The soaring rhetoric is so often dispelled by Obama's actions. Take the charitable giving thing for instance. Obama cries that our country needs to give more. Alright, fair enough. But if you look deeper, here are some inconvenient facts:
Charitable giving for 2005: Obama made 1.7 million, Bush made $735,000. They gave the same amount to charity.
Charitable giving for 2006: Obama made 3x more than Bush, yet Bush gave more to charity than did Obama.
For both years, the Obama's gave 5.8 and 6.1 to charity. During 8 years of his presidency, Bush gave over 10%.
Even worse, the Biden's gave .15 and .31 percent to charity these same years.
Democrats can claim they care more about the poor, but they sure don't put their money where their mouths are.
I'm not judging what one seems to give, I'm just pointing out the liberal mantra's hypocrisy on the issue when their "leaders" show such a weak leadership in this area.
As one liberal stated famously..... "I'm afraid you've got it wrong. (We) are socialists. We don't pretend to be Christians."
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Water the lawn, Obama?
The house is on fire!!!! And what does the Obama administration do? They water the lawn!
This is basically what they are proposing in the 2010 budget. They are looking at energy (taxing cap and trade), investing with unions in more education and less chance for school vouchers, and starting the god awful universal healthcare... And yet, absolutely no focus is on the revocovering the economy in the omnibus spending, or the 2010 budget.... And very little attention in the "stimilus" package.
"Never waste the opportunity of a great crisis." That is what the chief of staff for Obama said after the election. That statement says, in spades, how they want to transform our country into Western Europe. This is of course, allowing government to have more affect on our lives, and the private sector have even less.
1. Cap and trade: Obama argues this is part of his plan to change our energy policy. However, all this does is put more money out of the hands of the private sector (small businesses, consumers), and into the hands of the government. This will allow Obama to spend the planned profits on more energy efficient automobiles. And all the while, saving Mother Earth. Pardon me, but all of the global warming conspiracies have been put to bed in my mind. This is basically a religion, not a science. When just as many (probably more) experts in this field have debunked how man has made Earth significantly warmer, this hardly reasons as science. Instead, Al Gore and his Hollywood buddies are just raising millions of dollars for a cause they want to promote.
The fact is, they predicted in 1998 that Earth would become much warmer in the next decade. Well, in fact the Earth has cooled over the past decade. All data points to the ebbs and flows in our climate. This hasn't changed.
2. Education: Reasonable minded people can disagree on how education should be spent. However, isn't it the liberals who say that "choice" is the answer? Well, not so much when it comes to education. The words "school choice" is a potty word in liberal circles. The fact of the matter in politics is you don't want to bite the hand that feeds you. And the education unions are a mighty force in liberal circles. Therefore, giving the opportunity for a parent to send their child to a private school, home school, or take advantage of a school voucher is nothing short of a sin to these liberal thinkers.
Imagine- You live in Washington DC, and you want to send your child to a better school, knowing the public schools are bad. W. Bush upped the ante with school vouchers, so these parents who are making around the levels of the poverty line, can send there kids to a better school. And now that a liberal is in the White House? These vouchers in DC are being taken away in high numbers.
3. Healthcare: I don't care what you do with it, put lipstick on it, perfume on it, whatever.. It will still look and smell like a pig. This is government run healthcare. Why on Earth in a time of financial crisis would a government spring one of the biggest social engineering programs on a country? Especially one that the public has chewed and spit out before (Clinton's failed universal healthcare reform circa 1993)? The fact is, if this was something that was so great and had no real issues with it, wouldn't most of Europe and Russia have a consistently thriving economy? The fact is, when you are forced to pay upwards of 50% in taxes for such programs, it will always lead to a depressed economy.
Of course everybody wants people to be covered in healthcare. But to think to trust a government bureacracy to handle this successfully is insane. Look what's happened to Medicare, to Medicaid, to Social Security?? Are these government programs going honky-dory? Nope. They are all on the verge of going under. The fact is, the less control government has on things, the better. Their job is to oversee the private sector in a free market. Instead, they are wanting control over it.
Wouldn't a better alternative be adding health vouchers, as McCain proposed? This would allow a family of 4 to take the proposed 5K, and shop for their own insurance. This would not only allow the free markets to battle for your business with lower costs, it would also keep the decisions where they should be in healthcare, to the family.
One thing is ironic about the healthcare issue: Isn't it interesting how liberals want the government to have full intrusion and control over healthcare, except for when a woman is pregnant? And social conservatives want families to be able to make their healthcare choices..... except for wanting government to protect the life of the unborn? Sorry liberals, but I choose the side of the unborn over abortion!
This is basically what they are proposing in the 2010 budget. They are looking at energy (taxing cap and trade), investing with unions in more education and less chance for school vouchers, and starting the god awful universal healthcare... And yet, absolutely no focus is on the revocovering the economy in the omnibus spending, or the 2010 budget.... And very little attention in the "stimilus" package.
"Never waste the opportunity of a great crisis." That is what the chief of staff for Obama said after the election. That statement says, in spades, how they want to transform our country into Western Europe. This is of course, allowing government to have more affect on our lives, and the private sector have even less.
1. Cap and trade: Obama argues this is part of his plan to change our energy policy. However, all this does is put more money out of the hands of the private sector (small businesses, consumers), and into the hands of the government. This will allow Obama to spend the planned profits on more energy efficient automobiles. And all the while, saving Mother Earth. Pardon me, but all of the global warming conspiracies have been put to bed in my mind. This is basically a religion, not a science. When just as many (probably more) experts in this field have debunked how man has made Earth significantly warmer, this hardly reasons as science. Instead, Al Gore and his Hollywood buddies are just raising millions of dollars for a cause they want to promote.
The fact is, they predicted in 1998 that Earth would become much warmer in the next decade. Well, in fact the Earth has cooled over the past decade. All data points to the ebbs and flows in our climate. This hasn't changed.
2. Education: Reasonable minded people can disagree on how education should be spent. However, isn't it the liberals who say that "choice" is the answer? Well, not so much when it comes to education. The words "school choice" is a potty word in liberal circles. The fact of the matter in politics is you don't want to bite the hand that feeds you. And the education unions are a mighty force in liberal circles. Therefore, giving the opportunity for a parent to send their child to a private school, home school, or take advantage of a school voucher is nothing short of a sin to these liberal thinkers.
Imagine- You live in Washington DC, and you want to send your child to a better school, knowing the public schools are bad. W. Bush upped the ante with school vouchers, so these parents who are making around the levels of the poverty line, can send there kids to a better school. And now that a liberal is in the White House? These vouchers in DC are being taken away in high numbers.
3. Healthcare: I don't care what you do with it, put lipstick on it, perfume on it, whatever.. It will still look and smell like a pig. This is government run healthcare. Why on Earth in a time of financial crisis would a government spring one of the biggest social engineering programs on a country? Especially one that the public has chewed and spit out before (Clinton's failed universal healthcare reform circa 1993)? The fact is, if this was something that was so great and had no real issues with it, wouldn't most of Europe and Russia have a consistently thriving economy? The fact is, when you are forced to pay upwards of 50% in taxes for such programs, it will always lead to a depressed economy.
Of course everybody wants people to be covered in healthcare. But to think to trust a government bureacracy to handle this successfully is insane. Look what's happened to Medicare, to Medicaid, to Social Security?? Are these government programs going honky-dory? Nope. They are all on the verge of going under. The fact is, the less control government has on things, the better. Their job is to oversee the private sector in a free market. Instead, they are wanting control over it.
Wouldn't a better alternative be adding health vouchers, as McCain proposed? This would allow a family of 4 to take the proposed 5K, and shop for their own insurance. This would not only allow the free markets to battle for your business with lower costs, it would also keep the decisions where they should be in healthcare, to the family.
One thing is ironic about the healthcare issue: Isn't it interesting how liberals want the government to have full intrusion and control over healthcare, except for when a woman is pregnant? And social conservatives want families to be able to make their healthcare choices..... except for wanting government to protect the life of the unborn? Sorry liberals, but I choose the side of the unborn over abortion!
Friday, March 13, 2009
Stem Cell Ethics
Here is another great article, showing Obama's lack of depth on this issue. This is coming from a real pro in this arena, who happens to believe that more stem cell lines should be produced. However, he points out Obama's very, shall we say morally-questionable defense.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/12/AR2009031202764.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/12/AR2009031202764.html
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Bizarre speech to joint sessions
Barack Hussein Obama just flat out pisses me off sometimes. Well, most of the time. He constantly speaks about political civility out of one side of his mouth, while demonizing his opponents out of the other side of his mouth.
Now let's take his speech to the joint congress a couple weeks ago. He stated the need for massive government spending. He says he's not for huge government out of one side of his mouth and attacks those who accuse him of this. Then he goes on saying we need a 3.4 trillion dollar budget, deficits higher than the mind can fathom. And, and, he says the way to get out of our mess is to invest heavily in healthcare reform (ie-universal healthcare), education, and energy. No, sorry Obama, those will NOT help an ailing economy. That will help an ultra liberal agenda that wants the government to take more and more control of our daily lives.
At least admit what you're trying to do, don't camoflauge it around a whole bunch of B.S. you've grown accustomed to spewing.
Now let's take his speech to the joint congress a couple weeks ago. He stated the need for massive government spending. He says he's not for huge government out of one side of his mouth and attacks those who accuse him of this. Then he goes on saying we need a 3.4 trillion dollar budget, deficits higher than the mind can fathom. And, and, he says the way to get out of our mess is to invest heavily in healthcare reform (ie-universal healthcare), education, and energy. No, sorry Obama, those will NOT help an ailing economy. That will help an ultra liberal agenda that wants the government to take more and more control of our daily lives.
At least admit what you're trying to do, don't camoflauge it around a whole bunch of B.S. you've grown accustomed to spewing.
Stem Cell Research
I'm not posting this link for the fight on stem cell research, it's more of the way Obama goes about forming an argument. I think this is classic Obama that the masses eat up. Fortunately for those who think for themselves, we see right through him. He's nothing more than a novice political neophyte.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123664280083277765.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123664280083277765.html
Friday, February 13, 2009
This is not stimulating
The stimulus plan that was approved by the House and Senate this week are far from stimulating. When you look at the word "stimulate", its definition is NOT spending on anything. In my mind, it's incentive for the consumer to be spending; it's for giving tax breaks to small businesses; it's for giving more to potential car and home-buyers.
Yes, there is some of what I mentioned above, but is there enough? The Republican version had $15,000 incentive for first time home-buyers. Democrats reduced that to $8,000. Republicans wanted more tax breaks for the middle class, small businesses, temporary reduction of Capital gains tax. Democrats worked like crazy to make sure these ideas were snuffed out of the water. Instead, 2/3 of the "stimulus" is spending, only 1/3 is geared for tax relief.
Some of these programs may be worthy (many not), but it's not stimulus. It's social spending when you give the states billions of dollars, when you provide money to the poor, when you provide billions to the health industry. The fact is, these spending programs should be brought up and debated in appropriations bills, not for a stimulus package. It flat out is dishonest at worst, and conniving at best.
Yes, there is some of what I mentioned above, but is there enough? The Republican version had $15,000 incentive for first time home-buyers. Democrats reduced that to $8,000. Republicans wanted more tax breaks for the middle class, small businesses, temporary reduction of Capital gains tax. Democrats worked like crazy to make sure these ideas were snuffed out of the water. Instead, 2/3 of the "stimulus" is spending, only 1/3 is geared for tax relief.
Some of these programs may be worthy (many not), but it's not stimulus. It's social spending when you give the states billions of dollars, when you provide money to the poor, when you provide billions to the health industry. The fact is, these spending programs should be brought up and debated in appropriations bills, not for a stimulus package. It flat out is dishonest at worst, and conniving at best.
Saturday, February 7, 2009
President's Cabinet nominees
I am writing this post in response to all of the animal liberals who verbally castrated W for some of his nominees... Now, I would agree that some of his nominees left much to be desired in all fairness. First I will mention a few that, as a conservative, I disagreed with:
- Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General- He was chosen because he was close to Bush, plain and simple. Yet, there were several other appointees that would have done better in defending decisions the administration made. But the most glaring mistake in my view, is how he handled the firing of many judges around the nation. The fact is, Presidents fire judges at their pleasure. Clinton fired more than any in history. It was his right. But the Bush firings were made political (which again is fine), but Bush and Gonzales kept digging themselves in a deeper hole by overexplaining everything. Instead, the answer should have been, "because I chose to do so as the President."
- Scott McClellen, Press Secretary- Of course, he is conservatives favorite punching bag since he came out with his book. But the fact remains, he was an AWFUL communicator. He did President Bush no service by his explanations on the war. Worse off, his presence was at a time when the Iraq war was going south. Having the first press secretary, Ari Flescher, or Tony Snow in there at that time would have helped with public opinion tremendously.
- Harriet Myers, Supreme Court- She later withdrew her name because of public pressure, but another choice of cronyism only. She didn't have the qualifications that a John Roberts, or a Sam Alito have. Thank God Bush received a mulligan on these supreme court picks.
- Don Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense- At first, even the NY Times said he was a defense heavyweight, although they differed on opinions. I say Rumsfeld wasn't a bad pick at the time, he just strategized the Iraq war in an incorrect manner. He believed that a stealth mission (less troops) would do the job in Iraq. Even after 2 years of trouble, course wasn't shifted quickly enough. It wasn't until Bush brought in General David Petreaus, and later Bob Gates as Secretary of Defense, that strategy was completely turned around into success. Bush needed to pull the trigger on Rumsfeld's firing when things weren't working, not after the defeats of the 2006 elections.
- Paul O'Neill, Secretatary of the Treasury- Bush's first Treasury Secretary was a Republican, with good qualifications. However, when someone is not fully on board with your biggest economic agenda (sweeping tax cuts), there's a problem. O'Neill became an outspoken critic of some of Bush's economic policy. How can this happen? Did they not get his opinion on Bush's agenda beforehand?
- Tom Daschle, nominee for HHS- Didn't report 3 years worth of taxes on having a driver and a Cadillac at his disposal. This averaged more than 75K per year. I can except honest mistakes, even by a Democrat. :) But in addition, Daschle didn't pay taxes on a 83K consulting fee in 2006 or 07. And back to the first issue, if he noticed this possible issue in June of last year, why did it take him 8 months to rectify this with the IRS? Especially for a guy whose made over 5MM per year since he was unseated as a Senator in 2004? The answer is, he paid them because he was nominated for Secratary of Health and Human Services. This is a known savvy political man. Does he not have a good accountant? Doubt it. Seems hardly like an honest mistake..... Obama got it right at the end, when he said it was his own mistake. But the fact is, Obama defended Daschle over this issue until he realized this was a ticking time bomb. At only this point did Obama come out and say that we can't have a double standard with nominees and everyday citizens in paying taxes... Oops, too late, damage done.
- Timothy Geithner, Treasury Secretary- As I mentioned in a previous blog post, he didn't pay self employment taxes for 4 years. When he corrected this, he only fixed the first 2 years. Only after he was starting to get heat of this did he pay the additional 2 years. And he says this was an honest, stupid mistake. In addition, he sent his children to youth camp and used this a writeoff illegally. Also, he's had an issue with hiring an immigrant without proper papers. For someone who wants to head up the IRS, these issues shouldn't be looked at as "honest mistakes". Instead, these should be disqualifiers. But Obama dug his heels in and defended his embattled nominee. Geithner was approved, mostly by Democrats.
- Eric Holder, Attorney General- He was confirmed this week. However, he has NO excuse for the assistance for helping Clinton pardon Marc Rich, a ten most wanted fugitive, back in 2000. Even Holder admits this mistake..... Now just imagine if Alberto Gonzales had made this mistake. He would have been grilled beyond belief.. and beyond repair.
- Nancy Killefer, nominee for Chief Performance Officer- She had to withdraw her name because of........... you guessed it, not paying taxes. Do you see a theme here?
- Hilda Solis, Labor Secretary nominee- Her husband's business had a $6,400 tax lien against it for the past 16 years. On Wednesday of this week, he finally paid it. Wonder why? Does this dis-qualify his wife? Probably not. However, why does the tax issue keep coming up with Democrat appointments?
- Bill Richardson, Commerce Secretary nominee- Richardson withdrew his name in December because he is under a Federal investigation for a pay for play issue. A huge donor of his in CA won a New Mexico contract from Richardson. Wonder why?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)