Tuesday, April 19, 2011

Why Obama will lose in 2012 part two

Saul and Barack

...Obama is an odd politician. Most politicians see the cloudy phraseology of their speeches as mere throwaway stuff, cotton candy for the simple-minded. Obama sees such gibberish as the soul of his agenda. IF WE WANT TO EXAMINE WHERE OBAMA TRULY STANDS, WE MUST DELVE INTO HIS SOARING RHETORIC.

And the soaring rhetoric is unvaryingly drawn directly from Saul Alinsky.

As Andrew Breitbart makes clear in his fantastic new book, RIGHTEOUS INDIGNATION, the father of the contemporary left is Saul Alinsky. …As Breitbart writes, “Alinsky’s clever merging of fake founding philosophy with his own Marxism led him to internal contradictions that would have sunk a lesser ego. WHILE CHAMPIONING ‘FREEDOM,’ FOR EXAMPLE – HE HATED THE IDEA OF INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM THE FOUNDERS LOVED – HE [PUSHED FOR] ‘COMMUNAL FREEDOM,’ WHICH IS TO SAY TYRANNY LED BY THE GOVERNMENT….”

….Obama opened his speech by stating that Americans have historically “put our faith in free markets and free enterprise as the engine of America’s wealth and prosperity … we are rugged individualists, A SELF-RELIANT PEOPLE WITH A HEALTHY SKEPTICISM OF TOO MUCH GOVERNMENT.”

So far, so good. But Obama continues: “But there has always been another thread running throughout our history – A BELIEF THAT WE ARE ALL CONNECTED; AND THAT THERE ARE SOME THINGS WE CAN ONLY DO TOGETHER, AS A NATION.” This is un-American, and it is a lie. AMERICAN UNITY DOESN’T OCCUR IN OPPOSITION TO FREE MARKETS, BUT IN DEFENSE OF THEM.

This is typical Alinsky. By purposefully CONFUSING PRINCIPLED INDIVIDUALISM WITH PRINCIPLED COMMUNITARIANISM, SUGGESTING THAT AMERICANS ARE CHARACTERIZED BY BOTH, Obama begins the slow march to fascism. In this section of his speech, Obama essentially turned Americans into corporatists – free marketeers ready, willing, and able to turn over that free market to a well-organized state….


Well worth reading, the author nails Obama’s MO. Obama presents two opposites and then paints himself as the voice of moderation that brings the two together. Unfortunately, you can’t have an SUV that get’s 100 mpg or a healthcare system in which you add 30 million people to it, reduce costs while improving quality. Obama speaks with a forked tongue.

IPAB, Obama, and Socialism

They’re back. RATIONING, DEATH PANELS, SOCIALISM, all those nasty old words that helped bring Republicans victory in 2010, and that came to seem so impolite after November of that year. They’re back because of IPAB. Remember that acronym. It stand for THE INDEPENDENT PAYMENT ADVISORY BOARD. IPAB IS THE REAL DEATH PANEL, THE TRUE SEAT OF RATIONING, and the royal road to health-care socialism. President Obama won’t admit to any of that, but his speech in response to Paul Ryan’s plan did push IPAB out of the shadows and into public view, however briefly. …

…. As IPAB caps Medicare payments for various services, THE ELDERLY WILL BE UNABLE TO OBTAIN MANY KINDS OF CARE, OR WILL EXPERIENCE DE FACTO RATIONING VIA LONG TREATMENT DELAYS AND SHARP DECLINES IN THE QUALITY OF CARE. And by the way, IPAB rationing will hit many current seniors, whereas Ryan’s reform of Medicare will never affect anyone now 55 or older.

…A month ago here at NRO, my EPPC colleague James Capretta described the real plan by which the president and his allies aim to close the fiscal gap. Their goal, says Capretta, is to work by stealth, so voters never fully realize that the government has adopted their strategy. THE FIRST PART OF THE PLAN INVOLVES TAXING “THE RICH” FOR MEDICARE AND HEALTH INSURANCE, BUT WITHOUT REAGAN-STYLE INDEXING OF TAXES TO INFLATION. That way, inflation-driven “BRACKET CREEP” will raise health-care taxes on the middle class without congressional Democrats ever having to vote for new taxes. (See Ross Douthat on this today.)

The second part of the plan involves IPAB-imposed price controls and the large-scale rationing of health care that implies. But to work, IPAB’s authority has got to extend beyond Medicare. The idea, says Capretta, is TO WAIT UNTIL THE MASSIVE FINANCIAL STRAINS BROUGHT ON BY OBAMACARE BRING CALLS FOR COST CONTROL. THAT’S WHEN THE DEMOCRATS WILL PUSH FOR IPAB’S AUTHORITY TO BE EXTENDED BEYOND MEDICARE TO ALL OF OBAMACARE, at which point we’ll be very close to a single-payer health-care system with Canadian-style rationing.


A frightening look at what the future under Obamacare and the Democrats can end up being. And everything said here makes sense.


…As 2012 nears I have a recurring fear that is so powerful that it finds me praying for soiled pants via a cliff dive or an enclosed coffin teeming with spiders. The dominant fear is such that I have found need to name it; to give it a label: Baracknaphobia. EACH TIME THE MAN WHO LEADS WHAT USED TO BE THE MOST POWERFUL NATION IN THE WORLD GOES ON TELEVISION, MY STOMACH TURNS. When he speaks, I convulse at the sound of his conceited, self motivated, lies. When he travels abroad, I cower in embarrassment. When his arrogant, condescending tone reverberates in the halls where true leaders like Reagan stood, I cringe.

BARACKNAPHOBIA IS THE INESCAPABLE FEAR THAT THIS COUNTRY WILL BE SUBJECTED TO ANOTHER FOUR YEARS OF IDEOLOGICAL, RADICAL, IN-YOUR-FACE NARCISSISTIC CONTROL. Baracknaphobia is also the reluctance to call the man out for his lies, because of the color of his skin. Baracknaphobia is fear of the demon that could destroy America.


I don’t suffer from this, but I know many people who do. I do however find the name of the fear to be quite clever.

Not Tax Cuts, Not Wars, and Not Bailouts


Your average poorly informed lefty (but I repeat myself) will reliably tell you that our current fiscal straits are the result of three things: 1. Bush’s wars; 2. Bush’s tax cuts for the rich; 3. Bush’s bank bailouts.

THAT IS NOT TRUE, OF COURSE: The main BANK BAILOUTS (ODIOUS AS THEY WERE) HAVE BEEN PAID BACK, OFTEN AT A PROFIT. The money-losing parts (and the likely money-losing parts) are the ones insisted upon by Barack Obama and his Democratic colleagues: the foreclosure-prevention programs, the endless maintenance of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, etc….

…Our deficit is running around $1.6 trillion. IF WE TOOK ALL MILITARY SPENDING — NOT JUST THE IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN WARS, BUT THE WHOLE SHEBANG — AND CUT IT TO $0.00, WE’D SAVE ABOUT $664 BILLION A YEAR. Iraq and Afghanistan will cost about $170 billion combined in FY2011. ENDING THE BUSH TAX CUTS FOR “THE RICH” — FOR THE $250,000-AND-UP CROWD, IN OBAMA’S FORMULATION — WOULD PUT ON AVERAGE ABOUT ANOTHER $80 BILLION A YEAR INTO TREASURY COFFERS. (CBO estimates the ten-year cost of those tax cuts at $800 billion.) The spending on the wars and the forgone revenue from the Bush tax cuts do not add up to much of that $1.6 trillion deficit: a little less than 16 percent….


A very good article if you are interested in what the cost and savings are that the Democrats pin their hopes on. Eliminating the DOD is $664 billion. Tax cut for the rich gives you another $80 billion. And bail outs aren’t really a cost to add in. Therefore, the Democrats have a $1.65 trillion dollar deficit that they would solve with $250 billion in defense cuts and tax increases (make that $746 billion if you eliminated the DOD completely). Obama and the democrats are either not serious about reducing the deficit or they aren’t telling what they really plan on doing. I’m betting that the tax increase side of this is a lot bigger.

But what if we taxed rich people at 100%?

….However, recently released statistics from the Internal Revenue Service indicate that TAXING AWAY 100 PERCENT OF THE INCOME OF EVERY AMERICAN WHO EARNED $500,000 OR MORE IN 2009 WOULD STILL HAVE LEFT THE UNITED STATES WITH A MASSIVE ANNUAL DEFICIT.

In fact, in tax year 2009 (the last year for which IRS has published statistics), the combined gross income of all Americans earning $500,000 per year or more was about $1.03 trillion ($1,029,256,075,000.00) of which these Americans paid $256.7 billion ($256,699,499,000.00) in federal income taxes.

That left this group of Americans about $773 billion ($772,556,576,000.00) in income that the federal government had not taken away in income taxes.

Also during tax year 2009, according to the Bureau of the Public Debt, the national debt increased by $1.61 trillion ($1,611,544,812,899.90).
If the federal government had increased the income-tax rate on Americans earning more than $500,000 to 100 percent in 2009--and seized the remaining $773 billion in income it had not initially taken away from these Americans--THAT WOULD HAVE CLOSED THE FEDERAL DEFICIT FOR THE YEAR TO $839 BILLION ($838,988,236,899.90).

It’s a cherished belief of liberals that it is the fault of the rich that we don’t have enough money and have a deficit. It simply isn’t true. Put the this article together with the previous one, if we took all the money from those earning over $500,000 and shut down the Pentagon, we would still have a $175 billion deficit. We have a spending problem.

The Incredible Shrinking Obama

….OBAMA’S ARGUMENT IS BUILT ON SAND. A tax increase on the wealthy would fall far short of the revenues needed to reverse our fiscal trajectory. Our budget problems are significantly worse today than they were in the 1990s. THERE ARE NOT NEARLY ENOUGH WEALTHY PEOPLE IN THE NATION TO TAX IN ORDER TO TAME OUR DEBT. If the president wants higher taxes to improve our fiscal imbalance, HE WILL NEED TO EMBRACE A MASSIVE MIDDLE-CLASS TAX INCREASE AND/OR A VALUE ADDED TAX (VAT). But Obama hasn’t shown the slightest preference for that option. It’s pure fiction to pretend that higher taxes on those making more than $200,000 will make much of a dent in our debt, given the size of our long-term spending problem. OBAMA’S ARGUMENT ISN’T WITH REPUBLICANS. IT’S WITH BASIC ARITHMETIC

Republicans need to UNMASK THE PHILOSOPHY GUIDING MODERN LIBERALISM when it comes to taxes. What LIBERALS ARE INTERESTED IN ISN’T GROWTH SO MUCH AS EGALITARIANISM and redistribution for its own sake. For many on the left, increasing taxes isn’t about economics as much as morality. THEY BELIEVE TAXING THE WEALTHY IS A VIRTUE, to the point that they would penalize “the rich” even if that has harmful economic consequences. Recall that during a campaign debate, when asked by Charles Gibson about his support for raising capital gains taxes even if that caused a net revenue loss to the Treasury, Obama sided with tax increases “for purposes of fairness.”


Is Obama lying about his motivations for wanting a tax increase? Is he a politician?

5 issues that doom Obama to a one term presidency


As I just mentioned, PAYROLLS JUST CAN’T GROW FAST ENOUGH TO ERODE THE HIGH UNEMPLOYMENT RATE. Consider that in March, about 216,000 nonfarm jobs were added – and that didn’t even move the needle from an 8.8% jobless rate. If THE ECONOMY NEEDS TO ADD A MILLION JOBS A MONTH TO SIGNIFICANTLY DRAW DOWN THAT GLARING PERCENTAGE that so easily fits into headlines and news teasers, Obama is in big trouble…


The other issues are the Federal Reserve, Family finances, US Debt and Gas Prices. I’m only highlighting Unemployment because I think that’s the biggest one that the Democrats will fall on and it’s almost impossible for it to get better before the election.

Wind farms and other business boondoggles

PRESIDENT OBAMA SAID LAST WEEK HE WANTS TO TRIM "SPENDING IN THE TAX CODE," but he has firmly defended the provision that best fits that odd phrase: a renewable energy "tax credit" doled out in the form of grants from the U.S. Treasury.

The grant program - created by the stimulus bill and extended through 2011 by last year's tax-extender bill - is A CORPORATE WELFARE BOONDOGGLE WHOSE BIGGEST BENEFICIARIES INCLUDE HUGE FOREIGN COMPANIES.

Section 1603 of the 2009 stimulus bill instructs the Treasury secretary to issue grants to companies that develop renewable energy installations. TO DATE, THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT HAS GIVEN OUT $6.9 BILLION IN THESE GRANTS (which cover 30 percent of all cost), with more than 80 percent of that money going to wind farms…..


So U.S. taxpayers cut a $276 million check to a Portuguese company in order to create jobs in Denmark and Vietnam…..


This is business as usual for the Democrats. They rail about tax cuts for the wealthy while they hand out subsidies to their favored businesses.

Beggars with a bad attitude

Remember all that talk about the civility by the left after the shootings in Arizona? Here’s some very nasty libs lifting the curtain on what real incivility looks like.


AARP under scrutiny

At issue is whether there's a conflict of interest between the group's mission to advocate for seniors and the money it makes from endorsing insurance products.

As a result of provisions in the health care reform law, AARP STANDS TO MAKE AN ADDITIONAL $1 BILLION THROUGH ROYALTIES ON INSURANCE PRODUCTS BRANDED WITH THE ORGANIZATION'S NAME OVER THE NEXT 10 YEARS, according to a 29-page report released March 30 by Republican members of the U.S. House Ways and Means Committee


Something we all can agree on. Drop your membership in AARP.

No comments:

Post a Comment