Obama Fail

State of the Union addresses are usually packed with promises and lofty goals. But President Obama's pledge Tuesday night to push a raft of spending proposals without adding "a single dime" to the deficit appeared to make little sense to Republicans.

"Under President Obama, the national debt has increased by 58.6 trillion dimes," a video swiftly released by the Republican National Committee reminded viewers.

The video showed clip after clip of Obama vowing in past addresses that his proposals would be paid for. The State of the Union address was the latest installment.

Obama said Tuesday his proposals to fuel economic growth are "fully paid for" and added: "Nothing I'm proposing tonight should increase our deficit by a single dime."

Ultimately, it's difficult to pin down whether any particular spending program is paid for. One proposal may be offset with cuts or tax increases elsewhere in the budget. But then other programs in turn do not get paid for, helping result in $1 trillion-plus deficits over the last four years.

Obama did not get into many specifics Tuesday night on how his ideas -- should the Republican-controlled House even bring them to a vote -- would be offset, other than by calls to close tax loopholes and, in at least one case, attract some private capital.

That program was called the "Partnership to Rebuild America," which Obama said would attract private dollars to upgrade ports and modernize pipelines and schools. He also, though, proposed a "fix-it-first" program to put Americans to work on "urgent repairs" like structurally deficient bridges across the country. And he reiterated support for the previously proposed American Jobs Act, which included $50 billion in infrastructure spending. Both those would use taxpayer dollars.

To Republicans, infrastructure spending is code for more stimulus, which is precisely what House Speaker John Boehner labeled it in a statement Tuesday night. Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., who delivered the GOP response, said Obama's solution "to virtually every problem we face is for Washington to tax more, borrow more and spend more."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...me-to-deficit-draws-skepticism/#ixzz2KnDzy18h

 

Forbes

In his State of the Union preview, Gerald Seib of the Wall Street Journal observed that “Four times, President Barack Obama has stood in the well of the House of Representatives and delivered a State of the Union address—and four times, economic anxieties have largely overshadowed his efforts to push a broad agenda.”

Whether on purpose or not, Seib revealed for all voters why they can take it to the bank that Obama’s economic proposals outlined in his fifth State of the Union address will fail. They will because lost on our 44th president is that recessions, though agonizingly painful, are a certain sign that an economy is cleansing itself of all the capital misallocations and labor mismatches that brought on the downturn in the first place.

That after his fifth year in office the U.S. economy still limps is a certain sign that when we consider its flaccid nature, we must look no further than our president in trying to understand why. Our economy is weak precisely because President Obama, in possession of the gene that infects nearly all politicians, chose to “do something” in response to troubled times, and the economy is sagging for it.

To put it very simply, if upon arrival in office in 2009 Obama had done nothing, and nothing would have included him restraining any activity from the hubristic Bernanke Fed, the simple truth is that Obama would have been celebrating a booming economy in last night’s State of the Union address. Instead, Obama has intervened during his presidency to help the “middle class,” “women,” “minorities,” children,” and all other politically potent groups. The sad result after his first term is that they all suffer from his false compassion.

President Obama began last night’s speech with a line from John F. Kennedy about how “the Constitution makes us not rivals for power, but partners for progress.” Yes, it does, but then what wrecked Obama’s first term as president was his unwillingness to abide by the strict limits on federal power that animate our founding document.

Lost on the president, and for that matter Republicans too, is the simple truth that nowhere in the Constitution does it say that politicians must deliver to us economic growth. The Founders presumably believed correctly that in a free society governed very lightly by a federal government with powers few and defined, that economic growth would be the natural result.

It certainly would be, but rather than let our very sick economy heal itself, Obama led off his administration with a resumption of the bailouts of businesses and individuals a la his failed predecessor in George W. Bush, foisted a $787 billion stimulus program that dragged the economy down even further, then poured gasoline on an already burning fire with the passage of a healthcare bill that would substantially raise the cost of hiring for businesses already reluctant to add new workers. To put it very plainly, Obama’s interventions, combined with the actions of a dollar-cheapening Federal Reserve, laid a wet blanket on an economy that would have roared back to life absent his actions.

In last night’s speech, Obama spoke of how “we cleared away the rubble of crisis, and now the State of the Union is stronger.” In truth, Obama’s vain attempts at rubble clearing served to rob the American people of a recovery that would have materialized were he less self-assured.

Obama correctly added that “the American people don’t expect government to solve every problem,” and his governance these last four years is a reminder of why they feel that way. Obama went on to point out that “too many Americans can’t find full employment,” but not understood by the president is that his policies remain the barrier to the very economic growth that would make jobs plentiful.

So while Obama paid lip service to the popular notion inside the electorate that government should do less, he made grand statements about how “It’s our task to restore this country’s bargain that if you work hard, you can get ahead.” Sorry, but no country can bargain away such a grand promise without generating the economic unrest that has so many Americans unsettled at the moment. The government has no resources to give us that it doesn’t take away from us first, so while the president talked up guarantees, the only guarantee we should expect from our federal minders is the freedom to work as hard as we can to achieve as much as we can.

About the federal deficit, viewers at this point must have been wondering what country Obama was talking about in lauding the success of the political class in reducing our national debt. All the electorate has seen in Obama’s time in office are ever-rising deficits, but Obama, showing obnoxious contempt for our intelligence, spoke as though we’d believe his weak imitation of a fiscal Scrooge.

Talking about the looming sequester that increasingly appeals to Americans fed up with promises from both parties about spending cuts that never materialize, Obama proclaimed that $1 trillion in spending “cuts” from planned spending increases would “slow our recovery,” and added that “we can’t cut our way to prosperity.” Sorry Mr. President, but we can cut our way to prosperity given the simple truth that those dollars you and Congress are spending were taken from us first. Governments waste money that, if left in the private sector, would migrate as investment to future private sector businesses that would make us healthier, more productive, and that would possibly employ us.

About Medicare, acknowledging at least one program that costs taxpayers way too much, Obama noted that its costs could “crowd out investments in our children.” Ok, maybe Medicare doesn’t cost too much if spending there means the federal government will not have the funds to wreck the economic chances of other special interest groups.

On taxes, after throwing the ritual bone about tax increases on the “wealthy” to the class warriors in his party, Obama talked of getting rid of tax loopholes. The latter was one of Obama’s few quality economic ideas in the speech; quality if he had paired broad income tax rate reduction on all earners in return for the abolishment of the horrifying monument to pull that is our tax code. Naturally the president didn’t mention those rate cuts; Obama still deluded with the fanciful notion that we have a revenue problem as opposed to one involving spending.

Getting into specifics about how to grow the economy, Obama’s ideas were a certain blast to a slow growth past.

For one, he talked of “making America a magnet for new manufacturing jobs,” all the while staging the next “revolution in manufacturing” right in the United States. Obama will get a revolution all right, assuming he brings manufacturing jobs back to the U.S., but it won’t be a happy one. That’s the case given the simple truth that manufacturing by humans is yesterday’s work. Markets put such a low value on it that in China, the average daily factory wage would buy for an American worker one Starbucks latte – per day.

Lost on Obama is that so undesirable are manufacturing jobs that they’re now migrating out of China to even lower wage countries. If Obama brings back manufacturing we’ll know the economy is truly hurting.

Digging himself into an even deeper hole, Obama proclaimed that “If we want to make the best products, we have to invest in the best ideas.” The latter is surely a blinding glimpse of the obvious, but the taxpayer experience with Obama administration investments of the Solyndra variety tells us that Obama & Co. are the last venture capital firm we’d entrust our hard-earned dollars to.

More
http://www.forbes.com/sites/johntam...e-of-the-union-a-blast-to-a-slow-growth-past/

 

Q. What kind of brain dead retard believes we can increase spending without adding to the deficit?

A. An Obama supporter.

 

And Obama, the Lord of the Flies.

 

I have only one comment and it could be considered racist. So good day to all and good luck with the new mfg economy.

So, a man asking for directions:

"Can you tell me how to get to the unemployment office?"

"Yes, vote for Obama."

 

Fact Check:

OBAMA: "After years of grueling recession, our businesses have created over 6 million new jobs."

THE FACTS: That's in the ballpark, as far as it goes. But Obama starts his count not when he took office, but from the point in his first term when job losses were the highest. In doing so, he ignores the 5 million or so jobs that were lost on his watch, up to that point.

Private sector jobs have grown by 6.1 million since February 2010. But since he became president, the gain is a more modest 1.9 million.

And when losses in public sector employment are added to the mix, his overall jobs record is a gain of 1.2 million.

------

OBAMA: "We have doubled the distance our cars will go on a gallon of gas."

THE FACTS: Not so fast.

That's expected to happen in 12 more years.

Under a deal the Obama administration reached with automakers in 2011, vehicles will have a corporate average fuel economy of 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025, twice the 27 miles per gallon, on average, that cars and trucks get today. Automobile manufacturers won't start making changes to achieve the new fuel economy standards until model year 2017. Not all cars will double their gas mileage, since the standard is based on an average of a manufacturers' fleet.

------

OBAMA: "Already the Affordable Care Act is helping to reduce the growth of health care costs."

THE FACTS: The jury is still out on whether Obama's health care overhaul will reduce the growth of health care costs. It's true that cost increases have eased, but many experts say that's due to the sluggish economy, not to the health care law, whose main provisions are not yet fully in effect.

------

OBAMA: "Real reform means establishing a responsible pathway to earned citizenship -- a path that includes passing a background check, paying taxes and a meaningful penalty, learning English and going to the back of the line behind the folks trying to come here legally."

THE FACTS: The seemingly stern admonition that illegal immigrants must go to the back of the line, often heard from the president, doesn't appear to have much practical effect except in the most obvious sense. Everyone who joins a line, whether for a movie, a coffee or citizenship, starts at the back of that particular line. It's not clear he is saying anything more than that illegal immigrants won't get to cut in line for citizenship once they've obtained provisional legal status.

Like those living abroad who have applied to come to the U.S. legally, illegal immigrants who qualify for Obama's proposed path to citizenship will surely face long waits to be processed. But during that time, they are already in the U.S. and will get to stay, work and travel in the country under their new status as provisional immigrants, while those outside the U.S. simply have to wait.

Sending illegal immigrants to the "back of the line" is something of a distinction without a difference for some legal immigrants who dutifully followed all the rules before coming to the United States.

For instance, some legal immigrants who are in the U.S. on an employer-sponsored visa can't easily change jobs, or in some cases take a promotion, without jeopardizing their place in line to get a green card. In other cases, would-be legal immigrants in other countries wait for years to be able to settle in the U.S.

Obama is using "back of the line" somewhat figuratively, because there are multiple lines depending on the applicant's relationship with family already in the U.S. or with an employer. Generally, a foreign-born spouse of a U.S. citizen or someone with needed skills and a job offer will be accepted more quickly than many others.

But even as a figurative point, his assertion may cloak the fact that people who came to the U.S. illegally and win provisional status have the great advantage over applicants abroad of already being where they all want to go.

------

OBAMA: "Study after study shows that the sooner a child begins learning, the better he or she does down the road. ... And for poor kids who need help the most, this lack of access to preschool education can shadow them for the rest of their lives. ... Every dollar we invest in high-quality early education can save more than $7 later on -- by boosting graduation rates, reducing teen pregnancy, even reducing violent crime."

THE FACTS: Dozens of studies have shown Head Start graduates are more likely to complete high school than their at-risk peers who don't participate in the program. But a study last year by the Department of Health and Human Services that found big vocabulary and social development gains for at-risk students in pre-kindergarten programs also found those effects largely faded by the time pupils reached third grade. The report didn't explain why the kids saw a drop-off in performance or predict how they would fare as they aged.

------

OBAMA: "I urge this Congress to pursue a bipartisan, market-based solution to climate change, like the one John McCain and Joe Lieberman worked on together a few years ago. But if Congress won't act soon to protect future generations, I will. I will direct my Cabinet to come up with executive actions we can take, now and in the future, to reduce pollution, prepare our communities for the consequences of climate change and speed the transition to more sustainable sources of energy."

THE FACTS: Obama failed to get a global warming bill through Congress when both Houses were controlled by Democrats in 2010. With Republicans in control of the House, the chances of a bill to limit the gases blamed for global warming and to create a market for businesses to trade pollution credits are close to zero. The Obama administration has already acted to control greenhouse gases through existing law. It has boosted fuel-efficiency standards and proposed rules to control heat-trapping emissions from new power plants. And while there are still other ways to address climate change without Congress, it's questionable regulation alone can achieve the reductions needed to start curbing global warming.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/13/fact-check-on-obama-state-union-address/#ixzz2KnRDZ2U2

 

So begins Obama's Lame Duck term.

<img src=http://steedinvestments.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/lame-duck1.jpg>

 

Yes, this is exactly what the studies show. The benefits of head start are truly remarkable. Its the single most bang for our educational buck. Without Head start, kids stay permanently behind. The head start kids don't do quite as well by high school graduation as the kids from upper socioeconomic circumstances, but they do far better than kids that don't get head start.

All kids regardless of socioeconomic circumstances need a program like head start, or its private sector equivalent, and that is what Obama is recommending. This can save billions down the road!

The data strongly suggests that whats important to educational outcome, beyond headstart, is socioeconomic integration in schools, this is far more important than racial integration, though they often are linked.

If the Obama initiative can lead to greater socioeconomic integration in headstart, that will be so much the better!

 

I'm a strong believer that borrowing for investment is the right thing to do. Therefore I would be happy with deficits that are due to investment such as, for example, borrowing to expand head start to all preschoolers, or to build a national high speed rail system. These investments will pay big "dividends."

 

This would be interesting. I wait with bated breath for when "preschoolers" get suspended. Right now just heard of an incident where a kid in Kindergarden got suspended. Oi vey!

One kid took another kids something or other, I think an apple or a treat, so the kid bit him. The biter gets suspended. Amen. I hope the biter gets counseling, the family gets therapy, perhaps medication and a diagnosis. The kid who swiped the treat, should get probation, restituition.

Both families need to lawyer up before first grade. The school should have to provide better supervision, maybe the "teachers; need a 2 masters degree. One for teaching and one for the psych professions. "Oh my baby!" *sarcasm*

The system is really one giant "special needs" institution.