REAL, CONFIDENTIAL, FREE, NON-JUDGMENTAL HELP TO AVOID ABORTION, FROM MANY PLACES:
3,400 confidential and totally free groups to call and go to in the U.S...1,400 outside the U.S. . . . 98 of these in Canada.
Free, financial help given to women and families in need.More help given to women, families.
Helping with mortgage payments and more.More help.
The $1,950 need has been met!CPCs help women with groceries, clothing, cribs, "safe haven" places.
Help for those whose babies haveDown Syndrome and Other Birth Defects.
CALL 1-888-510-BABY or click on the picture on the left, if you gave birth or are about to and can't care for your baby, to give your baby to a worker at a nearby hospital (some states also include police stations or fire stations), NO QUESTIONS ASKED. YOU WON'T GET IN ANY TROUBLE or even have to tell your name; Safehaven people will help the baby be adopted and cared for.

Wednesday, December 05, 2012

State of Connecticut Ran A Surplus in 2011 Due to Massive Tax Increases...Now Needs to Borrow Money To Pay Its Own Bills

Gov. Dannel Malloy is just emulating his hero, Obama, who exacerbates the "tax so you spend more than you can ever possibly earn" motto.

Notice the damn numbers, people. Notice how in May 2011, when Malloy was trying to get his budget passed, he made it seem like it would generate an "anticipated $1 billion surplus," then not one month later, June 2011, that surplus was projected to be only $679.8 million, then by almost December 2011, it had somehow shrunk to just "more than $100 million", and now a year later, we're in the red again and we need to borrow $550 million in "emergency financing" just to pay the Connecticut government's bills.

Do you see the pattern? GOVERNMENT, ONCE IT GETS ITS HANDS ON ALL THAT EXTRA MONEY, JUST SPEND-SPEND-SPENDS IT TILL EVEN AFTER IT'S GONE AND CAN'T STOP SPENDING. THE APPETITE IS WHETTED AND IT WON'T EVER GO BACK TO **NOT** DEVOURING 8 ENTIRE CHICKENS, A GALLON OF GRAVY ON TOP OF A DOZEN MASHED POTATOS AND TWO WHOLE APPLE PIES. IN ONE SITTING.

Funny how that happens when a tax-and-spend Democrat promises that we have to have more taxes in order to "balance the budget."

That's like you and me going to our EMPLOYERS and saying, "I have to have a huge raise--take it from the other employees if you must-- so I can balance my checkbook and keep up with my increasing spending."

I'm not against the poor. So if you're a liberal, just don't go there. Or rather, STOP going there with any. conservative. you. ever. speak. about. or. to. AGAIN.

Get your liberal mind around the fact that we who are conservative, Conservative, Republican, Tea Party, and/or libertarian, are NOT among those "who try to cut health insurance for children." Or OTHERWISE want to ignore the poor or disadvantaged.

I've been on borderline poverty, below and just above that line, for years. I've thrashed through illness to make a living for myself and my family. I've taken charity from churches, and for a short time, even from the state, while I was ill. I've been there, and I'm one foot away from being there again, just like every single one of us in this nation. All it takes is loss of your health and you see how fast the downhill slide becomes.

But even Jesus Christ said "The poor you will always have with you." Put in other words, even if you taxed all the "wealthy" that Obama and the liberals say have to "pay their fair share," even if you taxed what Obama thinks is their "fair share," the TOTAL you'll get is somewhere under $100 BILLION. That isn't even a drop in the bucket of what Obama has added to the government spending deficit AND the overal U.S. debt, in his first four years:

When President Obama took office, the total national debt was nearly $10.6 trillion. Today, it’s over $16 trillion. That’s more than a 50 percent increase in the national debt in less than four years.
...
"[T]he U.S. budget deficit for 2012, measuring the federal government’s spending in excess of revenue, already exceeds $1 trillion—and the fiscal year is not even over yet. This also marks the fourth straight year of $1 trillion-plus deficits."
Obama increased the U.S. debt over $5.4 TRILLION in less than four years.

He, personally, as POTUS, allowed the U.S. to SPEND over $4 TRILLION more than it took in, in four years.

$5,400,000,000,000 (Obama's increase of $5.4 Trillion to the National Debt)
-      82,000,000,000 ($82 Billion obtained from taxing the "wealthy")
$5,318,000,000,000 (Obama's Increase of $5.318 Trillion)

(TOTAL National Debt would be $15,918,000,000,000, still)

And in September, Obama went on Letterman to say "we don’t have to worry about [the debt] short term" and that he didn't "remember what that [debt] number was precisely" when he took office in 2009.

So if Obama gets to tax the "wealthy" as he wants to, as a form of "revenge" and payback to soothe the masses, expect this. And the $82 Billion it would generate each year? Would only run the U.S. government for a grand total of eight days. OR, it would only pay down 4 months of interest on the [original] $10.6 Trillion debt ($258 billion in 2012). Not principal, not what was actually borrowed, but just the interest payment for 4 months. How many of us went "underwater" and got behind on our mortgages that way?

OR, it would pay off only 7.5% of the $1.1 Trillion deficit, and allow us NOT to borrow money for only one month each year, according to the link in the prior paragraph. Big Whoop.

So, it solves nothing except to make those who feel gypped, feel like they're getting revenge on those more fortunate by supposedly forcing them to fix the country's problems, even though it leaves the less-fortunate, gypped-feelers in exactly the same bad mess they're in, only possibly worse because it drives out of existence the only ones CAPABLE of creating the jobs in the first place.

Yes, I know firsthand that "the corporations" can be led by greedy, selfish people. I know that some corporations will take or make shortcuts on everything wherever they can.

I've worked for 3 Fortune 500 companies in my lifetime. I've felt "gypped" and like a number, much of that time.

They still are the ones who had the jobs to offer. So do you cut off your nose to spite your face? Do you bite the hand that helps you feed you and your kids?

Obama says, YES.

But all we are saying is, NO. There comes a point where you can't bankroll a nanny state anymore by taking from the rich to give to the poor (socialism at its most basic definition, folks). There comes a point when you can't continue to encourage bloated government as the panacea to everyone's ills, especially when you refuse to surgically cut off the waste that goes on and that you and I pay for: one small example of the waste is this, actual photos of excess mail order drugs sent to seniors mostly, who either told the mail orders they'd stopped the meds, didn't order that much or had notified them the patient had died, yet they sent massive amounts, overkill, of medications.

Cut THAT stuff out, and other boondoggles like them, first.

There comes a point when the back of the camel breaks, and there isn't any more money to squeeze out of those who have any, and then there is revolt, because those accustomed to getting their iPhones and rent and food and games from the government, and can't get the goodies anymore, rise up and "burn this motherf**cker down."

Obama and liberals can say we hate the poor all they want and that they're the only ones caring about the poor and disadvantaged; no matter how many times they say it, it won't ever make it true.

It's ironic that conservatives give more of their incomes to those less fortunate than liberals do. Don't take my word for it: read The New York Times summary or The Washington Post's George Will's, of the findings in 2008,
"...if measuring by the percentage of income given, conservatives are more generous than liberals even to secular causes."

"Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household."

Politico.com posted about similar results in 2012:
"The eight states with residents who gave the highest share of their income to charity supported Sen. John McCain in 2008, while the seven states with the least generous residents went for President Barack Obama, the Chronicle of Philanthropy found in its new survey of tax data from the IRS for 2008.

...'to account for sharp differences in the cost of living across America' the study 'compared generosity rates after residents paid taxes, housing, food, and other necessities.'"

I suppose they didn't have complete access to data later than 2008? So we'll have to wait a few years to get the 2011 data, perhaps. I doubt much will change in this regard in 3 years.

By then, we will be another $5 TRILLION in debt, thanks to Obama. And your children and grandchildren and mine, will have to pay for YOUR choice, if we haven't declared ourselves bankrupt first, as Greece and others are near to doing now.

0 comments: (ANONYMOUS ok -but mind our rules, please)

<< HOME     --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Since 6/13/2005