Story Of Obama

What people forget to mention and most Americans miss is that teh treasury doesn't have any money, they just print it, thereby diluting the vallue of the dollar and undermining our purchasing power, setting up conditions for inflation to explode later.

 

Priebus: Obama ‘Living in Fantasy Land’ on Economy
By Amy Woods

President Barack Obama is acting like he’s not in office as he campaigns around the country asking Americans whether they are satisfied with the status quo, Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus said on “Fox News Sunday.”

The fact of the matter is, Priebus told host John Roberts, there are half a million more people unemployed today than there were prior to Obama’s election.

“If they kept their promises, there would be eight and a half million more people employed today then there would be four years ago,” he said. “The fact of the matter is, this president can’t fulfill a promise. They’re living in fantasy land.”

Last week’s jobs report brought dismal news for the third consecutive month — a stagnant 8.2-percent unemployment rate.

“Mitt Romney has to win for the sake of the very idea of America,” Priebus said. “Mitt Romney has to win for liberty and freedom, and we have to put an end to this Barack Obama presidency before it puts an end to our way of life in America.”

He called Obama the “fundraiser-in-chief” and said his presidency has been “divisive” and his campaigning “nasty” and “negative.”

“Mitt Romney’s legacy is success in business, making promises and keeping promises, and that’s something that this president would only dream of being able to campaign on through November,” Priebus said.

 

Words Of Wisdom

 

No matter which side you are on, here is a second opinion:

The American Medical Association has weighed in on Obama's new health care package. The Allergists were in favor of scratching it, but the Dermatologists advised not to make any rash moves. The Gastroenterologists had sort of a gut feeling about it, but the Neurologists thought the Administration had a lot of nerve. Meanwhile, Obstetricians felt certain everyone was laboring under a misconception, while the Ophthalmologists considered the idea shortsighted. Pathologists yelled, "Over my dead body!" while the Pediatricians said, "Oh, grow up!" The Psychiatrists thought the whole idea was madness, while the Radiologists could see right through it. Surgeons decided to wash their hands of the whole thing and the Internists claimed it would indeed be a bitter pill to swallow. The Plastic Surgeons opined that this proposal would "put a whole new face on the matter". The Podiatrists thought it was a step forward, but the Urologists were pissed off at the whole idea. Anesthesiologists thought the whole idea was a gas, and those lofty Cardiologists didn't have the heart to say no. In the end, the Proctologists won out, leaving the entire decision up to the assholes in Washington...

 

Roberts' ruling isn't final
by Sen. Rand Paul

In the wake of the recent Supreme Court decision, can you still argue that the Constitution does not support ObamaCare? The liberal blogosphere apparently thinks the constitutional debate is over. I wonder whether they would have had that opinion the day after the Dred Scott decision.

While it is clear to anyone who was awake in high school civics class that the Supreme Court has the power to declare whether a law is valid under the Constitution, that power is not a pronouncement set in stone.

Think of how our country would look now had the Supreme Court not changed its view of what is constitutional. Think of 1857, when the court handed down the outrageous Dred Scott decision, which said African Americans were not citizens. Think of the "separate but equal" doctrine in Plessy v. Ferguson, which the court later repudiated in Brown v. Board of Education.

I have a similar opinion on Roe v. Wade. Constitutional scholars such as professor Robert George of Princeton still dispute the constitutionality of Roe: "The Supreme Court's decision to invalidate state laws prohibiting or restricting abortion lacks any basis in the text, logic, structure, or original understanding of the Constitution."

The clause that the court majority used to justify the constitutionality of ObamaCare is one that has been subject to debate over the years.

Hamilton and Madison argued over it. Madison maintained that the powers to tax and spend were limited by the powers enumerated in the Constitution. Because what purpose is there to enumerated powers if a general power — the power to tax — could eclipse them?

In U.S. v. Butler (1936), an earlier Justice Roberts (Owen) got it right when he wrote: "The (tax) invades the reserved rights of the states. (The tax) is a statutory plan to regulate and control … a matter beyond the powers delegated to the federal government. … (The tax is) but (a) means to an unconstitutional end."

Sounds like ObamaCare to me. I'm starting to like the first Justice Roberts more than the current Justice Roberts.

 

If i were the type to send an email around... that would be my first one.
That last sentence sums up what the majority of america thinks of washington right now.

 

Obama's tax hikes for the 'rich' plan is a disaster
By Phil Kerpen

On the heels of the widespread exposure of President Obama’s health care law as a massive middle-class tax hike, his decision to bring back his infamous plan for “tax hikes on the rich” is an economic and political disaster.

The Wall Street Journal recently analyzed the impact of Obama’s health care mandate tax and concluded: “It is now undeniable that Mr. Obama has imposed the largest tax increase in history on the middle class.” So middle-class voters with serious economic anxiety will be understandably skeptical about the president’s latest promise that his next round of tax hikes will spare them.

Moreover, Obama’s claim that a partisan stalemate is to blame for impending tax hikes obscures the fact that when Democrats controlled every lever of power in Washington, they did nothing to cancel the tax hikes, instead focusing almost exclusively on a health care bill that piled even more taxes on the middle class.

Consider the case of Americans who built up value in a home their entire lives and never made more than a modest annual income. They will be “rich” according to Obama in the one year they sell that home – and subject to a hefty tax hike with the new health care surtax on capital gains taking the tax above the exempt amount from 15 percent now to 23.8 percent next year.

That hefty increase in capital gains and the even bigger, near tripling of the dividend tax from 15 percent to 43.3 will trigger a massive stock market sell-off that will wallop the retirement accounts of people of all income levels. Economist Don Luskin has estimated that allowing these provisions to expire as Obama today proposed will cause a 30 percent collapse in the stock market – bad news for every American hoping to retire or already living out of a retirement account.

The stock market impact and the direct impact of higher taxes on small businesses will hurt the employment prospects of millions of Americans in an already sputtering economy. Bloomberg News recently reported: “President Barack Obama’s plan to raise tax rates for the top 2 percent of U.S. households would mean higher taxes on 53 percent of business income reported on individual returns, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation.”

Such a huge tax hike on small businesses – who comprise the overwhelmingly majority of upper-income individual tax filers – will negatively impact not just business owners but every worker on the margin of being hired or laid off.

Obama didn’t mention it Monday, but one of the “tax hikes on the rich” he has favored, and presumably would include in his plan, is to allowing the death tax to jump from its current 35 percent rate above $5 million to a confiscatory 55 percent rate on everything above $1 million -- this will put a lot of family businesses and farms out of business.

Many Americans would consider accepting these tax hikes, even with all the economic pain they would bring, if they actually believed they would be used to balance the budget. But Obama has done nothing to cut federal spending, and when Democrats controlled the House and had a supermajority in the Senate Obama used it to dramatically increase spending even faster than he raised taxes. Every dollar of his new tax hike is therefore almost certain to be spent on more wasteful spending.

The bottom line is: the smart economic and political play with the American electorate was to declare that there would be no more tax hikes this year, period. Now we have to watch another Washington game of chicken with the USeconomy teetering in the balance. Obama has failed another test of leadership.

 

The truth about Obama's tax cut extension plan
By John Lott

Politics, not economics, is driving President Obama's election year strategy to force a battle over his efforts to raise income taxes. So much of Obama's speech Monday focused on his political opponents and the difference between those whom he claims support the middle class and those who support what Obama continually called "the wealthy."

For an administration that last week blamed Fox News for the class warfare rhetoric, Obama's talk today sure contained a lot of such rhetoric.

But contrast Obama's position with that of other prominent Democrats. Just last month, his former chief economic advisor Larry Summers told MSNBC: "The real risk to this economy is on the side of slow down, certainly not on the side of overheating, and that means we've got to make sure that we don't take gasoline out of the tank at the end of this year that's gotta be the top priority." Former Democratic President Bill Clinton made a similar claim warning against tax increases because it is better to "avoid doing anything that would contract the economy now." Under Obama administration pressure both quickly retracted their statements.

Obama seem oblivious to Summers' and Clinton's concerns about the poorly performing economy. In recent statements Obama has claimed: "The private sector is doing fine" and the latest job numbers really are "a step in the right direction."

Yet, Summers' and Clinton are right to be concerned.

The economy is very weak. Indeed, this is the weakest recovery ever, with the economy growing at less than two percent. Job growth averaged just 75,000 jobs a month over the last three months and doesn't come close to keeping up with the 210,000 average monthly net increase in working age workers. Thirty-seven months into the recovery and jobs have increased by only 1.7 percent. During the average recovery since 1970, job growth has been 7.3% and it has been even faster after severe recessions.Unfortunately, Obama's policies are bad economics. According to Obama, letting those earning over $250,000 a year keep more of their money doesn't help the economy. He claims it does little for demand.

This Keynesian argument is based on the notion that poorer people spend more of their money than do wealthier ones. It is the same logic that has had Democrats advocating more unemployment insurance benefits. As former House Speaker Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) explained: "it injects demand into the economy and is job creating. It creates jobs faster than almost any other initiative you can name. Because again it is money that is needed for families to survive and it is spent." It is also a constant theme of in Obama's campaign talks.

The claim that some people are engaged in "spending" their money while others are "saving" it really assumes that saving is the equivalent of burying one's money in a hole in the backyard. In reality, everyone's money is spent.

Say you put your paycheck in the bank. Some of it you spend on your mortgage or rent and some on car payments and food. But the rest of the money doesn't just sit there gathering dust. The bank either lends out the money for others to spend or it buys bonds.

President Obama kept pointing out Monday that he has cut taxes. But he doesn't understand that the way that he cut taxes actually discouraged work for one simple reason: he increased marginal tax rates. Obama's tax cuts increase marginal tax rates because he phases out deductions and credits as people make more income. You get the earned income tax credit or the college tuition credit but as you earn more money more of those credits are taken away from you. Those lost tax benefits are on top of the unchanged official marginal tax brackets. Average tax rates went down, but marginal tax rates went up.

The president said he wants “an economy where work pays off.” But if you actually want to give me an incentive to work more it is the marginal tax rate that matters. The solution is obvious: let people keep more of each additional dollar they earn.

Hopefully, most people understand that cutting tax rates, not increasing unemployment insurance payments, are what stimulates the economy.

It isn't just our individual income tax rates, which both individuals and many small business pay, that are a mess. With the highest marginal corporate income tax rates in the world, our tax policies not only discourage investments by Americans, they also discourage investments by foreigners. These are investments that would increase worker productivity and increase wages.

A favorite phrase employed by Obama over the last few months has been used to accuse Republicans of wanting a “top down” economy. It is a good phrase, as voters probably understand the perils of having everything controlled by some central bureaucrat. Yet, companies don’t dictate to consumers what they will buy. Obama, with his massive government health care bureaucracy that is going to approve what surgeries we can receive, is the ultimate “top down” central planner.

President Obama's class warfare rhetoric may be good politics. Monday he pointed to the polls that he claimed supported his desire to increase taxes on "the wealthy." But if the desire is to grow the economy, his policies are bad economics.

 

The Hill Poll: Majority of voters believe Obama has changed country for worse
by Sheldon Alberts

Two-thirds of likely voters say President Obama has kept his 2008 campaign promise to change America — but it’s changed for the worse, according to a sizable majority.

A new poll for The Hill found 56 percent of likely voters believe Obama’s first term has transformed the nation in a negative way, compared to 35 percent who believe the country has changed for the better under his leadership.

The results signal broad voter unease with the direction the nation has taken under Obama’s leadership and present a major challenge for the incumbent Democrat as he seeks reelection this fall.

Conducted for The Hill by Pulse Opinion Research, the poll comes in the wake of last month’s Supreme Court decision that upheld the primary elements of Obama’s signature healthcare legislation.

It found 68 percent of likely voters — regardless of whether they approve or disapprove of Obama — believe the president has substantially transformed the country since his 2009 inauguration.

The feeling that Obama has changed the country for the worse is strongest among Republicans, at 91 percent, compared to 71 percent of Democrats who support Obama’s brand of change.

Strikingly, 1-in-5 Democrats say they feel Obama has changed the United States for the worse.

Compared to the sentiment about Obama’s impact, fewer people see presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney as a candidate who will change the country dramatically if elected.

Still, 50 percent of people think Romney will bring a “significant” level of change — a finding that may reflect the desire among anti-Obama voters for a reversal of the president’s policies.

Debate about Obama’s first-term legacy has intensified since the Supreme Court ruled the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate to be constitutional.

The healthcare legislation, once fully implemented, would usher in the most sweeping changes to the nation’s social safety net since the 1960s.

To Obama’s supporters, the ruling was a validation of his 2008 campaign theme of “change we can believe in.” At that time, Obama hinted at his ambitions to become a transformative president in the mold of Ronald Reagan.

“I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it,” he told the Reno Gazette-Journal in January 2008.

Beyond the healthcare law, Obama won passage of the Dodd-Frank financial industry reforms, generally viewed as the biggest Wall Street regulatory changes since the 1930s.

In the absence of major immigration legislation, Obama recently eased deportation rules for young illegal immigrants brought to the country as children.

Obama’s ambitions for big change fell short in other areas. He has been unable to pass climate change legislation or repeal the Bush-era tax rates.

On social issues, Obama recently became the first president to endorse gay marriage.

Independent of voter opinions about how the country has changed, The Hill Poll found an overwhelming majority of voters — 89 percent — view the choice between Obama and Romney as important in terms of the future impact on the country.

Almost half (47 percent) say they are paying more attention to this year’s election than the 2008 vote. Republicans are generally paying more attention than Democrats — 56 percent to 44 percent — to the 2012 campaign compared to 2008.

Among centrists, views are evenly split on how Obama has changed the country — with 40 percent saying the United States is better today and 42 percent saying it is worse off. Eighty percent of liberals think Obama has changed the country for the better.

There is a marked difference of opinion along racial lines, with just 29 percent of whites saying Obama has changed the country for the better compared to 92 percent of blacks.

The poll was conducted among 1,000 likely voters on July 5 and has a margin of error of 3 percentage points.

Here's the data: http://thehill.com/images/stories/news/2012/07_july/hill_poll_crosstabs_july_9.pdf

 

This is fricken crazy economics... from the kerpen article above.
I can not believe the dems are attacking capital formation in this economy.


"Consider the case of Americans who built up value in a home their entire lives and never made more than a modest annual income. They will be “rich” according to Obama in the one year they sell that home – and subject to a hefty tax hike with the new health care surtax on capital gains taking the tax above the exempt amount from 15 percent now to 23.8 percent next year.

That hefty increase in capital gains and the even bigger, near tripling of the dividend tax from 15 percent to 43.3 will trigger a massive stock market sell-off that will wallop the retirement accounts of people of all income levels. Economist Don Luskin has estimated that allowing these provisions to expire as Obama today proposed will cause a 30 percent collapse in the stock market – bad news for every American hoping to retire or already living out of a retirement account."