It’s not the debt ceiling, that’s only the symptom of the problem- spending.
Archive for the ‘White House’ Category
Dr. Susan Berry hits this out-of-the-park reading between the lines of what the pResident said last night to the American people:
Below are excerpts from President Obama’s latest address to the nation concerning the debt and deficit talks, followed by “subtitles,” which perhaps provide a more accurate perspective of the points he made:
“For the last decade, we have spent more money than we take in.”
- I won’t mention, of course, that I have added more to the national debt in just my first 19 months in office than all presidents from Washington through Reagan combined.
“In the year 2000, the government had a budget surplus. But instead of using it to pay off our debt, the money was spent on trillions of dollars in new tax cuts, while two wars and an expensive prescription drug program were simply added to our nation’s credit card.”
-Well, no, the nearly trillion dollars in the Stimulus, bailing out the banks, and the auto companies- this was important money spent that could have otherwise been used to pay down the debt if I really wanted to. So, that money doesn’t count…And those Bush tax cuts have been a thorn in my side…I really began to lose my base on that agreement to extend them…And about those wars, I’m referring to the ones in Iraq and Afghanistan that Bush started…not the ones in Libya and Yemen I’ve gotten us involved in… Oops, I probably shouldn’t have dissed that senior prescription drug program because later on in my speech I try to use the seniors as pawns again to get them frightened about how Republicans want to cut their Medicare.
“To make matters worse, the recession meant that there was less money coming in, and it required us to spend even more.”
- That’s this neat Keynesian economics I learned in college. I thought I’d try it out on the country when I became president. We have less money, so we spend more. It really works!
“Now, every family knows that a little credit card debt is manageable. But if we stay on the current path, our growing debt could cost us jobs and do serious damage to the economy.”
Read the remainder of this insight commentary here.
And what exactly is this administrations energy policy? And do they know the American people are hurting? Yet the more accurate question is does this administration care?
High prices at the pump are putting a squeeze on the as the traditional summer driving season begins. For every $10 the typical household earns before taxes, almost a full dollar now goes toward gas, a 40 percent bigger bite than normal.
Households spent an average of $369 on gas last month. In April 2009, they spent just $201. Families now spend more filling up than they spend on cars, clothes or recreation. Last year, they spent less on gasoline than each of those things.
The ramifications are far-reaching for an economy still struggling to gain momentum two years into a recovery. Economists say the gas squeeze makes people feel poorer than they actually are.
They’re showing it by limiting spending far beyond the gas station. Wal-Mart recently blamed highfor an eighth straight quarter of lower sales in the U.S. Target said were hurting sales of clothes.
Every 50-cent jump in the cost of gasoline takes $70 billion out of theover the course of a year, Hamilton says. That’s about one half of one percent of gross domestic product.
Read the entire article at the above link.
The question today is how does a government agency stacked with bureaucratic slugs, who have no accountability to the American people, wield the power to prevent a private oil company from drilling?
Shell Oil Company has announced it must scrap efforts to drill for oil this summer in the Arctic Ocean off the northern coast of Alaska. The decision comes following a ruling by the EPA’s Environmental Appeals Board to withhold critical air permits. The move has angered some in Congress and triggered a flurry of legislation aimed at stripping the EPA of its oil drilling oversight.
No government agency should have the power to enact laws or as they prefer to call them rules which prevent companies from doing business. Agencies should have the power of oversight to enforce laws created by Congress, not blanket power to essentially shut down a private enterprise from doing business.
Instead of honestly dealing with the avalanche of debt threatening to bury the United States, the Obama administration attempts to persuade Standard’s and Poor to not lower credit rating. Truly the Chicago thuggery way..
Even though the White House has publicly downplayed the credit warning issued Monday from a leading agency, Obama administration officials were privately trying in recent weeks to convince Standard & Poor’s not to lower its outlook for U.S. debt from “stable” to “negative,” Fox News has confirmed.
“I will invite the same folks that we invited today,” he added. “And if that doesn’t work, we’ll invite them again the day after that. And I will have my entire team available to work through the details of getting a deal done.”
Obama’s team may not include the president himself. Despite the impasse in Washington over federal spending, the president as of early Wednesday was scheduled to give two speeches outside of Washington: one on energy in the Philadelphia suburbs, then another Wednesday evening to a group of black political activists in New York.
If the schedule remains intact, it will be the president’s first trip outside the capital since he officially declared Monday he will seek a second term. And while Obama (D) and his aides have repeated said he will not focus on his campaign in the next few months, his schedule may contradict those words.
Obama’s town hall on energy will be held at a wind turbine plant in the town of Fairless Hills in Bucks County, a well-known political bellwether in the Philadelphia area. While the city of Philadelphia overwhelmingly votes Democratic, its suburbs swing between the Democratic and Republican parties, making them crucial for Obama’s 2012 campaign.
The president defeated Sen John McCain (R-Ariz) in Pennsylvania with 55 percent of vote in 2008. But Republicans won the U.S. Senate and gubernatorial races there in November, suggesting a dip in enthusiasm for the president’s political party.
In New York City, Obama he won’t be wooing big-money donors, like he did last week. Instead, he will appear at the 20th anniversary of National Action Network, the group run by black activist and Obama backer the Rev. Al Sharpton.
For black voters, it’s not a question of whether they will support Obama, but how many will turn out in 2012. While polls show many other groups who backed the president in 2008 have fallen back in their enthusiasm, around 90 percent of blacks continue to approve of Obama’s performance in most polls. But Democrats say the huge black turnout that helped Obama win in states like Virginia and North Carolina is not a guarantee in 2012,as the motivation of electing the nation’s first black president is now gone.
From the beginning questions were raised regarding the legitimacy of Obama being awarded the Nobel Peace prize. In his entire background there was nothing that warranted being given this International award. Many chalked it up to affirmative action by the committee forever tainting the stature of the award.
Read the entire article here:
Saying he is focused on ensuring that Libyans can “live out their own aspirations,” Obama defended America’s involvement in Libya,
saying, “we’re not invading a country, we’re not acting alone – we’re acting under a mandate issued by the United Nations Security Council in an unprecedented fashion and with unprecedented speed.” (emphasis mine)
What Obama is saying in this part of his statement about the Nobel Peace prize in essence, is that a “mandate” by an international entity (the United Nations) which is not bond by the United States Constitution supersedes his oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States.
From Webster, Mandate:
Do any of these definitions make you feel better? This is an ongoing pattern of the pResident, he demurs the power of his position to the United Nations with its international law.
I am beyond words. We have NO business bombing Libya. If some of the Arab nations want the fighting between its nut-job leader Gaddafi and opposition forces to end, how about this, let them do the dirty deed. And why are we bombing Libya.. humanitarian reasons they say but that flies in the face of decade long genocide that continues in places like Darfur and Sudan to name two. Or how about just today Syria murdered 6 of its citizens today during a protest. Will this be the next no-fly zone?