Results of the Obama era-

-23Ih-b13.14

Student Loans–                   National debt         Food Stamps    Homeownership  Median Income

1995-     0 million 5 million 2 million 64.5%                     1996-$54,000

2000-     80 million              6 million 22 million              64%                                   $58,500

2005-     100 million            8 million 30 million              69%                        2006-$59,000

2010- 200 million                14 million              75 million              66%                                   $53,500

2015-     1.1 billion              20 million              67 million              63%                        2016-$59,000

 

Labor Force Participation   2020 H.C. spending pre and post ACA

1970-     60.5%                                     2010-Medicare-$900 billion–base Medicaid-$1.3 billion-baseline

1990-     66.5%                                     2010-post ACA-Medicare-$800 billion-base Meidcaid-$1.250billion-

2010-ACA Medicaid and exchange-$1.4 Billion

2000-     67.3%                                     2014-Medicare-$700 billion-Base Medicaid-$1.1 billion

2010-     63%

% of Adults w/o insurance                Enrollment under OBC                                       small premium increases

2009-     14.5%                                     9.5 million Medicaid                                            6/2008-15% increase

2011-     16%                                        8.2 million signed outside exchange                7/2009-1/2010-15% increase

2013-     16.5%                                    11.7 million on exchanges                  1/2010-8-2010-15% increase

2015-     12.4%                                                                                                         8/2010-4/1/2012-29% inc

1/2012-10/2012-15% inc

OBC FINES                             EST. SPENDING UNDER DEMO HOUSE TRI-COMM   CBO PROJECTIONS SENATES

2014-$95.00                         2013-$60BILLION                                                                     2014-$49 BILLION

2015-$325.00                      2015-$175 BILLION                                                                 2015-$99 BILLION

2016-$695.00                      2016-$195 BILLION                                                                 2017-$165 BILLION

2018-$240 BILLION                                                                  2019-$195 BILLION

OBAMA BUDGET GIMMICKS

REDUCE DEFICIT FROM 2010-2019 BY $124 BILLION

NEW LAW ACTUALLY ADDS:            

+$529 BILLION DOUBLE COUNTED MEDICARE CUTS

+$283 BILLION UNPAID FOR DOC FIX

+$115 BILLION-DISCRETIONARY SPENDING

+$70 BILLION DOUBLE COUNTED SAVINGS FROM CLASS PROGRAM

+$29 BILLION DOUBLE COUNTED SAVINGS FROM SOCIAL SECURITY PAYROLL TAXES

OBC CAUSED PREMIUMS TO RISE IN ALL BUT 6 STATES IN 2014–

6-NO INCREASE

44-INCREASES RANGED FROM 1% TO 84%

H.C PREMIUMS CLIMBING—AVERAGE PREMIUM FOR FAMILY PLAN AT WORK

1999-$5900.00

2003-$6200.00

2006-$11,000

2010-$13,000

2012-$15,000

2014-$16,000

2015-$17,000

COST OF PRESIDENTS H C LAW RISES WITH EACH NEW ESTIMATE:

10 YEAR COST–1ST PROJECTION-$0.9 TRILLION

2010-2019-$1.4 TRILLION

2011-2020-$1.7 TRILLION

2012-2021-$2.0 TRILLION

2013-2022-$2.3 TRILLION

2014-2023-$2.6 TRILLION

ESTIMATED INCREASES IN INDIVIDUAL MARKET PREMIUMS DUE TO OBC BY STATE–EXAMPLES

19-41%-COLORADO

29-56%-MINNESOTA

39%-NEW JERSEY

40%-MAINE

56%-S. DAKOTA

65%-100%-ARIZONA

75%-82%-VIRIGINIA

61%-100%-WYOMING

HEALTH CARE PRICES

MEDICAL COST—1992-2008- 5%-95%

PHYSICANS SERVICES-1992-2008-5%-75%

CONSUMER PRICE INDEX-1992-2008-5%-50%

COSMETIC SERVICES FEES-1992-2008-5%-23%

 

THE NET COST OF OBC: $1 TRILLION

SPENDING INC DUE YO OBC-2013-2021—$1.4 TRILLION

OBC TAXES-2013-2021-$400 BILLION

NET COST OF OBC-2013-2021-$1 TRILLION

COST OF HC.GOV

HHS EST. $800 MILLION

HHS SECT EST        $834 MILLION

EST. BLOOMBERG GOV  $2.1 BILLION

TAXES ON OBC:

TOTAL ANNUAL COST OF OBC TAXES 2010-2019—-$502 BILLION

2011-$19 BILLION

2015-$70 BILLION

2017-$80 BILLION

2019-$110 BILLION EST.

 

UNDER OBC HC PREMIUMS GROWN FASTER THAN WORKERS WAGES PRIVATE AND PUBLIC–

PRIVATE-2005-24%              2010-26.5%          2012-28%              2014-30%

PUBLIC-    2005-24%            2010-26.5%          2012-28.5%          2014-30%

OBC TREND 2005-17%        2010-18.5%          2012-20.5%          2014-22%

 

NOTE: THESE ARE CHARTS AND GRAPHS NOT CLEARLY SHOWING A LINE TO THE ACTUAL %/COST—BEST ESTIMATES WERE USED IN ALL.

SOURCES–fred, us bureau of the census, us tresury, bls, bureau of economic analysis, gallup, crfb.org, wash post, cnn, cbo, business insider, aca works, kaiser, hret, jon gruber, daily signal, heritage, bea, centers for medicare and medicaid

Advertisements

Did you realize that the U.S. congress only 5 times to go to war?-

-17GH.,B37

These were”

THE MEXICAN-AMERICAN WAR 1846

SONISH-AMERICAN WAR-1898

THE WAR OF 1812

WORLD WAR 1

WORLD WAR 2

THE OTHER CONFLICTS WERENOT APPROVED/VOTED ON BY CONGRESS SO ARE CONSIDERED POLICE ACTION OR SOME OTHER MADE UP REASON;

KOREA-1950

LEBANON-1958

BAY OF PIGS-1967

VIET NAM/LAOS/CAMBODIA-1965

LEANON-1982

GRENDA-1983

SHABA 11-1978

THAILAND-1965

LIBYA-1986

TANKER-1987

PANAMA-1987

FROM HISTORY——–

 

 

For any of the readers, if you are not Catholic this still makes a point of the possible dangers that could lay ahead for out great nation founded on the principles of religion and faith.

This comparison is taken from the communist manifesto and a side-by side comparison is shown.

You be the judge of which future you think we should follow???

Catholic Ten Commandments COMMUNIST MANIFESTO
I am the LORD thy God. Thou shalt have no strange gods before Me. MANDATORY ATHEISM
Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain. CANNOT MENTION GOD IN PUBLIC
Remember to keep holy the Sabbath day. NO “DAY OFF” TO HONOR GOD
Honor thy father and thy mother. ROLE OF PARENTS ELIMINATED-CHILD RAISED BY THE STATE
Thou shalt not kill. EUTHANASIA, GENOCIDE, MASS-MURDER, RULE BY FEAR
Thou shalt not commit adultery. MARRIAGE AND FAMILY STRUCTURE ELIMINATED
Thou shalt not steal. ELIMINATION OF OWNERSHIP OF PROPERTY
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor. STATE RUN PROPAGANDA MACHINE, TRUTH BECOMES ILLEGAL
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife. WORSHIP OF STATE AND MILITARY POWER
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s goods. STATE COVETS AND TAKES TOTAL CONTROL

i34h.,b6

don’t let me be misunderstood-

-47jH.,b43

If you’re still wondering how Donald Trump, a man whose approval rating sits at 36 percent in a September 6 NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, ever became president, well, here’s a clue: That same poll has Hillary Clinton’s approval rating at 30 percent.

Mrs. Clinton, though, is still operating on the assumption that the public’s dislike of her is all a big misunderstanding. She’s about to launch a tour for the book telling her version of 2016 events that is both appropriately and amusingly titled: What Happened.

But even under an entirely dysfunctional Trump administration, Democrats are still having a difficult time uniting their center and left factions. The general consensus is that Clinton’s desire to reenter the spotlight with a book tour is not helpful, and the book’s finger-pointing at her primary opponent, Bernie Sanders, threatens to further widen the rift in the party.

Herewith a smattering of anonymous quotes from Democratic insiders, officeholders, Obama administration members, and Clinton associates that have recently appeared in stories about Clinton’s new book:

“She’s doing harm to all of us because of her own selfishness. Honestly, I wish she’d just shut the [expletive] up and go away.”

“None of this is good for the party. .  .  . It’s the Hillary Show, 100 percent. A lot of us are scratching our heads and wondering what she’s trying to do. It’s certainly not helpful.”

“It is difficult for some of us, even like myself who’ve supported her, to play out all these media cycles about the blame game, and the excuses.” “There is a collective groan whenever there’s another news cycle about this.”

And those quotations are from Clinton’s ostensible allies. Sanders supporters have been positively brutal. “While Trump has been ripping the country apart, [Clinton] has been taking long walks in the woods, drinking chardonnay, hobnobbing with celebrities and writing a book that entirely ignores the failure of the party establishment over a decade or two,” progressive activist Jonathan Tasini told the Hill.

Not that any of the public criticism matters. We suspect Clinton is reemerging now for the same reason she has done many inadvisable things: As we noted in this space last week, “VIP Platinum” tickets for the meet-and-greet at the Toronto stop on her book tour are being hawked for a mere $3,000 (Canadian).

source–nbc, wsj, the hill, weekly std, TASINI, JONATHAN

the big 4– Trump’s tax-cut kibitzers-

—  16.58JH.,b32.58

.In tax reform, the negotiators from the Trump administration and Congress who are thought to be in charge are called the Big 6 by Washington insiders. But there’s also a Big 4, a group of supply-side economists who are playing an influential role.

The Big 4—they call themselves the Committee to Unleash Prosperity—have no official status. They don’t need it. They have something better. President Trump knows all four and likes to talk to them about the economy and taxes.

And things seem to be heading their way. With time running out for Congress to consider a massive tax bill, the Big 4 want Trump to go for tax cuts alone this year and leave reform of the tax code to 2018. The Big 6 remain committed to enacting both cuts and reform this fall.

One of the Big 4, Larry Kudlow, was invited several weeks ago to speak at a White House luncheon by Gary Cohn, the head of the National Economic Council. Trump didn’t attend, but when he heard Kudlow was there, he summoned him twice for private chats. They talked for 45 minutes.

The president has also been known to ask “Where’s Laffer?” when the subject of taxes comes up. Art Laffer was an architect of President Reagan’s tax cut, which touched off a surge in economic growth in the 1980s. He has met repeatedly with Trump.

Steve Forbes hasn’t personally visited the White House to talk about taxes since Trump was inaugurated. But his opposition to a border-adjustment tax on imports is well known from his writings in Forbes magazine. He disparages it as a national sales tax. A study by Laffer that frowns on the border-adustment tax, a proposal of the Big 6, has circulated at the White House.

The fourth Big 4 member is Steve Moore, who’s been active in pushing what he calls “three easy pieces.” It consists of a deep reduction in the corporate tax rate, repatriation of overseas profits by American companies, and a doubling of the standard deduction to relieve the tax burden on the middle class.

When the Big 4 came together in 2015, their plan was to advise each of the 17 Republican presidential candidates. And they came close to helping all on their tax agendas. Laffer, for example, advised Ted Cruz. Their advice focused on tax cuts to spur investment, job creation, and growth.

Kudlow and Laffer handled this task for Trump. Both are believers in incentives for growth, which were central to the tax cuts of John F. Kennedy and Reagan.

The breakthrough with Trump was late in arriving. The Big 4 hadn’t taken him seriously as a candidate, much less a president. But when Moore and Kudlow were asked in March 2016 by aide Corey Lewandowski to meet with Trump, they accepted.

They were surprised Trump already had a plan, one they liked. They were surprised again to discover he had a firm grasp of tax issues. After their first session, they concluded, in Moore’s words, that “this guy can actually win.” They committed themselves to “legitimizing” his tax ideas and candidacy.

To Trump’s plan, they added expensing, the immediate deduction of the full cost of capital expenses such as new factories and equipment—this to accelerate business investment. And they sold Trump on killing the “death tax,” the federal inheritance tax.

“I’m a supply-sider,” Trump told them. He insisted his tax proposal “can’t be a cut for people like me.” A true supply-sider wouldn’t have insisted on that, but Trump returned to the point often in their meetings, Kudlow said. It would be bad politics. Kudlow and Moore suggested doubling the standard deduction “so that most filers wouldn’t have to itemize and we could simplify taxes that way.”

Kudlow and Moore were the first to advocate a straight tax cut with reform coming later. But it wasn’t until a column by the Big 4 appeared in the New York Times in April (“Why Are Republicans Making Tax Reform So Hard?”) that the idea got traction. Trump’s reaction that he wanted his tax bill to look like the Big 4’s was widely reported.

Besides reiterating their tax proposals, the column also argued for funding a bold infrastructure program including “modernizing the electric grid and broadband access.” Forget tax reform in 2017. “Jobs and the economy are the top priority to voters,” they said.

Trump liked all this, but the Big 6 haven’t signed on. And they especially oppose the Big 4 suggestion not to require the tax bill to be revenue neutral. Otherwise it would add to the deficit.

The Big 4 say this would diminish the impact of the tax cuts. However, it would mean their tax cuts would not be permanent, lasting 10 years like the cuts of President George W. Bush.

The Big 6 matter. They are drafting the White House tax measure that Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin has said will be released shortly. The Big 6 are Mnuchin, Cohn, House speaker Paul Ryan, Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell, House Ways and Means Committee chairman Kevin Brady, and Senate Finance Committee chairman Orrin Hatch.

Ryan and McConnell back revenue neutrality. So do an unknown number of Republican senators, including Rob Portman of Ohio. But the bill, Portman told Fox News, “ought to use dynamic scoring, meaning a macroeconomic score that assumes that good tax policies actually might change behavior. And it will.” If so, it would project higher revenues from increased growth and a greater chance of avoiding a higher deficit even while cutting taxes.

Trump favors a big tax cut. His original plan in last year’s presidential race projected a deficit of $6 trillion. But later in the campaign that was narrowed to a revenue loser of $2 trillion over 10 years. Moore says the revenue boost from a large cut could take care of that deficit.

The president is unlikely to make a deal with Democrats on tax cuts, as he did on the debt hike. Democrats want to raise taxes. It’s in their DNA. So far as we know, it’s not in Trump’s. And he’s the Big 1.

source-WEEKLY STD, FRED, BARNES, STEVE MOORE, LAFFER, ART-, KUDLOW,LARRY- STEVE FORBES, LEWANDOWSKI, COREY-NYT-FOX-PYAN PAUL, BRADY, KEVIN-MCCONNEL, MITCH-

the unaccountable IRS-

-8gH.,b36

To understand the pragmatic realities of federal governance in the 21st century, one must recognize the existence of a fourth branch of government: the administrative state. We have some two million federal bureaucrats with extraconstitutional legislative powers. Not only do they write the reams of regulations that order our lives, they have the authority to enforce them capriciously. And thanks to absurd civil service protections, it is exceedingly difficult to hold them accountable for abuses of power, even when Congress demands it.

Emails later confirmed Lerner had a strong personal bias against conservatives (she called them “crazies” and “a—holes”), and there was an extensive and credible series of accusations that she harassed conservative groups when she worked for the Federal Election Commission in the 1990s. If all this doesn’t suggest motive and criminality, it’s still an outrage that Lerner, whose leave was never revoked, eventually retired from the IRS with a full and generous pension.

In 2014, 47 of the 73 federal inspectors general signed a public letter accusing the administration of intimidation, stonewalling their investigations, and generally interfering in their “ability to conduct our work thoroughly, independently, and in a timely manner.”

The promise of the Trump administration, especially in contrast to Hillary Clinton’s flagrant disregard of classification laws, was a return to accountability. Jeff Sessions, a man committed to judicial integrity, was supposed to be just the man to restore respect for the rule of law. But the attorney general seems to be missing in action. The House Ways and Means Committee asked the Justice Department earlier this year to reexamine Lerner’s case. Committee chairman Kevin Brady told the Washington Post that the department’s decision to decline “sends the message that the same legal, ethical, and constitutional standards we all live by do not apply to Washington political appointees,” who “now have the green light to target Americans for their political beliefs and mislead investigators without ever being held accountable for their lawlessness.”

Of course, Congress has also shown inaction in the face of wrongdoing here. After the acting IRS commissioner resigned during the scandal, President Obama made John Koskinen the new head. Koskinen failed to act on a congressional subpoena and let the agency delete as many as 24,000 of Lerner’s emails. He waited four months to reveal the emails were missing and told Congress the agency had confirmed there were no accessible backups. That was not true: The inspector general’s office subsequently recovered a thousand of Lerner’s emails.

Worse, Koskinen hasn’t taken steps to reform the agency and ensure such misbehavior doesn’t happen again. The Government Accountability Office concluded in 2015 that the IRS still had weaknesses that increased the risk it “could select organizations for examination in an unfair manner—for example, based on an organization’s religious, educational, political, or other views.” Yet Koskinen remains IRS commissioner. Some Republican House members filed a resolution to impeach Koskinen in October 2015, but Congress never followed through.

The Trump administration hasn’t moved to replace him since taking office, either—though it recognizes executive action can be taken to curb corruption. Some 500 Veterans Affairs workers have been fired since January in response to the department’s deadly negligence and substandard care. The IRS and other scandal-plagued federal departments and agencies should face similarly serious consequences. It would remind an overwhelmingly liberal unionized bureaucracy that it is required to serve all Americans fairly. And it would reassure the public that those who wield the power to threaten their livelihoods and right to expression are not above the law. Let’s hope accountability at the VA proves to be the template, not the exception.

SOURCE–WEEKLY STD, BRADY, KEVIN-WASH POST-