How Obama REALLY Plans on Paying for his health program: VATs and CUTs

This could just as easily be entitled - HOW THE LEFT PLANS ON PAYING FOR OBAMA'S HEALTH PLAN.


How will the Obama administration pay for its new health care program?  Taxes and Cuts.


The newest idea that popped up was a VAT.  A VALUE ADDED TAX.  This VAT would replace the federal taxes on everything.  No more federal taxes when you purchase an item - but you would pay a VAT, say 10%.


This would be incredibly easy, very simple, and so much easier for us, the average American, to understand.  However - I have one concern, just one little concern.  Say an item is $1.00 today and no VAT exists.  Do we know what the 'true' or 'real' cost of that item is?  Do we know how much of the $1.00 is federal costs?  I believe I would accept this European concept IF we knew how much federal tax existed on every item and THAT tax was removed on say Monday, BEFORE the VAT was imposed on Tuesday.  I do not want to, and will not accept willingly or even begrudgingly a VAT when you never took off the tax we were paying before - double taxation, only one is a secret tax (the pre-vat Federal Tax, the government can use for whatever purpose), and the VAT would be the official tax that would rise regularly (of course, only after due deliberation - a tsunami in Indonesia and we need aid money, an earthquake in Tokyo and we need aid money, and an earthquake in Los Angeles and we have no money so need to raise the VAT, then a flood in New Orleans, a fire in Malibu, an earthquake in Haiti, and a volcano in Mexico - more aid is needed, and an increase in the VAT).


Unfortunately, a VAT does not curb the governments desire to tax.  A VAT doesn't provide much needed funds to pay off debts.  Please.  As fast as it comes in, the Congress is spending it, and don't believe for a moment that pay as you go means pay as you go - it means pay as you go when it works for you and hide the rest in long term debt.


Just look at the EUROS - they all have such a thing and it isn't lower, while it is fair, it never goes down, only up, and quite regularly as it is now a very convenient method of raising revenue.


If government spends a lot, which ours does, and would continue to do, economic growth would be impaired - we simply don't grow when the government is taking our money to spend on its interests (which may or may not benefit the whole of the nation and future growth).  This is not complicated science - it is common sense.  Some niches within our system would benefit - special interest groups would be helped, while the general welfare of the nation would see a net decline.  The evidence is in, the science is solid, there is no dispute only consensus on this point.


These special interest groups would benefit as Washington deliberates how much and who would be impacted.  a VAT could not be placed evenly on every item / service in the economy/society.  Massages, haircuts, car repairs, food, restaurants, doctors visits, lawn service ... who would and would not be impacted.  A great deal of power given to men in Washington, more even than they have now.


In this case, a VAT would not only be a tax for reveneue, but would be a political tool - used to bestow the graces of the ruling party upon you and your services, or to whack you and take your money through the imposition of a tax which would or could drive customers elsewhere.


If three companies do the same thing (sell or service or whatever you wiosh to call it) - 1) a larger company, not the greatest profit maker but it has capital to get through tough times.  2) a smaller company, fewer employees, but the larger of the 3 in terms of profit.  3) a small company with even fewer employees, and barely scratcghes the surface for profits.  The VAT is imposed and all 3 must incur the cost.  Company 1 lowers their cost for whatever by 5%, adds the VAT and waits.  #2 and 3 incur the VAT and raise their prices and ... suddenly 2 and 3 are uncompetitive and go out of business. 


The power to tax is the power to destroy and VAT could very well be the biggest whacking stick Washington has yet embraced (next to fines for non-using fees if one doesn't choose Obama's healthcare option).


Yet the VAT will be argued as fair, and as a means of raising the necessary monies to pay for your first-class health care plans (otherwise known as Die and Save Us the Money Plan).  Yet the VAt will not be enough, nor will taxing the very rich, who are already well taxed.  Nor will finding 100 million sitting around in a lonely account.  A good video to watch that makes this very easy to understand can be found if you click on this sentence.  


So how else can we find the funds needed to save the health of the country, care for the children, and our Seniors, the poor, the helpless, those in cancer units, and in wheelchairs waiting for medical attention? 


How?


Imagine.  What was Lennon's vision?  Peace, a world making love not war ... not only was it a utopian fantasy for the children of the 60s, but this idea of peace and harmony, unity with all our brother's and sisters around the globe is a very Marxist idea.  In these areas, utopianism or fantasy and Marxism come together, and it is here that we see Barrack H.'s plan for healthcare. 


Obama has a vision for America - his vision is one where we provide everything the people need, where we dialog with other countries, and sit down and discuss differences, where we use a military to airlift  food to some far off land, not to invade and wage war.  Obama's vision is one where the community of nation's would join together when an enemy state rose up to threaten the peace and stability of the whole, and together we would put them down - through dialog, concessions, and straight-talk.  Further, Obama believes that every nation has a right to be powerful, it makes us feel equal and gives us a sense of fairness and equality - and we all seek equality and fairness, and he regards it as his job to provide the opportunity for equality for all.  To these ends we need to refashion the financial world - take from them and share with the world, for our wealth is what makes us so formidable, and if we share some of it with everyone else, we will all be better off - peace will break out and people will go back to reading and doing art, poetry, and peaceful endeavors. 


Very utopian and Marxist, and when we cannot tax any more, whether a VAT or any other form of tax, cuts will have to be made, and every area of the budget will be looked at, none will be off the table.  That is fair, that is equal.  If we are to suffer in the social security department, then the military should likewise suffer, and his argument will be so persuasive the majority will follow.  When he starts cutting, he will use phrases like - we are cutting waste, we are cutting redundancy, we are saving you the American people billions, billions that can be put into makin g your health care plans even better, healthier, more hopeful and user-friendly.  The Left will cheer because they hate the military and the lesser there is the happier they are.  The moderates will be fine because they will hear - redundancy and waste and consider Obama a fiscal conservative, and that is all Obama will care about, 50.1%.


All that will work well the first year, even the fifth year, but what happens when the health plan begins to look exactly like what many warned it would become - bloated, restrictive, endless bureaucracy, never-ending lines ... back to the taxes.  Time to raise VAT, to save your health.  Now that we have come this far, we cannot turn back and sacrifice everything we have given, all the blood and treasure.  So, VAT or taxes will rise, and that will stem the flow, push the due date further down the road.  Five years later, the VATs will be high, and the need to go back to the military and do some fine tuning - cut out a battalion here, an aircraft carrier there, a few battleships, a tank division ... save hundreds of millions so easily, painlessly, that why not cut even more.  A few billion more won't hurt, after all, we don't ever need to invade Iraq again, there will never be a D-Day again - we will simply work with our allies, in conjunction with the United Nations.  So ... snip, snip, snip, cut, cut, cut ... and ta da, billions for health, not a cent for the military.  The Left will be orgasmic, the Moderates will be silent, and no one will care what the rest think.


And then China becomes world superpower, and Russia, to rival China, must compete, and rises above the US militarily for their spending will be on fast-foward while we are building our healthplan so we all feel good.


Want to bet this is the ultimate plan?  I am willing.  Slight hyperbole - absolutely, reduce the hyperbole, and what remains is the need to cut, and from where - you can't cut from social services because that is what Obama is spending so much time building up ... what remains is the military, and given his loathing for it, it makes perfect sense.  Understanding Marxism, it would be the military you cut. 


I have no doubt.  The only question is, how, when, and what excuse will they create to push through these cuts.  In fact, I am willing to also make a bet - the brilliance of their manipulation will make it appear as if the military wants to cut their budget. 


Amazing how coincidences will be so well timed.  Serendipity really, for someone.










Obama

Obama: Feel the Hate

Lawmakers face angry crowds on health care

By ERICA WERNER, Associated Press Writer
August 11, 2009

[I have not pasted the entire article, and I am taking the parts I find more interesting. If you want to read the entire column, click on the title link]

Specter said that in a long life in politics he hadn't seen anything like what he witnessed Tuesday and at a town hall last weekend that turned even uglier.

"There is more anger in America today than at any time I can remember," Specter said.

VERY perceptive!!

But Obama was going to UNITE us, he was the great UNITER, would bring us TOGETHER ...


In Georgia, Democratic Rep. David Scott's staff arrived at his Smyrna, Ga., office outside Atlanta on Tuesday morning to find a large, black swastika spray-painted on a sign out front bearing his name. The vandalism occurred roughly a week after Scott was involved in a contentious argument over health care at a community meeting.

Scott, who is black, said he also has received mail in recent days that used N-word references to him and that characterized Obama as a Marxist.

"We have got to make sure that the symbol of the swastika does not win, that the racial hatred that's bubbling up does not win this debate," Scott said in a telephone interview. "That's what is bubbling up with all of this. There's so much hatred out there for President Obama."


This guy - David Scott, may well be a very nice guy, and may well be bright and may well be the best father and husband you could hope for, but he is really on the low end of the totem pole intellectually. This is a prime example of bait and switch -

The swastika has nothing to do with hate, it has to do with the perception people have that what HE and CONGRESS and OBAMA are doing is akin to what the NAZIs did and the FASCISTS did - not because of hate, but because the American people will not accept Marxist ideology without a fight and I understand anyone who wants to argue that it is not Marxist but please, it is, and any true, and honest Marxist would admit it is, albeit a weaker version than they might prefer. It is a vast step away from the capitalist model we had in place 2 years ago, and more efforts are being made each day to change the system, and the people know this and if you support Obama's policies you are supporting a system the American people do not want.

Don't turn around and flip it and make the people out to be hateful and use the guilt trip / race card to get people to give up because they don't want to be considered racists or hateful. It is not racial, it will become racial - with the Congress and the White House refusing to recognize that the American people DO NOT WANT a Marxist system, do NOT want government control of their lives more than already exists (and less) ... if they don't then yes, it will become racial, but what will drive it is the opposition to policies, not to a man.


- Oh, and as for why the questioners at Obama's rally were not as agitated - the general population was weeded out and those who were supportive were let in along with people who would show well. That event was not the usual - the AP suggested the president usually receives a less hostile response than Congressmen - whatever president. Except not so - Bush had people hissing and calling names and dimwits screaming names ... no respect. But for Obama ? And Obama's ratings are lower than Bush's at this time. So why? because Conservatives are generally more respectful and responsible, liberals are aggressive and hateful. Now we see Conservatives getting upset!!!!! Something we haven't seen, something the media is unprepared for! Like seeing grandma backflip.












this is white space to provide space between posts

Marxist Agenda?

Why can't we call the ideas proposed socialist or Marxist? Are they entirely socialist or entirely Marxist - no, but we call our economy capitalist even though the government has had its fingers in the economy. Given the fact there is fluctuation in any system, why don't we admit it is socialist or Marxist? Why not. Honesty remember. Come out. Open the closet and let the light in.





The Global Redistributionist at Obama’s Left Hand

Wednesday, August 05, 2009
By Terence P. Jeffrey

Does President Barack Obama believe economic and population growth ought to be stopped because they imperil the planet and that wealth should be redistributed both within the United States and among nations? Or does he think such a view is ludicrous?

He does not think it is ludicrous; a man who has promoted zero growth and global wealth redistribution for years is now one of Obama’s top advisers.

In December, Obama announced he was naming John P. Holdren, director of the Woods Hole Research Center, to run the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.

Obama expressed admiration for Holdren’s work and said, “I look forward to his wise counsel in the years ahead.”

So, what wise counsel had Holdren given in the past?

His curriculum vitae lists as one of his “Recent publications” an essay entitled “The Meaning of Sustainability: Biogeophysical Aspects.” Co-authored by Paul Ehrlich and Gretchen Daily of the Center for Conservation Biology at Stanford, this essay served as the first chapter in a 1995 book—“Defining and Measuring Sustainability: The Biogeophysical Foundations”—published by the World Bank. The book is posted as a PDF on the World Bank’s Web site.

“We think development ought to be understood to mean progress toward alleviating the main ills that undermine human well-being,” Holdren, Ehrlich and Daily wrote in this essay.

Table 1-1 of the essay lists both “excessive population growth” and “maldistribution of consumption and investment” as “driving forces” behind these “ills.”

“Excessive population growth,” the authors assert, is “a condition now prevailing almost everywhere.”

Table 1-2 of the essay lists “Requirements for Sustainable Improvements in Well-being.” These include “reduced disparities within and between countries.”

“The large gaps between rich and poor that characterize income distribution within and between countries today are incompatible with social stability and with cooperative approaches to achieving environmental sustainability,” the authors explain.

Table 1-1 lists among the “underlying human frailties” causing the ills of mankind as “greed, selfishness, intolerance and shortsightedness.” These vices, they say, “collectively have been elevated by conservative political doctrine and practice (above all in the United States in 1980-92) to the status of a credo.”

The authors present a formula for understanding ecological “damage,” which they say “means reduced length or quality of life for the present generation or future generations.” This doomsday formula is: “Damage = population x economic activity per person (affluence) x resource use per economic activity (resources) x stress on the environment per resource use (technology) x damage per stress (susceptibility).”

Their application of this formula rejects the notion that man, through his wit, can not only increase individual productivity and technological efficiency but also find new resources to fuel them.

For example, how much potential water lingers in the universe? Well, how much hydrogen and oxygen did God create? Holdren and co-authors claim to “know for certain” such thinking is folly.

“We know for certain, for example, that: No form of material growth (including population growth) other than asymptotic growth, is sustainable,” they say. “Many of the practices inadequately supporting today’s population of 5.5 billion people are unsustainable; and at the sustainability limit, there will be a trade-off between population and energy-matter throughput per person, hence, ultimately, between economic activity per person and well-being per person.

“This is enough,” they write, “to say quite a lot about what needs to be faced up to eventually (a world of zero net physical growth), what should be done now (change unsustainable practices, reduce excessive material consumption, slow down population growth), and what the penalty will be for postponing attention to population limitation (lower well-being per person).”

By the time Holdren and his co-authors wrote those words, he had been sounding the same alarm for more than two decades.

“Compulsory control of family size is an unpalatable idea, but the alternatives may be much more horrifying,” Holdren, Ehrlich and Anne Ehrlich wrote on Page 256 of their 1973 book, “Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions.”

“A far better choice, in our view,” they wrote, “is to begin now with milder methods of influencing family size preferences, while ensuring that the means of birth control, including abortion and sterilization, are accessible to every human being on Earth within the shortest possible time. If effective action is taken promptly, perhaps the need for involuntary or repressive measures can be averted.”

Within this apocalyptic vision, curbing economic growth and redistributing wealth become duties.

“A massive campaign must be launched to restore a high-quality environment in North America and to de-develop the United States,” Holdren and the Ehrlichs wrote in the conclusion of “Human Ecology.” “The need for de-development presents our economists with a major challenge. They must design a stable, low-consumption economy in which there is a much more equitable distribution of wealth than in the present one. Redistribution of wealth both within and among nations is absolutely essential, if a decent life is to be provided to every human being.”

Those are the words of a man who now serves in the White House, providing “wise counsel” to a president seeking to restructure the entire U.S. health care system










Obama

Obama: We will decide how much you should get paid!

US government seeks to rein in executive pay


Democrats want to push administration on US corporate pay strategies


Jim Kuhnhenn, Associated Press Writer
On Thursday June 11, 2009




WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Obama administration is taking a half-step toward taming U.S. executive pay. Some lawmakers prefer a fuller stride.


Democrats on the House Financial Services Committee said Thursday the administration's efforts to hector the private sector into reining in executive pay might not go far enough.


The administration contends that excessive compensation contributed to the U.S. financial crisis, but rejects direct intervention in corporate pay decisions.


Instead, the administration plans to seek legislation that would try to rein in compensation at publicly traded companies through nonbinding shareholder votes and less management influence on pay decisions.





I don't know if we can survive another six months of the change this guy wants to enact - from government ownership of auto companies, health care, and now a beginning - telling the private sector how much is too much. The American people did not elect you Mr. Obama to turn our country socialist. In fact, this isn't even socialist - it is Marxist - socialist countries do not dictate what individuals may earn. Take control of what else?



















Obama

A Bang or a Whimper? US Becomes Marxist

We do need a change in this country and we need it very soon, before the changes made by Obama have so weakened our will, so undermined our foundations we sink into slavery as Pravda argues we are doing.


President Eisenhower was meeting with Khruschev in 1959. Khruschev wanted to meet and discuss with the US Secretary of Agriculture details of the US farming system and agriculture. In their private discussions, Ezra Taft Benson relates a conversation between he and Khruschev:

"Your children will live under communism." Khrushchev said."On the contrary," Secretary Benson replied, "My grandchildren will live in freedom as I hope that all people will."Khrushchev then retorted: "You Americans are so gullible. No, you won't accept Communism outright; but we'll keep feeding you small doses of Socialism until you will finally wake up and find that you already have Communism. We won't have to fight you; we'll so weaken your economy, until you fall like overripe fruit into our hands."








American capitalism gone with a whimper

27.04.2009
Source: Pravda.Ru

It must be said, that like the breaking of a great dam, the American decent into Marxism is happening with breath taking speed, against the back drop of a passive, hapless sheeple, excuse me dear reader, I meant people.


True, the situation has been well prepared on and off for the past century, especially the past twenty years. The initial testing grounds was conducted upon our Holy Russia and a bloody test it was. But we Russians would not just roll over and give up our freedoms and our souls, no matter how much money Wall Street poured into the fists of the Marxists.

Those lessons were taken and used to properly prepare the American populace for the surrender of their freedoms and souls, to the whims of their elites and betters.

First, the population was dumbed down through a politicized and substandard education system based on pop culture, rather then the classics. Americans know more about their favorite TV dramas then the drama in DC that directly affects their lives. They care more for their "right" to choke down a McDonalds burger or a BurgerKing burger than for their constitutional rights. Then they turn around and lecture us about our rights and about our "democracy". Pride blind the foolish.

Then their faith in God was destroyed, until their churches, all tens of thousands of different "branches and denominations" were for the most part little more then Sunday circuses and their televangelists and top protestant mega preachers were more then happy to sell out their souls and flocks to be on the "winning" side of one pseudo Marxist politician or another. Their flocks may complain, but when explained that they would be on the "winning" side, their flocks were ever so quick to reject Christ in hopes for earthly power. Even our Holy Orthodox churches are scandalously liberalized in America.

The final collapse has come with the election of Barack Obama. His speed in the past three months has been truly impressive. His spending and money printing has been a record setting, not just in America's short history but in the world. If this keeps up for more then another year, and there is no sign that it will not, America at best will resemble the Wiemar Republic and at worst Zimbabwe.

These past two weeks have been the most breath taking of all. First came the announcement of a planned redesign of the American Byzantine tax system, by the very thieves who used it to bankroll their thefts, loses and swindles of hundreds of billions of dollars. These make our Russian oligarchs look little more then ordinary street thugs, in comparison. Yes, the Americans have beat our own thieves in the shear volumes. Should we congratulate them?

These men, of course, are not an elected panel but made up of appointees picked from the very financial oligarchs and their henchmen who are now gorging themselves on trillions of American dollars, in one bailout after another. They are also usurping the rights, duties and powers of the American congress (parliament). Again, congress has put up little more then a whimper to their masters.

Then came Barack Obama's command that GM's (General Motor) president step down from leadership of his company. That is correct, dear reader, in the land of "pure" free markets, the American president now has the power, the self given power, to fire CEOs and we can assume other employees of private companies, at will. Come hither, go dither, the centurion commands his minions.

So it should be no surprise, that the American president has followed this up with a "bold" move of declaring that he and another group of unelected, chosen stooges will now redesign the entire automotive industry and will even be the guarantee of automobile policies. I am sure that if given the chance, they would happily try and redesign it for the whole of the world, too. Prime Minister Putin, less then two months ago, warned Obama and UK's Blair, not to follow the path to Marxism, it only leads to disaster. Apparently, even though we suffered 70 years of this Western sponsored horror show, we know nothing, as foolish, drunken Russians, so let our "wise" Anglo-Saxon fools find out the folly of their own pride.

Again, the American public has taken this with barely a whimper...but a "freeman" whimper.

So, should it be any surprise to discover that the Democratically controlled Congress of America is working on passing a new regulation that would give the American Treasury department the power to set "fair" maximum salaries, evaluate performance and control how private companies give out pay raises and bonuses? Senator Barney Franks, a social pervert basking in his homosexuality (of course, amongst the modern, enlightened American societal norm, as well as that of the general West, homosexuality is not only not a looked down upon life choice, but is often praised as a virtue) and his Marxist enlightenment, has led this effort. He stresses that this only affects companies that receive government monies, but it is retroactive and taken to a logical extreme, this would include any company or industry that has ever received a tax break or incentive.

The Russian owners of American companies and industries should look thoughtfully at this and the option of closing their facilities down and fleeing the land of the Red as fast as possible. In other words, divest while there is still value left.

The proud American will go down into his slavery with out a fight, beating his chest and proclaiming to the world, how free he really is. The world will only snicker.






Obama