3 Unbelievable Food Stamp Statistics in America

Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG.

 

Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

 

3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

 

4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”.

 

However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives.

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

Reblogged from: http://www.capitalisminstitute.org

 

Food stamps cover steak, lobster, and caviar.

Yesterday, I made an image to post on Facebook explaining this, and it went viral. As of right now, almost 2,000 people have shared it, and plenty of people have reacted in anger, explaining that I hate the poor. I’ve deleted several comments telling me to go to Hell, telling me I’m a Nazi, and telling me I hate babies.

This is, of course, absurd. But let’s ignore the angry rhetoric and look at what’s actually going on when it comes to food stamps. People are horrified to talk about this, because they’ll instantly be labeled bad words, and theft has become a way of life in a post-bailout America.

But this is Capitalism Institute — the goal is to speak the truth no matter whose toes are stepped on.

Unbelievable Statistics About Food Stamps

This isn’t just a fringe problem. Food stamps are becoming an inherent part of American life as almost every grocery line has someone using a debit card filled with other peoples’ money to spend on whatever they choose. In fact:

• Over 45,000,000 Americans are on food stamps. That means 1 in 7. To visualize this, that means every pew in every church is filled with someone who is living — literally — off the money of everyone else sitting on that pew. Not family members, not kids living off parents — adults living off of other adults.

• Food stamps cover luxury items like lobster and filet mignon. An image circulated a few days ago of a receipt in which someone had $200+ worth of lobster tail and Mountain Dew and paid for it with a food stamp card. The grocery store confirmed it was true. When I was poor, I ate rice and beans and worried about paying my bills on time. For those on food stamps, eating cheaply isn’t necessary. This is disgusting, and is a backwards incentive. When I was poor I had a friend who began smoking pot an living off of welfare, bragging at how easy it was. Lives are ruined when you have broken policy.

• A family of five gets $700+ for food alone. However, people who are on food stamps get at least $100 per person, on average alone. That means people who are actually poor receive well over this per person. From the federal government alone, a family of five can receive $793 per month, not including the 180 free meals also offered at public school for the school-aged kids.

This is just food stamps alone. This isn’t about housing welfare, free college payments, infant assistance, free public schooling, or actual cash from the government. This is the food program alone. For many people, it makes far more sense to eat salmon on food stamps than to accept a part time job and risk losing the “free” money.

People on welfare eat better than many people in the middle class who don’t qualify. That is wrong. And no, this isn’t just an occasional bit of fraud. This is what the system is supposed to do. Someone told me yesterday that he worked in a grocery store, told a lady that food stamps didn’t cover the dog food she picked, so she went back and got t-bones.

That should upset you.

If you support welfare existing to stop starvation from being possible, then that’s one thing. I get it. Babies dying of malnutrition isn’t exactly what the goal is. But there’s no way around the fact that welfare should be reformed, cut, and that we should focus on giving tax cuts to the middle class to make it easier to leave poverty in the first place.

Why Welfare Reform Matters

Why does this matter? Because 1 in 7 Americans are on food stamps. Average it out, and almost every house in America has a welfare recipient in food stamps alone — not counting Social Security, disability, or the billions in other programs.

This is insane. And to the libertarians reading this — this should upset you just as much as corporate welfare, if not more, because these people are voters. At some point, that number is going to be so high that it won’t matter anymore, because defeating a socialist when half the voters are getting checks will be impossible.

This isn’t about being anti-poor. This is about saving the republic and saving capitalism. Poor people not getting free lobsters at the cost of the middle class is just basic common sense — but if you dare say this in public, you’ll be demonized.

This isn’t a theoretical risk in the future. This is right now. The system is working as it’s planned to work — to create a dependent class of people who will vote for any socialist because they want cash and all the food they can eat. This is wrong. And that’s why welfare reform matters.

Harry Reid: Government Needs to Steal More from the Middle Class

Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG.

 

Here is some information and my rules:

1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

 

3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

 

4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”.

 

However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives.

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

Reblogged from:http://www.infowars.com

 

Posted by:Kurt Nimmo

If Reid really cared about poor people and a dwindling middle class, he would help us get rid of the Federal Reserve

Corporatists and banksters controlling government and the money supply is the problem. Illustration: David Dees

Senate Majority Leader, Nevada Democrat Harry Reid, wants the government to steal more money from the middle class and dole it out to the victims of the Federal Reserve created economic depression.

“Even as the economy creates jobs, too many Americans find themselves on the sidelines watching as the rich get richer, the poor get poorer and the middle class are getting squeezed and squeezed,” Reid said on Thursday.

“There is no greater challenge this country has than income inequality. And we must do something about it.”

Reid’s solution to income inequality is to tax and borrow more and give money to the unemployed. Democrats like to tell you this money will come from the super rich. But they know the super rich don’t pay taxes. From offshore tax havens to shell games, foundations and equity swaps, the rich rarely if ever pay taxes. Large multinational corporations with teams of lawyers don’t pay taxes either. GE, for instance, avoided paying taxes by socking $108 billion overseas.

So when Harry Reid talks about redistributing more money to the unemployed, he’s talking about taxing the middle class. He’s also talking about taxing the small businessman who can’t afford fancy tax lawyers and does not have the option to move money to the Cayman Islands or Lichtenstein.

According to recent Small Business Administration and the Bureau of Labor Statistics figures, around 85 percent of all new jobs are created by small business. If Harry Reid and the Democrats raise taxes on small business, the net result will be less capital for business and less jobs created. Higher taxation leads to business cutting expenditures and laying off people. Harry Reid and the Democrats will create even more unemployment and misery.

There is, however, an upside to Reid’s demand, at least for Democrat career politicians. It will create more Democrat voters. Many of them will not have jobs. But they will vote for Democrats in order to continue receiving unemployment insurance and food stamps. Amnesty is basically the same thing. It will create millions of new Democrat voters.

If Reid and the Democrats really cared about poor people and a dwindling middle class, they would get rid of the Federal Reserve, throw out the bankers who designed the last so-called recession, and restore honest money instead of fiat currency based on nothing and exploited by fractional reserve criminals.

Corporatists and banksters controlling government and the money supply is the problem. Harry Reid knows this. His top election donors include JP Morgan Chase, AT&T, MGM, Comcast and big gambling casinos.

That’s who he answers to. Not the American people.

 

U.S. GOV’T ‘BUYING UP’ AK-47 RIFLES

Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG.

 

Here is some information and my rules:

 1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

 2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

 

 3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

 

 4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”.

 

However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives.

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

Reblogged from:http://www.wnd.com

 

Posted by:

 

But Obama pushing gun control on American citizens

US buying up AK-47’s

 

Secretary of State John Kerry signing the United Nations small arms treaty is nothing more than empty symbolism, and President Obama will get nowhere in his latest attempt to advance gun-control legislation, says Bill Frady, host of “Lock ‘n’ Load Radio” presented by Gun Owners of America, who also noted that the U.S. government has been buying up AK-47 rifles and ammunition.

Kerry signed the U.N.’s Arms Trade Treaty this week while in New York City for the opening of the U.N. General Assembly. Supporters say it would clamp down on weapons trafficking between rogue regimes and terrorist organizations. Frady told WND it would have a restricting effect on law-abiding gun owners in the U.S. as well.

“It also dictates to the signing states that they have to impose new rules and regulations within their nations to make sure they’re able to comply with this treaty and that covers small arms,” Frady said. “Terrorists are not running around with American-made weapons. They’re running around with AKs. There’s various nations that will underwrite any cause (such as) Russia, China. The AK is the prevalent weapon on the planet. So we’re not the problem. I did notice that along the way (Obama) did manage to get in there and back Syrian rebels to the tune of $340 million.

“I’m sure he wants to arm them,” he said. “The United States Army has been buying AKs and AK magazines and AK ammo. I’m just presuming that they want to send that to our Syrian brethren, the great rebel freedom fighters, so they’ll have something they’re accustomed to.”

Like any treaty, this one would need two-thirds support in the U.S. Senate to be ratified in this country. A procedural vote months ago shows the plan cannot even draw a simple majority in the Democratically controlled chamber. As a result, Frady said Kerry and Obama embracing the treaty is just window dressing.

“For a moment, it’s a symbolic victory for him, but that’s going to last about five minutes,” said Frady, who believes Obama will try to tell his base this is the best he can do given the current makeup of Congress.

Other gun-rights advocates are more fearful that Obama may try to implement the treaty through executive orders if the Senate continues it’s opposition. Senate Foreign Relations Committee ranking member Bob Corker has written the president and strongly discouraged enforcing any component of the treaty without Senate ratification. Frady believes Obama could pay a hefty price if he defies the Senate.

“If he were to actually try to do that, that might be a turning point for a lot of people.  Clearly, he doesn’t have the mandate that he thinks he does.  Gun control is not on the minds of too many people right now in the wake of everything that’s been going on around here.  The gun free zone is what’s on everybody’s mind,” said Frady.  ”I think that would be a very bad move.”

The Democratic push for additional gun-control legislation failed to advance in the U.S. Senate earlier this year. Nonetheless, President Obama made another plea for Americans to demand new laws earlier this week. At the memorial service for Washington Navy Yard shooting victims, Obama asked if Americans “care enough” about the victims to press relentlessly for additional gun restrictions.

“Of course we care enough. The gun-owning populace cringes, not because we know we’re having to gird ourselves for more gun control talk but because we don’t like innocent lives being snuffed,” Frady said. “Sixty-nine hundred times a day, people defend themselves with guns. A gun is a tool.”

Frady pointed to a recent slashing spree on a Texas campus as proof that people need guns to defend themselves because threats to life can come in many forms.

“He went into a college where they didn’t have any guns and he slashed with impunity. The fact that nobody died is just dumb luck,” he said. “It’s a very blatant reality that where you don’t allow people to arm themselves, they are fish in a barrel.”

The gun debate may be off the front burner in Washington but it’s red hot in some states.  Maryland’s new gun-control laws take effect next week and voters recalled two Colorado lawmakers who backed new restrictions in that state.

One of the marquee races this November is the race for governor of Virginia between state Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli and former Democratic Party chairman Terry McAuliffe. In a state where Democrats have historically shied away from gun-control rhetoric and even court the National Rifle Association, McAuliffe is now rolling the dice by backing universal background checks, magazine capacity limits and a return to Virginia’s former policy of only allowing one gun purchase per month. Some of those positions mirror the new laws in Colorado.

“It’s sort of like Terry McAuliffe is trying to parachute into Virginia and tell everybody in Virginia that is law-abiding that ‘I’m smarter than you and I know how to take care of you.’ Go ahead and embrace Ken Cuccinelli, Virginia,” Frady said. “You will not be sorry.”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/09/u-s-govt-buying-up-ak-47-rifles/#YUyEIbjRpvRl5jyY.99

 

NEW BENGHAZI CLAIM: MYSTERY MAN WITH SLAIN AMBASSADOR

Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG.

 

Here is some information and my rules:

 1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

 2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

 

 3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

 

 4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”.

 

However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives.

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

Reblogged from:http://www.wnd.com

 

Posted by:AARON KLEIN

Report adds another layer of intrigue to attack on U.S. mission

JERUSALEM – A four-page incident report written by a private contractor that provided security to the U.S. compound in Benghazi, Libya, adds yet another layer of intrigue to the Sept. 11, 2012, attack.

The report, for the first time, claims that another American aside from Ambassador Christopher Stevens was being treated at the Libyan hospital reportedly controlled by the Ansar Al-Sharia terrorist group.

The American was described in the report by the private Blue Mountain Group as being “black” and shot in the hand. The report says the man was presumed to be “one of the ambassador’s close protection team as both were black.”

The State Department’s Accountability Review Board report, or ARB, detailed what it claimed was the official version of events during and after the attack. The ARB report does not mention any other American at the hospital with Stevens.

The ARB report states only that Stevens’ body was transported from the hospital to the Benghazi airport. The ARB does not describe how Stevens’ body was released from a hospital said to be under Ansar Al-Sharia’s control.

The Blue Mountain report raises questions about who was holding Stevens’ body, whether the ambassador was kidnapped and whether any other American was present at the hospital.

The State Department confirmed the report leaked to the news media in recent days matches the version sent to the U.S. government by the Blue Mountain Group.

The Washington Post said the incident report was written by the man interviewed by “60 Minutes” last week, identified by the pseudonym Morgan Jones, who is the author of a new book on Benghazi.

The Post revealed what it said was Jones’ real name, Dylan Davies.

The incident report, written in the first person allegedly from the perspective of Davies, contradicts key elements of Davies’ account in his book and in his “60 Minutes” interview.

Davies, however, told the Daily Beast he did not write the report, nor had he ever seen it. The report was not signed by anyone.

The report states Davies returned to his villa immediately after the attack while Davies writes in his book he attempted to reach the Benghazi compound but couldn’t do so because of Ansar al-Sharia roadblocks.

The incident report says Davies learned of Stevens’ death from a Blue Mountain guard who had apparently secretly gone to the hospital and had taken a photo of the ambassador’s body. Davies writes in his book, however, he was the guard who infiltrated the hospital and verified Stevens was dead.

Davies said the Blue Mountain incident report matches a version he told to a superior at his firm. He told the Daily Beast he failed to report his own personal involvement in going to the hospital and the fated compound since a top Blue Mountain executive had asked him to stand down.

While most of the news coverage surrounding the Blue Mountain report focuses on how the version conflicts with the story told by Davies in his book, far more telling may be the details of the report itself.

The Blue Mountain incident report relates that Davies learned of Stevens’ death from another contractor who had gone to the hospital. The report, for the first time, claims a second American was at the hospital.

“I asked (blank) if any other Americans were at the hospital and he said yes, a black man who had been shot in the hand. I presumed that this was one of the Ambassador’s close protection team as both men were black.”

The report does not relate the fate of the other American it said was at the hospital.

The ARB report – reviewed in full by WND – does not mention any other American as being at the hospital.

The ARB details how Stevens’ guard, identified in the State-sanctioned report as “ARSO 1,” brought the ambassador and officer Sean Smith into a bathroom while smoke engulfed the building during the attack.

“ARSO 1” escaped through a window, states the ARB, believing Stevens and Smith were following him, and later re-entered the building to search for Stevens and Smith. He made it to the roof of the compound, where he radioed for assistance.

The ARB relates “ARSO 1” was rescued by a small team that made it back to the nearby CIA safe house.

The ARB states Stevens was taken to the hospital by what it claimed were “Good Samaritans” who found his body in the compound. The ARB doesn’t explain how the supposed Good Samaritans made it past the Ansar al-Sharia checkpoints.

The ARB briefly relates that Stevens’ body was later “brought to the airport in what appeared to be a local ambulance at 0825 local.”

Stevens kidnapped?

There have been questions about whether Stevens was kidnapped.

The questions reached a fevered pitch in June when Abdallah Dhu-al-Bajadin, who was identified by U.S. officials speaking to the Washington Free Beacon as a known weapons experts for al-Qaida, wrote on a jihadi website that Stevens was killed by lethal injection after plans to kidnap him during the Benghazi assault went awry.

A detail provided in testimony by Gregory Hicks, former deputy chief of the U.S. mission in Libya, may require further investigation in light on the claim.

Hicks, a Benghazi whistleblower, said the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli, Libya, was told Stevens was taken to a hospital controlled by Ansar Al-Sharia, the group originally believed to have been behind the Benghazi attack.

Stated Hicks: “We began to hear also that the ambassador has been taken to a hospital. We don’t know initially which hospital it is, but we – through David’s reports we learned that it is in a hospital which is controlled by Ansar Sharia, the group that Twitter feeds had identified as leading the attack on the consulate.”

Hicks was referring to David McFarland, the U.S. Tripoli embassy’s political section chief.

Hicks said he received a call from the Libyan prime minister informing him of Stevens’ death. Prior to the phone call, he said, the embassy received several other calls from a cell phone that had been with the ambassador, claiming to have Stevens’ body.

Hicks repeated the assertion that Stevens was being held in a hospital controlled by Ansar al-Sharia.

“Before I got the call from the prime minister, we’d received several phone calls on the phone that had been with the ambassador saying that we know where the ambassador is, please, you can come get him,” stated Hicks.

“And our local staff engaged on those phone calls admirably, asking very, very good, outstanding, even open-ended questions about where was he, trying to discern whether he was alive, whether they even had the ambassador, whether that person was with the ambassador, send a picture, could we talk to the ambassador?”

He continued: “Because we knew separately from David that the ambassador was in a hospital that we believe was under Ansar Sharia’s call, we – we suspected that we were being baited into a trap, and so we did not want to go send our people into an ambush. And we didn’t.”

Stevens reportedly was pronounced dead in the Benghazi Medical Center. The center fell into the hands of the rebels during the U.S. and NATO-supported revolution that overthrew the regime of Muammar Gadhafi.

The jihadist rebels reportedly routinely received treatment at the hospital.

The Free Beacon reported today that al-Bajadin’s claim was not immediately being rejected by U.S. law enforcement officials probing the death of Stevens.

In the March 14 posting on the Ansar al-Mujahideen Network, an al Qaida-linked jihadi website, al-Bajadin claimed Stevens was given a lethal injection that was overlooked during the medical autopsy on his body.

Al-Bajadin wrote “the plan was based on abduction and exchange of high-level prisoners.”

“However, the operation took another turn, for a reason God only knows, when one of the members of the jihadist cell improvised and followed Plan B,” he wrote.

Al-Bajadin explained that a lethal injection is given in “more than one place in the human body that autopsy doctors ignore when they see that the symptoms are similar to another specific and common illness.”

“Anyone who studied the art of silent assassination that spies applied during the Cold War would easily identify these parts of the body,” he said.

The terrorist wrote that he waited until now to reveal the botched kidnapping and lethal injection because “the cell” behind “the infiltrative and secret operation is now completely safe from intelligence bureaus.”

With additional research by Joshua Klein.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/11/new-benghazi-claim-mystery-man-with-slain-ambassador/#d2J1tFolpH4KTWjR.99

House Republicans Are Finally Trying to IMPEACH Eric Holder

Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG.

 

Here is some information and my rules:

 1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

 2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

 

 3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

 

 4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”.

 

However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives.

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

Reblogged from: http://www.capitalisminstitute.org

 

Posted by:

A group of House Republicans are making a move to finally impeach Attorney General Eric Holder and remove him from office.

Eric Holder is behind Fast and Furious, has targeted journalists who challenged Obama, and has constantly trampled on the US Constitution. He should be immediately impeached.

Whether this process takes off still depends on getting more Republicans on board, grassroots activism, and getting past the party establishment. This needs all the public support it can get — please spread the word.

 

The National Review Online has reported:

A group of Republican congressmen are taking the first steps to impeach a Cabinet secretary for only the second time in American history with the target set on Attorney General Eric Holder.

Freshman congressman Ted Yoho of Florida told a local newspaper that he is hopeful that he and a handful of other lawmakers will meet with John Boehner to discuss their plans. “This will go to the speaker and the speaker will decide if it comes up or not,” Yoho said. According to his spokesperson, Yoho is not the member who is drafting the impeachment resolution.

Holder has provoked the ire of Capitol Hill Republicans over the years for his ties to a number of controversies. Last year, the House voted to hold the attorney general in contempt for his lack of cooperation in the Fast and Furious investigation. He has also faced questions from lawmakers for the Department of Justice’s seizing of phone records and e-mails from Associated Press and Fox News reporters.

Politico reported:

“It’s to get him out of office — impeachment,” Yoho said, according to the Gainesville Sun, adding “it will probably be when we get back in [Washington]. It will be before the end of the year. This will go to the speaker and the speaker will decide if it comes up or not.”

Yoho cited frustration over the botched “Fast and Furious” program – in which federal agents allowed guns to “walk” to Mexican drug cartels as part of an investigation – as one of the main motivations for the impeachment push. That sting operation failed, and weapons tied to the Fast and Furious program were found at the shooting scene when a Border Patrol agent was killed in Dec. 2010.

Omar Raschid, a Yoho spokesman, said Yoho was not actually drafting the impeachment resolution against Holder but declined to say which lawmaker was doing so.

Boehner’s officer declined to comment on the potential Holder impeachment resolution. A Justice Department spokesman also would not comment.

The House approved both civil and criminal contempt resolutions against Holder in June 2012 over his failure to cooperate with congressional subpoenas during the Fast and Furious probe. The Justice Department – as has been done in previous administrations – would not move forward on any criminal charges against Holder. DOJ and the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee have been locked in a lengthy legal battle as part of the civil contempt fight since that time.

The good news is that Republicans are finally starting to resist the Obama administration. The bad news is that this goes nowhere without grassroots support, and even then it has to get past John Boehner.

We’ve constantly said that John Boehner has to go, and this is a good example of why that’s still the case. Boehner is in a position where he can pretend to fight Obama most of the time — but defend him whenever it actually counts.

 

Army Officer Wants You Disarmed: “We Will Pry Your Gun from Your Cold, Dead Fingers”

Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG.

 

Here is some information and my rules:

 1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

 2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

 

 3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

 

 4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”.

 

However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives.

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

Reblogged from:http://freedomoutpost.com

 

Posted by:Mac Slavo

Within the upper echelons of our military there still remain men and women who are committed to the fundamental laws of the land. But assuming that all members of our military will be there to support the Constitution of the United States when our nation needs them most would be a mistake.

Understand this: There are those within their ranks who would turn on their oaths and forcibly seize the very rights our Founders fought so hard to preserve without giving it a second thought.

The following opinion piece, penned by Lt. Col. Robert Bateman, shows in stark detail exactly what we’re dealing with and argues in no uncertain terms that the American public must be disarmed in order for the United States to survive.

The ideas proposed by Lt. Col. Bateman in It’s Time to Talk About Guns and the Supreme Courtare nothing short of shocking.

This is coming from an active military commander, and though not officially sanctioned by the administration, his work is obviously a propaganda piece designed to give the gun grabber initiative direct support from military leadership.

Guns are tools. I use these tools in my job. But like all tools one must be trained and educated in their use. Weapons are there for the “well regulated militia.” Their use, therefore, must be in defense of the nation. Shooting and killing somebody because they were not “upset enough” over the loss of a college football team should not be possible in our great nation. Which is why I am adding the following “Gun Plank” to the Bateman-Pierce platform. Here are some suggestions:

1. The only guns permitted will be the following:

• a. Smoothbore or Rifled muzzle-loading blackpowder muskets. No 7-11 in history has ever been held up with one of these.
• b. Double-barrel breech-loading shotguns. Hunting with these is valid.
• c. Bolt-action rifles with a magazine capacity no greater than five rounds. Like I said, hunting is valid. But if you cannot bring down a defenseless deer in under five rounds, then you have no fking reason to be holding a killing tool in the first place.

2. We will pry your gun from your cold, dead, fingers. That is because I am willing to wait until you die, hopefully of natural causes. Guns, except for the three approved categories, cannot be inherited. When you die your weapons must be turned into the local police department, which will then destroy them. (Weapons of historical significance will be de-milled, but may be preserved.)

3. Police departments are no longer allowed to sell or auction weapons used in crimes after the cases have been closed. (That will piss off some cops, since they really need this money. But you know what they need more? Less violence and death. By continuing the process of weapon recirculation, they are only making their jobs — or the jobs of some other cops — harder.)

4. We will submit a new tax on ammunition. In the first two years it will be 400 percent of the current retail cost of that type of ammunition. (Exemptions for the ammo used by the approved weapons.) Thereafter it will increase by 20 percent per year.

5. We will initiate a nationwide “buy-back” program, effective immediately, with the payouts coming from the DoD budget.

Why is the money coming from DOD budget, so it will hurt the military more WHY?

This buy-back program will start purchasing weapons at 200 percent of their face value the first year, 150 percent the second year, 100 percent the third year. Thereafter there will be a 10 year pause, at which point the guns can be sold to the government at 10 percent of their value for the next 50 years.

6. The major gun manufactures of the United States, less those who create weapons for the federal government and the armed forces, will be bought out by the United States of America, for our own damned good.

Excerpted from Esquire Magazine via Sipsey Street Irregulars

You won’t see the establishment media publishing arguments from top military leaders in support of the Second Amendment. Sadly, however, those who would take away our right to defend ourselves have been given a limitless platform to push their agenda to the masses.

Hundreds of thousands of services members, both active and retired, have put their lives on the line to uphold those rights which have made our nation great. There’s no doubt that they will do so again when the need arises.

But on the flip side of that coin are potentially hundreds of thousands of others who have no qualms about “just following orders.”

A report earlier this year from well connected philanthropist Dr. Jim Garrow claims that there is a new litmus test for military leadership:

I have just been informed by a former senior military leader that Obama is using a new “litmus test” in determining who will stay and who must go in his military leaders. Get ready to explode folks.

“The new litmus test of leadership in the military is if they will fire on US citizens or not”.

Those who will not are being removed.

Obviously, Lt. Col. Robert Bateman passed the test with flying colors.

Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/12/army-officer-wants-disarmed-will-pry-gun-cold-dead-fingers/#xHe50pPqed6g0wxD.99

 

Tax breaks for the unemployed

Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG.

 

Here is some information and my rules:

 1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

 2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

 

 3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

 

 4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”.

 

However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives.

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

Reblogged from:http://www.bankrate.com

 

Posted by:Kay Bell

Being unemployed presents a variety of financial considerations, including potential taxes.

In some cases, federal tax laws could pose new costs to unemployed individuals. But in others, tax provisions could help ease, at least a bit, the financial strains of unemployment.

More On Unemployment Tax Considerations:

• How to adjust your withholding
• Penalty-free 401(k), IRA withdrawals
• Standard or itemized tax deductions
• Job hunting could help cut taxes

Pay taxes on unemployment

First, the bad news. Unemployment compensation is taxable income. A few years ago, a small amount of unemployment benefits were exempted from taxation, but that tax break has expired.

You’ll get a Form 1099-G that will tell you how much unemployment you must report on that year’s tax return. If you opted not to have taxes withheld from unemployment payments or didn’t make estimated tax payments on the amount, you’ll likely owe the Internal Revenue Service.

Married couples have another option. If your spouse has a job, cover the unemployment taxes by having your husband or wife adjust his or her withholding to cover the taxes due on your benefits.

Check EITC eligibility

The earned income tax credit, or EITC, is a tax break for workers who don’t make very much money. Because your overall earnings were reduced by your layoff, you now may be eligible for the EITC.

Unemployment benefits don’t count toward EITC eligibility, but if you earned any other income during the year, you can use that amount to calculate a possible credit claim. Also, if you are married and your spouse is working, your loss of income may now make your combined earnings eligible for the credit.

Single taxpayers can claim the EITC, but the benefit is greater for workers with dependent children.

Incomes that qualify for EITC for the 2013 tax year

• Earnings of less than $46,227 ($51,567 if married filing jointly) in households with three or more children.
• Earnings of less than $43,038 ($48,378 if married filing jointly) in households with two children.
• Earnings of less than $37,870 ($43,210 if married filing jointly) in households with one child.
• Earnings of less than $14,340 ($19,680 if married filing jointly) in households with no children.

This tax credit also is refundable. This means if you don’t owe any taxes, you’ll be able to get a refund of the excess EITC amount.

Tap retirement accounts early

In dire situations, you might be tempted to cash out a retirement plan. If you do, be prepared to pay a 10 percent early withdrawal penalty if you are not yet age 59 ½ and take money out of a traditional individual retirement account or are younger than 55 and take a 401(k) distribution.

The penalty is waived, however, if you use your IRA money to pay for unreimbursed medical expenses that total more than 10 percent of your income in 2014. Workers who receive unemployment compensation for 12 consecutive weeks can also use money from an IRA, but not a 401(k), to pay for medical insurance.

A hardship withdrawal from a workplace retirement plan is allowed penalty-free if, according to the IRS, the distribution is for “an immediate and heavy financial need.” This includes such things as medical expenses, certain educational expenses and payments necessary to prevent eviction from, or foreclosure on, your home.

Remember, however, that even if you’re able to avoid an early distribution penalty, you’ll still owe taxes on the amounts withdrawn from these retirement accounts.

Look for a job

Hang onto all your job-search receipts. Expenses for such things as employment and outplacement agency fees, resume services and job-hunting travel, both in-town and out-of-town trips, can be deducted.

There are, however, limits to job-hunt tax breaks.

You must itemize to claim job-search expenses. These costs are miscellaneous deductions, meaning they and other eligible miscellaneous expenses must amount to more than 2 percent of your adjusted gross income before you can claim them. And your job-hunt expenses must be toward employment in your current professional field.

Start your own business

If some of those job-search expenses were toward investigating a possible business of your own, they count, too. Once you are successful in starting your own company, you can claim additional business tax breaks.

Expenses related to the process of operating your business generally are deductible. Don’t forget auto expenses if you use your car for business. Keep thorough records and receipts to document all these new company costs.

If you operate your new business from your residence, you might be able to claim a deduction for your home office.

Health care costs that you as a business owner pay for yourself and your family are deductible.

The IRS is happy to let you deduct eligible business expenses because in the longer term, it’s better for everyone. Your entrepreneurial success will not only help boost your personal bottom line, but will also mean more tax money for the U.S. Treasury.

Read more: http://www.bankrate.com/finance/taxes/tax-breaks-for-the-unemployed-1.aspx#ixzz2mpzjQ6qb
Follow us: @Bankrate on Twitter | Bankrate on Facebook

Spying Spooks Throw It In Americans’ Faces With New Octopus-Engulfing-World Logo

Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG.

 

Here is some information and my rules:

 1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

 2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

 

 3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

 

 4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”.

 

However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives.

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

Reblogged from:http://www.infowars.com

 

Posted by:Steve Watson

Intelligence head tweets badge stating

 

    “Nothing is beyond our reach”

Following this year’s further revelations on the NSA actively spying on Americans’ communications, along with the president’s promise to “reign in” the powers of US spooks, one would have expected that the government would be engaged in a damage control campaign going forward.

However, this is the criminally insane military industrial complex usurped government we’re referring to, so Instead they’re putting world-eating Octopus logos on the side of spy satellites and tweeting about it.

Here’s a photograph of the launch of NROL-39, the latest government spy satellite being overseen by The National Reconnaissance Office, which provides signals intelligence to the NSA, among other agencies. The NRO is considered one of the “big 5″ spy agencies.

The program is classified, but ‘what the hell, let’s tweet about it’ was presumably the conclusion of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the over-arching agency that the NRO reports to.

And to really rub it in Americans’ faces about how we spy on them and the entire world, lets slap on a logo featuring an octopus enveloping the world with its tentacles, with the words “Nothing is beyond our reach.”

Really subtle. This would be akin to the DoD sticking the grim reaper on it’s unmanned drone program as a logo… oh wait it did do that.

A spokesperson for NRO issued a statement that reads:

“NROL-39 is represented by the octopus, a versatile, adaptable, and highly intelligent creature. Emblematically, enemies of the United States can be reached no matter where they choose to hide.”

“‘Nothing is beyond our reach’ defines this mission and the value it brings to our nation and the warfighters it supports, who serve valiantly all over the globe, protecting our nation.” the statement continues.

The ODNI is headed up by James Clapper, the principle advisor to President Obama on intelligence and national security, and the man who openly LIED to Congress during a March Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on the NSA’s spying programs, then later apologised for doing so.

Indeed, fresh calls were made in Congress this week to prosecute Clapper, a retired Air Force lieutenant general, for committing a federal offense.

“The only way laws are effective is if they’re enforced,” said Rep. James Sensenbrenner Jr., the original author of the Patriot Act. “If it’s a criminal offense — and I believe Mr. Clapper has committed a criminal offense — then the Justice Department ought to do its job.”

So you’d think Clapper would want to be keeping a low profile right about now. But no, like some bad guy out of a James Bond movie, he’s tweeting about engulfing the world like a crazy cephalopod or a crackers kraken. He’s letting the world know that he’s about to become a maniacal mollusc, launching a giant spy telescope into space. He’s proudly announcing that he’s an insane invertebrate collecting and devouring all your metadata and tracking your exact whereabouts under a 30 year old executive order.

If you’re thinking that you’ve seen this logo somewhere before, it may be because you watched the feature-length episode of the original Batman series when The Joker, The Penguin, The Riddler, and Catwoman joined forces as the “United Underworld”. Yes, it was the logo of the most vile villains in all of Gotham city. Very fitting.

“In addition its primary payload, the rocket will also carry a dozen mini satellites funded by the National Reconnaissance Office and @NASA,” the ODNI twitter account also notes.

The only other thing known about the NROL-39 spy satellite launch is its trajectory, which places it into an orbit identical to existing spy satellites used for radar imaging. It is thought by some that the mission is therefore part of a series of launches in an effort to retrieve components from the failed spy satellite program known as Future Imagery Architecture. In 2007, The New York Times labeled the program “perhaps the most spectacular and expensive failure in the 50-year history of American spy satellite projects.”

So much for “nothing is beyond our reach” then.

—————————————————————-

Steve Watson is the London based writer and editor for Alex Jones’ Infowars.com, and Prisonplanet.com. He has a Masters Degree in International Relations from the School of Politics at The University of Nottingham, and a Bachelor Of Arts Degree in Literature and Creative Writing from Nottingham Trent University.

This article was posted: Friday, December 6, 2013 at 11:54 am

Tags: big brother, domestic spying

Related Articles

• Now you see me… species of octopus uses dual camouflage system to baffle predators
• Spying on Americans: The FBI’s “Quantico Circuit” — Still Spying, Still Lying
• Tech Giants Throw Weight Behind Legislation Which Would ACTUALLY Rein In NSA Spying
• Obama Installs New Guidelines To Aid Spying On Innocent Americans
• There Was A Secret Ruling Against The NSA For Spying On Americans

Barack is a liar and a socialist/communist?

I don’t think I’ll be marking this date on my calendar as a day of revelation…..

The LIE: well….no comment is necessary….is it?
The COMMUNISTS in his life:
Mommy
Daddy
Step-daddy (Soetoro)
Frank Marshal Davis
Bill Ayers
Soros
and his go-to “most trusted” WH advisor Valerie Jarrett

What is the agenda of the COMMUNISTS? A huge, invasive, dictatorial, ever-taxing central government staffed by a privileged “intellectual elite”. In other words, an oligarchy.

What is the result everytime “LIBERALS” (Democratic Party) get elected?
A bigger, more-invasive, more-dictatorial WashDC with even higher taxes…run by self-proclaimed “intellectual elite” who often exempt themselves from regulations imposed on their subjects….accomplished by trampling or flat-out ignoring our restrictive Constitution.

In 1963 the Communist Party of America issued a list of goals to achieve.
As you might expect: quash religion…infiltrate the school system…gain support of minorities via redistribution of wealth…
One notable goal was to INFILTRATE ONE OR BOTH POLITICAL PARTIES.
Since communists are far-left (leftists)….and the Republican Party was (at the time) entirely right….
where might they have gone to accomplish this goal with the best odds of success?
And while only 20% of the general populace declare themselves to be ‘liberal’….and since 72-87% of university academics consider themselves ‘liberal’….where might they have gone to find fuhrers (leaders)??

Finally: Since the American people would never knowingly embrace communism….and since a military coup would be out-of-the-question….how best could they collapse the US of A in order to make way for a new system of governance? (by that omniscient “intellectual elite’)

Debt, maybe? Monstrous, inescapable debt?

But first they would have to smash manufacturing….eliminate jobs….get the American people used to the absence of prosperity…..make large sectors of the people dependent on government for food and shelter….

That might work, huh?

Read more at http://www.westernjournalism.com/obama-caught-in-lie-about-socialist-uncle/#oEpyEFORlRV3EYrz.99

 

Military Mocks Obama Birth Certificate Fraud

Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG.

 

Here is some information and my rules:

 1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

 2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

 

 3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

 

 4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”.

 

However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives.

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

Reblogged from:http://dcwatchdog.org

 

Posted by:Admin

[H/T Western Journalism] — US military spokesman Lt. Col. J. Todd Breasseale, blew off a legitimate editor’s query concerning analysis of the “computer generated forgery” posted online by the White House as being mere nonsense.  “We can only assume that your query is not a legitimate question and is some sort of nonsensical joke,” Breasseale commented via Email to Sharon Rondeau, editor of The Post & Email.   He is calling her very reasonable inquiry nothing more than a web “absurdity”.  “We are happy to consider reality-based requests, but do not entertain absurdities from the web,” replied “Todd” in an insulting try at familiarity.

Click here to enlarge:

When Editor Rondeau replied, “It is absolutely not a joke,” the military mouthpiece came back with merely, “noted,” to her follow up question about the military’s possible analysis of the Obama birth certificate image posted online by someone in or representing the White House on April 27, 2011, as well as the Obama Selective Service registration. “Why has that not been done?” Rondeau asked Public Affairs officer Lt. Col. Catherine Wilkinson who evidently passed off this inquiry to Breasseale.  So much for that; our military “has remained silent” says the CT editor of The Post & Email.

Meanwhile, the 69 page affidavit of lead investigator Mike Zullo is filed as evidence in the Alabama Supreme Court’s review of findings by a lower court which also tossed inquiry into authenticity of the WH computer image. The Zullo court document reads, at point # 26: “All in attendance agreed unanimously that the WH computer image, pdf file contained anomalies that were un-explainable unless the document had been fabricated piecemeal by human intervention, rather than being copied from a genuine paper document”.  Zullo is presenting the results of months of investigation by the Sheriff Arpaio forensic team into the nine layered computer image put on the official WH website.  The team of long time forensic and law enforcement investigators, retired military members, physicians, and computer CEO’s and attorneys concluded “the certificate of live birth. . .is not a scan of an original paper birth certificate.”

The Zullo affidavit presents to the court this statement: “fabricated forgery-violation of the AZ criminal statue and the federal statues…may have taken place.”  The Arpaio team is calling for a full blown Congressional investigation as the nation awaits the decision of the Alabama Supreme Court.  At point # 35 is this lightening bolt: “It was now demonstrated beyond probable cause that the WH website document was an utter forgery.”  The forensic team suggests that crimes may involve “fraudulent creation of an official document, forgery of a governmental birth record, and deception of voters and state election commissioners across the country.”   In total, 207 points of assertion are contained in the Zullo sworn statement.  In spite of the fact that SEVENTEEN different records never have been released by President Barack Obama, (at point # 207), the military spokesman known as “Todd,” along with the mainstream media, Congress, and nationwide elected officials continue to ignore what is going on in the Alabama Supreme Court proceedings.

Perhaps most troubling is the fact that the Obama passport records have never been released to the American public, nor have the incoming INS foreign flight passenger cards for the Obama birth week of August 2, 1961, ever been found!  The Zullo investigators say in their court evidentiary document that these flight manifest identifications are “completely missing from the microfilm roll” of the INS.

Web absurdities, anomalies, a nine page computer generated forgery?  Will we every know?

 

Is THIS missing piece to Benghazi puzzle?

Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG.

 

Here is some information and my rules:

 1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

 2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

 

 3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

 

 4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”.

 

However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives.

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

Reblogged from:http://www.wnd.com

 

Posted by:Aaron Klein

Congressional probe lacks crucial detail

JERUSALEM – A House Republican report released this week on the Obama administration’s response to the Sept. 11, 2012, Benghazi terror attack is missing one essential piece that could help to answer many of the questions raised in the report.

That piece is the alleged illicit activities transpiring inside the U.S. facilities that were attacked.

The 46-page report by five committees of the Republican-led House says the White House scrubbed terrorism and al-Qaida from talking points and misled the American public by blaming the attack on an obscure YouTube film.

The report further questions why the White House falsely claimed the U.S. facilities were targeted in unplanned, popular street protests while it was known to the government almost immediately that the Benghazi mission and nearby CIA annex were attacked by militants in a premeditated fashion.

One key question of the congressional probe centers on why the State Department chose to reduce security at the U.S. Benghazi mission and to deny multiple requests for more security assistance.

The report rejects State Department claims that funding was the reason for the security reductions.

States the report: “It is clear that funding – or a lack thereof – is not the reason for the reductions in security, as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security Lamb testified and as emails reviewed by the Committees attest.

“Moreover, a lack of funding would not have been at issue with respect to the rejection of the request to extend the deployment of the [U.S. Military Security Support Team], as that team was provided via the Defense Department at no expense to the State Department.”

A key accusation in the report alleges the White House generated talking points for the public that “excluded details about the wide availability of weapons and experienced fighters in Libya, an exacerbating factor that contributed to the lethality of the attacks.”

The report does not mention that the weapons and fighters may actually be the reason for the coordinated assaults on the U.S. facilities. According to Middle Eastern security officials, the U.S. mission was allegedly used to help coordinate arms and other aid to the jihadist-led rebel; insurgencies in Libya and in Syria.

The U.S. mission’s alleged role in arming the rebels, as first exposed by WND, may help to answer many of the questions in the probe, including why the White House did not want to draw attention to al-Qaida’s role in the attacks.

It also could explain why security was reduced as the compound. An increased security presence at the U.S. mission would have drawn attention to the shabby, nondescript building that was allegedly being used for such sensitive purposes.

WND has filed numerous reports quoting Middle East security officials who described the mission in Benghazi as a meeting place to coordinate aid for the rebel-led insurgencies in the Middle East, including the transfer of weapons to rebels.

Two weeks after the Benghazi attack, WND also broke the story that murdered U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens himself played a central role in recruiting jihadists to fight Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria, according to Egyptian security officials.

In November 2012, Middle Eastern security sources further described both the U.S. mission and nearby CIA annex in Benghazi as the main intelligence and planning center for U.S. aid to the rebels that was being coordinated with Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

Many rebel fighters are openly members of terrorist organizations, including al-Qaida.

Among the tasks performed inside the Benghazi facility was collaborating with countries, most notably Turkey, on the recruitment of fighters – including jihadists – to target Assad’s regime, the security officials said.

Stevens served as a key contact with the Saudis to coordinate the recruitment by Saudi Arabia of Islamic fighters from North Africa and Libya, Egyptian security officials told WND. The jihadists were sent to Syria via Turkey to attack Assad’s forces, said the security officials.

The officials said Stevens also worked with the Saudis to send names of potential jihadi recruits to U.S. security organizations for review. Names found to be directly involved in previous attacks against the U.S., including in Iraq and Afghanistan, were ultimately not recruited by the Saudis to fight in Syria, said the officials.

White House officials previously denied aiding arms shipments to the rebels.

However, confirming WND’s exclusive reporting for over a year, the New York Times last month reported that since early 2012, the CIA has been aiding the Arab governments and Turkey in shopping for and transporting weapons to the Syrian rebels.

Previously, multiple establishment news media reports described the U.S. role in helping to arm the Libyan rebels attacking the regime of Moammar Ghadaffi. At the same time it was widely reported that al-Qaida groups were among the Libyan rebels.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/04/is-this-missing-piece-to-benghazi-puzzle/#8Mxd8Oi1usQ4iuqG.99

 

DoD seeks plan to shut all U.S. commissaries

Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG.

 

Here is some information and my rules:

 1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

 2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

 

 3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

 

 4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”.

 

However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives.

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

Reblogged from:http://www.airforcetimes.com

 

Posted by:Karen Jowers

Defense officials have reportedly asked the Defense Commissary Agency to develop a plan to close all U.S. commissaries. (Staff Sgt. John D. Strong II / Air Force)

Defense officials have reportedly asked the Defense Commissary Agency to develop a plan to close all U.S. commissaries — about three-fourths of its stores, according to a resale community source familiar with details of a meeting with representatives of the Joint Staff and Pentagon comptroller’s office.

The source, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the meeting was held within the last few weeks and was part of preparations for the fiscal 2015 DoD budget request that is due out on February.

That DeCA has been asked to prepare such a draft plan does not mean commissaries would close anytime soon. Even if such a plan was included in the defense budget request for fiscal 2015 — almost a year away — it would have to be approved by Congress, where many lawmakers would oppose it.

The Military Coalition, comprised of more than 30 military and veterans advocacy groups sharing a common agenda, also would fiercely oppose such a plan.

Still, the fact that defense officials want DeCA to draft a plan for how it potentially would carry out such a move is another sign of the heavy budget pressures weighing on the Pentagon as a result of sequestration.

The Defense Department had no direct comment on the commissary initiative. But Pentagon spokeswoman Joy Crabaugh said Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel “has made it clear on numerous occasions that all cost-cutting efforts need to be on the table” in order for DoD to meet the sequestration caps mandated under the 2011 Budget Control Act.”

“At this time, no final decisions have been made on the … fiscal 2015 budget submission. Therefore, it would be inappropriate to discuss any specific budget decisions,” Crabaugh said.

DeCA has 178 commissaries in the U.S., including Alaska and Hawaii. Almost 70 stores operate overseas. Operating costs for the overseas stores account for 35 percent of DeCA’s budget and 16 percent of total worldwide sales.

Commissary officials negotiate lower prices for products based on volume. Closing all or most U.S. commissaries would lead to higher prices and a degraded benefit in remaining stores, Tom Gordy, Armed Forces Marketing Council president, said in written testimony to a panel of the House Armed Services Committee on Nov. 20.

The council represents over 330 manufacturers of products sold in commissaries, exchanges and other military venues.

The proposal to close U.S. stores was not discussed at the hearing, but in his written testimony Gordy said closing U.S. stores “would eliminate the benefit for millions of families, breaking a commitment that has been made to every service member.”

That such a proposal would come from within DoD is “very concerning,” said Steve Rossetti, director of government affairs for the American Logistics Association.

Commissaries are “one of the most valued benefits,” he said. “For what this costs the department, they get a huge return,” not only in terms of the benefit itself but in other factors such as jobs for military spouses. About 30 percent of DeCA employees are spouses.

DeCA receives nearly $1.4 billion in annual taxpayer subsidies. It has reduced its annual funding requirement by $700 million over the last 20 years, said DeCA Director Joseph Jeu.

Jeu said DeCA is constantly looking for ways to save money, but added that the agency has no more “low-hanging fruit” to cut.

But Rep. Joe Heck, R-Nev., an Army reservist, said other proposals under consideration include raising the commissary surcharge to 10 percent from the current 5 percent; raising prices by 2 percent to 3 percent to pay for shipping products to overseas stores; and creating an “enhanced” commissary that would sell other products at higher markups.

Any such changes would have a “great impact” on troops and families, Jeu told lawmakers.

Heck said that if such steps are necessary to maintain the benefit, DoD officials must consider them. “I encourage you to take that kind of perspective,” he told Jeu.■

 

Obama to Force Military Families Away From Tricare …By Tripling Their Fees.

Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG.

 

Here is some information and my rules:

 1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

 2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

 

 3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

 

 4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”.

 

However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives.

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

Reblogged from: conservativeinfidel.com

 

Posted by: Benjamin Franklin

 

via ijreview

President Barack Obama has said on multiple occasions that he stands by the troops, and lauds their selflessness in fighting the Iraq war and the conflict in Afghanistan. During a time when our bravest in uniform have been in a state of war for more than a decade, one would think that our fearless leaders should reward their efforts by making life a bit easier at home.

Instead, Obama simply insists on tripling their fees on the military health insuranceprogram called Tricare.

What is the administration’s reasoning on this? Well, they actually admit that Obama would rather the troops partake in ‘alternatives’ that were established in the Affordable Care Act (otherwise known as Obamacare). In a report from the FreeBeacon.com, Bill Gertz states:

Administration officials told Congress that one goal of the increased fees is to force military retirees to reduce their involvement in Tricare and eventually opt out of the program in favor of alternatives established by the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare.”

This is quite a telling move by the Obama administration, due to the transparency in a letter written to congress, as the FreeBeacon.com further reports:

The Administration is disappointed that the Congress did not incorporate the requested TRICARE fee initiatives into either the appropriation or authorization legislation,” the White House wrote in an official policy statement expressing opposition to the bill, which the House approved in May.”

So, what are these ‘fee initiatives’? The Bill Gertz goes on to say,

Significantly, the plan calls for increases between 30 percent to 78 percent in Tricare annual premiums for the first year. After that, the plan will impose five-year increases ranging from 94 percent to 345 percent—more than 3 times current levels.

According to congressional assessments, a retired Army colonel with a family currently paying $460 a year for health care will pay $2,048.

The new plan hits active duty personnel by increasing co-payments for pharmaceuticals and eliminating incentives for using generic drugs.”

Essentially, Barack Hussein Obama would rather force military families to partake in Obamacare welfare-backed programs rather than using Tricare, and he had hoped to do this by tripling their premiums in just 5 years.

All the while, the report states that Obama leaves his true friends, the ‘unionized civilian defense workers’, unscathed by tax and premium hikes:

The Obama administration’s proposed defense budget calls for military families and retirees to pay sharply more for their healthcare, while leaving unionized civilian defense workers’ benefits untouched. The proposal is causing a major rift within the Pentagon, according to U.S. officials. Several congressional aides suggested the move is designed to increase the enrollment in Obamacare’s state-run insurance exchanges.

The disparity in treatment between civilian and uniformed personnel is causing a backlash within the military that could undermine recruitment and retention.”

The sad part of this tale is that Barack Obama clearly has no loyalty to his country, his ‘friends’, and most certainly the troops that would carry out his commands without question for the love of their home. It is clearly only profit and power that pulls him out of bed in the morning, and lulls him to sleep at night. How so?

We already know that upon the passage of Obamacare that the market reacted by tanking 1%, while certain public sector insurance companies, hospital firms, and pharmaceutical manufacturers significantly increased in share prices. We already know from leaked Pfizer lobbyist memos that they were going to pledge $80 billion to Obama’s reelection efforts if he were to pass the ACA. So, essentially, the fact that Obama’s action of forcing military families away from Tricare and towards these public sector insurance ‘alternatives’, shows who he really serves. …just a hint, it’s not you or anyone in the military.

That’s correct, he serves the unionized defense contractors (as long as they serve him in return), and he serves public sector companies and Wall Street-owned major medical companies, like Pfizer (also… as long as they serve him in return).

In the closing, Patricia Campion of Yahoo News writes these insightful words:

As commander-in-chief, I want every veteran to know that America will always honor your service and your sacrifice — not just today, but every day,” the president said in November. “And just as you fought for us, we’re going to keep fighting for you — for more jobs, for more security, for the opportunity to keep your families strong and America competitive in the 21st century.”

Of course, he forgot to warn them he was about to kick their existing health care insurance plan so far out of reach that they’d be forced to grab the plan that 53 percent of Americans want repealed for survival.”

Thanks for selling our bravest down the river, Mr. President …you’re a great guy

 

Ex-CIA Operative: Military Thwarted Obama’s Plans To Nuke/EMP America This Fall!

Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG.

 

Here is some information and my rules:

 1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

 2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

 

 3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

 

 4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”.

 

However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives.

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

Reblogged from: http://thelibertydigest.com

 

Posted by:William Wallace

Dr. Jim Garrow, the same one that reported the death of Andrew Breitbart  and Tom Clancy, came out as an ex CIA Agent recently. The same Jim Garrow that runs Pink Pagoda Girls that rescues young girls from death and abortion in China. He revealed in a November 18th Facebook message that among the top brass being purged, actually prevented President Obama from creating a series of  ”False Flag” events this fall. One of the incidents was to be nuclear, the other was make a calculated crippling of the infrastructure of our country.

On November 19th, the entire posts, reposts, and comments were totally scrubbed by social media networks.and outlets. That evening he appeared on Full Contact with Eric Rush.

You can see his scrubbed messages to Facebook here:

Three individuals have just saved 300 million lives in the past 2 weeks. They saved the 90% of the population that would be dead if Bathhouse Barry had not been stopped from using 3 nuclear devices against the American populace. 2 Army Generals and 1 Navy Admiral, whose duties included the safeguarding and oversight of the nuclear arsenal. Obama ordered that 3 nukes be transported in a major breach of protocol and safety regulations of long standing. He wanted it NOW, and these officers were made aware of what the intention was. The admiral had the one Navy nuke taken 200 miles off South Carolina and detonated deep in the ocean. The other 2 nukes disappeared thanks to the handiwork of the 2 Generals, the numbers 1 and 2 men in charge of the Army ordinance. These three men are heroes of the highest order. Look up the events of 2 Generals and 1 Admiral being dismissed in the past two weeks and you will find their names. They saved your lives and the lives of 300 million of your fellow citizens.

Mr. Obama’s intention was to set off the three nukes to devastate all computer related systems on the continent thus taking America back 200 years and guaranteeing a total breakdown in society and with in one year the death of 300 million Americans. To see how this would be possible read, “One Second After”. You can get it on Amazon.

We peered over the edge of the precipice of the death of our civilization and have lived to tell the tale. 3 heroes stood tall for America and the mad man in the white house was stopped for the first time in his life. He is unsure of what to do just now and he does not possess the keys to the nuclear submarines nor the two nukes that are now hidden. For the first time in his life someone said no, meant it, and stopped him from murder and devastation. The next few days are critical. Be afraid and go to prepper sites to find out how to save your family, if you can. – Dr. Jim Garrow, Nov. 18, 2013

In the condominium complex in Casa Grande, Arizona, where I have a unit, a visit was made yesterday by a group of 4 men in a black Suburban with lots of antenna’s on the roof. The management of our large group of condo’s was asked to open the door of my unit. The badges were a combination of many different alphabet agencies including my former one. Interesting because after I posted about EMP’s and missing nukes my phone rang late in the evening and I was requested to cease and desist. My posts have been removed. I am not however repentant, nor cowed. If anything like this happens again I have instructed people to begin the release of documents and information as per prepared plans in the hands of these people. Obama is known for overplaying his hand, and now should be known far and wide as a dangerous amateur. He may have gotten Breitbart, Hastings and Clancy, but they were just writers. I hope that he enjoys the protests today in DC.  – Dr. Jim Garrow, Nov. 19, 2013

A quick search on the internet latter and you can indeed find three Military Men that dealt in Nuclear Arms dismissed in October. Major General Michael Carey and Vice Admiral Tim Giardina (fired amidst rumors of misbehavior involving alcohol and gambling) were both released, then a third one from the Pacific that never made it home. There was also a sizable earth quake off the coast of South Carolina that Russia Claims was an underwater explosion of an American Thermal Nuclear Device.

We, as a nation, are totally in these men’s debt!

 

Obama Urges Congress to Support Tricare Fees

Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG.

 

Here is some information and my rules:

 1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

 2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

 

 3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

 

 4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”.

 

However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives.

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

Reblogged from:Military.com

 

Posted by:Richard Sisk

On Monday the White House pressed the Pentagon to rein in Tricare costs and begin a new round of base closings as the Senate took up the National Defense Authorization Act on the military’s 2014 budget.

There are a number of areas of agreement with the initial markup of the Senate Armed Services Committee on the NDAA, but the administration “has serious concerns with certain provisions,” Office of Management and Budget officials said in a lengthy response to the markup.

OMB called on SASC to control Tricare costs at the Department of Defense “while keeping retired beneficiaries’ share of these costs well below the levels experienced when the Tricare program was implemented in the mid-1990s.”

Slowing the growth of Tricare costs would result in savings of $902 million in fiscal year 2014 and $9.3 billion through fiscal year 2018. Those savings were needed to offset projected increases in personnel costs, OMB said.

President Obama has proposed slowing this growth by introducing a new set of enrollment fees and higher co-pays to retirees under the age of 65.

The Pentagon proposed an annual enrollment fee based on a percentage of retired pay for Medicare-eligible retirees in the Tricare For Life Program. Working age retirees in the Tricare Standard and Tricare Extra programs also would face new annual enrollment fees phased in over five years.

The White House also proposed an increase to the current enrollment fee for working age retirees in the Tricare Prime program phased in over the next four years.

As for co-pays, the White House has proposed increasing Tricare Prime co-pays for retirees and their beneficiaries by $4 for medical visits not related to mental health.

Pentagon leaders have said that spiral personnel costs to include healthcare are eating up too much of the military’s annual budgets and putting training and readiness missions at risk.

“Without serious attempts to achieve significant savings in this area, which consumes roughly half of the DoD budget and is increasing every year, we risk becoming an unbalanced force,” Hagel said.

The official Statement of Administration Policy in response to the initial Senate markup wasn’t limited to Tricare. OMB officials also “strongly objected” to the markup’s proposal for a major review of the infrastructure at overseas facilities before considering another round of the Base Realignment and Closure Commission procedure for bases in the U.S.

“Without authorization for a new round of BRAC, DoD may not properly align the military’s infrastructure with the needs of the evolving force structure, which is critical to ensuring that limited resources are available for the highest priorities of the Armed Forces,” the OMB statement said.

The administration objected to several other provisions in the markup while commending the Committee for working to offer stronger protections for sexual assault victims in the ranks.

The SASC markup would amend Article 60 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice to limit the authority of a convening authority to modify the findings of a court-martial on specified sexual offenses, and also require automatic higher-level review of any decision by a commander not to prosecute a sexual assault allegation.

However, the markup would not take sexual assault cases and other major crimes out of the chain of command as proposed by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y. Gillibrand’s proposed amendment to the NDAA on stripping commanders of their courts martial authority was expected to be debated later this week.

In introducing the markup, Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., the SASC chairman, said the “bipartisan bill provides for our nation’s defense and upholds our obligations to our men and women in uniform and their families.”

Levin, who opposes the Gillibrand amendment, said “an important part of keeping faith with service members is addressing the plague of sexual assaults in our military, and the bill includes the strongest, most effective approach to combating sexual assault.”

The SASC markup authorizes an FY2014 active duty end strength for the Army of 520,000; the Navy, 323,600; the Marine Corps, 190,200; and the Air Force, 327,600.

The Committee also authorized a one percent across-the-board pay raise for all members of the uniformed services in fiscal year 2014, a proposal backed by OMB.

 

Obama Gets Into it With Louisiana Governor Over Healthcare.gov

Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG.

 

Here is some information and my rules:

 1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

 2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

 

 3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

 

 4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”.

 

However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives.

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

Reblogged from:http://downtrend.com

 

Posted by:EmilyH

POTUS decided to travel to Louisiana Friday and discuss the economy; his goal mainly to divert attention from Healthcare.gov. He began speaking about how he was going to create jobs by fixing roads, but Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal immediately brought focus back to health care.

“We will not allow President Obama to bully Louisiana into accepting an expansion of Obamacare,” Jindal said in a statement, saying the expansion would cost the state too much.

“The dysfunction of the website and the president’s broken promises on being able to keep your health plan are just the tip of the iceberg in regards to the problems with this law,” Jindal added.

Obama has repeatedly promised that Americans could keep their health care plans/doctors, which was a fat lie. In his speech, he made promises to fix the failing website. The remainder of his speech focused on urging Congress to focus on infrastructure progress.

“I know if there’s one thing that members of Congress from both parties want, it’s smart infrastructure projects that create good jobs in their districts,” he said.

This just goes to show that POTUS can’t own up to his mistakes, and even when someone like Jindal brings it up, he still waves it away with lies and broken promises. Not surprising of course, but equally maddening.

Nice save Mr. President. But it’s apparent you’re still not listening to us.

 

Obamacare Close to Reaching ‘Holy Sh*t Moment’

Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG.

 

Here is some information and my rules:

 1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

 2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

 

 3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

 

 4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”.

 

However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives.

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

Reblogged from:http://downtrend.com

 

Posted by:EmilyH

 

After two weeks, Healthcare.gov still isn’t working. People try to log on and….no luck.

A broken website imperils the largest expansion of the American safety net since The Great Society.

“The website that was supposed to do this all in a seamless way has had way more glitches than I think are acceptable,” Obama said during a Tuesday interview with KCCI television in Des Moines, Iowa.

Obama’s administration does not disclose exactly what is wrong with the website. Or when we can expect it to get fixed.

And time is running out! If things aren’t resolved in three weeks, we’ve got some serious, serious problems,” said Timothy Jost, a law professor and health care reform expert.

He added that if [Obamacare] collapses, it could be another generation before things get fixed.

And what then? Where does that leave the American people who can’t afford their own insurance, and who desperately need it?

The stakes are definitely higher for people who are uninsured, and for families who buy insurance directly. It’s also high stakes for the whole health insurance industry.

If people cannot get insurance through a functioning health exchange, they will remain shut out of the system. Americans who buy their own health insurance will see major disruptions in their health care.

Health insurance and health care providers may face a huge bulk of requests from people who do sign up through the system. And it could be of nightmarish proportions.

And of course, people who can’t sign up will face tax penalties.

This could really discredit the presidency; and his supporters will be left wondering where to go from here.

So far visitors of healthcare.gov are not able to create accounts, verify themselves, apply for tax credits if they are low income households, or shop for health plans.

Some people have been given paper applications, but those will eventually have to be entered into a computer system.

People have until December 15th to choose a plan for January 1st, and until February 15th to avoid the fines. The 2014 enrollment ends March 31st.

“We really do need to get this thing resolved pretty quickly. And then, of course, the longer you wait to resolve it, the more you have piling up for the last minute with the risk of another crash,” Jost said.

Some feel it would be best to take the site down and start over. It just goes to show what a train wreck Healthcare.gov and Obamacare really are.

There are 48 million Americans who are uninsured. This is the demographic Obamacare was created for, but they are not getting the care they need.

A lot of the health care products on the market are being discontinued because they don’t meet Obamacare standards. And people who have these plans may see rates go up next year.

Tax credits aren’t available without the federal system as well so good luck with getting them.

Many of the people who do sign up for Obamacare are very sick and will be expensive to treat. Getting more healthy people signed up to balance things out would be ideal, but how can they sign up?

It is definitely getting close to a “holy sh*t moment..

 

Obamacare Restrictions Lead Brooklyn Couple To Consider Divorce

Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG.

 

Here is some information and my rules:

 1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

 2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

 

 3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

 

 4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”.

 

However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives.

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

Reblogged from:CBS

 

‘We Would Save Thousands Of Dollars If We Got Divorced,’ Woman Says

Couple may Divorce to save money

NEW YORK (CBSNewYork) — From website crashes to long holds on calls, the issues involved with the unveiling of the Affordable Care Act are well documented.

But now, could it be breaking couples up?

CBS 2’s Don Champion spoke to one Brooklyn couple on Wednesday who said they may be forced to get a divorce to get health insurance.

Nona Willis Aronowitz and Aaron Cassara’s love affair began at a party in 2008.

“We kissed on a bean bag chair,” Aronowitz said.

A year later, it grew into a marriage at City Hall in Manhattan.

“It was really sudden,” Aronowitz said. “It was basically because he needed health insurance, and I had a job that would give that to him.”

But four years later, there is now irony in the fact the couple could soon divorce for the same reason.

“After Obamacare has rolled out, we realized that we would save thousands of dollars if we got divorced,” Aronowitz said.

The issue for Aronowitz and Cassara is that together as family of only two, they make more than the $62,000 level to qualify for subsidies under the Affordable Care Act. But if they lived together unmarried, they would qualify for the subsidies and could literally save hundreds of dollars a month on their health care.

A single person can qualify for subsidies if they make less than $46,000 a year.

“It’s really complicated,” Aronowitz said. “Go on the website, you’ll see what I mean.”

Aronowitz, a freelance writer, and Cassara, who works as a freelancer in the film industry, lost their health coverage recently when Aronowitz was laid off.

Critics of the Affordable Care Act have called the pricey decision couple faces the “marriage penalty.” But the income levels for subsidies were set by Congress.

“I’m an educated, very well plugged-in person and I can’t figure it out,” Aronowitz said.

Aronowitz said she and her husband are deeply in love but together were never the “marrying type.” Still, they said they’re not taking the decision ahead of them lightly.

“In our case, it would be worth it,” Aronowitz said. “In other people’s cases, where marriage is really, really important to them and they had this big wedding and it was this sacred experience, I think it would be a really tough decision for them.”

The couple is looking at other health options before making the divorce decision.

 

Obamacare Restrictions Lead Brooklyn Couple To Consider Divorce

Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG.

 

Here is some information and my rules:

 1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

 2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

 

 3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

 

 4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”.

 

However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives.

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

Reblogged from:

 

Posted by:

‘We Would Save Thousands Of Dollars If We Got Divorced,’ Woman Says

Couple may Divorce to save money

Related tags

Aaron Cassara, Affordable Care Act, Brooklyn, divorce, Don Champion, Health Care, Insurance, marriage, Marriage Penalty, Nona Willis Aronowitz, Obamacare, Trending

More Information

For more information about the Affordable Care Act, visit CBSNewYork.com/ACA.

 

NEW YORK (CBSNewYork) — From website crashes to long holds on calls, the issues involved with the unveiling of the Affordable Care Act are well documented.

But now, could it be breaking couples up?

CBS 2’s Don Champion spoke to one Brooklyn couple on Wednesday who said they may be forced to get a divorce to get health insurance.

Nona Willis Aronowitz and Aaron Cassara’s love affair began at a party in 2008.

“We kissed on a bean bag chair,” Aronowitz said.

A year later, it grew into a marriage at City Hall in Manhattan.

“It was really sudden,” Aronowitz said. “It was basically because he needed health insurance, and I had a job that would give that to him.”

But four years later, there is now irony in the fact the couple could soon divorce for the same reason.

“After Obamacare has rolled out, we realized that we would save thousands of dollars if we got divorced,” Aronowitz said.

The issue for Aronowitz and Cassara is that together as family of only two, they make more than the $62,000 level to qualify for subsidies under the Affordable Care Act. But if they lived together unmarried, they would qualify for the subsidies and could literally save hundreds of dollars a month on their health care.

A single person can qualify for subsidies if they make less than $46,000 a year.

“It’s really complicated,” Aronowitz said. “Go on the website, you’ll see what I mean.”

Aronowitz, a freelance writer, and Cassara, who works as a freelancer in the film industry, lost their health coverage recently when Aronowitz was laid off.

Critics of the Affordable Care Act have called the pricey decision couple faces the “marriage penalty.” But the income levels for subsidies were set by Congress.

“I’m an educated, very well plugged-in person and I can’t figure it out,” Aronowitz said.

Aronowitz said she and her husband are deeply in love but together were never the “marrying type.” Still, they said they’re not taking the decision ahead of them lightly.

“In our case, it would be worth it,” Aronowitz said. “In other people’s cases, where marriage is really, really important to them and they had this big wedding and it was this sacred experience, I think it would be a really tough decision for them.”

The couple is looking at other health options before making the divorce decision.

 

Divorce Cheaper Option for Couples Facing Huge Obamacare Premiums

Welcome and thank you for stopping by. Please be aware and advised, this is a CONSERVATIVE BLOG.

 

Here is some information and my rules:

 1) I do not like Liberal Ideology;

 

 2) Conservatives have the voice of reason on my blog;

 

 3) I will delete any comments that are abusive, non-related to the “blog theme” and not debated in a civil manner;

 

 4) I welcome input from all walks of life.

 

However, this is my blog and I will make the “ultimate” decision on any/all comments.

I encourage “civil” discussion. We may not agree on “ideology”.

 

However, we can agree on “respect” and at least listening to different perspectives.

 

Thank you for visiting!

 

Reblogged from:http://www.newsmax.com

 

Posted by:

Divorce rates may soon be on the rise, but not because of infidelity or irreconcilable differences. The reason? Obamacare.
A Brooklyn, N.Y. couple tells The Atlantic that parting ways would save them thousands of dollars a year.
As a couple, Nona Willis Aronowitz, a freelance writer, and Aaron Cassara, who works in the film industry, earn more than $62,000 a year, the threshold to qualify for subsidies under the Affordable Care Act. If they divorce and instead choose to just live together, they would qualify for the subsidies and save hundreds of dollars a month.
Editor’s Note: ObamaCare Is About to Strike Are You Prepared?
“I guarantee you that in six months I will either be divorced or I will have a full-time job,” Aronowitz says.
She told CBS, “After Obamacare has rolled out, we realized that we would save thousands of dollars if we got divorced.”
The Cassaras are not the only Americans considering splitsville for financial reasons. The Affordable Care Act has already earned descriptive monikers such as a “wedding tax” and “divorce incentive.”
Obamacare’s mandate that all Americans purchase health insurance benefits low-income people while hurting middle and upper-income Americans, especially married couples, whose income is counted jointly.
Naked Capitalism website contributor Michael Olenick says he is weighing the decision of divorce or relocating to Europe, where his company is based, because of Obamacare’s cost-prohibitive price tag.
The cheapest plan under the Obamacare health exchange would cost Olenick’s family $493.68 a month with a maximum out-of-pocket cost of $12,600 per family.
“Of course the Obamacare covers more things, like mental health professionals and residential drug rehab for “free” once you hit that $12,600 level, in case the financial stress this causes drives a person to start needing sedatives,” Olenick writes.

But the government has provisions for those thinking about circumventing the new law with a divorce. Many states dictate that a couple cannot live together indefinitely and claim to be unmarried. The IRS can fine them for doing so to benefit from healthcare subsidies, Tom Blumer writes in a story posted on PJ Media.
“Those caught and punished by the IRS carrying out its new role as the de facto ‘marriage police’ could get hit with multi-year bills for undeserved ‘tax credits’ running into tens of thousands of dollars,” Blumer said.
To further illustrate his point, Blumer references a calculator provided by the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation showing the premiums for a 40-year-old couple with two children with the spouses’ annual earnings of $70,000 and $23,000, respectively.
“The couple’s annual unsubsidized premium while married is $11,547. But if they divorce and shack up while giving custody of both children to the lower-earning spouse, their combined annual premiums, at $4,317, will be over $7,200 lower. That’s over $600 a month.”

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/divorce-obamacare-premiums-couple/2013/11/07/id/535383#ixzz2jzCQAFDT