Thursday, April 28, 2011
Obama's formula for solving every problem!
Obama's formula for solving every problem....blame/demonize someone and increase taxes....
What the Obama Presidency has Really been about....
Here's what the Obama Presidency has REALLY been about!.....Nothing positive! He's got to go in 2012!
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Obama....the reason we have high gas prices....
Obama's doing NOTHING to increase domestic oil production...in fact he's limited it significantly and has responsibility for what we are paying at the gas pumps today......And his dream of "green" energy isn't working and will not work for decades to come....George W Bush put it well this morning on GMA when he said the American People need to understand the rules of supply and demand...when you limit supply the price is going to go up....and limit supply is exactly what Obama has done!
Monday, April 25, 2011
Obama.....Acknowledges all the Muslim holidays, just not the Christian ones....Does that tell you something?
Why would Obama put out a statement on Easter OR Good Friday when he's muslim?
Fox News: By comparison, the White House has released statements recognizing the observance of major Muslim holidays and released statements in 2010 on Ramadan, Eid-ul-Fitr, Hajj, and Eid-ul-Adha. The White House also failed to release a statement marking Good Friday. However, they did release an eight-paragraph statement heralding Earth Day. Likewise, the president's weekend address mentioned neither Good Friday or Easter.
Fox News: By comparison, the White House has released statements recognizing the observance of major Muslim holidays and released statements in 2010 on Ramadan, Eid-ul-Fitr, Hajj, and Eid-ul-Adha. The White House also failed to release a statement marking Good Friday. However, they did release an eight-paragraph statement heralding Earth Day. Likewise, the president's weekend address mentioned neither Good Friday or Easter.
Friday, April 22, 2011
Susan Collins Needs to Go Home.....She says she's a republican but she agrees with and votes with the Democrats most of the Time....
Susan Collins needs to go Home!....She's usless and Americans need to do everything in their power to make certain she is defeated next time.
Collins is first GOP senator to oppose Ryan budget proposal
By Josiah Ryan- The Hill | Published: 5:38 PM 04/22/2011
Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine.) said Friday that she will not support the 2012 budget passed by the House last week.
“I don’t happen to support Congressman Ryan’s plan but at least he had the courage to put forth a plan to significantly reduce the debt,” Collins said on “In the Arena” a program on WCSH 6, a local NBC affiliate in Portland, Maine.
Collins is the first Republican senator to state publicly that she will not support the Ryan budget.
Collins is first GOP senator to oppose Ryan budget proposal
By Josiah Ryan- The Hill | Published: 5:38 PM 04/22/2011
Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine.) said Friday that she will not support the 2012 budget passed by the House last week.
“I don’t happen to support Congressman Ryan’s plan but at least he had the courage to put forth a plan to significantly reduce the debt,” Collins said on “In the Arena” a program on WCSH 6, a local NBC affiliate in Portland, Maine.
Collins is the first Republican senator to state publicly that she will not support the Ryan budget.
Thursday, April 21, 2011
You Have Got to Love Allen West....
Allen West Delivers Stern Lesson on DADT Repeal: Isn’t the Military Rife With Rules?
Posted on April 21, 2011 at 9:55am by Jonathon M. Seidl
Allen West was discriminated against while he was in the military. He was too short to join an elite infantry group. But, he says, he was okay with it because the military is rife with rules that serve a greater purpose, the insinuation being that there is a reason for the military‘s Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (DADT) policy.
That’s the point West made during a Hill hearing yesterday on implementing the repeal of DADT. The hearing featured the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and during it West questioned almost every one of them about the certain standards each branch has that prima facia might seem discriminatory.
For example, he asked if the Army still has a minimum height requirement for an elite infantry group and if the Marines still require soldiers to pass physical fitness tests. The answer, “Yes.”
In the beginning of his comments, West summed up his position like this: “The military exists to win the nation’s wars and I think when we get to the point where we are starting to discuss about how the military conforms to accommodating individual behavior that’s what I get concerned with.”
Posted on April 21, 2011 at 9:55am by Jonathon M. Seidl
Allen West was discriminated against while he was in the military. He was too short to join an elite infantry group. But, he says, he was okay with it because the military is rife with rules that serve a greater purpose, the insinuation being that there is a reason for the military‘s Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (DADT) policy.
That’s the point West made during a Hill hearing yesterday on implementing the repeal of DADT. The hearing featured the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and during it West questioned almost every one of them about the certain standards each branch has that prima facia might seem discriminatory.
For example, he asked if the Army still has a minimum height requirement for an elite infantry group and if the Marines still require soldiers to pass physical fitness tests. The answer, “Yes.”
In the beginning of his comments, West summed up his position like this: “The military exists to win the nation’s wars and I think when we get to the point where we are starting to discuss about how the military conforms to accommodating individual behavior that’s what I get concerned with.”
Obama is ONE big Mistake!
Here's a great example of the hypocrisy of the media....here Obama can't come up with any mistakes he's made in his first 2 1/2 years in office....When Bush didn't come up with any mistakes the media took him apart!
And with Obama the whole 2 1/2 years of his presidency has been one big MISTAKE!
Oh and by the way one footnote to this story...ALL of the questions raised at this town hall were prescreened by Obama and his team and NONE of them came from those facebook members that signed up for this town hall....Once again Obama really doesn't want to address and REAL questions.
Obama: Mistakes? Can't think of any
By: Byron York 04/20/11 11:34 PM
Seven years ago, in April 2004, President George W. Bush held a formal news conference in which he was asked, "What would your biggest mistake be…and what lessons have you learned from it?" Bush's hemming and hawing answer -- in several minutes of flailing about, he never managed to come up with a single mistake to cite -- was widely criticized in the days that followed.
On Wednesday, President Obama held a town hall at the headquarters of Facebook in Palo Alto, California, during which he was asked, "If you had to do anything differently during your first four years, what would it be?" Obama, it turns out, is no better at analyzing his own missteps than Bush.
The president began his response haltingly, pointing out that he has actually been in office just two and a half years, and "I'm sure I'll make more mistakes in the next year and a half." But what mistakes has he already made? "There are all sorts of day-to-day issues where I say to myself, oh, I didn't say that right, or I didn't explain this clearly enough," Obama said, "or maybe if I had sequenced this plan first as opposed to that one, maybe it would have gotten done quicker."
But the president mentioned no actual mistakes. Next, he brought up the health care battle, not to admit error but to praise the work of former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in pushing the national health care bill through Congress. The fight got pretty complicated, Obama said, "and I've asked myself sometimes is there a way that we could have gotten it done more quickly and in a way that the American people wouldn’t have been so frustrated by it?" Was that possibly a mistake? Obama quickly excused himself. "I’m not sure I could have because there’s a reason why it hadn’t gotten done in a hundred years," the president explained. "It's hard to fix a system as big as health care and as complicated as our health care system." After a good bit of talking, Obama still had not mentioned any mistake or anything he would do differently.
At that point, Obama decided to steer away from the subject of mistakes altogether. "I think the best way to answer the question is what do I feel I still have to get done," he said. He briefly mentioned the deficit and immigration reform.
And then it was on to energy. "We haven’t talked a lot about energy today," Obama said, "but first of all, $4-a-gallon gas really hurts a lot of people around this country…" With that, Obama began a long discussion of gas mileage, solar energy, wind energy, biofuels, clear car technology, the federal auto fleet, electric cars, hybrids, fuel-efficiency standards, oil production, and more. After that it was the big oil companies. They shouldn't receive government subsidies, Obama said, nor should they get special tax breaks.
"So when it comes to energy," said Obama, summing up, "when it comes to immigration, when it comes to getting our deficit under control in a balanced and smart way, when it comes to improving our math and science education, when it comes to reinvesting in our infrastructure, we’ve just got a lot more work to do."
By then, it was hard to remember that Obama's long and rambling answer was in response to the question, "If you had to do anything differently during your first four years, what would it be?" Obama's answer, even with all its twists and turns, was smoother than Bush's had been seven years earlier. But in substance it was no different.
.
And with Obama the whole 2 1/2 years of his presidency has been one big MISTAKE!
Oh and by the way one footnote to this story...ALL of the questions raised at this town hall were prescreened by Obama and his team and NONE of them came from those facebook members that signed up for this town hall....Once again Obama really doesn't want to address and REAL questions.
Obama: Mistakes? Can't think of any
By: Byron York 04/20/11 11:34 PM
Seven years ago, in April 2004, President George W. Bush held a formal news conference in which he was asked, "What would your biggest mistake be…and what lessons have you learned from it?" Bush's hemming and hawing answer -- in several minutes of flailing about, he never managed to come up with a single mistake to cite -- was widely criticized in the days that followed.
On Wednesday, President Obama held a town hall at the headquarters of Facebook in Palo Alto, California, during which he was asked, "If you had to do anything differently during your first four years, what would it be?" Obama, it turns out, is no better at analyzing his own missteps than Bush.
The president began his response haltingly, pointing out that he has actually been in office just two and a half years, and "I'm sure I'll make more mistakes in the next year and a half." But what mistakes has he already made? "There are all sorts of day-to-day issues where I say to myself, oh, I didn't say that right, or I didn't explain this clearly enough," Obama said, "or maybe if I had sequenced this plan first as opposed to that one, maybe it would have gotten done quicker."
But the president mentioned no actual mistakes. Next, he brought up the health care battle, not to admit error but to praise the work of former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in pushing the national health care bill through Congress. The fight got pretty complicated, Obama said, "and I've asked myself sometimes is there a way that we could have gotten it done more quickly and in a way that the American people wouldn’t have been so frustrated by it?" Was that possibly a mistake? Obama quickly excused himself. "I’m not sure I could have because there’s a reason why it hadn’t gotten done in a hundred years," the president explained. "It's hard to fix a system as big as health care and as complicated as our health care system." After a good bit of talking, Obama still had not mentioned any mistake or anything he would do differently.
At that point, Obama decided to steer away from the subject of mistakes altogether. "I think the best way to answer the question is what do I feel I still have to get done," he said. He briefly mentioned the deficit and immigration reform.
And then it was on to energy. "We haven’t talked a lot about energy today," Obama said, "but first of all, $4-a-gallon gas really hurts a lot of people around this country…" With that, Obama began a long discussion of gas mileage, solar energy, wind energy, biofuels, clear car technology, the federal auto fleet, electric cars, hybrids, fuel-efficiency standards, oil production, and more. After that it was the big oil companies. They shouldn't receive government subsidies, Obama said, nor should they get special tax breaks.
"So when it comes to energy," said Obama, summing up, "when it comes to immigration, when it comes to getting our deficit under control in a balanced and smart way, when it comes to improving our math and science education, when it comes to reinvesting in our infrastructure, we’ve just got a lot more work to do."
By then, it was hard to remember that Obama's long and rambling answer was in response to the question, "If you had to do anything differently during your first four years, what would it be?" Obama's answer, even with all its twists and turns, was smoother than Bush's had been seven years earlier. But in substance it was no different.
.
Obama's in California Fund Raising with Armagedden just days away?????
Chris Stirewalt makes a great point here....if Armagedden is just days away, why is Obama traveling across the nation trying to drum up money for his reelection???? Why wouldn't Obama be back in Washington working on trying to get this settled? The reason is that there is no Armagedden if the debt limit isn't increased ....and that's what should happen!
If We’re Eight Days Away From the Start of a Global Depression, Why is Obama Kicking it in Cali?
By Chris Stirewalt Published April 21, 2011
Terms of Debt Limit Debate Still in Flux
“$33 billion”
-- Approximate amount of borrowing power the federal government has remaining under the current debt ceiling.
Congress is in recess and President Obama is campaigning and fundraising in California, but the government is less than 10 days away from what administration officials have deemed an economic Armageddon.
Is the federal debt ceiling not as big a deal as we’ve been told? Can Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner begin to slow down borrowing to extend the deadline? Or is there just a serious lack of urgency here?
The federal government borrowed $3.8 billion on Tuesday. That’s the last day’s data available and fairly typical for a government that borrows about $125 billion a month – approximately 40 cents of every dollar it spends.
The current cap on federal borrowing is $14.29 trillion dollars, last increased by $1.9 trillion in February of 2010. The government’s debt is now something like $14.26 trillion. If borrowing remained at a steady clip, the government would exhaust its remaining $33 billion in credit sometime on April 29.
The first scheduled meeting of Vice President Biden’s bipartisan negotiating group isn’t set until May 5. Seems like they should have checked the calendar, yes?
House Republicans are itching to get the fight going. House Majority leader Eric Cantor, tapped by Speaker John Boehner to represent the House GOP in the Biden negotiations, said Wednesday that “…if the president and our Democratic colleagues refuse to accept serious reforms that immediately reduce federal spending and end the culture of debt in Washington, we will not grant their request for a debt limit increase.”
This is the strongest suggestion yet from Cantor that he is willing to actually say no to the Obama request.
But we don’t know exactly what the request is. Geithner has declined to give an exact date for the “calamity” he has foretold, rather saying that it will be sometime between the end of April and the middle of May. He has also declined to tell members of Congress how much more money he wants the authority to borrow, suggesting that they should decide that themselves.
The president is raising money from Silicon Valley and Hollywood, Congress is on Easter break until May 2 and Geithner, the guy who does the borrowing, won’t even say how much he wants. What the heck is going on here? Is this an Armageddon-calamity-disaster-worldwide depression thing or not?
First, the administration has considerable latitude when it comes to borrowing. How much it borrows and which dollars it spends first have a lot to do with how fast the president wants to gnaw through his credit limit.
Second, it helps Democratic negotiators for the discussion to take place as close to the cliff as possible. The less time for dickering and the closer the crisis, the easier it will be to paint Republicans as risking the destruction of Western civilization as we know it.
But reaching the debt ceiling initially means that the government can’t keep borrowing that $3.8 billion a day. It doesn’t mean defaulting on federal loans and creating the credit Armageddon of which the White House has warned. It just means that government has to operate on about $8 billion a day instead of $12 billion.
But since the $8 billion would have to include paying interest on money already borrowed, which varies by day depending on bond maturations, etc., the available pool of cash to operate the government might be as little as $5 billion or $6 billion per day.
The administration is negotiating over the debt-ceiling bump on the assumption that as soon as the government can’t operate at full bore borrowing it will blow up its credit rating and default on its obligations.
Republicans, instead, are negotiating from the perspective that not raising the debt ceiling means the federal government will have to shut down half of its operations to continue to meet its obligations. By Republican estimations, that half government could go on operating while negotiations continued over the full package.
Whichever side wins this framing round of the debate – immediate crisis threatened by Obama or the partial shutdown offered by the Republicans – will have the upper hand in the debt deal. Here, the administration has the initial advantage because Geither has so much latitude in arranging spending and debt obligations.
To minimize his advantage, House Republicans will be trying to pin down the administration on the specifics – when the ax will fall and how much the president wants – in a bid to get the negotiations jumpstarted.
Perhaps the president hasn’t noticed the impending doom of which he has warned. More likely, the administration understands that calamities of which it has warned are not so imminent as suggested.
The magic moment in all of this will be Monday, May 2 when Congress gets back to work and the bipartisan Gang of Six in the Senate unveils its plan. If that sucker doesn’t get off the ground quickly, May will be an ugly month in Washington.
If We’re Eight Days Away From the Start of a Global Depression, Why is Obama Kicking it in Cali?
By Chris Stirewalt Published April 21, 2011
Terms of Debt Limit Debate Still in Flux
“$33 billion”
-- Approximate amount of borrowing power the federal government has remaining under the current debt ceiling.
Congress is in recess and President Obama is campaigning and fundraising in California, but the government is less than 10 days away from what administration officials have deemed an economic Armageddon.
Is the federal debt ceiling not as big a deal as we’ve been told? Can Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner begin to slow down borrowing to extend the deadline? Or is there just a serious lack of urgency here?
The federal government borrowed $3.8 billion on Tuesday. That’s the last day’s data available and fairly typical for a government that borrows about $125 billion a month – approximately 40 cents of every dollar it spends.
The current cap on federal borrowing is $14.29 trillion dollars, last increased by $1.9 trillion in February of 2010. The government’s debt is now something like $14.26 trillion. If borrowing remained at a steady clip, the government would exhaust its remaining $33 billion in credit sometime on April 29.
The first scheduled meeting of Vice President Biden’s bipartisan negotiating group isn’t set until May 5. Seems like they should have checked the calendar, yes?
House Republicans are itching to get the fight going. House Majority leader Eric Cantor, tapped by Speaker John Boehner to represent the House GOP in the Biden negotiations, said Wednesday that “…if the president and our Democratic colleagues refuse to accept serious reforms that immediately reduce federal spending and end the culture of debt in Washington, we will not grant their request for a debt limit increase.”
This is the strongest suggestion yet from Cantor that he is willing to actually say no to the Obama request.
But we don’t know exactly what the request is. Geithner has declined to give an exact date for the “calamity” he has foretold, rather saying that it will be sometime between the end of April and the middle of May. He has also declined to tell members of Congress how much more money he wants the authority to borrow, suggesting that they should decide that themselves.
The president is raising money from Silicon Valley and Hollywood, Congress is on Easter break until May 2 and Geithner, the guy who does the borrowing, won’t even say how much he wants. What the heck is going on here? Is this an Armageddon-calamity-disaster-worldwide depression thing or not?
First, the administration has considerable latitude when it comes to borrowing. How much it borrows and which dollars it spends first have a lot to do with how fast the president wants to gnaw through his credit limit.
Second, it helps Democratic negotiators for the discussion to take place as close to the cliff as possible. The less time for dickering and the closer the crisis, the easier it will be to paint Republicans as risking the destruction of Western civilization as we know it.
But reaching the debt ceiling initially means that the government can’t keep borrowing that $3.8 billion a day. It doesn’t mean defaulting on federal loans and creating the credit Armageddon of which the White House has warned. It just means that government has to operate on about $8 billion a day instead of $12 billion.
But since the $8 billion would have to include paying interest on money already borrowed, which varies by day depending on bond maturations, etc., the available pool of cash to operate the government might be as little as $5 billion or $6 billion per day.
The administration is negotiating over the debt-ceiling bump on the assumption that as soon as the government can’t operate at full bore borrowing it will blow up its credit rating and default on its obligations.
Republicans, instead, are negotiating from the perspective that not raising the debt ceiling means the federal government will have to shut down half of its operations to continue to meet its obligations. By Republican estimations, that half government could go on operating while negotiations continued over the full package.
Whichever side wins this framing round of the debate – immediate crisis threatened by Obama or the partial shutdown offered by the Republicans – will have the upper hand in the debt deal. Here, the administration has the initial advantage because Geither has so much latitude in arranging spending and debt obligations.
To minimize his advantage, House Republicans will be trying to pin down the administration on the specifics – when the ax will fall and how much the president wants – in a bid to get the negotiations jumpstarted.
Perhaps the president hasn’t noticed the impending doom of which he has warned. More likely, the administration understands that calamities of which it has warned are not so imminent as suggested.
The magic moment in all of this will be Monday, May 2 when Congress gets back to work and the bipartisan Gang of Six in the Senate unveils its plan. If that sucker doesn’t get off the ground quickly, May will be an ugly month in Washington.
The Democrats are starting to come around....at least a few...
Now even a few Democrats are realizing that we have to get some big spending cuts and future assurances before we even consider extending the debt limit...
Democratic Sen. Pryor a No on Debt Ceiling Hike Without Spending, Tax Code Fixes
Published April 21, 2011 | Associated Press
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. -- Sen. Mark Pryor said Wednesday he won't vote to raise the federal government's borrowing limit unless there's a commitment to address the nation's debt by cutting spending and overhauling the tax code.
The Democrat from Arkansas told members of the Political Animals Club that he was hopeful a bipartisan group of senators could come up with a plan within the next two weeks to reduce the debt based on recommendations issued by a presidential commission last year. The debt will hit its ceiling of $14.3 trillion by mid-May, and administration officials say the cap must be raised by no later than early July.
"What I've told anyone who will listen to me in Washington, including my leadership, is that I'm not going to vote for that unless there is a real and meaningful commitment to debt reduction," Pryor told the group at its monthly meeting at the governor's mansion.
Pryor said he believed the upcoming vote on the debt limit would prove whether lawmakers in Washington have the political will to begin addressing government spending.
"We have a $14 trillion debt because politicians love an easy way out," Pryor said. "They love to cut taxes and increase spending. That's the easiest thing for a politician to do."
Pryor said any plan for reducing the debt would have to include spending cuts, major tax code changes and efforts to grow the nation's economy. Pryor said every program will have to experience some cuts.
"Everybody's going to have a cut, no matter how worthy your program is or how much wise you'll be with the money or the great things you'll do. Get ready, because everything's going to get cut," Pryor said.
Pryor also faulted both parties for their approach to tax policy.
"Democrats think that if we can just raise enough taxes on millionaires, we can solve our problems. Republicans think if we never raise another tax for any reason under any circumstance ever again, we'll solve all our problems," Pryor said. "The truth is, the math doesn't add up for either of those positions. What we need is real tax reform. There's a ton of inequity in our tax code."
Pryor said he believed the debt commission appointed by President Barack Obama has provided a guide for lawmakers as they address the issue. That commission issued its recommendations, which included a mix of spending cuts and tax increases, but fell short of the votes needed to forward the recommendations on to Congress.
Under the commission's recommendations, about $4 trillion would be slashed from the budget over the coming decade -- three-fourths of it through spending cuts and the other fourth from higher taxes. Pryor said he believed the so-called gang of six working on a bipartisan compromise is looking at those recommendations as a guide.
"My sense is they'll take the debt commission's recommendations and they'll overlay that on top of the federal budget," Pryor said.
Pryor, however, said he's not on board with every recommendation from the commission. For example, he said he wouldn't support the commission's recommendation to eliminate the mortgage interest deduction on federal income tax.
Democratic Sen. Pryor a No on Debt Ceiling Hike Without Spending, Tax Code Fixes
Published April 21, 2011 | Associated Press
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. -- Sen. Mark Pryor said Wednesday he won't vote to raise the federal government's borrowing limit unless there's a commitment to address the nation's debt by cutting spending and overhauling the tax code.
The Democrat from Arkansas told members of the Political Animals Club that he was hopeful a bipartisan group of senators could come up with a plan within the next two weeks to reduce the debt based on recommendations issued by a presidential commission last year. The debt will hit its ceiling of $14.3 trillion by mid-May, and administration officials say the cap must be raised by no later than early July.
"What I've told anyone who will listen to me in Washington, including my leadership, is that I'm not going to vote for that unless there is a real and meaningful commitment to debt reduction," Pryor told the group at its monthly meeting at the governor's mansion.
Pryor said he believed the upcoming vote on the debt limit would prove whether lawmakers in Washington have the political will to begin addressing government spending.
"We have a $14 trillion debt because politicians love an easy way out," Pryor said. "They love to cut taxes and increase spending. That's the easiest thing for a politician to do."
Pryor said any plan for reducing the debt would have to include spending cuts, major tax code changes and efforts to grow the nation's economy. Pryor said every program will have to experience some cuts.
"Everybody's going to have a cut, no matter how worthy your program is or how much wise you'll be with the money or the great things you'll do. Get ready, because everything's going to get cut," Pryor said.
Pryor also faulted both parties for their approach to tax policy.
"Democrats think that if we can just raise enough taxes on millionaires, we can solve our problems. Republicans think if we never raise another tax for any reason under any circumstance ever again, we'll solve all our problems," Pryor said. "The truth is, the math doesn't add up for either of those positions. What we need is real tax reform. There's a ton of inequity in our tax code."
Pryor said he believed the debt commission appointed by President Barack Obama has provided a guide for lawmakers as they address the issue. That commission issued its recommendations, which included a mix of spending cuts and tax increases, but fell short of the votes needed to forward the recommendations on to Congress.
Under the commission's recommendations, about $4 trillion would be slashed from the budget over the coming decade -- three-fourths of it through spending cuts and the other fourth from higher taxes. Pryor said he believed the so-called gang of six working on a bipartisan compromise is looking at those recommendations as a guide.
"My sense is they'll take the debt commission's recommendations and they'll overlay that on top of the federal budget," Pryor said.
Pryor, however, said he's not on board with every recommendation from the commission. For example, he said he wouldn't support the commission's recommendation to eliminate the mortgage interest deduction on federal income tax.
A picture is worth 1,000 words....
It's a great position that Obama has us in isn't it???? And he wants a "clean" bill to raise the debt limit!....Is he NUTS? Congress needs to hold out on raising the debt limit until they have strict, deep spending cuts guaranteed!!!!
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Obama playing up to the Young Radicals...
These are the kind of radical, naive, young folks that Obama and the Democrat Leadership is playing up to ....instead of educating them on real life and how to survive in a real nation......
Hydrogen Barackside....The New Antiseptic....
It's not only the English who have a sense of humor. The Scots do as well!
New Antiseptic
This cartoon originated in Scotland ...It looks like most of the world is laughing at our nation's leadership!
How sad that the world is laughing at the US while we sit by and watch and wonder what will happen next! "This one nails it perfectly."
This Guy HAS GOT TO GO in 2012!
New Antiseptic
This cartoon originated in Scotland ...It looks like most of the world is laughing at our nation's leadership!
How sad that the world is laughing at the US while we sit by and watch and wonder what will happen next! "This one nails it perfectly."
This Guy HAS GOT TO GO in 2012!
Obama...part of the reason you are paying $4.00+ per gallon for gasoline....
And we are paying $4.00 a gallon for gasoline and this lack of action by Obama and his administration is part of the reason that we have this problem....He's at fault, he needs to get the blame.....
And beyond all the issues around domestic oil production and getting free from the dependence on foreign oil, this lack of leadership by Obama is costing jobs and ecomonic development to the Gulf Region of America. Could it have anything to do with the fact that most of these states are Republican and run by Republican Governors????? Don't discount that....Obama is an arrogant, incompetent elitist and I wouldn't put it past him trying to punish this part of the nation.....He's certainly NOT interested in acting in the best interests of the American People!
He's GOT TO GO in 2012!
And beyond all the issues around domestic oil production and getting free from the dependence on foreign oil, this lack of leadership by Obama is costing jobs and ecomonic development to the Gulf Region of America. Could it have anything to do with the fact that most of these states are Republican and run by Republican Governors????? Don't discount that....Obama is an arrogant, incompetent elitist and I wouldn't put it past him trying to punish this part of the nation.....He's certainly NOT interested in acting in the best interests of the American People!
He's GOT TO GO in 2012!
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Why would anyone really believe Obama was born in America...Why won't he show his birth certificate?
Only 26 per cent of Iowa Republicans believe Obama was born in U.S.
By Daily Mail Reporter Last updated at 3:17 AM on 20th April 2011
Only a quarter of Republicans in critical caucus-state Iowa believe that President Obama was born in the U.S.
A massive 48 per cent of GOP voters in the Hawkeye State, who said that they will vote in the first caucus of the presidential election race, said they doubted the President’s place of birth.
Some 26 per cent said they believed the President, 26 per cent said they were not sure.
American? Nearly half of Iowa Republicans said they believed Obama was born in the U.S., an issue that Donald Trump has raised in recent interviews
The poll gives a boost to Donald Trump’s ‘birther crusade’, which has seen the reality star and entrepreneur push widely discredited questions about Obama’s nationality back into the national spotlight.
By Daily Mail Reporter Last updated at 3:17 AM on 20th April 2011
Only a quarter of Republicans in critical caucus-state Iowa believe that President Obama was born in the U.S.
A massive 48 per cent of GOP voters in the Hawkeye State, who said that they will vote in the first caucus of the presidential election race, said they doubted the President’s place of birth.
Some 26 per cent said they believed the President, 26 per cent said they were not sure.
American? Nearly half of Iowa Republicans said they believed Obama was born in the U.S., an issue that Donald Trump has raised in recent interviews
The poll gives a boost to Donald Trump’s ‘birther crusade’, which has seen the reality star and entrepreneur push widely discredited questions about Obama’s nationality back into the national spotlight.
Transparency.....NOT!!!
This is a GREAT Example of how this President tells us what he wants us to hear, not necessarily the TRUTH! And now they've gotten to the point where you can't even ask the questions....What a shame!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transparency inquiry can't even get asked
Obama spokesman: 'I'm not going to take your questions'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: April 18, 2011 9:00 pm Eastern
The "transparency" in the Obama administration means sometimes a question can't even get asked.
The discovery came today at the daily White House news briefing with press secretary Jay Carney, who responded to a request to be allowed to ask about the president's positions: "I'm not going to take your questions."
Ironically, Les Kinsolving, WND's correspondent at the White House and the No. 2 reporter on the White House beat, had wanted to ask about Obama's openness.
"In the Washington Post, the president of the Society of Professional Journalists wrote of the Obama administration, 'Reporters' questions often go unanswered. When replies are given they frequently are more scripted than meaningful. What is the White House response to this?" was what Kinsolving had wanted to ask.
He hoped to follow up with, "This Washington Post column also quoted AP's report that 'the Obama administration even censored 194 pages of internal emails about its open government directive.' Is the AP wrong in reporting this?"
But Carney, who had gone down the first two rows of the press gallery today allowing questions, skipped over Kinsolving when his turn arrived. And later when Kinsolving interrupted to ask to be allowed some questions, Carney refused.
It was in a commentary in the Post that the issue had been raised.
Written by Charles Ornstein, a senior reporter at ProPublica, and Hagit Limor, an investigative reporter at WCPO-TV in Cincinnati and president of the Society of Professional Journalists, the editorial cited Obama's promise for "openness.'
"We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration," he wrote in one of his first memos to federal agencies. "Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in government."
But they wrote that they have found "little openness" from Obama.
"If anything, the administration has gone in the opposite direction."
They cited several examples, including a government ban on reporters seeking outside comment when the Food and Drug Administration announced changes to one of its processes. Also, they noted the Associated Press said in more than one-third of requests for public records, the administration refused to provide any information at all.
"Reporters' questions often go unanswered. When replies are given, they frequently are more scripted than meaningful. Public employees generally are required to obtain permission to share their expertise, and when interviews are allowed, a media 'handler' is listening in to keep control over what is said. And when replies come via e-mail, it's unclear who has written them," they wrote.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transparency inquiry can't even get asked
Obama spokesman: 'I'm not going to take your questions'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: April 18, 2011 9:00 pm Eastern
The "transparency" in the Obama administration means sometimes a question can't even get asked.
The discovery came today at the daily White House news briefing with press secretary Jay Carney, who responded to a request to be allowed to ask about the president's positions: "I'm not going to take your questions."
Ironically, Les Kinsolving, WND's correspondent at the White House and the No. 2 reporter on the White House beat, had wanted to ask about Obama's openness.
"In the Washington Post, the president of the Society of Professional Journalists wrote of the Obama administration, 'Reporters' questions often go unanswered. When replies are given they frequently are more scripted than meaningful. What is the White House response to this?" was what Kinsolving had wanted to ask.
He hoped to follow up with, "This Washington Post column also quoted AP's report that 'the Obama administration even censored 194 pages of internal emails about its open government directive.' Is the AP wrong in reporting this?"
But Carney, who had gone down the first two rows of the press gallery today allowing questions, skipped over Kinsolving when his turn arrived. And later when Kinsolving interrupted to ask to be allowed some questions, Carney refused.
It was in a commentary in the Post that the issue had been raised.
Written by Charles Ornstein, a senior reporter at ProPublica, and Hagit Limor, an investigative reporter at WCPO-TV in Cincinnati and president of the Society of Professional Journalists, the editorial cited Obama's promise for "openness.'
"We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration," he wrote in one of his first memos to federal agencies. "Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in government."
But they wrote that they have found "little openness" from Obama.
"If anything, the administration has gone in the opposite direction."
They cited several examples, including a government ban on reporters seeking outside comment when the Food and Drug Administration announced changes to one of its processes. Also, they noted the Associated Press said in more than one-third of requests for public records, the administration refused to provide any information at all.
"Reporters' questions often go unanswered. When replies are given, they frequently are more scripted than meaningful. Public employees generally are required to obtain permission to share their expertise, and when interviews are allowed, a media 'handler' is listening in to keep control over what is said. And when replies come via e-mail, it's unclear who has written them," they wrote.
Why would Anyone Believer Anything Obama Says....
Why would ANY American believe ANYTHING that Obama says?????? He is not serious about cutting spending and addressing entitlements so they will be there for generations to come.....all he wants to raise taxes so he can spend more money foolishly like he has done for the past two years....
He's Got to Go in 2012!
Obama Faces Heavy Lift in Downplaying U.S. Credit Warning
Published April 19, 2011 | FoxNews.com
President Obama is once again hitting the road, or perhaps the trail, to sell his financial prescription for the country. But a day after a leading agency put the U.S. government on notice that it was at risk of losing its sterling credit rating, the president faces a heavy lift in convincing voters that Washington is on track toward fixing its debt problem.
Standard & Poor's Ratings Service sent shock waves through economic and political circles Monday when it lowered its outlook for U.S. debt from "stable" to "negative." Though it kept U.S. credit ratings steady, the agency warned that political deadlock could compel it to downgrade Washington's rating in just a couple years.
Anyone who has dealt with a less-than-stellar credit rating knows how that complicates their ability to obtain anything from a car loan to a mortgage. And while the White House downplays the S&P outlook, others say it should serve as a wake-up call for the country to get out of debt.
"No one can portray this as good news when a rating agency decides to go public with its reservations," said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, former director of the Congressional Budget Office during the George W. Bush administration. He said not only does this pose a credit problem for the country, but it jeopardizes the ability of the United States to attract investment from job-creators.
"That's not hard for people to understand," he told FoxNews.com.
Related Links
'Negative' Outlook for U.S. Debt Sends Jolt Through Capitol Hill Debate on Debt Ceiling
DeMint Threatens Filibuster on Debt Ceiling VoteObama and his team are working hard to play down the announcement and keep spirits high about the possibility of a meaningful deficit-reduction agreement. The president gave a talk about his budget vision Tuesday morning at a community college in northern Virginia, where he expressed confidence in the possibility of a deal.
"I believe that Democrats and Republicans can come together to get this done," Obama said. He agreed that failing to address the crisis could do "serious damage' to the economy, but said he's "optimistic."
The president, repeating the backstory he gave during last week's budget address, blamed the deficit problem in large part on Bush-era tax cuts for top earners, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the Medicare prescription drug benefit, while defending the deficit-financed stimulus programs under his watch. He expressed the problem in everyday terms, saying, "Just like you, America has to start living within its means."
The president also tried to rally support for his proposals, telling the audience: "I want everybody to be in the game."
After Virginia, Obama plans to speak at the Facebook headquarters in California Wednesday and head next to Reno, Nev., on Thursday.
The S&P announcement was in large part a political judgment -- the ratings agency based its assessment on the sentiment that a budget agreement addressing the country's long-term deficit and debt problem might not be reached until after the 2012 election. The Obama administration claims the atmosphere for consensus is better than S&P predicts.
"We think that the political process will outperform S&P expectations," White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said Monday. He said both parties agree on a long-term deficit-reduction target of about $4 trillion -- Obama is looking to achieve that in 12 years, while Republicans are shooting for a little bit more than that in 10 years -- and that they can find common ground on how to reach it.
"A statement that observes the fact that there is often gridlock in Washington and that the contentiousness between the two parties sometimes prevents us from getting things done is not one we would disagree with," Carney said. "But the fact is ... when the issues are important, history shows that both sides can come together and get things done. President Ronald Reagan did that with Tip O'Neill, Democratic speaker of the House. President Bill Clinton did it with Newt Gingrich, Republican speaker of the House. President Obama did it 10 days ago with John Boehner, Republican speaker of the House. We can do it again."
Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, in an interview with Fox Business Network Tuesday morning, said there is no risk the country will lose its AAA credit rating.
Republicans, though, do not appear to share that optimism, absent an agreement that ties big spending cuts to a looming vote on whether to raise the country's $14.3 trillion debt ceiling. The White House does not want the debt-ceiling vote contingent on a spending agreement, but Republicans are pushing to link the two.
House Republican Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., in a pre-buttal to Obama's deficit talk in northern Virginia, wrote in the Culpeper Star-Exponent newspaper Tuesday that the country is "at a crossroads." He championed the GOP budget proposal, which would make major changes to Medicare and Medicaid.
"Today, President Obama will come to Virginia to deliver the latest in a series of speeches high on partisan attacks, low on solutions," Cantor wrote. "Mr. President, during your historic bid for the White House, you promised to change the way Washington works. But there's no greater manifestation of the business-as-usual mentality than punting tough decisions and attacking those offering serious solutions."
He's Got to Go in 2012!
Obama Faces Heavy Lift in Downplaying U.S. Credit Warning
Published April 19, 2011 | FoxNews.com
President Obama is once again hitting the road, or perhaps the trail, to sell his financial prescription for the country. But a day after a leading agency put the U.S. government on notice that it was at risk of losing its sterling credit rating, the president faces a heavy lift in convincing voters that Washington is on track toward fixing its debt problem.
Standard & Poor's Ratings Service sent shock waves through economic and political circles Monday when it lowered its outlook for U.S. debt from "stable" to "negative." Though it kept U.S. credit ratings steady, the agency warned that political deadlock could compel it to downgrade Washington's rating in just a couple years.
Anyone who has dealt with a less-than-stellar credit rating knows how that complicates their ability to obtain anything from a car loan to a mortgage. And while the White House downplays the S&P outlook, others say it should serve as a wake-up call for the country to get out of debt.
"No one can portray this as good news when a rating agency decides to go public with its reservations," said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, former director of the Congressional Budget Office during the George W. Bush administration. He said not only does this pose a credit problem for the country, but it jeopardizes the ability of the United States to attract investment from job-creators.
"That's not hard for people to understand," he told FoxNews.com.
Related Links
'Negative' Outlook for U.S. Debt Sends Jolt Through Capitol Hill Debate on Debt Ceiling
DeMint Threatens Filibuster on Debt Ceiling VoteObama and his team are working hard to play down the announcement and keep spirits high about the possibility of a meaningful deficit-reduction agreement. The president gave a talk about his budget vision Tuesday morning at a community college in northern Virginia, where he expressed confidence in the possibility of a deal.
"I believe that Democrats and Republicans can come together to get this done," Obama said. He agreed that failing to address the crisis could do "serious damage' to the economy, but said he's "optimistic."
The president, repeating the backstory he gave during last week's budget address, blamed the deficit problem in large part on Bush-era tax cuts for top earners, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the Medicare prescription drug benefit, while defending the deficit-financed stimulus programs under his watch. He expressed the problem in everyday terms, saying, "Just like you, America has to start living within its means."
The president also tried to rally support for his proposals, telling the audience: "I want everybody to be in the game."
After Virginia, Obama plans to speak at the Facebook headquarters in California Wednesday and head next to Reno, Nev., on Thursday.
The S&P announcement was in large part a political judgment -- the ratings agency based its assessment on the sentiment that a budget agreement addressing the country's long-term deficit and debt problem might not be reached until after the 2012 election. The Obama administration claims the atmosphere for consensus is better than S&P predicts.
"We think that the political process will outperform S&P expectations," White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said Monday. He said both parties agree on a long-term deficit-reduction target of about $4 trillion -- Obama is looking to achieve that in 12 years, while Republicans are shooting for a little bit more than that in 10 years -- and that they can find common ground on how to reach it.
"A statement that observes the fact that there is often gridlock in Washington and that the contentiousness between the two parties sometimes prevents us from getting things done is not one we would disagree with," Carney said. "But the fact is ... when the issues are important, history shows that both sides can come together and get things done. President Ronald Reagan did that with Tip O'Neill, Democratic speaker of the House. President Bill Clinton did it with Newt Gingrich, Republican speaker of the House. President Obama did it 10 days ago with John Boehner, Republican speaker of the House. We can do it again."
Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, in an interview with Fox Business Network Tuesday morning, said there is no risk the country will lose its AAA credit rating.
Republicans, though, do not appear to share that optimism, absent an agreement that ties big spending cuts to a looming vote on whether to raise the country's $14.3 trillion debt ceiling. The White House does not want the debt-ceiling vote contingent on a spending agreement, but Republicans are pushing to link the two.
House Republican Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., in a pre-buttal to Obama's deficit talk in northern Virginia, wrote in the Culpeper Star-Exponent newspaper Tuesday that the country is "at a crossroads." He championed the GOP budget proposal, which would make major changes to Medicare and Medicaid.
"Today, President Obama will come to Virginia to deliver the latest in a series of speeches high on partisan attacks, low on solutions," Cantor wrote. "Mr. President, during your historic bid for the White House, you promised to change the way Washington works. But there's no greater manifestation of the business-as-usual mentality than punting tough decisions and attacking those offering serious solutions."
CNN is simply State-Run and very Biased...that's why No One watches them!
The State-Run Media Journalists are SO biased that they cannot even see it!....
Finally another Journalist that is not Afraid to challenge Obama!
This is ONLY the 2nd Media person that I have seen challenge Obama in an interview...It needs to happen more often....it highlights how he lies....he only lost Texas by a "few points"....last I checked 11 was more than a few!
Obama to reporter: 'Let me finish my answers' next time
President Obama has troubles with voters in Texas, and, apparently, with interviewers from the Lone Star State as well.
"Let me finish my answers the next time we do an interview, all right?" Obama told reporter Brad Watson after an interview with WFAA-TV of Dallas, one of four interviews with local television stations at the White House on Monday.
The exchange is toward the end of the video.
At one point, Watson asked the president: "Why do you think you're so unpopular in Texas?"
After some jousting about the size of his loss in Texas in 2008 -- the president said it was "a few percentage points," but it was more like 11 -- Obama told his interviewer: "If what you're telling me is that Texas is a conservative state, you're absolutely right."
President Obama CAPTIONBy LM Otero, APObama also fired back at criticism from conservative Texas Gov. Rick Perry.
"Gov. Perry helped balance his budget with about $6 billion worth of federal help -- which he happily took -- and then started blaming the members of Congress who had offered that help," Obama said.
Obama also bristled at claims that his administration skipped Houston in the award of space shuttle orbiters and favored states that could help his re-election.
"That's wrong," the president stated. "That had nothing to do with it; the White House had nothing to do with it."
When Watson persisted, Obama said, "I just said that was wrong," and, later, "I just said that wasn't true."
Obama also spoke Monday with television interviewers from Denver, Indianapolis, and Raleigh, N.C.
On another issue of interest to Texas -- immigration -- Obama said he still has high hopes for congressional legislation reforming the system.
"The question is going to be, are we going to be able to find some Republicans who can partner with me and others to get this done once and for all instead of using it as a political football?," Obama said.
As for re-election, Obama said he isn't giving up on winning Texas.
"I never write off any states," Obama said. "I love Texas."
Obama to reporter: 'Let me finish my answers' next time
President Obama has troubles with voters in Texas, and, apparently, with interviewers from the Lone Star State as well.
"Let me finish my answers the next time we do an interview, all right?" Obama told reporter Brad Watson after an interview with WFAA-TV of Dallas, one of four interviews with local television stations at the White House on Monday.
The exchange is toward the end of the video.
At one point, Watson asked the president: "Why do you think you're so unpopular in Texas?"
After some jousting about the size of his loss in Texas in 2008 -- the president said it was "a few percentage points," but it was more like 11 -- Obama told his interviewer: "If what you're telling me is that Texas is a conservative state, you're absolutely right."
President Obama CAPTIONBy LM Otero, APObama also fired back at criticism from conservative Texas Gov. Rick Perry.
"Gov. Perry helped balance his budget with about $6 billion worth of federal help -- which he happily took -- and then started blaming the members of Congress who had offered that help," Obama said.
Obama also bristled at claims that his administration skipped Houston in the award of space shuttle orbiters and favored states that could help his re-election.
"That's wrong," the president stated. "That had nothing to do with it; the White House had nothing to do with it."
When Watson persisted, Obama said, "I just said that was wrong," and, later, "I just said that wasn't true."
Obama also spoke Monday with television interviewers from Denver, Indianapolis, and Raleigh, N.C.
On another issue of interest to Texas -- immigration -- Obama said he still has high hopes for congressional legislation reforming the system.
"The question is going to be, are we going to be able to find some Republicans who can partner with me and others to get this done once and for all instead of using it as a political football?," Obama said.
As for re-election, Obama said he isn't giving up on winning Texas.
"I never write off any states," Obama said. "I love Texas."
Economic Freedom....Another Right that Obama is taking Away!
From today's Heritage Foundation release....
The American Dream Is In Jeopardy
Companies like General Electric and Caterpillar might sound as American as apple pie, but like many other multinational firms, which employ a fifth of all American workers, they're cutting back on their domestic workforces and increasing hiring overseas. That disturbing trend points to a serious problem in the United States: the Land of the Free is not the attractive place to do business that it once was.
Big government policies are setting us on a path away from a fundamental freedom we cherish—one the Founders strove to preserve. It's the freedom to pursue the American dream—economic freedom—that, tragically, is in jeopardy.
When many folks think about freedom, the first thing that comes to mind is the freedom of speech and religion, the right to bear arms, to vote, or to have a trial by a jury of their peers. Though it isn't enumerated in the Bill of Rights, economic freedom is just as important. In The Heritage Foundation’s "Understanding America" series, Kim R. Holmes, Ph.D. and Matthew Spalding, Ph.D. explain why it is so important:
America's founders knew that liberty is about more than just securing political freedoms. True liberty requires economic freedom—the ability to profit from our own ideas and labor, to work, produce, consume, own, trade, and invest according to our own choices. Thomas Jefferson underscored that point when he observed that "a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement."
The desire to control one's freedom to pursue happiness was at the heart of the American Revolution. That freedom was in short supply as the colonies suffered under economic policies over which they had no say. That sentiment sounds familiar to many Americans today as they watch our government grow unchecked with trillion-dollar deficits and an entitlement crisis waiting to smother future generations. That frustration gave birth to the Tea Party movement and the conservative tidal wave in the November 2010 elections. Americans were right to be concerned.
Sadly, the United States is no longer economically "the Land of the Free." According to The Heritage Foundation's Index of Economic Freedom, the United States ranks ninth internationally, behind such countries as Denmark, Canada, and first-place Hong Kong. And that's all due to huge increases in government spending, which was supposed to combat unemployment and spur economic growth. But that growth hasn’t happened, and instead the American economy is handcuffed by taxes and regulations that have strangled creativity, productivity, and competition, all of which are at the core of economic freedom.
And now we're seeing the results. As The Wall Street Journal reports, "companies cut their work forces in the U.S. by 2.9 million during the 2000s while increasing employment overseas by 2.4 million." That's in stark contrast from a decade ago, when for every job U.S. multinational companies created abroad, they created nearly two jobs here in America, according to economist Matthew Slaughter.
Though President Obama might pay lip service to Americans' desire to rein in government, he's late to the party. From Obamacare to a nearly trillion dollar stimulus bill, trillions in new debt, a $26.1 billion government union bailout, and more, President Obama and the previous Congress have given us plenty of reasons to question their commitment to reform government and restore economic freedom.
With the arrival of the Tea Party movement, the culture of Washington began to change, and the trending topic in D.C. became fiscal restraint, not government largesse. That's good news for those who want to ensure that America remains the Land of the Free.
The American Dream Is In Jeopardy
Companies like General Electric and Caterpillar might sound as American as apple pie, but like many other multinational firms, which employ a fifth of all American workers, they're cutting back on their domestic workforces and increasing hiring overseas. That disturbing trend points to a serious problem in the United States: the Land of the Free is not the attractive place to do business that it once was.
Big government policies are setting us on a path away from a fundamental freedom we cherish—one the Founders strove to preserve. It's the freedom to pursue the American dream—economic freedom—that, tragically, is in jeopardy.
When many folks think about freedom, the first thing that comes to mind is the freedom of speech and religion, the right to bear arms, to vote, or to have a trial by a jury of their peers. Though it isn't enumerated in the Bill of Rights, economic freedom is just as important. In The Heritage Foundation’s "Understanding America" series, Kim R. Holmes, Ph.D. and Matthew Spalding, Ph.D. explain why it is so important:
America's founders knew that liberty is about more than just securing political freedoms. True liberty requires economic freedom—the ability to profit from our own ideas and labor, to work, produce, consume, own, trade, and invest according to our own choices. Thomas Jefferson underscored that point when he observed that "a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement."
The desire to control one's freedom to pursue happiness was at the heart of the American Revolution. That freedom was in short supply as the colonies suffered under economic policies over which they had no say. That sentiment sounds familiar to many Americans today as they watch our government grow unchecked with trillion-dollar deficits and an entitlement crisis waiting to smother future generations. That frustration gave birth to the Tea Party movement and the conservative tidal wave in the November 2010 elections. Americans were right to be concerned.
Sadly, the United States is no longer economically "the Land of the Free." According to The Heritage Foundation's Index of Economic Freedom, the United States ranks ninth internationally, behind such countries as Denmark, Canada, and first-place Hong Kong. And that's all due to huge increases in government spending, which was supposed to combat unemployment and spur economic growth. But that growth hasn’t happened, and instead the American economy is handcuffed by taxes and regulations that have strangled creativity, productivity, and competition, all of which are at the core of economic freedom.
And now we're seeing the results. As The Wall Street Journal reports, "companies cut their work forces in the U.S. by 2.9 million during the 2000s while increasing employment overseas by 2.4 million." That's in stark contrast from a decade ago, when for every job U.S. multinational companies created abroad, they created nearly two jobs here in America, according to economist Matthew Slaughter.
Though President Obama might pay lip service to Americans' desire to rein in government, he's late to the party. From Obamacare to a nearly trillion dollar stimulus bill, trillions in new debt, a $26.1 billion government union bailout, and more, President Obama and the previous Congress have given us plenty of reasons to question their commitment to reform government and restore economic freedom.
With the arrival of the Tea Party movement, the culture of Washington began to change, and the trending topic in D.C. became fiscal restraint, not government largesse. That's good news for those who want to ensure that America remains the Land of the Free.
Monday, April 18, 2011
Got to see this....
With breathless anticipation the crowd awaits the unveiling of the Obama Statue.........
McChrstal ought to Sue Obama for slander and libel!
Here's Obama burning another patriot.....Mc Chrystal ought to sue Obama for libel and slander.....
Pentagon Inquiry Clears McChrystal of Wrongdoing Over Rolling Stone Profile
Published April 18, 2011 | Associated Press
July 23, 2010: Gen. Stanley McChrystal reviews troops for the last time as he is honored at a retirement ceremony at Fort McNair in Washington.
WASHINGTON -- A Pentagon inquiry into a Rolling Stone magazine profile of Gen. Stanley McChrystal that led to his dismissal as the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan has cleared him of wrongdoing.
The probe's results released Monday also called into question the accuracy of the magazine's report last June, which quoted anonymously people around McChrystal making disparaging remarks about members of President Obama's national security team, including Vice President Joe Biden.
The office of the Defense Department inspector general said it reviewed an unpublished Army investigation of the case, and interviewed numerous eyewitnesses. It concluded that the evidence was insufficient to substantiate a violation of any applicable legal or ethics standard by McChrystal or any of his staff.
The Pentagon inquiry also concluded that not all of the events at issue happened as reported in the article.
"In some instances, we found no witnesses who acknowledged making or hearing the comments as reported," the Pentagon report said. "In other instances, we confirmed that the general substance of an incident at issue occurred, but not in the exact context described in the article."
Attempts by The AP to get comment from Rolling Stone weren't immediately successful.
After the Rolling Stone article was published, McChrystal was summoned to the White House and dismissed. He was replaced by Gen. David Petraeus.
Obama said at the time that McChrystal had fallen short of "the standard that should be set by a commanding general." He called the dismissal the right decision for U.S. national security and said McChrystal's conduct represented in the magazine article also "undermines the civilian control of the military that is at the core of our democratic system. And it erodes the trust that's necessary for our team to work together to achieve our objectives in Afghanistan."
Pentagon Inquiry Clears McChrystal of Wrongdoing Over Rolling Stone Profile
Published April 18, 2011 | Associated Press
July 23, 2010: Gen. Stanley McChrystal reviews troops for the last time as he is honored at a retirement ceremony at Fort McNair in Washington.
WASHINGTON -- A Pentagon inquiry into a Rolling Stone magazine profile of Gen. Stanley McChrystal that led to his dismissal as the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan has cleared him of wrongdoing.
The probe's results released Monday also called into question the accuracy of the magazine's report last June, which quoted anonymously people around McChrystal making disparaging remarks about members of President Obama's national security team, including Vice President Joe Biden.
The office of the Defense Department inspector general said it reviewed an unpublished Army investigation of the case, and interviewed numerous eyewitnesses. It concluded that the evidence was insufficient to substantiate a violation of any applicable legal or ethics standard by McChrystal or any of his staff.
The Pentagon inquiry also concluded that not all of the events at issue happened as reported in the article.
"In some instances, we found no witnesses who acknowledged making or hearing the comments as reported," the Pentagon report said. "In other instances, we confirmed that the general substance of an incident at issue occurred, but not in the exact context described in the article."
Attempts by The AP to get comment from Rolling Stone weren't immediately successful.
After the Rolling Stone article was published, McChrystal was summoned to the White House and dismissed. He was replaced by Gen. David Petraeus.
Obama said at the time that McChrystal had fallen short of "the standard that should be set by a commanding general." He called the dismissal the right decision for U.S. national security and said McChrystal's conduct represented in the magazine article also "undermines the civilian control of the military that is at the core of our democratic system. And it erodes the trust that's necessary for our team to work together to achieve our objectives in Afghanistan."
No Wonder Obama doesn't need Tax Cuts...he lives for free...goes on vacation for free...eats for free and makes $41.7 million....What a Hypocrite!
No wonder Obama says he doesn't need to extend the Bush Tax Cuts for those over $250,000....he made $1.7 million last year and lives for FREE...goes on vacataion for FREE....eats for FREE.....He's a hypocrite, but those of us that actually have to pay for everything we need to live we need to extend the Bush Tax Cuts further for EVERYONE...and If we want the economy to grow we need keep taxes low....Obama is an idiot and has to go in 2012!
Obamas Earned $1.7M in 2010, Tax Report Shows, Paid, $453K in Federal Taxes
Published April 18, 2011 | Associated Press
WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle, reported income of $1.728 million for last year, much of it from the sale of the president's pre-presidency books. They paid federal taxes totaling $453,770 after receiving a $12,334 refund.
The Obamas paid their taxes at lowered Bush-era rates, even as he campaigns to end them for households with adjusted gross incomes above $250,000 -- a category into which the first family clearly fits.
Joining the flocks of Americans filing their taxes near the end of the federal filing period, the Obamas made withholding and other payments to the Internal Revenue Service last year totaling $466,104. That was an overpayment, so they got their refund. The president and first lady reported donating $245,075 -- about 14.2 percent of their adjusted gross income -- to 36 different charities.
The largest single gift was a contribution of $131,075 to the Fisher House Foundation, a charity that offers a scholarship fund for children of soldiers who die or are disabled.
The Obamas' adjusted gross income for 2010 of $1.728 million was well below the $5.5 million they reported for the year before, both totals mostly driven by royalties from books written earlier by Obama. They included his 1995 memoir "Dreams From My Father" and his 2006 political book, "The Audacity of Hope."
The White House released the returns on the day that federal tax returns are due this year, although Obama signed his 1040 form last Tuesday. Michelle Obama signed the tax return on Wednesday.
They also released their Illinois income tax returns showing they paid $51,568 in state income taxes for last year.
Vice President Joe Biden and his wife, Jill, reported more modest earnings, a combined adjusted gross income of $379,178, on which they paid $86,626 in federal taxes for 2010. The Bidens' withholding and earlier payments came to just $79,446 -- so they had a tax bill of $7,180 to settle.
The Obamas paid 26 percent of their adjusted gross income in federal income taxes. The Bidens paid 23 percent.
The Bidens paid $14,479 in Delaware income taxes and $3,515 in Virginia income taxes. Jill Biden is an adjunct professor at Northern Virginia Community College. The Bidens contributed $5,360 to charities.
Obamas Earned $1.7M in 2010, Tax Report Shows, Paid, $453K in Federal Taxes
Published April 18, 2011 | Associated Press
WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle, reported income of $1.728 million for last year, much of it from the sale of the president's pre-presidency books. They paid federal taxes totaling $453,770 after receiving a $12,334 refund.
The Obamas paid their taxes at lowered Bush-era rates, even as he campaigns to end them for households with adjusted gross incomes above $250,000 -- a category into which the first family clearly fits.
Joining the flocks of Americans filing their taxes near the end of the federal filing period, the Obamas made withholding and other payments to the Internal Revenue Service last year totaling $466,104. That was an overpayment, so they got their refund. The president and first lady reported donating $245,075 -- about 14.2 percent of their adjusted gross income -- to 36 different charities.
The largest single gift was a contribution of $131,075 to the Fisher House Foundation, a charity that offers a scholarship fund for children of soldiers who die or are disabled.
The Obamas' adjusted gross income for 2010 of $1.728 million was well below the $5.5 million they reported for the year before, both totals mostly driven by royalties from books written earlier by Obama. They included his 1995 memoir "Dreams From My Father" and his 2006 political book, "The Audacity of Hope."
The White House released the returns on the day that federal tax returns are due this year, although Obama signed his 1040 form last Tuesday. Michelle Obama signed the tax return on Wednesday.
They also released their Illinois income tax returns showing they paid $51,568 in state income taxes for last year.
Vice President Joe Biden and his wife, Jill, reported more modest earnings, a combined adjusted gross income of $379,178, on which they paid $86,626 in federal taxes for 2010. The Bidens' withholding and earlier payments came to just $79,446 -- so they had a tax bill of $7,180 to settle.
The Obamas paid 26 percent of their adjusted gross income in federal income taxes. The Bidens paid 23 percent.
The Bidens paid $14,479 in Delaware income taxes and $3,515 in Virginia income taxes. Jill Biden is an adjunct professor at Northern Virginia Community College. The Bidens contributed $5,360 to charities.
Obama Deficit Plan | White House releases misleading figures for families ahead of Obama's deficit tour | The Daily Caller - Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment
Obama Still has a problem with the truth and he'll go out and talk to the American People LYING about the numbers just to get what he wants...IF he were a corporate CEO we'd be in Jail for misrepresentation....
Obama Deficit Plan | White House releases misleading figures for families ahead of Obama's deficit tour | The Daily Caller - Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment
Obama Deficit Plan | White House releases misleading figures for families ahead of Obama's deficit tour | The Daily Caller - Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment
Racist's Obama's Buddy....
Here's Obama's Buddy.....Al Sharpton and his National Action Network....sounds pretty racist to me....sounds pretty violent to me.....getting angry...fighting back...what they ought to be talking about is black family values....
Cantor is RIGHT!
Cantor calls S&P action "wakeup call" on debt limit
– Mon Apr 18, 12:18 pm ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – House of Representatives Republican leader Eric Cantor on Monday called the Standard & Poor's downgrade of U.S. credit outlook "a wake-up call" against those seeking to "blindly increase" the U.S. debt limit.
Cantor said the S&P action makes clear that any increase in the debt limit must be accompanied by "meaningful fiscal reforms that immediately reduce federal spending and stop our nation from digging itself further into debt."
– Mon Apr 18, 12:18 pm ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – House of Representatives Republican leader Eric Cantor on Monday called the Standard & Poor's downgrade of U.S. credit outlook "a wake-up call" against those seeking to "blindly increase" the U.S. debt limit.
Cantor said the S&P action makes clear that any increase in the debt limit must be accompanied by "meaningful fiscal reforms that immediately reduce federal spending and stop our nation from digging itself further into debt."
Standard and Poor's is telling the WORLD that Obama is a FAILURE!
This is Standard & Poor's telling the WORLD that Obama is a FAILURE...and yet he and democrats STILL are not intent on fixing the problem...instead they are questions the move by Standard & Poor's and some are calling for this decision to spur a debt ceiling increase....DO THEY NOT UNDERSTAND it's the DEBT that's causing this problem not the open to spend on the nation's credit card....
Ratings Service Warns Politics Could Delay Budget Deal, Downgrades Outlook
Published April 18, 2011 | FoxNews.com
As the White House and lawmakers call for renewed cooperation to tackle the deficit, a leading rating agency isn't buying it.
Standard & Poor's Ratings Service warned Monday that politics may be getting in the way of a budget compromise, and -- in an announcement which sent stocks tumbling -- said it was lowering the outlook for U.S. sovereign debt to "Negative" from "Stable" due to the risk posed by the growing deficit.
Putting Washington on notice, S&P warned that it might be compelled to lower the country's rating if Congress can't reach a budget deal that brings the deficit under control.
The announcement puts added pressure on lawmakers and the White House as they pitch dueling budget plans. Republicans called it a "wake-up call" to get spending under control. But the Obama administration disputed S&P's finding and said negotiators are, to the contrary, ready to bridge their differences.
White House spokesman Jay Carney said the political process will outperform the agency's expectations, downplaying the significance of the announcement.
"We see momentum going that way," a senior Treasury official told Fox Business Network, referring to the possibility of an agreement before the next election. "A lot is going on behind the scenes. ... I'm not saying it won't be messy."
The official pointed to negotiations underway among a bipartisan group of senators, who are trying to produce a plan when Congress returns from recess.
"Both political parties now agree that it is time to begin bringing down deficits as a share of GDP," Mary Miller, assistant secretary for financial markets at the Treasury Department, said in a written statement. "We believe S&P's negative outlook underestimates the ability of America's leaders to come together to address the difficult fiscal challenges facing the nation."
The agency reaffirmed the investment-grade credit ratings on the United States' long-term and short-term debt. S&P says the U.S. has a high-income, diversified and flexible economy that has helped it to encourage growth while containing inflation.
But the country's ballooning deficit could offset those positives over the next two years. The agency noted that the deficit grew to 11 percent of gross domestic income in 2009. That is much higher than the average of 2 percent to 5 percent in the previous six years.
The statement from S&P reflected what it called the "significant risk" that deadlock in Washington could last through the 2012 elections, leaving the government without a medium-term deficit strategy for another several years.
"Our negative outlook on our rating on the U.S. sovereign signals that we believe there is at least a one-in-three likelihood that we could lower our long-term rating on the U.S. within two years," S&P's credit analyst Nikola G. Swann said in a statement. "The outlook reflects our view of the increased risk that the political negotiations over when and how to address both the medium- and long-term fiscal challenges will persist until at least after national elections in 2012."
Swann said a compromise that tackles the deficit could lead the ratings service to reverse its outlook.
"Alternatively, the lack of such an agreement or a significant further fiscal deterioration for any reason could lead us to lower the rating," Swann added.
Miller, though, said the economy is "strengthening as it emerges from the recent recession." And she pointed to the deficit-reduction plan outlined last week by President Obama in arguing that the country is ready to reverse course.
"As the president said last week, addressing the current fiscal situation is well within our capacity as a country. He has initiated a bipartisan process that will allow us to make progress on a balanced approach to restoring fiscal responsibility," she said.
The president outlined a plan he said would reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over 12 years. Republicans, though, said the plan relied too heavily on tax hikes and did not do enough to address entitlement spending. Republicans are pushing their own long-term budget proposal, which would overhaul Medicare and Medicaid, and are pushing for spending reforms as a condition for their support on raising the $14.3 trillion debt limit.
The federal government is expected to hit that ceiling by next month, and the S&P announcement quickly became a political football in that debate Monday.
Sen. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., said the debate over the debt limit offers lawmakers the chance "to save the dollar and our economy." He said S&P offered a "stark warning" for the country if lawmakers "miss this chance or if Congress sends the president a blank check."
Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., author of the Republicans' budget proposal, said the failure to reach an agreement threatens the country's "economic security" and continued to hammer the president for his deficit speech last week.
"A campaign speech is no substitute for a serious, credible budget. The president and his party's leaders must put an end to empty promises and work with us to avert this looming economic crisis," Ryan said.
But Rep. Peter Welch, D-Vt., issued a statement arguing that the announcement reinforces the need to approve the debt ceiling increase no matter what -- since failing to increase the debt limit could cause the country to default.
"The markets have doubts about America's ability to get its fiscal house in order. And they are right," Welch said, adding that Republicans would unleash "the financial hounds of hell" if they play politics with the debt ceiling.
Ratings Service Warns Politics Could Delay Budget Deal, Downgrades Outlook
Published April 18, 2011 | FoxNews.com
As the White House and lawmakers call for renewed cooperation to tackle the deficit, a leading rating agency isn't buying it.
Standard & Poor's Ratings Service warned Monday that politics may be getting in the way of a budget compromise, and -- in an announcement which sent stocks tumbling -- said it was lowering the outlook for U.S. sovereign debt to "Negative" from "Stable" due to the risk posed by the growing deficit.
Putting Washington on notice, S&P warned that it might be compelled to lower the country's rating if Congress can't reach a budget deal that brings the deficit under control.
The announcement puts added pressure on lawmakers and the White House as they pitch dueling budget plans. Republicans called it a "wake-up call" to get spending under control. But the Obama administration disputed S&P's finding and said negotiators are, to the contrary, ready to bridge their differences.
White House spokesman Jay Carney said the political process will outperform the agency's expectations, downplaying the significance of the announcement.
"We see momentum going that way," a senior Treasury official told Fox Business Network, referring to the possibility of an agreement before the next election. "A lot is going on behind the scenes. ... I'm not saying it won't be messy."
The official pointed to negotiations underway among a bipartisan group of senators, who are trying to produce a plan when Congress returns from recess.
"Both political parties now agree that it is time to begin bringing down deficits as a share of GDP," Mary Miller, assistant secretary for financial markets at the Treasury Department, said in a written statement. "We believe S&P's negative outlook underestimates the ability of America's leaders to come together to address the difficult fiscal challenges facing the nation."
The agency reaffirmed the investment-grade credit ratings on the United States' long-term and short-term debt. S&P says the U.S. has a high-income, diversified and flexible economy that has helped it to encourage growth while containing inflation.
But the country's ballooning deficit could offset those positives over the next two years. The agency noted that the deficit grew to 11 percent of gross domestic income in 2009. That is much higher than the average of 2 percent to 5 percent in the previous six years.
The statement from S&P reflected what it called the "significant risk" that deadlock in Washington could last through the 2012 elections, leaving the government without a medium-term deficit strategy for another several years.
"Our negative outlook on our rating on the U.S. sovereign signals that we believe there is at least a one-in-three likelihood that we could lower our long-term rating on the U.S. within two years," S&P's credit analyst Nikola G. Swann said in a statement. "The outlook reflects our view of the increased risk that the political negotiations over when and how to address both the medium- and long-term fiscal challenges will persist until at least after national elections in 2012."
Swann said a compromise that tackles the deficit could lead the ratings service to reverse its outlook.
"Alternatively, the lack of such an agreement or a significant further fiscal deterioration for any reason could lead us to lower the rating," Swann added.
Miller, though, said the economy is "strengthening as it emerges from the recent recession." And she pointed to the deficit-reduction plan outlined last week by President Obama in arguing that the country is ready to reverse course.
"As the president said last week, addressing the current fiscal situation is well within our capacity as a country. He has initiated a bipartisan process that will allow us to make progress on a balanced approach to restoring fiscal responsibility," she said.
The president outlined a plan he said would reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over 12 years. Republicans, though, said the plan relied too heavily on tax hikes and did not do enough to address entitlement spending. Republicans are pushing their own long-term budget proposal, which would overhaul Medicare and Medicaid, and are pushing for spending reforms as a condition for their support on raising the $14.3 trillion debt limit.
The federal government is expected to hit that ceiling by next month, and the S&P announcement quickly became a political football in that debate Monday.
Sen. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., said the debate over the debt limit offers lawmakers the chance "to save the dollar and our economy." He said S&P offered a "stark warning" for the country if lawmakers "miss this chance or if Congress sends the president a blank check."
Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., author of the Republicans' budget proposal, said the failure to reach an agreement threatens the country's "economic security" and continued to hammer the president for his deficit speech last week.
"A campaign speech is no substitute for a serious, credible budget. The president and his party's leaders must put an end to empty promises and work with us to avert this looming economic crisis," Ryan said.
But Rep. Peter Welch, D-Vt., issued a statement arguing that the announcement reinforces the need to approve the debt ceiling increase no matter what -- since failing to increase the debt limit could cause the country to default.
"The markets have doubts about America's ability to get its fiscal house in order. And they are right," Welch said, adding that Republicans would unleash "the financial hounds of hell" if they play politics with the debt ceiling.
Incompetent/corrupt Obama!
This article outlines how corrupt and incompetent this President is....
Michael Barone April 18, 2011 12:00 A.M.
President Whatever
As his partisan and petulant speech showed, Obama realizes things are not going his way.
Barack Obama is a politician who likes to follow through on long-term strategies and avoid making course corrections. He believes that’s how he won in 2008, and since then he has shown that he’s not much into details.
He was happy to let congressional appropriators fill in the blanks in the 2009 stimulus package, and he let congressional leaders know he would be happy whether there was or wasn’t a public option in the 2010 health-insurance legislation. Whatever. In the long run, the big things would work out his way.
Except right now they aren’t. And his partisan and petulant speech last Wednesday is unlikely to move things in the direction he wants.
Even as he was speaking, Congress was moving toward passing the appropriations bill for fiscal year 2011 agreed to by congressional negotiators with only occasional input from the White House. The deal will reduce spending substantially below levels that Obama and leading congressional Democrats used to call unacceptable.
Speaker John Boehner was criticized by some on the right for not pressing for deeper and more permanent cuts in spending than the $38 billion he claimed. But the deal nonetheless passed both houses by wide margins, and it contains some details that threaten to undermine the policies of the Obama Democrats in the future.
Most important, it requires the Government Accountability Office to conduct an audit of the waivers from the Democrats’ health-care bill that are being issued in large numbers by the secretary of health and human services.
This will raise an uncomfortable question. If Obamacare is so great, why are so many companies and organizations trying to get out from under it? And, more specifically, why are so many Democratic groups trying to get out from under it?
The fact is that HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has granted more than 1,000 waivers from Obamacare. Many have been granted to labor unions. Some have been granted to giant corporations like McDonald’s. One was granted to the entire state of Maine.
By what criteria is this relief being granted? That’s unclear, and the GAO audit should produce some answers. But what it looks like to an outsider is that waivers are being granted to constituencies that have coughed up money (or, in the case of Maine, four electoral votes) to the Democrats.
If so, what we’re looking at is another example of gangster government from this administration. The law in its majesty applies to everyone except those who get special favors.
The GAO has also been ordered to produce audits on the effect Obamacare will have on health-insurance premiums. This is likely to reveal that the president did not keep his promise that you could keep your current health insurance if you wanted to.
And there will be an audit of the “comparative effectiveness” that the bureaucracy established in the 2009 stimulus package. Comparative effectiveness is supposedly an objective study of which medical techniques are most effective. But anyone who looks closely finds that the experts are constantly changing their minds, which suggests that this is more alchemy than science — and maybe political favoritism, as well.
All of which tends to undercut the thrust of Obama’s obviously-aimed-at-the-2012-campaign message: We can continue to fund Medicare and Medicaid indefinitely if we just tax rich people a little more.
Serious budget experts of all stripes know this is fantasy. Obama’s fiscal commission, which issued its report last December, recognized this clearly, and recommended a package of spending cuts, program changes, and tax increases to address the long-term fiscal dilemma.
House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, in his budget resolution that passed the House Friday, put forward a package of changes that included giving the states block grants for Medicaid and replacing the current Medicare fee-for-service with the kind of premium support recommended by the bipartisan Medicare commission more than a decade ago — all without tax increases.
The voters, in current polls as well as in the elections last November, sent the policymakers down these paths. Obama on the one hand allows congressional Democrats to negotiate packages like the 2011 budget deal that go in that direction — and on the other hand says, incoherently and without detail, that we don’t need to go there at all.
In all this he is acting on the assumptions that Americans will accept a permanently enlarged and more expensive government and that the details don’t much matter.
The 2010 elections refuted the first assumption. Now we’ll see about the second.
— Michael Barone, senior political analyst for the Washington Examiner, is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a Fox News Channel contributor, and co-author of The Almanac of American Politics. © Copyright 2011, The Washington Examiner
Michael Barone April 18, 2011 12:00 A.M.
President Whatever
As his partisan and petulant speech showed, Obama realizes things are not going his way.
Barack Obama is a politician who likes to follow through on long-term strategies and avoid making course corrections. He believes that’s how he won in 2008, and since then he has shown that he’s not much into details.
He was happy to let congressional appropriators fill in the blanks in the 2009 stimulus package, and he let congressional leaders know he would be happy whether there was or wasn’t a public option in the 2010 health-insurance legislation. Whatever. In the long run, the big things would work out his way.
Except right now they aren’t. And his partisan and petulant speech last Wednesday is unlikely to move things in the direction he wants.
Even as he was speaking, Congress was moving toward passing the appropriations bill for fiscal year 2011 agreed to by congressional negotiators with only occasional input from the White House. The deal will reduce spending substantially below levels that Obama and leading congressional Democrats used to call unacceptable.
Speaker John Boehner was criticized by some on the right for not pressing for deeper and more permanent cuts in spending than the $38 billion he claimed. But the deal nonetheless passed both houses by wide margins, and it contains some details that threaten to undermine the policies of the Obama Democrats in the future.
Most important, it requires the Government Accountability Office to conduct an audit of the waivers from the Democrats’ health-care bill that are being issued in large numbers by the secretary of health and human services.
This will raise an uncomfortable question. If Obamacare is so great, why are so many companies and organizations trying to get out from under it? And, more specifically, why are so many Democratic groups trying to get out from under it?
The fact is that HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has granted more than 1,000 waivers from Obamacare. Many have been granted to labor unions. Some have been granted to giant corporations like McDonald’s. One was granted to the entire state of Maine.
By what criteria is this relief being granted? That’s unclear, and the GAO audit should produce some answers. But what it looks like to an outsider is that waivers are being granted to constituencies that have coughed up money (or, in the case of Maine, four electoral votes) to the Democrats.
If so, what we’re looking at is another example of gangster government from this administration. The law in its majesty applies to everyone except those who get special favors.
The GAO has also been ordered to produce audits on the effect Obamacare will have on health-insurance premiums. This is likely to reveal that the president did not keep his promise that you could keep your current health insurance if you wanted to.
And there will be an audit of the “comparative effectiveness” that the bureaucracy established in the 2009 stimulus package. Comparative effectiveness is supposedly an objective study of which medical techniques are most effective. But anyone who looks closely finds that the experts are constantly changing their minds, which suggests that this is more alchemy than science — and maybe political favoritism, as well.
All of which tends to undercut the thrust of Obama’s obviously-aimed-at-the-2012-campaign message: We can continue to fund Medicare and Medicaid indefinitely if we just tax rich people a little more.
Serious budget experts of all stripes know this is fantasy. Obama’s fiscal commission, which issued its report last December, recognized this clearly, and recommended a package of spending cuts, program changes, and tax increases to address the long-term fiscal dilemma.
House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, in his budget resolution that passed the House Friday, put forward a package of changes that included giving the states block grants for Medicaid and replacing the current Medicare fee-for-service with the kind of premium support recommended by the bipartisan Medicare commission more than a decade ago — all without tax increases.
The voters, in current polls as well as in the elections last November, sent the policymakers down these paths. Obama on the one hand allows congressional Democrats to negotiate packages like the 2011 budget deal that go in that direction — and on the other hand says, incoherently and without detail, that we don’t need to go there at all.
In all this he is acting on the assumptions that Americans will accept a permanently enlarged and more expensive government and that the details don’t much matter.
The 2010 elections refuted the first assumption. Now we’ll see about the second.
— Michael Barone, senior political analyst for the Washington Examiner, is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a Fox News Channel contributor, and co-author of The Almanac of American Politics. © Copyright 2011, The Washington Examiner
Obama, not Bush, is to Blame for the Mess we are In!
This is a great article showing how Obama, not Bush, got us into the terrible fiscal straits we are facing today as a nation....Obama's got to go in 2012!
Kevin D. Williamson April 18, 2011 4:00 A.M.
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.
The Iraq War, in its most expensive year, cost $140 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Its total cost over the years is estimated at about $700 billion — a good deal less spending than, say, Obama’s stimulus package. It is not, and has not been, an exceptionally large driver of our deficit spending.
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.
The tax cuts for the unrich were a good deal more expensive, which is why Obama’s rhetoric on the tax cuts sort of makes my head hurt: The president says he agreed to tax cuts for “the rich” only to preserve tax cuts for “the middle class” — which is to say, he agreed to a mere $800 billion in tax cuts that he didn’t want in order to preserve a considerable $2.2 trillion in tax cuts that he did want — and then argues that our problem is too many tax cuts, two-thirds of which he was so intent on keeping that he took the other third, too. But even that $2.2 trillion over ten years would not make much of a dent in our $1.6 trillion annual deficit.
And just who are these “rich”? Under Obama’s arbitrary, politically minded cutoffs ($200,000 for an individual, $250,000 for a couple), a public-school administrator earning $130,000 a year married to a pharmacist earning $125,000 a year and raising four kids is rhetorically lumped in with “millionaires and billionaires,” as the president put it, and desperately in need of a tax hike — but a single guy earning $198,000 a year is in the middle class, and his $2.2 trillion in tax cuts must be protected.
Definitional quibbles aside, the war spending and the Bush tax cuts don’t add up to a whole lot in the context of the $1.6 trillion deficit. What does?
The Department of Health and Human Services will see more than $900 billion in outlays in FY2011. About $83 billion of that is discretionary spending on things like the Centers for Disease Control. Almost all of the rest is Medicare and Medicaid — the two programs that President Obama has vowed to shield from substantial reform of the sort envisioned by Rep. Paul Ryan. The other big driver of spending, as the president himself acknowledged yesterday, is Social Security, meaningful reform of which he also promises to resist.
Obama’s big plan for the health-care entitlements is appointing a committee, called the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB). This committee will be composed of experts. (Really.) And they will, the president promises, expertly discover ways to reduce Medicare spending. At the end of that sentence is an invisible asterisk: The committee is forbidden to change anything about the structure of Medicare, to increase premiums, to change cost-sharing arrangements, etc.
It is also forbidden, on paper, to ration care. That is because it does not need to ration care: What it can do is cut payments to doctors, pharmacies, hospitals, etc., which simply pushes the dirty work of rationing and denying care off on them. If it costs X to provide a particular service, and IPAB sets the price at
We have tried a similar approach before, with legislation that requires cuts in Medicare reimbursement rates. Congress simply votes to suspend the law when the cuts come due. Congress can vote to ignore IPAB’s cuts, too, though it is procedurally harder to do.
None of which matters very much in the context of a $1.6 trillion deficit and a $14 trillion–plus national debt. Current CBO estimates of the savings to be realized from IPAB range from a high of $28 billion over ten years to a low of $0.00 over the same period of time. If IPAB performs to perfection — if it performs twice as well as CBO expects — it still will not make much of a dent in things.
A study from Credit Suisse puts the net value of all the financial assets in the world (excluding real estate) at about $80 trillion ($117 trillion in financial assets minus $37 trillion in household debt). Our unfunded entitlement liabilities are about $100 trillion. Given that they exceed world financial wealth, I suspect that those liabilities are not going to be met. Crazy hunch I have.
As I have argued before, what we are really negotiating about at this point is not how we are going to go about paying for these things, but how we are going to go about not paying for these things. Paul Ryan’s plan for Medicare is to let Americans shop for health-care coverage and then have the government pay the first $15,000 in premiums — a reasonably generous deal. (And even more generous for the very poor.) That premium support would grow relatively slowly, putting pressure on both consumers and providers of health-care to reduce costs. This is eminently sensible — critical, in fact: The reason that cellphones and computers don’t cost $10,000 isn’t that Motorola and Apple love us: It’s that consumers spending their own money are cost-conscious, so everybody has to compete on both price and quality. The only important products in the United States that do not get better and cheaper every year are K–12 education and health care, which are about 97 percent and 55 percent dominated by the government, respectively, and therefore have little consumer-price pressure.
Obama’s alternative is another magical committee of wise men, no doubt drawn from the same stale bowl of political Froot Loops from which he spooned up his various czars and advisers, from Marxist nut cutlet Van Jones to tax-dodging Treasury boss Tim Geithner. Markets aren’t perfect, but I trust consumers to make their own decisions better than I trust Obama and these jokers to make them on our behalf. Either way, cuts are coming, and the main question now is what shape they will take and who gets to make the final choice about health-care decisions: consumers and providers, or Obama and his experts.
— Kevin D. Williamson is a deputy managing editor of National Review and author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Socialism, just published by Regnery.
Kevin D. Williamson April 18, 2011 4:00 A.M.
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.
The Iraq War, in its most expensive year, cost $140 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Its total cost over the years is estimated at about $700 billion — a good deal less spending than, say, Obama’s stimulus package. It is not, and has not been, an exceptionally large driver of our deficit spending.
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.
The tax cuts for the unrich were a good deal more expensive, which is why Obama’s rhetoric on the tax cuts sort of makes my head hurt: The president says he agreed to tax cuts for “the rich” only to preserve tax cuts for “the middle class” — which is to say, he agreed to a mere $800 billion in tax cuts that he didn’t want in order to preserve a considerable $2.2 trillion in tax cuts that he did want — and then argues that our problem is too many tax cuts, two-thirds of which he was so intent on keeping that he took the other third, too. But even that $2.2 trillion over ten years would not make much of a dent in our $1.6 trillion annual deficit.
And just who are these “rich”? Under Obama’s arbitrary, politically minded cutoffs ($200,000 for an individual, $250,000 for a couple), a public-school administrator earning $130,000 a year married to a pharmacist earning $125,000 a year and raising four kids is rhetorically lumped in with “millionaires and billionaires,” as the president put it, and desperately in need of a tax hike — but a single guy earning $198,000 a year is in the middle class, and his $2.2 trillion in tax cuts must be protected.
Definitional quibbles aside, the war spending and the Bush tax cuts don’t add up to a whole lot in the context of the $1.6 trillion deficit. What does?
The Department of Health and Human Services will see more than $900 billion in outlays in FY2011. About $83 billion of that is discretionary spending on things like the Centers for Disease Control. Almost all of the rest is Medicare and Medicaid — the two programs that President Obama has vowed to shield from substantial reform of the sort envisioned by Rep. Paul Ryan. The other big driver of spending, as the president himself acknowledged yesterday, is Social Security, meaningful reform of which he also promises to resist.
Obama’s big plan for the health-care entitlements is appointing a committee, called the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB). This committee will be composed of experts. (Really.) And they will, the president promises, expertly discover ways to reduce Medicare spending. At the end of that sentence is an invisible asterisk: The committee is forbidden to change anything about the structure of Medicare, to increase premiums, to change cost-sharing arrangements, etc.
It is also forbidden, on paper, to ration care. That is because it does not need to ration care: What it can do is cut payments to doctors, pharmacies, hospitals, etc., which simply pushes the dirty work of rationing and denying care off on them. If it costs X to provide a particular service, and IPAB sets the price at
We have tried a similar approach before, with legislation that requires cuts in Medicare reimbursement rates. Congress simply votes to suspend the law when the cuts come due. Congress can vote to ignore IPAB’s cuts, too, though it is procedurally harder to do.
None of which matters very much in the context of a $1.6 trillion deficit and a $14 trillion–plus national debt. Current CBO estimates of the savings to be realized from IPAB range from a high of $28 billion over ten years to a low of $0.00 over the same period of time. If IPAB performs to perfection — if it performs twice as well as CBO expects — it still will not make much of a dent in things.
A study from Credit Suisse puts the net value of all the financial assets in the world (excluding real estate) at about $80 trillion ($117 trillion in financial assets minus $37 trillion in household debt). Our unfunded entitlement liabilities are about $100 trillion. Given that they exceed world financial wealth, I suspect that those liabilities are not going to be met. Crazy hunch I have.
As I have argued before, what we are really negotiating about at this point is not how we are going to go about paying for these things, but how we are going to go about not paying for these things. Paul Ryan’s plan for Medicare is to let Americans shop for health-care coverage and then have the government pay the first $15,000 in premiums — a reasonably generous deal. (And even more generous for the very poor.) That premium support would grow relatively slowly, putting pressure on both consumers and providers of health-care to reduce costs. This is eminently sensible — critical, in fact: The reason that cellphones and computers don’t cost $10,000 isn’t that Motorola and Apple love us: It’s that consumers spending their own money are cost-conscious, so everybody has to compete on both price and quality. The only important products in the United States that do not get better and cheaper every year are K–12 education and health care, which are about 97 percent and 55 percent dominated by the government, respectively, and therefore have little consumer-price pressure.
Obama’s alternative is another magical committee of wise men, no doubt drawn from the same stale bowl of political Froot Loops from which he spooned up his various czars and advisers, from Marxist nut cutlet Van Jones to tax-dodging Treasury boss Tim Geithner. Markets aren’t perfect, but I trust consumers to make their own decisions better than I trust Obama and these jokers to make them on our behalf. Either way, cuts are coming, and the main question now is what shape they will take and who gets to make the final choice about health-care decisions: consumers and providers, or Obama and his experts.
— Kevin D. Williamson is a deputy managing editor of National Review and author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Socialism, just published by Regnery.
Saturday, April 16, 2011
Obama....simply a sleezeball!
What a sleezeball this Obama is...he agrees to a budget deal and then goes back on part of it by issuing a signing statement (which he vowed never to do during his campaign)....He doesn't tell the truth and he cannot be trusted to keep his word....He needs to be soundly defeated in 2012....how can we have an unethical, untruthful, untrustworthy President in this country.....
Obama Keeps 'Czars' Despite Budget Deal That Eliminated Them
Published April 16, 2011 | FoxNews.com
President Obama may have never met a "czar" he didn't like and he's not about to bid farewell to any of them now, despite a budget deal he struck with Republican leaders last week that eliminated four of these positions.
The budget compromise that Obama, House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid reached in the final moments before the government shut down last Friday included language effectively eliminating the czar positions overseeing health care, climate change, the auto industry and urban affairs – positions that don't require Senate confirmation.
But after signing the legislation Friday that funds the government through the end of September and cuts $38 billion in spending, Obama issued a signing statement saying he would ignore the part about his czars, arguing that defunding those positions violated his constitutional authority.
Republicans cried foul over Obama's move.
"It's not surprising that the White House, having bypassed Congress to empower these 'Czars' is objecting to eliminating them," Mike Steel, a spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner, said in a statement.
Rep. Steve Scalise, R-La., who introduced legislation earlier this year eliminating nine czar positions, said Obama cannot choose which laws to follow and ignore.
"The president knew that the czar amendment was part of the overall budget deal he agreed to, and if he cannot be trusted to keep his word on this, then how can he be trusted as we negotiate on larger issues like federal spending and the economy," he said in a statement, arguing that appointing these czars without Senate confirmation violated the Constitution.
"The United States is not a kingdom run by a political director, and President Obama needs to quickly reverse course and abide by the law eliminating the czars that were part of the budget resolution."
While presidents in both parties have appointed high-level officials to advise them on a wide range of policy areas, Obama's czars have been a favorite target for Republicans, who say Obama has appointed more than any of his predecessors in a power grab that undermines the Senate's advice and consent role.
Scalise's office estimates that 39 officials are in the Obama administration and in his bill he described czars as the "head of any task force, council, policy office within the executive office of the president" or similar office, appointed "without the advice and consent of the Senate."
Earlier this year, climate czar Carol Browner left the White House and health care czar Nancy-Ann DeParle was promoted to White House deputy chief of staff. Other past czars in the Obama administration has drawn much criticism from Republicans, including former green jobs czar Van Jones and current science czar John Holdren.
Obama Keeps 'Czars' Despite Budget Deal That Eliminated Them
Published April 16, 2011 | FoxNews.com
President Obama may have never met a "czar" he didn't like and he's not about to bid farewell to any of them now, despite a budget deal he struck with Republican leaders last week that eliminated four of these positions.
The budget compromise that Obama, House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid reached in the final moments before the government shut down last Friday included language effectively eliminating the czar positions overseeing health care, climate change, the auto industry and urban affairs – positions that don't require Senate confirmation.
But after signing the legislation Friday that funds the government through the end of September and cuts $38 billion in spending, Obama issued a signing statement saying he would ignore the part about his czars, arguing that defunding those positions violated his constitutional authority.
Republicans cried foul over Obama's move.
"It's not surprising that the White House, having bypassed Congress to empower these 'Czars' is objecting to eliminating them," Mike Steel, a spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner, said in a statement.
Rep. Steve Scalise, R-La., who introduced legislation earlier this year eliminating nine czar positions, said Obama cannot choose which laws to follow and ignore.
"The president knew that the czar amendment was part of the overall budget deal he agreed to, and if he cannot be trusted to keep his word on this, then how can he be trusted as we negotiate on larger issues like federal spending and the economy," he said in a statement, arguing that appointing these czars without Senate confirmation violated the Constitution.
"The United States is not a kingdom run by a political director, and President Obama needs to quickly reverse course and abide by the law eliminating the czars that were part of the budget resolution."
While presidents in both parties have appointed high-level officials to advise them on a wide range of policy areas, Obama's czars have been a favorite target for Republicans, who say Obama has appointed more than any of his predecessors in a power grab that undermines the Senate's advice and consent role.
Scalise's office estimates that 39 officials are in the Obama administration and in his bill he described czars as the "head of any task force, council, policy office within the executive office of the president" or similar office, appointed "without the advice and consent of the Senate."
Earlier this year, climate czar Carol Browner left the White House and health care czar Nancy-Ann DeParle was promoted to White House deputy chief of staff. Other past czars in the Obama administration has drawn much criticism from Republicans, including former green jobs czar Van Jones and current science czar John Holdren.
Rubio knows how to handle a heckler....
Now Rubio knows how to handle a heckler and it's obvious the crowd is 100% with Rubio.....
Gas is $1.00 per Gallon Cheaper in Mexico!
This is really an idictment of Obama and this Administration...we are paying $1.00 more per gallon in the US than they are in MEXICO??? And what is Obama doing about our gas prices....nothing except talking about green energy...this bum has got to go...
The ONLY good news here is that maybe cheap gas in Mexico will drive some the illegals back to Mexico....But probably not because we are also providing them welfare, food stamps, free medical, free schools for their kids etc, etc....who's the fool in this equation????
Friday, April 15, 2011
How about Gas for $2.80 a Gallon?
Just one catch—it’s in Mexico
Jim Forsyth
Such a deal! How would you like to be able to fill up at $2.80 a gallon?
Gasoline prices like that are available but there’s one catch...they’re in Mexico.
But 1200 WOAI’s Michael Board says plenty of south Texans are ducking to avoid the bullets from the gang wars, to gas up at prices which are as much as a dollar lower than prices in the United States.
“When Piedras prices are under ours, a segment of Eagle Pass residents go to Piedras Negras to fill up,” says Chad Foster, the former Mayor of Eagle Pass and currently a real estate agent who sells property on both sides of the Rio Grande.
Why is gasoline so much cheaper across the Rio Grande? Two main reasons. First of all, Petroleos Mexicanos, the state-owned oil company, controls prices with the assistance of the Mexican government, which is not keen to see the price of gasoline go up too high for fear of public unrest. Also, Mexican environmental laws are not as strict as laws in the U.S., and gasoline sold in Mexico is not required to have many of the special blends designed to hold down air pollution, which jack up U.S. prices.
Foster says he will organize his day so he can buy gasoline in Mexico.
“The other day, I was going to Zaragoza to show a ranch, and I needed gas, and I have no issue buying Mexican gas,” he said.
Traveling into Mexico to buy gasoline is not considered smuggling and is not against the law. The gasoline in the tank does not have be ‘reported’ to U.S. Customs officers at the border, and customs duties do not have to be paid on it.
“A lot of our community goes to Piedras Negras to buy drugs, and for doctor visits, and will incorporate a visit to the gas pump,” Foster says.
The ONLY good news here is that maybe cheap gas in Mexico will drive some the illegals back to Mexico....But probably not because we are also providing them welfare, food stamps, free medical, free schools for their kids etc, etc....who's the fool in this equation????
Friday, April 15, 2011
How about Gas for $2.80 a Gallon?
Just one catch—it’s in Mexico
Jim Forsyth
Such a deal! How would you like to be able to fill up at $2.80 a gallon?
Gasoline prices like that are available but there’s one catch...they’re in Mexico.
But 1200 WOAI’s Michael Board says plenty of south Texans are ducking to avoid the bullets from the gang wars, to gas up at prices which are as much as a dollar lower than prices in the United States.
“When Piedras prices are under ours, a segment of Eagle Pass residents go to Piedras Negras to fill up,” says Chad Foster, the former Mayor of Eagle Pass and currently a real estate agent who sells property on both sides of the Rio Grande.
Why is gasoline so much cheaper across the Rio Grande? Two main reasons. First of all, Petroleos Mexicanos, the state-owned oil company, controls prices with the assistance of the Mexican government, which is not keen to see the price of gasoline go up too high for fear of public unrest. Also, Mexican environmental laws are not as strict as laws in the U.S., and gasoline sold in Mexico is not required to have many of the special blends designed to hold down air pollution, which jack up U.S. prices.
Foster says he will organize his day so he can buy gasoline in Mexico.
“The other day, I was going to Zaragoza to show a ranch, and I needed gas, and I have no issue buying Mexican gas,” he said.
Traveling into Mexico to buy gasoline is not considered smuggling and is not against the law. The gasoline in the tank does not have be ‘reported’ to U.S. Customs officers at the border, and customs duties do not have to be paid on it.
“A lot of our community goes to Piedras Negras to buy drugs, and for doctor visits, and will incorporate a visit to the gas pump,” Foster says.
Teachers' Unions Finally Explained.....
This pretty much sums up why Unions are bad in the public sector....And it's hard to believe that there really are hard working teachers in America that are putting up with this view.....it's time the good teachers stand up and revolt against their unions....
Friday, April 15, 2011
Mr Obama do you think the American People are Stupid...We are not and we are on to YOU!
Barack...you aske "Do you think I'm Stupid?"....Yes we do...and we think you are arrogant, cocky and driving this nation into the ground.....you accuse them of trying to put ideology in these deals when you are using regulations to legislate what you want done, because you and get the legisltation passed.....Do you think the American People are stupid....We're not and we are on to YOU!
A Small First Win on the 2012 Budget!
A small first win for Ryan and the Republicans....Now it's time for Boehner and the Republicans to stand tough!
House passes Ryan's '12 budget; conservatives want more cuts
By Erik Wasson and Pete Kasperowicz - 04/15/11 02:26 PM ET
The House on Friday approved a fiscal year 2012 budget resolution from Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) that seeks to drastically limit government spending next year and in years to follow.
But the vote on the measure — which imposes $5.8 trillion in spending cuts over the next decade — came after a clear sign that at least half of the Republican Caucus supports even tougher spending cuts.
The final tally was 235-193, with four Republicans opposing it. Every Democrat voted "no."
It will now be considered by the Senate, where it is considered dead on arrival.
Earlier in the day, the House rejected an alternative budget that would make an even deeper cuts than Ryan's proposal, but only after a chaotic scene on the House floor.
In an effort to embarrass Republicans by having them approve a budget that makes deeper cuts than Ryan's proposal, Democrats voted "present" on the Republican Study Committee bill. Initially, 124 Republicans were prepared to support the measure offered by the conservative RSC, but several switched their votes when it appeared the bill could pass.
In the end, 119 Republicans voted for the RSC budget, with 120 Republicans voting against. The bill failed in a 119-136 vote.
Closing debate on the Ryan plan was about as chaotic as the RSC vote, as Republicans and Democrats were interrupted eight times by protesters in the gallery. The House appeared to be considering closing the gallery, but after one six-minute delay continued on.
Republicans closed their arguments for the Ryan proposal by saying that the government is broke and that the $14 trillion government debt must be brought down in order to assure companies, families and the world that the government is taking steps to manage its finances and reduce the risk of higher inflation in the future.
"Will we be remembered as the Congress that did nothing as the nation sped toward a preventable debt crisis and irreversible decline, or will we instead be remembered as a Congress that did the hard work of preventing that crisis, the one that chose this path to prosperity?" Ryan asked during the debate.
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) added that the GOP plan would keep alive entitlement programs like Medicare, and said these entitlements must be addressed if the larger fiscal situation is to be resolved.
"While it may be seen by some as politically risky, we Republicans are willing to lead because, to be frank, complacency is not an option," Cantor said.
Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) added in his closing remarks that Republicans would hold the line against President Obama's request for a clean bill to extend the debt ceiling.
"The president wants a clean bill, and the American people will not tolerate it," Boehner said. "Let me be clear: There will be no debt-limit increase unless it's accompanied by serious spending cuts and real budget reforms."
Budget Committee Ranking Member Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) countered by saying both parties want to cut spending but that "the question throughout this debate is not whether, but how we do that." House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) reiterated that point by saying the GOP plan should have reduced defense spending rather than cut aid to middle-class Americans.
"I urge a 'no' vote on the Republican plan," Pelosi said.
The GOP resolution won’t be approved by the Senate, and budget resolutions do not go to the president or hold the force of law.
Still, the resolution is important in laying down a marker for House Republicans. Ryan has said that the GOP will deem his budget as the ceiling for spending for 2012.
For this reason, the most important aspect of the resolution is the allocation it gives to the Appropriations Committee for next year: $1.019 trillion in non-emergency spending. This number will play a big role in a looming spending fight in the fall.
If Republicans and Democrats cannot agree on appropriations spending by Sept. 30, the end of the fiscal year, the government will shut down.
Ryan’s resolution would balance the budget by 2040 without raising tax rates. Instead, the budget calls for the corporate and top individual tax rates to be lowered from 35 percent to 25 percent.
The budget’s provisions on Medicare brought tough criticism from Obama this week.
To rein in costs, the program coverts Medicare to a type of voucher system for those currently under 55 years of age. Instead of government-run Medicare, seniors would buy private insurance plans and the government would foot some of the bill.
The savings comes from the fact that the “premium support” is capped, something the Congressional Budget Office says will result in seniors having to pay much more out of pocket for healthcare as costs rise faster than inflation.
Obama this week called for wringing savings from Medicare by giving new powers to the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) to limit Medicare payments. He said Ryan’s plan would end Medicare as it is now known.
On Medicaid, the Ryan budget converts the federal share of the program into a block grant, which is also capped. Democrats have pointed out that the very elderly often rely on Medicaid once nursing homes have drained their savings.
The House also rejected three other alternative proposals. One, from Van Hollen, was defeated in a 166-259 vote. A Progressive Caucus budget was rejected in a 77-347 vote, and one from the Congressional Black Caucus was rejected 103-303.
A fifth proposal that would have implemented the recommendations of Obama's debt commission was not offered. Rep. Jim Cooper (D-Tenn.) withdrew his proposal Thursday night, indicating that a House vote against it might spoil efforts in the Senate to reach an agreement based on the recommendations of the president's fiscal commission.
"I do not think it is wise to risk doing anything to derail or impair those behind-the-scenes negotiations, which I am told by key senators in both parties could be the result of a premature House vote," Cooper said.
House passes Ryan's '12 budget; conservatives want more cuts
By Erik Wasson and Pete Kasperowicz - 04/15/11 02:26 PM ET
The House on Friday approved a fiscal year 2012 budget resolution from Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) that seeks to drastically limit government spending next year and in years to follow.
But the vote on the measure — which imposes $5.8 trillion in spending cuts over the next decade — came after a clear sign that at least half of the Republican Caucus supports even tougher spending cuts.
The final tally was 235-193, with four Republicans opposing it. Every Democrat voted "no."
It will now be considered by the Senate, where it is considered dead on arrival.
Earlier in the day, the House rejected an alternative budget that would make an even deeper cuts than Ryan's proposal, but only after a chaotic scene on the House floor.
In an effort to embarrass Republicans by having them approve a budget that makes deeper cuts than Ryan's proposal, Democrats voted "present" on the Republican Study Committee bill. Initially, 124 Republicans were prepared to support the measure offered by the conservative RSC, but several switched their votes when it appeared the bill could pass.
In the end, 119 Republicans voted for the RSC budget, with 120 Republicans voting against. The bill failed in a 119-136 vote.
Closing debate on the Ryan plan was about as chaotic as the RSC vote, as Republicans and Democrats were interrupted eight times by protesters in the gallery. The House appeared to be considering closing the gallery, but after one six-minute delay continued on.
Republicans closed their arguments for the Ryan proposal by saying that the government is broke and that the $14 trillion government debt must be brought down in order to assure companies, families and the world that the government is taking steps to manage its finances and reduce the risk of higher inflation in the future.
"Will we be remembered as the Congress that did nothing as the nation sped toward a preventable debt crisis and irreversible decline, or will we instead be remembered as a Congress that did the hard work of preventing that crisis, the one that chose this path to prosperity?" Ryan asked during the debate.
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) added that the GOP plan would keep alive entitlement programs like Medicare, and said these entitlements must be addressed if the larger fiscal situation is to be resolved.
"While it may be seen by some as politically risky, we Republicans are willing to lead because, to be frank, complacency is not an option," Cantor said.
Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) added in his closing remarks that Republicans would hold the line against President Obama's request for a clean bill to extend the debt ceiling.
"The president wants a clean bill, and the American people will not tolerate it," Boehner said. "Let me be clear: There will be no debt-limit increase unless it's accompanied by serious spending cuts and real budget reforms."
Budget Committee Ranking Member Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) countered by saying both parties want to cut spending but that "the question throughout this debate is not whether, but how we do that." House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) reiterated that point by saying the GOP plan should have reduced defense spending rather than cut aid to middle-class Americans.
"I urge a 'no' vote on the Republican plan," Pelosi said.
The GOP resolution won’t be approved by the Senate, and budget resolutions do not go to the president or hold the force of law.
Still, the resolution is important in laying down a marker for House Republicans. Ryan has said that the GOP will deem his budget as the ceiling for spending for 2012.
For this reason, the most important aspect of the resolution is the allocation it gives to the Appropriations Committee for next year: $1.019 trillion in non-emergency spending. This number will play a big role in a looming spending fight in the fall.
If Republicans and Democrats cannot agree on appropriations spending by Sept. 30, the end of the fiscal year, the government will shut down.
Ryan’s resolution would balance the budget by 2040 without raising tax rates. Instead, the budget calls for the corporate and top individual tax rates to be lowered from 35 percent to 25 percent.
The budget’s provisions on Medicare brought tough criticism from Obama this week.
To rein in costs, the program coverts Medicare to a type of voucher system for those currently under 55 years of age. Instead of government-run Medicare, seniors would buy private insurance plans and the government would foot some of the bill.
The savings comes from the fact that the “premium support” is capped, something the Congressional Budget Office says will result in seniors having to pay much more out of pocket for healthcare as costs rise faster than inflation.
Obama this week called for wringing savings from Medicare by giving new powers to the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) to limit Medicare payments. He said Ryan’s plan would end Medicare as it is now known.
On Medicaid, the Ryan budget converts the federal share of the program into a block grant, which is also capped. Democrats have pointed out that the very elderly often rely on Medicaid once nursing homes have drained their savings.
The House also rejected three other alternative proposals. One, from Van Hollen, was defeated in a 166-259 vote. A Progressive Caucus budget was rejected in a 77-347 vote, and one from the Congressional Black Caucus was rejected 103-303.
A fifth proposal that would have implemented the recommendations of Obama's debt commission was not offered. Rep. Jim Cooper (D-Tenn.) withdrew his proposal Thursday night, indicating that a House vote against it might spoil efforts in the Senate to reach an agreement based on the recommendations of the president's fiscal commission.
"I do not think it is wise to risk doing anything to derail or impair those behind-the-scenes negotiations, which I am told by key senators in both parties could be the result of a premature House vote," Cooper said.
An Arrogant and Cocky Obama....He's got to GO!
When you read this article and hear how cocky and arrogant Obama is AFTER he's totally screwed up this country it make me want to work even HARDER to make certain he's totally defeated in 2012!!!....He doesn't give a DAMN about America for it's future...
April 15, 2011 4:36 AM
Obama: GOP tried to "sneak" agenda into budget
Posted by Tucker Reals 1096 comments .
In what he thought was a private chat with campaign donors Thursday evening, President Obama offered the most revealing behind-the-scenes account to date of his budget negotiations with GOP leaders last week.
CBS Radio News White House correspondent Mark Knoller listened in to an audio feed of Mr. Obama's conversation with donors after other reporters traveling with the president had left the room.
In the candid remarks, Mr. Obama complains of Republican attempts to attach measures to the budget bill which would have effectively killed parts of his hard-won health care reform program.
"I said, 'You want to repeal health care? Go at it. We'll have that debate. You're not going to be able to do that by nickel-and-diming me in the budget. You think we're stupid?'" recalled the president of his closed-door negotiations on the bill to fund the federal government until September.
Mr. Obama said he told House Speaker John Boehner and members of his staff that he'd spent a year and a half getting the sweeping health care legislation passed -- paying "significant political costs" along the way -- and wouldn't let them undo it in a six-month spending bill.
What's in the budget bill?
The bill, approved by Congress on Thursday, trims about $38 billion from the government's spending authority, though confusion and consternation over the size of the bill's actual spending cuts increased Thursday in the wake of a report showing the legislation would only bring a reduction of $352 million in non-war government outlays for the rest of this fiscal year since most of the cuts come from authorized funds not intended to be spent right away.
Speaking into a microphone which he may not have realized was still relaying his remarks to the White House press room -- where Knoller had been listening to earlier remarks that were open to the press -- Mr. Obama bemoaned GOP leaders' attempts to attach a measure to the budget bill which would have cut funding for Planned Parenthood.
"Put it in a separate bill," the president said he told Boehner and his staff. "We'll call it up. And if you think you can overturn my veto, try it. But don't try to sneak this through."
In the end, the deal that was struck did see the Planned Parenthood measure, and a separate effort to defund parts of the health care program, voted on as stand-alone bills Thursday prior to the budget vote. Both measures failed in the Senate.
With the limited 2011 budget now set to hit Mr. Obama's desk following Thursday's vote, both he and his opponents across the aisle are expected to move quickly into negotiations on a much larger, multi-year budget, which both sides hope will trim trillions, rather than mere millions, from the nation's towering deficit.
The president told his backers Thursday night that he expects Republicans to continue using that process to enact their political agenda under the guise of cutting spending. He specifically called into question the sincerity of Budget Committee Chairman Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), who crafted the House GOP's controversial 2012 budget which includes significant and controversial cuts to Medicare and Medicaid.
"When Paul Ryan says his priority is to make sure, he's just being America's accountant ... This is the same guy that voted for two wars that were unpaid for, voted for the Bush tax cuts that were unpaid for, voted for the prescription drug bill that cost as much as my health care bill -- but wasn't paid for," Mr. Obama told his supporters. "So it's not on the level."
April 15, 2011 4:36 AM
Obama: GOP tried to "sneak" agenda into budget
Posted by Tucker Reals 1096 comments .
In what he thought was a private chat with campaign donors Thursday evening, President Obama offered the most revealing behind-the-scenes account to date of his budget negotiations with GOP leaders last week.
CBS Radio News White House correspondent Mark Knoller listened in to an audio feed of Mr. Obama's conversation with donors after other reporters traveling with the president had left the room.
In the candid remarks, Mr. Obama complains of Republican attempts to attach measures to the budget bill which would have effectively killed parts of his hard-won health care reform program.
"I said, 'You want to repeal health care? Go at it. We'll have that debate. You're not going to be able to do that by nickel-and-diming me in the budget. You think we're stupid?'" recalled the president of his closed-door negotiations on the bill to fund the federal government until September.
Mr. Obama said he told House Speaker John Boehner and members of his staff that he'd spent a year and a half getting the sweeping health care legislation passed -- paying "significant political costs" along the way -- and wouldn't let them undo it in a six-month spending bill.
What's in the budget bill?
The bill, approved by Congress on Thursday, trims about $38 billion from the government's spending authority, though confusion and consternation over the size of the bill's actual spending cuts increased Thursday in the wake of a report showing the legislation would only bring a reduction of $352 million in non-war government outlays for the rest of this fiscal year since most of the cuts come from authorized funds not intended to be spent right away.
Speaking into a microphone which he may not have realized was still relaying his remarks to the White House press room -- where Knoller had been listening to earlier remarks that were open to the press -- Mr. Obama bemoaned GOP leaders' attempts to attach a measure to the budget bill which would have cut funding for Planned Parenthood.
"Put it in a separate bill," the president said he told Boehner and his staff. "We'll call it up. And if you think you can overturn my veto, try it. But don't try to sneak this through."
In the end, the deal that was struck did see the Planned Parenthood measure, and a separate effort to defund parts of the health care program, voted on as stand-alone bills Thursday prior to the budget vote. Both measures failed in the Senate.
With the limited 2011 budget now set to hit Mr. Obama's desk following Thursday's vote, both he and his opponents across the aisle are expected to move quickly into negotiations on a much larger, multi-year budget, which both sides hope will trim trillions, rather than mere millions, from the nation's towering deficit.
The president told his backers Thursday night that he expects Republicans to continue using that process to enact their political agenda under the guise of cutting spending. He specifically called into question the sincerity of Budget Committee Chairman Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), who crafted the House GOP's controversial 2012 budget which includes significant and controversial cuts to Medicare and Medicaid.
"When Paul Ryan says his priority is to make sure, he's just being America's accountant ... This is the same guy that voted for two wars that were unpaid for, voted for the Bush tax cuts that were unpaid for, voted for the prescription drug bill that cost as much as my health care bill -- but wasn't paid for," Mr. Obama told his supporters. "So it's not on the level."
Obama Job Approval at 41%, Tying His Low....The American People are Waking Up to How Bad Obama is for America!
Americans are finally waking up to what a disaster Obama has been and will be for America in the future.....How bad his policies are and why he cannot get reelected in 2012!...
Obama Job Approval at 41%, Tying His Low
Obama Job Approval at 41%, Tying His Low
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Rush hits it Right on the Head!
Rush hits it right on the head.....you got the REAL Obama in his speech yesterday....
Why would Anyone Watch "the View"?
Why ANYONE would watch this bitchy hen house of a show is beyond me...the only person that is at all intelligent is Elizabeth....but still I couldn't stand listening to those other horny bitches just to hear what Elizabeth has to say....
Jesse Jackson Sr....A Sleezeball now and always a Sleezeball!
This couldn't happen to a more deserving guy....Jackson has been a sleezeball for years now and how ANYONE could listen to him and give what he says ANY credibility is beyond me.....But he's a community organizer and you know how those guys are?????
Complaint is not a lawsuit against Rev. Jesse Jackson Sr.
Thursday, Apr 14, 2011 | Updated 5:26 PM CDT By BJ Lutz
A former employee of the Rev. Jesse Jackson Sr. at the Rainbow Push Coalition has filed a bombshell wrongful termination and discrimination complaint against the civil rights leader with the City of Chicago's Commission on Human Rights.
The complaint, filed sometime last year by Tommy R. Bennett, a regular on the Tom Joyner Radio show and member of Barack Obama's LGBT Leadership Council, includes shocking allegations about Jackson's behavior toward the openly gay staffer including an allegation that the civil rights leader propositioned him.
Jackson has denied the allegations in a legal response that was filed in July 2010 and resurfaced when the Windy City Times published a story Tuesday.
Bennett, 55, claims Jackson ridiculed him in front of other employees and required him to perform "humiliating tasks" like escorting women to Jackson's various hotel rooms, cleaning up after alleged trysts and packing his clothing. It also includes an allegation that Jackson asked for oral sex, according to the claim. Jackson flatly denied each claim in his response.
Jackson could not be reached for comment after multiple attempts by NBCChicago, but his legal representatives did respond to the complaint in July. Bennett also has not commented to NBCChicago.
Chicago's Week in Review More Multimedia Bennett worked for the Rainbow PUSH Coalition for more than two years as the National Director of Community Affairs. The complaint states that Bennett endured a string of discriminatory treatment from multiple supervisors, but his protests were met with deaf ears.
In 2008, Bennett assumed the duties of Jackson's travel assistant.
In that capacity, Bennett alleges to "clean his [hotel] room after sexual intercourse with women."
Bennett's complaint requests back and front pay, compensation for emotional distress and punitive damages all to the tune of roughly $450,000. Bennett also wants an amendment to the civil rights organization's non-discrimination policy to include sexual orientation and gender identity.
Jackson, a former presidential candidate, has been married to his wife, Jacqueline Lavinia Brown, since 1962, but has had bouts with infidelity. One affair with a staffer resulted in the birth of a girl in 1999.
He has five children with Brown, including Jesse Jackson, Jr., who represents Illinois' 2nd District in the United States House of Representatives
Complaint is not a lawsuit against Rev. Jesse Jackson Sr.
Thursday, Apr 14, 2011 | Updated 5:26 PM CDT By BJ Lutz
A former employee of the Rev. Jesse Jackson Sr. at the Rainbow Push Coalition has filed a bombshell wrongful termination and discrimination complaint against the civil rights leader with the City of Chicago's Commission on Human Rights.
The complaint, filed sometime last year by Tommy R. Bennett, a regular on the Tom Joyner Radio show and member of Barack Obama's LGBT Leadership Council, includes shocking allegations about Jackson's behavior toward the openly gay staffer including an allegation that the civil rights leader propositioned him.
Jackson has denied the allegations in a legal response that was filed in July 2010 and resurfaced when the Windy City Times published a story Tuesday.
Bennett, 55, claims Jackson ridiculed him in front of other employees and required him to perform "humiliating tasks" like escorting women to Jackson's various hotel rooms, cleaning up after alleged trysts and packing his clothing. It also includes an allegation that Jackson asked for oral sex, according to the claim. Jackson flatly denied each claim in his response.
Jackson could not be reached for comment after multiple attempts by NBCChicago, but his legal representatives did respond to the complaint in July. Bennett also has not commented to NBCChicago.
Chicago's Week in Review More Multimedia Bennett worked for the Rainbow PUSH Coalition for more than two years as the National Director of Community Affairs. The complaint states that Bennett endured a string of discriminatory treatment from multiple supervisors, but his protests were met with deaf ears.
In 2008, Bennett assumed the duties of Jackson's travel assistant.
In that capacity, Bennett alleges to "clean his [hotel] room after sexual intercourse with women."
Bennett's complaint requests back and front pay, compensation for emotional distress and punitive damages all to the tune of roughly $450,000. Bennett also wants an amendment to the civil rights organization's non-discrimination policy to include sexual orientation and gender identity.
Jackson, a former presidential candidate, has been married to his wife, Jacqueline Lavinia Brown, since 1962, but has had bouts with infidelity. One affair with a staffer resulted in the birth of a girl in 1999.
He has five children with Brown, including Jesse Jackson, Jr., who represents Illinois' 2nd District in the United States House of Representatives
Reid and Obama continue to put up roadblocks to solving the fiscal problem that Amerca is facing....
More proof that Obama and Reid are not at all serious about solving the fiscal problem...they will just continue to put up obstacles to finding a real solution...voters remember that when you vote next....we've got to get rid of these democrats as well as the RINOs left in the ranks....
However I must say that this whole committee approach to solving complex problems that Obama always employs just does NOT work....it didn't work with the deficit commission that spent most of last year trying to tackle this at Obama's request.....it's just more evidence that Obama's never been an executive...never had responsiblity for the bottom line....he was just a community organizer......
Reid Banishes 'Gang of Six' From Deficit Talks
April 14, 2011 2:26 PM Jonathan Karl reports:
When it comes to the current debate over deficit reduction, no two Democratic Senators have more credibility than Kent Conrad (D-ND) and Dick Durbin (D-IL), but Harry Reid told ABC News today that he will not appoint either of them to the bi-partisan deficit-reduction group President Obama has asked Congressional leaders to create.
Reid and Durbin served on Bowles-Simpson debt commission created by President Obama last year. And both men are now part of the so-called “Gang of Six” – the group of Democratic and Republican Senators that has been working for months to develop a bi-partisan deficit reduction plan.
Now that President Obama has asked Congressional leaders to name eight Republicans and Eight Democrats to negotiate a new plan to cut future deficits by $4 trillion, Durbin and Conrad would be natural candidates.
No dice.
“I’m not going to put anybody who’s on the Gang of Six on that,” Reid said. “I think they’re two separate programs. They both have some merit.”
As the Senate Majority Leader, Reid has been asked to appoint four negotiators. Senator Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Speaker John Boehner and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi have also been asked to appoint four members each.
In addition to Durbin and Conrad, the Gang of Six includes Democrat Mark Warner of Virginia and Republicans Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, and Mike Crapo of Idaho.
However I must say that this whole committee approach to solving complex problems that Obama always employs just does NOT work....it didn't work with the deficit commission that spent most of last year trying to tackle this at Obama's request.....it's just more evidence that Obama's never been an executive...never had responsiblity for the bottom line....he was just a community organizer......
Reid Banishes 'Gang of Six' From Deficit Talks
April 14, 2011 2:26 PM Jonathan Karl reports:
When it comes to the current debate over deficit reduction, no two Democratic Senators have more credibility than Kent Conrad (D-ND) and Dick Durbin (D-IL), but Harry Reid told ABC News today that he will not appoint either of them to the bi-partisan deficit-reduction group President Obama has asked Congressional leaders to create.
Reid and Durbin served on Bowles-Simpson debt commission created by President Obama last year. And both men are now part of the so-called “Gang of Six” – the group of Democratic and Republican Senators that has been working for months to develop a bi-partisan deficit reduction plan.
Now that President Obama has asked Congressional leaders to name eight Republicans and Eight Democrats to negotiate a new plan to cut future deficits by $4 trillion, Durbin and Conrad would be natural candidates.
No dice.
“I’m not going to put anybody who’s on the Gang of Six on that,” Reid said. “I think they’re two separate programs. They both have some merit.”
As the Senate Majority Leader, Reid has been asked to appoint four negotiators. Senator Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Speaker John Boehner and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi have also been asked to appoint four members each.
In addition to Durbin and Conrad, the Gang of Six includes Democrat Mark Warner of Virginia and Republicans Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, and Mike Crapo of Idaho.
Cavuto takes on a really Stupid Progressive Congress woman....
If Democrat/Progressive Politicians are all this stupid, then it's apparent why Obama and his liberal/progressive regime has us in all the trouble we are in...This woman is just STUPID!
More Obama Criticism!
From today's Heritage Foundation....more comments about Obama's inept speech from yesterday...
Playing Politics Isn't the Answer, Mr. President
In a speech yesterday on America's fiscal crisis, President Barack Obama invoked the legacy of Abraham Lincoln and said, "through government, we should do together what we cannot do as well for ourselves." Yet since his presidency began, Barack Obama has proven that what he cannot do very well for himself or for the nation is provide even a modicum of leadership on out-of-control government spending.
To fill that vacuum, Americans rose up in 2010 and elected new representatives to steer the nation toward fiscal sanity. Now, in the 9th inning, the same president who handed his mantle of leadership to a "fiscal commission" has responded to the call for reform by doing what he knows best – slinging arrows with a partisan, poison-tipped speech, proposing higher taxes and slashing America's defense spending to dangerously low levels.
The president's speech purported to address a very real problem – a growing $14.3 trillion deficit. It's a problem that would only be exacerbated by the president's 2012 budget, released just two months ago, which offers more spending, higher taxes and $9 trillion in new debt, but does nothing to reform entitlements.
Rather than digging us out of a hole, that budget would send America further underground and into the red, with deficits averaging $952 billion over eight years (more than double the $415 billion average during President George W. Bush's term in office) and exploding government spending that's on its way past $35,000 per household within the next decade. The problem has reached such a level that the International Monetary Fund weighed in on Tuesday and urged the United States to develop serious measures to reduce the budget deficit.
Since the president would not act, others came forward. House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) proposed a "Path to Prosperity" which attempts to solve the twin crises of spending and debt through real spending reductions and reforms – not new taxes or higher rates. And it is that plan which forced President Obama to change course and reluctantly broach the subject of our nation's endless spending spree. But unfortunately for America, the president didn't offer a thoughtful response that would live up to the seriousness of the challenge America faces. Instead he invited Chairman Ryan to the speech, only to insult him. As The Wall Street Journal observed:
Mr. Obama did not deign to propose an alternative to rival Mr. Ryan's plan, even as he categorically rejected all its reform ideas, repeatedly vilifying them as essentially un-American. "Their vision is less about reducing the deficit than it is about changing the basic social compact in America," he said, supposedly pitting "children with autism or Down's syndrome" against "every millionaire and billionaire in our society." The President was not attempting to join the debate Mr. Ryan has started, but to close it off just as it begins and banish House GOP ideas to political Siberia.
On top of attempting to banish the Ryan plan to "political Siberia," the president trotted out policies that would send the United States to a cold, desolate future of its own. Those policies include higher taxes on savers, investors, and job creators. It would also bring cuts in military spending totaling $400 billion, which Heritage's Mackenzie Eaglen notes have already begun and are coming at the expense of national security. (Cleverly, the president attempts to redefine those cuts as "Security Spending.") And as for entitlements? Don't count on serious solutions from the president on those issues, either. Heritage economist J.D. Foster writes:
The surest sign that the President is not serious is that he sets as his defining goal a steady reduction in government debt as a share of our economy beginning in the second half of this decade. In case anyone is curious, that would be beginning in 2016, the last year of the second term the President aspires to gain. The deficit reduction path needs to begin today, not five years from now.
In a new poll from the Associated Press, voters say they prefer spending cuts to tax hikes by a 62-29 margin. President Obama would do well to step out from behind the podium and hear some common sense from the American people. Spending is the problem, cutting it is the solution. Higher taxes, decimating our defense and playing partisan politics are not the answers.
Playing Politics Isn't the Answer, Mr. President
In a speech yesterday on America's fiscal crisis, President Barack Obama invoked the legacy of Abraham Lincoln and said, "through government, we should do together what we cannot do as well for ourselves." Yet since his presidency began, Barack Obama has proven that what he cannot do very well for himself or for the nation is provide even a modicum of leadership on out-of-control government spending.
To fill that vacuum, Americans rose up in 2010 and elected new representatives to steer the nation toward fiscal sanity. Now, in the 9th inning, the same president who handed his mantle of leadership to a "fiscal commission" has responded to the call for reform by doing what he knows best – slinging arrows with a partisan, poison-tipped speech, proposing higher taxes and slashing America's defense spending to dangerously low levels.
The president's speech purported to address a very real problem – a growing $14.3 trillion deficit. It's a problem that would only be exacerbated by the president's 2012 budget, released just two months ago, which offers more spending, higher taxes and $9 trillion in new debt, but does nothing to reform entitlements.
Rather than digging us out of a hole, that budget would send America further underground and into the red, with deficits averaging $952 billion over eight years (more than double the $415 billion average during President George W. Bush's term in office) and exploding government spending that's on its way past $35,000 per household within the next decade. The problem has reached such a level that the International Monetary Fund weighed in on Tuesday and urged the United States to develop serious measures to reduce the budget deficit.
Since the president would not act, others came forward. House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) proposed a "Path to Prosperity" which attempts to solve the twin crises of spending and debt through real spending reductions and reforms – not new taxes or higher rates. And it is that plan which forced President Obama to change course and reluctantly broach the subject of our nation's endless spending spree. But unfortunately for America, the president didn't offer a thoughtful response that would live up to the seriousness of the challenge America faces. Instead he invited Chairman Ryan to the speech, only to insult him. As The Wall Street Journal observed:
Mr. Obama did not deign to propose an alternative to rival Mr. Ryan's plan, even as he categorically rejected all its reform ideas, repeatedly vilifying them as essentially un-American. "Their vision is less about reducing the deficit than it is about changing the basic social compact in America," he said, supposedly pitting "children with autism or Down's syndrome" against "every millionaire and billionaire in our society." The President was not attempting to join the debate Mr. Ryan has started, but to close it off just as it begins and banish House GOP ideas to political Siberia.
On top of attempting to banish the Ryan plan to "political Siberia," the president trotted out policies that would send the United States to a cold, desolate future of its own. Those policies include higher taxes on savers, investors, and job creators. It would also bring cuts in military spending totaling $400 billion, which Heritage's Mackenzie Eaglen notes have already begun and are coming at the expense of national security. (Cleverly, the president attempts to redefine those cuts as "Security Spending.") And as for entitlements? Don't count on serious solutions from the president on those issues, either. Heritage economist J.D. Foster writes:
The surest sign that the President is not serious is that he sets as his defining goal a steady reduction in government debt as a share of our economy beginning in the second half of this decade. In case anyone is curious, that would be beginning in 2016, the last year of the second term the President aspires to gain. The deficit reduction path needs to begin today, not five years from now.
In a new poll from the Associated Press, voters say they prefer spending cuts to tax hikes by a 62-29 margin. President Obama would do well to step out from behind the podium and hear some common sense from the American people. Spending is the problem, cutting it is the solution. Higher taxes, decimating our defense and playing partisan politics are not the answers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)