Posts Tagged ‘increase’

CBO Reveals That ObamaCare Will INCREASE Prescription Drug Prices

November 7, 2010

It’s getting harder and harder to find something about ObamaCare that turns out not to have been a complete load of crap.

U.S. Rep. Ryan: CBO confirms Obamacare will increase drug prices
11/4/2010

In letter to Ranking Member Ryan, CBO highlights the latest health care broken promise

WASHINGTON – In response to a request from House Budget Committee Ranking Republican Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, the Congressional Budget Office [CBO] confirmed that President Obama’s massive health care law will increase prescription drug prices. The CBO confirms the range of onerous restrictions and requirements will drive health care costs up, at odds with the claims made by its proponents. CBO’s letter specifies that manufacturers will have an incentive to raise drug prices and that, as a result, health care costs will increase for some seniors and for those who are uninsured.

In response to the findings, Ranking Member Ryan issued the following statement:

“On Tuesday, the American electorate forcefully repudiated President Obama’s agenda, including his massive health care overhaul. Today, the Congressional Budget Office refuted President Obama’s claims, making clear that his policies will drive health care costs up, not down. Especially troubling for many seniors is the news that their prescription drug costs and premiums will increase as a result of this legislation. I will continue to work to repeal this deeply flawed overhaul, advancing instead patient-centered health care reform and reforms to secure Medicare for current and future generations.”

Highlights from the CBO’s letter to Ranking Member Ryan:

“[The] increase in prices would make federal costs for Medicare’s drug benefit and the costs faced by some beneficiaries slightly higher than they would be in the absence of those provisions…”

“The legislation also imposes an annual fee on manufacturers and importers of brand-name drugs. CBO expects that the fee will probably increase the prices of drugs purchased through Medicare and the prices of newly introduced drugs purchased through Medicaid and other federal programs by about 1 percent. Those increases will be in addition to the ones described above that stem from the new requirements for discounts and rebates.”

“The premiums of drug plans will increase along with the increase in net drug prices, so the premiums paid by beneficiaries will increase slightly.”

To read CBO Director Doug Elmendorf’s Letter to Ranking Member Paul Ryan:
http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/116xx/doc11674/11-04-Drug_Pricing.pdf

Oops.

ObamaCare and Obama both translate to “one big ass mistake, America.”

Advertisements

Vote Democrat – Vote For Politicians Who Take Your Money And Give It To Themselves

November 1, 2010

Let’s see.  Democrats who control both the House and the Senate vote to give themselves pay increases, while voting to INCREASE the cost of our health care while voting NOT give Americans COLA (cost of living allowances).  Two years of Obama; two years of no cost of living increases.

Meanwhile, Democrats want to seize my 401k savings and “redistribute” it to bankrupted union pension plans.  Those union workers have received far better pensions than I ever have.  But they fund the corrupt Democrat machine with campaign money they themselves seize from their workers, so you can bet the Democrat Party is going to keep giving them one kickback after another.

But I love getting screwed by my government.  So I’m voting for the party of screwing one group of people to give handouts to themselves and to their supporters.  I’m voting Democrat.

Subject: Elections are Coming!

Take a look at this and just remember elections in November 2010.

  1. U..S. House & Senate have voted themselves $4,700 and $5,300 raises.
  2. They voted to NOT give you a S.S. Cost of living raise in 2010 and 2011.
  3. Your Medicare premiums will go up $285.60 for the 2-years
  4. You will not get the 3% COLA: $660/yr.
  5. Your total 2-yr loss and cost is -$1,600 or -$3,200 for husband and wife.
  6. Over these same 2-years each Congress person will get $10,000
  7. Do you feel SCREWED?
  8. Will they have your cost of drugs – doctor fees – local taxes – food, etc., decrease?
  9. NO WAY.

Congress received a raise and has better health and retirement benefits than you or I.

  • Why should they care about you?
  • You never did anything about it in the past.
  • You obviously are too stupid or don’t care.
  • Do you really think that Nancy, Harry, Chris, Charlie, Barnie, et al, care about you?

Send the message to these individuals — “YOU’RE FIRED!”

In 2010 you will have a chance to get rid of the sitting Congress: up to 1/3 of the Senate and 100% of the House!

Make sure you’re still mad in November 2010 and remind their replacements not to screw-up.

It is ok to forward this to your sphere of influence if you are finally tired of the abuse.  Maybe it’s time for Amendment 28 to the Constitution..

28th Amendment will be as follows:

“Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators or Representatives, and Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States .”

Let’s get this passed around, folks – these people in Washington have brought this upon themselves!  It’s time for retribution.  Let’s take back America ..

You’ve got one chance to correct a terrible mistake.  Vote for conservatives on Tuesday, or get another two years of terrible policies and demagogic excuses.

Obama’s Economic Legacy: Highest Poverty Rate Increases In 50 Years

September 12, 2010

Conservatives need to keep asking one simple question: How’s Obama’s and the Democrat Party’s “hope” and “change” working out for you?

Not so good if you’re poor.

It’s not so good if you’re working age.  Or if you’re a child.  Or if you’re black or Latino.

Of course, Democrats have been swindling voters for a generation that they’re out to help such people.  The only problem is that their rhetoric is a load of crap, and their policies actually end up hurting the people they deceitfully claim they’re most trying to help.

You know what they say: teach a man to fish and he’ll eat for a lifetime; give him crummy handouts and he’ll be poor and dependent on Democrats until the day he dies.  Or at least until he develops the sense to start voting for conservatives who want to empower businesses to create jobs.

Notice I said “conservative,” not “Republican.”  Because there’s a huge difference between a true conservative and an Arlen Specter (before he revealed he was a Democrat all along), an Olympia Snowe, or even a Scott Brown.

We need a real change.  We don’t need “moderate Republican” (= “warmed-over Democrat”) policies, and the last two years should serve to demonstrate we certainly don’t need Democrat (= warmed-over socialist) policies.  We need something we haven’t seen in a long time: committed conservative solutions.

Otherwise 1 in 7 is going to become 1 in 6.  And then 1 in 5.

An article from the liberal Huffington Post:

Poverty Rate In U.S. Saw Record Increase In 2009: 1 In 7 Americans Are Poor
HOPE YEN and LIZ SIDOTI | 09/11/10

WASHINGTON — The number of people in the U.S. who are in poverty is on track for a record increase on President Barack Obama’s watch, with the ranks of working-age poor approaching 1960s levels that led to the national war on poverty.

Census figures for 2009 – the recession-ravaged first year of the Democrat’s presidency – are to be released in the coming week, and demographers expect grim findings.

It’s unfortunate timing for Obama and his party just seven weeks before important elections when control of Congress is at stake. The anticipated poverty rate increase – from 13.2 percent to about 15 percent – would be another blow to Democrats struggling to persuade voters to keep them in power.

“The most important anti-poverty effort is growing the economy and making sure there are enough jobs out there,” Obama said Friday at a White House news conference. He stressed his commitment to helping the poor achieve middle-class status and said, “If we can grow the economy faster and create more jobs, then everybody is swept up into that virtuous cycle.”

Interviews with six demographers who closely track poverty trends found wide consensus that 2009 figures are likely to show a significant rate increase to the range of 14.7 percent to 15 percent.

Should those estimates hold true, some 45 million people in this country, or more than 1 in 7, were poor last year. It would be the highest single-year increase since the government began calculating poverty figures in 1959. The previous high was in 1980 when the rate jumped 1.3 percentage points to 13 percent during the energy crisis.

Among the 18-64 working-age population, the demographers expect a rise beyond 12.4 percent, up from 11.7 percent. That would make it the highest since at least 1965, when another Democratic president, Lyndon B. Johnson, launched the war on poverty that expanded the federal government’s role in social welfare programs from education to health care.

Demographers also are confident the report will show:

_Child poverty increased from 19 percent to more than 20 percent.

_Blacks and Latinos were disproportionately hit, based on their higher rates of unemployment.

_Metropolitan areas that posted the largest gains in poverty included Modesto, Calif.; Detroit; Cape Coral-Fort Myers, Fla.; Los Angeles and Las Vegas.

My guess is that politically these figures will be greeted with alarm and dismay but they won’t constitute a clarion call to action,” said William Galston, a domestic policy aide for President Bill Clinton. “I hope the parties don’t blame each other for the desperate circumstances of desperate people. That would be wrong in my opinion. But that’s not to say it won’t happen.”

Lawrence M. Mead, a New York University political science professor who is a conservative and wrote “The New Politics of Poverty: The Nonworking Poor in America,” argued that the figures will have a minimal impact in November.

“Poverty is not as big an issue right now as middle-class unemployment. That’s a lot more salient politically right now,” he said.

But if Thursday’s report is as troubling as expected, Republicans in the midst of an increasingly strong drive to win control of the House, if not the Senate, would get one more argument to make against Democrats in the campaign homestretch.

The GOP says voters should fire Democrats because Obama’s economic fixes are hindering the sluggish economic recovery. Rightly or wrongly, Republicans could cite a higher poverty rate as evidence.

[snip]

The projections partly rely on a methodology by Rebecca Blank, a former poverty expert who now oversees the census. She estimated last year that poverty would hit about 14.8 percent if unemployment reached 10 percent. “As long as unemployment is higher, poverty will be higher,” she said in an interview then.

A formula by Richard Bavier, a former analyst with the White House Office of Management and Budget who has had high rates of accuracy over the last decade, predicts poverty will reach 15 percent.

That would put the rate at the highest level since 1993. The all-time high was 22.4 percent in 1959, the first year the government began tracking poverty. It dropped to a low of 11.1 percent in 1973 after Johnson’s war on poverty but has since fluctuated in the 12-14 percent range.

In 2008, the poverty level stood at $22,025 for a family of four, based on an official government calculation that includes only cash income before tax deductions. It excludes capital gains or accumulated wealth. It does not factor in noncash government aid such as tax credits or food stamps, which have surged to record levels in recent years under the federal stimulus program.

Beginning next year, the government plans to publish new, supplemental poverty figures that are expected to show even higher numbers of people in poverty than previously known. The figures will take into account rising costs of medical care, transportation and child care, a change analysts believe will add to the ranks of both seniors and working-age people in poverty.

The mainstream liberal media are calling Afghanistan America’s longest war.  But it’s not even close to being our longest war: the Democrats’ “war on poverty” is far and away our longest war.  And it has been worse than Vietnam in terms of being a poorly-led and stupidly fought quagmire.

I see “metropolitan areas” and “blacks and Latinos” and I can’t help but laugh at the irony of it.  Many metropolitan areas – most definitely including the ones  that posted the “largest gains” in poverty – have voted Democrat for a hundred years.  And every new election cycle it has been like Charlie Brown and Lucy and the football – with Charlie Brown being the minorities and the poor, and Lucy being the Democrats, and the football being useless promises that will never be there when poor Charlie Brown tries to finally fulfill his dream of kicking that ball down the field to a successful life.

And blacks and Latinos have voted Democrat since that “war on poverty” began, when the very same Democrats who literally put blacks in the abject bonds of slavery began to realize that there was an even better way to keep these people “in their place.”

And they end up living out the definition of insanity, where they keep voting the exact same way for fifty years, and a hundred years, expecting a different result each and every time.

And they wonder why they’re still in poverty, after 50 election cycles of voting for it.

And, sadly, even if conservatives DO take over the House and the Senate, most of these metropolitan areas and the residents who are trapped in them will remain in poverty.  Why?  Because they will continue to vote the same insane way, and they will end up with representatives and city councils that will block meaningful reform for their districts and cities, and keep them stuck in the same godawful snake oil policies they were selling a century ago.

Do metropolitan cities and minority areas really want jobs?  They’re not going to get them in another fifty, hundred, thousand years; not when they keep voting for the likes of Rep. Maxine Waters:

Waters responded by saying in part, “And guess what this liberal would be all about. This liberal will be about socializing … uh, um. …” Recognizing she just let the liberal agenda out of the bag she paused to collect her thoughts and continued, “Would be about…, basically…, taking over…, and the government running all of your companies.”

You’ve really got to laugh at that quote by that Clinton hack William Galston who says he hopes the parties don’t “blame each other.”  Whenever Democrats are one-hundred percent to blame for a problem, that’s when they start saying, “Let’s not blame each other.”  If this disastrous news had come out during the Bush presidency, you can bet Democrats would be screaming about it.  And calling Bush a “racist” for letting it happen.

Do you think businesses and companies are going to locate their businesses where they’ll be under the thrall of these anti-business socialists who despise them?  Keep dreaming.  And keep demanding that businesses and companies live up to conditions that are impossible for them to meet in the real world and be profitable.  And keep remaining in poverty for the next five generations.

A couple of great quotations from a couple of great minds better explains the situation today than most modern minds could ever hope to equal:

“Above this race of men stands an immense and tutelary power, which takes upon itself alone to secure their gratifications and to watch over their fate. That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks, on the contrary, to keep them in perpetual childhood; it is well content that the people should rejoice, provided they think of nothing but rejoicing. For their happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness; it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances; what remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living?” — Alexis de Tocqueville

“Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. Their very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be ‘cured’ against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level with those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals. But to be punished, however severely, because we have deserved it, because we ‘ought to have known better’, is to be treated as a human person made in God’s image.” — C.S. Lewis

Documented Fact: Obama, Democrats LIED About Reducing Health Care Costs

August 17, 2010

I pointed out back in March that health care premiums were on the increase and said, “Blame Obama and Democrats!”

Obama and Democrats lied in the most cynical and corrupt way.  They assured America that they could cover some 30 million more people and yet make health care cheaper.

Key components of ObamaCare are going into effect.  And yes, Average Joe American, YOU are going to pay for Obama’s compassion (because HE certainly won’t!).  Insurance companies are now being forced to accept children regardless of prior-existing conditions, raising their costs dramatically.  And “children” up to 26 years of age must now be accepted under parents’ plans.  As health insurers are forced to accept more and more risks that will hit their bottom lines, they are passing those costs on to everyone.

As anybody but a fool should have readily understood.

And you’d do the same thing if you were a business owner with a functioning brain cell in your skull.

Bill O’Reilly put it this way:

Obamacare begins to affect your wallet

“A couple of days ago I received my new health care premium and Oxford Health is charging me $2,100 more than it did last year. Almost every health insurer is raising premiums to cover the anticipated cost of Obamacare because the rules have changed. For example, this year health companies will have to cover adult children until the age of 26, they will have to cover all children regardless of pre-existing conditions, and they cannot cancel coverage for any reason other than fraud. So all that cost is being passed to us. And there’s more: The cost of Obamacare will be borne by the taxpayer as the government gives ‘free’ health insurance to those who don’t have much money. So we get hit two ways. President Obama does not seem to understand the unintended consequences of higher costs on businesses and productive workers. Talking Points believes we are headed to a bad place if the Democrats continue this big government spending craziness and taxpayer-supported entitlements. I can afford the 2-thousand bucks more I have to pay for my health insurance; many Americans can’t.”

Watch your premiums begin to skyrocket.  Watch employers dump your plans.  Watch Obama’s and the Democrat Party’s lies become increasingly awful.

Health Care Premiums Are Already Soaring In Advance of Obamacare
By Bradley Blakeman
Published August 16, 2010

This past month millions of Americans got notice from Blue Cross/Blue Shield providers across the country that their insurance premiums were going way up effective immediately. Here is the terse reason CareFirst/ Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Washington gave its subscribers for raising a monthly premium from $333 to $512 on a middle aged man who is healthy, is not a smoker and is not obese: “Your new rate reflects the overall rise in health care costs and we regret having to pass these additional costs on to you.”

Recently, Fox News anchor Bill O’Reilly also received a similar notice from his health care provider, (Anthem Blue Cross), and was told that his annual premium will increase by $2,100.

The excuse given was the same boilerplate as set forth above.

An 85-year-old New Yorker received notice from his health care provider, (Empire Blue Cross/Blue Shield), wherein he was notified that:

1. His Medicare deductible is being increased from $1,068 to $1,100;

2. His co-insurance liability for skilled nursing facilities is being increased from $267 per day to $275 per day and that 60 lifetime reserve days is being increased from $534 to $550;

3. His Medicare Part B deductible is being increased from $135 to $155.

American health care providers are gouging consumers in advance of Obamacare taking effect in 2014.

According to publicly available profit and loss statements, our nation’s largest health care providers such as  Humana, Wellpoint, United Health Group, Cigna and Aetna collectively posted a net income of over 12 billion dollars in 2009.

Is it not just a little bit suspicious and beyond coincidence that so many Americans are receiving these letters from separate “independent” health care providers all over the country? The letters are almost identical in content and verbiage.

According to the Consumers Union report, not-for-profit Blue Cross/Blue Shield groups are raising health insurance premiums by as much as double digits to build up their cash reserves — in some instances to more than three times what states require.

It is no secret that these companies generate substantial investment income from reserves.

Here are just a few of the worst examples cited by Consumers Union:

– Blue Cross Blue Shield of Arizona raised its reserves from $648 million in 2007 to $717 million in 2009  (more than seven times the amount required in that state). During that time, individual policy rates jumped about 40 percent.

– Health Care Services Corp., which includes Blues plans in Texas, Illinois, New Mexico and Oklahoma, built up its surplus from $6.1 billion in 2007 to $6.7 billion in 2009, five times the minimum in those states.  Meanwhile, its plans’ rates rose by up to 20 percent a year.

So which is it? Are the companies raising rates to build reserves or are they raising rates in advance of rising costs they are anticipating by Obamacare, or are they raising rates because of an actual rise in the delivery of actual medical costs? You cannot get a straight answer.

If, in fact, health care providers are sitting on piles on cash that is far in excess of what it should be under state laws, why are they not rebating those surpluses to policyholders, as many automobile insurance companies do?

Another example of how Obamacare has influenced the behavior of health care providers is that under the new federal law it mandates that no more that 20 percent of every premium dollar be attributable to administrative costs. Therefore many companies who currently run 26 percent of administrative costs for every dollar have now “reclassified” many administrative services as “medical” so they do not lose income and can avoid reducing overhead.

In April of this year, the U.S. Senate reported that Wellpoint alone reclassified more than half a billion dollars in services from “administrative” to “medical.”

The bottom line is that in advance of Obamacare the consumer is getting taken advantage of with any recourse.

Looming over their heads is a law that does not even take effect until 2014. In the meantime We the People are stuck between greedy insurance companies and incompetent government
.

Now is the time to repeal and replace Obamacare. The answer to health care reforms does not lie in creating a government system; it lies in improving a free market system. Here are some of the reforms that should be done:

1. Creation of refundable credits for health care costs;

2. Strengthening health savings accounts;

3. Repeal of the 7/5% threshold on deduction for medical expenses;

4. Allow for purchase of health care insurance across state lines;

and 5. Facilitate the import on FDA approved drugs.

At a time of deep recession, high unemployment, record home foreclosures and personal and business bankruptcies, the last thing we need is further economic uncertainty looming with regard to nationalized health care.

America, let’s not accept commercial gouging or government incompetence and bureaucracy. Let’s fix what needs fixing!

Bradley A. Blakeman served as deputy assistant to President George W. Bush from 2001-04. He is currently a professor of Politics and Public Policy at Georgetown University and a frequent contributor to the Fox Forum

Every single one of these companies are raising their rates dramatically at the same time as incredibly costly ObamaCare provisions begin to take effect.  It isn’t a coincidence.

And because of such expensive provisions, some insurers are no longer offering policies covering children.

ObamaCare is a catastrophe.  It is “the sum of all fears.”  And, as Bradley Blakeman points out, it couldn’t have attacked the economy at a worse time.

ObamaCare was NEVER about health care; it was ALWAYS about imposing more control over the people.

Those who didn’t vote for Obama and Democrats ought to be able to take their premiums to their Democrat neighbors and force them to pay for the massive increases that they voted for.

It is long past time that Democrats should be allowed to get away with voting to be generous with other peoples’ money.

When Soylent Green time comes, eat all the Democrats first.

ObamaCare Passes, Health Care Premiums Shoot Up

March 27, 2010

ObamaCare passed.  It’s the law of the land now.  Yay for the people!  Now we’ll finally get the health care we need at a price we can afford.

Or not.  Too bad, so sad; unlike the tragic ObamaCare vote, it turns out the “nots” have it.

Just got the letter from CalPERS announcing a big rate hike.  The premium went up from $1537 to $1768 – a 15% increase.

Then I read this in the Winter 2010 PERSpective:

“All policies issued prior to 2003 with either lifetime benefits and/or inflation coverage will receive a 22% increase.  All policies in this group that provide both lifetime benefits and inflation coverage will receive an additional annual increase of 5% per year beginning in July 2011.”

But, but, but… Obama said my health care cost would go DOWN.  And it’s going way,way UP instead.  Obama signed something titled “the Affordable Health Care for America Act.”  You mean that “Affordable” part was a lie?  It was all just a cynical oxymoron?

Sarah Palin’s voice echoes in my head in answer to my agonized questions: “You betcha!”

It isn’t just CalPERS retirees.  LOTS of people and businesses are waking up to health care costs that will SOAR under ObamaCare.

The Democrats now officially own health care: blame every rate increase or reduction in benefits on THEM.

If your health care goes up, raise a big, giant stink.  Obama lied, health care died.

Joe The Plumber Right On Socialism, Soaring Taxes On Small Businesses Under Obama

April 28, 2009

It’s not like Barrack Obama didn’t promise the American people that he would lead them into socialism.  You might remember the famous encounter with Joe “the plumber”:

Wurzelbacher said he planned to become the owner of a small plumbing business that will take in more than the $250,000 amount at which Obama plans to begin raising tax rates.

“Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn’t it?” the blue-collar worker asked.

After Obama responded that it would, Wurzelbacher continued: “I’ve worked hard . . . I work 10 to 12 hours a day and I’m buying this company and I’m going to continue working that way. I’m getting taxed more and more while fulfilling the American Dream.”

“It’s not that I want to punish your success,” Obama told him. “I want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they’ve got a chance for success, too.

Then, Obama explained his trickle-up theory of economics.

“My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody. I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”

“Spread the wealth around,” Obama said.  From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

Joe the Plumber famously answered, “That sounds like socialism.”

And how the liberals howled.  Pieces like Mc Clatchey Newspapers’ “Obama plan isn’t ‘socialism’; it’s traditional progressive taxation” by David Lightman and William Douglas abounded:

“It wouldn’t qualify as socialism.

“The answer is clearly no, Senator Obama is not a socialist,” said Paul Beck, a professor of political science at Ohio State University. “We’ve had a progressive tax system for some time, and both Republicans and Democrats have bought into it.”

Socialism involves state ownership of the means of economic production and state-directed sharing of the wealth. America’s democratic capitalist system is neither socialist nor pure free market; rather, it mixes the two, and it has at least since the progressive income tax was introduced 95 years ago. Under it, the wealthy pay higher income tax rates than those who are less fortunate do. It’s a form of sharing the wealth.”

Now, of course, I read that last paragraph and I’m just rolling on the floor laughing at how ignorant and dishonest these liberals were – and are.

Let me just say two words:  “Auto industry.”  Let me say two more: “banking industry.”  Let me add a few others: “Obama fires GM CEO.”  And, “Government forcing GM board out,” And, “Obama won’t allow banks to repay bailout loans.”  And, “Government, UAW Own 89% of GM In Restructuring.”  And, “Government Power and Control: The One Trillion Dollar Takeover Of Health Care.”  And, “Obama’s cap-and-trade plan a wolf in sheep’s clothing.”  And, most frightening and revealing of all: “Financial Rescue Nears GDP as Pledges Top $12.8 Trillion.”

“Let’s move it along, folks.  Move it along.  No socialists to see here.”

Sorry, mainstream media: Obama is as socialist as the sun is hot.  The fact that you were too blatantly dishonest and corrupt and incompetent to do your job during the campaign is just one more case in point that we are now under the thrall of totalitarian propaganda.

As the February 16, 2009 issue of Newseek gleefully trumpeted:

we-are-all-socialists-now

That pretty much makes it official: Obama and the Democratic Party lied to us: they were socialists all along, and too dishonest and too corrupt to honestly and legitimately represent themselves.

I also have to point out the fact that the VERY WORST ELEMENTS OF SOCIALISM – right out of the playbook of the “National Socialist German Workers’ Party” or the “Union of Soviet Socialist Republics” – were used to attack Joe Wurzelbacher simply for asking a candidate for president a couple of questions right outside his house.  The media and the Democrat machine went after him with everything they had, including snooping through his private records in a very KGB-like manner in hopes of dredging up dirt on him.

You know, kind of like what Obama and his Democrat lynch mob are doing to Bush administration officials even as we speak in 1) releasing memos selectively targeted to make Bush look like a torturer while refusing to release any memos that would show how Bush’s actions kept America safe; and 2) threatening to prosecute Bush officials for their part in 1) in what would amount to a show trial.  How quintessentially totalitarian of them.

All this said, our socialist – and frankly fascist – president is now about to come after small business owners EXACTLY as Joe Wurzelbacher feared he would to pay for his socialist Statist agenda:

Small Businesses Brace for Tax Battle
Under Obama Plan, Some Entrepreneurs’ Bills Would Soar
By Lori Montgomery and V. Dion Haynes
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, April 27, 2009

Gail Johnson doesn’t think of herself as wealthy. The former pediatric nurse has spent 20 years building a chain of preschools and after-school programs that accommodate sick children so working parents can keep their jobs.

But, like most small-business owners, Johnson reports her profit on her personal tax return. In a typical year, she and her husband make more than $500,000, according to her accountant, a figure that throws them squarely into the ranks of the richest Americans — and makes them a prime target for the Obama administration’s tax policy.

Since last year’s campaign, President Obama has vowed repeatedly not to increase taxes for families making less than $250,000 a year. That pledge, while politically popular, has left him with just two primary sources of funding for his ambitious social agenda: about 3 million high-earning families and the nation’s businesses.

Johnson, with her company, falls into both categories. If Obama’s tax plans are enacted, her accountant estimates that her federal tax bill — typically, around $120,000 a year — would rise by at least $23,000, a 19 percent increase.

“You hear ‘tax the rich,’ and you think, ‘I don’t make that much money,’ ” said Johnson, whose Rainbow Station programs are headquartered near Richmond. “But then you realize: ‘Oh, if I put my business income with my wages, then, suddenly, I’m there.’ ”

Across the nation, many business owners are watching anxiously as the president undertakes expensive initiatives to overhaul health care and expand educational opportunities, while also reining in runaway budget deficits. Already, Obama has proposed an extra $1.3 trillion in taxes for business and high earners over the next decade. They include new limits on the ability of corporations to automatically defer U.S. taxes on income earned overseas, repeal of a form of inventory accounting that tends to reduce business taxes, and a mandate that investment partnerships pay the regular income tax rate instead of the lower capital gains rate.

‘A Permanent Target’
Business groups say they’re bracing for even more battles with the administration.

“They’re desperate for revenue. And therein lies the concern of the broader business community,” said R. Bruce Josten, chief lobbyist for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

“We’re going to be a permanent target, and we understand that,” added Catherine Schultz, vice president for tax policy at the National Foreign Trade Council. “The way they see it, corporations don’t vote.”

[Read the rest of the article]

Many small business owners file individual income tax returns.  Their “incomes” do not merely go into their pockets; rather, they use their profits to pay their employees and reinvest in their businesses:

Johnson declined to say whether she voted for Obama. But she said she ignored his tax plans until her husband, who handles real estate and construction for the schools, mentioned it one day. “I’ve since talked to my accountant,” she said. “And, oh, my gosh!”

The accountant, Carroll Hurst, said Johnson is unlikely to owe any federal taxes this year due to accounting changes that confer a one-time tax benefit. But in a typical year, he said, Johnson and her husband earn about $515,000 from various entities related to the schools. They claim around $90,000 in deductions — much of it contributions to charity — reducing their taxable income to around $425,000. Johnson said the sum they take home in wages is “substantially less.”

In a typical year, Johnson’s federal tax bill would be about $120,000. But starting in 2011, the higher marginal rates would add about $13,000 a year, Hurst said. Capping the value of itemized deductions at 28 percent would add another $10,000, for a total increase of $23,000.

And Johnson’s tax bill stands to grow dramatically if Obama were to revive a plan to apply Social Security tax to income over $250,000 instead of capping it at the current $106,800. Because Johnson is an employee and an employer, she would have to pay both portions of the tax, Hurst said, tacking another $30,000 onto her bill.

Johnson said such an increase would force her to consider scaling back operations.

“You can try to pass it on to consumers. But if you raise tuition, you put pressure on family budgets,” she said. “For us, we’re caught between the devil and the deep blue sea.”

Other business owners are also nervous. Jim Murphy, president of EST Analytical in Fairfield, Ohio, which sells analytical instruments to environmental testing labs and pharmaceuticals, said his company is struggling in the sluggish economy. But if profit returns to pre-recession levels — about $455,000 — Murphy said his accountant estimates that Obama’s proposals could add $60,000 to his $120,000 tax bill.

“The misconception is that guys like me take [our profits] and put it into our pockets,” said Murphy, who employs 47 people. “But the money the company earns in a given year is used to buy additional inventory so we can grow and hire.” A 50 percent tax increase, he said, would be “really painful.”

So let’s review the basic facts: Barack Obama IS a socialist, just as Joe the Plumber intuitively understood even as liberal “intellectuals” loudly howled with all the outrage they could muster.  There’s no question of that fact any longer.  In fact, he is essentially a fascist, just as progressives such as Woodrow Wilson and even FDR were before him.  And Obama IS coming after small businesses and their owners, just as Joe the Plumber rightly feared.  And, furthermore, the Obama White House and the mainstream media alike will apply any tactic to attack and demonize their opponents for political purposes just like the worst socialist regimes in world history.

Obama WILL Raise Your Taxes And Your Living Costs

September 27, 2008

There was an interesting exchange during the debate last night:

“He has voted in the United States Senate to increase taxes on people who make as low as $42,000 a year,” McCain said.

“That’s not true, John. That’s not true,” Obama said, interrupting him.

But it IS true.

“Barack Obama has voted in support of higher taxes 94 times in just 3 years, including higher taxes for Americans making just $42,000 a year. If voters consider Barack Obama’s record of opposing tax cuts and his outspoken proposals to raise taxes on family savings, Social Security and small businesses — this latest campaign promise lacks a single shred of credibility.”

Despite Claiming He’d Lower Taxes For Middle Income Americans, Obama Voted In Favor Of The Democrats’ Budget – Which Would Raise Tax Rates For Americans Earning $42,000 Or More:

Obama Voted Twice In Favor Of The Democrats’ FY 2009 Budget Resolution. (S. Con. Res. 70, CQ Vote #85: Adopted 51-44: R 2-43; D 47-1; I 2-0, 3/14/08, Obama Voted Yea; S. Con. Res. 70, CQ Vote #142: Adopted 48-45: R 2-44; D 44-1; I 2-0, 6/4/08, Obama Voted Yea)

In Obama’s new version of an economic plan (he’s had so many my eyeballs start rolling), Obama claims to reduce taxes for 95% of Americans (the actual figure is only 81% by Obama’s own figures).  And over 40% of Obama’s “95%” figure actually already don’t pay federal income taxes – which means that it is merely a welfare-like transfer payment.

The result of reducing the rax rate paid by the rich has both increased federal revenues and even raised the ratio of taxes paid compared with income earned.  Lowering taxes has provided an incentive to invest and build wealth, which has in turn raised revenues and increased the percentage of taxes paid by the rich relative to other income classes.

Barack Obama – who IS last years’ winner of “Most liberal US Senator” award – is a tax and spend liberal.  He has $800 billion in new spending projects.  When the wealthy react to his tax increases by sheltering their money, who is he going to come after next?  He’s going to come after you.  He’s already come after you before -94 times in just 3 years, in fact.

When you tax the rich, they find it profitable to shelter their assets.  Not only will the rich pursue tax sheltering activity, but their very focus will shift from making money to avoiding taxes.  That means less investment; which means less investment capital; which means less jobs.  When the housing finance crisis is already freezing investment capital, do you really want Obama in charge of the economy?

Furthermore, Obama will raise your costs.  He has repeatedly attacked John McCain for wanting to lower taxes on corporations.  Obama has promised to raise taxes on corporations – which already pay the 2nd highest tax rate in the world.  He will raise taxes on small businesses, as well.

The fact that he has forced to acknowledge that raising taxes might be a bad idea in a recession means nothing.  He won’t be able to help himself once he’s in office, with a Democratic Congress pushing him.  He won’t stand up against them for the simple reason that he’s never stood up against Democrats.  Obama makes a big deal about the fact that McCain has voted with Bush 90% of the time.  But Obama votes with Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi 97% of the time.  A Barack Obama presidency would look little different from a Nancy Pelosi presidency.

What will happen when businesses find themselves paying taxes?  Does anyone seriously think that prices won’t increase to keep up with their increased operating costs?  Does anyone seriously think that jobs won’t be cut in order to reduce costs?

John McCain mentioned Ireland, whose economy has boomed since they reduced their corporate tax rate to 11%.  The U.S. rate is 35%.  Which would you rather pay?  Can you seriously blame businesses for relocating or “outsourcing” given such disparities?

If Barack Obama is elected President, he will try to tax the rich.  But as the rich shelter their money, and as corporations cut back their operations, relocate, or outsource to recover their desired profit margins, the American people will see their Faustian bargain go south on them very quickly.