Windfall Tax on Retirement Income
Adding a tax to your retirement is simply another way of saying to the American people, you're so darn stupid that we're going to keep doing this until we drain every cent from you. That's what the Speaker of the House is saying.
Nancy Pelosi wants a Windfall Tax on Retirement Income.. In other words tax what you have made by investing toward your retirement. This woman is a nut case! You aren't going to believe this.
Madam speaker Nancy Pelosi wants to put a Windfall Tax on all stock market profits (including Retirement fund, 401K and Mutual Funds! Alas , it is true - all to help the 12 Million Illegal Immigrants and other unemployed Minorities!
This woman is frightening. She quotes ...' We need to work toward the goal of equalizing income, (didn't Marx say something like this?), in our country and at the same time limiting the amount the rich can invest.' (I am not rich, are you?)
When asked how these new tax dollars would be spent, she replied:
'We need to raise the standard of living of our poor, unemployed and minorities. For example, we have an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in our country who need our help along with millions of unemployed minorities. Stock market windfall profits taxes could go a long way to guarantee these people the standard of living they would like to have as 'Americans' … '(Read that quote again and again and let it sink in. 'Lower your retirement, give it to others who have not worked as you have for it)’.
This lady is out of her mind and she is the speaker of the house!
Source Unknown
<><><><><><><><><>
Response To Joe Miller -- Comment Posting
If I could verify everything before posting that would be wonderful, but obviously this is impossible. I do, however, at the end of each posting list the actual author's name if available. Should it not be, I will list its source as either author or source unknown. Should I list my source as unknown then I would hope that those reading it will take what is posted with a grain of salt and draw their own conclusion as to its accuracy. The only time I do not list a source is if it already is embedded into the piece or if the writings is one of my own.
The only part of your comment that was not well received; "those who are truly "brilliant," or even half-bright, will treat it with skepticism". I apologize that not all of us are as "brilliant," or even "half-bright" as you or your source. Then again, if it wasn't for us stupid people you "brilliant" types wouldn't feel as superior. Nonetheless, I do appreciate your comment and I'm sure that those reading this will know that this particular posting is indeed not true. You have to admit though that it does reflect how unhappy people are with our leaders in Washington, D.C., to concoct such a story and I'm pretty sure that more like it is circulating on the Internet.
As a result of your comment, I will certainly come up with identifying the origin of a piece in a more accurate way so that those reading it will know if what is posted can be trusted or not ... in this respect thank you for drawing my attention to being more responsible with what and how I post in the future.
:Pj
Response To Joe Miller -- Comment Posting
If I could verify everything before posting that would be wonderful, but obviously this is impossible. I do, however, at the end of each posting list the actual author's name if available. Should it not be, I will list its source as either author or source unknown. Should I list my source as unknown then I would hope that those reading it will take what is posted with a grain of salt and draw their own conclusion as to its accuracy. The only time I do not list a source is if it already is embedded into the piece or if the writings is one of my own.
The only part of your comment that was not well received; "those who are truly "brilliant," or even half-bright, will treat it with skepticism". I apologize that not all of us are as "brilliant," or even "half-bright" as you or your source. Then again, if it wasn't for us stupid people you "brilliant" types wouldn't feel as superior. Nonetheless, I do appreciate your comment and I'm sure that those reading this will know that this particular posting is indeed not true. You have to admit though that it does reflect how unhappy people are with our leaders in Washington, D.C., to concoct such a story and I'm pretty sure that more like it is circulating on the Internet.
As a result of your comment, I will certainly come up with identifying the origin of a piece in a more accurate way so that those reading it will know if what is posted can be trusted or not ... in this respect thank you for drawing my attention to being more responsible with what and how I post in the future.
:Pj
The fact check/urban legend busting web sites debunk this viral email that has been circulating for the past 3 years.
ReplyDeleteAccording to factcheck.org, when asked if the story is true:
No. A widely circulated e-mail quoting her is a fraud.
Given the number of times we've been asked about this particular bit of bunk, a lot of gullible people are indeed sending it on to their friends. But those who are truly "brilliant," or even half-bright, will treat it with skepticism. The urban legend site Snopes.com has already looked into this e-mail and proclaimed it to be false. We find ourselves in total agreement. It's a fraud.
For starters, the e-mail has been in circulation since late 2006 – that is, right around the mid-term elections that resulted in control of Congress shifting to the Democrats. The earliest version of the e-mail attributed the claims to a bylined article by Walt Bogdanich and Gretchen Morgenson dated Oct. 22, 2006. Bogdanich and Morgenson are in fact real reporters with the New York Times. And they did in fact publish a piece together on October 22, 2006. Its headline: “S.E.C. Inquiry On Hedge Fund Draws Scrutiny.” However, Rep. Nancy Pelosi isn't mentioned in that article.
Further proof that the e-mail is made up: None of the supposed Pelosi quotes appears in any news source we were able to find in an extensive search of news databases, nor do they show up in archives of mainstream conservative commentators. Had Pelosi really advocated taxing the retirement accounts of thousands of American workers and giving the proceeds to “illegal immigrants,” one would imagine that Rush Limbaugh might have mentioned that.
What Pelosi did advocate at around the same time was cutting tax breaks for oil and other energy companies. As CNNMoney.com reported at the time:
CNNMoney.com, Nov. 28, 2006: Holding a slim majority, Democrats will instead attempt to eliminate tax breaks for energy companies and raise royalty payments for oil and gas drilled on federal land, according to a spokesman for House speaker-to-be Rep. Nancy Pelosi.
The measures are expected to add $33 billion to federal coffers over the next 25 years, which Democrats say they'll channel into renewable energy.
Pelosi's spokesman said $20 billion is expected to come from eliminating royalty relief.
Raising taxes on oil companies is quite different from a 100 percent tax on all stock gains. As far as we can determine, no one in Congress has called for a 100 percent stock-profit tax on even the richest Americans, nor has anyone proposed raiding anyone’s 401(k) to fund “illegal immigrants.”
This one totally fails the FactCheck.org test. It's a malicious fabrication.
-Joe Miller
One third of the "AMERICAN AXIS OF EVIL". Wonderful description. The others? Reid and the Muslim.
ReplyDelete