Congress at 11% in Confidence, Lowest of all Institutions Polled, Confidence in Presidency Down 15 to 36%

Who is in charge in Congress? Who is Driving Congress into the ditch?

11% confidence rating in the Gallup poll for Congress. I guess you would call that a vote of no confidence. However, lost in the Gallup poll is this little gem, the confidence in the Presidency (that would be Barack Hussein Obama) is down 15 points to 36%. Try and blame this one on GWB.

Congress has a lower confidence rating than newspapers, HMO’s and the dreaded evil big business. Hell, there might be more confidence in used cars salesman than Congress. How does Congress rate against drug dealers? Thanks to Nancy Pelosi’s leadership as the Democrat Speaker of the House, she has lead the charge in the Congress driving off the cliff. Thanks to the Democrat leadership Pelosi and Harry Reid … Congress is almost in single digits. Isn’t Reid up for re-election Nevada? So what will Congress do now in the face of 11% confidence … “cap & trade”, “illegal immigration” reform, amnesty? How about spending more tax payer dollars and mortgaging our children’s future?

Read more

Scott Borkin the Custard Store Owner in his Own Words, “Biden Went Off On Me … I Was Shocked”

Just when Obama thought it was safe to take VP out of the witness protection agency and put him back in the public eye …

Hear from the custard shop owner, Scott Borkin, who VP Joe Biden went off on. Borken told Greta Van Susteren that he merely asked the Veep to lower taxes in response to Biden’s question of how much he owed for the custard. Biden’s response was at first ignoring Borkin, then he told him to stop being a “smart ass”.

The Wisconsin custard shop owner stated he was shocked by Biden’s comments. But why should he? As the Gateway Pundit states, what kind of reaction should a hard working, business owning, tax paying American expect from the Obama Administration and its minions when asking to lower taxes?

Take a good look as to how this Administration treats the “small people.” Keep in mind folks, this incident took place in Wisconsin, hardly a red, conservative state.

Because $787 Billion Wasn’t Enough, Now Obama Wants Another $50 Billion Bail Out for States & Local Aid

Because $787 Billion Wasn’t Enough, Now Obama Wants Another $50 Billion Bail Out for States & Local Aid

STOP THE MADNESS …

President Barack Hussein Obama wanted and got a $787 billion stimulus package that was supposed to jump start the economy and keep unemployment under 8%. IT DID NEITHER! How Obama, the Spender in Chief wants Congress to pass another $50 billion package to bail out for state and local aid. What’s another $50 billion that our children and grandchildren will have to pay. The stimulus has been considered an EPIC FAILURE and now Obama wants to do what Obama does best … spend more of We the People’s money.

President Obama urged reluctant lawmakers Saturday to quickly approve nearly $50 billion in emergency aid to state and local governments, saying the money is needed to avoid “massive layoffs of teachers, police and firefighters” and to support the still-fragile economic recovery.

In a letter to congressional leaders, Obama defended last year’s huge economic stimulus package, saying it helped break the economy’s free fall, but argued that more spending is urgent and unavoidable. “We must take these emergency measures,” he wrote in an appeal aimed primarily at members of his own party.

UNREAL! What’s another $50 billion added to the already out of control Obama debt. Recently, House Majority Leader Steny the Hoyer (D-Md.) said I think there is spending fatigue.” America does not have spending fatigue, we have spending “exhaustion”.  You will get no republican votes on this, and if one is stupid enough to agree … they will be voted out of office. Enough is enough, the spending stops here and now.

Check out the US Debt Clock and see what Obama wants to accelerate even more. This should enrage you to no end and want serious CHANGE!

Hillary Clinton Says Rich Not Paying Fair Share of Taxes

More hypocrisy form the LEFT …

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated that the rich in the United States are not paying enough taxes and the economy is suffering? What? Who knew that fact that the rich were not taxed enough was responsible for the US foreign policy under Obama. Then again, these people are every opportunity want you money. Not theirs … yours! So her answer is, “Let’s become Brazil?”

No Hillary, let’s not be like Brazil … Let’s be like America

The rich are not being taxed enough and the economy is suffering for it, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Thursday.

The former first lady broached the subject during a national security discussion at the Brookings Institution. She lamented that the United States has lowered taxes on the wealthy and said nations around the world need to “increase their public revenue collections” to spur investment.

“The rich are not paying their fair share in any nation that is facing the kind of employment issues (the United States is), whether it’s individual, corporate, whatever the taxation forms are,” she said.

So Hillary, that’s what is wrong with our economy … the tax rate is not high enough? Are you insane! However, just curious … why is the Secretary of State who should be concerned with the crisis in North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and between the Jews and Palestinians commenting of social policy of taxes in the US?

That aside, the issue in the United States is not a revenue issue, it is an entitlement spending one. Even if there was a budget surplus, politicians would find a way to spend the money on useless give away programs.  Exactly how is the jobs and unemployment issue in the United States a revenue issue? The answer is, it is not. More revenue to the government would not create more jobs. In fact, less revenue to the government and more being kept by business, both large and small, would create jobs and in return create tax revenue to the government.

However, first let us debunk Hillary’s the rich do not pay enough and her complete and total hypocrisy. First of all, is she including herself and William Clinton as well in the category of the rich not paying enough taxes? Are you telling me that Hillary and Bill do not have financial planning tax shelters set up to shield their money away from the government, hmm? What would the Clinton family foundation be? Why do you think they never disclosed this? It’s not that they were taking monies from it, they didn’t want America to know they were sheltering tax revenue when in the same breathe they were screaming … the rich need to pay more.

The Ethics in Government Act requires members of Congress to disclose positions they hold with any outside entity, including nonprofit foundations. Hillary Clinton has served her family foundation as treasurer and secretary since it was established in December 2001, but none of her ethics reports since then have disclosed that fact.

The foundation has enabled the Clintons to write off more than $5 million from their taxable personal income since 2001, while dispensing $1.25 million in charitable contributions over that period.

So Hillary, before you point fingers … you might just want to look in the mirror. There is nothing wrong with creating a foundation; however, the purpose is to keep the government’s hands off your money. That same government that you say is entitled to more of the rich’s money.

Another Bail Out … This Time for the Unions, $165 Billion

As if the United States is not in enough debt and the Obama Administration has not spent us into oblivion. Obama and the Democrats, the GIFT THAT KEEPS ON TAKING!

Along comes another bail out, say it isn’t so. This time the Democrat cronies at the Unions are the beneficiaries. That is correct, another $165 billion for the US tax payers. Had enough yet?

A Democratic senator is introducing legislation for a bailout of troubled union pension funds.  If passed, the bill could put another $165 billion in liabilities on the shoulders of American taxpayers.

The bill, which would put the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation behind struggling pensions
for union workers, is being introduced by Senator Bob Casey, (D-Pa.), who says it will save jobs and help people.

As FOX Business Network’s Gerri Willis reported Monday, these pensions are in bad shape; as of 2006, well before the market dropped and recession began, only 6% of these funds were doing well.

Didn’t Obama say there would be no more bail out?

Hasn’t the Obama Administration put enough burden on the shoulders of tax payers and the children and grand children for years to come? Now Democrats want to pay off their constituents with a bail out for mishandling union dues?

So the American tax payer has to bail out another mishandled union pension plan? Like putting more money in the union coffers is going to fix the problem. How come Unions don’t get the same treatment from Obama and the Democrats like the fat cats on Wall Street? What’s the difference?

From Town Hall.com … good grief, Obama and the Democrat bail outs are the gift that keeps on giving, or is it taking?

Although right now taxpayers could possibly be on the hook for $165 billion, the liability could essentially be unlimited because these pensions have to be paid out until the workers die.

Weasel Zippers says it best as only they can and basically sums up the feelings of an over-burdened country.

Of course there is no correlation to the Democrats willingness to bail out Unions and the fact that Unions have stated that they will spend $100 million in 2010 for Democrats to be reelected. None what-so-ever. Hmm, spend $100 million to get $195 billion, not a bad deal, eh?