“I know you’ve been hearing all these arguments about, oh, Obama is just spending crazy, look at these huge trillion-dollar deficits, blah, blah, blah. Well, let me make a point. Number one, we inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit -- that wasn’t from my -- that wasn’t me. (Applause.) That wasn’t me…if we aren’t careful, health care will consume so much of our budget that ultimately we won't be able to do anything else…So, you know, when you see -- those of you who are watching certain news channels that -- on which I'm not very popular -- (laughter) -- and you see folks waving tea bags around -- (laughter) -- let me just remind them that I am happy to have a serious conversation about how we are going to cut our health care costs down over the long term, how we're going to stabilize Social Security. Claire and I are working diligently to do basically a thorough audit of federal spending. But let's not play games and pretend that the reason is because of the Recovery Act, because that's just a fraction of the overall problem that we've got…We are going to have to tighten our belts, but we're going to have to do it in an intelligent way, and we've got to make sure that the people who are helped are working American families.”
This is an excerpt from Obama’s recent town hall meeting in Missouri. Normally, I would be very angry about it, but not today. It is becoming more apparent that President Obama really isn’t interested in representing people like me, or serving people like me, so it’s hard to get upset when he mocks my concerns.
First, the blame thing. He inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit. That’s true. And if it’s a problem then why is he doubling and tripling that number? It’s odd how he takes a shot at Bush for deficit spending and people applaud, and in the same breath he uses the deficit he inherited as a reason to increase the very deficit he criticizes. And people applaud. Also, at some point someone should remind the President that budgets are set by Congress and that his very own party controlled that branch of government for 2 years before he stepped in; and that he was part of that very branch of government that ran up the deficits that he blames for our problems. What exactly are these people applauding for?
Now, the tea parties. This is the first time that Obama has acknowledged that the tea parties took place and his response is insulting. In fact, it is the most insulting thing I have ever heard a President say. First, it’s obvious he doesn’t understand the reason for the protests. I would gladly direct him to my post on the subject so he can educate himself a bit. Mr. President, it’s not about health care or entitlement spending. It’s about spending…PERIOD! As in, too much spending. As in, too much spending on whatever program Washington spends on. As in, spending more than you take in. It’s too much. These concerns are genuine, not driven by Fox News or the crazy right wing. We are worried about the country that our children will inherit. For those who didn’t actually see this town hall, you missed the smirks and the laughter that came with Obama’s comments. It’s clear that he doesn’t take this seriously. He was mocking the concerns of hundreds of thousands of Americans, myself included. A simple “I hear you” would have done. You don’t have to generate laughter at our expense.
It’s even more insulting that this guy is willing to dirty his nose with the Europeans, willing to kiss fanny in the Middle East, and willing to endure verbal tirades from the banana republic crowd, yet he dismisses the concerns of hundreds of thousands of hard-working, middle class American families with a smirk and a laugh. So much for being “our” President. Bush may have been stubborn, but he never did anything like this.
Mr. President, we’re Americans to. You don’t have to agree with us, but at least acknowledge that our concerns are legitimate. Don’t take it personally. Thicken your skin a bit. If you can travel to Europe on your knees, why can’t you allow your own citizens to complain without taking pot-shots? Belittling and mocking is unbecoming a US President. If he can’t respect the concerns that I have, then I can’t respect him as a genuine leader. Our President? Yeah right.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
100 Days
This article sums up Obama’s first 100 days rather well, but I will add my own opinion, highlighting the good and the bad.
First, the positives. Unfortunately, there are few:
- Killing 3 Somali pirates, putting one on trial, and freeing their American captive. Some would call this a no-brainer decision but Obama made the right decision nonetheless. Good for him. It sent the right message and hopefully that message will continue.
- More involvement in Latin America. This is our backyard and many politicians have ignored this area. I think that’s a mistake. Our influence must be apparent and must be constant. At least Obama appears headed in that direction, although his tactics are questionable.
- Wooing Arlen Specter. It’s about time this guy became a Democrat. He represents everything the grass roots people hate about Republicans. He switched to survive, but certainly Obama had a role in that and so I count it as a positive.
- Cutting spending in his cabinet. I had trouble counting this as a positive. After all, the money he’s talking about cutting is only a fraction of what needs to be cut. It would be the same as me cutting $6 out of my annual budget. But, hey, at least it’s a spending cut.
And the negatives. There are many but I highlight the whoppers – the ones I think are most damaging.
- Releasing CIA documents. Without a doubt this is his biggest mistake. He now owns the responsibility for any future terrorist attack because with this one move he has shown our enemies the battleplan. This is huge and I doubt he thought it out properly, or asked the right advice from the right people. 60% of Americans believe this made us less safe, which means that if we get hit again guess who takes the blame for it…
- Apologies and arrogance. No matter your political affiliation, no American wants to see our President apologizing for America and calling us arrogant. We don’t want dictators chastising America in the President’s presence. We don’t want our President to bow before a misogynistic king.
- Vetting. A tax cheat heads the IRS. A governor taking money from a no-questions-asked abortion doctor heads Health and Human Services. An abortion supporter appointed to the Vatican. The list goes on.
- Rush Limbaugh. Why would you target a radio commentator? This was petty and beneath the President of the United States. It made him look cheap and juvenile. He should have taken a lesson from W. and just ignored the guy.
- Partisanship. So much for promises. He refuses to take any Republican proposals, refuses to add any Republican ideas into his legislation, and then when he gets no Republican support he calls them obstructive. Hosting them for beer and Super Bowls does not equate to bipartisanship.
- Blame Bush. Enough already. Once again, it is beneath the President to blame others for the problems he faces. Did Bush ever once blame Clinton for 9/11?
- Spending. It is grotesque. He campaigned for two years telling voters that we needed a change in policy, and the voters agreed. Yet, Obama opted not to change the policy and instead multiply it exponentially. His victory came about mainly because Americans were fed up with high-spending Republicans, but somehow Obama didn’t get that memo. So he has tripled our debt, become the de facto CEO of General Motors, taken one more step towards nationalizing our banks, and wasted billions on bailouts that have yet to produce any results. He has threatened the future of the next generation who will be working to pay China for our debt. To top it off, he tells us all to show fiscal restraint while flying a mock Air Force One above the Statue of Liberty for a photo-op at a taxpayer cost of >$320,000, terrifying New York citizens in the process. Disgraceful.
- Education. He shuts down the D.C. voucher program, which had proven to be a success. This denied many inner city students a chance at a quality education and was a clear bow to the teachers unions and special interests. Then he enrolls his own kids in a top-notch private school.
- Discrepancy and Lies. He burns 9,000 gallons of fuel flying to speeches on Earth Day. He calls America arrogant and donates an autographed photo of himself to a school charity auction. He promises not to have lobbyists in his administration, and at last count there were 17. He speaks against earmarks while signing a bill containing 8,000 of them. He calls the Wall Street bonuses “the height if irresponsibility” but forgets to mention that his own Treasury Secretary brokered the deal that allowed those bonuses to be paid. He holds a town hall web meeting and calls on 5 people – all staunch Dem supporters and donors – to ask the only questions. He releases CIA memos on interrogation, but refuses to release the memos that detail what was learned in the interrogations; and then has the gall to tell the CIA that he supports them. He promises transparency in gov’t, then rams through a stimulus bill before any American, including those in Congress, have a chance to read it. He promises no new taxes on the middle class, then passes a tobacco tax-hike that affects mainly the middle and lower class; and pursues cap-and-trade policies that will substantially raise cost-of-living for the same folks. He promises to be “our” President, but doesn’t even acknowledge the tax day Tea Parties. He speaks against the “politics of fear” then tells us all that it will be catastrophic if his stimulus bill isn’t passed. There are more, but you get the point.
So far “our” President has been incredibly disappointing. I hope it’s part of the learning curve and I hope he gets it together. Otherwise, the next 600 or so days may be very difficult.
First, the positives. Unfortunately, there are few:
- Killing 3 Somali pirates, putting one on trial, and freeing their American captive. Some would call this a no-brainer decision but Obama made the right decision nonetheless. Good for him. It sent the right message and hopefully that message will continue.
- More involvement in Latin America. This is our backyard and many politicians have ignored this area. I think that’s a mistake. Our influence must be apparent and must be constant. At least Obama appears headed in that direction, although his tactics are questionable.
- Wooing Arlen Specter. It’s about time this guy became a Democrat. He represents everything the grass roots people hate about Republicans. He switched to survive, but certainly Obama had a role in that and so I count it as a positive.
- Cutting spending in his cabinet. I had trouble counting this as a positive. After all, the money he’s talking about cutting is only a fraction of what needs to be cut. It would be the same as me cutting $6 out of my annual budget. But, hey, at least it’s a spending cut.
And the negatives. There are many but I highlight the whoppers – the ones I think are most damaging.
- Releasing CIA documents. Without a doubt this is his biggest mistake. He now owns the responsibility for any future terrorist attack because with this one move he has shown our enemies the battleplan. This is huge and I doubt he thought it out properly, or asked the right advice from the right people. 60% of Americans believe this made us less safe, which means that if we get hit again guess who takes the blame for it…
- Apologies and arrogance. No matter your political affiliation, no American wants to see our President apologizing for America and calling us arrogant. We don’t want dictators chastising America in the President’s presence. We don’t want our President to bow before a misogynistic king.
- Vetting. A tax cheat heads the IRS. A governor taking money from a no-questions-asked abortion doctor heads Health and Human Services. An abortion supporter appointed to the Vatican. The list goes on.
- Rush Limbaugh. Why would you target a radio commentator? This was petty and beneath the President of the United States. It made him look cheap and juvenile. He should have taken a lesson from W. and just ignored the guy.
- Partisanship. So much for promises. He refuses to take any Republican proposals, refuses to add any Republican ideas into his legislation, and then when he gets no Republican support he calls them obstructive. Hosting them for beer and Super Bowls does not equate to bipartisanship.
- Blame Bush. Enough already. Once again, it is beneath the President to blame others for the problems he faces. Did Bush ever once blame Clinton for 9/11?
- Spending. It is grotesque. He campaigned for two years telling voters that we needed a change in policy, and the voters agreed. Yet, Obama opted not to change the policy and instead multiply it exponentially. His victory came about mainly because Americans were fed up with high-spending Republicans, but somehow Obama didn’t get that memo. So he has tripled our debt, become the de facto CEO of General Motors, taken one more step towards nationalizing our banks, and wasted billions on bailouts that have yet to produce any results. He has threatened the future of the next generation who will be working to pay China for our debt. To top it off, he tells us all to show fiscal restraint while flying a mock Air Force One above the Statue of Liberty for a photo-op at a taxpayer cost of >$320,000, terrifying New York citizens in the process. Disgraceful.
- Education. He shuts down the D.C. voucher program, which had proven to be a success. This denied many inner city students a chance at a quality education and was a clear bow to the teachers unions and special interests. Then he enrolls his own kids in a top-notch private school.
- Discrepancy and Lies. He burns 9,000 gallons of fuel flying to speeches on Earth Day. He calls America arrogant and donates an autographed photo of himself to a school charity auction. He promises not to have lobbyists in his administration, and at last count there were 17. He speaks against earmarks while signing a bill containing 8,000 of them. He calls the Wall Street bonuses “the height if irresponsibility” but forgets to mention that his own Treasury Secretary brokered the deal that allowed those bonuses to be paid. He holds a town hall web meeting and calls on 5 people – all staunch Dem supporters and donors – to ask the only questions. He releases CIA memos on interrogation, but refuses to release the memos that detail what was learned in the interrogations; and then has the gall to tell the CIA that he supports them. He promises transparency in gov’t, then rams through a stimulus bill before any American, including those in Congress, have a chance to read it. He promises no new taxes on the middle class, then passes a tobacco tax-hike that affects mainly the middle and lower class; and pursues cap-and-trade policies that will substantially raise cost-of-living for the same folks. He promises to be “our” President, but doesn’t even acknowledge the tax day Tea Parties. He speaks against the “politics of fear” then tells us all that it will be catastrophic if his stimulus bill isn’t passed. There are more, but you get the point.
So far “our” President has been incredibly disappointing. I hope it’s part of the learning curve and I hope he gets it together. Otherwise, the next 600 or so days may be very difficult.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
What Obama should have said...
Just last week I applauded President Obama for taking action against three Somali pirates. I even mentioned that my confidence in his foreign policy was strengthened a bit. Well, now I have to take that back.
To be honest, I don’t get what he’s doing. The Obama Doctrine is slowly becoming known as one of apology. Which begs the question: What do we as Americans have to apologize for?
This nation – through the sacrifice of blood and treasure – is responsible for advancing human-kind more than any nation in world history. Every human being that lives free does so in one way or another because of American sacrifice and support. Granted, there will be times when other nations disagree with our actions, but that does not warrant an apology nor should one be given.
First, our alleged ill-attitude towards Muslims. Instead of apologizing to the Muslim world, I think Obama should have given them all a brief history lesson. The US has supported Muslim efforts in Chechnya, Serbia, and Kuwait. We have supported the Kurds in northern Iraq and, oh yeah, freed an entire nation of Muslims in Iraq. These are examples of Americans fighting for Muslims, examples of American sacrifice to liberate Muslim people from tyranny. So if a few Muslims world-wide are angry at us for whatever reason – it’s not our fault. The record speaks for itself. We stand for freedom for all mankind and don’t discriminate based on religion. We have supported Muslims in this quest as well as Jews, Christians, Hindus and Buddhists. And if some Muslims are angry because we’ve targeted a few tyrannical extremists who happen to be Muslim extremists, then that’s not our problem. Instead of apologizing to these people, Obama should have defended us a bit. I think this would have been appropriate:
“I realize that many Muslims are angry at America because of perceptions that we are somehow anti-Muslim. Those perceptions are unfortunate and inaccurate and I think it is appropriate to remind those people that many Muslims live in freedom because of American sacrifice; and if we fight some extremists it’s because we want more Muslims to live in freedom.” How simple would that have been?
Then there’s the banana republic dictators of Latin America. You know, I understand that a President must be diplomatic to a certain point. This means that you may have to shake hands with nasty people. So I don’t necessarily mind the handshake with Chavez. And I don’t mind that Obama took the anti-American propagandist book that Chavez offered him. To be fair, Obama was clearly taken off-guard by Chavez’s action and likely didn’t realize what he’d just been given. But afterward, Obama should have said:
“I appreciate the gesture from President Chavez. I enjoy reading. However, it has come to my attention that this book is a distortion of the facts, and somehow places the blame for the failures of Latin American leaders at the feet of the United States. I don’t believe such dialogue is accurate, nor do I believe that it is constructive. So I will respectfully return the gift in the hopes that President Chavez will understand that America seeks peace and prosperity for all people in this hemisphere, and that antagonistic accusations have no role in achieving such objectives. I am not going to waste my time with such language and neither should he.”
Finally, Daniel Ortega. This guy is quite a character and really epitomizes the stereotypical banana republic dictator. Obama sat there while Ortega ripped the US during a diatribe that lasted over 50 minutes. Afterward, Obama said that he was “glad that [Ortega] didn’t blame me for things that occurred when I was three months old.” Hillary Clinton said the “cultural performance was fascinating.”
That’s it? That’s all you too have to say? This man consumes an hour eviscerating the US and you have no more to say? Unbelievable.
Now, I don’t think Obama should have gotten up and left the room. He still has to appear presidential and such action would not be appropriate. However, afterward he should have hit back hard:
“Mr. Ortega has failed his citizens. The people of Nicaragua have endured nothing but poverty and hunger under his regime and yet he refuses to accept any responsibility for that. Instead, he consumes 50 minutes with a delusional attack on America, somehow blaming the United States for his failures. That is an unfortunate thing and it makes me sad for the people of Nicaragua who most definitely deserve better.”
Why wouldn’t Obama say these things? I think it’s reasonable for Americans to expect their President to defend our country whenever it is unfairly attacked. Obama has failed at that so far and it’s quite disappointing.
Obama is naïve. There is simply no other way to put it. I appreciate that he wants to be respectful and “change the tone” from America, but that’s not how these people are interpreting it. They see it as weakness and nothing more. They see him as a man who will be VERY hesitant to use any force to stop their ambitions. And that perception – real or not – in the head of a madman is a dangerous thing.
Brutal tyrants respect only one thing…power. They don’t respect polite politicking. They don’t respect cordial demeanor. And they certainly don’t respect apologies. Instead, they view apologies as an opportunity for aggression, an opportunity to take, an opportunity to demand concessions. They only respect power and I’m afraid this may be a difficult lesson for Obama to learn.
To be honest, I don’t get what he’s doing. The Obama Doctrine is slowly becoming known as one of apology. Which begs the question: What do we as Americans have to apologize for?
This nation – through the sacrifice of blood and treasure – is responsible for advancing human-kind more than any nation in world history. Every human being that lives free does so in one way or another because of American sacrifice and support. Granted, there will be times when other nations disagree with our actions, but that does not warrant an apology nor should one be given.
First, our alleged ill-attitude towards Muslims. Instead of apologizing to the Muslim world, I think Obama should have given them all a brief history lesson. The US has supported Muslim efforts in Chechnya, Serbia, and Kuwait. We have supported the Kurds in northern Iraq and, oh yeah, freed an entire nation of Muslims in Iraq. These are examples of Americans fighting for Muslims, examples of American sacrifice to liberate Muslim people from tyranny. So if a few Muslims world-wide are angry at us for whatever reason – it’s not our fault. The record speaks for itself. We stand for freedom for all mankind and don’t discriminate based on religion. We have supported Muslims in this quest as well as Jews, Christians, Hindus and Buddhists. And if some Muslims are angry because we’ve targeted a few tyrannical extremists who happen to be Muslim extremists, then that’s not our problem. Instead of apologizing to these people, Obama should have defended us a bit. I think this would have been appropriate:
“I realize that many Muslims are angry at America because of perceptions that we are somehow anti-Muslim. Those perceptions are unfortunate and inaccurate and I think it is appropriate to remind those people that many Muslims live in freedom because of American sacrifice; and if we fight some extremists it’s because we want more Muslims to live in freedom.” How simple would that have been?
Then there’s the banana republic dictators of Latin America. You know, I understand that a President must be diplomatic to a certain point. This means that you may have to shake hands with nasty people. So I don’t necessarily mind the handshake with Chavez. And I don’t mind that Obama took the anti-American propagandist book that Chavez offered him. To be fair, Obama was clearly taken off-guard by Chavez’s action and likely didn’t realize what he’d just been given. But afterward, Obama should have said:
“I appreciate the gesture from President Chavez. I enjoy reading. However, it has come to my attention that this book is a distortion of the facts, and somehow places the blame for the failures of Latin American leaders at the feet of the United States. I don’t believe such dialogue is accurate, nor do I believe that it is constructive. So I will respectfully return the gift in the hopes that President Chavez will understand that America seeks peace and prosperity for all people in this hemisphere, and that antagonistic accusations have no role in achieving such objectives. I am not going to waste my time with such language and neither should he.”
Finally, Daniel Ortega. This guy is quite a character and really epitomizes the stereotypical banana republic dictator. Obama sat there while Ortega ripped the US during a diatribe that lasted over 50 minutes. Afterward, Obama said that he was “glad that [Ortega] didn’t blame me for things that occurred when I was three months old.” Hillary Clinton said the “cultural performance was fascinating.”
That’s it? That’s all you too have to say? This man consumes an hour eviscerating the US and you have no more to say? Unbelievable.
Now, I don’t think Obama should have gotten up and left the room. He still has to appear presidential and such action would not be appropriate. However, afterward he should have hit back hard:
“Mr. Ortega has failed his citizens. The people of Nicaragua have endured nothing but poverty and hunger under his regime and yet he refuses to accept any responsibility for that. Instead, he consumes 50 minutes with a delusional attack on America, somehow blaming the United States for his failures. That is an unfortunate thing and it makes me sad for the people of Nicaragua who most definitely deserve better.”
Why wouldn’t Obama say these things? I think it’s reasonable for Americans to expect their President to defend our country whenever it is unfairly attacked. Obama has failed at that so far and it’s quite disappointing.
Obama is naïve. There is simply no other way to put it. I appreciate that he wants to be respectful and “change the tone” from America, but that’s not how these people are interpreting it. They see it as weakness and nothing more. They see him as a man who will be VERY hesitant to use any force to stop their ambitions. And that perception – real or not – in the head of a madman is a dangerous thing.
Brutal tyrants respect only one thing…power. They don’t respect polite politicking. They don’t respect cordial demeanor. And they certainly don’t respect apologies. Instead, they view apologies as an opportunity for aggression, an opportunity to take, an opportunity to demand concessions. They only respect power and I’m afraid this may be a difficult lesson for Obama to learn.
Monday, April 20, 2009
The reason for the Tea Parties
Suppose there was a man whose life wasn’t exactly what he wanted from a material standpoint. Bills were being paid but nothing more. So he decides to charge it, and takes out a credit card with – amazingly – an unlimited line of credit. He spends and spends. He buys a lot of nice things that make his life more comfortable, and in the process he runs up the balance on his brand new credit card to astronomical levels. In fact, he runs the balance up so high that the monthly interest that accrues on that balance is more than his monthly income. His debt is essentially unsustainable and something must be done. Giving back all the wonderful things that he has purchased is out of the question, and bankruptcy is not an option because this guy is really important to those around him. So, he simply transfers the debt to his son who isn’t even old enough to have a job. Once this young man enters the workforce, he will be overburdened by massive debt before he earns his first paycheck. His chances of digging out of this debt – run up by his father – are slim, as is an economically prosperous life.
Most of us would be appalled if one of our friends or neighbors did this to their children. But that’s exactly what our federal government has done, and many of us don’t even realize it. That, my friends, is what sparked the hundreds of Tea Parties nationwide last week.
I don’t claim to be a grassroots spokesman. But I do network a great deal and I’m constantly interacting with people who all share the same sentiment. We are overspending on a grand scale and we’re mortgaging the future of the next generation in the process. Granted, many people were protesting many different things last week, but by far the vast majority of the people are very angry over what’s happened in Washington over the past 6-9 months. Even here in Texas where the local economy remains strong and unemployment low, the people are very angry about it. This movement isn’t driven by the frustration of disgruntled citizens victimized by a bad economy. This movement is driven by parents and grandparents who see what we’re doing to the next generation and are furious about it. And in some cases the next generation is taking part in the protests themselves.
The latest federal budget will amass massive deficit spending aimed at reversing the course of the economy. This deficit spending over the next ten years will add up to nearly $10 trillion in national debt and it will be spent WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE! That is a number that most of us can’t even fathom. It is huge, more debt than has been accumulated by every President from Washington to Bush COMBINED. To clarify a few terms: “budget deficit” is the amount of money that is spent each year beyond what is taken in from the treasury; “national debt” is the total amount of money that we owe from all the years of overspending, plus interest. When Congress spends more than it takes in, we have to borrow money from other countries who purchase our debt in the form of treasury bonds. The US still has a good credit rating so these bonds are considered good investments, and pay a healthy interest rate. But eventually that debt comes due.
The interest alone on our $10 Trillion debt will be unsustainable. The Freedom Foundation has recently shown that if you are 20 years old today, you will pay $114,000 in NEW/ADDITIONAL taxes just to pay the interest on our massive debt – without paying one penny of the principle.
Americans aren’t stupid. Today, Congress and Obama tell us that they are “cutting taxes” by giving out tax rebates. But the fact is that when our debt must be paid, it will be paid by: 1) higher taxes, and/or 2) printing more money.
The taxation that is in our future will be incomprehensible. The WSJ used recent IRS records to show that even if we taxed people at 100%, and taxed EVERY citizen who makes over 75K a year at 100%, we STILL wouldn’t be able to pay for the spending that Congress is pushing. So taxes alone won’t be enough. We’ll have to print more money to meet our financial obligations, which means inflation. Simply put, the more money we print the less it is worth. This means the value of the dollar in our wallet will drop, and the price of a loaf of bread will skyrocket. It’s simple economics.
When asked about the debt, Obama brushes questions aside. He has no explanation for reducing it. His only answer is that he will cut deficit spending in half by the end of his first term. In other words, he will overspend by half as much four years from now. That doesn’t make us feel better. Regarding the debt, he has no answer. Obama is gambling on economic recovery. He believes that spending massive amounts will reverse the economy and get us rolling again. The subsequent boom will mean more tax receipts into the federal treasury and thus less deficit spending. This is a theory, and has NEVER happened in human history. NOT ONCE has massive government spending led to long-term economic prosperity…NOT ONCE! So Obama is taking a huge risk, and he’s rolling the dice with our children’s future. Chances are, the short term economy will improve – it’s hard not to see some kind of bounce with the amount of money he’s about to dump into the economy – but at great cost. Even the Congessional Budget Office forecasts short-term improvement with long-term consequences, and the CBO is a non-partisan group that usually puts out reliable data. Obama may be able to improve the economy long enough to win a second term, but the following years will see unprecedented inflation, massive taxation, and the value of the dollar plummeting. By the time our kids start working, the majority of their labor will be going to the federal government and to the foreign nations that hold our debt. It’s enough to make you weep for what we’re doing to our kids.
But if he’s asked about it, Obama will say that we HAVE to do something drastic now to improve the economy. If we don’t do these kinds of things we will experience more difficult times. True enough. If companies like AIG, Citi or GM go under, it will be hard. We may even slip into a full-blown depression. But we would emerge, and we would emerge without astronomical debt that would be passed to the next generation. Obama tells us that we must act to help OUR economy, but that amounts to screwing our kids in order to save our own hides and avoid enduring tough times. There’s no other way to put it. John McCain calls it “generational theft”.
This is not a partisan thing. Both parties are responsible. Bush started this nonsense and Congress has allowed it. Obama promised change, but he didn’t deliver. The Dems were voted into office because of backlash against massive government spending, but they misinterpreted their takeover as a nationwide endorsement of Liberal tax-and-spend policies. So instead of reversing what the GOP did, they have decided to multiply it exponentially, and Obama is right there with them. We voted for change, and Obama has followed Bush’s presidency with even more spending. And we’re furious about it.
We have a lot of economic problems that need to be addressed. But NO ONE in Congress is addressing them. Instead, they give the appearance of solving problems by spending large amounts of money, but that doesn’t solve anything. It’s a band-aid and nothing more. The actual problem is just being kicked down to the next generation. If there is one thing we’ve done as a nation it’s to make our country a better place for the next generation. Even if that means enduring hard times, we’ve done it in order to give our children a better life. Not today. Today we’re focused on the here and now, to hell with the next generation. Congress is spending massive amounts of money, passing this debt to our children and they have done it WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE!!!! Even when we voice our opposition they ignore us. They are focused only on fixing the economy long enough for the next election. By the time the debt has to be paid they will be long gone. There is nothing more despicable.
The Tea Parties represent a grass roots movement, even if our elected leaders refuse to acknowledge it. We view the coming debt as oppressive, as something that will deprive our children of the “pursuit of happiness” that Jefferson said was a God-given right. The coming taxation will enslave us to the government, and to the foreign nations that hold our debt.
That’s the reason for the Tea Parties, and I think more people agree with us than has been reported. It’s a movement worthy of supporting and I encourage Americans to voice their frustration with their elected leaders. All elected officials need to hear this, from your city council to your Congressional representatives. Everyone needs to be accountable. If I had my way, ALL incumbents would be voted out in the next election cycle, even those who objected to the spending simply because they obviously haven’t objected enough. The government derives its power from the people and the people need to regain that power. We do NOT consent to the actions of our politicians. We do NOT consent to massive deficit spending and astronomical levels of debt. We don’t care if it makes our lives better, we’re focused on the next generation, and our elected officials should be as well.
Most of us would be appalled if one of our friends or neighbors did this to their children. But that’s exactly what our federal government has done, and many of us don’t even realize it. That, my friends, is what sparked the hundreds of Tea Parties nationwide last week.
I don’t claim to be a grassroots spokesman. But I do network a great deal and I’m constantly interacting with people who all share the same sentiment. We are overspending on a grand scale and we’re mortgaging the future of the next generation in the process. Granted, many people were protesting many different things last week, but by far the vast majority of the people are very angry over what’s happened in Washington over the past 6-9 months. Even here in Texas where the local economy remains strong and unemployment low, the people are very angry about it. This movement isn’t driven by the frustration of disgruntled citizens victimized by a bad economy. This movement is driven by parents and grandparents who see what we’re doing to the next generation and are furious about it. And in some cases the next generation is taking part in the protests themselves.
The latest federal budget will amass massive deficit spending aimed at reversing the course of the economy. This deficit spending over the next ten years will add up to nearly $10 trillion in national debt and it will be spent WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE! That is a number that most of us can’t even fathom. It is huge, more debt than has been accumulated by every President from Washington to Bush COMBINED. To clarify a few terms: “budget deficit” is the amount of money that is spent each year beyond what is taken in from the treasury; “national debt” is the total amount of money that we owe from all the years of overspending, plus interest. When Congress spends more than it takes in, we have to borrow money from other countries who purchase our debt in the form of treasury bonds. The US still has a good credit rating so these bonds are considered good investments, and pay a healthy interest rate. But eventually that debt comes due.
The interest alone on our $10 Trillion debt will be unsustainable. The Freedom Foundation has recently shown that if you are 20 years old today, you will pay $114,000 in NEW/ADDITIONAL taxes just to pay the interest on our massive debt – without paying one penny of the principle.
Americans aren’t stupid. Today, Congress and Obama tell us that they are “cutting taxes” by giving out tax rebates. But the fact is that when our debt must be paid, it will be paid by: 1) higher taxes, and/or 2) printing more money.
The taxation that is in our future will be incomprehensible. The WSJ used recent IRS records to show that even if we taxed people at 100%, and taxed EVERY citizen who makes over 75K a year at 100%, we STILL wouldn’t be able to pay for the spending that Congress is pushing. So taxes alone won’t be enough. We’ll have to print more money to meet our financial obligations, which means inflation. Simply put, the more money we print the less it is worth. This means the value of the dollar in our wallet will drop, and the price of a loaf of bread will skyrocket. It’s simple economics.
When asked about the debt, Obama brushes questions aside. He has no explanation for reducing it. His only answer is that he will cut deficit spending in half by the end of his first term. In other words, he will overspend by half as much four years from now. That doesn’t make us feel better. Regarding the debt, he has no answer. Obama is gambling on economic recovery. He believes that spending massive amounts will reverse the economy and get us rolling again. The subsequent boom will mean more tax receipts into the federal treasury and thus less deficit spending. This is a theory, and has NEVER happened in human history. NOT ONCE has massive government spending led to long-term economic prosperity…NOT ONCE! So Obama is taking a huge risk, and he’s rolling the dice with our children’s future. Chances are, the short term economy will improve – it’s hard not to see some kind of bounce with the amount of money he’s about to dump into the economy – but at great cost. Even the Congessional Budget Office forecasts short-term improvement with long-term consequences, and the CBO is a non-partisan group that usually puts out reliable data. Obama may be able to improve the economy long enough to win a second term, but the following years will see unprecedented inflation, massive taxation, and the value of the dollar plummeting. By the time our kids start working, the majority of their labor will be going to the federal government and to the foreign nations that hold our debt. It’s enough to make you weep for what we’re doing to our kids.
But if he’s asked about it, Obama will say that we HAVE to do something drastic now to improve the economy. If we don’t do these kinds of things we will experience more difficult times. True enough. If companies like AIG, Citi or GM go under, it will be hard. We may even slip into a full-blown depression. But we would emerge, and we would emerge without astronomical debt that would be passed to the next generation. Obama tells us that we must act to help OUR economy, but that amounts to screwing our kids in order to save our own hides and avoid enduring tough times. There’s no other way to put it. John McCain calls it “generational theft”.
This is not a partisan thing. Both parties are responsible. Bush started this nonsense and Congress has allowed it. Obama promised change, but he didn’t deliver. The Dems were voted into office because of backlash against massive government spending, but they misinterpreted their takeover as a nationwide endorsement of Liberal tax-and-spend policies. So instead of reversing what the GOP did, they have decided to multiply it exponentially, and Obama is right there with them. We voted for change, and Obama has followed Bush’s presidency with even more spending. And we’re furious about it.
We have a lot of economic problems that need to be addressed. But NO ONE in Congress is addressing them. Instead, they give the appearance of solving problems by spending large amounts of money, but that doesn’t solve anything. It’s a band-aid and nothing more. The actual problem is just being kicked down to the next generation. If there is one thing we’ve done as a nation it’s to make our country a better place for the next generation. Even if that means enduring hard times, we’ve done it in order to give our children a better life. Not today. Today we’re focused on the here and now, to hell with the next generation. Congress is spending massive amounts of money, passing this debt to our children and they have done it WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE!!!! Even when we voice our opposition they ignore us. They are focused only on fixing the economy long enough for the next election. By the time the debt has to be paid they will be long gone. There is nothing more despicable.
The Tea Parties represent a grass roots movement, even if our elected leaders refuse to acknowledge it. We view the coming debt as oppressive, as something that will deprive our children of the “pursuit of happiness” that Jefferson said was a God-given right. The coming taxation will enslave us to the government, and to the foreign nations that hold our debt.
That’s the reason for the Tea Parties, and I think more people agree with us than has been reported. It’s a movement worthy of supporting and I encourage Americans to voice their frustration with their elected leaders. All elected officials need to hear this, from your city council to your Congressional representatives. Everyone needs to be accountable. If I had my way, ALL incumbents would be voted out in the next election cycle, even those who objected to the spending simply because they obviously haven’t objected enough. The government derives its power from the people and the people need to regain that power. We do NOT consent to the actions of our politicians. We do NOT consent to massive deficit spending and astronomical levels of debt. We don’t care if it makes our lives better, we’re focused on the next generation, and our elected officials should be as well.
Friday, April 17, 2009
Tea Party...disgrace
A few words about the Tea Party protests:
Police department estimates nationwide put the number of protesters on April 15 at 300,000+; participating in over 700 rallies across the country. Impressive.
For those readers who lean to the Left of the political spectrum, I challenge you to leave a comment explaining what YOU think these people were protesting. Because the commentary I’ve heard so far – aside from the fair and balanced reporting on Fox News – has missed the mark completely.
I am ashamed of America’s journalists. I am now way passed the point of thinking most journalists are biased towards the Left. Now, I am convinced they are nothing more than propagandists. They act as PR for the liberal agenda, parroting whatever talking point du jour they are fed by the Left and pretending to believe it in order to coerce common Americans to do the same. It is pathetic. Aside from a few newspapers, and Fox News, today’s journalists have sold out. Beware of anything you read or see on TV. Chances are it is a lie being fed to you in order to sell the rotten bag of goods that is Marxism.
I watched a bit of the coverage on the other networks. I’m not sure where to begin. The protestors were called racist, with the suggestion that the reason behind their protests was nothing more than to oppose a black man in the White House. Someone on MSNBC’s Olbermann show said these people suffered from Stockholm Syndrome and were nothing more than “teabagging rednecks”. Nancy Pelosi flat-out dismissed the protests, calling it an “Astroturf” movement conjured up by the petit bourgeous of evil capitalism. Paul Begala said it was disgraceful, and that the protestors “did not love America”.
Eugene Robinson wrote that the protestors were expressing discontent over paying taxes. Wrong!
Geraldo says it was good TV but nothing more. And who hasn’t seen the tape of the CNN correspondent confronting one of the protestors with her paternalistic air of superiority, not even giving the guy a chance to explain why he was there? She wasn’t interested in “reporting” on the protests. She had an agenda. She went from being confrontational, to marketing Obama’s tax plan, to downright dismissive. She even went so far as to say that the protest was “anti-CNN” and was no place for families. Remember, these are the same people who praised the Obama campaign for getting more people involved in the political process. Apparently, such a thing isn’t praiseworthy unless it means more votes for the Left.
And then there were the sex jokes. Anderson Cooper said that it is “hard to speak when you are teabagging”. And this was only one of many juvenile remarks, spoken on the air with subtle pornographic references. Yet, Begala says the PROTESTORS were disgraceful? Worst of all, Obama didn’t even acknowledge the protests. Robert Gibbs offered no comment other than to say that he wasn’t sure if the President was aware of the protests. Not even aware? There were 600+ people outside the White House and Obama wasn’t even aware there were protests going on? I thought this man was going to be “our President too”. I guess our opinions don’t matter to him. Can you imagine the outcry had Bush ever said such a thing about the war protestors?
The point is the Left believes that dissent is patriotic, but only if that dissent fits their agenda. They will not tolerate anything else. Any dissent that opposes their agenda is disgraceful and un-American. The Left preaches tolerance and like characterizing themselves as the party of tolerance. Yet, disagree with their opinions or policies and you’re labeled a “teabagging redneck”. Yeah, sounds like they’re tolerant of others. If Code Pink gathers outside a military recruiting station, the Left swoons with admiration and praise for their patriotic display. But paint a sign that says “get your hands out of my piggy bank” and you’re mocked, chastised, and dismissed with subtle pornographic name-calling. It’s our patriotic duty to protest a conservative administration, but people should NOT be allowed to protest a Liberal Congress and a Liberal president – that would be disgraceful and un-American. Kool-aid anyone?
When 300,000 Americans rally nationwide to protest something, I think it would be prudent to at least understand their grievances BEFORE calling them teabagging rednecks. At least have a mental grasp of the situation prior to your verbal attacks, otherwise you’re nothing more than an insignificant, incoherent, childish voice doing a disservice to any and everything you believe. So far, not one Liberal journalist has been able to do that…NOT ONE! I haven’t heard a single democrat politician or Lefty journalist give any explanation of the protests that comes anywhere near reality. Clueless! They either don’t get it, don’t want to get it, or don’t care. Even though I disagreed with the war protestors, at least I understood what they were protesting. The same can’t be said for the Left. They’re more focused on silencing us than hearing us out, just read the latest Napolitano security report for evidence of this.
So, I invite anyone reading this to give their explanation. I won’t explain the protests to you because I think Americans should at least try to understand each other. Now’s your chance to show that you’re above the politics-as-usual crowd in Washington.
Comments are welcome.
Police department estimates nationwide put the number of protesters on April 15 at 300,000+; participating in over 700 rallies across the country. Impressive.
For those readers who lean to the Left of the political spectrum, I challenge you to leave a comment explaining what YOU think these people were protesting. Because the commentary I’ve heard so far – aside from the fair and balanced reporting on Fox News – has missed the mark completely.
I am ashamed of America’s journalists. I am now way passed the point of thinking most journalists are biased towards the Left. Now, I am convinced they are nothing more than propagandists. They act as PR for the liberal agenda, parroting whatever talking point du jour they are fed by the Left and pretending to believe it in order to coerce common Americans to do the same. It is pathetic. Aside from a few newspapers, and Fox News, today’s journalists have sold out. Beware of anything you read or see on TV. Chances are it is a lie being fed to you in order to sell the rotten bag of goods that is Marxism.
I watched a bit of the coverage on the other networks. I’m not sure where to begin. The protestors were called racist, with the suggestion that the reason behind their protests was nothing more than to oppose a black man in the White House. Someone on MSNBC’s Olbermann show said these people suffered from Stockholm Syndrome and were nothing more than “teabagging rednecks”. Nancy Pelosi flat-out dismissed the protests, calling it an “Astroturf” movement conjured up by the petit bourgeous of evil capitalism. Paul Begala said it was disgraceful, and that the protestors “did not love America”.
Eugene Robinson wrote that the protestors were expressing discontent over paying taxes. Wrong!
Geraldo says it was good TV but nothing more. And who hasn’t seen the tape of the CNN correspondent confronting one of the protestors with her paternalistic air of superiority, not even giving the guy a chance to explain why he was there? She wasn’t interested in “reporting” on the protests. She had an agenda. She went from being confrontational, to marketing Obama’s tax plan, to downright dismissive. She even went so far as to say that the protest was “anti-CNN” and was no place for families. Remember, these are the same people who praised the Obama campaign for getting more people involved in the political process. Apparently, such a thing isn’t praiseworthy unless it means more votes for the Left.
And then there were the sex jokes. Anderson Cooper said that it is “hard to speak when you are teabagging”. And this was only one of many juvenile remarks, spoken on the air with subtle pornographic references. Yet, Begala says the PROTESTORS were disgraceful? Worst of all, Obama didn’t even acknowledge the protests. Robert Gibbs offered no comment other than to say that he wasn’t sure if the President was aware of the protests. Not even aware? There were 600+ people outside the White House and Obama wasn’t even aware there were protests going on? I thought this man was going to be “our President too”. I guess our opinions don’t matter to him. Can you imagine the outcry had Bush ever said such a thing about the war protestors?
The point is the Left believes that dissent is patriotic, but only if that dissent fits their agenda. They will not tolerate anything else. Any dissent that opposes their agenda is disgraceful and un-American. The Left preaches tolerance and like characterizing themselves as the party of tolerance. Yet, disagree with their opinions or policies and you’re labeled a “teabagging redneck”. Yeah, sounds like they’re tolerant of others. If Code Pink gathers outside a military recruiting station, the Left swoons with admiration and praise for their patriotic display. But paint a sign that says “get your hands out of my piggy bank” and you’re mocked, chastised, and dismissed with subtle pornographic name-calling. It’s our patriotic duty to protest a conservative administration, but people should NOT be allowed to protest a Liberal Congress and a Liberal president – that would be disgraceful and un-American. Kool-aid anyone?
When 300,000 Americans rally nationwide to protest something, I think it would be prudent to at least understand their grievances BEFORE calling them teabagging rednecks. At least have a mental grasp of the situation prior to your verbal attacks, otherwise you’re nothing more than an insignificant, incoherent, childish voice doing a disservice to any and everything you believe. So far, not one Liberal journalist has been able to do that…NOT ONE! I haven’t heard a single democrat politician or Lefty journalist give any explanation of the protests that comes anywhere near reality. Clueless! They either don’t get it, don’t want to get it, or don’t care. Even though I disagreed with the war protestors, at least I understood what they were protesting. The same can’t be said for the Left. They’re more focused on silencing us than hearing us out, just read the latest Napolitano security report for evidence of this.
So, I invite anyone reading this to give their explanation. I won’t explain the protests to you because I think Americans should at least try to understand each other. Now’s your chance to show that you’re above the politics-as-usual crowd in Washington.
Comments are welcome.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Tip of the hat to President Obama. The standoff with the Somali pirates ended as it should have, 3 pirates dead and one hostage safe in American hands. Perhaps it was a no-brainer to authorize deadly force to end the standoff, but it was the right call nonetheless. Anyone who criticizes the President for taking out these thugs is just wrong, plain and simple. Obama’s decision to take them out was the right one, and this blogger has a little more confidence in his national security agenda as a result. Good job, Mr President.
Now, on to other matters. This news release from my own state of Texas as detailed in the Drudge Report:
AUSTIN – Gov. Rick Perry joined state Rep. Brandon Creighton and sponsors of House Concurrent Resolution (HCR) 50 in support of states’ rights under the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. “I believe that our federal government has become oppressive in its size, its intrusion into the lives of our citizens, and its interference with the affairs of our state,” Gov. Perry said. “That is why I am here today to express my unwavering support for efforts all across our country to reaffirm the states’ rights affirmed by the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I believe that returning to the letter and spirit of the U.S. Constitution and its essential 10th Amendment will free our state from undue regulations, and ultimately strengthen our Union.”
Perry continued: "Millions of Texans are tired of Washington, DC trying to come down here to tell us how to run Texas."
A number of recent federal proposals are not within the scope of the federal government’s constitutionally designated powers and impede the states’ right to govern themselves. HCR 50 affirms that Texas claims sovereignty under the 10th Amendment over all powers not otherwise granted to the federal government. It also designates that all compulsory federal legislation that requires states to comply under threat of civil or criminal penalties, or that requires states to pass legislation or lose federal funding, be prohibited or repealed.
Amen. I am proud to be a Texan, proud of our Legislature and our Governor. The 10th Amendment is a vital part of the Bill of Rights and it has been trampled by Washington for far too long. This was long overdue. Bravo to the lawmakers of Texas for finally drawing a line in the sand! And may other states follow suit with similar Resolutions!
God bless Texas!
Now, on to other matters. This news release from my own state of Texas as detailed in the Drudge Report:
AUSTIN – Gov. Rick Perry joined state Rep. Brandon Creighton and sponsors of House Concurrent Resolution (HCR) 50 in support of states’ rights under the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. “I believe that our federal government has become oppressive in its size, its intrusion into the lives of our citizens, and its interference with the affairs of our state,” Gov. Perry said. “That is why I am here today to express my unwavering support for efforts all across our country to reaffirm the states’ rights affirmed by the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I believe that returning to the letter and spirit of the U.S. Constitution and its essential 10th Amendment will free our state from undue regulations, and ultimately strengthen our Union.”
Perry continued: "Millions of Texans are tired of Washington, DC trying to come down here to tell us how to run Texas."
A number of recent federal proposals are not within the scope of the federal government’s constitutionally designated powers and impede the states’ right to govern themselves. HCR 50 affirms that Texas claims sovereignty under the 10th Amendment over all powers not otherwise granted to the federal government. It also designates that all compulsory federal legislation that requires states to comply under threat of civil or criminal penalties, or that requires states to pass legislation or lose federal funding, be prohibited or repealed.
Amen. I am proud to be a Texan, proud of our Legislature and our Governor. The 10th Amendment is a vital part of the Bill of Rights and it has been trampled by Washington for far too long. This was long overdue. Bravo to the lawmakers of Texas for finally drawing a line in the sand! And may other states follow suit with similar Resolutions!
God bless Texas!
Wednesday, April 08, 2009
Take a bow, Mr. President, for a great trip!
Obama has achieved yet another milestone. Earlier this week, the first black president became the first president to ever openly criticize his own country in front of a foreign audience and now has also just become the first president to ever bow before a foreign king. Congrats, Mr. President! We should all feel proud. The White House says this was not a bow, but a simple double hand-shake to a shorter man. Really? I’ve used the double hand-shake before and never did it bring me within kissing distance of someone’s boots. Perhaps I’ve been doing it wrong.
At best this is a major gaffe attributable yet again to lack of political experience that will be pasted all over the walls of the Muslim world regardless how Obama explains it away; at worst it is a genuine gesture of admiration, respect, affection and subservience to a man who punishes homosexuals and considers women to be inferior, subhuman, unentitled creatures. Either way, this is one of Obama’s biggest mistakes and it should not be ignored.
On a lighter note, a tip of the hat to the President for surprising the troops in Iraq. I was wondering if he would make the detour and I was glad to see him do it, especially given his history of criticizing the efforts in Iraq and calling it a mistake. He praised the troops, which was also refreshing. He even said they succeeded in every task they had been given, which came very close to admitting that the surge was a success, something he has yet to admit. For once I would like to see some humility from this man. When he says America has been arrogant in its foreign policy, perhaps he should demonstrate the opposite by admitting that he was wrong about the surge, that we accomplished a good thing in Iraq by toppling a brutal regime. But I’m not holding my breath. After all, the chosen one is never wrong, and we’re the arrogant ones for believing anything different.
At best this is a major gaffe attributable yet again to lack of political experience that will be pasted all over the walls of the Muslim world regardless how Obama explains it away; at worst it is a genuine gesture of admiration, respect, affection and subservience to a man who punishes homosexuals and considers women to be inferior, subhuman, unentitled creatures. Either way, this is one of Obama’s biggest mistakes and it should not be ignored.
On a lighter note, a tip of the hat to the President for surprising the troops in Iraq. I was wondering if he would make the detour and I was glad to see him do it, especially given his history of criticizing the efforts in Iraq and calling it a mistake. He praised the troops, which was also refreshing. He even said they succeeded in every task they had been given, which came very close to admitting that the surge was a success, something he has yet to admit. For once I would like to see some humility from this man. When he says America has been arrogant in its foreign policy, perhaps he should demonstrate the opposite by admitting that he was wrong about the surge, that we accomplished a good thing in Iraq by toppling a brutal regime. But I’m not holding my breath. After all, the chosen one is never wrong, and we’re the arrogant ones for believing anything different.
Friday, April 03, 2009
Man-caused disaster?
So much has happened since my last post, so little time to write. Let’s start with the new and improved executive power grab. Timmy Turbo Tax is asking for the power to seize any private company whenever he determines it to be necessary. He also wants the power to regulate corporate pay. And now Barney wants to regulate the salary of any employee in any company that receives government assistance. If these things should happen, then the Sec of Treasury effectively becomes the most powerful man in the world. And remember, this is an appointed position, not someone duly elected by the people. Change we can believe in?
And then there’s Turbo Tax’s plan to ease the credit crunch. This is the plan that was supposed to be unveiled 2 months ago and is basically the same plan that Paulson initially proposed before changing his mind. We’re back to square one. He is asking for the private sector to invest in the bad paper that has caused all this mess, along with some gov’t help. Basically, a private company puts in 10%, the gov’t puts up the other 90%, the money will be aimed at buying up bad mortgage debt to free the banks and allow more lending. Sounds good on the surface, but with one big problem. Remember, Obama has spent much time hammering corporate executives for making too much money. Anytime a bonus is paid out on Wall Street, the recipient is brutally flogged by the media while Obama verbally abuses them for their greed. Thus the question: Why would anyone want to go into business with the government? Even with such attractive investment terms, a company who makes such an investment runs the risk of being demonized by the administration should they actually make money on the deal. Does this plan make sense to anyone?
If any company needs further insight on the consequences of dealing with Washington, then maybe they should chat with the folks at GM. President Obama is now apparently the de facto CEO at GM, since he executed a non-existent executive power to fire the sitting CEO. This is a first. The Supreme Court – which is supposed to step in whenever one branch of government oversteps its legal bounds – is nowhere to be found. Now Obama wants us all to take comfort knowing that the government will honor all GM warranties. Does that make give you more confidence in GM’s cars? I’d have felt more comfortable buying from GM before Obama became the new CEO, even if they went bankrupt. Regardless, they are still on my boycott list and no “come on down, we’re cutting prices to the bone” promotion from Obama will change that.
And now Obama is in Europe asking his fellow leaders to implement their own stimulus plan and to pledge more troops to Afghanistan. Neither will happen and Obama will likely return home empty handed. Why? Well, those other leaders may like Obama, but it’s clear to me they don’t respect him, and that makes a big difference. They don’t respect him because Obama has no bargaining power. With him in office, there will be no consequences for not cooperating with him. He’s too interested in being liked. This is different from Bush, who didn’t care about popularity. They may have hated the guy, but they respected him because he drove hard bargains and followed through on any threats of negative consequences. But at least the Queen has a new ipod, complete with copies of all of Obama’s major speeches.
You know things are bad when the European socialists are telling Obama that he’s spending too much money. And why would our “allies” commit more troops to a war on terror that doesn’t exist. This guy has become a master ventriloquist. He demotes the war to an “overseas contingency operation” against something other than enemy combatants in order to avoid “man-caused disasters”, which sounds more like a job for the Red Cross than the military. Now, he wants other nations to assist in these “overseas contingency operations” because we need more troops to fight the non-enemy combatants and prevent another man-caused disaster. This has me thoroughly confused, so no doubt the leaders of Europe feel the same way, which is probably why no one will help us.
And finally, his latest quest is to dump all nuclear weapons. Sounds great. I’m sure North Korea, Iran, Pakistan and all major terrorist organizations will line up to join the world in unified disarmament, lest we risk a major big-time man caused disaster.
Man-caused disaster? Come to think of it, there's probably no better way to describe Obama's first 100 days in office.
And then there’s Turbo Tax’s plan to ease the credit crunch. This is the plan that was supposed to be unveiled 2 months ago and is basically the same plan that Paulson initially proposed before changing his mind. We’re back to square one. He is asking for the private sector to invest in the bad paper that has caused all this mess, along with some gov’t help. Basically, a private company puts in 10%, the gov’t puts up the other 90%, the money will be aimed at buying up bad mortgage debt to free the banks and allow more lending. Sounds good on the surface, but with one big problem. Remember, Obama has spent much time hammering corporate executives for making too much money. Anytime a bonus is paid out on Wall Street, the recipient is brutally flogged by the media while Obama verbally abuses them for their greed. Thus the question: Why would anyone want to go into business with the government? Even with such attractive investment terms, a company who makes such an investment runs the risk of being demonized by the administration should they actually make money on the deal. Does this plan make sense to anyone?
If any company needs further insight on the consequences of dealing with Washington, then maybe they should chat with the folks at GM. President Obama is now apparently the de facto CEO at GM, since he executed a non-existent executive power to fire the sitting CEO. This is a first. The Supreme Court – which is supposed to step in whenever one branch of government oversteps its legal bounds – is nowhere to be found. Now Obama wants us all to take comfort knowing that the government will honor all GM warranties. Does that make give you more confidence in GM’s cars? I’d have felt more comfortable buying from GM before Obama became the new CEO, even if they went bankrupt. Regardless, they are still on my boycott list and no “come on down, we’re cutting prices to the bone” promotion from Obama will change that.
And now Obama is in Europe asking his fellow leaders to implement their own stimulus plan and to pledge more troops to Afghanistan. Neither will happen and Obama will likely return home empty handed. Why? Well, those other leaders may like Obama, but it’s clear to me they don’t respect him, and that makes a big difference. They don’t respect him because Obama has no bargaining power. With him in office, there will be no consequences for not cooperating with him. He’s too interested in being liked. This is different from Bush, who didn’t care about popularity. They may have hated the guy, but they respected him because he drove hard bargains and followed through on any threats of negative consequences. But at least the Queen has a new ipod, complete with copies of all of Obama’s major speeches.
You know things are bad when the European socialists are telling Obama that he’s spending too much money. And why would our “allies” commit more troops to a war on terror that doesn’t exist. This guy has become a master ventriloquist. He demotes the war to an “overseas contingency operation” against something other than enemy combatants in order to avoid “man-caused disasters”, which sounds more like a job for the Red Cross than the military. Now, he wants other nations to assist in these “overseas contingency operations” because we need more troops to fight the non-enemy combatants and prevent another man-caused disaster. This has me thoroughly confused, so no doubt the leaders of Europe feel the same way, which is probably why no one will help us.
And finally, his latest quest is to dump all nuclear weapons. Sounds great. I’m sure North Korea, Iran, Pakistan and all major terrorist organizations will line up to join the world in unified disarmament, lest we risk a major big-time man caused disaster.
Man-caused disaster? Come to think of it, there's probably no better way to describe Obama's first 100 days in office.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)