Does Barack Obama have absolutely no sense of shame whatsoever? Wait! No need to answer that question! Just watch the video below that left me flabbergasted.
Once again, Obama was right with some of his critical rhetoric when he was campaigning as Senator Obama. Evidently when we elected him to be president, he forgot those principles upon which he ran and actually decided to try to trump all of the egregious governmental spending of his predecessor of whom he correctly chastised for having done so.
I am sure glad that he was going to change Washington D.C. I think we all just assumed that he meant in the opposite direction, instead of deeper into irresponsibility and fiscal insanity. Indeed if by President Obama's accounting, George W. Bush was unpatriotic for his borrowing and spending, then does that make Obama's even greater spending in half of the time "treasonous"?
36 comments:
How quickly they forget....
I did not listen to the video, but when he made the statement did he know about the absolute restriction regarding raising revenue? What was he talking about? I Know he was not saying we have to cut Medicare and Medicaid and SSN.
did he know about the absolute restriction regarding raising revenue?
Are you aware we take in 200,000,000,000 in revenue per MONTH?
That's plenty. The real question is why would we ever need more. The President needs to eat his fuck'n peas and live on a budget instead of writing black checks forever at our expense.
John, I know this, if then Senator Obama had been in the Senate representing the people who put him there, he just might have know, just like you would have known what he said if you listened to the video.
Aren't you getting a little tired of defending this failure?
@Free,
Are you aware we take in 200,000,000,000 in revenue per MONTH?
That's plenty.
Not according to Standard and Poor's, and I tend to agree with them.
@Just
Aren't you getting a little tired of defending this failure?
You have no idea, Just, and it gets harder and harder every day.
What is the hopeful outcome you seek by defending the President and his failed administration?
In the brief time I've know you, you don't strike me as someone who likes to waste their time.
I'll say this though, you give his defense your all.
@Just,
I have spent as much time attacking him as I have defending him. "Mad Mike" calls me an Obama hater and I thought he was going to ask me not to return to his site at one point.
Obama is not nearly liberal enough and is a tad too compromising to suit me.
I defend him against conservatives and other Obama haters and I attack him against Obama loyalists.
Everyone is wrong! Well, not me, but everyone else.
He is not a good choice, but he is the best we have.
By the way, it is funny you should mention this, because I just posted a rebuttal to Mr. Paine's continuing accusations of Obama's flip slopping at Fair and Unbalanced.
I am sorry, Mr. Paine. It is very powerful (and I even threw in a harlot!) I assume your concession will follow.
I argued that Obama is not wrong for doing it. And I argued it well.
I crack me up!
The unpatriotic card is about as frayed as the Nazi card these days. If I could wave a magic wand, I would have both sides take a complete moratorium on it. Enough already.
Under Bush we had somewhere closer to half the expenditures than we do now and that was way too damned much. What has changed that we now need to spend twice as much in the last 3 years? $200 billion a month is too much frankly, and I don’t give a dang what Standard and Poor’s says. Their credibility is shot with me after their role in the housing collapse.
If we would restrict government spending to what it is ONLY constitutionally authorized to do, we could use the excess to pay down the debt and then eventually give everyone a tax break when that money is no longer required by our fiscal stupidity.
JTF, I sometimes think our friend John Myste simply likes playing the devil’s advocate regardless of which side of the political spectrum he is defending at the moment. If the truth were told, his heart is with the left, but I see more than enough brilliance in some of his comments to know that his mind could be with the right. I am simply trying to urge him to return, heart and mind, to the good side of the force and renounce his role as Darth Myste. (That said, I am anxious to see what evil awaits me at Fair and Unbalanced due to your mischievous works, John!)
Will Hart, first I appreciate you stopping by and commenting. Second, I tend to agree with your assessment regarding the patriotism and Nazi cards. I would also add the racism card in with that lot. That said, I believe the ones using the patriotism card in the last few years have been the Democrats, from the comment in the video by Obama here, to V.P. Biden saying that those rich folks that don’t want to pay their “fair share” of taxes are unpatriotic.
Let's face it, this administration wants their to be no unemployment, as long as the jobs are those that the govt approves of. If the private sector were able to increase it's work force, the debt would start to decline. Here are examples I found showing how this administration does not want there to be low unemployment, only the right employment.
"Energy: Keeping a campaign vow to bankrupt the industry, the administration revokes the permit for an approved, working coal mine in West Virginia. Guess those electric cars will have to get their energy elsewhere.
We and others have warned that in the wake of November’s “shellacking,” the Obama administration would attempt to implement its agenda through regulations and rule making. As West Virginia’s coal industry has found, it matters not even if you follow the rules. In pursuit of this agenda, the rules can be changed on the fly.
The Environmental Protection Agency has revoked the coal mining permit for Arch Coal’s Spruce Mine No. 1 in West Virginia’s Logan County. The permit was issued four years ago and since then Arch Coal, which provides 16% of America’s coal supply, has followed every jot and tittle of the rules it was to operate under.
After Arch invested $250 million in the mountaintop mining operation, it will be shut down. When fully operational, it would have employed 215 miners directly, with another 300 jobs in support services. These are, pun intended, “shovel-ready” jobs.
The EPA slammed Texas with new sulfur dioxide rules and allowed Texas all of six months to comply. Inability to meet the deadlines could result in the loss of 1500 jobs, the closure of six power plants and rolling blackouts.
To comply with EPA regulations American Electric Power will close five power plants, retiring 6,000 megawatts of power. With no replacement in sight.
AEP will also spend $6-18 billion to further comply with the EPA. The cost of electricity could go up as much as 35% and cost 600 jobs.
One could expect that were Barack Obama re-elected, all coal-fired power plants would be forced to shut down. That’s 60,000 jobs alone gone in West Virginia. Coal power provides 50% of the nation’s energy. Solar, wind and hydrothermal aren’t going to cut it as replacements."
By DrJohn as found on
iowntheworld.com/blog/
How about some more job killing actions by this Administration?
NLRB's actions against Boeing in S.C if successful would cost 5000 good paying, but and here's the key, non union jobs. So that's ok with liberals and Democrats who are out there saving the middle class of America.
Hope and change, I just hope that it changes 11/2012 that's all.
JTF, you are right. It sure is hard to make a coherent argument that the Obama administration is trying to do anything worthwhile to create private sector jobs. Indeed, he has destroyed more than he has created in the private sector.
The Boeing account, in particular really ticks me off. Why this isn't getting more media attention is beyond me.
Mr. Paine,
The reason for the media silence, simple, they do not want main street America to know about it. What other reason could there be?
JTF, but that would mean that there is media bias in support of the unions and the Democrats!
That cannot be the real explanation because many of my progressive friends tell me that the media is corporate and Republican biased. Why would they lie? :)
Mr. Paine,
That cannot be the real explanation because many of my progressive friends tell me that the media is corporate and Republican biased. Why would they lie? :)
I think you realize they are not lying when they say this any more than you are lying when you imply the media is liberal.
Obviously, you are very sensitive to the real liberal bias you find in the media. And obviously, most liberals are very sensitive to the real conservative bias they find in the media.
It is liberals and conservatives who are biased. They notice confirming evidence and skim over disconfirming evidence, an approach which clearly tells them where media bias lies. It’s who we are: people manipulated by the psychological mess that is part of the human condition. We act mostly in accordance with our nature and in response to the involuntary intellectual impulses of our feeble minds. We are not that different from a fly trap catching flies. The big difference is this: the fly trap doesn’t think he is not a fly trap.
The media is very biased, no question. Like the rest of America, the media is primarily made up of liberals and conservatives, so most of its members have a strong bias of some kind. Liberals and Conservatives exposing themselves to the media are outraged as they use their own confirmation bias to decide where the media bias is. It is ironic, really, that we use our bias to tell us that the media is biased, and then we charge “the media” with bias, as if it were a coherent entity.
...but, but, but... the media really is progressively biased. I am as objective as a person can be, so I can tell!
In all honesty though, while your statement has much truth to it, I really do think the preponderance of the evidence strongly supports a progressively biased media, even by what they "fail" to report these days. But what do I know? I am simply a self-unrealized fly trap. :)
T. Paine,
The Boeing account, in particular really ticks me off. Why this isn't getting more media attention is beyond me.
Now what ticks you off the most? The fact that without the Federal Government Welfare Boeing as a company could not compete in the Free Market or the fact that Boeing criminally overcharges the US Government for parts in their defense contracts or the fact that as a company which exists only because of Tax Payer Assistance has to abide by US Federal Rules and can't f**k their workers over?
Grung_e_Gene
Making pretty big charges there Genie, got any
thing to back them up?
Or are these just your honest (but still wrong) options?
First, thanks for stopping by and commenting, Mr. Gene.
Next, I find your characterization of Boeing being a recipient of “Federal Government Welfare” to be quite amusing, especially considering the fact that they are responsible for many of our military aircraft and aerospace program. In other words, they are providing products and services for their “welfare checks”. If only all welfare recipients would do the same! As for their commercial airliners, it seems they do just fine against Air Bus etc. I would find agreement with you that they have overcharged the government in the past, to which I blame the government for not making them honor their bid and contracts; that is unless the government does change orders half the way through the fabrication process which causes additional unbudgeted expenses that were not accounted for in the original bid.
All of that aside, how in the hell does the federal government have any constitutional right WHATSOEVER to tell a company where it can and cannot locate their factory within the confines of the United States of America. THAT is what is criminal!
LOL! Easy there, JTF! Things get scary when you poke a liberal in his cage! :)
While I know facts will not dissuade any of you from your unfounded beliefs that Marxist Obama hates hard working Companies here you go:
Boeing receives Billions from the US Government. These Military-Industrial-Complex jobs are the ugly unspoken secret about the hollowness of the whole job debate. Boeing CAN NOT compete on the Open Market and ONLY succeeds by Government Welfare, like this recent $35 Billion dollar US Air Force deal, euphemistically called Defense Contracts.
If a company is taking tax dollars We the People get to decide how they treat those workers.
has routinely and criminally overcharged the US Government for their work. Boeing overcharged the U.S. Army $13 million on spare parts that Army officials could have purchased from the Defense Logistics Agency (dla).
"If a company is taking tax dollars We the People get to decide how they treat those workers."
Indeed. Even if a company isn't taking tax dollars We the People have such a say. It is called OSHA and civil right legislation etc. Workers are protected in their civil liberties and occupational safety accordingly.
Whether they have to be in a union to work for a given company is none of the damned government's business, unless of course you are a Democrat and trying to help a huge political voting bloc and campaign contributor.
Ironically, if Boeing were allowed to move many of its operations to the right to work state of South Carolina, its labor would be cheaper. That means its costs would be cheaper. That means it can charge less to the government. That means less tax dollars are spent and Boeing becomes more competitive.
You are fighting against Boeing working to fix the very things you are complaining aobut, sir!
Boeing is trying to move to South Carolina to bust the Union so they can routinuely violate contracts with their workers. This is a fundamental disagreement you and I are going to have on this issue. Boeing is not trying to do the best for it's workers it's trying to cut Labor costs (and health benefits, retirement) in order to maximize profits to it's Ownership high level management.
However, I am disappointed that actual evidence of CRIMINAL wrongdoing by Boeing is somehow a sign of them trying to do the right thing in your mind???
Mr. Grunge, I absolutely admit and acknowledge that Boeing receives billions of dollars from our government. That is understandable, considering that they are a huge supplier of our support, fighter, and attack aircraft for the Air Force, Navy, and Marines.
I was unable to open your link where you claim they have "criminally overcharged the government". Again, if Boeing is indeed overcharging, then the Department of Defense procurement process should be denying those claims accordingly.
I also had to have a purchase order number for supplies I bought when I was in the service. If the amount charged was greater than advertised, I would either get it at the bid price or not at all until the issue was resolved.
Next, I also acknowledged that Boeing was trying to move to South Carolina to avoid the high labor costs of unions. If they bust the union by doing so, I guess that is the consequences to the union.
If GM and Chrysler had similarly moved their operations to right-to-work states instead of paying $70 an hour for a basically unskilled union worker to install glove boxes in cars on the assembly line, perhaps those companies would not have gone broke and required the foolish government to use our money to bail them out. All that bail out did was pro-long their inevitable demise, when they should have declared bankruptcy and reorganized to shed the job killing union contracts they foolishly accepted. It is a case of the government choosing winners and losers yet again.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with a company making a profit. Only GSE's and NPR don't make a profit and need tax payer subsidies accordingly to keep functioning.
There are thousands of workers in South Carolina that will be happy to have good paying jobs from Boeing, albeit not exorbitant union wages that their Washington state counterparts used to get.
It stinks for the workers in Washington, but when they keep striking and wanting more and more, it becomes prohibitive to do business there anymore.
Moving Boeing's operations across the country has to be massively expensive by itself. The fact that Boeing wants to do this in spite of those costs would seem to suggest that the unions have over-extended their wants and desires to a tremendous degree.
Don't worry though. We live in America, so those workers in South Carolina will have all of the federal worker protections and rights that everyone else in the country does. They won't be abused by bad ol' Boeing. That is, they wouldn't be if the federal government would keep its nose out of something that is absolutely beyond its scope of legal constitutional authority and let a privately owned company do as it legally wished to do.
One wonders how long before Obama nationalizes Boeing so he can have a government airline along with his car companies. I would be damned nervous to own a private company today, since the Marxist in the White House has no compunction against seizing whatever private companies he deems necessary. Why there wasn’t an outcry for Obama’s impeachment for that alone tells me that the public is woefully uneducated about what our government’s rights and authorities truly are.
I think I now have something to add to the discussion again.
Mr. Paine, I don't remember you EVER thanking me for stopping by. Never.
OK, I am done now.
John, I am certain that I must have welcomed you when you first stopped by my brilliant blog.
There is no need to do so now because you are now like family here. (Perhaps a crazy brother, in fact!) One doesn't thank family for dropping by their own stomping ground, do they? :)
John, just wait and you will see. If Mr. Grunge still is hanging around here a year from now, I won't be thanking him for dropping by then either. ;) He will just be part of the furnishings, like the rest of us.
An assurance that you must have welcomed me, Mr. Paine, is not a welcome, but I will permit you to try again.
By the way, Mr. Paine, you made a good point. I am now going to go wake my wife and thank her for being there.
Gene,
ole buddy, still waiting for links to support your claims about Unions busting, etc, so far you have posted is just hearsay.
Posting flame throwing here with out links to support you opinion just won't get it.
Say one thing for Boeing bringing thousands of jobs to S.C. and hundreds of jobs to their plant in WA sounds like a pretty good deal if you are of out a work and live near those plants.
So the problem Boeing has is the jobs in S.C. wont be Union jobs and there fore wont be real? Is that because the Unions wont be able to use the dues their members give them to spend to elect more liberals. Tell you what, if the Union deal with Boeing is so great for the workers, it shouldn't take long for the S.C.workers to vote the Union in, right?
P.S. so when are the Feds taking Boeing to court based on the iron clad case they must have?
To: Just the Facts!
From Stars & Stripes:
"Boeing officials routinely proposed and [Army depot] officials accepted egregiously deficient cost or pricing data based on unrealistically low quantities that had no relationship to the quantities required or the actual price Boeing negotiated with its subcontractors,” the audit found.
Now then I understand as a conservative Just the Facts that you hate the working class people in this Nation. It's okay you support criminal businesses which try to undercut workers rights and exist solely based on getting defense contracts, which in their greed they criminally overcharge American taxpayers whom they turn around and break union contracts with...
Great Genie,
With this information, when are the Feds taking Boeing to court?
RE: your 2nd post, facts links, statements to support your claims.
"So the problem Boeing has is the jobs in S.C. wont be Union jobs and there fore wont be real? Is that because the Unions wont be able to use the dues their members give them to spend to elect more liberals. Tell you what, if the Union deal with Boeing is so great for the workers, it shouldn't take long for the S.C.workers to vote the Union in, right?"
THAT is exactly right, JTF!
Gene, I want to make sure I understand you correctly. If a company doesn't like unions, they are criminal and undercutting "workers rights", correct?
As for your Stars & Stripes article, it makes my point precisely. The Army Depot folks accepted the cost data instead of holding Boeing accountable for usable and accurate cost data. This would not have happened had the government done its job properly. This is precisely why large government bureaucracies typically are costly and inefficient.
So Gene, by your standards, wouldn't the Army Depot's neglect in arguing for proper costing data also be "criminal"?
Lastly, I would like to welcome John Myste again and thank him for stopping by again. :)
It doesn't matter how much money Government takes in, they'll just spend it and borrow more. They've certainly proven that over the last 50 years.
Enough is enough.
Well, Free makes a good point (really, no joke this time. It is a known principle called Parkinson's Second Law).
They've certainly proven that over the last 50 years.
Hmm. Actually Clinton disproved that and it was in fact less than 50 years ago.
Maybe we should amend the law to apply only to conservatives, since we have this recent Democratic exception.
Another option would be to say that the natural law is suspended if the increase in revenue is explicitly to cover national debt, can be used for no other purpose, and will not longer be collected when its purpose no longer exists.
Post a Comment