WE SURROUND THEM!

“I'd call you stupid if you actually said anything for yourself. Instead, you copied and pasted an article you probably didn't even fully read. That isn't stating a point or making an argument or even, as you say, beign concerned about our yadda yadda yadda. That's being a parrot. Pretty bird, wanna cracker?”

“forget it... you're an external pack person too - we must band together. I'm done with this thread - you can have it”

“Who you callin' cracker, b'wana?”

“ROTFLMAO...so Pepsi is ticked you showed "evidence" of your stance?”

“It's all good Pepsi. You're one of the coolest progressives I know....”

“Pepsi's an external pack person? Damn, and I liked him...[shakes head, shoves hands in pockets, turns and walks away]”

“[trips Nigal]”

“[dusting self off] Damn external fags.”

“Largest-ever federal payroll to hit 2.15 million


By Stephen Dinan

The era of big government has returned with a vengeance, in the form of the largest federal work force in modern history.

The Obama administration says the government will grow to 2.15 million employees this year, topping 2 million for the first time since President Clinton declared that "the era of big government is over" and joined forces with a Republican-led Congress in the 1990s to pare back the federal work force.

Most of the increases are on the civilian side, which will grow by 153,000 workers, to 1.43 million people, in fiscal 2010.

The expansion could provide more ammunition to those arguing that the government is trying to do too much under President Obama.



"I'm shocked that the 'tea party' hasn't focused on it yet, and the Obama administration only has a thin sliver of time to deal more directly with it, I believe," said Paul C. Light, who studies the federal bureaucracy as a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and a professor at New York University. "When you talk about big government, you're talking about a big employer."

The new figures are contained in the budget that Mr. Obama sent Monday to Congress.

Mr. Obama says the civilian work force will drop by 80,000 next year, mostly because of a reduction in U.S. census workers added in 2010 but then dropped in 2011 after the national population count is finished. That still leaves 1.35 million civilian federal employees on the payroll in 2011.

From 1981 through 2008, the civilian work force remained at about 1.1 million to 1.2 million, with a low of 1.07 million in 1986 and a high of more than 1.2 million in 1993 and in 2008. In 2009, the number jumped to 1.28 million.

Including both the civilian and defense sectors, the federal government will employ 2.15 million people in 2010 and 2.11 million in 2011, excluding Postal Service workers.”

“Backdoor taxes to hit middle class


Mon Feb 1, 4:09 PM

By Terri Cullen


NEW YORK (Reuters.com) --The Obama administration's plan to cut more than $1 trillion from the deficit over the next decade relies heavily on so-called backdoor tax increases that will result in a bigger tax bill for middle-class families.

In the 2010 budget tabled by President Barack Obama on Monday, the White House wants to let billions of dollars in tax breaks expire by the end of the year -- effectively a tax hike by stealth.

While the administration is focusing its proposal on eliminating tax breaks for individuals who earn $250,000 a year or more, middle-class families will face a slew of these backdoor increases.

The targeted tax provisions were enacted under the Bush administration's Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001. Among other things, the law lowered individual tax rates, slashed taxes on capital gains and dividends, and steadily scaled back the estate tax to zero in 2010.

If the provisions are allowed to expire on December 31, the top-tier personal income tax rate will rise to 39.6 percent from 35 percent. But lower-income families will pay more as well: the 25 percent tax bracket will revert back to 28 percent; the 28 percent bracket will increase to 31 percent; and the 33 percent bracket will increase to 36 percent. The special 10 percent bracket is eliminated.

Investors will pay more on their earnings next year as well, with the tax on dividends jumping to 39.6 percent from 15 percent and the capital-gains tax increasing to 20 percent from 15 percent. The estate tax is eliminated this year, but it will return in 2011 -- though there has been talk about reinstating the death tax sooner.

Millions of middle-class households already may be facing higher taxes in 2010 because Congress has failed to extend tax breaks that expired on January 1, most notably a "patch" that limited the impact of the alternative minimum tax. The AMT, initially designed to prevent the very rich from avoiding income taxes, was never indexed for inflation. Now the tax is affecting millions of middle-income households, but lawmakers have been reluctant to repeal it because it has become a key source of revenue.

Without annual legislation to renew the patch this year, the AMT could affect an estimated 25 million taxpayers with incomes as low as $33,750 (or $45,000 for joint filers). Even if the patch is extended to last year's levels, the tax will hit American families that can hardly be considered wealthy -- the AMT exemption for 2009 was $46,700 for singles and $70,950 for married couples filing jointly.

Middle-class families also will find fewer tax breaks available to them in 2010 if other popular tax provisions are allowed to expire. Among them:

* Taxpayers who itemize will lose the option to deduct state sales-tax payments instead of state and local income taxes;

* The $250 teacher tax credit for classroom supplies;

* The tax deduction for up to $4,000 of college tuition and expenses;

* Individuals who don't itemize will no longer be able to increase their standard deduction by up to $1,000 for property taxes paid;

* The first $2,400 of unemployment benefits are taxable, in 2009 that amount was tax-free.


OK, Now read this-They "pulled" the story



Advisory: Backdoor taxes to hit middle class
Reuters

Mon Feb 1, 8:07 pm ET

The story Backdoor taxes to hit middle class has been withdrawn. A replacement story will run later in the week.”

“Secretly start longs to be backdoored by Barry Obama...”

“strat, do I sense a backhanded compliment? Well, I'm a telecaster man myself, so we should make a new thread to argue that...”

“and Nigal, you really really really liiiiiike me? awww. well, I'm a package deal - me and my external frame come together”

“(.... but not simultaneously?)”

“Keep your package out of this Pepsi. LOL!”

“A tele?!?!?!

Frigg'n commie basturd!”

“tHOMAS sOWELL?

He is that traitor who would like to see a military dictatorship overthrow our democracy to "straighten things out".”

“and he hates puppies”

“You don't like him because he is black right?”

“US debt to hit proposed ceiling by end-February: Treasury




WASHINGTON — The US debt is on track to hit a congressionally proposed debt ceiling of 14.3 trillion dollars by the end of February, the Treasury said Wednesday, a day ahead of a key vote to raise it to that level.

"Based on current projections, Treasury expects to reach the debt ceiling as early as the end of February. However, the government's cash flows are volatile, making it difficult to forecast a precise date," the Treasury said in a statement.

The current limit on the public debt of the United States is 12.374 trillion dollars.

The US debt exceeded 12.349 trillion dollars on Monday, according to Treasury data.

The US House of Representatives will vote Thursday on whether to raise the US debt limit to a historic 14.3 trillion dollars, allowing the United States to borrow another 1.9 trillion dollars.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said representatives would take up the measure a week after the Senate approved the higher debt ceiling in a 60-39 vote.

In December, both houses agreed to increase the debt limit by an interim amount of 290 billion dollars to ensure the US government would continue to function.

The Senate also last week passed an amendment to legislation raising the debt ceiling that requires new budget items to be paid for, dubbed "pay-as-you-go."

The measure is intended to prevent the federal government from spending money it does not have and to control the massive US budget deficit.

The House has adopted a similar measure.”

“Hopefully, the U.S. can reign in the bloated military budget to help relieve the burden on the American people.”

“That is a good start.”

“You like him because you would love to see a military dictatorship in the U.S., eh EXLAX?”

“UM there is only ONE President who seems to want control of the MEDIA, Big Business and punishement of freedoms.”

“Those who would sacrifice liberty for an illusion of security deserve neither liberty nor security.

Thomas Sowell, eat my shorts.”

“MARKO HATES BLACK PEOPLE!

YOU RACIST!”

“Obama makes a mockery of his own lobbyist ban
By: Timothy P. Carney

February 3, 2010


More than 40 former lobbyists work in senior positions in the Obama administration, including three Cabinet secretaries and the CIA director. Yet in his State of the Union address, Obama claimed, "We've excluded lobbyists from policymaking jobs."

Did Obama speak falsely?

Well, it depends on what the definition of "excluded lobbyists" is.

I asked the White House if he chose his words poorly, but the media affairs office defended the president's statement: "As the President said," a spokeswoman wrote in an e-mail, "we have turned away lobbyists for many, many positions."

So, the country may have heard, "we haven't hired lobbyists to policymaking jobs," but the White House tells us Obama meant, "we only hired some of the lobbyists who applied for policymaking jobs." In other words, they've excluded some lobbyists.

And this was in the context of reducing the "deficit of trust."

So Obama has, indeed, taken a Clintonian turn, but not toward the center. Instead, he has adopted our 42nd president's use of clearly misleading statements that can be parsed so as to be factually correct, at least in a general sort of way.

Using Obama's grammar, we can say George W. Bush avoided wars in the Mideast (he didn't invade Iran), and Bush's father refused to raise taxes (repeatedly, for months).

On the day after the State of the Union, when Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, asked Obama about his campaign pledge on lobbyists ("They will not work in my White House"), Obama explained that he had made some worthy exceptions: "For example, a doctor who ran Tobacco-Free Kids technically is a registered lobbyist, on the other hand, has more expertise than anybody in figuring out how kids don't get hooked on cigarettes. So there have been a couple of instances like that. ..."

Sure, some of Obama's 40 ex-lobbyists are like that anti-smoking activist, but many are of a different stripe, such as William J. Wilkins, the general counsel of Obama's IRS, a former lobbyist for the Swiss Bankers Association.

Or Monsanto's former VP for public policy, Michael Taylor, who Obama tapped as deputy commissioner for foods at the Food and Drug Administration.

William J. Lynn became Obama's deputy defense secretary within 10 months of being a lobbyist for Raytheon, a giant of the military-industrial complex. By the way, Raytheon's fourth-quarter profits were up 20 percent from a year ago.

Joe Biden's chief of staff, Ron Klain, was a K Street lobbyist who represented Fannie Mae during the housing boom, opposing regulation of the now-bailed-out mortgage giant. And Biden's deputy chief of staff is Alan Hoffman, a K Street veteran who helped oil giant Unocal avoid U.S. sanctions against its natural-gas partnership with the military dictatorship of Burma.

Obama touts the ethics executive order he signed his first day, and none of the above lobbyist appointments violate it (which should suggest how toothless Obama's lobbyist regulations are). Wilkins, for instance, stopped registering as a lobbyist for Swiss bankers and the like in 2003, while Obama's restrictions reach back only two years. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack avoids issues dealing with his former employer, the National Education Association.

William Lynn at DOD? He got a waiver from the president, and so he's exempt from the new rules.

But then there's Mark Patterson, a Goldman Sachs lobbyist until April 2008 (apparently, back then, Wall Street lobbyists weren't all evil in Obama's eyes) who now serves as chief of staff at the Treasury Department. He's one of those lobbyists whom Obama neither "excluded" nor granted a waiver.

But whether or not Obama is living up to his executive order, he's not living up to his rhetoric.

That candidate Obama would pledge lobbyists "will not work in my White House," but President Obama would hire many of them, reflects what we already knew during the campaign: Obama was inexperienced and naive about the realities of governing.

That President Obama would say, "we've excluded lobbyists," when he really meant, "we've included them, too," tells us something more surprising: That he's willing to mislead us, as long as he's left himself a semantic back door to escape through if he gets called out.

Now we're forced to parse all of Obama's claims and promises. Now we always have to try to guess what the president actually means. Obama might soon learn, as Bill Clinton did, that a "deficit of trust" carries a steep price.”

“Barney Frank Named ‘Porker of the Month’ by Government Watchdog
Thursday, March 26, 2009
By Ryan Byrnes



(CNSNews.com) – Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, has been named “Porker of the Month” by Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) because of his criticism of bonuses for AIG employees while Frank himself has supported bailouts for failing banks and lenders.

The CAGW, a non-partisan government watchdog group, noted that Frank has said that AIG’s bonuses only “rewarded failure.” Yet Frank voted for the Troubled Assets Relief Program, a financial bailout program with no enforceable strings attached, said the CAGW, and he defended Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac while those lending institutions were in financial trouble.

The CAGW noted Frank’s defense of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac over the years, “even when it became clear that executives at the two giant government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) had manipulated earnings statements and gifted themselves with huge bonuses based on the bogus numbers, misled regulators, and steered the companies into such shoddy condition that they posed a systemic risk to the entire financial system,” said the CAGW statement.

In September 2003, Frank told The New York Times that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac “are not facing any kind of financial crisis.” Both Fannie and Freddie are now almost entirely owned by the government, and while Freddie Mac got $13.8 billion in bailout money last year, Fannie Mae is estimated to get $15.2 billion in 2009, according to the CAGW.

Also in 2003, Frank, in reference to the GSEs, said, “I want to roll the dice more in this situation towards subsidized housing.”

“Even in this global capital of hot air, bait-and-switch politics, and double-talk, Chairman Frank deserves singular recognition,” said CAGW President Tom Schatz. “It strains credulity to hear him rebuking anyone for rewarding failure after he helped create the disaster in the first place.”

Tad DeHaven, a federal budget analyst with the Cato Institute, said that when it comes to issues involving government bailouts of financial titans, Frank has “negative credibility,” so his claims of institutions rewarding failure should be questioned.

“I would call Congressman Frank getting reelected rewarding failure,” DeHaven told CNSNews.com. “If everyone else responsible for this mess in the private sector has to take the fall, I don’t understand why politicians are left out of the equation.”

DeHaven suggested that Frank is only one of too many Capitol Hill legislators eager to push the blame onto Wall Street while quick to dodge taking any blame themselves.

“They love blaming the private sector,” Edmunds said of lawmakers. “But to me, the private sector is barely private since you have this unholy relationship between these businesses and the government. That’s not capitalism, that’s crony capitalism.”

The CAGW says that its “‘Porker of the Month’ is a dubious honor given to lawmakers, government officials, and political candidates who have shown a blatant disregard for the interests of taxpayers.”

Frank’s office did not return calls from CNSNews.com requesting comment on this story.”

“We have a difference between writing a law and abiding by that law, these lawmakers don't know how to do either very well, because the lobbyist do the writing and the lobbyist pay to get lawsellers out of trouble when they can't abide.”

“8 Sneaky Ways to Raise Taxes
usnews



Rick Newman, On Tuesday February 2, 2010, 2:38 pm EST

If you're hoping that tax hikes on the rich will solve America's debt crisis, you're overestimating the power of the wealthy.

President Obama's budget proposal would raise taxes on upper-income earners by $969 billion over the next 10 years, yet the federal debt would continue to explode. To boost government revenues further, he'd raise an additional $122 billion from multinational firms, $90 billion from banks, $37 billion from oil companies, and $24 billion from hedge funds and private-equity firms. All told, that's nearly $1.2 trillion. And it would barely make a dent. We'd still have huge deficits, and the national debt would keep growing.

[See 21 things we're learning to live without.]

Taxing the rich will be one of the hot political stories this year. It will also divert attention from a much bigger story: Sooner or later, almost everybody in America is going to pay more in taxes. One reason is that spending on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid--which equals 56 percent of all federal outflows--continues to skyrocket, and cutting those programs, just as baby boomers begin to retire, would be politically perilous. Few politicians in Washington want to cut defense, which leaves little else on the chopping block.

At least 35 states face their own budget shortfalls this year, with revenue in many states coming in below projections that were weak to start with, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. When federal stimulus spending winds down in 2011, many states anticipate a "cliff effect," in which their revenues plunge. That means new revenue will have to come from somewhere--and there aren't enough rich people to provide all the funds. "It's inevitable that the government will have to find a way to have a truly middle-income tax increase," says Clint Stretch of consulting firm Deloitte Tax. "The trick is: how?"

Politicians, of course, don't want to admit that most of their constituents face a stinging tax hike. And until there's no other choice, they'll try to raise funds without having to mouth the "T" word. As federal, state, and local governments get desperate, here are some of the mechanisms elected officials will try to use to raise funds without getting run out of office:

Expansion of existing taxes. Raising income tax rates is so unpopular that most politicians consider it a last resort. Raising state and local sales taxes is a bit more tolerable, and it's even better if you're simply expanding a tax that already exists. "In many states, the first thing they'll do is squeeze more out of the taxes they've got," says Alex Meleney of Deloitte Tax. Some states, for example, could expand sales taxes to things not already covered, such as restaurant meals, salons, business services, Internet connections, and phone or cable TV service. It also makes sense to crack down on those evading existing taxes, by increasing the fines for late payments and underpayments and conducting more inspections to catch merchants and others who may be skirting their obligations.

[See why class warfare will dominate Obama's presidency.]

"Avoidable" taxes. A new levy is more palatable when politicians can make the case that you don't have to pay it if you choose not to. Consumers might be able to offset new gasoline taxes, for instance, by driving less or buying a more efficient car. Some states are mulling new energy or carbon taxes, with part of the pitch being that you can make up the difference by using less energy. Then there are the classic "sin taxes" on cigarettes and booze, which are only for people with unhealthy habits--and have already gone up in more than a dozen states, according to the NCSL. One new "sin" that could end up taxed: junk food.

Online taxes. This is controversial, because it could force online merchants to figure out tax rates for thousands of localities. But New York and a few other states are trying to impose regular sales taxes on Internet purchases, to replace revenue lost when those transactions don't take place in a physical store. A legal challenge to the so-called Amazon tax is pending in a New York court, and if the government wins, more states are sure to follow up with their own Internet taxes.

[If you like the bank tax, here are 13 others.]

Healthcare taxes. You'd think healthcare was already expensive enough, but at least nine states have upped taxes on hospitals and other providers over the past year, according to NCSL. Of course, many of those added costs will be passed on to insurers, businesses, and ultimately, consumers.

Less federal aid to states. The federal government gives states nearly $500 billion a year in the form of Medicaid payments, highway funds, housing aid, education grants, and other stipends. One way for Washington to rein in spending is to reduce aid to states, which could force states to cut their own spending even more--or, more likely, come up with new taxes to pay for it.

Temporary surtaxes. Several states have been covering budget shortfalls with "temporary" increases in income or property taxes or with other surtaxes that will supposedly expire at some point in the future. If the economy comes roaring back, sure, legislators may rescind those tax hikes. But more often than not, they stick.

[See 4 things that could derail a recovery.]

Business tax hikes. Unemployment-insurance funds, which are financed primarily through a tax on businesses, are running low in many states, for obvious reasons. The federal government has been kicking in money for extensions, but that can't continue much longer. If the unemployment rate remains high--as even the White House now predicts--states will have to increase taxes on businesses to replenish their UI accounts. And the extra burden will flow through to workers in the form of lower wages. Businesses are also ripe targets for other taxes that governments don't want to impose directly on consumers.

A value-added tax. Some tax experts view this as the holy grail of revenue raisers and think it's inevitable that federal or state-level VATs--or both--will become common. A VAT is a tax imposed at various steps in the production of a good--i.e., every time "value" is added. Since there's no extra fee at the point of sale, consumers don't notice the way they would if the sales tax increased. But prices would go up, reflecting the added costs. VATs have been used to plug big budget shortfalls in Europe, Canada, and Japan, where they were intensely unpopular at first. But VATs also have some appealing benefits. Since they tax consumption, not income, they create incentives to earn and save more, which benefits the economy in the long term. They can be applied to select goods, with essentials like food exempt. And VATs can raise a lot of money in one fell swoop, which federal and state governments will need to do before long. Until then, be glad you're not rich.”

“The VAT needs to be controlled by non-elected administrators(computers). No campaigns, no bribes, just 99.99% pure mathematics.”

“Damn dOOd, you're getting into the real solutions now, Congrads!!”

“St-ratty -

A few days back, you posted a story about the supposed back door tax on the middle class and noted that Reuters had pulled the story and that a replacement would run later in the week.


How come you never posted this?:

ADVISORY: Backdoor taxes story

The Feb 1 story headlined "Backdoor taxes to hit middle class" is wrong and has been withdrawn. The story said lower-income families will pay more under tax provisions scheduled to expire Dec 31. The Obama administration's budget calls for the extension of those tax provisions for households earning less than $250,000. There will be no substitute story.



Or noted that the reporter who wrote what turned out to be an outright lie was fired?:

Retraction Leads to Reporter Exit

Terri Cullen, the reporter who wrote that article earlier this week alleging an Obama "back door" tax hike for nearly everyone, which became a rightwing cause -- and then was withdrawn by Reuters -- has now left the company. Jumped or pushed? She had just come on board a month ago, and had spent many years as a top WSJ staffer. NYT reports:

Her article said that President Obama�s budget amounted to a backdoor tax increase for middle-income and even lower-income people, based largely on the scheduled expiration of income tax cuts passed in 2001. But the president had actually proposed keeping those cuts in place for all but high-income families.

After a complaint from the White House, Reuters withdrew the article, stating that it was inaccurate. But by then, some prominent conservatives had seized on the article, and a few - notably Rush Limbaugh - insisted that the retraction meant simply that the media were protecting the president
.




Tell me again how liberals lack integrity and you're a truth seeker.”

“The rite took advantage of a lie buy some bagger, welcome to the 21st centuries new american, The PNAC is for you and for me.LOL”

“ok V, there's one lie that's explainable....what about the dozens of other lies they have told?




http://forums.starnewsonline.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/7341065438/m/9611085569/r/6241098569

- The cost of our federal government is 25% of our total economy (GDP). This is compared with the average of 20.7% of the GDP during 1970-2009

- If you include the cost of state and local government, the total cost of government is almost 40% of our GDP

- Since 2008, the cost of our federal government has increased by one-fourth

- By 2020, Obama will have increased the federal government by one-half on a per family basis

- Before the recession, federal spending totaled $24,000 per household

- By 2020, Obama would raise that to $36,000 per household”

“When you have a tax code that bribes people and Co's into spending just to save having to pay taxes, you build debt for both taxpayer and the gov. in lower tax receipts.

Gov. spending is another paragraph beyond the scope of this or any other tread.”

“KISS OF DEATH: Obama predicts Colts victory in Super Bowl...

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100207/D9DNJOI80.html”

“How'd the bagger "conference" go this weekend? A screaming success?”

“http://buzz.yahoo.com/buzzlog/93375?fp=1

I want this twat to run for Prez!”

“What we need protecting this country is a professor of the Bra, not the Law.”

“I'm sure Obama already has the joke lined up for next year about how he's not going to make the mistake again of predicting the winner of the Super Bowl.”

“Graphical Proof: Government Spending Doesn’t Create Jobs






The point? Government spending can’t create jobs across the economy. It can inflate government payrolls, sure, and perhaps create some jobs with specific government contractors. But across the economy, government spending doesn’t create jobs.

Which means that there is no justification for the deficit spending spree our politicians are currently on. The excuses we hear from Obama and his apologists like “deficit hawk” Senator Kent Conrad is that the spending is necessary to stimulate the economy.

That’s not true. The spending isn’t helping. It’s hurting.”

“Show ACORN the Money
by Publius

From The American Spectator:



ACORN and other left-wing advocacy groups could be eligible for up to $3.99 billion in federal funding included in the $3.83 trillion fiscal 2011 budget blueprint that President Obama unveiled last week.

ACORN and other left-wing advocacy groups could be eligible for up to $3.99 billion in federal funding included in the $3.83 trillion fiscal 2011 budget blueprint that President Obama unveiled last week.

The $3.99 billion comes from a congressional slush fund known as the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program, which is part of the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) $48.5 billion fiscal 2011 budget. CDBG grants, which are awarded to states and localities, pass indirectly to ACORN.”

“Those Community Development Block Grants are a source of programs that have a lot of positive impact in my town.

By the way, Strat, do the Teabaggers really want Sarah as president?”

“Exactly, Dun. Ask some lower income groups like American Indians how they would be faring without CDBG grants to supply their homes with running water...”

“By the way, Strat, do the Teabaggers really want Sarah as president?

Yeah, she's......like......pretty and stuff.”

“If they would actually vote for her, they're even crazier than I thought.


Where's Terri Cullen? Back in her cube at the old Grey Lady?”