Sunday, March 8, 2009

Obama Makes the Big-Spender Bush Look Thrifty

If Obama gets his way, by his own admission, the deficit will be above $1 TRILLION over the next THREE YEARS, for a total of around $3.7 T. That's nearly what the big spender Bush II took EIGHT years to do ($4.3 T). And all this put into motion in Obama's first couple of months. Eeegads. Spending under Bush was terrible, but apparently it's going to be even worse under Obama and the D-controlled congress.

Big spender Obama. So much for change.

Obama's $3.6 trillion spending and tax plan is the biggest effort to shift the federal government's role in the economy since Reagan's in 1981. But instead of rolling back government, Obama advocates growing it. ....Shudder.... If Congress declines to raise taxes on carbon emissions, or other areas, it will force the deficit even higher. Likewise, should all his tax increases pass, that could slow the economy even more, and the deficit goes higher still.

I might be for raising taxes if I thought for one minute the Gov would use it to pay down the deficit like Bush I and Clinton did, but I don't trust Obama to do that. He's got way to big of a social agenda and seems to lack a basic understanding of economics. (Clinton also did not control federal spending, considering it increased by almost 30% during his tenure. What saved him was the dramatic increase in tax revenues from a healthy economy created in the tech and other sectors during that time.)

Want to see just how much Obama want's to borrow from your children, watch this:

Glenn Beck graphically depicts our Federal Government's out of control spending.

Politicians, R's and D's alike, just can't resist spending your money, and mortgaging your children's future. The national debt is already nearly $11 TRILLION, that's $35,000 for every person living in America, and this all BEFORE Obama starts with his crazy spending!

The stock market clearly isn't liking what they are hearing from Obama. It's down 20% in the short time since Obama's inauguration and down nearly 40% from the time it was evident that Obama was going to become President. Ouch!

The Stock Market Isn't Buying Obama's Tax and Spend Plan

Look at what CNN's Mad Money host Jim Cramer has to say about Obama's policies.

According to a recent poll, over a quarter of those who voted FOR Obama now regret it.

26% of those who voted for Obama wish they hadn't.

Obama's DISapproval rating has increased from 10% to 26% in just over a month as more people, like me, who had hoped that Obama would be different, have learned about his same-old higher taxes and bigger government programs.

Obama's Disapproval rating goes up from 10% to 26% in just over a month.

So, what's to be done? How do we get our economy back on it's feet?

I would encourage everyone to read Free to Choose by Milton and Rose Friedman. (A 10-part TV series was also made along with this book.) If ever there was a time for people to understand how our economy works, it's now, while Obama and the Democratic-controlled congress try to reshape our country into the great society.


Milton Friedman, he was was an American economist, statistician and public intellectual, and a recipient of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences. Even though this book and his ideas are from a few decades ago, they remain true principles that seem to have been lost.

If you're not familiar with Milton Friedman or his beliefs, you can find several good video interviews with him on YouTube. Here is one small sample of him being interviewed by Phil Donahu.



Get this book, read it, and see if it doesn't make a lot of sense, and if it does, is Obama putting us on the right track?

Kevin

25 comments:

Michael J. Bernard said...

the wheels are going to come flying off the bus quick enough!


http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1543285/the_ploy_of_inaction.html?singlepage=true&cat=75

mB

Miss V said...

Great article, Kevin!!!!!!

Bartski said...

Who do the eco-extremists and Al Gore's disciples blame global cooling on when the fact that the Earth is now in a period of cooling, not warming, becomes indisputable?

Nevermind the government's inability to do anything efficiently, thus making nationalization of banking and health care a very scary proposition indeed. I spent about 3 hours at the local DMV last week (2 tours through the never-ending line after receiving conflicting instructions from the surly employees that completely failed to accomplish the seemingly easy task of transferring the title of my in-law's car to my name). Can you imagine the same process for medical care? Frightening.

And looking closer to your wallet and mine, California's answer to its problems - raising taxes across the board - has me very nervous about being a resident and taxpayer.

TheAlmightyCthulhu said...

Of course I understand why you hate Obama and want him to fail, you belong in the bracket that has to pay 2% more in taxes instead of just letting the lower rungs take it up the behind to support you.

Cry me a river.

Kevin Carmony said...

Almighty,

I certainly never said I "hated" Obama. I actually think he's a decent chap. I like a lot of things about him. I just disagree with his approach to the economy, and I'm certainly not alone in that. Even his close advisers like Warren Buffett have said Obama doesn't know what to do. http://tinyurl.com/buffettobama

I want Obama to succeed in helping our country, but yes, I hope any attempts he makes that would destroy it (like the billions of ear marks he's set to pass, even though he swore he wouldn't), will fail.

I grew up very poor. My father passed away when I was 2 years old, the youngest of five children, raised by my mother who was a secretary. I watched her refuse any government assistance, so I learned about being self sufficient and not relying on Uncle Sam to bail me out of a jam. I have as an adult been broke, and well off, and all points in between. The last two years I haven't had any income, so actually, I'd be in line for Obama's welfare handouts, but I don't want them. I haven't even gone on unemployment, I'd rather starve. It's not about ME wanting lower taxes for MY sake. I even said I'd be happy to pay MORE in taxes if I thought it would help. My point (if your read my blog or know anything about Milton Friedman) is that Obama is hurting the economy, not helping it.

You certainly make more than I have these past two years, but no need to cry me a river. I'm quite happy being broke and self sufficient. So, no one has ever "supported me," but me.

Kevin

Anonymous said...

KC,

TheAlmighty (what a name) is the typical ignoramus who doesn't have a clue about how taxes work in this country. The top 10% pay 70% of all taxes. Looks to me that it's the rich that who are supporting TheAlmighty.

Konstantce said...

I know Carmony's a Libertarian, so I'm sure there aren't many politicians he likes. : -)

I agree with you Kevin, Bush was bad but Obama's certainly no better.

TheAlmightyCthulhu said...

Actually, I really doubt you would qualify for any type of assistance, it is actually harder to qualify for $4 (yes, even four dollars) in monthly food stamps than it is for corporate gangsters to get a multi-billion dollar Bush Bailout so they can continue giving themselves million dollar bonuses and going on "seminars" stocked with caviar and imported cigars.

Seriously, to get food stamps you have to prove how much you make, what your bills are, how much your car is worth, get a signed statement from your landlord, it's about 12 pages long, the Rachel Maddow show showed the two page bank bailout application that basically asked "Who are you and how much can we give you?". It was rather jaw dropping.

Those people spend more on chips and dip than I make, period, and if their taxes go up 2% I really have no reason to care, at all, period.

Unemployment and food stamps are meant to be a social safety net for when a group of those thugs get together, decide to fire a few hundred peons, and the benefits don't last very long, when you aren't working with a contract (read union), you are not guaranteed any severence pay.

But I assume you'd rather the homeless and hungry to go even higher so we can shower the rich with more Beluga caviar?

I'm sorry to hear your story, but I wish I could just go a month without getting paid, much less a couple of years, must be nice.

Kevin Carmony said...

Almighty,

You clearly know nothing about me. Anyone who knows me knows I have and remain a HUGE critic of the Obama AND Bush bail outs. I have opposed them from the beginning. You really need to look up the word "Libertarian," as you clearly are uninformed about my views.

As for going two years without a paycheck, it's called having a savings plan. Look into it. I'm 50 years old. If you haven't saved enough money and accumulated enough assets to go through a rough patch by the time you're my age, then no wonder you're hoping Uncle Sam will be there for you. I have never counted on that, so I've planned and prepared, and yes, it is nice being self sufficient and never having to take a dime from Uncle Sam. I feel sorry for anyone who looks to the gov for health care, retirement, unemployment, etc.

If you can't go even a month, then maybe you need to spend less time ranting on the computer and more time producing something of value to support your family and save money in times of crisis. If like you, I didn't have any savings, I'd SELL my computer and every other luxury you seem to have before I'd take a dime in food stamps.

Kevin

John said...

Speaking as a British citizen, and as someone who's political views resides slightly to the right of the political centre, I can say with conviction that Obama is, and will be proved to be the worst American President since Jimmy Carter.

Firstly, the special relationship between the US and the UK. Historically, our countries have stood firmly shoulder to shoulder. We share a common purpose and common values.

America and Britain are both giants on the world stage, with the UK punching well above it's weight to accumplish that. This has led to a mutually beneficial close relationship, that on the world stage has accumplished miracles. Just look at Bush and Blair as an example of the weight and influence they were able to throw around on the international stage!

Yet with Obama, as soon as he took office he returned the bust of Churchill that has resided in the Oval Office since 9/11. A gift from Blair, from the UK that was a symbol of solidarity between our counries. It was intended to remain, yet Obama sent it packing immediately.

Then there was the comments of Obama's new White House staff, which went something along the lines of "Who the hell does Britain think they are? They are no different than 190 other countries and will be treated accordingly".

Then Obama sought to reclassify the relationship with Britain as a "special partnership" - to which the Downing Street staff remarked that it was impossible to get anyone from the White House on the phone these days, so so much for any "special relationship or partnership".

So the mood of the British people is one of "f**k America". We firmly advocate turning our backs, and cosying up further to Europe rather than continuing to act as a bridge between the US and the EU.

That alone demonstrates that Obama simply doesn't "get" foreign policy. He's decided to focus entirelly on the home front, ignoring both the principals of globalisation and foreign policy. He initially tried to follow the decades old policy of protectionism initially, with the re-introduction of trade tariffs and the like. It was only when the EU told him not to, and that they would back it up by responding to American goods in kind that he backed down.

Such nonsense would absolutely NOT have happened under McCain. McCain would have been a true world leader. The special relationship would have continued, and been strengthened by the British about to kick out our sickeningly socialist, unelected prime minister Gordon Brown in favour of right wing Conservative David Cameron. I can also say for sure that McCain would have followed the principals of Globalisation, and there would be none of this protectionist agenda either.

No, the worst thing America did was not elect John McCain. Under the clearly socialist Obama America will suffer just like Britain has suffered under the Socialist Labour Party. Did you know that it's got so bad in Britain, that we have whole communities living in a cycle of dependency? Teenagers having children, being automatically entitled to free housing, and more money than of they had a job! Whole communities being provided free housing and being paid more money to sit on their backsides all day than they'd earn in a job. Seriously, people openly admit that they'd be worse off if they got a job. I hate this country, and what it's become, and i'm seriously thinking about emigrating. It really makes my blood boil sometimes.

America was always going to be my choice destination, as a bastion of Capitalism, but with Obama i'll be jumping from the frying pan into the fire.

What irks me, is that why is it that we laud capitalism when everything is going well, yet when things turn badly we are quick to turn our backs on it and retreat into Socialism?

Sorry for the long rant Kevin!

Kevin Carmony said...

Well said John.

This was the ONE thing I was thinking Obama MIGHT be good at...raising our image worldwide. I guess not with our long-time friends and allies in the UK. =(

Kevin

TheAlmightyCthulhu said...

Well John,

This is what I call the "Big Bad Government scarecrow of the far right".

You and Mr. Carmony seem to be totally ignoring the fact that there's at least a thousand times the abuse of government moeny coming from the rich upper class, the "corporate welfare", the Wal-Marts of the country, the banksters.

These outfits play towns and states against each other, getting them to slash their corporate taxes down to nothing, sometimes paying them to move in under the guise of "creating jobs".

I have an idea...call me crazy but towns and counties and states could enter into a partnership, call it the "United States" for lack of a better term, and in these "United States" we could band together to stop the pea and shell game.

Ronald Reagan's "Welfare Queen" is nothing more than a political lightning rod, there's never actually been any proof whatsoever of massive and wide spread abuse.

The welfare reform signed into law by none other than Bill Clinton put an end to any and all incentive to "pop out kids for money" (all of like $100 a month to help feed them) by imposing a maximum of like 5 years of a person's entire life where they can draw benefits, they're nowhere even in the area code of enough to live on, much less replacing a job.

The UK is far more "socialist" than the United States could ever be, and in some ways that's a bad thing, because it means that hospitals get to take on the role of loan sharks, even though you don't have a choice to get sick or to die.

I'm sure Mr. Carmony would feel different about the system if he was:

1. In imminent danger of not eating.

2. Got into a car accident and was sued by the hospital for his life savings, plus. -or- Was dying of cancer and cut off from health insurance. (Dying slowly in America can be an expensive proposition)

Or so on so forth, it's a lot easier to condemn the system until you need it.

The resources for us to all have a standard of living are there, it's just that 10% of the people control over 90% of the wealth.

The banksters manipulate stocks and money, the delusion that everyone can live well and of their own means in this system is a total farce.

Oh, and to Carmony, I suppose you were in favor of privatizing Social Security so that the banks could destroy that wealth and so whatever was left could open up a person's retirement to lawsuits over hospital bills?

TheAlmightyCthulhu said...

Oh, and if Robertson had held out just few more months he could have incorporated the "First National Bank of Linspire", taken like a billion Bush dollars, and flown off to Aruba.

What a country!

Star Parker said...

Six years ago I wrote a book called Uncle Sam's Plantation. I wrote the book to tell my own story of what I saw living inside the welfare state and my own transformation out of it.

I said in that book that indeed there are two Americas -- a poor America on socialism and a wealthy America on capitalism.

I talked about government programs like Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training (JOBS), Emergency Assistance to Needy Families with Children (EANF), Section 8 Housing, and Food Stamps.

A vast sea of perhaps well-intentioned government programs, all initially set into motion in the 1960s, that were going to lift the nation's poor out of poverty.

A benevolent Uncle Sam welcomed mostly poor black Americans onto the government plantation. Those who accepted the invitation switched mindsets from "How do I take care of myself?" to "What do I have to do to stay on the plantation?"

Instead of solving economic problems, government welfare socialism created monstrous moral and spiritual problems -- the kind of problems that are inevitable when individuals turn responsibility for their lives over to others.

The legacy of American socialism is our blighted inner cities, dysfunctional inner city schools, and broken black families.

Through God's grace, I found my way out. It was then that I understood what freedom meant and how great this country is.

I had the privilege of working on welfare reform in 1996, passed by a Republican Congress and signed 50 percent.

I thought we were on the road to moving socialism out of our poor black communities and replacing it with wealth-producing American capitalism.

But, incredibly, we are going in the opposite direction.

Instead of poor America on socialism becoming more like rich American on capitalism, rich America on capitalism is becoming like poor America on socialism.

Uncle Sam has welcomed our banks onto the plantation and they have said, "Thank you, Suh."

Now, instead of thinking about what creative things need to be done to serve customers, they are thinking about what they have to tell Massah in order to get their cash.

There is some kind of irony that this is all happening under our first black president on the 200th anniversary of the birthday of Abraham Lincoln.

Worse, socialism seems to be the element of our new young president. And maybe even more troubling, our corporate executives seem happy to move onto the plantation.

In an op-ed on the opinion page of the Washington Post, Mr. Obama is clear that the goal of his trillion dollar spending plan is much more than short term economic stimulus.

"This plan is more than a prescription for short-term spending -- it's a strategy for America 's long-term growth and opportunity in areas such as renewable energy, healthcare, and education."

Perhaps more incredibly, Obama seems to think that government taking over an economy is a new idea. Or that massive growth in government can take place "with unprecedented transparency and accountability."

Yes, sir, we heard it from Jimmy Carter when he created the Department of Energy, the Synfuels Corporation, and the Department of Education.

Or how about the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 -- The War on Poverty -- which President Johnson said "...does not merely expand old programs or improve what is already being done. It charts a new course. It strikes at the causes, not just the consequences of poverty.."

Trillions of dollars later, black poverty is the same. But black families are not, with triple the incidence of single-parent homes and out-of-wedlock births.

It's not complicated. Americans can accept Barack Obama's invitation to move onto the plantation. Or they can choose personal responsibility and freedom.

Does anyone really need to think about what the choice should be?

"The trouble with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."

TheAlmightyCthulhu said...

Star Parker:

"Now, instead of thinking about what creative things need to be done to serve customers, they are thinking about what they have to tell Massah in order to get their cash."

There's where I agree and in a way, what I've been saying.

The Bush Bailout rewarded companies for firing people and to stop producing things in favor of taking government money.

Mr. Carmony was complaining about unemployment benefits, food stamps, and social security.

These are problems, but they're the symptomatic problems of the actual disease which is corporate welfare, and unrestricted "free trade".

Mr. Carmony, I do not appreciate my efforts to get through school *while* working whatever odd jobs for whatever pay I can get in the meantime trivialized, because with the economic destruction caused by the corporate handouts and offshoring, there are enough jobs for about every other person who graduates in my field now.

I've never said I wanted to park myself on food stamps, but thanks to them and FAFSA (student aide), enough pressure is maybe taken off me so as I can get ahead, it's an investment, I'll pay so much more in taxes when I'm through in a couple years that the govenrnment gets it all back and more.

Please don't attack the parts of our government that occasionally sort of work.

As for "welfare families", you can do three things:

1. Outlaw having more than "X" children, which is a restriction of individual liberty.

2. Forced abortions, which is a restriction of individual liberty.

3. Recognize that it's not the childrens fault they're here and have a program to help them.

So you can be a libertarian and say "They're not my problem, you can let them starve or get an abortion, just don't bother me", you can be a Statist that says "You HAVE to get an abortion right now", or you can be a Socialist and say "OK, we're not going to kill them, we're not going to let them starve, we don't like spending the money, but we realize it's a necessry evil as the kids can't fend for themselves".

So you're a cold inhuman Libertarian, an evil fascist/communist Statist, or a bleeding heart Liberial.

I think I'll be liberal.

You just can't have your cake (the end of welfare) and eat it too (the kids find food and shelter...somehow).

Church charity? Doubtful, most churches are more of a social club than an effective charity.

On a more humorous note:

http://www.sjgames.com/illuminati/politics.html

Enjoy B-)

Jasimin J said...

I think it's pretty clear that Mr. Almighty is anything but. I think he needs to spend less time on the net and get a job and off welfare.

Anonymous said...

It's a well documented fact that Republicans give more to charity than do Democrats. Google it.

This is because Democrats expect the government to take care of everyone, so they see no need to give to charity.

John said...

@Kevin Carmony

"Well said John.

This was the ONE thing I was thinking Obama MIGHT be good at...raising our image worldwide. I guess not with our long-time friends and allies in the UK. =(

Kevin"

I agree Kevin. The message coming from the White House loud and clear is "Britain who? Why should we care? They are no different to any other country?". As you can imagine the British press has had a field day, and as a proud and historic country with long standind ties to the US, this is seen as a spectacular snub, and one which has led widespread calls for us to abandon our partnership with the American's on the world stage.

As an example, have you seen Love Actually? Where the Prime Minister and the President give a joint press conference? That's the view in Britain right now:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDiqDIWKSuw

I think even the most ardent Obama fanboy can accept that this is a needlessly hostile and undiplomatic approach to international relations, and an approach that McCain would definately NOT have taken.

What will be interesting though, will be to see how the relationship is between Obama and David Cameron, who is certain to be our next Prime Minister after the next election in May 2010.

Here he is slaughtering Gordon Brown in Prime Minister's questions: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xUy2inkGHQ

Obama famously called him "a lightweight" after meeting him last year btw. Obama doesn't know how to win friends and influence people does he?

TheAlmightyCthulhu said...

I crunched some numbers based on what the social programs actually cost taxpayers, using data from the CIA World Fact Book, the USDA, the Social Security agency, etc. and determined that all welfare for every American put together costs people who actually pay taxes something on the order of $26 a year.

I'd say I have a better argument that I shouldn't pay taxes for corporate-welfare funded Beluga caviar and champagne that I can't partake of, also since I probably won't be using any roads in your particular state, I want the part of the federal gas tax that was spent on road construction in other states refunded promptly. I take cashiers checks!

You're not getting off that easy either, I want my money that went into your chunk of the power grid back.

Every infrastructure project is social spending, I would argue that food stamps for a college kid is infrastucture, and a CEO of a failed bank getting bonus money is just daylight theft.

But what do I know? I'm just temporarily part of a pool costing you 1/10,000th that much who will eventually pay more in taxes instead of hiding it all in the Cayman Islands.

Anonymous said...

The Almighty sounds like one of those typical nut-job conspiracy theorists who blames all his problems on others. I bet he has a beard and looks like the Unabommer.

Kevin Carmony said...

John,

Love Actually is one of my favorite movies, so yes, I'm very familiar with that scene.

England has been our best ally for so many years. Here Obama said he was going to "repair" all the damage Bush had done over the last eight years with our image overseas. Looks like Iran will love us, and our old friends will despise us. =(

I lived in Europe for a couple of years (Belgium). I can't speak for Obama, but I will tell you that England is one of my favorite places in the entire world to visit.

Kevin

John said...

Kevin,

Glad to hear that you enjoyed it here! The best thing about Britain for me is the sheer history of the place. We are a very very old country. Do you know the date of legal memory in Britain? 1189. Seriously, laws dating back to 1189 are still on the statute books, and still documented in books from 1189 in the archives. I find that quite incredible. There's so much physical evidence around too. The sheer number of castles we have that date back even earlier than the date of legal memory, and the fact that they were deliberately damaged by cromwell in the civil war in the 1600's. The damage is clearly visable, and taking the history of Britain into account it happened yesterday. It's weird being irritated with someone "recent" deliberately destroying key parts of history, when that guy himself was 400 years ago!

I haven't been to the States yet, but I can't wait to make up for lost time. America is an incredible and varied country, and by images alone you can tell that you have incredible scenery over there.

With so much shared history between Britain and the US, I take solice in the fact that it will take more than a few years of Obama to truly bury it, and I expect normal service to resume when the republicans get back in. Thankfully the majority of the British people and the press are sensible enough not to tar the American people with Obama's anti-British brush, and that our distain is reserved for the White House and it's employees, and not America as a whole.

It's ironic that Bush was so hated for his behavior on the World Stage, given that Obama has already demonstrated within his first 100 days that he's not fit to fill his shoes. I feel confident that history will look back on Bush as a true Global Leader, and the greatest friend to Britain since Regan.

Hopefully, with the Conservative Cameron in Downing Street, and in 4 years a Republican once again in the White House, normal service will resume.

John

Kevin Carmony said...

John,

I couldn't agree more with all your statements, both about England and the political situation we find ourselves in with the UK presently.

I LOVE driving to the castles all throughout Europe. I have photos of me in front of many of them.

I love London. To me, it's like NYC (with the live theater, shops, etc.) only with more style, class and yes, history. It's absolutely one of my favorite cities in the world.

Yes, America is truly amazing as well. You will be blown away by America's grandeur, as much as you are by Europe's history. There are so many amazing places here. When you visit one day, you'll quickly realize you couldn't possibly see everything there is to see here in a lifetime.

Yes, I believe you are right about our countries history of friendship. It will take more than a handful of wretched politicians to destroy that history, on either side. The greatness of a country rests with its people, not its politicians. Obama thinks he's some rock star, when he should realize he's but a servant to the real stars...the people.

I'm hoping to once again be supporting Mitt Romney in 2012. I know he will give the UK their just respect.

Kevin

TheAlmightyCthulhu said...

Kevin:

Just a thought, but it might help the Libertarian cause if they weren't all simply what I like to call "Republicans on Steroids".

Andrew Horning was the candidate for Indiana governor having previously been a Republican state senator and Republican candidate for the US Congress, Bob Barr (Boob Barr), the Libertarian presidential candidate voted "Yes" on the Patriot Act when he was a Republican in Congress.

Lets see: Religious fanatics? Check. For enriching big business at any and all cost to the environment or the poor/middle class? Check. For big government that operates well outside the Constitution without respecting anything close to due process? Check and mate!

Sounds to me like this place could get unbelievably worse under Libertarians than under Coke and Pepsi (Dems/GOP).

If you're a true Libertarian (and I think we've established the Libertarian party is just a bunch of former Republicans on crack), then you should be outraged that they're only seeking to expand government, rape the environment, and only reduce taxes on the people that need the cuts the very least. We could have signed up Bush for another 8 years and gotten that!

Personally, I was hoping for a President Jesse Ventura, and if he'd have ran, I'd have voted for him.

But as things were, I didn't even see any minor candidates worth even a protest vote. :)

Anonymous said...

Thanks after sharing. Like at all times, on the well-to-do and right on target!