Showing posts with label deficit crisis. Show all posts
Showing posts with label deficit crisis. Show all posts

Tuesday, April 10, 2012

Fairness: Going bankrupt fairly

What’s new Today 

Stories #1and #2 relates Obama’s focus on equity trumps jobs, deficit reduction and just about anything else that logic says we should be paying attention to.  #3 in the meantime gives us five reasons to worry about the economy.  #4 and #5 give us dueling stories about Obamacare’s effect on the deficit.  The first one claims a savings of $460,000,000 per year which the second one give us a deficit of $34,000,000,000 per year.   #6 is a look at the oil boom that appears to be starting in Kansas.  #7 tries to set the record straight that America is one of the least racist countries in the world, while #8 gives us a look at the Democrats racist history.  #9 is about Barbara Walters and her claim not one can tell if the press is left or right.  #10 is a PR disaster for United Airlines. 



1.   Income Equity vs. Jobs and Opportunity

Democrats in Congress and President Obama are ratcheting up their efforts to cast Republicans as out-of-touch elitists by championing the "Buffett Rule" – a proposed bill that would require Americans making more than $1 million in income to pay a minimum 30 percent federal income tax.

Democrats will put the measure to a vote in the Senate next week in a move timed roughly to coincide with the April 15 deadline to file federal income taxes. It is intended to turn the screws not only on Senate Republicans in tight reelection contests but also on Mitt Romney, Mr. Obama’s all-but-certain GOP challenger, who earned $20.9 million in 2011 but paid federal taxes at only a 15 percent rate.

The Buffett campaign has one simple mission – “embarrass Republicans”….

…Yet polling suggests that taxing the rich might not be a winning issue for Obama in November….

Among voters without a strongly held opinion of either Mr. Romney or Obama, 80 percent said they’d be more likely to support a candidate focused on economic growth and opportunity, while 15 percent said they would choose one emphasizing income inequality, according to a poll released Monday by the centrist Democratic group Third Way….

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2012/0409/Buffett-Rule-Could-it-backfire-on-Democrats

I think Romney should come out and say President Obama wants to raise my taxes while I want to raise the economy for everyone. 





2.   Fairness not deficit reduction

The Obama administration is emphasizing “fairness” over deficit reduction in its renewed pitch for the “Buffett rule” ahead of next week’s scheduled Senate vote.

Introducing a minimum 30 percent income tax on millionaires “was never our plan to bring the deficit down and get the debt under control,” Jason Furman, the principal deputy director of the White House National Economic Council, told reporters on a conference call Monday afternoon. “This is not the president’s entire tax plan. We’re not trying to say this solves all our economic problems, all our budget problems.”…


…Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) slammed the bill late last month, after the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation estimated the rule would generate $46.7 billion in revenues over the next decade...

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0412/74975.html#ixzz1reCPoshQ

Well 46 billion is more than 7 times the savings from Obamacare.  The Democrats and Obama are doing the equivalent of looking for change under the sofa cushions to pay the house payment coming do.  There are more productive things they should look at. 





3.  Five Reasons to worry about the Economy

…Sluggish economic growth.

The economy hasn't been growing fast enough to sustain the level of job growth the United States enjoyed from December through February -- an average of 246,000 jobs a month.

The economy is expected grow around 2.5 percent this year. Economists say that's consistent with monthly job growth of around 140,000.

Some economists fear that March's weaker numbers are just a return to the normal link between economic growth and job growth -- and that hiring won't pick up until the economy accelerates.

Higher gasoline prices.

U.S. gasoline prices have risen 65 cents this year to a national average of $3.93 gallon, according to the AAA Daily Fuel Gauge. Economists had expected consumers to keep spending at a healthy pace in the face of higher prices at the pump…


It’s beginning to look bad.  I think gas prices are the cause of it and it will destroy Obama’s chance to be reelected. 





4.  Sebelius: Obamacare saves 0.023%

One thing about unconstitutional laws is that they invariably fail to do what they set out to do. Homicides rose after D.C. passed its unconstitutional gun law in 1976 — and fell to their lowest level in 43 years after the Supreme Court repealed the law. And so it goes with Obamacare, which will drive health insurance prices up as it mandates near universal coverage. That is good for insurance executives like Warren Buffett, but bad for consumers. Nonetheless Kathleen Sebelius, head of DHHS, is touting all the savings Obamacare will bring — $460 million a year to the $2 trillion a year health industry.

That’s 0.023% — 23 one-thousandths of 1%.

Pardon my laughter.

As you read the press release, remember $4.6 billion over 10 years is just $460 million a year. Given the history of blue-skying savings, odds are this will increase costs, but even accepting The Man’s numbers, it is a pitifully small saving.


When I first saw this, I thought well over 10 years it could be a lot, and then I realized over 10 years we are talking about $4.6 billion.  That’s a rounding error in the age of Obama. Read the next story for a dose of reality. 

5.   Obamacare and the Deficit: Loses $340 billion



Over the past two years, Obamacare’s champions have often claimed that the new law would actually save the government money and reduce the deficit. Early on, they argued that it would do this in part by reducing health-care costs, but no one really makes that case anymore. Rather, they argue that Obamacare offers a version of today’s preferred liberal approach to deficit reduction: it increased taxes by even more than the immense amount by which it increases spending. That’s not exactly a recipe for fiscal responsibility or a means of addressing the underlying problem of costs, but on the face of it perhaps it should allow them to claim that Obamacare reduces the deficit.



Except that it doesn’t. From the very beginning, critics of Obamacare have pointed out that, even if you accept all of the implausible claims of cost savings in the law, the CBO score of the legislation double-counted the effects of the enormous Medicare cuts scheduled to occur in the next few years… The Medicare actuary (who works for Barack Obama) has been very clear on this point, writing in 2010 that the Medicare cuts in the law were unlikely to actually occur but that even if they did: “In practice, the improved [Medicare trust fund] financing cannot be simultaneously used to finance other Federal outlays (such as the coverage expansions) and to extend the trust fund, despite the appearance of this result from the respective accounting conventions.” CBO has acknowledged that, although it is bound by those accounting conventions and so must double count the proposed cuts, it is true that doing so does not offer a true picture of the law’s effect on the deficit.



Working out exactly what the effect of avoiding this double counting would be, and more broadly what the actual effect of Obamacare on the deficit is likely to be, is no easy feat. It basically requires re-scoring the law using the data available to CBO, but avoiding the misleading conventions forced upon the agency. In an important new paper  out today from the Mercatus Center, Charles Blahous has done just that….



…Regarding the overall effect of the law on the deficit, his conclusion is clear:



Taken as a whole, the enactment of the ACA has substantially worsened a dire federal fiscal outlook. The ACA both increases a federal commitment to health care spending that was already unsustainable under prior law and would exacerbate projected federal deficits relative to prior law. This is an unambiguous conclusion, as it would result regardless of the degree of future success attained in upholding various cost-saving provisions now embedded in the law.



Blahous’s paper is both an exceptionally lucid guided tour of what is actually in Obamacare and a bracing overview of its likely effects on federal finances.



Obamacare’s worsening of the deficit is hardly its worst feature, of course. If it is not repealed, the law will be an utter disaster...




Accounting gimmicks let the Democrats claim they would save money on the deficit.  Almost no one was fooled except those who wanted to be fooled. 



6.    What is the Matter with Kansas? If You Like Oil, Nothing


Black gold might soon be gushing from the Kansas soil, according to AP. Drilling has only just started but the oil is attracting speculators from all over. Ancient land records are being pulled off of courthouse shelves in a frenzy; land that cost $30 an acre is now fetching $3000.

The familiar signs of an oil boom are everywhere: restaurants busier than ever, rental prices shooting up, hotels booked solid. Kansas has more undrilled acreage than most states. Each horizontal well costs about $3 million and is expected to deliver a 90 percent return on investment, paying for itself after 18 months of production. High oil prices are an extra impetus to drill, baby, drill — and to keep the new jobs sprouting from the Kansas ground. The boom “is going to change things forever in this part of the world,” says one local prospector.

Kansas’ oil boom is important for two reasons. Firstly, here we have another example of the incredible job-producing abilities of brown industry. Compare the furor over Kansas’ oil and gas explosion with the unfulfilled and overhyped “green” jobs, which have yet to materialize. And while green jobs will require subsidies for years, brown jobs don’t require federal upfront money — and will deliver taxes to the Treasury right from the start


The oil boom in this country is just starting while the Obama Administration does everything it can to stop it.  High unemployment, stupid investments in green energy, huge deficits are hallmarks of progressive politics.  It’s time for a change.





7.  Racism and America

In light of the tragic killing of black teenager Trayvon Martin — and the manufactured hysteria surrounding it — one thing needs to be stated as clearly and as often as possible: The United States is the least racist and least xenophobic country in the world. Foreigners of every race, ethnicity, and religion know this. Most Americans suspect this. Most black Americans and the entire left deny this.

Black Africans know this. That is why so many seek to live in the United States. Decades ago, the number of black Africans who had immigrated to the United States had already surpassed the number of black Africans who were forcibly shipped to America as slaves.

And members of other races and nationalities know this. Even Muslim and Arab writers have noted that nowhere in the Arab or larger Muslim world does an Arab or any other Muslim have the individual rights, liberty, and dignity that a Muslim living in America has. As for Latinos and Asians, vast numbers of them from El Salvador to Korea regard America as the land of opportunity.

And when any of these people come here – from anywhere, speaking any language, looking like a member of any race — they are accepted as Americans the moment they identify as such. He or she will be regarded as fully American. This is not true elsewhere. A third-generation Turkish-German, whose German is indistinguishable from the German spoken by an indigenous German, will still be regarded by most Germans as a Turk. The same holds true elsewhere in Europe…


America is the least racists’ country in the world despite what the race baiters try to portray.  Is there racism in America?  Of course there is.  Is it simply accepted?  No, and that is what makes us different. 



8.  Racism and the Democrats

Democrats through Eisenhower

Wilson was a nightmare for blacks. After he took office, there were mass firings of black federal employees. The new Democrat Congress passed laws barring interracial marriages in the District of Columbia. "Whites Only" and "Blacks Only" began appearing on drinking fountains and in toilets in Washington. President Wilson broke the tradition of appointing American Negroes as consuls to Haiti and Santo Domingo. He rejected a proposal for a National Race Commission to study the status of blacks in the U.S., and he began segregating blacks and whites in the civil service.

FDR was a hero to black America, but one must ask why. He won the 1932 Democrat nomination by collecting all of the convention votes in 9 of the 11 states of the old Confederacy. Only Virginia and Texas, which had "favorite son" candidates, did not give every single delegate to FDR, although by the fourth ballot, every single delegate in all eleven states voted for FDR.

President Roosevelt appointed Hugo Black, a former Klansman, and although later this was downplayed, Black was elected to the Senate from Alabama with the backing of the Klan. Roosevelt appointed another Klansman, Tom Clark, as attorney general of the United States. Paul Robeson called the appointment of Clark as attorney general by FDR "a gratuitous and outrageous insult to my people." Black leaders despised FDR. Roy Wilkins accused FDR of "expedient cowardice."

Were Democrat leaders after FDR better? Harry Truman applied to join the Klan (but stopped when he found out that the Klan hated Catholics.) Harry Truman had said that one man is as good as another "so long as he's honest and decent and not a nigger or a Chinaman," and he referred to Martin Luther King as a "troublemaker." When asked about racial integration, he asked a reporter: "Would you want your daughter to marry one of them?"

Adlai Stevenson, the Democrat nominee in 1952 and 1956, selected as his running mate John Sparkman of Alabama, a segregationist. As a congressman, LBJ opposed civil rights legislation, opposed anti-lynching legislation, and opposed legislation to end the poll tax and end employment discrimination.

JFK, too, was a bigot. In 1960, when Time Magazine interviewed John Kennedy, he said: "It was so hot that even niggers went to the beach." During the 1960 election campaign, John Kennedy had breakfast in Alabama with the White Citizen's Council in Alabama, a fact that Jackie Robinson noted in expressing frustration at the indifference to racism in the Kennedy campaign.

It is a testament to the racism pandemic in the Democrat Party that when Hubert Humphrey courageously spoke up against "white only" primaries in the South at the 1948 Democrat Convention, that was recognized as a breakthrough for civil rights -- but Republicans, of course, had accepted blacks in their primaries and caucuses all along, and blacks from the South had been delegates at Republican conventions since the end of the Civil War. Humphrey was asking Democrats to move up to where Republicans had been since 1868….


This is an interesting history of racism and the Democrats. 





9.  Barbara Walter’s must think Americans are idiots!

What world does she live in? According to veteran journalist Barbara Walters on Monday, the American public doesn't know whether "most" reporters are "Republicans or Democrats." The unbelievable claim came during a View segment on the passing of 60 Minutes journalist Mike Wallace.

Walters, who once recoiled at the prospect of the "scary" Sarah Palin becoming President, insisted, "But, most of us...you don't know whether we're Republicans or Democrats or exhibitionists." (Exhibitionists?) The comment came after comedienne Whoopi Goldberg insisted, "And also, the journalists today don't do what journalists did, which was keep their opinions to ourselves."

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2012/04/09/barbara-walters-journalists-you-dont-know-whether-were-republicans-o#ixzz1rbTqcunJ

I’m afraid Barbara is losing it.  Not only are there studies that show us the media is overwhelmingly liberal, but reporters haven’t even tried to be unbiased for decades.   





10.                   UA PR Disaster

“Flight attendants are on this aircraft to save your rear end, not kiss it!"

That's the warm and fuzzy "Welcome aboard" with which passengers were greeted on a recent United Airlines flight from Phoenix to Houston.

A sticker with that wording was attached to a United Airlines flight attendant's bag that was placed in the overhead luggage bin near the front of the plane, according to the businessman/frequent flier who took the photo at right. The passenger assures that it was not a hoax from an angry Alec Baldwin- type….


I know the Flight Attendant probably thought this was clever.  It wasn’t and UA needs to take action with whoever this person is. 

Thursday, July 14, 2011

Nothing but Obama

The Great Orator? Not so much.

When President Obama started talking at his news conference Monday, I listened intently for 15 minutes or so. Then I got fidgety as his half-truths about the debt grew into full-blown whoppers. As he droned on, I did something I never did before during an Obama appearance: I TURNED OFF THE TV.

Enough. HE IS THE MAN WHO WON'T LISTEN TO ANYBODY, so why should anybody listen to him?

Tuning out and turning off the president does not fill me with gladness. He cannot be ignored.
But for now, I will leave that unhappy duty to others. I AM TIRED OF BARACK OBAMA. THERE'S NOTHING NEW THERE. HIS SPEECHES ARE LIKE "GROUNDHOG DAY."

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/us_too_dumb_to_know_is_always_right_G4K8WElXRNRR8NvsXQAz0H#ixzz1S5GDpN5M

I think even Obama’s supporters would probably admit this is true. We now know that without a teleprompter and without being able to attack George Bush, Obama seems more than a bit mortal even in his rhetoric.

The Post Partisan President? Not really.

That was then, this is now, and POLITICS IS STILL THE NAME OF THE GAME. What's going on in Washington isn't a serious conversation about how to halt and reverse the ruinous growth of federal spending, but the usual jockeying for position as election season approaches.

How else to explain Obama's adamant refusal to put some serious numbers on the table? The administration's talks with the GOP leadership broke down over the weekend largely because the president is only willing to offer -- wait for it -- A GRAND TOTAL OF $2 BILLION IN REAL SPENDING CUTS IN 2012.

That's it -- $2 billion with a "b," out of a projected deficit of more than a trillion dollars. No wonder SENATE MAJORITY LEADER MITCH MCCONNELL SAID THAT NO SOLUTION TO THE DEBT PROBLEM IS POSSIBLE AS LONG AS OBAMA IS IN OFFICE.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/the_comedian_in_chief_dUjUlGMZt4xcT4awrHrqbN#ixzz1S5IVczex

You hear a lot of hearsay about what is going on, but this is reality. Obama is offering cuts that amount to less than .05% of the budget. Let’s say you earn $100,000 per year. That would be the equivalent of you cutting your spending by $50. No Starbucks for two weeks!!!

Super bright President? More than a little questionable.

“Eric, don’t call my bluff.” Obama to Eric Cantor in the debt limit negotiations—

Do you really want to tell the other side you are bluffing? Is this a sign of a super bright person?
Read about his other gaffes here

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=44749



Deficit Reducer? Not a chance

….Yet the $4 trillion in deficit reduction that MR. OBAMA TALKS ABOUT IS SHY ON DETAILS. NO ONE WHO'S ATTENDED HIS FREQUENT NEGOTIATING SESSIONS KNOWS WHAT HIS PROPOSAL REALLY IS.

The president has made a bipartisan agreement even more difficult by declaring certain spending off-limits to cuts. MR. OBAMA'S "UNTOUCHABLE" LIST INCLUDES HIS $1 TRILLION HEALTH-CARE REFORM, $128 BILLION IN UNSPENT STIMULUS FUNDS, EDUCATION AND TRAINING OUTLAYS, HIS $53 BILLION HIGH-SPEED RAIL PROPOSAL, SPENDING ON "GREEN" JOBS AND STUDENT LOANS, AND VIRTUALLY ANY STRUCTURAL CHANGES TO ENTITLEMENTS except further squeezing payments to doctors, hospitals and health-care professionals.

Mr. Obama has offered no evidence since becoming president that he wants to restrain the upward trajectory of government spending. HE DOES WANT HIGHER TAXES TO PAY FOR SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER FEDERAL SPENDING. But he wants Republicans to deliver the tax increases, since Democrats couldn't pass them last year despite controlling both chambers of Congress….

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304911104576443863077227784.html?
mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
Obama has been angling to have Americans look at him as if he is the adult in these negotiations. In reality his is the petulant child refusing not only to eat his peas, but demanding that he get desert first.

Obama, the Presidential Candidate Leader for 2012: Not now.

PRINCETON, NJ -- Registered voters by a significant margin now say they are more likely to vote for THE "REPUBLICAN PARTY'S CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT" THAN FOR PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA IN THE 2012 ELECTION, 47% TO 39%. Preferences had been fairly evenly divided this year in this test of Obama's re-election prospects.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/148487/Republican-Candidate-Extends-Lead-Obama.aspx

Once again we see the independent voters breaking for the Republicans by 10% right now.

A Man with a Plan? Not BHO

THE HOUSE REPUBLICANS HAVE A POSITION ON THE DEBT REFORM THAT IS SUBSTANTIVELY SOUND AND POLITICALLY ATTUNED TO THEIR BASE: cuts greater than the amount which the debt ceiling will be raised. There is no indication that Democrats or the president will accept that.

SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R- KY.) HAS A PLAN, which isn’t ideal unless you think a bipartisan deal is possible or you think Republicans won’t be blamed for a default.

THE PRESIDENT TOOK A WALK, ABRUPTLY LEAVING THE WHITE HOUSE MEETING. Democrats say he was “badgered” by House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) Heavens, can’t have that. HE ALSO HAS NO VIABLE PLAN THAT CAN PASS THE HOUSE (OR EVEN THE SENATE).

So where are we? Yesterday Cantor reiterated, “THOUGH NONE OF THE PLANS BEING DISCUSSED RIGHT NOW COULD GARNER THE 218 VOTES NEEDED FOR HOUSE PASSAGE, WE HAVE FOUND AREAS OF AGREEMENT.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/a-position-a-plan-and-a-walk/2011/03/29/gIQATRSoDI_blog.html

Walking out on the negotiations! Because he was “badgered” by Eric Cantor??? No wonder he told him not to call his “bluff.” Bachmann is looking more presidential each day compared to the guy we have in the White House now.

A Post Racial President? Doesn’t look like it

By now, almost everyone has seen one of the semi-amusing videos of black teen mobs rampaging through a store. Maybe we've even seen the non-amusing pictures of the victims, or heard their stories. MOST AMERICANS HAVE HEARD OF RECENT VIOLENT "FLASH MOBS," WHICH ARE THE BANDS OF BLACK TEENS THAT ATTACK MOSTLY WHITE VICTIMS AND WHITE BUSINESSES, as even the New York Times once noted.

BUT THE FLASH MOBS, WHICH ARE MORE ACCURATELY CALLED "RACE RIOTS" OR "RACIAL MOB VIOLENCE," are not the only interesting topic to cover in our national conversation about race. There is also the "knockout game," which is stunning in its brutal simplicity and stark racial significance.

THE KNOCKOUT GAME INVOLVES "UNPROVOKED ATTACKS ON INNOCENT BYSTANDERS," according to police who have had to deal with it. A retired officer explained, "Normally it was a group of black males, one of which would strike him as hard as he could in the face, attempting to knock him out with one punch," says retired Sgt. Don Pizzo. The victims are typically not robbed, but simply punched with no provocation. Such attacks have been reported in Illinois, Massachusetts, Missouri, and New Jersey.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/07/the_knockout_game_racial_violence_and_the_conspicuous_silence_of_the_media.html

One person has been killed in the Knockout game.

A No Brainer for this President? Unfortunately no.

With the job market in the dumps, and the president moving that to the top of his priority list, WOULDN'T GETTING OUT OF THE WAY OF 740,000 JOBS THAT COULD BE CREATED IN THE OIL INDUSTRY BE A NO-BRAINER? WELL, NO.

Much has been made of America's need to drill its own energy to end dependency on foreign petrotyrants. As if that isn't urgent enough, so is the need to create jobs instead of America's steady drip of bad employment numbers.

The latter, now at 9.2%, is rising every month now, as the threat of higher taxes, government growth, closed markets and regulation choke off economic growth.

The U.S. economy must create 100,000-plus jobs just to stay even with those entering the work force, and more still to absorb the 26 million currently unemployed and underemployed. Last month, the sorry story was that the U.S. produced just 18,000 jobs.

PRESIDENT OBAMA, IN HIS BRIEFING MONDAY, INSISTED HE HAD NO HIGHER PRIORITY THAN CREATING JOBS. With falling poll numbers, it seems an alarm clock has finally rung after two years of dithering.

But government doesn't create jobs. Companies do.

Obama will make no headway until he gets serious about clearing paths for jobs to form — not just in his favorite "targeted" industries, such as infrastructure and "green" energy jobs — but in industries where market demand provably exists and companies want to hire.

EXHIBIT A IS THE OIL INDUSTRY, WHICH HAS JUST COME OUT WITH A STUDY SHOWING THAT 190,000 JOBS COULD BE CREATED BY 2013 IF OFFSHORE DEVELOPMENT PERMITS IN THE GULF OF MEXICO WERE RETURNED TO NORMAL LEVELS.

THESE ARE WELL-PAYING JOBS THAT WILL DIRECTLY PUMP $41.4 BILLION THROUGH THE ECONOMY, according to the Quest Offshore report commissioned by the American Petroleum Institute and the National Ocean Industries Association. THE KNOCK-ON JOBS THAT COME OF THAT ARE EXPECTED TO BRING THAT TOTAL TO 430,000.

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/578200/201107131848/Oiling-The-Economy.htm

This creates jobs, brings in new taxes to the government, and decreases our dependency on foreign oil. So what in the world are Obama and the left thinking?

Joe Cool? Not anymore

….And now, when the chips are down and his presidency hangs in the balance, we see how this all plays out. OBAMA PAINTS HIMSELF IN HEROIC TERMS, DECRIES HIS OPPONENTS AS OPERATING IN BAD FAITH, FINDS DETAILS INCONVENIENT ( House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) characterizes the presidency slipperiness as “Jell-o”) AND SEEMS TO HAVE QUALMS ABOUT SAYING ONE THING IN PUBLIC (HE’S OFFERING ENTITLEMENT CUTS) AND ANOTHER IN PRIVATE (WHERE ARE THEY?). “Facts” are used as an instrument (the tax hikes are only about millionaires and corporate jets) for getting his way.

Obama, as we saw in the health-care forum when Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) took on the specifics of his health-care plan, ISN’T ALL THAT COMFORTABLE OR EFFECTIVE IN UNSCRIPTED MOMENTS WHEN FORCED TO ARGUE ON THE MERITS. He resorts to name-calling (“the election is over”). And he insists on saying things that just aren’t so (e.g. you can keep your health-care plan under Obamacare). That’s been his style from the time he started campaigning (“you’re likable enough, Hillary”) up to the present. It’s not pretty to watch, and it certainly doesn’t live up to his billing as a man more heroic and honest than us mere mortals.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/the-myth-of-obamas-great-temperament/2011/03/29/gIQALFPvDI_blog.html

Obama is coming apart at the seams. He’s over his head, he knows it and we are all getting a glimpse of it as well.

President Sensitivity? Sorry Grandma, you SS check will have to wait

Maybe this is why he picked the arbitrary August 2 deadline to increase the debt ceiling.
HE DOESN’T WANT TO MISS HIS AUGUST 3 BIRTHDAY FUNDRAISER by having to spend time at work dealing with the likes of Eric Cantor. Hey, there are priorities and then there are priorities.

WHICH MEANS THAT ON AUGUST 3, THE VERY DAY OBAMA SAYS HE MAY DECIDE NOT TO SEND OUT SOCIAL SECURITY CHECKS, OBAMA GLADLY WILL BE POCKETING CHECKS FROM CAMPAIGN DONORS.

President Obama returns to Chicago on Aug. 3 to mark his 50th birthday with fund-raisers at the Aragon Ballroom, with tickets ranging from $50 a person to $35,800 per couple, which includes VIP seating at a “Birthday Concert” where celebs will be performing and a dinner with the president.
The fundraiser at the Aragon, the historic ballroom in Uptown, will be one of the biggest third quarter events, expected to draw in national supporters. Obama’s 50th birthday is Aug. 4….

http://legalinsurrection.com/2011/07/huge-obama-birthday-fundraiser-day-after-debt-ceiling-deadline/

Perhaps I should have put this one with the category about Super Bright President, because obviously this is stupid.

Thursday, June 30, 2011

Thursday: Obama, spending, and the debt

Politics
Bankers Say Supporting Obama Is "Bad For Business" And Embarrassing

IT IS WELL DOCUMENTED THAT WALL STREET WAS DEEPLY OFFENDED BY OBAMA'S "FAT CAT" COMMENTS AFTER HE WAS ELECTED PRESIDENT, so much so, that longtime Democratic supporters have shifted their support to the GOP for the next election.

In fact, some Wall Streeters even alleged that at an even more basic level, Obama just doesn't like rich people.

But apparently the disdain for Bam on the Street may be mostly appearances.
According to Andrew Ross Sorkin at Dealbook,

While MANY OF THE BIGGEST NAME FINANCIERS FEEL THAT THEY CAN’T PUBLICLY SUPPORT MR. OBAMA through campaign contributions the way they did in 2008 — “it would be bad for business,” one brand-name chief executive of a major bank acknowledged — SOME STILL PLAN TO VOTE FOR HIM….

http://www.businessinsider.com/bankers-actually-do-support-obama-theyre-just-too-embarassed-to-do-it-publicly-2011-6#ixzz1QevR9Zp2

Stupidity knows no bounds. There should be a new book written, “What’s the Matter with Wall Street?”

Poll Numbers Continue Alarming Trend for Obama

As Alana wrote earlier today, according to the latest McClatchy-Marist poll:

ONLY 37 PERCENT OF REGISTERED VOTERS APPROVE OF PRESIDENT OBAMA’S HANDLING OF THE ECONOMY, HIS LOWEST RATING EVER.

• By nearly 2-1 (61 percent v. 32 percent) voters disapprove of how he’s handling the federal budget deficit.

• Fifty-eight percent of voters disapprove of Obama’s handling of the economy, comprising 60 percent of independents, 31 percent of Democrats and 91 percent of Republicans.

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/06/28/poll-numbers-continue-alarming-trend-for-obama/

This is actually worse for Obama than it seems. Pollsters always add, but people still approve of him personally. We won’t vote for him to be a friend, but someone responsible for the economy as President. This points to a big loss next year.

Morning Examiner: Obama’s debt deal desperation

The Gang of Biden is dead. President Obama has met with one Republican leader once on the debt limit. And that meeting produced nothing. Meanwhile there are only 24 working days until financial Armageddon supposedly begins on August 2nd. THE WHITE HOUSE IS GETTING DESPERATE.

THEY APPEAR TO HAVE REALIZED THAT THE REPUBLICANS ARE 100 PERCENT SERIOUS WHEN THEY SAY THEY WILL NOT PASS ANY DEBT-LIMIT HIKE THAT INCLUDES ANY TAX HIKES. But Obama's base would be demoralized if he failed to win tax hikes. So the White House needs a game changer. Two possibilities have emerged.

From the White House, National Journal’s MARC AMBINDER REPORTS THAT OBAMA BELIEVES HE CAN GET THE REPUBLICANS TO CAVE ON TAXES IF HE FIRST LETS THE BOND MARKETS PANIC IN LATE-JULY. Obama then hopes that Wall Street and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce will force Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, to compromise, like he did on the FY 2011 budget deal earlier this year.

Outside the White House, more and more prominent Democrats are questioning whether the debt limit is even constitutional. Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., became the latest Democrat to raise the argument yesterday. IF THERE IS NO DEBT DEAL, AND BOND MARKETS DO PANIC, WHAT IS STOPPING OBAMA FROM JUST ORDERING TREASURY SECRETARY TIM GEITHNER TO ISSUE MORE DEBT? IF OBAMA CAN JUST IGNORE THE WAR POWERS ACT, WHY NOT THE DEBT LIMIT TOO?...

http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/06/morning-examiner-obama-s-debt-deal-desperation#ixzz1Qfe7IWih


Obama and the Democrats are in trouble. The debt is leverage that the Republicans have over a Democrat Senate and an extremist executive. I’m looking for something that the democrats will howl at.

Team Obama nervous

IT’S BEEN A ROUGH JUNE FOR THE WHITE HOUSE. Instead of being able to run a campaign taking credit for economic improvement, President Obama will, according to the latest forecasts, be trying to win four more years amid a grim economy next year. THE PRESIDENT’S REELECTION TEAM, ONCE HOPING TO RUN ON A “MORNING IN AMERICA” THEME NOW DOESN’T HAVE THAT LUXURY. No wonder, the president’s advisers over the past month have been making moves that suggest they’re awfully concerned about his prospects:

http://nationaljournal.com/columns/against-the-grain/nerves-show-on-team-obama-20110628

This one is well worth your time to read it. It talks about the four corners of the Obama reelection strategy and the holes they are trying to fill.


Obama: Do you want the good story or the bad one?

First the good one

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA SAYS IT WOULD DEFY COMMON SENSE FOR BOEING CO. TO HAVE TO SHUT DOWN A NEW AIRCRAFT PLANT OR LAY OFF WORKERS AS A RESULT OF A LABOR DISPUTE WITH THE GOVERNMENT.

Obama says companies need to have the freedom to relocate work, though they must follow the law when doing so.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-says-us-companies-like-boeing-need-freedom-to-relocate-within-us/2011/06/29/AGwD3pqH_story.html

The left is quick to condemn companies moving jobs overseas, but here we have a case of a company wanting to keep jobs in America although in a right to work state. It would seem the NLRB should remember this before they do stupid things.

And now the bad one

Lieutenant General John Allen told the Senate Armed Services Committee today that the AFGHANISTAN DECISION PRESIDENT OBAMA ANNOUNCED LAST WEEK WAS NOT AMONG THE RANGE OF OPTIONS THE MILITARY PROVIDED TO THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF. Allen’s testimony directly contradicts claims from senior Obama administration officials from a background briefing before the president’s announcement.

In response to questioning from Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Allen testified that Obama’s decision on the pace and size of Afghanistan withdrawals was “a more aggressive option than that which was presented.”

Graham pressed him. “My question is: Was that a option?”

Allen: “It was not.”

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/general-reveals-obama-ignored-militarys-advice-afghanistan_575902.html

The question here is not whether Obama had the right to override the military’s options, but was it wise to do so. It appears this was a political decision rather than a military one.

Michele Bachmann from a liberal perspective

The Michele Bachmann surge (confirmed most recently by the latest PPP poll) suggests the question is not whether Bachmann is a legitimate contender for the Republican nomination but what it will take to stop her from winning. AS I'LL EXPLAIN, I DO THINK BACHMANN CAN BE STOPPED. BUT THE GENERAL ADVANCE OF CONSERVATISM WITHIN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY OVER THE LAST THREE DECADES HAS BEEN A REPEATED PATTERN OF THE UNTHINKABLE BECOMING THINKABLE, and the trend has sharply accelerated over the last two years. Moderation simply lacks any legitimacy within the GOP. It exists, but -- UNLIKE THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY, WHERE MODERATION IS A FREQUENT BOAST -- it's undertaken almost entirely in secret. Since Barack Obama's inauguration, virtually every quarrel within the Republican Party between moderates and maximalist partisans has been resolved in favor of the latter. Bachmann has positioned herself as a mainstream, serious figure who has also outflanked the other as-yet announced candidates. They will have a hard time attacking her without seeming to attack conservatism itself.

http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/90963/how-stop-bachmann

I wanted to quote this article because of the underlying assumptions. The author talks about conservatism overwhelming moderation in the Republican Party vs. the Democratic Party where it is a “frequent boast.” Moderation has absolutely no power in the Democrat Party. If it did, the Democrats wouldn’t have lost 63 seats in the House of Representatives. But from the left’s viewpoint, what is actually a moderate position seems far to the right.

Chokegate: The left responds to Ann Althouse

I want you to see the kind of thing that passes for mainstream media commentary in this town:

In one narrative, Bradley rushed Prosser with her fists up and Prosser managed to touch her neck while defending himself. It is, my colleagues in the press now say, a classic “he said/she said” controversy. No, it's not. IT IS A CONTROVERSY ONLY IF PROSSER'S HANDS WERE NOWHERE NEAR BRADLEY'S NECK. I MEAN, COME ON!

There follows a tirade about what we teach our sons about violence against women, as if, in a face to face physical encounter, the man is always wrong. SO, AS A WOMAN IN THE WORK PLACE, CAN I GET RIGHT UP IN ANY MAN'S FACE, GET AS ANGRY AS I WANT, SHAKE MY FIST RIGHT BY HIS BIG OLD GLASSES, AND THE MOMENT HE FLINCHES, IF HIS HAND TOUCHES ME, I GET TO SHOUT "VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN" and he's the one who's screwed? As a feminist, I would just love to have power like that. That's sarcasm, I hope you're not too far gone to realize….

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2011/06/local-journalist-bill-wineke-demagogues.html

It’s funny how your ideology will determine who you want to believe that will lead you to create a scenario where that person will be in the right or the other person will be in the wrong.


California passes austerity budget

The Legislature passed an austerity budget Tuesday night that would CUT FROM UNIVERSITIES, COURTS AND THE POOR, SHUTTER 70 PARKS AND THREATEN SCHOOLS BUT WOULD NOT — BY OFFICIALS' OWN ADMISSION — RESTORE CALIFORNIA'S LONG-TERM FINANCIAL HEALTH.
The UC and Cal State systems would face about a 23% funding cut, among the steepest in the proposal. Cash grants for the needy would fall, a program to help thousands of teen mothers get an education would be suspended and hundreds of millions of dollars would be siphoned from mental health programs.

The state park closures would be the first ever. Courts would face what the state's chief justice has described as crippling reductions.

In an optimistic forecast, LAWMAKERS BUILT IN AN EXTRA $4 BILLION OF REVENUE. If all that cash does not materialize, K-12 schools — which had so far survived negotiations relatively unscathed — would face a cutback equal to shortening the academic year by seven days….

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-state-budget-20110629,0,1794731.story

Eventually reality comes even to the Golden State. When will it come to Washington?

Economic Freedom and Prosperity

…. Blogger Glenn Reynolds recently highlighted numerous examples of the media’s increasingly frequent use of “unexpected” to describe bad economic news. Unemployment “unexpectedly” rose despite federal “stimulus.” Home sales “unexpectedly” fell despite taxpayer bailouts. ER visits unexpectedly rose in Massachusetts despite RomneyCare. Similarly, the Pundit Press blog has rounded-up dozens of examples of such “unexpected” developments since January 2011.
However, the fact that such GOVERNMENT INTERVENTIONS NECESSARILY STIFLE ECONOMIC PROGRESS IS NOT NEWS. Volumes have been written on this topic. The “natural laboratories” of East Germany vs. West Germany, North Korea vs. South Korea, and communist China vs. Hong Kong amply illustrated the principle that whenever government forcibly thwarted people from furthering their happiness and their lives, the result was misery and death.
The same phenomenon can be observed in the natural laboratories within the United States. ECONOMIST MARK PERRY HAS DESCRIBED HOW BUSINESSES ARE LEAVING CALIFORNIA IN “RECORD NUMBERS” FOR STATES LIKE TEXAS THAT OFFER GREATER FREEDOM FROM BURDENSOME REGULATIONS. The Wall Street Journal recently reported that 37% of all net new American jobs since the recovery began were created in Texas.
Similarly, when the Mercatus Center released its 2011 Index of Economic and Personal Freedom ranking all 50 U.S. states, THEY NOTED TWO INTERESTING FACTS. FIRST, ECONOMIC FREEDOM CORRELATED WITH INCOME GROWTH. SECOND, AMERICANS “VOTED WITH THEIR FEET” AND MOVED FROM STATES WITH LESS FREEDOM TO STATES WITH MORE FREEDOM…

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/why-the-unexpected-keeps-happening/

And which party is the party of economic freedom? Which party is the party of economic regulation? Progressivism is based on the idea that wise people running things will do better than an economy where everyone has the freedom to buy and sell as they choose.


Unions off Target

Confronted with an unwelcome intrusion, employees at A TARGET STORE IN NEW YORK REJECTED UNIONIZATION AND DEALT A BLOW TO THE GRAND PLANS OF THE UFCW.

That average Americans continue to stand against these job-killing, profit-leaching forces is most encouraging. But make no mistake, the fight is far from over.

LABOR UNIONS ARE IN DECLINE AND DESPERATE. Today, union membership is under 12% of the U.S. workforce -- it was over 20% in the 1980's. Among retail unions, like the United Food and Commercial Workers International (UFCW), membership has also undergone sizeable erosion, down over 40% nationwide since 1983….

….At the Target store in Valley Stream, NY, the UFCW's efforts to unionize workers was supposed to be a harbinger of things to come -- a national comeback if you will. BUT OVER 60% OF EMPLOYEES VOTED DOWN THE MEASURE. As one worker put it, "what do I need a union to fight for me for?" Good question….

…Predictably, and on cue, the UFCW SOUGHT TO INVALIDATE THE ELECTION RESULTS. IN FACT, THE UNION CALLED ON THEIR COMRADES AT THE NLRB TO INVESTIGATE TARGET FOR ILLEGALITY, SUPPOSEDLY FOR EMPLOYING FEAR, INTIMIDATION, AND THREATS AGAINST WORKERS. How typical of union thugs..…

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/06/a_union_off-target.html

Unions are a dying institution in the private sector in America.
Global Warming

Al Gore, Free Speech and Climate Change

….GLOBAL WARMING IS A LOSING ISSUE. The failure of the UN’s climate conference in Bonn earlier this month shows waning appetite for the issue on an international scale. A new survey commissioned by Yale and George Mason Universities finds THAT LESS THAN HALF OF AMERICANS BELIEVE THAT HUMAN ACTIVITIES CONTRIBUTE TO PLANETARY WARMING AND JUST 39 PERCENT AGREED THAT “MOST SCIENTISTS THINK GLOBAL WARMING IS HAPPENING.” Pew’s annual “top policy priorities” poll RANKS GLOBAL WARMING 21ST OUT OF 22 ISSUES IN IMPORTANCE, BEATING OUT OBESITY but trailing such off-the-radar topics as transportation and lobbyists. When unemployment rates exceed nine percent and national debt approaches annual GDP, citizens tend to focus on concrete rather than amorphous issues. IN HARD TIMES, WE WANT THE NEWS, NOT THE WEATHER.

AL GORE BLAMES ANOTHER CULPRIT FOR HIS CAUSE’S DEMISE, NAMELY, FREE SPEECH. The Nobel Prize winner writes in Rolling Stone that “the ‘conversation of democracy’ has become so deeply dysfunctional that our ability to make intelligent collective decisions has been seriously impaired.” It’s not just that the public square has become a dangerous place for global warming, but that skeptics of anthropocentric global warming have put their money where their mouths are. “POLLUTERS AND IDEOLOGUES ARE TRAMPLING ALL OVER THE ‘RULES’ OF DEMOCRATIC DISCOURSE,” GORE COMPLAINS….

http://frontpagemag.com/2011/06/29/al-gore-in-denial/

Gore and the rest of the Progressives are dangerous to our liberty and our country. They see dissent as something that is dangerous and should not be tolerated. They know what is true and if you disagree with them you are trampling all over the “rules” of democratic discourse. Their solution is to end democratic discourse.

Science

Cancer Surges In Body Scanner Operators; TSA Launches Cover-Up

Fearful of provoking further public resistance to naked airport body scanners, THE TSA HAS BEEN CAUGHT COVERING UP A SURGE IN CASES OF TSA WORKERS DEVELOPING CANCER as a result of their close proximity to radiation-firing devices, perhaps the most shocking revelation to emerge from the LATEST FOIA DOCUMENTS OBTAINED BY THE ELECTRONIC PRIVACY INFORMATION CENTER.

After Union representatives in Boston discovered a “cancer cluster” amongst TSA workers linked with radiation from the body scanners, THE TSA SOUGHT TO DOWNPLAY THE MATTER AND REFUSED TO ISSUE EMPLOYEES WITH DOSIMETERS TO MEASURE LEVELS OF EXPOSURE.

The documents indicate how, “A large number of workers have been falling victim to cancer, strokes and heart disease.”

“The Department, rather than acting on it, or explaining its position seems to have just dismissed. I don’t think that’s the way most other agencies would have acted in a similar situation if they were confronted with that question,” EPIC’s Marc Rotenberg said….

http://www.infowars.com/cancer-surges-in-body-scanner-operators-tsa-launches-cover-up/

This sounds a bit over the top to me. Exposure to radiation normally takes much longer to cause cancer than we find here. But forewarned is forearmed and in checking out EPIC they appear to be a legitimate foundation.

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….

http://frontpagemag.com/2011/04/18/barack-obamas-arrogant-ignorant-marxist-rhetoric/

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.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/264988/ipab-obama-and-socialism-stanley-kurtz

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



Baracknaphobia

…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.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/04/baracknaphobia.html

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


WHAT IS REALLY DRIVING AMERICA INTO INSOLVENCY?

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….

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/264917/not-tax-cuts-not-wars-and-not-bailouts-kevin-d-williamson

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).
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/100-percent-tax-those-earning-500k-or-mo

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.”


http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/incredible-shrinking-obama_557490.html

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

… UNEMPLOYMENT

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…

http://www.investorplace.com/36925/obama-one-term-economic-issues-election/

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…..

… Take the Meadow Lake Wind Farm in Indiana, which received the single largest 1603 grant, $276 million. Meadow Lake is owned and operated by Horizon Wind Energy, A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF EDP RENOVAVEIS, A PORTUGUESE COMPANY. CHOMA REPORTED THAT THE TURBINES AT MEADOW LAKE ARE MANUFACTURED BY VESTAS, AND THUS "LIKELY MADE IN DENMARK, WHERE VESTAS IS FROM." THE TURBINES SIT ATOP 350-FOOT TOWERS IMPORTED FROM VIETNAM.

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

http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2011/04/boondoggle-tax-code-subsidies-green-energy#ixzz1JsE1XNkU

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.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7l-pEBYeLI&feature=youtu.be


AARP under scrutiny

Three Republican congressmen ARE ASKING THE IRS TO INVESTIGATE WHETHER AARP, THE POWERFUL SENIOR LOBBY AND HEALTH CARE REFORM SUPPORTER, SHOULD BE STRIPPED OF ITS TAX-EXEMPT STATUS.
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

http://www.foxbusiness.com/personal-finance/2011/04/11/did-aarp-sell-seniors/

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