The Most Important Decision You’ll Ever Make

The Most Important Decision You’ll Ever Make

October 25th, 2010

Don Feder, GrassTopsUSA.com

When you step into the  voting booth on November 2, you will make the  most important decision  of your life. You’ll literally be voting on your  future – or, more  precisely, whether or not you and your country will  have one.

Would you like to live in Cuba, own a business in Venezuela or have the   civil liberties of an Iranian? Without a radical reversal of course,   those happy fates could be yours.

Think of the watershed elections of our lifetime – Nixon-McGovern   (1972), Reagan-Carter (1980), The Contract With America (1994), and   Bush-Gore (2000). None even comes close to the importance of what will   happen in less than two weeks.

You won’t just be voting for a House member and, in some cases, a   Senator. You won’t just be voting on whether Nancy Pelosi (“We have to   pass the bill so you can find out what’s in it”) remains Speaker of the   House, or whether Harry Reid (town meeting protestors are   “evil-mongers”) is still the Senate Majority Leader.

You will be voting on whether Obama will still have a rubber-stamp   Congress on January 3, 2011 – where a Democratic majority (liberal pod   people) vote robotically for whatever economy-annihilating measures the   administration dreams up.

If you want a snapshot of Obama’s vision of America (a Kodak moment  from  Hell), consider the political mutants who descended on our  nation’s  capital on October 2 to push his agenda.

Along with the usual assortment of labor hacks, educrats and racial   guilt-mongers, One Nation Working Together included the Communist Party   USA, the Democratic Socialists of America, the American Muslim   Association (People for the Jihad Way), the U.S. Campaign to End the   (alleged) Israeli Occupation, and the National Council of La Raza (The   Race).

Read more.

“Historic” Rise in Taxation in 6 Mos.

“Historic” Rise in Taxation in 6 Mos.

Posted by Veronica (Profile)

Friday, July 2nd at 12:20PM EDT

53 Comments

We’ve been here before.

Americans For Tax Reform culled a few things from the List of Expiring Federal Tax Provisions 2009-2020 off the government’s website:

In just six months, the largest tax hikes in the history of America will take effect.  They will hit families and small businesses in three great waves on January 1, 2011:

First Wave: Expiration of 2001 and 2003 Tax Relief

In 2001 and 2003, the GOP Congress enacted several tax cuts for investors, small business owners, and families.  These will all expire on January 1, 2011:

Personal income tax rates will rise. The top income tax rate will rise from 35 to 39.6 percent (this is also the rate at which two-thirds of small business profits are taxed).  The lowest rate will rise from 10 to 15 percent.  All the rates in between will also rise.  Itemized deductions and personal exemptions will again phase out, which has the same mathematical effect as higher marginal tax rates.  The full list of marginal rate hikes is below:

– The 10% bracket rises to an expanded 15%
– The 25% bracket rises to 28%
– The 28% bracket rises to 31%
– The 33% bracket rises to 36%
– The 35% bracket rises to 39.6%

Higher taxes on marriage and family. The “marriage penalty” (narrower tax brackets for married couples) will return from the first dollar of income.  The child tax credit will be cut in half from $1000 to $500 per child.  The standard deduction will no longer be doubled for married couples relative to the single level.  The dependent care and adoption tax credits will be cut.

The return of the Death Tax. This year, there is no death tax.  For those dying on or after January 1 2011, there is a 55 percent top death tax rate on estates over $1 million.  A person leaving behind two homes and a retirement account could easily pass along a death tax bill to their loved ones.

Higher tax rates on savers and investors. The capital gains tax will rise from 15 percent this year to 20 percent in 2011.  The dividends tax will rise from 15 percent this year to 39.6 percent in 2011.  These rates will rise another 3.8 percent in 2013.

Second Wave: Obamacare

There are over twenty new or higher taxes in Obamacare.  Several will first go into effect on January 1, 2011.  They include:

The “Medicine Cabinet Tax” Thanks to Obamacare, Americans will no longer be able to use health savings account (HSA), flexible spending account (FSA), or health reimbursement (HRA) pre-tax dollars to purchase non-prescription, over-the-counter medicines (except insulin).

The “Special Needs Kids Tax” This provision of Obamacare imposes a cap on flexible spending accounts (FSAs) of $2500 (Currently, there is no federal government limit).  There is one group of FSA owners for whom this new cap will be particularly cruel and onerous: parents of special needs children.  There are thousands of families with special needs children in the United States, and many of them use FSAs to pay for special needs education.  Tuition rates at one leading school that teaches special needs children in Washington, D.C. (National Child Research Center) can easily exceed $14,000 per year.  Under tax rules, FSA dollars can be used to pay for this type of special needs education.

The HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike. This provision of Obamacare increases the additional tax on non-medical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10 to 20 percent, disadvantaging them relative to IRAs and other tax-advantaged accounts, which remain at 10 percent.

Third Wave: The Alternative Minimum Tax and Employer Tax Hikes

When Americans prepare to file their tax returns in January of 2011, they’ll be in for a nasty surprise—the AMT won’t be held harmless, and many tax relief provisions will have expired.  The major items include:

The AMT will ensnare over 28 million families, up from 4 million last year. According to the left-leaning Tax Policy Center, Congress’ failure to index the AMT will lead to an explosion of AMT taxpaying families—rising from 4 million last year to 28.5 million.  These families will have to calculate their tax burdens twice, and pay taxes at the higher level.  The AMT was created in 1969 to ensnare a handful of taxpayers.

Small business expensing will be slashed and 50% expensing will disappear. Small businesses can normally expense (rather than slowly-deduct, or “depreciate”) equipment purchases up to $250,000.  This will be cut all the way down to $25,000.  Larger businesses can expense half of their purchases of equipment.  In January of 2011, all of it will have to be “depreciated.”

Taxes will be raised on all types of businesses. There are literally scores of tax hikes on business that will take place.  The biggest is the loss of the “research and experimentation tax credit,” but there are many, many others.  Combining high marginal tax rates with the loss of this tax relief will cost jobs.

Tax Benefits for Education and Teaching Reduced. The deduction for tuition and fees will not be available.  Tax credits for education will be limited.  Teachers will no longer be able to deduct classroom expenses.  Coverdell Education Savings Accounts will be cut.  Employer-provided educational assistance is curtailed.  The student loan interest deduction will be disallowed for hundreds of thousands of families.

Charitable Contributions from IRAs no longer allowed. Under current law, a retired person with an IRA can contribute up to $100,000 per year directly to a charity from their IRA.  This contribution also counts toward an annual “required minimum distribution.”  This ability will no longer be there

For Jeb Bush, Life Defending the Family Name

For Jeb Bush, Life Defending the Family Name

By MATT BAI

CORAL GABLES, Fla. — For months now, Jeb Bush has been listening as President Obama blasts his older brother’s administration for the battered economy, budget deficits and even the lax oversight of oil wells.

“It’s kind of like a kid coming to school saying, ‘The dog ate my homework,’ ” Mr. Bush, this state’s former governor, said over lunch last week at the Biltmore Hotel. “It’s childish. This is what children do until they mature. They don’t accept responsibility.”

In fact, instead of constantly bashing the 43rd president, Mr. Bush offered, perhaps Mr. Obama could learn something from him, especially when it comes to ignoring the Washington chatter. “This would break his heart, to get advice that applies some of the lessons of leadership my brother learned, because he apparently likes to act like he’s still campaigning, and he likes to blame George’s administration for everything,” Mr. Bush said, dangling a ketchup-soaked French fry. “But he really seems like he’s getting caught up in what people are writing about him.”

“I mean, good God, man, read a book!” Mr. Bush said with a laugh. “Go watch ESPN!”

At 57, Jeb Bush remains an intriguing figure inside his fractious party. At a moment when Republicans are groping for an agenda beyond opposition, Mr. Bush has long been considered one of the party’s true idea guys, someone a lot of party insiders think could still be a serious presidential contender.

But Mr. Bush, the son and brother of presidents, occupies just as intriguing a place within his own family. American presidents have traditionally felt themselves duty-bound not to criticize their successors (no matter what their successors may say about them), which means that Jeb is the only Bush in public life who can defend the family name.

“George isn’t going to break that,” Mr. Bush said, meaning the ex-presidents’ code, “and if he was asked to serve in some way, he would do it, in spite of all the ‘it’s Bush’s fault.’ That’s just the kind of guy he is.”

Often depicted as the most mercurial and bookish of the Bushes, Jeb, who now runs his own consulting firm, seems at ease out of public office. He wore a loose-fitting guayabera, rather than a suit, and responded to questions amiably, with little hint of the prickliness that has sometime marked his interactions with reporters.

Mr. Bush said he met Mr. Obama in 2009 when he accompanied his father, George Bush, to the White House a few weeks after the inauguration. “He was extraordinarily kind and gentle to my dad, which I love,” Mr. Bush said.

He gives Mr. Obama credit for trying to spur innovation in public schools, a policy area about which Mr. Bush is passionate, but his admiration ends there.

“By and large, I think the president, instead of being a 21st-century leader, is Hubert Humphrey on steroids,” Mr. Bush said. “I don’t think there’s much newness in spending more money as the solution to every problem.”

Though he headlines the occasional fund-raiser around the country, Mr. Bush has exercized his political influence this year largely out of the public view. He has been deeply involved as an informal adviser to the party’s candidates for governor, whom he sees as the most likely sources of new Republican policy ideas. “It doesn’t seem like it’s going to be happening in Washington anytime soon,” Mr. Bush dryly observed.

No matter what happens in November’s midterm elections, Republicans will have to make a difficult calibration as they head into the presidential season. The party needs a messenger who can keep its Tea Party-type activists energized behind an agenda and a nominee. But Republicans will also be looking for someone who can reposition the party nationally and make its more strident ideology palatable to the wider American electorate.

This explains why some influential Republicans persist in believing that Mr. Bush might still make a strong candidate in 2012. He is a favorite of the anti-establishment crowd (he is said to have mentored Marco Rubio, the Senate challenger in Florida who gave the Tea Partiers a national lift), but he is also a political celebrity with a pronounced independent streak. As governor, for instance, Mr. Bush strongly opposed drilling in the shallow waters off Florida, and he favors increasing legal immigration, rather than restricting it.

Mr. Bush says he has no interest in running, because he wants to make money for his family, but his political allies seem to read a “for now” into such statements. “Every presidential wanna-be and every member of the House and Senate I talk to, if you ask them who is a difference-maker in our party, they will tell you Jeb Bush,” said Al Cardenas, the former party chairman in Florida.

Washington wisdom — such as it is — holds that the real impediment to Mr. Bush’s political future would be the Bush brand, which has taken a pounding both inside the party and out. Neither George W. Bush nor his father ranks among the more successful presidents of our time, to put it politely.

Jeb Bush’s admirers insist, however, that whatever cloud existed over the name is lifting, as memories of the last Bush era recede, replaced by a hardened conservative opposition to Mr. Obama’s policies. And those who know Mr. Bush say he has never concerned himself with it. “He’s the guy who cares about that the least,” said Nicholas Ayers, executive director of the Republican Governors Association.

In fact, talking to Mr. Bush, one senses that the problem for him as a future candidate might not be the efficacy of the Bush brand, but rather what he might need to do in order to transcend it. George W. Bush ran successfully for president in part by putting some distance between himself and his father, signaling to the Republican base that he was more a Reagan conservative than he was a “read my lips” pragmatist.

It is harder to imagine Jeb Bush, the fierce defender of his family, ever publicly acknowledging his brother’s failures in a way that would enable him to come across as a different, more capable kind of Bush. When I asked him whether Mr. Obama had a legitimate point — whether his brother’s administration did, in fact, bear responsibility for the country’s economic collapse — Mr. Bush paused and, for the only time in our interview, appeared to carefully assemble his words.

“Look, I think there was a whole series of decisions made over a long period of time, the cumulative effect of which created the financial meltdown that has created the hardship that we’re facing,” he said slowly. “Congress, the administration, everyone can accept some responsibility.”

“The issue to me is what we do now,” Jeb Bush said. “Who cares who’s to blame?”

A REAL EYE OPENER ! Bush debt vs Obama debt

A REAL EYE OPENER !


 
The Washington Post babbled again today about Obama inheriting a huge deficit from Bush.
Amazingly Enough, a lot of people swallow this nonsense.  So once more,  a short civics lesson.
Budgets do not come from the White House.  They come from Congress, and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democratic Party.  They controlled the budget process for FY 2008 and FY 2009, as well as FY 2010 and FY 2011.  In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases.  For FY 2009, though, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office.  At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the FY 2009 budgets.
And where was Barack Obama during this time?  He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete FY 2009.  Let’s remember what the deficits looked like during that period: 

  
If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the FY 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets.  That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending.  After that, Democrats in   Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets.  If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself.
In a nutshell,  what Obama is saying is I inherited a deficit that I voted for and then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January 20th.
WAKE UP,  AMERICA, BEFORE ITS TO LATE
There is no way this will be widely publicized,
unless each of us sends it on!
This is your chance to make a difference.

Here’s what happens when Obama kills the Bush tax cuts

Here’s what happens when Obama kills the Bush tax cuts

April 17th, 2010

By Kevin “Coach” Collins

 Obama is going to allow the repeal of the Bush Tax Cuts

The Tax Policy Center, a Washington based think tank, has examined the tax consequences we will have heaped on us when the Democrats allow the Bush Tax Cuts to expire at the end of this year.

* Those making $75,000 who sell a stock at a profit will pay a higher capital gains tax.

*Parents who enjoy a $1,000.00 tax credit for having a child will see that benefit cut to just $500.00 next year.

*Families with incomes over $250,000 will see many itemized deductions disappear and ultimately pay more of their hard earned money. Their capital gains taxes will climb on stock dividends.

The probability that higher taxes will hit America’s hardest workers and highest earners is real because the Democrat controlled Congress will let all or most of the tax cuts passed by George Bush in 2001 and 2003 expire.

Read More: