data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/ff5be/ff5be84677d6a0fddbb86f89c1aeddba011c2edc" alt=""
© Janet Crain
Click here to view all recent Sarah Palin in 2012 posts
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/20dbd/20dbdf689cca315b9f7bf7727a793f8609e6900a" alt="Bookmark and Share"
Sarah Palin and the current political scene.
All Politics, All the Time!!!
Mayor Bill White yanked a controversial plan Tuesday that called for the city to use taxpayer funds to pay off some personal debts for first-time home buyers, following a flood of outrage and criticism from across the city and beyond.
“I don’t think we ought to be in the business of paying off someone’s debt so they can buy a house,” White conceded during an impassioned City Council meeting. “Paying off people’s credit cards is ridiculous.”
Many council members expressed “embarrassment” over the idea, which received national media attention after the Chronicle wrote about it in Tuesday’s editions. The story appeared to strike a nerve among taxpayers already angry over the recession, the housing meltdown, and federal bailouts of banks and automobile companies.
“Everybody’s outraged about this,” said Councilman Ron Greene, adding that a constituent e-mailed him a copy of a bill and asked him to pay it. “This was not well reasoned.”
The “Credit Score Enhancement Program” would have given up to $3,000 in grants to individuals who are trying to qualify for mortgages through the city’s homebuyers assistance program. City officials had said some applicants fall short of eligibility by only 10 or 20 points on their credit scores, and paying off some debt balances can quickly improve their numbers.
Councilwoman Pam Holm waved a thick stack of e-mails from angry residents.
“I do not understand how we can ever justify spending taxpayer dollars to pay somebody’s credit card,” she said. “I don’t understand how it can be even considered to come up. I am truly embarrassed. I think it shows poor leadership.”
Cont. here:
Monday, February 23, 2009 12:46 PM By: Ronald Kessler | Article Font Size ![]() ![]() |
For years, the press excoriated Nancy Reagan for borrowing clothes and jewelry from designers. Yet Michelle Obama has been doing the same thing — without any outcry from the media.
Accountants say that the first lady’s practice of borrowing both clothes and jewelry raises major tax and disclosure issues, not to mention ethical questions.
“The transactions are clearly taxable,” says Richard Rampell, a Palm Beach, Fla., accountant whose clients include several of the island’s billionaires. “The designers are indirectly paying Michelle Obama to go and display their wares. And they get a huge economic value for it, just as if they were paying a model to do this. If they are paying her in this indirect way by lending her their clothes, then she is actually performing a service for the designer, and she should have to recognize as income whatever the value is of the clothes that she got.”
Aside from the tax implications, Obama is obligated to report the value of the clothes she has received free of charge on government forms mandated by the Ethics in Government Act.
The items Obama has either borrowed or received free have included a $17,313 pair of Loree Rodkin diamond earrings and clothes and gowns worth $1,000 to $6,000. In some cases, Michelle Obama’s representatives have said she will donate the items to the Smithsonian.
That makes no difference, Rampell says.
“If somebody gives her a dress and it’s worth $6,000, and she’s not expected to return it, then she has $6,000 worth of income, or she’s received a $6,000 gift,” he says. “I’m sure that the company is deducting the cost of that dress — the cost of manufacturing, the design, the materials and all that other stuff. And then when she gives it away to the charity, then she gets a charitable contribution for it.”
While some articles in the press have reported that the clothes or jewelry were given to her free of charge or lent to her, none has criticized Obama or compared her practices with Nancy Reagan’s. Instead, the articles have swooned over her fashion sense.
“All Hail the Leader of the Fashionable World” was the headline on a Jan. 21 Washington Post story. In the 14th paragraph the story mentioned that the diamond earrings had been lent to Obama. The story quoted Katie McCormick Lelyveld, the first lady’s press secretary, as saying she paid for her inauguration clothes. But a subsequent Feb. 12 New York Times story quoted the designers themselves as saying they did not charge the Obamas.
cont. here:
"The government is promoting bad behavior," Santelli said of President Obama's $75 billion initiative to refinance mortgages."I have an idea," he said on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange floor."How about this, new President and new administration, why don't you put up a Web site to have people vote on the Internet ... to see if we really want to subsidize the losers' mortgages."Or would we like to at least buy cars and buy houses in foreclosure and give them to people who might have a chance to actually prosper down the road... reward people who could carry the water instead of drink the water."Santelli then turned to the traders."How many of you people want to pay for your neighbor's mortgage that has an extra bathroom and can't pay their bills?" he asked as boos filled the air."President Obama," Santelli continued. "Are you listening?""We're thinking of having a Chicago Tea Party in July," Santelli said.Santelli told the Daily News only a handful of the 700 e-mails he got were negative.About the tea party: "I was half-serious, but given the response, I think something is going to have to be done in a very serious way."
http://www.nydailynews.com/money/2009/02/19/2009-02-19_the_case_against_the_mortgage_bailout_we.html
NYT editorial blames Bush but fails to mention how Bill Clinton started this mess in the mid-90s by relaxing loan criteria. Let's also finger former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan...
"The anti-foreclosure plan announced by President Obama on Wednesday is a decisive break from the Bush administration’s disastrous protect-the-banks-but-not-the-homeowners policy. The president has promised that it will help as many as nine million American families refinance their mortgages or avoid foreclosure. That’s a good start, but given the dire state of the economy, we fear it still may not be enough. For two years, while house prices cratered and mortgage defaults soared, the Bush administration stubbornly refused to compel the mortgage industry to clean up the bad loans that had been made so recklessly; it even refused to give banks any incentives to do so. Some two million families lost their homes to foreclosure."
A quote from the late Dr.
"You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."
Story Created: Feb 12, 2009 at 5:10 PM EST
Story Updated: Feb 14, 2009 at 5:56 PM EST
How much did you spend on your Valentine Celebration? Our new president spent $246,908 of taxpayer money just in travel cost. I doubt and sincerely hope no one else in the world felt it necessary to spend that much or even more. But maybe some Saudi Arabian prince did.
Just imagine the President spent almost one quarter of a million dollars of taxpayer money on one weekend trip. That is many times more than most people make anually. And more than the average house costs.
It really seems hypocritical of him to ask Americans to practice fiscal restraint in these tough times and then jet off for the weekend.
Hat Tip: Sweetness and Light
According to the first distance calculator above, it is 598 miles (962 km) (519 nautical miles) from Washington, DC to Chicago, Illinois.
Mr. Obama’s two trips back and forth from DC to Chicago add up to 2392 miles – as the crow flies.
Which, if our calculations are correct, amounts to at least 3.8 hours flying time for Air Force One. And 4.6 hours of flying time for the accompanying cargo plane.
(For the sake of simplicity, we will assume that both planes were going at their full speed, which they probably were not. And we will not count the time in service on the ground before and after each flight.)
Using these very conservative figures, Air Force One cost $214,768 and the cargo plane cost $32,140. For a grand total of $246,908 for Mr. Obama’s three round trips.
The math calculations are here and based on 2006 fuel costs.
“I don’t want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking. I want them just to get out of the way so we can clean up the mess. I don’t mind cleaning up after them, but don’t do a lot of talking.”~~ Barack Obama, at a rally for State Senator Creigh Deeds, Tysons Corner, Virginia, August 6, 2009
Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny. ~ Thomas Jefferson
"We in America do not have government by the majority.
We have government by
the majority who participate."
- Thomas Jefferson.
"Think as I think," said a man,
"Or you are abominably wicked;
You are a toad."
And after I had thought of it,
I said, "I will, then, be a toad."
--Stephen Crane
|
"To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."Thomas Jefferson
'There's no doubt that Lincoln held office during difficult
times...But think of poor George Washington...He didn't have a previous administration to blame for his problems.'
I am an Anti-government Gunslinger, also known as a libertarian conservative. I believe in smaller government, states’ rights, gun rights, and that, as Reagan once said, “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’”
Take the quiz at www.FightLiberals.com