If Only…

Bill Whittle were our President.



  1. 1
  2. 2
    L.C. Mope growls and barks:

    I’m kinda partial to this speech, Crunch.


  3. 3
    VonZorch Imperial Researcher growls and barks:

    I would certainly vote for him.
    Run Bill run :em01:

  4. 4
    LC Gladiator growls and barks:

    Hail Armageddon
    By Charles Krauthammer, Published: February 28

    “The worst-case scenario for us,” a leading anti-budget-cuts lobbyist told The Post, “is the sequester hits and nothing bad really happens.”

    Think about that. Worst case? That a government drowning in debt should cut back by 2.2?percent — and the country survives. That a government now borrowing 35?cents of every dollar it spends reduces that borrowing by two cents “and nothing bad really happens.” Oh, the humanity!

    A normal citizen might think this a good thing. For reactionary liberalism, however, whatever sum our ever-inflating government happens to spend today (now double what Bill Clinton spent in his last year) is the Platonic ideal — the reduction of which, however minuscule, is a national calamity.

    Or damn well should be. Otherwise, people might get the idea that we can shrink government and live on.

    Hence the president’s message. If the “sequestration” — automatic spending cuts — goes into effect, the skies will fall. Plane travel jeopardized, carrier groups beached, teachers furloughed. And a shortage of junk-touching TSA agents.

    The Obama administration has every incentive to make the sky fall, lest we suffer that terrible calamity — cuts the nation survives. Are they threatening to pare back consultants, conferences, travel and other nonessential fluff? Hardly. It shall be air-traffic control. Meat inspection. Weather forecasting.

    A 2011 Government Accountability Office report gave a sampling of the vastness of what could be cut, consolidated and rationalized in Washington: 44 overlapping job training programs, 18 for nutrition assistance, 82 (!) on teacher quality, 56 dealing with financial literacy, more than 20 for homelessness, etc. Total annual cost: $100 billion-$200 billion, about two to five times the entire domestic sequester.

    Are these on the chopping block? No sir. It’s firemen first. That’s the phrase coined in 1976 by legendary Washington Monthly editor Charlie Peters to describe the way government functionaries beat back budget cuts. Dare suggest a nick in the city budget, and the mayor immediately shuts down the firehouse. The DMV back office, stacked with nepotistic incompetents, remains intact. Shrink it and no one would notice. Sell the firetruck — the people scream and the city council falls silent about any future cuts.

    After all, the sequester is just one-half of 1 percent of GDP. It amounts to 1.4?cents on the dollar of nondefense spending, 2 cents overall.

    Because of this year’s payroll tax increase, millions of American workers have had to tighten their belts by precisely 2?percent. They found a way. Washington, spending $3.8?trillion, cannot? If so, we might as well declare bankruptcy now and save the attorneys’ fees.

    The problem with sequestration, of course, is that the cuts are across the board and do not allow money to move between accounts. It’s dumb because it doesn’t discriminate.

    Fine. Then change the law. That’s why we have a Congress. Discriminate. Prioritize. That’s why we have budgets. Except that the Democratic Senate hasn’t passed one in four years. And the White House, which proposed the sequester in the first place, had 18?months to establish rational priorities among accounts — and did nothing.

    When the GOP House passed an alternative that cut where the real money is — entitlement spending — President Obama threatened a veto. Meaning, he would have insisted that the sequester go into effect — the very same sequester he now tells us will bring on Armageddon.

    Good grief. The entire sequester would have reduced last year’s deficit from $1.33?trillion to $1.24?trillion. A fraction of a fraction. Nonetheless, insists Obama, such a cut is intolerable. It has to be “balanced” — i.e., largely replaced — by yet more taxes.

    Which demonstrates that, for Obama, this is not about deficit reduction, which interests him not at all. The purpose is purely political: to complete his Election Day victory by breaking the Republican opposition.

    At the fiscal cliff, Obama broke — and split — the Republicans on taxes. With the sequester, he intends to break them on spending. Make the cuts as painful as possible, and watch the Republicans come crawling for a “balanced” (i.e., tax-hiking) deal.

    In the past two years, House Republicans stopped cold Obama’s left-liberal agenda. Break them now, and the road is open to resume enactment of the expansive, entitlement-state liberalism that Obama proclaimed in his second inaugural address.

    But he cannot win if “nothing bad really happens.” Indeed, he’d look both foolish and cynical for having cried wolf.

    Obama’s incentive to deliberately make the most painful and socially disruptive cuts possible (say, oh, releasing illegal immigrants from prison) is enormous. And alarming.

    Hail Armageddon.

    Read more from Charles Krauthammer’s archive,

  5. 5
  6. 6
    LC Gladiator growls and barks:

    He so Loved the poor,
    he created MILLIONS More

  7. 7
    LC Gladiator growls and barks:

    Shock! $307 Billion paid to Africa while America goes over cliff
    – by George Washington Hunt

    Obama Budgets $307 Billion For the African Internet, etc.
    The “Alliance For An Affordable Internet” is a public-private partnership which intends to build a huge, expensive African Internet. Its headquarters are in Nairobi, Kenya, now dubbed “Africa’s Silicon Valley”.

    Hillary Clinton alluded to this monstrous State Department project when she stepped down from her Secretary job on February 1, 2013. She said, “One billion more persons will have access to the Internet”. She did not expand her sentence to include… “and Americans will pay for most of it”.

    Here is the scheme: Bloomberg News reported on Feb 14, 2011 that President Obama’s budget for FYE2012 will include $307 billion in grants to Silicon Valley. Specifically, the individual grant amounts in Obama’s budget are: $148 billion for research and development, $80 billion for federal information systems and $77.4 billion for computer education. Much (most?) of the grant money will be spent for Africa’s Internet.

    The partners of “Alliance For An Affordable Internet” include the U.S Department of State, the World Wide Web Foundation and five Silicon Valley computer giants (Google, Microsoft, Yahoo!, Intel and Cisco Systems).

    Americans will get little benefit from these huge grants, nor can we endure the $307 billion in the cash outflow from the U.S. treasury. While we struggle to pay for health and indigent assistance, our constant wars and our corroding infrastructure, these grants will indeed bury us further into debt.

    The World Bank, the UN and many foundations are available to fund an African Internet. If the international funds refuse to assist, the E.U. and the U.K. should fund this project because of their large African associations.

    – See more at: http://www.thebigbadbank.com/shock-307-billion-paid-to-africa-while-america-goes-over-cliff/#sthash.d8trpGJD.dpuf
    Share this:

  8. 8

    It is time to cut foreign aid to the bone. There may be some it is sensible to invest in for future cooperation, but there are many that will a: not end up profitable, or b: fund only attacks ON US. WTF?!?! :em08:

  9. 9
    Bones growls and barks:

    Hey don’t cut off my aid!!! WTH!! Oh, sorry you said cut aid to the bone, not to Bones! :em05:

  10. 10
    LC Spare Parts growls and barks:

    I predict the Republicans in Congress will throw gun owners under the bus and pass the remainder of Nazi Germany’s gun law here.

  11. 11
    LC Gladiator growls and barks:

    LC cmblake6, Imperial Black Ops Technician says:

    It is time to cut foreign aid to the bone. There may be some it is sensible to invest in for future cooperation, but there are many that will a: not end up profitable, or b: fund only attacks ON US. WTF?!?!

    START HERE— In 2010 the United States obligated approximately $38 billion in economic assistance and $15 billion in military assistance, amounting to $53 billion total. 182 countries received $38 billion of U.S. economic assistance.

  12. 12

    LC Gladiator says:

    LC cmblake6, Imperial Black Ops Technician says:

    It is time to cut foreign aid to the bone. There may be some it is sensible to invest in for future cooperation, but there are many that will a: not end up profitable, or b: fund only attacks ON US. WTF?!?!

    START HERE— In 2010 the United States obligated approximately $38 billion in economic assistance and $15 billion in military assistance, amounting to $53 billion total. 182 countries received $38 billion of U.S. economic assistance.

    You know what we’ve had in DC for working on 100 years, with the odd break here and there. You might do a little digging on them, or use just a bit of hindsight to see it all. If we weren’t pouring so much money into “the military/industrial complex”, how much would we have to invest in other projects? OTOH, how many tools would we not have developed that make life so much better once we weren’t using them to kill each other?

  13. 13
    LC Ogrrre growls and barks:

    Eliminate the following:

    Foreign Aid
    Dept. of Education
    Dept. of Energy
    Nat’l Endowment for the Humanities
    Nat’l Endowment for the Arts

    And, these are just a start!

  14. 14
    LC LOBO growls and barks:

    I may start a war here, but I don’t care. Leave the aid for Israel, let the turd world pisslamic hellholes hate us for free.

  15. 15
    LC Gladiator growls and barks:

    Wealthy’s Tax Bill Will Hit 30-Year High in 2013

    Published: Monday, 4 Mar 2013 | 10:54 AM ET
    Steve Cole |

    The poor rich. (remember “rich ” is over $100k)

    With Washington gridlocked again over whether to raise their taxes, it turns out wealthy families already are paying some of their biggest federal tax bills in decades even as the rest of the population continues to pay at historically low rates.

    President Obama and Democratic leaders in Congress say the wealthy must pay their fair share if the federal government is ever going to fix its finances and reduce the budget deficit to a manageable level.

    A new analysis, however, shows that average tax bills for high-income families rarely have been higher since the Congressional Budget Office began tracking the data in 1979. It’s middle- and low-income families who aren’t paying as much as they used to.

    For 2013, families with incomes in the top 20 percent of the nation will pay an average of 27.2 percent of their income in federal taxes, according to projections by the Tax Policy Center, a research organization based in Washington. The top one percent of households, those with incomes averaging $1.4 million, will pay an average of 35.5 percent.

    Those tax rates, which include income, payroll, corporate and estate taxes, are among the highest since 1979.

    The average family in the bottom 20 percent of households won’t pay any federal taxes. Instead, many families in this group will get payments from the federal government by claiming more in credits than they owe in taxes, including payroll taxes. That will give them a negative tax rate.

    “My sense is that high-income people feel abused by being targeted always for more taxes,” said Roberton Williams, a fellow at the Tax Policy Center. “You can understand why they feel that way.”

    Last week, Senate Democrats were unable to advance their proposal to raise taxes on some wealthy families for the second time this year as part of a package to avoid automatic spending cuts. The bill failed Thursday when Republicans blocked it. A competing Republican bill that included no tax increases also failed, and the automatic spending cuts began taking effect Friday.

    The issue, however, isn’t going away.

    Obama and Democratic leaders in Congress insist that any future deal to reduce government borrowing must include a mix of spending cuts and more tax revenue.

    “I am prepared to do hard things and to push my Democratic friends to do hard things,” Obama said Friday. “But what I can’t do is ask middle-class families, ask seniors, ask students to bear the entire burden of deficit reduction when we know we’ve got a bunch of tax loopholes that are benefiting the well-off and the well-connected, aren’t contributing to growth, aren’t contributing to our economy. It’s not fair. It’s not right.”

    The Democrats’ bill included the “Buffett Rule,” named after billionaire investor Warren Buffett. It gradually would phase in a requirement that people making more than $1 million a year pay at least 30 percent of their income in federal taxes.

    The rule targets millionaires who make most of their money from investments — capital gains and qualified dividends, which have a top tax rate of 20 percent.

    “It’s fairness,” said Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo. “We’re not raising taxes with the Buffett rule as much as we are correcting an inequity in terms of, one guy can be working at one end of the hall and because he’s working with hedge funds, he gets taxed at 20 percent. Another guy at the other end of the hall is on a salary at an insurance company and he has to pay (39.6 percent). That’s just not fair.”

    On average, households making more than $1 million this year will pay 37.2 percent of their income in federal taxes, according to the Tax Policy Center. But there are exceptions.

    For example, the Internal Revenue Service tracks tax returns for the 400 highest-paid filers each year. Those taxpayers made an average of $202 million in 2009, the latest year available. Their average federal income tax rate: 19.9 percent.

    That’s still higher than the tax rate paid by most middle-income families, but not by much.

    The middle 20 percent of U.S. households — those making an average of $46,600 — will pay an average of 13.8 percent of their income in federal taxes for this year, according to the Tax Policy Center. Over the past three decades, the average federal tax rate for this group has been about 16 percent.

    The Associated Press analyzed two sets of data to compare tax burdens over time.

    The CBO produces data from 1979 to 2009; the center has overlapping data from 2004 through 2013. Both get tax data from the IRS, but they use slightly different methodologies to calculate federal tax burdens.

    Still, their numbers track closely enough to make some general observations. For example, it is clear that for 2013, average tax bills for the wealthy will be among the highest since 1979. It also is clear that federal taxes for middle- and low-income households will stay well below their averages for the same period.

    Liberals and many Democrats say rich families can afford to pay higher taxes because their incomes have grown much more than incomes for middle- and low-income families.

    Average after-tax incomes for the top one percent of households more than doubled from 1979 to 2009, increasing by 155 percent, according to the CBO. Average incomes for those in the middle increased by just 32 percent during the same period while those at the bottom saw their incomes go up by 45 percent.

    “You’ve got to think about the context,” said Chuck Marr, director of federal tax policy for the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal think tank. “We just had three decades in the United States where we had a tremendous increase in inequality.”

    The growing disparity in income is a big reason why tax bills for the rich are approaching 30-year highs, Williams said. As the rich get richer, a greater share of their income is taxed at the top rate, he said.

    High-income families also have been targeted by tax increases this year, including a new tax law passed by Congress on Jan. 1 as well as tax increases in the president’s health care law.

    The new tax law made the federal income tax more progressive, increasing the top tax rate from 35 percent to 39.6 percent, on taxable income above $400,000 for individuals and $450,000 for married couples filing jointly. Lower tax rates on income below those amounts were made permanent. Also, tax breaks for low-income families first enacted as part of Obama’s 2009 stimulus package were extended through 2017.

    Conservatives say raising taxes again on the wealthy would reduce their incentive to save and invest, hurting long-term economic growth.

    “Raising taxes hurts the economy, and raising taxes on upper-income individuals — whether those who work for salaries or those who save and earn capital income — always hurts the economy the most,” said J.D. Foster, a fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation. “Spite and envy are not sound bases for public policy.”

    Besides, Republican leaders in Congress say, one tax increase a year is more than enough.

    “Let’s make it clear that the president got his tax hikes on Jan. 1,” House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said Friday. “This discussion about revenue, in my view, is over.”

  16. 16
    LC Gladiator growls and barks:

    TSA Spends $50 Million on New Uniforms…

    $1,000 Per Employee…

    Uniform allowance more expensive than Marine Corps…

    but we are broke and 49% pay NO INCOME TAX