DrafterX
11 years ago
Americans spent an absurd amount of money to fly Obama from Maryland to Miami and back
Jun 27th 2015

The world's most famous plane has an undeniably high operational price tag.
America's "flying Oval Office" costs taxpayers $206,337 every hour it is in flight, according to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) letter obtained by the nonprofit Judicial Watch.
And according to documents obtained by Judicial Watch, the "most expensive-to-operate Air Force One to date," flew President Obama from Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland to Miami and back (a total of 4.2 hours) on Wednesday, April 22, for $866,615.40.
While in Florida for four and a half hours, Obama toured the Everglades National Park, gave a speech about global warming, reboarded his plane, and arrived at the White House a little after 8 o'clock that evening, according to the president's schedule.

Film at 11.... πŸ€”
Brewha
11 years ago
So you're thinking next time he should fly Southwest?

They would spot him drink coupons....
banderl
11 years ago

Americans spent an absurd amount of money to fly Obama from Maryland to Miami and back
Jun 27th 2015

The world's most famous plane has an undeniably high operational price tag.
America's "flying Oval Office" costs taxpayers $206,337 every hour it is in flight, according to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) letter obtained by the nonprofit Judicial Watch.
And according to documents obtained by Judicial Watch, the "most expensive-to-operate Air Force One to date," flew President Obama from Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland to Miami and back (a total of 4.2 hours) on Wednesday, April 22, for $866,615.40.
While in Florida for four and a half hours, Obama toured the Everglades National Park, gave a speech about global warming, reboarded his plane, and arrived at the White House a little after 8 o'clock that evening, according to the president's schedule.

Film at 11.... πŸ€”

DrafterX wrote:




Is it cheaper for you to fly now than it was yrs ago?
TMCTLT
11 years ago

http://www.examiner.com/article/this-is-how-distraught-obama-is-over-s-c-church-massacre



Party On Barry[jester]

mikey1597 wrote:




He certainly didn't miss the opportunity to "Stir the Racial Pot" while being broadcast on all 3 Government owned outlets.


Way to set a fine example there Mr. President 🍺
DrafterX
11 years ago

So you're thinking next time he should fly Southwest?

They would spot him drink coupons....

Brewha wrote:




he could wear a hoodie and sunglasses... no one would know... 😟
Brewha
11 years ago

he could wear a hoodie and sunglasses... no one would know... 😟

DrafterX wrote:


Hell, if he'll do that he could just get an AmeriPass on Greyhound.
Just don't let him eat Skittles.....
DrafterX
11 years ago
πŸ€”
Do they serve beer on Greyhound..?? πŸ˜•
Brewha
11 years ago
I don’t know.

Prolly BYOB
DrafterX
11 years ago
Sounds like a Pabst Blue Ribbin occasion to me... 🍺
Brewha
11 years ago
And throw in a bag Cheetos....

Man! That's livin'!
DrafterX
11 years ago
I think it takes like 10 hours to get to Dallas from here... might need a baloney sammich or two too.... 😟
Brewha
11 years ago

I think it takes like 10 hours to get to Dallas from here... might need a baloney sammich or two too.... 😟

DrafterX wrote:


No way. This is tax payer monies we are talking about.

He's already gouged us for Cheetos and PBR. No need to be extravagant.....
DrafterX
11 years ago
true... true... 😟



but I was talking about me... 😟
jetblasted
11 years ago
The old general rule was that educated people did not perform manual labor. They managed to eat their bread, leaving the toil of producing it to the uneducated. This was not an insupportable evil to the working bees, so long as the class of drones remained very small. But now, especially in these free States, nearly all are educated--quite too nearly all, to leave the labor of the uneducated, in any wise adequate to the support of the whole. It follows from this that henceforth educated people must labor. Otherwise, education itself would become a positive and intolerable evil. No country can sustain, in idleness, more than a small percentage of its numbers. The great majority must labor at something productive.
--September 30, 1859 Address before the Wisconsin State Agricultural Society
Abraham Lincoln
ZRX1200
11 years ago
Small businesses that reimburse employees for the cost of premiums for individual health insurance policies or pay their health costs directly will be fined up to $36,500 a year per employee under a new Internal Revenue Service regulation that takes effect July 1, 2015.
According to the notice, an employer arrangement that reimburses or pays for employee individual health premiums is considered to be a group health plan that is subject to the $100 per-employee per-day penalty. The penalty applies whether the reimbursement is considered a before-tax or after-tax contribution.


β€œIt’s the biggest penalty no one is talking about,” said Kevin Kuhlman, policy director for the National Association of Independent Business. β€œThe penalty for compensating employees for healthcare-related expenses is enough to destroy most small businesses.” You can read more in this NFIB post, β€œNo Kidding: This Week IRS starts Punishing Businesses for Helping Workers Buy Insurance.”

The new IRS penalty is more than 18 times greater than the $2,000 employer-mandate penalty under ObamaCare for not providing qualifying health insurance for employees. And employers with fewer than 50 workers are not exempt, as they are from the employer-mandate penalty.


The rule appears nowhere in the Affordable Care Act but was developed by the Obama administration’s regulation writers at the IRS. The rule punishes small businesses for providing the only health insurance support many can afford – a contribution to help employees pay premiums for their individual or family health insurance policies or to help finance direct payment for medical services.

β€œReimbursing employees for the cost of insurance or medical services is a way for small businesses to help their workers without the administrative headaches of setting up a costly group plan,” Kuhlman said. β€œMost small employers don’t have HR departments or benefits specialists, so this is a simpler, easier way to help their employees.”

No more, says the IRS. If you take the β€œsimpler, easier” route that you can afford, the IRS will slap you with $100-a-day, per-employee fines until you stop.

Rep. Charles Boustany has introduced legislation in the House (H.R. 2911) and Sen. Charles Grassley, in the Senate (S.1697) to remedy the problem. Both bills await congressional action.


β€œIf there’s an opportunity for a bipartisan improvement toward affordable healthcare, this has to be it,” said Kuhlman. β€œThere’s no real justification for penalizing small businesses that do what the law’s strongest supporters claim to want, which is to help employees obtain coverage or pay medical bills. This is a rigid and thoughtless bureaucratic rule that undermines the purpose of the law, and it ought to be repealed immediately.”

The rule covers employers with more than one employee participating in an employer health care/coverage payment arrangement. Employers can exclude workers who 1) have fewer than three years of service to the company; 2) are under age 25; and 3) are part-time or seasonal employees. The $100 a day fine applies for all other employees covered by the payment arrangement. S Corporations are exempt through the end of 2015.
DrafterX
11 years ago
Those Bassards..!! 😠
ZRX1200
11 years ago
Massive Government Overreach: Obama’s AFFH Rule Is Out Under new management?

by STANLEY KURTZ

Today, HUD Secretary Julian Castro announced the finalization of the Obama administration’s Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Rule. A front-page article preemptively defending the move appears in today’s Washington Post. The final rule is 377 pages, vastly longer than the preliminary version of the rule promulgated in 2013. AFFH is easily one of President Obama’s most radical initiatives, on a par with Obamacare in its transformative potential. In effect, AFFH gives the federal government a lever to re-engineer nearly every American neighborhood β€” imposing a preferred racial and ethnic composition, densifying housing, transportation, and business development in suburb and city alike, and weakening or casting aside the authority of local governments over core responsibilities, from zoning to transportation to education. Not only the policy but the political implications are immense β€” at the presidential, congressional, state, and local levels. It is a scandal that the mainstream press has largely refused to report on AFFH until the day of its final release. The rule has been out in preliminary form for two years, and well before that the Obama administration’s transformative aims in urban/suburban policy were evident. Three years ago, when I wrote about Obama’s policy blueprint in Spreading the Wealth: How Obama Is Robbing the Suburbs to Pay for the Cities, the administration’s efforts to keep this issue under the radar were evident. Only last month, an admission of the stealth relied on by advocates to advance this initiative was caught on video. Obama has downplayed his policy goals in this area and delayed the finalization of AFFH for years, because he understands how politically explosive this rule is. Once the true implications of AFFH are understood, Americans will rebel. The only prospect for successful imposition is a frog-boiling strategy of gradual intensification. The last day the frog will be able to jump is Tuesday, November 8, 2016. Fundamentally, AFFH is an attempt to achieve economic integration. Race and ethnicity are being used as proxies for class, since these are the only hooks for social engineering provided by the Fair Housing Act of 1968. Like AFFH itself, today’s Washington Post piece blurs the distinction between race and class, conflating the persistence of β€œconcentrated poverty” with housing discrimination by race. Not being able to afford a freestanding house in a bedroom suburb is no proof of racial discrimination. Erstwhile urbanites have been moving to rustic and spacious suburbs since Cicero built his villa outside Rome. Even in a monoracial and mono-ethnic world, suburbanites would zone to set limits on dense development. Emily Badger’s piece in today’s Washington Post focuses on race, but the real story of AFFH is the attempt to force integration by class, to densify development in American suburbs and cities, and to undo America’s system of local government and replace it with a β€œregional” alternative that turns suburbs into helpless satellites of large cities. Once HUD gets its hooks into a municipality, no policy area is safe. Zoning, transportation, education, all of it risks slipping into the control of the federal government and the new, unelected regional bodies the feds will empower. Over time, AFFH could spell the end of the local democracy that Alexis de Tocqueville rightly saw as the foundation of America’s liberty and distinctiveness. At this point, municipalities across the country need to seriously consider refraining from applying for Community Development Block Grants and other grant programs sponsored by HUD. Take one dollar of HUD money and you will be forced to submit to its demands, which can reach far beyond housing. Unfortunately, this is a highly imperfect solution, and not only because municipalities would be surrendering money taxed from their citizens’ pockets. The recent Supreme Court decision in Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project has provided the federal government with a second club to use against municipalities seeking to escape HUD control. (See my piece on Inclusive Communities in the latest issue of National Review.) Ultimately, only a Republican president acting in concert with a Republican Congress can stymie AFFH and undo the damage of the Supreme Court’s recent housing decision. This brings us to politics. As noted, AFFH is a largely unacknowledged attempt to force economic integration on every neighborhood in America. Yet in a recent Rasmussen poll, 83 percent of respondents said it was not the government’s job to diversify neighborhoods by income level, while only 8 percent say that this is an appropriate task for government. Now you know why the Obama administration and a compliant press corps have kept this initiative quiet. It will take time to collect the data on which HUD’s new demands for local governments all over America will be based. While important enforcement will begin under the Obama administration, the major impact of AFFH will come under President Hillary Clinton, should she be elected. And Obama’s AFFH enforcer, Julian Castro, is widely touted as a likely vice-presidential running mate for Hillary. That means AFFH is going to be an issue in the next presidential campaign. And the political implications go deeper still, to every level of government. Westchester County, New York, where AFFH has had a dry run of sorts, is now administered by Republican county executive Robert Astorino. Many forget that before the Obama administration tried to force Westchester County to cast aside its own zoning laws and build high-density, low-income housing at its own expense, Westchester was a liberal Democratic county run by liberal Democrats. After all, this is where Bill and Hillary Clinton live. At the local level, the Obama administration drove Westchester into the arms of the Republicans. The same thing could happen nationally, at every political level. But only if the frog wakes up and jumps by November of 2016. Even with AFFH now public, the Obama administration and the press corps will do everything in their power to obscure the real issues at stake in the massive AFFH power-grab.
TMCTLT
11 years ago
I hope and Pray we get the 3/4 needed to bring this about.....Good for you Alabama


http://conservativenewsroom.com/news/alabama-to-obama-enough-is-enough/ 
Users browsing this topic