I love it.......America is speaking back!!




http://www.facebook.com/IPledgeAllegianceToMyCountryNotMyPresident

Does Romney's Tax Plan Hurt Everyone But the Rich?

Had to pass this along....Obama is still a LIAR!

President Obama's new line of attack against Mitt Romney is that the Republican's tax plan would raise taxes on everyone except for the very wealthy:

“Pay attention here,” Mr. Obama said. “Folks making more than $3 million a year — the top one-tenth of 1 percent — they would get a tax cut under Mr. Romney’s plan that is worth almost a quarter of a million dollars. Hold on, it gets worse,” he added to a chorus of boos. “My opponent says he’s going to pay for this $5 trillion plan. But under this plan, guess who gets the bill for these $250,000 tax cuts? You do. And you don’t have to take my word for it.” Mr. Obama cited a new study from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center of the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, two centrist Washington-based policy research organizations. The analysis concluded that the sort of tax code that Mr. Romney has proposed “would provide large tax cuts to high-income households, and increase the tax burdens on middle- and/or lower-income taxpayers.”

Some thoughts:
(1) Right out of the gate, let's acknowledge that this is at least a legitimate and relevant subject of debate. Most of the Democrats' anti-Romney attacks have involved lying about his business record ("Four Pinocchios"), lying about his stance on abortion ("pants on fire"), and accusing him of being a criminal on two separate occasions, each time with zero proof. Therefore, a debate about tax plans and how they'd affect the country offers a welcome respite from silly season.
(2) As he distorts Romney's tax plan on the stump, the president bases his claim on an "independent" study. He fails to mention that this report was co-authored by one of his former advisors.
(3) As Phil Klein notes, the study itself doesn't even purport to "score Romney's plan directly:"

The first paragraph of the study notes:
(We do not score Governor Romney’s plan directly, as certain components of his plan are not specified in sufficient detail, nor do we make assumptions regarding what those components might be.) Yet here’s what Obama said yesterday at a campaign stop in Mansfield, Ohio:
Just today, an independent, nonpartisan organization ran all the numbers on Governor Romney’s plan.

(4) AEI's Jim Pethokoukis runs down a litany of issues with the study's methodology and (crucially) growth assumptions, although he and I agree on one point: More details from Romney are in order. The presumptive nominee has given us the fun part (20 percent across the board rate reductions), without outlining the pain (which deductions will be limited or eliminated?) This makes sense politically, because the more details Romney reveals, the more Democrats will cherry-pick and twist them into attacks. So while I understand why Team Romney is reluctant to tip its hand too much here, we'll need more complete information eventually.
(5) Pethokoukis suggests one intriguing way for Romney to mitigate some of this criticism -- embrace the Obama Fiscal Commission's tax plan:

So basically we would have a simpler system, less vulnerable to crony capitalism, with a top marginal tax rate back to where it was during the Reagan years. And on top of that, the corporate rate under Simpson-Bowles would be 28% vs. 35% today, helping offset the minor-though-regrettable rise in capital gains and dividend rates. One objection from the right is that this plan would raise taxes. This portion of the S-B plan would raise tax revenues, on a static basis, by $785 billion over a decade due to fewer tax breaks. But given the huge drop in individual and marginal rates — plus the efficiency gains from a less distorted system — I have a hard time believing this would not grow the pie, leaving taxpayers far better off than they would be after a decade of slow growth or Lost Decade.

This would undoubtedly prompt significant push-back on the Right, but I'm inclined to agree with Pethokoukis on the net positive effect. He also describes the tantalizing political advantages of embracing the Simpson/Bowles tax structure:

The political benefits would immense. Romney would be adopting the plan of Obama’s own bipartisan debt commission, which Obama stiff-armed after promising Simpson and Bowles that he would endorse its recommendations. (One big reason Obama rejected it is because it lowers marginal rates and keep taxes way too low to finance future liberal spending plans.) Romney would look like a leader who wants to get things done in 2013. And since the plan would actually result in Romney paying a great percentage of his income in taxes, it would help inoculate him on the fairness issue.

Obama would surely demagogue the plan anyway, but Romney could turn around and hammer him over the fact that it's derived his own debt commission's proposal, which he ignored. (He appointed this commission after deriding and dismissing commissions as a candidate). It could also open the door to a renewed and serious discussion of entitlement reform, which Simpson/Bowles laid out and Obama neglected.
(6) The president has the vapors over Romney's "plan" to raise taxes on the middle class. Complication: His own policies have actually raised taxes on lower-income voters many times over. They've done so mostly through a litany of Obamacare taxes, including the mother-load: The mandate tax. Obama's current tax plan (calling it a "plan" is generous) involves destructive hikes on "the rich," including nearly one million small businesses. These businesses account for more than half of small business income in America. The Obama hikes would not dent the debt (Democrats want increased revenues to fund more spending anyway), but they would kill 700,000 jobs. Just what the economy needs! Wouldn't you say so, 2010's Barack Obama?

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2012/08/03/does_romneys_tax_plan_hurt_everyone_but_the_rich

Unemployment Rate Rises to 8.3 Percent; 163,000 New Jobs Created in July

Interesting reading the numbers.

The seasonally-adjusted unemployment rate in the United States rose to 8.3 percent in July, with the economy adding a net of 163,000 jobs, according to estimates calculated by the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics. The number of jobs added was more than expected, but was not enough to keep up with new entrants into the job market, reinforcing conclusions that the U.S. economy is stagnant. With overall economic growth slowing, weak employment numbers could indicate that the U.S. is following other industrial economies on a downward path back into recession. June's job number was revised down from 80,000 new jobs to 64,000.

Earlier this week, new claims for jobless benefits had risen to 365,000--slightly lower than expectations--while the private sector added 163,000 jobs in July, well ahead of expectations but down from the previous month. Manufacturing output fell again in July, after falling in June for the first time in three years. Surveys of economists had predicted that the unemployment rate would remain unchanged at 8.2 percent, with 95,000 to 100,000 new jobs created. It was thought that only a positive, unexpected development could lower the rate. Despite the growth in jobs--the highest in five months--the slow economy could not lower the overall jobless rate.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/08/03/Unemployment-Rate-Rises-to-8-3-Percent

CA Gov. Brown Allegedly Took $3 Million from 9/11 Fund

When you read something like this it  is Digusting to think this Idiot would do this! This is what hurts Charities from getting donations, when people do not know where there money is going!!

As California teeters near default in many areas, news is breaking that Gov. Jerry Brown may have taken up to $3 million from a fund created "in honor of the victims of the 2001 terror attacks" to make up for shortfalls.

The fund, which was raised by the sale of specialized plates within the state, totals approximately $250 million, and the AP reports that both Brown and former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger each allegedly dipped into the monies in an effort to make ends meet.
According to AP reports, Brown is now referring to the money he allegedly took as a "loan." Responding to pressure from Republican and Democrat state legislators alike, Brown's office has announced that the state's Department of Finance will audit the plate program, and the results of that audit will be used to structure a payback for the $3 million.

 http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/08/02/Busted-Gov-Jerry-Brown-Allegedly-Took-3-Million-From-9-11-Fund

Video: Harry Reid Accuses Romney of Federal Crime on Senate Floor, Offers Zero Evidence

As I said before and I heard more people saying it! This is Illegal that what he is doing and needs to be investigated! He is a Slimeball and is Lower than Snakesh*t!

Let's get you up to speed on this idiotic flap: As you're already aware, Mitt Romney has declined to publicly release more than two years of tax returns. He's not legally obligated to do so; nor are Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid, neither of whom have chosen to live up to the levels of "transparency" they're demanding of Romney. Frustrated by the Republican presidential candidate's refusal -- and clearly unperturbed by his own hypocrisy -- Reid began circulating a totally unsubstantiated rumor this week, suggesting that Mitt Romney is a tax evader. From yesterday:

“His poor father must be so embarrassed about his son,” Reid said, in reference to George Romney’s standard-setting decision to turn over 12 years of tax returns when he ran for president in the late 1960s. Saying he had “no problem with somebody being really, really wealthy,” Reid sat up in his chair a bit before stirring the pot further. A month or so ago, he said, a person who had invested with Bain Capital called his office. Harry, he didn’t pay any taxes for 10 years,” Reid recounted the person as saying. He didn’t pay taxes for 10 years! Now, do I know that that’s true? Well, I’m not certain,” said Reid. “But obviously he can’t release those tax returns. How would it look?

CNN Money's Dan Primack promptly took Reid to the woodshed:

One of two things has happened: (1) Reid is simply making the whole thing up, in order to pressure Romney into releasing tax returns for years prior to 2010, or (2) Reid's investor pal lied, and the Senator didn't bother to conduct even a mild vetting before sharing the accusation with reporters. Either way, shame on [the] gossipy gentleman from Nevada. Let me make this crystal clear: Investors in private equity funds do not receive, nor are they entitled to request, personal tax returns for fund managers. Not just at Bain Capital, but everywhere. For example, ask the person managing your 401(k) for their personal tax returns. See how far you get. What makes this particular claim even sillier, of course, is that Romney hasn't even been managing Bain funds for the past 10 years.

In other words, Reid is peddling pure, pungent BS. Even if this "source" at Bain (the identity of whom Reid has valiantly withheld -- on "principle," natch) exists, he would have zero knowledge of Romney's personal income taxes. Do your co-workers have access to your personal taxes? Exactly. This is ridiculous on its face. Has any of this opprobrium given Reid second thoughts? Not in the least. In fact, he dragged his baseless allegations of criminality (!) -- the Left's hot new trend, apparently -- onto the Senate floor earlier today:

He’s refused to release his tax returns, as we know. If a person coming before this body wanted to be a cabinet officer, he couldn’t be if he did the same refusal Mitt Romney does about tax returns. So the word’s out that he hasn’t paid any taxes for ten years. Let him prove that he has paid taxes, because he hasn’t. We already know from one partial tax return that he gave us, he has money hidden in Bermuda, the Cayman Islands, and a Swiss bank account. Not making that up, that’s in the partial year that he gave us. Mitt Romney makes more money in a single day than the average middle-class family makes in two years–or more.

"The word's out." What a standard! He fabricated that "word" out of thin air. By the way, someone told me Reid runs a secret dog-fighting ring in Nevada. Can't tell you who, but it sounds pretty true. Hey, have you heard the word's out about Reid's secret dog-fighting ring? What's that? Reid disputes it? Let him prove that he isn't a criminal animal abuser, because he is. (See how this works, Senator?) I'm also curious as to why Reid voted to confirm an actual tax cheat as Treasury Secretary. Reid's behavior has become so oafish and desperate that Lefty icon Jon Stewart has felt compelled to drop the hammer:

Click through for video. You'll enjoy it, even if it means sitting through a few gratuitous shots at Fox & Friends. One choice quotation: "Who the f***are you, Harry Reid...you two-bit, trash-talking son of a..." Whoa. The Romney campaign is also eagerly joining the beat down, sensing that Democrats are beginning to damage themselves:

"Have you no sense of decency, sir? Is there nothing to debase yourself and the office you hold in the name of dirty politics?"

Breitbart's John Nolte is fit to be tied over all of this. He's livid that Democrats are once again forcing Romney on defense and controlling the narrative. I don't share his view. Reid has gone so far, so clumsily that he's crossed the line and entered into counter-productivity. This reeks of mindless political desperation. Reid jumped the shark and is tripling down. It's not helping. I'll leave you with this hot scoop: A nameless, third-hand source just informed me that Harry Reid hasn't always been a joyless asshat. Care to share any countervailing evidence, Senator?

UPDATE - Reid quadruples down, telling reporters that "a number of people" (all anonymous) have told him that Romney is a tax evader. No attempt to explain how they could possibly know this information. Keep digging, chump.

UPDATE II - Mitch McConnell unloads:

“I think the Majority Leader has more important things to do than use the Senate as a forum for his baseless accusations,” McConnell said Thursday in a statement... “Frankly, it’s beneath the dignity of his office,” the Republican senator from Kentucky said.

 http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2012/08/02/video_harry_reid_accuses_romney_of_federal_crime_on_senate_floor_with_zero_proof

Wasserman Schultz Uses MediScare Tactics on Seniors

When she opens her mouth I  still smell Crap! She needs to keep it shut!

Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who knows how to bully elderly voters into voting for her, (she is from Florida) is using a time-honored Democratic Party approach to woo elderly voters: scare the hell out of them. Speaking in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, she warned that Mitt Romney will force seniors out of nursing homes and "out into the cold" if he's elected president.

Romney "and his Tea Party extremist allies" are planning to rip Medicare benefits away from the elderly, she alleged, by his endorsement of Paul Ryan’s budget plan, which she said would “end Medicare as we know it.” She claimed Ryan’s voucher system would cost the average senior an extra $6,300 in annual Medicare premiums.

Turning to a more general attack on Romney, Wasserman Schultz said, "It's unbelievable and astonishing how out of touch Mitt Romney is and how he really doesn't understand the needs of regular working families who aren't already doing really well.”

Here’s the 400-pound gorilla in the room (No, I’m not speaking of Wasserman Schultz; she must weigh less than that): Ms. Schultz, why do you think regular working families aren’t doing very well?

Romney isn’t president right now. Who is responsible then? Hmmmm…

As for Wasserman Schultz’s claim that Ryan’s budget plan will hurt the elderly, Wasserman Schultz should know better. Obamacare will cut Medicare Advantage payment rates by an average of $3,700 for each person in 2017. This is 27 percent below what beneficiaries would have received without ObamaCare. This will translate directly into higher health-care costs for seniors. Seniors losing $3,700 per year in Medicare at 65 until their deaths at age 77 or 78 would lose about $44,000 in benefits. In the ten years following the adoption of ObamaCare, Medicare spending will increase $25 billion.
Of course, when Wasserman Schultz’s press secretary was asked how Obama intends to reform the Medicare, no answer. RNC Spokesman Tommy Schultz offered the Republican response:

President Obama and his friends in the Democratic party think the solution for seniors is placing a panel of 15 unelected and unaccountable Washington bureaucrats in between them and their doctors. Instead of keeping his promise to protect and preserve Medicare, President Obama decided to cut over $500 billion from Medicare to help pay for his government takeover of healthcare.

Wasserman Schultz should be lambasted for scaring the elderly, but in the Democratic Party, that’s how you earn your stripes.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/08/02/wasserman-schultz-lies-and-frightens-the-elderly

People said that the gas price is bs or a lie? 
Consumer reports has a link on 2008 pricing and the pic below was taken at a Kroger in 2008

http://olioscourge.blogspot.com/2011/12/only-three-years-ago.html

Jan 2009 pries link(still low)
http://news.consumerreports.org/cars/2009/01/average-gas-pricesjanuary-26-2009.html