Wow, now if you want to see the BS-o-Meter dance at the max then always turn to Washington.  It's the world's largest BS factory, producing more bullshit than the nation's cattle industry.

In an article on CNN Money entitled:

Washington; Pushing BS to the MAX!

Obama win boosts chances for tax hike on rich

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- It won't happen without a fight -- potentially a really ugly fight. And it may even push the country over the fiscal cliff for a time.

But now that President Obama has been re-elected, and Democrats have retained control of the Senate, there's a far greater chance that high-income households will soon face higher tax bills.

Obama staked his re-election campaign and his first term on the issue of asking the rich to "pay their fair share." And he has repeatedly called for the expiration of the portion of the Bush tax cuts that apply to households making more than $200,0000 ($250,000 if married). 

It later reads:

On Wednesday, House Speaker John Boehner held fast to the Republican line.  "We won't solve the problem of our fiscal imbalance overnight," he said. "And we certainly won't solve it by simply raising tax rates or taking a plunge off the fiscal cliff." 

Now let's read between the lies, shall we?

There's a funny little thing called the two-party system - where old cronies act like they're on opposing sides in order to give the idea that you have a choice in the process and that you have someone representing your side of things.

In this case, Obama is trying to appease voters by living up to his promise of taxing the rich.  This is our first piece of steamy fresh BS.  You see... an "expiration of the portion of the Bush tax cuts" is not a rise in taxes... it's getting rid of the ridiculous tax breaks that were given to them by Bush.  It's like the BS they say when the government is balancing the budget by lowering the increase in spending.  It's still spending... it's still an increase, it's just not as big an increase.  So increasing the taxes of the rich is not giving them less of a discount on their taxes.

All this is supposedly to lower the deficit and cut the debt.

Another BS way that they want to do this is instead of raising taxes (which taxes they say go to pay for such things as social services and building roads) they can just cut the programs that the government has to spend money on (like social services and building roads).  Our boy John "The Boner on the Hill" Boehner is the head shill of the House of Representatives.  See old Boner is using a new version of Washington's famous BS catch phrases... stating that ""We won't solve the problem of our fiscal imbalance overnight," he said. "And we certainly won't solve it by simply raising tax rates or taking a plunge off the fiscal cliff."  Now "fiscal cliff" is being parroted across the media so fast it could make Boehner cry... which anyone who knows him knows that's not hard to do.  This guy would cry from passing gas after eating a spicy fish taco at a Latin themed fund raiser.  It's probably also due to the stress of having to act like he cares about Latinos.  The only imbalance here is chemical.

Let's see how ol' Boner wants to save money instead of taxing the rich...

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS  (From the HuffPost)

Highlights of House GOP legislation cutting spending by more than $300 billion over the coming decade.

• Food Stamps – Cuts $35.8 billion by eliminating benefit increases in President Barack Obama's economic stimulus and tightening eligibility requirements. Cuts spending by 4 percent over coming decade.

• Health Care – Cuts the president's overhaul law in several ways, saving $66 billion. Cuts include requiring those receiving health insurance subsidies to repay excess subsidies when their income increases, eliminating grants to states to set up health insurance exchanges and repealing a fund for prevention efforts like cancer screenings and immunizations. 

• Financial Regulation – Repeals several elements of the 2010 Dodd-Frank law to save $30 billion, including $22.5 billion saved by repealing federal liquidation authority of "too big to fail" banks and other financial institutions, financed by assessments on other large institutions. Also eliminates funding for a new consumer protection bureau and a new mortgage assistance program aimed at helping people modify their home loans. 

• Federal Employee Pensions – Cuts deficits by $83 billion over 10 years, requiring federal workers to contribute more toward their pensions in increments phased in over five years. Workers hired after 1983 would contribute an additional 5 percent for a total contribution of 5.8 percent. Workers in the pre-1983 system – who are ineligible for Social Security – would also pay an additional 5 percent for a total contribution of 12 percent. 

• Medical Liability – Cuts the deficit by up to $66 billion though lower Medicare and Medicaid costs stemming from new curbs on medical liability lawsuits, including a $250,000 cap on punitive damages and protections for manufacturers of medical devices that meet federal safety standards. 

• Child Tax Credit – Raises $7.6 billion by requiring people claiming tax credits of up to $1,000 per child as tax refunds to have Social Security numbers. It is aimed at preventing undocumented immigrants from claiming the tax cuts. 

• Social Services Block Grants – Saves $17 billion over 10 years by eliminating the Social Services Block Grant to states, which supports numerous programs, including Meals on Wheels, child welfare, day care for both children and adults and help for the disabled. 

Let's read between the lies for each fo the House's cuts:

Let's start with food stamps, which are actually used by the rich, right?

WorldHunger.org reports the following about food stamps:

In 2010, 17.2 million households, 14.5 percent of households (approximately one in seven), were food insecure, the highest number ever recorded in the United States

In 2010, children were food insecure at times during the year in 9.8 percent of households with children (3.9 million households.) In one percent of households with children,one or more of the children experienced the most severe food-insecure condition measured by USDA, very low food security, in which meals were irregular and food intake was below levels considered adequate by caregivers.

Hmmm... "food insecure"?  ... it doesn't mean "eat too much, get a fat ass and feel insecure in those tight jeans".  See the term used before was "HUNGER" but the government didn't like that term because it created a negative image... I wonder why.

WorldHunger.org tells us:

Background: The United States changed the name of its definitions in 2006 that eliminated references to hunger, keeping various categories of food insecurity.  This did not represent a change in what was measured.  Very low food insecurity (described as food insecurity with hunger prior to 2006) means that, at times during the year, the food intake of household members was reduced and their normal eating patterns were disrupted because the household lacked money and other resources for food. This means that people were hungry ( in the sense of "the uneasy or painful sensation caused by want of food" (Emphasis added)

So, cut food stamps to people who are hungry.

Next is cuts in health care... this whole thing sucks but the gem is "repealing a fund for prevention efforts like cancer screenings and immunizations".  See, let's not give money to prevent diseases and things like cancer because that would mean less people who get them and hospitals, doctors and big Pharma wouldn't make so much money treating them.

Next up, Financial Regulation... haha.  The kicker on this one is how it also "eliminates funding for a new consumer protection bureau and a new mortgage assistance program aimed at helping people modify their home loans".  So take away the protections of the consumer from getting screwed by big corporations, which costs the consumer more money and makes the corps more money but let's also not help the people get better rates on their mortgages.  Another one that will cost the people more money and make the big banks more money.

Federal Employee Pensions:  Yep, you work for the federal government?  Well pay more towards your retirement now... 5% more.  I wonder if this includes Congress-people, the Supreme Court and lower court justices or even the Pres. 

Next is Medical Liability:   This includes "new curbs on medical liability lawsuits, including a $250,000 cap on punitive damages and protections for manufacturers".  See this means that people who prove to a jury or judge that the manufacturer is at fault and is liable can only receive a certain amount, which is so often nothing compared to either the amount the manufacturer makes or the amount the victim or their family lose.  Again, another one where the people lose and this time big Medical wins.

Child tax credits:  Makes people prove that their children are citizens before they get tax credits.  Although I agree that citizens should benefit from their country's money it's a tough call on whether children should take the hit for it.  I'll leave this one to you folks to decide.

The last one needs no second thought:  "which supports numerous programs, including Meals on Wheels, child welfare, day care for both children and adults and help for the disabled".

So ol' Johnny Boehner, the town crier, and his cronies want to basically bring down the deficit by slashing help for the poor, the disabled, the cheated, the injured, the hungry, the working parent and their children, while simultaneously increasing the profits and protections for Big Medical, Big Pharma, liable Manufacturers, and Banks.

You'll notice that not one of those bullet points included a single cut to military spending or many of the other pits that cost the country the most money.

Is there perhaps another way that the money could be raised to cut the deficit while not slashing social services?  How about we make corporations (many of those that this House legislation wants to benefit) pay their fair share in taxes?  I mean they put people in jail for not paying theirs.  But would making corporations pay their fair share in taxes make enough money to make a difference or be worth it?

Think Progress shows how Citizens for Tax Justice found that:

– Thirty corporations paid less than nothing in aggregate federal income taxes over the entire 2008-10 period. These companies, whose pretax U.S. profits totaled $160 billion over the three years, included: Pepco Holdings (–57.6% tax rate), General Electric (–45.3%), DuPont (–3.4%), Verizon (–2.9%), Boeing (–1.8%), Wells Fargo (–1.4%) and Honeywell (–0.7%).

– Seventy-eight of the 280 companies paid zero or less in federal income taxes in at least one year from 2008 to 2010…In the years they paid no income tax, these companies earned $156 billion in pretax U.S. profits. But instead of paying $55 billion in income taxes as the 35 percent corporate tax rate seems to require, these companies generated so many excess tax breaks that they reported negative taxes (often receiving outright tax rebate checks from the U.S. Treasury), totaling $21.8 billion. These companies’ “negative tax rates” mean that they made more after taxes than before taxes in those no-tax years.

 But you might think... there are a lot more than 280 companies in the states.  Well these are 280 out of the Fortune 500!  This means that more than half of the top 500 companies in the US paid zero, zilch, nada, nuffin, squat, shit-all in taxes.  NOT ONE FRIGGIN PENNY!

Some of these companies got so many tax breaks that they reported NEGATIVE TAXES.  The actually got money from the government.  So corporations not only get no punishment for dodging taxes they get paid to do it!  $21.8 BILLION TO DO IT!

See, $55 billion over 3 years would be $183 billion in 10 years (if their profits stayed the same).  Then take away the $21.8 billion they get paid for dodging taxes and over 10 years you'd have an additional $72 billion.  That equals over $255 billion in the same 10 years.  Hell, just make the rest of those tax dodging companies pay their share and you'll hit that $300 billion mark in no time.

Imagine that... corporations actually pay their fair share of taxes and the poor get to keep their social services!

OH NO MR. BILL!  Says the big Boner on the Hill.  And you don't see Obama suggesting this either.  That's the trick of having a government filled with cronies in a fake two-party con... they fight about the issues they want to and neither brings up the real solutions.  If neither of them are talking about it... it must not be worth talking about...

Makes me think of that ol' saying....THROW THE BUMS OUT!


 Thanks for reading!  :D

Coming next... The Truth About Taxes