Now this is funny as hell and makes you wonder what these islamics drink or eat that makes them so crazy.
(NOW Lebanon) — “And I think to myself, what a wonderful world…”
A Salafi sheikh in Egypt has reportedly issued a fatwa that buying [or driving] a Chevrolet vehicle is haram because the American brand’s logo looks like the Christian cross.
In the video below, prominent Egyptian TV presenter Amr Adeeb takes the sheikh’s joke-of-a-fatwa to task, saying, “We’ve reached a really strange place with this.”
“The car’s been around [for a century] and only now did you notice there’s a cross on the car?”
Read the republican responses to the president’s SOTU address last night. Some interesting items here. GO HERE. (just to lazy to copy and paste, get the videos here, etc)
It isn’t Islamophobia when they really ARE trying to kill you. Keep up with the antics of CAIR, islamics in our country and elsewhere. Stuff not found on the MSM.
So, once again, did you catch it last night when Obama said it in his speech? Here’s his quote:
The executive branch also needs to change. Too often, it’s inefficient, outdated and remote. That’s why I’ve asked this Congress to grant me the authority to consolidate the federal bureaucracy so that our Government is leaner, quicker, and more responsive to the needs of the American people.
Pretty slick, eh? It “sounds” almost patriotic what with that quip about the needs of the American people. But what does he need more power for? With the passage of the Patriot Act and the NDAA (and don’t worry, SOPA will also eventually get passed if he gets another presidential term) he already has more power than any other president in history.
Read it all HERE.
Before our very eyes, a generation of Americans is losing faith in the American dream and adopting attitudes and behaviors that emphasize living for the day, not planning to take care of their own futures. They clearly see the problems ahead and draw rational conclusions.
Most of our problems have been caused by government. The unintended consequences of poorly thought out legislation or legislation designed merely to garner votes for re-election is wreaking havoc on economic opportunity for our country.
For one, the regulatory burden by our government on economic growth is well-known. The regulatory impact of the Dodd-Frank bill, the Affordable Care Act, No Child Left Behind, and the EPA all influence costs but, concurrently, adversely affect productivity and our competitiveness in world markets.
When all of these issues and structural changes are reviewed, it should be no wonder that the millennial generation views work differently from how an older-generation worker does.
In a class that I recently presented to a group of CPAs, I mentioned these structural changes as a cause for concern in attempts to restart the economy. I indicated that my concern was that today’s employee may not be taking a long-term perspective toward his career and their community.
A student suggested to me that her generation had lost hope. I was a little stunned by her remark. Her response was not that they have lost hope for themselves, but instead that they have lost hope in the system.
The student indicated that the people of her generation have no hope of receiving Social Security, yet they are paying into it. Furthermore, the people of her generation understand that they will have to provide for their retirement while attempting to pay off substantial student loans, thereby further cutting disposal income. She also indicated that her generation realizes that investing in equities for a better future has borne limited results, as seen by the decimated 401(k) plans and IRAs, such that continued investing makes little sense.
The student then went on to advise me that parents are living longer, and her generation expects to need to care for aging parents.
The student was convinced that all that she was taught by her parents — to save, to work hard, to provide for another day — is pure fiction. Her parents’ American Dream is her generation’s nightmare.
She and her generation have seen bad behaviors continuously rewarded by our government. They have seen the victimization of society in the minds of elected leaders with no one held accountable for his or her actions. The current generation has seen an unparalleled growth of entitlement behavior in many of their peers.
The net result of all of this is that the productive element of her generation intends to live for the moment. She and her friends intend to achieve a work-life balance that properly reflects this new understanding of what life will be like for her generation. In their minds, why plan for retirement if retirement is never an option?
My student received a rousing ovation. It turns out that my students, young and old alike, agreed with her completely.
Is this what has our country come to? What have our elected leaders done to our nation in the name of getting re-elected?
Read the article here.
I’ve heard conservatives repeat, over and over, about how Gingrich resigned in disgrace because of ethics violations. I hope after reading this they will shut their ignorant flap holes.
At the center of the controversy was a course Gingrich taught from 1993 to 1995 at two small Georgia colleges. The wide-ranging class, called “Renewing American Civilization,” was conceived by Gingrich and financed by a tax-exempt organization called the Progress and Freedom Foundation. Gingrich maintained that the course was a legitimate educational enterprise; his critics contended that it had little to do with learning and was in fact a political exercise in which Gingrich abused a tax-exempt foundation to spread his own partisan message.
The Gingrich case was driven in significant part by a man named Ben Jones. An actor and recovered alcoholic who became famous for playing the dim-witted Cooter in the popular 1980s TV show The Dukes of Hazzard, Jones ran for Congress as a Democrat from Georgia in 1988. He won and served two terms. He lost his bid for re-election after re-districting in 1992, and tried again with a run against Gingrich in 1994. Jones lost decisively, and after that, it is fair to say he became obsessed with bringing Gingrich down.
Two days before Election Day 1994, with defeat in sight, Jones hand-delivered a complaint to the House ethics committee (the complaint was printed on “Ben Jones for Congress” stationery). Jones asked the committee to investigate the college course, alleging that Gingrich “fabricated a ‘college course’ intended, in fact, to meet certain political, not educational, objectives.” Three weeks later, Jones sent the committee 450 pages of supporting documents obtained through the Georgia Open Records Act.
That was the beginning of the investigation. Stunned by their loss of control of the House — a loss engineered by Gingrich — House Democrats began pushing a variety of ethics complaints against the new Speaker. Jones’ complaint was just what they were looking for.
Jones and his partner in the Gingrich crusade, Democratic Rep. David Bonior — they had been basketball buddies in the House gym — pushed the case ceaselessly. Under public pressure, the Ethics Committee — made up of equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats — took up the case and hired an outside counsel, Washington lawyer James Cole, to conduct the investigation.
Cole developed a theory of the case in which Gingrich, looking for a way to spread his political views, came up with the idea of creating a college course and then devised a way to use a tax-exempt foundation to pay the bills. “The idea to develop the message and disseminate it for partisan political use came first,” Cole told the Ethics Committee. “The use of the [the Progress and Freedom Foundation] came second as a source of funding.” Thus, Cole concluded, the course was “motivated, at least in part, by political goals.” Cole argued that even a hint of a political motive, was enough to taint the tax-exempt project, “regardless of the number or importance of truly exempt purposes that are present.”
Cole did not argue that the case was not educational. It plainly was. But Cole suggested that the standard for determining wrongdoing was whether any unclean intent lurked in the heart of the creator of the course, even if it was unquestionably educational.
“Take the money we’re no longer spending at war, use half of it to pay down our debt, and use the rest to do some nation-building right here at home.”
This is fanciful budget math. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were funded with borrowed money, so what Obama is really asking for is an increase in domestic spending relative to the Pentagon. The United States is still running huge deficits, so none of this imagined savings would “pay down the debt” until the United States once again began running surpluses. Instead, his proposal would continue to add to the debt.
“Right now, because of loopholes and shelters in the tax code, a quarter of all millionaires pay lower tax rates than millions of middle-class households.”
The president, making his case for higher taxes on the wealthy, framed this better than the line in his Kansas City speech that earned him Three Pinocchios, but he is still making a broad claim on a narrow set of facts.
Most wealthy people pay a higher tax rate than most less-wealthy Americans, but there are always going to be some exceptions. The Congressional Research Service found that among millionaires, the average tax rate is almost 30 percent. But some 94, 500 millionaires —one quarter — do face a tax rate that is lower than 10.4 million moderate-income tax payers.
If You Thought the 2012 State of the Union Sounded Similar to Obama’s Past SOTU Speeches, You Were Right
WHILE COMMIES GO CAPITALIST; OBAMA GOES COMMUNIST
All you need to know about what Obama and his minion embrace as a political ideology was revealed last night when he said he wanted tax rates increased to 30% on the rich.
Among Obama’s proposals to achieve those goals is a tax rate on income over one million dollars that should not be allowed to go below 30 percent. The top tax rate for families making more than about $250,000 is currently 37 percent, but after taking into account deductions and credits, some of the wealthy can pay much lower than that.
Billionaire investor Warren Buffett wrote an editorial last summer in which he complained that he pays a lower rate than some of his workers. To highlight his proposal to increase taxes on millionaires, Buffett’s secretary, Debbie Bosanek, was invited to the address and sat next to the wife of the late Steve Jobs, Laurene Powell Jobs.
He thinks raising taxes in a period of economic malaise is the answer.
Most of us know, by having lived through what happened during Reagan’s term and JFK’s term, that CUTTING taxes is the answer.
Hell, even the commie rat-bastard countries of the old USSR and China know this. Look at how their economies boomed.
And more recently, the one country that shines in Europe BECAUSE it cut taxes, is Poland….an old communist state.
The European countries that have fared the best, such as Germany and Poland, rejected the Keynesian medicine. In contrast, countries following the Keynesian path with massive deficits to try to “stimulate” the economy — such as Greece, Portugal, and Ireland — have done poorly, with low growth and increased government debt.
Many important Democrats, including President Obama and economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, warned Germany that it was folly to cut government spending and reduce their deficits. According to Obama, “Economists on the left and right agree that the last thing the government should do during a recession is cut back on spending.”
Krugman criticized the reduction in German government spending in June 2010 as a “huge mistake,” comparing Germany’s policies to those of the 1930s, and said “budget cuts will hurt your economy and reduce revenues [by reducing economic growth].” By August 2010, he was saying that it was still too early to evaluate the policy.
Yet, more than a year later, Germany’s unemployment rate continued falling, dropping by 0.7 percentage points between June 2010 and August 2011. And as of June 2011, German GDP over the previous year had grown at 2.7 percent, appreciably better than our own anemic 1.6 percent. Germany accomplished this without burdening future generations with higher debt.
Now, contrast Polish common sense with President Obama claim that ever-more government spending is the solution. Poland apparently found contrary advice from other economists. As revenue has fallen, the Polish government has done precisely what our president said not to do–cut back on government spending. Warsaw lowered government spending by 6 percent last fiscal year, while Mr. Obama’s stimulus and supplemental federal spending helped the budget to soar by 18 percent.
Poland stands out because of its commitment to free-market policies. Facing down the global economic crisis, Poland slashed marginal tax rates, cut government spending and temporarily suspended some government regulations. The U.S. and the rest of Europe adopted a Keynesian economic policy and went in the opposite direction.
On January 1, 2009, Poland cut its top marginal tax rate from 40 percent to 32 percent. While our total state and federal corporate tax rates average 39.2 percent, Poland’s is just 19 percent. Companies investing in Poland get to keep 20 cents more out of ever dollar that the earn. What Poland understood is the importance of the marginal tax rate. The less you take from each additional zloty,(the Polish currency) that people earn, the harder they will work, the more they will invest and the bigger the economic pie will become. While our growth rate has been very stagnant, Poland’s soared by 4.2 percent during both 2010 and 2011.
On Tuesday’s CBS This Morning, Erica Hill played up the “overwhelming majority” that apparently support raising taxes on the rich, and urged Rep. Paul Ryan to consider supporting such a tax hike: “68% of people support raising…taxes on incomes of $250,000 and higher. Is that something that you could, perhaps, at least have a conversation about?”
Co-anchor Charlie Rose also suggested that Ryan and congressional Republicans had refused to work with President Obama, and that the Democrat needed to try to bring them on board. Rose asked White House advisor David Plouffe, “What can the President say this evening that might bring Paul Ryan to work with him on issues that concern the country?”
Hill asked her slanted tax question near the end of the interview of the Wisconsin Republican, which aired 13 minutes into the 7 am Eastern hour. She listed several polls that indicated that most Americans want tax hikes on the wealthy. Ryan replied by emphasizing the detrimental effect of raising taxes:
HILL: Another idea that’s getting a lot of attention….is this idea to have the wealthy pay more in taxes. Now, when you look at how the American people feel about this, there’s an overwhelming majority that are in favor of it. Polling from Bloomberg, the Washington Post, CBS, American Express, find the same things- most recently, 68% of people support raising income taxes- taxes on incomes of $250,000 and higher. Is that something that you could, perhaps, at least have a conversation about?
RYAN: Well, see, here’s the issue, Erica. What people just don’t realize, when they’re given these poll questions, is most small businesses pay their taxes as individuals. Eight out of ten American businesses file as individuals- nine out of ten from Wisconsin. And so, what that ends up doing is it raises tax rates on successful small businesses. They can go as high as 45% in a year from now. And the problem, Erica, is these tax increases that the President’s talking about- the money doesn’t go to reduce the deficit. It only covers 8% of the President’s proposed spending spree. The other 92% of the President’s spending is on borrowed money. So we’re not even talking about closing a fiscal gap. We’re talking about taxing and spending, and taxing successful small businesses more.
Read the article here.