It's no secret that Obama's got marketing saavy. His campaign was the most well marketed campaign in American history - when you bought into Obama, you bought into the Obama brand. It went beyond campaign slogans and bumper stickers, it was an Obama channel on Dish Network, it was an Obama MySpace page, it was an Obama commemorative plate. He wasn't campaigning for the presidency, he was campaigning to be elected Celebrity-in-Chief.
And there's my point:
When President Obama gives a speech, he's telling the public what they want to hear...and leaving out the whole truth. That's what you've gotta do to keep the opinion polls high. Like today for example, when he announced that by August 31st, 2010, all American troops will be pulled out of Iraq.
The truth is that 50,000 troops will be staying in Iraq 2010 and beyond and they will still be in harms way. Regardless of what he tells "his fans", Obama knows that removing all American troops from this fragile region will destabilize it and could throw the fledgling democracy into chaos. (Making all those American lives lost in vain.)
Another example is the recently passed omnibus stimulus bill. For some time, Obama has been outspoken about his alleged opposition to earmarks. Well, he must not be that opposed because this bill contains 8,571 earmarks (inserted by Democrats and Republicans) and he supports it.
Oh and what about Obama pledging to cut wasteful spending and focus on getting the economy back on track? What about the transparency of government that he promised? Hmmm, well the bill is about 70% social programs and only about 30% actual stimulus and job creation. He's allowing the Democrats to cloak their stale social agenda in the guise of economic stimulus, spending an unprecedented amount of precious taxpayer money in the midst of desperate economic times? How's that for transparency?
The lesson here is to know that the public is being told what they want to hear, rather than what they need to hear. In a time like this, do we want a celebrity or do we want a president?
Friday, February 27, 2009
Monday, February 16, 2009
Abraham Lincoln: REPUBLICAN
Today, as Obama raves on about the legacy of Lincoln, I want to remind everyone that Abraham Lincoln was one of the founders of the Republican Party and was the first Republican President.
Viva la GOP!
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Reaganomics vs. Obamanomics
Just read a great article from the Wall Street Journal. Here it is:
Reaganomics vs. Obamanomics
By Peter Ferrara, Director of Entitlement and Budget Policy for the Institute for Policy Innovation.
"In his inaugural address, President Barack Obama said, "The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works -- whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified." Or as administration spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter said in January, the touchstone is, "What will have the biggest and most immediate impact on creating private sector jobs and strengthening the middle class? We're guided by what works, not by any ideology or special interests."
Unfortunately, this rhetoric is not true. Mr. Obama's economic policy is following not what has been proven to work but liberal ideology.
The best way to understand this is to compare what's being proposed now with what Ronald Reagan accomplished. In 1980, amid a seriously dysfunctional economy, Reagan campaigned for president on an economic recovery program with four specific components.
The first was across-the-board reductions in tax rates to provide incentives for saving, investment, entrepreneurship and work.
The second component was deregulation to remove unnecessary costs on the economy. In today's world, that would especially mean removing the onerous restrictions on energy production -- allowing drilling offshore and onshore for oil and natural gas, revival of the nuclear power industry, and construction of more electric power plants.
Third was the control of government spending. In 1981, Reagan forced through Congress not only his famed, historic tax cuts, but also a package of budget cuts close to 5% of the federal budget -- equivalent to roughly $150 billion today. In constant dollars, nondefense discretionary spending declined by 14.4% from 1981 to 1982, and by 16.8% from 1981 to 1983. Moreover, in constant dollars, this nondefense discretionary spending never returned to its 1981 level for the rest of Reagan's two terms. By 1988, this spending was still down 14.4% from its 1981 level in constant dollars.
Even with the Reagan defense buildup, which helped win the Cold War, total federal spending declined to 21.2% of GDP in 1989 from 23.5% of GDP in 1983. That's a real reduction of 10% in the size of government relative to the economy.
The fourth component of the Reagan recovery plan was tight, anti-inflation monetary policy, which was spectacularly successful. Inflation was cut in half to 6.2% in 1982 from 13.2% in 1980, and cut in half again to 3.2% in 1983.
We know such policies work because they turned around in just two years an economy far worse than today's. We were suffering from multiyear, double-digit inflation, double-digit unemployment, double-digit interest rates, declining incomes, and rising poverty. In fact, what we suffer with today is not the worst economy since the Great Depression, but the worst economy since Jimmy Carter -- the last time liberals were dominant politically and intellectually.
The Obama administration's economic policies do not include any of the four Reagan components. In fact, the stimulus plan is the greatest increase in government spending in the history of the planet. Meanwhile, the Fed is furiously reinflating, sowing more havoc down the line. Mr. Obama is still promising future increases in tax rates by letting the Bush tax cuts lapse, because for ideological reasons he thinks even current rates are too low. And instead of deregulating for more energy production, he is still promising massive increases in regulatory barriers -- through global warming cap-and-trade legislation -- to increased production from proven energy sources to serve an extreme environmentalist ideology.
This is why America seems so hopeless right now, and so depressed. We are stuck going in exactly the wrong direction on economic policy because of currently dominant ideological fashions.
A natural economic recovery will begin sometime this year, not because of the president's policies, but because soon this will be the longest recession since World War II. However, thanks to the administration's retrograde policies -- cut from the cloth of the 1970s and even the 1930s -- the recovery will not be what it should be. Rather, unemployment will remain too high, and inflation will resurge, recreating the disastrous economic results we suffered the last time Keynesian policies were dominant."
Reaganomics vs. Obamanomics
By Peter Ferrara, Director of Entitlement and Budget Policy for the Institute for Policy Innovation.
"In his inaugural address, President Barack Obama said, "The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works -- whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified." Or as administration spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter said in January, the touchstone is, "What will have the biggest and most immediate impact on creating private sector jobs and strengthening the middle class? We're guided by what works, not by any ideology or special interests."
Unfortunately, this rhetoric is not true. Mr. Obama's economic policy is following not what has been proven to work but liberal ideology.
The best way to understand this is to compare what's being proposed now with what Ronald Reagan accomplished. In 1980, amid a seriously dysfunctional economy, Reagan campaigned for president on an economic recovery program with four specific components.
The first was across-the-board reductions in tax rates to provide incentives for saving, investment, entrepreneurship and work.
The second component was deregulation to remove unnecessary costs on the economy. In today's world, that would especially mean removing the onerous restrictions on energy production -- allowing drilling offshore and onshore for oil and natural gas, revival of the nuclear power industry, and construction of more electric power plants.
Third was the control of government spending. In 1981, Reagan forced through Congress not only his famed, historic tax cuts, but also a package of budget cuts close to 5% of the federal budget -- equivalent to roughly $150 billion today. In constant dollars, nondefense discretionary spending declined by 14.4% from 1981 to 1982, and by 16.8% from 1981 to 1983. Moreover, in constant dollars, this nondefense discretionary spending never returned to its 1981 level for the rest of Reagan's two terms. By 1988, this spending was still down 14.4% from its 1981 level in constant dollars.
Even with the Reagan defense buildup, which helped win the Cold War, total federal spending declined to 21.2% of GDP in 1989 from 23.5% of GDP in 1983. That's a real reduction of 10% in the size of government relative to the economy.
The fourth component of the Reagan recovery plan was tight, anti-inflation monetary policy, which was spectacularly successful. Inflation was cut in half to 6.2% in 1982 from 13.2% in 1980, and cut in half again to 3.2% in 1983.
We know such policies work because they turned around in just two years an economy far worse than today's. We were suffering from multiyear, double-digit inflation, double-digit unemployment, double-digit interest rates, declining incomes, and rising poverty. In fact, what we suffer with today is not the worst economy since the Great Depression, but the worst economy since Jimmy Carter -- the last time liberals were dominant politically and intellectually.
The Obama administration's economic policies do not include any of the four Reagan components. In fact, the stimulus plan is the greatest increase in government spending in the history of the planet. Meanwhile, the Fed is furiously reinflating, sowing more havoc down the line. Mr. Obama is still promising future increases in tax rates by letting the Bush tax cuts lapse, because for ideological reasons he thinks even current rates are too low. And instead of deregulating for more energy production, he is still promising massive increases in regulatory barriers -- through global warming cap-and-trade legislation -- to increased production from proven energy sources to serve an extreme environmentalist ideology.
This is why America seems so hopeless right now, and so depressed. We are stuck going in exactly the wrong direction on economic policy because of currently dominant ideological fashions.
A natural economic recovery will begin sometime this year, not because of the president's policies, but because soon this will be the longest recession since World War II. However, thanks to the administration's retrograde policies -- cut from the cloth of the 1970s and even the 1930s -- the recovery will not be what it should be. Rather, unemployment will remain too high, and inflation will resurge, recreating the disastrous economic results we suffered the last time Keynesian policies were dominant."
Friday, February 6, 2009
Geitner and Killifer and Daschle, Oh My!
With all this buzz about the tax woes of several of Obama's cabinet picks, I keep hearing from the media about "how questions have been raised about Obama's vetting process". The truth is that Obama learned of these candidates' tax issues during the vetting and still went on to select them. It was not until the American people learned of these closet-skeletons that the furor began and Killifer and Daschle stepped down. Geitner was actually confirmed and is our new Treasury Secretary, ironically overseeing the IRS.
In a recent interview with Chris Wallace, Obama said:
"I consider this a mistake on my part, one that I intend to fix and correct and make sure that we're not screwing up again," Obama said.
"We can't send a message to the American people that we've got two sets of rules -- one for prominent people and one for ordinary people," Obama said, defending his administration's standards.
"So this is a mistake -- probably not the first one I'm going to be making in this office, but what I'm absolutely committed to doing is fixing it," he said.
Great. He wants to fix it...so why isnt Geitner gone? Hmm? Oh, then listen to this:
Obama denied influencing Daschle's decision to withdraw, which caught a number of senators by surprise Tuesday. Though Daschle caught flak for revelations that he had failed to pay more than $130,000 in taxes, the former Senate majority leader has strong personal ties on Capitol Hill, and several Democrats said they thought he still could have won confirmation.
Obama said the decision was Daschle's.
This is just another great example of Obama's PR saavy. He says that he made a mistake and that he is going to do everything he can to fix it, that there shouldnt be two sets of rules, but then he does nothing. Killifer chose to withdraw, Daschle chose to withdraw. Geitner was confirmed and is not being removed from his position anytime soon.
Should we have HOPE that Obama will soon stop surrounding himself with unethical people?
In a recent interview with Chris Wallace, Obama said:
"I consider this a mistake on my part, one that I intend to fix and correct and make sure that we're not screwing up again," Obama said.
"We can't send a message to the American people that we've got two sets of rules -- one for prominent people and one for ordinary people," Obama said, defending his administration's standards.
"So this is a mistake -- probably not the first one I'm going to be making in this office, but what I'm absolutely committed to doing is fixing it," he said.
Great. He wants to fix it...so why isnt Geitner gone? Hmm? Oh, then listen to this:
Obama denied influencing Daschle's decision to withdraw, which caught a number of senators by surprise Tuesday. Though Daschle caught flak for revelations that he had failed to pay more than $130,000 in taxes, the former Senate majority leader has strong personal ties on Capitol Hill, and several Democrats said they thought he still could have won confirmation.
Obama said the decision was Daschle's.
This is just another great example of Obama's PR saavy. He says that he made a mistake and that he is going to do everything he can to fix it, that there shouldnt be two sets of rules, but then he does nothing. Killifer chose to withdraw, Daschle chose to withdraw. Geitner was confirmed and is not being removed from his position anytime soon.
Should we have HOPE that Obama will soon stop surrounding himself with unethical people?
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
SH*T, the SCHIP
(I dedicate this post to all those morons who argued with me before the election that Obama was going to lower taxes, you were proven wrong in the 1st 100 days. Hell, the first 30 days.)
AP Wire, February 4, 2009:
"President Obama has signed a bill extending health coverage to 4 million uninsured children. The bill calls for spending an additional $32.8 billion on the State Children's Health Insurance Program. Lawmakers generated that revenue by raising the federal tobacco tax. Obama said it is a key step toward his promise of universal health care coverage for all. [It] will mean an estimated 2.4 million children who otherwise would have access to private insurance will join the State Children's Health Insurance Program instead." (Source)
Read that again - they've added coverage for 2.4 million children who already have access to private insurance! This added coverage expands the possible coverage to 350% of the federal poverty line. This means that a family of four making up to $74,200 can receive free government healthcare! And here's the kicker, the bill grants states the ability to determine the limits of a particular family's income (ignoring capital gains, subtracting housing expenses, etc). So, in essence, a family making more than $74,200 could still be eligible if the state allowed it. (Source)
And now for the tax increase part. The money for this wonderful bit of socialism will come from jacking up the tobacco tax. The tobacco tax has now increased from 62 cents to $1.01.
I hate cigarettes as much as the next person but this is a HUGE tax increase and didn't Obama say something about lowering taxes? And, my friends, this is just the beginning.
AP Wire, February 4, 2009:
"President Obama has signed a bill extending health coverage to 4 million uninsured children. The bill calls for spending an additional $32.8 billion on the State Children's Health Insurance Program. Lawmakers generated that revenue by raising the federal tobacco tax. Obama said it is a key step toward his promise of universal health care coverage for all. [It] will mean an estimated 2.4 million children who otherwise would have access to private insurance will join the State Children's Health Insurance Program instead." (Source)
Read that again - they've added coverage for 2.4 million children who already have access to private insurance! This added coverage expands the possible coverage to 350% of the federal poverty line. This means that a family of four making up to $74,200 can receive free government healthcare! And here's the kicker, the bill grants states the ability to determine the limits of a particular family's income (ignoring capital gains, subtracting housing expenses, etc). So, in essence, a family making more than $74,200 could still be eligible if the state allowed it. (Source)
And now for the tax increase part. The money for this wonderful bit of socialism will come from jacking up the tobacco tax. The tobacco tax has now increased from 62 cents to $1.01.
I hate cigarettes as much as the next person but this is a HUGE tax increase and didn't Obama say something about lowering taxes? And, my friends, this is just the beginning.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE!
It's no secret that personal responsibility and accountability in America have gone out the window. We live in a world where you can blame a tobacco company for giving you lung cancer after you've smoked all your life. Where you can sue McDonalds for making you fat. Where you can run up hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt and just file for bankruptcy.
Why should we be surprised when companies like Wells Fargo and Citigroup who are accepting bailout money turn around and spend millions on things like private jets and lavish employee trips? It's just par for the course.
And why should these companies ever worry about being held accountable? The very people who should be going after this irresponsible behavior are busy engaging in crooked behavior of their own. Congress is rife with corruption on both sides of the aisle. Our leaders are engaging in activities such as allowing the housing market to implode while getting sweetheart mortgage deals (Chris Dodd, Kent Conrad, Alphonso Jackson) Like committing tax fraud (Charlie Rangel, Al Franken). Like getting kickbacks (Ted Stevens).
Want to start turning this country around? Take your leaders to task. Get mad and give these dickheads a call. Write a letter. Most importantly: DONT ELECT CROOKS IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!
Why should we be surprised when companies like Wells Fargo and Citigroup who are accepting bailout money turn around and spend millions on things like private jets and lavish employee trips? It's just par for the course.
And why should these companies ever worry about being held accountable? The very people who should be going after this irresponsible behavior are busy engaging in crooked behavior of their own. Congress is rife with corruption on both sides of the aisle. Our leaders are engaging in activities such as allowing the housing market to implode while getting sweetheart mortgage deals (Chris Dodd, Kent Conrad, Alphonso Jackson) Like committing tax fraud (Charlie Rangel, Al Franken). Like getting kickbacks (Ted Stevens).
Want to start turning this country around? Take your leaders to task. Get mad and give these dickheads a call. Write a letter. Most importantly: DONT ELECT CROOKS IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
