advertisement

The world-famous Internet site of the Nationally Syndicated Neal Boortz Show!

Search Boortz.com
Enter search terms:
Browse Boortz.com
Today's Nuze

"Every government interference in the economy consists of giving an unearned benefit, extorted by force, to some men at the expense of others."

Ayn Rand

Nobody's listening.

READING ASSIGNMENTS

By
Neal Boortz
@ May 13, 2009 8:13 AM Permalink | Comments (40) | TrackBacks (0)

So is Obama going to tax your employer healthcare benefits in order to pay for his government healthcare scheme? The possibility seems more and more likely.

Barack Obama and the Democrats want to help pay for this government healthcare by imposing a tax on soda.

Could a tax cut for some evil rich people actually slip through the cracks of the Obama budget??

The FAA has decided that a good use of $800,000 of your tax dollars would be to repave a runway at an airport named after John Murtha.

Not only is California is facing a budget crisis of $ 21.3 billion dollar. That's what happens when you tax the tar out of the achievers in your state.

The government ran up a $21 billion budget shortfall last month, which is the first April deficit in 26 years. That's change you can believe in.

Governors Rick Perry and Mark Sanford are planning a tele-town hall that is being called the "Tea Party 2.0."

Barack Obama ended the US boycott of the UN Human Rights Council ... and so now we are a part of it.

Part of this credit card reform may include allowing retails stores and restaurants to offer discounts to customers who pay with cash.

After whining about corporations hosting conferences and junkets in Las Vegas, Barack Obama is headed there himself.

Even after Barack Obama's grand stimulus package, state and local governments are still facing the realities of having to lay off workers.

Did you hear that Hugo Chavez has created the world's cheapest cell phone and decided to name it after the male sex organ?

This is typical government for you ... The US will pay $2.6 million to train Chinese prostitutes to drink responsibly on the job. Your tax dollars at work.

Considering the efficiencies of government, I am surprised that we haven't gotten more stories like this one about a woman who has been dead 40 years who received a stimulus check.

Some 200 laid off UAW worker are going to get the chance to go to Hollywood and attend a special Eminem concert, thanks to the Jimmy Kimmel show.

I wonder if in Maine you have to be insured for moose falling out of the sky.

We can all rest easy now ... Donald Trump says that Miss California can keep her crown.

Categories:

Tags:

Main Index | Archives | RSS feed

0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: READING ASSIGNMENTS.

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://boortz.com/blogging/mt-tb.cgi/30760

Jamie Dupree's Blog

If you enjoy Neal's daily chat with Jamie Dupree, you'll love Jamie's Blog! Check it out for analysis of the campaigns and goings on in Washington D.C.

Cristina Gonzalez and Laura Nunemaker assist in the daily preparation of Nealz Nuze!

Avg. rating: N/A

What others are saying

  • subsidy?
    About the taxing of healthcare benefits:
    It still irks me to see it phrased as 'providing a subsidy' when it should read 'taking less of your money'.
    By j @ 05/15/09 07:22:59 AMreport abuse
  • Hmmm....an idea....
    Since the Supreme Court declared a "wall of separation" between church and State, I wonder if I could get away with this....

    First, I eliminate all payroll tax deductions, so I get my full paycheck every two weeks -- pitiful as it is.

    Then I work out a deal with my church. I give them my entire paycheck as a donation. In return, they give me an equal amount, minus 10% (for my tithe), for 'community outreach' or as part of their program to help the poor, or whatever.

    Now, because I donated my check to the church, I can write the amount off my taxes. The relationship I have with my church, which causes them to give me money for being 'poor', is just me exercising my religious freedom. So that should be a Constitutionally protected relationship as well.

    Then I wind up with my whole paycheck (minus the tithe) and not a penny of it going to taxes!

    I know, I know -- it wouldn't work. But wouldn't it be fun if it did??? :)
    By Reason @ 05/15/09 12:47:31 AMreport abuse
  • Rasilio: Because
    1. Because the definition of marriage is a State issue.
    2. Because the Full Faith and Credit provision (Article IV, Section 1) would require that a 'marriage' or 'civil union' legally performed in one State to be recognized in another, regardless of whether that State agreed with the propriety of that 'marriage' or 'civil union'.
    3. Because it is one of the prime purposes of government to protect the civil society, which would include the protection of a monogamous marriage between two persons of the opposite sex.
    4. Because the proponents of homosexual marriage have yet to provide anything but anecdotal evidence to back up their claims of legal discrimination. Nor can they show that the original intent of the 14th Amendment supports their cause.
    By Hank Reardon @ 05/14/09 05:36:48 PMreport abuse
  • Stimulus checks to dead people?
    Neal, the answer's easy: these dead people were registered by ACORN, have voted in every democratic primary, have voted for every democrat candidate, and mostly reside in Chicago.

    Simple.
    By $mooth Operator @ 05/14/09 02:58:40 PMreport abuse
  • $2 mio to CHICOM prostitutes?
    Prez Obozo and his cabinet clowns strike again!

    Further proof that when superegos/subpar abilities collide, spectacularly stupid things happen!

    I'm getting my popcorn and waiting for the next bombshell.
    By $mooth Operator @ 05/14/09 02:40:07 PMreport abuse
  • Well PhilG why can't we?
    Give me one valid reason that the government can tell the citizens who they can engage in a contract with, and Marriage is nothing but another type of contract.

    Last I checked "conservatives" and "libertarians" opposed the government dictating what the citizens can and cannot do so why is it that marriage is all of a sudden an exception?

    As long as there is no force or fraud involved any number of individuals should be allowed to engage in any type of marriage they deem agreeable to them and it should be none of the Governments business.

    Even better, simply eliminate the concept of legal marriage altogether. Write one simple law that says...

    1) All laws and regulations referring to the term marriage or the state of being married are hereby and henceforth to be interpreted as referring to a Civil Union.

    2) Any group of two or more citizens may file a Civil Union contract with any terms of their choosing with the Clerk of the Court in the county they reside in and be granted all of the benefits of a civil union under the terms of that contract.
    By Rasilio @ 05/14/09 01:17:02 PMreport abuse
  • Discounts for not using a credit card:
    The funny part about that title is, it will not mean a discount for paying cash, it will mean an extra charge for using a credit card! Like an extra tax!

    This is something that I have wanted to do in my business for years, since, why not? The credit card companies charge me a percentage on each transaction and a subscription fee.

    That was illegal, to charge a 'penalty' for using credit. My resolution: stop taking credit cards. I dumped the service. Now I accept local checks and cash. I don't advertise it openly, but I always give the customers a nice discount for paying in cash.
    By Shelly @ 05/14/09 10:34:15 AMreport abuse
  • Reason!
    Bingo!!!

    oh wait...
    By Joyce M/Blythe @ 05/14/09 09:24:52 AMreport abuse
  • Ms. CA reality ..
    The reality was that she was attacked over her answer. As soon as it left her lips, liberals started digging for ANY dirt on her (never mind that Ms. Rhode Island had pics out too and no protesting there).

    In redefining marriage, you open it up to so much more. Why can't Mormon's have a legal marriage with 7 wives? Do we discriminate there? How about joe pagan who wants to be in a marriage with 3 husbands and 6 wives? Where is the line drawn. Such a slippery slope starts with allowing it to be re-defined.
    By PhilG. @ 05/14/09 08:58:39 AMreport abuse
  • stimulating the dead
    The person is long dead, and we want to stimulate it. The government is trying to make zombies!
    By Bean @ 05/14/09 08:58:16 AMreport abuse
  • Aedyn re: Taxing the Church
    Yes, that's what Jesus said.

    And the Supreme Court said "Separation between Church and State!"

    So what is Caesar's is ZILCH.
    By Reason @ 05/14/09 01:40:23 AMreport abuse
  • soda...
    Soda also includes carbon dioxide...the carbonization...so it is also a pollutant. So they will tax the sugar and you will have to purchse carbon credits as well. Wow a can of Pepsi for $20 cool.....See where the war against smoking got us. Now we will also have the government telling us what and how much soda, doughnuts, candy, cake and burgers we can have. Oh can I sit in the soda room or do I have to sit in the no soda room? Oh there is no soda room, I will have to go outside to drink my $20 Cocacola....but not at a ball game or anywhere anyone else is who doesn't like my soda because it emits deadly CO2...be careful or they will call in the department of Tobacco, alcohol, firearms and soda...
    By mharrell @ 05/13/09 09:09:29 PMreport abuse
  • Taxing Health Care Premiums
    Have to be careful with that terminology, it is actually the premiums that are deducted pre-tax. If they also want to start taxing the benefits (amounts paid to health care providers on your behalf) that would be a whole other ballgame.

    Right now, with the PREMIUMS being pre-tax, the employers federal and state unemployment taxes are lower because your reportable income is lower. Unemployment taxes are based on the reportable income. This enables many employers to subsidize part of the premium. If you take away that benefit to the employer, then they will most certainly stop subsidizing and the employee not only loses the tax benefit but starts paying a higher premium.

    We are talking the "working" class here, I thought those were the ones lefties liked to protect?
    By Joyce M/Blythe @ 05/13/09 01:14:30 PMreport abuse
  • Wish I had 75% of production costs subsidized!
    Of course Chavez will kick butt with his new cellphone. If I could take money by force from citizens, use it to subsidize 75% of all costs, and turn around and market it on a government-run TV station, of COURSE I would market it as the cheapest phone!

    Imagine Obama using PBS to run ads for GM, talking about how should buy these vehicles that are "Made in the USA". Sound similar? All we need is enough bailout money to be competitive with Toyota, and we have Chavez/Obama as a match made in heaven!
    By Greg @ 05/13/09 12:57:23 PMreport abuse
  • hugo's cell phone???
    wee weenie???
    By butt neckid @ 05/13/09 12:34:59 PMreport abuse
  • stimulus checks for dead people
    I do not see a problem with dead people getting stimulus checks. Dead people have been voting Democrat in Georgia for as long as I can remember.
    By georgia pharmer @ 05/13/09 12:20:15 PMreport abuse
  • Chavez phone plan
    Does this mean Blackberry WON'T be releasing the new Tallywacker after all? Surely they can't compete with that kind of subsidy.
    By chris @ 05/13/09 12:17:12 PMreport abuse
  • soda / cand tax
    Oh that's exactly what we need, MORE TAXES. How about giving the American people back their freedoms? Let people choose what they want to eat or drink, instead of the government choosing it for us.

    People need to wake up and realize that Obama's fascist agenda is to completly take over this country. Everyday there is something new out there were he is taking away more choices from the people.

    "[W]hen fascism comes to America, it will not be in brown and black shirts. It will not be with jackboots. It will be Nike sneakers and smiley shirts. Smiley-smiley." - George Carlin
    By Buss @ 05/13/09 11:37:44 AMreport abuse
  • soda / cand tax
    Soda is not good for you and neither is candy or fried food. For many millions of us these things are more than just a treat, they are a _vice_ just like cigarettes and alchol.

    I would take this several steps forward by advancing a "McDonalds tax" since fast food is polluting and killing us.

    This is something that we must do something about. I would be happy with 1. Taxing junk food and or 2. prohibiting advertising of junk food. One or the other or even both would be fine with me.

    One last thing, FAT people: You must eat a certain number of calories to _maintain_ your weight. This is indisputable fact. Give up your nonsense excuses about your metabolism and just stop eating so much.
    By mike @ 05/13/09 11:09:16 AMreport abuse
  • Stimulus check
    "The (Social Security) agency blames the error on the strict mid-June deadline of mailing out all of the checks, which didn't leave officials much time to clean up all of their records." Really? They only had 42 YEARS to "clean up" this woman's status as deceased! It must be tough having to deal with a timetable that compressed...

    I admit I don't know the whole story, but it is in the People's Republic of Maryland; they might have confused by her active voting record.
    By Gallowglass @ 05/13/09 11:05:21 AMreport abuse
  • Chinese Hookers
    This looks like a peer-reviewed NIH program. Unless you want politicians to dictate science priorities, we have to live with it.
    By MikeS @ 05/13/09 10:57:37 AMreport abuse
  • taxing the Church
    I've wondered why churches are exempt myself.

    Didn't Jesus say "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" I would think the new Messiah would be eager to carry out that command.
    By Aedyn @ 05/13/09 10:43:53 AMreport abuse
  • Credit Cards-torn on this
    Private businesses aren't so private anymore. Restaurants can charge what they want; if the price is too high, don't eat there. As for the credit card companies.....dang.....the fine print/contract DOES state that interest rates can be raised at any time for any reason, and by using the card, you (we) agree to those terms. Dang again. You (we) swiped, you (we) are responsible. If you (we) don't like the terms, find another way to pay. HOWEVER, there could be certain issues detailed that would up a rate, i.e. over limit, late payment, but everyone knows about these red flags already. Cancel your card, shop around, sweet-talk customer service (it works.....sometimes).
    By Robin @ 05/13/09 10:42:27 AMreport abuse
  • Taxing health benefits
    Let's see ... tax health benefits in order to fund health benefits ...
    Is this a riddle?
    By Laughing @ 05/13/09 10:35:58 AMreport abuse
  • Note to Gov's Perry and Sanford
    The first Tea Parties were not Republican functions. You assume a lot to name your face-time show "Tea Party 2.0" The movement is NOT YOURS to rename or assume ownership of. You resemble Obama's presumption of ownership of US corporations and banks. No thanks. Hands off.
    By O'Dissious @ 05/13/09 10:22:46 AMreport abuse
  • Soda Tax
    Wouldn't a tax on soda be a tax on the poor and middle class? Some senator isn't going to walk in the finest restaurant in Washington and order pate de foie gras and a six pack of Jones soda. This is aimed at the people who eat at McDonalds and Burger King. The ones who voted for Obama.
    By Adam @ 05/13/09 09:57:19 AMreport abuse
  • Miss CA
    Good for her! I did notice some things in the story though.
    1) Donald Trump again reveals that he is, in fact, a pig.
    2)I don't think there is much that is hidden about Perez (Laundryman*) Hilton's agenda.
    *I believe that is the translation of his real last name.
    By Jim Smith @ 05/13/09 09:50:47 AMreport abuse
  • Hypocrisy again
    So, it's silly to blame Obama for the FDA flap over Cheerios... but Neal then IMMEDIATELY posts a claim that Obama, personally, wants to tax soda?

    Get your facts straight, folks. It'll be a new experience for you.
    By Copyleft @ 05/13/09 09:47:40 AMreport abuse
  • Taxing Benefits and Sofa
    Taxing benefits offered by employers will result in the obvious - the employers will no longer offer them - unless they are government employers which will most likely be exempt!

    As to taxing soda, Maine tried that and it was repealed.
    By Ellen @ 05/13/09 09:45:43 AMreport abuse
  • "discounts to customers who pay with cash "
    This would be great if the gov't didn't make stores do this by the barrel of a gun.
    By jacob @ 05/13/09 09:44:52 AMreport abuse
  • Taxing my healthcare
    Like a lot of people, my medical plan payments are deducted from my pay BEFORE the tax is calculated. I strongly suspect they will start by figuring in a percentage as "before tax" and the rest "after tax". Over time, of course, the "before tax" percentage will be pushed to zero. This will force a lot of people, (possibly me included) to opt for the government health care program. It's just not fair that some of us don't know what it's like to sit in line for half a day at the free clinic.
    By Jim Smith @ 05/13/09 09:44:20 AMreport abuse
  • "Allow"?
    Allow? Since when does the federal government say when a company can offer cash discounts?
    By Joyce M/Blythe @ 05/13/09 09:32:43 AMreport abuse
  • Taxing Health Benefits...
    Well I wonder if he taxes employer paid health benefits, will that also apply to taxing the proposed government health care benefits? I can hear why they won't do it...it will UNFAIRLY burden the pool people. Why is it ok to burden everyone else, but yet give them a free ride. Since when are government HAND OUT's (as opposed to a HAND UP) suppose to be for a lifetime? Just one more incentive to not go out and find a job and become a productive member of society.
    By Rick @ 05/13/09 09:30:16 AMreport abuse
  • Cash discounts
    Why do we need the fed gov to pass a law that allows that? Isn't (shouldn't it be) the prerogative of the business owner?
    By Matt R @ 05/13/09 09:28:36 AMreport abuse
  • Chinese Prostitute Drinking
    WTF, Who approved this crap. I might have to stop reading the nuze as I get really ticked off at this kind of idiocy.
    By stank @ 05/13/09 09:26:50 AMreport abuse
  • WSJ Article
    In regards to the below comment on WSJ article about the soda tax, doesnt diet sodas have the possibility to cause cancer? Won't this increase the payout for health care and increase the amount of people with cancer? ;-)

    "The Center for Science in the Public Interest, a Washington-based watchdog group that pressures food companies to make healthier products, plans to propose a federal excise tax on soda, certain fruit drinks, energy drinks, sports drinks and ready-to-drink teas. It would not include most diet beverages."
    By Marie @ 05/13/09 09:25:20 AMreport abuse
  • Re: Miss California can keep her crown.
    At least women on the right are pleasant to look at..
    unlike those 'Ladies' on the Left

    (mental image shudder)
    By Some Guy @ 05/13/09 09:21:24 AMreport abuse
  • Links
    These 2 links are linked to your CDrive. :-)
    The government ran up a $21 billion budget shortfall last month, which is the first April deficit in 26 years. That's change you can believe in.

    Governors Rick Perry and Mark Sanford are planning a tele-town hall that is being called the "Tea Party 2.0."
    By Marie @ 05/13/09 09:21:17 AMreport abuse
  • Moose Falling from the Sky
    I think it's a sign of the End of Days.
    By That Woman in Kansas @ 05/13/09 09:05:28 AMreport abuse
  • Tea Party 2.0
    Will Janeane Garofalo be participating?

    What's up Willis....(oh crap, that is racist)
    By David @ 05/13/09 08:23:47 AMreport abuse
send to a friend  view as printer-friendly  RSS feeds
advertisement
advertisement
advertisement