Thursday, April 30, 2009

Obama's Grand Plan to Spend Us Into Prosperity

J wright says; "This isn't an original of mine. It's an article based on a recent Fact Check report and well worth repeating."
.
FACT CHECK.org:
Obama disowns deficit he helped shape

Apr 29, 5:55 PM (ET)By CALVIN WOODWARD

WASHINGTON (AP) - "That wasn't me," Barack Obama said on his 100th day in office, disclaiming responsibility for the huge budget deficit waiting for him on Day One. It actually was him - and the other Democrats controlling Congress the previous two years - who shaped a budget so out of balance.
.
And as a presidential candidate and president-elect, he backed the twilight Bush-era stimulus plan that made the deficit deeper, all before he took over and promoted spending plans that have made it much deeper still.
.
Obama met citizens at an Arnold, Mo., high school Wednesday in advance of his prime-time news conference. Both forums were a platform to review is progress at the 100-day mark and look ahead.
.
At various times, he brought an air of certainty to ambitions that are far from cast in stone.
His assertion that his proposed budget "will cut the deficit in half by the end of my first term" is an eyeball-roller among many economists, given the uncharted terrain of trillion-dollar deficits and economic calamity that the government is negotiating.
.
He promised vast savings from increased spending on preventive health care in the face of doubts that such an effort, however laudable it might be for public welfare, can pay for itself, let alone yield huge savings.
.
A look at some of his claims Wednesday:
.
OBAMA: "Number one, we inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit.... That wasn't me. Number two, there is almost uniform consensus among economists that in the middle of the biggest crisis, financial crisis, since the Great Depression, we had to take extraordinary steps. So you've got a lot of Republican economists who agree that we had to do a stimulus package and we had to do something about the banks. Those are one-time charges, and they're big, and they'll make our deficits go up over the next two years." - in Missouri.
.
THE FACTS: Congress controls the purse strings, not the president, and it was under Democratic control for Obama's last two years as Illinois senator. Obama supported the emergency bailout package in President George W. Bush's final months - a package Democratic leaders wanted to make bigger.
.

To be sure, Obama opposed the Iraq war, a drain on federal coffers for six years before he became president. But with one major exception, he voted in support of Iraq war spending.
The economy has worsened under Obama, though from forces surely in play before he became president, and he can credibly claim to have inherited a grim situation.
Still, his response to the crisis goes well beyond "one-time charges."
.

He's persuaded Congress to expand children's health insurance, education spending, health information technology and more. He's moving ahead on a variety of big-ticket items on health care, the environment, energy and transportation that, if achieved, will be more enduring than bank bailouts and aid for homeowners.
.

The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimated his policy proposals would add a net $428 billion to the deficit over four years, even accounting for his spending reduction goals. Now, the deficit is nearly quadrupling to $1.75 trillion.
---
OBAMA: "I think one basic principle that we know is that the more we do on the (disease) prevention side, the more we can obtain serious savings down the road. ... If we're making those investments, we will save huge amounts of money in the long term." - in Missouri.
.
THE FACTS: It sounds believable that preventing illness should be cheaper than treating it, and indeed that's the case with steps like preventing smoking and improving diets and exercise. But during the 2008 campaign, when Obama and other presidential candidates were touting a focus on preventive care, the New England Journal of Medicine cautioned that "sweeping statements about the cost-saving potential of prevention, however, are overreaching." It said that "although some preventive measures do save money, the vast majority reviewed in the health economics literature do not."
.

And a study released in December by the Congressional Budget Office found that increasing preventive care "could improve people's health but would probably generate either modest reductions in the overall costs of health care or increases in such spending within a 10-year budgetary time frame."
---
OBAMA: "You could cut (Social Security) benefits. You could raise the tax on everybody so everybody's payroll tax goes up a little bit. Or you can do what I think is probably the best solution, which is you can raise the cap on the payroll tax." - in Missouri.
.
THE FACTS: Obama's proposal would reduce the Social Security trust fund's deficit by less than half, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.
.
That means he would still have to cut benefits, raise the payroll tax rate, raise the retirement age or some combination to deal with the program's long-term imbalance.
.

Workers currently pay 6.2 percent and their employers pay an equal rate - for a total of 12.4 percent - on annual wages of up to $106,800, after which no more payroll tax is collected.
.
Obama wants workers making more than $250,000 to pay payroll tax on their income over that amount. That would still protect workers making under $250,000 from an additional burden. But it would raise much less money than removing the cap completely.

---
Associated Press writers Kevin Freking and Jim Kuhnhenn contributed to this report.

Tuesday, April 28, 2009

More Attacks from the Left on our Constitution

by j wright
.
Recently a bill was introduced in the U.S Senate that would allow President Obama to shut down the Internet in the event of a national emergency. A Zogby poll afterward reflected that 81 % of those polled were in opposition with only 5% in favor of such a drastic move.
.
Another rights infringing bill that could pass the U.S. House this week would outlaw preaching on homosexuality, calling it a “hate crime.” What happened to the First amendment of our Constitution allowing Freedoms of Religion and Expression?
.
Or should we consider Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano's recent controversial report to our nation's law enforcement officials to be looked at as a hate crime as well, not to mention the continuing vitriolic blasts aimed at Alaska's Governor Sarah Palin and her family by the extreme leftists, especially MSNBC Cable News and the mainstream press? I mean they are mere words, similar to those the House bill would label hate as crimes.

Fair is fair. What Congress is attempting is far worse than a Christian Pastor or layperson expressing an opinion, which the last time I looked, the First Amendment still protected.

Maybe the next set of laws our Democrat Congress will consider might eliminate the open practice of Christianity altogether, making its practice punishable. What a wonderful new world we're living in today, so full of "Change."

President Obama has been in office 100 days or so and he had an opportunity, as did former President Clinton, to work wonders. Instead he is caving to the radical leftists in his party, who in my opinion, seem hell-bent on driving America’s government in the direction of progressive socialism, or worse. I’m not certain this is the “Change” many of his supporters had in mind, certainly not what the Founding Fathers of our Republic had in mind. Pray folks.
.
jaq~

Tuesday, April 21, 2009

Big Time Corruption Discovered in the Big Federal Bail Outs

by jwright
.
The corruption has begun. And Whudda Thunk?
.
Last fall you may remember that Bush administration’s Secretary of the Treasury Paulson saw a major financial crisis looming and asked Congress, led by liberal Democrats since 2006, to grant him $750 billion in taxpayer dollars to “bail out” various financial institutions and banks.
.
According to a recent post in the Baltimore Sun, what started out last October as a single-purpose $750 billion effort to buy toxic securities has now under President Obama and the spend happy Democrat Congress morphed into 12 separate programs that covers up to $3 trillion in direct spending, loans and loan guarantees. The program has now committed an amount equal to the entire annual federal budget.
.
Treasury Secretary Paulson spent half of the original $750 billion. President Obama’s Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner (the same guy who earlier failed to pay his federal taxes in full and now heads up the IRS) is spending the balance, and more.
.
Today we have a major disclosure of corruption and fraud in the bailout program according to investigators who have opened 20 criminal probes into possible securities fraud, tax law violations, insider trading and mortgage modification fraud. The chief investigator indicated that the investigations are just the first wave of cases by his office. He expects criminal indictments to occur later this year.
.
He added that ultimately, the fraud could run into the tens of billions of dollars and the risk of those kinds of criminal activities is growing as the bailout becomes bigger and more complex.
.
The original $750 billion seems small now compared to the multi-trillions of taxpayer dollars the Obama Administration has proposed in further bailouts and reckless spending. The Treasury Department was asked to abandon its current proposed method of buying certain toxic assets. Treasury responded saying it would "consider" the request. Apparently corruption is no big deal.Treasury responded saying that the recommendations would be "considered"
.
How will it end? How many taxpayer dollars will find their way into the wrong hands?

jaq~

Saturday, April 11, 2009

The Hypocrisy of Liberal Socialism Laid Bare

j. wright says, "This is one of the best descriptions of the Hypocrisy of Liberal Socialism I've ever read. If only we knew who wrote it. Enjoy!"
.
There was a time in recent American history when certain Soviet jokes didn't work in translation - not so much because of the language differences, but because of the lack of common sociopolitical context. But that is changing. As President Obama is preparing us for a great leap towards collectivism, I find myself recollecting forgotten political jokes I shared with comrades while living in the old country under Brezhnev, Andropov, and Gorbachev. (I was too young to remember the Khrushchev times, but I remember the Khrushchev jokes.) I also noticed that the further America "advances" back to the Soviet model, the more translatable the old Soviet jokes become.
.
Not all Soviet advancements have metastasized here yet, but we have nearly four more glorious years in which to make it happen.
.
One of my favorite Russian political jokes was this, the six dialectical contradictions of socialism in the USSR:
.
There is full employment - yet no one is working.
No one is working - yet the factory quotas are fulfilled.
The factory quotas are fulfilled - yet the stores have nothing to sell.
The stores have nothing to sell - yet people got all the stuff at home.
People got all the stuff at home - yet everyone is complaining.
Everyone is complaining - yet the voting is always unanimous.

.
It reads like a poem - only instead of the rhythm of syllables and rhyming sounds, it's the rhythm of logic and rhyming meanings. If I could replicate it, I might start a whole new genre of "contradictory six-liners." It would be extremely difficult to keep it real and funny at the same time, but I'll try anyway.
.
Dialectical contradictions are one of the pillars in Marxist philosophy, which states that contradictions eventually lead to a unity of opposites as the result of a struggle. This gave a convenient "scientific" excuse for the existence of contradictions in a socialist society, where opposites were nice and agreeable - unlike the wild and crazy opposites of capitalism that could never be reconciled. Hence the joke.
.
Then I moved to America, where wild and crazy opposites of capitalism were supposedly at their worst. Until recently, however, the only contradictions that struck me as irreconcilable were these:
.
Economic justice:
America is capitalist and greedy - yet half of the population is subsidized.
Half of the population is subsidized - yet they think they are victims.
They think they are victims - yet their representatives run the government.
Their representatives run the government - yet the poor keep getting poorer.
The poor keep getting poorer - yet they have things that people in other countries only dream about.
They have things that people in other countries only dream about - yet they want America to be more like those other countries.

.
Hollywood clich├ęs:
Without capitalism there'd be no Hollywood - yet Hollywood dislikes capitalism.
Hollywood dislikes capitalism - yet they sue for unauthorized copying of movies.
They sue for unauthorized copying - yet on screen they teach us to share.
On screen they teach us to share - yet they keep their millions to themselves.
They keep their millions to themselves - yet they revel in stories of American misery and depravity.
They revel in stories of American misery and depravity - yet they blame the resulting anti-American sentiment on capitalism.
They blame the anti-American sentiment on capitalism - yet capitalism ensures the continuation of a system that makes Hollywood possible.

.
I never thought I would see socialist contradictions in America, let alone write about them. But somehow all attempts to organize life according to "progressive" principles always result in such contradictions. And in the areas where "progressives" have assumed positions of leadership - education, news media, or the entertainment industry - contradictions become "historically inevitable."
.
If one were accidentally to open his eyes and compare the "progressive" narrative with facts on the ground, one might start asking questions. Why, for instance, if the war on terror breeds more terrorists, haven't there been attacks on the U.S. soil since 2001? Why would anyone who supports free speech want to silence talk radio? And why is silencing the opposition called the "Fairness Doctrine"?
.
After the number of "caring," bleeding-heart politicians in Washington reached a critical mass, it was only a matter of time before the government started ordering banks to help the poor by giving them risky home loans through community organizers:
Which resulted in a bigger demand,
which resulted in rising prices,
which resulted in slimmer chances of repaying the loans,
which resulted in more pressure on the banks,
which resulted in repackaging of bad loans,
which resulted in a collapse of the banks,
which resulted in a recession,
which resulted in many borrowers losing their jobs,
which resulted in no further mortgage payments,
which resulted in a financial disaster,
which resulted in a worldwide crisis, with billions of poor people overseas - who had never seen a community organizer, nor applied for a bad loan - becoming even poorer than they had been before the "progressives" in the U.S. government decided to help the poor.
.
As if that were not enough, the same bleeding hearts are now trying to fix this by nationalizing the banks so that they can keep issuing risky loans through community organizers. In other words, to prevent the toast from landing buttered side down, they're planning to butter the toast on both sides and hope that it will hover in mid-air. Which also seems like a sensible alternative energy initiative.
.
Years ago, moving to America made me feel as though I had traveled in a time machine from the past. But after the recent "revolutionary" changes have turned reality on its head - which is what "revolution" literally means - I'm getting an uneasy feeling I had come from your future.
As your comrade from the future, I also feel a social obligation to help my less advanced comrades in the American community, and prepare them for the transition to the glorious world of underground literature, half-whispered jokes, and the useful habit of looking over your shoulder. Don't become a nation of cowards - but watch who might be listening.
Let's start with these few.

People's power:
Liberals believe they're advancing people's power - yet they don't believe people can do anything right without government guidance.
People can't do anything right - yet the government bureaucracy can do everything right.
The government bureaucracy can do everything - yet liberals don't like it when the government takes control of their lives.
Liberals don't like it when the government takes control of their lives - yet they vote for programs that increase people's dependency on the government.
They vote for programs that increase people's dependency on the government - yet they believe they're advancing people's power.
Public education:
Liberals have been in charge of education for 50 years - yet education is out of control.
Education is out of control - yet liberal teaching methods prevail.
Liberal teaching methods prevail - yet public schools are failing.
Public schools are failing - yet their funding keeps growing.
Their funding keeps growing - yet public schools are always underfunded.
Public schools are always underfunded - yet private schools yield
better results for less.
Private schools yield better results for less - yet public education is the only way out of the crisis.


One has to believe this author hit the proverbial nail squarely on its head! Amen!

jaq~