11 April 2013

Obama Budget Caps Retirement Tax Benefit

Hand it to the Federal Gov't to change the rules as they want more money.

Remember how your IRA is supposed to let you pay taxes now and not have any tax consequences so long as you use the money in retirement.

Well, in the few short years that they have been in existence, the original plan is already under fire. Obama has proposed in his budget that if your retirement account exceeds $3M, you'll get another tax.

The cap proposal is a clear play to unlock some of the $10 trillion sitting in IRA and 401(k) accounts, which have become the primary retirement savings vehicles in America. Congress pried this door open a few months ago by toying with a law forcing heirs to liquidate an IRA within five years—almost certainly triggering otherwise avoidable income-tax payments. We may see that yet.
 The $3 million cutoff is itself something of a mystery. The White House reasons that $3 million is enough to provide an annual annuity of $205,000, which it further reasons is plenty income for any retiree. Yet there’s a lot wrong with this line of thinking.
How great is that! I love helping the gov't give more of my money away.

I wonder if the amount will be locked to inflation? Does the White House believe that the most we simple Americans should be allowed to live off is $205k/yr? How... Communist.

The worst part: Very few in media are talking about this. It doesn't show up in any of the major outlets front page. Not on Google News, not on CNBC, not on ABC, or CNN Money. I only knew about it from the radio yesterday and had to specifically search for the terms to find any news. Thank you, mainstream media, for covering up the agenda again.

10 April 2013

GM Invests €4bn in Opel

Talk about a subtle way for the Obama administration to continue redistributing US tax dollars. First, illegally kick out GM's shareholders with tax payer dollars. Then, give GM a bad loan. Finally, use those investment dollars to help out your foreign arm which has been uncompetitive for several years.


Maybe I'm just being a conspiracy theorist. But, US tax payers are really getting hurt in the way the Feds are giving out our money. We are making very risky "investments" on money that isn't ours (see China!), but we are on the hook for it. Further, the gov't shouldn't be making ANY choices in deciding which businesses get loans! That is what PRIVATE investment is for. They have the power and the will to make good monetary decisions. The US gov't has proven time and time again that it is perfectly willing to throw good money after bad.

09 April 2013

Does "Pro-Choice" extend beyond birth?

This is painful for me to talk about. I have three children and I have been able to witness the birth of my children... my wife has also been in a NICU... babies are precious, vulnerable, desperately trying to live. So, to me, the fact that this actually has to be discussed is heart breaking.

Yes, we must define whether a baby still has a chance for life, but to hear the opponents of this bill fight that the baby might be the patient in need of treatment shows how *redacted* some activists can be.

Don't continue reading if you are easily distressed by this topic.

A committee in Florida was discussing (flash player required) what happens to a baby that is still living AFTER an abortion attempt. So, the "born alive" baby, - i.e. after expulsion from the "mother" & demonstrating one of three actions that is used to determine life (voluntary movement, trying to take a breath, or a beating heart) - is now external to the woman's body. The committee is actually having to debate whether the child deserves emergency medical attention, or if the baby, now removed from the woman's womb, can still be... aborted.

Here are some of the excerpts, as best as I could type them out, of the review of this bill:

19:00 - Questioning of the bill's sponsor

Q: "I want to talk the issue you called surrender… it is a complete vacating of any rights the birth parent has…

A: I am concerned about who provides consent for treatment… in the circumstance of an infant born alive after an abortion, there is concern that the parent would not have the best interest of the infant in this circumstance.

Response: A person who is having an abortion we are assuming that the person doesn't have the best interest of the child … and I believe that the parent has the best interest of the child …

Q: How prevalent is an infant born alive?

A: We have anecdotal evidence… and reported data 1270 infants qualified as dying in a category that includes related to abortion.

37:00 - a 4th year medical student urges legislatures to vote "NO" as they do not know a certain shoes and interferes with a woman's ability to decide what to do with her family, her religion, etcm

38:00 - a Planned Parenthood representative - a woman's desire to raise a child is her right alone and politics should not be allowed to interfere

39:00 - Q to PP: if a baby is born alive as a result of a failed abortion, what does Planned Parenthood want to see happen?

A: we believe that any decision that is made should be left to the woman, family and physician

40:00 - Q: what happens in the situation when a baby is alive and moving

A: I don't have that information

41:00 - Q: You represent physicians that perform this activity - what happens when this happens with a baby that is struggling to survive

A: I don't know how often this happens

42:00 - You have stated that a baby born alive should be left the woman and the doctor

A: That decision should be left the mother

Q: Shouldn't at that point the patient be considered the baby?

A: Thats a good question, maybe we should talk about it

Q: Why do you have an issue with us codifying that a physician needs to provide advanced life support in an abortion clinic. Does planned parenthood have an objection to this?

A: Our opposition remains about the surrender words, the transport to the hospital. …

Q: What objection could you have to requiring a baby be transported to a hospital?

A: Sometimes it's impractical in a rural setting. We have issues with the logistical problems involved in getting a baby to a hospital that may be 45 minutes away.

At 47:00 minutes debate opens up and there are some fantastic rebuttals by the congressmen who come forward and talk about how sickening that it is that people would even oppose this a bill that seeks only to guarantee that a baby that is born alive will receive the necessary advanced life support that an infant would need.

However a few people kept on talking about surrender. My thought is... If a mother wants to have an abortion, hasn't she already surrendered her "rights" to the infant? I think the surrender language is meant to guarantee that the baby will not be abandoned. And the bill's sponsor states earlier that at the time of abortion he would be skeptical that a mother would have the baby's best interest at heart. I fully agree. You have to be of sound mind to make those kind of decisions, and having been in a delivery room, the stress is high... that's why we sign our papers in advance that the baby can receive all the care they are due immediately after birth. To have an abortion, it requires labor and delivery, the birth parent cannot be assumed to be in sound mind immediately following an abortion.

Human life must be protected. It seems to me that Planned Parenthood, and several other "Pro-Choice" members of the media (and by no means am I saying all people who call themselves pro-choice), are not trying to protect the baby. They have a disgusting business in perpetuating the lie that a baby's life in the womb should not be protected. Only God knows how they can live with themselves.

The crazy thing is, the same liberals that fight for the right to kill babies, fight for the federal protection of baby sea-turtle eggs and other stupid animals. How can people be so hypocritical? I believe it is part of the great deception of our age.

I found this video from the following links:
The Weekly Standard << linked the original Florida legislative video