Thread: CPAC Betrays America on Immigration by Tom Tancredo

Local conservative talk radio guy was egging the local 9/12er to not associate with 'social conservatives'. The NEOCONS are out in force, and will win on fiscal conservatism alone.

I was listening to Mike Huckabee say that CPAC was turning more libertarian, as opposed to conservative. He and several others did not attend. They may be trying to catch the momentum of the Tea Parties.

Glenn Beck brought his chalkboard to give his speech to end this year's CPAC meeting.

Psalm 91

Thank you Tom Tancredo for the courage of your convictions and giving a voice to the masses who are not represented by those elected to serve us.

What good is a CPAC meeting anyway with the likes of John McCain in attendance?

Fiscal conservatism is one thing, but what has been coming across the MSM is that there will be cuts in education, Medicare, and other funding for programs that assist American citizens. These programs have been overrun by illegals' anchor babies and the immigrants who come here to retire. If folks attending CPAC do not realize that there are causes which affects government expenditures, which desperately need to be addressed, and if there is continual pressure that the Tea Party folks join with one of the parties, the entire voice of this movement will be quashed for political expediency.

Originally Posted by vortex

Fiscal conservatism is one thing, but what has been coming across the MSM is that there will be cuts in education, Medicare, and other funding for programs that assist American citizens. These programs have been overrun by illegals' anchor babies and the immigrants who come here to retire. If folks attending CPAC do not realize that there are causes which affects government expenditures, which desperately need to be addressed, and if there is continual pressure that the Tea Party folks join with one of the parties, the entire voice of this movement will be quashed for political expediency.

That's true and that is where the cuts will be. When people want to cut government expenditures it means cuts to these types of programs that assist American citizens, because they are the bulk of the expenditures of our government.

2010:

Mandatory spending: $2.184 trillion (+15.6%)

* $695 billion (+4.9%) – Social Security
* $453 billion (+6.6%) – Medicare
* $290 billion (+12.0%) – Medicaid
* $0 billion (−100%) – Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP)
* $0 billion (−100%) – Financial stabilization efforts
* $11 billion (+275%) – Potential disaster costs
* $571 billion (−15.2%) – Other mandatory programs

Other mandatory programs are welfare, unemployment and other related matters.

Add it up:

$695 for SS, + $453 for Medicare, + $290 for MediCaid (which is only half, since the states match it), + $571 for Other mandatory programs and that's over $2 trillion a year on mandatory entitlement programs.

The total budget is $3.5 trillion so that's 57% of the US budget is spent on assisting people in our country before we even get to HUD, Veterans Affairs, Education, Food Stamps, Free School Lunch Program, Etc. Add those in and you're up to 60% of all public expenditures by the federal government are spent on assisting people in our country.

We only collect $2.3 Trillion of that $3.5 Trillion budget in taxes. We're $1.7 Trillion short.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Unite ... ral_budget

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Unite ... ral_budget

Our companies are going broke because in 2008, they paid $315 billion in corporate income tax, but in 2010, they'll only pay $222 billion in corporate income tax with no change in the rates, the difference is in lost income so we can't tax them to raise the money. In 2008, individuals paid $1.25 trillion in personal income tax, but in 2010, they'll only pay $1 trillion in individual income tax, and I think that number will be even less than projected by the end of the this Fiscal Year, which means they've lost income and remember $2 trillion of the income upon which that tax revenue was based is income handed out by the government, so we can't tax them.

We have to reverse the policies that caused this disaster, so people have jobs and income and don't need the entitlements. We can't cut entitlements until we create the jobs, so we have to fix the problem that caused this disaster by getting Americans their jobs and incomes back. And we have to do it now.

1. stop illegal immigration
2. pass the FairTax
3. protect our trade
4. legalize/regulate/tax under 2 the illegal drug trade
5. drill baby drill

It must be done, and it must be done now. And everyone must come together on this or we are already the world's Largest Banana Republic.

Judy is absolutely right.

Mandatory spending: $2.184 trillion (+15.6%)

* $695 billion (+4.9%) – Social Security
* $453 billion (+6.6%) – Medicare
* $290 billion (+12.0%) – Medicaid
* $0 billion (−100%) – Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP)
* $0 billion (−100%) – Financial stabilization efforts
* $11 billion (+275%) – Potential disaster costs
* $571 billion (−15.2%) – Other mandatory programs

Actually, this is not mandatory spending. Public Servants have over the years twisted the term "General Welfare" from what Madison (considered the father of the Constitution) warned of.

"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury;
they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress.... Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America."

There are good comments at this quote's page

http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blo ... Quote.3254

The “General Welfareâ€

To me this all couldn't be any simpler it shows just how far removed both parties are from the "American Public"...the "American Worker", the "American Families", I could go on and on...

Now tell me who are these parties working for again?????



Kickthemallout

Kathyet

[quote="Hylander_1314"]Mandatory spending: $2.184 trillion (+15.6%)

* $695 billion (+4.9%) – Social Security
* $453 billion (+6.6%) – Medicare
* $290 billion (+12.0%) – Medicaid
* $0 billion (−100%) – Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP)
* $0 billion (−100%) – Financial stabilization efforts
* $11 billion (+275%) – Potential disaster costs
* $571 billion (−15.2%) – Other mandatory programs

Actually, this is not mandatory spending. Public Servants have over the years twisted the term "General Welfare" from what Madison (considered the father of the Constitution) warned of.

"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury;
they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress.... Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America."

There are good comments at this quote's page

http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blo ... Quote.3254

The “General Welfareâ€

This is Krikorian's posting about CPAC a few days ago:
---

National Review Online
the corner
Thursday, February 18, 2010

Immigration at CPAC [Mark Krikorian]

There will be several immigration-related panels at CPAC. I'll be on one Saturday, along with Robert Rector of Heritage and Prof. Jim Gimpel from the University of Maryland. Before that, also on Saturday, is another panel entitled "Saving Freedom from Obama's Immigration Plan"; sounds good, except that Obama's immigration plan is the same as Bush's and McCain's, and the panel includes Linda Chavez and John Fund, who I thought were for Obama's immigration plan. Also, this morning there was a panel on "The Rise of Latino Conservatism" sponsored by the group I mentioned yesterday (here, here, here, and here). If anyone was in attendance, let me know how it went.

The agenda is again very light on foreign affairs, with only one panel addressing it directly, asking "What is a Conservative Foreign Policy?" It looks like the speakers have a range of views, so I'll make sure to drop by, but I'm still dismayed at how little attention it gets.

02/18 03:13 PM

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/? ... IzNzNjM2E=