Posts Tagged ‘$42’

Americans Recognize Obama A ZERO On Economy

July 23, 2010

What does a president do when his country recognizes he is an abject failure?

July 23, 2010
CNN Poll: Obama’s approval on economy drops to new low
Posted: July 23rd, 2010 12:30 PM ET

Washington (CNN) – Americans approval of how President Barack Obama is handling the nation’s economy has dropped to its lowest level of his presidency, according to a new national poll.

A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey indicates that 42 percent of the public approves of how Obama’s dealing with the economy, down 2 points from March, with 57 percent disapproving of his performance on the economy, up 2 points from March. The survey’s Friday release comes as the president made comments at the White House on what he termed the progress made this week on the economy and job recovery.

Full results [pdf]

The poll suggests a wide partisan divide on the issue, with nearly eight in 10 Democrats giving the president a thumbs up and nearly nine in 10 Republicans disapproving of Obama’s job on the economy. According to the survey, two-thirds of independents disapprove of the president’s economic performance.

The public hasn’t given Obama good marks on the economy since last September, and his approval rating on the economy, now at 42 percent, has been stuck in the mid-to-low 40s throughout this year,” says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. “Part of the reason for that is that Americans haven’t seen much to cheer about on the economic front. Nearly eight in ten say that economic conditions are somewhat poor or very poor.”

While there were some vague signs of optimism in poll results earlier this year – when the number of Americans who said that the economy was in “very poor” shape had been slowly but steadily declining – that seems to have fizzled. Thirty-seven percent said things were in poor shape in our May poll; the same number feel that way now.

So what can Barry Hussein do?  Lying about his bogus “summer of recovery” isn’t working.

And he can’t agree with other Democrats that we should keep the Bush tax cuts in place in order to prevent damaging the economy even more.  He’s too much of an ideologue for that.

Dems may keep Bush tax cuts
By Alexander Bolton – 07/22/10 06:00 AM ET

Democrats are considering a plan to delay tax hikes on the wealthy for two years because the economic recovery is slow and they fear getting crushed in November’s election.

It could mean a big reprieve for families earning $250,000 and above annually.

President George W. Bush’s tax cuts will expire at the end of the year unless Congress acts to delay their sunset.

Some Democrats are now arguing forcefully that a delay is a win-win plan that would help the federal budget without hurting the economy.

Wealthy families would not have an incentive to cut back on spending and budget writers could assume an inflow of tax funds in future years, making five- and 10-year budget projections look less scary.

How long have the Democrats been demonizing the Bush tax cuts?  Seven long years?  And now more and more of them are arguing – likely out of fear for their own political skins – that they were misrepresenting the truth all along, and the Bush tax cuts maybe didn’t actually cause the Dark Ages after all.

But Obama is way too much of an ideologue for that kind of rubbish.  That kind of acknowledgment is about as likely as a bomb-vest-wearing terrorist acknowledging that maybe Allah ISN’T so great, after all.

So what’s Obama to do?

Only one option remaining: keep blaming Bush and Republicans.  No matter how obviously asinine it is, never quit blaming, never quit trying to divert attention for his failures to some GOP straw man.

The last time Republicans ran Congress in January 2007, unemployment was at 4.6%.

What Was Wrong With Obama’s Notre Dame Speech On Abortion?

May 18, 2009

By the mainline media’s “oh, isn’t he just wonderful?” gushing accounts of Obama’s speech at Notre Dame, it was a grand slam home run.  He was conciliatory, gracious, and non-partisan – and did I mention wonderful?

Among his other remarks, Obama said this:

That’s when we begin to say, “Maybe we won’t agree on abortion, but we can still agree that this heart-wrenching decision for any woman is not made casually, it has both moral and spiritual dimensions.

So let us work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions, let’s reduce unintended pregnancies. (Applause.) Let’s make adoption more available. (Applause.) Let’s provide care and support for women who do carry their children to term. (Applause.) Let’s honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded not only in sound science, but also in clear ethics, as well as respect for the equality of women.” Those are things we can do. (Applause.)

Now, understand — understand, Class of 2009, I do not suggest that the debate surrounding abortion can or should go away. Because no matter how much we may want to fudge it — indeed, while we know that the views of most Americans on the subject are complex and even contradictory — the fact is that at some level, the views of the two camps are irreconcilable. Each side will continue to make its case to the public with passion and conviction. But surely we can do so without reducing those with differing views to caricature.

Open hearts. Open minds. Fair-minded words. It’s a way of life that has always been the Notre Dame tradition. (Applause.) Father Hesburgh has long spoken of this institution as both a lighthouse and a crossroads. A lighthouse that stands apart, shining with the wisdom of the Catholic tradition, while the crossroads is where differences of culture and religion and conviction can co-exist with friendship, civility, hospitality, and especially love.” And I want to join him and Father John in saying how inspired I am by the maturity and responsibility with which this class has approached the debate surrounding today’s ceremony. You are an example of what Notre Dame is about. (Applause.)

First of all, Obama’s statement that abortion is a “heart-wrenching decision not made casually” is simply not true for a LOT of women.  For example, abortion is the top birth control option for women in Russia.  Are they a different species there?  Are women in Russia not women?  Are they not human?  Are they not in fact very much like us?  Another study found numerous women in the UK who had had five or more abortions, with “30 teenage girls a week asking for repeat abortions.”  I looked for numbers regarding the United States, but the numbers are not nearly as forthcoming given that NARAL and mainline media propaganda seem to dominate.  Abortion is surely a difficult choice for some women, but it is most certainly not a difficult choice whatsoever for all.  And I’m not going to pretend it is.

Some women decide to have abortions out of fear for the future.  But many others decide to do so for their own convenience for the simple reason that they don’t want a child and aren’t willing to carry their baby to term so he or she can be adopted.  It is not women who are victims of abortion, but the babies whom they abort.  Don’t ever forget that.

Then Obama says, “let us work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions.”  My question is why?  Because it sounds good coming out of the mouths of liberals talking the language of pro-lifers?  Why should a liberal care about reducing the numbers of abortions?  Isn’t abortion a sacrosanct right?  How many other sacred rights should be reduced? Would less free speech be a good thing?  How about fewer voters?  Maybe we can reduce the number of attorneys made available to those accused of crimes?

In the same vein, what of Obama’s description of abortion as “having both moral and spiritual dimensions”?  Really?  How does that make any sense whatsoever unless we are talking about a baby human being, rather than a blob of tissue?  Does having one’s tonsils removed have “moral and spiritual dimensions”?  Clearly it doesn’t.  There is clearly something more to the implications of abortion.  This use of language is nothing more than another example of Obama and those like him trying to use language in a deceptive manner to convey a false illusion of truth, of compassion, and of a genuine understanding the issues involved.

The fact of the matter is that pro-abortion folk speaking of wanting to reduce abortions or calling it a moral and spiritual decision is simply gobbledygook.

If pro-abortionists want to reduce the number of abortions, why on earth would they push so hard to make abortion more available?  Does anyone think that if we made drugs more available, the number of drug abusers would go down?  Should we offer crack cocaine in our schools, so that kids can be “pro-choice” on drugs and “reduce the number of addictions”?  How can you not spot the asininity of this rhetoric?

But it was when Obama spoke about honoring one another while we disagree on abortion that was the most insulting to moral intelligence.

Let me illustrate why I say the above thusly:

Suppose you have two little girls, and I kidnap one and kill her (to put in in abortionist terms, I “terminate her life”).  And it is my plan to soon do the same to the second daughter.  And I meet with the girls’ parents and I say, “Let’s not let our differences in opinion result in our hating one another.  I tell them, “The fact that I don’t believe your children are human beings worthy of life doesn’t change the fact that you shouldn’t ‘reduce those with differing views to caricature.'”  I beseech them to maintain “their open-hearts, their open minds, and their fair-minded words” as I dehumanize and terminate their precious babies.

Does anybody believe the parents would politely nod their heads in agreement?  After all, can’t we all just get along and disagree honorably about such things?

You know that isn’t what would happen.  Those parents would do anything to stop me.  And so would the police.  So would any passing citizen who had any moral decency at all and was in any position to prevent my harming those children.

The fact of the matter is, Obama’s rhetoric presupposes that this debate isn’t about the lives of babies, but rather some academic discussion regarding the rights of women over which we can disagree.  In other words, Obama’s call to “friendship,  civility, hospitality, and love” as we politely agree to disagree presume that babies aren’t being killed and no one is getting hurt.

For all the intelligence Obama is supposed to possess, listening to him is much more like eating candy than it is dining on profundity.  It’s junk food for the mind and the soul.

I don’t mind it one bit when pro-abortionists call me “anti-choice.”  I’m fine with their intensely hard feelings directed at me.  Because that’s the way it frankly should be: we are on opposite sides of the greatest life and death moral issue of all time (unless you can tell me something else that has ended more human lives than abortion).  It’s not supposed to be civil with such incredibly high stakes.

Which is why I’m not going to allow Barack Obama or anyone else to tell me, “Don’t get so worked up over abortion.  We’re all good people just trying to do the right thing.”

Sorry, Barry, but you are an advocate for baby killing.  You and people like you have murdered well over forty million innocent human lives, and one day a just and holy God will damn you to hell for it.  I’m not going to treat you with quit dignity and respect when you are systematically depriving millions of children of not only their dignity but their lives.  In the meantime, abortion and other child-reduction strategies have resulted in this nation going from about 16 workers for every retiree to only three workers for every retiree.  And within a matter of a relatively few years it will go down to only two workers for every single retiree.  And as our system breaks down we’ll get to enjoy hell early, and right here on earth, due to our abortion mindset.

With this in mind, consider another comment Obama made in his Notre Dame address, from the perspective of helpless unborn babies who have been dehumanized so that they can be killed by people who elevate convenience over another human being’s life:

Unfortunately, finding that common ground — recognizing that our fates are tied up, as Dr. King said, in a “single garment of destiny” — is not easy. And part of the problem, of course, lies in the imperfections of man — our selfishness, our pride, our stubbornness, our acquisitiveness, our insecurities, our egos; all the cruelties large and small that those of us in the Christian tradition understand to be rooted in original sin. We too often seek advantage over others. We cling to outworn prejudice and fear those who are unfamiliar. Too many of us view life only through the lens of immediate self-interest and crass materialism; in which the world is necessarily a zero-sum game. The strong too often dominate the weak, and too many of those with wealth and with power find all manner of justification for their own privilege in the face of poverty and injustice. And so, for all our technology and scientific advances, we see here in this country and around the globe violence and want and strife that would seem sadly familiar to those in ancient times.

A new poll gives cause for celebration and hope: 51% of Americans now identify themselves as “pro-life” versus only 42% who identify themselves as “pro-choice” according to Gallup.  It never mattered whether a majority of Americans believed abortion was murder or not to make abortion murder.  For example, there was a time in this country’s history when most Americans believed blacks weren’t fully human; were they therefore not fully human?  But it is marvelous that the “majority says” argument has now officially been taken away from abortionists.

Three articles detailing Obama’s own association with abortion and outright infanticide:

Why Barack Obama Is A Baby Killer. Period.

Jill Stanek On Why Barack Obama Voted For Infanticide

Obama Crossed The Line From Abortion To Genuine Infanticide

Obama WILL Raise Your Taxes And Your Living Costs

September 27, 2008

There was an interesting exchange during the debate last night:

“He has voted in the United States Senate to increase taxes on people who make as low as $42,000 a year,” McCain said.

“That’s not true, John. That’s not true,” Obama said, interrupting him.

But it IS true.

“Barack Obama has voted in support of higher taxes 94 times in just 3 years, including higher taxes for Americans making just $42,000 a year. If voters consider Barack Obama’s record of opposing tax cuts and his outspoken proposals to raise taxes on family savings, Social Security and small businesses — this latest campaign promise lacks a single shred of credibility.”

Despite Claiming He’d Lower Taxes For Middle Income Americans, Obama Voted In Favor Of The Democrats’ Budget – Which Would Raise Tax Rates For Americans Earning $42,000 Or More:

Obama Voted Twice In Favor Of The Democrats’ FY 2009 Budget Resolution. (S. Con. Res. 70, CQ Vote #85: Adopted 51-44: R 2-43; D 47-1; I 2-0, 3/14/08, Obama Voted Yea; S. Con. Res. 70, CQ Vote #142: Adopted 48-45: R 2-44; D 44-1; I 2-0, 6/4/08, Obama Voted Yea)

In Obama’s new version of an economic plan (he’s had so many my eyeballs start rolling), Obama claims to reduce taxes for 95% of Americans (the actual figure is only 81% by Obama’s own figures).  And over 40% of Obama’s “95%” figure actually already don’t pay federal income taxes – which means that it is merely a welfare-like transfer payment.

The result of reducing the rax rate paid by the rich has both increased federal revenues and even raised the ratio of taxes paid compared with income earned.  Lowering taxes has provided an incentive to invest and build wealth, which has in turn raised revenues and increased the percentage of taxes paid by the rich relative to other income classes.

Barack Obama – who IS last years’ winner of “Most liberal US Senator” award – is a tax and spend liberal.  He has $800 billion in new spending projects.  When the wealthy react to his tax increases by sheltering their money, who is he going to come after next?  He’s going to come after you.  He’s already come after you before -94 times in just 3 years, in fact.

When you tax the rich, they find it profitable to shelter their assets.  Not only will the rich pursue tax sheltering activity, but their very focus will shift from making money to avoiding taxes.  That means less investment; which means less investment capital; which means less jobs.  When the housing finance crisis is already freezing investment capital, do you really want Obama in charge of the economy?

Furthermore, Obama will raise your costs.  He has repeatedly attacked John McCain for wanting to lower taxes on corporations.  Obama has promised to raise taxes on corporations – which already pay the 2nd highest tax rate in the world.  He will raise taxes on small businesses, as well.

The fact that he has forced to acknowledge that raising taxes might be a bad idea in a recession means nothing.  He won’t be able to help himself once he’s in office, with a Democratic Congress pushing him.  He won’t stand up against them for the simple reason that he’s never stood up against Democrats.  Obama makes a big deal about the fact that McCain has voted with Bush 90% of the time.  But Obama votes with Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi 97% of the time.  A Barack Obama presidency would look little different from a Nancy Pelosi presidency.

What will happen when businesses find themselves paying taxes?  Does anyone seriously think that prices won’t increase to keep up with their increased operating costs?  Does anyone seriously think that jobs won’t be cut in order to reduce costs?

John McCain mentioned Ireland, whose economy has boomed since they reduced their corporate tax rate to 11%.  The U.S. rate is 35%.  Which would you rather pay?  Can you seriously blame businesses for relocating or “outsourcing” given such disparities?

If Barack Obama is elected President, he will try to tax the rich.  But as the rich shelter their money, and as corporations cut back their operations, relocate, or outsource to recover their desired profit margins, the American people will see their Faustian bargain go south on them very quickly.