Advertisements
Home

REPORT: EVERY DEPORTED ILLEGAL HOUSEHOLD SAVES TAXPAYERS MORE THAN $700,000

1 Comment

This is from Breitbarts Big Government.

How long before the left tries to debunk these numbers?

I hope Ted Cruz uses these numbers in his campaign.

I would like to see Ted Cruz win the nomination, but I would vote for Trump.

Trump/ Cruz would make a great combination and so would Cruz/Trump.

Advocates for mass-migration are using skewed financial claims to smear Donald Trump’s popular border proposals, which actually would help revive the near-bankrupt Social Security and Medicare programs.

For every illegal migrant household that leaves the United States under Trump’s plan, Americans would recoup nearly three-quarters of a million dollars ($719,350), according to 2010 data collected by Heritage scholar Robert Rector.

The lifetime savings accrued from one deported illegal household would provide funds for 125 low-income inner city students to receive the maximum Pell Grant award in 2015-2016 ($5,775); it could cover the cost of pre-kindergarten for 90 at-risk children (around $8,000 per child); or it could cover the one year cost of Medicaid for 124 enrollees ($5,790 based on FY2011 data).

But business interests want the migrants to stay. That’s because migrants help lower the cost of Americans’ wages, but also because the migrants spend their wages — plus taxpayer aid — at retail stories and rental agencies.

For example, the American Action Forum (AAF), a business-backed pro-amnesty group, claims that legal costs and forced migration would spike the cost of Trump’s plan up to $300 billion to arrest and remove all illegal immigrants living in the United States. The AAF was founded by Fred Malek, who co-founded and chairs a hospitality investment company whose hotels employ many low skilled migrants.

AAF’s cost projections have been trumpeted by many in the mainstream media such as NBC and Fox News.

In reality, “a modest increase in enforcement (such as E-verify or visa tracking) would cause significant attrition in the illegal population– sending millions of illegals home on their own at no cost to the U.S. taxpayer.” said Jessica Vaughan, policy director at the non-partisan Center for Immigration Studies.

There’s good evidence for Vaughan’s argument. “Arizona’s population of unauthorized immigrants of working age fell by about 17 percent” in the course of a single year, after the state began to enforce E-verify, according to the Public Policy Institute of California.

The claim from Malek’s AAF also ignores the financial savings caused by the return of migrants to their home countries.

Illegal migrants cost U.S. taxpayers a net total of nearly $100 billion annually, concluded a 2010 investigation by the Federation for American Immigration Reform.

The 2010 report calculated the total contributions (mainly taxes) generated by the illegal migrants, and then subtracted the cost of taxpayer aid to those migrants. The aid includes education, subsidized housing, food stamps, tax credits, medical expenses. Overall, the report found illegal migrants cost taxpayers a total of $113 billion a year. The report then “accounts for taxes paid by illegal aliens [which is] about $13 billion a year, resulting in a net cost to taxpayers of about $100 billion.”

Under the Trump plan, that spending could be used to reduce taxpayer spending. The resulting savings could fund the entire federal cost of major proposals by liberal Democrats, such as a Universal Pre-Kindergarten program. President Obama’s original 2013 proposal was projected to cost $75 billion over a decade.

Or the government could allocate 60 percent more resources and benefits for returning American soldiers and veterans (increasing the President’s 2016 budget request for the VA from its current $168.8 billion to $268.8 billion)

Alternatively, public schools could have the funds to employ an additional 1.9 million elementary school teachers to help teach young Americans in already-overcrowded schools.

State and local governments could employ 1.6 million more police officers in to reduce crime in gang-besieged neighborhoods.

These savings could the expand the government’s allotment for Emergency Shelter Grants, which provide support for the homeless or victims of domestic violence, by than 400 times its 2014 budget ($250 million).

Upon first hearing the costs illegal migrants impose upon U.S. taxpayers, many find the figure difficult to believe, says Heritage’s Robert Rector:

“The debate about the fiscal consequences of unlawful and low-skill immigration is hampered by a number of misconceptions. Few lawmakers really understand the current size of government and the scope of redistribution… Unlawful immigrants, on average, are always tax consumers; they never once generate a ‘fiscal surplus’ that can be used to pay for government benefits elsewhere in society.”

Nations that are more serious about enforcing their immigration laws, however, are aware of the fiscal burdens mass migration places on its citizenry and have taken measures to combat economic strains. Israel, for example, has begun offering migrants $3,500 in cash and a one-way airplane ticket home in order to encourage repatriation.

Advertisements

Elizabeth Warren’s 11 Commandments of Progressivism

Leave a comment

This is from National Journal.

Sounds like Princess Fauxcahontas is trying to out Communist Progressive Obama.

It would be a tight race on who could finish destroying America, Princess Fauxchontas or the Hildabeast.

God help us if either one of them gets elected president.

Watch Elizabeth Warren give a speech to her fold, and you realize she’s one of the rare Democrats who can excite her base in the same way Ted Cruz or Dr. Ben Carson can excite their own. As Politico‘s Katie Glueck wrote on Friday, liberals’ minds may be with Hillary Clinton, but their hearts lie with Warren.

Speaking on Friday at Netroots Nation, a convention for liberal bloggers and activists, Warren got the crowd more fired up than Vice President Joe Biden was able to do the day before. (To be fair, the crowd was in a solemn mood at the time in reaction to the news of the Malaysian passenger plane crash). In her speech, Warren outlined more clearly than other Democrats the social issues that galvanize progressives. Her performance was reminiscent of a certain other young senator in 2008.

“What are our values?” Warren asked the audience, some of whom held up “Run Liz Run” signs. “What does it mean to be a progressive?”

“We believe that Wall Street needs stronger rules and tougher enforcement, and we’re willing to fight for it.”

– “We believe in science, and that means that we have a responsibility to protect this Earth.”

– “We believe that the Internet shouldn’t be rigged to benefit big corporations, and that means real net neutrality.”

– “We believe that no one should work full-time and still live in poverty, and that means raising the minimum wage.”

– “We believe that fast-food workers deserve a livable wage, and that means that when they take to the picket line, we are proud to fight alongside them.”

– “We believe that students are entitled to get an education without being crushed by debt.”

– “We believe that after a lifetime of work, people are entitled to retire with dignity, and that means protecting Social Security, Medicare, and pensions.”

– “We believe—I can’t believe I have to say this in 2014—we believe in equal pay for equal work.”

– “We believe that equal means equal, and that’s true in marriage, it’s true in the workplace, it’s true in all of America.”

– “We believe that immigration has made this country strong and vibrant, and that means reform.”

– “And we believe that corporations are not people, that women have a right to their bodies. We will overturn Hobby Lobby and we will fight for it. We will fight for it!”

And the main tenet of conservatives’ philosophy, according to Warren? “I got mine. The rest of you are on your own.”

 

 

 

13 Quotes You Need To Read About Illegal Immigration

Leave a comment

This is from Town Hall.

 

 

1) “Could legalizing an estimated 11 million illegal aliens tip our precarious national finances into insolvency? Could be. Robert Rector, who works on such problems at the Heritage Foundation stated, “Granting amnesty or legal status to illegals will generate costs in Medicare and Social Security alone of $2.5 trillion above any taxes paid in” (Daily Caller, January 31). Two and a half trillion dollars? Yep. That’s Trillion with a T!” — Jim Robb

2) “57 percent of all households that are led by an immigrant (legal or illegal) are enrolled in at least one welfare program.” – Michael Snyder

3) “According to the California Hospital Association, health care for illegal aliens is costing state taxpayers well over $1 billion a year. Eighty-four hospitals across California have already been forced to close because of unpaid bills by illegal aliens.” – Ann Coulter

4) “While harrying and stalling tea party groups seeking nonprofit status, the Internal Revenue Service mailed $4.2 billion in child-credit checks to undocumented immigrants. Critics say midlevel IRS bureaucrats continue to abuse the Additional Child Tax Credit program by dispensing $1,000 checks to families in this country illegally.

‘The law needs clarification that undocumented immigrants are not eligible,’ Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, told Watchdog.org in a statement….The IRS has said it doesn’t believe the ACTC law allows the agency to deny payment to undocumented immigrants. Watchdog reported in June that disbursement of ACTC credits has grown rapidly — and suspiciously — with increased issuance of Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers as substitutes for Social Security numbers. ITIN holders are not required to prove legal residency, and ITIN applications are running at the rate of 1 million a year.

Federal investigators identified one address in Atlanta where 23,994 ITIN refunds totaling $46,378,040 were delivered. A single bank account there received 8,393 refunds. Records indicate that undocumented immigrants in Virginia received $87.9 million in ACTC cash from the IRS. Watchdog reported that $163,711 went to a single address in the tiny eastern shore town of Parksley.” —Watchdog.org

5) “Contrary to President Obama’s claims of record deportations, John Sandweg, the director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, admits ICE deported only 134,000 illegal immigrants from the country’s interior in 2012. That figure — down 40 percent since 2009, when Obama took office — represents just 0.2 percent of the estimated 11.7 million illegals in the United States.” – Kenric Ward

6) “At least 99.92% of illegal immigrants and visa overstays without known crimes on their records did not face removal.” – Jeff Sessions

7) “Of 472 civilian occupations defined by the Department of Commerce, only six are majority immigrant (legal and illegal). These six occupations account for 1 percent of the total U.S. workforce. Many jobs often thought to be overwhelmingly done by immigrants are in fact majority native-born: 51 percent of maids are U.S.-born, as are 63 percent of butchers and meat processors, and 73 percent of janitors.” — Mark Krikorian

8) “In the fourth quarter of 2012, there were 27 million American citizens who were 18 to 65 years old, had no education beyond high school, and were not working. (This figure excludes those in jails or prisons.) If just one-fourth of them were employed, their number would nearly equal that of the illegal-alien work force outside agriculture. Some of the unemployed may lack a sufficient work ethic, but note that real wages (adjusted for inflation) for less-educated Americans have declined 10 to 22 percent in the past three decades as immigration has grown. Relative to the real wages of college graduates, the decline is even more dramatic. That less-skilled work pays so much less than what it used to likely explains, at least in part, any erosion of the work ethic among less-skilled workers.

There is good evidence that immigration has reduced wages and employment opportunities for less-educated Americans. Even more important, there is no shortage of less-skilled labor in the United States. To be sure, if employers’ access to the labor of less-skilled immigrants, both legal and illegal, were curtailed, they would have to pay higher wages and guarantee better working conditions to attract and retain native-born citizens. But improving the lives of our poorest workers, legal immigrants as well as natives, should be viewed as good public policy.” — Steven Carmota

9) “According to a Pew Hispanic Center survey released in October, just 34 percent of Latino registered voters considered immigration to be ‘extremely important’ to them. That trailed education (55 percent); jobs and the economy (54 percent); health care (50 percent); the federal budget deficit (36 percent) and barely edged out taxes (33 percent). It’s quite possible, in other words, that Republicans could back some form of amnesty for illegal immigrants, and still find that they don’t improve among this voting bloc. Also, a softer line on immigration could hurt Republicans’ ability to win over working class voters who feel threatened by cheaper labor, and working class voters are a bloc that another contingent of pundits views as crucial to GOP comeback chances.” — <href=”#.ukmoi4dx23g”>Philip Klein

10) “In 2006, the Secure Fence Act was signed into law, requiring the Department of Homeland Security to build upward of 700 miles of double layered fencing along the U. S-Mexico border. While the Obama administration is quick to state that the targets have been met, only a small fraction — in fact, less than 40 miles — of the newly implemented infrastructure is double-layered.” – Duncan Hunter

11) “You can be in the country illegally, you can have an extensive criminal history, you can have multiple criminal convictions for serious offenses, and there is nothing that we can do to touch you.” – Chris Crane, president of the ICE Council, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents’ union

12) “Roughly one in six illegal immigrants is re-arrested on criminal charges within three years of release, according to new government data being released Tuesday. Those charges range from murder to drunken-driving and, according to House Republicans pushing out the report, are symptoms of what they describe as a “dangerous and deadly” immigration policy. The findings, obtained by Fox News, are contained in reports by the Republican-controlled House Judiciary Committee and nonpartisan Congressional Research Service. They are the result of the committee’s subpoena request for Department of Homeland Security records from October 2008 to July 2011.

The information was analyzed by the CRS, which also broke down the information for criminal immigrants — legal immigrants who committed crimes and were arrested again over the three-year period. Together, the two groups also had a roughly one-in-six recidivism rate. The records show 276,412 reported charges against illegal and criminal immigrants over that three-year period as identified by Secure Communities, a federal program that essentially attempts to make best use of resources by identifying and prioritizing which illegal immigrants pose the biggest threat to public safety and should be arrested or deported.

Of the 160,000 people in the database, more than 26,000 were re-arrested — accounting for nearly 58,000 crimes and violations. They allegedly committed nearly 8,500 drunken-driving offenses and more than 6,000 drug-related violations. The records also show major criminal offenses, which included murder, battery, rape, kidnapping and nearly 3,000 thefts. Roughly 2 percent of the crimes included carjacking, child molestation, lynching and torture, according to the 13-page Congressional Research Service report.” — Fox News

13) “According to a May report of the Center for Immigration Studies, of the 36,000 criminal aliens who, while awaiting deportation, were set free by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 193 had been convicted of homicide, 426 of sexual assault, 303 of kidnaping, 1,075 of aggravated assault, 1,160 for stolen vehicles, 9,187 for possession or use of dangerous drugs, and 16,070 for driving drunk or drugged. Those 36,000 criminal aliens are roughly equivalent to three-and-a-half divisions of felons and social misfits released into our midst. And this does not include the 68,000 illegal aliens against whom ICE declined to press criminal charges last year, but turned loose.” — Pat Buchanan

Price Index for Meats, Poultry, Fish & Eggs Rockets to All-Time High

Leave a comment

This is from CNSNews.

Yet the people on Social Security and pensions did not get a cost of living increase.

As the Obama Regime says there is no inflation.

Meat, Poultry, Fish & Egg Price Index Rockets to  All-Time High

(AP Photo)

 

(CNSNews.com) – The seasonally-adjusted price index for meats, poultry, fish, and eggs hit an all-time high in May, according to data from theBureau of Labor Statistics(BLS).

In January 1967, when the BLS started tracking this measure, the index for meats, poultry, fish, and eggs was 38.1. As of last May, it was 234.572. By this January, it hit 240.006. By April, it hit 249.362. And, in May, it climbed to a record 252.832.

“The index for meats, poultry, fish and eggs has risen 7.7 percent over the span [last year],” says the BLS. “The index for food at home increased 0.7 percent, its largest increase since July 2011. Five of the six major grocery store food group indexes increased in May. The index for meats, poultry, fish, and eggs rose 1.4 percent in May after a 1.5 increase in April, with virtually all its major components increasing,” BLS states.

Meat, Poultry, Fish & Egg Price Index Rockets to  All-Time High

In addition to this food index, the price for fresh whole chickens hit its all-time high in the United States in May.

In January 1980, when the BLS started tracking the price of this commodity, fresh whole chickens cost $0.70 per pound. By this May 2014, fresh whole chickens cost $1.56 per pound.

A decade ago, in May 2004, a pound of fresh chicken cost $1.04. Since then, the price has gone up 50%.

Each month, the BLS employs data collectors to visit thousands of retail stores all over the United States to obtain information on the prices of thousands of items to measure changes for the Consumer Price Index (CPI).

The CPI is simply the average change over time in prices paid by consumers for a market basket of goods and services.

The BLS found that there was a 0.7% change in the prices for the food at home index in May, which tracks foods like meats, poultry, fish, eggs and dairy, as well as many others.

REPORT DETAILS SOCIAL SECURITY DISABILITY FRAUD

Leave a comment

This is from Breitbarts Big Government.

Reading this pisses me off.

I fought for seven years to get on disability.

I had at been through seven back surgeries and was needing

 to have a hip replacement and my knees replaced.

As well as heart problems.

The first five years of the Obama Administration have witnessed the birth of a new health care entitlement, ObamaCare. It has also witnessed an explosion in existing entitlements, particularly the Food Stamp program and Social Security Disability payments. Today, almost 9 million Americans receive disability payments from Social Security, far more than ever envisioned by creators of the program. A new report from Our Generation details the 10 most outrageous examples of fraud in the program.

Some highlights from the Report:

 

A Minnesota man who faked dementia to collect nearly $7,000 per month in benefits totaling more than $144,000;

A Missouri politician who improperly received more than $50,000 in disability payments while serving as a state legislator;

A California healthcare professional who invented bogus maladies and provided false information to help scores of patients receive $1.5 million in disability benefits;

A Social Security worker and a gaggle of doctors in Puerto Rico alleged to create such a large and sophisticated system for defrauding the federal government of Social Security disability benefits that likely totaled $6 million;

A man who illegally entered the United States and posed as a disabled Vietnam war hero to swindle Americans out of more than $128,000 in Social Security disability funds.

The disability program originated in the 1950s as a means to provide support for workers over 50 who became disabled on the job and were unable to continue working in advance of retirement. The program was small, but provided critical support to workers who had been injured on the job.

As the report from Our Generation details, however, eligibility requirements have been loosened, benefits increased and the applications process cannot effectively distinguish between genuine disabilities and fraud. As a result, the program spends over $130 billion a year. That amount is more than the federal government spends on highways and transportation or education.

Social Security Disability Insurance is meant to provide assistance to Americans who are unable to work due to physical or mental disabilities. Unfortunately, 8.9 million Americans now collect disability benefits, and this well-intentioned program has ballooned into a $135 billion bureaucracy rife with waste, fraud and abuse,” said MacMillin Slobodien, Executive Director of Our Generation.

 

Obama Lies to Grannies about No Social Security Payments

1 Comment

This is from Godfather Politics.

Obama has eclipsed Joseph Goebbels and Joseph Stalin for the lies he has told.

The sad part of all of the lies is how many Americans still believe this lying bastard.

If Barack Obama and Jack(off)Lew stop Social Security check they will do it illegally. 

 

President Obama on many occasions has said and his Treasury Secretary Jack Lew has intimated, if the government shuts down they can’t guarantee Social Security checks will go out on time and we may default on our debt.

Of course we all know the economics. The Fed collects roughly $200 billion every month. The interest on the debt is around $20 billion a month or roughly 10%, so of course we can pay our debts rather easily.

But what about Social Security, the dreaded “third rail” of politics? Both Republican and Democrat politicians like to play word games with the “third rail.” Yet it is only the Democrats that claim if this or that demand isn’t met, granny may not get her Social Security check.

As an aside, as of May 1, 2011, the government began phasing out physical checks, not only for Social Security but all benefit payments. As of March 1, 2013, all benefit payments are electronic transfers. So let’s stop with the “granny won’t get her check” business. It’s all automatic, but I guess semantically speaking, she won’t.

So why is what Obama and Treasury Secretary Lew are saying so shameful? The answer is that it is impossible for Social Security not to have the money to pay out each month, regardless of the debt ceiling or government shut down of any kind. It is however estimated that by between 2033 and 2038 Social Security will indeed be dead if nothing changes.

Obama said, “In a government shutdown, Social Security checks still go out on time. In an economic shut down – if we don’t raise the debt ceiling – they don’t go out on time.”

Well, that not-so-subtle threat is just that, a hollow threat and an outright lie, and they know it. And of they don’t, they are too stupid to hold office or even work the counter at the local convenience store.

What none of them ever mentions is the existence of the famed Social Security lock box or “Old Age and Survivor Trust Fund,” filled to the brim with $2.4 trillion in IOUs (government securities). They also fail to mention, maybe figuring taxpayers won’t notice, that the FICA tax (12.4%) is still being taken from every paycheck, every week, and theoretically placed in the lockbox.

The government estimates that Social Security will collect approximately $740 billion this year, which according to Forbes covers 86% of all Social Security payouts. If nothing changes – no debt ceiling increase, no tax increase, the trust fund ($2.4 trillion) as it stands now, can fill in any payment gaps for 20 years.

But you may ask, I thought there were no Social Security funds. That Congress took the money (surplus) out of the lockbox and spent it on other things? You’d be right – they did, but the treasury left behind IOUs or government securities as collateral.

These treasury securities or IOUs by law must be redeemed when the Social Security administration has an account deficit.

Obama and Lew are lying so they can turn all the grannies against the Republicans in the next election.

Neither Obama nor Lew can stop grandma’s check unless they act illegally, although I wouldn’t put it past this vindictive bunch. Remember, this is the same crowd that’s removing water fountain handles “from all sources of drinking water along several popular scenic bicycle and jogging paths.”

Read more: http://godfatherpolitics.com/12845/obama-lies-grannies-social-security-payments/#ixzz2hdt6FG7p
Read more at http://godfatherpolitics.com/12845/obama-lies-grannies-social-security-payments/#gujVEvf1GOKd0dDF.99

 

We The people Are Coming!

Leave a comment

I found this on Face Book.

I wanted to share it.

Passing it along folks:

It’s incredible that 42% of Americans think that this unqualified, incompetent, dishonorable, ego-driven fraud is doing a good job. Take a moment. Admit it to yourself. You know who his supporters are. They are the people that YOU support — financially!

Did you notice who Obama threatened when he wasn’t getting his way on raising the debt ceiling? He threatened to not pay:

Social Security Retirees,
– Military Retirees,
– Social Security,
Disability and
– Federal Retirees.

Now let this sink in really good…

– He did not threaten to stop payments to illegal aliens.
– He did not threaten to take frivolous benefits such as Internet access away from violent inmates.
– He did not offer to fire some of the thousands of unnecessary federal employees that he hired.
– He did not offer to cut down on his or his wife’s frivolous gallivanting around. [$20 Million already spent on family vacations. One Million on a Florida golf outing. All our money…why not?]
– He did not threaten to not pay the senators and representatives or any of their staff.
– He did not threaten to take benefits away from welfare recipients or to stop the free cell phones they get.
– He did not threaten the food stamp programs.
– He did not threaten to reduce payments in foreign aid.
– He did not threaten to cut back on anything that involves his base voters.
The list could go on and on. He is in full political mode!

Why are we allowing this person to destroy this wonderful country with his selfishness and his lies? Have WE lost our blooming minds!!!!!!!! His type of change is killing our country. He needs to be stopped!

Do not forget about his tactics when it’s election time in 2014. Get out and vote in the mid-term 2014 election. Support the people in the House and Senate that are willing to cut taxes and spending. LET’S MAKE 2014 the beginning of a turn-around. Forget change……we want our $$$$$$$$$ back and we want to take our country back! We the people are coming.

Immigration Reform Illegals Will Receive $592,000 More In Benefits Than They’ll Pay in Taxes

1 Comment

This is from Godfather Politics.

This is the best argument I have heard for rounding

up and deporting  all  eleven million.

Please do not tell me that can not be done.

Look up Operation Wet Back or use the link I have provided.

The Left would really raise Hell but it can be done.

 

The Heritage Foundation, headed by former Sen. Jim DeMint, recently concluded an analysis of the Immigration Reform bill being pushed by the Gang of 8 and the results are economically devastating.  The legalization of 11 million illegal aliens will suck the very life out of many of our benefit and welfare programs.

They looked at four categories of benefits:

1)  Social Security, Medicare, unemployment insurance and worker’s compensation, all of which are direct benefits they would receive.

2)  Welfare benefits where they found over 80 different programs that would cost nearly $900 billion dollars a year.

3)  Next they looked at the cost of public education which they calculated to run $12,300 per student per year.  This cost is generally free or subsidized for lower income families.

4) They looked at the costs of population based services.  These services include things like police and fire departments, highways and roads, parks and recreation, and other local and state provided services.

Believe it or not, the average cost per household in America for all of these different government benefits and services added up to $31,584 in 2010 for just the four categories listed above.

The study goes on to break down costs in many areas and then it also calculates the approximate taxes that the 11 million illegals will pay over their lifetimes once they become legal.  You can read the rest of the details here.  The bottom line is that the 11 million illegals to legals will receive $9.4 trillion in government benefits and services.  They will pay an estimated $3.1 trillion in taxes.  That leaves a net cost of $6.3 trillion.

Are we willing to add $6.3 million to the national debt just to give legal amnesty to 11 million people who violated federal law by entering the United States illegally?  If you answered yes, then please explain where the government is going to get the $6.3 trillion to cover to this debt?

Honestly, I believe the situation is worse than what the Heritage Foundation reported.  The legalization of 11 million illegal PLUS an approval to allow another 1 million immigrants to come to the US to take jobs from American citizens will further weaken our economy and make the job market worse than it is now.  More Americans will lose their jobs to these illegals.  Then they’ll lost their homes and families.  The repercussions will be utterly devastating to the overall US economy making the net cost of the immigration reform bill to be significantly more than the $6.3 trillion predicted by the Heritage Foundation.

Read more: http://godfatherpolitics.com/10742/immigration-reform-illegals-will-receive-592000-more-in-benefits-than-theyll-pay-in-taxes/#ixzz2Soz1Btqy

 

$3 MILLION RETIREMENT CAP IN OBAMA’S BUDGET WOULD NOT APPLY TO HIM

Leave a comment

This is from Breitbarts Big Government.

 Just who in the Hell does Obama think he is?

It seems Dear leader thinks he is above all laws.

We can not sit on our hands and let this law pass.

 

President Barack Obama’s 2014 budget puts a $3 million cap on tax-advantaged retirement accounts to crack down on “wealthy individuals” using these investment vehicles to earn “substantially more than is needed to fund reasonable levels of retirement savings.”

But an analysis by Forbes finds that a 20-year old saving for retirement would need to amass a $9.97 million portfolio to fund just a $60,000 lifestyle by age 65. What’s more, writes David John Marotta of Forbes, $3 million today represents just $500,000 in 1970s dollars.

Kathleen Pender of the San Francisco Chronicle also notes that Obama’s plan would not apply to himself:

The limit would not apply to Obama’s own pension, which is worth at least $5 million, because it is not in a tax-advantaged account, according to Brian Graff, executive director of the American Society of Pension Professionals & Actuaries. Obama’s pension, which guarantees him a Cabinet-level salary for life indexed to inflation, is a “non-qualified deferred compensation plan, similar to what corporate executives get,” he says.

“No legislation should inhibit individuals from taking care of their own retirement,” saysMarotta. “Government officials know very little about retirement planning. They haven’t even had the foresight to keep Social Security solvent.”

 

 

Does the AARP Still Want Your Guns?

1 Comment

This is from American Rifleman.

AARP has become a shill for Obamacare telling them

how great Obamacare is going to be.

AARP has sold out for their thirty pieces of silver.

 To seniors that join I have this to say Caveat Emptor.

Your best bet is AMAC.

AARP has provided services and benefits to people 50 and older for more than half a century, and has 40 million members—but is it anti-gun?

A few years ago I turned 55—a scary time for a guy who had to buy his own health insurance on the open market. Talk about sticker shock! So I thought, why not join AARP, the mega-senior’s organization? Surely they have some sort of group medical insurance a member can piggyback on. It was only after I had purchased a multi-year membership that I decided to research this powerful special interest group and see what their official position was on issues important to me. First and foremost was the issue of gun ownership. What I discovered surprised the heck out of me.

I did not know at the time know that AARP wanted to severely restrict its membership’s right to own firearms.

That was back in 2007. Here’s what their website said at the time: “AARP believes in the Constitutional right to bear arms. But to make the nation safer, we must do what we can to keep guns out of hands of children and criminals. AARP supported the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, which went into law in 1994 with bi-partisan support. AARP supports measures to eliminate firearm possession by juveniles, convicted domestic abusers and those under domestic violence restraining orders.”

I called their headquarters and, after playing phone tag to try and get a statement to no avail, finally received an e-mail response from them after asking for their official position on private gun ownership. Here, in part, was the response from someone in “Member Services.”

“Thank you for contacting AARP headquarters on the issue of state and federal gun policies. This is a difficult subject for people to discuss without misunderstanding. Even though you may not agree with AARP’s objectives on this one issue, I hope you find our work toward prescription drug coverage in Medicare, for example, and many other important issues worthy of your continued support.

“At this time, the Board of Directors has recently restated AARP policy to continue to support careful measures to restrict the availability of guns to certain populations. Yet, our policy does not preclude responsible citizens who are educated in gun safety from gun ownership.

“However, respected research continues to indicate that the use of firearms in assaults and robbery—particularly handguns—is directly linked to the high death rate from interpersonal violence in the USA compared with other industrialized countries. The prevalence of random violence featuring handguns in some neighborhoods has resulted in numbers of older people becoming virtual prisoners in their homes. Increasingly, families are suffering the loss of children and grandchildren who are the victims of violent crimes and senseless shootings. While registration requirements do not eliminate criminal or psychotic misuse of handguns, such requirements reduce the availability of guns, just as laws do not eliminate but do reduce the availability of illegal narcotics. Reduced availability to inappropriate users means lives saved. While you may disagree with the Board on this particular policy, we hope that many other issues, objectives, and services of AARP so beneficial to older Americans encourage you to remain or become a valued member of the association.”

Talk about a misinterpretation of statistics to support a policy of restricted private gun ownership. No mention of the fact that there are laws already on the books written to keep guns out of the hands of convicted felons. No mention of the fact that in states where concealed carry laws occur, violent crime drops dramatically. (In fact, in states that have passed liberal carry laws, deaths and injuries from multiple-victim public shootings have fallen on average by 78 percent in the past half-decade.) Or the fact that a high percentage of juvenile gunshot victims are injured by inner-city gangbangers, often in turf wars over drugs. Or readily available statistics from places like England, where handguns were banned in 1996, yet in the years since the ban, gun crimes have risen 40 percent. The country now has eclipses the U.S. in robberies and aggravated assaults by a wide margin, and is rapidly catching up in murders and rapes.

Fast forward to 2013. With all the hullaballoo about a new “assault weapons ban” and all the other proposed gun-grabbing legislation on the front burner today, I decided to revisit AARP and see if their position had changed. Before contacting AARP directly I scanned their website searching for a stated policy position on gun control. I looked high and low, even using search engines and spending the better part of two hours in the process. No luck. So I sent an e-mail in early February to the Member Services Division. On February 25 I sent it again. Here’s what it said: “Good morning! I am a working press member and also an AARP member. A quick question. Given all the recent hoopla concerning private gun ownership and proposals to restrict the ownership of certain types of firearms, magazines, etc., my readers have been asking me what AARP’s official position is on the topic. Can you provide me with a statement that describes AARP’s position and/or a person I might speak with by phone? I thank you! Sincerely, Robert Robb, XXXX cell phone, AARP member XXX XXX 235 4.”

Finally, on March 5, 2013 I received the following e-mail:

“Dear Mr. Robb:

Thank you for contacting AARP about our policy concerning firearms. This is a difficult subject for people to discuss. I appreciate your sharing your views with us.

“AARP policy does not “ban all guns.” Our policy targets only inappropriate gun purchasers, not responsible citizens. Here is the statement passed by our Board of Directors:

“Congress should eliminate gaps in and strengthen enforcement of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act and other federal gun laws. States should enact legislation to eliminate gaps in, and strengthen enforcement of, federal and state gun laws, particularly with regard to possession by juveniles, convicted domestic abusers and those under domestic violence restraining orders.

“AARP continues to support careful measures to improve the enforcement of existing federal and state laws. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, homicides are most often committed with guns, especially handguns. In 2005, 55% of homicides were committed with handguns, 16% with other guns, 14% with knives, 5% with blunt objects, and 11% with other weapons. Recent research indicates that lethal violence in the US far outpaces other Western nations. AARP policy reflects concern that crime-especially violent crime-may have particularly severe consequences for older people and teens.

“AARP policymaking is an ongoing process. Our all-volunteer National Policy Council thoughtfully develops each policy, after reviewing the pros and cons. Then the Council makes recommendations to the Board of Directors, who are also all volunteers. Both groups are made up of a distinguished cross-section of AARP members. All our public policies are carefully reviewed biennially and the Council makes recommendations on issues annually or more frequently as needed. Communications from members, like yours, contribute to establishing, strengthening and updating our policies.

“I hope this information has been helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact us if there is any way we may be of assistance in the future. Thank you again for taking the time to get in touch. It is an important part of our job to consider carefully the concerns of every member.”

Sincerely,
Dianne
Member Communications
Member@aarp.org

In other words, their policy has not changed. If this bothers you—as it bothers me—I urge you to contact AARP with your opinions and concerns, especially if you are a member. They are reached at 1-888-687-2277; www.aarp.org. When I canceled my membership, they knew exactly how I felt.

 

 

Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: