 |
Mr. Wonderful Talks Politics
|
07/31/01 :Russert reveals anti-Republican Rhetoric
On last Sunday's Meet the Press, while discussing the Social Security and Medicare Trust funds, Denny Hastert, the Republican Speaker of the House, endured this barrage of questions from Tim Russert,
Russert: ". . . Are you saying today that as long as you are Speaker of the House, the Republican Party will never us the Social Security or Medicare Trust Funds?"
Russert: "But what about the Medicare Trust Fund?"
Russert: "You'll never use the Medicare Trust Fund?"
Russert: "But you may have to."
Russert: "But you’ve taken the Social Security Trust Fund off the table, you haven’t taken the Medicare trust fund off the table."
Russert: "But you may have to use it."
Hastert: "Well, I would hope not."
Russert: "The Democrats will raise holy hell if you touch it."
Hastert: "Well, I mean, they’ve spent it every year that they were in control."
Hastert's response was instantly followed with this probing question of previous Democratic policies,
Russert: "Election reform after Florida was supposed to be a big issue. It has been set aside, and now Katherine Harris . . ."
Readers, please witness and remember this simple illustration, of how the DeMedia is always so vitally concerned with how Republican's handle our tax dollars, but could care not a jot or tittle how the Democrats ran the show into the ground for the past half a century.
07/25/01 :Daschle Lying Sack of Shit
I'm asking myself, "Why do you get up at 5:30AM on a Sunday morning to catch Fox News Sunday, if four days later you're finally going to post your observations?" Senate Majority Leader, Tom Daschle was on Fox News Sunday whining about ". . . millionaires getting a $300 check every other day. . ." as a result of the promised Bush tax cut. With individuals earning more than $100,000 per year routinely footing well over 70% of the entire national personal income tax load, wouldn't a person of even average intellect realize that these same "millionaires" would receive a greater benefit from any tax  rollback? Certainly much more than some schlub pushing a broom around between cigarette breaks? Daschle continued his breathless Marilyn Monroe-type mewl as he interjected with " . . . some people get nothing." What people, Senator? People who pay no friggin' taxes in the first place!? Damn! a lie of omission is still a lie. It's a g####m lie! I have in front of me a piece of mail from the IRS addressed to a person who has never held a position (even though an entry level position) for longer than four months, experiences wide gaps between employment, and has never earned more than $8.00 an hour. (All to spite her father.) This communication from the IRS states, "As part of the immediate tax relief you will be receiving a check in the amount of $136.50." And note, TD, you arrogant ($65.38 per hour) bastard, when a person earns $8.00 an hour a check from the U.S. Treasury in the amount of $136.50 represents well over twenty five hours of after-tax earnings and it will be gladly and earnestly appreciated. That being the case Senator Tommy, if a taxpayer bearing the sad work history stepped through above receives a $136.50 'rebate' check, exactly what type of citizen, with what type of work history ". . . gets nothing." ?
07/20/01 :Clarity Continues to Evade Social Security Discussions
I want to thank the folks over at Capitol Hill Blue for keeping on top of the presidential commission studying the future of Social Security. Preliminary reports have the co-chairmen of the commission, Daniel Patrick Moynihan and AOL executive Richard Parsons, writing, "The system is broken." Among other difficulties facing the ultimate Ponzi scheme ever devised is the fact that in only fifteen years Social Security will be paying more out than it is harvesting by silently skimming 12.4% off of every American's paycheck. What about all the trillions of dollars (in face value) of government bonds the Social Security Trust Fund has been accumulating over the past thirty or forty years? It seems that these same bonds, while penciled in as trillions of dollars on the ledgers of the OASDI (Old Age, Survivor and Disability Insurance aka, Social Security) and reaping billions of dollars in interest, are in reality, worthless. How can I claim that? By closely examining a few key sentences in the July 20th, 2001 CHB article where it is revealed that:
" Social Security could redeem government bonds in the trust fund to pay full benefits until 2038, but revenue must be raised to do so, which means tax increases or borrowing, the report said. 'What is important economically is not the amount of bonds in the fund but the real resources backing those bonds,' the report said."
What does that mean? That means these government bonds essentially have a value of zero, zilch, nada until and unless the Feds sell them to private buyers (redeem them, converting the bonds into the billions and billions of dollars they symbolize) or drastically raise Income or FICA taxes to bring in the trillions of dollars represented by the bond's face amount so that the then retired individuals, who were continually promised their own money back at age sixty five, might actually receive it. Back in June of 2000, I calculated how much better off we'd all be under a retirement plan based on investment in the stock market rather than in worthless government bonds.
07/19/01 :Washington Post Pooh Pooh's Border States Fears
Aghast, I read the reprinted Washington Post article inside the pages of Sunday's six pound Arizona Republic newspaper. There in modern 10 point font I saw, "NUEVO LAREDO, Mexico - The new $100,000 Volvo tractor trailer pulled into a spotless terminal here . . . The Mexican owned truck . . . was banned from hauling its cargo into the United States." Speaking of hauling cargo, the Washington Post is hauling an LTL of the exception-to-the-rule.  Mexican tractor trailers are prohibited from willy nilly dashing across our borders for several reasons, some being are to further inhibit the smuggling of drugs, illegal aliens, home-brewed Tequilla and Chinese manufactured assault weapons. The evidence is that no coherent driver training or age or health standards are enforced within the Republic of Mexico. Facts are that the majority of Mexican tractor trailers, bound together with coat hangers and duct tape, are simply 50,000 pound (22,727 kilo) diesel-powered eighteen-wheeled accidents waiting to happen. But, apparently that doesn't concern Washington Post reporters. (Imagine hundreds of Lizzie Grubman's careening down Beltway streets.) Of course few residents reading the Washington Post would ever witness a rickety Mexican tractor trailer bouncing down their boulevards, but residents of our Southwestern states sure would. Witness them breaking down on the freeway in rush hour with miles of traffic behind them. Witness them committing hit and runs. Witness them flying through intersections against the red light. Witness them belching out 100 times more black spunk into our skies than trucks regulated the U.S. government. As it stands, sadly, five thousand lives annually are lost in the U.S. due to tractor trailer mishaps. Are Washington politicians, by opening up our borders to unrestricted, unregulated, and uninspected Mexican truckers, willing to face the funerals of five thousand more?
07/18/01 :China / Taiwan Unification Stories Are Kung Poa Crap
|
Lenin's Tomb
More Photos
|
While even my East Coast readers were slumbering on their $8,000 Dux matresses this morning, I was sweeping the Internet for bits of news. At the Taipei Times I discovered an article which refutes the recent reports of a movement towards a growing acceptance of reunification of Mainland China with the island nation of Taiwan. While a widely disseminated poll indicated 30% of Taiwanese preferred submission to Communist rule, the real numbers are 'only' 20%, a more than 30% difference. Of course our DeMedia, whose members continue to worship Lenin's Communism, shown with glory as they read the errant 30% number. Over at Interfax News the Ruskies report that Russian President Vladimir Putin is railing against the burying of the mummified remains of the mass murdering Vladmir Ilyich Lenin. President Putin states ". . . 'For them Lenin's burial will mean that they worshipped the wrong values, set themselves the wrong tasks and that they lived their lives in vain.' " This statement alone should remind our government officials that President Putin and Premiere Lenin share far more than simply their first names.
|
07/16/01 :3 Million Criminal Illegals to Become Citizens of U.S. ?
 Your Mr. Wonderful is spitting-blood mad at the moment about this Democracy-Killing proposal by the Latino-centric Bush Administration. Check back later for my comments. In the meantime, ponder this: What do we say to my college educated Chinese friend Victor (pronounced 'Whicktor') who paid $100,000 to be allowed to immigrate to the United States? What do we tell my acquaintance Pablo, who in order to trade his Mexican nationality in for a U.S. citizenship risked his life fighting in the Jane Fonda fueled Vietnam War?
07/13/01 :Campaign Finance Falls to House Rules
Yesterday the House sponsored Shays-Mehan Campaign Finance bill was shelved until at least September of 2001. House members (none of who actually want this Constitutionally indefensible bill made into law) just couldn't seem to get together on the set of rules that would determine exactly how proposed amendments to  the bill would be debated. In a vote of 228-203, they decided not to accept the proposed rules (under which each offered modification would be discussed and then voted on one by one) which, in effect, thankfully killed the bill's chances for enactment prior to the Congressional August recess. Having not read the bill, I'll have to rely on what Arizona Representative, Jeff Flake (Republican) said about just one aspect of this legislation. And that was to point out that, if made law, any groups, whether the Sierra Club or The National Right to Life organization, would be prohibited by federal mandate, from publicly speaking about or promoting the campaign of any candidate within 60 to 90 days of the election. Of course the DeMedia, from Viacom's very own CBS to the Bill Gates bundled MSNBC, would encounter no such restrictions on the relentless campaign by their newsreader's to morph our United States into a Moscow on the Hudson. Also, in an attempt to limit six figure contributions by wealthy American's, the Shays-Mehan bill would end all soft money contributions to any political party. However, the bill additionally proposes to limit soft money donations to local and state political parties to a maximum of $10,000 per contributor, even during national campaigns. What a mess that would be. (Recall that 'soft-money' is any money given directly to a political party - rather than a specific candidate - whose leadership then decides how exactly to use that influx of greenbacks.)
07/10/01 :"Tax Cut Endangers SS and Medicare?" How !?
A tip of the hat to my buddy Rusty on pointing this line of liberal bullshit out to me and America.  Of course you've heard the Democrats, with the DeMedia unquestionably repeating as 'hard news', that Bush's tax cuts will seriously damage both Social Security and Medicare. How so? questions Rusty. Both Social Security and Medicare (combined, termed FICA, the "Federal Insurance Contributions Act") are a separate deduction listed on all wage earner's payroll stubs. Together, under FICA, they consume 15.30% of the gross federal taxable wages amount. The employer cedes 6.20% of the employee's gross to 'Social Security' and 1.45% of the gross to 'Medicare.' The employee does likewise. This being so Senator Daschle, could you 'splain to me how a cut solely in the Federal Tax Withholding Percentage Rate (Federal Income Tax) could possibly harm the FICA components, ie., either the "Old Age Survivor & Disability" (aka: Social Security) or the "Hospital Insurance" (aka: Medicare) contributions?
07/02/01 : Gun Control, it's not Just for Criminals
More evidence that 'gun control' just doesn't work was found inside the July 2nd, 2001 posting of thenewsmexico.com web pages. Headlined, "Pacific state suffers rising murder rate", the article details how through June 2001, 282 citizens and 7 policemen were murdered in the narco-controlled Pacific coast state of Sinaloa, Mexico. This is twice the rate of murders that New York City endures. I recall back in the 1970s, when my best buddy Harry used to travel down to old Mexico, typically with a recently purchased handgun stuffed well under the dash of his Lincoln Continental Mark IV. A handgun, that due to extremely stiff Mexican gun laws, would soon fetch 500 American dollars ($4,000 in today's inflated currency) from the Iguana-skin wallets of the millionaire Mexican's he was visiting. What I am documenting is, that for decades, Mexico, with search and seizure powers unrestrained by any meaningful Constitutional guidelines, enjoying enforcement powers our own FBI (and D.C. do-gooders) can only dream of, has had and continues to absolutely demand zero ownership of firearms by private citizens. So how can it be that in a nation where for decades, private gun ownership has been illegal and where the Federales could perform an unannounced body-cavity-search on Salma Hayek's Chihauhau if its droppings even resembled bullets, suffer such a high murder-by-gunfire tally? Because criminals will obtain firearms by any means necessary including stealing them from the police or the armed forces! Understand, like our own liberal-socialist-Marxist's here in the Estados Unidos, Mexico's politicians are not actually bothered by the toll of private citizen's firearm-caused deaths. However, in reality both nation's politico's are intensely concerned with the possible casualties to be inflicted upon pusillanimous public employees committing illegal acts against it's own possibly armed citizens in the not too distant future.
|
