Obama's Word Is His Bond? Not So Much

Discussion in 'Politics' started by pspr, Apr 18, 2011.

  1. pspr


    Obama can't even abide by the areement he made with the Republicans over the 2011 Budget. The term "morally bankrupt" comes to mind.

    President Obama "is planning to ignore language in the 2011 spending package that would ban several top White House advisory posts," signing a statement in which he says has no obligation to comply, Politico reports.

    "The anti-czar language in the spending bill marked a victory for Republicans and conservative pundits, who accused the administration of giving unelected bureaucrats too much power within the White House. But the language didn't appear to have any immediate impact on Obama's staff. Energy and climate adviser Carol Browner resigned earlier this year; health czar Nancy-Ann DeParle was promoted to deputy White House chief of staff; Obama's urban affairs adviser, Adolfo Carrión, left the White House to become a regional director for the Department of Housing and Urban Development; and the White House said auto and manufacturing adviser Ron Bloom wouldn't be affected by the language."

  2. Yannis


    By Wayne Allyn Root , June 6th, 2010

    Barack Hussien Obama is no fool. He is not incompetent. To the contrary, he is brilliant. He knows exactly what he's doing.

    He is purposely overwhelming the U.S. economy to create systemic failure, economic crisis and social chaos -- thereby destroying capitalism and our country from within.

    Barack Hussien Obama was my college SCHOOLMATE (Columbia University, class of '83).

    He is a devout Muslim do not be fooled.

    Look at his Czars...anti-business..anti-American.
    As Glenn Beck correctly predicted from day one, Barack Hussien Obama is following the plan of Cloward & Piven, two professors at Columbia University. They outlined a plan to socialize America by overwhelming the system with government spending and entitlement demands.

    Add up the clues below. Taken individually they're alarming. Taken as a whole, it is a brilliant, Machiavellian game plan to turn
    the United States into a socialist/Marxist state with a permanent majority that desperately needs government for survival ... and can be counted on to always vote for bigger government.

    Why not? They have no responsibility to pay for it.

    Universal health care . The health care bill had very little to do with health care. It had everything to do with unionizing millions of hospital and health care workers, as well as adding 15,000 to 20,000 new IRS agents (who will join government employee unions).

    Obama doesn't care that giving free health care to 30 million Americans will add trillions to the national debt.

    What he does care about is that it cements the dependence of those 30 million voters to Democrats and big government .
    Who but a socialist revolutionary would pass this reckless spending bill in the middle of a depression?

    Cap and trade. Like health care legislation having nothing to do with health care, cap and trade has nothing to do with global warming. It has everything to do with redistribution of income, government control of the economy and a criminal payoff to Obama's biggest contributors. Those powerful and wealthy unions and contributors (like GE, which owns NBC, MSNBC and CNBC) can then be counted on to support everything Obama wants.

    They will kick-back hundreds of millions of dollars in contributions to Obama and the Democratic Party to keep them in power.
    The bonus is that all the new taxes on Americans with bigger cars, bigger homes and businesses helps Obama "spread the wealth around."

    Make Puerto Rico a state. Why? Who's asking for a 51st state? Who's asking for millions of new welfare recipients and government entitlement addicts in the middle of a depression?

    Certainly not American taxpayers. But this has been Barack Hussien Obama's plan all along.

    His goal is to add two new Democratic senators, five Democratic congressman and a million loyal Democratic voters who are dependent on big government.

    Legalize 12 million illegal Mexican immigrants.

    Just giving these 12 million potential new citizens free health care alone could overwhelm the system and bankrupt America.
    But it adds 12 million reliable new Democratic voters who can be counted on to support big government. Add another few trillion dollars in welfare, aid to dependent children, food stamps, free medical, education, tax credits for the poor, and eventually Social Security .

    Stimulus and bailouts. Where did all that money go?

    It went to Democrat contributors, organizations (ACORN), and unions -- including billions of dollars to save or create jobs of government employees across the country.

    It went to save GM and Chrysler so that their employees could keep paying union dues.

    It went to AIG so that Goldman Sachs could be bailed out (after giving Obama almost $1 million in contributions).

    A staggering $125 billion went to teachers (thereby protecting their union dues).

    All those public employees will vote loyally Democratic to protect their bloated salaries and pensions that are bankrupting America.

    The country goes broke, future generations face a bleak future, but Obama, the Democratic Party, government, and the unions grow more powerful. The ends justify the means.

    Raise taxes on small business owners, high-income earners, and job creators.

    Put the entire burden on only the top 20 percent of taxpayers, redistribute the income, punish success, and reward those who did nothing to deserve it (except vote for Obama).

    Reagan wanted to dramatically cut taxes in order to starve the government. Barack Obama wants to dramatically raise taxes to starve his political opposition. With the acts outlined above, Barack Hussien Obama and his regime have created a vast and rapidly expanding constituency of voters dependent on big government; a vast privileged class of public employees who work for big government; and a government dedicated to destroying capitalism and installing themselves as socialist rulers by overwhelming the system.

    Add it up and you've got the perfect Marxist scheme -- all devised by my Columbia University college classmate Barack Hussien Obama using the Cloward and Piven Plan .

    True per snopes!
  3. pspr


    Realistic people read that article and say to themselves, "I can see that".

    Liberals read the article and at the end of each sentence they think to themselves, "That's a lie. Damn lies."
  4. Tsing Tao

    Tsing Tao

  5. Yannis



    :) :) :)
  6. Yannis


    Ryan's Way Is the Better Way
    by Michael D. Tanner

    Michael D. Tanner is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and the author of Bankrupt: Entitlements and the Federal Budget.

    This article appeared in USA Today on April 18, 2011.

    "Even under the Obama administration's most rosy scenario, Medicare is facing huge unfunded liabilities. It would have to be given at least $45 trillion now to cover all shortfalls for as far out as can reasonably be projected. And some estimates say it would take closer to $90 trillion. That shortfall cannot be fixed simply by making Medicare more efficient or eliminating "fraud, waste and abuse." Nor can we tax our way out of the problem.

    The president essentially proposes that we continue to do what we have been doing, and cut reimbursements to providers. That approach, though, has gone about as far as it can go. Medicare now reimburses hospitals and physicians only about 80% of their actual costs, meaning more and more physicians are refusing to accept Medicare patients.

    He also touts savings from the new health care law, but even the government's own chief actuary says those cuts are unrealistic. The only real Medicare savings from ObamaCare comes from forcing seniors out of the Medicare Advantage program.

    Rep. Paul Ryan's proposal represents a different way out of the crisis. He would not touch Medicare for anyone on the program today or anyone getting close to retirement. No one would be thrown off of the program.

    But younger workers would transition to a new system, one in which they have more control over the money that Medicare pays and therefore the decisions about what benefits they would receive. They would receive a subsidy from the government to help them purchase private health insurance. Lower income seniors and those with higher health care costs would receive a bigger subsidy. Seniors could combine the government subsidy with whatever they wish to spend of their own money to buy an insurance plan that has a cost and benefits that best meets their needs. Instead of a one-size-fits-all system, seniors would have many more choices than they have today.

    Will it mean that in the future seniors will have to pay more of their own money or settle for a plan with fewer benefits, as Democrats have charged? Yes. But that is going to happen with or without Ryan's plan.

    Medicare cannot simply continue to promise paying for everything for everyone when it doesn't have the money to do so. The question isn't whether future seniors will have to pay more or get less. It is whether those choices will be imposed on them from above or whether they will be empowered to make those decisions for themselves.

    What we have been doing hasn't worked. Medicare is broke. Rep. Ryan offers a better way."
  7. Yannis


    Gramm: Obama Recovery Trails Reagan's by 15.7 Million Jobs
    By Julie Crawshaw

    “Economist and former U.S. senator Phil Gramm says this recovery really is different: If Barack Obama matched Ronald Reagan's post-recession recovery rate, 15.7 million more Americans would have jobs.

    “A compelling case can be made that Reagan's tax cuts, Social Security reforms, regulatory reforms, and limits on the growth and power of the federal government not only helped the economy shake off the malaise of the 1970s but generated an economic growth premium that bore dividends for Americans until 2007,” Gramm writes in The Wall Street Journal.

    “Had the U.S. economy recovered from the current recession the way it bounced back from the other 10 recessions since World War II, our per-capita gross domestic product (GDP) would be $3,553 higher than it is today, and 11.9 million more Americans would be employed.”

    “If the Reagan policies of the 1980s were sufficiently different from those of the previous decade to generate a growth premium, cannot a case be made that the policies of the Obama administration are sufficiently different from those of the previous quarter-century to alter the growth trend and impose a growth discount?” he asks.

    The problem, says Gramm, is not just the weak recovery but increasing evidence that the economy is now on a growth path far different from the previous quarter century. Despite the largest monetary and fiscal stimuli in American history, in 2009 the capital stock of the nation actually shrank for the first time in the postwar period.

    Had Obama’s recovery rate matched Reagan’s, Gramm points out, 1982 today annual per-capita income would be $4,154 higher than before the recession.

    “That's an extra $16,600 for a family of four” says Gramm, and some 15.7 million more Americans would have jobs.

    “That's enough jobs to employ 100 percent of the 13.5 million Americans currently classified as unemployed,” Gramm notes. “In addition, we would have provided jobs for 30 percent of both the 2.4 million discouraged or marginally attached workers and the 4.8 million who have totally dropped out of the work force since January 2008.”

    Fits News reports that the International Monetary Fund says America’s failure to control its rampant deficit spending could be the undoing of the global economic recovery.

    According to the IMF’s most recent World Economic Outlook the U.S. government not only lacks a “credible strategy” for dealing with its skyrocketing debt, but is continuing to expand deficit spending at a time when it should be contracting.”