Posts Tagged ‘$12.8 trillion’

Obama Stimulus Robin Hood In Reverse: Poor Get Poorer

May 13, 2009

Remember that woman at one of Obama’s rallies saying Obama was going to pay her mortgage and fill her gas tank?  No, he won’t.

Remember that woman who beseeched Obama to give her a kitchen? After a momentary freebie, she’s still on the down and outs, too.

“Little people” believe Obama is the ticket to “finally getting their slice of the pie.”  But that is only because they are naive and frankly ignorant.

The reality is that Obama will take from the haves and piss it away rather than perform the usual Robin Hood function.  Just like all the liberals promising their liberal utopias before him.  And the poor will actually end up worse off rather than better off as the overall economy shrinks due to Obama’s policies.

Newsflash: the poor will remain poor under Obama’s stimulus giveaways.

STIMULUS WATCH: Jobs, but not where needed most

By MATT APUZZO and BRETT J. BLACKLEDGE, Associated Press Writers

WASHINGTON – The billions in transportation stimulus dollars that President Barack Obama promoted as a way to create jobs shortchange counties that need the work the most, an Associated Press analysis has found.

The AP’s review of more than 5,500 planned transportation projects nationwide is the most complete picture available of where states plan to spend the first wave of highway money. It reveals that states are planning to spend 50 percent more per person in areas with the lowest unemployment than in communities with the highest. The Transportation Department said it will attempt to replicate the AP’s analysis as it continues pressing states to dole out money fairly.

One result among many: Elk County, Pa., isn’t receiving any road money despite its 13.8 percent unemployment rate. Yet the military and college community of Riley County, Kan., with 3.4 percent unemployment, will benefit from about $56 million to build a highway, improve an intersection and restore a historic farmhouse.[...]

The AP reviewed $18.9 billion in projects. They account for about half of the money set aside for states and local governments to spend on roads, bridges and infrastructure in the stimulus plan.

The very promise that Obama made, to spend money quickly and create jobs, is locking out many struggling communities needing those jobs.

The money goes to projects ready to start. But many struggling communities don’t have projects waiting. They couldn’t afford the millions of dollars for preparation and plans that often is required.

“It’s not fair,” said Martin Schuller, the borough manager in the Elk County seat of Ridgway, who commiserates about the inequity in highway aid with colleagues in nearby towns. “It’s a joke because we’re not going to get it, because we don’t have any projects ready to go.”

I seem to recall hearing the Republicans – who were completely locked out of the $3.27 trillion Obama stimulus plan – predicting that this spending plan wouldn’t stimulate anything but the size of an already-bloated federal government.  And lo and behold: Obama promised Caterpillar his stimulus would save the day for them, but it hasn’t done squat for them; and state after state is saying the stimulus package hasn’t helped them.  Oh, well: what’s a few trillion dollars wasted?

Quote: “The U.S. government and the Federal Reserve have spent, lent or committed $12.8 trillion.”  That’ $42,105 for every single man, woman and child in the U.S.  Where’s your $42,105 slice of the pie?  I know I haven’t seen mine yet.  And I’m not going to hold my breath that I ever will.

Obama is promising a “tax cut” for 95% of Americans (which actually just means more welfare for the 43.4 percent who already don’t pay any federal income tax at all) at the expense of taxing the bejeezus out of the wealthiest five percent (including a great many small business that employ most of our workers who file as individuals).  But how much is Obama going to actually put in your pockets?  Answer: Nada.  Nothing.  Zilch.  And a lot of poor and middle-class workers are going to wake up very surprised one day as they find out that “taxing the rich” cost them their jobs.

You’re going to be paying more for your electricity.  A lot more.  In fact, Obama promised that “electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket” under his energy plan.

You’re going to be paying a lot more for your next car.  Again, a lot more.  As auto analyst Rebecca Lindland put it, “The consumer needs to understand that they will see significant increases in the cost of vehicles.”  As much as $10,000 more, in fact.  You’ve got Obama now.  And soon you’ll have a bus pass to go along with him.

If you’d like to keep your own health care benefits, you’ll be paying taxes on them under Obama’s new plans.  In a dramatic reversal from his campaign position, Obama is now “open” to taxing health benefits in order to gin up money for his socialized system.

And you WILL be paying more in taxes, whether you’re smart enough to realize it or not.  The average 30 year old will pay $136,932.75 just for the interest of just Obama’s 2010 budget over the course of his or her working lifetime.  Obama’s massive budgets are stratospheric even in spite of the fact that he keeps lying about it.  Obama’s $3.6 trillion 2009 budget adds more to the debt than all previous presidents – from George Washington to Goerge W. Bush – combined, according to the Wall Street Journal‘s Michael Boskin.  And that was BEFORE Obama raised his current budget deficit by another $89 billion.  That means the budget red ink will top $1.8 trillion – more than FOUR TIMES the record set by Bush last year.  That means the US will borrow nearly 50 cents out of every dollar it spends.

And you think someone else is going to continue to pay for all of that?  When we could literally confiscate all the wealth of the richest 5% and STILL NOT scratch the surface of all the debt we are accumulating?

In 2008 we spent $412 billion to service the $11 trillion national debt.  That figure will easily double over the next ten years, dwarfing everything else in the federal budget.  Obama’s spending will add $9.3 trillion to the national debt, nearly doubling it.  Obama’s spending will cause debt to double from 41% of GDP in 2008 to a crushing 82% of GDP in 2019.

You may be like the women who believed that Obama would pay their mortgages, fill their gas tanks, and give them new kitchens.  But you seriously need to realize something: what Obama is far more likely to give you is food riots by 2012.

Wanda Sykes: Anything Less Than Blind Devotion To Obama Is Treason

May 11, 2009

Barack Obama greeted the White House Press Corespondents by saying, “My name is Barack Obama.  Most of you covered me.  All of you voted for me.”

I don’t know how funny that was, but it certainly had the virtue of being true.  The media is so completely biased today, and has turned into such a pro-liberal, pro-Obama propaganda operation, that it is positively unreal.

But it was Wanda Sykes who expressed the unspoken zeitgeist of the mainstream media.

Youtube link

Sykes said:

Rush Limbaugh, one of your big critics, boy, Rush Limbaugh said he hopes this administration fails. So, you’re saying “I hope America fails,” it’s like, I don’t care about people losing their homes, or their jobs, our soldiers in Iraq. He just wants the country to fail. To me, that’s treason. He’s not saying anything differently than what Osama bin Laden is saying. You know, you might want to look into this, Sir, because I think maybe Rush Limbaugh was the 20th hijacker, but he was just so strung out on oxycontin he missed his flight.

And you’ll notice if you watch the video that Obama clearly laughs at the rabid punchline.

And then Sykes says:

Rush Limbaugh, I hope the country fails, I hope his kidneys fail, how ’bout that? Needs a little waterboarding, that’s what he needs.

And the President of the United States thinks it’s also quite hilarious that one of his fellow citizens’ kidneys fail.  Because that’s just the kind of guy he is, I guess.

And waterboarding is only torture when it is applied to terrorist murderers who want to kill Americans by the millions.  It is most definitely NOT torture if its done to conservatives.  Obama laughs at the thought of Rush Limbaugh being waterboarded.  But the waterboarding of a terrorist responsible for over three thousand American lives is a proof that we have lost our moral bearings.

Let me contrast Obama with a President that actually had some class.  Show me footage of George Bush laughing at the idea of a terrible wasting disease befalling, oh, I don’t know, Wanda Sykes.  The fact of the matter is, we used to have a President who was above that kind of rabid and clearly hateful partisanship.

And its the sheer, total, all-encompassing hypocrisy of the left that will never cease to continue to surprise me.

These same people who were for that war before they were against it, who literally hoped Bush would fail in Iraq and our troops would lose (recall Harry Reid’s proclamation of surrender when our troops were still fighting for victory: “I believe that this war is lost“), used to call dissent “the highest form of patriotism” when it suited them.

Dissent has NEVER been “the highest form of patriotism,” of course, and liberals had to butcher Thomas Jefferson the same way they butchered the Constitution to obtain that understanding.  But Democrats had a “standard” that they clung to when it suited them, only to show their hypocrisy by turning on the same standard they had just held.

Kind of like the war in Iraq itself.  Wanda Sykes speaks of conservatives such as Rush Limbaugh somehow betraying our soldiers in Iraq.  Let’s look at who REALLY undermined and betrayed our soldiers in Iraq.

This is what these cut-and-run-cowards USED to say before they publicly claimed “this war is lost” while our troops were still in the field fighting to win:

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/b/bushlied.htm
http://www.freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html
http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

These liberals, who backstabbed, undermined, blocked, obstructed, demonized, and demagogued Bush and his agenda at every single turn – including hoping we failed in time of war – now have a frankly terrifying view of loyalty and patriotism.

If we are against Obama, we are against the country.  Because Barack Hussein Obama is our Fuhrer, and in him does the destiny of the new Reich lay.  He is our Big Brother, and we owe our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor not to our principles, but to our messiah.

You tell me: was that these hypocrite liberals’ view of the Bush presidency during the last eight years?

Obama is NOT America.  He is NOT our Big Brother, he is NOT our messiah, and he is most certainly not MY Fuhrer.  And I will fight with words, with fists, or even with weapons if anyone tries to take away my right to say otherwise.

Rush Limbaugh has very patiently explained to some incredibly stupid and immoral people that he hopes Obama fails FOR THE GOOD OF THE COUNTRY.  Obama is a hard core socialist who has already spent more money than every single president from George Washington to George W. Bush COMBINED.  He is imposing a debt upon us that we and our children can never hope to repay.  The average 30 year-old planning to retire at age 70 will have to pay $136,932.75 just for the interest on President Obama’s 2010 budget.  And that doesn’t include the MUCH greater cost of paying for the overal deficit black hole to which Obama has added $12.8 TRILLION.  The interest on the national debt–interest alone–currently amounts to over $800 million a day, and about $300 billion per year.  In ten years we will be paying more than $800 billion a year in interest to finance our debt.

And we are already at a position that in order to make payments on the debt, we have to borrow more money.  A Washington Post article entitled, “U.S. Debt Set to Soar This Year” points that factoid out:

But about 40 percent of the debt held by private investors will mature in a year or less, according to Treasury officials. When those loans come due, the Treasury will have to borrow more money to repay them, even as it launches perhaps the most aggressive expansion of U.S. debt in modern history.

We’re broke, but that doesn’t stop Barack Obama from trying to nationalize another one-sixth of our economy (health care) at the cost of another $634 billion – just for starters.  He wants to nationalize our energy industry.  He wants to nationalize the student loan program.  He’s already nationalized the banks and the auto industry.

Obama’s spending will go on and on and on.  If all goes well, he will only put us $9.3 trillion in the hole. Even the Congressional Budget Office acknowledges that such reckless spending is totally unsustainable.

And I’m supposed to be akin to Osama bin Laden for hoping that Barack Hussein fails in his task of bankrupting the country?  Excuse me?

This was all been predicted before the election by men and women who knew a hell of a lot better than Wanda Sykes.

In a poll of chief executive officers taken prior to the election, 74 percent of the executives said they feared “that an Obama presidency would be disastrous for the country.”  And some of the CEOs predicted that “some of his programs would bankrupt the country within three years, if implemented.”  And with the Congress in nearly total Democratic control, they ARE being implemented.

Rush Limbaugh explained what he meant in an address that is worth reading.  He explained why we should ALL hope Obama fails.

I hope Obama fails – and fails big – and that the people recognize his failure and turn on him before America goes into a hole that it will never be able to claw its way out of.

And in the meantime, I’ll wear Democrats’ charges of treason as a badge of personal honor.  Being called a “traitor” by Democrats bothers me about as much as it would bother me if a child molester (whom Democrats protect as sacred cows, btw) called me “a bad person.”

Obama Backlash Beginning: Montana Defies Administration With In-Your-Face Gun Law

May 7, 2009

The state of Montana has drawn a line in the sand by passing a new gun law that virtually thumbs its nose at the federal government’s encroachment on state and individual rights.  If the tea parties were the first shot across the bow of liberal fascism, this is surely the second – and it’s being done with heavy artillery.

Liberals have been employing “sanctuary cities” across the nation that flouted federal immigration laws.  Now conservatives are taking that same idea to have “sanctuary states” to protect their citizens’ 2nd Amendment rights against liberal tyranny.  And Montana, Utah, and Texas are leading the nation in standing up to the federal government’s unconstitutional laws in direct violation of states’ rights.

Montana Governor Brian D. Schweitzer, for what it’s worth, is a Democrat.

Montana fires a warning shot over states’ rights
State is trying to trigger a battle over gun control — and make a point

updated 4:54 p.m. ET April 29, 2009

HELENA, Mont. – Montana is trying to trigger a battle over gun control — and perhaps make a larger point about what many folks in this ruggedly independent state regard as a meddlesome federal government.

In a bill passed by the Legislature earlier this month, the state is asserting that guns manufactured in Montana and sold in Montana to people who intend to keep their weapons in Montana are exempt from federal gun registration, background check and dealer-licensing rules because no state lines are crossed.

That notion is all but certain to be tested in court.

The immediate effect of the law could be limited, since Montana is home to just a few specialty gun makers, known for high-end hunting rifles and replicas of Old West weapons, and because their out-of-state sales would automatically trigger federal control.

Legal showdown
Still, much bigger prey lies in Montana’s sights: a legal showdown over how far the federal government’s regulatory authority extends.

“It’s a gun bill, but it’s another way of demonstrating the sovereignty of the state of Montana,” said Democratic Gov. Brian Schweitzer, who signed the bill.

Carrie DiPirro, a spokeswoman for the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, had no comment on the legislation. But the federal government has generally argued that it has authority under the interstate commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution to regulate guns because they can so easily be transported across state lines.

Guns and states’ rights both play well in Montana, the birthplace of the right-wing Freemen militia and a participant in the Sagebrush Rebellion of the 1970s and ’80s, during which Western states clashed with Washington over grazing and mineral extraction on federal land.

Montana’s leading gun rights organization, more hardcore than the National Rifle Association, boasts it has moved 50 bills through the Legislature over the past 25 years. And lawmakers in the Big Sky State have rebelled against federal control of everything from wetland protection to the national Real ID system.

‘Made in Montana’
Under the new law, guns intended only for Montana would be stamped “Made in Montana.” The drafters of the law hope to set off a legal battle with a simple Montana-made youth-model single-shot, bolt-action .22 rifle. They plan to find a “squeaky clean” Montanan who wants to send a note to the ATF threatening to build and sell about 20 such rifles without federal dealership licensing.

If the ATF tells them it’s illegal, they will sue and take the case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, if they can.

Similar measures have also been introduced in Texas and Alaska.

“I think states have got to stand up or else most of their rights are going to be buffaloed by the administration and by Congress,” said Texas state Rep. Leo Berman.

Critics say exempting guns from federal laws anywhere would undermine efforts to stem gun violence everywhere.

Hot Air has the text of the law, titled:

AN ACT EXEMPTING FROM FEDERAL REGULATION UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES A FIREARM, A FIREARM ACCESSORY, OR AMMUNITION MANUFACTURED AND RETAINED IN MONTANA; AND PROVIDING AN APPLICABILITY DATE. BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MONTANA:

This is defiance as a thing of art:

defiance_mouse_eagle

It is a determination to keep fighting for one’s freedom no matter how hopeless things might look:

defiance_frog_stork2

And why is this level of defiance necessary? An image worth a thousand curses suffices by way of explanation:

obama_yes-we-can_1st-amendment

Don’t think this isn’t a direct response to Barack Hussein.

Gun and ammunition sales have soared out of naked fear of Obama.

And for good reason: Obama is pushing a treaty to ban reloading. Liberals are trying to regulate the components of ammunition as explosives and thus restrict ammunition. Liberals in California are nakedly attempting to circumvent the 2nd Amendment by regulating ammunition, hence making guns useless.

And the liberal campaign to deprive Americans of their 2nd Amendment guarantees (even as they discover “penumbras and emanations” in the Constitution that let them kill babies) is only a distant side issue in the massive government takeover of American society. Obama’s massive spending – more than every president from George Washington to George W. Bush COMBINED – will leave this country with an insurmountable national debt that would exceed 82 percent of the overall economy by 2019 and threaten this country’s very survival. We are now on the hook for $12.8 TRILLION dollars in government spending and commitments in the brave new world of the Obama economy.

We’ve got a president who is firing CEOs, stacking boards of directors, changing the rules for the auto manufacturers’ bankruptcy filings in order to favor the unions that supported him over the secured creditors. And if they don’t like it, they are met with frightening threats from the administration and death threats from union members. If that isn’t bad enough, we’ve also got card check on the horizon, which would allow union thugs to intimidate workers into unionizing with the union allowed to know exactly how each worker voted.

We’ve got a president who won’t let banks repay bailout loans (which in many cases were literally forced on them in the first place) so he can continue to impose onerous terms and conditions on them and control what they do and how they do it.

We’ve got a president who is planning to nationalize health care – and the one-sixth of our economy that it represents – even as he moves to impose costly and burdensome cap-and-trade regulations that would (in Obama’s own words) necessarily cause energy prices to soar.

And we’ve got a president who is attempting to nationalize student loans such that private lenders are phased out altogether. If Obama gets his way, the government will loan directly to families and students, making them directly indebted to the federal government. The government will necessarily get to decide which students, which schools, and which academic programs get loans.  An option for students is to repay their loans by means of “national service,” which already precludes any type of religious service whatsoever. The potential of liberal big government harnessing student labor to staff liberal organizations such as ACORN is becoming all-too real.

We have a new administration that moved to criminalize political differences by targeting Bush officials as war criminals, even as returning veterans and pro-life Americans are labeled as “rightwing extremists” in a DHS report sent out to the nation’s law enforcement agencies and police departments.

not-fascism-when-we-do-it3

I’ve been saying something over and over in different ways. What the liberals are doing now will ultimately result in a “rightwing” backlash. What is true in physics is true in politics: for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Liberals are pushing and pushing and pushing through one new massive spending program and one new policy after another that will change and undermine this country forever afterward.

Under Obama, terrorism is now called an “overseas contingency operation” and terror attacks are now nothing more than “man-caused disasters.”  In attacking the CIA as a means to attack Bush, Obama has created a depressed, sullen, and angry morale which promises to transfer into “cover your ass” caution and bureaucratic gamesmanship.  He has undermined our security to a shocking degree.  If we are attacked, this country will swing so far to the right so fast it will be absolutely unreal.

But even if we are not attacked, our country will likely implode under its own weight: trillions of dollars of reckless spending will have that effect as our dollar devalues and our interest payments on the debt begin to soar when inflation begins to take its toll.  Ultimately our taxes will skyrocket due to all of this spending.  CBS News has an article from March entitled, “If China Stops Lending Us Money, Look Out.”  Well, guess what?  They’re doing exactly that.  They’re canceling our credit card.

In a poll of chief executive officers taken prior to the election, 74 percent of the executives said they feared “that an Obama presidency would be disastrous for the country.”  And some of the CEOs predicted that “some of his programs would bankrupt the country within three years, if implemented.”  And with the Congress in nearly total Democratic control, they ARE being implemented.

When Obama and the Democrats bankrupt the country and undermine our entire social structure with massive spending programs and massive bureaucracies that cannot be undone, which direction will the country turn?  And how complete will that turnaround be?

Liberals are ignoring one ominous warning of popular outrage after another, claiming that conservatism and the Republican Party are dead.  And they will likely ignore what is going on in Montana – which is led by a Democrat governor – as well.  They are doing so to both their party’s and their country’s peril.

Montana, you’ve done a great thing for liberty, which is freedom from the growing tyranny of the smiley-face-fascist nanny state.

The backlash against big government liberal tyranny is beginning.  And it will become larger and hotter as Obama’s policies take their toll.  Let us hope that the spark turns into a fire before – rather than after – Obama has done too much damage to recover from.

Swine Flu Pandemic And Why We DON’T Want Socialized Medicine

May 1, 2009

Let’s see. Obama unveils his socialized medicine plan just as the swine flu hits the headlines. The Teleprompter of the United States of America told Americans that the swine flu proved that $12.8 trillion of government spending isn’t enough. You’d almost think there was a hand on a switch somewhere.

The left – being the ideological partisan demagogues they are – immediately engaged in a “YES WE CAN . . . . blame the Republicans” campaign.

If they didn’t demonize, they wouldn’t be Democrats. And when I talk about “the Dems,” you know I’m referring to “the Demagogues.”

As a matter of practical reality, the administration may be right in not wanting to take the economy-harming step of closing the border with one of our top trading partners (although there are LEVELS of closing the border – and we NEED to do a MUCH better job of protecting our borders). But their argument for not closing the border is absolutely pathetic. They claim that since the flu is now here, closing the border would be tantamount to closing the barn after the horse has left. The problem with the logic of their argument is that there are clearly way too many infected horses in Mexico who are infecting still healthy American horses.

Mexico is a country of over one hundred million people – and it is a country in crisis. The first “American” causality of swine flu was a Mexican child who died in an American hospital. And infected Mexicans are continuing to flow across the border and infect Americans.

The difference in how the swine flue has hit Mexico versus the United States raises a very simple question:

Swine flu worse in Mexico than US, but why?
By MIKE STOBBE
AP Medical Writer

ATLANTA — Why has the swine flu engulfing Mexico been deadly there, but not in the United States?

Nearly all those who died in Mexico were between 20 and 40 years old, and they died of severe pneumonia from a flu-like illness believed caused by a unique swine flu virus.

The 11 U.S. victims cover a wider age range, as young as 9 to over 50. All those people either recovered or are recovering; at least two were hospitalized.

“So far we have been quite fortunate,” said Dr. Anne Schuchat of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Saturday, just hours before three new U.S. cases were confirmed.

Health experts worry about a flu that kills healthy young adults — a hallmark of the worst global flu epidemics. Deaths from most ordinary flu outbreaks occur among the very young and very old.

Why the two countries are experiencing the illness differently is puzzling public health experts, who say they frankly just don’t know.

Conservatives know.

But . . . but . . . Mexico has socialized medicine!

By JAMES TARANTO APRIL 27, 2009

This is a Bicentennial Minute. Eleven Americans, ranging in age from 9 to 50, have come down with swine flu, the Associated Press reports: “All those people either recovered or are recovering; at least two were hospitalized.”

In Mexico, however, the toll has been much worse. “About 70 deaths out of roughly 1,000 cases represents a fatality rate of about 7 percent,” the AP notes. This is far higher than the 2.5% fatality rate from the Spanish flu pandemic of 1918-19, although the latter was many orders of magnitude more widespread, killing 40 million people world-wide.

“The Mexican rate sounds terrifying,” the AP writes. “But it’s possible that far more than 1,000 people have been infected with the virus and that many had few if any symptoms.” Which is somewhat, though not entirely, reassuring.

The AP dispatch is titled “Swine Flu Worse in Mexico Than US, but Why?” There’s no definitive answer, but here’s one of the possibilities:

Access to medical care has been an issue in Asia, where a rare bird flu–which does not spread easily from person-to-person–has killed more than 200 over the last several years. Maybe Mexican patients have also had trouble getting medical care or antiviral drugs, some have speculated–even though the government provides health care.

Wouldn’t this paragraph make more sense if it ended “. . . BECAUSE the government provides health care”?

You see, we have a successful health care system because we haven’t allowed the government to ruin it yet.

When Obama DOES ruin it by having the government take it over, we’ll be rationing our medical resources, too.

Obama inserted medical rationing into his porkulus package.

It was always such a no-brainer (so you’d think even our no-brain-no-pain liberals would understand): socialized medicine invariably leads to the rationing of health care resources. There were hard facts supporting this over a decade ago.

While Obama is saying, “Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!” on socialized medicine, the very countries we are wanting to be like such as Canada have been saying, “This utopia isn’t working out so well.”

Do you recall the very recent death of actress Natasha Richardson on a Canadian ski resort? She very likely died as a result of socialized medicine, medical rationing, and poor diagnoses as a result of “the very finest care the government can provide.”

As long as there is private competition, you can always take your business elsewhere. That has always – up until Barack Obama and his fondness for nationalizing – led to be tendency of the free market to provide the best services at the lowest prices.

California – yes, liberal, Kool-Aid-drinking California – recently rejected socialized health care.

Allow me to quote myself as to Obama’s plan:

One thing is extremely important to understand: Obama’s health care plan is modeled on the Massachusetts plan. How are things going there? Well, in the three years of the program’s existence, the tiny state is now already facing cost overruns of over $400 million. Does that sound like a rousing success? Massachusetts is facing a projected 85% increase in its costs by 2009 – which should set up a serious red flag that such programs are MASSIVELY underfunded.

And Obama would take those massive cost overruns and multiply them like Jesus multiplied the loaves and fishes.

Government run health care is based on a fool’s premise: that the government can save money by employing the economies of scale. The simple fact of the matter is that government bureaucracies, government boondoggles, government hyper-regulation, government susceptibility to massive systemic fraud, and government mismanagement will always kill the golden goose of scale. One hundred percent of the time.

Which was why the Senate couldn’t even run a damn cafeteria without going millions of dollars into the red.

The promise is that they will be able to cover millions more people for the same or less money by efficiency. But government is inherently inefficient. Which means they not only don’t SAVE money, they LOSE money. And then they’ve now got millions more people to cover.

Hence rationing. Hence more people die.

Shocking Obama Spending Digging America Into Great Depression

April 29, 2009

We are beginning to learn that $12.8 trillion doesn’t last very long when it is being spent by corrupt politicians and idiot bureaucrats.  It doesn’t seem to matter how much Obama has already spent or committed; he just has to keep spending more and more and more.

WASHINGTON – The Treasury Department said Monday it will need to borrow $361 billion in the current April-June quarter, a record amount for that period.

It’s the third straight quarter the government’s borrowing needs have set records for those periods.

Treasury also estimated it will need to borrow $515 billion in the July-September quarter, down slightly from the $530 billion borrowed during the year-ago period. The all-time high of $569 billion was set in the October-December period.

The huge borrowing needs reflect the soaring costs of the $700 billion financial rescue program and the recession, which is nearing a record as the longest in the post World War II period.

The slump has cut sharply into tax revenue and boosted government spending for benefit programs such as unemployment insurance and food stamps.

The administration is projecting the federal deficit for the entire budget year ending Sept. 30, will total a record $1.75 trillion. A deficit at that level would nearly quadruple the previous record of $454.8 billion set last year.

To cover the government’s heavy borrowing needs, Congress in February boosted the limit for the national debt to $12.1 trillion as part of the legislation that enacted President Barack Obama‘s $787 billion economic stimulus program. The national debt now stands at $11.1 trillion.

Not the first time we’ve seen insane spending, as a 1934 Chicago Tribune cartoon would illustrate:

cartoon_chicago-tribune_1934

But FDR never dreamed of the MEGO numbers (“My Eyes Glaze Over”) that we are facing today.

What is it those little notes on the out-of-control wagon say?

“Depleting the resources of the soundest government in the world.”

“Spend! Spend! Spend – Under the guise of recovery.  Bust the government – blame the capitalists for the failure – junk the Constitution and decree a dictatorship. “

And the figure of Stalin says, “How red the sunrise is getting,” to denote the communist mindset that such levels of government spending and control over the economy entails.

Which is EXACTLY the Obama mindset today – right down to the “Young Punkies from Colombia and Harvard” Brain Trust.  And even the Russians and the Chinese have been urging us to stop this insane government spending binge.

The Tribune cartoon was drawn in 1934.  The Great Depression – in testament to the folly the artist was pointing out – would continue to drag on for years afterward.  FDR’s “solutions” didn’t solve the crisis; they prolonged the suffering.

Michael Boskin described the radical extent of the Obama socialist spending in The Wall Street Journal (the newspaper people are actually willing to buy):

It’s hard not to see the continued sell-off on Wall Street and the growing fear on Main Street as a product, at least in part, of the realization that our new president’s policies are designed to radically re-engineer the market-based U.S. economy, not just mitigate the recession and financial crisis.

The illusion that Barack Obama will lead from the economic center has quickly come to an end. Instead of combining the best policies of past Democratic presidents — John Kennedy on taxes, Bill Clinton on welfare reform and a balanced budget, for instance — President Obama is returning to Jimmy Carter’s higher taxes and Mr. Clinton’s draconian defense drawdown.

Mr. Obama’s $3.6 trillion budget blueprint, by his own admission, redefines the role of government in our economy and society. The budget more than doubles the national debt held by the public, adding more to the debt than all previous presidents — from George Washington to George W. Bush — combined. It reduces defense spending to a level not sustained since the dangerous days before World War II, while increasing nondefense spending (relative to GDP) to the highest level in U.S. history. And it would raise taxes to historically high levels (again, relative to GDP). And all of this before addressing the impending explosion in Social Security and Medicare costs.

The argument that we need either massive government spending as a bulwark against a depression during periods of grave economic distress presents an entirely false dilemma. Reagan proved that positively, and FDR – who substantially prolonged the Great Depression with failed policies (and see here and here for more) – proved it negatively.

Many liberals stubbornly cling to the thesis that FDR’s policies brought America out of the Great Depression. And they can cite a boatload of leftist historians who have come to precisely that conclusion.

But I would submit that anyone taking that position must refute Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s VERY OWN TREASURY SECRETARY.

“We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong… somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises… I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started… And an enormous debt to boot!” – Henry Morgenthau, FDR’s Treasury Secretary, May 9, 1939

The unemployment rate for April of 1939 – the full month before Morgenthau spoke these words before the House Ways and Means Committee – was at 20.7% And while other nations had similarly gone through severe economic depressions during the 1930s, they recovered in less than half the time of the U.S. under FDR. “In most countries of the world recovery from the Great Depression began between late 1931 and early 1933.” But the American depression dragged on and on.

We are spending FAR TOO MUCH MONEY, and we’re spending it on the wrong things.  We are repeating the worst mistakes of the Great Depression, and are very likely doomed to repeat the consequences of our failure to learn the lessons of history.

Michael Boskin speaks of Obama’s shocking abandonment of defense spending.  I shall say this:

The fact of the matter is that ignoring defense spending was a hallmark of FDR, too.  In spite of the growing and building threat of both the Nazis and the Japanese Imperialists for YEARS, FDR spent massively on virtually everything BUT defense spending.  Which is why we were so woefully unprepared for hostilities following the Pearl Harbor sneak attack that inexcusably caught us completely off guard.

Getting back to Reagan, one is forced to only imagine how many American lives would have been saved if we’d had a Reagan rather than a socialist-spending FDR serving as President; and we’d gone into World War II with the mightiest military machine in the world rather than with the 2nd rate joke we were forced to begin with.

And thanks to Obama’s massive defense cuts one may be forced to wonder about how many lives we could have saved all over again as he slashes our military rather

In many ways, FDR and BHO are images of one another.  Both men were skilled politicians with great oratorical skills (providing Obama has a teleprompter, anyway).  Both men had never had a single success of their own in business.  And both had the completely wrong idea of what was wrong with the national economy, and what needed to be done to get it back on track.

The one difference is this: FDR foolishly caused America to REMAIN in the Great Depression by zealously pursuing failed policies; BHO will foolishly force America INTO the next Great Depression by zealously pursuing the SAME failed policies that never worked for FDR.

Joe The Plumber Right On Socialism, Soaring Taxes On Small Businesses Under Obama

April 28, 2009

It’s not like Barrack Obama didn’t promise the American people that he would lead them into socialism.  You might remember the famous encounter with Joe “the plumber”:

Wurzelbacher said he planned to become the owner of a small plumbing business that will take in more than the $250,000 amount at which Obama plans to begin raising tax rates.

“Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn’t it?” the blue-collar worker asked.

After Obama responded that it would, Wurzelbacher continued: “I’ve worked hard . . . I work 10 to 12 hours a day and I’m buying this company and I’m going to continue working that way. I’m getting taxed more and more while fulfilling the American Dream.”

“It’s not that I want to punish your success,” Obama told him. “I want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they’ve got a chance for success, too.

Then, Obama explained his trickle-up theory of economics.

“My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody. I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”

“Spread the wealth around,” Obama said.  From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

Joe the Plumber famously answered, “That sounds like socialism.”

And how the liberals howled.  Pieces like Mc Clatchey Newspapers’ “Obama plan isn’t ‘socialism'; it’s traditional progressive taxation” by David Lightman and William Douglas abounded:

“It wouldn’t qualify as socialism.

“The answer is clearly no, Senator Obama is not a socialist,” said Paul Beck, a professor of political science at Ohio State University. “We’ve had a progressive tax system for some time, and both Republicans and Democrats have bought into it.”

Socialism involves state ownership of the means of economic production and state-directed sharing of the wealth. America’s democratic capitalist system is neither socialist nor pure free market; rather, it mixes the two, and it has at least since the progressive income tax was introduced 95 years ago. Under it, the wealthy pay higher income tax rates than those who are less fortunate do. It’s a form of sharing the wealth.”

Now, of course, I read that last paragraph and I’m just rolling on the floor laughing at how ignorant and dishonest these liberals were – and are.

Let me just say two words:  “Auto industry.”  Let me say two more: “banking industry.”  Let me add a few others: “Obama fires GM CEO.”  And, “Government forcing GM board out,” And, “Obama won’t allow banks to repay bailout loans.”  And, “Government, UAW Own 89% of GM In Restructuring.”  And, “Government Power and Control: The One Trillion Dollar Takeover Of Health Care.”  And, “Obama’s cap-and-trade plan a wolf in sheep’s clothing.”  And, most frightening and revealing of all: “Financial Rescue Nears GDP as Pledges Top $12.8 Trillion.”

“Let’s move it along, folks.  Move it along.  No socialists to see here.”

Sorry, mainstream media: Obama is as socialist as the sun is hot.  The fact that you were too blatantly dishonest and corrupt and incompetent to do your job during the campaign is just one more case in point that we are now under the thrall of totalitarian propaganda.

As the February 16, 2009 issue of Newseek gleefully trumpeted:

we-are-all-socialists-now

That pretty much makes it official: Obama and the Democratic Party lied to us: they were socialists all along, and too dishonest and too corrupt to honestly and legitimately represent themselves.

I also have to point out the fact that the VERY WORST ELEMENTS OF SOCIALISM – right out of the playbook of the “National Socialist German Workers’ Party” or the “Union of Soviet Socialist Republics” – were used to attack Joe Wurzelbacher simply for asking a candidate for president a couple of questions right outside his house.  The media and the Democrat machine went after him with everything they had, including snooping through his private records in a very KGB-like manner in hopes of dredging up dirt on him.

You know, kind of like what Obama and his Democrat lynch mob are doing to Bush administration officials even as we speak in 1) releasing memos selectively targeted to make Bush look like a torturer while refusing to release any memos that would show how Bush’s actions kept America safe; and 2) threatening to prosecute Bush officials for their part in 1) in what would amount to a show trial.  How quintessentially totalitarian of them.

All this said, our socialist – and frankly fascist – president is now about to come after small business owners EXACTLY as Joe Wurzelbacher feared he would to pay for his socialist Statist agenda:

Small Businesses Brace for Tax Battle
Under Obama Plan, Some Entrepreneurs’ Bills Would Soar
By Lori Montgomery and V. Dion Haynes
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, April 27, 2009

Gail Johnson doesn’t think of herself as wealthy. The former pediatric nurse has spent 20 years building a chain of preschools and after-school programs that accommodate sick children so working parents can keep their jobs.

But, like most small-business owners, Johnson reports her profit on her personal tax return. In a typical year, she and her husband make more than $500,000, according to her accountant, a figure that throws them squarely into the ranks of the richest Americans — and makes them a prime target for the Obama administration’s tax policy.

Since last year’s campaign, President Obama has vowed repeatedly not to increase taxes for families making less than $250,000 a year. That pledge, while politically popular, has left him with just two primary sources of funding for his ambitious social agenda: about 3 million high-earning families and the nation’s businesses.

Johnson, with her company, falls into both categories. If Obama’s tax plans are enacted, her accountant estimates that her federal tax bill — typically, around $120,000 a year — would rise by at least $23,000, a 19 percent increase.

“You hear ‘tax the rich,’ and you think, ‘I don’t make that much money,’ ” said Johnson, whose Rainbow Station programs are headquartered near Richmond. “But then you realize: ‘Oh, if I put my business income with my wages, then, suddenly, I’m there.’ “

Across the nation, many business owners are watching anxiously as the president undertakes expensive initiatives to overhaul health care and expand educational opportunities, while also reining in runaway budget deficits. Already, Obama has proposed an extra $1.3 trillion in taxes for business and high earners over the next decade. They include new limits on the ability of corporations to automatically defer U.S. taxes on income earned overseas, repeal of a form of inventory accounting that tends to reduce business taxes, and a mandate that investment partnerships pay the regular income tax rate instead of the lower capital gains rate.

‘A Permanent Target’
Business groups say they’re bracing for even more battles with the administration.

“They’re desperate for revenue. And therein lies the concern of the broader business community,” said R. Bruce Josten, chief lobbyist for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

“We’re going to be a permanent target, and we understand that,” added Catherine Schultz, vice president for tax policy at the National Foreign Trade Council. “The way they see it, corporations don’t vote.”

[Read the rest of the article]

Many small business owners file individual income tax returns.  Their “incomes” do not merely go into their pockets; rather, they use their profits to pay their employees and reinvest in their businesses:

Johnson declined to say whether she voted for Obama. But she said she ignored his tax plans until her husband, who handles real estate and construction for the schools, mentioned it one day. “I’ve since talked to my accountant,” she said. “And, oh, my gosh!”

The accountant, Carroll Hurst, said Johnson is unlikely to owe any federal taxes this year due to accounting changes that confer a one-time tax benefit. But in a typical year, he said, Johnson and her husband earn about $515,000 from various entities related to the schools. They claim around $90,000 in deductions — much of it contributions to charity — reducing their taxable income to around $425,000. Johnson said the sum they take home in wages is “substantially less.”

In a typical year, Johnson’s federal tax bill would be about $120,000. But starting in 2011, the higher marginal rates would add about $13,000 a year, Hurst said. Capping the value of itemized deductions at 28 percent would add another $10,000, for a total increase of $23,000.

And Johnson’s tax bill stands to grow dramatically if Obama were to revive a plan to apply Social Security tax to income over $250,000 instead of capping it at the current $106,800. Because Johnson is an employee and an employer, she would have to pay both portions of the tax, Hurst said, tacking another $30,000 onto her bill.

Johnson said such an increase would force her to consider scaling back operations.

“You can try to pass it on to consumers. But if you raise tuition, you put pressure on family budgets,” she said. “For us, we’re caught between the devil and the deep blue sea.”

Other business owners are also nervous. Jim Murphy, president of EST Analytical in Fairfield, Ohio, which sells analytical instruments to environmental testing labs and pharmaceuticals, said his company is struggling in the sluggish economy. But if profit returns to pre-recession levels — about $455,000 — Murphy said his accountant estimates that Obama’s proposals could add $60,000 to his $120,000 tax bill.

“The misconception is that guys like me take [our profits] and put it into our pockets,” said Murphy, who employs 47 people. “But the money the company earns in a given year is used to buy additional inventory so we can grow and hire.” A 50 percent tax increase, he said, would be “really painful.”

So let’s review the basic facts: Barack Obama IS a socialist, just as Joe the Plumber intuitively understood even as liberal “intellectuals” loudly howled with all the outrage they could muster.  There’s no question of that fact any longer.  In fact, he is essentially a fascist, just as progressives such as Woodrow Wilson and even FDR were before him.  And Obama IS coming after small businesses and their owners, just as Joe the Plumber rightly feared.  And, furthermore, the Obama White House and the mainstream media alike will apply any tactic to attack and demonize their opponents for political purposes just like the worst socialist regimes in world history.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 513 other followers