Close Please enter your Username and Password

My Blog

Welcome to my blog!

Federal Accountants: Medicare Insolvent By 2026.
Posted:Apr 25, 2019 6:38 am
Last Updated:Apr 25, 2019 6:39 am
4 Views

It's once again time to update the grim math demonstrating two of the US government's biggest programs -- Medicare and Social Security, which combined to account for nearly 40 percent of all federal spending in 20 -- are going insolvent. Republicans occasionally claim to be serious about saving these programs through needed reforms, but have abandoned their erstwhile task under President Trump's anti-leadership. Democrats have ling been outright denialists, demagoguing and lying about any GOP attempts to shore up the programs, and ludicrously arguing both should be significantly expanded. Here's the unvarnished truth, via the government's own bookkeepers:

The latest report from the government's overseers of Medicare and Social Security show the financial condition of the bedrock retirement programs for middle- and working-class Americans remains shaky. Monday's report paints a sobering picture of the programs, though it's relatively unchanged from last year's update. Social Security would become insolvent in 2035, one year later than previously estimated, with only enough money cover 80 percent of its obligations. Medicare is pointed toward insolvency even sooner, by 2026. But potential cuts such as curbing inflationary increases for Social Security, hiking payroll taxes, or raising the Medicare retirement age from the current 65 are so politically freighted and toxic Washington's power players are mostly ignoring the problem. If Congress doesn't act, both programs would eventually be unable to cover the full cost of promised benefits. With Social Security could mean automatic benefit cuts for most retirees, many of whom depend on the program to cover basic living costs. For Medicare, it could mean hospitals, nursing homes, and other medical providers would be paid only part of their agreed-upon fees.

"Washington's power players" want to avoid this issue, but it's barreling down on all of us. Medicare's 2026 insolvency date aligns with the the first midterm election of the next president, if Trump wins a second term. We aren't talking about decades from now; we're talking about less than a decade from now. And the consequences will be very real for beneficiaries and providers, both of whom would face painful cuts. Not fake DC "cuts," but genuine benefit cuts. Even with a robust economy, the solvency of these massive programs is dwindling away; the costs of Social Security are now projected to exceed the receipts it takes in by...next year, which is actually a very slight improvement, even though the overall trajectory remains relentlessly bleak:

Social Security’s costs are expected to exceed its income in 2020 for the first time since 1982, forcing the program to dip into its nearly $3 trillion trust fund to cover benefits. The improved forecast stems in part from the health of the labor market, which has boosted workers’ paychecks and fueled higher tax revenue. But the programs’ unsustainable long-term outlook is little changed from last year. By 2035, the trust funds for both programs will be depleted, and Social Security will no longer be able to pay its full scheduled benefits...

The government is making enormous promises to current and future retirees -- to the tune of tens of trillions of dollars -- it has no means of keeping. As they currently exist, both Medicare and Social Security will cease to exist unless fiscal reality is recognized, and leaders intervene. The sooner these facts are dealt with, the easier the problems will be to mitigate and fix (with gradually phased-in changes, etc). The longer this can is kicked down the road, however, the more jarring inevitable corrections will be. In the meantime, younger generations are being forced to surrender portions of every paycheck they earn to pay into systems will not be there for them, despite ongoing and dishonest pledges from Uncle Sam. These bogus, unfunded promises will have real consequences for real people, yet Washington is ignorant, short-sighted and paralyzed. Worse, as I mentioned above, half of Washington wants to hugely expand these programs. Democrats have been talking about expanding Social Security, and "Medicare for All" is now a mainstream, if not dominant, policy position among elected Democrats and their party's 2020 presidential field.
Under single-payer healthcare, Medicare 'as we know it' would actually be abolished, with all current recipients dumped into a new, government-run, no-choice system. Proponents like Bernie Sanders and Kamala Harris admit their plan would outlaw virtually all private coverage, banning the plans of roughly 180 million people, most of whom are satisfied with their existing arrangements. The federal government cannot even figure out how to make good on already-made Medicare vows to future seniors. Now they want to erect an entirely different system, with no opt-out, for every single American? Doing so would cost at least $3.2 trillion in additional federal spending every year. For reference, the government spent $4 trillion in 20. Total. Leftists can try to gloss over the requisite, bruising tax increases all they want, but they can't erase the stubborn math. Finally, reassuring talk about "supplemental" insurance not being made completely illegal (how generous of them!) is also misleading:

Accountants: Our two biggest entitlement programs are going insolvent.

Republicans: 's super irresponsible, but we don't really want to do anything.

Democrats: Let's take those two programs, massively expand them (and force every single American into a mammoth new version of one of them), figure out pesky fiscal details later, and then -- hear us out -- we'll be legends.

By Guy Benson
1 comment
Incredible and Insane
Posted:Apr 24, 2019 5:26 am
Last Updated:Apr 25, 2019 5:24 am
111 Views

Psychologist Madeleine van der Bruggen is an adviser to the Dutch National Police, as a supposed expert on sex crimes. She is using her position of authority to lobby on behalf of pedophiles, arguing at TEDxSittard-Geleen they are “born” with this “sexual orientation.”

“We’re talking about biology, we’re talking about sexual orientation,” she said. “Something we simply cannot change, and on top of , everyday new people are born with the same difficulty, so its not practical to eliminate these people from society.”

“They haven’t done anything wrong,” van der Bruggen said of individuals who find sexual attraction to children.

The talk was given last year at the TEDxSittardGeleen conference, a spin-off of the popular Ted talks series is organized independently.

The Dutch psychologist argued during her speech more leniency is needed for pedophiles. She built her argument using emotional appeals to the audience.

“In fact, sex offenders aren’t all those violent gruesome men waiting in the bushes for children they can attack,” she said.

Van der Bruggen even seemed to imply because some pedophiles have friends, family and ties to the community these individuals should be coddled by the system instead of punished for their acts.

Then she took it a step further and had the audacity to suggest to the audience their fathers, husbands, and sons could very well be pedophiles.

“What if this time the offender is your neighbor, your colleague, your football mate?” she asked the audience. “What if this time the offender is your husband or your son? What if this time the police show up at your doorstep?”

She made note pedophiles should be jailed if they have “committed a lot of offenses,” but seemed okay with letting child sex offenders free if they had only committed a handful of crimes.

“We shouldn’t think about this problem only from a criminal justice perspective… Of course when someone has committed a lot of offenses and doesn’t ever intend to stop, we should punish them, but the criminal justice system is only meant to be a last resort, and we should keep it way,” she said.

After a bizarre non-sequitur about #metoo hysteria, she concluded her speech arguing society needs to “break the taboo” surrounding pedophilia and sex crimes.

“Let’s stop with hate. Let’s stop with negative vibes in the media, and let’s stop with throwing rocks at offenders’ houses because it’s not going to take us anywhere,” van der Bruggen said.

Van der Bruggen’s speech is apart of a global trend to mainstream the sexualization of children and remove social stigma for pedophiles. Drag queens are openly grooming children at public libraries, children as young as eight are being drugged for gender reassignment surgery, states are doling out millions to entities promoting child abuse, and gyrating kids are centerpieces for strip shows at bars.

Modern liberals are enthusiastically sacrificing the innocence of children on the altar of diversity and tolerance. The West will continue down the slippery slope toward Sodom and Gomorrah until progressivism is brought to an end.

I found this on Big League Politics and although I have seen similar articles before I just found this one to be the most sicking one I have read.
14 Comments
Justin Trudeau's Mounting Political Troubles
Posted:Apr 23, 2019 7:43 pm
Last Updated:Apr 25, 2019 4:24 am
81 Views

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau continued his struggle to contain the fallout from one of the biggest political scandals in Canadian history.

The controversy centers on a Quebec-based construction firm, SNC-Lavalin, accused of bribing the Gaddafi regime in Libya to win government contracts. Canada’s former Attorney General Jody Wilson-Rabould says she was pressured by the Trudeau administration to settle corruption charges with SNC-Lavalin, a move which would have avoided the company being barred from bidding on government contracts. would have hurt both the company and its workforce, a significant proportion of whom work in Quebec — Trudeau’s home province.

The prime minister’s critics say his administration—and Trudeau himself—improperly interfered; Trudeau and his supporters claim he was only looking out for the well being of Canadian citizens and did nothing improper. As ever, the reality lies somewhere in the middle.

Jane Philpott quit as head of the Treasury Board, which oversees government spending. Her departure was an expression of dismay Mr Trudeau’s handling of the worst scandal to befall his government since it took office in October 2015. Two members of his cabinet and his closest aide have resigned so far. His fans’ cheers in Toronto could not disguise the fact his government is in crisis. Mr Trudeau’s hope of re-election in October this has been dented.

Time and Investors as sources
7 Comments
After Mueller, Nobody Has Changed Their Views on Trump
Posted:Apr 23, 2019 11:27 am
Last Updated:Apr 24, 2019 7:05 pm
110 Views

Nothing has changed.

Just about no one has moved away from where they stood on Nov. 9, 20, when they woke up trying to comprehend Donald J. Trump had overcome the odds, the press and his own shortcomings to win presidential election.

If you voted for him, you are still thrilled and optimistic about the future. I outlined in the book I co-authored with Brad Todd, "The Great Revolt," the election was never quite about Trump. Many of his voters saw his flaws with eyes wide open and voted heavily out of concern for their community, not necessary for themselves.

Many who did not vote for Trump loathe him with the intensity of a white-hot poker prodding at their soul. Their hair is still on fire, and nothing in the world can extinguish it until he is out of the White House, preferably in handcuffs.
If you are a reporter who lives and works within the counties surround Washington, D.C., New York, Chicago or Los Angeles, it's been a tough go. You don't work with anyone in your newsroom who would have voted for Trump. You don't socialize with anyone who voted for Trump. And you likely don't know anyone at your children's school who voted for Trump.

Many reporters, though not all, often view these voters monolithically rather than as the complex coalition they have formed, painting them with a broad brush. They see the Trump voters as foolish or fooled at best, and as bigoted, unintelligent and backward at worst.des.

Reporters marvel at these voters' unwillingness to give up on a struggling town and move to a larger city or region, never understanding they often happily trade a higher salary or a career with bonuses in another city for staying in a community where they have deep roots.

Since the day after Trump won, reports on his win focused heavily on his loss of the popular vote. Then there were the overhyped stories about a Wisconsin recount. Then the story developed he only won because of Russia and he probably helped Russia "hack the election."

This simply reinforced Trump backers' support for the man. Haters will hate.
Which brings us back to this: Nothing has changed since Election Day 20, because everything had changed for the C-suite influencers who control our culture, politics, entertainment, big tech and news consumption. They chose to ignore the signs -- or, in their arrogance, they just missed what had been in plain sight for decades.

The fusion of conservatives and populists who make up the Trump coalition placed Trump in the White House will continue long after whatever date the president leaves office. And despite the efforts of the press, and despite Trump's own actions, those in the Trump coalition are unlikely to change their mind, because the only alternative is an elite who paints them as a villainous segment of our society.

Salena Zito is a CNN political analyst, and a staff reporter and columnist for the Washington Examiner
12 Comments
Obama administration was corrupt, more and more evidence reveals daily
Posted:Apr 23, 2019 5:20 am
Last Updated:Apr 24, 2019 5:56 am
142 Views

There was so much hope in January 2009 when Barack Obama took office. Here was the first black president of the United States, promising to be a leader for all Americans, to halt the rise of the oceans and to be the most transparent administration ever. Even black Americans were saying the Civil War was finally over.

Unfortunately for America, it didn’t turn out way. As more and more evidence is revealed daily on the evening news, it is now very clear the Obama administration was the most corrupt presidency in the history of the republic.

As Mr. Obama’s favorite, President Abraham Lincoln, warned us, the most dangerous threats can come from domestic enemies.

First of all, bit about being a leader for all Americans, color-blind if you will, was a tall tale. Mr. Obama never missed an opportunity to sow racial divide. During his term in the Oval Office, racial relations literally went off the cliff. Mr. Obama and first lady Michelle promoted the false narrative white America was literally guilty of hunting down blacks with glee. They whipped up resentment in minority communities against the police, even though a Harvard study found blacks are no more likely to be killed by police than whites.

But the racial divisions, as painful and heartbreaking as they are, were not the worst of it.

The abuse of power started to become clear when it was revealed the Internal Revenue Service was biased against conservatives. I still don’t understand why woman is not in jail. She sat there and lied to the American people and to Congress with no accountability.

Mr. Obama used the agencies, and the awesome power of the federal government, against his political enemies. He used the power of the state against those he didn’t like. This was full-on banana republic dictator kind of stuff.

The negligence at Veterans’ Affairs, the “stimulus bill” was simply a redistribution to unions (those “shovel ready projects” weren’t so shovel ready after all), the sale of uranium to the Russians, the lies about Benghazi, the Clinton email scandal was not prosecuted, the appeasement of the Iranians — even sending billions in cash in the middle of the night and bragging about how they lied to the American press and public, the use of financial penalties to fund leftist causes, the use of the Environmental Protection Administration (EPA) to take property from Americans, on, and on, and on. I literally could go on forever.

However, the coup-de-grace is what we are now learning about the 20 election and the criminal spying on the Trump campaign.

The president of the United States was set up. Mr. Trump is exactly right. The weaponization of our intelligence and security services has damaged their reputation for generations, and the rule of law, to which this great nation is so committed, has been irreparably damaged as well.

I’ve said it before, the Obama administration was nothing more than highly organized crime.

Justice will be served. It may take a while, but the truth will continue to come out.

It’s a shame the administration of the first black president was also the most corrupt. Such a lost opportunity to better this great country.

It’s not hard to understand. Still, it’s difficult to accept.

It shouldn’t happen here.

Washington Times Article
15 Comments
Plot Twist: CNN Contributor Blames Obama & Susan Rice For Russian Meddling
Posted:Apr 22, 2019 2:35 pm
Last Updated:Apr 23, 2019 1:08 pm
72 Views

In a bizarre twist, CNN writer Scott Jennings is shifting the blame for the dreaded Russian Meddling™ from Trump and onto Obama and Susan Rice.

Jennings actually points out that the *alleged* interference took place under their watch, and says that Rice had opportunities to investigate and intervene, but chose not to, in part because Obama was the one actually making deals with Putin, and blaming Trump is just a smoke screen.

Highlights of the article:

The partisan warfare over the Mueller report will rage, but one thing cannot be denied: Former President Barack Obama looks just plain bad. On his watch, the Russians meddled in our democracy while his administration did nothing about it.

The Mueller report flatly states that Russia began interfering in American democracy in 2014. Over the next couple of years, the effort blossomed into a robust attempt to interfere in our 2016 presidential election. The Obama administration knew this was going on and yet did nothing. In 2016, Obama’s National Security Adviser Susan Rice told her staff to “stand down” and “knock it off” as they drew up plans to “strike back” against the Russians, according to an account from Michael Isikoff and David Corn in their book “Russian Roulette: The Inside Story of Putin’s War on America and the Election of Donald Trump”.

Why did Obama go soft on Russia? My opinion is that it was because he was singularly focused on the nuclear deal with Iran. Obama wanted Putin in the deal, and to stand up to him on election interference would have, in Obama’s estimation, upset that negotiation. This turned out to be a disastrous policy decision.

Obama’s supporters claim he did stand up to Russia by deploying sanctions after the election to punish them for their actions. But, Obama, according to the Washington Post, “approved a modest package… with economic sanctions so narrowly targeted that even those who helped design them describe their impact as largely symbolic.” In other words, a toothless response to a serious incursion.

A legitimate question Republicans are asking is whether the potential “collusion” narrative was invented to cover up the Obama administration’s failures. Two years have been spent fomenting the idea that Russia only interfered because it had a willing, colluding partner: Trump. Now that Mueller has popped that balloon, we must ask why this collusion narrative was invented in the first place.

Given Obama’s record on Russia, one operating theory is that his people needed a smokescreen to obscure just how wrong they were. They’ve blamed Trump. They’ve even blamed Mitch McConnell, in some twisted attempt to deflect blame to another branch of government.

But the Mueller report makes it clear that the Russian interference failure was Obama’s alone. He was the commander-in-chief when all of this happened. He arguably chose to prioritize his relationship with Putin vis-à-vis Iran over pushing back against Russian election interference that had been going on for at least two years.
6 Comments
TWAS THE NIGHT BEFORE “MUELLER”
Posted:Apr 18, 2019 7:29 pm
Last Updated:Apr 22, 2019 7:42 am
174 Views

Twas the Night before “Mueller”

And all through D.C.

They waited to hear from

Bill Barr, the AG

The probe has gone on

For a couple of

And if it finds nothing

They’ll all be in tears

They won’t believe Barr

Not a word he says

They’ll trash him and say

He’s protecting the Prez

Those lame late-night comics

With unfunny jokes

Will never let go of

The “Trump/Russia” hoax

Those so-called reporters

Who leaked and who lied

Will never admit

the government SPIED

The people who think of

Themselves as “progressive”

Are crazy, deluded

And downright obsessive

The members of Congress

Who live to impeach him,

With legions of lawyers,

They simply can’t reach him

On Nadler! On Waters!

On ALL you Trump-haters

Spend MORE time on lawyers

And investigators

You have to pursue it

To hold down the lid

On all the lawbreaking

HILLARY did

You have to distract

From our own DOJ

And how it misused

A corrupt “dossier”

But WE know the truth

(’s why YOU must be terrified):

None of the “evidence”

Ever was verified

So, HOW did this start

And how high did it go?

As high as Obama?

Just what did HE know?

I’ll bet we find out

Obama was in on it

(Friendly reporters

Will put the right spin on it)

You wanted to win

So you broke all the rules

And STILL Clinton lost

, do YOU look like fools

It’s YOU who "colluded"

We know it’s true

It’s time to be turning

The tables on YOU

So grab you some coffee

(Perhaps some Imodium)

It’s almost nine-thirty ---

There’s Barr the podium!


By Laura Ainsworth
5 Comments
Now They Tell Us
Posted:Apr 18, 2019 3:30 pm
Last Updated:Apr 19, 2019 5:24 am
153 Views

Warning To Mothers

Immediately stop feeding Rice Krispies to your children. It is not absorbed in your body in a healthy manner. It is stored in your body, and the effects become visible when you are older. I used to eat Rice Krispies, and now that I am older I can testify to the effects of this. Every morning when I wake up and get of bed, everything in my body snaps, crackles and pops.

Pass this along to everyone to stop this from happening in their old age.

JUS SAYIN
11 Comments
Left will continue to 'believe in Russia collusion' even after Mueller report release
Posted:Apr 18, 2019 5:30 am
Last Updated:Apr 18, 2019 7:37 pm
133 Views

The Russia collusion narrative is unlikely to go away even after the Robert Mueller report is released later today, Washington Examiner chief political correspondent Byron York predicts.

“A lot of Democrats have invested the last years of their life in believing that there was collusion between Russia to fix the 20 election. Don’t think they gonna give it up just because of this,” York told “Fox and Friends”.
The prediction comes as Washington, D.C. is bracing for the release of the Mueller report that according to Attorney General William Barr didn’t establish collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

York pointed out that after Barr outlined the report’s conclusions in a letter and quoted Mueller stating that the evidence didn’t establish a conspiracy or coordination between Russia and the Trump campaign, many Democrats began doubling-down on the collusion charges.

“Immediately people on the left said maybe he couldn't prove a criminal conspiracy but maybe there was some other sort of conspiracy. Or maybe he couldn't prove to beyond a reasonable doubt but maybe there is evidence that the rest of us can believe,” York said.

“I really think we have already seen and they already tipped their hands that they are going to continue to believe in collusion.”

On the obstruction of justice charges, York says those opposing President Trump will have even more to talk about after the report release as Mueller himself didn’t reach a conclusion about obstruction charges.

“If the Barr summary is pretty accurate, Mueller did not reach a conclusion about obstruction. That's a question right there. He is a prosecutor. He has all the evidence. Why didn't he reach some sort of conclusion?” he said.
“There will be a lot of ammunition, we know that already for Trump's critics who say that firing James Comey or the Lester Holt interview or something else was proof of obstruction right there in front of our eyes. So I don't think that argument is going to go away at all.”

Lastly, even if the Mueller report doesn’t find wrongdoing by Trump, it’s unlikely to end the talk of impeachment by Democrats even as the 2020 election nears.

“If you believed in impeachment before the Mueller report, why would you stop believing in it now?,” York said, pointing that there’s a conflict within the Democratic Party on how to proceed with this.

“You have a lot of the leadership like Nancy Pelosi wanting to move on, these are the more senior people wanting to move on, wanting to focus on the legislative agenda,” he continued.

“But you are going to have the investigative committees, the judiciary committee, the intelligence committee investigating this stuff all the way until the next election.”

By Lukas Mikelionis
9 Comments
Michelle Obama demeans Divorced Fathers
Posted:Apr 17, 2019 6:32 am
Last Updated:Apr 18, 2019 4:01 am
230 Views

Michelle Obama made the following statement in an interview with Stephen Colbert:“Sometimes you spend the weekend with a divorced dad. That feels like fun but then you get sick," Obama told Colbert. "That is what America is going through. We’re kind of living with divorced dad.”

I for one find her remarks both demeaning and insulting. My two children did not want to live with their Mother after our divorce. They both lived with me and it was at that time a responsibility I did not take lightly. In fact I relished the responsibility. I never asked them why I just kept being the best Dad I could be. Weren't perfect by any stretch but I tried.

My problem with her statement is it's not just insulting to men and for every woman and man out in that audience who didn't quite know why she was insulting them but it relies also on the other side of the coin which is the gender stereotype of women that all women are supposed to be either great mothers or only women can raise children or only women can be good parents.

I don't think that its written in stone that only women are the only ones who can raise children. I think Mrs Obama owes the divorced Dads an APOLOGY for her statement.
11 Comments

To link to this blog (bigblock46) use [blog bigblock46] in your messages.