American Currency Downgrade

I get a lot of Email concerning the issue of American currency downgrade.  Porter Stansberry has predicted it for a long time.  I have read his warnings and watched the news for a year now and it seems that his predictions are coming true, incrementally.  This is natural because you would not consider that the world’s powerful would allow you and me to get out before they can fortress themselves against what they are about to do.  Now Leeb agrees.  I am seeing a consensus tendency in Gue.  So I thought to send this copy of Leeb’s presentation out for your information.  My previous sending of information from my Thrivent for Lutherans representative was very highly received and doubled my readership.  Beware!!, I am not a financial advisor and do not recommend anything (caveat required) but I do want to share with you the stuff I get in my Email that I think is of significance for your consideration.  And Yes, I do support Romney and Ryan becuase I think these are two of the brightest and best financial people we have today who are willing to go out and be heckled and smeared in order to lead us out of the morass of our 15 trillion dollar debt before it is too late.  And when all of this happens, classs warfare will be meaningless because the super wealthy will also have fortresses and the middle class will already hav e be duped into its’ own self destruction by the politics of jealousy, hate and division.   No matter your politics, however, I think the information regarding the possible financial destruction of US dominance in world trade is very inportant for all of us to read.  Please click and consider.

Hi Reader,

Listen up – I’ve finally found it… A simple, low-risk
investing strategy that you can milk like a cash cow.

And you don’t have
to have a huge portfolio to get started.

But you just may have one soon,
following this one easy strategy.

Listen to this
presentation I’ve prepared that will walk you through it.

Look, we’re
facing a multitude of threats in the next six months. The dollar will be
challenged like never before. With the chaos that will be created by the fiscal
cliff, taxmageddon, and a new debt ceiling crisis… you need a clear-cut method
to make you money.

This simple strategy will cut through the volatility,
because it works under all market conditions.

Just stay focused on this
low risk, easy tactic, and you won’t have to worry about a thing.

View this presentation
here.

The Results if Bush Cuts are Not Extended

The “Fiscal Cliff”

1 recipients
CC: recipientsYou   More
BCC: recipientsYou

Hide Details

FROM:
TO:
 
Thursday, August 9, 2012 12:23 PM
The “Fiscal Cliff”

Thrivent Financial for Lutherans

Financial Consultant William  O’Doherty, FIC, CLTC RMA 221 West Grand Avenue Suite 105 Montvale, NJ 07645 800-838-1159 william.odoherty@thrivent.com

August 09, 2012
The “Fiscal Cliff”

What is the “fiscal cliff”? It’s the term being used by many to describe the unique combination of tax increases and spending cuts scheduled to go into effect on January 1, 2013. The ominous term reflects the belief by some that, taken together, higher taxes and decreased spending at the levels prescribed have the potential to derail the economy. Whether we do indeed step off the cliff at the end of the year, and what exactly that will mean for the economy, depends on several factors.

Will expiring tax breaks be extended?With the “Bush tax cuts” (extended for an additional two years by legislation passed in 2010) set to sunset at the end of 2012, federal income tax rates will jump up in 2013. We’ll go from six federal tax brackets (10%, 15%, 25%, 28%, 33%, and 35%) to five (15%, 28%, 31%, 36%, and 39.6%). The maximum rate that applies to long-term capital gains will generally increase from 15% to 20%. And while the current lower long-term capital gain tax rates now apply to qualifying dividends, starting in 2013, dividends will once again be taxed as ordinary income.

Additionally, the temporary 2% reduction in the Social Security portion of the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) payroll tax, in place for the last two years, also expires at the end of 2012. And, lower alternative minimum tax (AMT) exemption amounts (the AMT-related provisions actually expired at the end of 2011) mean that there will be a dramatic increase in the number of individuals subject to AMT when they file their 2012 federal income tax returns in 2013.

Other breaks go away in 2013 as well.

  • Estate and gift tax provisions will change significantly (reverting to 2001 rules). For example, the amount that can generally be excluded from estate and gift tax drops from $5.12 million in 2012 to $1 million in 2013, and the top tax rate increases from 35% to 55%.
  • Itemized deductions and dependency exemptions will once again be phased out for individuals with high adjusted gross incomes (AGIs).
  • The earned income tax credit, the child tax credit, and the American Opportunity (Hope) tax credit all revert to old, lower limits and less generous rules.
  • Individuals will no longer be able to deduct student loan interest after the first 60 months of repayment.

There continues to be discussion about extending expiring provisions. The impasse, however, centers on whether tax breaks get extended for all, or only for individuals earning $200,000 or less (households earning $250,000 or less). Many expect there to be little chance of resolution until after the November election.

Will new taxes take effect in 2013?Beginning in 2013, the hospital insurance (HI) portion of the payroll tax–commonly referred to as the Medicare portion–increases by 0.9% for individuals with wages exceeding $200,000 ($250,000 for married couples filing a joint federal income tax return, and $125,000 for married individuals filing separately).

Also beginning in 2013, a new 3.8% Medicare contribution tax is imposed on the unearned income of high-income individuals. This tax applies to some or all of the net investment income of individuals with modified adjusted gross income that exceeds $200,000 ($250,000 for married couples filing a joint federal income tax return, and $125,000 for married individuals filing separately).

Both of these new taxes were created by the health-care reform legislation passed in 2010–recently upheld as constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court–and it would seem unlikely that anything will prevent them from taking effect.

Will mandatory spending cuts be implemented?The failure of the deficit reduction supercommittee to reach agreement back in November 2011 automatically triggered $1.2 trillion in broad-based spending cuts over a multiyear period beginning in 2013 (the formal term for this is “automatic sequestration”). The cuts are to be split evenly between defense spending and nondefense spending. Although Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare benefits are exempt, and cuts to Medicare provider payments cannot be more than 2%, most discretionary programs including education, transportation, and energy programs will be subject to the automatic cuts.

New legislation is required to avoid the automatic cuts. But while it’s difficult to find anyone who believes the across-the-board cuts are a good idea, there’s no consensus on how to prevent them. Like the expiring tax breaks, the direction the dialogue takes will likely depend on the results of the November election.

What’s the worst-case scenario?Many fear that the combination of tax increases and spending cuts will have severe negative economic consequences. According to a report issued by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (Economic Effects of Reducing the Fiscal Restraint That Is Scheduled to Occur in 2013, May 2012), taken as a whole, the tax increases and spending reductions will reduce the federal budget deficit by 5.1% of gross domestic product (GDP) between calendar years 2012 and 2013. The Congressional Budget Office projects that under these fiscal conditions, the economy would contract during the first half of 2013 (i.e., we would likely experience a recession).

It’s impossible to predict exactly how all of this will play out. One thing is for sure, though: the “fiscal cliff” figures to feature prominently in the national dialogue between now and November.

Refer a friend To find out more click here
The information provided in these materials, developed by an independent third party, is for informational purposes only and has been obtained from sources considered to be reliable, however, Thrivent Financial for Lutherans does not guarantee that the foregoing material is accurate or complete.  The information contained in this report does not purport to be a complete description of the securities, markets, or developments referred to in this material. This information is not intended as a solicitation or an offer to buy or sell any security referred to herein.  The information  does not take into consideration your personal financial or account information. Investments mentioned may not be suitable for all investors. The material is general in nature. Past performance may not be indicative of future results. Thrivent Financial for Lutherans and its respective associates and employees cannot provide legal, accounting, or tax advice or services. Thus, these educational tools are not intended to serve as the basis for any investment or tax-planning decisions. Please consult your attorney or tax professional.  Securities are offered through Thrivent Investment Management Inc., 625 Fourth Ave. S., Minneapolis, MN, 55415-1665, 1-800-THRIVENT (800-847-4836), member FINRA/SIPC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Thrivent Financial for Lutherans, and are not insured by FDIC or any other government agency, are not deposits or obligations of the financial institution, are not guaranteed by the financial institution, and are subject to risks, including the possible loss of principal.
Prepared by Broadridge Investor Communication Solutions, Inc. Copyright 2012.

To opt-out of future emails, please click here.

Search Results

SHORTCUTS

Search query

Loading…

Obama in His Own Words

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=tCAffMSWSzY#t=28  As I view this video I am concerned at why this information has been suppressed.  Oh, Yes, I am able to get it on the Tube (at least for now) but it is not broadcast and this part of President Obama’s story has successfully be covered up.  There is so much about the President that we do not know and this very troubling video indicates that his real agenda is much more influenced by “…my Islamic faith…” than it is by his love for America.  At times, as I listened, I wondered if he had anything good to say about anybody other than Moslems and Islam.  It would seem that Mr. Obama sees it as his duty to promote, extend and defend the religion of Islam as being, “…from the beginning of our nation…”  a vital part of the development of Democracy and the Constitution.  Is this some kind of academic dribble from Harvard?  It may be it is that because the Harvard of today, founded and funded for two hundred years by Christian Congregationalists is already divided between the secular anti Christian University and the modernist revisionist liberal protestant Theological School.  I would not be surprised if a student of the secular Harvard was taught that Islam and Moslems were as important, or even more important for the founding of Western European civilization and the same for the founding of the USA than our Judaeo Christian founders.  At any rate, this is must watching for anyone who wants to know about President Obama in his own words.  Yes,  this is an edited video but the portions shown cannot be ignored or excused by a claim against the editors.  After all, the words are Obama’s words and no one else’s.  Judge for yourself, dare to watch the video.  Is Obama lying to us about everything?  For ther Bush haters, just remember how you regarded President Bush and ask if your judgements are not duplicitous?

Watergate Sowed A Lasting Cynicism

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1TU33YzvkM&feature=related  Just viewed this historic video about Watergate.  Afterwards, reviewing it, the title caught my attention.  784 days that changed America.  365 +365 equals 2 years. add 54 days and I realized that the Democrat opposition to the landslide Republican election victory lasted 2 years 54 days.  I have written about this elsewhere.  However, one point for this blog.  Not one person was killed by Watergate.  Yet, the Democrat controlled Senate held daily hearings on the “lying” Nixon for 784 days.  I remember that at times the hearings went on into the midnight hours.  Finally, the will of voters in 48 States that had elected Nixon, was thwarted by Sam Erwin, Judge Scirica, and the Watergate Special Committee.  Is it any wonder that since that time there is great scepticism on the part of the public and all parties as to the motives and integrity of the Democrat party and their henchmen in the bureaucracy?  Just a thought, but I consider it a thought to be considered seriously.

Did Robert’s Betray the Majority?

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/power-players-abc-news/did-chief-justice-roberts-save-supreme-court-103301790.html  The core of this article is that John Roberts, Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court may have changed his opinion at the last-minute and joined the Obama Liberals to rewrite and uphold the Obama health care law which Justice Roberts called a Tax.  We will probably not know the answer but if his change of decision was last-minute and if it was merely to save the reputation of his tenure as Chief Justice, then he should resign.  Why?  Because a Supreme Court Justice should not, for purely personal reasons, change his convictions and his impartial judgement concerning the constitutionality of a law.

I am not a lawyer and I have not read the rationale of the ruling.  However, as a person with a reasonable mind, as the ruling was announced on TV I thought that Roberts wanted to save Obama.  Now, I understand that the article says he wanted to save his court.  It is bad enough, for him to save his court at  great financial cost to the nation.  But, I would add, that since the inauguration, when Robert flubbed the Oath of Office, he has been very sensitive to Barrack Hussein Obama as being the first black President.  When a man makes a silly mistake like the flubbing of the oath, he has a subconscious desire to “make it up to the other person”.  This could even be a subliminal urge that cannot be accounted rational.  It is instead highly personal and the non rational nature of Justice Roberts decison to uphold Obama care based on Robert’s use of the word tax as opposed to penalty evidences his need to make things right with The Man.  Very sadly, the entire nation must live with the foible of one white man’s need to ingratiate himself to a black man.  AND before you get all racist against my calling white and black, please remember the Congressional Black Caucus walkout, Eric Holder’s racism accusations against the entire House of Representative and starting with the Cambridge police incident, Barrack Obama’s statements that the white cops acted stupidly.  For any accusers, here is my take.  I now believe that it is in the best interests of America to talk about race frankly.  Therefore, when black Americans are allowed to consistently, persistently and regularly use the race card against white Americans, it is fair game for the White Americans to do the same to them. Maybe with a new frankness, we can finally get past the inordinate power given to black americans because it is held that only they can use the race card and no one else.  It is so stupid that as soon as a writer, like myself, points out black versus white, it is always regarded by our politically correct culture as being the white person who is racist.  Can a black person be racist?  Well, enough of that because it really is something that should not be necessary in a cultured, civilized and educated society.

Back to Roberts.  Could it be that the Chief Justice decided at the end to abandon the majority because he wanted to save Obama. The article seems to indicate that the opinion of Minority was actually written as the opinion of the “then” majority.  Could Robert’s have played the Judas at the last-minute?  Is that the reason for Justice Kennedy’s strident assertion in dissent that the Chief Justice changed the law and thereby actually revised it in order to make it constitutional?  Obviously, revision of a law is the prerogative of the House and Senate and not of the Court.

Another possibility- Could Robert’s have thought that he was saving the Congress and defending them in their legislative function.  If that is the case, then he legislated from the bench in order to save the legislature.  That is twisted to say the least.  But also stupid because the Dissent indicated that they were willing to strike down the whole law. This would have delivered the nation from the tyranny of a law which was purchased from Nebraska, from Louisiana, from Missouri and from Wisconsin with bribery,  a bribery using US tax dollars against the will of its citizens.

There is a cry from the Democrats that only now must we move on and leave things as they are.  This is pure politics.  There are good reasons for taking the fight against Obama care back to the legislature.  Not least of which is the Brief submitted by 26 State governments opposing the implementation of the tax.  Since Robert’s has declared the “mandate” to be a tax, the powers of the House and Senate are affirmed and the House can exercise those powers by constant attempts to repeal this unfair, unpopular and flawed tax.  Of course, the House will need to get past the uncompromising blockade established by Senator Harry Reid, Democrat from Nevada, who has declared all such proposed legislation to be “dead on arrival” and therefore not even to be considered by the Democrat Senate.

I said at the beginning that if the reasons enumerated here are true, then Chief Justice Roberts should resign.  I retract that opinion.  If they are true, let him repent of personal prejudice and confess, at least to himself.  The nation is not served by a obsequious Supreme Court  whose Chief Justice is afraid of the Black man in the White House and therefore is willing to abandon values, judgement and therefore Justice in order that The Man would not scold him.  Because, if that is the actual reason he decided as he did, then the Supreme Court is very severely damaged in the view not only of the partially informed public but of the legally trained who can only regard such a ruling as flawed beyond belief.

President Demand Obedience to His View

http://news.yahoo.com/president-obama-demands-action-transportation-bill-student-loans-100034841–abc-news-politics.html  The President gets more specific today with his cynical assertion that the Republicans of the House of Representative are to blame for the grid lock in legislation.   This writer wants to state his belief that until today the President has been very selective whenever criticizing the legislative branch by always referring to the grid lock in Congress.  Granted, technically the Congress is the House of Representative, but for most ordinary people it refers to the whole branch and therefore lays blame on the majority party.  However, the facts remain that the blockage is the Senate with “dead on arrival” Harry Reid completely blocking all legislation from the House that does agree with President Obama’s personal directives to his Democrat henchmen in the Senate.  Yet, very good legislation of a myriad type has been passed by the House but stopped “dead on Arrival” in the Senate.  It seems to be that our nation is served by a President who constantly blames the Republicans for every ill and exonerates his own Democrat party for everything.  Today we heard more of the same, when Obama said that the White House and the Democrats in the Senate have done everything right on Transportation and Student Loans while it is the House Republicans who, Obama claims, bicker, back bite, and block progress.  I have come to the conclusion that whenever Obama blames somebody for something, I will look at the ones he excuses, including himself, and there I will find exactly the behavior he publicly and cynically denounces.  I guess that Obama regards the American people as stupid enough to elect him on a hope and a chance of change, and now he believes they will continue to believe whatever he says to be true, as true,  although the facts regularly indicate the reverse.

Nancy Pelosi is a Scary Clown

http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/20/pelosi-rips-holder-contempt-charges-i-could-have-arrested-karl-rove-on-any-given-day/#ixzz1yO8nVpcc  At least when she was House majority leader, The Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House of Representative was scary.  I mean she is actually talking here about arresting a US citizen, an advisor to the president like Valerie Jarrett, and throwing Carl Rove in the House of Reps. jail.  I think that Ms. Pelosi misunderstands the historical purpose of the jail cell.  I believe it was for times of insurrection and civil war, when there might have been insurrection and chaos within the halls of the House.  It was not meant for the kind of power filled political revenge intimated here by the Hon. Nancy Pelosi, former Speaker of the House.  Has she forgotten the rules called habeas corpus?  Yes, Lincoln did suspend the constitutional rules involving habeas Corpus, but that was during the Civil War and only because Confederate spies and assassins were roaming the halls of the Congress, Senate and all of the public ale houses of D.C. .  Thankfully, the Hon. Nancy Pelosi is no longer the leader of the majority in the House and therefore, no longer Speaker.  Therefore this formerly scary person is just a clown.  Woe be to us if she ever regains the Speakership!!