Cumpleaños mayo
¡Bienvenido a los Foros de Univision! Participa, intercambia mensajes privados, sube tus fotos y forma parte de nuestra Comunidad. | Ingresa | Regístrate Gratis
Mensajes: 3,851
Registrado: ‎12-08-2008
0 Kudos


Mensajes: 137,145
Registrado: ‎12-15-2005


You’ll be the Judge

This is a summary of what the Obama Admin. has accomplished in six short months. The warning is about the 2012 elections, but the 2010 Congressional elections might be even more important for the future of our Nation.

If it weren’t for the United States military, there’d be NO United States of America.

The 2012 Elections

Somber reading…..but it should be read and given serious thought on. Make sure to pass this on.
What would you say if I gave you 11 reasons why the elections in 2012 will be the most important in the history of the United States?

1. What if I had told you in October 2008, before the last presidential election, that before Barack Obama’s first 100 days in office, the federal government would be in control of both the mortgage and the banking industries? That 19 of America’s largest banks would be forced to undergo stress tests by the Federal government which would determine if they were insufficiently capitalized, so they must be supervised by the government?

Would you have said, “C’mon, that will never happen in America.”

2. What if I had told you that within Barack Obama’s first 100 days in office the federal government would be the largest shareholder in the US Big-Three automakers: Ford, GM, and Chrysler? That the government would kick out the CEO’s of these companies and appoint hand-picked executives with zero experience in the auto industry and that executive compensation would be determined, not by a Board of Directors, but by the government?

Would you have said, “C’mon, that will never happen in America.”

3. What if I had told you that Barack Obama would appoint 31 Czars,
without congressional approval, accountable only to him, not to the voters, who would have control over a wide range of US policy decisions. That there would be a Stimulus Accountability Czar, an Urban Czar, a Compensation Czar, an Iran Czar, an Auto Industry Czar, a Cyber Security Czar, an Energy Czar, a Bank Bailout Czar, and more than a dozen other government bureaucrats all with unchecked regulatory powers over US domestic and foreign policy.

Would you have said, “C’mon, that will never happen in America.”

4. What if I had told you that the federal deficit would be $915 billion in the first six months of the Obama presidency - with a projected annual deficit of $1.75 trillion - triple the $454.8 billion in 2008, for which the previous administration was highly criticized by Obama and his fellow Democrats. That congress would pass Obama’s $3.53 trillion federal budget for fiscal 2010. That the projected deficit over the next ten years would be greater than $10 trillion.

Would you have said, “C’mon, that will never happen in America.”

5. What if I had told you that the Obama Justice Department would order FBI agents to read Miranda rights to high-value detainees captured on the battlefield and held at US military detention facilities in Afghanistan. That Obama would order the closing of the Guantanamo detention facility with no plan for the disposition of the 200-plus individuals held there. That several of the suspected terrorists at Guantanamo would be sent to live in freedom in Bermuda at the expense of the US government. That our returning US veterans would be labeled terrorists and put on a watch list.

Would you have said, “C’mon, that will never happen in America.”

6. What if I had told you that the federal government would seek powers to seize key companies whose failures could jeopardize the financial system. That a new regulatory agency would be proposed by Obama to control loans, credit cards, mortgage-backed securities, and other financial products offered to the public.

Would you have said, “C’mon, that will never happen in America.”

7. What if I had told you that Obama would travel to the Middle East, bow before the Saudi king, and repeatedly apologize for America’s past actions. That he would travel to Latin America where he would warmly greet Venezuela’s strongman Hugo Chavez and sit passively in the audience while Nicaraguan Marxist thug Daniel Ortega charged America with terrorist aggression in Central America.

Would you have said, “C’mon, that will never happen in America.”

8. Okay, now what if I were to tell you that Obama wants to dismantle conservative talk radio through the imposition of a new “Fairness Doctrine.” That he wants to curtail the First Amendment rights of
those who may disagree with his policies via Internet Blogs, cable news networks, or advocacy ads. That most of the major network television stations and nearly all newspapers only sing his phrases like state-run media in communist countries?

Would you say, “C’mon, that will never happen in America.”

9. What if I were to tell you that the Obama Justice Department is doing everything it can to limit your Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms. That the federal government wants to reinstate the so-called assault weapons ban which would prohibit the sale of any type of firearm that requires the shooter to pull the trigger every time a round is fired. That Obama’s Attorney General wants to eliminate the sale of virtually all handguns and ammunition, which most citizens choose for self-defense.

Would you say, “C’mon, that will never happen in America.”

10. What if I were to tell you that the Obama plan is to eliminate states rights guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment and give the federal government sweeping new powers over policies currently under the province of local and state governments and voted on by the people. That Obama plans to control the schools, energy production, the environment, health care, and the wealth of every US citizen.

Would you say, “C’mon, that will never happen in America.”

11. What if I were to tell you that the president, the courts, and the federal government have ignored the US Constitution and have seized powers which the founders of our country fought to restrict. That our last presidential election may have been our last truly free election for some time to come. That our next presidential election may look similar to the one recently held in Iran. (And maybe under review by ACORN.)

I know, I know what you will say. That will never happen in America.

If we don’t do everything in our power to stop this madness in 2012, may God have mercy on our worthless souls.
Pass this on to every freedom loving American you can. Thank you.

You’ll be the Judge

Mensajes: 137,145
Registrado: ‎12-15-2005



La corrupta maquinaria política demócrata de New Jersey trata de superar el nivel de corrupción de la mafia demócrata de Chicago donde se entrenó y formó Barack Obama en el arte de la política.


NEWWARK, New Jersey. Una red de corrupción fue desmantelada por agentes federales que detuvieron a 44 responsables electos, incluyendo tres alcaldes demócratas, así como a cinco rabinos, anunciaron las autoridades judiciales.

La red incluye a los tres alcaldes demócratas de Hoboken, Peter Cammarano, el de Secaucus, Dennis Elwell y el de Ridgefield, Anthony Suárez, y la vicealcalde de Jersey City, Leona Beldini (demócrata) y el Presidente del Consejo Municipal de New Jersey, dos miembros de la Asamblea estatal, los legisladores estatales Daniel Van Pelt (republicano) y L. Harvey Smith (demócrata) y varios políticos, indicó la fiscalía, casi todos demócratas.

Los cargos presentados incluyen extorsión, soborno, lavado de dinero y tráfico de órganos humanos.

“Los políticos estaban vendiéndose deliberadamente”, dijo el fiscal general Ralph Marra, agregando que los cinco rabinos “ocultaron su actividad criminal detrás de una fachada de rectitud”.

La investigación de 10 años conocida como “Operation Bid Rig” derivó en la detención del alcalde Peter Cammarano, de Hoboken, quien tres semanas atrás asumió el poder de la ciudad y era considerado una estrella fulgurante del partido demócrata.

“El problema de corrupción de New Jersey es uno de los peores, sino el peor, en la nación”, indicó Ed Kahrer, agente de asistencia especial del FBI.

Está envuelta la corrupta maquinaria política demócrata que controla New Jersey, con la excepción del diputa estatal republicano Daniel Van Pelt, la gran mayoría de los envueltos en el escándalo son parte la mafia demócrata.

El gobernador Jon Corzine dijo que “toda corrupción es inaceptable, en cualquier tiempo o lugar o por quien sea. La escala de la corrupción que vemos a medida que se desarrolla esto es indignante y no se puede tolerar”.

En otro caso de lavado de dinero, varios rabinos de Nueva Jersey y Brooklyn fueron acusados de crímenes que van desde el tráfico de órganos provenientes de donantes israelíes hasta el lavado de las ganancias por la venta de carteras piratas Gucci y Prada. La conexión entre los arrestos por lavado de dinero y por corrupción no está clara.
Mike Winnick estaba rezando dentro de la sinagoga Deal en Long Branch cuando el FBI, el Servicio de Rentas Internas y autoridades del condado de Monmouth, hicieron una redada.

“Todo el mundo se miraba, como diciendo ‘¿Qué está pasando aquí?’”, dijo Winnick.

Winnick dijo que cuatro agentes escoltaron al rabino de la sinagoga hasta su oficina y luego bloquearon la entrada.

Cerca de la sinagoga, agentes del FBI y del Servicio de Rentas Internas retiraron varias cajas de la yeshiva de Deal, una escuela religiosa para hijos de judíos sefaradíes.

Más de dos docenas de personas fueron llevadas a la oficina del FBI en Newark el jueves en la mañana. Un agente escoltó a un rabino de edad avanzada hacia el edificio mientras que otro le cubría la cara.

Mensajes: 137,145
Registrado: ‎12-15-2005


In New Jersey, Ideal Conditions for Corruption

NEW YORK TIMES 7/27/2009
Cash in an envelope. In return, a promise that a development project will speed along, unhindered by bureaucratic delays. A handshake to seal the deal.

It is the most clichéd, unimaginative form of corruption — and its persistent hold on New Jersey’s elected leaders seems unrivaled in American government. Over the last decade alone, nearly 150 of the state’s senators, mayors, county executives and council members have been arrested and charged with leaping at the chance to engage in this lowest-common-denominator crime, at times for laughably small sums of money. But the history goes back much further than that.

“Everyone says it couldn’t happen to them, until it happens,” said Robert C. Botti, who became mayor of Union City in 1982 after his predecessor was sentenced to seven years for seeking bribes for school construction contracts.

So how did Mr. Botti, a self-styled reformer, top that? He rigged bids for school janitorial contracts, earning an 18-month prison sentence of his own. “Nobody starts out that way,” he said, a rueful tone in his voice.

As 44 people walked before cameras last week, their hands in cuffs, after they were arrested in the state’s biggest corruption scandal in years — but not, to be sure, that many years — even their most scandal-fatigued constituents, from the gritty precincts of Journal Square in Jersey City to the glittering new condominiums on the Hudson in Hoboken, began to wonder: Why is New Jersey so unshakably corrupt?

That answer, it turns out, has as many nuances as corruption itself. Interviews with law enforcement officials, prosecutors and, perhaps the best authority on the subject — those arrested in previous sweeps, like Mr. Botti — reveal a culture of corruption so ingrained that it has become impossible to resist when the envelope appears.

A decade-long building boom has flooded towns with millions of development dollars, as well as wealthy businessmen eager to VISITA UNIVISION.COM PARA MAS INFORMACION sewer permits and zoning waivers. The Democratic Party firmly dominates local politics, turning most elections into sleepy coronations. The state’s news organizations, once vigorous watchdogs, have been decimated by a deep industry downturn.

Add to all that the fact that New Jersey is divided into hundreds of tiny fiefdoms, where part-time elected officials without much education and with small salaries wield considerable power, and the heady mix of arrogance, control and promised payoffs dissolves the will of even the most determined reformer.

It also seems to dissolve their intelligence and caution, because often enough, the man with the envelope is wearing a wire.

“In New Jersey, you are encouraged to break the law,” said Alan C. Marcus, a longtime Republican operative who has worked in the state for decades, observing all matter of malfeasance.

Like this: a state lawmaker, who, in fit of pique, said the reason he did not refer business to Mr. Marcus was “because you don’t kick back.”

Mr. Marcus said he became so disenchanted with the political culture that he has re-engineered his business from lobbying to public relations so that “I never have to be in the room with a politician again.”

It wasn’t always like this, proud New Jersey residents say. But, in reality, it always was.

As far back as the 1870s, a grand jury in Hudson County indicted two police commissioners accused of awarding contracts to fictitious groups. And by the 1970s, fraud, extortion and kickbacks had become as common as traffic jams on the New Jersey Turnpike.

In 1971, Mayor Thomas J. Whelan of Jersey City was convicted of collecting millions in kickbacks from companies doing business with Jersey City and Hudson County. In 1982, William V. Musto, who served simultaneously as the mayor of Union City and as a state senator, was convicted of seeking bribes in return for school construction contracts, paving the way for Mr. Botti, whose bid-rigging conviction arrived less than a year later.

In 1991, Gerald McCann, the mayor of Jersey City, was convicted of defrauding a bank of $260,000 between the end of his first term and his re-election. And in 2004, Joseph Auriemma, the former top administrator of North Bergen, pleaded guilty to accepting $35,000 in cash and home improvements from a builder in exchange for handing out lucrative contracts.

Academics say that the state’s history of decentralized, small-bore government is to blame. There are 566 municipalities, many with paltry budgets and skeletal staff, whose leaders arrive in government with little training and salaries of less than $15,000 a year.

Some politicians hold two elected offices at once — allowed under state law — which makes them “really susceptible to corruption because they have a powerful role at two levels of government,” said Christopher J. Christie, the former United States attorney who has indicted a parade of New Jersey officials and who is now the Republican candidate for governor.

Secrecy prevails, sometimes for lack of resources, shielding the graft.

“You can’t even get a copy of the municipal budget online in many of these towns,” said Ingrid W. Reed, the director of the New Jersey Project at the Eagleton Institute of Politics at Rutgers University. “That structure does not exist.”

In that environment, she said, ethics is often the first casualty.

“What educated guy would want to be the mayor of some town with 3,000 people?” said former Representative Cornelius E. Gallagher, a onetime Hudson County lawmaker. “All of the sudden, he has power, and is tempted — especially if he is a poor guy. So he yields to temptation. You can’t condone it, but it happens.”

Like many of his colleagues, Mr. Gallagher knows something about temptation. In 1973, he pleaded guilty to evading $74,000 in taxes. Asked about the case, he said he was “harassed out of office” by overzealous prosecutors.

Mr. Botti, the convicted former mayor of Union City, recalled that his salary in government was abysmal. “Are you sitting down?” he asked. “It was $7,500.”

Recalling his own ethical challenges, he said: “I was a kid. You start out full of energy. You have ideas. You want to see things improve, to develop a better way of life. And things happen along the way.”

He said the complexity of the scheme unveiled last week, which involved three mayors, two State Assembly members and five rabbis, was “mind-boggling” compared with his crimes.

“Mine was about brooms and buckets and mops,” he said.

Many New Jersey residents are less impressed. In interviews around the state, several simply shrugged at the latest indictments, the third, fourth or fifth wave in their lives.

“I don’t know if I wasn’t surprised because it’s New Jersey or because it’s politicians,” said Cynthia Rose, 30, a makeup artist who lives in Jersey City. “I hate to be so jaded,” she added.

Perhaps the biggest surprise was the relatively small dollar amounts involved — bribes of $10,000 here, $20,000 there. In Hoboken, where Mayor Peter Cammarano III is accused of accepting a $25,000 bribe just weeks after taking office, Stu Buchbinder, 30, said he couldn’t understand how a public official with a salary of more than $100,000 would jeopardize his career for such a sum.

“For 25 grand, it’s not worth throwing everything away,” said Mr. Buchbinder, a computer programmer. But he predicted that Mr. Cammarano’s replacement would be equally susceptible. “Will they take bribes? Probably.”

He paused. “Possibly they’ll be smarter about it and wait longer,” he said.

Nate Schweber contributed reporting.

Mensajes: 137,145
Registrado: ‎12-15-2005


The Shrinking President
The Shrinking President
Just as small men can be great, the important can be small. Barack Obama, who strode the political world last year as a new Colossus, is shrinking before our eyes. His proclamation that the Cambridge, Mass., police “acted stupidly” in arresting his personal friend, Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr., was one of those “teachable moments” the president is so fond of creating.

But the lesson of that moment is not the one the president apprehended.  It is a lesson that proved how little the president appreciates the office he holds.

I use that term precisely: not in the sense that Obama doesn’t like the power he holds. He, more than any president in memory, takes personal enjoyment from exercising it. His lack of appreciation is a lack of understanding of that power and the limits on how it should be exercised.

Obama’s team orchestrates press conferences at an unprecedented level. They talk to reporters about questions to be asked, prepare Obama for his answers (displayed on a huge off-camera teleprompter behind the reporters where Obama can read from it) and only then does the president face his amen chorus of the media.  

In the July 22 presser, Obama was asked about the disorderly conduct arrest of Harvard Professor Gates. Obama said:
Well, I should say at the outset that Skip Gates is a friend, so I may be a little biased here… Now, I don’t know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that. But I think it’s fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry; number two, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home; and, number three, what I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there’s a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately. That’s just a fact.
The official police report of the arrest says that Gates was loud, abusive and uncooperative with the investigating officer who was responding to a call about a possible break-in at the house.  Gates reportedly shouted continuously at Crowley, accusing him of being a racist and telling him that he had no idea “who he was messing with” and that Crowley “…had not heard the last of it.” Apparently, Obama delivered on that threat.  He spoke as if he were Jesse Jackson, not the President of the United States.

The arresting officer, Sgt. James Crowley, has a better and deeper understanding of the office of president than the man who holds it.  He told a radio interviewer that Obama, “…was way off base wading into a local issue without knowing all the facts."

The American presidency is a national office, not that of a Chicago ward-heeler. A president’s words carry the weight and power of the nation. His constitutional charter makes him the chief administrator of law and policy as well as commander in chief.  His charter does not extend to interfering in matters that are not within that charter.  

There is no precedent for Obama’s intervention in the Gates arrest.  Presidents do not interfere in law enforcement matters. That Gates is Obama’s friend makes it even worse.  It’s perfectly right for a president to express confidence in an embattled cabinet member, though that’s usually done right before the guy resigns.  It’s an abuse of power for a president to try to influence a law enforcement matter.

In short, Obama’s intervention was more than inappropriate: it was a wrongful exercise of the power of the office he holds.  According to the latest Rasmussen poll, only 26% of Americans approve of the way Obama responded to the question about Gates’ arrest.  It was a “teachable moment,” but the president didn’t learn from it.  

Two days after the July 22 presser, Obama defended his intervention. He said, “There are some who say that as President I shouldn't have stepped into this at all because it's a local issue. I have to tell you that that part of it I disagree with.  The fact that this has become such a big issue I think is indicative of the fact that race is still a troubling aspect of our society.  Whether I were black or white, I think that me commenting on this and hopefully contributing to constructive -- as opposed to negative -- understandings about the issue, is part of my portfolio.”

Barack Obama’s political power shrank as he spoke, doubly so as he compounded the offense. Obama is a small man, as deeply shallow as Paris Hilton. But unlike the Euro pop-tart, Obama is shrinking in influence and stature at an accelerating rate.  

Obama suffers from many things, not the least of which were the enormous expectations for his success.  It’s not that long ago when Newsweek’s Evan Thomas said that he was, “above the country, above the world: he’s a sort of God.”  As The Economist points out this week in a column entitled, “The Obama Cult”, at one time people were wearing t-shirts proclaiming Obama as “The One” and “Jesus was a community organizer.”  

Underneath the glitter, there is no greatness.  Barack Obama is a small man in a large and important job.  He and his adulators have created a cult of personality that is already falling apart.

Obama speaks in broad terms, as presidents must, at first, before the details are managed. But Obama’s broad terms -- from the stimulus package to health care to “cap and trade” -- were never articulated, just outsourced to the liberals in Congress who have run riot.  Even the House “Blue Dog” Democrats are walking away from the president’s signature initiative on health care.  

Negotiations between the Blue Dogs and Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) broke down on Friday with the seven Blue Dog negotiators reportedly storming out of the session saying they’d been “lied to” and that Waxman wasn’t negotiating in good faith.  

Rep. Mike Ross (D-Ark.), the leader of the Blue Dogs, said on Friday. “We are trying to save this bill and trying to save this party.”  From whom?

Ross’s mission is to save the Democrats from Obama.  He won’t succeed.  The Democrats’ disarray -- in the House as well as in the Senate -- betrays Obama’s diminishing influence.  But the hyperliberals such as Waxman and Pelosi won’t moderate the way Congress pursues Obama’s goals because those goals were theirs long before Obama was elected president.  And he will sign any health care bill they send to him, no matter how radical or costly.

As Obama shrinks, so does his ability to affect events both domestically and internationally.  His agenda -- especially health care nationalization and “cap and tax” -- is in real trouble.  And so are our nation and our allies abroad.

On the July 26 edition of “Meet the Press,” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton proclaimed Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons “futile” and said to Iran, “…we're going to do everything we can to prevent you from ever getting a nuclear weapon.”  Which contradicted directly Obama’s June 4 Cairo speech.  In it, he said, “I understand those who protest that some countries have weapons that others do not.  No single nation should pick and choose which nation holds nuclear weapons.”  Obama green-lighted Iran’s nuclear weapons program, so no one in Iran will -- or should -- take Clinton’s words seriously.

As I write, a parade of top-ranking U.S. officials -- including Middle East Envoy George Mitchell, Defense Secretary Bob Gates and possibly National Security Advisor James Jones -- are flocking to Israel to try heal the breach between us and the Israelis over Obama’s demands to end West Bank Settlements and to stave off an Israeli attack on Iran.  They will not succeed because Obama -- in his Cairo speech and in his demands of Israel -- threw away what little leverage he had.

Great presidents are like chess players: they see three or four moves ahead, sacrificing occasionally but moving only to better our nation’s internal strength and VISITA UNIVISION.COM PARA MAS INFORMACION in the world.  Barack Obama is playing checkers.
Mensajes: 3,851
Registrado: ‎12-08-2008


Mensajes: 137,145
Registrado: ‎12-15-2005


Atraídos Engañosamente Al Desastre
Detrás de la burbuja inmobiliaria estaba una de esas frases atractivas pero indefinidas que son tan populares en política: "vivienda asequible".

Me es difícil entender qué quieren decir los políticos específicamente cuando usan esta frase. Pero, por otra parte, la política tiene que ver con despertar emociones, no con hablar de cosas específicas.

Analizando retrospectivamente mi propia vida, me es difícil pensar en algún momento en el que no viviera en una vivienda asequible.

Cuando me fui de casa, allá por 1948, alquile un cuarto de un poco más de 1 x 3 metros y pagaba 5.75 dólares a la semana. Como mi sueldo era 22.50, eso era vivienda asequible. (Multiplique más o menos por 10 para sacar el equivalente de los precios actuales).

Después de tres años viviendo de alquiler, empecé a dormir en las barracas del Cuerpo de Marines, a veces en tiendas de campaña -- ninguna me costaba un centavo. Eso era lo que ciertamente podemos llamar asequible.

Al regresar a la vida civil, en 1954, alquilé mi primer departamento, un estudio pequeño pero asequible. Pero un año después me fui a estudiar a la universidad y viví en diversos campus durante los 6 años siguientes. Ninguno era de lujo, pero todos eran asequibles.

Al finalizar mis estudios, alquilé otro estudio -- no era un gran avance sustancial, pero era asequible.

En 1969, alquilé mi primera casa que ya me podía dar el lujo de pagar después de varios años como profesor de varias universidades. Doce años después pude empezar a comprarme mi primera casa.

Aunque los detalles concretos variarán según las circunstancias personales, el patrón general que he descrito no deja de ser el habitual. La mayor parte de la gente paga lo que puede permitirse pagar en el momento.

Entonces, ¿cuál es el "problema" que los políticos aseguran estar resolviendo cuando hablan de crear "viviendas asequibles"?

Pues lo que normalmente dicen y hacen se reduce a tratar de que las personas elijan primero la vivienda que quieren -- y después hacer alguna ley o crear alguna política con la que alguien, en otro sitio, de una u otra forma, haga que esa vivienda se convierta en "asequible".

Si nos ponemos a reflexionar en el asunto, es una receta para el desastre. No podemos ir comprando por ahí todo lo que se nos antoje sin importarnos el pequeño detalle de si tenemos o no el dinero suficiente para pagarlo porque sino alguien más pagará la diferencia.

Para la sociedad en su conjunto, no existe ese otro "alguien más".

Pero, claro, los eslóganes políticos no están hechos para pensar, ¿verdad? A menudo son el sustituto emocional para no tener que pensar.

A veces se dota de cierta apariencia de racionalidad a la frase "vivienda asequible", por ejemplo, cuando se compara el precio de la vivienda con los ingresos de aquellos que viven en ella. Eso fue precisamente lo que hice cuando alquilé mi primer cuarto. No hace falta ser un genio para eso -- ni entonces ni ahora.

La diferencia está en que hoy día existe un porcentaje arbitrario de los ingresos de una persona que marcan el límte a lo que el gobierno considera vivienda asequible. Solía ser el 25%, pero podría ser el 30% o alguna otra cantidad.

Sea cual sea el porcentaje, ya ha dejado de ser responsabilidad de cada persona elegir la vivienda que encaja en ese límite. De alguna forma se ha convertido en tarea del contribuyente pagar la diferencia cuando alguien escoge una vivienda cuyo coste excede el número mágico.

Ciertamente ya no se considera responsabilidad individual adquirir los rudimentos y la experiencia en una profesión para poder ganar el dinero necesario a fin de poder permitirse una casa mejor con el paso de los años. ¿Para qué hacerlo cuando el gobierno simplemente puede ponerse a "distribuir la riqueza"? -- por usar otra frase hecha de los políticos.

La gran ironía es que el creciente intervencionismo del Estado en el mercado inmobiliario con el transcurrir de los años ha conseguido que, por lo general, la vivienda sea menos asequible que antes, bajo cualquier criterio.

Hace cien años, los americanos usaban un porcentaje inferior de sus ingresos para la vivienda comparado con la suma que dedican hoy. En 1901, la vivienda representaba el 23% de los ingresos del americano promedio. Para 2003, era ya el 33% pero de unos ingresos muy superiores.

En lugares donde la regulación y las restricciones del Estado han sido especialmente severas, como por ejemplo la costa de California, el alquiler y los pagos mensuales de la hipoteca han sido como promedio el 50% de los ingresos de una persona.

La mayor parte de nuestros problemas no son ni de lejos tan difíciles como las "soluciones" políticas. En asuntos de vivienda, la política del gobierno ha atraído engañosamente a la gente a situaciones insostenibles para ellos y para el país.

Mensajes: 137,145
Registrado: ‎12-15-2005



1.Millions Will Lose Their Current Insurance. Period. End of Story: President Obama wants Americans to believe they can keep their insurance if they like, but research from the government, private research firms, and think tanks show this is not the case. Proposed economic incentives, plus a government-run health plan like the one proposed in the House bill, would cause 88.1 million people to see their current employer-sponsored health plan disappear.

2.Your Health Care Coverage Will Probably Change Anyway: Even if you kept your private insurance, eventually most remaining plans—whether employer plans or individual plans—would have to conform to new federal benefit standards. Moreover, the necessary plan “upgrades” will undoubtedly cost you more in premiums.

3.The Umpire Is Also the First Baseman: The main argument for a “public option” is that it would increase competition. However, if the federal government creates a health care plan that it controls and also sets the rules for the private plans, there is little doubt that Washington would put its private sector “competitors” out of business sooner or later.

4.The Fed Picks Your Treatment: President Obama said: “They’re going to have to give up paying for things that don’t make them healthier. … If there’s a blue pill and a red pill, and the blue pill is half the price of the red pill and works just as well, why not pay half for the thing that’s going to make you well.” Does that sound like a government that will stay out of your health care decisions?5.Individual Mandate Means Less Liberty and More Taxes: Although he once opposed the idea, President Obama is now open to the imposition of an individual mandate that would require all Americans to have federally approved health insurance. This unprecedented federal directive not only takes away your individual freedom but could cost you as well. Lawmakers are considering a penalty or tax for those who don’t buy government-approved health plans.

6.Higher Taxes Than Europe Hurt Small Businesses: A proposed surtax on the wealthy will actually hit hundreds of thousands of small business owners who are dealing with a recession. If it is enacted, America’s top earners and job creators will carry a larger overall tax burden than France, Italy, Germany, Japan, etc., with a total average tax rate greater than 52%. Is that the right recipe for jobs and wage growth?

7.Who Makes Medical Decisions? What is the right medical treatment and should bureaucrats determine what Americans can or cannot have? While the House and Senate language is vague, amendments offered in House and Senate committees to block government rationing of care were routinely defeated. Cost or a federal health board could be the deciding factors. President Obama himself admitted this when he said, “Maybe you’re better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller,” when asked about an elderly woman who needed a pacemaker.

8.Taxpayer-Funded Abortions? Nineteen Democrats recently asked the President to not sign any bill that doesn’t explicitly exclude “abortion from the scope of any government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan” or any bill that allows a federal health board to “recommend abortion services be included under covered benefits or as part of a benefits package.” Currently, these exclusions do not exist.

9.It’s Not Paid For: The CBO says the current House plan would increase the deficit by $239 billion over 10 years. And that number will likely continue to rise over the long term. Similar entitlement bills in the past, including Medicare, have scored much lower than their actual eventual cost.

10.Rushing It, Not Reading It: We’ve been down this road before—with the failed stimulus package. Back then, we also heard that we were in a crisis and that we needed to pass a 1,000-plus-page bill in a few hours—without reading it—or we would have 8% unemployment. Well, we know what happened. Now, one Congressman has even said it’s pointless to read one of the reform bills without two days and two lawyers to make sense of it. Deception is the only reason to rush through a bill nobody truly understands.

Mensajes: 90,636
Registrado: ‎06-03-2009


Obamacare called ‘euthanasia bill’

Critic: ‘Reflects regime worse
than China’s one-child policy’

July 31, 2009

By Bob Unruh


President Obama
The Democrats’ proposed national health insurance plan would dictate medications, treatments and mental health services; determine coverages individuals are allowed to have; and operate with real-time access to personal bank accounts, according to a new analysis.

And it’s worse, a critic said, than China’s mandatory one-child policy.

“In the same way that the bill pushes elderly or the sick toward euthanasia, it is a pill that would cause economic suicide,” said Mathew Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel. “It’s a euthanasia bill for America.”

Congress members have admitted they have not read the more-than-1,000-page bill, and Staver’s organization is one of the first to go through it and offer an analysis.

In the Liberty Counsel analysis, Staver notes that under Section 163, the government would be allowed to have real-time access to individuals’ finances, including direct access to bank accounts for electronic funds transfers.

Under Section 1308, the analysis finds, the government will dictate marriage and family therapy as well as mental health services, including the definitions of those treatments.

Will the elites control life itself? ‘The Emerging Brave New World’ documents the battle against the sanctity of life ethic

Under Section 1401, a Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research would be set up, creating a bureaucracy through which federal employees could determine whether any treatment is “comparatively effective” for any individual based on the cost, likely success and probably the years left in life.

(Story continues below)

It also, according to Staver, “covers abortions, transsexual surgeries, encourages counseling as to how many children you should have, whether you should increase the interval between children.”

The plan would allow, in Section 1401, for the collection of information about individuals’ health records, both “published and unpublished,” and recommend policies for public access to data.

“It reflects a repressive regime worse than China’s one-child policy,” Staver told WND. “It’s going down the road for a government that manages the most intimate matters of your life regarding health and safety.”

Further, the plan is created to be the “only game in town,” he said. And as people age or get sicker, it includes mandatory “consultations” offering suggestions on how to end life sooner, he said.

The Liberty Counsel staff that did the research was “astonished” by what they found.

J. Matt Barber, director of cultural affairs for Liberty Counsel, said in a commentary the bill reflects the influence of those who now surround President Obama.

“His choice of Harvard professor and self-styled ‘neo-Malthusain’ John Holdren as ‘science czar’ provides the latest and perhaps most troubling example of just how bad America really muffed it last November,” Barber wrote.

“In the name of population control, Holdren has advocated both forced abortion and compulsory sterilization through government-administered tainting of the water supply. In a book he co-authored, entitled ‘Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment,’ Holdren calls for a ‘Planetary Regime’ to enforce mandatory abortions and limit the use of natural resources,” he wrote.

Staver pointed to some of Holdren’s outrageous suggestions, such as implanting sterility capsules in girls at puberty and extracting them only when they obtain government permission to have children. For men, he has suggested putting additives in the water system to cause sterility.

Barber wrote that Holdren has affirmed he believes there is “ample authority” under the U.S. Constitution for population growth to be “regulated.”

“Even ... laws requiring compulsory abortion … could be sustained under the existing Constitution,” Holdren suggested.

Nina May, founder of Renaissance Women, added to the arguments. She cited a 1948 Hitchcock movie about murder in which the victim’s body is hidden in plain sight.

“The health care bill that Obama proposes has this theme at its core and has in its crosshairs the Baby Boomer engine that is pulling the derailed economy as it takes its final lap toward retirement. In less than two years, Baby Boomers will begin retiring in multitudes, expecting to reclaim the hard earned money they have been paying into Social Security. But this Health Care Bill, HR3200, has other plans for them,” she wrote.

“Those 65 and older will be required to undergo mandatory ‘end of life’ counseling to determine if they are worthy to continue to not only live, but take much needed resources from those who are younger and more worthy to receive them. Counselors will be trained to discuss how to end life sooner, how to decline nutrition and hydration, how to go into hospice, etc.,” she said.

“This will not be done without coercion. For those who have amassed assets enough to take care of themselves in their old age will have these assets confiscated in the name of fiscal responsibility, because by this time, every citizen will be entered into a national database under the guise of improved efficiency. This database will be run by a type of ‘star chamber,’ appointed by the president, that will determine whether or not you deserve the much needed operation your personal doctor thinks you need,” she said.

The Liberty Counsel analysis also pointed out the government would be allowed to ration health care procedures, prevent “judicial review” of its decision, tell doctors what income they can have, impose new taxes for anyone not having an “acceptable” coverage, regulate whether seniors can have wheelchairs, penalize hospitals or doctors whose patients require “readmission,” prevent the expansion of hospitals and set up procedures for home visits by health care analysts.

Under Section 440, Liberty Counsel said, the government “will design and implement Home Visitation Program for families with young kids and families that expect children.” And Section 194 provides for a program that has the government “coming into your house and teaching/telling you how to parent,” LC said.

WND reported earlier when Betsy McCaughey, the former New York state officer, told former presidential candidate Fred Thompson during an interview on his radio program the health care plan includes consultations for seniors on how to die.

“One of the most shocking things is page 425, where the Congress would make it mandatory absolutely that every five years people in Medicare have a required counseling session,” she said. “They will tell [them] how to end their life sooner.”

The proposal specifically calls for the consultation to recommend “palliative care and hospice” for seniors in their mandatory counseling sessions. Palliative care and hospice generally focus only on pain relief until death.

The measure requires “an explanation by the practitioner of the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available

Mensajes: 3,851
Registrado: ‎12-08-2008