Posts Tagged ‘spending’
Even With a Credit Downgrade, Dems Don’t Get It
Can we really be surprised that the US was going to be downgraded?
I love America and the exceptionalism that makes us a leader in the world. But as of last night, other nations will have to take the lead in the financial world because the thing that was prophesized, a downgrade in our credit rating, happened.
We can’t say we were not warned of this. During the debt deal debacle, Moody’s and S&P warned the US that in order to preserve the AAA credit rating, at least $4 trillion would have to be shaved from the budget. That means we would have to spend less, because there’s no way we were about to raise that kind of revenue in taxes (at least through direct taxation). The best deal that Congress could schlep together
So, last night we got downgraded and we have to recognize that the Canadian Dollar and the British Pound are safer bets for investment than the US Dollar. We may not want to accept that, but it’s true. And why? Because Congress keeps pushing up the debt ceiling and devaluing the US Dollar.
It’s because Congress’ inability to stop the spending and act responsibly with the American taxpayers’ money that reduces the force of the US Dollar in the world economy. It’s sad that the world has to pick up the spoon and tell Congress to eat our peas. Right, Barry?
Unfortunately, we are staring it right in the face. And until the Congress, and specifically, the militant progressive Lib-crats who only want to cut spending from the Department of Defense to preserve their voter base, changes its ways and does what all of us on Main Street, Elm Street, Sycamore Drive, and Blueberry Way have to do to keep our financial houses in order, it will never change.
And this just in. Democrats want more revenue, aka use class warfare to tax the rich* and punish them for having a corporate jet or an oil business. Ooo…big surprise, Jeebs. I’m all for stopping the cash giveaways but while we are browbeating the rich, perhaps we out to knock off ALL the cash giveaways – which means, cut the spending to bloated wasteful entitlement programs.
It’s stunning how very dimwitted the Dems are on this topic. But hey, their rhetoric is great for politics.
* By the way, you can’t tax the rich because those billionaire corporate jet-owning oil tycoons will just pass the expenses onto their customers. Sooner or later, the middle-class gets the pinch because the poor just can’t pay.
80% of Who, Again?
So, His Eminence, Barack Obama today stood before the White House press junkies and made this statement with respect to the current struggle in Congress over whether we should go further in debt to cover our spending, or cut the spending.
Obama made the statement that 80% of Americans were on his side with respect to the debate of what to include in the debt package. That means that 80% are alright with the aspect with raising taxes.
What 80% of Americans are we talking about here; the ones that live in the US or the ones who vote left wing? Obama hasn’t asked me – or anyone I know about whether they think we should have our federal taxes raised. As a matter of fact, I’m willing to bet that 8 out of 10 people that I asked, "Hey, do you want to have your taxes raised?", they would reply with a hearty "no".
Americans do agree that something has to be done, but it’s pretty arrogant and presumptuous to say that 80% of Americans are behind him when 80% of Americans have never been behind Obama on anything. I would argue that would also include putting a bullet in Osama Bin Laden’s brain pan.
After Obama’s whiny little spat with Eric Cantor yesterday and him stating that he was going back to the American people, rather than actually asking the American people. Obama knows full well what Americans would actually say if he actually asked them.
Raising taxes on the rich, even if we took 100% of their earned revenue in taxes would not solve the problem at all; it’s like taking $1 to pay against a $10,000 debt. But Obama and the Dems are playing the class warfare card, scaring the crap out of those who live on Social Security, and not bothering to look at the federal budget, line by line like he promised during the 2008 campaign, and cutting out the pork. All the man wants to do is raise taxes, and continue to spend – tax and spend, tax and spend.
Obama absolutely refuses to back away from this point and it’s staggering that a man who purports to have an IQ around 140 can’t actually understand this point. Obama lacks the cajones to actually go on record as cutting anything because that’s potential lost votes when 2012 starts rolling around.
And yet, Obama has the audacity to say that Congress is playing politics. If Obama was committed to this process, he would have fulfilled his campaign promises of cutting out unnecessary spending and not raising taxes. He wants to renege on both.
The way out of this situation is what we down on Main Street live with every day: Cut the spending and live within our means.
For Pro-Choicers, It’s Only About the Money
If pro-choice advocates truly believed in keeping government out of the debate of abortion, they wouldn’t accept federal funds for Planned Parenthood.
Well, the Government averted a shutdown in the 11th hour and President Obama took the credit for hammering out a deal which keeps the government running without the distractions of social issues. The thing is, the Democrats were full-ready to shut the government down because the GOP dared to suggest that one of the cuts should be to Planned Parenthood. In short, Democrats were about to tell the military and the rest of the civilian support world that if Abortions-R-Us didn’t get paid, no one else deserved to get paid either. In the end, they showed their true colors – something you don’t see from the Lib-crats.
Every year, the US Government shells out
What gets me is photos like the one to the right, particularly the woman with the sign in the center of the photo. Yes, it’s pretty crude, even for posting on The Rabid Conservative, but
If she were speaking the truth, she would be saying, “Keep your Boehner out of my Government subsidy”. For these pink-clad tarts, it has nothing to do with reproductive rights – for nothing in the spending bills tell them they can’t go out and get preg-ed and have abortions at will, at the drop of a hat. No, this is all about protecting the pro-choice gravy train – ensuring that if a woman wants an abortion, they can get the government (through Planned Parenthood) to pay for it.
If these women truly wanted the government out of their…uhh…business, they wouldn’t make such a big deal out of this. In other words, if pro-choice advocates truly believed in keeping government out of the debate of abortion, they wouldn’t accept federal funds for Planned Parenthood. So why are they have their proverbial panties in a bunch? Because the GOP is threatening to cut off the money, that’s why.
For Lib-crats, it’s all about the money. Let’s take another topic: teaching intelligent design in public schools, or public displays of Christianity at school events. When these topics come up, the American Crazy Liberals Union is the first to step in and say, “oh no no, that violates the Establishment Clause!”. Since the Establishment Clause is all about Congress establishing a religion, the Lib-crats make the point that since the schools are Government-Funded they can’t teach anything that even remotely hints at religious overtones. Lib-crats threaten cutting off tax-exempt status to churches that preach politics from the pulpit. Why? That establishment clause again – because of the money spent.
The government spends money on abortion – plain and simple. This isn’t exactly keeping Uncle Sam out of the topic of so-called “reproductive rights” because what it does is it advocates for one side of a controversial issue by funding it. Cutting off funding doesn’t mean the government has suddenly gone pro-life, it only means that they won’t fund the pro-choice effort either.
Defund Planned Parenthood and let them stand on their own. Let’s spend federal money on things that benefit ALL Americans, not just the ones that choose to devalue life through slaughter of the unborn.
Priorities
ObamAd Inc doesn’t see us as people – it only sees us as wallets from which to take money.
As I listened to the news today, I heard the headline regarding the unexpected drop in the unemployment number, going back down to 10%. And while this isn’t a bad thing, for it is better to see people going back to work, that number rang in my head…10%. While it has gone down, 10% of Americans are still out of work.
But yet, the Senate seems hell-bent on pushing the Senate bill for health care reform through the upper chamber, touting that some 30-40 million Americans don’t have health care. And then that number, 10%, came right back.
And while I’m sure I’m oversimplifying my analysis of the numbers, that 10% of Americans without health care doesn’t equal the 10% of Americans who don’t have work, it is startling that the government is about to spend a trillion dollars of unearned money (which no one has really figured out definitively from where it’s going to come) to fix a system that is not really broken (although it is flawed in a few places) yet the Administration and the Congress are doing nothing to promote jobs.
And then I remember Crazy Uncle Joe Biden’s statement about how the priority needed to be on a three-letter word, J-O-B-S. After laughing at a mistake that my kid would have found amusing, I started shaking my head because J-O-B-S doesn’t really seem to be too important these days, based on how much cash is being thrown at the topic of health reform.
Now before any of you kool-aid drinking liberals out there start talking to me about the stimulus, well, just know that I am not buying that line. The stimulus had nothing to do with really creating jobs because with only 6% of the money spent (again, unearned money from some invisible coffer) and the promise that the jobless rate wouldn’t go above 8% (another lie), I’m not convinced that the stimulus is helping anyone except Democrat cheerleaders, special interests, and pork projects.
But did it ever occur to anyone in Washington that if more emphasis were put on creating jobs by making US companies more competitive, that the problem with health coverage may not be as pervasive? That maybe health reform isn’t all that big of a concern if a person can’t even put food on his/her table.
Americans have made frugality a priority this holiday season, but it would seem that the government doesn’t consider wise spending and fiscal responsibility an issue.
But then, when ever has government ever truly been in sync with the priorities of the people. ObamAd Inc doesn’t see us as people – it only sees us as wallets from which to take money.
What is the Cost of Hope and Change, Now?
Nine trillion.
It’s sobering to think that the cost of hope and change is nine trillion dollars, but that’s what we heard today from President Obama himself.
When does it stop?
When does enough become enough?
When do we, as Americans, finally put our collective foot down and tell Washington that we’re not going to tolerate anymore of the ridiculous spending?
In all fairness, this isn’t all on the shoulders of Barack Obama or George Bush. This is a Washington problem. For some reason, Washington believes the answer to every problem is to throw more money at it. Whether it be the policy of Tax and Spend, made popular by the Democrats, or Deficit Spending made popular by the GOP, the thing is, for some reason, the Washington establishment believes that to survive, it must spend…and spend…and spend.
We spend on defense, we spend on entitlements, we spend when the unions gripe, we spend when Wall Street gripes…and yet, in all of this, we miss the one thing that we need to stop doing…stop the spending.
The Bush White House really began some of the most reckless spending initiatives, allowing for deep deficits and constant increases in the debt ceiling, forgetting the principles of smaller government and fiscal frugality. As time moved on, Obama campaigned on how much George Bush was spending, on how fiscally irresponsible the President was, and said he would go through spending bills, line by line, to eliminate wasteful spending projects.
Yet, we have sat back and watched bill after bill of tremendous spending has been pushed out of Washington, continuously plunging our national debt to such insane lows that now, today, Barack Obama is talking about how we’re talking between seven and nine trillion.
We need to really revisit how we do business in Washington, because both political parties are showing a serious lack of judgment. They don’t read the spending bills. They don’t think it’s okay to spend only money that one has. They insert private projects into these bills to get a piece of the pie. And they don’t care what you have to pay in taxes or what you say in objections.
They spend your money recklessly and they don’t care what you think. They want you to fail so they can succeed.
Nine trillion.
The establishment is corrupt and, for as long as you let them, they remain in control, for as many trillions as you allow.
Do you care?
If you do, it’s time to act…now…before all your money is squandered by reckless bureaucrats.
As I write this, I just learned that Senator Ted Kennedy has just died after his battle with brain cancer. While I really disagreed with most of Senator Kennedy’s initiatives and beliefs and have oft criticized him, I do express my condolences to the Kennedy family as well as the people of Massachusetts for their loss.
Perspective: $100M of a $4T Budget
The omnibus budget from The President (complete with 9,000 earmarks): $4,000,000,000,000.
The amount that the Cabinet has been asked to save: $100,000,000
If we scale it down, that’s $1 instead of $40,000. So, is it better to spend $39,999 or $40,000? Today, you can get a reasonably equipped Hummer H3 for $40,000. Would your buying decision be affected over the expense of one dollar? That’s like saying we won’t buy the Hummer because we didn’t get a complimentary cup of coffee from the dealer.
Big whoop, Mr. President. Zero impressiveness. How about taking out the 9,000 earmarks as a start?
