Obama: ‘My Biggest Mistake Was Not Being A Good Enough Liar, I Mean Storyteller.’

You need to know what the “Storyteller-in-Chief” said before I can start expose the demon-possession behind the words.  So here it is:

Obama: Biggest mistake was failing to ‘tell a story’ to American public
Posted by David Nakamuraat 05:27 PM ET, 07/12/2012

As he campaigns for re-election, President Obama is ruminating over the biggest mistake of his first term — and it might surprise supporters and critics alike.

In the president’s view, he has not been a good enough storyteller, putting policy goals ahead of laying out a clear narrative for the American public.

“The mistake of my first term. . .was thinking that this job was just about getting the policy right. And that’s important,” Obama told “CBS This Morning” anchor Charlie Rose in a White House interview that will be broadcast Sunday and Monday.

“But the nature of this office,” the president added, “is also to tell a story to the American people that gives them a sense of unity and purpose and optimism, especially during tough times.”

Mitt Romney made sure Obama’s chin was at precisely the correct angle when he responded:

“President Obama believes that millions of Americans have lost their homes, their jobs and their livelihood because he failed to tell a good story. Being president is not about telling stories. Being president is about leading, and President Obama has failed to lead. No wonder Americans are losing faith in his presidency.”

Even to cast Obama’s latest “storytelling” in its very best possible light, what Obama is really saying is that his policies are wonderful, but the American people are simply too damn stupid to understand it.

Give me a little time to warm up as I provide my own response to Obama, because I’ve got a lot to say on my way to past-the-boiling-point.

It’s amazing.  This is a man who will never understand that his policies have failed.  He has already doubled-down – having first rammed through his $862 stimulus (which will actually cost the American people $3.27 TRILLION) and then doubled-down with his $447 billion son of stimulus – and now he wants to triple-down, quadruple down, quintuple down, until America is utterly bankrupt.

Obama demonized Republicans for refusing to vote for his massive stimulus.  He called them “obstructionists” who dared to resist the will of messiah who would lower the oceans and heal the planet. 

Consider this from The Hill, 02/15/10:

Republicans are keen to tie any new jobs efforts to a stimulus bill that has become unpopular. A New York Times/CBS poll found that just 6 percent of Americans believe that it created jobs, even though independent economists estimate that it has saved or created more than 1 million jobs.

What The Hill refuses to tell you is that plenty of “independent economists” predicted it would wildly fail:

Cato has just published a full-page ad in the New York Times with the names of some 200 economists, including some Nobel laureates and other highly respected scholars, who “do not believe that more government spending is a way to improve economic performance” — contrary to widespread claims that “Economists from across the political spectrum agree” on a massive fiscal stimulus package.

But let’s get back to the fact that only 6% of Americans believed the $3.27 trillion Stimulus actually created any jobs.  Understand, that comes from a CBS/New York Times Poll that featured the following:

Obama was a “storyteller,” all right.  But the thing was his stories were lies.  Obama’s economic plan has wildly failed.  According to Obama’s “storytelling,” unemployment ought to be 5.6 percent now because that’s what he said it would be by this time if we passed his stimulus.  That was his “story.”

Obama, of course, once started on the “storytelling” that the Republicans were “obstructionists” never quit telling that story.  It didn’t matter that Democrats COMPLETELY OWNED ALL THREE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT FOR THE ENTIRE FIRST TWO YEARS OF THE OBAMA REGIME.  It didn’t matter that in fact Democrats had owned two of the three branches – both the House and the Senate – since November 2006 when Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid took over Congress.  It didn’t matter that since Democrats took over Congress food stamp dependency has soared 70 percent and under Obama crippling poverty and food stamp dependency has skyrocketed 53 percent (3o million in 2008 to 46 million now).  If the Republican Party didn’t go along with the Democrat Party’s and messiah Obama’s radical failure and misery they were “obstructionists” even when their “obstructionism” clearly did not prevent the Obama agenda from being implemented.

Obama had previously sold a different “story,” mind you.  Prior to his being the most demagogic and hatemongering president in American history, Obama’s “storytelling” had been of a president whose “core promise” –  instead of constant fingerpointing and demonizing – would be to “transcend the starkly red-and-blue politics of the last 15 years, end the partisan and ideological wars and build a new governing majority.”  But again, as we found immediately, Obama’s “storytelling” was a complete and utter lie from hell.  We see that particularly now, as Obama relies more on negative ads to demonize and attack and “frame” Mitt Romney with lies and hate than ANY president in American history by far and away (see also here).  In fact, Obama is shattering his own record for negative demagogic demonic attack ads that he himself set in 2008.  And that is, of course, because of his wildly failed presidency and his wildly failing record.

That solemn promise that Obama made to the American people that he would rise above the negativity and bitterness and partisanship and hate was itself nothing but the most hateful “story” ever told by the most cynical demagogue ever to hold office.

Obama had PLENTY of “storytelling” with his ObamaCare takeover of the American health care system.

Obama told the “story” over and over again that ObamaCare was NOT a tax no matter what the facts said at the time:

STEPHANOPOULOS: I wanted to check for myself. But your critics say it is a tax increase.

OBAMA: My critics say everything is a tax increase. My critics say that I’m taking over every sector of the economy. You know that. Look, we can have a legitimate debate about whether or not we’re going to have an individual mandate or not, but…

STEPHANOPOULOS: But you reject that it’s a tax increase?

OBAMA: I absolutely reject that notion.

[….]

STEPHANOPOULOS: “Under this mandate, the government is forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don’t. How is that not a tax?”

PRESIDENT OBAMA: “No. That’s not true, George. The — for us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase.

The Supreme Court literally rewrote ObamaCare to replace the word “tax” with Obama’s cynical and dishonest political “storytelling” of “mandate” and ruled that ObamaCare could ONLY be seen as “constitutional” if and ONLY if it was in fact a TAX.  From the Supreme Court majority decision:

“The Federal Government does not have the power to order people to buy health insurance. Section 5000A would therefore be unconstitutional if read as a command. The Federal Government does have the power to impose a tax on those without health insurance. Section 5000A is therefore constitutional, because it can reasonably be read as a tax.”

Obama has – after “storytelling” that ObamaCare was NOT a tax and then demanding his lawyers argue before the Supreme Court that it WAS a tax – now returned to his “storytelling” that it isn’t a tax no matter what the hell the Supreme Court said.  I mean, after all, they’re not “constitutional scholars” the way messiah Obama is.  And the Supreme Court Justices certainly aren’t “storytellers” the way Obama is.  Few people can ever become that rabidly personally dishonest.

Obama as “storyteller” promised the American people over and over and over again that he would not raise taxes on the American people:

But let me perfectly clear, because I know you’ll hear the same old claims that rolling back these tax breaks means a massive tax increase on the American people: if your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime. I repeat: not one single dime.

But here is the fact according to the CBO: Seventy-five percent of ObamaCare TAXES will fall on those making less than $120,000 a year:

There are actually TWENTY-TWO new taxes created by ObamaCare that add up to $670 BILLION. The mandate/penaty TAX is actually not a big deal when compared to the rest of this monstrosity.

Obama also did his best “storytelling” to assure the American people that:

 “no matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what. My view is that health care reform should be guided by a simple principle: fix what’s broken and build on what works.”

That was, of course, quite a story.  It was also quite a demonic lie.  Fully 83% of doctors are seriously considering quitting medicine because of demonic Obama’s “fixing what’s broken and building on what works.”

83 Percent of Doctors have Considered Quitting over Obamacare
by SALLY NELSON July 10, 2012

Eighty-three percent of American physicians have considered leaving their practices over President Barack Obama’s health care reform law, according to a survey released by the Doctor Patient Medical Association.

The DPMA, a non-partisan association of doctors and patients, surveyed a random selection of 699 doctors nationwide. The survey found that the majority have thought about bailing out of their careers over the legislation, which was upheld last month by the Supreme Court.

And Obama’s “storytelling” wasn’t just a lie about doctors. He lied about being able to keep your health care plan, too:

Now, even the Administration admits that this isn’t the case, stating that “as a practical matter, a majority of group health plans will lose their grandfather status by 2013.”

Another “story,” another damn lie.  I guess Obama’s “storytelling” didn’t include things as silly as “practical matters.”

I can go on and on and on and on with this demon-possessed liar and his demonic “storytelling.”  He demonized Bush over Gitmo and promised the American people that he would close it down within one year of the start of his presidency.  But his “storytelling” was an abject lie and Gitmo is still open because Bush was right in opening Gitmo and Obama is from hell.  Obama demonized Bush with “storytelling” about Bush’s use of rendition to deal with terrorists.  But four years later, guess what?  Bush was right about rendition and Obama was a “storyteller.”  Obama slandered Bush with “storytelling” about Bush “air raiding villages and killing civilians.”  He has air-raided more villages and killed more civilians than Bush could have waved a stick at.  Obama told “stories” about how Bush messed up the world and all the terrorism and violence were Bush’s fault.  Four years later I yearn for the world that Bush created, with Syria in flames and the regime getting their WMD ready for use while Egypt turns to the Islamic Brotherhood for leadership and Iran will have a nuclear damn bomb any day now.  Obama gave us one “story” after another on how he was going to win the war in Afghanistan and that Afghanistan was where Bush should have been fighting all along.  Now we’re doing everything possible to crawl out of that country with our tails between our legs in a way that won’t interfere with Obama’s re-election.  On the domestic front, Obama gave us “storytelling” about how Bush was a failed leader for raising the debt ceiling and literally un-American for increasing the debt when he’s blown Bush away on both categories.  Obama offered “storytelling” about how he would cut the deficit in HALF by now when he has now produced FOUR budgets – the first four budgets in the history of the entire human race – that exceeded $1 trillion.  Obama offered us “storytelling” that his ObamaCare would only cost $900 billion; now the CBO is saying the damn demonic turd will cost three times that much at $2.6 TRILLION and the criminally insane boondoggle STILL HASN’T EVEN BEEN IMPLEMENTED YET.  Obama told Hispanic groups the “story” of how giving them what they wanted would be un-American, anti-democratic and unconstitutional to give them what they demanded only to literally do what he had previously said was un-American, anti-democratic and unconstitutional.

Because storytelling = lying to this dishonorable weasel. 

And for Obama to tell you the damn STORY that he hasn’t told you enough “stories” amounts to his saying that he failed to understand how pathologically stupid you people were.  BECAUSE HE SHOULD HAVE LIED TO YOU MORE THAN HE ALREADY HAS.

We are going on four years into God damn America now.  And God will surely continue to damn this nation that was once “under God” more and more and more until Obama is either driven out of office or until we simply collapse under the weight of our failed and demonic policies.

ObamaCare Will Make The Rubble Of Our Economy And Housing Bounce Beginning January 2013

Curtis LeMay had a way with words.  One of his sayings concerning America’s mortal enemies was:

“We should bomb ’em back to the Stone Age, and then make the rubble bounce.”

By that measure, America is Obama’s mortal enemy.  Because that’s exactly what he’s going to do with both the American economy and the American housing market beginning January 1, 2013.  Both are already in ruins.  But Obama is going to bomb them again and make the rubble bounce.

Let me first refresh your memory of Obama’s promise to the American people:

“I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.” — then-candidate for President Sen. Barack Obama, September 12, 2008

To quote Joe Wilson, Obama lied:

3.8% Medicare tax on the sale of YOUR HOUSE
August 21st, 2011 | Author: milwaukeeco1

Beginning January 1, 2013, ObamaCare imposes a 3.8% Medicare tax on unearned income of “high-income” taxpayers which could apply to proceeds from the sale of single family homes, townhouses, co-ops, condominiums, and even rental income, depending on your individual circumstances and any capital gains tax exclusions. Importantly, the “high income” thresholds are not indexed for inflation so will reach increasing numbers of middle-class taxpayers over time.

In February 2010, 5.02 million homes were sold, according to the National Association of Realtors (NAR). On any given day, the sale of a house, townhome, condominium, co-op, or income from a rental property could slam middle-income families with a new tax they can’t afford.

This new ObamaCare tax is the first time the government will apply a 3.8 percent tax on unearned income. This new tax on home sales and unearned income and other Medicare taxes raise taxes more than $210 billion to pay for ObamaCare. The National Association of Realtors called this new Medicare tax on unearned income “destructive” and “ill-advised” and warned it would hurt job creation.

Additional Document: The Costly Consequences of Health Care Reform (Courtesy of the Budget Committee)

The Obama economy is rancid.  In Bill Clinton’s words:

“I hate to sound like a broken record but we could create an awesome number of jobs from this in this lousy economy.”

And Clinton is obviously a DEMOCRAT, which is to say that “lousy economy” is the most positive spin you can GIVE Obama’s economy.

And our housing market is ABOUT TO GET WORSE AS IT IS.

If that isn’t bad enough, the medical exclusion has been increased from 7.5% of adjusted gross income to 10%, which will cost anyone (in many cases people who make well under $250k/yr) who deducts medical expenses.  Flexible spending accounts (FSAs) will be reduced to $2,500 down from $5,000.  And there will be a new medical appliance tax that will hit a lot of people.

ObamaCare is literally shaping up to be a death sentence for special needs children (after it destroys those children’s parents’ savings).  You know, if said family can afford to stay in their house after the tax hits them.

If not enough Republicans get elected to gut this monstrosity, or if the Supreme Court doesn’t find the mandate to force the American people to purchase insurance unconstitutional, America is going to look back to the good old days that we’re living through right now.

Oh, and for what it’s worth, the Obama administration – which promised that no one making less than $250,000 a year would see their taxes go up one dime under his regime, will be going before the Supreme Court to argue that their mandate which will soon hit every American is a TAX.  Under ObamaCare, be ready to pay much more to get much less.

Debt Ceiling Fight: Despite Lamestream Media Propaganda Claims, Sometimes ‘Compromise’ Is NOT A Good Thing

1 Kings 3:16-25

One day two women came to King Solomon, and one of them said: Your Majesty, this woman and I live in the same house. Not long ago my baby was born at home, and three days later her baby was born. Nobody else was there with us. One night while we were all asleep, she rolled over on her baby, and he died. Then while I was still asleep, she got up and took my son out of my bed. She put him in her bed, then she put her dead baby next to me. In the morning when I got up to feed my son, I saw that he was dead. But when I looked at him in the light, I knew he wasn’t my son.

“No!” the other woman shouted. “He was your son. My baby is alive!”

“The dead baby is yours,” the first woman yelled. “Mine is alive!”

They argued back and forth in front of Solomon, until finally he said, “Both of you say this live baby is yours. Someone bring me a sword.” A sword was brought, and Solomon ordered, “Cut the baby in half! That way each of you can have part of him.”

Splitting the baby in half in the name of “compromise” is NOT a good thing, for the record.

Democrats are people who are VERY happy with a dead baby.  The nearly 54 million babies they have killed in the abortion mills ought to be proof enough of that.

You can’t turn on your television or read a newspaper or a magazine without being told that compromise is good, and the Republicans are not compromising enough.

Obama ranted at a recent press conference, “Can the Republicans say yes to anything?”

Well, to quote the idiotic chant of certain famous fool, “Yes, we can!”

Republicans said “yes” to the Ryan Plan.  They also said “yes” to the ONLY plan that actually is in writing and actually passed in either branch of Congress.  Both the Ryan Budget and the cut, cap and balance bill would have averted the debt ceiling crisis that looms in front of us now.  But could the DEMOCRATS say “yes” to anything?  Not only did they say “no” to the Ryan budget, but they actually refused to say anything at all regarding the cut, cap and balance plan as Harry Reid tabled it without allowing a vote.  Harry Reid shut down debate and refused to allow the House-passed plan to come up for a vote because he doesn’t want the Democrats to have to go on record rejecting a balanced budget amendment – which would prove that whenever a Democrat talks about balancing the budget or actually cutting spending they are LYING.

Reid also demonized the cut, cap and balanced bill as “the worst legislation in the history of this country.”  Because he must have been all FOR the Democrat-passed Fugitive Slave Act.

And of course, you find out that Democrats couldn’t even say yes to the Obama budget, which would have increased the debt by $12 TRILLION and which failed in the Democrat-controlled Senate 97-0.  And that was an abject disgrace and proves as much as anything what a completely failed leader Obama truly is.

So it’s demagogic and dishonest to say that the Republcans somehow can’t say yes to anything, or even to suggest that the Democrats can.  For the record, the Democrats have produced NO plan; they have utterly FAILED to lead.  So they frankly have nothing to say “yes” to to begin with.

Barack Obama and the Democrats are despicable liars and demagogues.  Unfortuntely, the American people are becoming the sort of bad people who believe lies.

If the country were at some 50-50 balance between liberalism and conservatism, maybe one would be justified in calling for “compromise” with Democrats now.  But thanks to Obama, it simply isn’t.  We’ve veered wildly to the left, and so at this point when were more like 70-30 liberal, “compromise” just means status quo Obama liberalism.  No thanks.

After the 2008 election, Republicans came hat in hand seeking compromise with newly crowned King Obama.  But King Obama said unto them:

“Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, I won.”

It’s kind of funny now that – after a historic ASSKICKING of Democrats by Republicans in 2010, suddenly Republicans are supposed to “compromise” with the Democrats who ran roughshod over them for the preceding two years of libery tyranny.

Is it a good thing to compromise, the way the media keeps framing this issue?

Keep in mind, the Republicans won a landslide victory in November 2010 after Democrats utterly refused to do anything to cut their reckless and radical spending.  They didn’t “compromise”; they were dragged to this point by the most massive political defeat in more than 70 years.  To try to claim that Democrats are “compromising” now is rather like claiming that Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan graciously decided to “compromise” after World War II.  They got their asses kicked over their ears, and the rest is just reality, not “compromise.”

And the Republicans ALREADY HAVE compromised.  Keep in mind the do NOT want to raise the debt ceiling; rather, they want to cut spending NOW (and if we WERE to cut spending now, we wouldn’t NEED to increase the debt ceiling).  The Republicans are willing to raise the debt ceiling; they are NOT willing to go back on promises they ran on and won on and increase taxes.

Also keep in mind that Democrats have also ALREADY RAISED TAXES BY $500 BILLION (i.e. half a TRILLION dollars).

Why on earth should “compromise” mean that they should agree to raise taxes again?  Particularly when Democrats have produced ZERO plans to cut spending and are essentially saying “Trust us not to screw you like we did the last three times we told you to trust us on cutting spending.”

Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner apparently actually had an agreement in principle with Obama to raise taxes by yet ANOTHER $800 billion on top of the $500 billion ObamaCare tax hike.  But almost immediately thereafter Obama welched on his own deal, demanding an extra $400 billion.

The New York Times – falsely and demagogically characterizing the Republicans as “The Party That Can’t Say Yes” (That already demonstrated to be an outright dishonest lie above) said of this reneged-upon deal:

“So, on the eve of economic calamity, the Republicans killed an overly generous deal largely over a paltry $400 billion in deductions.”

“A paltry $400 billion.”  Only liberals could be so stupid and so utterly depraved.  This is proof-positive that hundreds of billions of dollars mean absolutely nothing to these people.  They are recklessly irresponsible fools before this country collapses never to rise again.

If the New York Times was honest (they are not, of course – which explains why they are virtually bankrupt), then they would be pushing Obama to agree to accepting $400 billion LESS in revenues.  After all, it’s only “a paltry $400 billion,” right???  These people live in a realm of dishonest lunacy.

Is compromise a good thing?

How about this for a compromise.  Suppose we propose to eradicate the 72 million registered Democrats in the United States.  Get out that great big giant can of RAID and just wipe out all these cockroaches.  Well, the “reasonable” thing to do according to liberals would be to compromise.  So obviously on this principle Democrats would be all for a plan to eradicate 36 million Democrats; because that would be going halfway, after all.

Obama and the Democrats have repeatedly cited “corporate jets” in their recent demagoguery and demonization.  This is EXACTLY parallel to the fiasco of the “luxury tax” that annihilated the yacht construction and maintenance industries in the early 1990s:

The general thinking is that the rich can afford it, and an extra 10 percent tax isn’t going to stop the fat cats from indulging in their toys. What most people don’t realize is that those able to buy a new boat also have the ability to decide not to buy. And that is what they have done.

Since the luxury tax came into effect last Sept. 30 for newly ordered boats, nobody has bought a new boat on which the tax would apply! The National Marine Manufacturers’ Association, the industry association that tracks such things, can’t find a single sale in the whole country! Not one! However, the association has been able to document in excess of 100,000 layoffs (blue-collar workers — not fat cats) and numerous boat manufacturers going out of business. All during which not a single dollar of luxury tax has been collected.

A more detailed article on the 1990 tax and how it is remarkably similar to what Obama and Democrats are now proposing is available here.

It is the same failed fools with the same failed Marxist class hatred mindset.  The Democrats rescinded that tax in 1992 – but not until they destroyed more than a 100,000 jobs.  Their policy was based on Marxism and hate.  And it failed then just like it will fail now.

EVERY SINGLE TIME we have cut income tax rates we have INCREASED REVENUE.  And EVERY SINGLE TIME we have increased income tax rates we have DECREASED REVENUE.  What history proves is that when we increase the income tax rates “on the rich,” the rich respond by sheltering their money as they are forced to massively cut back on their job-creating investments by protecting themselves.  And what invariably happens is that the percentage of tax revenues paid by “the rich” dwindle while the percentage of tax revenues paid by the poor (in the form of excise taxes) increase.  This is a documented fact going back to the days of FDR:

Do you see what happened?  FDR kept raising income tax rates on “the rich” and demanding they pay more; but revenues from income taxes fell from 38% of revenue to only 24% of revenue (and corporate tax revenues fell from 43% to 29%) , while revenue from excise taxes borne mainly by the poor (e.g., liquor taxes, cigareete taxes) skyrocketed from 19% of total revenues collected to 47% of total revenues collected.

This is what happens in actual FACT.

If that isn’t enough, even OBAMA acknowledged that it would be stupid to raise taxes in a recession:

…In August 2009, on a visit to Elkhart, Indiana to tout his stimulus plan, Obama sat down for an interview with NBC’s Chuck Todd, and was conveyed a simple request from Elkhart resident Scott Ferguson: “Explain how raising taxes on anyone during a deep recession is going to help with the economy.”

Obama agreed with Ferguson’s premise – raising taxes in a recession is a bad idea. “First of all, he’s right. Normally, you don’t raise taxes in a recession, which is why we haven’t and why we’ve instead cut taxes. So I guess what I’d say to Scott is – his economics are right. You don’t raise taxes in a recession. We haven’t raised taxes in a recession.”

Our economy is still in terrible, terrible shape.  79% of Americans say we are still in a recession.  And to quote Obama, “you don’t raise taxes in a recession.”

So how about if I listen to Barack Obama and argue that raising taxes would be an utterly TERRIBLE “compromise” to make.

Obama Wreckovery Adding Whopping 260 Jobs PER STATE

Rush Limbaugh made me aware of the math: what’s 13,000 jobs divided by 50 states?  An infinitesimal 260 jobs per state.

So much for Obama’s “recovery.”

And, of course, it gets even worse when you divide that 13,000 jobs by the 57 states that Obama claimed he had visited [I’d forgive him for that if he were born in Kenya; but given that he claims to be a natural-born American, the ’57 states’ thing will always remain an example of the quintessential ignorance about America and everything American of our current president to me].

260 jobs per state.  That’s a record to boast about.  Want to wait in a line to get one of those jobs?

Report: Private sector added only 13,000 jobs in June

The private sector of the U.S. economy added only 13,000 jobs in June, according to ADP employment services, a disappointing number that came in below estimates and portends bad things from the government’s June jobs report due out Friday.

In May, according to ADP, the private sector added 57,000 jobs. But in June? Statistically, across a workforce as big as the United States’? Zero job growth; 13,000 new jobs is a statistically meaningless number.

This is bad news for the economy. If the ADP report is seconded by the Labor Department’s June jobs report, it means that the private sector — which is the engine of growth in this economy, lest we’ve forgotten that, amid all of our various government stimulus programs and subsides — is refusing to add jobs. That means employers are not comfortable enough with their prospects to hire.

In May, according to the government, the economy added more than 440,000 jobs. But almost every one of those was a census worker, jobs that will go away when the count ends in the fall.

Today’s report adds to concerns that the economic recovery is stalling and gives ammunition to the more bearish among us who worry that we’re headed into a double-dip recession.

That “Welcome back, Carter” “malaise” is just an accepted fact from the Obama administration.  They may say something different when they know their statements are going to be publicized, but here’s what they say in private when they think only their worshipers are around:

Vice President Joe Biden gave a stark assessment of the economy today, telling an audience of supporters, “there’s no possibility to restore 8 million jobs lost in the Great Recession.”

Now, let’s go back to September of last year, when Joe Biden said of the stimulus:

“In my wildest dreams, I never thought it would work this well.”

Now we find that same guy saying all the jobs that were lost are gone forever.  How’s that for the stimulus working beyond your wildest dreams?

Gateway Pundit includes a graph summarizing the results of Obama’s wreckovery:

Let’s see.  Thanks to Obama, taxes on businesses are going to skyrocket – especially the small businesses, who file primarily as individuals and therefore fall prey to Obama’s shocking increases on those earning more than $250,000 a year.  Businesses are being forced to take into account that they won’t have nearly as much money under Obama, and must therefore plan accordingly.

From Politico:

… Obama’s stated plan to raise taxes on households making $250,000 or more in income is a tax increase on small business. The simple answer to this dilemma can be found in the IRS Statistics of Income Bulletin (Table 1.4, for those who are interested).So what do the data say?

In 2006 (the latest year available), $706 billion of such income was reported to the Internal Revenue Service. Of this, about half was reported by households in the top marginal income tax rate. Interestingly, two-thirds of this income was reported by households making $250,000 per year or more — the very same households that Obama wants to increase taxes on.

Intellectually bankrupt liberals are hyping the Marxist class warfare strategy of demonizing businesses.  But when the government taxes businesses and business owners, businesses and those who own them merely a) raise their prices and pass those taxes on to you the customer, and b) invest less and hire less.  And who ends up getting hurt the most?

Thanks to Obama, taxes on those who create wealth and build the economy by investment are going to shelter their money.  Stephen Moore put it this way:

[I]f you think it’s bad this year, you’re right. It’s going to get a whole lot worse next year because the Bush tax cuts expire. That means that we’re going to see an increase in the capital gains tax. We’re going to see an increase in the tax on dividends, perhaps a doubling or tripling of that tax. And then we’re also talking about higher income tax rates next year. So this is going to be a tough year this year, but I think things get a whole lot worse next year as we see rates across the board increase. And let’s not forget, there’s also a lot of talk about a value-added tax on top of all of that. […]

[T]here’s something called the Laffer curve, and that’s especially true with these investment taxes. I think it’s a big mistake to be raising taxes on stocks and investment at the very time we need businesses to be doing more investment. So a lot of economists think we’re going to have a pretty good year this year, in 2010, but once those new taxes kick in, in 2011, might cause a double-dip recession.

Intellectually bankrupt liberals are hyping the Marxist class warfare strategy of demonizing private investors.  But they are trying to kill the geese that lay the golden eggs.  Rich private investors create opportunities for businesses to grow by their investments.  And private investors – who are investing their own money rather than someone else’s as government bureaucrats always do – are rewarding well-run businesses that will make the most of their capital to most effectively expand and create jobs.

If you tax the investments and seize the profits that investors took risks to obtain, then they will risk less and invest less.  It is as simple as that.  You are killing businesses by taking away the investments that sustain their growth.

Thanks to Obama, the cost of providing health care to employees will go up shockingly.  And employers will HAVE to provide health care insurance, or pay fines.

It’s been a banner week for Democrats: ObamaCare passed Congress in its final form on Thursday night, and the returns are already rolling in. Yesterday AT&T announced that it will be forced to make a $1 billion writedown due solely to the health bill, in what has become a wave of such corporate losses.

This wholesale destruction of wealth and capital came with more than ample warning. Turning over every couch cushion to make their new entitlement look affordable under Beltway accounting rules, Democrats decided to raise taxes on companies that do the public service of offering prescription drug benefits to their retirees instead of dumping them into Medicare. We and others warned this would lead to AT&T-like results, but like so many other ObamaCare objections Democrats waved them off as self-serving or “political.”

Dumbass quiz: do you think that makes a business more or less likely to hire a new employee?

Meanwhile, Obama will massively tax every American by forcing them to buy health insurance, leaving us all with less money to spend purchasing goods and services from businesses.

Thanks to Obama, banks will soon face onerous new regulations that will burden the economy by sustaining the credit crisis:

While certain ramifications of the legislation will only emerge over the coming years, our initial reaction is that this bill will further hinder the U.S. economy’s already fragile recovery. Tough new restrictions on traditional credit products and more onerous capital requirements will further curtail credit availability and product innovation, including affordable credit options designed for higher-risk customer segments. As a result, both industry and economic growth will likely be suppressed for an extended period as banks continue to de-leverage and develop a more thorough understanding of the broad-based structural changes likely to affect the industry in the coming years.

Thanks to Obama, energy will ultimately become far more expensive to already-squeezed businesses.  As Obama taxes productivity, there will be less and less incentive to be productive.

And the added cost to the average household will be some $1,761 a year, leaving us all with less money to spend.  And thus hurting businesses even more.

You add all of these disastrous Obama policies up and you get… absolutely nothing.  At least nothing in terms of jobs.

One day Barack Obama will surely end up in hell, and Karl Marx will say to him, “Well done, my good and faithful servant.”

ObamaCare To Raise BILLIONS of dollars In New Taxes On Backs Of Middle Class

Let me begin with an article from ATR.org:

More Tax Hikes On Persons Earning Under $200,000
From Tim Andrews on Wednesday, April 14, 2010

On numerous occasions we’ve pointed out how President Obama’s pledge not to raise taxes on person’s earning under $250,000 was, to use a subtle and technical term, a total, absolute, and utter, lie.

Of course, continuing to make Orwell proud,  on Saturday Obama said that he kept his promise not to tax families making less than $250,000 per year. So it was nice to see the  Joint Committee on Taxation say yesterday that this was… how do I put it… a lie.

As The Hill reports:

Taxpayers earning less than $200,000 a year will pay roughly $3.9 billion more in taxes — in 2019 alone — due to healthcare reform, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation, Congress’s official scorekeeper…Once the law is fully implemented in 2019, the JCT estimates the deduction limitation will affect 14.8 million taxpayers — 14.7 million of them will earn less than $200,000 a year. These taxpayers are single and joint filers, as well as heads of households.

Working families will suffer, the economy will continue to stagnate, and our President will continue to say the exact opposite of what he is doing.

George Orwell eat your heart out.

Okay.  to sum up so far: Barack Obama is a liar, not to mention an Orwellian demagogue.  And the middle class – contrary to all bogus Democrat promises – will be paying BILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN TAXES TO FUND OBAMACARE.

The Hill article goes on to say:

The new law raises $15.2 billion over 10 years by limiting the medical expense deduction, a provision widely used by taxpayers who either have a serious illness or are older.

Taxpayers can currently deduct medical expenses in excess of 7.5 percent of their adjusted gross income. Starting in 2013, most taxpayers will only be able to deduct expenses greater than 10 percent of AGI. Older taxpayers are hit by this threshold increase in 2017.

Once the law is fully implemented in 2019, the JCT estimates the deduction limitation will affect 14.8 million taxpayers — 14.7 million of them will earn less than $200,000 a year. These taxpayers are single and joint filers, as well as heads of households.

Let me see.  I’m a math whiz.  14.7 divided by 14.8 million equals 99.3 percent.  Which means that 99.3% of Americans paying this tax will make LESS THAN $200,000 a year.  Now Obama said people making under $200,000 a year wouldn’t see their taxes go up by so much as one dime.  I guess it’s true that $15.2 billion isn’t “one dime,” but that kind of dodge makes even Bill Clinton’s famous “It depends on what the meaning of the word is, is” look sincere.

And a lot of those 14.7 million Americans who will be hit are small business owners who create jobs.  Quite possibly your job.

Boy.  Wouldn’t it kind of suck for you if your boss laid you off to give Obama your salary?

The mainstream media once drove George H.W. Bush (i.e. Bush I) out of office because he said, “Read my lips.  No new taxes.”  And frankly, they were right to do that.  But you know they won’t have the integrity to expose Barack Obama’s broken word.  It’s too bad that they only exposed Bush’s broken promise because they were liberal propagandist ideologues, rather than professionals who actually care about the truth.

The Republican Health Care Plan, In A Nutshell

Radio talk host and author Mark Levin explained the Republican health care plan in a nutshell to a caller who demanded, “Where’s the Republican plan?”

In the course of two minutes, Levin proceeds to lay out the essence of the Republican health plan (which Democrats have deceitfully and maliciously claimed did not exist in all their ‘party of no’ rhetoric), and revealed the stupidity of the Glenn Beck “There’s no difference between the parties” foolishness:

Transcript:

Caller: I guess my question, sir, is where is the Republican plan?

Levin: Yes, there is a plan, sir, and it’s been repeated, and it’s been put out there, it’s on the internet.  They don’t control the media in this country.  They don’t get a fair break from the media in this country.  Which is why I explain the plan over and over again.  You ready?  You got a pencil?  Let’s write it down, shall we?

1) Tax credits so individuals can purchase their own health policies rather than paying that money to the federal government.

2) Expanding health savings accounts – like the 401Ks – so you can put more money aside, tax free, for catastrophes and other needs.

3) Right now you can’t purchase insurance across state borders because the various interest groups have larded up their laws so that if you purchase a policy in Ohio it doesn’t comply with a policy in Pennsylvania.  You can eliminate that.  And you should.

4) Tort reform.  Which will save a fortune.  You cap – talk about cap and trade – you cap awards to actual medical costs, and related expenses.  So it’s not ‘hitting the lottery’ each and every day.

And I can go on with three or four more points.  But these basic free market efforts – to unravel so much of what the government, and the regulatory bureaucracies have done – would open up the system.  We’re talking about 12 million people – 12 million Americans – who don’t have health insurance.

Caller: The point that I’m trying to make is that it’s not for you or the other folks that are on the radio…  You actually hear nothing from the Republicans…

Levin: Sir, this is a Republican proposal.  It’s a conservative proposal that the Republicans have embraced.  They have asked to meet with Obama to discuss it.

Look folks.  I know the Republicans have screwed up.  I know there are people out there saying the two parties are exactly the same.  They’re not exactly the same.  We’ve got a Marxist in the White House, a Marxist in the House, an idiot in the Senate.  Don’t tell me they’re exactly the same!  They can do better, but they’re not the same.

Now, these are truly great free market ideas that will provide lower-priced high quality health care AND preserve our liberties.  And the Democrat pseudo outrage that “Republicans weren’t offering an alternative” was just that.

I loved an ironic mock response to the basic Republican proposal:

It’s stupid. You’re a racist. You’re a homophobe. You’re a warmonger…  Make my car payment.  Feed me.  Change my diaper.

Nailed it.

A CNS article lays out the facts that never seem to get laid out in the dishonest mainstream media propaganda:

Republicans Have Offered Three Alternative Health Care Reform Bills
Monday, August 24, 2009
By Penny Starr, Senior Staff Writer

(CNSNews.com) – President Barack Obama and Democrats in Congress — while pushing their own health care overhauls — have criticized Republicans as offering only opposition and no ideas for reform, but the GOP, despite the lack of media attention, has introduced three health care bills.

The three Republican bills total almost 400 pages and have been on the table since May and June.

In May, Republicans in the House and the Senate formed a bicameral coalition to produce the130-page “Patients Choice Act of 2009.”

In June, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) introduced the “Health Care Freedom Plan,” a 41-page proposal.

And in July, the Republican Study Committee, under the leadership of Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.), unveiled the “Empowering Patients First Act,” a 130-page plan.

Some of the provisions included in one or more of the bills include: investing in preventive medicine, an overhaul of Medicaid, reduction of abuse and fraud in the Medicare program, supplemental health insurance for low-income families, tax credits for health insurance, and a ban on federal funds being used for abortions.

However, supporters of the Democratic plans have accused Republicans of trying to derail attempts at reforming health care without having a plan of their own.

“There is no Republican health care plan out there,” Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) told Talk Radio News Service on July 31 about what he called the Republican-backed “misinformation campaign” that is slowing health care reform.

He said Republicans are satisfied with the status quo and “don’t want to show the American people where they stand on these issues.”

At a White House briefing on Aug. 18, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs criticized Republicans for not wanting to make the health care system better.

“Only a handful seem interested in the type of comprehensive reform that so many people believe is necessary to ensure the principles and the goals that the president has laid out,” Gibbs said.

In May, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) said his bill, co-sponsored by Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), and Reps. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), puts a priority on patients and their ability to oversee their own health care choices.

“As a practicing physician, I have seen first-hand how giving government more control over health care has failed to make health care more affordable or accessible,” Coburn said. “The ‘Patients Choice Act’ will provide every American with access to affordable health care without a tax increase, more debt or waiting lines.”

“The American health care system needs a complete transformation,” Burr said. “The ‘Patients’ Choice Act’ will finally enable Americans to own their health care instead of being trapped in the current system, which leaves people either uninsured, dependent on their employer, or forced into a government program.”

The “Patients Choice Act” has been referred to the Senate Finance Committee, which is set to release a Democratic-crafted bill from that committee when Congress returns after Labor Day.

In June, DeMint, chairman of the Senate Steering Committee, introduced the “Health Care Freedom Plan,” which was analyzed by the Heritage Foundation. The conservative policy think tank said DeMint’s bill could reduce the number of uninsured by 22.4 million people in five years.

It also provides grants to help people with pre-existing conditions gain access to affordable insurance, and allows Americans to purchase health savings accounts to pay for insurance.

“The time has come for Americans to regain control of their health care choices, and the ‘Health Care Freedom Act’ empowers every American with the freedom to choose and own a plan that is best for them,” DeMint said.

DeMint’s bill also has been referred to the Senate Finance Committee.

In July, Price, who is also a practicing physician, introduced the “Empowering Patients First Act.”

“Today, we present a solution for health care reform that offers more patient-centered choices and care of the highest quality,” Price said. “The ‘Empowering Patients First Act’ is a budget neutral proposal based on the fundamental principle that personal medical decisions should be made by patients in consultation with the doctors rather than unaccountable bureaucrats in Washington.”

Price’s bill also emphasizes preventive health care, tax credits, reduction of fraud and abuse in existing federal health care programs, and health care programs tailored to meet the needs of Native Americans and U.S. military veterans.

The bill has been referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, as well as to the committees on Ways and Means, Education and Labor, Oversight and Government Reform, and the Judiciary, Rules, Budget, and Appropriations committees.

There are differences between the legislation offered so far by Republicans. The “Empowering Patients First Act,” for example, is the only one of the three proposed bills that specifically prohibits federal funds being used for abortion.

The fate of the Republican proposals is also uncertain, with the Democrats controlling both chambers of Congress and Obama in charge of signing whatever final health care reform legislation lands on his desk.

If the Democrats are so patently dishonest that they are deceitfully working to prevent the American people from knowing that these bills even exist, then what else are they lying about?  If you start examining their rhetoric and their proposals, you’ll find plenty of lies.

In any event, since the mainstream media is as dishonest as the Democrats whose agenda they propagandize, please tell your neighbors, friends, and co-workers that- contrary to the liberal lie – the Republicans really DO have a viable health care plan.

Obama And The HUGE Health Care Tax That He Simply Refuses To Call A Tax

At the Oct. 7 presidential debate, Barack Obama said, “If you make less than a quarter of a million dollars a year, you will not see a single dime of your taxes go up. If you make $200,000 a year or less, your taxes will go down.”

I point this out so that you realize that Obama supports your (note: use any word but “taxes” here) going up by 85800 dimes if your family makes $66,000 a year.  More on that later.

And as part of my “I told you so” moment, allow me to cite my October 2008 article entitled “Obama-Biden Will Come After Middle Class With Taxes.”

Our Narcissist-in-Chief appeared on five Sunday morning political talk show programs to sell the current iteration of ObamaCare.  During his time with George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s “This Week,” there was this exchange:

STEPHANOPOULOS: You were against the individual mandate…

OBAMA: Yes.

STEPHANOPOULOS: …during the campaign. Under this mandate, the government is forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don’t

How is that not a tax?

OBAMA: Well, hold on a second, George. Here — here’s what’s happening. You and I are both paying $900, on average — our families — in higher premiums because of uncompensated care. Now what I’ve said is that if you can’t afford health insurance, you certainly shouldn’t be punished for that. That’s just piling on.

If, on the other hand, we’re giving tax credits, we’ve set up an exchange, you are now part of a big pool, we’ve driven down the costs, we’ve done everything we can and you actually can afford health insurance, but you’ve just decided, you know what, I want to take my chances. And then you get hit by a bus and you and I have to pay for the emergency room care, that’s…

STEPHANOPOULOS: That may be, but it’s still a tax increase.

OBAMA: No. That’s not true, George. The — for us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. What it’s saying is, is that we’re not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore than the fact that right now everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance. Nobody considers that a tax increase.

People say to themselves, that is a fair way to make sure that if you hit my car, that I’m not covering all the costs.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But it may be fair, it may be good public policy…

OBAMA: No, but — but, George, you — you can’t just make up that language and decide that that’s called a tax increase. Any...

STEPHANOPOULOS: Here’s the…

OBAMA: What — what — if I — if I say that right now your premiums are going to be going up by 5 or 8 or 10 percent next year and you say well, that’s not a tax increase; but, on the other hand, if I say that I don’t want to have to pay for you not carrying coverage even after I give you tax credits that make it affordable, then…

STEPHANOPOULOS: I — I don’t think I’m making it up. Merriam Webster’s Dictionary: Tax — “a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes.”

OBAMA: George, the fact that you looked up Merriam’s Dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you’re stretching a little bit right now. Otherwise, you wouldn’t have gone to the dictionary to check on the definition. I mean what…

STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, no, but…

OBAMA: …what you’re saying is…

STEPHANOPOULOS: I wanted to check for myself. But your critics say it is a tax increase.

OBAMA: My critics say everything is a tax increase. My critics say that I’m taking over every sector of the economy. You know that.

Look, we can have a legitimate debate about whether or not we’re going to have an individual mandate or not, but…

STEPHANOPOULOS: But you reject that it’s a tax increase?

OBAMA: I absolutely reject that notion.

This little chunk of dialogue should show anyone what a truly disingenuous little weasel Barack Obama truly is.

Let’s start with the “critics say it is a tax increase” part that Obama deceitfully jumped all over.  Obama’s answer makes it seem that all the people characterizing the “individual mandate” as a “tax increase” are rightwing Republican loons.  But – to allude to Joe Wilson’s famous outburst – Obama lies.

It’s not just conservatives who are calling it a tax increase.  Senator Max Baucus, the author of the Senate bill – HIMSELF calls it a tax increase, as the Politico article entitled, “Baucus bill calls individual mandate a tax, Obama says it isn’t” kind of proves.

And it isn’t just Max Baucus who calls it a tax.  The bill itself calls it a tax:

Page 29, sentence one of the bill introduced by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont) says: “The consequence for not maintaining insurance would be an excise tax.”

And just in case someone wants to argue that Obama wasn’t familiar with the details of the Baucus bill because it’s so recent (in which case an honest man would have simply kept his mouth shut), allow me to refer to the House bill that has been around for months:

From HR 3200, page 167, line 15:

What the bill says, pages 167-168, section 401, TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE:

‘‘(a) TAX IMPOSED.—In the case of any individual who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of—

(1) the taxpayer’s modified adjusted gross income for the taxable year, over

(2) the amount of gross income specified in section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer. . . .”

EVALUATION OF THE PASSAGE:

1. This section amends the Internal Revenue Code.

2. Anyone caught without acceptable coverage and not in the government plan will pay a special tax.

3. The IRS will be a major enforcement mechanism for the plan.

And if that isn’t enough to convince someone that Obama is flat-out lying to the American people, let’s go back to his days on the campaign trail to see that he very much knew that his health care agenda was going to cost huge money that would require heavy taxation:

So the “notion” that Obama “absolutely rejects” is absolutely true.  It’s Obama who is lying.

And fortunately, at least some part of the mainstream media realizes it.  In their article entitled, “FACT CHECK: Coverage requirement enforced with tax,” the Associated Press begins by saying:

WASHINGTON – Memo to President Barack Obama: It’s a tax.

So when Obama says, “My critics say everything is a tax increase.”  And, “My critics say I’m taking over every sector of the economy,” maybe people will finally start to trust us when we tell them that everything he’s proposing IS a tax increase, and he really IS taking over every sector of the economy.

You just can’t trust this guy.  He’s the kind of fellow who would candy-coat cow pies and sell them by the dozen.

Let’s look at just how disingenuous and deceitful Obama is as he tries to sell his lie.  He says to Stephanopoulos:

“No, but — but, George, you — you can’t just make up that language and decide that that’s called a tax increase.”

And so Stephanopoulos – perfectly reasonably – referred to the dictionary to demonstrate that he was hardly “making up language” as Obama had just falsely claimed:

“I — I don’t think I’m making it up. Merriam Webster’s Dictionary: Tax — ‘a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes.'”

And you can just wrap up every lie, every fallacy, every disinformation tactic, every pile of crap, ever uttered by this Weasel-in-Chief in this one amazing rhetoric:

“George, the fact that you looked up Merriam’s Dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you’re stretching a little bit right now. Otherwise, you wouldn’t have gone to the dictionary to check on the definition.”

So Obama begins by saying that the notion that the government mandate on individuals being “tax increase” is “made-up language”, and then tries to say that referring to a dictionary and documenting that it is clearly NOT made up language somehow demonstrates the opposite of what it in fact clearly demonstrates.

This is a president who truly believes that you are stupid.

Now that we’ve pointed out that 1) Obama is a liar who 2) thinks you’re stupid and that 3) it clearly IS a tax increase, let us see just how huge of a tax increase that Obama wants to foist on the sea of drooling idiots he calls America.

Under the section entitled, “Would there be an individual mandate?” Time Magazine answers:

Yes. Beginning in 2013, individuals would be required to have health insurance. Individuals and families who do not have insurance for more than three months in a given year would be subject to an annual excise tax of $750 and $1,500, respectively, if their income is below 300% of the federal poverty line (or $66,150 for a family of four). Tax penalties for individuals and families with incomes above that would be $950 and $3,800. The excise tax would be waived for Native Americans and individuals and families whose health-insurance costs would be more than 10% of their annual income.

George Will brings that paragraph into sharp focus in the discussion that followed Obama’s appearance, saying:

“And this week, George, something immense happened, and that is we got a big number. Actually, we got a little number. We deal with hundreds of billions and trillions of dollars in talking about this. The number that came out this week is 13 percent.

They said 13 percent of a family’s income, a family making $66,000 a year, about $15,000 over the median income, about 13 percent of their income under this plan would go for health care, not counting co-payments and not counting deductibles.”

That’s right.  The tax increase that Obama deceitfully refuses to call a tax increase (because that would expose his even more fundamental lie that he would LOWER TAXES for people making less than $200,000 a year) would cost a family making $66,000 a year a whopping $8,500 bucks – not counting co-op payments or deductibles.

That’s 85,850 dimes for those of you who bought Obama’s campaign promise.

So we’re not just talking about a giant lie; we’re talking about an incredibly expensive lie.  Quite possibly the most expensive lie in American political history.

Barack Obama is a man who literally began his presidential run with a lie:

MR. RUSSERT: But, but—so you will not run for president or vice president in 2008?

SEN. OBAMA: I will not.

As another gigantic lie, Obama promised that he would accept federal matching funds if John McCain did (which McCain kept his word and did).  In rejecting federal matching funds, Obama became the first candidate to reject such funds.  After hypocritically and self-righteously praising the federal matching funds system as “limiting the corrupting influence of money on the race.”

Obama is even worse than a liar. He is a deceiver; he carefully crafts a story with just enough of the truth in it to fool you so you will buy a whole package of lies.

An awful lot of people who voted for Obama or who are supporting his health care plan are going to find themselves very, very shocked if Obama gets anything close to his way.

Don’t believe this president who was against individual mandates before he was for them.  And don’t forget his amazing lie that a huge tax increase isn’t a tax increase.

Politico Article Reveals Obama’s Cloward-Piven Strategy Backfiring

Allow me to refresh your memories concerning the infamous Cloward-Piven strategy, which was the brainchild of two leftist professors to take total control of America by overwhelming its social support structures to create a “crisis”:

In their 1966 article, Cloward and Piven charged that the ruling classes used welfare to weaken the poor; that by providing a social safety net, the rich doused the fires of rebellion. Poor people can advance only when “the rest of society is afraid of them,” Cloward told The New York Times on September 27, 1970. Rather than placating the poor with government hand-outs, wrote Cloward and Piven, activists should work to sabotage and destroy the welfare system; the collapse of the welfare state would ignite a political and financial crisis that would rock the nation; poor people would rise in revolt; only then would “the rest of society” accept their demands.

The key to sparking this rebellion would be to expose the inadequacy of the welfare state. Cloward-Piven’s early promoters cited radical organizer Saul Alinsky as their inspiration. “Make the enemy live up to their (sic) own book of rules,” Alinsky wrote in his 1972 book Rules for Radicals. When pressed to honor every word of every law and statute, every Judaeo-Christian moral tenet, and every implicit promise of the liberal social contract, human agencies inevitably fall short. The system’s failure to “live up” to its rule book can then be used to discredit it altogether, and to replace the capitalist “rule book” with a socialist one.

I genuinely believe that Barack Obama – a follower of Saul Alinsky as well as the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate when he belonged to it to go along with a long and deep relationship with leftist radicals – is pursuing a “heads we win, tails you lose” strategy. If the economy somehow miraculously picks up under all of this massive spending and even more massive debt, then Democrats win big and Republicans lose. If – far more likely – the economy crashes under its own massive weight due to hyperinflation as interest payments on the debt soar and the Obama Treasury devalues the currency by printing money, then a starving, terrified people will scream for help from their government. And Democrats will – in solving the “crisis” they themselves created – secure the pure-socialist totalitarian state they have always envisioned. Either way, Obama liberals believe they will win big.

Government by crisis is a tried and true fascist approach.  It is up to you to decide whether it is a coincidence or not that Barack Obama is using the same approach, as described by his Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel:

EMANUEL:  “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.  What I mean by that is it’s an opportunity to do things that you think you could not do before.  This is an opportunity. What used to be long-term problems — be they in the health care area, energy area, education area, fiscal area, tax area, regulatory reform area — things that we had postponed for too long that were long-term are now immediate and must be dealt with.  And this crisis provides the opportunity for us, as I would say, the opportunity to do things that you could not do before.”

Obama began his presidency by fearmongering a crisis to get his way.  He fearmongered the stimulus through the Congress, predicting terrifying scenarios if it failed and hyping claims that have turned out to be completely false if he got his way.  Republicans were completely shut out of the stimulus, and the legislation was rushed through Congress so quickly that not one single Representative or Senator had any chance to read the bill that Obama then took leisurely four days to sign.

There was just one problem: Cloward-Piven depended for its success upon a death by incrementalism, as vividly depicted by a frog placed in a pot of water.  If you put the frog in boiling water, it will leap out immediately.  But if you put the frog in cool water and gradually turn up the heat, you can literally cook the frog to death.  Obama’s problem is that he turned the heat up too fast for the American people, and they are now leaping out of the boiling cauldron he created for them.

Or, perhaps another illustration will do to depict the American people-as-frog:

Note that the article that follows is written from a clear liberal slant (e.g., “Then Obama lost control of the health care debate by letting Republicans get away with their bogus claims about “death panels.”). Nevertheless, the article clearly admits to the crisis-style mentality that Obama used to try to push through his entire agenda at once.

Obama’s Big Bang could go bust
By: Mike Allen and Jim VandeHei
August 21, 2009

Barack Obama’s Big Bang is beginning to backfire, as his plans for rapid, once-in-a-generation overhauls of energy, financial regulation and health care are running into stiff resistance, both in Washington and around the country.

The Obama theory was simple, though always freighted with risk: Use a season of economic anxiety to enact sweeping changes the public likely wouldn’t stomach in ordinary times. But the abrupt swing in the public’s mood, from optimism about Obama’s possibility to concern he may be overreaching, has thrown the White House off its strategy and forced the president to curtail his ambitions.

Some Democrats point to a decision in June as the first vivid sign of trouble for Obama. These Democrats say the White House, in retrospect, made a grievous mistake by muscling conservative Democrats in swing districts to vote for a cap-and-trade energy bill that was very unpopular among their constituents.

Many of those members were pounded back home because Democrats passed a bill Republicans successfully portrayed as a big tax increase on consumers. The result: many conservative Democrats were gun-shy about taking any more risky votes — or going out on a limb on health care.

The other result: The prospects for winning final passage of a cap-and-trade bill this year are greatly diminished. And, while most Democrats still predict a health care bill will pass this year, it is likely to be a shadow of what Obama once had planned.

“The majority-makers are the freshman and sophomores from conservative districts where there’s this narrative building about giveaways, bailouts and too much change at once,” said a top House Democratic strategist, who requested anonymity to discuss internal politics candidly. “There’s this big snowball building in those districts. That’s why those folks are so scared.”

David Axelrod, Obama’s political architect, said it was “very clear early in the transition” that Obama would have to attack a number of festering issues simultaneously.

“The times demanded it,” he said in an interview. “We didn’t have the luxury of taking things sequentially, year after year, and hoping we got there. That’s the reason that all these major issues had been deferred for decades: Change is hard.”

Axelrod said the president is “looking forward to an active fall” when he returns from next week’s vacation on Martha’s Vineyard, and is not as worried about the outlook as the denizens of Washington, where “every day is election day.”

But the “Big Bang” theory of governance, as some White House insiders called it, is not without risk and consequences.

By doing so much, so fast, Obama gave Republicans the chance to define large swaths of the debate. Conservatives successfully portrayed the stimulus bill as being full of pork for Democrats. Then Obama lost control of the health care debate by letting Republicans get away with their bogus claims about “death panels.” The GOP also has successfully raised concerns that the Obama plan is a big-government takeover of health care — and much of Middle America bought the idea, according to polls.

By doing so much, so fast, Obama never sufficiently educated the public on the logic behind his policies. He spent little time explaining the biggest bailouts in U.S. history, which he inherited but supported and expanded. And then he lost crucial support on the left by not following up quickly with new and stricter rules for Wall Street. On Friday, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman echoed a concern widely shared among leading liberals. “I don’t know if administration officials realize just how much damage they’ve done themselves with their kid-gloves treatment of the financial industry, just how badly the spectacle of government supported institutions paying giant bonuses is playing.”

By doing so much so fast, Obama jammed the circuits on Capitol Hill. Congress has a hard time doing even one big thing well at a time. Congress is good at passing giveaways and tax cuts, but has not enacted a transformative piece of social legislation since President Bill Clinton’s welfare reform of 1996. “There’s a reason things up here were built to go slowly,” said another Democratic aide.

By doing so doing so much, so fast, he has left voters — especially independents — worried that he got an overblown sense of his mandates and is doing, well, too much too fast. A Washington Post-ABC News poll published Friday found that independents’ confidence in Obama’s ability to make the right decisions had dropped 20 points since the Inauguration, from 61 percent to 41 percent.

Axelrod and others argue Obama had no choice but to tackle all of these issues at once. That might be true for a stimulus bill and the bank and auto bailouts — but that case is harder to make for energy and health care, which have been the focus of intense debate for decades past and probably will for decades to come.

Go-big-or-go-home isn’t the only theory of the case that a new president can adopt. The most promising alternative is to build public support over time by showing competence and success, then using that to leverage bigger things.

So imagine if Obama had focused on fixing the economy, and chosen presidential power over congressional accommodation and constructed his American Recovery and Reinvestment Act as a true, immediate stimulus without the pork and paybacks.

He then could have pushed through tougher regulation of financial institutions, making it clear people were paying for their sins, and would have a much harder time doing it again. This would have delighted the left and perhaps bought Obama more durable support among independents. Instead, the left thinks he’s beholden to investment banks, and much of the public sees no consequences for the financial mess.

Add in some serious budget cuts, and Obama would have positioned himself as a new kind of liberal with the courage to tame Washington and Wall Street, as promised. Under this scenario, Obama might be getting more credit for the economic recovery that appears to be under way. This would have positioned him to win health care reform starting next year — a mighty achievement, and clear vindication against the doubters. Some White House officials said they are skeptical of moving controversial bills in an election year, when lawmakers are often more timid.

White House officials say they never seriously considered a more incremental approach to the year, though they did privately discuss trying to get regulation of the financial sector done right after the stimulus bill. There was too much disagreement among Democrats at the time over how far to go with regulation to proceed.

If the current strategy fails, the same person who got much of the credit for the crisp first 100 days will get some of the blame: White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel. It was Emanuel who has strongly advocated the big-bang approach, declaring during the transition: “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. Now, what I mean by that, it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do.”

The confidence of Obama’s aides was bolstered by their fresh memory that a similar approach had worked very effectively for then-President George W Bush after the Sept. 11 attacks. With the public on edge, Bush was able to enact restrictive policies under the banner of protecting American soil, and build an entire new department of government that voters otherwise might have opposed. The economic meltdown would be Obama’s Sept. 11 — the predicate for sweeping legislation that he wanted to enact anyway.

Just past halftime in his first year, the president has won passage of a long list of bills that the White House points to as proof of their approach. In addition to the stimulus, Obama signed major bills on tobacco, pay equity, children’s health insurance, national service and the mortgage rescue. If he gets health care and either energy or regulation this year, it would be hard to argue the big-bang plan wasn’t a success.

Former Rep. Lee Hamilton (D-Ind.), now president and director of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, cautions that any verdict on Obama would be “kind of like judging a major surgical operation in the middle of the operation.”

With Obama reaching the defining season of his freshman year, Hamilton said the current agenda reminds him of the scale of the Great Society programs Congress was tackling when he came to Congress in 1965. “This president thinks big but I also think he acts pragmatically,” Hamilton said. “So many things in a congressional session come together at the last few hours, the last few weeks.”

But sometimes they just come undone.

Zachary Abrahamson contributed to this report.

A number of points of order: Politico says that “Congress…has not enacted a transformative piece of social legislation since President Bill Clinton’s welfare reform of 1996.” But Bill Clinton did not transform anything; it was the Republicans under the Contract with America who imposed the welfare reform of 1996 – and Bill Clinton was forced to sign the thing he subsequently took credit for.

Politico cannot stop itself from falling into blaming Republicans for their  health care demonizing.  But there is an admission that even before health care came up on Obama’s timetable, it was DEMOCRATS who were worried and frightened at the agenda: “There was too much disagreement among Democrats at the time over how far to go with regulation to proceed.” It would be nice if the mainstream media finally reported honestly and acknowledged that if health care doesn’t pass, it is because Democrats are worrying about their seats as an outraged electorate gets its revenge.

Another problem the Politico article glosses over is summed up in the statement: “By doing so much, so fast, Obama never sufficiently educated the public on the logic behind his policies.” But the issue isn’t that Obama never educated the public on the logic behind his policies; it’s that his policies don’t have any logic beyond the most superficial big-government liberalism that most Americans reject.  Other than the argument, “This is a naked power-grab intended to secure Democrat control for perpetuity,” there simply IS no argument.

There’s another point that the Politico article glosses over that emerges from the statement: “There’s a reason things up here were built to go slowly,” said another Democratic aide.” That reason is the Constitution.  We were never set up to be a fascist dictatorship or a totalitarian state disconnected from the deliberation of the people.  Our founders made us to be a nation of laws, and follow a tried-and-true process that would slow us down to avoid tyranny.

But liberals have trampled on the Constitution for years.  Too many leftist intellectuals regard it as the irrelevant product of a cadre of dead, white, sexist, slave-holding males.  Barack Obama has derided the Constitution as “a charter of negative liberties, says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you.” The Constitution becomes a problem for Obama.

We have the right to assemble, but the government is not obliged to transport us to protest sites.  We have the right to speak, but the government is not required to provide us with a megaphone or a platform.  The “negative liberties” allow us our basic freedoms while preserving our individual liberties and responsibilities.  Obama wants to fundamentally do away with the Constitution in order to impose an entirely different system which creates a mega-state that will have innumerable duties to take care of us.

If he succeeds, the America that the founding fathers created will officially cease to exist.  The nanny state isn’t in the Constitution, no matter how many penumbras and emanations liberal justices might claim to see in their crystal-ball-gazing.

As for the “death panels” being a bogus claim, do you want to know where the death panels are?  They are right here:

The whole damn maze of bureaucracy is a “death panel.”  Anyone who thinks that the government will be able to expand their government health care – which is already about to go bankrupt – to tens of millions more people, and save money doing it, is a fool.  They are people who cannot see the facts through their ideology.

The Cloward-Piven strategy appears to be having a problem due to Barack Obama’s arrogance and unwillingness to continue to use the system to “get there” gradually.

The only question, given the massive debts Obama has already accumulated – deficits that literally are more than every president has accumulated from George Washington to George W. Bush, combined – is whether the Cloward-Piven strategy will yet have its chance to work.  It might already be too late.  When you look at our real national debt of more than $100 TRILLION and realize that we cannot possibly repay it, if you have any sense you should get more than a little bit concerned that our leaders simply WILL NOT control their spending.

The Democrats have an endgame: when the system collapses, the panicked people will turn to the very government that created the calamity and demand that it take care of them.  And that is precisely what big government liberals have always preached.

One thing is clear: if Obama wins his “public option” in any form, it will become the anvil that broke the camel’s back.

If Obama’s “Big Bang” doesn’t go bust, America will be the one that goes bust and ends up exploding in a big bang of debt.

Obama Reveals His Porkulus Was Bogus In His Own Bogus Claims

Pardon my language, but the Obama stimulus bill was crap.  It hasn’t produced squat.  It was a gigantic $3.27 trillion socialist spending giveaway that has rightly been called “the Generational Theft Act of 2009.”

First we had Barack Obama, then Joe Biden, falsely claiming that they had the porkulus plan had created or “saved” 150,000 jobs.  There is no proof that any such number of jobs have been created (the figure is actually merely an estimate of what Obama’s own economic advisers say they think the stimulus bill is doing, and not based on any evidence whatsoever of its actual effects).  And for what it’s worth, I can claim that I “saved” 150,000 jobs – and you just try to prove that I didn’t.

Any rational human being has to mock Obama for claiming he “created or saved” jobs.  The national media would NEVER have allowed George Bush to get away with such pinheaded partisan polemics.  By contrast, the mainstream media wouldn’t even allow Bush to claim he kept America safe in spite of the obvious fact that he clearly did.  Even five years after 9/11, fully two-thirds of New Yorkers said they were still “very concerned” about another terrorist attack on the city.  Everybody thought we’d be attacked by terrorists again.  Bush kept the American people safe by carrying the fight to the enemy on foreign soil.  Yet the media that has blithely allowed Obama to claim he “saved” jobs has bitterly resisted allowing Bush to claim he “saved” lives.

Obama’s arguments that the stimulus worked have increasingly come to sound like Hitler’s claims that the invasion of the Soviet Union worked.

Among other problems is the fact that only 3% of the stimulus funds have been actually spent so far, which precludes it as a factor in any discussion of “economic recovery.”  Particularly when the states and regions that were hardest hit by the bad economic conditions didn’t even get any money.  And please don’t forget that conservative predicted that the funds wouldn’t go out fast enough to make any difference in any short-term economic recovery, and complained that the people weren’t given enough time to pass a better bill.  Congressional Democrats didn’t even read the bill that they rushed through the process.

Obama’s own rhetoric proves how terribly flawed his arguments and ideas were.

Obama promised Caterpillar workers in Peoria, Illinois that laid-off workers would be rehired if his “Death to America Act” (aka his stimulus bill) passed.   Not only was that a complete fabrication, but 2,400 additional workers have been laid off since the passage of porkulus.

But now there’s an even BIGGER bogus ‘Bama baloney claim that has been utterly refuted by actual reality.  In a March 7 speech in Columbus, Ohio, Obama said the following:

Now there were those — there were those who argued that our recovery plan was unwise and unnecessary. They opposed the very notion that government has a role in ending the cycle of job loss at the heart of this recession. There are those who believe that all we can do is repeat the very same policies that led us here in the first place. […]

So for those who still doubt the wisdom of our recovery plan, I ask them to talk to the teachers who are still able to teach our children because we passed this plan. I ask them to talk to the nurses who are still able to care for our sick, and the firefighters and first responders who will still be able to keep our communities safe. I ask them to come to Ohio and meet the 25 men and women who will soon be protecting the streets of Columbus because we passed this plan. (Applause.) I look at these young men and women, I look into their eyes and I see their badges today and I know we did the right thing.

These jobs and the jobs of so many other police officers and teachers and firefighters all across Ohio will now be saved because of this recovery plan -– a plan that will also create jobs in every corner of this state. Last week, we announced that Ohio would receive $128 million that will put people to work renovating and rebuilding affordable housing. (Applause.) On Tuesday — on Tuesday I announced that we’d be sending another $935 million to Ohio that will create jobs rebuilding our roads, our bridges, and our highways. (Applause.) And yesterday, Vice President Biden announced $180 million for this state that will go towards expanding mass transit and buying fuel-efficient buses -– money that will be putting people to work, getting people to work. (Applause.)

Altogether, this recovery plan will save and create over three and a half million American jobs over the next two years.

Well, what has happened since the applause lines?  What has happened since the Teleprompter of the United States was packed up and hauled away?

The AP article covering the event noted that Obama “suggested that critics talk to 25 police recruits in Ohio’s capital city who owe their jobs to stimulus spending and ‘talk to the teachers who are still able to teach our children because we passed this plan.’”  It also described how “Obama touted the 114th police recruit class as proof that the stimulus plan, which drew scant Republican support in Congress, is paying dividends.”

That article also presented the Republican prediction that the stimulus would be a failure, and why it would be a failure.  The very last sentence in the article says:

Breann Gonzalez, a spokeswoman for Rep. Pat Tiberi, one of eight Ohio Republicans who voted against the stimulus, noted that the money that saved the recruits’ jobs will run out next year. [Columbus Mayor] Coleman hasn’t said how he’ll pay the officers’ salaries after that.

Look what has happened since:

Without tax increase, 300 police officers to be laid off
By Robert Vitale  May 26, 2009   THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

Nearly 300 Columbus police officers – 17 percent of the force – will be laid off next year if voters don’t approve an income-tax increase on Aug. 4, Columbus Police Chief Walter Distelzweig said this morning.

“If we receive additional revenue, these cuts would not be made,” Distelzweig said.

The 2010 budget plan he unveiled this morning is based on revenue projections without the proposed tax increase. The Police Division would shrink by 324 officers, with 297 layoffs and 27 retirements, according to the chief.

If the cuts happen, the division would have fewer officers than in any year since 1993. Columbus had 91,000 fewer residents then.

Potential layoffs would affect the 25 recruits whose class was saved by federal stimulus money this year. Officers hired during the past four years likely would lose their jobs, Distelzweig said.

And I’d be willing to bet the jobs of all the firefighters and nurses and teachers Obama talked all that smack about are in the same boat.

In other words, Obama created 25 jobs and saved about 300 others – until they were told to expect their pink slips less than 3 months later.  And it only cost $3.27 trillion dollars.  There’s your tax dollars at work.

How is it that jobs that have already been “saved” by Obama’s gargantuan stimulus plan now have to be “saved” again by a massive state tax increase?

About the only jobs that are being created by porkulus seem to be making the road signs that falsely advertise currently nonexistent construction projects.

We’ve also learned the poor are getting poorer under Obama’s “stimulus.”

Obama’s stimulus was based on bogus and failed economic theory that won’t work.  The President of the European Union has called Obama’s plan “the road to hell” and argued that it “will undermine the stability of the global financial market.”  China’s Director General of the Chinese Banking Regulatory Commission has expressed fear that Obama would
“devalue not only your [US] currency but the currencies throughout the world.”  Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin warned Obama about his country’s own failed experiment with socialism and urged against “excessive intervention in economic activity and blind faith in the state’s omnipotence.” And “analysts are increasingly concerned about the Treasury’s ability to fund costly economic rescue measures that are expected to drive this year’s budget deficit to $1.75 trillion.”

Don’t take my word for it that the stimulus was the gargantuan fraud that Republicans claimed it would be; just look at what Obama promised would happen, versus what actually HAS happened.

Actual Job Creators Favor McCain 4-1 Over Obama

It aint just Joe the Plumber; chief executive officers have a lot of problems with Barack Obama’s socialism, too.

Obama’s “spread the wealth around” answer to plumber Joe Wurzelbacher about the fact that his buying a plumbing business would put him into Obama’s $200,000 class warfare zone is the quintessential definition of socialism.  There literally could not be a better four-word definition.  It should infuriate Joe.

“Small businesses” which can employ as many as 500 people and gross millions of dollars, employ 84% of American workers.  And of those businesses that employ just ten or more workers, an overwhelming majority would fall under Obama’s federal income tax increase.  80% of the people who would their taxes increase significantly under Obama’s plan are small business owners.  Partnerships, sole proprietors, S corporations–80 percent of the tax returns are in those brackets that Obama considers rich.  Under Obama’s plan, a lot of ordinary workers will lose their jobs as employers struggle to retain profitability or even make payroll.

People are most concerned about jobs right now; maybe they should stop listening to mainstream media ideologues and start listening to the people who actually create jobs:

Chief Executive Magazine’s most recent polling of 751 CEOs shows that GOP presidential candidate John McCain is the preferred choice for CEOs. According to the poll, which is featured on the cover of Chief Executive’s most recent issue, by a four-to-one margin, CEOs support Senator John McCain over Senator Barack Obama. Moreover, 74 percent of the executives say they fear that an Obama presidency would be disastrous for the country.

“The stakes for this presidential election are higher than they’ve ever been in recent memory,” said Edward M. Kopko, CEO and Publisher of Chief Executive magazine. “We’ve been experiencing consecutive job losses for nine months now. There’s no doubt that reviving the job market will be a top priority for the incoming president. And job creating CEOs repeatedly tell us that McCain’s policies are far more conducive to a more positive employment environment than Obama’s.”

“Disastrous for the country.”  That doesn’t sound good.  And that’s about as optimistic as the CEO’s get about Barack Obama:

“I’m not terribly excited about McCain being president, but I’m sure that Obama, if elected, will have a negative impact on business and the economy,” said one CEO voicing his lack of enthusiasm for either candidate, but particularly Obama.

In expressing their rejection of Senator Obama, some CEOs who responded to the survey went as far as to say that “some of his programs would bankrupt the country within three years, if implemented.” In fact, the poll highlights that Obama’s tax policies, which scored the lowest grade in the poll, are particularly unpopular among CEOs.

“Bankrupt the country within three years.”  There.  You want socialism, you can have it.  “Spread the wealth around” so that country itself is as broke as the defaulting homeowners and the defaulting mortgage houses we keep hearing about.

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.

Barack Obama’s health care plan is estimated to cost $1.6 trillion in 10 years.  But that doesn’t take into account the very sort of cost overruns and cost increases that are even now plaguing the very state that Obama is basing his own plan upon.  What is going to happen to our economy given the extremely real likelihood that Obama’s massive national plan runs into similar issues?  Do you believe our economy is strong enough to bear the brunt of these massive cost increases?

Did you like that $850 billion government bailout of the US economy?  No?  Then you probably won’t like Obama’s $845 billion bailout of the world, either.

Sen. Barack Obama, perhaps giving America a preview of priorities he would pursue if elected president, is rejoicing over the Senate committee passage of a plan that could end up costing taxpayers billions of dollars in an attempt to reduce poverty in other nations.

The bill, called the Global Poverty Act, is the type of legislation, “We can – and must – make … a priority,” said Obama, a co-sponsor.

Barack Obama also wants to push alternative energy whether the market wants it or not by dredging up yet another $150 billion from the great-great-great grandchildren of taxpayers while ignoring oil and nuclear power.  He claims he is not opposed to these – now.  But he consistently has been, along with Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, and his carefully-phrased distinctions guarantee we would see neither domestic oil or nuclear power during any administration of his.  The problem is, alternative energy will not be able to even begin to make a dent in our energy demand for decades to come.  Oil products constitute nearly 90% of our energy.  And Obama’s “safety regulations” would ensure that the only alternative energy source that even could conceivably lessen our need for oil, gas, and coal – nuclear power – would be unable to even get through the permit process during an Obama presidency.  Saying you “won’t take it off the table” is a far cry from supporting it, especially when you attack the candidate who supports it.

And Obama favors raising capital gains taxes, windfall profits taxes, death taxes, and significantly higher taxes for “the rich.”  At a time when we desperately need investment – which is why the government has been pumping in so many billions – Barack Obama wants to create a powerful negative disincentive to invest in the economy.  Everyone will ultimately pay more because of Obama’s tax plan as businesses pass their additional costs on to consumers through higher prices.  Worse, as Obama finds his income tax base shrivel up, the politician who supported tax increases on those making just $42,000 a year will levy higher taxes on larger groups of tax payers.  The percentage of tax payers in Obama’s “top 5%” have already shrunk by half due to the recent finacial meltdown.  In short, Obama’s tax plan will fail.

By the way, that overwhelming 4-1 preference for McCain over Obama on handling the economy is nearly matched by a better than 3-1 preference for professional soldiers for McCain over Obama on handling our wars and our defense.