Hiding the "Hide the Decline," featuring Greenman3610

Fewer Americans paying their fair share

The Tax Policy Center, a cooperative of the Brookings Institute and the Urban Institute, have concluded that nearly 47% of Americans will pay no federal income tax for 2009. This is another example of the increasing burden placed on taxpayers versus tax receivers.

If this trend continues those Americans who are net receivers of federal benefits will outnumber those who are the ones funding America.

The Tax Policy Center has additional information to help people understand what the true cost of taxation is and who really pays their fair share of taxes. Their web address is http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/ . The Tax Policy Center is no conservative or right-wing organization. Both Brookings Institute and the Urban Institute are liberal or left leaning organizations.

I can't take credit for the statements below, but I believe they are all true.

1) You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.
2) What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
3) The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
4) You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.
5) When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, then the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for... And that, my dear friend, is the beginning of the end of any nation.

Thoughts?

How is the Hope and Change workin' out for you?

Paying our Fair Share

On April 15, 2009, the Tax Policy Center, a joint project of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, issued her a rport indicating that 43% of Americans either pay no federal income tax or receive federal tax benefits. Neither the Brookings Institution nor the Urban Institute are considered conservative or right-wing think tanks. But even they conclude when such a significant portion of the American populace are net tax consumers there's something truly out of balance with the American tax system. This trend does not seem to be going in the right direction.

On October 3, 2009, CNN Money.com reported that Americans who do not pay federal income tax has risen to 47%.

Over the last year we've heard lots of discussion about how the wealthy should pay their "fair share". And what is considered "fair share"? In April 2009, the Congressional budget office, the nonpartisan Washington organization that evaluates the effect of legislation, determined that the top 20% of taxpayers pay 70% of all federal income tax. The top 1% pay 28% of all federal income tax already. How much more do we expect them to pay so that millions of Americans can have a free ride? And when will we realize it is that top 5% of taxpayers who provide jobs for the rest of the 95% of working Americans? How long will they continue to pay their "unfair share" and simply stop the economic engine that provides us jobs?

Candidate Obama campaigned for cutting taxes for 95% of the American public. And while I generally favor of lower taxes because history has told us that lower taxes will stimulate economic growth, I am deeply concerned about the number of people who bare no burden for the benefits they receive from their government. It is fundamentally unfair for people to receive the benefits of such things as as our highway system, our air transportation system, food stamps, subsidized federal housing, and a myriad of other things, and have no responsibility for paying for it.

As the Tax Policy Center suggested we're nearing a tipping point. Very soon those who are net recipients of our tax policy will outnumber those who pay taxes. Allowing those who are net tax recipients to support policies increasing their benefits at the expense of fewer taxpayers will soon kill the goose that has laid the golden egg.

Yes, lower taxes for all will boost economic growth in the United States, but every working adult American should pay some federal income tax no matter how minor that tax is. Those who benefit from the defense of freedom, travel our highways, and enjoy the liberties and economic freedom that America provides must be willing to pay their fair share.

Thoughts?

Star Parker : Back on Uncle Sam's Plantation - Townhall.com

This is an excellent article about the direction of govenment under the current administration from someone who is black and seen poverty from the inside out.

Star Parker : Back on Uncle Sam's Plantation - Townhall.com

Scientists in stolen e-mail scandal hid climate data - Times Online

So you believe in Man-made Global Warming? Here is what proponents do to hide the truth!

Scientists in stolen e-mail scandal hid climate data - Times Online

Don't Get it!

It is difficult for me to believe that some people do not understand the results of Massachusetts election.
These are my thoughts on the matter, but me know what you think.

Most of the media and liberals in Washington DC thinks that the election of Scott Brown to Sen. Kennedy's seat is a consequence of the American peoples frustration with the legislative establishment in Washington DC, and not a direct reaction to this Administrations domestic policy, specifically healthcare, taxation, spending and terrorism. They continue to assert that the American people are upset not with this last year in Washington but rather the last eight years of the Bush Administration. They base this, I believe, on Obama's overwhelming victory in last year's presidential election. However, I believe that Obama's victory was as much a repudiation of Bush's excessive spending and the economy as anything else.

President Bush and the Republican Party did very little to give the American people a sense of fiscal restraint and reining in government. Candidate Obama at least gave lip service to balancing the budget, to transparency in government, and in limiting special interest groups access in Washington DC. But over the last year Americans have watched transparency turn into invisibility, fiscal restraint turn to creating deficits in one year that the Bush administration took eight years to run up, and limiting special interest group access to mean just a different group of special interests such as liberals, unions and those that agree with the Obama left wing agenda.

I do believe Americans want to see some change in healthcare, things like more competition, ability to maintain policy coverage after leaving there their job, and a slowdown in the acceleration of premiums. I do not believe Americans want universal health coverage that will increase the cost of healthcare and their insurance premiums and increase the federal deficit. Americans do not want to see the kind of back door deals that occurred in December and January that under any other circumstances would be called corruption if they were not in the halls of Washington DC.

The election of Scott Brown to the Senate from Massachusetts is in fact a repudiation of Obama's policies. Americans want fiscal restraint from their government, they want a less intrusive government, they want all Americans to be treated equally and not have corporations Or unions have special access.

There are liberals in Washington who believe that the Obama administration's inability to deliver on their promises of healthcare and social justice vis-à-vis the gay-rights movement and the wars, among other things are the reasons the people in Massachusetts repudiated the Democratic candidate and urge a doubling down on those policies. In truth, I believe if the Democrats and the Obama administration adopt this policy it will mean a huge victory for Republicans this November. As someone who leans pretty solidly Republican this is an attractive scenario. However, it is not healthy for this country. I do not want to see bad policy enacted just so Republicans can gain ascendancy in 2010 or 2012.

There are those among the Republican Party who claim that Republicans need to broaden the base. That the repudiation of Bush's policies were a clear indication that Republicans need to move to the middle. I believe, however, that Obama's victory was indeed a repudiation of Bush's policies, but Bush's policies relative to the growth in government and excessive spending, not his conservative ideals. America is still a center-right country. The Republican Party, if it wants to regain its position of authority, must continue to espouse conservative values fiscally internationally and socially in order to regain their position of authority in Washington. And I believe, they need to come up with a positive message to prove to the American people that they are not going to go back to the policies of continued government growth and unencumbered spending.

So, that's what I think. What do you think?

Healthcare Finish Line

One year after Obama assumed the office of the Presidency, Congress is closing in on the finish line for healthcare. There is no question that there are things within the healthcare industry that need fixing. However, creating a nationalized health care system is not the answer! A couple of states have tried to institute government sponsored healthcare including Massachusetts. On Tuesday, a special election to fill Sen. Kennedy's Senate seat will occur and the issue most prominent has been healthcare. Massachusetts, which has only 11% of the voting population registered as Republicans is by far the bluest state in the union. But in spite of that, Republican candidate Brown has come from a 30 point deficit to dead even on the weekend before the election.
Polling data indicate that the people of Massachusetts are very unhappy with their government mandated health care program. The government program has cost almost 20% more than anticipated and premiums for all health insurance in the state have increased dramatically. A majority of the people in Massachusetts currently oppose their own mandated healthcare system.

There are solutions to the problems within our health care system such as pre-existing conditions and losing healthcare coverage. These problems can be solved by allowing civic groups or churches or business associations or other such organizations to set up group policies whereby the group can spread the risk of all of its members and therefore provide the same kind of benefit relative to pre-existing conditions that businesses now have in their group policies. Additionally, if insurance companies could compete across state lines this would also open up competition thereby reducing the cost of insurance. One other consideration to keep costs down would be to provide insurance from a catastrophic perspective and not first dollar coverage. By providing first dollar coverage we increase the likelihood of people using insurance to meet their most mundane and unserious health conditions thereby raising the cost of health insurance for everyone. If individuals were responsible for their first dollar coverage upfront, making their own decisions, about when to see the doctor, and having coverage for catastrophic events the cost of insurance could decline significantly. And of course it goes without saying that the cost of litigating in the healthcare industry is a tremendous drain on the cost of providing medical care. Tort reform will not solve the medical insurance problem however it is one of those items that need to be addressed if we are going to come to a solution for healthcare in America. All of these solutions can be achieved without a nationalized health care system.

So the question is will this Congress and this administration be the first to cross the finish line of healthcare, or will it be the American people that want the freedom to keep and maintain their own healthcare and insurance. The election in Massachusetts could well determine the fate of Obama care.

Your thoughts?