Hopenchange 5
April 3rd 2009 17:35
When you lose income, like you have to take a lesser job or a commission you've been receiving stops or whatever, what do you do to your spending? Do you go before your family and tell them all must sacrifice, then increase your own spending by 10%?
Apparently, when President Obama (there, was that respectful enough for you libs) says we all must sacrifice, he means everybody but the government. The budget passed last night increases spending by 10%. Yes, some of that spending is the cost of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars now being budgeted instead of being separate bills, but it's only 173 Billion of the 3.5 TRILLION in the budget.
So much for belt tightening. And the media's complicity in this is outrageous. Nancy Reagan got raked over the coals for weeks over ONE DRESS. Sarah Palin is more well known among Obama voters for the wardrobe she didnt' even buy than she is for fighting corruption in her own party. Yet this same press celebrates the "fashion daring" and "glamor" of Michelle Obama. Doesn't matter how much she spends, or that Barack bought her a $30,000 ring to celebrate his election. How many dresses could Nancy have bought with that much money?
The White House has been party central, with $100 a pound steak and concerts by artists that fly in on private jets.
Yet, with ZERO GOP votes, and 20 House Dems and 2 Senate Dems voting against it, last night our Congress passed a $3.5 Trillion dollar budget that does not include a single program sacrificed due to the economy. They used "reconciliation" to bypass any chance to fillibuster. It includes:
1. The beginning of a national healtcare system. Even if this is just another plan offered that people can buy into inexpensively, as more people shift to it and the government continues to underpay providers as they have with Medicare reimbursement rates, more and more people will be forced into the plan. The lower pay rates by the government will force that burden onto private insurers, more hospitals to close, more doctors to choose other professions, and more people onto the government dole. In Great Britain right now, if you get breast cancer, you might as well just go home and die. That's our future if this isn't undone.
2. Cap and Trade did not get cut from the bill, as we had hoped. This means, according to Obama's own people, a $2 Trillion tax burden on American business. This means companies and jobs moving to countries without this. This means an effective tax increase on every American of $2 trillion. This means if you pay enough into campaign coffers you can get the rules tweaked in your favor. Thus, the only ones to profit off of this are politicians.
Fortunately, the Senate stopped cap and trade with 26 Democrats helping to stop it from actually being implemented despite being in the budget. Of course, this means higher deficits because cap and trade revenue to the government was going to pay for the increased spending, but with the lessened damage to the economy may help us recover faster. It's probably a win!
What do Americans get from the budget? A tax bomb that equates to $163,000 PER FAMILY. Why, because of the deficits:
And these are based on 4% growth in 2010. This is ignoring all the economists, including 300 from the CATO institute, many of those Nobel Prize winners in economics,
It ignores the problems that 1.15 trillion printed by the fed are going to cause.
It ignores the hundreds of trillions printed and given to banks to loan that they haven't loaned yet but will also dramatically increase the money in circulation.
I know a lot of you want to believe that everybody must be wrong because Obama couldn't possibly know what this is doing. He doesn't want to destroy our economy and burden our kids with twice the debt they already have, right? He's the smartest man in the room after all, right?
Debt over the next ten years if Obama's budget is allowed to continue all 10: at least $9 Trillion.
Total amount of money earned by US citizens every year: $8 Trillion
Yes, but he's fixing our standing in the world!
Oh, you mean how he went before the European press and leaders and apologized for America causing this?
Or do you mean the deep bow that he gave King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia? NO US PRESIDENT should ever bow to a monarch, especially not that deep. The Saudi royal family's response:
Or that he got NO commitment from any of them to help us in Afhanistan? I thought it was Bush's fault and he would make them love us?
Even with appointing transnationalist Harold Koh and global socialist Carol Browner to key positions, the world still doesn't "love us." Frankly, I don't care what the world says about how the country that has created more prosperity for it's citizens and millions of other people around the world than any other in history judges us.
Many of these citizens that "don't love us" owe not being part of the Greater Republic of Nazi Europe to the U.S.A. or part of the Soviet Union. Most of them have become so secular that they don't respect any rules based on God's word, so to have our laws answer to their standards is unacceptable to the vast majority of Americans.
But I digress. The only thing that's changed with Obama, is our President now apologizes for who America is instead of showing pride in us. Greed, government regulation and debt put us in this economic situation, and that is bad. But America's greatness is demonstrated in the fact that our problems affect the entire world. Such is the influence our system has had on the world, and that demonstrates it's worth.
Too bad Obama wants, in his words, to "reMAKE America", not rebuild it, reMAKE it. Somehow, we're not good enough for him.
You can support my blogging even more by buying my book at Author House. Unlike liberals, this is the only fantasy world I live in
Apparently, when President Obama (there, was that respectful enough for you libs) says we all must sacrifice, he means everybody but the government. The budget passed last night increases spending by 10%. Yes, some of that spending is the cost of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars now being budgeted instead of being separate bills, but it's only 173 Billion of the 3.5 TRILLION in the budget.
So much for belt tightening. And the media's complicity in this is outrageous. Nancy Reagan got raked over the coals for weeks over ONE DRESS. Sarah Palin is more well known among Obama voters for the wardrobe she didnt' even buy than she is for fighting corruption in her own party. Yet this same press celebrates the "fashion daring" and "glamor" of Michelle Obama. Doesn't matter how much she spends, or that Barack bought her a $30,000 ring to celebrate his election. How many dresses could Nancy have bought with that much money?
The White House has been party central, with $100 a pound steak and concerts by artists that fly in on private jets.
Yet, with ZERO GOP votes, and 20 House Dems and 2 Senate Dems voting against it, last night our Congress passed a $3.5 Trillion dollar budget that does not include a single program sacrificed due to the economy. They used "reconciliation" to bypass any chance to fillibuster. It includes:
1. The beginning of a national healtcare system. Even if this is just another plan offered that people can buy into inexpensively, as more people shift to it and the government continues to underpay providers as they have with Medicare reimbursement rates, more and more people will be forced into the plan. The lower pay rates by the government will force that burden onto private insurers, more hospitals to close, more doctors to choose other professions, and more people onto the government dole. In Great Britain right now, if you get breast cancer, you might as well just go home and die. That's our future if this isn't undone.
2. Cap and Trade did not get cut from the bill, as we had hoped. This means, according to Obama's own people, a $2 Trillion tax burden on American business. This means companies and jobs moving to countries without this. This means an effective tax increase on every American of $2 trillion. This means if you pay enough into campaign coffers you can get the rules tweaked in your favor. Thus, the only ones to profit off of this are politicians.
Fortunately, the Senate stopped cap and trade with 26 Democrats helping to stop it from actually being implemented despite being in the budget. Of course, this means higher deficits because cap and trade revenue to the government was going to pay for the increased spending, but with the lessened damage to the economy may help us recover faster. It's probably a win!
What do Americans get from the budget? A tax bomb that equates to $163,000 PER FAMILY. Why, because of the deficits:
Obama's Deficit
And these are based on 4% growth in 2010. This is ignoring all the economists, including 300 from the CATO institute, many of those Nobel Prize winners in economics,
It ignores the problems that 1.15 trillion printed by the fed are going to cause.
It ignores the hundreds of trillions printed and given to banks to loan that they haven't loaned yet but will also dramatically increase the money in circulation.
I know a lot of you want to believe that everybody must be wrong because Obama couldn't possibly know what this is doing. He doesn't want to destroy our economy and burden our kids with twice the debt they already have, right? He's the smartest man in the room after all, right?
Debt over the next ten years if Obama's budget is allowed to continue all 10: at least $9 Trillion.
Total amount of money earned by US citizens every year: $8 Trillion
Yes, but he's fixing our standing in the world!
Oh, you mean how he went before the European press and leaders and apologized for America causing this?
Or do you mean the deep bow that he gave King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia? NO US PRESIDENT should ever bow to a monarch, especially not that deep. The Saudi royal family's response:
The so-called new plan is nothing but Bush’s old wine in Obama’s new bottle. So much for the “Change We Can”! Looks like the pundits who mocked our boundless adulation for Obama and celebration of “change in Washington” were right after all. They were right when they insisted that whoever is in charge in Washington, the US foreign policy seldom changes. This is unfortunate considering the great expectations and hopes the new president’s talk of exploring a “new way forward” had spawned across the Muslim world.
Or that he got NO commitment from any of them to help us in Afhanistan? I thought it was Bush's fault and he would make them love us?
Even with appointing transnationalist Harold Koh and global socialist Carol Browner to key positions, the world still doesn't "love us." Frankly, I don't care what the world says about how the country that has created more prosperity for it's citizens and millions of other people around the world than any other in history judges us.
Many of these citizens that "don't love us" owe not being part of the Greater Republic of Nazi Europe to the U.S.A. or part of the Soviet Union. Most of them have become so secular that they don't respect any rules based on God's word, so to have our laws answer to their standards is unacceptable to the vast majority of Americans.
But I digress. The only thing that's changed with Obama, is our President now apologizes for who America is instead of showing pride in us. Greed, government regulation and debt put us in this economic situation, and that is bad. But America's greatness is demonstrated in the fact that our problems affect the entire world. Such is the influence our system has had on the world, and that demonstrates it's worth.
Too bad Obama wants, in his words, to "reMAKE America", not rebuild it, reMAKE it. Somehow, we're not good enough for him.
You can support my blogging even more by buying my book at Author House. Unlike liberals, this is the only fantasy world I live in
| 52 |
| Vote |
Comment by S.L.
The Political Brief
Really good post, by the way! It answers a lot of questions! Did you check out the link I put in "Nightmare in DC"? It takes your concerns even further with the words of some of the bozos.
Comment by A Huge Fan
These are the stories that we conservatives need to keep in the forefront to show everyone how the MSM has its priorities out of whack. If it made the mistake of commenting on Nancy Reagan's spending 25 years ago, than by golly, it should make the same mistake now and comment on how the Obamas spend their personal money, or else it has proven that it is hopelessly biased and unreliable. (And can you believe how the MSM has given them a free pass on their choice of dog? A Portugese dog? Do they hate America that much?) Thank God for the internet, so that people can now turn to blogs written by people like us with excellent journalistic training and experience and absolutely no agenda or bias, to hear the balanced and unvarnished truth.
And I'm with you in just now realizing how bad deficit spending is. Like you, there was no way I was going to demand of President Bush or our congressional leaders that they increase my taxes to pay for the wars I supported -- it was obvious that my kids and grandkids were in a much better position to do that. I also saw the undeniable brilliance in the massive deficit spending practiced by Reagan and both Bushes, and was excited that Bush got rid of sex-fiend Clinton's socialist budget surplus right away.
I mean times were tough back them, we had crises on our hands. Not like today's totally made up crisis, fabricated by weenie liberals whining about inheriting the worst economic crisis in decades, two wars and the largest deficit in history. The answer is so obvious -- we should just do the opposite of everything that our government suggests, since it is made up of Democrats, who are by definition idiots. If only the electorate were as smart as we are -- we would have won the election in a landslide!
So anyway, great post! Keep fighting the good fight!
Comment by S.L.
The Political Brief
Comment by Jonathan Biviano
Politics Realm
Marriage Bits
1) Never claimed to be a journalist.
2) They shouldn't have bothered with Nancy Reagan's clothes and they shouldn't be fussing over Michelle's. My point is the uneven treatment of it, not whether it should be covered or not. Let Entertainment Tonight cover it, not have it be the second story on the "hard news" segment of Good Morning America.
3) Look at the chart. Despite inheriting a recession in 2001 and 9/11 and two wars, the deficit went down from 2004 until the stimulus and bailouts of 2008.
4) I've many times in my blogs blamed Republicans for their spending ways too. But this President was supposed to be "change." Instead he's taking all of our loose change.
President Bush never came out and said "I will cut the deficit in half by the end of my term." That's a flat out lie and based on pie-in-the-sky numbers. Or, it's like a department store that marks all of it's products up to three times their previous price, then advertises a 50% off sale, when at the sale prices they still cost more than before the markup.
All the President's Washington to Bush II didn't accumulate as much debt as Barack's budget and other spending initiatives will create in just ten years.
But again, I just link to facts and information and give my opinion and analysis. On the other hand, supposed news sources spike stories to keep the public uninformed about who they are electing.
Pretty sad that it takes Internet bloggers to get the truth out, since it is often mixed with lies. Everything I claim is backed up by multiple sources, though I leave some of it for people to Google themselves.
Comment by Jonathan Biviano
Politics Realm
Marriage Bits
"Hey, Bush made mistakes, so get off of Obama's!"
And BTW, Bill The Zipper had a Republican controlled Congress holding him accountable. Obama has no resistance. He can push through anything he wants with 100% GOP and some Dem resistance.
I bet you weren't somebody that said,
"Hey, Clinton made mistakes, so get off of Bush's!"
Comment by Andrew Biviano
Next, you write "They shouldn't have bothered with Nancy Reagan's clothes and they shouldn't be fussing over Michelle's." So why did you bring it up?! You essentially said that they should be brought up, if they want to be fair! And you are comparing decisions made by different reporters and news editor from 25 years ago with those of today. Maybe we should learn from our mistakes, not repeat them.
Of course Bush made mistakes. Of course Obama has made tons already. I pray for him and hope he can make less as the days go by and make the best of bad choices. The same is true for Geithner and everyone else. I appreciate that their jobs are infinitely more difficult than yours or mine. I had the same appreciation for Bush. I don't know what I would have done with the problems he faced, there were no easy answers.
Bush and Obama were and are very respectful of each other. They have each gone out of their way to make clear that they have strong political disagreements but equally strong personal respect for each other's character and intentions. I just wish their respective supporters could have the same attitude. My point is not to get off of Obama's mistakes, it's to address them in the same respectful fashion you defend Bush, Rush, Hannity, Ingraham and everyone else. Even calling him by his name seems like a big deal to you.
In your post you talk about a very serious concern with our economy in the same breath you talk about how deeply he bowed. You send us to a website that encourages people to send ni gaffes so that it can track and post them DAILY. Maybe he did make a mistake there. Someone in his staff probably already told him so. But this isn't just reporting the news, it's actively engaging in the politics of personal destruction. As bad as it is in the election cycle, it's even worse afterwards when the choice has been made and work needs to get done, constructively.
Do you have any sense of how petty this appears? How small? Do you honestly think you will persuade others to change their minds when you so clearly indicate disgust with just about everyone and everything even remotely associated with the man? Even a little recognition of the enormity of the task he faces, and the lack of any really good options, would make your blog look somewhat fair and reasoned. Instead, you speak with the certainty of the foremost expert in the fields of economics, diplomacy and media, putting in all caps exactly when and how low a president should bow. The blogs you link to do not give you this expertise.
But hey, it's your blog. I just want people to know that there are other forums out there where the issues come before the attacks and smears.
Comment by Andrew Biviano
Comment by Jonathan Biviano
Politics Realm
Marriage Bits
Presidents don't bow to monarchs, they are equals. To bow signals superiority and submission.
My point on Michelle is that the press has ignored all of his criticism of his own country, the trillion dollars he promised to the IMF, pretty much everything that's gone on, but they sure have loved Michelle's clothing!
That Obamateurism feature is in response to Salon, who is still running a Bushism feature even though the poor guy has left office.
But since you really can't dispute the substance, you can only attack my style, I'll have to assume you agree on the substance or are starting to see cracks in that college indoctrination.
Comment by Andrew Biviano
Let's look at more substance: "our President now apologizes for who America is instead of showing pride in us. Greed, government regulation and debt put us in this economic situation, and that is bad. But America's greatness is demonstrated in the fact that our problems affect the entire world. Such is the influence our system has had on the world, and that demonstrates it's worth."
OK, first you acknowledge that we messed things up with greed, but say he can't acknowledge this fact? And the greatness of our country is the fact that we can mess up the rest of the world? So he should have said "you're welcome" or "in your face, suckas!" You also fail to mention that today he made a speech against anti-Americanism and talking about our greatness and how we'll lead the way out of it. But I guess an honest recognition of our role in this mess is not what a president should do in your mind.
Oh, and by the way, all of these critiques of him are, in your words, style over substance. He has a different way of communicating with others, does it matter? Would you have actually liked him more either way?
Of course the press talks about some silly stuff. Always have, always will, with every president we have. But how can you critique this aspect of the press while doing the exact same thing? You say it should focus more on the big stuff, then digress into discussions of wardrobe and bowing. I still don't get it.
The only indoctrination I got in college, which I am absolutely proud of, is the idea that things are always more complicated than they first appear, that answering one question often leads to three others. So I am never going to presume with absolute certainty that I know all the answers, that I know more than everybody else. I know the status quo has problems. I know that we are yet to hear any economist set forth a fool-proof or pain-free plan to fix this economy. I know that brilliant people can often disagree. How else could Hamilton and Jefferson have viciously disagreed on pretty much everything, yet both contributed immensely to the creation of this great country?
So that's the point I'm always trying to make: don't be so sure. Give people a chance, try to see their perspective, and give them the benefit of the doubt. You'll feel much better.
Comment by Jonathan Biviano
Politics Realm
Marriage Bits
A president was elected with conservative principles. He cut the top tax rate to 35%, cut capital gains taxes and pulled back on the regulations. He did as much of this as he could with a Democratic Congress. What followed once this pulled us out was the longest and most robust sustained non-war growth in our economy ever. He had a hard time reining in the spending of the Dem Congress, so it stifled it a bit, but revenues to the treasury increased drastically, despite the cut in taxes, as businesses grew and thrived.
Now, I disagreed with Ronald Wilson Reagan on some of his foreign policy decisions and still do today. However, the stance he took with the Soviet Union helped bring them down, and the things he did to fix the economy brought us out of what is STILL THE WORST ECONOMY since the Great Depression.
Then in 1998 President Clinton instructed Fannie and Freddie to create a market for subprime mortgages and told his Department of Justice to aggressively enforce the Community Reinvestment Act. Groups like ACORN working with the DoJ and lawyers like Barack Obama sued banks that weren't making these subprime loans. Bush tried to get to it to stop 23 times, beginning in 2001, but the Democrats filibustered any bills to change it.
As a result of these no documentation, subprime mortgages, the housing market became unpegged from inflation for the first time in history. People bought overvalued houses, maxed out what turned out to be fake equity, tried to turn over houses quickly and got caught holding onto property as it crashed.
Now, greed drove people to get in on this frenzy, despite it's risks. The government's bad regulation forcing banks and other lenders to make these loans and providing a market for them at Fannie and Freddie drove it as well.
So the economy collapsed, but history in Japan, 1940's US and every place else it's been tried shows that you can't spend your way out of a recession.
Reagan cut taxes and spurred on enterprise to get out of Carter's recession. Obama is doing the opposite and it failed in Japan for 10 years (their lost decade). Japan did 10 stimulus bills like ours in 8 years and they just prolonged the problems.
Previous post on this
Another one
Anyways, I blame both parties. They both sold out to large corporations. The only difference is that the Republicans protect the corporations interests in regulations and such many times to our detriment and the Democrats want to make them part of the government so everybody can become a virtual federal employee. Look at the compensation bill Barney Frank just pushed through - it doesn't define which salary ranges the Treasury Secretary can control, meaning even my wife who works for a TARP recipient can have her salary reduced.
I personally think we are at the same place we were in 1908, 100 years ago - we need a third party that will take us back to the principles and values the country was founded on.
Comment by Andrew Biviano
But what I find interesting about your praise of Reagan's policies, which you say led to our economic boom, is that in so many ways Obama is mirroring them: Reagan cut taxes drastically in his first year (I agree they were too high) and then raised them every year for the next six years, a total of 13 times. (And he did so willingly. He was not bullied by the congress that was way less popular than he; he realized he needed more revenue). Obama can't cut taxes much more, they are lower than they've ever been in recent history. Yet, he kept Bush's tax cuts for now and put billions of tax cuts in the stimulus bill. Like Reagan, he plans to raise taxes in subsequent years, but he'll be raising them UP TO Reagan levels, they won't be appreciably higher.
Reagan also invented the modern system of deficit spending. The amount of government spending grew every year in his two terms despite his tax decreases. He added new departments and a new cabinet position. He found it infeasible to slash social services that were now depended on, and greatly expanded the EIC. He drastically increased spending in other areas, most notably defense.
Obama has taken this approach and increased its magnitude, no doubt. I am very nervous about the size of the deficit and would have advised against it if I had been asked. We saw how Reagan's eventually blew up in H.W. Bush's face and helped Clinton win. But Obama's deficit is different in that it at least is spent mostly here, invested here, rather than in Iraq or on weapons. (Did you know that our nation has thus far spent $10 trillion on nuclear weapons alone? There's your deficit right there.)
And I don't accept your earlier statement that this crisis isn't as bad as what Reagan faced. No expert I have ever heard has supported this. Yes, some stats were worse for Reagan, but this is a perfect storm. And Obama doesn't have the options Reagan had -- he can't cut taxes much -- the marginal tax rate is already only about a third of what it was under Carter. Unlike Reagan, he walks into a huge deficit, two wars and a banking crisis (yes, caused by everybody, not just Bush) and he needs money to pay for all of these things, yet everyone knows that you can't raise taxes in a recession. Every economist says that we can't stand by and let banks fail like in the 30's, but there is no money to bail them out. So, as much as it sucks, I can't see what other option he has but to put it on credit card.
I truly believe that Obama has the toughest job in the world, perhaps the toughest in generations. I thank God that he is clearly an intelligent person who has a great temperament for this job. I know that he will still make many decisions that don't work out, or work out but have additional negative consequences. He knows it too. But considering the situation, there is no way am I going to judge him so harshly. I will question, doubt, and worry, but all the while appreciating his service to our nation.
Comment by Jonathan Biviano
Politics Realm
Marriage Bits
And no, he doesn't need to spend to get us out of the recession, and he doesn't need to double the deficit for sure. Every economic pattern has the average recession lasting 18 months with doing nothing. Cutting spending and taxes and reducing our deficit this year, instead of trillions in "stimulus" would have done a lot. There was DEFINITELY no need for a 10% increase in spending. So much for the promises he made to take a "scalpel" to the budget.
And yes, I am very knowledgeable about bowing. I had a Japanese roommate in college. When bowing to somebody, you don't bow deeper than the other person unless they are above you. If you watch Japanese bow to each other, if they are of equal "position", their eyes stay equal. Obama bowed so deep to the Saudi King, who did not bow in return, that he had to step back to keep from falling over.
And yes, the Presidency is a HUGE job. That's why you shouldn't elect a two-year senator who has never been the executive of anything president. He's in WAY over his head. Experience matters and elections have consequences.
My opinion, which is what I give here and do my best to support with facts, is that he's wreaking havoc with our country, and it may take several generations to pull out of it.
Comment by Andrew Biviano
Your 65% number is very questionable. You can't assume what the charitable deduction change or FICA changes will amount to in increased taxes, as it depends on how much each taxpayer makes and gives to charity. It is clear that you are not comparing apples to apples, as you don't factor in any of these other forms of taxes into the estimate of past tax rates. For instance, have you factored in the fact that Reagan increased the payroll tax from what it was under Carter, or do you only look at the marginal rate?
I guess you are backing away from your earlier statement that no president should ever bow to a monarch, seeing how you now admit that people do bow to their equals. Obama may have overshot it by a few inches, he's definitely not the world's best bower. I can't see how it matters.
And you answered my question about your alternative to the current approach to the economy: do nothing but decrease taxes (since that worked so well when Bush did it to prevent the recession) and wait for it to get better in 18 months all by itself. Now we at least know where you are coming from in your critiques -- the idea that the status quo is fine and the president should just patiently wait for the economy to heal itself. For those who are hurt by the status quo, they know to look elsewhere for advice.
Lastly, if "Every economic pattern has the average recession lasting 18 months with doing nothing," why do you give Reagan the credit for ending the 1980 recession -- didn't it follow "every economic pattern" and get better on its own? That is a spectacular inconsistency you've got there.