SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (130673)4/20/2012 2:51:14 PM
From: locogringo4 Recommendations  Respond to of 224737
 
(if you stick with Obama (THE FOOD STAMP PRESIDENT), you might feel bad.............)

CBO estimates Obama 2013 budget will hit economic growth


The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Friday that President Obama’s 2013 budget will hurt the economy in the long term, arguing the larger deficits it would produce would reduce the amount of capital available to businesses.

After five years, the CBO says, the Obama proposals would reduce economic output by between 0.5 percent and 2.2 percent.

thehill.com



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (130673)4/20/2012 2:57:02 PM
From: TideGlider4 Recommendations  Respond to of 224737
 
"The Unknown History of Social Security and the Social Security Card H/T ManyMoose
April 19, 2012 byGodfather Politics
18

Social Security CardBy Dick Kantenberger

Social Security Cards up until the 1980s expressly stated the number and card were not to be used for identification purposes. Since nearly everyone in the United States now has a number, it became convenient to use it anyway and the message, "NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION," was removed. Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program. He made the following promises:

1. Participation in the Program would be completely voluntary.
This is no longer the case.

2. Employees and employers would only have to pay 2% of the first $3000 of an employee's annual income for a total of $60 per year.
The employee (4.2 percent through the end of 2012)/employer rate (6.2 percent) is now 10.4 percent on the first $110,000 earned.

3. The money the participants elected to put into the program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year.
Social Security is no longer tax deductible.

4. The money the participants put in would go into an independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the general operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no other government programs. Under Lyndon Johnson the money was moved to the General Fund and spent.

5. The annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income.
Under Clinton and Gore up to 85% of your Social Security can be taxed. Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month — and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to 'put away' — you may be interested in the following:

Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the independent 'Trust Fund' and put it into the general fund so that Congress could spend it?
A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the democratically controlled House and Senate.

Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?
A: The Democratic Party.

Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?
A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the 'tie-breaking' deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of the US.

Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants?
A: Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party. Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive Social Security payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!

After violating the original contract (FICA), the Democrats have accused Republicans of wanting to take away your Social Security. And the worst part is uninformed citizens believe it!"

godfatherpolitics.com



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (130673)4/20/2012 3:45:02 PM
From: locogringo5 Recommendations  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 224737
 
Playing the race card to win in 2016?

From Washington Post conservative blogger Ed Rogers: “A serious challenge for the Romney campaign will be how to stay out of the way while Obama loses.”

To quote a famous speechwriter/columnist, it’s over.

Even people at the Washington Post can see it.

Barack Obama has known it was over since before the 2010 election. Obamacare did him in. The price paid was his presidency and likely the Supreme Court strikes it down 6-3 in June.

blogs.dailymail.com

***************************

It's so bad the this Dem might not even vote for the TOTAL LOSER:

Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., who has done more than any other Democrat up for reelection this year to distance himself from President Obama, said he does not know if he will vote for Obama or presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney in November.

“I’ll look at the options,” Manchin said this week. The last three years “have made it pretty rough” for his state, he said.

nationaljournal.com



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (130673)4/20/2012 4:15:40 PM
From: longnshort7 Recommendations  Read Replies (4) | Respond to of 224737
 
Obama tells Wasserman Schultz “Don’t Forget, You Work For Me”
April 20, 2012 | Filed under: Florida Review | Posted by: Javier Manjarres
by Javier Manjarres

It’s no secret that Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz is one of the most polarizing politicians in the country. Wasserman Schultz is also a member of Congress who represents the 20th congressional district in Florida.

Her position of DNC Chairwoman affords her the opportunity to be regularly seen on national television and broadcast her party’s talking points and message, however skewered it may be. But how did Wasseman Schultz become the titular head of the Democratic Party?

Rumors have been swirling around that Wasserman Schultz was not in President Obama’s top tier of candidates to sit at the helm of the Democratic National Committee.

A source within the Democratic Party who is a close associate of Wasserman Schultz has told the Shark Tank the details about the process that took place when the vetting of prospective candidates for the DNC chair.

The source told the Shark Tank that, “she (Wasserman Schultz) was not the first choice,” and that Wasserman Schultz feverishly lobbied her case of being a sitting ‘Jewish’congresswoman in a very safe Democratic district. According to the source, Obama was pressured into picking Wasserman Schultz because she impressed upon him that he needed her as a loyal foot soldier to run cover him and shore up his dwindling support with the Jewish voters as well as with women.

But while Obama has been able to rely on Wasserman Schultz to carry his water, the President has grown increasingly annoyed with the polarizing manner in which she attacks her political opposition-a style that has galvanized her Republican opponents and chased many of those coveted ‘Independents’ away.

Just recently, Wasserman Schultz defended her former aide and current DNC Jewish Outreach liason for her juvenile misstep of posting pictures of herself on Facebook that referred to her and her fellow Jewish girlfriends as “Jewbags.” President Obama was reported to be so upset with the aide’s publicized antics that he did not allow Wasserman Schultz to introduce him at any of the events during his most recent trip to Florida.

Wasserman Schultz is known to always introduce the President whenever he is in Florida, and he did so during his previous visit to the Sunshine State, a little over a month ago. Then the ‘Jewbag-gate’ broke, and on Obama’s subsequent trip a couple of weeks back, Wasserman Schultz only introduced the President at a couple of events and merely acknowledged her presence at others. Ouch! But in all fairness, the truth is that Wasserman Schultz’s role in President Obama’s recent trip was already scripted by his campaign.

It seems as if the relationship has soured to the point that according to the source, “He does not want her in the DNC anymore.”

Apparently, President Obama had discussions with the DNC Chairwoman regarding her approach, even telling her, “Don’t forget you work for me.”

It’s not about you, its about me. – attributed to President Barack Obama to Debbie Wasserman Schultz, as per our source

The problem that the President has is this- he can’t fire her, at least at this juncture. If President Obama were to remove Wasserman Schultz from her post he would be weakening his own position, as it would be very hard to find someone that is both in lock-step with his agenda and willing to run cover for him as she has done.

Second, this would be a clear indication to the public that there are real problems within the hierarchy of the Democratic Party.

We will frequently be in contact with our own “Ulsterman” source who will be providing us future updates on the problems and rivalries within the hierarchy of the Democratic Party in the coming weeks and months.