“IN GOD WE TRUST” Lázaro R González Miño Editor
"I do make apologies for not having executed better over the last 60 months," barack. "EMO" Are you kiding me? LRGM
amenper: Advertencia este producto es Venenoso
No puedo decir las cosas aberrantes que estoy viendo con el Obamacare es lo peor que he visto en mi vida. He visto casos peores en que la burocracia de las agencias del gobierno ha provocado situaciones que han afectado a diferentes industrias y al público en general.
Lo que ha propuesto hoy Obama es característico de la burocracia.
La diferencia es que el burócrata es el presidente de los Estados Unidos. Esto conjuntamente con las características deshonestas y mentirosas de la situación lo hace más grave y visible.
El pedir a las compañías de seguro que lo saquen del hueco, tratando de lavarse las manos, pero en el proceso diciéndoles a las compañías que pueden renovar las pólizas canceladas, lo debía de ser simplemente lo correcto, peri también exigiendo, como una extorsión, que tienen que enviar una carta a los asegurados diciéndoles que pueden comprar pólizas mejores en el Obamacare y que la renovación es temporal por un año.
Sólo a un burócrata como Obama y sus acólitos que no saben lo que es un negocio pueden exigir los gastos eb que incurre a una industria privada para producir y enviar cartas diciendo que su producto no sirve y que hay otro mejor.
Como dije he visto muchas cosas peores, no a nivel directo del primer mandatario, pero de agencias del gobierno.
La que mejor recuerdo es el caso de la de la Sacarina en los años 70s.
En 1958 la sacarina fue declarada por el FDA, como“generalmente reconocida como segura”
Pero entonces un grupo de estudio que no tenía nada mejor que hacer, hizo un estudio en 1970 que sugería que la sacarina provocaba cáncer de vejiga en ratones. La cantidad ingerida por los roedores era fabulosa, hasta un 15% de su dieta total. Cuando un nuevo estudio de 1972 reuteraba que provocaba cáncer de vejiga en las ratas, el FDA la retiró la sacarina de la lista de productos seguros.
Bajo la presión de la población, ya que en aquella época no habían muchos substitutos del azúcar, el Congreso impuso una moratoria sobre la prohibición, requiriendo en su lugar, que los productos con sacarina llevasen una etiqueta de advertencia, la advertencia debía de llevar la calavera con los dos huesos que designan los productos con veneno con la indicación que podía producir la muerte..
Pueden imaginarse la situación de los fabricantes de jarabes que todos tenían sacarina .
Millones de dólares costó en la industria los cambios, nadie quería sacar un producto en el mercado con la calavera y los huesos, nadie compraría un producto con esta advertencia y con ese símbolo.
Asi que todas las compañías tuvieron que cambiar la formulación y los envases para que no tuvieran sacarina, con los costos que como es natural se revirtieron en el aumento de precio de los productos.
Mientras tanto, los continuados estudios sobre la sacarina mostraban que no producía tumores en las ratas o en ninguna otra especie, como es lógico tampoco en el ser humano. Se terminó la ley que exigía la etiqueta de muerte. Pero este estira encoge duró varios años con gastos millonarios en la industria y en el público, provocados por la burocracia estatal.
Los cargos que se le hicieron a la sacarina y la investigación usada para justificar su prohibición ilustran los muchos problemas que tienen los que diseñan las políticas cuando extrapolan indiscriminadamente los resultados de los ensayos en animales a los seres humanos y como la burocracia puede afectar a una industria sin considerar las implicaciones en la economía del país.
La aclaración que las compañías de seguros tienen que poner en la carta de renovación es el equivalente a la calavera con los huesos de la Sacarina.
No creo que la industria de seguros aceptará esto fácilmente, entonces los liberales volverán a gritar que las compañías de seguros son las culpables de todos los problemas del Obamacare.
Pero realmente creo que ya todos deben de saber que lo que es tóxico es el Obamacare.
FINALLY, A Democrat Asks: I Wonder If Obama Has the ‘Legal Authority to Do This?’
Immediately following President Barack Obama’s press conference on Thursday — in which he proposed a one-year fix for Obamacare — former Democratic National Committee chairman and Vermont Gov. Howard Dean question if Obama actually could legally do what he had proposed.
“I wonder he had the legal authority to do this since this was a congressional bill that set this up,” Dean said.
Read More: http://dailycaller.com
Read more at http://minutemennews.com/2013/11/finally-democrat-asks-wonder-obama-legal-authority/#OcbmcJMqsv7osye0.99
amenper: Pragmatismo
Las alianzas son males necesarios para alcanzar la victoria y para poder gobernar pragmáticamente.
Eso se ve mejor en los países con sistemas parlamentario. Un primer ministro tiene que crear alianzas con otros partidos para poder ganar la mayoría parlamentaria que es la que le da el puesto.
Tanto en los países parlamentarios como en la guerra vemos alianzas que no tienen una misma filosofía para lograr la victoria. En la segunda guerra mundial vimos aliados comunistas y capitalistas para derrotar al nazismo. No dio mucho resultado después de la victoria, pero fue porque los capitalistas tenían a un socialista como presidente FDR. Y regaló a los comunistas un buen trozo de lo logrado con la sangre de los muchachos americanos.
Pero generalmente las alianzas dan resultado, Margaret Thatcher y Winston Churchill fueron ejemplos de cómo una persona cabalmente conservadora tiene que hacer alianzas con personas de otra filosofía para poder obtener el poder de para crear gobierno...
Es lo ideal que tu filosofía tome el poder total, pero ante la posibilidad que esa ortodoxia cause que el enemigo triunfe, las alianzas son la verdadera fidelidad a tu causa. Porque ¿que haces con mantener tu ortodoxia si el enemigo triunfa?. Nunca he entendido la estrategia de abstenerse de votar porque la persona escogida en las primarias por tu partido no es exactamente representante de tu filosofía política, ayudandando a la victoria a alguien que es exactamento lo contrario a tu filosofía polícita.
Las desastrosa gestión de gobierno del presidente Barack Obama, representante del liberalismo, ha hecho que a pesar de la ayuda de la prensa complaciente, cada día más personas reconocen la ineptitud de Obama y los males de la política liberal. Hemos vivido y estamos viviendo, un período que cuando se escriba la historia, pasará como una de las peores administraciones que ha tenido esta nación.
La oposición, dividida entre moderados, libertarios, conservadores ortodoxos, y pragmáticos como yo, se están arrancando el pellejo, cuando se podían estar banqueteando con los errores internacionales, nacionales y económicos de la presente administración.
Mi pensamiento es conservador ortodoxo, pero esta no es la primera vez que nos aliamos a los libertarios, su fanatismo se revela en una capacidad de trabajo y fidelidad a la causa que es una energía que si se puede utilizar en una alianza es conveniente. Fue conveniente en la postguerra contra el comunismo. Los moderados también son utilizables, y la ortodoxia conservadora puede y debe usar la política de Margaret Thatcher y Winston Churchill de crear alianzas para formar gobierno.
Soy viejo, pero todavía recuerdo cuando era joven en 1964, mi candidato Barry Goldwater era un conservador ortodoxo, mirando retrospectivamente con mi experiencia actual me parece que actuamos mal.. No me gustaba Nelson Rockefeller, pero creo que hubiera sido mejor para el partido republicano que la terrible derrota con Goldwater que sólo pudo ganar 6 estados del sur. Eso era entonces, hoy es todavía peor, porque sin lugar al lado de Hillary Cinton, Lyndon Johnson era un conservador lindón.
Hoy las consecuencias pudieran ser mucho peores que la victoria de los demócratas en 1964.
Hoy no existen los demócratas moderados como Lyndon Johnson una derrota es quizás sea la victoria del socialismo en los Estados Unidos..
Esta es mi manera de pensar, y no me digan que soy moderado porque pienso así. Soy conservador por naturaleza, soy conservador hasta la médula, nunca recuerdo una etapa de mi vida que no haya sido conservador. Hasta en los 50s en Cuba cuando ser conservador era un bicho raro y corto de mente. Los ciclos de la vida se repiten, ahora en pleno siglo XXI ser conservador también es ser un bicho raro y corto de mente.
Pero simplemente creo que soy un conservador ortodoxo pragmático, y Winston Churchill, Margaret Thatcher y Ronald Reagan son mis ídolos y los recuerdo bien como personas pragmáticas sin dejar de ser conservadores..
Samitier: Un 15% de los Norte Americanos; 60 Millones...
No Creen La Versión Del Gobierno... Sobre El “Ataque Musulmán” A Las Torres Gemelas...
¿Cómo Es Eso Posible?
Es fácil de explicar... Son Los Que Están Casados De Las Mentiras De Los Politiqueros... No creen NADA Que Los Politiqueros Dicen...
Han Pasado 50 Años, No Sabemos Quien Asesino A Kennedy...
Además porque tenemos que creer a los POLITIQUEROS cuando
muchos Ingenieros y Técnicos dicen que es imposible... No solo
el derrumbe de Las Torres Gemelas sino también el del EDIFICIO
Al Lado... del cual Nadie habla... y que el 80% De la población
NO SABE QUE TAMBIÉN SE DERRUMBO... sin haber sido atacado...
Es Fácil... Hacer Una Prueba... Para Evitar las habladurías...
La próxima vez tenemos que tengamos que demoler un edificio hecho con ESTRUCTURAS DE ACERO, se puede poner a prueba la versión OFICIAL... llenando a la mitad del edificio con la misma cantidad del combustible de Los aviones (queroseno) y encenderlo... PARA VER SI SE DERRUMBA...
Los que PIDEN MAS PRUEBAS... las piden PORQUE ESTÁN CANSADOS DE LAS MENTIRAS DE LOS POLITIQUEROS Y DE LA PRENSA SOCIALISTA Y PRO HOMOSEXUAL... que ya NUNCA DICE LA VERDAD... pues esta TOTALMENTE TRAMITADA...
Esa PRENSA a cualquier persona que demanda pruebas, y duda de cualquier HISTORIA OFICIAL se convierte en un CO-CONSPIRADOR , de los hombres que cometieron el crimen!
Cuando SÓLO QUEREMOS SABER TODA LA VERDAD, quiera que sea esa verdad Y las consecuencias a que esa VERDAD nos puede llevar... ¡Saber La Verdad Es Siempre Mejor Que Vivir Una Mentira!
Samitier: Donde Están Los $85 Billones Que Obama Imprime Mensualmente...
La Gran Mayoría de los ciudadanos... NO SE PREOCUPAN Espero que a los que les envió mis correos... sean de los Que se PREOCUPAN... Para saber a dónde va ese DINERO... hay que dedicar horas Pues la prensa controlada por los periodistas SOCIALISTAS y PRO HOMOSEXUALES... NO LO DICE...
Después de hacer una búsqueda... por fin sabemos donde Esta... ASÓMBRESE No Está Circulando En La Economía! De acuerdo con la Reserva Federal hasta ahora la cantidad
De dólares impresos son... $ 2.250.000.000.000 Cifra, fuera de la comprensión del ciudadano promedio...
Como cuadran los LIBROS los burócratas de OBAMA que como El Rey Luis XVI de Francia (quien termino guillotinado) batió los Records en su época imprimiendo dinero sin respaldo ORO...
Fácil... ese dinero aparece COMO EL EXCESO DE RESERVAS de los bancos o instituciones PRIVADAS donde se hacen depósitos.
Para que se hagan una idea de la cantidad, comencemos recordando que toda la economía ANUAL de los EE.UU. es de: 15,680,000 millones de US $ Dólares ( 2012 )
El exceso de reservas EN PAPELES actualmente en los bancos es suficiente para mantener los EE.UU. por 143 años y 6 meses!
¿Qué dinero es CONSIDERADO un EXCESO DE RESERVA?
El exceso de reservas, son las reservas que los bancos no están legalmente obligados a mantener. Lo que quiere decir, que se trata de dinero, que estos bancos podrían prestar legalmente y NO LO PRESTAN...
Lo que significa, estos bancos se aferran al dinero, sin prestarlo...Lo Cual NO ES LÓGICO... pues el negocio de los bancos es PRESTAR DINERO... hacen dinero prestando dinero... y pierden dinero cuando No prestan... A NO SER QUE HAN DESCUBIERTO alguna otra forma De ganar dinero... sin prestar? ?
Algo están tramando los “GRANDES” antes de la CRISIS del 2008... No había exceso de reservas... AL CONTRARIO… recuerden los bancos junto con la General Motors y la Chrysler fueron SALVADOS por el gobierno... depositándoles Reservas Prestadas...
Gracias al San Louis Federal Reserve, Sabemos la cantidad de “EXCESOS DE RESERVA” Como un ciudadano promedio... Le llamo “EXCESO DE DÓLARES DE PAPEL” impresos sin respaldo por Obama…
La Pregunta Que Los “Profesores de Economía” No Contestan... ¿Qué Va A Pasar Cuando Todos Esos “DÓLARES DE PAPEL” sean Puestos en circulación???
Tremenda Inflación... Hambre y Miseria...
Amenper: Obama's Ineptitude
By Steve McCann
At a critical time in its history, the country has as its president a man unqualified and unable to lead. Even the left has begun to finally question their allegiance to Barack Obama, and more importantly, his allegiance to them. More Americans, some in the media, are openly asking if the president is a liar, with the word mendacity frequently used in describing his actions. In the debt ceiling debate, he has shown not only his narcissistic side, but his complete lack of principles and indifference to the plight of the American citizens and the future of the country.
Today the United States finds itself adrift on a roiling sea of uncertainty; its economy floundering under the weight of oppressive debt and mismanagement, its status in world affairs at its lowest ebb since the beginning of the 20th century, and its citizens openly questioning the future.
Barack Obama is a man without a core, leaving the ship of state rudderless in the management of foreign affairs and domestic policy, which have spun dangerously out of control over the past two and half years.
A cursory examination of Mr. Obama's life and accomplishments reveals a man whose life has been centered around the discovery of two personal attributes (as detailed in his autobiography Dreams from My Father): his ability to deliver a speech, and his skin color in a nation obsessed with guilt for the past. His writings and the sharing of a strong anti-colonialist sentiments with his father portray an overwhelming sense of entitlement due solely to his paternal African descent.
While raised in a sea of Marxist and socialist thinking, these philosophies only served to confirm his deep seated animosity toward the United States and the western world, and not as a basis for any firm ideological beliefs. Over the years, his reluctance to promote the purity of those ideologies whenever given the opportunity confirms that he has never been an abject true believer.
Rather Obama has used and manipulated the true believers into being the foot soldiers for his personal ambition, by doing and saying just enough to keep his left-wing base in line. The most overused phrase since he assumed the national spotlight is: "thrown under the bus," and it has been well-used for good reason, as in the case of Reverend Jeremiah Wright, whose church Obama joined in order to politically ingratiate himself with the Chicago black community.
Out of his Marxist upbringing, Obama has embraced the doctrine of the end justifies the means, but in his case as a strategy to achieve his egocentric ambitions. This cynical belief represents the epitome of corruption. A leader within government or the national community at large who is captive to this thinking must be by necessity devoid of ethics, integrity, or morals.
Relying on his personal and physical traits, the gullibility and support of those desiring atonement for the past, coupled with his entitlement mentality, Obama has been able, akin to a piece of driftwood, to float upon the current, until one day he washed up on the shore as president of the United States.
Obama's early adult years were spent as a "community organizer," but only for a period of three years, until the realization set in that this was not the road to greatness. He then entered Harvard Law School, where his charm and speaking ability resulted in his election as the president of the Harvard Law Review. This move resulted in his first introduction to fame, as he was nationally trumpeted as the first black president of the Review.
He also learned how easily the white elite establishment, in particular the media, could be manipulated as he at age 31 -- someone with no real-world accomplishments -- was initiated into the Ruling Class, signed to a publishing contract and given a large advance to supposedly write a book which evolved into a personal memoir: Dreams from My Father.
The gullibility of the establishment, and Obama's success in manipulating it, are epitomized by Joe Biden's remark in 2007 when he said, "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a storybook, man."
Rush Limbaugh: Obama 'Playing Dictator' With Healthcare. By Lisa Barron
Radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh played President Barack Obama's announcement about the troubled healthcare law on his show Thursday, commenting as he went and likening the president to a dictator.
When the president had finished explaining his proposed change to Obamacare, which would allow individuals to keep their plans for another year, Limbaugh told his audience:
Urgent: Do You Approve Or Disapprove of President Obama's Job Performance? Vote Now in Urgent Poll
"He's doing two things: He's telling the insurance companies, as a dictator would, what they can and can't do or what they must or must not do, or what they have to and don't have to do. He is suggesting … that if you have your plan now and you like it, you can keep it for one more year so that you don't get any angrier at Democrats than you are now and vote against them next November."
The Palm-Beach, Fla., based commentator continued, "If your plan has been canceled, he has just ordered the insurance company to make it available to you, so that you can go back and get that plan. The problem is that that plan was canceled precisely because it conflicts with his law, with Obamacare."
Limbaugh, whose show is the highest-rated talk-radio program in the country, said the president's move was purely political.
"Remember, he's doing this not because he cares about you. He's not doing this because he's upset you've lost your plan. He's doing this because he's losing the media, and he's losing his fellow Democrats, and he's losing the proposition."
Limbaugh also replayed a segment from his Oct. 30 show in which he predicted Obama's about-face:
"If Obama is gonna go out now and play dictator, let's realize he could play dictator in any direction he wants to go… If he has the power to deny you your grandfathered plan, the one you liked and the one you were told you could keep… then maybe Obama can play dictator and re-grandfather your plan. If he can play dictator and take it away from you, then he can play dictator and fix it, I assume."
"This is such a disaster, folks," he concluded after playing the clip. "The original problem with this remains. This is so un-American, this whole thing, and now what's the 'fix'? The fix is for this guy to play dictator again and now command or compel the insurance companies to run their business the way he wants them to for the next year.
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/insurance-rush-limbaugh-barack-obama-dictator/2013/11/14/id/536696?ns_mail_uid=63178713&ns_mail_job=1546124_11152013&promo_code=159AF-1#ixzz2kjaZS9bl
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!
Betty: Record number of Americans abandoning U.S.
This year will see at least a third more taxpayers renouncing their citizenship than the previous high. What's likely to blame »
More Taxpayers Are Abandoning the U.S.
Year's Tally for Expatriations Sets Record; Increase Comes Amid Tax Crackdown on Offshore Assets. By Laura Saunders | The Wall Street Journal
This year will set a record for expatriations by U.S. taxpayers, with at least a 33% increase from the previous high in 2011.The Treasury Department published the names of 560 people who either were U.S. citizens renouncing their citizenship or long-term residents who turned in their green cards during the third quarter.That brings the total so far this year to 2,369, according to Andrew Mitchel, a tax lawyer in Centerbrook, Conn., who tracks the data. For all of 2011, the number of published expatriates was 1,781, he said.Treasury doesn't report when people renounced, and there could be a gap between that action and a name's appearance on the list. The department also doesn't distinguish between those giving up passports and those turning in green cards.Taxpayers who expatriate aren't required to give a reason, but experts said the overall increase was likely because of tougher enforcement of U.S. tax laws."Nothing has changed in immigration law that would make people want to renounce," said Freddi Weintraub, an immigration specialist and partner at Fragomen Worldwide, a New York-based law firm. "Current or anticipated changes in tax law and enforcement are driving this increase."People who renounced last year might have avoided higher taxes on income and estates—including those on long-term capital gains—that took effect in 2013. Those who renounce citizenship or turn in green cards can be subject to an exit tax.The Internal Revenue Service declined to comment."The fact that renunciations have increased sharply is not surprising, given increased U.S. scrutiny in this area," said Fran Obeid, a partner at Obeid & Lowenstein LLP in New York, who specializes in offshore-account issues. "Renunciation can be expensive, but it may be easier than staying in compliance with U.S. tax laws that can be onerous for citizens of other countries."Taxpayers who renounce aren't required to hold citizenship elsewhere, but as a practical matter they usually do.Experts said the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act also may have contributed to rising renunciations. Set to take effect next year, it requires foreign financial institutions to report account information about U.S. taxpayers to the IRS. Affected taxpayers include both U.S. citizens and green-card holders living in the U.S. and abroad.All income earned by U.S. citizens and permanent residents, even those who live abroad, can be subject to U.S. tax. The U.S. also confers citizenship on people born on American soil. Penalties for failing to report assets can be severe, including up to 50% of an account balance a year.Although many of the U.S. laws on offshore accounts have been in effect for decades, experts say there was little enforcement of them until 2009, when Swiss banking giant UBS AG admitted that it had helped U.S. taxpayers hide assets abroad. The bank paid $780 million to avoid criminal charges and turned over the names of more than 4,000 account holders, piercing the veil of Swiss bank secrecy.Since then, more than 38,000 U.S. taxpayers have confessed to having undisclosed offshore accounts and paid more than $5.5 billion in back taxes, interest and penalties. Lawyers estimate $5 billion more hasn't yet been paid.Write to Laura Saunders at laura.saunders@wsj.com
Ben Stein: Obama Making ‘Annihilation’ of Jews Possible
Commentator Ben Stein said on Thursday thatPresident Barack Obama’s “deeply naïve” premise that Iran would suddenly end its nuclear activities in exchange for an easing of sanctions that have crippled its economy for five years would make the “annihilation” of Jews possible.
“Iran is the world’s leading state sponsor of terror,” Stein said in The American Spectator. “The Iranians in the recent past have pledged to destroy the Jewish people in the Middle East.
“Some of their leaders have boasted that if Iran gets nuclear weapons, Iran will have ‘a holocaust in an afternoon’ by rocketing a few nuclear weapons into Israel,” Stein added. “Naturally, the Israelis are desperately worried.”
A round of talks between Iran and world powers in Geneva fell short of an expected deal on Sunday after French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius objected, saying the terms of a preliminary agreement were too easy on Tehran.
The deal would not have required Iran, for instance, to close any of its 18,000 uranium centrifuges or its heavy water reactor in Arak, which would serve as a source of plutonium when it starts operations in about two years.
Stein, who also is a commentator for Newsmax Magazine, said the Geneva negotiations resulted from “peace feelers” sent across the world by Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, who was elected in June.
“If the western powers will greatly ease the sanctions, Iran, so they promise, will freeze its nuclear program where it stands now — some months from having a working bomb,” Stein said, referring to world leaders who are encouraging an agreement.
Read more at http://minutemennews.com/2013/11/ben-stein-obama-making-annihilation-jews-possible/#ypItgCETyZHU33Uv.99
Betty: Are Obama's ratings dipping past the point of no return? By Stephen Collinson |
Washington (AFP) - Barack Obama's second term fumbles have pitched him to record low poll ratings and splintered his credibility with the American people.But has his presidency reached the point of no return?History and opinion poll data suggest that when reelected presidents slump in the ratings, it is tough, if not impossible to bounce back.Obama, stung by the amateurish debut of his health care plan, which has sent fellow Democrats into revolt, is beginning to sense the depth of his woes."I do make apologies for not having executed better over the last several months," he said at a Thursdaypress conference, punctuated by uncharacteristic mea culpas."Am I going to have to do some work to rebuild confidence around some of our initiatives? Yes."He had better act fast.An NBC/Wall Street Journal survey two weeks ago had the president’s approval rating down to 42 percent. A week later, Pew Research put Obama at 41 percent. By Wednesday, Quinnipiac University had him at 39 percent, a new low.The data suggest Obama can no longer count on the solid floor of support that has sustained his crisis-strewn presidency."For the first time it appears that 40 percent floor is cracking," said Tim Malloy, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.But do polls matter for a man who will never again be on the ballot?Second term presidents enjoy some freedom from the tyranny of their job ratings -- and become more obsessed with staving off dreaded lame duck status.But Obama's deteriorating image threatens to shred his remaining authority on Capitol Hill -- where key priorities, including immigration reform are on life support.He is also pleading with sanctions-wielding senators for more time to do a nuclear deal with Iran.And Obama's unpopularity is spooking Democrats with tough races in next year's mid-term elections, which may doom his long-shot hopes of seeing his party recapture the House of Representatives.Already, Obama is getting the cold shoulder from vulnerable Democrats, including Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu who is brandishing her own bill to clean up the Obamacare mess.Charlie Cook, a renowned political analyst, suggests Obama's presidency is suffering a "classic case of second term fatigue."Bill Clinton saw his second term consumed by a sex scandal, George W. Bush was brought low by Iraq and Ronald Reagan struggled through the Iran-Contra scandal.Obama's self-inflicted wound is the jammed Affordable Care Act website and his discredited promise that if Americans liked the health insurance they already had, they could keep it.The damage is obvious: Quinnipiac found that by 52-44 percent, people thought their president was not honest."Any elected official with an eight point deficit is in serious trouble," Malloy said.Obama's spokesman Jay Carney offered the timeworn politician's trope that his boss did not "spend a lot of time, worrying about ups and downs in polls."But no president in the last 60 years who has got into deep polling trouble in their second term has been able to bounce backOnly Dwight Eisenhower and Clinton bettered their approval ratings after one year of their second term before leaving town -- and they were popular to start with.Worryingly for Obama, the president whose polling track he most resembles at this point is George W. Bush, who slunk out of Washington with a pitiful 34 percent approval.Still, Obama is lucky in his enemies: Republicans are down at 30 percent approval after a government shutdown and debt ceiling debacle last month.Obama has also defied political logic before -- historical portents had suggested that saddled with a sluggish economy and approval ratings of under 50 percent for much of his first term he would not get a second.After better than expected jobs data last week, some believe if fixes to Obamacare that the president unveiled on Thursday work -- a big if -- he could be spared long term political damage."The question now, is whether he will continue to go down, as Bush did," said Carroll Doherty, an associate director of the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press."A lot depends on what happens with the health care law and a lot depends on the economy."
Government Cover-Up: The $205 Trillion Deficit. Written by Gary North
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office is acting in a bipartisan way to cover up the biggest single threat to the bipartisan political alliance that is stripping America of its wealth: the United States Congress.
There is no question that the following policy is bipartisan. Democrats and Republicans in Congress are completely agreed that the following information should not get out to the American people, namely, that the present value of the United States government’s off-budget liabilities is over $200 trillion.
The man who has followed this for the longest time is Prof. Lawrence Kotlikoff of Boston University. He has created a great deal of embarrassment for the government by his relentless pursuit of the statistical implications of the statistics released by the Congressional Budget Office.
The Congressional Budget Office has a way to avoid this, namely, to cease publishing the statistics that Kotlikoff has used to expose the real condition of the United States government.
Kotlikoff referred to this suppression of information in an article that appeared in Forbes.
The CBO has two sets of books. This is what any Ponzi scheme requires. It releases one set of books to the rubes in the financial media, who are perfectly content to quote from it, when they are even aware of it. This is called the Extended Baseline Forecast or EBF.
The second set of books is called the Alternative Fiscal Scenario or AFS. Here’s how Kotlikoff describes the difference.
In past years, the CBO simultaneously released what it calls its Alternative Fiscal Scenario. This forecast is what CBO actually projects future taxes and spending to be given not just the laws in place, but also how Congress and the Administration have been bending and changing the laws through time. In short, the Alternative Fiscal Scenario (AFS) is what the CBO thinks we’re facing absent a truly dramatic and sustained shift in fiscal policy.
Because of Kotlikoff’s ability to get news coverage for the AFS, the CBO decided this year not to publish it.
(For the rest of the story, click the link.)
Continue Reading on www.garynorth.com
Read more at http://teapartyeconomist.com/2013/11/15/bipartisan-cover-cbo-205-trillion-deficit/#gp1zuyI7ZdYfdTAw.99
Dem Senator Complains of MSNBC’s Right Wing Bias; Wants More Talk of "Enormous Successes" by Mark Horne
MSNBC is too biased against Obamacare. That’s what Senator Chris Murphy told Tamron Hall today after the President’s announcement of dictatorial powers to change the implementation of Obamacare.
The first thing to point out is that MSNBC is being heavily biased in how they cover the few million cancellations because they have, to my knowledge, not informed viewers that this is just the beginning—cancellations could happen for as many as 93 million people.
Apart from the ridiculous charge that Murphy makes against MSNBC and the rest of the mainstream media, what are we to say with the “positives” he lists? The Daily Caller quotes him:
I just wish we were spending as much time talking about the enormous successes with this law’s implementation… “In Connecticut, we are far above our initial goals for enrollment in the first month. We have people that are celebrating the fact that for the first time ever they are able to afford insurance, that sick people that had been denied by the insurance companies now finally are going to get treatment for their diseases and illnesses. That’s the real story here… I just don’t think there has been enough context with respect to all the people who are enjoying a transformation in terms of their health care.
I am going to say this as plainly as I can. Every single good news is a story of evil, plunder, and even real death and destruction.
Obamacare is structured so that the “winners” get stuff at the expense of the losers. The winners, who are not dead, get some medication, or counseling for substance abuse, or maternity coverage. The losers, pay through the nose for worse policies, and sometimes even face premature death. Some examples:
Obamacare Is Already Going to Kill People
Obamacare Voter Pays Ultimate Penalty: Time to Die of Cancer Because Insurance Is Gone.
Weekly Standard: Obamacare Attacks Another Cancer Victim
Besides the disruption caused by losing one’s own doctor, in most cases there is the added problem that the new plans are much more expensive than the old plan. Why? Because the new plans are priced to pay for other people and their needs. So a man struggling with cancer must now by insurance that includes maternity care. A woman finds that the Affordable Care Act makes her pay for the counseling of an alcoholic.
“All the people who are enjoying a transformation in terms of their health care” are experiencing the joy of a vampire slurping from the vein of a human victim.
There were winners and losers under “the old system” but no one was robbing another of life. Obamacare has not only spread misery, but it has put people in an immoral position against their neighbors. It has turned us into a nation of oppressors, plunderers, and even killers.
Sorry, Senator Murphy, but your “good news” disgusts anyone who is not a violent sociopath. I hate seeing poor people suffer. But giving them loaded guns to use to steal from, and even kill, their neighbors, in a way that leaves even more people suffering, is not a moral or rational response.
But it is Obamacare, exactly.
Read more at http://politicaloutcast.com/2013/11/dem-senator-complains-msnbcs-right-wing-bias-wants-talk-enormous-successes/#EeDOr6tfg6jgjoet.99
Democrats want to end tax breaks
By Associated Press November 15, 2013 12:15 pm
WASHINGTON - Democrats' new mantra in budget talks is to close tax loopholes for certain businesses, investors and professionals as a way to raise more revenue to help ease autopilot spending cuts that soon are to become more painful.
On their list: Deductions for corporations that pay executives in stock options instead of salaries, reduced tax rates for hedge fund managers and private equity advisers, avenues for escaping corporate taxes on foreign profits, and provisions that help doctors, lawyers, consultants and others who incorporate themselves avoid Medicare taxes.
Democratic budget negotiators in Congress see cutting these and other tax breaks as a politically popular way to raise revenues and ease spending cuts without further swelling the deficit. Republicans say they are open to ending some special tax breaks, but they insist the new revenue be used to lower tax rates, not to increase spending.
The dispute played out this week as the negotiators tasked with merging competing budgets written by House Republicans and Senate Democrats met for only the second time in public.
"You can't raise taxes high enough to satisfy the appetite of Washington to spend money," Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, said. "Closing loopholes are very legitimate. The tax code is a mess, but closing tax loopholes to spend more is not going to have long-range good results because you get the higher level of expenditure."
The disagreement could doom prospects for averting a second round of automatic spending cuts in January. Those negotiators already have pretty much given up hope of reaching a longer-term budget accord for reducing deficits years into the future.
Democrats are circulating a list of 12 tax breaks labeled "egregious loopholes that Republicans should either bring to the negotiating table or explain to the American people why they can't find a single loophole to close to get a bipartisan deal."
The list reads more like talking points than substantive proposals. The White House previously has endorsed some of the ideas, but absent better prospects for a new longer-term deal for reducing deficits, they've remained on the shelf.
Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., the Senate Budget Committee chairwoman, targeted two tax breaks in an op-ed article she wrote that appeared in The Washington Post last weekend: deductions for corporations that pay executives in stock options and a break that allows American corporations to avoid U.S. taxes on the profits of foreign subsidiaries.
Internal Revenue Service rules prevent publicly held corporations from claiming tax deductions on pay in excess of $1 million for certain executives, essentially adding a surcharge to wages above the threshold. Some corporations get around the rule by paying executives in stock options. Limiting deductions for these stock options would raise as much as $50 billion over the next decade, according to estimates by Democratic congressional aides.
The other tax break Murray mentioned allows U.S.-based corporations to avoid paying taxes on the profits of some foreign subsidiaries by classifying them as separate entities on tax forms. Limiting the tax break, which has been dubbed "check-the-box," would raise up to $80 billion over the next decade.
Among the other tax breaks Democrats are highlighting:
- Lower tax rates for hedge fund managers and private equity advisers. These financial advisers often report the fees they earn as capital gains, which have a top tax rate of 23.8 percent. If the income, known as "carried interest," were taxed like regular wages, they would be taxed at a top rate of 39.6 percent.
Taxing carried interest as regular income would raise $16 billion over the next decade, according to President Barack Obama's 2014 budget proposal.
-Wealthy entrepreneurs, consultants, lawyers, doctors and other professionals can avoid Medicare payroll taxes by setting up corporations and accepting the bulk of their compensation as business income instead of wages. All wages are subject to the 2.9 percent Medicare tax. An additional 0.9 percent tax is applied to wages above $125,000 for a single person and $250,000 for a married couple filing jointly.
Business income, on the other hand, is not subject to Medicare taxes. Ending this tax break would raise about $12 billion over the next decade, according to an estimate by Democratic congressional aides.
-The mortgage interest deduction for vacation homes and yachts. Taxpayers can deduct mortgage interest paid on second homes, including mobile homes, house trailers, boats or similar property that has sleeping, cooking and toilet facilities, according to the IRS. Limiting the deduction for second homes would raise as much as $15 billion over the next decade.
-U.S. companies in general don't have to pay U.S. taxes on foreign earnings until they bring those earnings back to the U.S. However, U.S.-based corporations can finance expansion of overseas operations with debt, and then deduct the interest on that debt before reporting any foreign income for tax purposes. Obama's 2014 budget request proposes to raise $36 billion over the next decade by limiting this tax break. Democratic congressional aides estimate they can raise $50 billion.
House Passes Bill to Let Americans Keep Health Policies for 2014
Rep. Raul Labrador, R-Idaho, second from left, and other members leave after the House on Nov. 15 voted to let insurance companies sell individual health coverage to all comers, even if it falls short of the required standards in Obamacare.
The Republican-led U.S. House passed legislation that lets insurers sell for another year health policies that don’t meet the requirements of the Affordable Care Act.
Today’s 261-157 vote, with the backing of about 39 Democrats, follows by a day President Barack Obama’s proposal of a one-year reprieve for Americans whose health policies have been canceled. Obama’s announcement sought to limit what could have been more Democratic votes for the Republican bill.
White House officials said Obama would veto the measure from Michigan Republican Fred Upton, saying it was intended to “sabotage” the president’s signature health-care law. House Democratic leaders said the bill is the Republicans’ 46th attempt to curtail the law.
Urgent: Do You Approve Or Disapprove of President Obama's Job Performance? Vote Now in Urgent Poll
“Working families across America were counting on the president to keep his promise,” Majority Leader Eric Cantor, a Virginia Republican, said today on the House floor before the vote. “Now, they are counting on us to ease some of the pain that his health-care law has brought them.”
House Speaker John Boehner again slammed Obama, saying the vote was the result of his broken promises.
“The president broke his word, had a chance to fix the problem, and only did more damage to his credibility. Today, the House made a big, bipartisan statement about the need to make things right," Boehner said in a statement. "The Keep Your Health Plan Act represents an important step toward providing relief to those who have lost their plans and face much higher premiums, but the real solution is to scrap the president’s fundamentally-flawed health care law and focus on effective, patient-centered reforms that will protect all Americans from this train wreck.”
Democratic Representative Steve Cohen of Tennessee yesterday predicted at most 20 to 25 colleagues would back the Republican measure to let Americans keep their plans, after Obama proposed an administrative fix to allow insurers to sell health policies for an additional year.
The Republican bill won’t advance in the Democratic-led Senate. Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada has to decide whether to allow a vote on a proposal by Senator Mary Landrieu, a Louisiana Democrat facing re-election in 2014.
Premiums Current
Landrieu’s measure would let individuals keep their policies as long as they’re current on premium payments. The bill would require insurance companies to continue offering indefinitely all existing plans with an explanation as to how their policy doesn’t meet the minimum coverage standards under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
Upton’s measure would let insurers sell the plans that don’t meet the health law’s minimum standards to new enrollees through the end of 2014.
Senate votes on Landrieu’s bill aren’t imminent. A top Democratic aide said scheduling them now would only guarantee public attention on flaws in the health law and intraparty feuding over whether and how to fix them.
Obama’s acceptance of responsibility for the law’s troubled rollout and his step to blunt policy cancellations fell short of quelling the political crisis engulfing him and his party tied to the increasingly unpopular law.
Some Democrats running for re-election in 2014, particularly those in the Senate, are continuing to push for changes in the law.
House Democrats today offered a more limited version of Landrieu’s proposal in a procedural move that didn’t succeed. It would have allowed a one-year continuation of policies that don’t meet the health law’s standards only for enrollees who currently have such plans.
Editor's Note: Govt Prohibited From Helping Seniors (Shocking)
© Copyright 2013 Bloomberg News.
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/house-passes-bill-obamacare/2013/11/15/id/536925?ns_mail_uid=63178713&ns_mail_job=1546331_11152013&promo_code=159E8-1#ixzz2kpEBUQwp
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!
Samitier: Puede Alguien Explicarme… De NUEVO los republicanos salen en DEFENSA DE OBAMA
¿Cual Es El Motivo Que Los Republicanos De
La Cámara Aprueban Leyes Para Salvar Al
Presidente Obama Y A Los Demócratas?
Dejen que sus leyes NO TRABAJEN... Que Quiebren el sistema
Que el Pueblo vea que el SOCIALISMO NO TRABAJA...
Todo lo que están haciendo es POLITIQUERÍA... para ganar votos
Para las elecciones de Noviembre de 2014... y GANAR VOTOS
DEMÓCRATAS... en vez de demostrar que todas las leyes aprobadas
Por los demócratas... NO FUNCIONAN...
Los Republicanos De hoy en Estados Unidos se merecen que les canten...
la canción que les cantaban los nacionalistas durante la guerra de España...
Decía entre otras cosas:
“Si por PUBLICA es conocida la mujer que PUTA...
Republicano es entonces... El hijo de la Gran PUTA...”
Dejen de ayudar a los demócratas...
.
Amenper: ¿Cuál es la verdadera razón para el Fracaso del Obamacare?
Se están discutiendo las razones del fracaso del Obamacare. La razón es bien simple para el que lo quiera ver, el problema es el socialismo.
El gobierno no es un negocio, ni una empresa productora ni una agencia de seguros.
El gobierno es simplemente el administrador de la riqueza que producen las empresas que crean el producto bruto. El gobierno no es empresario, y cuando incursiona es una empresa siempre fracasa.
La administración de Obama ha sido una serie de fracasos, desde la larga línea de estímulos a empresas políticamente correctas para su agenda, hasta el fiasco del Obamacare las políticas socialistas de Obama han costado millones de dólares a los contribuyentes,
El gobierno empresario es el socialismo y en todos los lugares que se ha aplicado ha sido un fracaso total.
"Si tienes un negocio, no construiste eso, otro lo hizo posible” “La justa redistribución de la riquezas” estas palabras de Obama determinan el pensamiento socialista de Obama...,
Pero Obama no entiende lo que es la empresa privada, porque él nunca ha participado en una empresa productora.
La empresa privada crea mercados con riesgo financiero de empresarios e inversionistas. Estos mercados crean la riqueza y entonces es el deber de la infraestructura de gobierno seguir el trabajo simplemente como administradores de esas riquezas. El gobierno no crea riquezas, no es el trabajo del gobierno incursionar en las empresas. Henry Ford construyó la industria automotriz; y con los ingresos fiscales resultantes se construyeron carreteras. Las obras públicas no son empresas productoras son creaciones de infraestructuras con el dinero de los contribuyentes.
La inversión privada exige resultados, o el capital desaparece. Vemos lo contrario en el gobierno, el Presidente está gastando dinero de los contribuyentes con las metas políticas, en empresas financieras artificiales con el objetivo políticamente correcto, sin metas de producción. Pero como no son empresarios, no hay plan de negocio los negocios fallan sin consecuencias. Si Solyndra o el Obamacare son una catástrofe, ¿y qué? El dinero no es de Obama..
Si Obama fuera un empresario invirtiendo su propio dinero tendría sus propios recursos en riesgo si esto fuera una empresa privada. Pero no lo es, el resultado es cientos de millones de dólares invertidos en programas fallidos que no funcionan
Pero ese no era el dinero de Obama era el dinero del “gobierno” así que no importa mucho si no reflexionamos que el gobierno no produce dinero, este es el dinero de los contribuyentes.
Nadie gasta el dinero de otra persona tan bien como él gasta su propio dinero.
Nadie utiliza los recursos de otro tan bien como él usa sus propios recursos.
Así que si quieres eficiencia y eficacia, si quieres conocimiento para ser utilizados correctamente, tienes que hacerlo a través de los medios de propiedad privada. La libertad y la propiedad privada están vinculados no puede haber libertad sin la libertad del derecho a la propiedad privada.
Cuando algo es de todo el mundo, nadie es el dueño, y nadie tiene un interés directo en mantener o mejorar su condición. Es por ello que los edificios en Cuba están destruidos porque nadie tiene el interés personal ni los medios privados para mantenerlos. Algo igual ocurre con la vivienda pública en los Estados Unidos que lucen decrépitos después un año o dos de su construcción.
El pensamiento socialista de Obama está equivocado. No es otra persona la que construyó lo que una persona construye con sus esfuerzos, es esa persona que lo construyó y es su propiedad.
Es el gobierno el que no construye pero se mantiene del dinero de los que construyen, especialmente si el gobierno es socialista.
Pero sí, Obama ha construido algo, construyó división, tensiones raciales, un desempleo más temporizado a parte del tiempo, amargura, odio y beligerancia y él parece estar disfrutando el paisaje hasta el final.
Amenper: obama se come un pajaro negro... Obama el dictador benévolo decretó que cinco millones de personas pueden volver al viejo seguro.
Este es el mismo seguro que quitó con el Obamacare pero que no lo quitó sino que las compañías de seguro les había quitado. Pero, pero no debemos hablar de eso. Tenemos que estar contentos que durante el período de un año, Obama está permitiendo posponer lo inevitable... un sistema de salud de pagador único.
Obama comió un plato extraordinariamente grande de cuervo por los problemas de Obamacare, por su "compromiso" sobre la capacidad de continuar con las políticas, por la ineptitud del gobierno federal y a por la vergüenza y el dolor político por lo que atraviesan actualmente los demócratas-
Para que los que no estén familiarizado con la expresión Comiendo Cuervo, este es un coloquialismo americano. Comer cuervo significa sufrir humillación, específicamente al ser forzados a admitir que cometieron un error, como por una declaración enfática que contrae un cambio admitiendo algo incorrecto después de tomar una posición fuerte.
El Cuervo es presumiblemente una carne dura y desagradable mala de comer, de la misma manera que reconocer y admitir la falsedad de algo que había repetido enfáticamente puede ser emocionalmente difícil de tragar.
Aunque el cuervo debía de ser algo bueno para Obama porque se trata de un "pájaro negro", y tiene una implicación racial y de orientación sexual que coincide con la política de la administración hacia los homosexuales y los afroamericanos.
Las compañías de seguros no están muy contentas con este cambio de posición, y parece que Obama va a tener que comer cuervo en lugar de pavo el próximo día de acción de Gracias y hasta Navidad.
Realmente Obama debería de haber tenido una buena y abundante dieta de cuervos durante su administración, pero el encubrimiento de la prensa complaciente, lo había librado de los almuerzos y comidas de cuervo. Ahora no lo han podido librar de comerse su cuervo.
Esto demuestra el impacto que el desastre del Obamacare ha significado para la administración.
Los mismos demócratas cuando hablan del Obamacare o demuestran un arrepentimiento tardío o pones excusas tan ridículas que parecen chistes.
Pero el Obamacare es el programa central de la administración de Obama, por este programa, salvo un problema mayor, será por lo que la historia juzgará a Obama.
Así que no hay manera que no veamos una operación mayor de rescate del Obamacare.
Si logran ponerle un vendaje que les dure hasta que el programa comience después de implementado a exhibir los problemas de todos los países que tienen la medicina socializada a los que el pueblo americano no está acostumbrado, pueden llegar mas o menos ilesos a las elecciones generales del 2016.
Sólo si los republicanos aprovechan esta ocasión y ganan las elecciones de medio término y evitan la presidencia de Hillary Cinton, nos podremos librar de una completa socialización del cuidado de salud.
Samitier: Porque han hecho la propina obligatoria???
La “PROPINA” Por Buen Servicio
Ahora es “UNA OBLIGACIÓN”
El ciudadano NO ESTA OBLIGADO a dar una propina
A quien POR CUALQUIER MOTIVO... le hace su vida
INFELIZ... ese motivo incluye... la manera de actuar,
Vestirse o LA FORMA EN QUE LUCE...
Los “EXTRAVAGANTES” no tienen derecho a EXIGIR
Que se les trate como NORMALES...
Si la persona es HOMOSEXUAL... NO TIENE DERECHO
A obligar a la GENTE A ACEPTAR SU FORMA DE VIDA...
Todas las sociedades homosexuales en la historia del
Mundo fracasaron... viven a costilla de los NORMALES
Si todos se mudaran a UNA MISMA CIUDAD... La quiebran
Hoy ocupa la PRIMERA PLANA ... el caso de la
“TORTILLERA” No Le Dieron Propina...
Vean la prensa SOCIALISTA y PRO HOMOSEXUAL
http://www.today.com/news/waitress-denied-tip-gay-lifestyle-gets-flood-support-2D11603655
Tengan todos muy buenos dias y buena suerte.
QUE DIOS LOS BENDIGA ABUNDANTEMENTE.
"EN MI OPINION" Lázaro R González Miño Editor.
lazarorgonzalez@hotmail.com, lazarorgonzalez@gmail.com,
No comments:
Post a Comment