So …. what is your point? Is it that two wrongs make a right? Sorry Dude. That just does not wash!
George W. Bush was not a conservative Republican. He would probably be considered a moderate, or maybe even a liberal, Republican. Did he spend too much money? Absolutely he did! That is not an excuse for Obama’s tripling down on the same bad fiscal policies! Especially after attacking Bush for excessive spending … even calling it unpatriotic (Obama’s words; not mine)!
Did George Bush use Executive Orders a bit too often. He did! Again, that does not excuse Obama’s tripling down on the same … or Obama’s creating a shadow government of radical Czars (his mostly communist cronies who answer to nobody), or Obama’s repeatedly by-passing the Congress to inflict increased regulation or bad economic policy by imperial fiat, or sneaking through legislation that the majority of people of this country had already rejected on principle. Again … after attacking Bush … and calling Bush’s presidency imperialistic! Bush’s imperialism pales on comparison to Obama’s!
So by your logic, we should excuse James Eagan Holmes who killed 12 and wounded 58 in Aurora, Co; because Jame Edward Plough killed 11 and wounded 6 in Jacksonville, Fl.
And finally, a major difference … George W. Bush did not actively seek to ignore or even destroy the U.S. Constitution, or to eliminate American’s individual rights by putting American citizens under the control of the United Nations, or to create an unsustainable socialist nanny-state by promising “free Bush money” to anyone foolish enough to drink the cool aid and vote for him. Obama has done all those things and more.
So I ask you, when our country goes bankrupt … and you don’t actually get the “free Obama money” you have been promised by Our Anointed Emporer, Barack Hussein Obama; because he simply hasn’t got it … are you going to riot in the streets, smash windows, and burn small businesses and private property … like the entitlement-zombies did in Greece? Are you still going to chant the same tired old mantra “Blame George Bush” because Obama did not keep his foolish and irresponsible promises to you?
I am so relieved that the Private sector is doing so well. I must have missed it. Maybe because I was worring about my declining income vs. soaring expenses. Silly me!
It seems, at least according to the Anointed One, that it is the public sector that is doing so poorly. Obama tells us that States simply do not have the “flexibility” (translation: “the ability to print and/or borrow endless sums of money”) that the Obama regime has. So, I guess then Obama is suggesting that all we have to do is let States print their own money and/or borrow money from the Chinese (just like Obama’s administration does) and the public sector woes will soon be over! At least, that is, until each state is $15 trillion in debt and therefore files for bankruptcy … or request a federal bailout! This is the positively brilliant fiscal policy espoused by our peerless leader, Emperor Obama! I guess he figured this out between the 16th and 17th holes during his last round of golf.
In a recent speech, we hear Obama still trying to blame George W. Bush for the astronomical deficit in this country. Of course, this is after three and a half years of his polices; two years of which he controlled both Houses of Congress. He passed his bailouts, his “shovel ready” porkulous bill, ObamaCare, and gave billions to now bankrupt “green energy” companies run by his cronies (oops, I mean election campaign contribution bundlers), but it is still Bush’s fault. It defies reason no matter how you look at it!! Of course, facts don’t matter to his left-wing media machine who dutifully spew forth his rhetoric … including Obama’s brilliant and really cool analogy involving a restaurant tab.
President Obama went on the offense against Republicans and their nominee Mitt Romney, pushing back on the often-repeated accusation that his administration has ballooned the country’s deficit.
“I love it when these guys talk about debt and deficits,” Obama told supporters in Baltimore. “I inherited a trillion dollar deficit.” [Which is now over $15 trillion]
“We signed two trillion dollars in spending cuts into law,” Obama said. “Spending under my administration has grown more slowly than under any president in 60 years.” [The above chart would suggest otherwise]
Obama said that the country’s budget deficits and big debt were the result of the George W. Bush’s two tax cuts, as well as the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. “They baked all this stuff into the cake with those tax cuts… and the war,” Obama said. [maybe so, but I also remember Obama stating in his 2008 campaign that you cannot raise taxes in a recession and that he would cut spending by going over expenses “line-by-line” (Oh wait, before you can have a “line,” you have to have a budget! Oops! My bad!). I would also point out that … 72 out of 100 Senators and 297 out of 435 Representatives (so that includes Republicans and Democrats if you are unsure) voted to support the war in Iraq after 9/11. Therefore, Obama’s “they” includes a good many members of Obama’s own party as well]
“It’s like somebody goes to a restaurant, orders a big steak dinner, a martini and all that stuff, then just as you’re sitting down they leave and accuse you of running up the tab,” Obama said. [Except Obama has been sitting at that table for three and a half more hours, ordering more wine, desserts, after dinner brandies, and coffee … hoping he could simply blame the previous patron … and knowing his Obama-zombies would never catch on ]
Can Obama can’t really be serious? Even more sadly, the cool aid drinkers actually do lap it up and believe! They cling like rats to a sinking ship, blindly following, soaking up the rhetoric while ignoring all evidence to the contrary that surrounds them. Obama’s true brilliance lies in his ability to play up the “intellectually cheap, populist, class-warfare rhetoric.” He’s not just blaming the Bush-era tax cuts (which he himself extended), he’s throwing in a steak-and-a-martini analogy to really show his pizzaz and bring the message home to his loyal Obama-zombies!
Oh well! When will Obama and his cronies understand that, simply because former President George W. Bush, who was not a fiscally conservative Republican, spent too much money while in office, Obama’s regime quadrupling down on it, and then some … is not a good thing! Blaming Bush no longer plays … but it seems to be the only card in Obama’s deck. At least Obama is really good at sticking to his message.
Knoxville held an election yesterday! Hello! 83% of you did not vote! This is part of what is so wrong with America today. Your vote does count! Madeline Rogero lacked 15 (Yep … 15!) votes of having a clear victory … Knoxville is headed for a runoff election.
You cannot help fix things if you do not get off your butts and vote. Obama hopes you will stay home in November 2012. As a nation, we simply cannot afford that … we cannot afford voter apathy! Too much is at stake.
Are you going to fight for your country and exercise the RIGHT that literally thousands of Americans before us died to protect … or are you going to apathetically fritter away all your rights and responsibilities as a free Americans?
Just when you thought you had heard it all, Obama reaches to disgusting new levels of “buck passing.” Obama paused on his re-election campaign disguised as an effort to promote his “revenue enhancement” program disguised as the American Jobs Act; long enough to blame George W. Bush for the $535 million Solyndra scandal. This is the lowest of the low. While those involved are called to testify before Congress and desperately point fingers at each other, two thoughts come to my mind:
If this administration (and yes, other past administrations) spent half as much time trying to be good stewards of the tax dollars they get from the American people as they do buying votes and furthering personal political careers, there would be no need to raise taxes or cut spending. This mess we find ourselves in is clearly the fault of career politicians seeking power and personal gain by rewarding “friends” and punishing “dissenters.” We need to return to the idea of “citizen-legislators” and good stewardship. Can you say “term limits?”
American tax payers want their $535 million back and those implicated in this “green power” scam brought up on charges. It has become clear that even before the government “stimulus” loan was made to Solyndra, officials at Solyndra knew their company was going belly up. In fact, they sent false “glowing progress reports” to the Obama administration even as they were keeping close tabs on their press coverage to block any bad publicity.
As House Republicans begin to investigate Solyndra’s stimulus loan scandal, theyhave looked at emails between the White House and Solyndra officials. WHile Obama had touted Solyndra as a “green jobs” success story thanks to a $535 million loan guarantee funded through the 2009 economic stimulus law, the emails show a different story. They show a clear interaction between Solyndra officials and the Obama administration surrounding Obama’s visit to the Bay Area, These emails included “corporate gig” job offers as well as efforts to limit press coverage to friendly media outlets and reporters in an attempt to generate positive press while squelching any possible negative press. It is also clear theat the OMB warned Obama to wait until they checked Solyndra out … due diligence! Obama would not wait … these were his cronies after all! Looks like Obama was also warned by the OMB That Solyndra would go belly up … the OMB even got the month and year right … September 2011! Obama, in typical Chicago-thug style politics ignored the OMB and pressured them into approving the loan.
Obama minion and DNC Chair, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, recently confirmed my long-held belief that progressive-liberals live in a make-believe world of denial and fairy tales. Her asinine comment that the congressional seat held since 1923 (almost a century) by democrats is in “a very difficult district for Democrats,” should earn her the “dumb-ass” of the century award. Bob Turner’s victory is simply a solid rebuke to Obama, his leftist policies, and his sycophantic cronies. But progressive-liberals cannot see this fact, because they live in a socialist “dream” land where they are so much smarter than the rest of us and therefore, must take care of us. It looks like the democrats, in typical underhanded fashion, will now simply try use gerrymandering to “re-district” Bob Turner’s seat out of existence.
It does, however, look like the Republican party must be doing something right! Left-wing pundit, Keith Olbermann recently stated that the Republican party is now the leading terrorist organization in the Unites States! Yep! That’s right …. surpassing even law-abiding gun owners, military veterans, Bible-clutchers, and yes … even the Tea Party! Personally, I do not think I could find better company!! Al Qaeda and Hamas need to get busy … if they want progressive-liberal democrats to elevate their respective organizations from “trusted allies” back to “terrorist” status.
In other news, Michele Obama has taken it upon herself to teach us poor dumb Americans what to eat … while she, of course, dines on only the finest in tax payer provided cuisine. Michele Obama is certainly not doing “weight watchers!” While I agree that it is sad so many Americans are overweight … that is a matter of choice and personal responsibility and should not be another area of government intrusion into our lives. I actually have seen more and more of my neighbors out swimming, walking, and riding bikes … and they are doing it because they want to be healthier … not because of some government mandate.
Surprise, surprise! Obama has resurrected his “internet Snitch brigade.” Do you remember when Obama came under fire for encouraging his supporters to collect and report any “fishy” information on his White House web site link flag@whitehouse.gov. After widespread public outrage over his Administrations use of “useful idiot” minions to spy on their fellow Americans (a trick communist Russian dictators perfected), the White House quickly removed the e-snitch link from their Web site. It seems, however, that Obama’s creepy monitoring program (on his new campaign Web site www.AttackWatch.com) is back … just in time for his 2012 re-election campaign.
It is so sad it is almost funny. Obama insults, and pulls the rug out from under America’s greatest ally in the Middle East, Israel (the only stable democracy in the area); and supports Israel’s mortal enemies … terrorist groups like Hamas or the Muslim Brotherhood (who if they did not have the Jews to try to kill, would be trying to kill us or each other). Then on his AttackWatch site, claims Glenn Beck “twists the facts on Israel:”
Conservative pundit Glenn Beck added his voice to a growing collection of false allegations about the President’s record on Israel. “We’re talking a lot about Israel,” said Beck. “The President of the United States, I believe, has betrayed our last strong ally.”
Glenn Beck is simply stating his belief … a freedom we are all supposed to have under the U.S. Constitution! Most Americans seem to agree with the assessment. Look at the Jewish support for Bob Turner’s victory in last Tuesday’s special Congressional seat election in New York!
And where does the Obama camp get its “dirt” on Glenn Beck? From clear-thinking, fair and balanced George-Soros-funded progressive-liberal media outlets like MoveOn.org, Media Matters, and ThinkProgress.org! Hmmm! Who would have thunk it?
I listened to Obama’s American Jobs Act speech last night and I must confess; I was impressed. It was very well written. Whoever wrote it did a brilliant job. It was well paced, full of catchy and patriotic slogans, and designed to appeal to the masses. Unfortunately, it was also total BS! It was the same old progressive liberal “song and dance” in new clothing … just like I predicted it would be. Much of it sounds so good on the surface and shallow-thinkers will tout its fairness and praise Obama for his efforts.
The plan Obama laid out Thursday night in his speech would cost nearly $450 billion and would increase and extend a payroll tax cut for workers that goes to Social Security. It also provides a tax cut to employers. You can argue that some of this will help in the short-term, but most of Obama’s proposals actually stand very little chance of ever being implemented, at least without the backing of congressional Republicans. And, that may not be very likely!
The truth is Obama is trying to set up a “win-win” scenario for his re-election campaign:
Win v.1: If Congress passes his plan, Obama will be seen as the hero who saved the day (at least until the problems in his plan become clear some time down the road). I am sure he is betting this will happen after November 2012.
Win v.2: If congress does not pass his plan, he can point to them and say, “See, I tried to do something to save the day and the republicans would not work with me. It is their fault. And in this version, the problems with his plan never truly surface.
What are the problems with his Obama’s job plan you might ask. There are plenty. First, let’s examine a few of the claims he make in his speech:
Obama claim #1: Everything in this bill will be paid for.
The Facts: Nowhere did Obama say exactly how he would pay for the measures contained in his nearly $450 billion American Jobs Act. All he said was that he would send his proposed specifics in a week to the new congressional super committee charged with finding budget savings. White House aides have suggested that the new short-term deficit spending to stimulate job creation would be paid for in the future but they did not say what would be cut or what revenues they would use. So in reality, Obama’s jobs plan is simply a “promissory note” from a president and lawmakers who will probably not be in office when the bills come due. Any future Congress could simply decide not to pay that bill. So there is no kind of guarantee his program (that clearly will increase annual deficits in the short-term) will ever be paid for in the long-term.
Obama claim #2: Everything in this proposal has been supported by both Democrats and Republicans, including many who sit here tonight.”
The facts: Obama’s proposed cut in the Social Security payroll tax would seem likely to receive significant Republican support. However, Obama proposes paying for the plan in part with tax increases that have already generated very strong Republican opposition.
Obama again proposes to end Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans (which he has defined as couples earning over $250,000 a year or people earning over $200,000 a year), saying that the wealthy need to pay “their fair share.” This should come as no surprise to anyone since it has been the liberal’s standard modus operandi for decades. In his speech, Obama even mentioned his good buddy, Warren Buffett, who according to this speech, asked Obama to remove a loop-hole that Buffett uses to avoid paying taxes so he can also “pay his fair share.” So does Warren Buffett actually have to take advantage of the loop-hole? Why is Warren Buffett’s company, Berkshire Hathaway, involved in a legal battle with the IRS now to avoid paying $1 billion in back taxes … if Warren Buffett so truly wants to pay his fair share? Who gets to decide what that “fair Share” is? Progressive-liberal radicals? What a bunch of Bull Shit!
I am not wealthy! I am not even upper middle class! But, even I can see the “wrong” in liberals wanting to “steal” the hard –earned money of successful people and “redistributing” it to their voters. When the government starts taking the property of its citizens in the name of some perceived and mutable notion of “fair,” then that government has just lost its right to exist!
But what are the facts surrounding the idea of the wealthy paying their fair share? The facts are that the wealthy already do pay their fair share! The top 5 percent of wage earners in this country (this includes all income, not just wages, but excludes Social Security) pay 53.25 % of all income taxes, the top 10 % pay 64.89 % of all taxes, the top 25 % pay 82.9 % of all taxes, the top 50 % pay 96.03 % of all taxes, and the top 1 percent is paying more than ten times the federal income taxes than the bottom 50 percent.
How about the bottom 50 percent of wage earners (which, by the way, includes me)? We pay 3.97% of all income taxes. In addition, an estimated 43.4 percent of Americans do not even pay federal income tax. Shouldn’t Obama be asking for that 43.4 percent and the bottom 50 percent to pay their “fair share”?
This is why Tea Party members say no to new taxes and work to curb the government’s out-of-control spending; and why many Republicans have adamantly blocked what they view as new taxes without first making real and needed cuts in wasteful government spending. As recently as last month, House Republicans refused to go along with any deal to raise the government’s borrowing authority that included new revenues, or taxes.
Obama claim #3: The American Jobs Act will not add to the deficit.
The Facts: It simply not true that this program will not raise the deficit over the next year or two. That is because most of Obama’s envisioned spending cuts and tax increases will have to come later on down the road out of fear that, if enacted now, they will jeopardize the fragile “recovery.” Deficits are calculated over each year. The accumulation of years of deficit spending has produced a national debt headed toward $15 trillion. Maybe Obama simply meant to say that he hoped his programs would not further increase the national debt.
Obama claim #4: The American Jobs Act meets the urgent need to create jobs right away.
The Facts: Obama’s plan meets his need to make the government even bigger and more powerful. And, not all the president’s major proposals are likely to yield quick job growth if adopted. One such proposal is to set up a new national infrastructure bank to raise private capital for roads, rail, bridges, airports and waterways. Even supporters of such a bank doubt it could have much impact on jobs in the next two years because it takes time to set up. The idea will run into opposition from most conservatives because such a bank would simply give the federal government way too much power. It makes much more sense to divide money among already existing state infrastructure banks, but that is not in keeping with the socialist agenda … is it?
So how would you describe Obama’s speech? I am not a big fan of Karl Rove, but I do like how he described Obama’s speech using 12 words in a recent article on FoxNews.com. Here are just a few of them:
Presumptuous: According to Rove, during the speech Obama demanded no less than 17 times that Congress immediately pass a bill no one has seen. I did not count, but I did hear that phrase used many times.
Mind-boggling: Obama wants to again steal hundreds of billions from Social Security for another stimulus. Wait a minute … isn’t that supposed to be what the liberal democrats accuse the Tea Party of wanting to do … destroy social security?
Arrogant: Obama refused to consult with anyone about his plan in advance? Well, we all know he is pretty arrogant
Unnecessary: Yep! Should have watched a football game or Jeopardy!
Completely political: What did you expect?
How about cutting back on some government waste, redundancy, and inefficiency to pay for some of your American Jobs Act programs. Again just a few examples:
342 economic development programs
130 programs serving the disabled
130 programs serving at-risk youth
90 early childhood development programs
75 programs funding international education, cultural, and training exchange activities
72 federal programs dedicated to assuring safe water
50 homeless assistance programs
45 federal agencies conducting federal criminal investigations
D.C. Gilbert 