I am most likely coming in on the tail end of any commentary on this, but I still felt the need to throw my two cents in. Regardless of what various polls may say, it is apparent that the popularity of our first black president may be waning to some degree. The reason I say this is that the number of those who tuned in this year to hear our great orator president was decidedly smaller than those who tuned in 2010, being down by about 11%, when just over 48 million tuned in for his last State of the Union address, and was down by 18% from the number of viewers for the 2009 version, when nearly 52.4 million watched the address to a joint session of Congress by this, our first black president. Not counting "BJ" Clinton of course, who up until Barry, had been constantly referred to as being our first black president. Could it be that people are finally getting a little bored with hearing the same meaningless rhetoric over and over again? So, just how many of you roughly 43 million who were able to sit through this the latest little Barry "O" dog and pony show on Tuesday night in its entirety, and were actually able to stay awake throughout, came away from the whole experience feeling the least bit uplifted? Or possessing a resurgent and more positive feeling regarding the direction in which Barry has this country is headed? At least if Barry is permitted to have his way. I would expect that except for those who are his most ardent supporters, that wouldn't be very many. Because it is this specific group that is comprised of those individuals who continue to see the government, and we who actually foot the bill through the taxes we pay, as being nothing more than their meal ticket. This entitlement-focused crowd has been convinced to see themselves as being the victims of an unjust society because that's what they've been told ad nauseam by the Democrat Party.
What this entire speech was, was nothing more than an exercise in the rehashing of the same old, tired and worn-out lines that we have heard countless times before during any number of previous "State of the Union" addresses given in years gone by. There was little it any originality. Cliché's were as bountiful as the lies that were told by this man, and told with such a level of ease as to be considered more than slightly unnerving. Although I must confess, very rarely have I ever heard a president contradict himself quite so many times as did our "Dear Leader" Barry, and all in the span of the very same speech. I was almost dizzy be the time the whole thing was over. For those of you who were able to keep from going comatose long enough to pay any amount of attention as our stellar president described how he presently envisions the state of our union, when all was said and done, were you left as confused as I was. Because whatever the method being used by Barry in his effort to add things up, he left the impression of a ledger that somehow just doesn't appear very realistic in terms of it being anywhere near accurate. Something just did not compute when, as Barry urged more spending on one hand and a spending freeze on the other. HUH? Barry spoke ambitiously of putting money into roads, research, education, efficient cars, high-speed rail and other initiatives in his State of the Union speech. Haven't we been hearing the same drivel for 24 months now? He pointed to the transportation and construction projects of the last two years and proposed “we redouble these efforts.“ Are these not some of the same nonexistent "shovel-ready" projects that have been previously discussed and/or promised, some time ago? He coupled all of this with a call to ”freeze annual domestic spending for the next five years.”
But staying true to form, our buddy Barry offered up far more examples of where he would spend more money than where he planned on cutting any, and some of the areas he identified for savings are certain to not yield very much in the way of savings, if anything at all. For example, he said he wants to eliminate “billions in taxpayer dollars we currently give to oil companies.” All this anti-oil zealot can do is what he's always done, and that is to continue his railing against the oil companies and all of the evil they have wrought upon the planet. Yet he made a similar proposal last year which gained very little traction and eventually ended up going nowhere. He sought $36.5 billion in tax increases on oil and gas companies over the next decade, but Congress largely ignored the request, even though Democrats were then in charge of both houses of Congress. Does this make any sense to anyone except the environmental wacko crowd? With the price of gas already rapidly approaching $4 a gallon, does this sound like anywhere near a rational energy policy? Look, if there is one thing that should be painfully clear about this guy, it's that he hates oil and the companies that produce it. I think it very safe to label his preoccupation with those companies which produce oil as being nothing short of a vendetta. Wait a minute there, let me rephrase myself. That would be American oil companies. I only say that because we recent gave Brazil $10 Billion dollars so that they can modernize their oil industry and we have effectively prohibited American companies from drill in the Gulf of Mexico while the Communist Chinese, the Russians and I think even the North Koreans and India remain free to do so. Ah yes, finally an energy policy that makes sense. NOT!!!
A look at some of Barry "O’s" statements Tuesday night and how they compare with the facts:
OBAMA: Tackling the deficit “means further reducing health care costs, including programs like Medicare and Medicaid, which are the single biggest contributor to our long-term deficit. Health insurance reform will slow these rising costs, which is part of why nonpartisan economists have said that repealing the health care law would add a quarter of a trillion dollars to our deficit.”
THE FACTS: The idea that Obama’s health care law saves money for the government is based on assumptions that are arguable, at best.
To be sure, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated the law will slightly reduce red ink over 10 years. But the office’s analysis assumes that steep cuts in Medicare spending, as called for in the law, will actually take place. Others in the government have concluded it is unrealistic to expect such savings from Medicare.
In recent years, for example, Congress has repeatedly overridden a law that would save the treasury billions by cutting deeply into Medicare pay for doctors. Just last month, the government once again put off the scheduled cuts for another year, at a cost of $19 billion.
That money is being taken out of the health care overhaul. Congress has shown itself sensitive to pressure from seniors and their doctors, and there’s little reason to think that will change.
___
OBAMA: Vowed to veto any bills sent to him that include “earmarks,” pet spending provisions pushed by individual lawmakers. “Both parties in Congress should know this: If a bill comes to my desk with earmarks inside, I will veto it.”
THE FACTS: House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, has promised that no bill with earmarks will be sent to Obama in the first place. Republicans have taken the lead in battling earmarks while Obama signed plenty of earmark-laden spending bills when Democrats controlled both houses.
It’s a turnabout for the president; in early 2009, Obama sounded like an apologist for the practice: “Done right, earmarks have given legislators the opportunity to direct federal money to worthy projects that benefit people in their districts, and that‘s why I’ve opposed their outright elimination,” he said then.
___
OBAMA: “I’m willing to look at other ideas to bring down costs, including one that Republicans suggested last year: medical malpractice reform to rein in frivolous lawsuits.”
THE FACTS: Republicans may be forgiven if this offer makes them feel like Charlie Brown running up to kick the football, only to have it pulled away, again.
Obama has expressed openness before to this prominent Republican proposal, but it has not come to much. It was one of several GOP ideas that were dropped or diminished in the health care law after Obama endorsed them in a televised bipartisan meeting at the height of the debate.
Republicans want federal action to limit jury awards in medical malpractice cases; what Obama appears to be offering, by supporting state efforts, falls far short of that. The president has said he agrees that fear of being sued leads to unnecessary tests and procedures that drive up health care costs. So far the administration has only wanted to study the issue.
Trial lawyers, major political donors to Democratic candidates, are strongly opposed to caps on jury awards. But the administration has been reluctant to support other approaches, such as the creation of specialized courts where expert judges, not juries, would decide malpractice cases.
___
OBAMA: As testament to the fruits of his administration’s diplomatic efforts to control the spread of nuclear weapons, he said the Iranian government “faces tougher and tighter sanctions than ever before.”
THE FACTS: That is true, and it reflects Obama’s promise one year ago that Iran would face “growing consequences” if it failed to heed international demands to constrain its nuclear program. But what Obama didn’t say was that U.S. diplomacy has failed to persuade Tehran to negotiate over U.N. demands that it take steps to prove it is not on the path toward a bomb. Preliminary talks with Iran earlier this month broke off after the Iranians demanded U.S. sanctions be lifted.
I'm sure I'm not saying something that most people don't already realize when I say that this guy has got to be considered as being a consummate liar. However, the sooner more people come to actually realize this fact the better we're all gonna. The destruction to our country has been expedited over the course of the last 24 months and what this "community agitator" is responsible for doing dwarfs pretty much everything that has been perpetrated upon us by anyone going all the way back to the Johnson administration. He was born a liar and he'll die a liar. We're just not sure yet where that first event actually took place. This guy has not been honest or forthcoming about anything throughout his entire life. He has kept more things hidden from the public about his past, and been allowed to do so, more than any president in our history, short of maybe FDR, his hero. And this, his latest little stint before the American people, was nothing more than another occasion of his droning on with a speech that was even described by some liberals as being flat and boring. Personally, while I saw no real need to watch this speech, after doing so, I found that my initial assumption that it would be nothing more than an abysmal waste of time, was correct. I know the present state of our union, it's in a steep downward spiral. So there was no real need, at least on my part, to force myself to listen to how Barry chooses to sugarcoat it as he attempted to describe, and in his own inimitable way, that it is in much better shape than it actually appears. I think the majority of us are able to see that the current state of our union is pretty damn sad. And a very big part of the reason for that, is Barry himself. Barry defines success as being able to bring America to her knees, to humble her before every other country on the planet. To somehow how make her as being responsible for all that is wrong in the world.
A Barry "O" agenda, at least as spelled out in his State of the Union address, is one that would boost spending an additional $20 billion and lead to higher taxes, according to a line-by-line analysis from the National Taxpayers Union Foundation. "President Obama's speech last night hinted at tax reform, and spending restraint, but also opened the door to increases and major spending initiatives," said NTUF Senior Policy Analyst Demian Brady. "Americans heard encouraging words about more efficient government, but little in the way of specifics about spending priorities. This leaves taxpayers wondering not only whether the federal budget deficit is headed upward or downward, but also by how much." In their report provided to Whispers, the foundation conceded that the $20 billion in additional spending was far less than the additional $70 billion in his last State of the Union where he also called for a budget spending freeze and earmark ban. Look, this man presents a clear and present danger to the future of this country. From his policies regarding the economy, employment, energy and national defense as well as domestic and foreign policy, this man is a menace who personifies the greatest threat now faced by this country. And he's our very own PRESIDENT! Any attempt by him to portray himself as moving toward the middle should be seen for exactly what it is. It's all nothing more than an obvious ploy, a charade and a scam. He hopes to play us for fools and that he will be able to distract us just long enough. Make no mistake, my friends, he is not one that can be trusted. And for him to now have the gall, made apparent by some rather strange, uncharacteristic comments , to now claim to posses some sort of kinship with Ronald Reagan, is laughable and nothing short of absurd. If anything, this supporter of a monolithic federal government is the complete antithesis of Ronald Reagan in absolutely every sense. The question is, will we allow him to get away with it?
No comments:
Post a Comment