Selfish Communists

So, still, leftist populist and self-professed NY liberal Donald Trump is pushing socialism, which should surprise no one, considering he’s pushed ideas even further out into the Red.

More than once, he’s sponsored and blathered about pushing unconstitutional and un-American “health care laws”, all for the sake of replacing an unconstitutional and un-American “health care law”.  And, every time, his ideas (even the one he turned on, and called “mean”, after he supported it, himself, and tried to pretend he didn’t: http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/337651-trump-calls-house-healthcare-bill-mean) have been worse than ObamaCare:

After months of confusion and secrecy, House Republicans have finally revealed their Obamacare repeal legislation. While it’s useful to have House Republicans on the record with a legislative plan, the plan doesn’t offer any estimate for how much it would cost, or how many people it would (or wouldn’t) cover. In general, it’s not clear what problems this particular bill would actually solve.

The bill would replace Obamacare’s subsidies with a system of tax credits and halt the law’s Medicaid expansion at the end of the decade while grandfathering in many beneficiaries over the long term and giving states $100 billion in funding to work with to care for hard case patients. All in all, it’s a fairly conventional Republican plan, modified in ways designed to mitigate recent political objections.

The tax credit is, for the moment, the most controversial component of the legislation. As in previous drafts of the bill, the credits are refundable, meaning that individuals will be eligible for them even if their total tax liability is lower than the amount of the credit. The federal government would pay people, even if their federal tax bill was zero. It’s a subsidy, basically, rather like the one in Obamacare. Conservative legislators have argued that such a system would be little more than Obamacare lite. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) has complained that any refundable credit is tantamount to “a new entitlement program.”

Unlike Obamacare, which bases its credits on income, the GOP bills we’ve seen so far are based on age. That creates another set of political headaches, because it means that wealthier folks get tax credits, and because it means that older people would get less help than under Obamacare, in hopes of creating a scheme that lures more young and health people into the system.

The bill released tonight attempts to mitigate these problems by capping the refundable credit so that households earning more than $150,000 would be reduced, and individuals making more than $215,000 would get nothing at all. But that still leaves a credit that is refundable for most people, and adds a bit of additional administrative work: Under Obamacare, judging an individual’s employment and income has proven more than a little difficult, and the same would continue to be true here.

So Republicans would be replacing one set of insurance subsidies with another set of insurance subsidies, while killing the individual mandate but leaving many of the law’s insurance regulations intact (with a penalty for insurance gaps). There’s a reason that legislators like Michigan Rep. Justin Amash are already referring to it as “Obamacare 2.0.”

http://reason.com/blog/2017/03/06/the-gops-obamacare-repeal-bill-is-here-i

http://therightscoop.com/house-bill-is-worse-than-leaving-obamacare-in-place-daniel-horowitz-tells-mark-levin/

Let’s be certain of whom we’re dealing with:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPJfKdp3bDs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0vl-_TxXYg&t=172s

Hmmm.

That sounds familiar.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpAyan1fXCE

obama trump orange is the new black

I have absolutely zero respect for racist scumbag Thomas Jefferson (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/01/opinion/the-real-thomas-jefferson.html), but when he’s right, he’s right.

“To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.”

Everyone pushing for increasing socialism/communism in the US, in order to force people the live like they want to live, are naught more than selfish punks. So, because you want everybody to pay for your medical care (and contraceptives), we should all empty our wallets and purses for your benefit, even if we were doing just fine, and could afford our own expenses?  And what’s really funny is that fact that you swear up and down that this is because you care about people, when, in reality, you couldn’t give two shits about anybody, but yourself, and what you can get out of the system you’re continually rigging with crooked politicians.

zero fucks

Reagan was right.

Both you, and Thump, are wrong.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYrlDlrLDSQ&t=224s

You are so selfish and pathetically infantilized by Big Government, Conservatism is far beyond the conception of you liberals – which includes trumpanzees, yes.

Why do I say you’re not even bright enough to have a conception of Conservatism?

ice-cold-conservative

Because it’s true.  Conservatism advocates constitutional, republican government, which precludes gravy train government.

gravy-train

It advocates the ending (in fact, it advocated never starting them in the first place) government handout programs, at the federal level.  It understands that some people, from time to time, may need a helping hand and “safety net”, but it also understands that they can’t be allowed to make this a career field.  You people seem to have become too stupid (thanks to public education social engineering) to understand this simple concept:

socialism_poster

This “repeal and replace” drive is clearly populist liberalism.  Because the majority of the people screaming the loudest (most of whom are freeloaders, or aspire towards that career field) demand unconstitutional government health care, the (NS)GOP – led by a NY liberal – is more than happy to accommodate their irrational demands, and continue to ignore and violate the Constitution, every chance they get.

Constitution-Void-where-prohibited-by-law

Republicans claim to be in favor of “nullification”.  Yes, they are.  Nullification of the Constitution, just like their Confederates of the Slave Party.

It’s beyond the capabilities of Rrepublicans and the Confederates to think.  They don’t want to put effort into things, they just want to get as much out of their efforts, as possible, which includes money, fame and power over others.  The Rrepublican/Confederate answer to everything, now, is to tax it.  When they want to look like the good guys that they most certainly aren’t, they propose some piddly tax cuts. They, including the Rrepublicans, refuse, now, to acknowledge constitutional limits on their power, and redefine it as it is convenient for them, in any given situation.  This should come as no surprise to those that have long ago learned that Rrepublicans and Confederates operate under sets of situational ethics that no other rational, honest Human Being would ever consider.  They refuse to look at the fact that, constitutionally, they are limited as to what they can tax, in the first place.

[Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which
shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of
all other Persons.]* Article 1, Section 2, United States Constitution

[No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.]* Article 1, Section 9, United States Constitution

*Note to dumbasses:  it does NOT say 3/5 OF A PERSON, or that someone is to be COUNTED as 3/5 OF A PERSON.  Stupidasses.   I guess you’re confusing it for something you liberals wrote.

thats-racist

Anyhow, I digress.

A capitation tax would be a direct tax (which the Framers and Founders never wanted), distributed by population in states.  A budget target would be set, and the larger states (that means you, Left Coast and New York) would pay more than the smaller states, in terms of dollar contribution.

Amendment XVI.
Passed by Congress July 2, 1909. Ratified February 3, 1913.
(Note: Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution was modified by
the 16th Amendment.)
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

This is the leftist creep into the Constitution, which allowed Congress to tax you, simply for getting paid.  Originally, income taxation was to help pay for a war that traitorous democrats/Confederates waged against their own nation and people, but liberals loved having such power over people, they just couldn’t give it up, and, by then, the (NS)GOP had already lost their spines.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; -Article 1, Section 8, United States Constitution

That means they can tax what you buy, sell, import or export.

What is an ‘Excise Tax’

An excise tax is an indirect tax charged on the sale of a particular good. Indirect means the tax is not directly paid by an individual consumer; instead, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) levies the tax on the producer or merchant, who passes the tax onto the consumer by including it in the product’s price. It also refers to penalty taxation for ineligible transactions in retirement accounts.

Excise Tax http://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/excisetax.asp#ixzz4lgwqaCDu

DEFINITION of ‘Duty’

1. A tax levied on certain goods, services or transactions. Duties are enforceable by law and are imposed on commodities or financial transactions, instead of individuals.

Duty http://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/duty.asp#ixzz4lgxJN745

Could a duty be used to tax things like health care transactions, legally?  Unfortunately, yes.  However, let’s remember that the US does not have an income problem; it has a spending problem.

Obama Has Collected $19,966,110,000,000 in Taxes; Incurred $8,795,689,333,049 in Debt

(CNSNews.com) – During the 90 full months President Barack Obama has completed serving in the White House—February 2009 through July 2016–the U.S. Treasury collected approximately $19,966,110,000,000 in tax revenues (in non-inflation-adjusted dollars), according to the Monthly Treasury Statements.

During those same 90 months, the federal debt rose from $10,632,005,246,736.97 to $19,427,694,579,786.64—an increase of $8,795,689,333,049.67.

In July, according to the Monthly Treasury Statement released today, the federal government took in $209,998,000,000 in taxes and spent $322,813,000,000—running a one-month deficit of $112,815,000,000.

So far in fiscal 2016, according the Treasury statement, the federal government has collected approximately $2,678,824,000,000 in taxes and spent approximately $3,192,487,000,000—running a deficit of $513,662,000,000 for the first ten months of the fiscal year.

Given that the Bureau of Labor Statistics has reported that there were 151,517,000 people employed in the United States in July, the $19,966,110,000,000 in taxes the Treasury has collected during Obama’s first 90 full months in office equals approximately $131,775 per worker.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/obama-has-collected-19966110000000-taxes-incurred-8795689333049-debt

The US has shown it has no problem squeezing money out of people, but where the problem lies is where that money goes.

unfunded liability spending

That right.  Unfunded Liabilities – which includes ObamaCare, and, apparently, TrumpCare – is what’s financially hurting the nation, and everybody in it.  This is purely unconstitutional spending, taken from taxpayers illegally, and against the collective will of the People.

You Think The Deficit Is Bad? Federal Unfunded Liabilities Exceed $127 Trillion

By Vance Ginn

Although the battle over a two-year budget deal and the national debt limitin Washington, D.C. has received the lion’s share of media attention recently , the bigger, more ominous threat facing taxpayers are unfunded liabilities—the difference between the net present value of expected future government spending and the net present value of projected future tax revenue, particularly those associated with Social Security and Medicare.

While federal unfunded liabilities are important, state-level unfunded pension liabilities also pose serious obstacles. In Texas, the recent 2013 Employees Retirement System (ERS) Valuation Report outlines the funding shortages this pension system faces and there is some indication it may be unable to pay beneficiaries by 2052.

The federal unfunded liabilities are catastrophic for future taxpayers and economic growth. At usdebtclock.org, federal unfunded liabilities are estimated at near $127 trillion, which is roughly $1.1 million per taxpayer and nearly double 2012’s total world output.

 

With about 134,000 active members in Texas’ ERS at the end of fiscal year 2013, the total unfunded liability was $7.2 billion—or $54,000 per active member. Despite the much smaller future net debt obligations in ERS compared with federal programs, there are similarities how we got here.

Laurence Kotlikoff and Scott Burns’ book entitled The Coming Generational Storm: What You Need to Know About America’s Future argue federal unfunded liabilities are primarily from a generational accounting problem, in which the dependency ratio of retirees to taxpayers is declining from an aging population.

 

The authors’ state, “today there are about 4 payees for every 1 beneficiary, but by the year 2030 there will only be 2 payees for every 1 beneficiary. Simple arithmetic will note that this is not sustainable over the long run.”

To understand the magnitude of this problem, the authors note one solution that includes all the following: “raise income taxes by 17 percent, raise payroll taxes by 24 percent, cut federal purchases by 26 percent, and cut Social Security and Medicare benefits by 11 percent.”

In the current political and economic environment, these changes are highly unlikely, but it shows the substantial economic costs associated with these large unfunded liabilities.

State pensions across the country also face this generational accounting problem, whereby an author discusses his research in a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed entitled “The Hidden Danger in Public Pension Funds” stating, “The ratio of active public employees to retirees has fallen drastically, according to the State Budget Crisis Task Force. Today it is 1.75 to 1; in 1950, it was 7 to 1. This means that a loss in pension investments has three times the impact on state and local budgets than 40 years ago.”

In addition to an aging population in Texas creating substantial challenges with funding ERS, it is also riddled with a problem many state pension portfolio managers face: low rates of return on risk-free assets, such as a one-year Treasury security that returns less than 1 percent.

As these managers choose riskier investments to gain a higher rate of return, the study cited in the WSJ op-ed notes that the standard deviation of public pension investments to state and local budgets—a good measure of risk—has increased 10-fold from about 2 percent in 1975 to 20 percent today. Along with fewer people contributing to these pensions, riskier investments should be of grave concern to all.

Since the actuarial funded ratio of ERS is 77 percent based on an 8 percent annual rate of return, this rate of return and the risk-taking portfolio managers must use to gain this return are vital. Over the last five years, the fund’s annual return was 6 percent and 7.1 percent over the last ten years. Although the ten-year annual average was close to 8 percent, there is no guarantee this will continue, which could dramatically lower the funded ratio.

Clearly, the generational accounting problem burdening programs at the federal level also burden Texas’ pensions and the more risky assets portfolio managers must invest in are increasing the susceptibility of an even lower funded ratio in the future.

File:Estimated Funding Gaps in Medicare and Social Security Programs.png

https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/01/17/you-think-the-deficit-is-bad-federal-unfunded-liabilities-exceed-127-trillion/#2a4691899bf8

That’s $127,000,000,000,000.00 USD that should never have been spent.

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time. -Article 1, Section 9, United States Constitution

This isn’t about “caring” about people.  If liberals really cared about people, instead of devising unconstitutional, immoral Machiavellian schemes to separate people from their money and freedom, they’d be doing things like adhering to the Constitution, and making greater charitable contributions.

Poorer conservatives more generous than wealthy liberals – new study

Less well-off families from red states donate a relatively higher – and growing – proportion of their money to charity, while those at the top have been giving a smaller share as their income has increased, a new extensive study has revealed.

Respected non-government sector newspaper The Philanthropy Chronicle collated the itemized charity deductions on the tax returns of hundreds of millions of Americans between 2006 and 2012, the latest year available. While only about a third of all givers write off their charity expenses, the sums included about 80 percent of all donations in the country.

The study noted that while the amount of charitable giving by the US as a nation has remained steady at 3 percent, the poorer people are, the greater amount they spend on charity. And this trend has been exacerbated in the years covered by the study, which showed that those earning $25,000 or less contributed 16.6 percent more of their income, while those with incomes of over $200,000 were spending 4.5 percent less of their money on charity in 2012 than in 2006. The study does not give the countrywide overall percentage of money donated by each group. 

Several explanations have been posited for the findings. 

“Lower and middle-income people know people who lost their jobs or are homeless, and they worry that they themselves are a day away from losing their jobs. They’re very sensitive to the needs of other people and recognize that these years have been hard,” explained Stacy Palmer, editor of the Chronicle of Philanthropy. 

Meanwhile, the wealthier donors, who had been able to afford largesse during the fat years through the 90s and early 2000s, became “nervous and cautious” as the financial crisis struck in 2008, threatening their incomes, property and shares. 

The study also says in places like Las Vegas – whose giving went up 15 percent in real terms – charities redirected their fundraising efforts from the big businessmen, to poorer individuals they had no time and resources for earlier. 

Another explanation might be that charity giving can remain fairly inelastic in such a short period, despite fluctuating incomes. So, while the poorer people, hard hit by the crisis have struggled to maintain their giving commitments, America’s highest earners, who have recovered most quickly after the crash, have not yet readjusted their giving upwards. 

After all, the figures show that overall donations from the wealthiest Americans have gone up by $4.6 billion, adjusted for inflation, to $77.5 billion between 2006 and 2012, showing that they are giving more in absolute terms, just not as a proportion of their growing pay packets.

https://www.rt.com/usa/193952-charity-conservatives-religion-utah/

 

Like I’ve said, before, if you want people to kill unborn children willy-nilly, you pay for it.

https://virusx.wordpress.com/2017/04/14/if-you-want-it-done-right/

If you want people that are indigent to have access to health care and contraceptives, why don’t you pay for it, yourselves, instead of burdening everyone else with your latest flavor-of-the-week pet project?

Oh, you think that the Constitution says we are all bound together by debts?

Uh, no.  It doesn’t.  It binds us together under laws, none of which allow for federal spending on things like unfunded liabilities, and the laws on spending have to be based on the Constitution.  Hence, as I’ve already cited:

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time. -Article 1, Section 9, United States Constitution

STATES and the PEOPLE (that means YOU, leftists) should be taking this up, not the federal government.

Stop sitting around with your hands out, and pointing fingers, simultaneously crying about what you think somebody owes you, and assigning responsibility and blame to someone else to facilitate your pursuit of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (which you’re more than happy to deny to other people, like the unborn, but that’s for another post).  How much did you raise to elect that loser Hillary Clinton?

conservative-daily-brief-hillary-clinton-above-the-law

Just think:  all that money could’ve actually gone to something you consider useful, like providing low-cost medical care to the indigent.

Don’t like my opinion, on this?

tough shit2

I am VIRUS-X, REPUBLIC COMMANDO, and I approve this message.

great-seal-of-virus-x

 

Advertisements

~ by virusx on July 2, 2017.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: