Furthermore, Iogen, another potential ethanol producer, received U.S. funds to team with Royal Dutch Shell to build advanced ethanol facilities in both the United States and Canada.
•But, the project has postponed all future plans.
Both political parties are kowtowing to the farm vote, which means that it is unlikely that the Renewable Fuel Standard will get eliminated. But the distinction between first-and-second-generation ethanol is important and one that may eventually give wider credence to the ethanol cause.
Can Ethanol Cut Foreign Oil Imports?
Source: Ken Silverstein, "Can Ethanol Cut Foreign Oil Imports?" Forbes, August 26, 2012.
August 31, 2012
The federal government has lent its support to various alternative energy policies as a way to jumpstart an uncompetitive industry. These have taken the form of loans guarantees, grants and other subsidies, says Ken Silverstein, editor-in-chief for Energy Central's EnergyBiz Insider.
The most recent vocal support has come from both presidential campaigns in favor of a Renewable Fuel Standard that mandates an increase in ethanol-blended gasoline. But ethanol would likely disappear from the marketplace absent federal subsidies and mandates, says Sterling Burnett, a senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis.
A large part of the debate centers on whether the ethanol that comes from corn is an efficient fuel source. Furthermore, corn ethanol cuts the overall supply of corn that would otherwise be used to feed livestock, thus driving up food prices.
But proponents of ethanol claim that a next-generation source of ethanol, cellulose, provides promise for the future.
•Cellulose could supply 130 million gallons a year of ethanol because of its abundant supply.
•Because of this, the government lent $4 million to Chemtex, a cellulosic manufacturer.
•This money will construct a refinery to convert 600,000 tons of energy grasses per year into about 20 million gallons of cellulosic ethanol.
•Oil giant BP says that biofuels could provide up to 23 percent of the global demand for transportation fuel by 2030.
While the outcomes seem promising, there are many reasons to be cautious because of the difficulty of financing large ethanol projects. Take for example past ethanol facilities.
•In 2007, Colorado-based Range Fuels received a $76 million grant to build a cellulosic factory.
•However, the facility was forced to close its doors recently.
•Furthermore, Iogen, another potential ethanol producer, received U.S. funds to team with Royal Dutch Shell to build advanced ethanol facilities in both the United States and Canada.
•But, the project has postponed all future plans.
Both political parties are kowtowing to the farm vote, which means that it is unlikely that the Renewable Fuel Standard will get eliminated. But the distinction between first-and-second-generation ethanol is important and one that may eventually give wider credence to the ethanol cause.
Election Idenities : Who Are You??
A lot of people knew who Mr Obama was before the election in 2008, but obviously many did not and worse, did not care.
Trying to understand what so many people saw in Mr Obama is like trying to understand rocket science, it numbs the brain and as a consequence the individual is left with an empty feeling of despair.
Hopefully this time around people will see how things have changed and will vote from knowledge rather than by emotion and ignorance. 'nough said!
To The Point News
The O-man, Barack Hussein Obama, is an eloquently tailored empty suit. No résumé, no accomplishments, no experience, no original ideas, no understanding of how the economy works, no understanding of how the world works, no balls, nothing but abstract empty rhetoric devoid of real substance.
He has no real identity. He is half-white, which he rejects. The rest of him is mostly Arab, which he hides but is disclosed by his non-African Arabic surname and his Arabic first and middle names as a way to triply proclaim his Arabic parentage to people in Kenya. Only a small part of him is African Black from his Luo grandmother, which he pretends he is exclusively.
What he isn't, not a genetic drop of, is "African-American," the descendant of enslaved Africans brought to America chained in slave ships. He hasn't a single ancestor who was a slave. Instead, his Arab ancestors were slave owners. Slave-trading was the main Arab business in East Africa for centuries until the British ended it.
Let that sink in: Obambi is not the descendant of slaves, he is the descendant of slave owners. Thus he makes the perfect Liberal Messiah.
It's something Hillary doesn't understand - how some complete neophyte came out of the blue and stole the Dem nomination from her. Obamamania is beyond politics and reason. It is a true religious cult, whose adherents reject Christianity yet still believe in Original Sin, transferring it from the evil of being human to the evil of being white.
Thus Obambi has become the white liberals' Christ, offering absolution from the Sin of Being White. There is no reason or logic behind it, no faults or flaws of his can diminish it, no arguments Hillary could make of any kind can be effective against it. The absurdity of Hypocrisy Clothed In Human Flesh being their Savior is all the more cause for liberals to worship him: Credo quia absurdum, I believe it because it is absurd.
Thank heavens that the voting majority of Americans remain Christian and are in no desperate need of a phony savior.
Obama is a Zero. There is nothing really there. O=Zero. You can get a O=Zero bumper sticker for your car, a O=Zero t-shirt, encourage your friends to do the same, and get the message out there:
That his candidacy is ridiculous and should not be taken seriously by any thinking American.
Trying to understand what so many people saw in Mr Obama is like trying to understand rocket science, it numbs the brain and as a consequence the individual is left with an empty feeling of despair.
Hopefully this time around people will see how things have changed and will vote from knowledge rather than by emotion and ignorance. 'nough said!
To The Point News
The O-man, Barack Hussein Obama, is an eloquently tailored empty suit. No résumé, no accomplishments, no experience, no original ideas, no understanding of how the economy works, no understanding of how the world works, no balls, nothing but abstract empty rhetoric devoid of real substance.
He has no real identity. He is half-white, which he rejects. The rest of him is mostly Arab, which he hides but is disclosed by his non-African Arabic surname and his Arabic first and middle names as a way to triply proclaim his Arabic parentage to people in Kenya. Only a small part of him is African Black from his Luo grandmother, which he pretends he is exclusively.
What he isn't, not a genetic drop of, is "African-American," the descendant of enslaved Africans brought to America chained in slave ships. He hasn't a single ancestor who was a slave. Instead, his Arab ancestors were slave owners. Slave-trading was the main Arab business in East Africa for centuries until the British ended it.
Let that sink in: Obambi is not the descendant of slaves, he is the descendant of slave owners. Thus he makes the perfect Liberal Messiah.
It's something Hillary doesn't understand - how some complete neophyte came out of the blue and stole the Dem nomination from her. Obamamania is beyond politics and reason. It is a true religious cult, whose adherents reject Christianity yet still believe in Original Sin, transferring it from the evil of being human to the evil of being white.
Thus Obambi has become the white liberals' Christ, offering absolution from the Sin of Being White. There is no reason or logic behind it, no faults or flaws of his can diminish it, no arguments Hillary could make of any kind can be effective against it. The absurdity of Hypocrisy Clothed In Human Flesh being their Savior is all the more cause for liberals to worship him: Credo quia absurdum, I believe it because it is absurd.
Thank heavens that the voting majority of Americans remain Christian and are in no desperate need of a phony savior.
Obama is a Zero. There is nothing really there. O=Zero. You can get a O=Zero bumper sticker for your car, a O=Zero t-shirt, encourage your friends to do the same, and get the message out there:
That his candidacy is ridiculous and should not be taken seriously by any thinking American.
Saturday, September 01, 2012
Tax System Balance Needed : Many Pay Nothing
Divide and conquer - this is the agenda of the Obama administration to get votes from those that are less fortunate or just less willing to work hard or innovate to get what they want.
Mr Obama likes to tell the 'unwilling' that they deserve more from those that have more without having to produce anything. All they have to do is vote for him and he will see to it that the 'productive' in our society share their good fortunes with everyone else that is less fortunate.
How do you think this will turn out when those that are more fortunate, read this as smarter and more innovative, see their personal good fortunes stripped away and given to people that don't care enough to extend themselves beyond the ordinary to get what they want?
The go-getter's in our society won't just stand around waiting to be bent over for the sake of others less willing to sacrifice to move forward. They are where they are because they won't stand for being robbed of their personal fortunes.
The U.S. Tax System: Who Really Pays?
Source: Stephen Moore, "The U.S. Tax System: Who Really Pays?" Manhattan Institute, August 2012.
August 30, 2012
It is a common misconception in the United States that the tax code needs to be changed so that the rich pay more in taxes. Several factors fuel this myth, and policymakers are quick to act on them. Several popular arguments about tax rates are broken down and responded to by Stephen Moore, a senior economics writer for the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board.
•The main argument is that the rich need to be taxed more to make things more fair. However, the top 10 percent of tax filers make up 45 percent of the total federal taxes paid.
•Many argue that the rich pay less in income taxes than they did 50 years ago. But in 2007, the top 10 percent contributed 71 percent of all personal income-tax revenue whereas the bottom 50 percent, earning 12 percent, only contributed to 3 percent of the tax revenue.
•Tax cuts do not take from the poor and give to the rich. Tax cuts incentivize people and businesses to innovate and propose new ideas, which create more opportunities for those who are not in the top tax bracket.
•Some argue that the budget deficit is because of low tax rates. However, the Bush tax cuts, for example, increased revenues by $786 billion, which added more jobs and wealth into the economy.
•Fewer Americans are paying taxes at all. The Tax Foundation found that nearly 42 percent of Americans that filed tax returns ended up not paying any taxes.
•Proponents of changing the tax code argue the 15 percent tax on investment income is too low. However, 54 percent of Americans own stock and therefore benefit from the lower tax rate. Similarly, the tax rate is low in order to spur continued investment and reward people for their risks.
•Likewise, a higher capital-gains rate, as many argue for, would be counterproductive. The real tax rate on corporate income paid to individuals through capital gains is not 15 percent but close to 40 percent.
In a debate that is muddled with numbers, it is important to look at the facts of how the tax code is fair in the status quo. It is easy for policymakers to make attractive claims of wealth equality during tough economic times, but the data show that the wealthy are contributing to a significant amount of the tax revenue and will continue to do so.
Mr Obama likes to tell the 'unwilling' that they deserve more from those that have more without having to produce anything. All they have to do is vote for him and he will see to it that the 'productive' in our society share their good fortunes with everyone else that is less fortunate.
How do you think this will turn out when those that are more fortunate, read this as smarter and more innovative, see their personal good fortunes stripped away and given to people that don't care enough to extend themselves beyond the ordinary to get what they want?
The go-getter's in our society won't just stand around waiting to be bent over for the sake of others less willing to sacrifice to move forward. They are where they are because they won't stand for being robbed of their personal fortunes.
The U.S. Tax System: Who Really Pays?
Source: Stephen Moore, "The U.S. Tax System: Who Really Pays?" Manhattan Institute, August 2012.
August 30, 2012
It is a common misconception in the United States that the tax code needs to be changed so that the rich pay more in taxes. Several factors fuel this myth, and policymakers are quick to act on them. Several popular arguments about tax rates are broken down and responded to by Stephen Moore, a senior economics writer for the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board.
•The main argument is that the rich need to be taxed more to make things more fair. However, the top 10 percent of tax filers make up 45 percent of the total federal taxes paid.
•Many argue that the rich pay less in income taxes than they did 50 years ago. But in 2007, the top 10 percent contributed 71 percent of all personal income-tax revenue whereas the bottom 50 percent, earning 12 percent, only contributed to 3 percent of the tax revenue.
•Tax cuts do not take from the poor and give to the rich. Tax cuts incentivize people and businesses to innovate and propose new ideas, which create more opportunities for those who are not in the top tax bracket.
•Some argue that the budget deficit is because of low tax rates. However, the Bush tax cuts, for example, increased revenues by $786 billion, which added more jobs and wealth into the economy.
•Fewer Americans are paying taxes at all. The Tax Foundation found that nearly 42 percent of Americans that filed tax returns ended up not paying any taxes.
•Proponents of changing the tax code argue the 15 percent tax on investment income is too low. However, 54 percent of Americans own stock and therefore benefit from the lower tax rate. Similarly, the tax rate is low in order to spur continued investment and reward people for their risks.
•Likewise, a higher capital-gains rate, as many argue for, would be counterproductive. The real tax rate on corporate income paid to individuals through capital gains is not 15 percent but close to 40 percent.
In a debate that is muddled with numbers, it is important to look at the facts of how the tax code is fair in the status quo. It is easy for policymakers to make attractive claims of wealth equality during tough economic times, but the data show that the wealthy are contributing to a significant amount of the tax revenue and will continue to do so.
British Health Care System (NHS) : Ignorance Driven
As expected and designed by Mr Obama, the health care system in this country will indeed end up much like those in Canada and Great Britain. Any time the government says they can do a better job of distribution of services from one centralized point, Washington, it doesn't require rocket science to figure out any program associated with this agenda will fail.
History tells the story much better then any report or survey. The British health care system is a perfect example. The people love it as they don't know any different, they have generations of living under a subsistence agenda which has become the norm. In this case, ignorance is bliss.
Socialized Medicine Is Enough to Chase Away British Doctors
Source: "Socialized Medicine Is Enough to Chase Away British Doctors," Investor's Business Daily, August 28, 2012.
August 30, 2012
Since its inception, the National Health Service (NHS) of Britain has been a constant source of pride and joy to Britons. From an outsider's perspective, one has to wonder where this pride is derived from. At a glance, the long waiting times, denial of care, poor facilities and base pay all make the health care system something to avoid. And that is exactly what doctors in Britain are doing, says Investor's Business Daily.
This phenomenon, known as brain drain, is what the British health care system is currently experiencing.
•More than 8,000 doctors have left Britain since 2008.
•But the problem is not restricted to Britain, as 10 percent of Canadian-trained doctors practice in the United States.
•Additionally, a 1964 study on the NHS found that as early as 1950 -- two years after the establishment of the NHS -- doctors were leaving to find work in other countries.
The flow of talented physicians outside of the country is attributed to many factors, but none more than the socialized medicine.
•Physicians have complained of "extensive goodwill hours" and the long hours they put in.
•Furthermore, some physicians cite higher pay and shorter hours elsewhere as to why they leave.
This problem is to be expected when there is a system of free health care. When the government creates an unlimited demand, the providers (in this case the doctors) can't keep up and are subsequently overworked and underpaid. And as more doctors leave, the strain on the existing providers will increase, causing further problems with the supply of doctors.
The lesson learned from Britain seems to be lost on the United States, as the Obama administration sought a plan that socialized medicine. If steps aren't taken soon, the United States could find itself in the same situation as Britain.
History tells the story much better then any report or survey. The British health care system is a perfect example. The people love it as they don't know any different, they have generations of living under a subsistence agenda which has become the norm. In this case, ignorance is bliss.
Socialized Medicine Is Enough to Chase Away British Doctors
Source: "Socialized Medicine Is Enough to Chase Away British Doctors," Investor's Business Daily, August 28, 2012.
August 30, 2012
Since its inception, the National Health Service (NHS) of Britain has been a constant source of pride and joy to Britons. From an outsider's perspective, one has to wonder where this pride is derived from. At a glance, the long waiting times, denial of care, poor facilities and base pay all make the health care system something to avoid. And that is exactly what doctors in Britain are doing, says Investor's Business Daily.
This phenomenon, known as brain drain, is what the British health care system is currently experiencing.
•More than 8,000 doctors have left Britain since 2008.
•But the problem is not restricted to Britain, as 10 percent of Canadian-trained doctors practice in the United States.
•Additionally, a 1964 study on the NHS found that as early as 1950 -- two years after the establishment of the NHS -- doctors were leaving to find work in other countries.
The flow of talented physicians outside of the country is attributed to many factors, but none more than the socialized medicine.
•Physicians have complained of "extensive goodwill hours" and the long hours they put in.
•Furthermore, some physicians cite higher pay and shorter hours elsewhere as to why they leave.
This problem is to be expected when there is a system of free health care. When the government creates an unlimited demand, the providers (in this case the doctors) can't keep up and are subsequently overworked and underpaid. And as more doctors leave, the strain on the existing providers will increase, causing further problems with the supply of doctors.
The lesson learned from Britain seems to be lost on the United States, as the Obama administration sought a plan that socialized medicine. If steps aren't taken soon, the United States could find itself in the same situation as Britain.
Health Care Costs Skyrocket as Small Clinics Close
This is just another problem stemming from ObamaCare - small clinics have to close their doors as the cost to operated is out of their control, that is, the costs associated with everyday care giving, labor and facility maintenance, has out stripped income from serving the elderly on Medicare and Medicade to the fee services demanded by ObamaCare.
As this article points out, as the small enterprises close and employees move to the large hospitals and competition goes down, fees for service go up. The question that remains is, how long can this go on until the cost is no longer affordable to the population at large? Who picks up the tab?
Same Doctor Visit, Double the Cost
Source: Anna Wilde Mathews, "Same Doctor Visit, Double the Cost," Wall Street Journal, August 27, 2012.
August 30, 2012
Since the passage of President Obama's health care law, hospitals are increasing their size by acquiring private practices. Hospitals say the acquisitions will make health care more efficient. But it is also having another effect: higher prices, says the Wall Street Journal.
•In 2000, 5 percent of specialty physicians that saw patients in hospitals were employed by a hospital.
•Today, that number has risen to 25 percent.
•As a result, physicians get paid for their services at a hospital's rate, which is more than what insurers pay private doctors.
•Furthermore, some services that were once performed at independent facilities may start being billed as outpatient procedures at a hospital, sometimes doubling the cost.
•Additionally, it costs more to operate outpatient clinics which must meet strict regulations and treat patients that don't have insurance, contributing to the increase in rates.
Some examples of the rate increases include:
•A magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) at a private practice ranged from $391 to $742 while at a hospital it cost between $1,591 and $2,226.
•A 15 minute doctor visit cost Medicare $70 at a free-standing clinic, but cost $124 at a hospital.
The impetus for the acquisition of private practices stems from the promise of improved efficiency, care and integrated services.
However, higher costs are imposed on the consumer because of the higher reimbursement. Furthermore, large hospitals have stronger influence in the market and can negotiate higher rate from insurers, whereas private practices don't have that kind of leverage.
As a way to reduce the rates, health plans and hospitals are trying to create new methods of payment that incentivize efficiency. One example is to create incentives for increasing primary care services and decreasing patient readmissions, trying to move away from the fee-for-service system that has created the physician-pay arbitrage.
As this article points out, as the small enterprises close and employees move to the large hospitals and competition goes down, fees for service go up. The question that remains is, how long can this go on until the cost is no longer affordable to the population at large? Who picks up the tab?
Same Doctor Visit, Double the Cost
Source: Anna Wilde Mathews, "Same Doctor Visit, Double the Cost," Wall Street Journal, August 27, 2012.
August 30, 2012
Since the passage of President Obama's health care law, hospitals are increasing their size by acquiring private practices. Hospitals say the acquisitions will make health care more efficient. But it is also having another effect: higher prices, says the Wall Street Journal.
•In 2000, 5 percent of specialty physicians that saw patients in hospitals were employed by a hospital.
•Today, that number has risen to 25 percent.
•As a result, physicians get paid for their services at a hospital's rate, which is more than what insurers pay private doctors.
•Furthermore, some services that were once performed at independent facilities may start being billed as outpatient procedures at a hospital, sometimes doubling the cost.
•Additionally, it costs more to operate outpatient clinics which must meet strict regulations and treat patients that don't have insurance, contributing to the increase in rates.
Some examples of the rate increases include:
•A magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) at a private practice ranged from $391 to $742 while at a hospital it cost between $1,591 and $2,226.
•A 15 minute doctor visit cost Medicare $70 at a free-standing clinic, but cost $124 at a hospital.
The impetus for the acquisition of private practices stems from the promise of improved efficiency, care and integrated services.
However, higher costs are imposed on the consumer because of the higher reimbursement. Furthermore, large hospitals have stronger influence in the market and can negotiate higher rate from insurers, whereas private practices don't have that kind of leverage.
As a way to reduce the rates, health plans and hospitals are trying to create new methods of payment that incentivize efficiency. One example is to create incentives for increasing primary care services and decreasing patient readmissions, trying to move away from the fee-for-service system that has created the physician-pay arbitrage.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
