.
Thursday, May 31, 2012
OUR PRESIDENT HAS NO CLASS…NONE!!
Ok, it's now officially time for me to be even more blunt that usual. Today was the unveiling of former President George W. Bush's official portrait at the White House, and he was naturally joined in the occasion by Barry and their wives in delivering some brief remarks. But it seemed that Barry just could not resist the temptation during the ceremony to veer off into Barry lala land and to reiterate his frequent trope regarding how it was that he inherited our bad economy from Bush. "The months before I took the oath of office were a chaotic time," Barry said, after explaining that the president's job is isolating, and that he and Bush have a connection since so few have held the job. "We knew our economy was in trouble, our fellow Americans were in pain, but we wouldn't know until later just how breathtaking the financial crisis had been."
Barry did half-heartedly note the Bush 'tried' to get it right. "Still, over those 2 1/2 months, in the midst of that crisis, President Bush, his cabinet, his staff, many of you who are here today, went out of your ways--George, you went out of your way--to make sure that the transition to a new administration was a seamless as possible. President Bush understood that rescuing our economy was not just a Democratic or Republican issue, it was an American priority. I'll always be grateful for that." This guy is nothing if not a pathetic opportunist. He is compelled to insert politics into everything, even an occasion such as this where politics really has no part. To behave in such a juvenile manner demonstrates very clearly the fact that our president possess not one shred of character. He is the most unpresidential president to come along since "BJ" Clinton. But even "BJ" had a bit more class that this guy.
SO TELL ME AGAIN WHOSE CONDUCTING A 'WAR ON WOMEN'...
Well it would seem that our "Dear Beloved Leader", Barry "Almighty" has once again decided to play it safe by doing that which he does best when it comes to 'sensitive issues', take the coward's way out. Because apparently, the White House does not yet determined the potential political consequences whether or not Barry should support or oppose a bill banning gender-selective abortions. Hell, I thought Barry was in favor of pretty much all abortions. When asked about the House bill on Wednesday, White House Press Secretary Jay "Dim Bulb" Carney said he would have to check. Yup, he's going to go right off and check on that. Don't hold your breath. I think it is just one more issue, on a rather long list of many, that they hope they can just make go away by ignoring it.
Anyway, when a reporter asked our buddy Jay, “The House is, I think this afternoon, preparing to take up a bill that would ban gender selection as a factor in abortions in this country. And I was wondering -- I haven’t seen it in a statement of administration policy, and I was wondering if the White House had a position on that.” Carney, being his ever obediently incoherent and evasive self, did not have an immediate answer. Instead he mumbled, “I will have to take that as well.” And then quickly added, “Been focused on other things. But I will get back to you.” Right, what he really meant was that he'll have to go check with the boss and so that he can then come up with one of his by now trademark non-answer, answers.
The bill in question here is what's called the Parental Non-Discrimination Act and it is expected to come to the House floor today, Thursday, at least according to the office of Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa). The bill would make abortions based on a baby’s gender illegal by creating a penalty for those who knowingly have gender-selective abortions, coerce a woman into having one, or provide transportation to a woman so that she can come to the U.S. to have a gender-selective abortion. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. And ordinarily wouldn't you think that this is exactly the type of an issue where you could expect to see nearly all women's groups gladly uniting behind? Sadly, apparently such is not the case!
“There are more than two hundred million missing little girls who were aborted for the sole reason that they were girls,” King said in a statement. That is absolutely staggering to even consider. Rep. King went on to say, “The three most dangerous words are ‘it's a girl,’ but decision time does not happen when you find out the sex of your baby. PRENDA (the House bill) will protect unborn babies from being aborted because it's about a child, not a choice. I will continue to defend the unborn. There should be no question where to stand because the choice is clear -- every child deserves the right to a fulfilling life.” You know, it's pretty sad that we even have to have this kind of legislation.
"We are the only advanced country left in the world that still doesn't restrict sex-selection abortion in any way," said Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), the bill’s sponsor. "This evil practice has now allowed thousands of little girls in America and millions of little girls across the world to be brutally dismembered." Franks and others say there is evidence of sex-selection abortions in the United States among certain ethnic groups from countries such as China and India, where there is a traditional preference for sons. There is only one way to describe such a practice as this, it is barbaric to the extreme. I mean here we are in the 21st century and we're murdering babies for no other reason than because they're perceived to be of the wrong gender.
And in what is, I suppose, something that should really come as no surprise is the fact that Planned Parenthood Federation of America, that franchise which functions as the nation’s largest abortion mill, actually issued a statement that made clear its opposition to the legislation. “As the nation’s leading sexual and reproductive health provider and advocate, Planned Parenthood knows all too well that women still face gender discrimination in this country,” Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards said in a statement. “We oppose sex selection abortion. But this bill does nothing to advance protections against discrimination and instead will have the result of further shaming and stigmatizing women.” What kind of an idiotic statement is that.
Now I could be wrong, Lord knows I have been before, but I would think that if there is anything that can be used to identify just who the active participants might be in what's being called a war on women, it is this legislation, and the positions that any number of certain groups may have on it. Because it would seem to me that if you are 'for' this particular piece of legislation then you can safely be considered as being pro-women, and if you are against it, well then, you're not. And I really don't understand how any organization that claims to be 'for' women's rights, can take a stand against a bill like this and still be able to maintain any level of credibility, whatsoever, regarding it's claims to be some sort of an advocacy group for women's health issues. It just doesn't compute.
HERE WE GO AGAIN...
The Democrat rhetoric has already begun regarding what they see as being the need for once again 'raising' the debt limit. As always, the Democrat philosophy is one of lie loudly and lie often and it is once again being put out there on full display. But because there is never any desire, whatsoever, on the part of Democrats to reduce spending, except on things like national defense, they are already working very hard to paint the Republicans as being the ones who will be at fault for what may happen should there not be a hike in debt limit. To the Democrat Party, the continuing fiscal mess that we find ourselves in, and that they played the biggest role in creating, is nothing more than something to now be used as a campaign weapon against the opposition. While they lie and attempt to blame everyone but themselves for the mess, millions of Americans are hurting. But that seems to be much less important than them getting re-elected. Electoral success is the standard by which everything is measured for Democrats!
So, now we have that perennial gas bag, House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), who just this past Wednesday, launched into what has become the typical level of Democrat hysterics and once again sounding like the proverbial broken record. Not raising the debt ceiling late this year simply is “not an option,” he declared. Addressing a weekly press briefing, Steny once again set out to disparage the opposition as he 'predicted' that House Republicans would hold middle-class tax cuts “hostage” in any negotiations over once again raising the debt ceiling and avoiding what he described as the so-called “fiscal cliff.” “Hopefully we will deal with the debt limit extension in a responsible way,” he said. “And by that I mean everybody – everybody – in the leadership, Republican and Democratic, knows that there is not an option but to extend the debt limit.” That all sounds pretty good, even rational, but it's all a bunch of bull sh!t. Democrats, as usual, have no intention of behaving in a responsible way. If they did, we wouldn't be where we are!
Sounding like the pathetic hypocrite that we all know he pretty much is, Hoyer said he was “hopeful” that Republicans would not use the debt limit increase, which will not be necessary until sometime this winter, as leverage to enact their priorities. “I am hopeful that the Republican leadership – and we will join them if in fact they are prepared to do this – will deal with the debt limit extension in a way that does not create the lack of confidence, the confrontation, [and] the gridlock that almost led America to defaulting on its debts for the first time in my service here.” Hopeful? Old Steny says he is hopeful? Look, if there is one thing I think we all should be able to recognize by now, it's the fact that you can't compromise with Democrats. They have no interest in compromise and therefore make it impossible. Compromise is always a one way street for slugs like Hoyer. He talks a fine line, but like all Democrats, he's doing nothing more than lying through his freakin teeth. Hopeful, my ASS!
Meanwhile, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has already made it quite clear that he plans to use the debt limit increase as leverage to pursue further spending cuts. “I will again insist on my simple principle of cuts and reforms greater than the debt limit increase,” he said in a recent speech. Boehner accomplished that goal last August in debt ceiling negotiations with the White House, securing cuts in excess of the debt ceiling increase. However, he believes more is possible this time. “This is the only avenue I see right now to force the elected leadership of this country to solve our structural fiscal imbalance,” he said in the May 15 address to the Peter G. Peterson Foundation. “We can make the bold cuts and reforms necessary to meet this principle, and we must.” I'm curious though how the Speaker intends to respond to what will most assuredly be all manner of juvenile election year accusations that will be coming for the likes of old Steny. I hope he's arming up with a good response, because he's going to need it.
'Gas Bag' Hoyer harped on what has become the standard party line for Democrat, that Republicans will look to be holding middle-class tax cuts “hostage” to their other priorities, such as extending tax cuts for the wealthy and cutting spending. “The Republican agenda again appears to be placing the middle-class tax cuts as hostage for the continued tax cuts on the very wealthiest in America, and we think that’s unjustified,” he droned. Hoyer said Republicans had an “all-or-nothing” attitude that would make coming negotiations over the debt ceiling all the harder. He hinted that Democrats were willing to compromise on some issues. “The all-or-nothing attitude that the Republicans continue to take is going to assure, I think, that we don’t have agreement. Again, some conservatives will apparently be happy about that because they’re not looking for compromise or agreement, they’re looking for confrontation.” Does anyone really buy this crap anymore? Hoyer's hinting that Democrats would be willing to compromise is nothing short of a fairytale.
He did provide one little caveat however, saying that any 'compromise' would come “after the election.” He went on to say, “I believe one of the most important things that members of Congress ought to be focused on – and the country needs to be focused on – is trying to prepare for this fiscal cliff and do so in a rational, thoughtful, [and] consensus-creating way so that after the election we will have the opportunity to replace and substitute a big, bold, balanced plan for what otherwise will be a economy-threatening, jobs-threatening, end-of-the-year scenario.” Democrats like Hoyer love to portray themselves as being the only sane ones in the room, but it's just the opposite that's true. They're the ones who have positioned us on the edge of that "fiscal cliff" in the first place. They are the obstinate ones, they are the ones who consistently demonstrate a 'my way or the highway' mentality when it comes to how they choose to define 'compromise'. And hopefully there are enough people who will be able to see through all of this silly Democrat rhetoric.
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
PLANNED PARENTHOOD GOES ON THE ATTACK...
Well it's now official. Planned Parenthood, that group that advocates what can only be described as mass infanticide, has jumped headlong into the presidential fray, on Wednesday, with it officially announcing their full fledged support for Barry "Almighty’s" reelection bid. And as such it has now come out swinging against Republican nominee Mitt Romney. Courtesy of something referred to as The Planned Parenthood Action Fund, supposedly a non-profit advocacy group affiliated with the mass-abortion provider, it is in the process of launching a $1.4 million political advertising campaign blasting Romney for his supposed stance on women’s health issues.
The ad, (above) attempts to use Romney’s own words during the primary, against him, and accuses the Republican nominee of actually wanting to deny women access to critical healthcare services: “When Mitt Romney says, ‘Planned Parenthood, we’re going to get rid of that,’ Romney is saying he’ll deny women the birth control and cancer screenings they depend on.” Even The New York Times has noted that the ad’s text “can be misleading,” NO SH!T, a characterization echoed by Romney’s campaign, which has since clarified that he wants only to end federal funding of Planned Parenthood but that he will not seek the organization’s outright dissolution.
To officials at Planned Parenthood, the distinction is moot. “Mitt Romney has been much clearer and more direct even than John McCain in his interest in dismantling women’s health care,” said Dawn Laguens, the group’s imbecilic executive vice president. “The threats have intensified. The Republican primary laid bare and made clear what their agenda is.” Romney’s campaign, for its part, is again hanging its hat on the sluggish economy, arguing that women voters will be more swayed by an indictment of Barry’s economic record, and smart enough to see right through any selective deployment of wedge issues that are as transparent as this latest exaggeration by Planned Parenthood.
The Planned Parenthood Action Fund is running the ad in the West Palm Beach, Fla., Des Moines, Iowa, and northern Virginia media markets. Now I'm not sure exactly the demographic that they are hoping to play to, but they seem to be sparing no expense in their effort in trying to do so. It seems like most of those who are likely to agree with the premise being put forth in this little composite of pieced together statements, are those mushy headed females who, I would venture to guess, have no intention of voting for Romney in the first place. So it would seem to me to be nothing more than a monumental waste of $1.4 million. But hay, it's not my money. Well at least I don't think it is.
Frankly, I just don't understand people who see it as being their primary mission in life, the murdering of helpless babies. And to the point where these people are willing to spend $1.4 million in an effort to allow them to keep doing do. I mean what kind of a sick monster do you need to be to have it in yourself the capability to kill millions of babies? And on top of that Barry is one of those who sees no problem whatsoever to take a baby who survived an abortion and to simply leave it to die. Now how twisted is that? Is this really where we are now are as a society? Now I understand there will be those rare and unfortunate occasions where the health of the mother may become a factor, and sacrifices need to be made, but that is a far cry from the wholesale infanticide that's presently underway.
MORE FROM THAT SMOOTH TALKING JAY CARNEY…
I suppose you could say that it’s been kind of a rough couple of weeks for our favorite White House Press Secretary, Jay "The Dim Bulb" Carney. It was just last week that he gave such a rambling, incoherent answer to a question about Occupy Wall Street the we nearly needed an interpreter just to decipher what it was, exactly, that he said. This week he‘s back with an encore performance, of sorts, in answering to a question comparing Barry’s green energy record to Mitt Romney, and it almost sounds like one of those occasions where a TV reporter gets a little confused and/or tongue-tied while he or she is actually on air. But in those situations there is never any malice intended. Such is never the case, however, when dealing with Carney.
This most recent little episode came when Carney was asked, what was essentially a pretty straight forward question, about how the job that Romney had at Bain is in any way different from what Barry has been doing as he goes about trying to pick winners and losers in the green industry on which he feels free to gamble hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars. To me the very obvious answer would be that what Barry has done, and continues to do, should be considered as being far worse than anything Romney did at Bain. But as you can well imagine, that's not quite how our friend Jay sees things. And in choosing how to respond to the question, Jay was far from being anywhere near straight forward.
But you know, I suppose it's a tough position to be in of all the time having to come up with ever more inventive ways of either evading entirely, or by the outright discounting, of the facts when defending the actions of our current president. It's a very unenviable position to be in. So I'm not quite sure whether I should feel sorry for old Jay, or view him with the same level of contempt with which I view Barry. After all, he does seem to be perfectly comfortable going out there and saying whatever he feels needs to be said, whether or not it has any basis, whatsoever, in fact. Now I while recognize the fact that the job of anyone in Jay's position is to answer questions without actually answering them, we shouldn't expect to be lied to. Nor we shouldn't accept it.
Tuesday, May 29, 2012
OBAMA INSISTS NOBODY WANTS SOMETHING FOR NOTHING...
Ya know, with each day that passes by I find myself wondering just a little bit more how it is that anyone can take this guy seriously. There is absolutely nothing in anything that he says that would indicate, at least to me, that he possesses even the slightest interest in reining in some of his crazy spending. Now I know he is in hot pursuit of that ever elusive Socialist utopia, but you would think that even he would eventually see that if he hasn't managed to get us any closer to it after three years and $16 Trillion dollars worth of debt, then maybe now might be a good time to head off in some other direction. But nope, it just ain't sinking in. He seems to be more determined than ever to run this country right into the ground. The fact is we have no more money to spend, and yet on we go. And the amount of money that has now been spent, and all for nothing, is astronomical!
The insanity continued on Thursday afternoon with Barry in someplace called Newton, Iowa, where he set about pitching his latest hair-brained idea consisting of $5 billion in new tax credits for companies that manufacture equipment, such as windmill blades and solar panels, for “clean energy” companies. “Nobody wants a handout,” Barry said. “Nobody wants to get something for nothing.” Oh really? It just so happened that Barry was visiting TPI Composites, a company that manufactures, you guessed it, blades for windmills, to pitch the fourth item on the five-item “To-Do” list of legislative actions he says he would like Congress to take this year. This particular item is: “Create Jobs By Investing In Affordable Clean Energy.” Barry has been the engineer of this little 'green energy' crazy train for over three years now, and just how many jobs have been created? ZERO!
And in some cockamamie statement that was put out by the White House on Thursday the attempt was made to explain the substance of Barry "Almighty’s" request. “Congress needs to help put America in control of its energy future by passing legislation that will extend the Production Tax Credit to support American jobs and manufacturing in the wind industry alongside an expansion of the 48C Advanced Energy Manufacturing Tax Credit that supports American-made clean energy manufacturing,” the White House said. “The Production Tax Credit, which expires at the end of 2012, provides a 2.2 cent per kilowatt hour credit for utility scale wind producers,” said the White House. Actually what needs to take place here, is for Barry to focus his efforts more on things that will actually work to put us more in control of our energy needs, you know like allowing us to drill.
In Newton, Barry told the crowd assembled there at TPI Composites, that companies like TPI will take a hit if Congress does not act on this item of his “To-Do” list. “Nobody wants a handout. Nobody wants to get something for nothing,” Barry said. Adding, “But if we've got a chance to create energy and create value and put people back to work, why wouldn't we do that? He said, “So I'm here today because, as much progress as we've made, that progress is in jeopardy.” Barry went on to say, “If Congress doesn’t act, those tax credits that I mentioned--the ones that helped build up the wind industry, the ones that helped to bring all these jobs to Newton, those tax credits will expire at the end of the year if Congress doesn't do anything. If Congress doesn’t act, companies like this one will take a hit." So the I guess rest of us should take the hit instead?
Look, just how much more money, that we don't have, needs to be poured down this bottomless "green energy" rat hole? And for what? Because liberals insist that there is something occurring, namely climate change or global warming, that isn't? There is nothing in any of their failed science that would indicate that anything man has done has had any effect on our climate. Zero, zip, zilch, nadda. It's just another work of pure fiction being foisted on the rest of us in an effort to destroy the greatest economic system every devised. All in an effort to replace it with what? Socialism, that's what! But that little pipedream, no matter how many times it is shown to never yield anything by abject misery and suffering, is continually sold as being that path which virtually guarantees the creating of an environment of 'fairness'. But it's all just a bunch of CRAP!
MORE AND MORE PEOPLE NOW VOTING WITH THEIR FEET...
Being a former resident of the great state of New York myself, I find it more than a bit humorous that my former home state has now been identified as being the state which accounted for the biggest migration exodus of any state in the nation between 2000 and 2010. There were 3.4 million residents who decided to pack up and leave the 'Empire State' over that period of time, at least according to the Tax Foundation. For whatever reason it was over that same decade that the state gained 2.1 million, so the net migration amounted to 1.3 million, representing a loss of $45.6 billion in income. You have to ask yourself, why would anyone in their right mind move to a state as badly run as New York? Regarding those who decided that they had had enough, where specifically did they escape to? Well, The Tax Foundation found that more than 600,000 New York residents moved to Florida over the decade, opting perhaps for the Sunshine State’s more lenient tax system, and taking nearly $20 billion in adjusted growth income with them.
Over that same period of time, we also see that 208,794 Pennsylvanians relocated, also choosing Florida as the ultimate destination, taking $8 billion in income with them. “Many of these New York and Pennsylvania residents no doubt moved to Florida for the warm weather,” says the foundation, a nonpartisan research group. “[B]ut many more may have moved there because the state does not have an individual income tax, an estate tax, nor an inheritance tax.” The Tax Foundation has created what is terms a "migration calculator" based on data from the Internal Revenue Service, tabulating the number of individuals moving between states each year, and the amount of income affected by the shifts. The calculator shows that 612,520 people renounced their citizenship in New York State and moved to Florida in the 10-year period, taking with them $19.7 billion in adjusted growth income. And between 2009 and 2010 alone, 40,195 New York residents moved to Florida, taking $1.3 billion in income. And yet none of this has any impact on those running these states.
According to the group, New York ranked second among the states for the highest state and local tax burden in 2009. The Empire State was ranked highest for tax burden every year from 1977 until 2006, except in 1984 when it was ranked second. New York State has a progressive personal income tax rate ranging from 6.45 percent to 8.82 percent for those earning over $2 million. Sales tax varies by county, and is between seven and eight percent. In Manhattan, the sales tax is 8.875 percent. According to the Retirement Living Center, which examines tax burdens by state for those nearing retirement, New York also levies a gasoline tax at 49.0 cents per gallon and a cigarette tax of $4.35 per pack, along with an additional $1.50 per pack in New York City. New York is also one of 17 states plus the District of Columbia that collects an estate tax, with a $1 million exemption and a progressive rate from 0.8 percent to 16 percent. In 2007, New York State collected $1.1 billion from its estate and gift taxes, the highest of any of the states, according to the Tax Foundation. So where's the incentive to move to this place?
California is also very well known for its more onerous system of taxes and regulations, and the foundation shows similar trends of migration from there to other states like Texas and Arizona. The Tax Foundation ranked the not so Golden State sixth highest in the nation for state and local tax burden in 2009. Between 2000 and 2010, the most recent data available, 551,914 people left California and headed for Texas, taking $14.3 billion in income with them. Texas, like Florida, has no state income tax or estate tax. A total of 48,877 people moved to Texas from California between 2009 and 2010 alone, totaling $1.2 billion in income. Another 28,088 from California relocated to Nevada and 30,663 to Arizona, a loss of $699.1 million and $707.8 million in income respectively. Overall, California had the most departures between 2009 and 2010 – 406,883 people, representing a loss of $10.6 billion in income. And for whatever reason, over that year 365,763 people moved there, representing a net loss of 41,120 residents.
Since 2000 1.2 million more people have left California than have moved there, the second biggest net loss, after New York. Florida, meanwhile, had a negative net migration of 966,934 between 2000 and 2010 – meaning nearly a million more people moved to the state than left. Texas also has a negative net migration – 807,552 – during the same time period. Florida and Texas rank the two lowest in net migration over the decade, followed by North Carolina, Arizona and Georgia, each of which has a negative rate. The Tax Foundation acknowledges that taxes are not the only reason to flee a state. “Taxes are one of hundreds of factors that go into a person's decision to move,” it says on its website. “Others include age, technology, job prospects and the quality/quantity of government services provided.” The foundation also points out that the migration calculator is not definitive. “A true study that sought to quantify the importance of taxes for locational decisions would need to account for as many other factors as possible, in addition to possible serial correlation issues between variables, especially taxes."
While I decided long ago that it just wasn't cost effective to remain in New York, others in my family do still reside there. And it's sad really that while there are many in the state who consider themselves as being conservative, they are significantly outnumbered by residents of cities like New York City, as well as Albany, Buffalo, Rochester and Syracuse. These cities dwellers, the equivalent to the fictional Morlocks we've seen in the movies, and are of a sufficient number that allows them to very comfortably offset those of a more conservative slant thus ensuring New York remains a very reliable shade of Blue. The pluses far outnumber the minuses when it comes to deciding whether or not one should relocate out of New York. It's pretty much of a no-brainer. And the incentive to leave is there for others than just those in the higher income brackets. You don't need to be some millionaire to be able to recognize the benefits of leaving a state who views its citizens as being nothing more than as a source of ever-increasing amount of revenue.
Monday, May 28, 2012
THE BIGGEST CLUE OF ALL THAT THIS IS AN ELECTION YEAR...
Because at what other time would you ever hear a man like this speak in such a manner about those who willingly made the ultimate sacrifice so that the rest of us, including this poorest excuse of a human being, could live in freedom.
SUDDENLY A LOSS IN THE WISCONSIN RECALL ELECTION IS NO BIG DEAL…OH REALLY?
If recent polls regarding the recall election taking place in Wisconsin are anywhere near being correct, then an election victory for Republican Gov. Scott Walker is becoming more of a sure thing with each passing day and will become a reality on June 5. And here’s the clearest evidence to date that national Democrat Party officials suddenly are of the opinion that a loss here would be of very little political consequence and they may believe their side is now losing: Democrat officials are playing down the potential impact. And when this whole circus first started I seem to remember them all being so confident that it would all go their way.
Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chairwoman, and certified moron, Debbie Wizzerman Schultz, insisted in a recent television interview that a loss for the Democratic candidate in the recall, Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, would not have any serious implications for other races, such as, let’s say, and just for the sake of argument, the presidential election. “I think, honestly, there aren’t going to be any repercussions,” Wizzerman Schultz said on C-SPAN’s “Newsmakers” program. “It’s an election that’s based in Wisconsin.” I’d say that over the course of this whole thing Wizzerman Schultz has changed her tune considerably.
Public employee unions and liberal activist groups from all across the country have spearheaded the effort to recall Walker, who became a hero to conservatives last year when he pushed a bill through the state Legislature that ended most collective bargaining rights for state workers. Although Walker’s opponents gathered more than 900,000 signatures on recall petitions earlier this year, many of which may have been bogus, in a state where Walker was elected governor with just over 1.2 million votes – polls have indicated that the effort to end his tenure as governor early will fall short. All that remains to be seen at this point is by how much.
Some Republican strategists believe, and rightly so I think, that a successful defense of Walker does at least have the potential to put them in a very good position to contest the state in this November’s presidential election. Barry easily carried Wisconsin, and by the substantial margin of 14 percentage points, back in 2008, but the state was among the closest in the nation just four years earlier. Wizzerman Schultz also took the opportunity to push back against complaints coming from some local Democrats there in Wisconsin that the national party has been far too stingy in its supporting of Barrett. And if I were one of those locals, I think I would agreeing with them.
“We put more than $250,000 into the race already,” she argued very energetically, noting that she was heading for Wisconsin herself on Tuesday for a Barrett fundraiser. But shouldn’t she may have been doing that the while time? She said, “We sent out an email this week to our more than 2 million-plus donor base from the Democratic Party, telling them that the first important national election is the June 5 election to recall Scott Walker and elect Mayor Tom Barrett, and asking our considerable donor base to contribute.” Now I’m no big political guru, but it would seem to me that $250,000 ain’t squat. And schlepping of to Wisconsin a week before the election shows a real lack of concern.
And maybe I haven’t been paying enough attention to this entire thing, but I don’t really remember hearing about any big name Democrats heading off to Wisconsin to campaign with this guy, Barrett. And that says a lot! And if those in your supposed “considerable donor base” witness such a lackluster attempt coming from the party bigwigs regarding a willingness to offer up services in an effort to give this guy a boost to win, where’s the incentive for them to cough up any of their money toward the effort? Even brain dead liberals, more often than not, don’t give money to what’s considered to be a losing effort. I mean they may be stupid but their still human, sort of.
Sunday, May 27, 2012
OUR FIRST BLACK PRESIDENT HAS A GREAT MANY OTHER FIRSTS TO HIS CREDIT…
I did not come up with the rather impressive list, that follows, of the firsts thus far racked up by our first black president, Barack Hussein Obama. But I do think it serves to chronicle, and quite well, the efforts that he has undertaken to, as he promised he would, “fundamentally transform” our country. As we can plainly see, he has been very successful in making a great deal of progress in that vein.
He is:
First President to apply for college aid as a foreign student, then deny he was a foreigner.
First President to have a social security number from a state he has never lived in.
First President to preside over a cut to the credit-rating of the United States.
First President to violate the War Powers Act.
First President to be held in contempt of court for illegally obstructing oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.
First President to defy a Federal Judge’s court order to cease implementing the Health Care Reform Law.
First President to require all Americans to purchase a product from a third party, a violation of the U.S. Constitution.
First President to spend a trillion dollars on jobs when there was no such thing as shovel-ready jobs.
First President to recommend changing our National Anthem as it portrays and promotes violence and is warlike in its theme.
First President to cancel the National Day of Prayer Breakfast and activities.
First President to initiate a Cash for Clunkers Program to clean up exhaust that adds to global warming, then extended it because it was so popular wasting hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars.
First President to abrogate bankruptcy law to turn over control of companies to his union supporters.
First President to bypass Congress and implement the Dream Act through executive fiat.
First President to order a secret amnesty program that stopped the deportation of illegal immigrants across the U.S., including those with criminal convictions.
First President to demand a company hand over $20 billion to one of his political appointees.
First President to terminate America’s ability to put a man in space.
First President to have a law signed by an auto-pen without being present.
First President to arbitrarily declare an existing law unconstitutional and refuse to enforce it.
First President to threaten insurance companies if they publicly spoke out on the reasons for their rate increases.
First President to tell a major manufacturing company which state they are allowed to locate a factory in.
First President to file lawsuits against the states he swore an oath to protect (AZ, WI, OH, IN).
First President to withdraw an existing coal permit that had been properly issued years ago.
First President to fire an inspector general of Americorps for catching one of his friends in a corruption case.
First President to appoint 45 czars to replace elected officials in his office.
First President to golf 73 separate times in his first two and a half years in office, 90 to date.
First President to pledge complete transparency while campaigning, then hide his medical, educational, and travel records.
First President to win a Nobel Peace Prize for doing NOTHING to earn it.
First President to go on multiple global apology tours.
First President to go on 17 lavish vacations, including date nights and Wednesday evening White House parties for his friends; paid for by the taxpayer.
First President to have 22 personal servants (taxpayer funded) for his wife.
First President to keep a dog trainer on retainer for $102,000 a year at taxpayer expense.
First President to repeat the Holy Quran and tells us that the early morning Islamic call to worship is the most beautiful sound on earth.
If this list is not sufficient evidence to convince freedom-loving Americans all across this country that Barry should now be very enthusiastically voted out after his FIRST term, then I fear all hope is truly lost regarding our ability to regain any level of control of our country. The last four years have been very detrimental to our freedom and another four would very likely prove to be too much for us to survive.
Saturday, May 26, 2012
Friday, May 25, 2012
Thursday, May 24, 2012
OBAMA, STILL NOTHING IS HIS FAULT...AMAZING!
“I don’t know how they've been bamboozling folks into thinking that they are the responsible, fiscally-disciplined party. They run up these wild debts and then when we take over we have to clean it up,” Barry said. “And then they point and say, 'Look how irresponsible they are.' Look at facts, look at the numbers. And now I want to finish the job," Barry "Almighty" said at another fundraiser, this one in Denver.
“This election will be closer than last one. People don't remember last election was close. We're going to have to contend with even more negative ads, even more cynicism and nastiness and just plain foolishness.” Yup, and the vast majority of it will be coming from Barry and his team of sleazy characters.
ALAN SIMPSON, BOOB…
I think it safe to say that the time has now come to formally declare that former Wyoming Senator and certified RINO, of Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction commission fame, Alan Simpson, has now most assuredly lost control of what few mental faculties he may have at one time possessed. After spending what has been described as a career mastering the art of the pithy sound-byte, evidenced by his setting off a bit of a firestorm last August, when he by exclaimed that “Social Security has become a milk cow with 310 million tits,” Simpson has once again taken a stroll in lala land, putting on display his rather juvenile side.
I say that because his most recent episode of psychotic behavior can be said to have exceeded even his usual, and more than a little bit bizarre, standards. It seems that the esteemed former senator sent a withering letter just last month to a group called the California Alliance of Retired Americans, in which Simpson sets about berating the group for a flyer they apparently circulated which urged the deficit commission to “Stop using the deficit as a phony excuse to gut our Social Security!” Apparently Mr. Simpson took exception to that and, apparently, was none too happy about it.
“Your little flyer […] is one of the phoniest excuses for a ‘flyer’ that I’ve ever seen,” wrote Simpson on what was actually some official Senate stationary. Now look, this imbecile hasn't been in the Senate since 1997, so what the Hell is he still doing with official Senate stationary? Did he grab a bunch, way back when, as he headed out the door, or what? But, I digress. Simpson continued, “You use the faces of young people, who are the ones who are going to get gutted while you continue to push out your blather and drivel.” I don't know, I think I would have expected something just a little different from a former senator.
Urging the group to “Read the damn report,” Simpson minces no words: “What a wretched group of seniors you must be to use the faces of the very people we are trying to save while the ‘greedy geezers’ like you use them as a tool and a front for your nefarious bunch of crap. You must feel some sense of shame for shoveling out this bullsh*t.” Personally, I think this little letter leaves very little doubt that our buddy Alan is now ready to escorted off to the funny farm. I mean, unlike him, not everybody gets to leech off the taxpayers in the form of a rather exorbitant government pension.
And in what was his final, colorful bit of imagery, Simpson advises the group, “If you can’t understand all of this you need a pane of glass in your naval [sic] so you can see out during the day!” Man. I have heard such language since my days back in grade school. Talk about somebody pushing "blather and drivel". Old Alan must have been nearly apoplectic. Supposedly, Simpson’s letter was forwarded to the media by The American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, (AFL-CIO.) I guess they saw it as a way to use Alan's words to possibly strike at this group of seniors. Guess that's ok with Alan.
So this is the caliber of weak-minded individual that Barry thought he could turn to to come up with some sort of solution to our current, and continuing, budgetary mess? By his selecting Simpson I think Barry made it very clear from the outset that he was not taking our fiscal situation at all seriously. And as I recall there weren't all that many folks who were impressed with what Simpson and his fellow commission members came up with. Obviously, Barry wasn't, since he pretty much ignored the whole thing. Not that he ever intended to do anything else, the whole thing was nothing but more smoke and mirrors anyway.
WILL OLD 'SLOW' JOE PROVE TO BE TOO MUCH OF AN ALBATROSS AROUND OBAMA'S NECK?
I think most of us have now pretty much come to the conclusion that ol 'Slow Joe' Biden ain't gonna be all that much help to Barry in the likely key swing states come this fall. In fact, a new USA TODAY/Gallup Poll, Americans are pretty much evenly split on whether they like or dislike the old dolt. We have 42% saying they had a favorable opinion, and 45% saying that had an unfavorable opinion, but the numbers are worse in key swing states. In the 12 swing states likely to determine the outcome of the presidential election, only 40% of registered voters view 'Slow Joe' favorably, while 54% view him unfavorably. These numbers are worse than Barry's who is seen favorably by 50% of registered voters in those same states and unfavorably by 49%.
The 12 swing states included in the poll are Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin. These states are all currently considered to be much too close to call for the November election. Independents are also down on 'Slow Joe', with 50% of them saying they view him unfavorably and only 35% saying they have a favorable opinion of him. The survey found the same pattern with voters who are not strongly committed to any candidate, with 52% viewing 'Slow Joe' unfavorably and only 33% holding a favorable view. I mean let's face it here. If you look up moron in the dictionary what you're very likely to see is a picture of 'Slow Joe'.
Because of the news flying around about how unpopular he is, there have now been all sorts of rumors circulating about how old Hitlery Clinton may soon get tagged to replace old 'Slow Joe' on the ticket. Hitlery has said that the likelihood of that happening is nonexistent, but as we all should know by know now, you can never believe anything that any Clinton tells you. This little duo are two of the most accomplished liars that we've seen come along in quite some time. So I guess there's nothing left for us to do except to wait and see if this is something that Barry is actually desperate enough to try to pull off. But I just don't see this little arrangement as being something that would work. I mean the egos involved here are absolutely epic!
MORE OBAMA LIES AS HE ATTEMPTS TO HOODWINK WOMEN...
In what is yet another dishonest attempt to shore up women voters and support for Obamacare, the White House and Barry "Almighty" himself, have now accused health insurance companies of charging women more for insurance “because they’re women.” Which just goes to show you that there is pretty much no lie this gang will not tell in their attempt to convince women to vote for Barry. The White House website claims that Obamacare will prevent insurance companies from “discriminating against women” and charging higher premiums to women, “simply because of their gender."
Now as hard as Barry and the Democrats try to portray things as being different than they actually are, the actual fact of the matter is that health insurance companies base premiums solely on projected costs not on any sort of discrimination. According to American Health Insurance Plans spokesman Robert Zirkelbach the only time there is a cost difference between genders is among those who buy individual policies, while those covered through their employers pays the same. According to the White House, the provision of the health care law requiring coverage of pre-existing conditions would change this practice of charging more.
Barry outright lied on April 6 when at a White House Forum on Women and the Economy he said, “And soon, insurance companies will no longer be able to deny coverage based on preexisting conditions like breast cancer, or charge women more just because they’re women.” Again on April 27, at a campaign event at the Walter E. Washington Convention Center in Washington, Barry repeated the same lie. “Soon, insurance companies will no longer be able to deny coverage based on preexisting conditions like breast cancer, or charge women more just because they’re women,” Barry said.
Marking National Women’s Health Week, last week the White House Web site, heralded the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare. “For example, women who purchase health insurance on the individual market pay an additional $1 billion each year because insurance companies charge them more than men, simply because of their gender,” wrote some bimbo named Megan Slack, the associate director of digital content for the White House Office of Digital Strategy. “Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, health insurers will be prohibited from discriminating against women by charging higher premiums,” Slack blathered.
Mr. Zirkelbach, spokesman for American Health Insurance Plans explained premiums are set based on expected health care costs. As men and women age, the trend reverses. “Men and women use different health care services and have different health care costs,” Zirkelbach said in an interview. Adding, “That changes depending on a person’s age. Younger ages, women use more health care services than men. That is reflected in their health insurance premiums. As men and women get older, that trend actually reverses itself. At older ages, men have higher costs, and therefore higher premiums then women."
He said health insurance was “just like auto insurance and life insurance, premiums vary between men and women and the individual.” Further, he said, very few people purchase their own individual health insurance, but rather, are covered through their employer. “The vast majority of people get their health care coverage through their employer. Employer coverage, all employees are guaranteed coverage,” Zirkelbach continued. “They’re not paying more because of their health status or their gender. So we are only talking about a small number of people purchasing health care on their own."
So I'm curious. Are there really enough women out there who are actually stupid enough to believe anything that comes out of this guy's mouth? I mean in this day and age are there still women who are willing to believe that insurance companies will actively work to prevent them from getting the medical treatment that they need? Come on, really? If so, then ladies let me be the first one to tell you all, that you're being conned. And in a very big way! Barry is looking you dead in the eye and telling you a big fat lie. So the question that remains to asked, I suppose, is how many women will fall for this line of pure bullsh!t?
WISCONSIN, A QUESTION OF TOO LITTLE, TOO LATE?
Well after much what's been described as being much prodding from the local Democrat officials there in Wisconsin, it would seem that the Democrat National Committee (DNC), apparently fearing what is likely to be a rather embarrassing defeat in the June 5 Wisconsin recall election, is being forced, is apparently now attempting, at least, to take a more active role and is now actually issuing fund-raising appeals to help their candidate defeat Republican Gov. Scott Walker. But with less than two weeks to go until the recall election, might it all be a case of too little, too late? With recent polls now showing Walker leading Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, and after Walker received a pretty significant endorsement form the state's largest newspaper, DNC Chair Debbie Wizzerman Schultz's decision, on Wednesday, to finally issue an email appeal appears to be more for show than anything else. In her rather lackluster request for funds she wrote, "It's up to Democrats across the country to help win this thing." Adding, "Winning in Wisconsin sends a powerful message to the far-right extremists, and it starts to roll back their worst offenses. To build our organization and make it happen, Democrats need to come together to turn out hundreds of thousands of voters -- and we all have a part to play." Ya know, at this late stage I would think it would almost be better to do nothing than to send out such an idiotic email. But hey, I'm not a brain dead Democrat.
It was almost two weeks ago, on May 14 I think, that The Washington Post first reported the fact that Wisconsin Democrats were more than just a little "furious" with the Democratic National Committee for "refusing to invest big money" in the effort to recall Republican Gov. Scott Walker. “We are frustrated by the lack of support from the Democratic National Committee and the Democratic Governors Association,” a top Wisconsin Democratic Party official told Post reporter Greg Sargent. “Scott Walker has the full support and backing of the Republican Party and all its tentacles. We are not getting similar support.” Funny, a Democrat referencing "tentacles", that's a little ironic. Anyway, it then took the DNC nine days to issue its "win this thing" appeal. Then on Thursday, it was Politico who kind of wondered aloud if the "whole thing might backfire" by "elevating Walker into a tested-by-fire, conservative cult-hero and exposing the limits of the Democrats’ ability to exact revenge in the next statehouse where they’re wronged." If Walker survives the recall, Politico went on to say, not only will he be "lionized his GOP colleagues for embarrassing Big Labor and forcing the left to pour cash down the drain in a presidential election year, he’ll be credited with making the state more competitive for Mitt Romney." And rightly so!!
It was also on Thursday, that the Milwaukee-Journal-Sentinel took note of the fact that Barry "has avoided taking a vocal role" in the recall election, "and there is little expectation of an Obama visit to Wisconsin in the homestretch of the campaign." RNC Chairman Reince Priebus was quoted as saying that Barry isn't going to get involved in a race that Democrats, and big labor, might actually lose. A May 9-12 Marquette Law School poll gave Walker a 50-44 lead over Barrett, with a 4-point margin of error. A Reason-Rupe poll, conducted May 14-18 by ORC International, showed Walker leading Barrett 50-42 among likely voters, with a 3.7-point margin of error. I'm sure we all remember what it was that lead up to this recall nonsense. It's all because he pushed through a law in 2011 limiting collective bargaining for the state's public employees. He also required them to contribute more toward their own pensions and healthcare premiums. Walker said the changes were needed to help balance the state's budget, but Democrats and labor unions called it union-busting. And like a bunch of brain dead hoodlums, idiotic union and liberal activists stirred up all manner of protests and literally trashed the state capital in the process all the while making national headlines. But Walker and Republican state lawmakers never wavered, and they passed a law curbing collective bargaining, even though all 14 State Democrats, behaving like spoiled brats, fled to Illinois in an attempt to block the vote.
Wednesday, May 23, 2012
AMERICANS NOT AS PRO-CHOICE AS THEY ONCE WERE?
Something that I'm sure brought a certain amount displeasure to those in the ranks of the pro-abortion forces all across this country was revealed a recently released Gallup poll. According to Gallup, the number of Americans who now identify themselves as being pro-choice has hit a record low of 41 percent, while those identifying as being pro-life now stands at 50 percent. The previous low for the pro-choice label was 42 percent recorded in May 2009, when Gallup also reported 51 percent identifying as pro-life. Gallup has been polling on the question since 1995, when 56 percent said they were pro-choice and 33 percent pro-life. The gap has narrowed over the years to a point where they are relatively close in polls. As you can well imagine, the poll result was welcomed by anti-abortion supporters.
"There is a growing uneasiness across America regarding the poorly regulated abortion industry and the presence of an abortion mandate and an abortion-inducing drug mandate in the healthcare law. Americans value life, and this poll reflects that," Kristi Hamrick of Americans United for Life said in a recent interview. She added, "Americans are even more pro-life than the growing gulf illustrates in the Gallup poll." Ms. Hamrick did go on to say, "During the healthcare debates we saw that 7 in 10 Americans, pro-life and pro-choice, did not want to see their tax monies going to subsidize abortion, and we've seen tremendous support for common sense limits on abortion, such as limiting abortion after 20 weeks because of the health risks to women of a late-term procedure and requirements to involve loving adults in the abortion decisions of young girls."
Gallup has found the pro-life position significantly ahead on two occasions, once in May 2009 and again today, the pollsters reported. “It remains to be seen whether the pro-life spike found this month proves temporary, as it did in 2009, or is sustained for some period.” Gallup, which polled 1,024 adults from May 3 through 6, has found that since 2001 Republicans have consistently reported being pro-life while independents have been closely divided on the issue since 2009. “Democrats' views on abortion have changed the least over the past 12 years, with roughly 60 percent calling themselves pro-choice and about a third pro-life,” Gallup found. No surprise there, after all, it's not known as the party of death for nothing. It champions all manner of end of life scenarios from assisted suicide to abortion for just about any reason.
In reporting the numbers, Gallup noted that abortion has factored into a number of significant news stories in the past year including congressional efforts to end funding for Planned Parenthood and the Susan G. Komen for the Cure breast cancer group’s suspension of funding for the group. With the numbers now seeming to be on the side of those who are pro-life, I would think it to be much easier to completely cut off Planned Parenthood from receiving any taxpayer supplied funds. And it may also make it easier for groups, such as the Susan G. Komen group, to avoid being blackmailed into supporting pro-abortion organizations if it is deemed to be either not appropriate or an issue that such a group would not wish to be involved with or have their name connected to. I've always found it a bit ironic how it that those who refer to themselves as being pro-choice are not the least bit interested in actual choice, of any kind.
Additionally, the Barry "Almighty" administration’s attempt to mandate contraceptive coverage in health plans for religious institutions such as Catholic hospitals and colleges also touched on abortion. “Whether any of these controversies is related to the shift in Americans' identification as pro-choice or pro-life is not clear,” Gallup said. “However, it is notable that while Americans' labeling of their position has changed, their fundamental views on the issue have not. ”Gallup polling has found that Americans views on the legality of abortion has held steady in the last decade. “Gallup's longest-running measure of abortion views, established in 1975, asks Americans if abortion should be legal in all circumstances, legal only under certain circumstances, or illegal in all circumstances,” Gallup wrote. “Since 2001, at least half of Americans have consistently chosen the middle position, saying abortion should be legal under certain circumstances, and the 52 percent saying this today is similar to the 50 percent in May 2011."
I just find it difficult to believe that we as a society have permitted to take place the murdering of over 40 million babies since Roe versus Wade. And in some of the most gruesome, imaginable ways. And our stellar president, the cold hearted son of a bitch that he is, is now and always has been and very vocal supporter of abortion for any reason and at any time during the pregnancy. As a state senator he went so far as to vote in favor of essentially legalizing infanticide, by his voting to protect doctors who killed babies who survived the abortion. A man so lacking in the area of moral character has no business whatsoever holding the highest office in the land. And I think it very safe to say that anyone who can be so callous can also be said to have no soul. Barry should not be the one whom we should look to when electing the individual who is to be seen as the face of America.
TEETERING ON THE BRINK, IS IT INEVITABLE THAT WE GO OVER THE CLIFF?
Not that I suppose it doesn't really matter all that much to Barry or any of his fellow Democrats, but there's a new government study that has recently come out that says the combination of allowing of the Bush-era tax cuts to expire and the round of automatic spending cuts that are scheduled to take effect, would a rather significant event that would be very likely throw our economy into yet another recession. The report comes to us from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and states very clearly that the economy would shrink by 1.3 percent in the first half of next year if the government is allowed to fall off this so-called "fiscal cliff" on Jan. 1. The cliff is what experts call the combination of higher tax rates and more than $100 billion in automatic cuts to the Pentagon and domestic agencies. But since that would come safely after the next election, it's all of very little consequence to Barry, whether he wins or he loses.
And that's a point that Republican leaders have hammered at again and again in an effort to move Barry "Almighty" into being part of some semblance of responsible negotiations regarding the keeping of the Bush tax cuts in place. “It looks like there will not be a vote until after the election, but I can’t say that for certain — but it certainly looks like that,” predicted Senator Jeff Sessions. “That’s not healthy because we need certainty in our tax rate. There’s far too much uncertainty in our financial condition in America today.” And last week, House Speaker John Boehner called on Congress and the White House to work out some sort of a long-term deficit deal and threatened not to raise the nation’s debt ceiling next year unless a greater amount of spending cuts is enacted. Nothing against Mr. Boehner, but I've heard tough talk from him before only to be disappointed later by his actions.
And while Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has accurately stated on more than one occasion that Barry is not behaving like an "adult" when it comes to negotiations to stave off the fiscal disaster, I don't have much confidence in Mr. McConnell either. Who has also said that without Barry actually expending the requisite energy and taking some sort of action, nothing can be done regarding the debt. "Look, without presidential leadership, nothing is, can be accomplished," he said. "We didn't have presidential leadership last year. It's pretty clear the president's not going to lead on this any time soon." He went on to say, "We don't control the entire government." Adding, "We control the House of Representatives only. We'd like to do something about the nation's biggest problem — spending and debt, which is, of course, the reason for this economic melees and this high unemployment — and whenever the president is willing to engage, we're ready to go."
And then we have "Dingy Harry" Reid, Nevada Democrat, acting ever his irresponsible self, signaling as recent as Tuesday that he intends to allow the automatic spending cuts called for in last year’s debt deal to go into effect, culling billions of dollars from defense and domestic spending, unless Republicans agree to allow taxes to increase on at least some taxpayers. “If Republicans want to walk away from the bipartisan spending cuts agreed to last August, they will have to work with Democrats to replace them with a balanced deficit-reduction package that asks millionaires to pay their fair share,” "Dingy" said. Republicans remain adamant that the lower income-and investment-tax rates passed in 2001 and 2003 under President Bush, and extended in 2010 under Barry, must be extended again. “No economy can sustain such a hit without being hurled into recession,” said Senator Orrin Hatch, the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee.
The CBO's report states quite clearly that any immediate tax increases and spending cuts would "represent an additional drag on the weak economic expansion." CBO is the respected, and supposedly, nonpartisan agency of Congress that produces economic analysis and estimates of the cost of legislation. “Given the pattern of past recessions as identified by the National Bureau of Economic Research, such a contraction in output in the first half of 2013 would probably be judged to be a recession,” the report states. A recession is technically defined as two economic quarters of negative economic growth. If Congress and the White House turn off all the automatic cuts and tax increase, growth would rise to 4.4 percent, CBO predicted. The CBO projections appear to go farther in stating the economic risks of lawmakers failing to act than other policymakers have gone.
Because of the level of gridlock that taken place over the course of the last year and a half, and that has become the rule in Washington, the source of which is the Democrats' "my way or the highway" mentality, lawmakers have put off decisions on cutting spending or raising taxes, leaving everything to bite at the beginning of 2013. The list of expiring laws reads like a taxpayer’s worst nightmare: The alternative minimum tax would bite ever deeper, last year’s 2-percentage-point payroll-tax cut would disappear, business-investing tax breaks would end, and almost all of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts would expire. Meanwhile, some tax increases from Barry’s healthcare debacle are slated to begin biting in January. On the other side of the ledger, existing laws would lead to a drop in unemployment benefits, crippling cuts in payments to doctors who treat Medicare patients and automatic cuts to defense and domestic spending totaling $65 billion in 2013 — the so-called “sequesters” from last year’s debt deal.
The good news is, I guess if you can really call it that, that those changes would ultimately end up cutting the annual deficit by as much as $560 billion, from $1.2 trillion this year to $612 billion in 2013. Of course the resulting bad news is that without the government pouring billions into the economy in spending, and without taxpayers keeping more of their own money, which they, too, pump into the economy, gross domestic product can be expected to drop in early 2013 by, again, as much as 1.3 percent. “Given the pattern of past recessions as identified by the National Bureau of Economic Research, such a contraction in output in the first half of 2013 would probably be judged to be a recession,” CBO warned. For Congress, the outlines of the pending fiscal crisis are clear: Don’t do a thing, and watch the economy slip into a double-dip recession early next year. Or cancel the looming tax increases and spending cuts, watch the deficit rise, and push the government ever closer to a European-style debt crisis.
So I go back to my original question here. With us now teetering on the edge of what is surely a very substantial drop off, can we actually afford to even hope that there is sufficient will in Washington to prevent us from actually going over and plummeting into that vast abyss that lies below? Many have said that it's just too late, that the party can now safely be said to be officially over, with the only thing left being, the waiting for the fat lady to sing. But is it truly too late to get things turned around? Will anything that we can bring ourselves to do, in order to stem what many have said is our impending doom, be all for naught? Is it silly for me to hold out any hope that enough people will finally come to their senses in time for us to prevent taking that final, big, and sure to be fatal, plunge? I don't know, maybe it is too late to be doing anything about the direction we're headed. Maybe we should just all party until the lights finally go out.
HOW UNIONS DEFINE 'LEADERSHIP'?
Donna Dewitt, the outgoing president of the South Carolina AFL-CIO, is seen in this video bashing a piñata of South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley's face while Dewitt and her colleagues were at a retreat in Columbia, S.C. Saturday afternoon.
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
JOE BIDEN, "IT'S ALL THE TEA PARTY'S FAULT"...
"Imagine where we'd be if the Tea Party hadn't taken control of the House of Representatives," "Slow Joe" Biden said accusing those members of the Tea Party as being "a group set on obstructionism." Ya, just imagine how much worse off we'd all be! He made his idiotic claim in what has become typical Biden fashion. But he wasn't done. Nope! He went on to say, "They have one overwhelming goal: prevent President Obama from a second term, with no - apparently no care of the consequences to the economy" he said. Biden insisted that the president persevered in spite of their obstruction and demonstrated "important progress" that could be measured. Oh really? What kind of progress, exactly? Millions of people who have simply given up looking for work? Millions more on food stamps? Has made progress on the price of gas that's now twice as high as it was when he took office? Where's all this progress that "Slow Joe" claims that Barry has made? Where?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)