Arrogant – U.S. Obama or Mao

April 28, 2009

Oct. 2, 1950 – Beijing: Mao notifies Stalin that China will fight US in Korea – “We are going to dispatch Chinese troops to Korea under the name of a Volunteer Force to fight the US Imperialists and Syngman Rhee’s armed forces, side by side with our comrades, the North Korean forces. The reasons we are sending Chinese troops to Korea are that, if the US occupies the Korean peninsula, the Korean revolutionary forces would be completely removed, the US Imperialists would become more

belligerent and arrogant,

 and it would result in a situation unfavorable to China.” Mao requests that Stalin provide air and logistical supports. Stalin agrees to equip 100 Chinese divisions and send two Soviet air force divisions to Manchuria. Mao and Stalin agree that October 15 is the day to start the operation across the Yalu.

If President Obama senses that the United States is arrogant then he needs to reflect back to Mao concerning the Korean War.  Perhaps Mr. Obama was quoting Mao when addressing comments in European countries last month. 

Mr. Obama, in case you do not realize, aggression by the United States is not arrogant but rather protectionists of our allies.  Are you still fighting a war in North Korea?  Are you a sympathizers to the former Chinese government. 

Apologies for arrogance have never been needed when one is defending freedom.  Are you going to first apologize to an aggressor if they attack our interests and our country. 

Please advise. 

I would rather say that now when push comes to shove China would ask the United States for her help if North Korea tried to tickle China’s nose.   Put another way, China would align itself immediately if foot-stomping was to occur in North Korea.  Mr. President, do not forget that “freedom” is a powerful word and alignments can occur when the universal threat of “loss of freedom” raises its “belligerent and arrogant” head. 

Defending freedom is not arrogance.

Advertisements

HB 2377 Family Medical Care and Temporary 0.3% General Sales Tax Increase

April 25, 2009

Tea Party Revolts

April 14, 2009

I would like to get some responses on how you felt and what happened at the TEA Party which you went to.

Also, my childhood friends daughter and husband ‘s great great great great (great) grandfather was Samuel Adams and it would be great to include a little note in their family scrapbook of the new TEA Party celebrations for their remembrances.

Presently they will be in New York City on the morning of April 15th and may travel north if time permits to go to Boston. 

Thanks


GM should say “NO” to Government Demands for Bankruptcy

April 13, 2009

There is absolutely no reason that GM should bow their knee to the wishes of the United States Government.  The U.S. Government is out of bounds.  The United States Constitution does not say GM needs to take directions from the Government. 

When I am trying to make offers to the IRS I always see or look for what is best for the client and not what is best for the government.  The government always looks at whether they can settle a claim and if not settle or if the client cannot make payments and still pay all of their taxes then and only then do they recommend that a client close down its operations. 

Government taxes must be paid first.  The reason for this is that if they are not paid then the government will get their money out of the executives and the bookkeepers and the payroll clerks.  If the government is not paid first then the operations must be terminated. 

The income taxes cannot be paid or settled in bankruptcy unless the taxes are in arrears and filed and not paid. 

Another fault of going into bankruptcy is that the government will not have to pay back taxes which have been previously paid.  In another name this is called an NOL.  If one has a Net Operating Loss this amount can go backwards for up to five years (the timeframe depends upon if a business, farm or individual, etc.) and starting at a minimum of five years.  Could this indicate that the government would not have enough money in its coffers to payback the back taxes paid to GM or forward for up to 15 years in time.  Come on let’s get real. 

Bankruptcy is not the solution nor is it the answer. 

Leave the running of the automobile business up to the owners of the company.  A small ownership does not need to dictate what needs to be done.

A once proud company just needs to have big brother out of its way.  A once proud company just needs the thugs out of the way.  Government should be striving to get the threat of bankruptcy out of the ownership and put the out-of-touch contracts back into a reality basis.

But the government is not the solution.  Government is the problem.  Always has been and always will be.


God’s April Fools Joke

April 2, 2009

Dear God

We do know that you are in control and do have a sense of humor as well.  We also know that you consider the environmentalists to be a laughing stock because of their professing that global warming is a subject of reality.  You can and do control the weather and many many other aspects of our existance on earth. 

But really did you have to create snow in Seattle by Northgate and upwards to Lynnwood and probably elsewhere that I am not aware of in Washington State on April 1, 2009 or better known as April Fools Day. 

This year you win the grand prize for the best prank and it was indeed a great April Fools joke.

We conservatives and God fearing non-environmentalists know you are in control.  But did you have to show off by doing this also.  Wait, I guess if you want to show off or get even or have a laugh you can do this at any time or day that you want. 

And by the way, Happy Easter God

Keith Ljunghammar


RC62 Universal Child Care Benefit and US/Canada Treaty

April 1, 2009

Concerning your Universal Child Care Benefit, Form RC62, amount for $500. This is something which is unique to Canada and the United States does not have such an items of which is from the Federal Government. So I looked and researched to see if this was taxable income to the United States.

1)  The UCCB is taxable and must be reportable as income if you need to file a tax return.

 2)  The Canadian US Tax Treaty states that if an item is not taxable to one State then that item is not taxable to another State.

3)  The spouse with the lower net income has to report this amount on line 117 of his or her return regarless of which person received the benefit.

 4)  Could not find the information but your spouse is filing married filing jointly so the spouse would have to report all worldwide income in order for you to be able to file jointly with your spouse. This would have been a prior election.

But I have determined that this $500 CAD income is not taxable on your US tax return because if your spouse were to file a tax return it would not be taxable.

Your spouse under number 3 and 4 is the only one that can claim this income. And since this is (number one) taxable income but the Revenue Canada return which is filed separately would account for no taxable income and since the treaty (number three) specifically disallowed an item from being taxable if this is not taxed in Canada then this is not taxable in the United States and this is the reason why I will not be including your UCCB amount of $500 on your US tax return.

The spouse lives in Canada and has no income.  The taxpayer lives in Canada and works in the United States under a work visa.  The spouse has previously elected to include all worldwide income in the United States income tax return.

The RC62, Universla Child Care Benefit is new for Revenue Canada income tax returns as of 2007.  The wording on the treaty was near the end of the treaty wording itself.   

This is interesting because in the United States we also as well as Canada have a daycare credit on Form 2441.  The employer can pay this amount.  This Canadian credit is designed for low income stay at home moms and would seem to be a social repayment.  If the income is too high then the amount of the benefit would slowly vanish.  In the United States the daycare credit has a maximum amount of credit benefit of 20% and does not get eliminated.  The only State where the amount is subsequently eliminated is in California which as of a few years ago limited the amount of the daycare credit to $100,000.  I believe they have been slowly increasing this amount every year by a yearly increased inflation factor.

Having fun now.