Saturday, February 13, 2010
"Hank" Paulson Commends Sarah Palin
Henry (Hank) Paulson, former Treasury Secretary said Sarah Palin was really right on all the "hot-button" issues. They had not been formally introduced yet, so he took exception to her calling him "Hank," stating it rubbed him the wrong way. However, on the issues,she had a grasp of them and where the American public was. Regarding Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac she asked him what happens to the CEO's, will they be replaced, will there be golden parachutes, and what happens to the compensation etc?
What will the libs have to say about that?
Friday, February 12, 2010
Statists Response to Supreme Court Decision on Campaign Financing
Congressman Alan Grayson from Florida has introduced several pieces of legislation responding to the recent Supreme Court decision on campaign financing. According to the George Soros-funded Secretary of State Project below are interpretations of them.
1. The Business Should Mind Its Own Business Act (H.R. 4431): Implements a 500% excise tax on corporate contributions to political committees, and on corporate expenditures on political advocacy campaigns.
2. The Public Company Responsibility Act (H.R. 4435): Prevents companies making political contributions and expenditures from trading their stock on national exchanges.
3.The End Political Kickbacks Act (H.R. 4434): Prevents for-profit corporations that receive money from the government from making political contributions, and limits the amount that employees of those companies can contribute.
4. The Corporate Propaganda Sunshine Act (H.R. 4432): Requires publicly-traded companies to disclose in SEC filings money used for the purpose of influencing public opinion, rather than to promoting their products and services.
5. The Ending Corporate Collusion Act (H.R. 4433): Applies antitrust law to industry PACs.
6. The End the Hijacking of Shareholder Funds Act (H.R. 4487): This bill requires the approval of a majority of a public company’s shareholders for any expenditure by that company to influence public opinion on matters not related to the company’s products or services.
These laws the statists are trying to enact with the backing of George Soros is an answer to the recent Supreme Court Decision on campaign financing. I see none of these laws effect the unions and their contributions.
I disagree with the Supreme Court Decision allowing corporations to contribute to campaigns because some employees or shareholders may not like their choice. Many of these corporations bend with the wind and change who they contribute to. Also, I do not like corporate PACS because some employees or shareholders may not like the selection. By the same token I do not like unions contributing to campaigns for the same reasons; some of their members may not like the selection.
My preference would be for individuals to contribute as much as they want to whoever they want as long as they fully disclose it. Individuals could form a Club with other individuals to pool their money together as long as there is full disclosure on who is in the club and the amount they contribute. It should be individuals making their own choice and not GROUP think, which is what you get with contributions coming from corporations or unions.
Greg Zotta
http://www.zottasperspective.blogspot.com
1. The Business Should Mind Its Own Business Act (H.R. 4431): Implements a 500% excise tax on corporate contributions to political committees, and on corporate expenditures on political advocacy campaigns.
2. The Public Company Responsibility Act (H.R. 4435): Prevents companies making political contributions and expenditures from trading their stock on national exchanges.
3.The End Political Kickbacks Act (H.R. 4434): Prevents for-profit corporations that receive money from the government from making political contributions, and limits the amount that employees of those companies can contribute.
4. The Corporate Propaganda Sunshine Act (H.R. 4432): Requires publicly-traded companies to disclose in SEC filings money used for the purpose of influencing public opinion, rather than to promoting their products and services.
5. The Ending Corporate Collusion Act (H.R. 4433): Applies antitrust law to industry PACs.
6. The End the Hijacking of Shareholder Funds Act (H.R. 4487): This bill requires the approval of a majority of a public company’s shareholders for any expenditure by that company to influence public opinion on matters not related to the company’s products or services.
These laws the statists are trying to enact with the backing of George Soros is an answer to the recent Supreme Court Decision on campaign financing. I see none of these laws effect the unions and their contributions.
I disagree with the Supreme Court Decision allowing corporations to contribute to campaigns because some employees or shareholders may not like their choice. Many of these corporations bend with the wind and change who they contribute to. Also, I do not like corporate PACS because some employees or shareholders may not like the selection. By the same token I do not like unions contributing to campaigns for the same reasons; some of their members may not like the selection.
My preference would be for individuals to contribute as much as they want to whoever they want as long as they fully disclose it. Individuals could form a Club with other individuals to pool their money together as long as there is full disclosure on who is in the club and the amount they contribute. It should be individuals making their own choice and not GROUP think, which is what you get with contributions coming from corporations or unions.
Greg Zotta
http://www.zottasperspective.blogspot.com
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Green Police
You've heard the saying life imitates art and art imitates life. You may remember watching movies like Dick Tracy, or Flash Gordon, where Tracy had the wrist video phone and Flash had the space shuttle. There were movies with computers and flying cars etc. All of these movies had gadgets and devices that were not invented or put to use yet, but are now a reality. With this "GREEN MOVEMENT," I am afraid we are already headed in the direction portrayed in the commercial. The incandescent bulb is being outlawed and many of the other things in the commercial are being implemented. The Corporations are behind it because they are making Green from going green. The children are being brainwashed and indoctrinated in the schools and Saturday morning cartoons. The Obama Administration is going to force Cap and Trade on the American citizens by law through the Congress or by regulation through the EPA. This law is also about control. The American people need to have their voices heard and put a stop to this legislation.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Solutions to Social Security
Social Security is going bankrupt at a faster pace than the experts predicted, because it is based on people working in the work force. When people are not working, they are not contributing to the system. People talk about Bernie Maddoff when it comes to Ponzi schemes, but they fail to mention the biggest Ponzi scheme of them all, Social Security. If anyone would try to set up a program like Social Security today they would be arrested for setting up an illegal pyramid scheme.
According to the Social Security Administration the Social Security trust fund will begin running a deficit by 2016 and the trust-fund surplus will be exhausted by 2037The fund is also being drained by individuals on SSI who possibly never contributed to the fund. However, the Social Security Administration states Supplemental Security Income (SSI) is a Federal income supplement program funded by general tax revenues (not Social Security taxes). Actually, the trust-fund contains no assets, but just Government IOU’s, so the money does go into general revenue. It was supposed to be in a lock box, but politicians have used the money to pay for other things and now the system is going broke. In other words Social Security is going bankrupt.
The current system is set up and based on the number of employees’ working. Ultimately, there will not be enough workers in the system to pay the retirees. AARP likes the status quo and is against privatizing Social Security claiming investing in the stock market is too risky. They want the system to remain the same, which is based on employees that are working. However, where do they think these workers are working? They are working for corporations. When people invest in stocks the value is based on the earnings of the corporation. If the corporation is doing well it may or may not have more workers working to contribute to the system; some corporations are doing well by increasing their productivity by squeezing their employees, getting more with less. This is usually short lived, because eventually you get job burnout. The company then would fire those people and hire new ones and they would have to be trained. Then there’s a learning curve, which ultimately becomes costly or they hire more people. If the corporation is not doing well then it will have fewer or no workers working to contribute to the system, because of job layoffs or the business closes.
The politicians’ solution to the financial problems with Social Security is to raise taxes, raise the retirement age and cut benefits. It is a hideous system that was put in place by politicians to use as a slush fund and not necessarily for the benefit of the individual. With the politicians suggested solutions to the problem it seems their goal is for the individual not to benefit from it. What some of them would like to see happen is to increase the taxes the individual pays into the system and their hopes are they die right before they reach retirement age.
That is why the system needs to be privatized. Individuals need to have their own account, where they can control it and it can be passed onto their heirs. They could invest in stock, bonds and treasuries etc. based on their risk tolerance. The key being it would be theirs and would give them individual freedom.
When some people talk about the healthcare debate they say they do not want a Government takeover of the healthcare system. I happen to agree with that sentiment, yet when it comes to retirement the Government is telling you when you can retire if you rely on Social Security. I believe it should be left up to the individual. Also, individuals are restricted when they can access the money. This is another reason why the Social Security System needs to be changed. People should retire when they have enough money to retire and they want to retire.
Here is how the system currently works and its flaws. It may be anecdotal, but it is how it worked in my family. My parents both worked all of their lives and paid into the system. My father was getting about $1300.00 a month and my mother was getting about $1100.00 a month from Social Security. He died September 28, 1998. Upon his death my mother had to return September’s payment back to the Social Security Administration. In return she received a $275.00 death benefit. My mother then received the amount of my father’s check of $1300.00, and she no longer received her check.
On September 27, 1998 my parent’s household was bringing in about $2400.00 a month in Social Security retirement. However, on September 29th, 1998 the household income was cut in about half to $1300.00 a month due to a death. That is not right. It was tragic enough to have lost my father. The household income would not have changed upon my father’s death if my parents had their own retirement account.
Again, that is why Social Security needs to be privatized. Social Security needs to be replaced over time by individual private accounts. The people that bought into the system, paid into it, and are on it now, need to be taken care of and be paid their benefits. The rest of the people need to be weaned off the system until the system is replaced by individual retirement accounts, where they are in control of it and they can decide when they want to retire.
Greg Zotta
According to the Social Security Administration the Social Security trust fund will begin running a deficit by 2016 and the trust-fund surplus will be exhausted by 2037The fund is also being drained by individuals on SSI who possibly never contributed to the fund. However, the Social Security Administration states Supplemental Security Income (SSI) is a Federal income supplement program funded by general tax revenues (not Social Security taxes). Actually, the trust-fund contains no assets, but just Government IOU’s, so the money does go into general revenue. It was supposed to be in a lock box, but politicians have used the money to pay for other things and now the system is going broke. In other words Social Security is going bankrupt.
The current system is set up and based on the number of employees’ working. Ultimately, there will not be enough workers in the system to pay the retirees. AARP likes the status quo and is against privatizing Social Security claiming investing in the stock market is too risky. They want the system to remain the same, which is based on employees that are working. However, where do they think these workers are working? They are working for corporations. When people invest in stocks the value is based on the earnings of the corporation. If the corporation is doing well it may or may not have more workers working to contribute to the system; some corporations are doing well by increasing their productivity by squeezing their employees, getting more with less. This is usually short lived, because eventually you get job burnout. The company then would fire those people and hire new ones and they would have to be trained. Then there’s a learning curve, which ultimately becomes costly or they hire more people. If the corporation is not doing well then it will have fewer or no workers working to contribute to the system, because of job layoffs or the business closes.
The politicians’ solution to the financial problems with Social Security is to raise taxes, raise the retirement age and cut benefits. It is a hideous system that was put in place by politicians to use as a slush fund and not necessarily for the benefit of the individual. With the politicians suggested solutions to the problem it seems their goal is for the individual not to benefit from it. What some of them would like to see happen is to increase the taxes the individual pays into the system and their hopes are they die right before they reach retirement age.
That is why the system needs to be privatized. Individuals need to have their own account, where they can control it and it can be passed onto their heirs. They could invest in stock, bonds and treasuries etc. based on their risk tolerance. The key being it would be theirs and would give them individual freedom.
When some people talk about the healthcare debate they say they do not want a Government takeover of the healthcare system. I happen to agree with that sentiment, yet when it comes to retirement the Government is telling you when you can retire if you rely on Social Security. I believe it should be left up to the individual. Also, individuals are restricted when they can access the money. This is another reason why the Social Security System needs to be changed. People should retire when they have enough money to retire and they want to retire.
Here is how the system currently works and its flaws. It may be anecdotal, but it is how it worked in my family. My parents both worked all of their lives and paid into the system. My father was getting about $1300.00 a month and my mother was getting about $1100.00 a month from Social Security. He died September 28, 1998. Upon his death my mother had to return September’s payment back to the Social Security Administration. In return she received a $275.00 death benefit. My mother then received the amount of my father’s check of $1300.00, and she no longer received her check.
On September 27, 1998 my parent’s household was bringing in about $2400.00 a month in Social Security retirement. However, on September 29th, 1998 the household income was cut in about half to $1300.00 a month due to a death. That is not right. It was tragic enough to have lost my father. The household income would not have changed upon my father’s death if my parents had their own retirement account.
Again, that is why Social Security needs to be privatized. Social Security needs to be replaced over time by individual private accounts. The people that bought into the system, paid into it, and are on it now, need to be taken care of and be paid their benefits. The rest of the people need to be weaned off the system until the system is replaced by individual retirement accounts, where they are in control of it and they can decide when they want to retire.
Greg Zotta
Monday, February 8, 2010
Murtha the Corrupt Prejudiced Congressman
John Murtha was a corrupt prejudicial Congressman who brought home the pork to Pennsylvania, even though he thought of his constituents as racist rednecks.Before knowing the FACTS (just like Obama) he jumped to conclusions and wrongfully accused the marines at Haditha "murderers." How despicable! He NEVER apologized to them when they were found innocent and took that act to his grave. America is better off without him.
Friday, February 5, 2010
Fuzzy Math Regarding Unemployment #s
The unemployment numbers came out February 5,2010 and the estimates were for another 15000 job loss for January. The numbers came in at 20000, but the unemployment rate went from 10% to 9.7%. This does not compute unless this Administration changed the was they calculate the unemployment rate for their benefit.This did not include the 800 thousand plus they failed to include. My question is how can the January job loss estimated at 15000 came in at 20000 but the unemployment rate drops from 10% to 9.7%? Once again the lame stream media does not challenge the numbers coming from this Administration.
No Newt for President
Sean Hannity says the country needs to elect true Ronald Reagan conservatives to office. Then he talks about Newt Gingrich running for President. I do not understand the contradiction, because Newt is not a true Reagan conservative.
Newt says the United States is a center right country and the tea party movement shows the American people are not happy with Washington. Newt, tell us something we don’t already know. The American people are waking up to the radical agenda of the Obama administration and the Democrats/Statists. Common Sense Conservatism is rising again and the Statists day is coming in November.
Bob Dole/Dull said it was his turn to run for President and we got 4 more years of the rapist Bill Clinton. Then it was John McCain’s “turn” and we ended up with Barack Hussein Obama.
The following observations and questions are the reason I do not believe Newt Gingrich is a real common sense Reagan conservative Republican espoused by Hannity.
Gary Gill was running against Missouri’s 3rd District Democrat Representative Dick Gephardt and he was leading in the polls until Newt praised Gephardt. Gill ended up losing the election.
Newt made the Contract with America that helped the Republicans win the US House in 1994.What did the Republicans do after they won the US House in 1994? They did not follow through on the contract.
In 2005 he teamed up with Hillary Clinton on National Healthcare and claimed she would be a formidable candidate for President. He did a Climate Change commercial with Pelosi and teamed up with Sharpton on education.
Newt backed Dede Scozzafava, another RINO, in the New York Congressional race.
Newt was on Greta and commented to her, “You strengthen yourself by attracting more people than by driving them away,” implying that you must compromise your conservative principles in order to expand the party. I believe you stand on conservative principles & let the people come to you.
Above all, he stated the Era of Reagan Conservatism is over.
He is positioning himself to run for President as a middle of the roader, and is being too cute and disingenuous when he was asked about recent trips to Iowa and New Hampshire and gives an evasive answer. Newt is out for Newt. He is not a true conservative and this country does not need him as President. Before Hannity lends too much support to Newt, he should have him explain his reasoning for his actions.
Greg Zotta
http://www.zottasperspective.blogspot.com
Newt says the United States is a center right country and the tea party movement shows the American people are not happy with Washington. Newt, tell us something we don’t already know. The American people are waking up to the radical agenda of the Obama administration and the Democrats/Statists. Common Sense Conservatism is rising again and the Statists day is coming in November.
Bob Dole/Dull said it was his turn to run for President and we got 4 more years of the rapist Bill Clinton. Then it was John McCain’s “turn” and we ended up with Barack Hussein Obama.
The following observations and questions are the reason I do not believe Newt Gingrich is a real common sense Reagan conservative Republican espoused by Hannity.
Gary Gill was running against Missouri’s 3rd District Democrat Representative Dick Gephardt and he was leading in the polls until Newt praised Gephardt. Gill ended up losing the election.
Newt made the Contract with America that helped the Republicans win the US House in 1994.What did the Republicans do after they won the US House in 1994? They did not follow through on the contract.
In 2005 he teamed up with Hillary Clinton on National Healthcare and claimed she would be a formidable candidate for President. He did a Climate Change commercial with Pelosi and teamed up with Sharpton on education.
Newt backed Dede Scozzafava, another RINO, in the New York Congressional race.
Newt was on Greta and commented to her, “You strengthen yourself by attracting more people than by driving them away,” implying that you must compromise your conservative principles in order to expand the party. I believe you stand on conservative principles & let the people come to you.
Above all, he stated the Era of Reagan Conservatism is over.
He is positioning himself to run for President as a middle of the roader, and is being too cute and disingenuous when he was asked about recent trips to Iowa and New Hampshire and gives an evasive answer. Newt is out for Newt. He is not a true conservative and this country does not need him as President. Before Hannity lends too much support to Newt, he should have him explain his reasoning for his actions.
Greg Zotta
http://www.zottasperspective.blogspot.com
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Obama Censorship?
Youtube has cut off comments to these videos. Why? Is this CENSORSHIP?
Poor little Barack, he’s being picked on.Obama talks about civility, yet he’s the one who sent out the GOONS to the town hall meetings. He’s the one who does not like to be challenged. Then he says you can question my policies without questioning my faith or citizenship. His policies are radical and wrong for America. As for his faith he’s the one who stated America is no longer a Christian Nation, and mentioned to George S. about his Muslim beliefs before being cut off.Barack Hussein Obama is a Muslim sympathizer. To resolve the question regarding his citizenship,all he has to do is release the original birth certificate, that exists.While he’s at it he can release his college papers.He is the one who keeps talking about being transparent, but refuses to release the documents.What is this Alinski Disciple trying to hide?
I wonder if that was what Harry Reid was talking about when he made reference about Barack Hussein Obama’s dialect.What was he saying when he said corpse man? Obviously I do not understand his dialect.
Poor little Barack, he’s being picked on.Obama talks about civility, yet he’s the one who sent out the GOONS to the town hall meetings. He’s the one who does not like to be challenged. Then he says you can question my policies without questioning my faith or citizenship. His policies are radical and wrong for America. As for his faith he’s the one who stated America is no longer a Christian Nation, and mentioned to George S. about his Muslim beliefs before being cut off.Barack Hussein Obama is a Muslim sympathizer. To resolve the question regarding his citizenship,all he has to do is release the original birth certificate, that exists.While he’s at it he can release his college papers.He is the one who keeps talking about being transparent, but refuses to release the documents.What is this Alinski Disciple trying to hide?
I wonder if that was what Harry Reid was talking about when he made reference about Barack Hussein Obama’s dialect.What was he saying when he said corpse man? Obviously I do not understand his dialect.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Obama and the Economy
When it comes to the economy, Barack Hussein Obama is either clueless or is destroying it on purpose. I believe the latter because the Democrats/Statists want to create an ever increasing amount of people dependent on the government in order to garner votes to stay in POWER. Either way it is not in the best interests of this country.
He demonizes the banks and says he is going to impose a fee on them. President Obama, who do you think will ultimately be paying those fees? It will be the customers, the citizens of the United States, your constituents. What would happen if all the customers of those banks decide to pull all of their money out of them? Would that not be a "run on the bank?" Would that not cause another financial crisis? Wasn't that one of the reasons for the bank bailout?
Obama has also demonized corporations for having corporate jets and having lavish conventions. He vilified various corporations to the point that the gutless CEO’s canceled jet orders and canceled conventions even though they had to pay cancelation fees. Then he talks about JOBS, JOBS, JOBS.
When companies do not buy jets, the workers that make the jets are out of a JOB. When there are no conventions it destroys the hospitality industry. Restaurants, hotels, convention centers, limo services, cab drivers, vendors, advertisers, etc. all suffer and people lose their JOBS. If people are not working the government is not receiving tax revenue, which exacerbates the situation.
He stated, “These deficits won’t just burden our kids and grandkids decades from now, they can damage our markets now.” He goes on to state responsible families don’t do their budget like the federal government does. “You don’t go buying a boat when you can barely pay your mortgage. You don’t blow a bunch of cash on Vegas when you are trying to save for college.” Was Obama being an elitist with that reference? Does he have something against Las Vegas? Was he saying the common folk should not try to enjoy themselves?
Barack Obama has been travelling the world since becoming President, vacationing in Hawaii, playing numerous rounds of golf and pickup basketball, he imports Kobe beef from Japan and flies in numerous personal chefs to cook for him at the Whitehouse, etc. My questions are, is there something wrong with American beef and who is paying for these extra expenses? Just remember it is Obama and his policies that are creating these deficits and not JOBS.
He demonizes the banks and says he is going to impose a fee on them. President Obama, who do you think will ultimately be paying those fees? It will be the customers, the citizens of the United States, your constituents. What would happen if all the customers of those banks decide to pull all of their money out of them? Would that not be a "run on the bank?" Would that not cause another financial crisis? Wasn't that one of the reasons for the bank bailout?
Obama has also demonized corporations for having corporate jets and having lavish conventions. He vilified various corporations to the point that the gutless CEO’s canceled jet orders and canceled conventions even though they had to pay cancelation fees. Then he talks about JOBS, JOBS, JOBS.
When companies do not buy jets, the workers that make the jets are out of a JOB. When there are no conventions it destroys the hospitality industry. Restaurants, hotels, convention centers, limo services, cab drivers, vendors, advertisers, etc. all suffer and people lose their JOBS. If people are not working the government is not receiving tax revenue, which exacerbates the situation.
He stated, “These deficits won’t just burden our kids and grandkids decades from now, they can damage our markets now.” He goes on to state responsible families don’t do their budget like the federal government does. “You don’t go buying a boat when you can barely pay your mortgage. You don’t blow a bunch of cash on Vegas when you are trying to save for college.” Was Obama being an elitist with that reference? Does he have something against Las Vegas? Was he saying the common folk should not try to enjoy themselves?
Barack Obama has been travelling the world since becoming President, vacationing in Hawaii, playing numerous rounds of golf and pickup basketball, he imports Kobe beef from Japan and flies in numerous personal chefs to cook for him at the Whitehouse, etc. My questions are, is there something wrong with American beef and who is paying for these extra expenses? Just remember it is Obama and his policies that are creating these deficits and not JOBS.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
