School shooter in Connecticut

This charts should speak for themselves. But if you need it in WORDS, it's simple. a 5% reduction on a $25,000 income is $1,250. A 5% reduction on $1 million is $50,000.
I am providing all four charts. . .but the two bottom ones are the most salient to this discussion.

Chart Book: The Bush Tax Cuts

December 10, 2012
RELATED AREAS OF RESEARCH
To provide context for the debate about addressing expiring tax provisions and reducing long-term deficits, we’ve collected some of our charts related to the Bush tax cuts, which show that the tax cuts (1) are costly, (2) have worsened inequality, and (3) should be allowed to expire on schedule for incomes over $250,000.
1. The Bush Tax Cuts Are Costly

Policymakers enacted the Bush tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 and extended them in 2010; they are set to expire at the end of 2012. As the first chart shows, the tax cuts have been a key driver of the federal deficit and will account for $4.5 trillion in deficits over the 2009-2019 period if extended.
1.1.jpg

Continuing the Bush tax cuts would add trillions more to deficits. As the second chart shows, the high-income tax cuts — those on incomes above $250,000 for a married couple filing jointly ($200,000 for singles) — are a big reason why. Allowing the high-income tax cuts to expire would reduce deficits by $950 billion (including the interest savings) over the next ten years.
1.2.jpg

These figures do not even include the estate tax cut, which benefits only the wealthiest 0.3 percent of estates and costs an additional $141 billion over ten years (including interest costs), according to the Office of Management and Budget.
2. The Bush Tax Cuts Have Worsened Inequality

As the third chart shows, the Bush tax cuts provide much larger benefits for high-income people than middle-income people.
2.1.jpg

The high-end tilt of the Bush tax cuts has contributed to the stunning increase in income inequality in recent decades, a trend shown in the fourth chart:
2.2.jpg


http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3873


Thats all very interesting but what I asked for was how any money was taken from any low or middle income taxpayer and given to a high income taxpayer.

You and others frequently make this claim but I see no justification in truth in it.

If you want to bemoan that rich people see more dollars asa raltes to percentages because of their earning power thats fine but these attempts to gild the lily really don't make much sense.
 
Werbung:
Thats all very interesting but what I asked for was how any money was taken from any low or middle income taxpayer and given to a high income taxpayer.

You and others frequently make this claim but I see no justification in truth in it.

If you want to bemoan that rich people see more dollars asa raltes to percentages because of their earning power thats fine but these attempts to gild the lily really don't make much sense.

OBVIOUSLY, if tax policies benefit the high income earners (or even worse, people who live off their wealth without working), that money is not available to provide assistance to the poor and to lower income people. The cost of college goes up, keeping low income students from reaching their full potential AND their full earning potential in particular.

In addition, the wealthy corporations making a killing out of closing factories and sending the manufacturing (or service departments) oversea, takes jobs, and therefore MONEY out of the pocket of the workers of America.

If you can't see that, I'm afraid I can't help you. It just means that you refuse to see or to think. . .and you know what they say: You can lead a horse to the water, but you can't make him drink!
 
OBVIOUSLY, if tax policies benefit the high income earners (or even worse, people who live off their wealth without working), that money is not available to provide assistance to the poor and to lower income people. The cost of college goes up, keeping low income students from reaching their full potential AND their full earning potential in particular.

In addition, the wealthy corporations making a killing out of closing factories and sending the manufacturing (or service departments) oversea, takes jobs, and therefore MONEY out of the pocket of the workers of America.

If you can't see that, I'm afraid I can't help you. It just means that you refuse to see or to think. . .and you know what they say: You can lead a horse to the water, but you can't make him drink!


Those are all interesting as well but do not address tax money (the only source of income for government) being given to another tax payer when all there is is a tax reduction on all tax payers.

My interest is accuracy here.

there may be many things in play but claiming that Bush tax cuts rob the poor to pay the rich (paraphrased in some instances of this meme) is simply not true.

there is plenty enough going around here that is real and harmful (people will disagree on these of course) that there is no positive value in introducing false tangents.
 
Those are all interesting as well but do not address tax money (the only source of income for government) being given to another tax payer when all there is is a tax reduction on all tax payers.

My interest is accuracy here.

there may be many things in play but claiming that Bush tax cuts rob the poor to pay the rich (paraphrased in some instances of this meme) is simply not true.

there is plenty enough going around here that is real and harmful (people will disagree on these of course) that there is no positive value in introducing false tangents.


Your interest is splitting hair, as usual.

If you do not understand that the money needed to keep the government running, infrastructure from falling down, defense to continue (unfortunately) to be OVER FUNDED, and providing a safety net for the poor NEEDS to come from taxes in part ESPECIALLY when the economy is in the dump (as happened following the "generous" Bush tax cuts and his wars), and that there is a point when there is NO MORE money to take from the poor because they already are below or about the poverty level, the choice is to get that tax money from the people who have PLENTY of extra income. Taking 5% from a lower middle class person instead of taking an extra 1% from the top 1% of the population is REDISTRIBUTING WEALTH from the lower middle class to the wealthy.

And it impedes the economy since the middle class cannot continue to CONSUME GOODS since they have barely enough to purchase NECESSITIES.

Therefore, giving a $50,000 tax cut to the wealthy takes away the purchasing power (or the ability to send a child to college, therefore cutting his potential for further earning significantly, and prolonging the redistribution of wealth to the wealthy. . .who will have no problem continuing to amass wealth through future generations because they do not have difficulties paying for college), and it is in fact a redistribution of wealth through taxation.

But. . .since you are absolutely not interested in considering the truth of the matter, i am done debating this with you.

By the way. . .how do you think taxation can redistribute the wealth from the wealthy to the poor?

If it is not possible (as you seem to say) for taxation to be use (as I say it has been) to provide more wealth to the wealthy at the expense of the poor and the middle class, how do you believe that taxation can be use to redistribute wealth in the other direction?
 
Your interest is splitting hair, as usual.

If you do not understand that the money needed to keep the government running, infrastructure from falling down, defense to continue (unfortunately) to be OVER FUNDED, and providing a safety net for the poor NEEDS to come from taxes in part ESPECIALLY when the economy is in the dump (as happened following the "generous" Bush tax cuts and his wars), and that there is a point when there is NO MORE money to take from the poor because they already are below or about the poverty level, the choice is to get that tax money from the people who have PLENTY of extra income. Taking 5% from a lower middle class person instead of taking an extra 1% from the top 1% of the population is REDISTRIBUTING WEALTH from the lower middle class to the wealthy.

And it impedes the economy since the middle class cannot continue to CONSUME GOODS since they have barely enough to purchase NECESSITIES.

Therefore, giving a $50,000 tax cut to the wealthy takes away the purchasing power (or the ability to send a child to college, therefore cutting his potential for further earning significantly, and prolonging the redistribution of wealth to the wealthy. . .who will have no problem continuing to amass wealth through future generations because they do not have difficulties paying for college), and it is in fact a redistribution of wealth through taxation.

But. . .since you are absolutely not interested in considering the truth of the matter, i am done debating this with you.

By the way. . .how do you think taxation can redistribute the wealth from the wealthy to the poor?

If it is not possible (as you seem to say) for taxation to be use (as I say it has been) to provide more wealth to the wealthy at the expense of the poor and the middle class, how do you believe that taxation can be use to redistribute wealth in the other direction?


earned income tax credit
welfare
etc
but you knew that.

if you were trying you could try crop subsidies where (in some cases Robert Redford as an example) gets paid actual tax dollars to NOT grow something. But that fails to demonstrate that those dollars come from any one segment of tax payers nor are all all recipients high earners in fact most money goes to corporations that do farming.

whats the harm in arguing the things you are un happy with (the rich get richer for example) without making stuff up that does not exist ?
 
Welcome the Family Known as the "Bullcrap's" (sandy-hook HOAX!)

watch


126050d1e56386e6f.jpg


Poor little Emilie was off to the side by herself. Have you ever seen a family portrait like that? Why is she not in the empty space on Momma's lap?
 
I love this idea.....
Volunteers available to protect our children
With the NRA’s call for an armed police officer in every school, a debate has erupted over cost of such a strategy, but there is a much more efficient and inexpensive path to secure schools. For some reason the teachers’ unions, politicians, and school administrators think that teachers are somehow less responsible, less capable, and less trainable than those who choose a career in law enforcement, and that having anyone with access to a gun in school besides a uniformed police officer would interfere with children’s ability to learn. Setting aside those confused perceptions for a moment, what about those of us who are not teachers or school administrators? What about parents, grandparents, and other concerned citizens?
As the loving grandparent of a wonderful 6-year old, a veteran, shooter, and all-around good guy, my answer to school security is the same as Isaiah’s answer to God thousands of years ago; “Here am I; send me!”
I am competent with firearms. I work well under pressure. I have a proven track record as a responsible and law-abiding citizen, and I have a deep concern for the safety and security of my grandson and the other children who attend his school. I also know that there are literally millions of intelligent, responsible parents, grandparents, and concerned citizens just like me who would gladly step up to serve as protectors of their own local schools. All of us are ready, willing, and able to fill the security void exposed by the demented coward inConnecticut. We are here. We are available. We are ten million strong voices, all saying “Here am I; send me!”
Perhaps this is part of the broader idea that NRA was suggesting during their press conference. I don’t know their full plans. NRA’s Wayne LaPierre mentioned retired police and firefighters as potentially part of their proposed school security plan, and that’s a good start, but there is no rational reason to limit service only to these groups. There are plenty of other people who have what it takes to learn and implement security practices.
Some media have suggested that LaPierre called for the arming of teachers. That is a complete distortion. LaPierre’s call was specifically for armed police officers and then he mentioned the idea of drawing upon the experience and trust found in retired police and firefighters. Never did he suggest that teachers or other school staff be included in the NRA’s proposed security force.
I was personally disappointed that such an idea was not included, but I am less politically correct thanWayneand more confrontational in my opinions. The media’s distorted reporting of the NRA proposal demonstrates the wisdom of being excessively conservative in their initial announcement. Now, according to their plan, former congressman Asa Hutchinson will lead a team of experts in developing school security plans based on facts and logic, not emotion and irrational fear. I hope that Mr Hutchinson’s panel of experts will recognize the vast pool of qualified, caring individuals who would gladly put their lives on the line for the sake of innocent children.
I read recently that each full-time School Resource Officer in the state ofArizonacosts their school over $95,000 a year – plus benefits. On the one hand we say, that’s a small price to pay for our children’s safety, but on the other hand, I ask, why would we pay so much when highly qualified and effective guards can be had for little or no cost at all.
As primarily a writer and researcher, my personal schedule and circumstance would allow me to provide my grandson’s school with full-time service in exchange for nothing more than a comfortable chair in a quiet corner with an internet connection. The majority of the day I would simply do my work as normal, but would do so while maintaining a view of the school’s entrance and with the means to stop an attacker close at hand. I know a number of other retired and self-employed individuals who could, and would do likewise. Others would require some small stipend or health insurance benefits to be able to provide full-time service, and still others could only serve part-time.
Another huge pool of qualified individuals ready and willing to take on this responsibility are, as mentioned earlier, the people who are already working at the schools and dealing with the children every day. There are teachers, school administrators, and other school personnel who would gladly join us in our mission to ensure the safety of our children. These are among the most highly educated, widely respected, and most reliable citizens in the country. The suggestion that they are somehow less capable or less responsible than the average police officer is idiotic. These are the people we trust with our children already, why would we doubt their ability to act responsibly with a firearm or in a crisis?
All of us, teachers, parents, grandparents, and other concerned citizens would be willing to submit to background checks, psychological evaluations, and undergo special training. Most of us could even provide our own weapons and ammunition. We don’t need extravagant salaries or fancy uniforms, we just need a commitment from politicians and school administrators to support our efforts and provide us with the most basic resources to accomplish our mission.
The idea that police officers are the only ones capable of safely handling firearms or dealing with difficult or delicate situations is ridiculous. The fear that one of us would misplace a firearm, mistakenly shoot the wrong person, or go crazy and go on a rampage of our own, while not completely impossible, is so unlikely as to be ludicrous.
Our children are vulnerable. No gun bans or restrictions are going to stop lunatics who choose to target them. Whether they use guns, knives, automobiles, or samurai swords, the only way to stop them is to be able to physically incapacitate them instantaneously. Only a gun can reliably do that. Whether in the hand of a police officer, a school employee, or a community volunteer, only armed resistance can effectively stop an armed attack.
So in the wake of the terrible atrocity in Newtown, as the nation cries out for reassurance that their children are as safe as they can be, I ask responsible parents, grandparents, and school personnel to join me in answering the call and saying “Here am I; send me.”
Permission to reprint or post this article in its entirety is hereby granted provided this credit is included. Text is available at www.FirearmsCoalition.org. To receive The Firearms Coalition’s bi-monthly newsletter, The Knox Hard Corps Report, write to PO Box 1761, Buckeye, AZ 85326. ©Copyright 2011 Neal Knox Associates – The most trusted name in the rights movement.
 
You all fall into the trap set up by this goverbnment. Watch how you are moved by their report, then to see its true face.


1. Hired Actor Exposed-Sandy Hook (Please Read Info Box)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMuB2mLhqeU

2. Hook Dad Smiling in the Wake of Massacre.(Read Info Box)


Fathers of slain children do not go around joking and laughing the next day this guy is a fraud and he is an actor and so is the aunt that spoke before him and this entire shooting is a scam to take away gun right for a much bigger global domination plan

. The “Emilie Parker Fund” Facebook Page

On December 14, 2012, angelic-looking 6-year-old Emilie Parker was brutally murdered by Lanza. Reportedly, he had shot every child multiple times, some up to 11 times.

On the same day, December 14, someone — either a family member or a friend who has the family’s permission — created the Emilie Parker Fund page on Facebook to solicit donation for her family. Here’s a screenshot of Emilie Parker Fund‘s “Info” page showing its date of creation:

The donation page was created a day before the actual memorial page, R.I.P. Emilie Parker, was created on Facebook! Here’s a screenshot of the Info page of R.I.P. Emilie Parker, showing it was created on Dec. 15, 2012, a day after Emilie Parker was killed:

If your precious 6-year-old daughter had just been shot to death, would you immediately think about soliciting money from strangers for yourself, as well as have the presence of mind to set up a page on Facebook with the following detailed instructions?:

Instructions on the Emilie Parker Memorial Account at America First Credit Union (account #5001359). For AFCU members making a transfer, select the Savings as the type of account, and the last name on the account is Parker. For non AFCU members, the AFCU routing number is 324377516. This account has been shared by several Utah media outlets and can be trusted. Thank you.

A PAYPAL account is also available if you use the email brookeprothero@yahoo.com

That email address presumably belongs to Brooke Prothero. A woman by that name, Brooke Ann Prothero, has a Facebook page, with an “About” page devoid of information, other than that she lives in Ogden Utah — in which the Parker family had lived before they moved to Sandy Hook, Connecticut.

http://beforeitsnews.com/opinion-conservative/2013/01/sandy-hook-the-curious-case-of-emilie-parker-2558804.html
 
Allison Wyatt was said a victim of Sandy Hook shootings.

9xGuF6Q.jpg



Mother says her daughter’s photo is stolen.

15ceo8w.jpg
 
Allison Wyatt was said a victim of Sandy Hook shootings.



Mother says her daughter’s photo is stolen.

15ceo8w.jpg



A 'fortunate group' to know 'Allie'

Amanda Cuda

Updated 10:37 pm, Thursday, December 20, 2012

"You are a very fortunate group," said the Rev. Walter L. Pitman, who led the service. "At some point over the past six years, Allie Wyatt got in your way and you are better for it."

No family or friends spoke at the service, attended by several hundred people. It was only Pitman, who is actually a senior pastor at another church in Southbury.

He said he didn't know the Wyatt family before last week's tragedy, but has spent some time over the past few days getting to know them and their beloved Allie.

Read more: http://www.ctpost.com/local/article/A-fortunate-group-to-know-Allie-4135366.php#ixzz2Gy5rVgcs
 
“We Were Having A Drill”: Sandy Hook 3rd Grader Spills The Beans – From The Mouths Of Babes Comes The Truth
Saturday, February 9, 2013

One very recent comment from the video on YouTube:

Wow. If you watch carefully, you will see that after the kid says "When we were having a drill, we were hiding under, like...," his mother (the woman sitting next to him in the black sweater) nudges him with her arm, his body moves slightly in response, and his eyes quickly dart towards her, then back again. Then, Dr. Oz immediately taps him on the shoulder and quickly changes the subject, so the kid doesn't say anything more about it being a drill. From the mouths of babes comes the truth


http://beforeitsnews.com/blogging-c...-mouths-of-babes-comes-the-truth-2445398.html
 
688. Anti-terror drill - bizarre coincidence (9/29/2011)



In big plot, the Feds used to organize a similar exercise too, to assure its success.

In 7/22/2011 Norway terror attack:

Norwegian Police Confirm Drill Identical to Breivik’s Attack

· Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com August 26, 2011




The Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten reports today police sources have confirmed that hours before Anders Behring Breivik launched his deadly attack at a political summer camp on Utøya island on July 22, police had conducted a drill for a “practically identical scenario.”



“Sources within the top level management of the police in Oslo have confirmed to Aftenposten that the drill finished at 15:00 that same Friday,” the newspaper reports. “All of the officers from the anti-terror unit that later took part at the bombsite at the government buildings and went out to Utøya to apprehend Anders Behring Breivik had been training on the exact same scenario earlier the same day and in the days preceding,” writes Andreas Bakke Foss.



The bomb attributed to Breivik went off only 26 minutes after the anti-terror drill finished, according to officials.

http://www.infowars.com/norwegian-police-confirm-drill-identical-to-breiviks-attack/




In 7/7/2005 London bombing: (The plot known with Hurricane Katrina, ended on 9/24/2005)



7/7 Mock Terror Drill: What Relationship to the Real Time Terror Attacks?

by Michel Chossudovsky August 8, 2005

A fictional "scenario" of multiple bomb attacks on London's underground took place at exactly the same time as the bomb attack on July 7, 2005.

Peter Power, Managing Director of Visor Consultants, a private firm on contract to the London Metropolitan Police, described in a BBC interview how he had organized and conducted the anti-terror drill, on behalf of an unnamed business client.

The fictional scenario was based on simultaneous bombs going off at exactly the same time at the underground stations where the real attacks were occurring:



http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=821




In famous 911/2001 terror attack:



Was the NRO's 9/11 Drill Just a Coincidence?



Posted By: ChristopherBollyn Date: Friday, 1-Nov-2002 16:24:12



U.S. SPY Satellite Agency’s Mock 9/11 Drill Exposes Administration Lies
By Christopher Bollyn
American Free Press




The NRO, which works closely with the Dept. of Defense and CIA, had planned a simulated exercise in which a small jet “crashes” into one of the four towers at the agency's headquarters on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001. The government said it was a “bizarre coincidence” that one of the most important U.S. intelligence agencies had planned a mock plane-into-building crash on Sept. 11, according to the Associated Press who reported the story on August 22.



http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?read=25255




All those drills were identical to the coming "terror attack" and happened at same time at same place. They played mission to cover up the main attack. In case the perpetrators were found by the security guard at the site, they would pass the security check by disguising as part of the exercise. Here is how it interrupted the air defense:



9/11 War Games

paralysis of air defenses to ensure the attack succeeded?



"Is this real world or an exercise?" Col. Robert K. Marr Jr. Northeast
Air Defense Sector.




simulation of a plane crash into the NRO headquarters (near Dulles Airport, Virginia) - this was not a "terrorism" exercise but it did result in the evacuation of most NRO employees just as the "real" 9/11 was taking place, making it more difficult for the nation's spy satellites to be used to track the hijacked planes



The publicly available mass media articles about these exercises state that they were similar enough to the actual events that top NORAD personnel were confused, not sure if 9/11 was "part of the drill" or a real world event.



http://www.oilempire.us/wargames.html




Since 911, the “bizarre coincidence" becomes routine job.
 
Werbung:
Active Shooter Drill

The official government website for the state of Connecticut (ct.gov) lists the drill on their calendar;


12/14


9 AM – 4 PM


FEMA L-366 Planning for the Needs of Children in Disasters

The government drill that took place on the same day of the shooting between the same hours was located down the road about 14 miles at the following location:


Location: 2800 Main Street, Bridgeport, CT9 AM – 4 PM


Contact: Christopher Ackley

Email: christopher.ackley@ct.gov

Phone: (203)-696-2640

5 of 40 seats still available

Last day to register: 12/13/2012

Sorry, you may not register for this event.

The states official website reads;


Dec 14, 2012


FEMA L-366 Planning for the Needs of Children in Disasters

http://www.ct.gov/demhs/ical/eventDetail_page.asp?date_ID=CAC9C6C9CD83CDC9C7

http://theintelhub.com/2013/01/12/s...ent-raises-suspicion-of-false-flag-operation/
 
Back
Top