RSS Feed for More TaxesCategory: More Taxes

Let’s let car owners pay for all the transportation in Minnesota

As I read articles like the one below, I wonder what in the hell makes people tick.  Besides “free” government money for transportation, it seems like the car owner gets to fund everything else!  We need to tax the whole shebang!

  1. Bicyclists are getting a total free ride. Make them get license plates and tabs.  Not only will this help pay for the ridiculous bicycle paths on perfectly good roadways, but if the license plates had numbers we could turn in the numbers of the bicyclists giving the cycling community a bad name.  You know, like riding through stop signs and daring autos to hi them.
  2. LRT gets a total free ride after the things are built. Make riders pay a fair fare.  Oh wait, the Libs wouldn’t like that, because it would be unfair for the lower income class.  Maybe I’m wrong gut most of the ridership if from the people who can afford to go to the sports events.  Lower income class??!!
  3. Gas tax. Give the car owners a break!  Gas costs enough without having to pay for all of transportation. Most of the transportation taxes to to the LRT now.  Let car taxes pay for car stuff!

Here’s the article I’m writing about:

Rant article

Just a short rant, but to me it makes sense.  ‘course I’m not a Lib


Freedom Finder

IRA’S and 401K’s ARE At RISK Of Government Confiscation!

The Labor and Treasury department, along with the Obama Administration ARE MOVING FORWARD with The Nationalization-Confiscate IRA’s and 401K’s.

Why do they Want Your Retirement Accounts?

YOUR equity will be used as collateral; in an attempt to balance the Trillion Dollar U.S. Deficit.

This will be done in an effort to once again make the United States credit worthy to China and other buyers of our debt.

The Most Recent meeting held on September 14th and 15th, between the Labor and Treasury Departments outlined the Course of Action.

The agenda is called “Lifetime Income Options for Retirement Plans”.

The Federal Government will Control an estimated $3.613 Trillion Dollars in IRA’s and $2.350 Trillion Dollars in 401ks.

Your Equity will be placed in U.S. Treasury Bonds, that will Pay out an estimated 3% annually.

One major clause is that upon retirement, the value of the Your Retirement Account will be placed into Annuities. Once an individual Dies, the Value of the Account will Automatically become property of the Government. The Program will be Structured much like Social Security Accounts (the biggest Ponzi Scheme ever created).

The Only way Government would get away with what will be “The Largest Heist Known To Man” is by Allowing or Creating a Major Financial Market Meltdown!

An ageing person who sees his or her Retirement Account Drop 50%-60%in a matter of Days…. Is More willing to take a Conservative Approach… Even if it means “Government-Guaranteed Income”.

The move toward Nationalization of IRA’s & 401ks will Initially be Offered as an Option. Those who are Unwilling to accept Government Run Retirement Accounts, will be Stripped of their Current Account Tax Benefits…

You’ll be Forced to Pay Taxes on your Holdings, Automatically Wiping Out One-Third of your Wealth!

This will Take place After the Stock Market Drops an Estimated 40-60%!

If the Following Indicators are Right… A Stock Market Crash is Eminent!

* Unsustainable U.S. Debt
* Real un-employment continues to Rise
* Housing market continues to Drop
* Failing Banking System (2-7 Banks Fail Weekly)
* Lower Quality of Life (1 in 8 Americans are now on Food Stamps)

Another Massive Crisis is Brewing!

Remember The Government Phrase: “Never waste a good crisis”

Injunction sought to halt ‘Obamacare’

‘The term ‘nanny state’ does not even begin to describe what we will have wrought’

Posted: April 06, 2010
8:47 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily


Freedom Finder

A legal team of experts on civil liberties and human rights is asking a federal court in Michigan to grant a preliminary injunction preventing the implementation of the “individual mandate” in “Obamacare,” warning that if imposed, it effectively will destroy the nation.

“The term ‘nanny state’ does not even begin to describe what we will have wrought,” argues the brief filed by the Thomas More Law Center.

The organization previously filed a lawsuit on behalf of four Michigan residents who object to the government’s plan to force them to buy health-care insurance and pay for abortions – or be penalized.

The case was brought to U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, seeking a halt to the legislation.

Named as defendants in the lawsuit are President Obama, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.

Now the law firm has filed a request for a preliminary injunction to prevent the imposition of the financial demands on private citizens.

“If Congress can use the Commerce Clause to force people to purchase insurance based on the mere fact that they exist or face federal penalties, then there is no limit to the power of Congress. Our case is about the constitutional limits of our federal government. Everyone agrees the health care system needs reform. But that doesn’t mean Congress is allowed to violate the Constitution in the process,” said Thomas More Law Center President Richard Thompson.

The brief cited a 1994 Congressional Budget Office report stating, “A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action. The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States.”

The brief also cites previous court opinions in which alarms have been raised over such a sweeping action.

“There is no enumerated power in the Constitution that permits the federal government to mandate that plaintiffs and other American ‘residents’ purchase health-care coverage or face a penalty. No matter how convinced defendants – or even the American public in general – may be that the Health Care Reform Act is in the public interest, their political objectives can only be accomplished in accord with the Constitution,” the brief states.

Besides a clear problem with the Commerce Clause if the government is allowed to demand residents purchase health insurance, “Obamacare” also conflicts with the First Amendment’s conscience and free expression of religion provisions as well as the Fifth Amendment’s equal protection provisions, the brief explains.

But the courts, the brief explains, are “a guardian of those fundamental liberties, and it possess the constitutional authority to enjoin government acts that tread upon them.”

The case is a dispute over fundamental liberties, the brief said.

“The act forces uninsured persons, such as plaintiffs, to purchase private health-care coverage not because they are even tangentially engaged in the production, distribution or consumption of goods or commodities or any other commercial activity, but for no other reason than they, the uninsured residents, exist,” the brief argues.

“The federal government has never in the history of the United States attempted to stretch the Commerce Clause to include the regulation of inactivity,” the brief argues.

“For the first time in our history, Congress has cited the Commerce Clause as authority to regulate a man or woman sitting in the privacy of his or her own home doing absolutely nothing but breathing.”

The demise of the nation could not be far behind, the brief warns.

“If this is what the Commerce Clause has come to mean, it means the Commerce Clause is the enumerated power of the federal government without the need for any other enumerations because it would permit absolute power. …”

It would, in fact, be the “single omnipresent national polity with absolute power to regulate all spheres of human existence.”

Under this concept, “Liberty is no longer an unalienable right possessed by the individual, but a political privilege or license granted by the state – that being the federal government. This state of affairs effectively reverses the American Revolution and terminates the great experiment founded in the constitutional republic begun by our Founding Fathers.”

If such a provision is allowed, then the government would face no obstacles in ordering private citizens “to engage in affirmative acts, under penalty of law, such as taking vitamins, losing weight, joining health clubs, buying a GMC truck, or purchasing an AIG insurance policy, among others.”

The case was launched by the Thomas More Law Center and attorney David Yerushalmi as soon as Obama signed the legislation March 23.

None of the four Michigan plaintiffs has private health care insurance, and they assert supporting abortion is contrary to their religious beliefs.

Robert Muise, Thomas More’s senior trial counsel, and Yerushalmi prepared the lawsuit.

The original complaint asserts the health-care reform law imposes unprecedented governmental mandates that trample on the personal and economic freedoms of Americans in violation of their constitutional rights.

It also alleges Congress had no authority under the Commerce Clause to pass the law and that by usurping the power reserved for the states and the people, Congress violated the Tenth Amendment.

The lawsuit also contends that by forcing private citizens to fund abortion, contrary to their rights of conscience and the free exercise of religion, Congress violated the First Amendment.

Thompson acknowledged Americans agree the health care system needs reform, but “they don’t want a federal takeover of the system in the process. And they don’t want reform by trampling on our Constitution.”

Racism and Obamacare

by Star Parker

Star Parker 040510


Like chewing gum stuck to the heel of your shoe, racism seems to be stuck forever to American public discourse. No matter what we do or what happens, somebody will find a racial motive.

Democrats have passed government health care with no Republican votes. Their leadership threatened and bribed their own members to eek out a majority. They resorted to an arcane procedure that maybe 100 people in the whole country can explain in order to pass a massive bill that polls show a majority of Americans don’t want.

The federal government, for the first time ever, will force every American to buy, with a big chunk of their income, a product designed by government bureaucrats, with an army of IRS agents snooping on each of us to make sure we did it.

And how are many liberals explaining why so many Americans are ticked off?

It’s because our president is black. It’s about racism.

Even me. I’m steamed. And even though I happen to be black – I’ve even spoken at some tea party rallies – I still must be a racist.

Obama’s approval rating has dropped from 70% when he was elected to 50% today. His disapproval has skyrocketed from 10% when he was elected to 42% today.

Per the Washington Post, in January 2009 58% of Americans said that the Obama presidency helped race relations. By January 2010, this was down to 40%.

Has this wave of disillusionment with Obama been driven by a sudden realization that the man Americans elected president is black?

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s approval has dropped from 41% in January 2009 to 36% today and her disapproval has risen from 42% to 54%. Is she black?

Were the raucous townhalls last summer – which gave birth to the tea party movement- where irate constituents gave their representatives a piece of their mind about Obamacare, racially motivated?

Care to understand what all this is really about?

Consider a powerful observation about a former time by one of America’s great historians, Jacques Barzun. Barzun was a professor and dean at Columbia University and a Presidential Medal of Freedom winner.

“We make a great mistake in calling the American War of Independence, the “American Revolution,” he wrote. “In 1776 the Americans rebelled against recent rules and impositions. What they wanted was not a new type of government, but the old type they enjoyed. They were used to many freedoms, which they claimed as the immemorial rights of Englishmen. Once they defeated the English armies and expelled the Loyalists, they went back to their former ways, which they modestly enlarged, and codified in the Bill of Rights.”

In a similar fashion today, Americans are rebelling as the freedom we have enjoyed, freedom which defines life in this country, is being taken away and new “rules and impositions” are being imposed.

It’s not about theory or some abstract ideology. The intense feelings flow from losing what you have and what you know is vital.

What is new today is we can no longer continue the illusion of having our cake and eating it. We can no longer afford to be both a big government entitlement state and a free, creative, and prosperous nation. It’s the prosperity created by our freedom that has financed the entitlements. But now the entitlements are overtaking and strangling our freedom.

So now is a time of choosing. We’re either going to remain the land of the free or transform into the land of the bureaucrat.

The antipathy of activists toward Mr. Obama is not about how he looks but what he has done. That he has chosen and imposed on us the path of bureaucracy.


Learning to Give

Encouragement for Today
Welcome to Encouragement for Today, a free devotional from Crosswalk

"Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver."

2 Corinthians 9:7 (NIV)

Learning to Give

Curt and Marybeth Whalen (a shortened version)

Giving God our tithe is an expression of love. We give God the first of what shows up in our checking account to acknowledge that He loved us first. We worship Him with our gift because God gave us the ultimate gift: His life, dying a brutal death on a cross to save us from the horrors and consequences of sin.   We, like God who sacrificed His Son, give to demonstrate love. 

When we began consistently giving it was hard, painful, and even scary to develop the habit. But year after year, month after month, we stayed committed. And now, I can tell you that nothing is more meaningful to us than to write God that tithe check.   
My encouragement to you if you don’t currently give is to simply begin. Don’t be overwhelmed with what you don’t do, should do, or have to do.  Just start small. Take something to church this Sunday and experience the joy of worshiping God with your money. Challenge yourself to be consistent and to increase what you give. Ask God for help and share the joy of giving with your children. Pray over your gift before you leave for church, sharing with your kids your "thanks" for the many blessings that God has filled your life with — the roof over your head, the clothes on your back, the food on your table, and His love in your hearts.

Americans Really Believe Taxes are Not Going Up With The Government Health Plan?? – Yeah R-R-Right!!

From Rasmussen Reports

8% Say Health Care Reform Likely to Mean Higher Taxes for the Middle Class

Thursday, July 16, 2009

Seventy-eight percent (78%) of U.S. voters say it is at least somewhat likely that taxes will be raised on the middle class to cover the cost of health care reform. Fifty-six percent (56%) say it’s very likely.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 15% of voters think it’s unlikely that the cost of health care reform will require raising taxes on the middle class.

Those who earn between $20,000 and $75,000 per year believe even more strongly that health care reform will require raising taxes on the middle class.

On a related topic, voters have mixed feelings about taxing wealthier Americans to help pay for health care reform as House Democrats are now proposing. Forty-eight percent (48%) favor raising taxes on those who earn more than $250,000 per year to pay for health care reform, but 44% oppose such a move. Surveys over the years have consistently shown that when politicians talk of taxing the rich, many middle class voters assume their own taxes will go up as well.

Currently, 39% of voters expect their own taxes to increase during the Obama Administration.

A bill now being considered in the House of Representatives places a one percent (1%) surtax on individual incomes above $280,000, which rises to 1.5 percent for those making between $400,000 and $800,000 a year. Both could double by 2013 if insufficient savings are found to cover the additional spending envisioned in the health care reform plan. On incomes above $800,000, the surtax is 5.4%.

Under the plan, taxpayers will not be able to use mortgage interest or charitable contributions to reduce their surtax liability. Eighty percent (80%) of voters say wealthy Americans are at least somewhat likely to give less money to charity if their deductions are reduced, up 14 points from April.

Just 13% believe the wealthy are not likely to cut back their charitable giving.

Earlier this year, 51% of voters said Obama’s plan to raise taxes on those who earn more than $250,000 a year would be good for the economy. Thirty-one percent (31%) disagreed and said it would be bad for the economy.

But voters in general consistently favor tax cuts over increased government spending.
In a poll conducted before House Democrats unveiled their current version of a reform plan, 49% of voters opposed the health care reform plan being developed while 46% favored it.

Seventy-seven percent (77%) of Republicans and 62% of voters not affiliated with either major party say health care reform is Very Likely that to raise middle class taxes. Only 37% of Democratic voters agree.

Seventy-eight percent (78%) of Democrats like the idea of taxing wealthier Americans to help fund health care reform. Sixty-nine percent (69%) of Republicans and 62% of unaffiliated voters are opposed.

Text emphasis added by Freedom Finder

We Have to Put More of Someone Else’s Money into Health Care

“We can’t continue to put more and more money into health care,” said Representative Henry Waxman, a California Democrat who runs the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

Interpreted as:

So let’s put more money of the wealthy’s money into health care.  Isn’t that the way of the Socialists Liberal Democrats?  The wealthy, who fund everything in in America are expected to “GIVE” more of their money.

“We cannot go home for recess unless the House and the Senate pass bills to reform and restructure our health-care system.”

Interpreted as:

Let’s fix the best health care on the planet into something that can and will be second or third-rate at best.

The House is also proposing a mandate on Americans above a certain income level: People would be penalized as much as 2.5 percent of their income for failure to buy health insurance. Most employers would be required to insure their employees or pay a penalty equal to as much as 8 percent of their payroll.

interpreted as:

Let’s really put if to people for being successful and mandate something that may in fact be illegal to mandate!!

If you aren’t paying attention to this nonsense you will be forced to pay attention because it WILL affect you eventually.  If they can tax the upper income level for not having health insurance, how long before they tax you?

I may be wrong, but between 9 and 17 million of the “uninsured” are in this country illegally!

One of the original ideas of this legislation was to save money.  How can it save money if its going to cost more money?


Freedom Finder

Wordpress SEO Plugin by SEOPressor