Laugher; Obama Wants Fiscal Responsibility

After spending more money than any of the past presidents and after quadrupling the debt, Obama now claims to want fiscal responsibility. He is touting the pay as you go plan which means that Congress must have the money to spend it. If they spend a dollar they have to either cut a dollar or raise one in taxes. Besides the comedy involved with Obama wanting to be fiscally responsible, pay as you go is not a bad idea. Except…

Democrats have options under pay as you go. They either have to cut something or raise taxes. Their history is quite clear, they will not cut spending and they will not cut other budget items so that leaves them with raising taxes.

“The ‘pay as you go’ principle is very simple. Congress can only spend a dollar if it saves a dollar elsewhere,” Obama said in a speech at the White House attended by several Democratic members of Congress. al-Reuters

Notice he did not say or raise taxes. That would be too honest and meet opposition. He is misleading us once again.

Under pay as you go the Democrats will continue to spend and will raise taxes to pay for it. Imagine if pay as you go was the rule prior to the stimulus. There is no doubt that taxes will have to be raised but they would have to have raised them when they passed the stimulus and we would be getting socked from all angles.

The stimulus would have never passed.

If pay as you go becomes the rule and there is no mechanism to keep them from raising taxes then everyone who earns wages will end up paying more. There are simply not enough rich people to pay for the largess of government.

The irony of it all is that Obama is talking about fiscal responsibility when he has been fiscally irresponsible since the day he took office.

Big Dog

[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]

Who’s Right? Who’s Left?

Ever since the election, which saw a rookie politician win the presidency, (even a blind pig finds an ACORN every once in awhile), the Republican party has had a debate with itself over just what is the definition of a Republican. The words are flowing fast and furious, with Rush Limbaugh, as I understand it, saying that Colin Powell should just become a Democrat and get it over with, and Powell insisting he is not leaving the Republican party.

After every election loss ( and there have not been as many as the Democratic party) the Republican, and indeed the Democratic parties always feel as if there should be a “makeover” of philosophy- as if it was the philosophy alone that was responsible for the loss. Philosophy alone is never the culprit, the blame can and must be shared with the candidate who is the face of the party.

During the 1980 primary contest between President Carter and Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Kennedy supporters worried that Carter had moved too far to the center to energize the party base; Carter supporters blamed the president’s loss to Ronald Reagan on Kennedy’s more-liberal-than-thou insurgency. Moderate and liberal Democrats are still arguing about whether Al Gore went too far in 2000 in abandoning Bill Clinton-style triangulation for a more populist pitch — or whether he didn’t go far enough. Limbaugh and like-minded, if less strident, Republicans can make the case for purity by citing the party’s capture of Congress in 1994 under the banner of Rep. Newt Gingrich’s Contract with America

latimes.com

The Republicans are split now over ideology, and  just how inclusive they need to be, when what they need is to develop a consistent, ethical platform that reflects the conservatism that is and should be the heart of the Republican party. Then they need to begin living that philosophy.

The most consistent fault I have found, was that the Republicans had relented on fiscal conservatism, and when they were in power, spent like drunken Democrats. Trying to emulate your opponent is not a winning strategy, and the Republicans, including Powell, came off looking like Democrat- lite. When a Republican, even Powell, votes for the opponent, it’s possibly not a black thing, but it is  trouble in River City.

I have said before that Barama didn’t so much win the election as McCain lost it. I know there will be many libbies who will come on here with interminable stats to refute my assertions, but the truth is that as trashed as the Republican brand was, Barama should have swept every state. The fact that he didn’t reflects the fact that for many, even as faint as McCain’s efforts were, the idea of conservatism still runs deep and true among many of the people in the U.S., and if presented correctly, with a candidate who truly reflects this conservatism and free market values, the Republicans can win.

But I do have to caution the Republican party- you have to actually walk the walk as well as talk the talk. That was the big problem before
.

Not every Republican — or Democrat — agrees that inclusiveness is the ticket to electoral success. One of the hoariest debates in both parties is whether majorities are built by uncompromising allegiance to principle or a willingness to abide and even encourage diversity within the ranks. For some conservative Republicans, Powell, Ridge and Schwarzenegger are RINOs — Republicans In Name Only. From that perspective, the RINOs let both the nation and the party down by acquiescing in President George W. Bush’s overspending.
It wasn’t so long ago that the Democratic tent seemed too small to hold its disparate elements. Through the early 20th century, Southern segregationists and Northern liberals met uncomfortably at the party’s quadrennial conventions; during the Vietnam War, Sen. Henry “Scoop” Jackson’s hawks and Sen. George S. McGovern’s doves similarly elbowed one another for position. Those tensions were refashioned but not eliminated at the century’s end. 
latimes.com

As can be seen, angst is in both parties, and the Democrats have done better in their ” big tent” philosophy than the Republicans, even though there is still rancor in their ranks. Republicans should heed that simple fact here demonstrated by the Dems- not everyone shall agree.

In this sense, the “Big Tent” can be large enough for most of the disparate views of conservatives, as long as there are core values all share, and central to this is the philosophy of smaller government, and fiscal conservatism. Really, all else is a distraction, side issues that are important to some, not as important to others.

Fiscal conservatism and smaller government are issues that transcend race, or gender- these issues affect everyone, and I’ll bet that if the Republicans can beat the drum of opportunity, and walk the walk of smaller government, instead of having a contest to see who can “out- republican” the other, conservatives will win.

Let’s face it- there are more people who are in the heartland of this country, and who are conservatives, than liberals who live on the coasts.

Conservatives have to learn to agree to disagree on certain issues.

Remember, an oak tree is uprooted by high winds and dies, but a willow tree bends with the wind and lives.
Blake
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]

Now Obama Wants Fiscal Restraint

After signing the largest spending bill in the history of this country accounting for over one trillion dollars that we do not have, Barack Obama said that he intended to slash the deficit by 2/3 using a pay as you go plan. According to The Won, he intends to require a funding source for any spending. This is the same promise the Democrats made prior to the 2006 mid term elections and one they reinforced in December after they had won the majority. They were criticizing George Bush for his spending and promised not to spend money unless there was a funding source. They broke that as soon as they were sworn in and they certainly broke it with the spending bill.

It is convenient that The Won has decided to be fiscally responsible after he spent over a trillion dollars. That is a trillion that did not have a funding source. OK, the source is our grandchildren.

Obama stated that his plan means if they are to spend money then they will need to find something to cut. They will cut NOTHING significant because government never cuts. Obama is saying that he will fix the deficit he inherited. Here is a newsflash, all presidents in the past have inherited a deficit. Clinton had no surplus, that is an urban legend. The reality is the government still had a deficit when he left office.

Now, the amount was not nearly what it is now but spending a trillion more will not make it better.

Here is what is going to happen. Obama will say that he has cut everything that is possible but that they still need to raise revenue. Then he will levy a huge tax increase on taxpayers. He will tax the rich but that will depend on what definition of rich he decides to use. He changed it downward about 5 times.

He will allow the Bush tax cuts to expire which will cause a tax increase for the middle class. The middle class will be hit hard because they were the biggest recipients of Bush’s tax cuts (despite what the left says about tax cuts for the rich). I am willing to bet the marginal tax rate will be above 50% for the wealthier taxpayers. During Carter that 50% was levied on people making about $47,000 a year. The top rate was near 80% and I imagine that Obama will try to push it that high in the next few years.

He will be like Clinton and discuss how hard he tried and mention a number of times that he inherited the mess and that it is worse than he thought and all the other code words used as excuses for raising taxes. Obama will then go into the only leadership style he knows and that is crisis mode. He will tell us that it is a crisis and that we need to act now. He will then raise taxes.

Inflation will go up, unemployment will go up and revenue to the treasury will go down. History tells us this is what happens.

Don’t be fooled by the pay as you go scam. This is the precursor to raising taxes. They have to be able to convince people they did all they could and raising taxes is the last resort.

Source:
My Way News

Big Dog

[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]

Ron Paul Defends Earmarks

Ron Paul was on Meet the Press and he had to defend himself against accusations that he put earmarks (pork to the rest of us) in bills while in Congress. Paul claimed that he never voted for an earmark and that he only put them in the bills because some of his constituents were asking for some of their money back. He said that he does not like the tax system but that does not stop him from claiming the deductions to which he is entitled because he wants his money back, just as his constituents do.

I am no fan of earmarks and I think the whole process should be done away with. No one from Congress should be allowed to add anything to a bill. Our tax money should not be getting thrown around to build bridges that help 200 people, build planetariums, or fund secret and usually non existent companies (Jack Murtha). No bill (especially a spending bill) should ever be introduced unless the Article and Section of the Constitution that authorizes it is cited. I find it odd that Paul would insert them and then vote against them.

If he wants his constituents to have their money back then why would he vote against the earmark? If he intended to vote against it then why add it in the first place. I’m sorry but this sounds a bit fishy to me. Paul is supposed to be the guy who keeps watch on such things so it is disheartening to find out he is involved in the process. Maybe his views are not as absolute as he would have us believe.

Paul is a long shot to win so maybe after he loses he can go back to Congress and keep introducing bills that take away the earmark process. Until all earmarks are gone I don’t want to hear Democrats or anyone else tell me that we are in debt because of George Bush or the Republicans. We are in debt because all of them have no control and they spend our money with little regard to the huge debt they are causing.

Earmarks must go before we ever discuss ending a war or how much war costs. Evidently, we are doing well if they can throw money around.

Ron Paul needs to get this fixed.

Source:
My Way News

Big Dog