This article is ripe with so much I really don’t know where to start. Obama is in full spin city mode after his awarding the Medal of Freedom to a Polish Freedom Fighter backfired with the phrase “Polish death camps”. Oops. What was meant to honor a true hero and to shore up a voting block of Poles in the northeast (Pennsylvania most importantly) and reach out to the Jewish community backfired horribly. The Polish were invaded and spent decades behind the Iron curtain. Unlike the Vichy French, they never sympathized with the Nazi’s. To the contrary, they actively resisted the German occupation. They protected countless Jews from the camps. The camps were of course Nazi camps. They took great offense to his comment.
It was an honest mistake. Unintentional I am sure, but during a subsequent meeting with Jewish leaders his comments were very intentional and very disturbing. “All my friends in Chicago are Jewish” huh? “I know more about Judaism than any President ever.” Say what? “Why don’t you ask the speaker of the house if he supports Israel” – no need, we know he does.
Forget for a moment the outrage from the left if a GOP candidate said “I am not a racist, all my friends are (insert minority group here)”. There would be a full media meltdown. No, let’s instead focus on his typical liberal academic response; I read, therefore I am. Where is Robin Williams when you need him? Have Robin take our President out to a lake side and lay into him like he did Matt Damon. There is more to being President than just reading a book. Sadly, this is Nobama’s approach to everything; Business, Healthcare reform, everything. I read about it, so I am smarter than you. Wow.
Yet, there is a larger point here. Religious will be forced to choose this election cycle. They can no longer pretend Nobama means well. Catholics are under direct attack by this administration. Israel is being isolated in the Middle East and hung out to dry over Iran’s nuclear program. Who is next? People of faith will have a personal choice this November. Believe Nobama is their friend because they read about it, or vote based on their real world experiences.
Good Morning All,
Below is the transcript and video of Britt Hume covering what he believes is a central issue in this years election. Really, well done and well said. Worth 2 minutes of your time. He cuts through the fog and BS of the NObama campaign and clearly tells the viewer this election is really a choice between Capitalism and Socialism. Except, it really isn’t socialism in it’s purest form is it? Socialism is from each according to his means to each according to his needs. Society owns and distributes the wealth. That isn’t what Team Nobama is doing though. Their view of the world consists of a ruling elite deciding what is fair, where centralized government owns a major portion of industry and determines what industry produces, decides who gets what share of the pie and where private property is confiscated for the greater good. Those isms range from State Socialism through some pretty ugly ISMs in your history books.
Am I being a bit dramatic to make a point, maybe. But the last 4 years have been Government by Fiat. Deem and Pass, Czars (really, they used the word Czars, how obvious), HHS etc.
And as promised, the last link is a clip from a classic Seinfeld episode. Always a good watch but funnier if you picture George as David Axelrod and Jerry as Nobama. Then pretend they are trying to come up with a campaign theme after 3.5 years of failed policies…
The Obama campaign’s determination to press its attack on Mitt Romney’s record at Bain Capital raises the prospect that this election will in part be a referendum on capitalism itself.
The President and his team will say there is nothing wrong with capitalism or private equity investing, which is how Romney got rich. But the repeated snide references to Romney’s wealth and the charge that he was a profiteering job-killer suggest they don’t really mean that.
In fact, the capitalist system has always had a political vulnerability: For all the wealth and jobs it has created, capitalism distributes its benefits unevenly. Democrats won’t say they don’t like capitalism, but they like it better when it is heavily taxed and regulated, the better to keep it from exploiting workers and despoiling the earth. That’s why the top 10 per cent pay seventy percent of the taxes — income taxes — in this country, and why we have a large entitlement state in part to redistribute the wealth. That’s also why we have a growing regulatory apparatus. All this could kind of coexist when we had a booming economy that threw off enough tax receipts to pay for everything. But now we don’t. Job growth is stalled and debt is exploding.
The Obama side says unbridled capitalism is at fault and more taxes, regulation, redistribution and spending are the remedy. The Romney side says just the opposite. Which side the voters take will decide not just the election this year but the foreseeable future of this country.
Why Fiscal Conservatives are always right…
Alberto Alesina of Harvard’s economics department summarizes some of his research in a column for today’s Wall Street Journal. He and a colleague looked at fiscal policy changes in developed nations and found very strong evidence that spending reductions boost growth. This, of course, contrasts with the lack of evidence for the Keynesian notion that growth is stimulated by a bigger burden of government spending.
“Politicians argue for increased stimulus spending, as opposed to spending cuts, on the grounds that it would speed up economic recovery. This argument might have it exactly backward. Indeed, history shows that cutting spending in order to reduce deficits may be the key to promoting economic recovery. …recent stimulus packages have proven that the “multiplier”—the effect on GDP per one dollar of increased government spending—is small. Stimulus spending also means that tax increases are coming in the future; such increases will further threaten economic growth.
“Economic history shows that even large adjustments in fiscal policy, if based on well-targeted spending cuts, have often led to expansions, not recessions. Fiscal adjustments based on higher taxes, on the other hand, have generally been recessionary.”
“How can spending cuts be expansionary? First, they signal that tax increases will not occur in the future, or that if they do they will be smaller. A credible plan to reduce government outlays significantly changes expectations of future tax liabilities. This, in turn, shifts people’s behavior. Consumers and especially investors are more willing to spend if they expect that spending and taxes will remain limited over a sustained period of time. On the other hand, fiscal adjustments based on tax increases reduce consumers’ disposable income and reduce incentives for productivity.”
I love the recent spin coming out of the White House these days. Nobama is actually a fiscal HAWK! None of the spending is his fault! Some facts and figures from our friends at the Weekly Standard to help keep the (spending) records straight. This country does not have a revenue problem – although I would argue we have a tax code problem where by 50% of the country doesn’t pay any, but I digress. We have a spending problem. Our children will be the ones left with the bill:
Now that President Obama has brazenly claimed that “federal spending since [he] took office has risen at the slowest pace of any president in almost 60 years,” it is worth succinctly revisiting his historic record of fiscal profligacy. Here are a few key facts, all based on official federal government tallies:
Under the 43 presidents prior to Obama, the deficit hit $500 billion only once (in 2009 — and even that involved Obama, whose $787 billion “stimulus” kicked in that year). Under Obama, the deficit has exceeded $1 trillion every year.
Even in inflation-adjusted dollars, every deficit under Obama has exceeded any deficit we ran during World War II.
As a percentage of the Gross Domestic Product (the deficit-spending comparison that’s most favorable to Obama), the only times in more than 200 years of American history that the deficit has exceeded 6.0 percent of GDP have all involved either the Civil War, World War I, World War II, or Obama.
In all, deficit spending during Obama’s four years in the White House (based on his own figures) will be an estimated $5.170 trillion — or $5,170,000,000,000. If you take that tally and divide it evenly among the roughly 300 million American citizens, that works out to just over $17,000 per person — or about $70,000 for a family of four.
Original article can be found at: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/deficit-president_646252.html
But in the last two weeks, things have changed. Obama’s re-election is no longer guaranteed; some pollsters think it is unlikely. Day by day, the odds are improving that Mitt Romney will be the next President of the United States.
In 1980, Democratic president Jimmy Carter faced an uphill struggle for re-election. Yet, despite an index of inflation and unemployment far higher than Obama’s, he was actually doing slightly better in the polls. In March of that year, Carter led his Republican opponent, Ronald Reagan, by around 25 per cent. By May, Gallup gave him a lead of 49 to 41 per cent – higher than Obama’s today. Carter’s advantage evaporated in the months that followed, but he regained ground in October and by the last week he was running even.
None the less, Carter eventually suffered a landslide defeat. The scale of his humiliation was hidden by the fact that people were unwilling to commit themselves to the conservative Ronald Reagan until the very last minute. It was only when they went into the polling booth and weighed up all the hurt and humiliation of the past four years that they cast their vote against the president. It looks like Barack Obama will be the Jimmy Carter of 2012.
Newark Mayor Cory Booker’s off-message criticism of the Obama campaign’s attacks on Mitt Romney’s background at Bain Capital gave the campaign an untimely, unwanted headache this week. But more significantly, it exposed a tension that’s developing between the Democratic Party’s centrist wing and its more-outspoken liberal base—one that threatens to fester more openly if President Obama fails to win a second term.
Conversations with liberal activists and labor officials reveal an unmistakable hostility toward the pro-business, free-trade, free-market philosophy that was in vogue during the second half of the Clinton administration. Former White House Chief of Staff William Daley, who tried to steer the Obama administration in a more centrist direction, is the subject of particular derision. Discussion of entitlement reforms, at the heart of the GOP governing agenda, is a nonstarter. The fiscally conservative Blue Dog Democrats are now nearly extinct on Capitol Hill.
“There are not a lot of moderates left in the Democratic Party, and Cory is one of the few of them left,” said former Democratic Rep. Artur Davis, an early Obama ally who has become increasingly estranged from the party. “I would like to think Cory speaks for a lot of voters in the Democratic Party, but sadly he doesn’t speak for a lot of Democratic operatives within the party. This isn’t Bill Clinton’s Democratic Party anymore.”