Posts from the ‘money’ Category

AUDIT THE FEDERAL RESERVE!!

// //

Bernanke Banner
      With Congress spending TRILLIONS of taxpayer dollars and the Federal Reserve literally creating money out of thin air, it’s never been more important you and I force Congress to Audit the Fed.

      That’s why it is vital you sign this petition to your Senators and Representative DEMANDING they support Rep. Ron Paul’s Audit the Fed Bill.

      After you sign, please make a contribution to Campaign for Liberty to get more folks in this fight.  Unlike the Federal Reserve, Campaign for Liberty cannot just print money out of thin air to spread the word.

“Audit the Federal Reserve”
Petition to the US Congress

Whereas:   The Federal Reserve refuses to give a public accounting of the TRILLIONS in recent taxpayer-backed loans; and
Whereas:   Congress has the responsibility to force a public audit of the Federal Reserve, and the American people deserve to know how their tax dollars are being spent; and
Whereas:   Allowing the Fed to remain out of control and shrouded in secrecy clearly allows for abuse and the continued stealing of our tax dollars through inflation and unaccounted electronic bank “loans”; and
Whereas:   The Federal Reserve’s abuses lead to constant economic crises like the current housing crisis, international banking crisis and the resulting chaos; and
Whereas:   The Federal Reserve System forces fuel, food, housing, medical care and education costs upward, meaning that everyone who is NOT on the government dole is forced to make do with less as the value of money slowly decreases; and
Whereas:   History shows us that riots, violence and full-scale police states can result when people finally realize fiat money isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on and REFUSE to accept it;
Therefore:   I urge you to cosponsor and make every effort to seek roll call votes on the Audit the Fed Bill, H.R. 1207/S 604.
Please submit the information below to sign the petition. Copies will be sent to
      your Senators and Congressman.

First Name:* Required Invalid Character
Last Name:* Required Invalid Character
Email Address:* Required Improper Email
Confirm Email:* Required The Email Addresses Do Not Match
Zip:* Required Please use a 5 digit zip
 
 

Campaign for Liberty is a 501(c)4 lobbying organization which neither supports nor opposes candidates for public office and claims
no responsibility for the actions of individuals or groups of individuals who use the Campaign for Liberty logo or name or who
may claim to act as representatives of the Campaign for Liberty without prior written consent of the Campaign for Liberty.

© 2009 Campaign For Liberty   |  5211 Port Royal Road, Suite 310, Springfield, VA 22151  |  (703) 865-7162 (V)  |  (703) 865-7549 (F)

// // // // <![CDATA[
// METATRAFFIC — COPYRIGHT (C) 2002-2005, Brinkster Site Statistics Corp.

var pagetitle = document.title;
var action = "";
var amount = "0";
var order = "";

var scriptlocation = "/stats/track.asp";

var pagedata = 'mtpt=' + escape(pagetitle) + '&mtac=' + escape(action) + '&mta=' + amount + '&mto=' + escape(order) + '&mtr=' + escape(document.referrer) + '&mtt=2&mts=' + window.screen.width + 'x' + window.screen.height + '&mti=1&mtz=' + Math.random();
document.write ('‘);
// ]]>

NO MONEY FOR SENIOR CITIZENS AND RETIRED MILITARY

Free Republic
Browse · Search News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

——————————————————————————–

Skip to comments.

Senior Citizens May Not Get Social Security COLA for Years Says Kaiser Medicare Brief
Senior Journal ^ | June 29, 2009

Posted on Friday, January 15, 2010 9:30:51 AM by GailA

Social Security News

Senior Citizens May Not Get Social Security COLA for Years Says Kaiser Medicare Brief

No Social Security increase also means higher Medicare Part B fees for many seniors says the analysis.

June 29, 2009 – Senior citizens are not expected to receive a cost of living adjustment (COLA) in 2010 – for the first time ever. What’s worse, they may not receive an increase for the next three years. And, it keeps getting worse – no COLA means high Medicare Part B premiums for about a quarter of all Medicare beneficiaries, according to an analysis by the the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.

The Medicare Issue Brief, based on the most recent projections of the Medicare and Social Security Trustees, explains the relationship between the Social Security COLA and the Medicare Part B premium, and the implications for those who are covered by both programs.

With Medicare Part B spending expected to continue to increase in the coming years, beneficiary premium contributions are also expected to rise to cover 25 percent of total Part B spending as required by law. Not all Medicare beneficiaries will be affected. About three in four Medicare beneficiaries are protected by a “hold-harmless” provision in the law that ensures that their Medicare premiums do not increase more than any increase in Social Security premiums, according to the report.

Thus, the higher premiums would fall on the remaining one quarter of beneficiaries – with monthly premiums expected to rise from $96.40 this year to $104.20 in 2010 and $120.20 in 2011.

Because most in this group are low-income beneficiaries eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid benefits, Medicaid would pay the cost of the monthly Part B premium, increasing Medicaid costs for states.

Higher-income beneficiaries who are required to pay an income-related surcharge in addition to the monthly Part B premium would also pay the higher rate, as would any new enrollees who did not receive Social Security payments in the previous year and/or were not covered under Part B.

This issue brief was prepared by Tricia Neuman and Juliette Cubanski of the Kaiser FamilyFoundation. Lisa Potetz of Health Policy Alternatives provided http://www.kff.org/medicare/upload/7912.pdf

Link to brief

——————————————————————————–
TOPICS: Culture/Society; Front Page News; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2010; aarp; agenda; bho44; bhoeconomy; bhohealthcare; democrats; economy; elections; healthcare; healthinsurance; hopeychangey; medicare; medicarepartb; obamacare; seniorcitizens; seniors; socializedmedicine; socialsecurity; ss; taxes Link to Scott Brown, dems want to cut Military Tricare health insurance
Link to Scott Brown debate, dems want to cut Military Tricare health insurance

No COLA raise for Seniors, No COLA raise for retired Military, cuts to Medicare and Tricare, we families who depend on Tricare for our secondary health insurance after our spouses spent 20 or more years serving their country are going to be getting double screwed with the cuts and increases in premiums and fees.

In the Hannity interview the remark went totally over Hannity’s head. I don’t think any of the talk radio host know what Tricare is!

TRI CARE FOR LIFE This from a google search:

Link to Tricare cuts

This option would help reduce the costs of TFL, as well as costs for Medicare, by introducing minimum out-of pocket requirements for beneficiaries. Under this option, TFL would not cover any of the first $525 of an enrollee’s cost-sharing liabilities for calendar year 2011 and would limit coverage to 50 percent of the next $4,725 in Medicare cost sharing that the beneficiary incurred. (Because all further cost sharing would be covered by TFL, enrollees could not pay more than $2,888 in cost sharing in that year.)

Link to pdf

November 6, 2009 | Rep Buyer and Rep McKeon

Link to article

Bill Would Restrict Veterans’ Health Care Options

Buyer and McKeon Offer Amendments to Protect Veterans and TRICARE Beneficiaries

1 posted on Friday, January 15, 2010 9:30:53 AM by GailA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

——————————————————————————–
To: GailA
The lesson here is, live by the government, die by the government.

Meanwhile, the Obama Administration is making sweetheart deals with unions to get its execrable pile-of-junk healthcare bill passed.

2 posted on Friday, January 15, 2010 9:34:07 AM by popdonnelly (Yes, we disagree – no, we won’t shut up – no, we won’t quit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

——————————————————————————–
To: GailA
All Ponzi schemes fall apart eventually.

3 posted on Friday, January 15, 2010 9:35:25 AM by ClearCase_guy (We have the 1st so that we can call on people to rebel. We have 2nd so that they can.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

——————————————————————————–
To: GailA
Ole Matt said last June that it would be 2 years, obviously they are planning for a huge inflation rate for the next 3 years.

Plan on cutting the budget by cutting the benes for SS/Military, BUT does this apply to FED EMPLOYEES.
Wonder if only “working” FED employees get an increase.
LIKE CONGRESS.
Anyone know the answer to this one.

4 posted on Friday, January 15, 2010 9:37:16 AM by Marty62 (former Marty60)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

——————————————————————————–
To: GailA
How can this be? Wasn’t it the Democrats that said we have to beware of the Republicans who would take benefits from seniors? Now the Democrats have done it? /s

5 posted on Friday, January 15, 2010 9:37:20 AM by ThePatriotsFlag (http://www.thepatriotsflag.com – The Patriot’s Flag)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

——————————————————————————–
To: GailA
But I’ll bet that al federal government employees and retirees will receive their 3% annual raises and increasess!!!

6 posted on Friday, January 15, 2010 9:37:29 AM by Uncle Chip (TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can’t ESCAPE it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

——————————————————————————–
To: popdonnelly
I would also expect congress to take their increases every year.

7 posted on Friday, January 15, 2010 9:38:09 AM by Recon Dad ( USMC SSgt Patrick O – 3rd Afghanistan Deployment – Day 87)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

——————————————————————————–
To: Uncle Chip
But I’ll bet that al federal government employees and retirees will receive their 3% annual raises and increasess!!!
You lose. I am a retired federal employee. Our COLAs are tied directly the CPI-W figures just like SS. We get the same increases or lack thereof. No raise this year and probably none next year at a minimum. Active federal employees use a different system for the computation of their increases, which amount to 2% this year.

8 posted on Friday, January 15, 2010 9:42:25 AM by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

——————————————————————————–
To: GailA
Thus, the higher premiums would fall on the remaining one quarter of beneficiaries – with monthly premiums expected to rise from $96.40 this year to $104.20 in 2010 and $120.20 in 2011.
NOT TRUE!!!

I turn 65 next month. I have already been informed by the SSA that my premiums for Medicare Pt. B will be $110.50/mo. The SSA also says that after they contact the IRS, this amount may increase (retro-actively to Feb.1) depending on my total income.

I’m not complaining about not getting COLA or the amount of my Medicare premiums, just stating a fact.

9 posted on Friday, January 15, 2010 9:42:34 AM by Roccus (ABLE DANGER?????……………….What’s an ABLE DANGER???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

——————————————————————————–
To: GailA
When I read the headline what first came to mind was all of those seniors cheering on “The One” for hope and change during the Presidential campaign.

10 posted on Friday, January 15, 2010 9:45:24 AM by ladyvet (WOLVERINES!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

——————————————————————————–
To: GailA
If these morons in Congress can deny Seniors their Cola raises then they better roll back any recent raises and any future raises for themselves.

Vote all of them out on the street, NO Pay, NO Pensions, No Health Care,NOTHING !!

11 posted on Friday, January 15, 2010 9:51:22 AM by chatham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

——————————————————————————–
To: Marty62
Fed employees just got a pay raise, and congress gets one automatically each year plus extra perks. And it is not a tiny raise like they give SS, disabled Vets, retired Military and disabled on SS.
It’s just not the benefit cuts, it’s the fee hikes along with the inflation that will really put the squeeze on us seniors. We are already feeling the pinch with increased cost of living for food, gas etc. Along with the pay cut while small $10.80 with the income tax fiddling the demwits did we’ve had to cut corners where ever we can.

And when seniors have less available extra cash then they don’t contribute to church or charities, give presents to grand kids, etc….snowball effect on the economy.

I planted a veggie garden last year and intend to expand it this year. The old Victory Garden…home owner’s association can go fly a kite, if they don’t like it. I hid the green beans in behind the azeleas out front and on the side of the house. We have a huge hill for a back yard.

12 posted on Friday, January 15, 2010 9:55:25 AM by GailA (obamacare paid for by cuts & taxes on most vulnerable Veterans, disabled,seniors & retired Military)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

——————————————————————————–
To: ladyvet
When I read the headline what first came to mind was all of those seniors cheering on “The One” for hope and change during the Presidential campaign.
You should be remembering younger voters, because the seniors voted republican.

13 posted on Friday, January 15, 2010 9:55:26 AM by ansel12 (anti SoCon. Earl Warren’s court 1953-1969, libertarian hero, anti social conservative loser.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

——————————————————————————–
To: Roccus
This is a report on the Kaiser Foundation report, and we all know how LEFT wing the Kaiser Foundation is, they may have just been conservative in their math, and it was done in June, a lot has changed in the last couple of months.

14 posted on Friday, January 15, 2010 9:58:50 AM by GailA (obamacare paid for by cuts & taxes on most vulnerable Veterans, disabled,seniors & retired Military)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

——————————————————————————–
To: ladyvet
Yes. I suspect the majority of Seniors voted for Zero. I am so sorry that they weren’t more curious about what he would REALLY do in office, instead of what he SAID he would do. Those of us who looked beneath the smarmy veneer KNEW what was coming with Zero.

15 posted on Friday, January 15, 2010 10:03:44 AM by originalbuckeye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

——————————————————————————–
To: ansel12
“because the seniors voted republican. “

You live in a dream world!

My polling place is in a senior community and 65% of them are democrap!

The biggest percentage of seniors over 70 are democrap.

16 posted on Friday, January 15, 2010 10:09:40 AM by dalereed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

——————————————————————————–
To: GailA
I remember during the 2nd worst Presidents aftermath. A SS eligible woman was living in her home alone.
Her daughter would come over to check on her. She would always check her cabinets and fidge to make sure she had plenty of food.
She collapsed one day and a neighbor called the ems.
When the Doc told her that her Mother was suffering from MALNUTRITION, she couldn’t believe it.
When she went to her home she found that her Mother had neatly placed the empty boxes neatly back in the Cabinets.
Empty milk cartons in the fridge etc.

Expect muchh more of this type of thing happening.
My question is, will they get medical care? Useless eaters you know.

17 posted on Friday, January 15, 2010 10:11:12 AM by Marty62 (former Marty60)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

——————————————————————————–
To: ansel12
…because the seniors voted republican.
How can you say that? There’s plenty of Democratic seniors. I expected most of the youth vote to go to the shiny new object but the seniors should have known better.

18 posted on Friday, January 15, 2010 10:16:44 AM by ladyvet (WOLVERINES!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

——————————————————————————–
To: ThePatriotsFlag
How can this be? Wasn’t it the Democrats that said we have to beware of the Republicans who would take benefits from seniors? Now the Democrats have done it?
Needs to be repeated every 30 minutes!

Thanks TPF!!

19 posted on Friday, January 15, 2010 10:18:45 AM by Budge (Who will protect us from the protectors?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

——————————————————————————–
To: originalbuckeye
Yes. I suspect the majority of Seniors voted for Zero.
No they didn’t. The following is pulled from a left-of-center site, but there’s plenty more out there that can be collaborated on a quick search:

Election Day was full of historic results for Barack Obama. But his performance among seniors (age 65 and over) provided one of the few lower points, as exit polls show that Obama lost to John McCain among seniors 45 to 53 percent. According to the exit polls, while Obama made gains with nearly all groups compared to John Kerry, this did not happen with seniors.

20 posted on Friday, January 15, 2010 10:24:34 AM by browardchad (“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own fact.” – Daniel P Moynihan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

——————————————————————————–
To: originalbuckeye
As much as I despise Obama, he has nothing to do with COLA increases for SS. They are based on a formula approved by Congress. COLA Estimates

21 posted on Friday, January 15, 2010 11:01:26 AM by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

——————————————————————————–
To: GailA
Hell that would not be too bad if actually there was no inflation. I wonder what is in the ‘market basket’ that evidences no inflation? Obviously it must exclude food, meds, taxes, and rent. Oh also, senior income has gone down along with their investment interest rates hovering around 1%. It’s lose-lose for seniors.

22 posted on Friday, January 15, 2010 11:09:33 AM by ex-snook (“Above all things, truth beareth away the victory.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

——————————————————————————–
To: browardchad
Unlike among the electorate as a whole, Obama was not able to assuage the fear among white seniors that the change he would bring would be detrimental to their lives. (from the site) I stand corrected. It would appear that at least white Seniors realized the danger of an Obama Administration……and it turns out they were right.

23 posted on Friday, January 15, 2010 11:23:21 AM by originalbuckeye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

——————————————————————————–
To: Uncle Chip
[[But I’ll bet that al federal government employees and retirees will receive their 3% annual raises and increasess!!!]]

You bet they did- while seniors, many who live on only $600 a month because they all worked minimum wage jobs, and hterefore get only the bare minimum SS now, struggle to get by each month, congress, who make an average of $80,000 per year, gave themselves an average of $4500 COLA (they call it a pay raise, but it’s a COLA make no mistake about it). While seniors receiving the minimum would have had an increase in their ‘COLA’ increase of only $12 or so dollars per month, they congress criminals gave themsleves an increase of al,ost $450 per month increase to go along with hteir swanky $80,000 a year ‘salary’ for hwich they do hardly any work- many times only workign about 7-15 days per month, and not even putting in full days (Note- Congress only worked 7 days last Febuary, and those weren’t even full days- they cotinually give htemselves ‘vacations’, sometimes for a month or even more- apparently htinking they’ve ‘earned’ it, while Seniors sit in their homes freezing and having little to eat and paying through the nose for overpriced medications.

24 posted on Friday, January 15, 2010 12:09:44 PM by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

——————————————————————————–
To: ex-snook
[[Hell that would not be too bad if actually there was no inflation.]]

Or insurance rate icnreases, water bill increases, electricity price increases, gasoline price increases, (we’re almost over $3.00 a gallon again, and htere’s been ‘no COL increase’?), no price of milk increase, cheeze, eggs, etc etc etc- however, ALL these and much more has indeed risen over the past year, but by golly, the Fed declares there’s been no COL increase, so thsoe ‘greedy senoirs’ who are ‘sponging off hte govenrment’ get no COL increase, but Fed employeees get their COL increase per usual

25 posted on Friday, January 15, 2010 12:16:13 PM by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

——————————————————————————–
To: browardchad
“Obama made gains with nearly all groups compared to John Kerry, this did not happen with seniors.”

Seniors had many more years of experience/seasoning and thus apparently were far better BS detectors than young voters who voted with their hearts rather than their heads.

Obama showed his gratitude towards young voters by endorsing a mandate that they all buy health insurance at actuarially unfair premiums that ensured they would subsidize older people (whose incomes typically are far higher than those of a young worker just starting a career). Of course, in the election campaign, Obama lambasted Hillary for proposing just such a mandate, but his stringent opposition to an individual mandate was just one of many campaign promises tossed aside when it became politically convenient to do so.

These same youngsters also will pay through the nose for the tsunami of deficits being incurred under Obama’s watch.

26 posted on Friday, January 15, 2010 12:26:35 PM by DrC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

——————————————————————————–
To: ladyvet; dalereed
Sorry guys, the strongest republican vote of any age group in 2008 was the senior citizens, second was the boomers, younger than the boomers was a huge turn out for Obama and the 18-29 year olds went 66% Obama.

27 posted on Friday, January 15, 2010 12:50:27 PM by ansel12 (anti SoCon. Earl Warren’s court 1953-1969, libertarian hero, anti social conservative loser.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

——————————————————————————–
To: chatham
It’s not just seniors on SS, but our Veterans on VA disability, our retired Military, who served for lower pay than a civilian would have gotten for the same job.
It’s also the cuts to their benefits the increase in fees for those cut benefits, the rising cost of food, utilities. You put all that in one package and your really hurt a lot of Americans.

We are hearing MORE property taxes here in Memphis, they didn’t fund the schools last year or this year, now they want us to pay more property taxes for it. (It’s a cost sharing with the county, Memphis didn’t pay their share.)

28 posted on Friday, January 15, 2010 2:22:09 PM by GailA (obamacare paid for by cuts & taxes on most vulnerable Veterans, disabled,seniors & retired Military)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

——————————————————————————–

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson

WE THE PEOPLE NEED A STIMLUS PACKAGE

John Thune will introduce a bill to stop the bailouts « America's Watchtower

John Thune will introduce a bill to stop the bailouts « America’s Watchtower.

John Thune will introduce a bill to stop the bailouts « America's Watchtower

John Thune will introduce a bill to stop the bailouts « America’s Watchtower.

BARNEY FRANK NAMED PORKER OF THE MONTH

167376 porkerof the month

Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddi...
Image via Wikipedia

Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) today named House Financial Services  Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) its March 2009 Porker of the Month.  The chairman, having somehow eluded this dubious award in the past, finally delivered enough of Barney’s blarney to be recognized, appropriately, on St. Patrick’s Day.

On Monday, March 16, 2009, Chairman Frank expressed public umbrage over reports that insurance giant AIG, a recipient of $173 billion from the U.S. Treasury, had distributed $165 million in retention bonuses to some of the employees who helped bring the company to the verge of collapse.  Chairman Frank fulminated that AIG had “rewarded failure” in awarding the bonuses.  That’s rich.

Chairman Frank has never been shy about rewarding failure in the past and he generally favors using taxpayer dollars to do it.  He was front and center in support of enactment of TARP, which noticeably had no enforceable strings attached related to executive compensation.  Indeed, he helped promote perks for bank executives.  According to a January 24, 2009 Boston Herald editorial, Chairman Frank made sure “one of the recipients of a $12 million infusion of federal cash was the troubled OneUnited Bank in Boston – a bank that had already been accused of ‘unsafe and unsound banking practices.’  Its CEO, Kevin Cohee had also been criticized by regulators for ‘excessive’ pay that included a Porsche.”  Chairman Frank included specific provisions in TARP aimed at bailing out OneUnited and spoke directly to Treasury officials about it.

Perhaps most damning is Chairman Frank’s irresponsible defense of the activities of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac over the years, even when it became clear that executives at the two giant government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) had manipulated earnings statements and gifted themselves with huge bonuses based on the bogus numbers, misled regulators, and steered the companies into such shoddy condition that they posed a systemic risk to the entire financial system.  Chairman Frank must regret his September 11, 2003 statement to The New York Times that Fannie and Freddie “are not facing any kind of financial crisis…[t]he more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”  During a 2003 committee hearing related to establishing oversight over the GSEs, he casually announced that he didn’t want “the same kind of focus on safety and soundness that we have in Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Office of Thrift Supervision.  I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidized housing.”  We know how that worked out:  the GSEs are now almost entirely owned by the taxpayers; Freddie Mac tapped the Treasury for $13.8 billion in 2008; and Fannie Mae is on deck to get $15.2 billion this year.

“Even in this global capital of hot air, bait-and-switch politics, and double-talk, Chairman Frank deserves singular recognition,” said CAGW President Tom Schatz.  “It strains credulity to hear him rebuking anyone for rewarding failure after he helped create the disaster in the first place.”

For his ample and under-appreciated contributions to the nation’s current economic meltdown and his near-genius ability to engage in the two-faced blame game, CAGW names House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank March Porker of the Month.

Citizens Against Government Waste is the nation’s largest nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to eliminating waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement in government.  Porker of the Month is a dubious honor given to lawmakers, government officials, and political candidates who have shown a blatant disregard for the interests of taxpayers.

 

 

 

####

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

WHAT HAPPEND TO THE OBAMA TAX REBATE FOR 95% OF AMERICANS

Starbucks logo
Image via Wikipedia
I don’t know what’s going on at the AP but this is the 2nd less than flattering story about the Obama Administration in a week…

Remember that little promise about “95% of Americans will get a tax cut” from The One on the campaign trail? Think that he fulfilled that promise with his brilliant “Making Work Pay” plan? Think again…

The tax credit is supposed to provide up to $400 to individuals and $800 to married couples as part of the massive economic recovery package enacted in February. Most workers started receiving the credit through small increases in their paychecks in the past month.

But new tax withholding tables issued by the IRS could cause millions of taxpayers to get hundreds of dollars more than they are entitled to under the credit, money that will have to be repaid at tax time.

At-risk taxpayers include a broad swath of the public: married couples in which both spouses work; workers with more than one job; retirees who have federal income taxes withheld from their pension payments and Social Security recipients with jobs that provide taxable income.

Are you shocked? You mean you didn’t read that fine print that said “you may get an extra $13 in your paycheck but we’re going to screw you on April 15, 2010”? Just like the extra tax on cigarettes, the extra taxes if Cap and Trade passes and all the other little “extras” – it’s just smoke and mirrors people.

Still think that this only applies to the uber-rich? AP provided a few examples. Here’s one…

A single worker with two jobs making $20,000 a year at each job will get a $400 boost in take-home pay at each of them, for a total of $800. That worker, however, is eligible for a maximum credit of $400, so the remaining $400 will have to be paid back at tax time – either through a smaller refund or a payment to the IRS.

For those in Rio Linda that means the single worker will make $40,000 year working 2 jobs and either get a smaller refund or have to make a tax payment come April 15. But I thought the taxes were only going up on those making $200,000/year? Oopsie…

Looks like the only change we’re going to truly get is enough to buy a cup of coffee – and I don’t mean at Starbucks.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]