WELCOME TO THE
Texas Democratic Party
Aliquam dapibus tincidunt metus. Praesent justo dolor, lobortis
quis, lobortis dignissim, pulvinar ac, lorem. Vestibulum sed ante. Donec sagittis euismod purus.
Sed ut perspiciatis unde omnis iste natus error sit.
The Latest
Cities should invest in water treatment plant
A recent report from the Ventura County grand jury says that “without major, immediate changes, Ventura’s water shortages will be at a scary level within five years.” The report concluded that cities must address water needs.
Nam Elit Agna, Endrerit Sit Amet, Tincidunt Ac, Viverra
Suspendisse sollicitudin velit sed leo. Ut pharetra augue nec augue. Nam elit agna, endrerit sit amet, tincidunt ac, viverra sed, nulla.
Read MorePellentesque Sed Dolor
Donec in velit vel ipsum auctor pulvinar. Vestibulum iaculis lacinia est. Proin dictum elementum velit. Fusce euismod consequat ante.
Read MoreQuisque Diam Lorem, Interdum Vitae, Dapibus Ac
Donec in velit vel ipsum auctor pulvinar. Vestibulum iaculis lacinia est. Proin dictum elementum velit. Fusce euismod consequat ante.
Read MoreDonec Sagittis Euismod Purus Sed Ut Perspiciatis Unde
Donec in velit vel ipsum auctor pulvinar. Vestibulum iaculis lacinia est. Proin dictum elementum velit. Fusce euismod consequat ante.
Read MoreProin Dictum Elementum Velit
Donec in velit vel ipsum auctor pulvinar. Vestibulum iaculis lacinia est. Proin dictum elementum velit. Fusce euismod consequat ante.
Read MoreAenean Nec Eros. Vestibulum Ante Ipsum Primis In Faucibus
Donec in velit vel ipsum auctor pulvinar. Vestibulum iaculis lacinia est. Proin dictum elementum velit. Fusce euismod consequat ante.
Read More
IF A POLITICIAN DOES THIS IT IS LEGAL. IF ANYONE ELSE DOES THIS - WE GO TO PRISON
A forwarded email - You decide if it is true
The US has entered into a contract with a real estate firm to sell 56 buildings that currently house U.S. Post Offices. All 56 were built, operated, and paid for by tax-paying American citizens. Now enjoy reading the rest: The government has decided it no longer needs these buildings, most of which are located on prime land in towns and cities across the country.
The sale of these properties will fetch about$19 billion!
A regular real estate commission will be paid to the company that was given the exclusive listing for handling the sales. That company is CRI and it belongs to a man named Richard Blum.
Richard Blum is the husband of Senator Dianne Feinstein!(Most voters and many of the government people who approved the deal have not made the connection between the two because they have different last names).
Senator Feinstein and her husband stand to make a fortune, estimated at between $950 million and $1.1 BILLION from these transactions!
His company is the sole real estate agent on the sale!
CRI will be making a minimum of 2% and as much as 6% commission on each and every sale. All of the properties that are being sold are all fully paid for. They were purchased with U.S. taxpayers’ dollars.
The U.S.P.S. is allowed free and clear, tax exempt use. The only cost to keep them open is the cost to actually keep the doors open and the heat and lights on. The United States Postal Service doesn't even have to pay county property taxes on these subject properties. QUESTION? Would you put your house in foreclosure just because you couldn't afford to pay the electric bill?
Well, the folks in Washington have given the Post Office the OK to do it! Worse yet, most of the net proceeds of the sales will go back to the U.S.P.S, an organization that is so poorly managed that they have lost $117 billion dollars in the past 10 years!
No one in the mainstream media is even raising an eyebrow over the conflict of interest and on the possibility of corruption on the sale of billions of dollars worth of public assets.
How does a U.S. Senator from San Francisco manage to get away with organizing and lobbying such a sweet deal ? Has our government become so elitist that they have no fear of oversight?
It's no mere coincidence that these two public service crooks have different last names; a feeble attempt at avoiding transparency in these type of transactions.
Pass this info on before it's pulled from the Internet. You can verify it on TruthorFiction and Snopes:
www.truthorfiction.com/…/Blum-Post-Office-Sale-06101…
www.snopes.com/politics/business/blum.asp
If this doesn't upset you, don't complain about the corruption and the ineptness in D.C.
Image may contain: 1 person, eyeglasses
Dianne Feinstein's Husband Brokering Post Offices-Truth!
truthorfiction.com
This is a forwarded email that alleges that the husband of California Senator Dianne Feinstein, Richard Blum, is brokering the sale of a number of U.S. Post Offices and facilities that are no longer needed.Your Trash is Big Business
by Dr. Kevin McNamee
Thousand Oaks City Council should put the brakes on the decision for a 15 year renewal with Waste Management and E.J. Harrison and Sons, the city’s two waste-hauling providers, until a competitive bid process takes place. This especially needs to occur when the proposed agreement will cause city residents a 13% fee increase and commercial customers a staggering 67% fee increase - which will be passed along to Conejo consumers.
City council at the December 10 meeting voted three to two to postpone voting on a 15 year contract that will give a monopoly to the current waste-hauling companies so council members can “think” about the need for a competitive bid. What is there to think about? This decision to postpone is a no-brainer. It should have been unanimous.
The first rule in economics is the consumer searches for the lowest price for the greatest value of a product or service. Second rule in economics is competitive bids for a product or service allows the consumer to find the highest quality product for the lowest price.
A lengthy 15 year contract, expires in 2035, eliminates new waste hauling companies from entering the market to drive the price down. It will be too costly for a start up to bid on our contract that expires in 2035. The established waste haulers who do not win the bid, move their equipment to other cities and will not be back to bid on the next contract. Shorten the contract length to 5 years to encourage more competition.
The 15 year agreement is anti competitive, giving a virtual monopoly to the current waste hauling providers. Fewer competitors bidding means higher rates for all of us.
City council members and city managers are custodians of our tax dollars. We entrust them to find the highest service at the lowest price. A competitive bid process and reducing the contract period to 5 years will do this. Keep the money in your pocket, not theirs. You earned your money. You spend it the wisest.
Hoover Institute Economist Thomas Sowell says what is important to a healthy economy is both the amount of money flowing through the market but also the velocity it moves from person to person.
By city council members not going to a competitive bid does not ensure the best use of our tax dollars. This is an example of when people in authority spend other peoples’ money, the price goes up.
www.toacorn.com/articles/end-waste-hauler-monopoly/
How politicians make money in Washington DC outside of their tax payer salary.
The Hispanic Conservative
Have you ever wondered how Nancy Pelosi’s net worth is $220 million when she earns $220 thousand a year? Now you know.
Outside of California, America is very different. Gatlinburg, Tennessee
Dr. Kevin McNamee
1. American flags proudly displayed on trucks, cars and buildings
2. Breakfast restaurant server and her husband immigrated from Uruguay to America
3. Couples of different races holding hands while walking.
4. Frequently heard in conversation: Please, yes sir, thank you, may I help you, yes miss, ya all, you are welcome.
5. Husband and wife pizza restaurant owners from St. Petersburg Russia
6. Gift store owner from India.
7. Reagan is missed.
8. Trump shirts and banners everywhere
9. Football on the televisions.
10. Mom pushing baby stroller and dad walking the children.
11. Rocking chairs with people sitting and talking.
12. Exchange student from Russian University selling fudge for the summer.
Unmarried with Children – When It Pays Not To Marry
Dr. Kevin McNamee
It finally became clear how couples are gaming the welfare system to enrich themselves at American tax payer expense while destroying the institution that lead to our national success.
I was confused when a woman tells me that her daughter is not marrying the father of their child but they are living together. The woman is delighted at the prospect of being a grandmother but is not sure why they do not want to marry. Her daughter said, “It is better not to be married.” I did not understand but listened.
I listened to a contractor tell me how he asks one of his long-time, “green card” employees from Mexico when he will become a US citizen. The employee says, “Why should he? It is better for him to not become a US citizen.” Again, I did not understand but listened.
The contractor said the employee and “wife” are unmarried and have four children. Three children are attending California State University Northridge. While attending college, each child receives a living subsidy ($3,000 annually) and pay no tuition, fees, etc. ($9,000 annually).(1) For the three children attending college, his savings for being unmarried with three children from Mexico attending a California State University, $36,000 annually or $144,000 after four years.
I was told of a man and woman living in Palmdale, California who are not married but live in the same house raising their children. She is a school teacher. He is employed as an electrician. They say, “It is better not to be married.” Again, I did not understand but listened.
Because the welfare system does not know the two live together, she qualifies for federal housing and food assistance. If they married, the welfare assistance would stop so they continue to live together in the same home, raising their children, functioning like a family but remain unmarried. By all outward appearances, they function as husband and wife raising a family.
Contrast these unmarried, family-living arrangements, to the story of a traditional life journey.
Another woman tells me that she and her husband have been married for four years and have a three year old child. She tells of how they have been living with her husband’s parents so they can save for a down payment to buy a house and make it their home.
After four years living with the in-laws, they decided to move out, rent a house and begin an independent life together. She described her frustration that she is paid well at her job and her husband’s company is finally making a profit and growing with the economy but between the two incomes making “good money” there is nothing left for a down payment after paying rent, taxes and expenses.
She then tells of two friends who have a child of the same age, but both women are not married to their respective “fathers of the children.” Both couples decided not to marry but live together while raising their respective child. Because the women are unmarried, they receive federal housing, food and healthcare assistance. If the women were married, those federal welfare subsidies would be stopped.
The woman and her husband, starting their life married and raising a family, are doing it the traditional way. She was angry that being married is penalizing them while her friends are rewarded by not marring. Her friends receive federal tax payer welfare subsidies and gaming the system to their financial benefit. She said “And I am a millennial, but this is not fair.” I said to her, “You sound like a Republican.”
I listened and began to understand.
Today’s youth have figured out that it is financially better to live together unmarried, in the same house, raising the family, receiving federal assistance, instead of being married which stops federal welfare benefits.
There are advantages to being unmarried besides the federal welfare benefits.
Today, there is less social stigma for an unmarried woman raising children.
It is easier for the unmarried man to step away from the “family” and abandon his children and the woman who birthed them.
Being unmarried removes the arduous and financially painful journey of divorce court. Unmarried, the man simply step away and is not obligated to pay child support and alimony. Unmarried woman’s benefit is the child support and alimony payments are shifted to a more financially lucrative, secure and reliable income source, welfare subsidies paid by tax payers.
Everyone wins with the unmarried approach to “family” except the tax payer who pays the cost of the bastardization of welfare’s intent which is enriching the unmarried couple.
Being unmarried was a non-traditional approach to raising a family but has become the norm. The traditional approach of marriage is now arbitrary and capricious.
The fabric that weaves historically through America society that has been so important to our national success is marriage and the family. However, this is changing with the invisible hand of government's welfare policies and programs that encourage more couples to remain unmarried while raising children.
I listened and began to understand why couples are not marring. Government rewards it.
References:
1. www.csun.edu/financialaid/2019-2020-fall-and-spring-cost-attendance
China Tariffs May Be Lifting Third World Economies
Kevin McNamee
A Washington Post article begins, “Global markets plunge, then partly recover, as tariff threats reignite fears of U.S.-China trade war”. The article’s alarming words include - “reignite fears”, “global markets plunge”, “volatility returned with a vengeance”, “put the brakes on global growth.”(1) The one line missing is “The sky is falling.”
What the news media are not telling you is the unintended benefits of tariffs to third-world developing economies. Tarriffs make China goods too expensive. American manufacturing dollars are shifting to undeveloped countries like Viet Nam, Bangladesh, Cambodia, Laos, Ethiopia and Indonesia who have the same manufacturing capability as China but do it for less. Industries such as apparel and furniture manufacturing have been shifting manufacturing orders from China to the third-world countries for several years, even before tariffs, but tariffs have accelerated the migration.
The United States composes 26 percent of the world’s economy. It can influence how countries do business. America is the dog that wags the tail. For decades, China enjoyed the fruits of monopolizing world manufacturing. Money flowed from the U.S. into China which stimulated and grew its middle class which is now 30 percent. But this was at the expense of other developing country’s economies who were passed over for such growth. The money flow to China created another casualty, the American middle class with the loss of “Made in the USA” manufacturing companies.
President Trump’s Tariffs are a powerful influence on pricing pressuring which has forced manufacturing to migrate to third-world developing countries and has unseated China as the top U.S. trading partner to number 3 behind Mexico for the first time since 2005.(2,3)
After decades of China hoarding manufacturing dollars, tariffs are forcing it to share the world’s wealth with other developing countries. Economist Thomas Sowell said it is important for money to not stagnate but move through the economy plus the velocity by which money moves through it.
The world’s money has stagnated in China for decades hurting the world economy. Tariffs are forcing China to share the wealth by money flowing to third-world countries so they can develop their middle class.
References:
1. Heaths, T., Global markets plunge, then partly recover, as tariff threats reignite fears of U.S.-China trade war, Washington Post, August 2, 2019. www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/08/02/global-markets-plunge-trump-tariff-threats-reignite-fe...
2. Kiernan, P., DeBarros, A., Tariff Fight Knocks Off China as Top U.S. Trading Partner, Wall Street Journal, August 2, 2019. www.wsj.com/articles/china-lost-spot-as-top-u-s-trading-partner-in-first-half-11564749251
3. Tappe, A., Global markets rocked by escalating trade fights, CNN Business, August 2, 2019 www.cnn.com/business/live-news/tariffs-on-china-reaction/index.html