Does Obama sound just a little obsessed with Black America or blacks? What happened to Martin Luther King Jr's colorless America? Is this possible when the likes of Obama and Sharpton incessantly focus on race and make race *the* issue and not the content of the person's character?
Showing posts with label President Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label President Obama. Show all posts
Friday, September 16, 2011
Thursday, September 8, 2011
Open Thread: Obama's "Jobs Speech" - From Shovel Ready To Pitchfork Ready
You know how the Obama Stimulus was supposed to be shovel ready tonight Obama's "Jobs Speech" is going to be pitchfork ready. He is going to be shoveling us a load of horse manure in his speech. Obama is most likely going to be proposing the same ol' same ol' failed "Stimulus" spending plan. His speech is going to be a political partisanship circus act. I wonder how many people are actually going to listen to his speech? What are your thoughts on Obama's upcoming "Jobs Speech"?
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
Hypocrisy Alert! - Keith Olbermann Defends Hoffa 'Sons-Of-Bitches' Remark, But Condemned Violent Rhetoric After Giffords Shooting
This Democrat Bolshevic loon is a real piece of crappy work. One more example of the "new civility" and that progressives are hypocrites when it comes to inflammatory language and condemning it. I make you a bet that if a Tea Party member had said anything half as outrageous and incendiary as Hoffa did on Labor Day their would be cries of outrage from the Left that we'd hear for weeks. The liberals have now claimed that there is nothing wrong with this type of fiery, threatening rhetoric as long as it comes from progressives. Hoffa just happens to be the son of a mafia gangsta. Both Jimmy Hoffa Sr. and Jimmy Hoffa Jr. were/are union thugs. Yeah, like Hoffa and his gangsta cronies never "took out" anyone they wanted to disappear. Progressives are morally bankrupt and mentally deranged.
Here is Olbermoron defending Hoffa.
Theblogprof points out: Never mind the fact that Hoffa wrapped his comments under the auspices of "war." But here's a flashback after the Giffords shooting, conflated for sake of parody with Hoffa's comments from just the other day:
H/T Theblogprof
Here is Olbermoron defending Hoffa.
Theblogprof points out: Never mind the fact that Hoffa wrapped his comments under the auspices of "war." But here's a flashback after the Giffords shooting, conflated for sake of parody with Hoffa's comments from just the other day:
H/T Theblogprof
Sunday, August 7, 2011
B-b-b-But It's HIS Fault
I got this in an email from my dad. It's great!
B-b-b-But It's HIS Fault
The Washington Post babbled again today about Obama inheriting a huge deficit from Bush. Amazingly enough, a lot of people swallow this BULL. So once more, a short civics lesson
Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democratic Party.
Furthermore, the Democrats controlled the budget process for FY 2008 & FY 2009 as well as FY 2010 & FY 2011. (FY = fiscal year)
In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases.
For FY 2009 though, Nancy Pelosi
And where was Barack Obama during this time? He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete FY 2009. Let's remember what the deficits looked like during that period: (below)
If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the FY 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, including Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets.
If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself.
In a nutshell, what Obama is saying is I inherited a deficit that I voted for and then I voted to expand that deficit four-fold since January 20th.
There is no way this will be widely publicized unless each of us sends it on!
This is your chance to make a difference. Stay Focused, Connected, Informed & Inspired.
Sunday, July 17, 2011
Debt Limit Talks, Cut Cap & Balance, and What is the Principled Thing To Do?
I have been watching this whole debt debate and as it rages on it seems that the debt ceiling negotiations are getting nuttier by the day. We are seeing the clash of philosophies go head to head. Democrats and Obama believe in playing the class warfare card. The President refuses to mention with specificity even one thing that he is willing to cut from the budget. In contrast the President has laid out in great specificity how he wants to tax the "rich". He wants to raise taxes while Republicans do not. IMO, the crux of the problem lies with Obama. The philosophies of both the conservatives and liberals are so far apart that they don't agree on much, if anything, in the way of how to fix the debt problem. While the President likes to portray the GOP as being ideologically entrenched and unwilling to compromise his own words have shown that this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. For example, Eric Cantor realized that the two sides are two far apart to agree on a "grande bargain" so he stated that he would be willing to move a a short-term debt limit increase alongside smaller spending cuts but then Obama, the man-child President, said to Cantor “Eric, don’t call my bluff." Then according to Eric Cantor he told reporters that “He (Obama) shoved back and said ‘I’ll see you tomorrow’ and walked out." Obama has shown that he can't stand to be challenged politically, and that he takes it personally so I can believe that this happened the way Eric Cantor portrayed the event.
Do you think that Eric Cantor was political posturing? Or do you think that Obama was political posturing?
What is a principled stance for the Republicans? Do you think that it would be irresponsible for the GOP not to raise the debt ceiling or would it be irresponsible for them to raise the debt ceiling? Or should the GOP raise the debt ceiling ONLY IF the President and Congress goes along with their Cut Cap and Balance Pledge? Or a similar plan? In all likelihood it would seem that in all probability that there is going to be some sort of compromise by both parties. Or do you think that the GOP should stand firm and risk the U.S. hitting the debt ceiling? And thus possibly defaulting? Then we have President Obama who is using fear mongering tactics, saying we may not have enough money to pay out social security, medicare and medicaid, and military benefits in order to put pressure on the Republicans. If the debt ceiling isn't raised then Obama might actually be forced to make some immediate and necessary budget cuts but that is something he isn't willing to do.
The Weekly Standard explains that the revenues would cover social security, medicaid and medicare, and military benefits.
I just saw this on Eric Cantor's Facebook Page: "This debate is not a question of personalities; it is about doing what is right for the country."
I agree.
The Cut, Cap, and Balance Plan consists of :
1. Cut - We must make discretionary and mandatory spending reductions that would cut the deficit in half next year.
2. Cap - We need statutory, enforceable caps to align federal spending with average revenues at 18% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), with automatic spending reductions if the caps are breached.
3. Balance - We must send to the states a Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA) with strong protections against federal tax increases and a Spending Limitation Amendment (SLA) that aligns spending with average revenues as described above.
Then we have Mitch McConnell's plan which would basically cede power to Obama and allow him to raise the debt limit three times during the rest of his term. This lame brain idea would put the onus of the blame for the skyrocketing debt on Obama. That option would mean that both parties would be kicking the can down the road. Old Geezer Mitch must have left his brain at home that day because this plan is absurd. The American people don't want McConnell to wave the white flag of defeat to Obama & Co. The American people want solutions and not political chicanery. Clueless McConnell needs to stop playing political games and instead concentrate on trying to find a solution to the debt crisis, stop acting like a wimp and stand up to Obama.
In your opinion what do you think is the principled position for the Republicans? What are your thoughts on the debt and debt ceiling issues?
Do you think that Eric Cantor was political posturing? Or do you think that Obama was political posturing?
Back in 2009 Obama stated that he wasn't looking to raise taxes until possibly 2013. But now he is so entrenched and committed to raising taxes.
"So, when you hear folks saying, “Well, the president shouldn’t want massive job killing tax increases when the economy is this weak.” Nobody’s looking to raise taxes right now. We’re talking about potentially 2013 and the out years."
So why does Obama want to raise taxes when our economy is so weak and on the verge of a double dip recession? We shouldn't be raising taxes on anyone while our economy is so weak.
What is a principled stance for the Republicans? Do you think that it would be irresponsible for the GOP not to raise the debt ceiling or would it be irresponsible for them to raise the debt ceiling? Or should the GOP raise the debt ceiling ONLY IF the President and Congress goes along with their Cut Cap and Balance Pledge? Or a similar plan? In all likelihood it would seem that in all probability that there is going to be some sort of compromise by both parties. Or do you think that the GOP should stand firm and risk the U.S. hitting the debt ceiling? And thus possibly defaulting? Then we have President Obama who is using fear mongering tactics, saying we may not have enough money to pay out social security, medicare and medicaid, and military benefits in order to put pressure on the Republicans. If the debt ceiling isn't raised then Obama might actually be forced to make some immediate and necessary budget cuts but that is something he isn't willing to do.
The Weekly Standard explains that the revenues would cover social security, medicaid and medicare, and military benefits.
The BPC study found that the United States is likely to hit the debt limit sometime between August 2 and August 9. “It’s a 44 percent overnight cut in federal spending” if Congress hits the debt limit, [Jay Powell of the Bipartisan Policy Center]said. The BPC study projects there will be $172 billion in federal revenues in August and $307 billion in authorized expenditures. That means there's enough money to pay for, say, interest on the debt ($29 billion), Social Security ($49.2 billion), Medicare and Medicaid ($50 billion), active duty troop pay ($2.9 billion), veterans affairs programs ($2.9 billion).
I just saw this on Eric Cantor's Facebook Page: "This debate is not a question of personalities; it is about doing what is right for the country."
I agree.
The Cut, Cap, and Balance Plan consists of :
1. Cut - We must make discretionary and mandatory spending reductions that would cut the deficit in half next year.
2. Cap - We need statutory, enforceable caps to align federal spending with average revenues at 18% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), with automatic spending reductions if the caps are breached.
3. Balance - We must send to the states a Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA) with strong protections against federal tax increases and a Spending Limitation Amendment (SLA) that aligns spending with average revenues as described above.
Then we have Mitch McConnell's plan which would basically cede power to Obama and allow him to raise the debt limit three times during the rest of his term. This lame brain idea would put the onus of the blame for the skyrocketing debt on Obama. That option would mean that both parties would be kicking the can down the road. Old Geezer Mitch must have left his brain at home that day because this plan is absurd. The American people don't want McConnell to wave the white flag of defeat to Obama & Co. The American people want solutions and not political chicanery. Clueless McConnell needs to stop playing political games and instead concentrate on trying to find a solution to the debt crisis, stop acting like a wimp and stand up to Obama.
In your opinion what do you think is the principled position for the Republicans? What are your thoughts on the debt and debt ceiling issues?
Friday, July 8, 2011
Oh My! Guess Who Got Illegal Money From HUD?
From Judicial Watch:
A Judicial Watch investigation revealed that on March 1, 2011, HUD announced a $79,819 federal grant to ACHOA to “educate the public and housing providers about their rights and obligations under federal, state, and local fair housing laws.”
Make no mistake, ACHOA is ACORN. So this is a clear violation of the funding ban. But it is also an especially irresponsible waste of taxpayer funds considering the documented corruption at ACORN Housing/ACHOA.The Government Accountability Office issued a controversial and ridiculous advisory opinion in September 2010 stating that ACHOA is not an “allied organization” of ACORN and is therefore not subject to the funding ban. However, thegovernment’s website listing federal expenditures identifies the organization receiving this grant as “ACORN Housing Corporation Inc.” and even lists ACORN’s New Orleans, Louisiana, address. Moreover ACHOA maintains the same board of directors, executive director and offices as its predecessor, ACORN Housing Corporation, Inc.
The sneaker-in-chief does it again. The Obama Department of Housing and Urban Development has gone behind the backs of Congress and issued a $79,819 grant to the Affordable Housing Centers of America (AHCOA) which is an offshoot of ACORN. This is in violation of the ACORN funding ban passed by Congress, which was signed into law by President Obama in 2009.
The Government Accountability Office made the claim that ACHOA is not an "allied organization" of ACORN and therefore not subject to the funding ban. But the government's website tells a different story.
However, thegovernment’s website listing federal expenditures identifies the organization receiving this grant as “ACORN Housing Corporation Inc.” and even lists ACORN’s New Orleans, Louisiana, address. Moreover ACHOA maintains the same board of directors, executive director and offices as its predecessor, ACORN Housing Corporation, Inc.Yes, the Obama administration violated the law - the ACORN funding ban - which Obama signed into law. This is friggin absurd. This is all smoke and mirrors from the Left. Their strategy is to make you think that they are actually doing something good by signing the ACORN funding band into law, Then after that, they violated that law right under our noses.
President Obama and Shaun Donovan, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development under Obama, both have ties to ACORN which run deep.
Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch asks: Is the Obama gang ensuring that ACORN is around to help them again in 2012?”
Then he points out:
By the way, in 2011, HUD provided $40 million in grants to 108 “fair housing” organizations, representing a $13.2 million increase over the 2010 award. According to HUD’s press announcement, the general purpose of these grants is “to educate the public and combat housing and lending discrimination.” This funding of activist groups like ACORN Housing helped lead to our housing crisis. These socialist revolutionaries leveraged your tax dollars to press for government and mortgage policies that gave housing loans to people who couldn’t afford them. That led to the ongoing mortgage crisis.
You can see that the Obama administration is doing three bad things at once — funding a group barred by law from receiving funds, funding a group that has record of fraud, and funding a group and policies that have helped destroy the housing market (and depressed our economy).
The 2012 election can't come soon enough folks. We need to kick this charlatan out of the people's house.
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
On Not Drilling and Pain at the Pump
From Fox News: "Shell has spent five years and nearly $4 billion dollars on plans to explore for oil in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. The leases alone cost $2.2 billion. Shell Vice President Pete Slaiby says obtaining similar air permits for a drilling operation in the Gulf of Mexico would take about 45 days. He’s especially frustrated over the appeal board’s suggestion that the Arctic drill would somehow be hazardous for the people who live in the area. “We think the issues were really not major,” Slaiby said, “and clearly not impactful for the communities we work in.”
"The closest village to where Shell proposed to drill is Kaktovik, Alaska. It is one of the most remote places in the United States. According to the latest census, the population is 245 and nearly all of the residents are Alaska natives. The village, which is 1 square mile, sits right along the shores of the Beaufort Sea, 70 miles away from the proposed off-shore drill site.
"The EPA’s appeals board ruled that Shell had not taken into consideration emissions from an ice-breaking vessel when calculating overall greenhouse gas emissions from the project. Environmental groups were thrilled by the ruling."
Then we have a three-inch lizard in Texas threatening to completely halt existing oil drilling for at least two years in some parts of Texas if the enviromental whackos get their way. If the Dunes Sagebrush Lizard is listed as an endangered species by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service then oil drilling will be forced to cease in some parts of Texas. Alright, I have had it with the welfare of animals taking precedent over the welfare of humans. I'm not a sue happy person but whenever this type of thing happens and these enviro nutjobs endanger our livelihood then I think their needs to be a class action lawsuit brought against them. We need to stop lying down like dogs and taking this crap from these people anymore.
This is ludicrous!! The enviro-weenies at the EPA have gone wild!! The Pittsburgh region was just rated an F on pollution. Should I stop living here due to that? This is all fear mongering by the Left. The Left consistently accuses the Right of fear mongering but the Left need to look no further than in their own mirrors to see who is actually doing the fear mongering in this country.
In Lee Habeeb's article he informs us that according to AAA gas prices have risen 37% since October but for some reason we haven't heard a peep from AARP or anti-poverty groups. Obama hasn't even declared a moratorium on gasoline taxes. Lee says that Obama chooses the Marie Antoinette approach. '“Let them eat cake!” Stop driving those SUV’s, and start buying smaller cars. Stop drilling, and start plugging in those electric cars.' Then, Lee points out "Some companies are shifting investments out of the Gulf. BP recently said it would move a brand-new rig that was meant to work in the Gulf to Libya. Nice work, President Obama. We are bombing Gaddafi by night, and shipping jobs there by day." ' This scenario is bizarre.
Larry Kudlow speaks to the Left's hate oil campaign. Larry Kudlow points out: "When oil prices blew sky high in 2008, ExxonMobil paid $36.5 billion in income taxes, $34.5 billion in sales taxes, and $45 billion in other taxes, for a total of $116.2 billion in taxes paid and collected in 2008." Either Exxon or the whole oil industry pays more in taxes then the bottom 50 percent of the whole income-tax system. And Obama wants to stick it to the oil companies even more? Obama wants to remove tax-subsidies for the oil companies and somehow thinks that doing wouldn't hurt Americans.
Here is a USA National Gas Price Heat Map:
You can see that the average price for gasoline across the country is at $3.52 per gallon or above. The high gas prices are greatly hurting our economy. We need to start drilling both offshore and onshore. In addition we need to stop this nonsense coming from the enviro-whackos in their efforts to curtail human flourishing.
Saturday, April 23, 2011
Who Is Actually Doing The Taking?
In this video President Obama talks about the wealthy or the entrepreneurs "taking". Taking from who? The entrepreneurs are not taking from anyone. If entrepreneurs are successful and earn their own wealth they are not taking money from anyone. Obama's argument is so illogical. The Federal government is the one that is taking, taking the money from both the entrepreneurs, poor, and middle class folks. And, for what? Failed programs?
Here is a chart which shows how Congress has spent money from 2006 through 2010.
Here is a chart which shows the money that comes into the government from income taxes, corporate income taxes, social security and payroll taxes, excise taxes, Estate and gift taxes, customs duties, and other (not sure what other consists of), and the money that is spent by the government.
Do you see that between income taxes and Social Security and Medicare taxes the government takes from us over $2 trillion. If you take a look at your paychecks you will see lines that say Federal Income Tax, Social Security Tax, Medicare Tax, and then you have your State taxes. In those columns you see a negative sign. This was originally your money, this is money that you have earned and that the Federal government takes from you in order to use it for the various federal programs. This could be money in your pocket but Big Government GREED takes your money to spreads the wealth. So, who is doing the taking? Plus, the government has just added Obamacare - a huge entitlement program - which will cost Americans more money than the President has predicted, and give will you, the consumer, less choices related to your health care. Plus, the death tax returned thanks to the Democrats. So, now there will be a 35 percent tax on property and items being passed onto the children of the dead which will create some additional revenues for the federal government. Nothing like taxing one's property and possessions after you gone off to the Great Beyond. This is yet another way for our progressive government to penalize the successful and steal their money and property. This is another one of the liberal initiatives to screw the future of America.
Between Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security the Federal Government spends $1578 billion. The Federal government takes in $1578 billion from taxpayers to pay for these programs. Where does the government get the money to pay for these programs? From taxpayers like you and I. Who gives this money to the poor and elderly to help pay for these programs? Taxpayers. So who is really doing the taking? Is it the Federal government? YES. The Federal government takes money from hard working taxpayers to help the less fortunate. But, the taxpayers DO NOT TAKE FROM THE GOVERNMENT OR THE POOR!!
Our government takes in $2.57 Trillion and yet it cannnot stay within its own budget. This out of control Washington spending dishes out close to $4 Trillion, which is around 1.25 Trillion dollars more than it takes in from taxes.
We need to make some serious spending cuts. We may even need to make some tax increases, but that would only be a last resort.
Since Obama keeps on saying that everyone needs to share the pain, (even though he really believes that the poor shouldn't bear any of the pain), I have an idea, Let's return to the spending levels of 2006. In addition some departments may need be cut even though their spending may not have increased that much or not at all.
Here is Teresa's fiscal plan:
Looking at the chart we would subtract 230 Billion dollars from the Health and Human Services Department.
We would end this nonsensical non-war in Libya and cut Defense Department spending by 175 billion dollars.
The Treasury Department actually looks like it spends less money than in 2006 so let's decrease that by 5 percent which would be approximately $2.25 billion.
The Department of Agriculture needs to be cut by $65 billion.
Since education spending levels were lower in 2007 and 2008 then in 2010 and 2006 the departments funding should be reduced to 2007 levels which would decrease their funding about $50 billion.
Veterans Affairs funding would be reduced by about $35 billion.
Department of Homeland Security spent the highest amount of money in 2006 so I would decrease funding for them by about $15 billion.
The Office of Personnel Management would be reduced by about $15 billion.
The Department of Transportation's funding would be reduced by $20 billion.
The Department of Justice would be reduced by about $15 billion
The Department of Energy would be reduced by $20 billion.
NASA would be reduced by $2 billion.
International Assistance Programs would be cut by $10 billion
Other independent agencies would be cut by a total of $35 billion.
Department of State would be cut by $10 billion.
Department of Interior would be decreased by $4 billion.
The Environmental Protection Agency would be decreased by $10 billion.
Corps of Engineers funding would be decreased by $3 billion.
Department of Commerce would be decreased by $8 billion.
National Science Foundation funding would be decreased by $8 billion.
The Legislative Branch funding would be decreased by $8 billion.
I wouldn't touch the funding for Executive Office.
My total reductions would be $740.25 billion right off the bat. There would be no phasing in for these reductions.
Then we would have to tackle the high costs of medicare, medicaid, and social security. But, that I will do in a later post.
Two economists, each on opposites sides of the aisle, agree on raising the age for social security and reducing defense spending.
I agree that the age to receive social security should be raised and that the budget for defense spending should be reduced. I also think that the cap on wages for contributing to social security needs to be lifted. I don't think that those earning above the cap should contribute at the same rate as those below the cap but maybe 1/3 the tax rate that those below the cap do?
Also, I am so sick of these rich progressives complaining about their ability to give more money to the government but not doing this of their own accord. President Obama didn't pay more than his allotted amount for taxes. If he and others wanted to feel more patriotic as Joe Biden says or that it was their duty to pay more in taxes why don't these people just write out that paycheck for the additional funds? Why do they need the government to tell them the amount they additionally owe as well as forcing other Americans to pay more money?
Does Obama not think that serving in the military and being willing to sacrifice your life should afford you certain benefits? A GI Bill is a small compensation considering that person could have lost his or her life. Did Obama's grandparents not contribute to both medicare and social security before they received benefits? How did this affect him as a person? How did he "take" as he put it? His misconception of how the world goes round and how people earn their wages is quite disconcerting. Wealthy persons who create jobs did not take from the government. They take out loans from banks and pay them back and if the persons don't pay on their loans they will go into bankruptcy. Wealthy people are the entrepreneurs of this country giving others the opportunity to have jobs. The vast majority of job creators get taxed just like you and I do (except big companies like GE, Verizon, and AT&T) which means the government - Federal and state governments - take money out of our paychecks. Unfortunately, these big companies use tax loopholes to pay no taxes. Our tax code needs to be changed so this isn't able to happen.
So, who is the taker of wealth in this country? The wealthy job creators or the Federal government?
My answer is the Federal government.
Here is a chart which shows how Congress has spent money from 2006 through 2010.
Here is a chart which shows the money that comes into the government from income taxes, corporate income taxes, social security and payroll taxes, excise taxes, Estate and gift taxes, customs duties, and other (not sure what other consists of), and the money that is spent by the government.
Do you see that between income taxes and Social Security and Medicare taxes the government takes from us over $2 trillion. If you take a look at your paychecks you will see lines that say Federal Income Tax, Social Security Tax, Medicare Tax, and then you have your State taxes. In those columns you see a negative sign. This was originally your money, this is money that you have earned and that the Federal government takes from you in order to use it for the various federal programs. This could be money in your pocket but Big Government GREED takes your money to spreads the wealth. So, who is doing the taking? Plus, the government has just added Obamacare - a huge entitlement program - which will cost Americans more money than the President has predicted, and give will you, the consumer, less choices related to your health care. Plus, the death tax returned thanks to the Democrats. So, now there will be a 35 percent tax on property and items being passed onto the children of the dead which will create some additional revenues for the federal government. Nothing like taxing one's property and possessions after you gone off to the Great Beyond. This is yet another way for our progressive government to penalize the successful and steal their money and property. This is another one of the liberal initiatives to screw the future of America.
Between Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security the Federal Government spends $1578 billion. The Federal government takes in $1578 billion from taxpayers to pay for these programs. Where does the government get the money to pay for these programs? From taxpayers like you and I. Who gives this money to the poor and elderly to help pay for these programs? Taxpayers. So who is really doing the taking? Is it the Federal government? YES. The Federal government takes money from hard working taxpayers to help the less fortunate. But, the taxpayers DO NOT TAKE FROM THE GOVERNMENT OR THE POOR!!
Our government takes in $2.57 Trillion and yet it cannnot stay within its own budget. This out of control Washington spending dishes out close to $4 Trillion, which is around 1.25 Trillion dollars more than it takes in from taxes.
We need to make some serious spending cuts. We may even need to make some tax increases, but that would only be a last resort.
Since Obama keeps on saying that everyone needs to share the pain, (even though he really believes that the poor shouldn't bear any of the pain), I have an idea, Let's return to the spending levels of 2006. In addition some departments may need be cut even though their spending may not have increased that much or not at all.
Here is Teresa's fiscal plan:
Looking at the chart we would subtract 230 Billion dollars from the Health and Human Services Department.
We would end this nonsensical non-war in Libya and cut Defense Department spending by 175 billion dollars.
The Treasury Department actually looks like it spends less money than in 2006 so let's decrease that by 5 percent which would be approximately $2.25 billion.
The Department of Agriculture needs to be cut by $65 billion.
Since education spending levels were lower in 2007 and 2008 then in 2010 and 2006 the departments funding should be reduced to 2007 levels which would decrease their funding about $50 billion.
Veterans Affairs funding would be reduced by about $35 billion.
Department of Homeland Security spent the highest amount of money in 2006 so I would decrease funding for them by about $15 billion.
The Office of Personnel Management would be reduced by about $15 billion.
The Department of Transportation's funding would be reduced by $20 billion.
The Department of Justice would be reduced by about $15 billion
The Department of Energy would be reduced by $20 billion.
NASA would be reduced by $2 billion.
International Assistance Programs would be cut by $10 billion
Other independent agencies would be cut by a total of $35 billion.
Department of State would be cut by $10 billion.
Department of Interior would be decreased by $4 billion.
The Environmental Protection Agency would be decreased by $10 billion.
Corps of Engineers funding would be decreased by $3 billion.
Department of Commerce would be decreased by $8 billion.
National Science Foundation funding would be decreased by $8 billion.
The Legislative Branch funding would be decreased by $8 billion.
I wouldn't touch the funding for Executive Office.
My total reductions would be $740.25 billion right off the bat. There would be no phasing in for these reductions.
Then we would have to tackle the high costs of medicare, medicaid, and social security. But, that I will do in a later post.
Two economists, each on opposites sides of the aisle, agree on raising the age for social security and reducing defense spending.
I agree that the age to receive social security should be raised and that the budget for defense spending should be reduced. I also think that the cap on wages for contributing to social security needs to be lifted. I don't think that those earning above the cap should contribute at the same rate as those below the cap but maybe 1/3 the tax rate that those below the cap do?
Also, I am so sick of these rich progressives complaining about their ability to give more money to the government but not doing this of their own accord. President Obama didn't pay more than his allotted amount for taxes. If he and others wanted to feel more patriotic as Joe Biden says or that it was their duty to pay more in taxes why don't these people just write out that paycheck for the additional funds? Why do they need the government to tell them the amount they additionally owe as well as forcing other Americans to pay more money?
Does Obama not think that serving in the military and being willing to sacrifice your life should afford you certain benefits? A GI Bill is a small compensation considering that person could have lost his or her life. Did Obama's grandparents not contribute to both medicare and social security before they received benefits? How did this affect him as a person? How did he "take" as he put it? His misconception of how the world goes round and how people earn their wages is quite disconcerting. Wealthy persons who create jobs did not take from the government. They take out loans from banks and pay them back and if the persons don't pay on their loans they will go into bankruptcy. Wealthy people are the entrepreneurs of this country giving others the opportunity to have jobs. The vast majority of job creators get taxed just like you and I do (except big companies like GE, Verizon, and AT&T) which means the government - Federal and state governments - take money out of our paychecks. Unfortunately, these big companies use tax loopholes to pay no taxes. Our tax code needs to be changed so this isn't able to happen.
So, who is the taker of wealth in this country? The wealthy job creators or the Federal government?
My answer is the Federal government.
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Libya: Why Are We There?
I haven't discussed the military operation (war) in Libya up until now because I was waiting to see whether we would go into Libya or not, then we went into Libya alongside NATO and I wanted to give our President a chance to give an explanation as to why we are in Libya as well as see how the operation was being handled.
First, I don't think the situation in Libya qualifies as a legitimate humanitarian mission involving our military. If Iraq didn't qualify according to Obama, liberals, and the UN then how the heck could Libya possibly qualify as a legitimate humanitarian mission? To me it seems like the United States has little or no political interest in Libya. We only get 5 percent of our oil from Libya whereas Europe is much more dependent on Libya for oil. If France and the U.K. wanted to go into Libya to protect their oil supply and other national interests then that is their business but the U.S. should have let them go on this military operation without us.
President Obama was the absent, silent Commander-in-Chief for the first couple weeks of the uprising against Muammar Gaddafi. Then, Obama announced that he wanted regime change. Heck, I'd like another regime change LOL! In addition, President Obama and his foreign policy team were hardly ever, if ever, on the same page with regards on how they to handle Gaddafi. And now Obama only wants to aid the rebels, even though we don't know who they are, without forcing Gaddafi to step down. There is information to suggest that there are pockets of Al-Qaeda amongst the rebels. Why the heck are we aiding terrorists who want to kill us? So now the U.S. is a part of a no-fly zone, just like Iraq was under a no-fly zone for 12 years. Does NATO and the U.S. plan to have Gaddafi under a no-fly zone for anywhere near the length of time that Iraq was under a no-fly zone? I hope not.
Obama said our interests and values are at stake. How? American values are at stake because Libyans are engaging in a civil war? That is nonsensical. He says we have a responsibility to act. If we didn't have a responsibility to act in Iraq then surely we don't don't have even 1/10th the responsibility to act in Libya. Saddam Hussein came into power in 1979. Under Saddam Hussein there was government-approved mass murder, torture, forced disappearances, and rapes being committed. There were also chemical weapons. In 1988 Saddam led a brutal campaign which ended up slaughtering 50,000 to 100,000 Shiite Kurds. In 1991 Saddam committed widespread massacres which is estimated to have killed between 80,000 and 230,000 Iraqis. Those are only a few of the horrors committed by Saddam Hussein. Plus, Saddam violated 18 UN sanctions. The UN had found that he had blocked the arms inspectors from being able to do their jobs but he denied it. Saddam claimed that Iraq didn't have any banned chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programmes. You can view a list of human rights violations here. It was already known at the time that Saddam had previously used a wide array of chemical weapons against the Kurds including Sarin, mustard gas, and nerve agents that killed thousands but yet he denied possessing chemical weapons. Since he had already used chemical weapons on his own people, had obstructed the weapons inspectors from being able to find out whether he did in fact have chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons or not there was no way we could trust a dictator's word. Since Saddam's denials of possessing weapons had been proven to be false many times before his denials of having WMD's in his possession lacked plausibility. If you look at all the brutality that Saddam ordered and did how the heck could liberals with a straight face possibly claim that the military action in Iraq was not justifiable, especially when most liberals voted to authorize the use of force?
And, what did Obama say about removing dictators in 2005? Shall we say hypocrisy?
Many liberals believe this military action in Libya to be the right thing to do because we went into Libya with the United Nations. For anyone to give credence to the U.N. is absurd, especially after the oil for food scandal. Obama said "Then we took a series of swift steps in a matter of days to answer Gadhafi's aggression." For about three weeks Obama was dilly-dallying as the rebels were winning and kicking butt against Gaddafi, taking control of cities but there was nothing but was inaction and mixed messages on the part of this administration. Now, I am not for this military action but I am just pointing out that I would hardly call this swift action.
In 1977 Gaddafi tried to buy a bomb, then a nuclear weapon, and weapons of mass destruction. In 2005 weapons inspectors found chemical weapons in Libya. Several people were indicted for assisting Gaddafi but why wasn't Gaddafi indicted also? He is suspected of being behind the Lockerbie bombing but was never brought up on charges. Why is that? Gaddafi had numerous clashes with other countries and there may have been a time when he killed some of his military when he first began his rule, and now he has killed some civilians but why are we using military force in Libya? I have no doubt that he's a bad, bad dude but I don't see how it is in the United States' best interest to be in Libya. So I ask why are we in Libya?
First, I don't think the situation in Libya qualifies as a legitimate humanitarian mission involving our military. If Iraq didn't qualify according to Obama, liberals, and the UN then how the heck could Libya possibly qualify as a legitimate humanitarian mission? To me it seems like the United States has little or no political interest in Libya. We only get 5 percent of our oil from Libya whereas Europe is much more dependent on Libya for oil. If France and the U.K. wanted to go into Libya to protect their oil supply and other national interests then that is their business but the U.S. should have let them go on this military operation without us.
President Obama was the absent, silent Commander-in-Chief for the first couple weeks of the uprising against Muammar Gaddafi. Then, Obama announced that he wanted regime change. Heck, I'd like another regime change LOL! In addition, President Obama and his foreign policy team were hardly ever, if ever, on the same page with regards on how they to handle Gaddafi. And now Obama only wants to aid the rebels, even though we don't know who they are, without forcing Gaddafi to step down. There is information to suggest that there are pockets of Al-Qaeda amongst the rebels. Why the heck are we aiding terrorists who want to kill us? So now the U.S. is a part of a no-fly zone, just like Iraq was under a no-fly zone for 12 years. Does NATO and the U.S. plan to have Gaddafi under a no-fly zone for anywhere near the length of time that Iraq was under a no-fly zone? I hope not.
Obama said our interests and values are at stake. How? American values are at stake because Libyans are engaging in a civil war? That is nonsensical. He says we have a responsibility to act. If we didn't have a responsibility to act in Iraq then surely we don't don't have even 1/10th the responsibility to act in Libya. Saddam Hussein came into power in 1979. Under Saddam Hussein there was government-approved mass murder, torture, forced disappearances, and rapes being committed. There were also chemical weapons. In 1988 Saddam led a brutal campaign which ended up slaughtering 50,000 to 100,000 Shiite Kurds. In 1991 Saddam committed widespread massacres which is estimated to have killed between 80,000 and 230,000 Iraqis. Those are only a few of the horrors committed by Saddam Hussein. Plus, Saddam violated 18 UN sanctions. The UN had found that he had blocked the arms inspectors from being able to do their jobs but he denied it. Saddam claimed that Iraq didn't have any banned chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programmes. You can view a list of human rights violations here. It was already known at the time that Saddam had previously used a wide array of chemical weapons against the Kurds including Sarin, mustard gas, and nerve agents that killed thousands but yet he denied possessing chemical weapons. Since he had already used chemical weapons on his own people, had obstructed the weapons inspectors from being able to find out whether he did in fact have chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons or not there was no way we could trust a dictator's word. Since Saddam's denials of possessing weapons had been proven to be false many times before his denials of having WMD's in his possession lacked plausibility. If you look at all the brutality that Saddam ordered and did how the heck could liberals with a straight face possibly claim that the military action in Iraq was not justifiable, especially when most liberals voted to authorize the use of force?
And, what did Obama say about removing dictators in 2005? Shall we say hypocrisy?
Many liberals believe this military action in Libya to be the right thing to do because we went into Libya with the United Nations. For anyone to give credence to the U.N. is absurd, especially after the oil for food scandal. Obama said "Then we took a series of swift steps in a matter of days to answer Gadhafi's aggression." For about three weeks Obama was dilly-dallying as the rebels were winning and kicking butt against Gaddafi, taking control of cities but there was nothing but was inaction and mixed messages on the part of this administration. Now, I am not for this military action but I am just pointing out that I would hardly call this swift action.
In 1977 Gaddafi tried to buy a bomb, then a nuclear weapon, and weapons of mass destruction. In 2005 weapons inspectors found chemical weapons in Libya. Several people were indicted for assisting Gaddafi but why wasn't Gaddafi indicted also? He is suspected of being behind the Lockerbie bombing but was never brought up on charges. Why is that? Gaddafi had numerous clashes with other countries and there may have been a time when he killed some of his military when he first began his rule, and now he has killed some civilians but why are we using military force in Libya? I have no doubt that he's a bad, bad dude but I don't see how it is in the United States' best interest to be in Libya. So I ask why are we in Libya?
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)